Page 1 of 1

Philosopher Death Match: Round Two

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:50 pm
by DoomYoshi
Round 1 is over, but you can still vote.
show: Results

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:52 pm
by Army of GOD
Thomas Hobbes mouth looks like a girl who hasn't shaved her cootch in years.

So, Serbia's mom.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:23 pm
by Dukasaur
Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:10 pm
by Frigidus
Machiavelli over Hobbes in bare knuckle boxing.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:31 pm
by ManBungalow
Hobbes for the Calvin and Hobbes association.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:33 pm
by maxfaraday
ManBungalow wrote:Hobbes for the Calvin and Hobbes association.


This.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:47 pm
by Metsfanmax
Dukasaur wrote:Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.


I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:31 pm
by Timminz
I too, vote for the tiger.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:57 pm
by DoomYoshi
Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:03 pm
by Dukasaur
Metsfanmax wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.


I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

DoomYoshi wrote:Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Of course I do. My answer to both of you is that everything was once part of philosophy. I was drawing the line at the modern definition.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:14 pm
by Metsfanmax
Dukasaur wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.


I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

DoomYoshi wrote:Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Of course I do. My answer to both of you is that everything was once part of philosophy. I was drawing the line at the modern definition.


I repeat: even by the modern definition, The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:03 am
by Dukasaur
Metsfanmax wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Machiavelli wasn't a philosopher. He was a political scientist, or a management sociologist, take your pick, but definitely not a philosopher. He said nothing of epistemology, almost nothing of metaphysics, and only tangentially grazed ethics on the fly. Hobbes wins by default. Next.


I disagree. The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology, and in fact during Machiavelli's time politics was really a sub-discipline of philosophy.

DoomYoshi wrote:Machiavelli is known as the first political philoshopher, hence inclusion in the match.

You must remember Dukasaur that until the twentieth century the phrases "science" and "philosophy" were interchangeable.

Of course I do. My answer to both of you is that everything was once part of philosophy. I was drawing the line at the modern definition.


I repeat: even by the modern definition, The Prince contains elements of ethics and epistemology.

I'll take your word for it. I read it in high school, and that was something more than 30 years ago, and I'm willing to assume you've read it more recently. My recollection is that it was just practical "rule-of-thumb" type advice driven entirely by pragmatic concerns.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:23 am
by nietzsche
It's so difficult to compare philosophers, every philosopher "stands on the shoulders of giants", Hobbes had the priviledge of reading Machiavelli's work and others Machiavelli didn't. And almost all philosophers will look naive or incomplete 50 years later when the new philosophers are reading their work.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:34 am
by Phatscotty

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:45 am
by DoomYoshi
nietzsche wrote:It's so difficult to compare philosophers, every philosopher "stands on the shoulders of giants", Hobbes had the priviledge of reading Machiavelli's work and others Machiavelli didn't. And almost all philosophers will look naive or incomplete 50 years later when the new philosophers are reading their work.


Mach is winning though, so I wouldn't worry too much about unfair advantage.

Anyways, I'm taking nominations for the next round. Just PM me a round you want to see. I don't read too many modern philosophers, except for Zizek, so if any knows any modernists it would be nice. On the other hand, more people can be assumed to have at least a loose grasp of older (pre-WW2) philosophers.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:39 am
by Metsfanmax
Dukasaur wrote:I'll take your word for it. I read it in high school, and that was something more than 30 years ago, and I'm willing to assume you've read it more recently. My recollection is that it was just practical "rule-of-thumb" type advice driven entirely by pragmatic concerns.


Well, you're right -- that's more or less exactly how it reads. So I wouldn't say you're wrong for assuming that he wasn't touching real philosophy. But I think from a historical context, it's a safe bet to assume that he really was making a point about the nature of both reality and ethics. That is, if you were the prince in question, you wouldn't need to understand the philosophical background to use the suggestions contained therein; but, it seems quite likely that Machiavelli was interested in the power of how one can use deceit to convince others of various arguments, and the ethical justification of this. It's not metaphysical-style epistemology in the sense of Plato, admittedly.

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:35 pm
by Crazyirishman
Mach would win because The Prince is basically be a fuckin boss at war. Hobbes Leviathan is "lets make a contract to keep peace because everybody's an asshole".

Hooray grand oversimplification!

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:41 am
by thegreekdog
I'm looking forward to more of these.

Sun Tzu, Plato, Socrates?

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:58 am
by Haggis_McMutton
Shouldn't this be a rap battle?

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:18 am
by Dukasaur
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Shouldn't this be a rap battle?

No, it most definitely should not.

However, if you must have a soundtrack, here's one for you:

Re: Philosopher Death Match

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:43 pm
by Haggis_McMutton
Good call.

Though if you're gonna post the live version you might as well post the longer one.