Moderator: Community Team
ManBungalow wrote:Hobbes for the Calvin and Hobbes association.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Shouldn't this be a rap battle?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users