What would they say? Opinions on historic philosophers views on today.
What do you think your favourite philosopher or philosophers would say at the end of one year of living in the modern world?
How would their beliefs and ideas change? What new ideas and observations might they have for us today?
How would their beliefs and ideas change? What new ideas and observations might they have for us today?
Comments (39)
Socrates might say, "2500 years later this is the best we can do?"
"I always said that nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of humanity. How right I was!!! Immanuel Kant
Hegel said "'the rational alone is real' and this is REALLY AWFUL".
Camus immediately pulled out his pistol and shot himself.
:cheer:
I am guessing some people are holding onto the longstanding misrepresentation framed by his sister. I guess if you only heard some of his select quotes in passing you could easily get the wrong idea. The ‘superman’ idea certainly was adopted by Hitler, but in a rather perverse manner.
"Which of them has been provisionally victorious, Rome or Judæa? but there is not a shadow of doubt; just consider to whom in Rome itself nowadays you bow down, as though before the quintessence of all the highest values—and not only in Rome, but almost over half the world, everywhere where man has been tamed or is about to be tamed—to three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (to Jesus of Nazareth, to Peter the fisher, to Paul the tentmaker, and to the mother of the aforesaid Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome is undoubtedly defeated. At any rate there took place in the Renaissance a brilliantly sinister revival of the classical ideal, of the aristocratic valuation of all things: Rome herself, like a man waking up from a trance, stirred beneath the burden of the new Judaised Rome that had been built over her, which presented the appearance of an œcumenical synagogue and was called the “Church”: but immediately Judæa triumphed again, thanks to that fundamentally popular (German and English) movement of revenge, which is called the Reformation, and taking also into account its inevitable corollary, the restoration of the Church—the restoration also of the ancient graveyard peace of classical Rome. Judæa proved yet once more victorious over the classical ideal in the French Revolution, and in a sense which was even more crucial and even more profound: the last political aristocracy that existed in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, broke into pieces beneath the instincts of a resentful populace—never had the world heard a greater jubilation, a more uproarious enthusiasm: indeed, there took place in the midst of it the most monstrous and unexpected phenomenon; the ancient ideal itself swept before the eyes and conscience of humanity with all its life and with unheard-of splendour, and in opposition to resentment’s lying war-cry of the prerogative of the most, in opposition to the will to lowliness, abasement, and equalisation, the will to a retrogression and twilight of humanity, there rang out once again, stronger, simpler, more penetrating than ever, the terrible and enchanting counter-war-cry of the prerogative of the few! Like a final sign-post to other ways, there appeared Napoleon, the most unique and violent anachronism that ever existed, and in him the incarnate problem of the aristocratic ideal in itself—consider well what a problem it is:—Napoleon, that synthesis of Monster and Superman."
Genealogy of Morals
@I like sushi these are just opinions on what dead people might say. It would maybe help us; if you share your opinion on the philosophers that you disagree with the representation of, made by others here.
Its a little hard for people to have debates about opinions without an alternative to those opinions being offered.
Albert Schweitzer after a year would probably be angry and depressed at just how right he was. He would claim the lack of balance between spirituality and science has grown evermore and that although he saw the man made climate change and WMDs coming; he would be shocked and terrified for our future to think what an AI could do in the hands of evil men.
He would like the current pope but not the last one and he'd still be critical of his Christian roots. Learning about Martin Luther King Jr and many others would make him recognise non whites as equal siblings as opposed to younger siblings and he'd get over his slightly racist paternalism for non-whites. He'd condemn the new rich and elite as far worse than any who existed in his time. He'd cry for what has become of his beloved Africa and probably focus much of his new time there opening up more hospitals and such. He'd probably get very active and try and show everyone up by being so good that it shames us all.
Zeno would wonder how he got here when he'd have to go through some of the past first.
Sade would immediately make a Craigslist account.
Any Buddha would wonder what they did wrong to be reincarnated as themselves.
Heraclitus would become a UN water quality technician, having finally stepped in the same river twice.
Burke would become an office clerk moaning about immigrants.
Marx would immediately be assassinated by a white lone wolf teenager.
Garvey would actually put Twitter to good use, and then be assassinated by an entirely unrelated ( :wink: ) white lone wolf teenager.
I clearly stated that there was once an old misconception of Nietzsche being an anti-semite which is a ridiculous idea for anyone who has actually read his praise for Jews scattered throughout his works. True enough his sister tampered with his work to align with Hitler’s ideology but that wasn’t Nietzsche.
Rousseau, assuming he was living as before, would still be vying for attention funded by an older rich woman. He would inevitably still think the ‘elites’ were to blame for everything and encourage an uprising - as came to fruition based on his propaganda culminating in the French revolution by going against the ‘scholars’ of the day (many religious). So perhaps he would be calling for the end of religion ignoring Nietzsche’s warnings about the nihilistic void left in its wake - and maybe a new, and bloodier, revolution would ensue?
Kant would likely still be stuck in his daily routine waiting for someone to shake him to wakefulness like Hume did and perhaps Plato would be a theoretical physicist searching for some ‘absolute’. Diogenes would undoubtedly be a social media sensation yet spurring any offer of money or jobs that came his way.
Kierkegaard would have enjoyed Viagra LOL.
But seriously, I think (particularly ancient philosophy), that those philosopher's would have most certainly changed their views viz modern physics and cognitive science.
It's always been my concern there, that one should always consider the source of contextual relevance in applying old theology or philosophy to the 21st Century.
Couldn't agree more. Marcus Aureliuses is only contextually useful to those in leadership roles requiring decisive action and it isn't useful to them all the time. To us not in those positions the best meaning we can take is probably just that we shouldn't waste our time arguing what good is if we arent also practicing what we think good is. Or possibly to not argue what it is with fools.
I think if Marcus Aurelius were alive today he'd be relieved he doesn't have to be emperor anymore and probably go on a retreat somewhere quiet to lead a simple life until he either dies or grows bored when he realises he made himself into a man of carefully considered action and he knows no other way.
I think a lot of present day philosophy readers would be disappointed at the generations ago lived philosophers being a) religious and conservative and b) not accepting the present as better especially on the field of Philosophy.
I guess the state of Medicine compared to earlier times they wouldn't have problem.
To a certain extent yes; however I think gene editing and research into human immortality might be frowned upon for religious reasons. I have moral problems with the immortality issue that aren't religious in origin. I think its just a deep survival instinct in me that knows to fear the prospect of an eternal dictator/dictators. Say what you want about Hitler and Stalin, at least they had the decency to die haha
That and I see myself as someone who tries to be a good man and stave off corruption. However if you've ever seen the sci fi show or read the book Altered Carbon; you'd worry about the state of your moral fortitude after 600 years of life. Even an eternal benevolent ruler or rulers would be expected to fight temptation the entire time no matter what befalls them.
That's for another discussion though. The Altered Carbon Immortality dilemma would make a great discussion on its own I feel. May start one soon. Spoiler alerts incoming.
I'm curious about this statement. Nietzsche died in 1900 and the Nazi party was formed in 1920.
Historical context is deadly important. I cannot imagine if Aristotle was born and living today he’d talk in a manner that now looks both ‘sexist’ and ‘pro-slavery’.
Funnily enough just been reading Piaget and I can happily dismiss the term ‘primitive race’ as merely an unfortunate term of convention that today would be deemed highly inappropriate.
How about Aristotle? Would he be defining ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’, or simply dismissing both as underdeveloped mistakes? Maybe he’d be in show business?
I think the most realistic thing to assume here; is that any historical philosopher that were to be given life today would probably be most interested to read what people said about them specifically. I know that if I was 200 years in the future now, first thing I'd do would be to googleofthefuture myself. Would probably be traumatic though, I imagine after a certain amount of time anyone of historical import will accumulate both heavy criticism and praise and probably not in equal measures, but still vast quantities of both. That's not to say I'm assuming I will be of historical import, just hypothesising for the sake of the discussion.
I feel so sorry for the future historians who are going to have to do internet archaeology. Sounds like an overwhelmingly horrible task. The internet could really make historical inquiry so difficult for the future.
Crates of Thebes and Hipparchia of Maroneia would get fined for public indecency.
Should be, properly, "prime-itive", but it obviously carries a load of nasty baggage.