Comments on: 11 Most Important Philosophical Quotations.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 05:47:16 +0000

How about appreciating these significant quotes? Not criticizing like ignorant fools, trying to bring different meanings to revolutionary thoughts that have helped us become who we are today..

By: kiran bele

kiran bele — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:52:56 +0000

Great article – thanks…

By: Derek Betz

Derek Betz — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:32:30 +0000

“Infatuation, corruption, and apathy undeniably and repetitiously prevail.”
–Me

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:09:01 +0000

“giggity giggity, all right” – quagmire

By: Oleg

Oleg — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:51:56 +0000

Here is another quote I like:

But it is the knowledge of necessary and eternal truths which distinguishes us from mere animals, and gives us reason and the sciences, raising us to knowledge of ourselves and God. It is this in us which we call the rational soul or mind. – Leibniz

By: USA.90

USA.90 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:31:14 +0000

Hi, I need some famous quotes by Wittgenstein and what each means…
anyone know any??

By: stewart h.

stewart h. — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:25:55 +0000

“He`s NOT the Messiah! He`s just a very naughty boy, now F**K OFF!” Brians Mother

By: mbrown

mbrown — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:26:35 +0000

Re: Occam. Its logically possible that the universe’s existence can be explained purely in a scientific manner invoking only concepts that exist in space and time. (Indeed, evolution as a scientific theory cannot invoke any non-spatial, non-temporal entities.)The same is not true when the proposed explanation is God.
God can only exist as something that does not solely exist in space and time (or if it could be then that type of existence would still be radically different from the universe of physical realities we experience). So, God as an explanation invokes more (ontological) types of entities than evolution as the explanation does. This analysis is based on the correct interpretation of “multiplying entities.”

By: santhip

santhip — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:58:41 +0000

You missed a couple of good eastern philosophical Quotations:

Neti Neti …. or NOT THiS .. NOT THIS

TATTVAMASI …. THOU ART THAT… you are that

AHAM BRAHMASMI… I AM THAT I AM…

These are more profound truths, and much superior to “I think , therefore I am”

By: justinbiurch

justinbiurch — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:24:31 +0000

I think therefore I am should be higher on the list.

Also, props to the guy who pointed out Nagarjuna. Dharmakirti and the rest of the Mdhyamaka folks have some dicta that certainly deserve to be up there.

By: Nietsche

Nietsche — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:42:16 +0000

It is “neech-uh”, as in “uh…I don’t know how to pronounce Nietsche”.

By: ratsky hamo

ratsky hamo — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:26:48 +0000

hmmmmm.. but i like most oten…

By: Irma

Irma — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:19:13 +0000

“He saw the citizens of his beloved Athens sleepwalking through life, living only for money, power, and fame, so he became famous trying to help them.”

Hahaha XD

By: Katalog Bydzia24

Katalog Bydzia24 — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:15:13 +0000

Thanks for that comment, johnnygoner

By: Elijah

Elijah — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:26:14 +0000

Berkeley pronounced as ‘bark-’? Pronounce and A when there is obviously an E in an English-speaking name? Sorry, obviously not.

By: zak?ad pogrzebowy

zak?ad pogrzebowy — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:12:25 +0000

is the most arrogant thing I’ve ever heard and should not be on there. Plus the guy looks like he paid someone to write it for him.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:03:58 +0000

We are condemned to meaning! – Merleau-Ponty

Man is a useless passion! – John-Paul Sartre

By: Porcelana

Porcelana — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:47:45 +0000

Great article – thanks…

By: Nietzsche himself

Nietzsche himself — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:44:51 +0000

God is dead and bloated!

By: D4ve

D4ve — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:44:33 +0000

Aristotle is definitely missing here…

By: antyki

antyki — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:37:40 +0000

life is life

By: dorje shugden

dorje shugden — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:12:38 +0000

George Orwell:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

By: naga

naga — Sun, 27 May 2007 15:08:06 +0000

Isn’t interesting how some of the most famous western philosophers had mental breakdowns. Like Nietzsche for example. I think the main problem is too much intellect and not enough wisdom. Too much thinking and not enough practice performing good deeds.

By: Fuzzy Moe

Fuzzy Moe — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:07:01 +0000

You left out my favorite by Mark Twain. “A good shit is highly under rated!”

By: MZ

MZ — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 06:54:37 +0000

I have one question.
What type of questions (WH- question)will people normally ask in order to get to know the Truth of this universe?

By: biotails

biotails — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:49:41 +0000

here are a few recent ones:
“Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important.”
“It’s time to start slapping people.”
“THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING FOR YOU. AND THEY ARE NOT PLEASANT PEOPLE.”
“I have never made a mistake in my life. I thought I did once, but I was mistaken.”
“Slap a dead person”
“Once I was sad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet. I took his shoes. Now I feel better.” George Carlin

By: bored

bored — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:56:36 +0000

Kierkegaard: “The crowd is untruth.” You’re all a bunch of liars…but I’m not. And neither are you. That was fun!

By: Terry Ortiz

Terry Ortiz — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:56:34 +0000

Umm...and now for something not completely different: A Kierkegaard on a pogo stick.* *Pictured not leaping.

By: Terry Ortiz

Terry Ortiz — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:45:10 +0000

Where’s Edmund Husserl? You seriously need Husserl’s question of consciousness. Consciousness is intentional or every consciousness is consciousness *of* something. He formalized an alternative to Descartes cogito and the objectivistic thinking of the empiricists.

If you’d like to throw some more of the explicitly phenomenological thinkers like Heidegger and the existentialists like Camus, don’t forget the questions that lead up to them. Then of course, we’d have to add the other Pre-Socratics, the Stoics, St. Augustine, Aquinas, John Locke, and so on…

At least Immanuel Kant would’ve been there. That naughty Prussian created more problems than anyone would care to name. (Well maybe with the exception of Mr. Plato.)

The worst thing you can do is come up with a list of most important philosophers because the other philosophers can’t agree with whom to add!

And I second Michiel’s request to add Hume.

By: bored

bored — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:08:17 +0000

#95:

Valmir, God does, at least in the Bible, call Himself “Father,” and Jesus once addressed Him as “Abba,” which means “Daddy” in Aramaic. So I’m left wondering how you can be so certain as to make a statement like “God is not dad.” I could understand if you said, “Dad is not God.” That would make sense, but to say “God is not dad” seems a little presumptious on your part.

By: bored

bored — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:56:00 +0000

Oh, and by the way, since it seems to be fashionable to whine about the fact that some particular marginalized group or another is not recognized by this list, I would like to say…*WHAT?* No heavily tattooed, weed-smoking, Hell’s Angels philosophers? How typical! Not surprising in the least. And while we’re on the subject, you also failed to include any bald philosophers or quadraplegic philosophers–and what about my favorite under-represented minority, the philosopher who eats pasta at every meal? They always get the short stick! So it’s not shocking to me that you should overlook them as well…but it is sad, quite sad.

By: bored

bored — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:19:53 +0000

#111:

A sound wave is not a sound; at least as I perceive it, that is in accordance with the definition of the word “sound” that Mike was using (and quite probably the one which was being used in the quote in question). In other words a sound *is* a perception–which I would agree is a “limited” definition of sound (not a flawed one however), which is, after all, the whole point. Mike was correct: without an ear, there would be sound waves but no sound.

By: jj

jj — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:09:34 +0000

“Hell is other people”. – Sartre

How did this not make the list?

By: OGRastamon

OGRastamon — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:33:25 +0000

Mike said:
Without an ear, the tree simply pushes around some air.

Your argument relies on a flawed, or rather limited, definition of sound. The air to which you refer is also known as sound waves. These waves maintain all properties regardless of whether an ear is present to perceive them. This holds for all things. An apple reflects red light without an eye to see. Ice feels cold without fingers to touch. Some will argue that some eyes cannot perceive the red of an apple or that should a being exist whose body temperature was below 0 degrees celsius it would not perceive the ice as cold. Nevertheless, whatever properties which can be perceived by a being exist whether or not the being is present to perceive.
The true meaning of the tree problem, and possibly Berkeley’s quote as well, is that humanity is subjective. We only believe in that which we can perceive.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:24:10 +0000

Hey, James (comment #39), why don’t you drop the ad homonim. If you want to interact with someone’s arguments, then interact with his arguments, don’t just sit there and say, “I’ve studied this and you haven’t, so there”. That proves nothing except that you’re a stuck up jerk. Why don’t we try to respect each other and interact with our arguments instead of blasting each other all the time (and I’m talking about any time Christians and Atheists debate). There’s plenty of blame to go on both sides. Being a biologist or some other form of scientist does not necessarily make what you say true.

Where’s our respect for people?

By: Jackie

Jackie — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:48:29 +0000

Last word from a native speaker of German: Vit-ken-stine. Emphasis on the first syllable.

By: Mason Jahre

Mason Jahre — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:27:48 +0000

Oops! I guess I should have typed lysbian. Apparently even the word can’t be mentioned.

By: Mason Jahre

Mason Jahre — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:26:27 +0000

Predictable and sad. No Lesbian philosophers.

By: Gern Blansten

Gern Blansten — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:38:30 +0000

And for those that still don’t know how to use a search engine, Nagarjuna:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna

By: Gern Blansten

Gern Blansten — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:35:02 +0000

To #31-
#6 isn’t full of anything but indignation that this is primarily a list of western philosophers. Consider the Hindu chaps that sussed the true nature of matter dozens of centuries ago, better than any Grecian attempts, without the benefit of particle accelerators. The full impact of that brought some nuclear physicists to convert to Hinduism. Also, while our philosophical systems have been concerned largely with splitting and defining the static, many in the East have devoted themselves to defining systems in flux. No less valid. Defining volleyballness is valuable, but so is understanding where the ball is headed. Feel free to flame, just my 2 cents.

By: The third Ennis

The third Ennis — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:05:46 +0000

This one came when my friends and I where talking about the X-files

The truth is there is a truth
if it wasn’t the truth would be there is no truth

it’s a paradox see

By: Jordan

Jordan — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:35:25 +0000

A man said to the universe:
“Sir I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”

— Stephen Crane

Also, I so enjoyed reading your discussions!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:57:58 +0000

Language is not transparent

By: Kayleigh

Kayleigh — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:47:57 +0000

‘Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them’. – Satre

‘Hell is other people’ – Satre

‘ One is still what one is going to cease to be and already what one is going to become. One lives one’s death, one dies one’s life’. – Satre

‘Society cares for the individual only so far as he is profitable’. – Beauvoir

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:18:51 +0000

Good discussion!
I simplify:

If you don’t use your head, you might as well have two as*es. -My Father-

By: Picuris

Picuris — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:08:22 +0000

Life and death make no difference; only the transition resounds.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:46:30 +0000

So what is it exactly that makes these quotes the 11 most important? I certainly get that they’re important, at least as far as a history of philosophy is concerned, but what makes Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds particularly “important”? It’s important to his philosophy, and to Voltaire, but how does it really merit its inclusion here? This whole list seems peculiarly unargued for one concerning philosophy.

By: Mr T

Mr T — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:06:09 +0000

Who the **** is Nagarjuna?
Here is one for all of you “Life sucks, and then you die!
but in the meanwhile you gotta pay your taxes”, first phrase author unknown, second part Me.
You are not going to find self actualization by quoting filosophers, discover something, write a book, find the GUT, then well talk.

By: Ghreti Ghoti

Ghreti Ghoti — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:34:17 +0000

I thought Bertrand Russell nailed it when he said, “The trouble with the world is that the stupid people are cocksure while the intelligent ones are full of doubt.”

By: Valmir

Valmir — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:14:58 +0000

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 â€“ 1900)
is very good writer,i love him but i have to say one thing god is not dad….but we live in fucking world