Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I really enjoy studying and learning about philosophy and am wondering if anyone can recommend any modern day philosophers? and by modern day i mean around 18-1900 and beyond i kind of consider that "modern" in the historical terms. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_nineteenth_century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_nineteenth_century)

That list gives one an idea... best you start cropping :)

Axélle
PS: I liked to read Karl Popper, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer

G.E. Moore and W.D. Ross are a couple of well known moral philosophers, you may wanna check out "Principia Ethica" and "The Right and the Good". They talk about intuitionism mostly which IMO is a pretty good moral theory based on a non-natural conception of "goodness".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/)  <-awesome website btw

If moral philosophy is not your cup of tea though maybe check out some Galen Strawson or other philosophers concerned with the "subject of experience" a lot of which is all very modern. Given the subject is the self I personally found it extra interesting what with the issues I have which should be self evident by my presence on this website.

I'd recommend John Searle for the Analytic tradition, and Erich Fromm for the more Continental side of things, and because I like how his writings overlap between philosophy and psychology.

I'd also recommend Michel Foucault, who is interesting for his work on power relations and the ways in which people constitute their subjectivities, if nothing else, though he covers a fairly wide range of topics. In broad strokes, though, his work is chiefly informed by a historical perspective, but it's not an objective historical account-- it's history with an emphasis on institutions and social change.

/rant

Also check out Ken Wilber for an interesting read.

From a modern philosopher: study issues, topics, or questions, but not specific people.

In the final analysis, the questions of why bad things happen to good people transmutes itself into some very different questions, no longer asking why something happened, but asking how we will respond, what we intend to do now that it happened.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Has anyone mentioned Robert M. Pirsig - maybe me earlier on?

Author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values"

Timeless and quite readable (even for women?)

Quotes:

"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there."

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."

"You look at where you're going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back at where you've been and a pattern seems to emerge.

"The only Zen you find on tops of mountains is the Zen you bring there."

"For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses. "

"Is it hard?'
Not if you have the right attitudes. Its having the right attitudes that's hard."

"If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything."

"The truth knocks on your door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away."
Etc. etc.

...
Axélle

Satre, de Beauvoir, Wittgenstein, Korzybiski, where do I stop? That is an Existential question! :laugh:

Zeichner, you might enjoy his musings

http://zeichner1.tumblr.com (http://zeichner1.tumblr.com)

Avital Ronell who teach at New York UNiversity! She's a really great philosopher. Her nickname is "the dark lady of french theory".

Stupidity, loser sons and Test drive are all wonderful essay!

When I did I philosophy degree I preferred the older stuff like Berkley, Hume, Locke and such.

However, one of the modern books I really did enjoy was Kendall Walton's 'Mimesis as Make-Believe'. It outlines a theory of the arts. That all artistic 'objects', including performance and storytelling, are props, which we use to make-believe. That with the combination of 'prop' and the already existing experience of the make-believer, an object of art (whatever form it takes) can produce truths and create a complete game-world.

This idea then carries over into our talk about art and fiction. That when I say 'Donald Duck has a blue hat' it is impossible that it is true because Donald Duck doesn't actually exist but that it is real in the game. So when I say 'Donald Duck has a blue hat', I am actually saying 'Donald Duck has a blue hat (in the game)'.

He also uses this theory to explain the paradox of why we feel emotions from fiction, how can a film scare us or a still painting move us? He says that these are quasi-emotions. That in a scary film we are scared in the game, that although we did react emotionally, that emotion is only fear in the game and can be broken by being out the game (like if the cinema is too noisy).

This last part I disagree with, I think it is possible to have a fear in the game that transcends the game and becomes real fear (and the same about humour, sadness, triumph and the many other emotions fiction and art can provoke).

I also feel it would be interesting to translate the theory to religion, so when the priest says 'he is risen' and the congregation say 'he is risen indeed' - they are actually saying 'he is risen (in the game)', 'he is risen indeed (in the game)'... but that's just me.

Anyway, it's an interesting book and accessibly written and is one of the few big theories I am aware of when I am writing my fiction.