Most original unknown philosophers?
And I mean really unknown thinkers, so that they are known only to highly specialized circles. Philosophers like for example: Valerian Muravyov, Njegoš, Nezahualcoyotl,...
- AndrewLv 78 months agoFavourite answer
My all time favourite is Emil Cioran.
- 7FlightsupLv 68 months ago
I used to attend lectures by J. Krishnamurti when he was alive, and he was very original and not well known, except in middle east countries, especially India where he was born.
- PLv 78 months ago
My Grandfather was very old and very wise. Back in the days before mobile phones and cars people had something known as "common sense" which gave him a unique philosophical view on the world.
However, he wasn't right about everything! One of his favorite philosophical sayings was "You won't do that again !". How wrong he was was. Looking back I must admit that he was right about most everything else he taught me
I'm sure that the world is a poorer place without him, and all the other unknown philosophers of his ilk.
- peter mLv 68 months ago
Not sure whether K.R. Popper, a mentor of the history of Ideas (& objective Philosopher) could belong to such a specialised Group you have there.
I do know that since his passing about 6 years ago at his advanced age his
brilliantly written work books seem to have long gone out of fashion, at least
at my old University.
His work in the previous century was cutting-edge & had a profound effect
on me when in my early 20's I came across a pure philosophy book in a
small provincial library.
10 small & large Essays by various scholars then with a short one by Sir
Karl himself entitled "Emancipation through Knowledge, an evolutionary
approach". I knew of the author just by snippets here-and-there through
the previous years studying Sociology and Environmental science (the
IPCC were then thought of as real cranks with crackpot predictions!).
I knew then that this was a philosopher & historian I had to learn more
of.. especially as that little essay of his introduced such new stuff as to
"emancipate" & literally free-up my own mind ; first for philosophy
knowledge & its possible future & second for sociological / psychological
placement within & AROUND this new, cutting edge idea of the
huge Chasm-of-falsity that was Philosophy then & exists today, some
40+ years ago now.
For philosophy is still thought of today as SOME KIND OF STORYTELLING !
And as you may know or not know it was quite obvious to some (& sir Karl)
that the whole of Philosophy's logic method was not just failing but FAILED.
I refer of course to the then well known & used-by-some (philosophy
stalwarts) method of "A Priori/ a posteriori". Look it up in as old a
philosophy dictionary & particularly the old Encyclopedias of 20th
century as you can (!) You may be surprised at how philosophy
was defined & accepted back then - for the a priori method goes
back in time well past the last century if I'm not mistaken. And I
sincerely believe that it still is unconsciously used to-this-day
whenever we read somewhere concerning philosophy
history & its description of some philosophical "fact or three".
That descriptive historical word "existential" is the one word
which remains "as fallout" from the old naïve time when such
a philosophy crisis of existential proportions, that is when the
"penny-finally-dropped" among leading philosophers & others
(historians of Philosophy etc) that Old method was of no real
use any more in the new modern world of the last century.
But then that left philosophy quite "in the lurch" or in a befuddled
& confused mess (to be frank).
And it was left to brilliant objectivists like Popper to not only
EXPLAIN this but rather obviously to put forward some NEW
more convincing method or "methodology" (as the word then
became fashionable via the tenets & writings of sociology
writers, many of whom taking advantage of new ideas &
views of the "new discipline of Sociology" gaining credence
within college "humanities courses").
Sir Karl was more than able-to-do this after his early seminal
work in the history & philosophy-of-science, where he showed
that modern science had its own unique history now.. & more
a history of Science (= a history of Scientific logic to be precise)
which was so unique as it could be shown to be in fact so interlocked
with unique modern history that actual Philosophy could be shown
too to have it's rightful place as a partner to such scientific logic.
And what that meant was that now the new discipline called the
Philosophy of Science could & should DESCRIBE the new science
logic then flourishing.
But the early philosophers like Carnap, Tarski and other mathematical
philosophers were not up-to-the-task, (Tarski less so) and the new
(objective) task stalled (not only through the historical "hang-up" of
the old style "semantical (storytelling) philosophers" but also because
sir Karl's new & encompassing Theory-of-knowledge was suspected
as being I believe, Too-Good-to-be-true.
But the mistake was not Popper's, it was the then old-style
"language philosophers" that is, what we now know as the
prevailing Philosopher's of Language.. who could NOT FREE
themselves from the all pervasive mistake where philosophy
existed as JUST a language, and a LANGUAGE MUCH Like
And Popper (rightful) work of philosophy having its own language
AS A LOGIC.. that is an OBJECTIVE language DESCRIBING the
logic-not-just-of-the-situation BUT of the FACTS too.
And whether we here know OF these such facts or even OF such
logic is actually beside-the-point (philosophically & realistically).
For Popper went further & has showed that such logic & it's
factual descriptive language is an objective reality.. both these
exist in some otherwise UNEXPLORED domain...
But of course this was viewed by some philosophers as ridiculous,
for how could we know of "some domain" which was known to
contain these facts, "unobtainable or unreachable" facts they thought.
Fortunately though Popper could & did show that the History of these
IDEAS Does already exist - the outline so to speak. And so it is in
fact Just A Convention that we don't or YET CAN'T join-up-the-
dots of the objective logic - & that we yet cannot join-up-the-dots
of the corresponding objective description (= the actual Philosophy
in suitable objective, semantical language) of this new logic.
May be it will never be done.... I am certain that is can be done
though, through WHAT we know now & uniquely HOW we are
getting to know it.
That-at-the-very least here in philosophy.Source(s): Objective type philosophy domain building, especially-not-exclusively from our environment of past mistakes.