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,...

4 Answers

  • Andrew
    Lv 7
    8 months ago
    Favourite answer

    My all time favourite is Emil Cioran. 

  • 8 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.

  • P
    Lv 7
    8 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.

  • 8 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.
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.