I’ve had an interesting idea. Let’s pit philosophers against each other, one-on-one. See how they stand. Also, we can try to find weird combinations to see what they say.
Let’s meet the contestants.
Christ: Using solely what is taught in the New Testament, as well as a few key phrases from Old Testament.
Zen: The Eastern philosophy, a mix of Daoism and Buddhism, with an emphasis on the Daoist part.
Buddha: Life is suffering, but we can end the suffering if we free ourselves from want.
Hindu: Live how you need to live. Fulfill your task to take the next step toward paradise.
Socrates: Deals with other philosophers by questioning their ideals.
Kant: Intention is all that matters in morality.
Nietzche: Master morality or slave morality? Nietzche likes neither. Instead, he wants supermen.
Freud: The beginnings of psychoanalysis. Also uses Jungian theories.
Descartes: Nothing can be known unless there’s no doubt of it’s falsehood.
Fem: Feminist philosophy has taken many strides, ranging from militant feminism to liberation.
Science: Let the researchers have their voice. Conjecture from evidence. No emotion allowed here.
Sartre: The only things that speak are actions. Be free, goddamnit.
Skeptic: Just not sure. If he’s a true skeptic, he’ll doubt Science as well.
Universalist: Just because terms are contradictory doesn’t mean they can’t both be true.
Tertius: a philosopher invented by me who uses catch-phrases and faulty logic to make a point, usually a false one.
Kid: With the ability to undermine almost any philosophical pursuit. Just because you know what Mommy says doesn’t mean you understand it.
Naturally, all these characterizations will be parodies. I’m not going to try to say I can put words in all these great thinkers’ mouths.
However, whenever I have an argument, I want to recognize both sides equally. This is an exercise to see if I can put my mind into someone else’s mode of thinking.