<p>Nietzsche.</p>
<p>Read other philosophers, it opens your brain and gets you thinking. But at the end of the day, their thoughts are no better than yours. There’s nothing sacred about these people, and no reason you should accept their beliefs. Think about this:</p>
<p>Some of the brightest minds throughout history have debated difficult philosophical ideas. They’ve been back and forth on the same topics over and over. We have no good conclusions. What makes you think you’ll find any answers? </p>
<p>My way is just to give up. I’ll never figure anything out, so I may as well go with my gut.</p>
<p>I prefer Kant… Frankly I think if it were not for that great “God is Dead” soundbite Freddy would be playing second fiddle to Kierkegaard in the merry band of existentialists.</p>
<p>We need a Kant pun.</p>
<p>@MathematicsMajor
I swear I can relate to your thinking exactly. However, I tried to just “give up” but of course in the end of the day you still think and try to solve it cause the human mind likes to find patterns. I look to reproduction as a coping for existentional crisis’. Look at my last thread down somewhere in the list :)</p>
<p>@HarryJones
You are comic relief. I like you. I’m goign to go through your post history</p>
<p>^^^ I’m personally more of a Kierkegaard type, although I’m also a Romantic and prefer Pascal to Descartes</p>
<p>Also, I can totally see you as a Kantian. Andrey Bely was mad for Kant, and was very mathematical in his literary criticism.</p>
<p>The innovation of many thinkers is lost upon further generations when those ideas become popular, because they seem less revolutionary. This is why sometimes people have trouble comprehending just how far ahead some philosophers were in their thought process than the culture they lived in. It’s almost like the ‘Seinfeld isn’t funny’ effect; when an idea revolutionizes so thoroughly that that idea changes the general thought of a civilization, it is no longer viewed as revolutionary.</p>
<p>Note: I just read through that and realize how little sense it made. Sorry, it’s been a long day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Friedrich can’t believe people think Immanuel is a decent Philosopher.</p>
<hr>
<p>My vote is for Gottlob Frege.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Philospher’s Song](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>^^^[Seinfeld</a> Is Unfunny - Television Tropes & Idioms](<a href=“http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny]Seinfeld”>http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but most of them could rip your beliefs to shreds. I think the ultimate test of a philosopher is non-contradiction in beliefs, and most laymen would totally fail that test.</p>
<p>And just to extend that thought, my biggest problem with classes I’ve been in where “opinions” are encouraged is that the fact that no opinion is 100% correct doesn’t at all imply that no opinion is 100% wrong. Some ideas are, quite frankly, stupid.</p>
<p>Nietzsche. Anyone who knows me would find it obvious. 
Well, I guess Hume too, but Hume just isn’t as exciting. </p>
<p>I also like David Chalmers. </p>
<p>I read a lot of modern philosophy too, but much of it doesn’t get attributed to anyone in particular. </p>
<p>Anyways, expanding the scope of your system will lead to a higher chance that some two of your ideas may be inconsistent. Maybe they might be logically consistent, but they may be inconsistent with what actually happens in the real world (this is where many pre-modern philosophers easily fail). Anyways, I sort of do consider premodern philosophers overrated and modern philosophers underrated. Many modern philosophers are now really good about getting their ideas to be consistent with the real world, but no one really hears about them. I mean, how many living philosophers can most educated people name? The only ones are Peter Singer and Daniel Dennett, and that’s because both are super-controversial.</p>