Philosophy beefs
This is a list of varioust arguments, quarrels, disagreements i.e. “beefs” that philosophers have had with one another.
Heraclitus vs. Parmenides (5th century BCE)
Beef: A clash between Heraclitus’s belief in constant change and Parmenides’s insistence on a static, unchanging reality.
Heraclitus: “Everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.” (Source: Fragment 91, as recorded by Plato in Cratylus)
Parmenides: “What is, is; what is not, is not.” (Source: Fragment 2, as recorded by Simplicius in Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics)
Heraclitus vs. Democritus (5th century BCE)
Beef: Heraclitus’s philosophy of flux versus Democritus’s atomistic materialism.
Heraclitus: “You cannot step into the same river twice.” (Source: Fragment 12, as recorded by Plato in Cratylus)
Democritus: “By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality, atoms and void.” (Source: Fragment 9, as recorded by Sextus Empiricus in Against the Mathematicians)
Plato vs. Diogenes (4th century BCE)
Beef: Plato’s idealism and abstract philosophy versus Diogenes’s practical, anti-establishment Cynicism.
Plato: “Man is a featherless biped.” (Source: Diogenes Laërtius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Book 6)
Diogenes (holding a plucked chicken): “Behold! I’ve brought you a man.” (Source: Diogenes Laërtius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Book 6)
Augustine vs. Pelagius (5th century CE)
Beef: A theological dispute over original sin, free will, and divine grace.
Augustine: “Through one man’s sin, all are condemned. Without God’s grace, no one can be saved.” (Source: Augustine, On Nature and Grace)
Pelagius: “If I ought, I can. God commands nothing impossible. Humans have the free will to choose good or evil.” (Source: Pelagius, Letter to Demetrias)
Aquinas vs. Averroes (13th century)
Beef: A debate over the relationship between faith and reason, and the nature of the soul.
Aquinas: “Faith and reason are not opposed; they are two paths to the same truth.” (Source: Aquinas, Summa Theologica)
Averroes: “Philosophy and religion are separate domains. Truth can be reached through reason alone.” (Source: Averroes, The Incoherence of the Incoherence)
Leibniz vs. Voltaire (18th century)
Beef: Voltaire’s satirical critique of Leibniz’s optimism in Candide.
Leibniz: “This is the best of all possible worlds, for God, in His wisdom, has chosen it.” (Source: Leibniz, Theodicy)
Voltaire: “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?” (Source: Voltaire, Candide)
Hegel vs. Schopenhauer (early 19th century)
Beef: Hegel’s optimistic dialectical idealism versus Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy of the will.
Schopenhauer: “Hegel, installed from above by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.” (Source: Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 1)
Hegel: “The real is rational, and the rational is real.” (Source: Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Preface)
Brouwer vs. Bolland (1904-1905)
Beef: Brouwer’s critique of Bolland’s Hegelianism and the role of language in philosophy.
Brouwer: “Language by itself has no meaning; any philosophy which searched for a firm foundation based on that presumption has come to grief.” (Source: Brouwer, Life, Art, and Mysticism, 1905)
Bolland: “Brouwer’s mysticism is the babble of a child who has yet to grasp the pure concept.” (Source: Bolland’s response to Brouwer, as cited in historical accounts of their dispute)
Brouwer vs. Hilbert (1920s)
Beef: A foundational dispute over the validity of the law of excluded middle in mathematics.
Brouwer: “The law of excluded middle is a dogma that has no place in mathematics.” (Source: Brouwer, Intuitionism and Formalism, 1912)
Hilbert: “To take the law of excluded middle from the mathematician is like taking the telescope from the astronomer.” (Source: Hilbert’s response to Brouwer, as cited in historical accounts of their dispute)
Wittgenstein vs. Popper (1946)
Beef: A heated argument over the nature of philosophical problems during a meeting at Cambridge.
Wittgenstein (wielding a poker): “Popper, you misunderstand the nature of philosophical problems.” (Source: Eyewitness accounts of the Cambridge Moral Science Club meeting, 1946)
Popper: “There are genuine philosophical problems, Wittgenstein, and your poker won’t solve them.” (Source: Popper’s recollection of the event in Unended Quest)
Sartre vs. Camus (1950s)
Beef: A falling-out over the role of revolution, violence, and morality in politics.
Sartre: “Camus, you’ve become a bourgeois moralist, betraying the revolution.” (Source: Sartre’s critique of Camus in Les Temps Modernes, 1952)
Camus: “Sartre, your Marxism is a prison of abstractions, far removed from the reality of human suffering.” (Source: Camus’ response in The Rebel, 1951)
Chomsky vs. Foucault (1971)
Beef: A debate over human nature, justice, and the role of power in society.
Chomsky: “Human nature is real, and justice is rooted in it.” (Source: Chomsky-Foucault debate, Human Nature: Justice vs. Power, 1971)
Foucault: “Justice is a tool of power, and human nature is a myth constructed by institutions.” (Source: Chomsky-Foucault debate, Human Nature: Justice vs. Power, 1971)
Dennett vs. Chalmers (1990s)
Beef: A disagreement over the “hard problem” of consciousness and the limits of materialism.
Dennett: “Chalmers’ ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is a pseudo-problem, a philosopher’s fantasy.” (Source: Dennett, Consciousness Explained, 1991)
Chalmers: “Dennett’s materialism is a shallow evasion of the real mystery of consciousness.” (Source: Chalmers, The Conscious Mind, 1996)
Conclusion: Heraclitus is probably the greatest philosopher ever, as he is involved in not one, but two of the greatest beefs of all time, Heraclitus VS Parmenides and Heraclitus VS Democritus.