Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT Forum

[Angrygeopolitically]

My vote is with Wittgenstein. If you vote any other way it is because you are dumb.


Rand is to Philosophy what _________ is to literature.

a. Stephenie Meyer
b. David Foster Wallace
c. Nabokov
d. Pamuk
e. Jorge Borges




(a.)

[MachineLemon]

Poor Karl Popper with zero votes. That guy was actually brilliant. Too bad nobody on here's an LSD fan.

[smaug_]

I'll break this down again further:


1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
How so?

In your response from Rand, she states

The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.

this is utterly ignoring the problem. The problem is that the jump from the way something is to the way something ought to be is not a valid one. Therefore her response to the problem comprises nothing more than "lol wut?" and willful ignorance of what it means for her philosophy. This is a valid concern.

2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates.
No it doesn't. I am sure Ayn Rand would have no problem if someone told her primates showed altruistic tendencies. It wouldn't weaken her philosophy in the slightest.

Frans de Waal and others have pretty conclusively shown that primates act altruistically. They do not need the guarantee or even ability for that altruism to be reciprocated to do good for others. This is a problem for Rand. Assuming her objectivist framework (allowing us to ignore the is/ought problem as well) we can see that humankind's closest relative's state of nature is one of compassion and giving. This means that we do not act solely in self interest. Compare that to John Galt's speech:

This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number

It would seem that altruism and utilitarianism are not acceptable means of living. But, we have seen that this is how we are, and our survival implies (according to Rand) that is how we should be. We should and should not be grounded in altruism. This is a problem.

3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
And is she wrong? What's the problem of epistemology, and what's the answer?

The problems of epistemology are many. It is a struggle to clearly say what we can and cannot know and how we know it. It is a topic that has been debated for centuries. I don't know the answer but I'd suggest that anyone who ignores the centuries of meaningful debate on the topic is attempting to take a shortcut. We will have more on this. (And yes, this is a problem.)

4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
I don't see this at all in her fiction or the some non-fiction I have read. She seems perfectly fine with many tasks involving any class of individuals, as long as they do not systematically leech off of others.

My concern is more that if all of the John Galts of the world do make their own society and throw off the 'leechers', they will be forced to do many things that they think are beneath them. They will need to serve. They will need to clean. If capitalism dictates that there are winners and losers, some will be losers. I will readily admit this is less of a concern for Rand than the capitalistic Randroids who want to put her ideals into action without further thought, but for them, this is a problem.

5) Her contemporaries focused on such problems as how language affects our understanding of the world and how the absurd is a necessary condition of the human experience. She instead focused on saying "A is A" through long-winded boring speeches by her characters.
But you fail to recognize that she had to harp on this A=A thing because so many otherwise intelligent people seem to ignore it, and it's the basis of her entire philosophy. I cannot recall a single refutation of her beliefs that doesn't either consciously or unintentionally contradict A=A.

This gets me back to #3. What does 'A=A' mean? If that is a meaningful question it means that epistemological concerns are still valid (see 3) and that we need to unpack this statement. If it is a statement of identity, I doubt that anyone wants to 'contradict' it. If it is a statement that things are exactly as they seem, then it seems to utterly ignore problems that have confounded philosophy (and science) for centuries. From the Pre-Socratics to Aristotle to Descartes to Derrida, we have explored the problems of knowing and confronted what we can or cannot know. This is why nobody takes Rand or Randroids seriously.

They also don't taken Randroids seriously because it is easy, very easy to show the problems with her philosophy and they say things like

I've read her fiction and some non-fiction, and I have met many intelligent people who have a big problem with Ayn Rand and none of them have ever had a valid reason why.

I started this with five quick reasons off the top of my head. I've now defended them from sophomoric shenanigans. These are valid reasons. (Or, prove me wrong)

[jigglebottom]

Ayn rand is the skrillex of philosophy....

[Band A Long]

Ayn rand is the skrillex of philosophy....

[Ded Precedent]

2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates.
No it doesn't. I am sure Ayn Rand would have no problem if someone told her primates showed altruistic tendencies. It wouldn't weaken her philosophy in the slightest.

Frans de Waal and others have pretty conclusively shown that primates act altruistically. They do not need the guarantee or even ability for that altruism to be reciprocated to do good for others. This is a problem for Rand. Assuming her objectivist framework (allowing us to ignore the is/ought problem as well) we can see that humankind's closest relative's state of nature is one of compassion and giving. This means that we do not act solely in self interest. Compare that to John Galt's speech:

This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number

It would seem that altruism and utilitarianism are not acceptable means of living. But, we have seen that this is how we are, and our survival implies (according to Rand) that is how we should be. We should and should not be grounded in altruism. This is a problem.

This actually doesn't undermine Rand's view at all (as much as I disagree with her I just thought I should point this out). Rand's objectivist ethic is a normative doctrine about how one ought to act (in self-interest). Rand herself might even agree that human nature may lead our species in the direction of altruism, as evidenced by our social welfare programs and the like, but she would disagree that we ought to act this way, that we have a moral duty to act this way or that altruism is the only way in which we can act.

[Band A Long]

This actually doesn't undermine Rand's view at all (as much as I disagree with her I just thought I should point this out). Rand's objectivist ethic is a normative doctrine about how one ought to act (in self-interest). Rand herself might even agree that human nature may lead our species in the direction of altruism, as evidenced by our social welfare programs and the like, but she would disagree that we ought to act this way, that we have a moral duty to act this way or that altruism is the only way in which we can act.

Was going to post pretty much the exact same response but decided nobody would care. As I pointed out earlier, I think that's one of the weaker objections to her thought. Also, I wouldn't really say the matter is settled that altruism (in a way that conflicts with Rand) exists (see: kin selection et al).

It is obvious why the morality of altruism is a tribal phenomenon. Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism’s perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological: the men of self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without tribal leadership and “protection” against reality

[tedler]

.

[snailio]

I voted for Rand for shits and giggles just to piss people off, it's probably related to my altruistic nature.

[jigglebottom]

Can someone explain/link to whatever this Philosopher King saga is? Sounds a lot more interesting than arguing the merits of Ayn Rand's philosopher status.

Seriously this thread took a nasty turn...can't say it wasn't expected tho

[stillwater]

Bro, Philosopher King's 4.0 in philosophy is way better than the LSAT.

[fanmingrui]

I'm also gonna say Tupac

[homestyle28]

Not that I'm a fan of Rand, but many contemporary philosophers (or at least some) suggest that our contemporary understanding of the natural world does away with the is/ought problem

I'll break this down again further:

1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
How so?

In your response from Rand, she states

The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.

this is utterly ignoring the problem. The problem is that the jump from the way something is to the way something ought to be is not a valid one. Therefore her response to the problem comprises nothing more than "lol wut?" and willful ignorance of what it means for her philosophy. This is a valid concern.

See

[Micdiddy]

I'll break this down again further:


1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
How so?

In your response from Rand, she states

The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.

this is utterly ignoring the problem. The problem is that the jump from the way something is to the way something ought to be is not a valid one. Therefore her response to the problem comprises nothing more than "lol wut?" and willful ignorance of what it means for her philosophy. This is a valid concern.

2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates.
No it doesn't. I am sure Ayn Rand would have no problem if someone told her primates showed altruistic tendencies. It wouldn't weaken her philosophy in the slightest.

Frans de Waal and others have pretty conclusively shown that primates act altruistically. They do not need the guarantee or even ability for that altruism to be reciprocated to do good for others. This is a problem for Rand. Assuming her objectivist framework (allowing us to ignore the is/ought problem as well) we can see that humankind's closest relative's state of nature is one of compassion and giving. This means that we do not act solely in self interest. Compare that to John Galt's speech:

This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number

It would seem that altruism and utilitarianism are not acceptable means of living. But, we have seen that this is how we are, and our survival implies (according to Rand) that is how we should be. We should and should not be grounded in altruism. This is a problem.

3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
And is she wrong? What's the problem of epistemology, and what's the answer?

The problems of epistemology are many. It is a struggle to clearly say what we can and cannot know and how we know it. It is a topic that has been debated for centuries. I don't know the answer but I'd suggest that anyone who ignores the centuries of meaningful debate on the topic is attempting to take a shortcut. We will have more on this. (And yes, this is a problem.)

4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
I don't see this at all in her fiction or the some non-fiction I have read. She seems perfectly fine with many tasks involving any class of individuals, as long as they do not systematically leech off of others.

My concern is more that if all of the John Galts of the world do make their own society and throw off the 'leechers', they will be forced to do many things that they think are beneath them. They will need to serve. They will need to clean. If capitalism dictates that there are winners and losers, some will be losers. I will readily admit this is less of a concern for Rand than the capitalistic Randroids who want to put her ideals into action without further thought, but for them, this is a problem.

5) Her contemporaries focused on such problems as how language affects our understanding of the world and how the absurd is a necessary condition of the human experience. She instead focused on saying "A is A" through long-winded boring speeches by her characters.
But you fail to recognize that she had to harp on this A=A thing because so many otherwise intelligent people seem to ignore it, and it's the basis of her entire philosophy. I cannot recall a single refutation of her beliefs that doesn't either consciously or unintentionally contradict A=A.

This gets me back to #3. What does 'A=A' mean? If that is a meaningful question it means that epistemological concerns are still valid (see 3) and that we need to unpack this statement. If it is a statement of identity, I doubt that anyone wants to 'contradict' it. If it is a statement that things are exactly as they seem, then it seems to utterly ignore problems that have confounded philosophy (and science) for centuries. From the Pre-Socratics to Aristotle to Descartes to Derrida, we have explored the problems of knowing and confronted what we can or cannot know. This is why nobody takes Rand or Randroids seriously.

They also don't taken Randroids seriously because it is easy, very easy to show the problems with her philosophy and they say things like

I've read her fiction and some non-fiction, and I have met many intelligent people who have a big problem with Ayn Rand and none of them have ever had a valid reason why.

I started this with five quick reasons off the top of my head. I've now defended them from sophomoric shenanigans. These are valid reasons. (Or, prove me wrong)

1. Well, I cannot speak for Rand but I would argue that basically the is/ought problem is precisely what I mean when I say people either consciously or unintentionally undermine A=A. Rand has little patience for rationalizations because they had no meaningful base in reality. The question of what something "ought" to be is irrelevant to what things are and what things do, so of course she didn't address it because she didn't consider it intellectually valid. This is also why she willfully dismisses centuries of philosophers, not because she doesn't understand what they are saying, but more because does understand it and thinks it has no true basis in reality.
I would say this is not a valid reason for dismissing Ayn Rand's philosopy. You may want her to address this issue more, but not doing so does not undermine the validity of her philosophy, it simply makes it incomplete (iyo). How does "ignoring" this problem make a statement or premise of hers conclusively false?

2. As you've already admitted, this is completely tangential and has no bearing on Rand's philosophy. Sooo, we can agree this is not a valid reason then, right?

3. Again, your explanation of this was basically what you accused Rand of earlier, "lol wut?" You're saying that just because she doesn't acknowledge centuries of philosopher we should dismiss her. This, ironically, is a logical fallacy Rand personally exposed and despised when she said something to the extent of: Liberals admire things for the sole reason that they are new, which is preposterous. Worse yet, conservatives admire things just because they are old (I am clearly butchering the quote which is why I didn't put it in quotes, but you get the idea. Just because philosophers have harped on something for centuries says nothing about the validity of that topic).
Again, I conclude this to not be a valid reason to dismiss Rand.

4. This is not at all incompatible with Rand. Clearly in Atlas Shrugged even among the "supermen" there were still levels of superiority. I mean, I'm sorry but is this really an argument? "Lol, if Galt's Gulch existed whose going to mop the floors? luuullzzz." I mean, it's funny to think about, but nothing at all Rand would be concerned about and not in any way contradictory to her philosophy.
Clearly, an invalid reason to dismiss Rand.

5. It is the law of identity. You would be surprised by how many times people contradict it, again without even knowing. This is possible the main reason Rand refused to do debates, because any time her opponent would say something lulzy, she would basically have to school him on the axioms of "A is A" etc. to determine his contradiction in premises that lead to his false belief, etc. This is why she talks about it so often, because so many people claim to accept it yet contradict it.

Anyway, the fact that you do not like that she talks about the Law of Identity again seems completely irrelevant to the actual validity of her philosophy. Therefore, we again have an invalid reason to dismiss her.

[RedBirds2011]

I'll break this down again further:


1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
How so?

In your response from Rand, she states

The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.

this is utterly ignoring the problem. The problem is that the jump from the way something is to the way something ought to be is not a valid one. Therefore her response to the problem comprises nothing more than "lol wut?" and willful ignorance of what it means for her philosophy. This is a valid concern.

2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates.
No it doesn't. I am sure Ayn Rand would have no problem if someone told her primates showed altruistic tendencies. It wouldn't weaken her philosophy in the slightest.

Frans de Waal and others have pretty conclusively shown that primates act altruistically. They do not need the guarantee or even ability for that altruism to be reciprocated to do good for others. This is a problem for Rand. Assuming her objectivist framework (allowing us to ignore the is/ought problem as well) we can see that humankind's closest relative's state of nature is one of compassion and giving. This means that we do not act solely in self interest. Compare that to John Galt's speech:

This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number

It would seem that altruism and utilitarianism are not acceptable means of living. But, we have seen that this is how we are, and our survival implies (according to Rand) that is how we should be. We should and should not be grounded in altruism. This is a problem.

3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
And is she wrong? What's the problem of epistemology, and what's the answer?

The problems of epistemology are many. It is a struggle to clearly say what we can and cannot know and how we know it. It is a topic that has been debated for centuries. I don't know the answer but I'd suggest that anyone who ignores the centuries of meaningful debate on the topic is attempting to take a shortcut. We will have more on this. (And yes, this is a problem.)

4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
I don't see this at all in her fiction or the some non-fiction I have read. She seems perfectly fine with many tasks involving any class of individuals, as long as they do not systematically leech off of others.

My concern is more that if all of the John Galts of the world do make their own society and throw off the 'leechers', they will be forced to do many things that they think are beneath them. They will need to serve. They will need to clean. If capitalism dictates that there are winners and losers, some will be losers. I will readily admit this is less of a concern for Rand than the capitalistic Randroids who want to put her ideals into action without further thought, but for them, this is a problem.

5) Her contemporaries focused on such problems as how language affects our understanding of the world and how the absurd is a necessary condition of the human experience. She instead focused on saying "A is A" through long-winded boring speeches by her characters.
But you fail to recognize that she had to harp on this A=A thing because so many otherwise intelligent people seem to ignore it, and it's the basis of her entire philosophy. I cannot recall a single refutation of her beliefs that doesn't either consciously or unintentionally contradict A=A.

This gets me back to #3. What does 'A=A' mean? If that is a meaningful question it means that epistemological concerns are still valid (see 3) and that we need to unpack this statement. If it is a statement of identity, I doubt that anyone wants to 'contradict' it. If it is a statement that things are exactly as they seem, then it seems to utterly ignore problems that have confounded philosophy (and science) for centuries. From the Pre-Socratics to Aristotle to Descartes to Derrida, we have explored the problems of knowing and confronted what we can or cannot know. This is why nobody takes Rand or Randroids seriously.

They also don't taken Randroids seriously because it is easy, very easy to show the problems with her philosophy and they say things like

I've read her fiction and some non-fiction, and I have met many intelligent people who have a big problem with Ayn Rand and none of them have ever had a valid reason why.

I started this with five quick reasons off the top of my head. I've now defended them from sophomoric shenanigans. These are valid reasons. (Or, prove me wrong)

1. Well, I cannot speak for Rand but I would argue that basically the is/ought problem is precisely what I mean when I say people either consciously or unintentionally undermine A=A. Rand has little patience for rationalizations because they had no meaningful base in reality. The question of what something "ought" to be is irrelevant to what things are and what things do, so of course she didn't address it because she didn't consider it intellectually valid. This is also why she willfully dismisses centuries of philosophers, not because she doesn't understand what they are saying, but more because does understand it and thinks it has no true basis in reality.
I would say this is not a valid reason for dismissing Ayn Rand's philosopy. You may want her to address this issue more, but not doing so does not undermine the validity of her philosophy, it simply makes it incomplete (iyo). How does "ignoring" this problem make a statement or premise of hers conclusively false?

2. As you've already admitted, this is completely tangential and has no bearing on Rand's philosophy. Sooo, we can agree this is not a valid reason then, right?

3. Again, your explanation of this was basically what you accused Rand of earlier, "lol wut?" You're saying that just because she doesn't acknowledge centuries of philosopher we should dismiss her. This, ironically, is a logical fallacy Rand personally exposed and despised when she said something to the extent of: Liberals admire things for the sole reason that they are new, which is preposterous. Worse yet, conservatives admire things just because they are old (I am clearly butchering the quote which is why I didn't put it in quotes, but you get the idea. Just because philosophers have harped on something for centuries says nothing about the validity of that topic).
Again, I conclude this to not be a valid reason to dismiss Rand.

4. This is not at all incompatible with Rand. Clearly in Atlas Shrugged even among the "supermen" there were still levels of superiority. I mean, I'm sorry but is this really an argument? "Lol, if Galt's Gulch existed whose going to mop the floors? luuullzzz." I mean, it's funny to think about, but nothing at all Rand would be concerned about and not in any way contradictory to her philosophy.
Clearly, an invalid reason to dismiss Rand.

5. It is the law of identity. You would be surprised by how many times people contradict it, again without even knowing. This is possible the main reason Rand refused to do debates, because any time her opponent would say something lulzy, she would basically have to school him on the axioms of "A is A" etc. to determine his contradiction in premises that lead to his false belief, etc. This is why she talks about it so often, because so many people claim to accept it yet contradict it.

Anyway, the fact that you do not like that she talks about the Law of Identity again seems completely irrelevant to the actual validity of her philosophy. Therefore, we again have an invalid reason to dismiss her.

I'm so glad others are willing to address this because I don't have the energy to do so. So plus 1 to this. And to add a little: the philosophical question what exactly is reality and is it real is a nonsensical question to me because it is such an utterly worthless question outside academia. I get it's place but to me it's no less useless than arguing "how many angels dance on the head of a pen."

[afitouri]

I chose Socrates because I feel that LSAT logic is pretty closely related to Socratic logic. The only issue is that he would probably have a huge issue with the time constraint since he always asks so many questions before coming to any conclusion.

Nietzsche is a no-go, he's above Western logic and uses more emotional inquiries etc.

Aristotle had too many misconceptions for me to believe he was logical enough to score well on the LSAT.

Kant was a smart guy, but I feel he's more of a sociologist than a logician.

Ayn Rand is an idiot and anyone who voted for her is plain stupid.

I have to admit though, that I haven't studied Wittgenstein. So, perhaps I'd have chose ol' Ludwig if I'd have known his stuff.

[jigglebottom]

Socratic logic as distinct from the normal kinds: a drama in 32 parts.

[angrybird]

wittgenstein solved philosophy. pretty sure he could handle the lsat.

[snailio]

I chose Socrates because I feel that LSAT logic is pretty closely related to Socratic logic. The only issue is that he would probably have a huge issue with the time constraint since he always asks so many questions before coming to any conclusion.

Nietzsche is a no-go, he's above Western logic and uses more emotional inquiries etc.

Aristotle had too many misconceptions for me to believe he was logical enough to score well on the LSAT.

Kant was a smart guy, but I feel he's more of a sociologist than a logician.

Ayn Rand is an idiot and anyone who voted for her is plain stupid.

I have to admit though, that I haven't studied Wittgenstein. So, perhaps I'd have chose ol' Ludwig if I'd have known his stuff.

With a standard deviation of 16, I’m in the 99.97...percentile group, I don’t feel particularly stupid, but since I’m responding to a moron, you may have a point.

[angrybird]

Ayn Rand is an idiot and anyone who voted for her is plain stupid.

With a standard deviation of 16, I’m in the 99.97...percentile group, I don’t feel particularly stupid, but since I’m responding to a moron, you may have a point.

this reply: inevitable, but still satisfying

[jigglebottom]

The illogicality of aristotles assumptions: a four part mini-series starring fat kevin spacey as aristotle

[FlanAl]

where's Kripke, Hume, Austin (and like a million other people)? I mean if you're going to put Rand and nietzsche up there why not just throw up astrologers and new wave Oprah yogis? I think Dr. Phil would do the best on the lsat!

[jigglebottom]

what's it called when u attack a philosophers merit because you hate the shit crowd that happens to like that particular philosopher?

[angrybird]

what's it called when u attack a philosophers merit because you hate the shit crowd that happens to like that particular philosopher?

objectivism

[jigglebottom]

what's it called when u attack a philosophers merit because you hate the shit crowd that happens to like that particular philosopher?

objectivism

what does victory taste like?