Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Who would score highest on the LSAT?

Friedrich Nietzsche
9
5%
Ludwig Wittgenstein
41
22%
Immanuel Kant
44
23%
Socrates
27
14%
Ayn Rand
22
12%
Aristotle
24
13%
Karl Popper
4
2%
Karl Marx
7
4%
Richard Rorty
4
2%
Gottlob Frege
7
4%
 
Total votes: 189

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby RedBirds2011 » Fri May 11, 2012 2:25 pm

flem wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:
Smart people with an agenda like her too.


FTFY


And the people who disagree dont? Everybody has an agenda, breh.

User avatar
smaug_
Posts: 2195
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:06 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby smaug_ » Fri May 11, 2012 2:26 pm

Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:I am curious bros.

Instead of just saying Rand's philosophy lacks DAT RIGOR, give me FIVE cogent reasons why Rand suck as a philosopher (not a Rand-fan, never read her).


1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates
3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
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.

User avatar
Odd Future Wolf Gang
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Odd Future Wolf Gang » Fri May 11, 2012 2:29 pm

hibiki wrote:
Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:I am curious bros.

Instead of just saying Rand's philosophy lacks DAT RIGOR, give me FIVE cogent reasons why Rand suck as a philosopher (not a Rand-fan, never read her).


1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates
3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
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.


Very cogent, brother.

charliep
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:36 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby charliep » Fri May 11, 2012 2:29 pm

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

User avatar
Odd Future Wolf Gang
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Odd Future Wolf Gang » Fri May 11, 2012 2:31 pm

charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them


On the LSAT, David Foster Wallace would DOMINATE any other novelist you can name.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Tom Joad » Fri May 11, 2012 2:34 pm

charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby dowu » Fri May 11, 2012 2:34 pm

:shock: :shock:
Last edited by dowu on Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby stillwater » Fri May 11, 2012 2:36 pm

We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.

User avatar
Band A Long
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:50 am

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Band A Long » Fri May 11, 2012 2:36 pm

hibiki wrote:2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates

That's not a very good reason. Aristotle thought there was æther, heavier things fall faster, etc. + Naturalistic fallacy

But really she still sucks and those are all solid impromptu reasons

charliep
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:36 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby charliep » Fri May 11, 2012 2:37 pm

Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:
charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them


On the LSAT, David Foster Wallace would DOMINATE any other novelist you can name.


lewis carroll wrote a book called "symbolic logic," and he lays down mathematical allegories like a motherfucker

charliep
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:36 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby charliep » Fri May 11, 2012 2:38 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.


cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)

User avatar
Band A Long
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:50 am

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Band A Long » Fri May 11, 2012 2:39 pm

Tom Joad wrote:Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

Let me help:

  1. retake

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Tom Joad » Fri May 11, 2012 2:40 pm

charliep wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.


cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)

Well I don't think Dostoevsky was dumb. I just think he used his smart brain to make up bullshit for smart people.

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby 99.9luft » Fri May 11, 2012 2:41 pm

Band A Long wrote:
hibiki wrote:2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates

That's not a very good reason. Aristotle thought there was æther, heavier things fall faster, etc. + Naturalistic fallacy

But really she still sucks and those are all solid impromptu reasons


also, if i remember correctly, her arguments in Atlas had too many false dichotomies and straw man fallacies.

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby 99.9luft » Fri May 11, 2012 2:42 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
charliep wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.


cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)

Well I don't think Dostoevsky was dumb. I just think he used his smart brain to make up bullshit for smart people.


that's a good business model for novelists, i feel.

User avatar
Odd Future Wolf Gang
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Odd Future Wolf Gang » Fri May 11, 2012 2:47 pm

stillwater wrote:We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.


Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?

Minesweeper
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Minesweeper » Fri May 11, 2012 2:51 pm

Charles Sanders Pierce would be right up there. From the list, I'd say Witt.

Also, Noam Chomsky.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby stillwater » Fri May 11, 2012 2:52 pm

Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:
stillwater wrote:We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.


Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?


Franzen is probably one of the first novelists I would go after.

ams212
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:39 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby ams212 » Fri May 11, 2012 4:00 pm

While, I haven't read any of her non-fiction, the roots of her "philosophy's" (and I use the term loosely) problems are really simple logical flaws, and that is why she would do terrible on the LSAT. She sees the world in a very skewed way because of her personal history. Even if you accept that any philosopher will occasionally have logical lapses, it doesn't save Rand. This is because the basic premises she bases her logic on are just plain fantasy. You can tell that hers is an ass-backwards approach in that she molds her logic and her philosophy to fit her own morality. Like a previous poster said her even when her logic is sound her philosophy is always going to be flawed because her premises are so skewed.


I have become troll. :cry:

User avatar
Campagnolo
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Campagnolo » Fri May 11, 2012 4:10 pm

I said Aristotle. In terms of raw intellectual horsepower, dude was a thoroughbred.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby dowu » Fri May 11, 2012 4:34 pm

Campagnolo wrote:I said Aristotle. In terms of raw intellectual horsepower, dude was a thoroughbred.


+1. Dude had his hands in every subject.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby RedBirds2011 » Fri May 11, 2012 4:36 pm

ams212 wrote:While, I haven't read any of her non-fiction, the roots of her "philosophy's" (and I use the term loosely) problems are really simple logical flaws, and that is why she would do terrible on the LSAT. She sees the world in a very skewed way because of her personal history. Even if you accept that any philosopher will occasionally have logical lapses, it doesn't save Rand. This is because the basic premises she bases her logic on are just plain fantasy. You can tell that hers is an ass-backwards approach in that she molds her logic and her philosophy to fit her own morality. Like a previous poster said her even when her logic is sound her philosophy is always going to be flawed because her premises are so skewed.


I have become troll. :cry:


Ha ha you said yourself you didn't actually read the non- fiction so how can you claim to really understand it and critique it. Actually know the ins and outs of it. Then criticize away all you want. Be my guest I'll prolly agree. :wink:

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Micdiddy » Fri May 11, 2012 5:23 pm

hibiki wrote:
Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:I am curious bros.

Instead of just saying Rand's philosophy lacks DAT RIGOR, give me FIVE cogent reasons why Rand suck as a philosopher (not a Rand-fan, never read her).


1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.
2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates
3) She attempts to give a reductive approach to a nuanced problem. (epistemology)
4) Even in an idealized world filled with supermen she seems to forget that some tasks do not require a higher class of individual.
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.


1) How so?

2) 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.

3) And is she wrong? What's the problem of epistemology, and what's the answer?

4) 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.

5) 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.

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. Furthermore, I have not met a single intelligent person who actually understood her ideas and still had a big problem with her. Evidence of this are the people calling her "selfish" and saying she was a conservative. Lots of otherwise intelligent people dismiss her out-of-hand because it's the fashionable thing to do and they don't like the surface of her philosophy.

Anyway, I guess I picked up the Rand apologist banner, flame on and we'll see where it goes.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Micdiddy » Fri May 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:
ams212 wrote:While, I haven't read any of her non-fiction, the roots of her "philosophy's" (and I use the term loosely) problems are really simple logical flaws, and that is why she would do terrible on the LSAT. She sees the world in a very skewed way because of her personal history. Even if you accept that any philosopher will occasionally have logical lapses, it doesn't save Rand. This is because the basic premises she bases her logic on are just plain fantasy. You can tell that hers is an ass-backwards approach in that she molds her logic and her philosophy to fit her own morality. Like a previous poster said her even when her logic is sound her philosophy is always going to be flawed because her premises are so skewed.


I have become troll. :cry:


Wow, this strikes me as an interesting post because it sounds extremely like something Rand herself would say and accuse other people of. How are her premises skewed? If she were convinced of the fact, she would likely have happily altered them.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Micdiddy » Fri May 11, 2012 5:27 pm

stillwater wrote:
Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:
stillwater wrote:We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.


Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?


Franzen is probably one of the first novelists I would go after.


Are you calling TONI MORRISON a hack brosef-with-the-mostef?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BEng,MBA,FRM,JD(?), BobBoblaw, cherrygalore, grades??, Instrumental, JoshLyman13, Pozzo, rk42, Snowjon, SunDevil14, tuesdayninja, vm223 and 16 guests