Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:25 pm
And the people who disagree dont? Everybody has an agenda, breh.tfleming09 wrote:FTFYRedBirds2011 wrote:
Smart people with an agenda like her too.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=184740
And the people who disagree dont? Everybody has an agenda, breh.tfleming09 wrote:FTFYRedBirds2011 wrote:
Smart people with an agenda like her too.
1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.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).
Very cogent, brother.hibiki wrote:1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.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).
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.
On the LSAT, David Foster Wallace would DOMINATE any other novelist you can name.charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them
Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them
That's not a very good reason. Aristotle thought there was æther, heavier things fall faster, etc. + Naturalistic fallacyhibiki wrote:2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates
lewis carroll wrote a book called "symbolic logic," and he lays down mathematical allegories like a motherfuckerOdd Future Wolf Gang wrote:On the LSAT, David Foster Wallace would DOMINATE any other novelist you can name.charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them
cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)Tom Joad wrote:Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them
Let me help:Tom Joad wrote: Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.
Well I don't think Dostoevsky was dumb. I just think he used his smart brain to make up bullshit for smart people.charliep wrote:cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)Tom Joad wrote:Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them
also, if i remember correctly, her arguments in Atlas had too many false dichotomies and straw man fallacies.Band A Long wrote:That's not a very good reason. Aristotle thought there was æther, heavier things fall faster, etc. + Naturalistic fallacyhibiki wrote:2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates
But really she still sucks and those are all solid impromptu reasons
that's a good business model for novelists, i feel.Tom Joad wrote:Well I don't think Dostoevsky was dumb. I just think he used his smart brain to make up bullshit for smart people.charliep wrote:cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)Tom Joad wrote:Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.charliep wrote:if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them
Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?stillwater wrote:We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.
Franzen is probably one of the first novelists I would go after.Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?stillwater wrote:We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.
+1. Dude had his hands in every subject.Campagnolo wrote:I said Aristotle. In terms of raw intellectual horsepower, dude was a thoroughbred.
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.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.
1) How so?hibiki wrote:1) Objectivism ignores the is/ought problem.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).
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.
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.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.
Are you calling TONI MORRISON a hack brosef-with-the-mostef?stillwater wrote:Franzen is probably one of the first novelists I would go after.Odd Future Wolf Gang wrote:Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?stillwater wrote:We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.