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
CincinnatusND
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

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

Micdiddy wrote:
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.


Also, on is/ought

Ayn Rand wrote:In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” and A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics, pg. 23"

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 5:28 pm

Ayn Rand is still a hack.

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 5:33 pm

CincinnatusND wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:
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.


Also, on is/ought

Ayn Rand wrote:In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” and A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics, pg. 23"



Cool, I've never read that bit before. So she clearly doesn't "ignore" the problem at all. She addresses it and in fact gives her take on it.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby laxbrah420 » Fri May 11, 2012 5:38 pm

I'm going to go with Descartes.

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 6:01 pm

Micdiddy wrote:
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.


This is so so true. I can't tell you how many times I have heard someone criticize her for something she doesn't even think or completely misrepresent her arguments. She gets straw manned more than any person I know of

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby albusdumbledore » Fri May 11, 2012 6:29 pm

Micdiddy wrote:
CincinnatusND wrote:Also, on is/ought

Ayn Rand wrote:In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” and A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics, pg. 23"

Cool, I've never read that bit before. So she clearly doesn't "ignore" the problem at all. She addresses it and in fact gives her take on it.

What's funny is that quote actually doesn't address the problem at all--it reinforces it. That entire paragraph operates on the presupposition that survival is good. And that's exactly Hume's point in presenting the is-ought problem--he says that you can't go from the premise (P1) "Mankind exists" to the conclusion (C) "Mankind ought to continue to exist" without an evaluative or normative premise like (P2) "Existence is good". These are the types of reasons people don't count her as a philosopher.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby bk1 » Fri May 11, 2012 6:46 pm

At first I thought this was gonna be a thread about PK.

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 7:10 pm

:shock: :shock:
Last edited by dowu on Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CincinnatusND
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby CincinnatusND » Fri May 11, 2012 7:15 pm

albusdumbledore wrote:What's funny is that quote actually doesn't address the problem at all--it reinforces it. That entire paragraph operates on the presupposition that survival is good. And that's exactly Hume's point in presenting the is-ought problem--he says that you can't go from the premise (P1) "Mankind exists" to the conclusion (C) "Mankind ought to continue to exist" without an evaluative or normative premise like (P2) "Existence is good". These are the types of reasons people don't count her as a philosopher.


P1) Mankind exists.
P2) Every is implies an ought.
C) Mankind ought to exist.

...since you can't read. HTH
Applying Hume's problem to human existence is fairly nonsensical when discussing ethics, particularly Randian ethics. Objectivism imposes no obligation to exist or even follow it's own ethics, and is intended for those who choose to continue existing.
Last edited by CincinnatusND on Fri May 11, 2012 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 7:24 pm

CincinnatusND wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:What's funny is that quote actually doesn't address the problem at all--it reinforces it. That entire paragraph operates on the presupposition that survival is good. And that's exactly Hume's point in presenting the is-ought problem--he says that you can't go from the premise (P1) "Mankind exists" to the conclusion (C) "Mankind ought to continue to exist" without an evaluative or normative premise like (P2) "Existence is good". These are the types of reasons people don't count her as a philosopher.


P1) Mankind exists.
P2) Every is implies an ought.
P3) Mankind ought to exist.

...since you can't read. HTH
Applying Hume's problem to human existence is fairly nonsensical when discussing ethics, particularly Randian ethics. Objectivism imposes no obligation to exist or even follow it's own ethics, and is intended for those who choose to continue existing.


This is where some traditional academic arguments lose me. Who the fuck cares about being able to prove existence is good. First off, this is the type of question that can't be answered much like you can't prove the existence of god, etc. It's such an impractical question for everyday life and problems. I'm pretty sure most would say existing in of itself is a good thing. I know I do. Evolution seems to agree as well. I know it has it's place in academia but to me it's just intellectual circle jerking.

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 7:29 pm

People who are super into Ayn Rand are generally those without a broad overview of intellectual history and the western tradition. She simply pales in comparison to the Kants, Aristotles, and Heideggers of the world.

It's the same thing with Hannah Arendt and countless others. Nothing personal, they just don't have the same depth of thought. So why fight about it when there are so many more important books and philosophies out there? If you dedicate your life to the pursuit, you might be able to have a deep understanding of 50 to 100 philosophical works. Is Rand really going to be one of the ones you choose?

That's my beef. I don't care about any of the straw men or personal mudslinging. I'm not wasting my time on someone who claims to be more Aristotelian than Aristotle.

User avatar
CincinnatusND
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby CincinnatusND » Fri May 11, 2012 7:36 pm

Campagnolo wrote:People who are super into Ayn Rand are generally those without a broad overview of intellectual history and the western tradition. She simply pales in comparison to the Kants, Aristotles, and Heideggers of the world.

It's the same thing with Hannah Arendt and countless others. Nothing personal, they just don't have the same depth of thought. So why fight about it when there are so many more important books and philosophies out there? If you dedicate your life to the pursuit, you might be able to have a deep understanding of 50 to 100 philosophical works. Is Rand really going to be one of the ones you choose?

That's my beef. I don't care about any of the straw men or personal mudslinging. I'm not wasting my time on someone who claims to be more Aristotelian than Aristotle.


"Important" is completely subjective. I enjoy Rand because her philosophy is very applicable and aligns with how I view life.

I enjoy other philosophers, particularly Nietszche or more contemporarily Dennet for intellectually stimulating reading.

User avatar
ngogirl
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby ngogirl » Fri May 11, 2012 7:41 pm

Kant is by far my favorite philosopher; however, I think the winner would be Aristotle.

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 7:48 pm

CincinnatusND wrote:
Campagnolo wrote:People who are super into Ayn Rand are generally those without a broad overview of intellectual history and the western tradition. She simply pales in comparison to the Kants, Aristotles, and Heideggers of the world.

It's the same thing with Hannah Arendt and countless others. Nothing personal, they just don't have the same depth of thought. So why fight about it when there are so many more important books and philosophies out there? If you dedicate your life to the pursuit, you might be able to have a deep understanding of 50 to 100 philosophical works. Is Rand really going to be one of the ones you choose?

That's my beef. I don't care about any of the straw men or personal mudslinging. I'm not wasting my time on someone who claims to be more Aristotelian than Aristotle.


"Important" is completely subjective. I enjoy Rand because her philosophy is very applicable and aligns with how I view life.

I enjoy other philosophers, particularly Nietszche or more contemporarily Dennet for intellectually stimulating reading.


I question whether Rand changes how her readers view life. Nietzsche and the others can't help but do that if you read deeply.

For example, I'm not a Christian, but one of the biggest influences for me is Kierkegaard. I'm not a whatever-it-is-that-you-would-call-Rand, but she just isn't capable of moving me in the same way Kierkegaard does. Perhaps it is a failing on my part, but I just don't seem to be receptive to the main thrust of her ideas. I'm not saying she isn't a capable scholar, but she just doesn't strike me as a philosopher.

Maybe my standards are just a little higher, because I think Heidegger was the last profound thinker. We're still waiting on the next one to appear.

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby albusdumbledore » Fri May 11, 2012 7:50 pm

CincinnatusND wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:What's funny is that quote actually doesn't address the problem at all--it reinforces it. That entire paragraph operates on the presupposition that survival is good. And that's exactly Hume's point in presenting the is-ought problem--he says that you can't go from the premise (P1) "Mankind exists" to the conclusion (C) "Mankind ought to continue to exist" without an evaluative or normative premise like (P2) "Existence is good". These are the types of reasons people don't count her as a philosopher.


P1) Mankind exists.
P2) Every is implies an ought.
P3) Mankind ought to exist.

...since you can't read. HTH
Applying Hume's problem to human existence is fairly nonsensical when discussing ethics, particularly Randian ethics. Objectivism imposes no obligation to exist or even follow it's own ethics, and is intended for those who choose to continue existing.

Dude this is so far off base I don't even know where to begin. Do you know what the is-ought problem is? Succinctly, it is Hume saying "An is never implies an ought". If one of Ayn Rand's premises in her attempt to link "is" and "ought" is that "Every is implies an ought" she can't claim she has solved the is-ought problem. If she did, she's begging the fucking question. She just assumed what she set out to prove.

P.S. There is no such thing as "Hume's problem to human existence". I was framing the is-ought problem in the terms she laid out in the paragraph. You are literally spewing babble. I can see why you like Rand.

User avatar
CincinnatusND
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby CincinnatusND » Fri May 11, 2012 7:58 pm

You are awful at reading comprehension. I was commenting on how you were applying Hume's Problem to Human existence.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Fri May 11, 2012 8:04 pm

CincinnatusND wrote:You are awful at reading comprehension. I was commenting on how you were applying Hume's Problem to Human existence.


Notsureifserious.

ETA: Your response was pretty much non-responsive to the bitchslap he just gave you.

User avatar
CincinnatusND
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:54 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby CincinnatusND » Fri May 11, 2012 8:11 pm

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
CincinnatusND wrote:You are awful at reading comprehension. I was commenting on how you were applying Hume's Problem to Human existence.


Notsureifserious.

ETA: Your response was pretty much non-responsive to the bitchslap he just gave you.


I'm on my phone currently and don't feel like typing much. If you actually read and understood Rand's response to the is/ought problem, you'd understand it wasn't a very effective bitchslap. Rand combats the problem by denying it, not attempting to conform to it.

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 8:13 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:


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:


I value my time to much to read any of her non-fiction work. I suggest that you read "A History of Western Philosophy", while it is certainly not comprehensive it should help you understand why Ayn Rand does not deserve to be included. If you have read Atlas Shrugged than you know, at least for the most part, that you understand her philososphy. She even said it was her philosophy in creative form.

I love what happens when people are in a minority on an issue: They play it off as if everyone else is less informed or doesn't understand it as well as they do. Sure, I haven't read her non-fiction, but I have read Atlas Shrugged (which taken as a story is actually really interesting) and I think most peope with the analytic skills understand where( and why she) she goes wrong and don' have the desire to waste more time on her as any kind of serious philosopher.

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 8:16 pm

No one is actually going to take the time to compose a full and complete rebuttal to Ayn Rand, bc its just time-consuming and nothing withers motivation like intewrnet forum. The backlash speaks for itself. I don't know anyone who takes her seriously as a philosopher. Has she sold books,sure. So didn't CS Lewis, he also sold a philosophical system, if a Christian one backed with essays. I do not consider him a philospher. Rand is a dilettante with ideas, not a philosopher.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Fri May 11, 2012 8:17 pm

CincinnatusND wrote:
Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
CincinnatusND wrote:You are awful at reading comprehension. I was commenting on how you were applying Hume's Problem to Human existence.


Notsureifserious.

ETA: Your response was pretty much non-responsive to the bitchslap he just gave you.


I'm on my phone currently and don't feel like typing much. If you actually read and understood Rand's response to the is/ought problem, you'd understand it wasn't a very effective bitchslap. Rand combats the problem by denying it, not attempting to conform to it.


What you posted was her ignoring the problem, not providing any sort of strong attack for why it should be rejected. And then you get mad when someone points this out. Maybe you should have provided a better quote if the first one gives a false impression.

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 8:22 pm

ams212 wrote:
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:


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:


I value my time to much to read any of her non-fiction work. I suggest that you read "A History of Western Philosophy", while it is certainly not comprehensive it should help you understand why Ayn Rand does not deserve to be included. If you have read Atlas Shrugged than you know, at least for the most part, that you understand her philososphy. She even said it was her philosophy in creative form.

I love what happens when people are in a minority on an issue: They play it off as if everyone else is less informed or doesn't understand it as well as they do. Sure, I haven't read her non-fiction, but I have read Atlas Shrugged (which taken as a story is actually really interesting) and I think most peope with the analytic skills understand where( and why she) she goes wrong and don' have the desire to waste more time on her as any kind of serious philosopher.


Dude, seriously. You said you didn't actually read it a lot of her. And you assume I havent read history of western philosophy when I have. This is stupid.

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 9:11 pm

Campagnolo wrote:People who are super into Ayn Rand are generally those without a broad overview of intellectual history and the western tradition. She simply pales in comparison to the Kants, Aristotles, and Heideggers of the world.

It's the same thing with Hannah Arendt and countless others. Nothing personal, they just don't have the same depth of thought. So why fight about it when there are so many more important books and philosophies out there? If you dedicate your life to the pursuit, you might be able to have a deep understanding of 50 to 100 philosophical works. Is Rand really going to be one of the ones you choose?

That's my beef. I don't care about any of the straw men or personal mudslinging. I'm not wasting my time on someone who claims to be more Aristotelian than Aristotle.


As a History/English major, I disagree with this assertion completely. Many people I know who like Ayn Rand did so after basically going "wtf?" to so many other philosophers they encountered before her.
Personally, I became widely read of many different philosophers before I knew the name Rand existed. I then spent months formulating my own philosophy, and hours explaining it to my older/wiser sister. After which, she asked if I ever read Ayn Rand 'cause a lot of what I said basically sounded like her, and Voila.

User avatar
FantasticMrFox
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby FantasticMrFox » Fri May 11, 2012 9:27 pm

I thought this thread was about PK
the title is a bit misleading because it's not about one philosopher taking multiple tests

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT

Postby LeDique » Fri May 11, 2012 9:35 pm

I too came here for PK jokes. Left so very, very disappointed.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, jagerbom79, jen203, Rogah, SunDevil14 and 13 guests