Pretty much.

Im still perturbed by the lack of Descartes option/discussion, but Popper is probably the TCR. The dude is basically the lawyer's scientist. There's a good chance there he'd get an RC passage about himself, but if not, he's still set, as the other science passages are pretty derivative of his writings...and the humanities stuff isn't far off either usually. More importantly, he OWNS correlation ≠ causation shit

I don't like Popper's reading of Plato; my 2 cents

No Plato? No Epicurious? No Zino of Citium? No Avicenna? No Confucius? No Rene Decartes? No Paul of Tarsus? Aristotle is probably #1, but any of these people could be agrued at #2.

I am also digging this! And how about Bruce Lee...and Ghandi, for that matter. They also would be 180's!

Wanna bet?

Jesus would get a 190 on the LSAT

I don't know enough about philosophy to really say anything, but I have always really liked J.S. Mill if he counts as a philosopher.

Where does MARTIN HEIDEGGER go on this list?

David Lewis would be my darkhorse pick.

Right damn near the top, unquestionably.

I still think, though, that in terms of pure intellectual horsepower, Aristotle is the most naturally gifted thinker ever to live.

Surely Kant and Hegel are up there, too.

And if you're wondering about the qualifications I have to make such pronouncements, I assure you, I am both a gentleman and a scholar.

He is; utilitarianism does seem to appeal to some...although I'd be the first person to save my family before anyone regardless of how useful he/she was to the society.

No, especially not Descartes...have you actually read and dissected his argument with the causal adequacy principle that he uses to prove God's existence?

would have been happier if the ancient philosophers' names were spelled correctly...Epicurus and Zeno. Zeno, I'd have to say does have great logical reasoning although the fact that you named him without even mentioning Parmenides makes me sad too.

I do not think any of these people can be the #2 philosopher of all time, to be honest. Zeno, perhaps, but not the rest.

ETA: "epicurious" sounded familiar - turns out it's an app

Are you trolling or serious?

Give me five cogent reasons why he's near the top.

clearly you haven't read being and time.

*begins a tome to DESTROY WESTERN PHILOSOPHY*

*writes only a third of it*

*is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century*

Heidegger couldn't himself come up with 5 cogent or even coherent arguments for anything, so asking someone to defend him is a mighty task indeed.

i like to picture hegel and schopenhauer taking it in the same room. they both get 180's, but hegel goes home in a sports car with some fine ladies he met at the test; schopenhauer, on the other hand, forgets his bus pass, steps in gum. so, we know who the real winner is

hegel sounds like a philistine in this scenario. schopenhauer ftw.

i was thinking more Nietzsche and Shopenhauer, but, yes, i'd say Shopenhauer will get screwed in one way or another on test day so no 180 for him.

Schopenhauer would argue there is no difference between 120 and 180, they are just both manifestations of the Will.

Schopenhauer would have left the room because the proctor was a woman.

and Plato would likely request a non-plebeian testing center.

nietzsche's probably the only person on the list who is dumb enough to copy off of rand.

where's hume? i'd say the guy who invented 'correlation is not causation' flaw deserves to be on this list.

wait, how would nietzsche copy off of rand if she was born after he died?

also, hume is a tool.

On Rand's Non-Fic; Virtue of Selfishness is simply moralized Rousseau beaten over the head with a stupid club.

I'd take Kant or Hegel