Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT Forum

[jigglebottom]

pole kneeds moar dairy-da

[PDaddy]

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.

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 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.

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

I have read much Decartes, and I don't have to agree with what he says in order to validate his logic. The worst disservice we can do to any philosopher is apply "value judgments" to the ideas, something we all should have been told in philosophy. Misspellings noted and well-taken. I was typing too fast and trying to remember what I learned in church and my junior comparative history of ideas course.

Besides Jesus, what mortal person in the Bible has contributed more to various churches in Israel or Rome than Paul of Tarsus? Just because the deciples didn't always agree with paul of Tarsus doesn't mean that Christianity would have survived without his musings on the principle of a state of Grace, namely that faith in Jesus was all that was needed. His ideology was the grounding force behind one of the dominant religions in the world: Christianity as we know it today. He also conceived "moral law" out of which the 120 commandments arose. His ideas were so revolutionary that they inform both the church and our common law even today. If that's not worthy of being a top philosopher...

I agree with you on Zeno because his ideas on "stoicism" are so broadly incorporated in psychology and other disciplines. When you think about it, another famous philosopher claimed that the law is reason free from passion, and that seems to be in keeping with Epicurus' musings on the control of emotion.

[Mal Reynolds]

When you think about it, another famous philosopher claimed that the law is reason free from passion.

You got that from legally blonde you didn't read it in a book. We can be honest here, this is a safe place.

[FantasticMrFox]

If that's not worthy of being a top philosopher...

We weren't arguing about who the best philosopher is (even if we were, I'd disagree). We are talking about who would be best at taking the LSAT, which doesn't necessarily test "revolutionary" thoughts.

[PDaddy]

If that's not worthy of being a top philosopher...

We weren't arguing about who the best philosopher is (even if we were, I'd disagree). We are talking about who would be best at taking the LSAT, which doesn't necessarily test "revolutionary" thoughts.

Not trying to be a gunner, ok? But our opinions are informed by who we believe to be the best philosophers, no? Otherwise, how would we choose? IMO the most revolutionary philosophers would score the highest. The good news is that, of the ones I am somewhat familiar with, they would all be 180+. Lol. I hope that clears it up. I am not trying to start a huge debate on the history of the world, etc.

[Campagnolo]

I'm convinced Heidegger was the greatest troll in western philosophy.

--ImageRemoved--

Why, because of what you read in Closing of the American Mind? I don't think Bloom hates on Heidegger so much as he hates on the academic left who rehabilitated the Nazi into a safe bourgeois thinker. Bloom agrees that Nietzsche and Heidegger both ask the question and are correct to return to the Greeks in their seeking.

But then again, all you did was post a picture, so I'm not really sure what's going on, other than that you probably went to U Chicago, Toronto, or Cornell.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I can't believe you're taking this seriously.

Obviously a bunch of Kant employees (Kants) are just creating accounts on TLS to submit a vote.

[stillwater]

I can't believe you're taking this seriously.

Obviously a bunch of Kant employees (Kants) are just creating accounts on TLS to submit a vote.

You mean to say the Kants are trolling the polling?

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

You mean to say the Kants are trolling the polling?

Exactly.

In other news: Dave Hall claims that Nietzsche is alive. Jeffort is investigating.

[timmydoeslsat]

You mean to say the Kants are trolling the polling?

Exactly.

In other news: Dave Hall claims that Nietzsche is alive. Jeffort is investigating.

Breaking News: Timmy claims that he has not been shown sufficient evidence to prove that Nietzche is a philosopher, as Timmy has not been shown that this is the only thing he did.

[bruss]

Wow wtf is this people. All theses philosophers minus Kant and Aristotle would fail miserably like 140s. They would either A) over analyze and run out of time or b) quit in the middle of it. And since when did the lsat test anything but logical reasoning.

[Mal Reynolds]

Nietzsche would have burned the LSAC building to the ground. He would have hated a test like this. Actually, Nietzsche was a wuss IRL, but he would have written a scathing attack about the LSAT.

[stillwater]

Nietzsche would have burned the LSAC building to the ground. He would have hated a test like this. Actually, Nietzsche was a wuss IRL, but he would have written a scathing attack about the LSAT.

He would have wrote about a person, who was in reality the opposite of him, who burnt it to the ground.

[Joeshan520]

I'm convinced Heidegger was the greatest troll in western philosophy.

--ImageRemoved--

Why, because of what you read in Closing of the American Mind? I don't think Bloom hates on Heidegger so much as he hates on the academic left who rehabilitated the Nazi into a safe bourgeois thinker. Bloom agrees that Nietzsche and Heidegger both ask the question and are correct to return to the Greeks in their seeking.

But then again, all you did was post a picture, so I'm not really sure what's going on, other than that you probably went to U Chicago, Toronto, or Cornell.

I was admitted to Chicago and chose not to go, but that's a different a story. I was more going for the facial expression, because that comment was completely and utterly ridiculous. I do believe though that Bloom would take issue with Nietzsche's relativism and he himself admits to be perturbed by the influence German Existentialism and Phenomenology has had on the West.

[stillwater]

I'm convinced Heidegger was the greatest troll in western philosophy.

--ImageRemoved--

Why, because of what you read in Closing of the American Mind? I don't think Bloom hates on Heidegger so much as he hates on the academic left who rehabilitated the Nazi into a safe bourgeois thinker. Bloom agrees that Nietzsche and Heidegger both ask the question and are correct to return to the Greeks in their seeking.

But then again, all you did was post a picture, so I'm not really sure what's going on, other than that you probably went to U Chicago, Toronto, or Cornell.

I was admitted to Chicago and chose not to go, but that's a different a story. I was more going for the facial expression, because that comment was completely and utterly ridiculous. I do believe though that Bloom would take issue with Nietzsche's relativism and he himself admits to be perturbed by the influence German Existentialism and Phenomenology has had on the West.

Nietzsche's perspectivism is NOT relativism. He does not claim that different perspectives are equally valid.

[Joeshan520]

Nietzschean perspectivism is a relativistic argument IMHO.

He states, "In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings".

Interpretation or perspective is contingent upon the historical and linguistic conditions experienced by the interpreter. Because Nietzsche believes that there are countless interpretations, there must be countless interpreters and these countless interpreters are necessarily encapsulated in varying historical and linguistic circumstances. That is Relativism.

[Campagnolo]

Nietzschean perspectivism is a relativistic argument IMHO.

He states, "In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings".

Interpretation or perspective is contingent upon the historical and linguistic conditions experienced by the interpreter. Because Nietzsche believes that there are countless interpretations, there must be countless interpreters and these countless interpreters are necessarily encapsulated in varying historical and linguistic circumstances. That is Relativism.

Nietzsche was writing as a German to Germans, and this is important to grasp. If the values of a culture (real culture, not just a subset of people) are a reflection of the folk, then those values can only have meaning for that particular culture.

Nietzsche was, I think, distinguishing himself from Plato's insistence that some things beyond human beings are knowable in themselves from anyone who is rational. Bloom, for example, puts Nietzsche solidly on the right and therefore NOT with the relativists, whereas it's mostly the liberal academy, aka the spineless relativists, which is most influenced by his language (though his language is mostly dead and meaningless for them). Value judgment is heard on the left constantly today, but it is an idea of the right when properly understood.

[adam1]

Nietzschean perspectivism is a relativistic argument IMHO.

He states, "In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings".

Interpretation or perspective is contingent upon the historical and linguistic conditions experienced by the interpreter. Because Nietzsche believes that there are countless interpretations, there must be countless interpreters and these countless interpreters are necessarily encapsulated in varying historical and linguistic circumstances. That is Relativism.

Nietzsche was writing as a German to Germans, and this is important to grasp. If the values of a culture (real culture, not just a subset of people) are a reflection of the folk, then those values can only have meaning for that particular culture.

Nietzsche was, I think, distinguishing himself from Plato's insistence that some things beyond human beings are knowable in themselves from anyone who is rational. Bloom, for example, puts Nietzsche solidly on the right and therefore NOT with the relativists, whereas it's mostly the liberal academy, aka the spineless relativists, which is most influenced by his language (though his language is mostly dead and meaningless for them). Value judgment is heard on the left constantly today, but it is an idea of the right when properly understood.

I was going to say these were really insufficient readings of Nietzsche. Then it occurred to me they were more accurately not readings of Nietzsche at all. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche is a relativist hasn't read or understood what he writes about force and power.

Educate yourselves.

http://rickroderick.org/202-nietzsche-o ... -lie-1991/

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Wow wtf is this people. All theses philosophers minus Kant and Aristotle would fail miserably like 140s. They would either A) over analyze and run out of time or b) quit in the middle of it. And since when did the lsat test anything but logical reasoning.

You really think logicians (Wittgenstein, Russell, Godel, etc) would have problems (or run out of time) with a logical reasoning test? A lot of the LSAT test writers are PhDs in philosophy who most likely learned at an analytic philosophy department, where people like Wittgenstein are worshiped.

[Joeshan520]

I was going to say these were really insufficient readings of Nietzsche. Then it occurred to me they were more accurately not readings of Nietzsche at all. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche is a relativist hasn't read or understood what he writes about force and power.

I've a read a number of Nietzsche's works and he would find your trivilization of his works to diatribes on force and power abominable. My comment to the original poster challenging my relativist contention was regarding his argument of Nietzsche's view on the "validity of perspectives" not as a chronicle of Nietzsche's large body of work. A subjectivist author such as Nietzsche that decries the idea of absolute truth and affirms that values are social constructions or "myths" in regards to correspondence with reality would make him a candidate for a relativistic intellectual position. It seems to me the dichotomy in his work doesn't rest on the validity of perspectives as suggested by my original challenger, but rather the tension between higher and lower states of human consciousness (slave/master morality distinction, apollonian/dionysian, etc.) Also, taking Richard Roderick (who I am fond of myself, God rest his soul) and using his lecture series to "educate myself" would not do the works justice.

[adam1]

I was going to say these were really insufficient readings of Nietzsche. Then it occurred to me they were more accurately not readings of Nietzsche at all. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche is a relativist hasn't read or understood what he writes about force and power.

I've a read a number of Nietzsche's works and he would find your trivilization of his works to diatribes on force and power abominable. My comment to the original poster challenging my relativist contention was regarding his argument of Nietzsche's view on the "validity of perspectives" not as a chronicle of Nietzsche's large body of work. A subjectivist author such as Nietzsche that decries the idea of absolute truth and affirms that values are social constructions or "myths" in regards to correspondence with reality would make him a candidate for a relativistic intellectual position. It seems to me the dichotomy in his work doesn't rest on the validity of perspectives as suggested by my original challenger, but rather the tension between higher and lower states of human consciousness (slave/master morality distinction, apollonian/dionysian, etc.) Also, taking Richard Roderick (who I am fond of myself, God rest his soul) and using his lecture series to "educate myself" would not do the works justice.

I put Roderick there because it's a very informal, casual look at Nietzsche with respect to truth which I think is relevant to the debate. I didn't say they were diatribes on force and power. Force and power are integral parts of Nietzsche's interpretation of truth, am I wrong? If you actually took a look at the Roderick lecture I posted he expounds on this.

This response feels like you're trying to prove that you know something. Clearly, you have read Nietzsche, but I still think you missed either my point or a major part of what's at stake in his writing regarding truth, which I point to above. Also, I think it's a bit troubling that you begin with "I've read Nietzsche; he would find what you said abominable." I mean, really?

Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick.

[RedBirds2011]

Wow wtf is this people. All theses philosophers minus Kant and Aristotle would fail miserably like 140s. They would either A) over analyze and run out of time or b) quit in the middle of it. And since when did the lsat test anything but logical reasoning.

You really think logicians (Wittgenstein, Russell, Godel, etc) would have problems (or run out of time) with a logical reasoning test? A lot of the LSAT test writers are PhDs in philosophy who most likely learned at an analytic philosophy department, where people like Wittgenstein are worshiped.

The LSAT is a speed test though. A philosopher could come up with brilliant ideas without the time constraints of standardized test. This isn't to say they would do bad on it either though.

[Campagnolo]

I was going to say these were really insufficient readings of Nietzsche. Then it occurred to me they were more accurately not readings of Nietzsche at all. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche is a relativist hasn't read or understood what he writes about force and power.

I've a read a number of Nietzsche's works and he would find your trivilization of his works to diatribes on force and power abominable. My comment to the original poster challenging my relativist contention was regarding his argument of Nietzsche's view on the "validity of perspectives" not as a chronicle of Nietzsche's large body of work. A subjectivist author such as Nietzsche that decries the idea of absolute truth and affirms that values are social constructions or "myths" in regards to correspondence with reality would make him a candidate for a relativistic intellectual position. It seems to me the dichotomy in his work doesn't rest on the validity of perspectives as suggested by my original challenger, but rather the tension between higher and lower states of human consciousness (slave/master morality distinction, apollonian/dionysian, etc.) Also, taking Richard Roderick (who I am fond of myself, God rest his soul) and using his lecture series to "educate myself" would not do the works justice.

I put Roderick there because it's a very informal, casual look at Nietzsche with respect to truth which I think is relevant to the debate. I didn't say they were diatribes on force and power. Force and power are integral parts of Nietzsche's interpretation of truth, am I wrong? If you actually took a look at the Roderick lecture I posted he expounds on this.

This response feels like you're trying to prove that you know something. Clearly, you have read Nietzsche, but I still think you missed either my point or a major part of what's at stake in his writing regarding truth, which I point to above. Also, I think it's a bit troubling that you begin with "I've read Nietzsche; he would find what you said abominable." I mean, really?

Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick.

Proof you haven't understood Nietzsche!

Just kidding.

[Joeshan520]

"Nietzsche is filled with vacillations..Modus Vivendi?"

[bruss]

Once Nietzsche wrote the words "There is no truth...." I thought to myself why does anyone even listen to this guy. Isn't him saying there is no truth a truth. The guy should have been laughed off the philosophers circuit right then and there, instead we now have people arguing whether he is a realitivist or not.