Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT Forum

[stillwater]

I think a useful way to think of this is whether we would classify Camus, Huxley, etc. as philosophers befitting this category. While they certainly write philosophical fiction and have a body of essays explicating the ideas found in their fiction, they are not of the heft of the ones otherwise listed. They are not philosophers per se in the same sense.

EDIT: For fuck's sake, Rand isn't even in the same class as those 2 I mentioned.

[RedBirds2011]

She did but it's not as simple as you think. Seriously you dont know what youre talking about. Read her. What I said is NOT uncommon knowledge for people that know ANYTHING about her.

Rand isn't allowed to be on the same list as Wittingstein, Kant, and Socrates. She is a TTT philosopher at sticker.

I think we have mostly all agreed with this if you reread the thread. I wouldn't put her down as TTT at sticker though ha ha ha

[CincinnatusND]

Enlighten me then. Is the point that you are qualified to judge the merit of philosophers, and because you disagree with Rand, you judge her to be a lesser philosopher?

For fucks sake bro, let's play a game. It's called which one of these is not like the others:

Nietzsche
Kant
Socrates
Ayn Rand

It's like if I made a poll about which NBA player could make the most free throws in a row and these were the options:

Michael Jordan
Kobe Bryant
Lebron James
Greg Oden

Yes, they are all basketball players. But the first 3 are some of the greats while the other dude is just another player.

HTH

GREAT analogy, bro. The two scenarios are completely analogous..

But I'll play, I pick Ayn Rand, because she is a woman? Or Ayn Rand because she is contemporary?
Those are the only two apparent, objective, reasons to differentiate her from the set.

[flem]

GREAT analogy, bro. The two scenarios are completely analogous..

But I'll play, I pick Ayn Rand, because she is a woman? Or Ayn Rand because she is contemporary?
Those are the only two apparent, objective, reasons to differentiate her from the set.

Iseewhaturdoin

[Band A Long]

Here's a better explanation that I'd care to type here:http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ ... tence.html

Rand illustrates the perils of being an amateur philosopher. By the way, the difference between a professional and an amateur philosopher is not the difference between one who makes money from philosophy and one who does not. It is the difference between one whose work meets a certain standard of competence and rigor, and one whose work does not. Spinoza and Schopenhauer were professional philosophers despite their not making money from philosophy; Ayn Rand and plenty of hack philosophy teachers are amateurs who nonetheless made money from philosophy.

[99.9luft]

I think a useful way to think of this is whether we would classify Camus, Huxley, etc. as philosophers befitting this category. While they certainly write philosophical fiction and have a body of essays explicating the ideas found in their fiction, they are not of the heft of the ones otherwise listed. They are not philosophers per se in the same sense.

EDIT: For fuck's sake, Rand isn't even in the same class as those 2 I mentioned.

Exactly, Camus is a good example - like Foucault. I wonder how much of our definition of a philosopher is relative and how much is set in our historical bias (maybe the reason these two aren't widely considered philosophers but just social theorists is partially due to modernity's bias, or maybe because of smth else, je ne sais quoi).

[albusdumbledore]

GREAT analogy, bro. The two scenarios are completely analogous..

But I'll play, I pick Ayn Rand, because she is a woman? Or Ayn Rand because she is contemporary?
Those are the only two apparent, objective, reasons to differentiate her from the set.

This is a long read, but it's worth it: http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas

Some highlights:

St. Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both.

Rand clearly thought of herself as one of these creators. In an interview with Mike Wallace she declared herself "the most creative thinker alive." That was in 1957, when Arendt, Quine, Sartre, Camus, Lukács, Adorno, Murdoch, Heidegger, Beauvoir, Rawls, Anscombe and Popper were all at work.

Rand "has a very interesting philosophy," says Angelina Jolie. "You re-evaluate your own life and what's important to you." The Fountainhead "is so dense and complex," marvels Brad Pitt, "it would have to be a six-hour movie." (The 1949 film version has a running time of 113 minutes, and it feels long.) Christina Ricci claims that The Fountainhead is her favorite book because it taught her that "you're not a bad person if you don't love everyone." Rob Lowe boasts that Atlas Shrugged is "a stupendous achievement, and I just adore it." And any boyfriend of Eva Mendes, the actress says, "has to be an Ayn Rand fan."

When playing the part of the Philosopher, Rand liked to claim Aristotle as her tutor. "Never have so many"—uncharacteristically, she included herself here—"owed so much to one man." It's not clear how much of Aristotle's work Rand actually read: when she wasn't quoting Galt, she had a habit of attributing to the Greek philosopher statements and ideas that don't appear in any of his writings.

[Tom Joad]

I will never get a boner to Eva Mendes again.

DELETED

Ok, nevermind.

[flem]

Rand "has a very interesting philosophy," says Angelina Jolie. "You re-evaluate your own life and what's important to you." The Fountainhead "is so dense and complex," marvels Brad Pitt, "it would have to be a six-hour movie." (The 1949 film version has a running time of 113 minutes, and it feels long.) Christina Ricci claims that The Fountainhead is her favorite book because it taught her that "you're not a bad person if you don't love everyone." Rob Lowe boasts that Atlas Shrugged is "a stupendous achievement, and I just adore it." And any boyfriend of Eva Mendes, the actress says, "has to be an Ayn Rand fan."

Some of the deepest thinkers of our time seem to have high respect for her, so I guess I'll change my opinion.

[99.9luft]

oh no! not Eva Mendes...you stupid gorgeous woman...

[stillwater]

I think a useful way to think of this is whether we would classify Camus, Huxley, etc. as philosophers befitting this category. While they certainly write philosophical fiction and have a body of essays explicating the ideas found in their fiction, they are not of the heft of the ones otherwise listed. They are not philosophers per se in the same sense.

EDIT: For fuck's sake, Rand isn't even in the same class as those 2 I mentioned.

Exactly, Camus is a good example - like Foucault. I wonder how much of our definition of a philosopher is relative and how much is set in our historical bias (maybe the reason these two aren't widely considered philosophers but just social theorists is partially due to modernity's bias, or maybe because of smth else, je ne sais quoi).

Foucault's style actually reminds me a lot of Nietzsche in the sense they are both polemical writers, outside the dominant strain of analytic philosophy of their times.

[Mal Reynolds]

Actually, Ayn Rand bashing is a positive turn for this thread.

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

A lot of the questions on LSAT are made by analytic philosophers. Dudes like Wittgeinstein and Russell would unequivocally DOMINATE this test.

[soj]

It wouldn't be TLS if a thread about philosophy didn't immediately devolve into an argument about Ayn Rand complete with trolls and white knights.

[Joeshan520]

I was so tempted to add Leibniz or Russell instead of Rand, but knowing TLS I had to put Rand to spark controversy. Her philosophy is completely subpar and at best muddled Aristotelian premises with strands of Nietzschean self-interest (minus the anti-reason sentiments). Hilarious.

--ImageRemoved--

[99.9luft]

I think a useful way to think of this is whether we would classify Camus, Huxley, etc. as philosophers befitting this category. While they certainly write philosophical fiction and have a body of essays explicating the ideas found in their fiction, they are not of the heft of the ones otherwise listed. They are not philosophers per se in the same sense.

EDIT: For fuck's sake, Rand isn't even in the same class as those 2 I mentioned.

Exactly, Camus is a good example - like Foucault. I wonder how much of our definition of a philosopher is relative and how much is set in our historical bias (maybe the reason these two aren't widely considered philosophers but just social theorists is partially due to modernity's bias, or maybe because of smth else, je ne sais quoi).

Foucault's style actually reminds me a lot of Nietzsche in the sense they are both polemical writers, outside the dominant strain of analytic philosophy of their times.

I can see that. Also, I read "the rebel" right after "on the genealogy of morals" and I remember liking Nietzsche's style a little better, even though both were good reads.

[soj]

I was so tempted to add Leibniz or Russell instead of Rand, but knowing TLS I had to put Rand to spark controversy. Her philosophy is completely subpar and at best muddled Aristotelian premises with strands of Nietzschean self-interest (minus the anti-reason sentiments). Hilarious.

--ImageRemoved--

[RedBirds2011]

Novelist- a person who writes novels. Lmao

The writer of that piece claims she is not a novelist or philosopher. Considering how well her books sold, I'm pretty sure we can call her at least a novelist.

I agree with a lot of what this guy says in his criticisms but the problem is he is pretending that, just because he doesn't like her, that she is not a novelist? This argument is getting really dumb.

[99.9luft]

It wouldn't be TLS if a thread about philosophy didn't immediately devolve into an argument about Ayn Rand complete with trolls and white knights.

that's right (since apparently Rand's comments about being the greatest alive make her a philosophy troll).

[stillwater]

Novelist- a person who writes novels. Lmao

The writer of that piece claims she is not a novelist or philosopher. Considering how well her books sold, I'm pretty sure we can call her at least a novelist.

I agree with a lot of what this guy says in his criticisms but the problem is he is pretending that, just because he doesn't like her, that she is not a novelist? This argument is getting really dumb.

I understand what you are saying, but would you call Bill O'Reilly a historian bc he wrote a history?

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

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).

[RedBirds2011]

Rand "has a very interesting philosophy," says Angelina Jolie. "You re-evaluate your own life and what's important to you." The Fountainhead "is so dense and complex," marvels Brad Pitt, "it would have to be a six-hour movie." (The 1949 film version has a running time of 113 minutes, and it feels long.) Christina Ricci claims that The Fountainhead is her favorite book because it taught her that "you're not a bad person if you don't love everyone." Rob Lowe boasts that Atlas Shrugged is "a stupendous achievement, and I just adore it." And any boyfriend of Eva Mendes, the actress says, "has to be an Ayn Rand fan."

Some of the deepest thinkers of our time seem to have high respect for her, so I guess I'll change my opinion.

Smart people liked her too. Alan Greenspan for one. And yes I know recently he went back on some of it but I'm just playing devils advocate here. I don't think brad Pitt liked her, therefore she isn't real is a good argument lol

[Joeshan520]

The greatest philosopher of ALL TIME.

[RedBirds2011]

Novelist- a person who writes novels. Lmao

The writer of that piece claims she is not a novelist or philosopher. Considering how well her books sold, I'm pretty sure we can call her at least a novelist.

I agree with a lot of what this guy says in his criticisms but the problem is he is pretending that, just because he doesn't like her, that she is not a novelist? This argument is getting really dumb.

I understand what you are saying, but would you call Bill O'Reilly a historian bc he wrote a history?

Different. I don't think one needs a PhD in novel writing to be qualified as a novelist lol usually writing a book that sells is sufficient in my book lol

[flem]

Smart people with an agenda like her too.

FTFY