Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT Forum

[RedBirds2011]

Jesus would get a 190 on the LSAT

[RedBirds2011]

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.

Lolwut?

[Campagnolo]

Where does MARTIN HEIDEGGER go on this list?

Right damn near the top, unquestionably.

Are you trolling or serious?

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

clearly you haven't read being and time.

I feel Being and Time, although one work, counts as two, per the title.

As for reasons, 3, 4, and 5:

3: He has the deepest understanding of exactly what it is to be a human in the world in the way I don't think no one else has, not even Kant. When you read about readiness to hand and dasein, you can't help but see that this is the proper way to think about our own experiences.

4: His reading of Aristotle is unmatched. In particular, his understanding of Metaphysics Book Z is just crazy. I struggled literally for an entire year with book Z, and it took about a week of Heidegger to make it all click into place.

5: He is, I think, the first person to really get beyond metatphysics. Nietzsche tried, he saw the problem quite clearly, but Heidegger took him up and went all the way.

Whatever his personal failings, he was a great figure in our tradition.

To the things themselves!

[Lyov Myshkin]

hume was, i believe, the first to argue that causation was inductively derived (through correlation) and kant's first critique is dedicated to trying to prove the validity of deriving causality as a general cognitive rule.

the nietzsche/rand comment was intended to be taken as a hypothetical and non-literal statement.

at least, i hope one would tend to interpret it that way. after all, we are currently discussing who, hypothetically and non-literally would have scored best on the lsat from a set of philosophers who couldn't have possibly have taken the lsat.

[stillwater]

I feel Being and Time, although one work, counts as two, per the title.

As for reasons, 3, 4, and 5:

3: He has the deepest understanding of exactly what it is to be a human in the world in the way I don't think no one else has, not even Kant. When you read about readiness to hand and dasein, you can't help but see that this is the proper way to think about our own experiences.

4: His reading of Aristotle is unmatched. In particular, his understanding of Metaphysics Book Z is just crazy. I struggled literally for an entire year with book Z, and it took about a week of Heidegger to make it all click into place.

5: He is, I think, the first person to really get beyond metatphysics. Nietzsche tried, he saw the problem quite clearly, but Heidegger took him up and went all the way.

Whatever his personal failings, he was a great figure in our tradition.

To the things themselves!

Heidegger also has a bunch of excellent essays (on art, technology, etc.). I think his work on Technology is actually brilliant and particularly relevant today.

[jkpolk]

I feel Being and Time, although one work, counts as two, per the title.

As for reasons, 3, 4, and 5:

3: He has the deepest understanding of exactly what it is to be a human in the world in the way I don't think no one else has, not even Kant. When you read about readiness to hand and dasein, you can't help but see that this is the proper way to think about our own experiences.

4: His reading of Aristotle is unmatched. In particular, his understanding of Metaphysics Book Z is just crazy. I struggled literally for an entire year with book Z, and it took about a week of Heidegger to make it all click into place.

5: He is, I think, the first person to really get beyond metatphysics. Nietzsche tried, he saw the problem quite clearly, but Heidegger took him up and went all the way.

Whatever his personal failings, he was a great figure in our tradition.

To the things themselves!

Heidegger also has a bunch of excellent essays (on art, technology, etc.). I think his work on Technology is actually brilliant and particularly relevant today.

If anyone in this thread actually understands being and time i'd be the MOST impressed.

[PARTY]

I feel Being and Time, although one work, counts as two, per the title.

As for reasons, 3, 4, and 5:

3: He has the deepest understanding of exactly what it is to be a human in the world in the way I don't think no one else has, not even Kant. When you read about readiness to hand and dasein, you can't help but see that this is the proper way to think about our own experiences.

4: His reading of Aristotle is unmatched. In particular, his understanding of Metaphysics Book Z is just crazy. I struggled literally for an entire year with book Z, and it took about a week of Heidegger to make it all click into place.

5: He is, I think, the first person to really get beyond metatphysics. Nietzsche tried, he saw the problem quite clearly, but Heidegger took him up and went all the way.

Whatever his personal failings, he was a great figure in our tradition.

To the things themselves!

Heidegger also has a bunch of excellent essays (on art, technology, etc.). I think his work on Technology is actually brilliant and particularly relevant today.

If anyone in this thread actually understands being and time i'd be the MOST impressed.

what's not to understand?

[jkpolk]

what's not to understand?

is that a phenomenological question? if so, you win a cookie.

[PARTY]

what's not to understand?

is that a phenomenological question? if so, you win a cookie.

[stillwater]

what's not to understand?

is that a phenomenological question? if so, you win a cookie.

Speaking of which, Hegel's The Phenomenology of the Spirit is another one that goes down smooth.

[Campagnolo]

what's not to understand?

is that a phenomenological question? if so, you win a cookie.

That's a metaphysical question, and clearly off limits.

I don't understand Being in Time very well, as I mostly focused on his work on the Greeks. Still, he's very powerful.

As for taking the LSAT, I think we are maybe going about this the wrong way. Heidegger is just as likely to say that, for him, the test had no use, and therefore does not exist for him as a thing. It exists, but has no meaning for him.

Plato would argue that the LSAT is merely derivative of the best possible law school entrance exam, and would work on crafting that instead.

Aristotle would have no problem acing the LSAT, and would do so.

Hume would be too busy playing backgammon and smoking stogies to care about the LSAT.

Kant would never get to the testing center if it weren't in Königsberg, though if it were in Königsberg he would walk to the site and be perfectly punctual.

I think maybe the title must go to Descartes. He was trained as a lawyer, after all, and so clearly rocked the pre-1991 LSAT.

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

what's not to understand?

Then answer me one question:

What's the thesis of Being and Time?

[Borhas]

I think Rand's the only one who could read English so probably her

[99.9luft]

I think Rand's the only one who could read English so probably her

she was not a native English speaker, though (aside from being a hack - see earlier posts)

[RedBirds2011]

I think Rand's the only one who could read English so probably her

she was not a native English speaker, though (aside from being a hack - see earlier posts)

Lol don't get this started again.

[stillwater]

I think Rand's the only one who could read English so probably her

Wittgenstein taught at Cambridge. I think he could handle the LSAT (while mindfucking the shit out of it). And Richard Rorty knows that English as well.

[99.9luft]

I think Rand's the only one who could read English so probably her

she was not a native English speaker, though (aside from being a hack - see earlier posts)

Lol don't get this started again.

you're right, I should stop. okay, last one...

[Joeshan520]

Heidegger=master sophistry=creation of own cogent language

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

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

[Campagnolo]

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

It's foolish to try and sum up Being and Time here, but I'll try anyways. Being and Time tries to unite our varied senses, perceptions, and faculties into a unified being that reflects the way we actually experience the world. To do this, he picks up Husserl's concept of intentionality and the pre-theoretical conditions necessary for intentionality.

I think I've done a pretty fair amount of defending Heidegger here. Why do you find him to be such a putz?

[stillwater]

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

It's foolish to try and sum up Being and Time here, but I'll try anyways. Being and Time tries to unite our varied senses, perceptions, and faculties into a unified being that reflects the way we actually experience the world. To do this, he picks up Husserl's concept of intentionality and the pre-theoretical conditions necessary for intentionality.

I think I've done a pretty fair amount of defending Heidegger here. Why do you find him to be such a putz?

The true putz here is Rand.

[bceagles182]

Mill.

[Joeshan520]

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

--ImageRemoved--

[angrybird]

poll needs more teilhard de chardin

[bruss]

Dang it voted for kant because I didn't see Aristotle. Aristotle would easily dominate this test. He is the reason why we are able to have this test.