Philosopher's Highest Score on the LSAT Forum

[RedBirds2011]

Smart people with an agenda like her too.

FTFY

And the people who disagree dont? Everybody has an agenda, breh.

[smaug_]

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.

[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).

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.

Very cogent, brother.

[charliep]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

On the LSAT, David Foster Wallace would DOMINATE any other novelist you can name.

[Tom Joad]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

[dowu]

[stillwater]

We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.

[Band A Long]

2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates

That's not a very good reason. Aristotle thought there was æther, heavier things fall faster, etc. + Naturalistic fallacy

But really she still sucks and those are all solid impromptu reasons

[charliep]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

On the LSAT, David Foster Wallace would DOMINATE any other novelist you can name.

lewis carroll wrote a book called "symbolic logic," and he lays down mathematical allegories like a motherfucker

[charliep]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)

[Band A Long]

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

Let me help:

1. retake

[Tom Joad]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)

Well I don't think Dostoevsky was dumb. I just think he used his smart brain to make up bullshit for smart people.

[99.9luft]

2) Her disdain for altruism runs against studies that show altruistic behavior in primates

That's not a very good reason. Aristotle thought there was æther, heavier things fall faster, etc. + Naturalistic fallacy

But really she still sucks and those are all solid impromptu reasons

also, if i remember correctly, her arguments in Atlas had too many false dichotomies and straw man fallacies.

[99.9luft]

if we're gonna add novelists, dostoevsky must be one of them

Oh man, this thread is reaching TLS lows.

cant the same be said for your avatar? (full disclosure: i like your avatar)

Well I don't think Dostoevsky was dumb. I just think he used his smart brain to make up bullshit for smart people.

that's a good business model for novelists, i feel.

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.

Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?

[Minesweeper]

Charles Sanders Pierce would be right up there. From the list, I'd say Witt.

Also, Noam Chomsky.

[stillwater]

We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.

Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?

Franzen is probably one of the first novelists I would go after.

[ams212]

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.

[Campagnolo]

I said Aristotle. In terms of raw intellectual horsepower, dude was a thoroughbred.

[dowu]

I said Aristotle. In terms of raw intellectual horsepower, dude was a thoroughbred.

+1. Dude had his hands in every subject.

[RedBirds2011]

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.

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.

[Micdiddy]

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.

[Micdiddy]

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.

Wow, this strikes me as an interesting post because it sounds extremely like something Rand herself would say and accuse other people of. How are her premises skewed? If she were convinced of the fact, she would likely have happily altered them.

[Micdiddy]

We are expressly NOT adding novelists. For our purposes today, novelist=hack.

Are you calling JONATHAN FRANZEN a hack little breh?

Franzen is probably one of the first novelists I would go after.

Are you calling TONI MORRISON a hack brosef-with-the-mostef?