Who Is Your Favorite Philosopher?

Comte De Maistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

That was the question that George W. was asked in the 2000 campaign. Unfortunately, the questioner failed to provide a precise definition of how to define a philosopher.

A useful definition of a philosopher is anybody who has ever written a book on ideas. Anybody. Whether he is an economist, theologian, politician, mathematician, soldier, boxer, musician, historian, artist, psychologist, sociologist, anthropologist, biologist, physicist, athlete, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, I do recognize Yogi Berra as a notable philosopher. Even Barry Goldwater, notwithstanding the fact that his book, "Conscience of a Conservative" was ghost-written for him.

Certainly, if some of the well-read freepers know of philosophers noted for conservative ideas, their contributions are certainly welcome.

For my part, my favorite philosopher is the anti-enlightenment thinker, Joseph de Maistre (also known as Comte de Maistre). I regard him as the most authentic conservative intellectual of all time. Reading his works made me realize how the spread of moral relativism can endanger civilization.

[farmfriend]

Jesus.

Didn't Bush get in trouble for that?

[wolfman]

Ben Franklin and Samuel Clement

[BradyLS]

Rand never formally laid out her Philosophy of Objectivism. But her followers of have done a good job of distilling the essence of it. I recommend a book called the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

[SkyPilot]

Philosophers tell you things you already know in language (they hope) you do not understand.

Christ used plain language when He talked to the people.

[BradyLS]

Virtue of Selfishness and The Ayn Rand Lexicon spell everything out. Give 'em a read, even if you never read them again or agree with her views.

[BradyLS]

She had a young man, lover, whom she betrayed and abused, both verbally and physichaly. (My spelling is terrible, forgive me.) She was married before to an older man whom she betrayed with her dalliances.

Ayn was a very plain (being charitable) woman who nevertheless married a handosme B-actor and carried on an affair with Nathaniel Branden a successful psychiatrist. Both betrayed their spouses (Frank O'Connor died an alcoholic over the affair and Barbara Branden, herself very beautiful, lost her husband to Ayn and several "trophies.")

Ayn and her circle (including now Fed Chairmain Alan Greenspan) was a remarkable group pf super-intelligent and successful people. To see Ayn, one would not describe her as anything approaching attracive. Yet to hear her speak and promote her ideas, even with a thick Russian accent, virtually transformed her into a mesmorizing siren that two men fell hard for.

In that way, she was very much like Napoleon, who, though plain and unimposing in appearance, could rein over even the strong-willed with the force of his personality and undeniable intellect.

I've sometimes wondered, when reading about these two, if someohow Ayn were not the the grand or great-grandaughter of some Russian woman Napoleon may have bedded during his campaign in Russia. Probably not, but it's fun to speculate about...

[DoctorMichael]

"She had a young man, lover, whom she betrayed and abused, both verbally and physichaly. (My spelling is terrible, forgive me.) She was married before to an older man whom she betrayed with her dalliances."

None of this supports your first statement which I believe to be a fabrication and a lie....................

"Ayn Rand was an alchoholic nutbag."

[justshutupandtakeit]

For range of subject and srtistic presentation-Plato.

For emotional releash and identification- Nietzsche

[Sam's Army]

Jesus Christ

Marcus Aurelius

Albert Camus

Thorsten Veblen

General Patton

[beckett]

...Nathaniel Branden a successful psychiatrist.

While I don't share them, you're entitled to your views on Rand, of course. But please don't think me too picayune for correcting your description of Branden. He is not even a licensed psychologist with an accredited degree, let alone a psychiatrist. The "father of self-esteem" obtained his "psychology degree" from a non-accredited diploma factory by virtue of some haphazard lecture tapes he threw together from his days at NBI (Nathaniel Branden Institute). I don't believe Branden ever actually received his undergraduate degree from NYU, the last school he attended, let alone jumped through all the hoops a psychiatrist must jump through.

There are some other dubious assertions in your post, but that was the one that jumped out at me the most.

[headsonpikes]

Who?

For mental stimulation - Nietsche.

For clarity of thought - Wittgenstein.

For common sense - Locke.

For 'philosophical disposition' - Epictetus.

(de Maistre?!?!?) Who's your second favorite....de Sade?)

[Phaedrus]

Yogi Berra

[Phaedrus]

;-}

[Hat-Trick]

1. Jesus Christ
2. Ranger Captain Augustus McRae

[Reeses]

the ruling class is based on a combination of cunning and inteligence. Plato realized that although there are equal rights inherent to people, that does not mean all men are endowed with an equal chance. He resolved that some people are meant to be workers and some are meant to be thinkers. The workers maintain the economic level of the country while the intellectuals maintain policy, strategy, and law.

This is leftist thought. I’m convinced the root of this flawed thinking is narcissism. People who believe this are elitist. They reach out to help the “little people beneath them” as an ongoing process of proving their superiority to themselves and others thereby justifying their love. The Clintons are textbook examples of this mental disorder.

Conservatives believe people are smart enough to decide for themselves how best to spend their hard earned money. They know their own situation better than any self-loving intellectual a thousand miles away in Washington. They can decide best how to live and do not need or want meddling from big government politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers.

ztiworoh, you just may be a liberal.

[rdb3]

But, of course he did.

[Helms]

How about least liked philosopher?:

Heidegger (note Hitlerian moustache) never “got it”, nor have the Germans and especially the French

[ztiworoh]

No, I don't believe this is to be enforced ala leftist principles, what Im saying is that it is inevitable that some people are born with a predisposition to a certain type of skill, some people are intelligent but physically weak, some are physically strong but not deep thinkers.

Some people will inevitably rise to the top, Plato realized this and believed that the egalitarianism, though often good intentioned (which is what comes from some leftists who believe they are doing the right thing by forcing equality)is also going against nature and thus does not work.

Leftists and liberals are usually idealists, trying to make everyone fit, using the government to further this misguided view of a utopia in which everyone is equal not only in rights but in position and stature. I believe that there is a disparity between all people caused by nature and by personal choice, some will be better than others, those who rise to the top deserve it. This is in no way a liberal view, possibly in the tradition of a classical liberal, but not a modern socialist liberal. A modern liberal would say that this disparity was caused not by genetic differences but by society and thus can be changed through social programs backed by the government. I am completely against this idea, instead Im am much more of a realist and basically believe we should let the chips fall as they may.

[yankeedog]

1.)Nietzsche
2.)Montaigne
3.)Walker Percy