Who Is Your Favorite Philosopher?

Comte De Maistre

[Reeses]

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 agree this is what a liberal would say, but that is not what they think. Liberals are very racist but need to project this dirty thought onto others. They also think that if you say a lie enough times it can become the truth. Liberals are convinced of their genetic superiority, they think they won the genetic lottery, and are in love with themselves but must constantly reaffirm their justification for this love.

Plato was an idealist. He started with ideas and worked his way back towards reality. Plato is the prototypical liberal.

[KC Burke]

Thanks for the ping, x.

Reeses says:
Plato was an idealist. He started with ideas and worked his way back towards reality. Plato is the prototypical liberal

...which may well be true as I am not well versed on Plato, but what about his understanding of the limits of greek democracy and the solid recourse to Order and Virtue by his alternatives...sounds kind of like a lot of fellows I know.

I'm afraid that I've had a long aversion to true philosophers. I have some solid reading of Burke, Rand, Kirk and others mentioned, but for true philosophers I'm afraid that Locke was my only exposure. I do know enough to feel that Strauss's subtext issues with many of them does have a lot of merit.

[ztiworoh]

Classical liberal that is, Plato believed that mankind does have inherent rights to free choice.

A modern liberal, be it through misguided egalitarianism or a Huey Long-esque populist quest for power, espouses equality not only of rights but of economic and social situation.

Some Conservatives, especially the social conservative movenment, aswell are convinced of their superiority though not through genetics but through morality. They espouse this moral superiority as a justification of why they should hold power. They too have a sense of egalitarianism directed towards the soul instead of the earthly situation of the person as the liberal aims.

My personal views are that with input from the people either the strongest will prevail or the civilization will be led into self destruction, be it by ignoring their own defense or by a collapse of the social structures within. Thus, the most powerful nations are those whose people have chosen the leaders the best and whose populus have supported their nation either by rising to leadership or working and sustaining the economy.

[headsonpikes]

Re: Heidegger.

My introduction to Heidegger was throught the amusingly mischievous book 'German Existentialism', consisting of Heidegger's edicts as Rector of a University(Heidelburg?) under the Nazi regime. It was assembled by an English philosopher after WWII.

This was red meat to a young analytical Engish-language philosophy undergrad. ;^)

[Helms]

Magician of Messkirch, Rector of Freiberg University

[tortoise]

Even Laz Long probably couldn't measure up to what RAH expected from humanity.

I think it was less that he expected perfection from humans so much as he expected them to constantly strive for it in all things. I think as he got older he became impatient with the fact that humans are a profoundly lazy species with only a very limited desire for excellence. I feel the same way most days.

No philosopher is perfect, but off the top of my head Heinlein espoused a philosophy that I agree with in all the fundamental aspects and so I named him. From a purely stylistic standpoint, I appreciate the fact that his writing generally didn't wax eloquent about abstract nonsense like most philosophers.

[Reeses]

Social conservative movenment ... espouse this moral superiority as a justification of why they should hold power. The most powerful nations are those whose people have chosen the leaders the best and whose populus have supported their nation either by rising to leadership or working and sustaining the economy.

Social conservatives might be better named fundamentalists. Anyone that wants to wield high levels of power over others is a big government lover. They are just in dispute with liberals over the kind of big government.

It's a law of human nature that as institutions age they slowly to move to the left until they go bankrupt. This is true of businesses, universities, nations, any organization involving multiple humans over time. Britain is an older country, hence it is ahead of us on the road to bankruptcy. We are not far behind though, and the day will come that America as we knew will not exist. Our current power and wealth has more to do with resources and having less socialism. It has nothing to do with picking the "best" or smartest or most genetically gifted leaders. People vote for the leader that will give them the most benefits, either in the form of a check from the government or a reduction in taxes. There is no best or worst in that, just differing self interest. The only thing that delays our bankruptcy is improving technology. We need to balance the march towards socialism with improving technology. If only we could invent cold fusion we could afford socialism. The trick is to do that before we get too far to the left, or we end up like the USSR.

[TEXASPROUD]

Marcus Arelius and Thomas More. Yes, I know ole Marcus went after the Christians, but I think he got some bad information.

[FenianOfEire]

Nietzsche

[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."

Are you a liar? Or do you just fabricate things in your Posts?

PS. I find your Posts neither 'provacative' nor 'educational'.

[ztiworoh]

I actually agree with you on many points, However, Plato and in someways to a greater degree Strauss provide a prescription for this so-called "inevitable" move to the left. It is understood that intellectuals will rely so heavily on reason that they will come to the conclusion that the traditional institutions of a culture are archaic, that religion is merely a fairy tale etc... Whether or not this is true is left to theological debate, but a look at the state of Academia in America shows that many intellectuals have come to these conclusions. Strauss points out that it is the natural drive of an intellectual to share his new found knowledge, but in doing so you expose knowledge to the average man who is not able to deal with it. Although some may see Nietzche's statement that "God is Dead" as a profound philosophical statement, if Nietchze had told that to farmers or laborers of his day he would have either a) devistated the people by destroying their moral and social foundations or b) gotten himself wither killed or ostracized from the community. Strauss believes that philosophers and other intellectuals should continue their persuits of knowledge but write in an esoteric fashion thus making the knowledge available but only to those intelligent enough to find it and thus deal with it. This continues the pursuit of knowledge but still maintains structure for society so that it continues to function

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

A quick google search shows that it was Ayn Rand's husband, Frank O'Conner, who was the alcoholic. Her lover, Nathaniel Branden, was also married. After Branden broke off the affair, Rand publically cut off all ties with him, writing a 6-page essay in her newsletter, in which she repudiated both Branden and his wife.

Part of the story can be found here.

[headsonpikes]

Thanks loads for sending this interesting thread to the SBR.

[DoctorMichael]

Actually I know of all this because I have read BOTH Nathaniel Branden's kiss and tell biography, JUDGEMENT DAY, and likewise his wife's biography THE PASSION OF AYN RAND. I was not mentioning these because I was still waiting for the liar 'annyokie' to give me a source and explain her comment..........

"Ayn Rand was an alchoholic nutbag."

Did you read my Post #86 where I stated..........
"I absorbed everything (And I mean EVERYTHING!) Ayn Rand had written during my early to mid-20's."

Let me amend THAT: "I have absorbed probably everything (And I mean EVERYTHING!) either written ABOUT or BY Ayn Rand.

Have you also read the responce (Post #81) 'annyokie' wrote to 'The Drowning Witch'?

Is there anything else I can help you with?

[DoctorMichael]

De nada.

[beckett]

It is well known that Rand was a pill freak, addicted to uppers for decades. It may be true that her alcohol consumption did not match her husband's, but her cigarette and pill habits were gargantuan.

In the final days of her life one of her last friends (the rest were long gone), Joan Blumenthal, asked her to renounce her position on tobacco, and retract such remarks as "To be anti-smoking is to be anti-life!" Rand knew that many Objectivists smoked as a sort of honorific to her. At that time Rand had just had half a lung removed due to smoking induced lung cancer. She knew she had been wrong about cigarettes. Blumenthal said, "Many people still smoke because they respect you and respect your assessment of the evidence. [Rand deplored the "unscientific and irrational" nature of statistical evidence] Since you no longer smoke, you ought to tell them. You needn't mention the lung cancer if you prefer not to, you can simply say you've reconsidered the evidence." Ayn refused. "It's no one business," she said.

What kind of philosopher is that? There are dozens of similar tales in her life story -- hundreds in fact. You think Little Billy Clinton has trouble admitting error? He is a piker compared to Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand got a few important things right, but her overall she was a brilliant nutjob whose views about reason and human nature are hopelessly stunted. As many have said, if she'd had a child, avoided the affair with Branden and stayed off pills, she might have made a true contribution to epistemology. As it is, though, her "philosophy" is an empty husk with only occasional relevance to life as it is really lived.

[annyokie]

Relax, Mike. IMHO Ayn Rand is a fraud and everything I have read about her rings that true. If you want to worship her, g'head, as they say back East. I dislike her books and her hedonist philosophy. So be it.

Victor Frankl, rock on.

[DoctorMichael]

You think Little Billy Clinton has trouble admitting error? He is a piker compared to Ayn Rand.

Did you EVEN bother to read my Post? I never said she didn't. You really ought to try researching things first before trying to lecture other people.

Ayn Rand got a few important things right, but her overall she was a brilliant nutjob whose views about reason and human nature are hopelessly stunted

Once again I nerver said she wasn't immmature. In fact if you even bothered to read my Post you would see that I had said............

The older I get, the more critical of her I get. She was very 'Obsessive' in a abnormal-psych way.

I'd, once again really appreciate you're properly knowing the background before you open your mouth. Liberal elitists like Clinton loved to lecture people too because THEY always knew best. I guess you fall into that catagory.

[DoctorMichael]

You still haven't answered my question as to your source.

[Helms]

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!

KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS POST-AYN RAND IS A LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE!