Posted on 06/25/2003 5:57:42 PM PDT by 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
Part of the story can be found here.
"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?
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.
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.
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!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.