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.
The Republic is always worth reading as an allegory illustrating Plato's ideas of truth, justice and the good. It shouldn't simply be vilified, since it has much to teach us about those concepts. And a conservative thinker like Richard Weaver learned much from Plato's emphasis on the eternal values. There was an interesting recent thread on ten great books.
As you note, though, Plato's ideal country "does not mesh completely with American values." Indeed, there's much in the Republic that, taken as purely practical advice, would rightly repel us. I don't think we can or should simply throw out Plato. He's a vital link in the chain of Western ideas. But I do think Aristotle and other thinkers have more to teach us about practical political questions. I would to some extent agree that Plato can show us a vision of the common good, not found in many modern libertarians, but it's a vision that's already entered into our culture and found other theorists closer to us in their sentiments and loyalties.
What I notice in American conservatism is a recent movement away from the transcendent to the more practical. I don't think one can identify the transcendent wholly with Plato, but it would be a good idea to keep reading him so we don't lose touch with that side of our existence. It's not good to think that one can realize dreams, but also not so good for people to think they can stop dreaming or live wholly in the practical sphere.
How could I not read it? You used one inch characters in red to make your point. I responded because you seemed to be claiming that a charge of alcoholism against Rand was somehow outlandish. On the contrary, her addiction to pills and her marriage to an alcoholic make the charge completely understandable, even though, as I said, she may not have consumed as much alcohol as her husband. In AA jargon, Rand was a classic enabler suffering just as severely as Frank did from the "disease" of alcoholism. Sometimes, as in Rand's case, enablers have mood altering addictions of their own.
As for the rest of the stuff you wrote, it's not worth responding to. Out of proportion hostility is a sign of a little mind.
Yes, they are very good. Rand gets a lot of her philosophy from Thomas Hobbes. Read Study Leviathan, it is an amazing book... I have used it here on Free Republic... see my homepage...
Aristotle's Poetics is very important. See my FR homepage and some of my links there, you will see why...
Not saying that it's right, but Rand and Branden had their affair with the full knowledge of their spouses. Bill (and who knows about Hillary) tried to keep them secret. That is, he was never forthright about them to Hillary. Nobody I know that admires Rand thinks that what Ayn and Nathan sis was A-OK. It was foolish, stupid, and damaging to their nascent movement. What it shows is that, even with the best ideas, people are not perfect and often irrational.
Now, here is something ironic: Many here are all gung-ho about Heinlein. Yet, in a few of his books (The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls are two that leap to mind) Heinlein discussed in very favorable terms the idea of families with coopted husbands and wives. That is, a family with a ruling matriarch or patriarch that rules over a household with several wives and husbands. Conjugal unions are voluntary, but you can bet plenty of swapping went on, even though it was all within the family and between wedded partners. Heinlein spoke of such arrangements in almost glowing terms. Heinlein also liked to write about randy old men (married men) gettin' it on (or readily willing to) with barely pubescent young women. (Check out I Will Fear No Evil for some especially kinky fun.) No fan of Heinlein that I'm aware of has touched these subjects on this board.
No, Heinlein presented several family structures where you can have your cake and eat most of it, too. It's almost as if he put out a blueprint to show how Rand and Branden could have done it if they were "smart." But, for some reason, Heinlein's writing in these areas never quite surface on FreeRepublic.
I love Heinlein. He's an American original who knew how to push envelopes, buttons, and touch upon taboos. He promoted rugged individualism and less intrusive government. But there is a side to his writing that many people here would find as distasteful as Rand's own shortcomings-- if they ever bothered to bring it up. But folks, seemingly, will overlook it Heinlein but not in Rand.
Robert Heinlein: A Reader's Companion is a must for Heinlein fans!
A public school product, no doubt.
Oh, if you can't spell english, that's what is referred to as SEMI LITERATE.<P.Probably a drunk, anyway.;-0
Well thats too damn bad about it isn't it.
If you can't back up your assertions then why are you making them?
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.