Niccolo Machiavelli... sometimes you just have to do violent things in order to achieve greatness.

Same as ICE. Voltaire rocks.

"Everything to stupid to be said is sung."
His stuff is relevant years and years after his death.

Haha Westcoast. The avatar and single word response make a funny impression.

I like Voltaire. Mostly because he seems to always be concise.

Myself.

Right now Foucault and Agamben
I like Foucault because of his extensive studies of social practices and institutions and his works on biopower. Agamaben is also amazing because he is still alive. That is not to meant to marginalize any philosophers who are no longer alive but because Agamben can actual study and write on things that are actually occurring right now. Agamben, like Foucault, looks at power and the law but writes about the reduction of people to bare, biological life. He also talks about the state of exception where the law no longer applies. All of these concepts are given modern day parallels such as post-9/11 where every constitional violation is justified by the "war on terror", how there are links between totalitarianism and democracy, and the status of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Then you should have left Thoreau off. Talk about a nut.

I wanted Locke and Rand up there but it only lets you put so many options.

Locke was awesome. Nietzsche was a nut. He influenced Hitler.

John Locke should be on the list. He is one of the single greatst minds ever.

Ayn Rand should also be there. Anyone who thinks differently is ignorant or foolish.

From the list, Kierkegaard. Off the list, Kant.

voltaire

Plato.

Because he reminds me of playdough.

Mine were Voltaire followed closely by Nietzsche... I haven't read too many things from the others, and I've never even heard of Kierkegaard...

I have to say, I prefer Eastern philosophers. Lao Tzu, Confucious and Hagakure I would suggest reading. Also the Rules of Saint Benedict. Not the most thrilling read, but it is good for working out rules for community living.

I like aristotle because he teaches the hierarchy of good and the morals we can have. Plato was good when he gave the allegory of the cave. We compared it with Martin Luther King Jr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by enkidu7goblets:
Now I really respect C.S. Lewis and he is one of my favorite authors.

---

Have you read the screwtape letters by CSL?

It has been said that only a philosophy or opinion that is debated can be great. If everyone agrees, there isn't enough substance to it to make it worthwhile.

And I am not sure why I am arguing the point when I said I LOVE Ayn Rand I was talking about her writing anyways not her philosophy.

First of DjMagnUSA you have bested be and I bow to your superior will =)

No I haven't read any of her books outside the novels only critiques and op eds.

It is a habit of mine to look up a word before I use it if I don't know what it means so I don't get into trouble by using it incorrectly.

Yes it was a very simplified and watered down version of the theory but I was trying not to be too long winded.

That was just a mistake on my part you did use it correctly and I misunderstood the meaning in the first place.

However you can't have one without the other. Calculus wouldn't exist without first examining arithmetic.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that, seeing how Ayn Rand's philophy is to others as arithmetic is to calculus, she can assume credit for it?

No I haven't been a member for very long and no I do not know your views on philosophy (or didn't) so I wouldn't know you have problems with almost every single philosopher's ideas. That in and of itself is a good trait to find in someone. Make your own philosophy to fit your own life and you will do well.

Ciao,
Ryan

quote:

---

The Rand philosophy isn't all about IT being the right one.

---

You’re kidding me right? Have you even read any of Rand’s books outside of her novels? Almost every one of here books makes a claim of objective truth; in some cases I would have to say even claiming absolute truth.

quote:

---

And I suggest you look objective up in the dictionary hun

---

Why would I look it up in a general language dictionary which gives the informal usage defination when I'm using it in a formal philosophical context I.E. the difference between the term theory in general language and in Science. Furthermore please enlighten me on what would bring you to make a statement that implies that I have used it incorrectly.

quote:

---

nyways the objectivist theory is that moral good is objectively real and moral precepts are objectively valid.

---

Your cutting out quit a bit with this simple explanation. You haven't even touched some of the important parts of Rands "epistemology" and how from her "epistemology" she derives morals as objectively real, which is extremely important. There is quite a long list of other items you’re missing. Also you haven't even touched on the fundamental basis of Rands moral code which is universal Ethical egoism,(which will be a important point later in this post) which simply is destroyed by a simple prisoners dilemma, a technique a Freshmen philosophy major learns.

quote:

---

Uhm k being objectively anything means it does exist even outside of human perception.

---

Again, please enlighten me on what would bring you to make a statement that implies that I have used it incorrectly.

quote:

---

Do you know how many modern philosophers and ancient philosophers (even pre-sophoclean) believed this theory?

---

And there has been a great deal of Philosophers who don't. The simple fact is Rand’s philosophy was in an EXTREMELY general explanation similar to their philosophies but outside of that they are not common. When it gets down to the real explanation and not the simple layman explanation they are extremely different and that is why you can't compare her with other philosophers who believed number one morality actually existed outside of us and two that there was an actual right and wrong to this morality. To compare two layman explanations would be like comparing Arithmetic with Calculus.

quote:

---

And what modern day philosopher didn't build his or her philosophy at least partially on someone else's previous philosophical thoughts?

---

Jesh, where did I ever say they didn't or that it was wrong to copy. This has been a continuing problem here folks, stop putting your own personal words into another persons phrase. If you look specifically to what I said first off I already addressed this because I specifically knew this would come up as an excuse and that is why I posted this earlier “and then claimed them as her own." Marx gave a large amount of credit to Hegel, Plato gave a large amount credit to Socrates and Rand gave most of the credit to herself, for the most part. That is the difference and I already noted that IN MY PREVIOUS POST.

quote:

---

If you have a problem with Rand as a person that is fine but if you have a problem with her philosophy then you have a problem with at least the partial philosophies of Voltaire, St Augustine, Descartes, Socrates, and Plato

---

And I do, if you actually read some of my posts in the past (before you were a member) you would know I have problems with parts of almost every single philosophers ideas. While most of the men you listed were great for their time, most of their philosophies have become fundamentally dated due to the tremendous advancements of science and philosophies study into language I.E. W.V Quine etc. The only older philosopher’s work that has held up for the most part has been Hume and that’s it. But this is mostly beside the point, which can b derived from a previous part of this post.
If you want to discuss why I believe Objectivism in general is crap. Please let me know because I would be more than willing to point out where I believe her errors are. Just for a sample isn't interesting how most of her ideas are often inductive and informal. Also I find it interesting how the women can criticize Kant so often in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology yet never quotes him ONCE.
And one more thing one of main fundamental reasons of why Rand’s philosophy will never be considered real philosophy by me and many other scholars is the fact that most it came in articles that were way to infused with cultural review and political promotion, not mention it contained a large amount of rhetoric (I’ll give her credit for being a good writer of rhetoric) and hyperboles.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: djmagnusa,