Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Ted Striker]

My favorite would also be myself

Least favorite would be Ayn Rand

First of all her philosophy is wayyyyyyyyy too rigid

Secondly it's quoted alot by eighth graders

[Fake Boris]

I only know Bastiat by name, but from the excerpts it seems that a major problem arise.

The first is that plunder existed prior to the law, and that the law was instilled after some plundering had been done, as to confirm by contract the gains made by the strong.

There is no reversal of what had been done; therefore, the People (those who lost, in a way, the plunder) made revolutions not to plunder, but to turn the law in their favor as to regain their share of the "original plunder". The difference is huge: the fight was for control of legitimated plundering but never for legitimacy in itself.
In some countries, the fight has been succesfull and we saw the coming of Welfare States. So, eradicating this welfare to make room for a new minimal state would be like a reconfirmation of the original plunder, because, as stated, the world as it is now is a fight for your share of the state's treasury, and therefore every wealth is in part based on "illegitimate" gains.

What then? Bastiat's fallacy seems to lie in the definition of law. In order for the law to do what he claims it should, we would need to go back to day "0" and re-enact a brand new social contract- which I believe is impossible to do.
In fact, the "Law" has always been a plundering tool. By getting rid of it right now, since some people have already benefitted from it, we would give them the means to plunder further, in an indirect manner, because in the kind of "free market" that would emerge, those who already have wealth would be greatly advantaged. What kind of solution does Bastiat offer to this?

OK, this is all I can stand for now, good night.

[Bosh]

There are real philosophers, like the late Robert Nozick, who defend some of the same claims she does, but they are a lot smarter than her.

Exactly, Nozick knows how to think and contruct a sensible arguements that make sense. Rand is just a pretentious apologist for selfishness (her whole writing style and aproach really get under my skin, even on issues where I agree with her, for example our common atheism, reading her makes me want to claw my eyes out).

My favorite philosopher would probably be Chuang-tzu, author (at least in theory) of the second most famous Taoist treatise, I've read it three times and with each reading it becomes more clear how superior it is to the Tao Te Ching (which is itself amazing).

As far as western philosophy goes on metaphysical issues I tend to prefer Hume while on moral philosophy I'm more in line with J.S. Mill (especially the snippets on socialism buried in his economic writing, which shows a clearer vision of what socialism should be than any other main-stream philosopher that I've ever come across).

[Berzerker]

Exactly, Nozick knows how to think and contruct a sensible arguements that make sense.

Um...kay Holiday spirits?

Ramo -

I'll hop onto the bandwagon and say Rand is my least favorite. Combine limitless logical fallacies and the morally despicable idea (according my philosophy ) that greed is good, and you get her.

Greed drives capitalism and I'd say capitalism is morally superior to any other economic system, so why do you find that morally despicable? Even your ideology which is quite similar is based on "greed"...

UBoris -

The first is that plunder existed prior to the law, and that the law was instilled after some plundering had been done, as to confirm by contract the gains made by the strong.

True, and Bastiat mentioned this (check the link). But look at systems (socialist "revolutions") that sought to redress this prior plunder, they ended up plundering themselves (remember, he was French and around during one of those revolutions to "redress" prior plunder). If redress is possible, then seek it... But don't use plunder before the law as an excuse to continue the plunder with different victims and criminals. That's why socialists who use that argument - previous plunder - are full of it. They don't care about previous plunder, they just want their hands in the cookie jar...

There is no reversal of what had been done; therefore, the People (those who lost, in a way, the plunder) made revolutions not to plunder, but to turn the law in their favor as to regain their share of the "original plunder".

Where did Bastiat say that seeking redress cannot be allowed? You claim there is a problem with those quotes and don't even quote him?

The difference is huge: the fight was for control of legitimated plundering but never for legitimacy in itself.
In some countries, the fight has been succesfull and we saw the coming of Welfare States.

How does one "legitimate" plunder?

So, eradicating this welfare to make room for a new minimal state would be like a reconfirmation of the original plunder, because, as stated, the world as it is now is a fight for your share of the state's treasury, and therefore every wealth is in part based on "illegitimate" gains.

Yeah, we plunder because other people plundered in the past. We condemn slavery and we enslave the taxpayer... We discriminate based on race because people discriminated based on race 50 years ago... And it goes on and on and on...

What then? Bastiat's fallacy seems to lie in the definition of law. In order for the law to do what he claims it should, we would need to go back to day "0" and re-enact a brand new social contract- which I believe is impossible to do.

No, seek redress and stop plundering. No need to go back in time... Some "fallacy" Socialists couch their "revolution" in terms of previous plunder and when they get into power...they plunder more...

In fact, the "Law" has always been a plundering tool. By getting rid of it right now, since some people have already benefitted from it, we would give them the means to plunder further, in an indirect manner, because in the kind of "free market" that would emerge, those who already have wealth would be greatly advantaged. What kind of solution does Bastiat offer to this?

Stop plundering and if someone legally stole your property, seek redress. And welfare states aren't about getting back stolen property (where did you get that from?), they are about legalised plunder and nothing more. Your argument mirrors the "reparations" for slavery movement, because some guy's ancestor enslaved a black person's ancestor 150 years ago, we all get to pay reparations regardless of what our ancestors were doing at the time.

"I legalised robbery and called it 'belief'" - Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits (The Man's Too Strong)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Those I like:

Socrates (for the style!) Marx, Rousseau, Freud, Diogenes the Cynical

That's some strange choices. Socrates never wrote anything and it is not clear that the material we have represents a genuine Socratic doctrine.

I also like Diogenes the Cynic. I don't believe we have any of his books and the material from Dio. Laertius is best viewed with suspicion.

And what's wrong with the post-modern? Barthes and Lyotard are real nice.

What's wrong with them? Well, they misuse language and pretend that they are coming up with profound doctrines when it's really just verbiage. Where are their arguments? I mean, we expect some sorts of argument when we read philosophy and all we get from them is a load of ****.

Those I DON'T like:

Nietzsche- interesting depiction of the problems, but crappy solutions.
Ayn Rand- a specialist paralogician, only surpassed by Descartes.
Descartes- he sucks.
Hume- A post-Elizabethan Ronald McDonald at best.

What's wrong with Hume? I may not agree with a lot of what he says, but he is surely one of the most entertaining writers to ever pick up a pen and he was possessed of a quick wit and a penetrating mind.

[Whaleboy]

Favourite: Plato, Diogenes (the barrel dude), Wittgenstein, Sartre, Nietzche, Milgram (most people think of him as a psychologist ), and of course Protagoros .

I respect the utilitarians, especially the latters like JS Mill for respecting the flaws in that theory that would have had Bentham spinning in his grave. He laid the foundations imo for a subjectivist utilitarianism, seeming to drop hints about the flaws of its classical objectivist incarnations. As a workable theory it needs major work.
/End Azazel bait

Evil: Kant. No doubt a great mind, but his philosophies as a coherent lump suck, the moral and logical absolutes (two concepts I don't believe exist) really sets off the fallacy alarm. Still, I suppose nuggets of usefulness contained within. Aristotle .

[BeBMan]

I like Kant :

Edit. but my absolute heroes are Fez and CivNation

[Starchild]

Faves: Betrand Russel. He's just so much fun to quote! "The Universe is a brute fact. Get over it."
Wittgenstein. Dunno, just do.

HATES: Any and all Logical Positivists. The weeks of my life wasted learning about them with the only conclusion being they can't verify their own Verification Principle. I want the head of A. J. Ayer on my desk.

[PLATO]

Favorite philosopher?

Plato, of course! He brought light to the darkness.

[Whaleboy]

[Imran Siddiqui]

linguistic pornographers

--

Fav: Nietzsche - for just looking at the world in a very different (and cynical) way; for articulation on the lack of one truth.

Least: Kant - brilliant to be sure, but I don't like his absolutes (like Whaleboy) and he is a ***** to get through .

[Whaleboy]

Imran: I do believe I owe you a drink

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I'll never turn down a drink .

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And ABOVE ALL: the utilitarists, Mill and Bentham. I CAN'T stand their pure, excuse for non-rationality BS. If you want to calculate, have some math classes and leave the intelligent guys alone.

Sure, maths is great for calculating, but when it comes to people, they aren't rational. Economics would be a hell of a lot easier if we didn't have to put bounded rationality in there. And utilitarianism is rational.

If you want to calculate, do some maths. If you want to talk about people, forget the rigid rationality, economics has shown it isn't true.

Favourite: Sartre. With a little bit of Nietzsche thrown in, but there are bits of Nietzsche that I don't agree with.

Least favourite: Popper. His "enemies on the open society", along with the poker incident ant his beliefs in absolutes that went with it are enough to make me despise what he's done.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Agathon

What's wrong with them? Well, they misuse language and pretend that they are coming up with profound doctrines when it's really just verbiage. Where are their arguments? I mean, we expect some sorts of argument when we read philosophy and all we get from them is a load of ****.

Derrida's deconstruction of Heidegger and Hegel has made me look at those philosophers ideas in a different light. So there is some value to linguistics.

What Derrida seeks to undermine in common with other postmodernists is the metaphysical certainty not only that the unique 'I' behind any utterance guarantees a consistent, totally conscious, and rational point of view, or that a unified meaning might be traced back to an originary intention, but also that graphic modes of representation, be they in words or images, directly refer to a pre-existent reality.