NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what were some other philosophical people other than the ones mentioned. I need to open my mind a bit more and I'm sure you guys can help me out. Thanks!

Ayn Rand's Objectivism

Sartre
Plato
Descartes
Kant
Leibnitz
Kierkgaard
Hume
Berkely
Aristotle


to name a few philosophers...

(also, Nietzsche was an existentialist... and each existentialist has different ideas)

Do you want just post-Enlightenment thinkers? If not, I would suggest John Locke and J. S. Mill.

EDIT: Oh, yeah. Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, and Bertrand Russell also come to mind. And some of the medievals, like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. And I'm a fan of C. S. Lewis, too. And Seneca, as the ancients go. (Sorry, names just keep coming to mind)

I was wondering what were some other philosophical people other than the ones mentioned. I need to open my mind a bit more and I'm sure you guys can help me out. Thanks!


Ayn Rand
Socrates
Homer
Plato.

Start with the Greeks... Everything is based on them...

Ayn Rand
Buddha
Socrates
Adam Smith
Voltare

Olara']Do you want just post-Enlightenment thinkers? If not, I would suggest John Locke and J. S. Mill.

EDIT: Oh, yeah. Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, and Bertrand Russell also come to mind. And some of the medievals, like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. And I'm a fan of C. S. Lewis, too. And Seneca, as the ancients go. (Sorry, names just keep coming to mind)

I mostly enjoy thinkers that were kind of like Nietzschi. Thanks for the advice though!
EDIT-What does post-Enlightenment mean? >_> I'm a noob.

What's with all this talk of Rand? I never hear anyone say anything good about her outside of the world of the internet.
It's rare to hear anyone who isn't american having a high opinion of her too.

www.freetalklive.com

People:
Confucius
Lao Tzu
Sun Tzu (some say his strategy is more akin to a philosophy)

Forms:
Shinto
Neo-Confucianism
Buddhism
Bushido

What's with all this talk of Rand? I never hear anyone say anything good about her outside of the world of the internet.
It's rare to hear anyone who isn't american having a high opinion of her too.

She's basically Nietzsche heavily watered down and with a more rationalist bent, effectively removing his good aspects. For people who can't understand Nietzsche or who want to justify their absurd bank accounts, though, she's quite popular.

She's basically Nietzsche heavily watered down and with a more rationalist bent, effectively removing his good aspects. For people who can't understand Nietzsche or who want to justify their absurd bank accounts, though, she's quite popular.
I just figured she was popular with americans because she kissed ass saying that the U.S. was the closest to an ideal society there was.

What's with all this talk of Rand? I never hear anyone say anything good about her outside of the world of the internet.
It's rare to hear anyone who isn't american having a high opinion of her too.
That's unusual. I know of many people who enjoy Rand's work IRL. Strange thing is, at least a third of them are totally left-wing, and probably don't understand what they're reading.
If we're talking real life here, most people these days don't give a shit about philosophy anyways, so I'd assume it would be rare to hear about anyone outside of informational sources (like the internet).

Actually, Atlas Shrugged is widley regarded as the second most influential book of the 20th century, right behind the Bible [an irony that is most certainly not lost on me]. I have not yet met a wide enough range of people to gather any real statistic to this effect; that is to say I don't know enough people who have read it to be able to lay down blanket statements like "most people I know IRL like/dislike Ayn Rand."

Even if you do know a ton of people that hate it, that in and of itself doesn't disprove its influence and it especially doesn't discredit her ideas. For every pocket of 20 or so acquaintances who hate it, I'm sure there's at least an equal amount who don't. If you didn't like it and you tend to associate with like minded folks [most of us do], then that should speak for itself. None of that means the book wasn't influential or even appreciated.

She's definately not very popular on these forums, given its decidedly leftist bent and heavy international presence. The values explained in Objectivism aren't generally the easiest things to comprehend, and most people [those here are certainly no exception] have distorted information at best, or they're refusing to think about it because it's principles so flagrantly defy their own.

I'd be surprised if many of Rand's critics here have even finished Atlas Shrugged or even read any of her essays. Given the few accounts of Objectivism I've heard here, the average Generalite's knowledge of Objectivism seems strictly limited to my posts and almost nothing else. I'm generally pretty accurate when it comes to portraying the philosophy, but when discussing moral issues in a format like this I kind of have to give a crash-course as it pertains to the issue at hand: the proper way to explain all of this would be to start from the very beginning [i.e. "what is existence?" "How do we learn about it?"] and work forwards from there. Philosophy is not a topic that can be discussed on one foot, but we all try from time to time.

That's unusual. I know of many people who enjoy Rand's work IRL. Strange thing is, at least a third of them are totally left-wing, and probably don't understand what they're reading.
If we're talking real life here, most people these days don't give a shit about philosophy anyways, so I'd assume it would be rare to hear about anyone outside of informational sources (like the internet).
Well, in speaking of real life, it's much more frequent that I hear somebody talking about Nietzsche than anybody else, or Plato but that's mostly from people who are in my school and happened to take the intro to philosophy course, which is probably one of the more popular philosophy courses.

I don't even think my school offers a course on Rand.

Boethius
Augustine
Plato
Aristotle
Anselm of Canterbury
Aquinas

She's definately not very popular on these forums, given its decidedly leftist bent and heavy international presence. The values explained in Objectivism aren't generally the easiest things to comprehend, and most people [those here are certainly no exception] have distorted information at best, or they're refusing to think about it because it's principles so flagrantly defy their own.

I comprehend Objectivism quite well, at least in terms of the basic ideas and theories behind it. It just isn't as radical as many make it out to be. It seems a lot like watered down Nietzschean ethics fused with rhetoric about the greatness of reason, neither of which are all that groundbreaking.

Actually, Atlas Shrugged is widley regarded as the second most influential book of the 20th century, right behind the Bible [an irony that is most certainly not lost on me]. I have not yet met a wide enough range of people to gather any real statistic to this effect; that is to say I don't know enough people who have read it to be able to lay down blanket statements like "most people I know IRL like/dislike Ayn Rand."

Even if you do know a ton of people that hate it, that in and of itself doesn't disprove its influence and it especially doesn't discredit her ideas. For every pocket of 20 or so acquaintances who hate it, I'm sure there's at least an equal amount who don't. If you didn't like it and you tend to associate with like minded folks [most of us do], then that should speak for itself. None of that means the book wasn't influential or even appreciated.

She's definately not very popular on these forums, given its decidedly leftist bent and heavy international presence. The values explained in Objectivism aren't generally the easiest things to comprehend, and most people [those here are certainly no exception] have distorted information at best, or they're refusing to think about it because it's principles so flagrantly defy their own.

I'd be surprised if many of Rand's critics here have even finished Atlas Shrugged or even read any of her essays. Given the few accounts of Objectivism I've heard here, the average Generalite's knowledge of Objectivism seems strictly limited to my posts and almost nothing else. I'm generally pretty accurate when it comes to portraying the philosophy, but when discussing moral issues in a format like this I kind of have to give a crash-course as it pertains to the issue at hand: the proper way to explain all of this would be to start from the very beginning [i.e. "what is existence?" "How do we learn about it?"] and work forwards from there. Philosophy is not a topic that can be discussed on one foot, but we all try from time to time.
I haven't read any of her works. I hadn't heard of her until the year before last and I'm still getting around to reading Sartre's Being and Nothingness (the plan is to read it over the winter break) and really, I would rather plow through a work of a philosopher I know I already like before I try one whose philosophies, from what I heard, seem rather full of shit.

Rand is definitely not "shrugged off" by intellectuals:

1. Readers Choice #1 & #2 out of 100 Best Books of All Time (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

2. From the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/cfbook/booklists.html), Ayn tops the charts:
- Books That Made a Difference in Readers' Lives (Bible #1, Atlas Shrugged #2)
- Also won place in 25 Books That Have Shaped Readers' Lives

3. Her books have sold over 20 million copies in the USA alone.


Yeah, nobody's heard of her, apparently! :p

I comprehend Objectivism quite well, at least in terms of the basic ideas and theories behind it. It just isn't as radical as many make it out to be. It seems a lot like watered down Nietzschean ethics fused with rhetoric about the greatness of reason, neither of which are all that groundbreaking.
If you're going to mention Objectivism and Nietzsche in the same sentence, I think your lack of understanding speaks for itself. The only common ground the two philosophies share is their emphasis on individualism. A lot of people accuse Rand of plagarising Nietzsche's ideas, but I haven't been too impressed with their arguments. Like most other philosophers, Nietzsche got a little bit right and a whole lot wrong. Most of them, in the end, have their good bits here and there.

Rand is definitely not "shrugged off" by intellectuals:

1. Readers Choice #1 & #2 out of 100 Best Books of All Time (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

2. From the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/cfbook/booklists.html), Ann tops the charts:
- Books That Made a Difference in Readers' Lives (Bible #1, Atlas Shrugged #2)
- Also won place in 25 Books That Have Shaped Readers' Lives

3. Her books have sold over 20 million copies in the USA alone.


Yeah, nobody's heard of her, apparently! :p
And how popular is she internationally?
I have only ever heard of her online. My local library had one copy of Atlas Shrugged in the entire system (and it's usually pretty good at having philosophy books around) I don't think she's considered terribly important outside the states.
Also, I'm sensing some sort of biased sampling in the reader's best options... Rand has 4 books in the top 10. The board's list looks better, imo. Also, it's an american website. All your sites are.

Actually, Atlas Shrugged is widley regarded as the second most influential book of the 20th century, right behind the Bible [an irony that is most certainly not lost on me].

Meh, and this claim is based on what? A survey carried out by the Book of the Month Club and a pronouncement by a single library?


What exactly has Atlas Shrugged influenced?

She's basically Nietzsche heavily watered down and with a more rationalist bent, effectively removing his good aspects. For people who can't understand Nietzsche or who want to justify their absurd bank accounts, though, she's quite popular.
HAHAHAHA That is sooo true.

Rand sucks!:sniper:

And how popular is she internationally?
I have only ever heard of her online. My local library had one copy of Atlas Shrugged in the entire system (and it's usually pretty good at having philosophy books around) I don't think she's considered terribly important outside the states.
Also, I'm sensing some sort of biased sampling in the reader's best options... Rand has 4 books in the top 10. The board's list looks better, imo. Also, it's an american website. All your sites are.
I have absolutely no idea how popular certain books are outside of the US, nor do I care. Ayn Rand is an American phenomenon, and probably our best known and most widely read philosopher of the 20th century. I wouldn't be suprised that she isn't popular in Europe (or the Soviet Union from which she escaped), but that doesn't mean anything to us, as much of her work is specifically targeted for and at us. Remember, we're Americans. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks. :p

Rand is definitely not "shrugged off" by intellectuals:

1. Readers Choice #1 & #2 out of 100 Best Books of All Time (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

The Reader's [sic] List

1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
3. BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard

Are we to take it that Battlefield Earth is also definitely not 'shrugged off' by intellectuals? Such august company Ayn Rand is keeping there in that list. What you have here are the results of an online poll, and as such they should be taken with a pinch of salt. 'Vote early, vote often', as they say.

Michel Foucault (sp?)
Robert Nozick (his book The Examined Life is an excellent plain-English meditation on many of the most basic aspects of life - love, death, etc.)

Meh, and this claim is based on what? A survey carried out by the Book of the Month Club and a pronouncement by a single library?


What exactly has Atlas Shrugged influenced?
Why did you omitt the Liberary of Congress and Random House from your comment?

Why did you omitt the Liberary of Congress and Random House from your comment?

Why? Because I hadn't yet read your post. I since have and have responded to it.

Are we to take it that Battlefield Earth is also definitely not 'shrugged off' by intellectuals? Such august company Ayn Rand is keeping there in that list. What you have here are the results of an online poll, and as such they should be taken with a pinch of salt. 'Vote early, vote often', as they say.
I think you're protesting taste, not accuracy. I hate L. Ron, but do you know how many books the guy has sold? Do you know how many fans he has?
Do you know that people believed in him enough that he was able to create a worldwide immense religion with lots of cash coming in daily?
I don't know the reason that each person chose what they chose off the list, and neither does anyone here. Who cares anyways?
Now it's a bash Rand conversation? Just name a fucking philosopher for the kid so he can get on with reading and decide for himself who he appreciates.

BTW, for such an unknown, who-cares philosopher, she sure does incite a whole lotta conversation. ;)

I have absolutely no idea how popular certain books are outside of the US, nor do I care. Ayn Rand is an American phenomenon, and probably our best known and most widely read philosopher of the 20th century. I wouldn't be suprised that she isn't popular in Europe (or the Soviet Union from which she escaped), but that doesn't mean anything to us, as much of her work is specifically targeted for and at us. Remember, we're Americans. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks. :p
I'm canadian... I live just north of the border pretty much. If I go on top of the escarpment I can probably see the U.S.. And I've only heard of her from people talking about her on message boards.
So don't go on like she's an international sensation if she's not popular outside of your country.

And of course americans love her, she fed their ego.

BTW, for such an unknown, who-cares philosopher, she sure does incite a whole lotta conversation. ;)
Three people suggested her on the first page. I was just asking what's with people and their facination with her.

I'm canadian... I live just north of the border pretty much. If I go on top of the escarpment I can probably see the U.S.. And I've only heard of her from people talking about her on message boards.
So don't go on like she's an international sensation if she's not popular outside of your country.

And of course americans love her, she fed their ego.

Ayn Rand was a great woman... She helped us American's remove the guilt of being the most powerful country in the world and assured us that it's Ok to be rich and powerful and to crush our enemies underfoot.

Ayn Rand was a great woman... She helped us American's remove the guilt of being the most powerful country in the world and assured us that it's Ok to be rich and powerful and to crush our enemies underfoot.
The last line about crushing, that wouldn't fit at all into Ayn's philosophy against force. Also, Ayn wasn't very into nations or governments (quite the opposite), more individuals.

I think you're protesting taste, not accuracy. I hate L. Ron, but do you know how many books the guy has sold? Do you know how many fans he has?
Do you know that people believed in him enough that he was able to create a worldwide immense religion with lots of cash coming in daily?
I don't know the reason that each person chose what they chose off the list, and neither does anyone here. Who cares anyways?

If you are going to use the list as evidence that Rand was not 'shrugged off' by intelelctuals, then we cand raw the same conclusion with regard to Hubbard, however, when we look at the people that read his works and join his cult intellectuals seem to be in short supply. Make of that what you will.

Just name a fucking philosopher for the kid so he can get on with reading and decide for himself who he appreciates.

Wittgenstein.
Deleuze & Guattari.
Lacan.
Freud.
Virilio.
Eco.
Barthes.
Baudrillard.

That should keep 'the kid' occupied.

Ayn Rand was a great woman... She helped us American's remove the guilt of being the most powerful country in the world and assured us that it's Ok to be rich and powerful and to crush our enemies underfoot.
You were spot on until that last phrase; Objectivism gives no countenance to the idea of "crush our enemies underfoot," as that seems to imply the use or approval of force as a tool to acheive one's ends. If you mean in a business-type sense, then I suppose you're right but worded as is it's a bit too vague.

Still, I don't think too many of us were feeling "guilty" in the early and mid 1900s; if anything we were quite the opposite by the time Atlas Shrugged came out, on account of World War II.

Oh, and Europe? [i]You're welcome, by the way.

If you are going to use the list as evidence that Rand was not 'shrugged off' by intelelctuals, then we cand raw the same conclusion with regard to Hubbard, however, when we look at the people that read his works and join his cult intellectuals seem to be in short supply. Make of that what you will.
Admittedly, intellectuals was probably a bit overdoing it. Truth is, Rand's work sells over 500,000 copies a year (in English, don't know about other sales). She qualifies as a star as far as philosophers go. I'm not defending Rand's work (I haven't once), just defending her against the assumption that if a Canadian hasn't heard of her or discussed her with his friends, that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, I thought Atlas Shrugged was pretty boring, and she sucks IMHO at writing fiction. Shhhhhhhhhhhh. ;)

Agreed. If you want a good read and a good plot, Ayn is not your woman. She writes essays in novel form, essentially.

Agreed. If you want a good read and a good plot, Ayn is not your woman. She writes essays in novel form, essentially.

Anthem is entertaining enough, but I found I was metaphorically laughing at her, rather than with her.

Still, I don't think too many of us were feeling "guilty" in the early and mid 1900s; if anything we were quite the opposite by the time Atlas Shrugged came out, on account of World War II.

Oh, and Europe? You're welcome, by the way.

Who is Europe supposed to be thanking, and for what reason?

Agreed. If you want a good read and a good plot, Ayn is not your woman. She writes essays in novel form, essentially.
I'll take Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness anyday over her fiction, anyday.

Who is Europe supposed to be thanking, and for what reason?

The chap who wrote 'The Final Countdown' for them, perhaps?

Rand is definitely not "shrugged off" by intellectuals:

1. Readers Choice #1 & #2 out of 100 Best Books of All Time (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
3. BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
4. THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien
5. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee
6. 1984 by George Orwell
7. ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
8. WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
9. MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
10. FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard

it's as if writers with creepy cults associated with them somehow magically got more votes than other authors. almost as if there was some sort of organized campaign on their behalf. but who could run such a thing and where would they find a pool of participants?

it's as if writers with creepy cults associated with them somehow magically got more votes than other authors. almost as if there was some sort of organized campaign on their behalf. but who could run such a thing and where would they find a pool of participants?

The fact that you don't include Tolkein as a writer with a creepy cult attached to him points a finger of suspicion firmly at your good self. Have you or have you ever been a fantasy geek?

The fact that you don't include Tolkein as a writer with a creepy cult attached to him points a finger of suspicion firmly at your good self. Have you or have you ever been a fantasy geek?
Grampus: 1
Free Soviets: 0

I know you don't necessarily agree with me Gramps, but that's great stuff :D

The fact that you don't include Tolkein as a writer with a creepy cult attached to him points a finger of suspicion firmly at your good self. Have you or have you ever been a fantasy geek?

It's the people who model their lives on "to kill a mockingbird" that scare me most.

The fact that you don't include Tolkein as a writer with a creepy cult attached to him points a finger of suspicion firmly at your good self. Have you or have you ever been a fantasy geek?

hey, tolkein is the one true god. i'll have none of this 'creepy cult' nonsense there.

besides, i was just confused over whether he had tied himself for fourth place with the entire series, or if books and their sequels were counted as one for that poll.

hey, tolkein is the one true god. i'll have none of this 'creepy cult' nonsense there.

besides, i was just confused over whether he had tied himself for fourth place with the entire series, or if books and their sequels were counted as one for that poll.
They were counted as one. Wherever you see "The Lord of the Rings," that means whoever is talking [or writing] is referring to all three books, since none of the books are actually called "Lord of the Rings." If they were ranked seperately we'd see Fellowship, The Two Towers and Return of the King instead of "Lord of the Rings."

It's the people who model their lives on "to kill a mockingbird" that scare me most.

Hey, I lived an entire year of my life thinking it was actually 1984.

The fact that you don't include Tolkein as a writer with a creepy cult attached to him points a finger of suspicion firmly at your good self. Have you or have you ever been a fantasy geek?
First time I laughed all day. Thanks Grampus.

They were counted as one. Wherever you see "The Lord of the Rings," that means whoever is talking [or writing] is referring to all three books, since none of the books are actually called "Lord of the Rings." If they were ranked seperately we'd see Fellowship, The Two Towers and Return of the King instead of "Lord of the Rings."

see, now if the tolkien cultists had really had their game together, they'd certainly have gotten them listed independently. and probably tossed in the silmarillion for good measure.

Buddhism - That will keep you busy for a while
Lao Tzu
Chuang Tze

I don't like Rand. I haven't read any of her stuff. I tried to read Atlas Shrugged, but stopped. I did read a good overview of her beliefs and didn't really agree with them so can safely say that I'm not down with her Objectivism.

I've got an idea: Nietzschean Marxism, yeah, it's an oxymoron, but still.

see, now if the tolkien cultists had really had their game together, they'd certainly have gotten them listed independently. and probably tossed in the silmarillion for good measure.
Eh, I don't know about that. Tolkien himself regarded the three books as one work, so I would guess that the real Tolkien purists would bear this in mind. Also, the Silmarillion, as fantastic as it is, isn't even spectacularly well known among those who call themselves Tolkien fans. It's definately not well known enough to make any reader's list.

Still, I'm forced to wonder what tune you folks would be singing if the list was dominated by someone like Orwell [who was a socialist]. Methinks if the tables were turned, the lot of you [not just you, FS ;) ] would be defending its legitimacy. But, since the results are not to your liking, it must be a fraud, no?

I was wondering what were some other philosophical people other than the ones mentioned. I need to open my mind a bit more and I'm sure you guys can help me out. Thanks!
Deep Ecology

I don't like Rand. I haven't read any of her stuff. I tried to read Atlas Shrugged, but stopped. I did read a good overview of her beliefs and didn't really agree with them so can safely say that I'm not down with her Objectivism.
This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about when I complain about Rand's critics knowing nothing of her work. As abhorrent as you may find her ideas, I'd be willing to bet my bollocks to a barn dance that you have no idea how she arrived at said ideas, the facts of which are every bit as important as the ideas themselves. If you're prepared to condemn that which you do not understand, no depth of intellectual vacuity is beyond your domain.

Still, I'm forced to wonder what tune you folks would be singing if the list was dominated by someone like Orwell [who was a socialist]. Methinks if the tables were turned, the lot of you [not just you, FS ;) ] would be defending its legitimacy. But, since the results are not to your liking, it must be a fraud, no?
No, if a list is topped repeatedly by the same author it appears as though something's amiss.

This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about when I complain about Rand's critics knowing nothing of her work. As abhorrent as you may find her ideas, I'd be willing to bet my bollocks to a barn dance that you have no idea how she arrived at said ideas, the facts of which are every bit as important as the ideas themselves. If you're prepared to condemn that which you do not understand, no depth of intellectual vacuity is beyond your domain.

Well, I do have a pretty good idea of how she arrived at her ideas...

No, if a list is topped repeatedly by the same author it appears as though something's amiss.
It really doesn't matter what the list says. Her yearly sales of half a million speak for themselves, considering she's neither as fun as Stephen King, nor as trashy as Danielle Steele. The fact that people eat her up to the tune of 500,000 copies per year says something about her work.
Considering, I'm a fan, admittedly, but I have to fight to keep my eyes open sometimes to get through her work.
Of course, philosphy does that to most people anyways, regardless of whose it is they're reading. :p

Considering I'm a fan, but I have to fight to keep my eyes open sometimes to get through her work.
Of course, philosphy does that to most people anyways, regardless of whose it is they're reading. :p
You really need to read some of Sartre's fiction...

Still, I'm forced to wonder what tune you folks would be singing if the list was dominated by someone like Orwell [who was a socialist]. Methinks if the tables were turned, the lot of you [not just you, FS ;) ] would be defending its legitimacy. But, since the results are not to your liking, it must be a fraud, no?

we didn't do too badly. on a quick look i saw a bunch of notables - orwell, huxley, london, etc. but i would find it odd if the top included, for example, orwell's a clergyman's daughter

You really need to read some of Sartre's fiction...
Been there. Done that. Still have the well-read copy of Being and Nothingness in my collection. Still think hell is indeed, other people. :D
Existentialism interests wannabe hipsters and ivory-tower thinkers (of my age--if you're young, go ahead through that stage, just try not to kill yourself). There's not much there that I can use on a day-to-day basis. Okay, more like never. :D Philosophy is interesting, but without politics or practical application it seems pretty useless (unless you want to write crappy poetry).
Sorry, but I've always been more comfortable (and able to keep my eyes open) discussing art, science or politics. Buddhism kinda killed my enthusiasm for most western philosphy, which seems dry, arrogant and self-centered compared to it.

Just my opinion though. Everyone has their own interests.

Been there. Done that. Still have the well-read copy of Being and Nothingness in my collection. Still think hell is indeed, other people. :D
Existentialism interests wannabe hipsters and ivory-tower thinkers (of my age).
I just meant if you wanted philosophy that won't make you struggle to keep your eyes open. Granted I read a number of his works of fiction in french, I'm not even sure what the translation for my favourite is actually, and I'm not sure how well the translations of his works go. But he was a great writer and storyteller, even if you didn't like his philosophy.

No, if a list is topped repeatedly by the same author it appears as though something's amiss.
What a load of BS. Could it just be that, perhaps, people... I don't know... like that author?

I just meant if you wanted philosophy that won't make you struggle to keep your eyes open. Granted I read a number of his works of fiction in french, I'm not even sure what the translation for my favourite is actually, and I'm not sure how well the translations of his works go. But he was a great writer and storyteller, even if you didn't like his philosophy.
Well, I can see you enjoy his work (like I enjoy Ayn's essays because they're fabulous, and Baudrillard's because it's so wickedly weird). Nobody should take my word on what's good or bad writing as far as philosophy goes, since it all pretty much bores me with few exceptions (at least western philosphy does).
Now if you can successfully wrap it up in a great story (like Orwell or Huxley), then I'm game.

If you're looking to get into philosophy then Robert(?) Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a good way. It breaks up the philisophical discourse with a good story about a cross-country motorcycle trip, and the ideas put forward in it are pretty unique. I would also recommend Wikipedia as a great source for information about philosophy. Also, it might be a good practice to find some sort of list of major philosophical questions and start thinking(and/or writing) about them one by one, I think Wikipedia lists some of the major questions of each philisophical field with their summaries.

I also sympathize with what someone here said about not liking to read philosophers who you think are BS. I struggled through the first part of The Wealth of Nations because I didn't agree with so much of it, and then the first few pages of Das Kapital were enough to make me put it down, because the entire philosophy Marx was putting forward was founded on the same false theory-the "Labor Theory of Value" that I had had problems with in The Wealth of Nations that came up in the first few pages of Das Kapital.

What a load of BS. Could it just be that, perhaps, people... I don't know... like that author?
Obviously not, the fact that Rand isn't the most popular philosopher in Turkmenistan is proof enough that no one likes her; any evidence that maybe, just maybe, she has some reception beyond a handful of hateful capitalists is obviously faked as part of some vast conspiracy of lying liars.

I was wondering what were some other philosophical people other than the ones mentioned. I need to open my mind a bit more and I'm sure you guys can help me out. Thanks!

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist...
Socrates himself was permanently piiiiiiiiiiiiissed...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away-
Half a crate of whisky every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
'I drink, therefore I am.'
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed:
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he's pissed!

What a load of BS. Could it just be that, perhaps, people... I don't know... like that author?
But it seems odd when the author's more obscure works end up topping the charts too.

Mentioning a couple of people and my recomended works that i didnt see, who also happen to write in enjoyable story form:

Herman Hesse - Steppenwolf, Strange News From a Lone Star, Damien
Anthony Burgess- The Wanting Seed, A Clockwork Orange
James Gleick - Chaos Theory (which is kind of maths form of philosophy)


And now for my two cents for the Rand discussion. She is a philosopher, you can read her or not, absorb her ideas or not, why does it matter how popular she is?

My favorites are Kant and Rawls, so they are who I reccomend.

What a load of BS. Could it just be that, perhaps, people... I don't know... like that author?

No one is denying that people like that author. The matter at hand is whether an online poll is an even vaguely accurate reflection of how many people like that author. The fact that eight novels by Charles de Lint make the list also leads to suspicions of organised voting going on there, or at least a certain skew in those who voted.


Rand is definitely not "shrugged off" by intellectuals:

1. Readers Choice #1 & #2 out of 100 Best Books of All Time (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

Ahem.

'the best novels published in the English language since 1900'

She is a philosopher, you can read her or not, absorb her ideas or not, why does it matter how popular she is?

Why? Because she has acquired something of a fanatical following who tend to act to represent her as being more popular than she actually is, and to use this popularity to suggest a certain greater value to her work than that which is inherent to it.

Hofstadter. How could we forget him?

This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about when I complain about Rand's critics knowing nothing of her work. As abhorrent as you may find her ideas, I'd be willing to bet my bollocks to a barn dance that you have no idea how she arrived at said ideas, the facts of which are every bit as important as the ideas themselves. If you're prepared to condemn that which you do not understand, no depth of intellectual vacuity is beyond your domain.

So we must not only read the philosophical works of an author but study that authors life and development in order to evaluation his/her philosophy?

Bullshit.

And Wittgenstein is a better story anyway.

So we must not only read the philosophical works of an author but study that authors life and development in order to evaluation his/her philosophy?

It is possible that Melkor was actually refering to the philosophical arguments that underpin her beliefs, rather than the autobiographical incidents. Same with Wiitgenstein: we don't really need to know that he fought in the trenches or had a virtuoso relation, but we do need to know how he philosophically arrived at 7.

Well if we're talking purely about American authors, I think that - at least so far as the left and many moderates are concerned - John Rawls is a name that bears noting. Now granted, I'm no Any Rand fan, but I think that in the greater scope of things not only has Rawls had a more lasting influence, but he has spawned a grand debate between quite a variety of different philosophical fields and revived interest in the waining idea of a definite Social Contract. If you lump him together with his contemporaries and his critics you can see how he dominates American philosophy to this day. Rawls, Ackerman, Dworkin, Gaunthier, Nozick and more. I can certainly see Rand as influental, but I think in the bigger picture Rawls is going to have a more signifigant impact, prehaps redefining contractualism for the new century. I certainly find it no stretch to compare him to Locke at the least and Rousseau at his best. So far as American philosopher go, I have to support Rawls.

So we must not only read the philosophical works of an author but study that authors life and development in order to evaluation his/her philosophy?
I'd like to answer this with your own words:

Bullshit.

I'm saying you need to read her discourses on philosophy, you need to read what she said about her ideas, not what someone else said about her ideas. Coming along and saying "I haven't read any of her work but I've read other people's opinions of it and didn't like it" is like saying "I know calculus because I walked in on a class once to deliver a pizza and heard the teacher say something about one of the formulas."

Methinks you read into my comment a bit too heavily.

So we must not only read the philosophical works of an author but study that authors life and development in order to evaluation his/her philosophy?

Bullshit.

And Wittgenstein is a better story anyway.
This is definatively not what Melkor meant in his original statement. His argument is that most critics of Rand criticize her political philosophy without an understanding of the epistemological and ontological beliefs that underly them. Rand contends if given her theories of being and knowledge are correct, her political and ethical philosophies would logically follow (as do most great philosophers, for that matter). I doubt Melkor would want to mention Rand's life story, given that it reveals a bias that some contend influenced her work (her family was slaughtered by Communists).

More on this thread later, I have to leave, but I do want to mention one name that I don't think has been recognized yet: Michel Foucault. Again, more on him and the topic later.

Deep Ecology
You've got to be kidding me. Do you really take Arne Naess seriously after Earth First and the Dieback movement?

Just a few quick points:

1) Nietzsche and Rand are not in any way, shape, or form similar in philosophical outlook. They have a few passing similarities, but only in the sense that they share some basic assumptions, like the fact that there is a mind-independent external world. Their overall mission, however, was completely different. Nietzsche's intent was to find some way of establishing meaning in a world without God, whereas Rand's was to be an unabashed fluffer for capitalism's most egregious excesses (yes, I know, I'm oversimplifying Rand here, but the sad thing is, not by much: her actual intent was to justify lassiez-faire capitalism by denying the existence of collective good).

2) Rand is hardly a philosopher. Only in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal does she show anything approaching philosophical rigor, and most of her premises go essentially unsupported. I'll admit that she was more clear in that work than writers like Hegel and Mill, but that's not saying much. Instead, she is simply an essayist who became popular with people who didn't know what philosophy was, and the title was simply attributed to her.

3) As far as influence goes, I can think of quite a few books written during this century that have had substantially more impact than hers: The Interpretation of Dreams, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, etc., were all substantially more influential than Rand's combined set of literature. Hell, if we are simply looking at Americans, she still is not very high on the list: The Feminine Mystique, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, The Pentagon Papers, etc, all jump out at me just off the top of my head. Philosophically, her work is beat out by work by Sellers, Dewey, James, Quine, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Rawls for influence.

4) As for the main question of which philosophers you should read, I would strongly recommend three basic works, two ancient, and one modern. All three are some of the best philosophical treatises I've yet read:

Aristotle, Posterior Analytica
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Rawls, A Theory of Justice

2) Rand is hardly a philosopher. Only in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal does she show anything approaching philosophical rigor, and most of her premises go essentially unsupported. I'll admit that she was more clear in that work than writers like Hegel and Mill, but that's not saying much. Instead, she is simply an essayist who became popular with people who didn't know what philosophy was, and the title was simply attributed to her.
Patently untrue. Anyone with ideas about life and how it should be lived can be considered a philosopher. One does not need a degree, a book, or blind influence to be a philosopher.

Particularly curious to me is your assertation that her premises go "essentially unsupported." Care to furnish us with a few examples?

That's unusual. I know of many people who enjoy Rand's work IRL. Strange thing is, at least a third of them are totally left-wing, and probably don't understand what they're reading.
If we're talking real life here, most people these days don't give a shit about philosophy anyways, so I'd assume it would be rare to hear about anyone outside of informational sources (like the internet).
Most people like her fiction over her philosophy, from my experiences (I personally like the fiction too, and I take her philosophy w/a grain of salt)

3) As far as influence goes, I can think of quite a few books written during this century that have had substantially more impact than hers: The Interpretation of Dreams, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, etc., were all substantially more influential than Rand's combined set of literature. Hell, if we are simply looking at Americans, she still is not very high on the list: The Feminine Mystique, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, The Pentagon Papers, etc, all jump out at me just off the top of my head. Philosophically, her work is beat out by work by Sellers, Dewey, James, Quine, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Rawls for influence.

If Ayn Rand had no influence then explain the fact that Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Department of the Federal Reserve used to run with Ayn Rand's Objectivist circles in the 40's and 50's.

I think that Objectivism has had more of a quiet impact on our economy than most people realize.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

If Ayn Rand had no influence then explain the fact that Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Department of the Federal Reserve used to run with Ayn Rand's Objectivist circles in the 40's and 50's.

I think that Objectivism has had more of a quiet impact on our economy than most people realize.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
Actually, Greenspan ran counter to Objectivism by accepting the post in the first place: an orthodox Objectivist would abolish the Federal Reserve, not work for it. Still, it's kind of ironic because that's probably the best position for an Objectivist to occupy, at least within our current system.

That said, philosophers have a way of not being truly influential until several generations after their death. We can safely say that people like Kant and Hegel have had an influence because they practiced philosophy over a century ago and its had some time to sink in. Objectivism is still only about 50 years old, so it strikes me as a bit hasty to condemn it as meaningless and totally non-influential. People who are quick to denounce Objectivism as meaningless are generally just as ignorant about it as they are fearful of its ideas. Few people in this day and age are prepared to countenance it because it flies so grossly in the face of their already accepted ideas. Give it time.

I never said I was against Objectivism, I have only a basic understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy so I plan to hold back judgement until I know more about it.

While I am not happy with the current state of Capitalism I think it is MUCH better than the alternatives of Feudalism, Communism, and Communism's bastard child Socialism (which is driving countries like Sweden and Norway into HUGE debts).

So let's hear it for Capitalism!

I was wondering what were some other philosophical people other than the ones mentioned. I need to open my mind a bit more and I'm sure you guys can help me out. Thanks!

I know some of these may have been mentioned, but here is a list of philosophers you might want to try out:

Plato
Aristotle
Marcus Aurelius
Boethius
Jean Abelard
Anslem of Canturbury
Thomas Aquinas
John Ockham
Desiderius Erasmus
Martin Luther
Blaise Pascal
René Descartes
David Hume
Soren Kierkegaard
John Locke

I know some of these may have been mentioned, but here is a list of philosophers you might want to try out:

Plato
Aristotle
Marcus Aurelius
Boethius
Jean Abelard
Anslem of Canturbury
Thomas Aquinas
John Ockham
Desiderius Erasmus
Martin Luther
Blaise Pascal
René Descartes
David Hume
Soren Kierkegaard
John Locke

Why is it that I'm the only person that considers the Buddha to be a philosopher?

While I am not happy with the current state of Capitalism I think it is MUCH better than the alternatives of Feudalism, Communism, and Communism's bastard child Socialism (which is driving countries like Sweden and Norway into HUGE debts).

Care to explain to me how the bastard child manages to be older than its parent?

and Communism's bastard child Socialism (which is driving countries like Sweden and Norway into HUGE debts).

as opposed to the gargantuan surpluses run by the u.s.

oh, and it ain't socialism that they're running either.

Care to explain to me how the bastard child manages to be older than its parent?

time travel accident. just be grateful that the universe didn't explode because of it.

as opposed to the gargantuan surpluses run by the u.s.

oh, and it ain't socialism that they're running either.

We will also ignore the fact that Norway is actually a net external creditor (ie. owes exactly $0.00 to other countries), just for the sake of argument, but anyhoo... the national debt of Norway... is 22% of their GDP, whereas the USA's clocks in at 62.4%, while Sweden manages 51.8%...


time travel accident. just be grateful that the universe didn't explode because of it.

"There was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine." - HHGttG.

We will also ignore the fact that Norway is actually a net external creditor (ie. owes exactly $0.00 to other countries), just for the sake of argument

naturally. never let data get in the way of a good argument, i always say.

naturally. never let data get in the way of a good argument, i always say.

Yeah, well, that was pretty much just a placeholder until I located the national debt figures for Sweden and Norway, and isn't massively relevant here.

Why is it that I'm the only person that considers the Buddha to be a philosopher?

Its not that I don't consider him a philosopher. I just made a list of the philosophers that I have read and liked. I've read quite a bit of Buddha's teachings (mostly in prep for the three months I lived in Thailand as an English teacher). I just really wasn't all that impressed personally... but that may just be me.