NationStates Jolt Archive

For me its Friedrich Nietzsche(with Nicolo Machiavelli coming in 2nd place)

The man was a genius who unfortunately had to deal with idiots his entire life.

Schopenhauer. Most pessimistic son of a bitch there ever was...as far as I know.

George Carlin. :)

Pierre Proudhon.

Socrates.
I'm old school.

Bill Maher. He's not really a philosopher, but some guy included George Carlin, so I'll say Bill Maher.

Errrr...Richard Pryor?

Bruce Lee.

Friedrich Nieztsche.

Bill Maher. He's not really a philosopher, but some guy included George Carlin, so I'll say Bill Maher.

The two are exactly the same IMO

Nietzsche. Although, upon reading some other philosophers, I've developed a vague suspicion that Nietzsche wasn't really a philosopher at all. He's far too interesting and human. Even in the original German he's more accessible than other philosophers - and I can't read German.

Friedrich Nieztsche.

Hmm, a surprising choice for a socialist. Nonetheless, if you ignore his insane reactionism, he really is one of the more interesting philosophers. As Mythotic Kelkia notes, he's much more interesting and human than most other philosophers.

Just one? I'll have to give you a top 10, best I can do.

Antony Flew
Bertrand Russell
Immanuel Kant
Friedrich Nietzsche
Niccolo Machiavelli
Lao Tzu
Galileo Galilei
Theodorus
Socrates
Heraclitus

Hmm, a surprising choice for a socialist.

Judging by Nieztsche's politics, definitely.

Nonetheless, if you ignore his insane reactionism, he really is one of the more interesting philosophers. As Mythotic Kelkia notes, he's much more interesting and human than most other philosophers.

His emphasis on personal struggle, on creating your own values and rising above societal and conformist idiocies, all speak to me, as well as his attacks on meekness and self-repression.

I just happen to combine Nieztschean thought with a fierce conviction of moral egalitarianism. They don't exactly combine smoothly, being contradictory on a number of points, but I like the results.

The two are exactly the same IMO
Yeah, pretty much.

Socrates, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Sartre

John Lennon, Buddha, Yoda

Edmund Burke and Niccolo Machiavelli offhand although I'd like to read more of both.

This quiz (http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/) ranks my best matches as follows:

1. Kant (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (97%)
3. Ayn Rand (81%)
4. John Stuart Mill (74%)
5. Stoics (74%)
6. Jeremy Bentham (70%)
7. Spinoza (70%)
8. Aquinas (64%)
9. Prescriptivism (64%)
10. Aristotle (60%)
11. Epicureans (57%)
12. Cynics (44%)
13. David Hume (42%)
14. Nietzsche (42%)
15. Nel Noddings (37%)
16. Thomas Hobbes (35%)
17. Ockham (32%)
18. St. Augustine (32%)
19. Plato (28%)

Interesting that Sartre and Rand should both rank so high.

St. Augustine. His ideas on God existing outside of time closely matches the ideas that I came up with while I was bored in university calculus.

Karl Marx.

Bruce Lee.

Oh, welcome to the Club.

My Quiz results

Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. David Hume (72%)
3. Nietzsche (72%)
4. Ayn Rand (66%)
5. Kant (62%)
6. Stoics (58%)
7. Spinoza (56%)
8. Thomas Hobbes (56%)
9. John Stuart Mill (54%)
10. Jeremy Bentham (47%)
11. Epicureans (45%)
12. St. Augustine (40%)
13. Cynics (39%)
14. Aquinas (38%)
15. Prescriptivism (32%)
16. Nel Noddings (30%)
17. Aristotle (29%)
18. Plato (28%)
19. Ockham (14%)

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) -Odd, I don't agree with most of his stuff..
2. David Hume (80%) -yeah, I suppose so.
3. Aquinas (77%) -Meh.
4. Thomas Hobbes (74%) - Ah good old pessimistic Hobbes
5. Cynics (68%)
6. Nel Noddings (68%) - I don't know him
7. John Stuart Mill (66%) - I can easily identify with his teachings
8. Nietzsche (66%) -Waaay too depressing and 'popular'.
9. Aristotle (63%) -Classic for politics
10. Stoics (63%)
11. Jeremy Bentham (63%)
12. Ayn Rand (60%) - You've got to be kidding me...
13. Spinoza (55%)
14. Kant (54%)
15. Epicureans (42%)
16. Plato (40%) -Yay. Close enough to Socrates for me.
17. St. Augustine (35%)
18. Ockham (28%) - Vaguely aware of Ockham.
19. Prescriptivism (20%)

1. Stoics (100%) Click here for info
2. Ayn Rand (88%) Click here for info
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (83%) Click here for info
4. Kant (76%) Click here for info
5. Spinoza (66%) Click here for info
6. Aquinas (61%) Click here for info
7. Nietzsche (60%) Click here for info
8. David Hume (57%) Click here for info
9. Aristotle (57%) Click here for info
10. Cynics (52%) Click here for info
11. Jeremy Bentham (51%) Click here for info
12. John Stuart Mill (48%) Click here for info
13. Prescriptivism (46%) Click here for info
14. St. Augustine (45%) Click here for info
15. Thomas Hobbes (41%) Click here for info
16. Plato (31%) Click here for info
17. Ockham (30%) Click here for info
18. Nel Noddings (28%) Click here for info
19. Epicureans (15%) Click here for info

Oh, welcome to the Club.

Club?

Interesting that Sartre and Rand should both rank so high.

It seems like Rand is a catch-all.

It seems like Rand is a catch-all.

Yes, even I got her 55%.

Kant (100%)
Jean-Paul Sartre (89%)
Prescriptivism (83%)
John Stuart Mill (79%)
Spinoza (79%)
Nietzsche (66%)
Epicureans (64%)
Jeremy Bentham (63%)
Stoics (63%)
Aquinas (61%)
Ayn Rand (55%)
David Hume (52%)
Aristotle (48%)
Ockham (44%)
Thomas Hobbes (39%)
Nel Noddings (38%)
St. Augustine (36%)
Plato (29%)
Cynics (5%)

I hated the questions, though, and answered some of them in ways I didn't like, so I question the accuracy of this thing.

Club?

Oh, you didn't know? The Bruce Lee is my favourite philosopher Club. Membership is free, and you get a handy Bruce Lee Novelty Flying disc.

1.John Stuart Mill (100%)
2.Kant (94%)
3.Jean-Paul Sartre (93%)
4.Epicureans (84%)
5.Nel Noddings (75%)
6.Ayn Rand (73%)
7.Thomas Hobbes (73%)
8.Prescriptivism (72%)
9.Jeremy Bentham (71%)
10.Nietzsche (67%)
11.David Hume (65%)
12.Cynics (54%)
13.Aquinas (53%)
14.Stoics (47%)
15.Spinoza (43%)
16.Aristotle (36%)
17.Ockham (31%)
18.Plato (30%)
19.St. Augustine (27%)

Oh, you didn't know? The Bruce Lee is my favourite philosopher Club. Membership is free, and you get a handy Bruce Lee Novelty Flying disc.
One should get free nunchakus.

It seems like Rand is a catch-all.

Rand used to actually rank quite low the other times I have taken the test. I very strongly disagree with the assertion that altruism/collectivism are inherently immoral/evil/bad/icky/etc.; such a claim is typically argued from a false dicotomy: either one is a free selfish individual, or the victim of horrible statist oppression. All of the possible cases of free association of individuals in voluntary collective efforts are conveniently ignored, or the Objectivist somehow manages to master the skill of reading minds in order to prove how the motovation of such individuals is really selfish in nature ("if only they were as brilliant as me they would realize this too", etc.) And at any rate, Rand seems like less of a brilliant philosopher and more of an (understandably) angry victim of Soviet totalitarianism who knee-jerked to the opposite extreme (thus the inherent false dicotomy) out of spite.

My surprise, however, comes from the apparent contradiction between the subjectivism of Sartre (the individual chooses his own purpose/meaning) and the objectivism of Rand. Then again, I think I have shifted to a more agnostic position on the "objective" vs. "subjective" issue; something like "I don't know, and I can't really see how it makes any difference." Perhaps it is not that strange that they both rank so high on my list, then.

On a sidenote, does the Ockham in this have anything to do with Ockham's Razor? Because I read the description the site gives, and it doesn't seem like it.

Edit: as to the original question: my favorite philosopher is probably myself. I haven't run into anyone with very similar ideas, or anyone who can really substantiate their claims.

Jean Jacques Rousseau - remarkably accessible and a man quite ahead of his times.

One should get free nunchakus.

The cost...wasn't co-operative.

Camus and Nietsche are pretty cool I guess.

Nietsche's style is very engaging and as a result I think he takes things a bit farther than he would otherwise. It's important to read Nietsche with a grain of salt, but to try not to water down his important points.

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Nietzsche (94%) Click here for info
3. Spinoza (94%) Click here for info
4. Stoics (81%) Click here for info
5. Aquinas (79%) Click here for info
6. Kant (76%) Click here for info
7. David Hume (72%) Click here for info
8. St. Augustine (72%) Click here for info
9. Epicureans (61%) Click here for info
10. Aristotle (60%) Click here for info
11. Ayn Rand (57%) Click here for info
12. Cynics (57%) Click here for info
13. Jeremy Bentham (56%) Click here for info
14. Nel Noddings (51%) Click here for info
15. John Stuart Mill (51%) Click here for info
16. Thomas Hobbes (40%) Click here for info
17. Ockham (36%) Click here for info
18. Plato (32%) Click here for info
19. Prescriptivism (7%) Click here for info

I don't know who Sartre is, but I like both Nietzche and Spinoza.

Adam Smith. I'm surprised no one has mentioned him yet.

That guy on the subway who yells alot. By far the most interesting, thought provoking man I have ever met. Actually, I haven't seen him in months. I hope he's ok. :(

1. Nel Noddings (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (99%)
3. David Hume (88%)
4. Nietzsche (87%)
5. Thomas Hobbes (73%)
6. Epicureans (68%)
7. Stoics (68%)
8. Kant (63%)
9. Aristotle (63%)
10. Ayn Rand (62%)
11. John Stuart Mill (60%)
12. Jeremy Bentham (58%)
13. Spinoza (58%)
14. Cynics (56%)
15. Aquinas (50%)
16. Ockham (38%)
17. Prescriptivism (38%)
18. St. Augustine (36%)
19. Plato (20%)

Sartre No. I can't stand the man.

Can someone explain to me how it is possible to be 88% in agreement with Hume and 63% in agreement with Kant. This implies that there is at least a 51% overlap between the two!

Essentially I am a Hume follower and I have very strong restrictions towards the rationalists (all of them)

JS Mill seemed pretty onto it considering his time from what I've read.


hmm.. He's up there-ish

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Kant (99%) Click here for info
3. Stoics (83%) Click here for info
4. Spinoza (77%) Click here for info
5. Epicureans (73%) Click here for info
6. John Stuart Mill (71%) Click here for info
7. Aristotle (69%) Click here for info
8. David Hume (69%) Click here for info
9. Nel Noddings (69%) Click here for info
10. Ayn Rand (67%) Click here for info
11. Aquinas (66%) Click here for info
12. Jeremy Bentham (60%) Click here for info
13. Nietzsche (59%) Click here for info
14. St. Augustine (43%) Click here for info
15. Prescriptivism (42%) Click here for info
16. Ockham (38%) Click here for info
17. Thomas Hobbes (37%) Click here for info
18. Cynics (33%) Click here for info
19. Plato (30%) Click here for info

For me its Friedrich Nietzsche(with Nicolo Machiavelli coming in 2nd place)

The man was a genius who unfortunately had to deal with idiots his entire life.
If I suspected that Nietzche and/or Machiavelli was/were going to become my favorite philosophers, I would shoot myself!

My favorite philosopher is Fritjof Capra (http://www.fritjofcapra.net/).

1. Nel Noddings (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (99%)
3. David Hume (88%)
4. Nietzsche (87%)
5. Thomas Hobbes (73%)
6. Epicureans (68%)
7. Stoics (68%)
8. Kant (63%)
9. Aristotle (63%)
10. Ayn Rand (62%)
11. John Stuart Mill (60%)
12. Jeremy Bentham (58%)
13. Spinoza (58%)
14. Cynics (56%)
15. Aquinas (50%)
16. Ockham (38%)
17. Prescriptivism (38%)
18. St. Augustine (36%)
19. Plato (20%)

Sartre No. I can't stand the man.

Can someone explain to me how it is possible to be 88% in agreement with Hume and 63% in agreement with Kant. This implies that there is at least a 51% overlap between the two!

Essentially I am a Hume follower and I have very strong restrictions towards the rationalists (all of them)

Awww, you know you are just a Randroid, you silly libertarian.

Sartre No. I can't stand the man.

What do you have against Sartre?

Friedrich Nietzsche
John Stuart Mill
Sir Thomas More

And according to the quiz...
1. Epicureans (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (94%)
3. Aquinas (93%)
4. Stoics (86%)
5. Nietzsche (81%)
6. Kant (80%)
7. Spinoza (78%)
8. Jean-Paul Sartre (78%)
9. Aristotle (73%)
10. Jeremy Bentham (73%)
11. Ayn Rand (72%)
12. David Hume (70%)
13. Thomas Hobbes (59%)
14. Plato (58%)
15. Cynics (56%)
16. St. Augustine (54%)
17. Nel Noddings (35%)
18. Ockham (29%)
19. Prescriptivism (22%)

If I suspected that Nietzche and/or Machiavelli was/were going to become my favorite philosophers, I would shoot myself!
Machiavelli was a Democrat (in the sense of being pro-Democracy) at heart and was pretty progressive for his time.
The Prince was written from a purely academic stand point as a resume to get him a cabinet position with some king or other. However, his real downfall came when the Catholic Church decided they didn't like him, and so he went the way of the pentagram and was slandered so much and so thoroughly that he's reputation will probably never recover.

Anyway, my favorite philosophers are Nietzsche and Hume (though I disagree with many of Hume's points, especially those on epistemology and personal identity). I also like Descartes, as the man lead a revolution in philosophical thinking, redefining the philosophical argument and providing a viable alternative to Aristotelean thinking.
Pity he was dead wrong about almost everything, though.

Jean Jacques Rousseau - remarkably accessible and a man quite ahead of his times.

One of my geeky fantasies is of locking him into a room with Voltaire and watching the carnage ensue. That, or just listening to the two of them debate.
Unfortunatley I do not know French.

Machiavelli was a Democrat (in the sense of being pro-Democracy) at heart and was pretty progressive for his time.
The Prince was written from a purely academic stand point as a resume to get him a cabinet position with some king or other.


Really? I heard he wrote The Prince because he was one of the first people to believe in the unification of Italy and wanted a strong leader to do so.

But hey, its history; therte fifty million interpretations of it.

Margaret Thatcher;

A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.

Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.

I don't know what I would do without Whitelaw. Everyone should have a Willy.

I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

It may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs.

Why do you climb philosophical hills? Because they are worth climbing. There are no hills to go down unless you start from the top.

That quiz thing:
1. Thomas Hobbes (100%)- most acurate quiz ever.
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (98%)
3. David Hume (91%)
4. Nietzsche (88%)
5. Cynics (68%)
6. Stoics (68%)
7. Ayn Rand (61%)
8. Epicureans (61%)
9. Jeremy Bentham (59%)
10. Kant (59%)
11. Spinoza (58%)
12. Aristotle (52%)
13. John Stuart Mill (51%)
14. Aquinas (50%)
15. Nel Noddings (40%)
16. Prescriptivism (36%)
17. Ockham (31%)
18. Plato (30%)
19. St. Augustine (22%)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozey beggar
Who could drink you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wichtenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the rasing of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, or his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away:
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a buggar for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram.
And Renes Des Cartes was a drunken fart:
I drink, therefore I am.

Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Robert Pirsig

gotta love a guy investigating and recreating his own philosophy after electroshock.

It seems like Rand is a catch-all.Yep.

I apparently matched her 85%. But in the process of hanging my noose, I realized that Rand is so wishy-washy it would be hard not to come up with a match... That's probably why teenagers love her so, being at that age where it's so unbelievably gratifying to have those "I thought of that!" moments.

1. Rousseau
2. Kant
3. Plato
4. Freud
5. Hegel
6. Quine

... According to the quiz, I match Kant 100%, which seems fairly accurate. Being that I find Hegel's criticisms of Kant very convincing, I would probably be closer to Hegel... but I strongly suspect that Hegel is not an option for the quiz. I rank Hegel lower than Kant because, while I tend to agree with Hegel over Kant, I appreciate the overall elegance of the Kantian project, especially given the philosophical contexts with which he was contending (i.e. the seemingly irreconcilable conflicts between naive rationalism and simple-minded empiricism). Hegel stands squarely on Kant's broad shoulders... Kant, while heavily inspired by Rousseau, almost single-handedly built a new foundation for rational philosophy.

You have to admire that.

1. Thomas Hobbes (100%) Click here for info
2. Epicureans (91%) Click here for info
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (91%) Click here for info
4. Jeremy Bentham (91%) Click here for info
5. John Stuart Mill (88%) Click here for info
6. David Hume (78%) Click here for info
7. Ayn Rand (71%) Click here for info
8. Cynics (70%) Click here for info
9. Nietzsche (70%) Click here for info
10. Aquinas (65%) Click here for info
11. Aristotle (61%) Click here for info
12. Nel Noddings (58%) Click here for info
13. Kant (52%) Click here for info
14. Spinoza (43%) Click here for info
15. Plato (43%) Click here for info
16. Stoics (43%) Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism (22%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (10%) Click here for info
19. St. Augustine (9%) Click here for info

Probably Kant

JOHN LOCKE!! <33 Greatest person of all time.

I have good respect for Nietzsche, Aristotle, Kant and Hume.

1. Nietzsche (100%) Click here for info
2. David Hume (90%) Click here for info
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (87%) Click here for info
4. Thomas Hobbes (85%) Click here for info
5. Ayn Rand (85%) Click here for info
6. Stoics (81%) Click here for info
7. Cynics (74%) Click here for info
8. Spinoza (61%) Click here for info
9. Epicureans (59%) Click here for info
10. John Stuart Mill (52%) Click here for info
11. Kant (52%) Click here for info
12. Aquinas (51%) Click here for info
13. Plato (51%) Click here for info
14. St. Augustine (44%) Click here for info
15. Nel Noddings (33%) Click here for info
16. Jeremy Bentham (32%) Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism (31%) Click here for info
18. Aristotle (28%) Click here for info
19. Ockham (25%) Click here for info

Common now guys, did any of those guys really teach you anything? Think about all the people that taught you lessons and made you think as a kid...

GI Joe
Chuck Norris (cause he is better than bruce lee)
The Power Rangers
The X Men
Jonny Quest
Tom & Jerry
common, you know you know more

Common now guys, did any of those guys really teach you anything? Think about all the people that taught you lessons and made you think as a kid...

GI Joe
Chuck Norris (cause he is better than bruce lee)
The Power Rangers
The X Men
Jonny Quest
Tom & Jerry
common, you know you know more

Are you on about Spuds Mackenzie?

What do you have against Sartre?

I am British, need I say more?

Kierkegaard, no doubt.

Plato, and his world of the ideas...

Hard to pick just one...Few people speak about Bacon, and yet his views made a revolution in the way of thinking of the western society...

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozey beggar
Who could drink you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wichtenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the rasing of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, or his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away:
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a buggar for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram.
And Renes Des Cartes was a drunken fart:
I drink, therefore I am.

Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Yay for Bruce's Philosopher's song :D

I'm with the German philosophers, esp Wittgenstein and Neitzsche, but also to a lesser extent Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer etc.

Wow. just did the test and:
1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (91%) Click here for info
3. John Stuart Mill (83%) Click here for info
4. Cynics (76%) Click here for info
5. Aquinas (74%) Click here for info
6. Jeremy Bentham (73%) Click here for info
7. Epicureans (67%) Click here for info
8. Thomas Hobbes (66%) Click here for info
9. Ockham (54%) Click here for info
10. St. Augustine (51%) Click here for info
11. Aristotle (49%) Click here for info
12. Nel Noddings (48%) Click here for info
13. Nietzsche (47%) Click here for info
14. Prescriptivism (45%) Click here for info
15. Kant (44%) Click here for info
16. Spinoza (44%) Click here for info
17. Stoics (38%) Click here for info
18. David Hume (36%) Click here for info
19. Plato (32%) Click here for info

Weird. I can't stand Ayn Rand. I despise her simple (and feeble) minded attempts at philosophy and the obsession the right have with her. My political leanings, according to the Political compass test are diametrically opposite to a typical Ayn Rand supporter.
I also can't stand how her name's written.

His emphasis on personal struggle, on creating your own values and rising above societal and conformist idiocies, all speak to me, as well as his attacks on meekness and self-repression.

I just happen to combine Nieztschean thought with a fierce conviction of moral egalitarianism. They don't exactly combine smoothly, being contradictory on a number of points, but I like the results.

I see. Sounds like an interesting approach. Just what are the results?

hmmm,I really like John Stuart Mill, I think many of his points are relevant today,and I especially like his ideas on freedom of opinion and expression.Its sometimes good to remember in discusssions that each arguement may have an element of truth in in.
Satre has a few good points but is also inherantly miserable.
Descartes has a good idea by trying to question every belief he can-but relies too much on proof, he may think hes being controled by a malevolant demon,because he cant prove the worldf is how we see it, but i certainly dont.
Kierkegaard, you cannot reason your way to faith, probably true.
Kant-doing your duty makes you happy-well it all depends on what my duty is-if my duty is tidying then count me out.

yes, i know its all over simplified, but thats just the way i remember them.

Denis Leary

My favourites:

David Hume is my favourite right now. I also really like J.L. Mackie and Richard Joyce. Also I like Wittgenstein, but I’m still trying to figure out his importance and legacy.

Jesus.

A slight change in subject...

A philosopher I dislike:

Hilary Putnam (because of his quasi moral realism, and I think he’s a scientific realist also)

According to me:
Nietzche, Epicurus, Mill, Locke, Hume, Sartre, Marx

According to the test:

1. Stoics (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (99%)
3. Spinoza (86%)
4. Ayn Rand (80%)
5. Nietzsche (76%)
6. David Hume (75%)
7. Thomas Hobbes (65%)
8. Cynics (62%)
9. Aquinas (59%)
10. Kant (56%)
11. St. Augustine (53%)
12. Aristotle (47%)
13. Ockham (44%)
14. Epicureans (42%)
15. Plato (41%)
16. Nel Noddings (39%)
17. John Stuart Mill (36%)
18. Prescriptivism (35%)
19. Jeremy Bentham (32%)

My favorite's Plato, as I share his pessimism about the teaching of virtue, and also because I oppose any moral status being given to what a person wants or feels (he places the "appetite" part of the soul at the bottom).

Leibniz's metaphysics would also rank high, even though I disagree with some of the points he makes about monads (their being eternal, for one).

Sartre. I love Sartre, he is by far my favourite philosopher of all time.


L'enfer c'est les autres.

Karl Marx

This thread seems to be getting a lot of people interested in the ethical realm of philosophy; is anyone interested in meta/second order ethics? Any moral skeptics/anti-realists out there?

John Lennon and Eddie Izzard

This thread seems to be getting a lot of people interested in the ethical realm of philosophy; is anyone interested in meta/second order ethics? Any moral skeptics/anti-realists out there?

Oh, I love metaphysics. But then I read some David Hume, and it just wasn't the same anymore. I actually had my own metaphysical theory, inspired by Descartes and Leibniz. It ended up very strange.

Oh, I love metaphysics. But then I read some David Hume, and it just wasn't the same anymore. I actually had my own metaphysical theory, inspired by Descartes and Leibniz. It ended up very strange.

Ya I was a naive rationalist also, then I read Hume, then I abandoned my rationalist heroes (Spinoza and Leibniz).

I like Leibniz mostly for his contribution to discourse concerning consciousness also; appreciate Descartes for the changes his pushed in philosophy (his epistemology stuff), but overall his metaphysics suck. BTW I asked about metaethics, not physics. How much contemporary philosophy have you read? Because if you like Hume, there is a bunch of interesting stuff out there which follows his direction.

Niccolò Machiavelli, the much malaigned, is definately my fave. Readable yet complex.
If you've only read Il Principe, go out and get Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio - now!



Going on the principal of who I either respect or enjoy reading, rather than who I necessarily follow (in no particular order):
1. Thomas Aquinas
2. Xunzi (Hsün Tzu)
3. Francis Bacon
4. Roger Bacon
5. Adam Smith
6. Aristotle
7. Maimonides
8. David Hume
9. Averroes Ibn Rushd
10. William of Ockham

As far as the test:

#


1. Stoics (100%) Click here for info
2. Spinoza (79%) Click here for info
3. Ayn Rand (67%) Click here for info
4. Cynics (65%) Click here for info
5. Aquinas (63%) Click here for info
6. Kant (62%) Click here for info
7. Nietzsche (60%) Click here for info
8. Jean-Paul Sartre (55%) Click here for info
9. David Hume (54%) Click here for info
10. St. Augustine (53%) Click here for info
11. Aristotle (50%) Click here for info
12. Jeremy Bentham (44%) Click here for info
13. John Stuart Mill (40%) Click here for info
14. Thomas Hobbes (35%) Click here for info
15. Ockham (34%) Click here for info
16. Nel Noddings (32%) Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism (29%) Click here for info
18. Plato (26%) Click here for info
19. Epicureans (11%) Click here for info

#

Stoicism
# The common capacity to reason allows all humans to achieve virtue and wisdom.
# The external circumstances of a person's life are irrelevant.
# One can achieve virtue by becoming indifferent to external differences.
# Passions must be rejected all together in deciding what is good and what is bad.
# Reason alone must be used in deciding what is good and what is bad.
# The common ability of humans to reason is why ethical relativism should be rejected.

Fits my Buddhism.... :D

I don't know who Sartre is, but I like both Nietzche and Spinoza.

:eek:

All of the possible cases of free association of individuals in voluntary collective efforts are conveniently ignored, or the Objectivist somehow manages to master the skill of reading minds in order to prove how the motovation of such individuals is really selfish in nature

Straw man.

Objectivists do not claim that all voluntary collective efforts are done for selfish reasons. Those that are, are virtuous; those that are not are evil.

We are ethical egoists, not psychological egoists.

Machiavelli was not a political philosopher. He was a political scientist. He was simply concerned with describing things as they actually were, not with making judgments about them or telling others what they should or should not do.

My favorite's Plato, as I share his pessimism about the teaching of virtue, and also because I oppose any moral status being given to what a person wants or feels (he places the "appetite" part of the soul at the bottom).Does he now?

I guess he must, if you take the Republic at face-value. Then again, that's the problem with a philosopher who always writes in dialogues: it's never clear you are reading "him" and not his characters.

Interestingly, the appetitive or erotic part of the soul gets a much different treatment elsewhere, as for instance in the Symposium. Also, one must note that in the Republic the true philosopher is ultimately a lover... of wisdom, yes, but the point is that he is driven to learn; indeed, in Book V Plato describes him as hungry for knowledge...

Then, notice that in Plato's description of the philosopher-king in the Republic, he calls him a "calculative" person, which seems to be distinguishable from the "rational" philosopher described elsewhere. In fact, it seems that each of the three classes has a pure and a degenerate form: the truly erotic soul is noble, as opposed to the weak and selfish appetitive soul. True bravery is contrasted to belligerent "spiritedness," and likewise true wisdom is distinguished from mere intelligence.

In fact, I believe that in the Republic Plato only has the opportunity to discuss a mere shadow of the best city, because this is where his characters can get him: Glaucon summarily rejects the city which, in Book II, Socrates calls "the true city." As for the arrangement of "natures" in this true city, as in the truly just soul, Plato leaves this discovery for his reader. Following his own fascination with mathematical logic, he provides all the clues in Book VIII: as he discusses the degeneration of the best city into the worst, he describes (for the careful reader) the movement of natures in each. One notices that there are five cities described... none of which resembles the "true city" of Book II.

But wait... Three natures? That means there must be six possible arrangements of these three. The question is, which one is the arrangement in the true city?

I think if you follow along carefully, the answer is as follows: The true city is ruled by eros (love), guided by wisdom; everyone shares in the spirited nature, which they call upon only for the common defense. Compare this arrangement to the principles of the "true city" barely sketched out in Book II... and then compare it with the discussion of eros in the Symposium, especially the description of lovers going to war toward the end.

(Sorry for the long, slightly hijacking post... but I presented this paper at a conference a few years ago, and I still enjoy the argument.) ;)

George Carlin. :)

LOVE HIM!!! See him live whenever you can.

The two are exactly the same IMO

Wrong, Carlin is by far more intelligent and funny.

Friedrich Nietzsche. The first decent human being.

Jesus Christ.

Netzchie: God is dead
80 years later...
God: Neitzchie is dead.

The test isn't very accurate. . .I had quite a few "No Answer is right" responses simply because the phrasing was so bad.

Test Responses:

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. St. Augustine (90%) Click here for info
3. Stoics (90%) Click here for info
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (88%) Click here for info
5. Spinoza (86%) Click here for info
6. Aristotle (84%) Click here for info
7. Ayn Rand (84%) Click here for info
8. Kant (76%) Click here for info
9. Cynics (72%) Click here for info
10. Jeremy Bentham (68%) Click here for info
11. John Stuart Mill (68%) Click here for info
12. David Hume (54%) Click here for info
13. Epicureans (54%) Click here for info
14. Nietzsche (54%) Click here for info
15. Nel Noddings (52%) Click here for info
16. Plato (52%) Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism (42%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (36%) Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes (32%) Click here for info

Real Responses:

1. Aristotle
2. Immanuel Kant
3. Who cares

Spinoza (100%)
Aquinas (93%)
Nietzsche (87%)
Jean-Paul Sartre (85%)
Aristotle (83%)
David Hume (83%)
Jeremy Bentham (82%)
Stoics (79%)
Epicureans (74%)
John Stuart Mill (73%)
Thomas Hobbes (73%)
Cynics (72%)
Ayn Rand (58%)
Kant (56%)
St. Augustine (51%)
Nel Noddings (51%)
Plato (38%)
Ockham (26%)
Prescriptivism (25%)

Hmm, Spinoza kind of makes sense actually, my being a pantheist and all.

Lao Tzu and Confucius

Objectivists do not claim that all voluntary collective efforts are done for selfish reasons. Those that are, are virtuous; those that are not are evil.


This is the assertion that I reject because it is a blatent false dichotomy. Why must altruistic acts necessarily be evil? If my altruism is voluntary, peaceful, and given freely by choice, what exactly is wrong with it? Doesn't being a free individual include the ability to freely choose to live my life for another man? Who the hell is Rand to label me "evil" because I choose different values than she? What meaning do free will or choice have if the "correct" or "moral" way to live is dictated to me?

Is one simply afraid of the possibility that altruism might become the rhetoric of non-voluntary or coercive actions? Show me any single human behavior not subject to such danger.

Again, I'm not seeing a "philosophy" so much as I am seeing the classic knee-jerk response of running to the opposite extreme. Thinking in black and white terms of virtue/evil, yes/no, on/off, and such is convienient and less painful on the brain, however, it often does not reflect actual reality.

Objectivists do not claim that all voluntary collective efforts are done for selfish reasons. Those that are, are virtuous; those that are not are evil.

The only way I would agree with that statement is if it was backed by the idea that all free actions are inherently selfish, which I somewhat believe. It is possible that no one will act if it didn't satisfy their own desires.

Now to say that all altruistic actions, whether free or not, are evil is a little absurd.

Friedrich Nietzsche. The first decent human being.
Decent human being? He stated that all society is based on cruelty and it is natural for humans to torture and kill those below them, which is why he was so popular with the Nazis.

Aristotle. Simply because of the Monty Python philosophers song.

1. Lucifer
2. Nietzsche
3. Uthar Wynn

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Nicollo Machiavelli.

Buddha
Uhm...
Mencius
Plato

Well according to the quiz, no shock here:

1. Stoics (100%)
2. Aquinas (84%)

The rest is silence.

Well according to the quiz, no shock here:

1. Stoics (100%)
2. Aquinas (84%)

The rest is silence.


Quiz? Where?
*missed it*
*confuddled + befused + curious*

Quiz? Where?
*missed it*
*confuddled + befused + curious*
It was on page 2.
Ta-dah! (http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/)

It was on page 2.
Ta-dah! (http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/)

Thank you, kind Sir!

Thank you, kind Sir!
My good deed for the day has been done. Now, off to steal candy from school children and act lascivious in front of unattended ladies.

100 Hume
91 Aquinas
80 Stoics.

*slightly surprised, really....*

Oh, and I really don't fit with the likes of Mill, Bentham, Plato and Ockham.

My good deed for the day has been done. Now, off to steal candy from school children and act lascivious in front of unattended ladies.

But please don't hurt any kittens, will you?

1. Kant (100%)
2. Stoics (88%)
3. Aquinas (83%)
4. John Stuart Mill (78%)
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (70%)
6. Spinoza (70%)
7. Ayn Rand (66%)
8. Aristotle (63%)
9. Nietzsche (63%)
10. Nel Noddings (61%)
11. Epicureans (58%)
12. Prescriptivism (58%)
13. David Hume (56%)
14. St. Augustine (53%)
15. Jeremy Bentham (51%)
16. Plato (45%)
17. Ockham (41%)
18. Cynics (33%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (30%)

Figured i'd get Kant...

. Kant (100%) Click here for info
2. Stoics (88%) Click here for info
3. Aquinas (83%) Click here for info
4. John Stuart Mill (78%) Click here for info
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (70%) Click here for info
6. Spinoza (70%) Click here for info
7. Ayn Rand (66%) Click here for info
8. Aristotle (63%) Click here for info
9. Nietzsche (63%) Click here for info
10. Nel Noddings (61%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (58%) Click here for info
12. Prescriptivism (58%) Click here for info
13. David Hume (56%) Click here for info
14. St. Augustine (53%) Click here for info
15. Jeremy Bentham (51%) Click here for info
16. Plato (45%) Click here for info
17. Ockham (41%) Click here for info
18. Cynics (33%) Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes (30%) Click here for info

Figured i'd get Kant...

*thinks it over*

Perhaps the main gap between you and me is that you think is and ought ( ought to ) go together - and I think they have nothing to do with eachother, and kan't...

I always prefered Mill, and according to the quiz:
1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (93%)
3. Aquinas (87%)
4. Spinoza (83%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (79%)
6. Epicureans (79%)
7. Kant (71%)
8. Aristotle (69%)
9. Prescriptivism (69%)
10. Nietzsche (60%)

Hm, don't know about Sartre, though.

Albert Camus.

1. Epicureans (100%)
2. Thomas Hobbes (81%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (75%)
4. Nietzsche (73%)
5. Aristotle (72%)
6. Aquinas (67%)
7. John Stuart Mill (61%)
8. Jean-Paul Sartre (60%)
9. David Hume (54%)
10. Spinoza (54%)
11. Nel Noddings (53%)
12. Stoics (50%)
13. Cynics (45%)
14. Plato (41%)
15. Ayn Rand (40%)
16. Kant (37%)
17. Prescriptivism (30%)
18. St. Augustine (26%)
19. Ockham (19%)

Always knew I was an Epicurian :p

Hmm, interesting results. I was surprised by Nietzsche and I'm not that familiar with Hume, but from what I've read, I have a lot more in common with some of Nietzsche's ideas that I initially suspected (the things Soheran cited, for example).

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Nietzsche (93%) Click here for info
3. David Hume (76%) Click here for info

*thinks it over*

Perhaps the main gap between you and me is that you think is and ought ( ought to ) go together - and I think they have nothing to do with eachother, and kan't...

Kind-of; but in my experience they're usually in contention.

(oh, and *punches*. That's for the pun :p)

Who is your favorite philosopher?
Popeye, the Sailor Man

If we are going the way of less formally recognised philosophers then mine is:

Calvin's father.

If we are going the way of less formally recognised philosophers then mine is:

Calvin's father.
Well, okay... but you're the only one going for a less recognized philosopher. :p

1. Kant (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (80%)
3. Stoics (75%)
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (74%)
5. Prescriptivism (66%)
6. Ayn Rand (63%)
7. Epicureans (59%)
8. Nel Noddings (54%)
9. Jeremy Bentham (53%)
10. David Hume (50%)
11. Nietzsche (50%)
12. Aquinas (50%)
13. Spinoza (48%)
14. Thomas Hobbes (40%)
15. Aristotle (36%)
16. Cynics (29%)
17. St. Augustine (29%)
18. Ockham (28%)
19. Plato (25%)

Interesting. Before taking the test, I probably would have said someone like Sartre or Camus.

Kind-of; but in my experience they're usually in contention.

(oh, and *punches*. That's for the pun :p)


OUCH! Punches hurt!
*groans*

I agree on the point of contention. But I think the usual contention is beyond resolve - which makes the attempt of reconciling them pointless.

*tries to remember what he was on about*

This is the assertion that I reject because it is a blatent false dichotomy. Why must altruistic acts necessarily be evil?
Because they are! Because it follows logically from the simple fact that A is A!

If my altruism is voluntary, peaceful, and given freely by choice, what exactly is wrong with it?
If it is truly altruism, then it is not in your rational self-interest. Actions for which one's own rational self-interest is not his primary motive are, by definition, immoral.

Doesn't being a free individual include the ability to freely choose to live my life for another man?
Certainly, you have every right to do so, and no one has any legitimate right to stop you. That doesn't make your actions any less immoral, though.

Who the hell is Rand to label me "evil" because I choose different values than she?
Someone who knows what she's talking about, for one.

The only way I would agree with that statement is if it was backed by the idea that all free actions are inherently selfish
But they're not. An individual's primary motive can be either his own benefit or the benefit of others--note that the former as a primary motive does not preclude the possibility of others benefiting as well, nor does the latter preclude the possibility of the individual himself benefiting. The important issue is whether his PRIMARY MOTIVATION is his own benefit or the benefit of another.

If it is his own benefit, his action is virtuous. If not, it is evil.

Now to say that all altruistic actions, whether free or not, are evil is a little absurd.
Not absurd at all; simply true.

Not absurd at all; simply true.

I really don't believe in good or evil, myself. Nonetheless, it does strike me as absurd to claim that being nice, generous, or caring is bad. I could see how some forms of altruism can be counterproductive (encouraging dependency and complacency), but calling it evil to care about others is just silly.

Someone who knows what she's talking about, for one.

I for one consider being labeled "evil" by Rand to be a source of pride in the same way a satanist considers being labeled "evil" by Christianity does. I shudder to think what I have become when I am praised by objectivists.

My alcoholic roommate. He knows his stuff.

I really don't believe in good or evil, myself. Nonetheless, it does strike me as absurd to claim that being nice, generous, or caring is bad.
That you refuse to use reason does not make reason's conclusions any less valid.

but calling it evil to care about others is just silly.
How so? You're fond of assertions; now prove it.

I for one consider being labeled "evil" by Rand to be a source of pride in the same way a satanist considers being labeled "evil" by Christianity does. I shudder to think what I have become when I am praised by objectivists.
Well, the desire to not be good is a hallmark of evil.

Further, it is not relevant who labels you good or evil; what IS relevant is whether you actually ARE good or evil.

If it is his own benefit, his action is virtuous. If not, it is evil.

That is fucking stupid, it is virtuous behavior if it is acted out of freedom while respecting the freedom of others.

Perhaps you can back up this "selfishness is a virtue" crap without resorting to statements like:

If it is his own benefit, his action is virtuous. If not, it is evil.

Because they are!

Actions for which one's own rational self-interest is not his primary motive are, by definition, immoral.

Not absurd at all; simply true.


Perhaps you can explain morality to us, and then explain why selfish actions are inherently good and altruistic actions are inherently bad. So far, your unsupported assertions make me think that you don't have much reason for why you think this way.

That is fucking stupid, it is virtuous behavior if it is acted out of freedom while respecting the freedom of others.
Hardly.

One has the moral right to do all sorts of immoral acts, including acting selflessly. The absence of coercion is not sufficient for an act to be considered moral. It is sufficient for it to be legal in a rational system of laws, to be sure--but it doesn't make the act virtuous.


Perhaps you can explain morality to us, and then explain why selfish actions are inherently good and altruistic actions are inherently bad. So far, your unsupported assertions make me think that you don't have much reason for why you think this way.
A is A.

Apparently I'm mostly Stoic.

Stoics (100%)
2. David Hume (81%)
3. Nietzsche (71%)

@ VO

It is not worth the argument with Tangled up in Blue. He is simply parotting things without understanding them.

Actions motivated primarily by rational self-interest are immoral, and actions are moral in inverse proportion to rational self-interest as their motivation.

Good decreases with selfishness, bad increases with selfishness.

It's, you know, reason's conclusion.

I'd have to go with Camus, though I don't have that much experience with philosophy as of yet.

Actions motivated primarily by rational self-interest are immoral, and actions are moral in inverse proportion to rational self-interest as their motivation.

Good decreases with selfishness, bad increases with selfishness.

It's, you know, reason's conclusion.

What is it with everyone trying to tie morality purely to self interest, either positively (randroids) or negatively (flagellants)?

@ VO

It is not worth the argument with Tangled up in Blue. He is simply parotting things without understanding them.

Except, I'm not.

Except, I'm not.

So prove you understand it then, by explaining why self interest is identified with morality in the objectivist system.

What is it with everyone trying to tie morality purely to self interest, either positively (randroids) or negatively (flagellants)?

Dont take what people type in forums on the internet so seriously.

Dont take what people type in forums on the internet so seriously.

Asking a question means I am taking it seriously? :eek:
(Tangled up in Blue does take this issue very very seriously indeed, from past experience. I am just winding him up a little.)

A is A.

heh, you've totally got to be somebodies sock puppet. this stuff is classic.

Sun Tzu

Because they are! Because it follows logically from the simple fact that A is A!


So, it's true simply because you say so. Yeah, that's what I thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/religion).

Whoever invented utilitarianism.

@ VO

It is not worth the argument with Tangled up in Blue. He is simply parotting things without understanding them.
It's ironic that Rand's philosophy is individualist, yet so many of her followers don't even think for themselves.

It's ironic that Rand's philosophy is individualist...


The "philosophy" that has been presented, anyway, appears to be one that would require me to accept some arbitrary morality, whereby my own free and voluntary individual choice is declared "evil" because it does not conform with that of the Great All-Knowing One.

How is this "individualist?" :confused:

The "philosophy" that has been presented, anyway, appears to be one that would require me to accept some arbitrary morality, whereby my own free and voluntary individual choice is declared "evil" because it does not conform with that of the Great All-Knowing One.

How is this "individualist?" :confused:

You would have to ask an expert in Objectivism. Perhaps you should go look at a thread in the archive, called the throwdown or something similar, where Deleuze and Melkor Unchained have a detailed discussion of objectivist philosophy.

Linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424611)

Hardly.

One has the moral right to do all sorts of immoral acts, including acting selflessly. The absence of coercion is not sufficient for an act to be considered moral. It is sufficient for it to be legal in a rational system of laws, to be sure--but it doesn't make the act virtuous.

I don't think I am catching your definition of virtuous. I don't think that a person can deem their own actions as being virtuous, so an action that is considerate only of the individual seems to be lacking.

A is A.

Show me the part of this deduction where you show that selfish=A and good=A.

@ VO

It is not worth the argument with Tangled up in Blue. He is simply parotting things without understanding them.

Then we are on equal ground because I don't understand objectivism either.

Then we are on equal ground because I don't understand objectivism either.

It's simple. Pure, laissez-faire capitalism is good. Selfishness is good. Altruism, that is to say, any concern for your fellow man, is evil.
Violence is bad. Freedom is good. I agree with her on two points. If you're trying to understand the proof for points one two and three, I don't think there is one. I suspect Objectivists believe for the same reason a Christian believes in God, Faith. They just lack the intellectual honesty to say so. This is one reason why Christianity is better than Objectivism.:)

Mises.

It's simple. Pure, laissez-faire capitalism is good. Selfishness is good. Altruism, that is to say, any concern for your fellow man, is evil.
Violence is bad. Freedom is good. I agree with her on two points. If you're trying to understand the proof for points one two and three, I don't think there is one. I suspect Objectivists believe for the same reason a Christian believes in God, Faith. They just lack the intellectual honesty to say so. This is one reason why Christianity is better than Objectivism.:)
Melkor Unchained will demonstrate to you soon enough how flawed you are, if your post catches his notice.

Melkor Unchained will demonstrate to you soon enough how flawed you are, if your post catches his notice.

Yeah, his efforts so far have been so convincing.:rolleyes:
The only people who are impressed by Melkor Unchained are people who have already drunk the same kool-aid he did. I don't have any particular problem with him, but it amazes me how impressed some of you people are with him. He is a little mean I guess. He could probably make some little girls cry.:(

Yeah, his efforts so far have been so convincing.:rolleyes:
The only people who are impressed by Melkor Unchained are people who have already drunk the same kool-aid he did. I don't have any particular problem with him, but it amazes me how impressed some of you people are with him. He is a little mean I guess. He could probably make some little girls cry.:(
Perhaps you do not want to be convinced then? I am not impressed by him, or of any particular disposition. I do know though that he makes potent defences of Objectivism, a throughly misunderstood theory.

Perhaps you do not want to be convinced then? I am not impressed by him, or of any particular disposition. I do know though that he makes potent defences of Objectivism, a throughly misunderstood theory.
I'm as willing to be convinced as anybody. Show me a rational argument.
I've been reading Rand's non-fiction. The stuff by Greenspan is interesting. Now he makes some good arguments. They're not completely convincing but good tries. I'm willing to be impressed. I just haven't actual reasoning by Melkor or for that matter any of the other Objectivists on this site. I don't think the problem lies in the people. It lies in a somewhat clever wrong idea. Prove me wrong.

I'm as willing to be convinced as anybody. Show me a rational argument.
I've been reading Rand's non-fiction. The stuff by Greenspan is interesting. Now he makes some good arguments. They're not completely convincing but good tries. I'm willing to be impressed. I just haven't actual reasoning by Melkor or for that matter any of the other Objectivists on this site. I don't think the problem lies in the people. It lies in a somewhat clever wrong idea. Prove me wrong.
Greenspan focuses more on the Capitalist aspect. In any case, I would need a thorough knowledge of her works to prove you wrong. From what I have heard and seen though, she is about as misunderstood as Nietzsche. Maybe when I wade through her stuff I will be able to disprove you. :)

I'm as willing to be convinced as anybody. Show me a rational argument.
I've been reading Rand's non-fiction. The stuff by Greenspan is interesting. Now he makes some good arguments. They're not completely convincing but good tries. I'm willing to be impressed. I just haven't actual reasoning by Melkor or for that matter any of the other Objectivists on this site. I don't think the problem lies in the people. It lies in a somewhat clever wrong idea. Prove me wrong.

Actually it is up to you to prove them wrong. You are the one saying that the idea is wrong.

I would also ask that you present your own positive views. The things that you think are right. It is way too easy to demolish the views of others, but much harder to sustain your own position.

Greenspan focuses more on the Capitalist aspect. In any case, I would need a thorough knowledge of her works to prove you wrong. From what I have heard and seen though, she is about as misunderstood as Nietzsche. Maybe when I wade through her stuff I will be able to disprove you. :)

I would need to be wrong for you to prove me wrong.
(Yeah, that was too much, the rant I deleted, that is)
My favorite philosophers?
Immanuel Kant: the Categorical Imperative still stands as the greatest principle of secular morality.
Niccolo Macchiavelli: the earliest proponent of checks and balances as a protector of liberty that I know of. His republican works are far superior to The Prince, which was sniveling and toadyish.

Finally, I could agree with a less aggressively capitalist variation on Libertarianism. Of course, the term for that is Liberal. :)

I would need to be wrong for you to prove me wrong. Here I am wading through all of this libertarian sewage, and you guys can't even read your own crap? That's funny.
Hey I haven't gotten to Ayn Rand yet. So far I've only been through some of Mises' works.