<p>
[quote]
Do you think they would do the same for Nietzsche, or Foucault, or Judith Butler?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I say this many times, but I do not think Nietzsche would consider himself a philosopher.</p>
<p>At any rate, ostracizing Ayn Rand is not snobbery, it is common sense. Comparing Ayn Rand to Foucault, or Butler, - though I abhor Foucoult - is to insult them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That sounds like snobbery. Philosophers don't do that, nspeds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is honestly not snobbery. If there is one point where analytics and continentals can agree, it is that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher. Call her a writer, and a prolific and eloquent one, but do not dare do more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yup, I'd say that pretty much sums nspeds up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never asked for derision. If you wish to vituperate, send it to my private message box, though I doubt your insults will be anymore singular than the millions of others I receive.</p>
<p>Most Philosophy I know, including myself, abstain from substances. Not like this is veritable evidence -- but the subject does seem to impel one to eschew such nonsense from their life. Who can seek truth if they are not living in a truthful state themselves?</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are drugs that can increase your mental abilities (piracetam, vasopressin). There is a drug that can dramatically improve your memory, and you will find yourself recalling experiences years ago just as clear as yesterday (hydergine). There are even more that allow you to view things fundamentally in a different way and still retain all your mental capacities (peyote/mescaline), just read Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception, <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/doors.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/doors.htm</a>. </p>
<p>There was an experiment that tested brain activity in participants who were religious people while they were meditating. They found traces of DXM in their brain. This is actually a drug you can take and what happens: mild hallucinations and often spiritual experiences. Drugs which your brain produces can be taken. In fact, lsd actually does nothing on your brain directly but allows your brain to produce more of certain chemicals. This is known because lsd physically leaves your system in 2-3 hours and its effects surpass that. </p>
<p>So the point is drugs can give you the opportunity to be somewhat of a different person. One who has better memory or is more spiritual. What is true to someone else can be your experience, and thus there is not one truthful state since there are many people. </p>
<p>Beside that, even mildly spicy foods can induce an endorphin rush. Are these drugs? Are you not in a truthful state here? What about eating sugar? No caffeine? Any food that gives you energy alters you. You are always altered to some degree even though your consciousness knows not.</p>
<p>I'd say Nietzsche definitely thought himself to be a philosopher. Dissatisfied with the field of philology, he tried seriously to get a teaching position in philosophy. </p>
<p>Anyway, back to Ayn Rand: philosopher or not, she is certainly not a major philosopher. My misgivings about her comes only from the fact that her books take up a large chunk of the philosophy shelves at many bookstores. I shake my head when I find that Rand texts far outnumber Wittgenstein texts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your truth is a completely moral truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say Nietzsche definitely thought himself to be a philosopher. Dissatisfied with the field of philology, he tried seriously to get a teaching position in philosophy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I should be more clear: I think Nietzsche disapproved of the conventional notion of 'philosophy' and that of being a 'philosopher.' Though he may have expressed the desire to become a professor in philosophy, it is still disputable whether his conception of such a position was similar to ours. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My misgivings about her comes only from the fact that her books take up a large chunk of the philosophy shelves at many bookstores. I shake my head when I find that Rand texts far outnumber Wittgenstein texts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I shake my head when I find her texts in the philosophy section!:D</p>
<p>Ahh, but justice has, indeed, been served. At Harvard, a veritable safe-haven of analytic philosophy, one need only look to the bookstore where Ayn Rand is missing from their rich collection of philosophical texts.</p>
<p>Philosophy is gay. I took three classes in it and all I learned was circular reasoning and that there is no real, valid answer, just so long as you debate about the issue.</p>
<p>That is my opinion. In my law class and other classes, I learned much more useful things that I can use, relate, and apply to in real life. </p>
<p>You can do that with philosophy too I guess. But, it's just circular. No solid, hard-on answer. And I can't stand that.</p>
<p>No. The "facts" of science are derived from principles of induction, which are in turn contingent on the principles of logic. Remember Bacon, or Bayesian probabilities, or Von Neumman-Morgenstern?</p>
<p>
[quote]
law
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jurisprudence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sociology
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Philosophy of Social Science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
psychology
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Psycho-analytic theory (Freud, Levinas, and such)</p>
<p>nspeds, I was being ironic when saying that philosophers are not snobbish. They are and are not, and I think Nietzsche would agree with that. I think you're right in that Nietzsche would not want to be called a philosopher in the traditional sense, but he wouldn't mind being called a critical theorist, or a rhetorician (not in the classic sense, but in a more . . . interesting one), that kind which comes to be at the end of Plato's Phaedrus. I bet many continentals would not give her the same sort of time as others, such as Foucault.</p>
<p>What are these right answers you speak of? When you show me the completed science, then we might find some of these "right answers." How hard and right is string theory in physics, and what do human scientists know about the mind and consciousness? Precious little, really. It is interesting that you find law to be fine but philosophy to be debate and wasteful. The line between law and philosophy often blurs. Soc and psych are born from philosophy, as are all of the other sciences. At the very least respect the origin of all disciplines.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are these right answers you speak of? When you show me the completed science, then we might find some of these "right answers." How hard and right is string theory in physics, and what do human scientists know about the mind and consciousness? Precious little, really. It is interesting that you find law to be fine but philosophy to be debate and wasteful. The line between law and philosophy often blurs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope that was not directed at me, because I am agreeing with you.</p>
Really? :eek: I admit, he is a bit difficult to understand at times, but he makes good points. I like his idea of Technologies of the Self, for example. It's particular interesting when applied to Plato's Phaedrus, which DRab just mentioned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I admit, he is a bit difficult to understand at times, but he makes good points. I like his idea of Technologies of the Self, for example. It's particular interesting when applied to Plato's Phaedrus, which DRab just mentioned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is no place for my to express my aversion with Continental/Postmodern philosophy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
he is a bit difficult to understand at times
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, he just writes nonsense. </p>
<p>I am too busy to explicate my reasons, but I am not an expert on this so I could be completely incorrect.</p>
<p>Well if that doesn't work (or at least a little), philosophy is definitely circular reasoning. Three courses made me realize that I honestly don't want to talk in circles. According to my experience and what I've witnessed in the classroom, philosophy is for people who love to have verbal fights and argue the hell out of each other, as I've witnessed this. Friendships can be prevented from forming in the class if you have a dissident. In real life situations I think philosophy would be more timid, but I HATE it in the classroom, because it only welcomes tension and conflict, preventing you from having a good time in class, or even making friends, which is definitely something I DON'T want to go through when in college.</p>
<p>^my above post can also pertain to religious individuals as well. i have a religion, and like it, but religion has casued so much crap on this earth.</p>
<p>Do you really mean that philosophy is circular reasoing? Arguments can have circular reasoning, but can a thing really be circular reasoing other than circular reasoing itself? Philosophy is probably also for people who want to know more than "facts" you learn in science classes. If you do care for philosophy, what do you think of what its produced, all modern scientific fields, either directly or indirectly? Politics can also be another one of those things that can stop friendships from forming, but I'm sure any people who disagree about theories in a field. How about Einstein and Bohr? Anyway, the classroom is part of the real world. The real world consists of a lot of tension, too.</p>
<p>There is nothing inherently wrong with circular reasoning. Begging the question is only negative because it leads to unnecessary conclusions most of the time; it is not necessarily negative.</p>
<p>I think baller was saying that if you are using circular reasoning and don't know about it, and then have discussions like you aren't, it is negative.</p>