Who is a great philosopher?

oh god. what have you done??? i suppose you've set aside the next few hours for reading the response, right?
just kidding, obiwanobiwan :) i look forward to this response.

Just wondering what happens to Plato's warrior caste when the conscripted foreign hordes invade. Since castes should not meddle in other castes affairs, I suppose the philosophers and producers just sit back and watch as their republic gets destroyed.

You have to take the dialogue in historical contexts. Yes, that's all I'm gonna say haha

I can see the horrified expression on obi's face. Right before his head explodes.

Damn...I just finish an epic to Hellenic Riot on all the authors he didn't know who I listed--I'm sure he'll be THRILLED, haha--, and now I need to write about Plato...

OK, here goes.



Plato's main contributions to philosophy could--and have--fill not just a book but entire volumes, and as I've both jsut written an novel already to Riot as I said and actually have a math test that could make or break my grade that I really should be studying for...

I'll be happy to divert my attention from that math to this for a while, but not for a tome's worth, I hope. ;)

Well, Plato's dialogues serve two functions that are invaluable without even really considering the actual content or the texts of Plato himself--they recount, at least the Early Socratic Dialogues, the teachings of Scorates, and so it's through Plato's dialogues' keeping his teacher's word's alive and, many theorists agree, retain the teachings and essence of some of Socrates' ideas that we get our picture today of Socrates and where the Golden Age of Greek Philosophy, encompassing the Big Three of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all began. Without Plato's dialogues, there's a good chance we lose Socrates from history altogether, and THAT has an enormous domino effect, as without Socrates you don't get Plato, without Plato's often pie-in-the-sky ideas on metaphysics we don't get Aristotle's response advocating a more down-to-Earth approach, and so without the best works of Plato AND Aristotle, the foundations upon which Western Philosophy and thought as we know it vanish or, at the very least, crumble severely.

In addition, and on a related note, while it's Socrates who makes philosophy "cool" and gives it the staying power it's--mostly--had since 500 B.C. to the present, it's Plato who gives written philosophy it's staying power (and the subsequently Aristotle who gives criticism it's staying power as well as solidifying philosophy's point by disagreeing with Plato on those matters he found either erroneous or too fantastic to make work practically, which is what Aristotle's philosophy is all about.)

Socrates gives us philsophic debate, Plato the philosophic text, and Aristotle philosophic criticism--lose Plato and you not only lose Aristotle's contribution (as what is he going to criticize if Plato's not there, he criticized and evaluated other, earlier philosohpers, but by far the philosopher who gave him his best source of inspiration to go up against was his old teacher, Plato) but Socrates as well, as, again, it's through Plato we learn of Socrates and through Aristotle we see both through a more objective lens.

So even if you dislike or disagree with every other idea to be presented here--and those I'm sure to omit, intentionally or not--the fact remains that Plato's invaluable as a torch-bearer and early developer and worker in philosophy if nothing else.

OTHER important things for and from Plato...

-First, to just magnify the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle connection and it's importance a bit, remember that Aristotle first made his mark and still is widely known for going up against Plato, most of his best works feature some form of him doing so...well, by extension, without Plato, and then without Aristotle's criticism, everyone who made their mark going up against HIM philosophically either disappears altogether or quite possibly fades in importance from the philosophic landscape, and we at least really call into question what becomes of philosophy in general...and the same goes for Plato.

-The Theory of the Forms. Everyone saw this coming, and it remains one of the greatest questions in philosophy...and I really don't know how to go into detail about it without that becoming a speech, and so I'll hold off and see if anyone WANTS me to really elaborate there, or if it's agree the Forms/Cave Analogy form an important part of not only philosophy as a whole, but crosses over into art and, before Descartes had the chance to utter that he was because the had some sort of thought about something somehow for some reason, it's this idea of seperating the physical from the metaphysical, or at least the Abstract ideas from the Concrete manifestations of those ideas, and finding the value, or lack thereof, in each that gives meainging to that immortal phrase..."Is this the real life? Is this jsut fantasy?" Is this the real existence that matters, here and now, or just fantasy, the shadows of true existence on the cave walls of our limited perception--YOU be the jduge! ;) (And for you math people out there, this is actually an EXTREMELY important notion, since Plato's Theory of Forms states that the Abstract ideas are more real, more important than any Concrete manifestations...as a result, the abstract idea of "3" or "3+3=6" is logically solid, and we don't have to have empirical qualms about dealing with that which isn't empirically concrete...and for those that are religious...)

-"The Phaedo." After "The Republic," this is quite possibly Plato's most enduring works, and one of his most important, as his character of Socrates is on his deathbed and, for his final moments of happiness on Earth before drinking the hemlock and dying...decides to talk some metaphysics and philosophy! ;) But this is more than just Plato giving his hero and former friend a great literary sendoff and tribute, but a deep and actualy very difficult account of the afterlife, souls, the nature of life and death, and what it even MEANS to be alive or dead, existent or non-existent, and if such states can last forever, and if they can't...well, what then? What makes this even more important is that Plato argues FOR the existence of some kind of soul, and does so with a variety of arguments, some of which are relatively weak or flimsy but, as this is a dialogue, serve to set up the truer points Plato ahs to offer, which are far stronger arguments, some of whihc are still debated by this day. This is, without a dobut, the strongest and most widely-acclaimed and recognized argument for a soul and a life after death in history that's DIVORCED from religion, and that, ironically, may be what gives it such stayinbg power with us--while we debate on religious grounds whether or not a God exists, or a Heaven or Hell, and so on, "The Phaedo" offers a purely logic-based argument for the soul, no God attached, so to speak, so believers and non-believers alike for centuries have looked over Plato's dialouge and tried to use it or refute it.

-The Socratic Dialogue Form. Named after Socrates, of course, the old man may have started the verbal version of this, but it's Plato who put it into writing and solidified the form. Why is this important? In the narrower gaze, some plays, such as "Man and Superman" by George Bernard Shaw, which deal heavily in philosohic themes, draw from that form, and David Hume centuries later would use it to write a dialogue on what would today be termed Creationism vs. Natural Selection, and it's in THIS dialogue where Hume comes very close to saying the things Darwin would a century later...so Plato's Dialogue Form itself has had a good deal of impact just on how philosophic and artistic arguments are presented.

-"The Republic." Just...just "The Republic," if you want me to go into the specific whats and whos and wheres and whys, I will, but that's a good-sized post in itself, likely, and I don't know if folks want to read that, especially when I've already mentioned time and again at least a few of the things that I feel are not only vital, but ingenious ideas that, properly implemented, could very well lead to a better society and, on the flip side, implemented incorrectly have led to some nasty chapters in human history. "The Republic" is probably the most important work of Western Philosophy, and so that adds a great deeal as to why I'd consider Plato a great philosopher...with the arguments he presents, and a book that's as hailed as "The Republic," that'll tend to catapult you higher in my evaluations... ;)

-Inspiration for the Elitists. This may seem a bad reason to view Plato in a positive light or as a good thinker, but I don't believe so; something Plato and Aristotle actually agreed on was the idea of Elitism, and in Ancient Greece were able to present their ideas quite openly and unabashedly. I've said before I like Nietzsche and Mill a great deal...well, the Ubermensch of Nietzsche can find its earliest roots in Plato's Elitist Philosopher King--straight from "The Republic!"--and, on the flip side of that ethical/political debate, Mill's main arguments and the bulk of his work deals, not directly with Plato, but with a refutation of that idea of an elite few being "better" than a functionalized, stagnant many.



And......that's all I'll put for now, I'll see how that goes before adding more ramblings...oh, nuts, now I have to return to math study! (If we had PLATO'S system of education I wouldn't HAVE to study for math, I'd be taking 6 English classes and any person next to me in class hating English who'll destroy the curve on the test could just take 6 Math classes..."likes with likes!" Teaching according to talent and desire!) :)

And a quick extra note, just on Plato's style...

What's part of the reason I think he's a good philosopher?

He actually ansers objections to his work IN his work! True, he gives Socrates, ie, his view most of the best lines, bust still gives Glaucon a good deal of time and a good argument to make in "The Republic" before Plato/Socrates attempts to defend his view and refute Glaucon's.

Too often philosohpers and want-to-be philosophers--I'm looking at YOU, Rand! And I hear "Atlas Shrugged"'s movie adaptation is HORRIBLE, even by your standards, HA!--ignore the other side and don't adress ojections they know will come up, and just go on with their writing, hoping no one wll notice.

Plato not only knows people will object to what he proposes, he often knows jsut what they might say and has a defense prepared, but gives the otehr side airtime anyway...somethig I try to emulate a bit--while not being nearly as great as Plato--in responding to folks who disagree wioth what I say and respond with more than a "You need to open your eyes!" or "You are SO ignorant because you don't agree with me!"

Plato never did that--he presents his view, gives the other view airtime, tries to counter that view as best he can, adn ultimately leaves it up to the reader to decide.

I think that's great form, as both a writer and as a rhetorician, and, again, when I debate i try to remember that, and if I ever get myself published I hope to be sure to give the other side airtime and credence, it's far worse to adress and objection than to just leave it there, festering, and hope no one noticed your evasiveness...

I'm still interested in knowing what, according to Eliphas, makes someone a good philosopher. Until we know that, the answer to this question might be an exercise in futility.

I'm just going to chime in and say that as an activist libertarian I found the movie adaptation of Atlas Shrugged to be absolutely horrible. Just go read the book and save yourself some money. The only redeeming feature is the message (and only if you agree with it anyway, it's not exactly a conversion tool) -- better to get it straight from the horse's mouth. (With apologies to Rand, who is certainly no horse.)

"(With apologies to Rand, who is certainly no horse."

No, the vile poorly written fascist filth she wrote smells much worse than any horse.

Haha, +1 Putin, -100 Rand! (And apologies to Eden...) ;)

Seriously, though, anyone who can read through that shit, especially the part where she runs down through everybody who died in the crash of the sabotaged train and claims they had it coming, and not get the message that she celebrates political murder and even mass murder, has something wrong with them. She compares regulators to lice and vermin and praises Nat Taggart for murdering a regulator that got in his way. Atlas Shrugged is the manifesto of the sociopath. This doesn't even get into the fact that her writing style is so tedious, humorless, and melodramatic as to be nauseating in the extreme.

Again I agree, said it before and I'll say it again--

Ayn Rand's philosophy is the philosophy of Nietzsche and Camus...twisted and bastardized so as to fit a violent and moronic manifesto that makes PERFECT sense to Rand, because she places herself as the leader of the pack, and hey, when you're the self-proclaimed hero, as she and her readers assume the roles of, what don consequences, ethics, morality, or logic matter?

Nietzsche wanted free thought and a perspectivist, humanistic drive upward, NOT a manifesto of free thought--sort of a contradiction there, isn't it?--or a mass movement towards Ojectivist thinking.

Camus wanted to give notice as to why rebellion could be necessary, NOT act as an excuse to rebel for the sake of rebelling.

And on top of it all...

Ayn Rand and her "foundation" is, at it's core, a money-grubbing enterprise, not an actual thinker, as her books come with advertisments for more books, for clubs, for essays on how marvelous her books are, and so on.

Taken from "The Revolutionist's Handbook," a short piece written by George Bernard Shaw for his play "Man and Superman," wehre the book is part of the play...

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

And so what better way to shirk that responsibility than to claim to be a free thinker by...worshipping verbatem the words someone ELSE wrote and writing or thinking no more and never disagreeing, just dropping her name as if it were the answer to all (at least I disagree with Nietzsche on some accounts; the man SAID if you agreed with everything he said you'd misunderstood what he wanted, he wanted questioning and thought...Rand wanted a cult following and money.)

"No, the vile poorly written fascist filth she wrote smells much worse than any horse."

Ah, pardon. Maybe I should have apologized to the horses for the comparison too.

Its beautiful watching the ideological left getting angsty about the mere existence of an ideological right.

One ought to read her views on literature (for what its worth, I think they are wrong) before criticising her books for the qualities that Putin complains about. Nevertheless, because what she has to say about human individuality is such a compelling message, millions will still read the bloated repetitive tomes she wrote.

I don't consider Rand the ideological Left or Right.

I consider something more Rawls-like to be Right, ie, according to merit and not to need...

If you've gone to the Randian extreme, you're Right...right off the cliff of insanity and egoism, into a pit of self-indulgent ideals which are ultimately either stolen from other, better thinkers and corrupted beyond their original intent, or else, again, just a self-serving mantra that adds up to nothing except something to shoot back at other ideals to derail a conversation the Randian might lose otherwise, as, again, there is nothing substantial in Rand, it's the Twilight of the Philosophy arena.

I'd pull out the old "It is a tale told by an idiot, Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" bit, but really, Rand's not even worthy of being dismissed in a Shakespearean fashion...

Rawls attempts to justify left libertarianism, and can be juxtaposed by the work of Nozick, who is right libertarian.

Rand argued for laissez-faire- that's exactly what right libertarianism is.

It's a shame that those who criticise Rand fail to do so philosophically, and prefer instead to just say "she's ridiculous" without actually contributing an argument. If one wants to object to Rand's work, there are plenty of ways of doing it. Her axiomatic epistemology I think it somewhat underdeveloped, and others find things in it to disagree with totally. Some of her arguments are circular, and so her conclusions in part require re-deriving to maintain her position.

Given that there are genuine, philosophical objections to be made, which can be made in a calm manner, why resort to calling her "a fascist", particularly when overbearing government was exactly what she was against?

@ Ghost re Rand

''Some of her arguments are circular,''

Exactly I was thinking the same thing. What really annoys me about her are two things: 1) Her suggestion that her atheist belief system was somehow derived from a logical analysis. In my opinion, when all said and done it is a belief system just as much as that of the theist.

2) The extension of her 'egoism is all approach' to justify the treatment of the Native Americans and the Arabs.

Maybe these two positions are in fact linked by her dismissal of altruism?

@TGM:

Because I am not going to dignify Rand's work by objecting to it's "philosophy" on philosophical grounds, when that "philosophy" is, again, one part plagiarized and twisted ideas from other, better thinkers--at least the Elizabethan playwrights had, on the whole, the ability to somehow improve or add to the content of the plots and stories they stole--and one part Rand getting up on her soapbox and declaring herself to be a free thinker...and that all other free thinking people MUSt, of course, acknowledge that, acknowledge her...

She reminds me of the Brian/Crowd scene from "The Life of Brian" with the masses shouting "YES! WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" (And then of course that one genius guy in the back..."I'm not.")

Only where Brian really does earnestly wat thse followers off his back and for them to be individual, again, Rand rather wants you to be an individual, sure...

And you can start being an individual by buying her books and spouting her jargon and voting her the Greatest Author of the 20th Century and "Atlas Shrugged" and six other books to the Top 10 Greatest Books of the 20th Century (I STILL can't believe that poll yielded those results...that's frankly frightening, how little those people must read...even if you wanted to be extremely generous and call Rand a great thinker--which in my mind would be as much of a stretch as calling John Keats an uninspired, dispassionate poet or Stephen Hawking a poor scientists--there is no way SEVEN of her works are on a Top 10 for 1900-1999...MAYBE one, if you were so much of a Randian you would happily slap on an armband with a bent "R" on it...

Does that poll tell me that everyone who reads and likes Rand is a drone who believes himself or herself to really be a "free thinker" and will accuse others who disagree of "just not getting it?"

No, not all...but I'm thinking that of a great many of them...



Not original, not a free thinker, and, again, her best ideas are ideas taken from Nietzsche and Camus and the like and twisted to suit her own egotist fashions.

Why WOULD I honor such an author by considering her philosophically?

If anything I'd "consider her philosophically" by considering the ideas she twisted of Camus' and of Nietzsche's...and apologize to Friedrich that once again a leader with a cult following was twisting his words and ideas...

In ADDITION...

She is a pretty trite author on top of THAT.

I can't even say that her books are worth reading on a purely aesthetic, "that sounded nice" level...just boring literary cliches with what she passes of as philosophy...it's a two-course meal, and both courses have soured beyond edibility (and if the reviews for the movie version of "Atlas Shrugged" are any indication, the disgusting desert with a cherry on top has just been served.)

"Its beautiful watching the ideological left getting angsty about the mere existence of an ideological right."

You write this with no sense of irony whatsoever. Let's see, whose melodramatic overwritten screeds were celebrated for their 'message of individualism' (and hatred of humanity) in America? That would be Ayn Rand and every other shitty rightwing writer (no matter how shitty, it doesn't matter, they'll always be hailed as great writers somehow, simply for being rightwing). And who was the victim of purges, blacklists, witchhunts, and fearmongering? Oh yes, that would be the ideological left. Hell, your heroine of "liberty" even testified before HUAC. So spare me the speech about how we need to be "fair" to the so-called "ideological right".

"Given that there are genuine, philosophical objections to be made, which can be made in a calm manner, why resort to calling her "a fascist", particularly when overbearing government was exactly what she was against?"

I also don't sit here and analyze the epistemological and logical problems of Mussolini. Sorry, that was unfair to Mussolini, who was actually a philosopher of sorts and a decent writer (or at least, had a decent ghost writer). You know why? Because the issue is not that Ayn Rand's advocacy of nihilism, ubermenschen unburdened by society's rules, callous misanthropy, unrestricted greed, and rape do not flow logically from their premises, the issue is that her views are evil. Not only are her views evil but they have produced a generation of mindless randroids who have even managed to get powerful positions within society (like chairman of the fed).

"Its beautiful watching the ideological left getting angsty about the mere existence of an ideological right."

Ghost +1.

Get over yourself obi: Please tell me where Rand went wrong (There are plenty of valid critiques, but I won't do your homework for you) or cease your ad-hominem attacks.

I am absolutely and unequivocally not a Randian. She was wrong on a great deal. But she was far and beyond one of the better, if not best philosophers. But that's not a very competitive field at all.

@Putin: Calling her conclusions "evil" is circular. Please define evil. (Hint: That's the entire point of philosophy.)

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

And lastly, as Ghost has pointed out, Putin, I don't think you understand what Fascism is. It is precisely fascism that Rand argued against...

"But she was far and beyond one of the better, if not best philosophers."

Based on what criteria, pray tell? Plagiarizing other work? All Rand is is regurgitated Nietzsche in preachy pulp fiction form. How is this superior philosophizing?

"And lastly, as Ghost has pointed out, Putin, I don't think you understand what Fascism is. It is precisely fascism that Rand argued against..."

Evidently you've never read the Doctrine of Fascism, by Mussolini. The whole idea of superlative individuals (ubermenschen) being unrestrained by annoyances like the law and morality is straight out of Mussolini which is straight out of Nietzsche. The whole idea that morality weakens one's ability to "affirm life" because it tends toward altruism and helping the "weak" is fascism, plain and simple. Atlas Shrugged is all about so-called "talented" individuals being bogged down by the mediocre who demand equality. Furthermore, there's the whole issue of Rand advocating terrorism, murder, and violence against her political opponents throughout the book.

How about you read about the philosophy of fascism before you regurgitate the trite "Rand thought govt was bad, fascism means govt is good" line from Ghostwriter.

Define evil, sure. Behavior or thoughts that are anti-social and relishes harming society. Behavior or thoughts that attack rules of morality or fairplay as nuisances that get in the way of the powerful and greedy getting what they want. Ideas or behavior that denigrates compassion, feelings for others, or other behavior or norms which prevent society from descending into might makes right cannibalism and barbarism.

Rand so loathed the state, she helped the state round up undesirables. Rand was anti-state, she was anti-people. Since the state has historically been the greatest force for progress and equality, she loathed that. She was 100% Nietzschean in that regard. If the state engaged in genocide of undesirables, she was fine with that. Kill the herd and leave more room for the great.

*wasn't anti-state.