-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Ayn Rand the McDonald's Hamburger of American Philosophers?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
LoTrobador
Active Member
What is 'the best philosopher' and what is a 'profound philosophical thought'?
Let's start with, "The most accurate or truthful." Your question gets into defining what philosophy is, which I am reluctant to take the space to do here. So, let's first see if we can get by without defining what philosophy is.
I suppose you could go along with Krishnamurti and assert there is no such thing as a profound thought. Other than that, I think the commonly accepted meaning(s) of the word "profound" can be used here, don't you?
Last edited:
LoTrobador
Active Member
But wouldn't different people differ in their views on what statements are accurate and truthful? What particular understandings of 'accuracy' and 'truthfulness' ('truthiness'?) would be the criteria for such evaluation?
I guess there are many views on what is profound and what the term itself means. Which of such views is applicable to the definition? But once again, what does the term 'profound philosophical thought' mean? A thought ahead of its time, to which philosophers later arrive? An insightful prognosis? An 'unpopular' view? What would serve as the criteria for 'profundity'?
Hypothetically:
I'm a Christian, I do believe in a great value of the metaphysics. They serve as a foundation for my inner life. Someone says they're worthless. For him, it could be a profound realization that we're, as humans, limited, and that whole history of human culture is based on false premises, that 1) there is something outside the material existence, and that 2) we can speak of it ina a meaningful way. For me, it's just self-defeating post-modernism. So, who's philosophy is profound, and what are the criteria of 'profundity'?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
If you are indeed interested in that sort of thing, then please start a separate thread on the issues you raise. I would prefer, though, that this thread be dedicated to a discussion of Rand's philosophy.
"American" and "Russian" should be capitalized. Are you seriously trying to compete with me for who can pick the finest nits?
Last edited:
LoTrobador
Active Member
Nope, I'm not going to get into this whole discussion, don't worry.
It's just that the evaluation implies criteria, and I guess some of them could be seen as problematic. 
Smoke
Done here.
I don't think of her as a philosopher at all. Is she really the most popular?
She lived in Russia for 21 years and in the United States for 56 years. When she died, she had been an American citizen for 51 years.
It's just that the evaluation implies criteria, and I guess some of them could be seen as problematic.
So what's new? Criteria are always problematic, aren't they? Or do you know of some that aren't?
Privately, between you and me, I don't either. She's too superficial. Middle-school. But I don't consider McDonald's a real hamburger, either.
Each year, she sells more copies of her books than any other American philosopher.
Last edited:
LoTrobador
Active Member
Ah, nevermind. You want to evaluate Rand's thought without talking about criteria for such evaluation? I have no problem with that, just thought that talking about criteria first could save time spent on 'my truthiness vs your truthiness' later.
In all fairness, you make a good point -- your approach might save time in the long run -- but I have been around this Forum long enough to know that most threads don't go on long enough for there to be a "long run". This thread will be lucky to get 30 responses before it dies. And I have a strong hunch that if we began by discussing criteria, the thread would die even sooner.
But the main reason I am not going to adopt your approach is because I am interested in how different people interpret the OP in their own unique ways.
MissAlice
Well-Known Member
I don't think there is such a thing as a profound philosopher. I've seen just as many poor philosophers as good ones but my view of them maybe subjective as someone else may think my idea of poor is profound.
Take the most read about Nietzsche for instance. The only reason why I started reading his works was because I knew a good amount of students who idolized him.
After reading and reading about him, I didn't see anything profound about the guy other than he being a nihilistic atheist. Nothing very profound about that.....
"scurries out of thread"...:run:
Take the most read about Nietzsche for instance. The only reason why I started reading his works was because I knew a good amount of students who idolized him.
After reading and reading about him, I didn't see anything profound about the guy other than he being a nihilistic atheist. Nothing very profound about that.....
"scurries out of thread"...:run:
Rain Drops
Member
The thread title points to an obvious fact that her popularity has less to do with her work, and more to do with her audience.
It's no secret why the American Consumer Imperialistic culture loves her stuff. If you have an intelligent person working out intelligent reasons why you can be a heartless/soulless King/Queen of Capitalism... then it's all win right?
Get enough talented people together and you can create a philosophy to justify any sort of behaviour...and then you have your propaganda (McDonalds Style).
It's no secret why the American Consumer Imperialistic culture loves her stuff. If you have an intelligent person working out intelligent reasons why you can be a heartless/soulless King/Queen of Capitalism... then it's all win right?
Get enough talented people together and you can create a philosophy to justify any sort of behaviour...and then you have your propaganda (McDonalds Style).
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Isn't that what most philosophers do? Did I miss something?
dust1n
Zindīq
Well, on rare occasions, philosophers have been know to point out something correct and conceivably not obvious.
But she is either WAY TOO obvious, or being so far from correct it's ridiculous.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Your opinion is most instructive. Thank you for your time.