They say a courtesan is still a courtesan whether she gets paid a penny or a treasure! Don’t sell out no matter what!
Presented without comment:
1 Like
Lol! I remember that! Very good!
I am sure you have not used that word correctly there.
Which, for the what? Third time? Let’s go with that.
Which, for the third time you did not prove since the quotation shared did not support the argument you made.
1 Like
Your position:
Shown support for the position that Ayn Rand is not considered a philosopher in your provided source:
http s://gyazo.com/c44cdcfb65a152c0c10f6ded920d2081
You should put down the thesaurus and work on your reading comprehesion, bucko
8 Likes
The link you’ve spammed doesn’t even agree with your position that ‘a large portion of philosophers doesn’t classify Rand as a philosopher’; a rejection of her ideas isn’t the same as a rejection of her as a philosopher. You’re just being obtuse, bro.
He didn’t, no. Dude is just trying to throw in entry-level philosophy words now to be pseud.
my source on zaphius’ english being janky: i do english lit as my major
8 Likes
doesnt make sense
1 Like
@Athramus how many semesters of no graduation are you in by now
1 Like
I view it as a level below that. Entry level philosophy students would have used the word ‘Sophist’ in that context imo (It wouldn’t have fit but it’d be closer to what he meant). What he did is like calling a random poodle Nihilist.
2 Likes
Allegory of the cave is usually 1st year and that’s where Solipsism is introduced.
We’ll see if he pulls some Nietzsche stuff to be edgy.
1 Like
Okay so back to the topic ladies and gentlemen.
So those that missed what happen yeserday, here you go:
https://youtu.be/-VFaYnBe1bY - 03:00 it ends, rest is the competision.
Most of you wont be surprised by the reaction and such but those that wants too get in too a deep for curiosity, there you go.
It’s literally the first piece of philosophy taught in England in A levels (ie. I remember learning about it at age 16)
1 Like
It’s also where the term Sophist is introduced and, due to the study being of Plato where Sophistry is given a negative connotation.
I hate the edgy misunderstanding people have of Nietzsche’s stuff. That’s a personal bugbear of mine.
Agreed. But nihilism is cool stoner stuff let’s go!
You gotta be real careful with the guys that pull from deeper pockets. Quoting Spengler … now that’s some prime forum material.
Read this bit:
For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. […] We discuss the main reasons for her rejection by most professional philosophers
It is not surprising, then, that she is either mentioned in passing, or not mentioned at all, in the entries that discuss current philosophical thought about [virtue ethics], [egoism], [rights],[libertarianism] or [markets].
You don’t have to be a genius to understand what that means. The idea is really common in the mainstream academia, with most professionals agreeing she isn’t a philosopher.
Even when you look at sites that haven’t been written by professionals, you’ll find a similar feeling. Just google either “Ayn Rand isn’t a philosopher” or “is Ayn Rand a philosopher?”
Her ideas aren’t rejected, her ideas aren’t taken seriously - which means they aren’t considered philosophical work at all.
Edit.
Actually the text says in an explicit way that she is rejected. Not sure what you want more than that.
I guess you know the feeling
14 Likes
I’m waiting for Silandos to begin his lefty arc anytime now
Thread slowing down! Dead air! Need the blue dragon guy to post to get back some steam!
Edit: Ah lol my internet was too slow!
Nihilism is great as long as you’re not an edgelord or selfish prat looking for justification.
Just dust off the good old Utilitarianism, that way you can win any forum argument.
Clearly you do since you have misunderstood it. It’s saying that she is not respected as a philosopher OF WORTH (capitalised because key words) rather than not being a philosopher. You can be considered bad at philosophy and be a philosopher.
Then why does your Stanford holy text continually call her a philosopher and makes numerous reference her ‘philosophical text’, ‘philosophical movements’, ‘philosophical work’, throughout? Why do you take an uncited encyclopedia sentence as gospel - do you really think it’s the trump card you think it is?
Actual midwit, honestly.