BookTalk.org

As a counterpoint to my "Favorite philosophers" thread, I thought I'd ask a potential more interesting, or at least more contentious, question: who are your least favorite philosophers and why?

Ann Rynd. Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

You know, I don't think I've ever actually read any of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I did take a crack at "The Fountainhead", but found it to be little more than a thinly veiled argument for Rand's ideals -- I expect a little more ambiguity and disorder to my novels, thank you. And on the whole I'm suspicious of what I know of Rand's philosophy. It seems to make some pretty dubious leaps of logic in order to justify an uncritical enthusiasm for modernity.I'm gonna throw Kant in there, which I know isn't going to sit well with someone. I can take of leave some of his conclusions, and I know that he pushed modern philosophy forward in significant ways, but Jesus, could the guy be any more boring? Critical assessment that that is.

I tried reading Atlas Shrugged recently. Ann Rynd is a phenomenal writer, but long winded and wordy as heck. Her philosophical leanings were blatantly spewed across the first 150 pages or so of Atlas Shrugged. After 150 pages of long windedness, I went from appreciating Rynd's obvious writing talents to not giving a damn who the hell John Gault really was/is. So from what little I read in Rynd's fiction, I am not a fan of her philosophy. But I certainly wouldn't call her a least favorite.Kant was certainly a least favorite of my philosophy classes in college. I never cared much for a lot of the classical philosophers for much the same reason I can not stand many contemporary philosophers in that much of the work is difficult to read or focuses on philosophical arguments that are essentially meaningless to me. Any philosopher that argues something that makes me think "who cares" is not a favorite. At least with someone like Ann Rynd, I know instantly where she stands and I can take a position, have it challenged, and either counter or adjust my own position. I am not arguing "philosophy for dummies" but certainly arguing against "philosophy for philosophers" or "philosophy for its own sake."

Have you ever seen the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life ? I saw it back in '98 when it first opened and remembered that I disagreed with many of her ideas but found her own flawed, personal life far more interesting and admirable. It was no walk in the park carving her own intellectual niche in a male dominated world that had very little sympathy for an independent and outspoken woman with her own vision for human greatness and the good society.

If I honored Ayn Rand with the title "Philosopher" I'd have to say she's my least favorite, but I don't so honor her.

As for Kant, although I disagree with much of what he says I still admire him as a great philosopher.

My least favorite philosopher would have to be Rousseau, closely followed by Wittgenstein (I'm sure that will be controversial given the cult following he seems to have attracted).

Rousseau's concept of the noble savage is one of the most inaccurate ideas ever to be propagated and his philosophical writings are based on what sounded to him like good ideas rather than on evidence.

I'm aware that most of my prejudice against Wittgenstein comes from my encounters with Wittgensteinians rather than with Wittgenstein's actual writings but they did have to get their ideas from somewhere!