Posted on 06/25/2003 5:57:42 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
That was the question that George W. was asked in the 2000 campaign. Unfortunately, the questioner failed to provide a precise definition of how to define a philosopher.
A useful definition of a philosopher is anybody who has ever written a book on ideas. Anybody. Whether he is an economist, theologian, politician, mathematician, soldier, boxer, musician, historian, artist, psychologist, sociologist, anthropologist, biologist, physicist, athlete, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, I do recognize Yogi Berra as a notable philosopher. Even Barry Goldwater, notwithstanding the fact that his book, "Conscience of a Conservative" was ghost-written for him.
Certainly, if some of the well-read freepers know of philosophers noted for conservative ideas, their contributions are certainly welcome.
For my part, my favorite philosopher is the anti-enlightenment thinker, Joseph de Maistre (also known as Comte de Maistre). I regard him as the most authentic conservative intellectual of all time. Reading his works made me realize how the spread of moral relativism can endanger civilization.
Read "The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt". It will make you THINK as you have never thought before. You will have hundreds of thoughts coursing through your mind as you read it. Have a notebook nearby, so that you can jot down every thought.
on a more serious note: John Locke for the Essay concerning Human Understanding and the Essays on Civil Government; F.W. Nietzsche for his boldness and absolutely magnificent German prose.
It is virtually inconceivable to me that anyone could seriously admire a reactionary such as Joseph deMaistre.
Lots of smart people were conned by the Piltdown hoax.
It should be noted that although creationists looking for an excuse to bash paleontologists sometimes describe the Piltdown hoax as nothing but a "human skull put together with an orangutan jaw" (the implication being that it should have been obvious to anyone), the truth of the matter is that whoever the hoaxer was (and there are several prime suspects), they went through a lot of trouble (and used a lot of expertise) to make the fake as convincing as possible.
For example, they had used a file to reshape the teeth and some of the bones to remove tell-tale modern features (in a way to more convincingly match ancient bone discoveries), and used a multi-step chemical process to artificially "age" the bones in a way consistent with the chemical changes which are found in ancient bones which have lain in similar quarries, etc. The connection where the jawbone would meet the rest of the skull was carefully broken so that there would be no evidence of lack of fit. The skull which was chosen was unusually thick compared to most modern skulls, further obscuring its true nature (it's interesting to note that the only human skulls which are normally this thick belong to the Ona indians of Patagonia, and Smith-Woodward, one of the suspects, acquired several Ona skulls in 1899). And so on.
It was definitely a hoax, but not an amateurish one by any means.
Turned out he was, but it didn't matter to him in the long run, or even in the short run. It was just one incident among thousands in his career, and he had other disappointments that far outweighed that in his career. As a benefit, we're all more alert to hoaxing now.
Benjamin Franklin went with JC.
“He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity shall revolutionize the world.”
A professor of mine used it as an example of one of the inherent dangers of science. Piltdown was exactly what the scientific community expected to find as the "missing link": A big brained ape as the first step between ape and human. The real "link" turned out to be the opposite: an ape brained hominid (Australopithecine). An excellent lesson in the need for skepticism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.