The Worst Philosopher

Of my limited knowledge, I voted Rousseau because of his contradictory ideas and his views on women

How about this: Everyone is a philosopher.

I die a little inside when people criticise Rawls.

From Wikipedia: "Margaret and John had a shared interest in indexing; they spent their first holiday together writing the index for a book on Nietzsche, and Rawls wrote the index for A Theory of Justice himself."

This is possibly the weirdest thing I have ever heard.

Dawkins probably since he is not a philosopher but an evolutionary biologist. Hardly surprising really.

I don't like Rawls, simply because I find Politcal Philosophy about as intriguing as sandpapering my testes.

I literally fell asleep on numerous occasions during my Politcal Phil. lectures (but still got a first for the module of course )

Someone once told me that perhaps it was the monotonous tone of the lecturer which induced tiredness, so I bought Rawls' 'Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy' - it is currently supporting the broken leg of my workstation chair (I kid you not)

I'm beginning to see why it was remiss of the O.P. to omit you from this poll.

I expect the number of books you read by Rawls is strongly positively correlated with frustration towards political philosophy; for all of his innovation, he just isn't that great a writer. Now, if only you had read Anarchy, State and Utopia!

From Wikipedia: "Margaret and John had a shared interest in indexing; they spent their first holiday together writing the index for a book on Nietzsche, and Rawls wrote the index for A Theory of Justice himself."

This is possibly the weirdest thing I have ever heard.

I expect the number of books you read by Rawls is strongly positively correlated with frustration towards political philosophy; for all of his innovation, he just isn't that great a writer. Now, if only you had read Anarchy, State and Utopia!

I'll second this; I mean, I can't buy it because from the word go it's based on premises I don't accept ("Individuals have rights, and there...") but his style is fantastic. Examples:

Very clear, friendly and readable style.

Leaving a fair amount for the reader to ponder and admitting when he doesn't know an answer rather than attempting to cover it up or avoid raising the issue.

Kitsch demonstrations about things (comparing his smoking cannabis and subsequent paranoia to conspiracy theorists).

Mm. Although, I am sceptical about just how helpful the deluge of hypothetical histories are to be honest.

I wouldn't argue with that. He should do what most scientists do, ignore the more delusional amongst the religious, instead of giving them credence by even bothering to argue with them. Probably needs to spend a great deal more time reading the philosophers of the renaissance-modern era before he attempts any sort of real criticism.

I expect the number of books you read by Rawls is strongly positively correlated with frustration towards political philosophy; for all of his innovation, he just isn't that great a writer. Now, if only you had read Anarchy, State and Utopia!

Hmm, not undoubtedly, given as he's generally regarded as one of the greats and was at least hugely influential. Not an objectivist by any chance, are you?

And that is how Dawkins does himself a disfavour - arguing with delusional nutters.

No serious theist is ever going to buy or be persuaded by a book called the God Delusion.

I am an ardent Atheist and even I can see that that is not the way of trying to unriddle the notion of God.

Although he flirts with Aquinas and Anselm, Dawkins doesn't really go into that much depth with philosophical arguments for god and it is those arguments he needs to engage with and expose the fallacies of to 'convert' the intelligent theists.

As long as he bases his arguments on talking down to people and science, nutjob theists will always reject everything he says because they will just reject the scientific method.

Unfortunately this is the world we live in but Dawkins really should engage more with what exactly 'faith' is and realize that by its very nature, 'faith' will hold fast against any 'earthly' solutions to God.