Who is the greatest US president?

It is generally considered poor form to go back and re-write a post after people have responded to it.

I’m headed out for the evening. I’ll take care of your post in the morning.

For now, I’ll just point out that Harris is largely incorrect in his analysis because it is far too Hegelian. Given his philosophic stance, a Hegelian outlook is more than a little problematic to start with, but running with that stance in the matter he does teeters on being disingenuous.

Edit: Also . . . how is pointing out that America provided the fertilizer for the problem of radical Islam that we are now dealing with ‘anti-American’ and ‘pro-muslim’? I am neither. Though describing me as ‘pro-American’ and ‘anti-muslim’ wouldn’t be an apt description either.

I just reviewed your counterpost. I was posing a hypothetical and drawing my meagre knowledge of history as examples. If you agree a hypothetical Surviving Soviet Union would exploit our crisis with Islamic zealots, that’s all I was posing. My analysis of Muslim extremists and their actions is one of my closely held theories of what drives some of their outrageous exploits, and if you calmly review it, you can see its merit while dissenting.

A true mish-mash of non-sequiturs would present and very easy target. My overall argument is drawn from extensive readings from recent books and journals of note. I don’t draw my conclusions from the alternative press or my gut.

Just a lot of denials of my posts, some name-calling and no argument. If I hurt your feelings, show me wrong, and I’ll admit it. You engage in what you accuse me of – “Vitriolic rhetoric”. You as much as called my suggestion that a cold war enemy in league with islamo-terror was a misguided no-brainer, and when you get it back, you cry foul. You can’t have it both ways. You said you didn’t know know where to start and you never did start. So, why did you bother with posting at all. Any reference book on Islam will tell you that Muslims are enjoined to fight a holy war (jihad) till all non-Mulsims are either converted or dead. The substance of my post is shared by noted scholars, and you didn’t address any points I made, just spouted the anti-American line. BTW, your choice of Presidents was fine. The “New Deal” was a pivotal point in American political history which should be built on, not eroded like Reagan and Bush have tried.

Maybe you’re right about everything, but then why the hostile tone?
And what’s this about no shame in admitting you don’t know something? What is it that’s not known? If you think that the key focus of Islam is to convert or kill everyone, then you’re just wrong. You’ve got yourself completely convinced that you know everything and that no one else knows anything. Talking to you is like having a yelling match. Get a grip man, it’s just the internet.
Also, maybe we should just create another thread for the pugnacious crowd.
Check this out:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewto … 67#1880267

Now if you please…
Who is your favorite US president? Why?

I try to become informed on as much as my leisure time allows. Learning is fun. If you read the posts I respond to, you’ll notice a note of provocation, and when the poster gets it back, they cry foul. But your point is well taken. I find your posts inviting a sharp response on purpose. Philosophy has an eliminative functions. I take the calling seriously. Maybe i should stick to the tougher forum, forums.philosophyforums.com. But damnit, Scot, I’ll miss you!!

Let’s be friends.

I had to edit to avoid double posting. I’m going to take this to a new thread. This obviously has nothing to do with which presidents we esteem the most. I’ll keep the thread within Social Sciences and Label it “Islamic Extremism: The Seeds of Terror” Not now, but tomorrow pm. BTW, Harris’ book has no trace of Hegel. You’re thinking of Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations”. edit: Or did you mean Lee Harris’s “Civilization and Its Enemies”, which admittedly is influenced by Hegel.

I’ll wait for the new thread. Though I will say that Harris’s thoughts are extremely influenced by Hegel because he does take an idea-driven model of history and action (that plays a huge role in his criticisms of religion, especially Islam). This contrasts strongly with his postion as a neuroscientist claiming that the human mind can be reduced to physical.

One really can’t have it both ways. Either thought is part of the physical response to a given stimulus (the neuroscientist’s view and one that he has espoused before) or thought is qualitatively different from other responses and is able to be generative in some way. For history to be thought-driven, then you require the latter view.

His views on how thoughts come to be is in direct conflict with how he feels thoughts operate.

As for starting a new thread, it is worth noting that you’ll be shifting the grounds on which this disagreement started (which is fine), however, it doesn’t address the non-sequitur nature of your response. I think the question is interesting enough to persue, so I’m fine with that.

The best president was the president who died the quickest after being elected into office, or who left office the quickest after being elected.

So as a rule of thumb, a good Amercian president is a dead Amercian president.

I really expected you to say Truman Detrop.

[i]

You must have read a short abstract of some piece of Harris’s. You haven’t read the book in question and you’re constantly finding something to snivel about. Make arguments when you address me. Save the snivelling and complaining about ghosts for someone who cares. I like substantive argument, not cries of "OH! He’s Idea driven! Like Hegel!! ’ Read him squash pernicious religions, one of which I suspect you subscribe to, in “End of Faith”. He’s gentler than Dawkins, or is Dawkins “idea driven” and damned too?

Regardless of his Marshall plan and pact with remaining communist countries, which was only a moral front so he would gain allied nations support in establishing capitalism (spreading the disease) in communist countries, as well as a means to hinder Russia’s competition in the cold war, he authorized the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, a country which attacked America because it ordered an embargo on trade in the first fucking place.

I stand by my claims: a good American president is a dead American president.

Dawkins is also idea driven, and as an ardent materialist, completely falls flat on his face because of it.

If you would have read the thread you would have seen that I already posted what you said. It is William Henry Harrison.

I would like to go further down the list of our greatest presidents. The greatest on my list are, for the record:

1.Lincoln
2.FDR
3.Reagan
4.Washington
5.TR
6.Wilson
7.Polk
8.Jefferson
9.Truman
10.Gore

  1. Carter
    43.GW Bush

Was Gore president?

Of course I was lightheartedly referring to the fact that he was the real winner of Election 2000. But no one can prove it, just repeat what’s generally admitted. For instance, thousands of Gore supporters inadvertently marked the square next to Buchanan, depriving Gore of more than enough votes to take Fla. Go see my reply to your Royal Rumble of Philosopher Heavies and Kant. I’m posting more philosophy now that I’ve found real philosophy threads. Didn’t know where they were hiding.

There’s no way Gore could take FL. Jeb Bush was the governor!

Indeed, the Sowiets had militant Islam as bitter enemies long before the modern west realized it’s destructive potential. I think there always has been some measure respect between the USSR and the USA - both politically realistic and culturally sophisticated states of science.
militant Islam as a political entity does not relate in any way to the words science or respect. In that sense it is a common enemy to the US and Russia, and will be to the end, if that may come.

I vote for JFK, by the way, because of his balls of steel in the Cuban missile crisis.