That phrase is useful to a war planner. If the friend can be relied upon to join forces. Otherwise, it is a useless phrase.

True

There are not two answers to the same question in science. The wrong answer leads you towards more mistakes. The same is true with philosophy.

Thanks

Really. You think that if humans did not follow the rules of thought (logic) they can be successful?

I have argued that Locke was really a Deist, but could not say so without getting his head cut off.

In the scale of priorities a philosopher who is truly for reason is more important that one that says they are for freedom, but against reason.

My point is not about casual friends, my point is about the science of philosophy. Most people do not care enough about philosophy to spend a lot of time on that with them. They still might be great friends to play golf with or work with or many other things

There are not two answers to the same question in science. The wrong answer leads you towards more mistakes. The same is true with philosophy.

I only choose friends who have the ideal of Objectivism. I have many acquaintances with whom I interact and trust to a certain level to accomplish tasks assigned to them. I know few people who would hesitate to take advantage of me when it comes to using the 'law' to steal from me or imprison me if they have the opportunity.

Spoken like a true Post-truth advocate. As the philosopher Sisela Bok concluded in her book "Lying" no lies can be good. You offer the truth to the people in the valley and they can choose to climb to truth or to the other hills of lies but not both. Do not compromise truth to accommodate the feelings of the confused and bewildered.

The friend of an Objectivist in Philosophy is an advocate of reason. The good news about the Scottish Enlightenment is William Small came to the US to teach Thomas Jefferson about Locke and Hume died in 1776. The bad news is Hume's anti reason skepticism gave a wake up call to Kant. Reid opposed Hume but defended God while Smith supported Hume and defended God. It was God not reason that was the driver of common sense. Between Aristotle and Rand the advocates of reason, damn few, all believed reason was God given. Only Locke held the proof of God had to be empirical and held God to it. So the only friend of Objectivists is Locke and he must be recognized as having Christian ethics. But the USA would not have existed without him and the Magna Carta. An atheist Locke was not possible in the 1650's. We have almost no friends in philosophy which is why we have lots of work to do.

What most political figures, columnists, and talk show hosts seem unable to comprehend is that humans are as unique as their individual fingerprints. Herding people into philosophical, political, cultural, or racial boxes denies the essence of what makes us who we are.

Our success as a species is not tied to some rigid, immutable set of rules, even if religious institutions do their best to pound this notion into our heads. We are in a constant state of decision making that involves our own personal ideas of ethics and morality. Compromise out of necessity doesn't mean an unbreakable alliance, and close agreement doesn't always mean concurrence on every detail.

We are expert survivors (well, most of us, anyway), and as such live in our own very unique, personal existence, which is necessarily dynamic.

Then who is your "Friend" in relationship to those characteristics you named. If you mean that just because you have certain beliefs that you share, you are only entwined on those issue and not others that you may not subscribe to? Unfortunately, power clings to power and is self organizing in this day and age, hence you end up with a monolithic organization such as the Democrat party whereas the party marches lockstep on all issues. The diversity of beliefs are lost to the collective nature of that party. That is power and you can only have that type of power by organizing as such. Pick and choose leaves the body politik weakened when facing a monolithic organization of diverse interests, all tied together in the aggregate. So, I understand your perspective however is it really dealing from strength or only the "purity" of the individual belief?

Or any where else.

Yes. Reminds me of something a good friend of mine mentioned long before I really got into philosophy. He pointed out that the American mind is molded into this behavior of "good or evil". He had many examples and I'll never forget it. Something to be said for hanging out with intelligent people... Your use of "useful idiots" is perfect, db...

If we hold a hill on a philosophical battlefield, and our true enemies (say marxists and keynsians) are holding two nearby hills. I'm not sure its a good idea to treat anyone in the valleys as enemies also. If they have intermediate ideas, then they are nearer to sharing ours. What do we gain by driving them away as if on a real battlefield? Using the language of "enemy" sounds like we are trying to protect our ideals from new believers.

A prime example from history is The USA/Great Britain relationship with Soviet Union and Germany. Russian was Germany's enemy but certainly not a friend of the English or the Americans. Similar with the Japanese, the Russians and the US.
In both cases we worked together to defeat a common enemy, but were also antagonistic toward each other, but not to the point of open violence.

Hello dbhalling,
Poking the hornets' nest, are we? :)
So it is that we all search for the perfect philosophy- one that satisfies our understanding of the world as seen through our individual prisms.
There are philosophies I do not share that I can coexist with, yet hope may evolve into something more palatable. There are also some that I cannot live alongside of as they present an existential threat.
Is not an hierarchy useful? When one's house is on fire, he cares not of the squeaky hinge...
Regards,
O.A.

Agreed.

A having an inimical relationship with B, does not speak to any relationship or lack thereof between B and C.