|
 buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
 Objectivism: What a load of.. 
#1544639 - 05/13/03 09:20 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
From a site on Objectivism:
"Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man?s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual?s choice. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character. Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)."
I think the source of some dispute in the advertising thread (and many others) is expressed in this tenant of objectivism, to which a few of you seem to subscribe. "Any form of determinism" is being rejected- the rejection of the idea that we are what we are because of forces that are completely out of our control and awareness...???
We have not found a satisfactory answer to the problem of freewill vs. determinism, but this does not mean that you have to "take a side." You have to be delusional or in complete denial to assert that we are not, at least in part, the products of our environment.
This speaks to the claim that those who cannot critically think are "lazy," as if many of them don?t have all of the cards stacked against them. If you assume to begin with that we are and have been in complete control of the course of our lives, then you will naturally understand the absence of critical thought as the "choice not to think" (i.e., laziness). I think holding this opinion is a better example of intellectual laziness. Time for an assumption reevaluation.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: buttonion]
#1546202 - 05/13/03 06:35 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think there is a certain threshold of experiences that we must accumulate before we can transcend the fear/insecurity cycle and, thus, form a consciousness that can experience true free will. I don't feel sorry for those who have not reached this threshold... but I don't look down on them either (unless they impede my freedom).
Making money off them isn't a big deal either... my problem comes when the bullshit rhetorical/psychological tactics used in advertising create value systems (in the minds of these inhibited individuals) that THREATEN MY FREEDOM.
That's MY problem.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
Edited by Sclorch (05/13/03 06:37 PM)
|
 Malachi
stereotype
Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
 Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Sclorch]
#1546310 - 05/13/03 07:33 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
yeah, ayn rand and the libertarians are fucking crazy. Objectivism isn't a philosophy, it's a cult. it's total bullshit that neo cons use to make seem like capitalism and reason are bound by a causal link. crazy libertarians defeat the whole point o f capitaism (informed consent) by denying the right to education.
--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of [Re: buttonion]
#1546459 - 05/13/03 08:24 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the source of some dispute in the advertising thread (and many others) is expressed in this tenant of objectivism, to which a few of you seem to subscribe. "Any form of determinism" is being rejected- the rejection of the idea that we are what we are because of forces that are completely out of our control and awareness...???
I think you can reject determinism and still have compassion for those who made the "wrong choices" or those whose will is no match for the environmental forces around them. Objectivism seems to make the case that somehow "free will" can overcome "fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions"... maybe some people can, but that's completely unrealistic.. I'll say that (and I don't want to sound like a compatiblist here) free will doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are always other factors... other forces at work which influence (not determine) the path your life will take.
their definition: 'the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control'
does not sound like an accurate definition of determinism to me... it sounds... almost political.
It seems like objectivism isn't just rejecting "any form of determinsm". it's rejecting certain beliefs that have nothing to do with determinism.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: buttonion]
#1546536 - 05/13/03 08:44 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
buttonion quotes:
Quote:
Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)."
You have the emphasis on the wrong part of that sentence, and you haven't considered the context of the paragraph as a whole -- that every man (except the most profoundly retarded) has the power of reason and possesses free will.
There is no evidence that God exists or that fate determines our destiny, but plenty of evidence that we can reason and that we possess free will. Upbringing and genetics does not determine our ultimate fate either -- there are countless examples of siblings differing radically; same genetic parents, same upbringing, one is successful and the other is a bum. Economic conditions the same -- plenty of useless trust funders, plenty of heroes from terrible economic conditions.
The dominant factor in determining what kind of life you will have is how willing you are to utilize whatever intellectual capacity you happen to have to its utmost. Thinking is hard work. If you choose not to think, or not to think very often, your life will be of significantly lower quality than if you consciously choose to think as often as possible.
...the rejection of the idea that we are what we are because of forces that are completely out of our control and awareness...
That idea is a cop out. Once you reach a certain stage of maturity, you have to accept responsibility for your own life. And if such mysterious "forces" are beyond our awareness, in what possible way can they have an effect on us? Through telekinesis?
You have to be delusional or in complete denial to assert that we are not, at least in part, the products of our environment.
The key word phrase here is "in part". The fact that someone left school three years earlier than his peers does not doom him to failure. He will have to work harder than others, but he is FREE to work harder, IF HE SO CHOOSES.
This speaks to the claim that those who cannot critically think are "lazy," as if many of them don?t have all of the cards stacked against them.
The quote you picked DOES refer to the intellectually lazy. It is precisely analagous to someone who is physically lazy. The word is well chosen, because it refers to those who CHOOSE not to think, not to those (the profoundly retarded, for example) who lack the CAPACITY to think. Similarly, one would not refer to a wheelchair-bound person as physically lazy, but you could appropriately apply it to a healthy young person who chose to lounge in front of the TV every waking moment.
If you assume to begin with that we are and have been in complete control of the course of our lives, then you will naturally understand the absence of critical thought as the "choice not to think" (i.e., laziness)
You are missing the point completely. One does not need to be in complete control of one's life in order to choose to think. But that is really the one true thing in your life which you CAN control. You can't control your genetics, or choose your upbringers, or outduel God or fate (if either exists) or beam yourself in an instant from the slums to a mansion. Hence --
...that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom.
I think holding this opinion is a better example of intellectual laziness. Time for an assumption reevaluation.
Think it through again.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Malachi]
#1546571 - 05/13/03 08:54 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Malachi writes:
yeah, ayn rand and the libertarians are fucking crazy.
Why?
Objectivism isn't a philosophy, it's a cult.
Incorrect. It is a philosophy. It may not be a philosophy you agree with, but it is most definitely a philosophy. Rand originated almost none of the ideas expressed in Objectivism (except for her epistemological work on concept formation) -- virtually everything she outlines was said long ago by Aristotle and/or numerous Enlightenment Era philosophers. Her true accomplishment was arranging those concepts into a coherent system which covers everything from metaphysics to politics.
it's total bullshit that neo cons use to make seem like capitalism and reason are bound by a causal link.
Few if any admitted "neo-cons" are more than grudging admirers of Ayn Rand. And the link between reason and Laissez-faire Capitalism is not an illusory one.
crazy libertarians defeat the whole point o f capitaism (informed consent) by denying the right to education.
The whole point of Capitalism is not "informed consent", but freedom from coercion. As for the "right" to education, which Capitalist has ever said people have no right to educate themselves or their children? Source, please.
pinky
--------------------
|
AislingGheal
A wave on the ocean
Registered: 02/22/03
Posts: 988
Loc: Northern Ohio
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: buttonion]
#1546604 - 05/13/03 09:07 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Let me preface this post by saying that I lean toward objectivism as a philosophy, I've said so in other posts as well, but I do not think that objectivism is a perfect system, to me it's a good model but not sacrosanct. The following quote is an explanation by an objectivist concerning the dilemma of freewill vs. determinism, I think it finds the middle ground you were alluding to:
"What kind of freedom is there in our free choice ? Our choices cannot and obviously should not be totally free from (or fail to take into account) our knowledge, values and perceptions of our environment and ourselves. Our choices are not free from past thoughts and decisions or from external influences. Our choices can also not transcend the laws of nature, ie. do the impossible. The freedom we find in freewill is not the elimination of influencing factors as such, but the expansion of our choice by our unique ability to deal with abstract concepts (language), by our self-awareness, our imagination, our ability to seek out knowledge and project the future and, most importantly, by our awareness of and monitoring of our own thinking. This is the source of our freedom; this is what makes us self-determined. This is the crux of the proper understanding of freewill: Not free from influences, but free to make intelligent choices.
How does freewill differ from "normal" choice, the kind a machine or an animal may make ? The advance of human choice over that of (current) machines and animals lies in our ability to think abstractly and in our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking. This creates the freedom of choice that freewill represents. We understand. Machines and animals have knowledge, but they have little or no understanding. I use the term knowledge in a limited sense: Facts of reality as may be contained in an encyclopedia or a computer program, or an animal's knowledge of nutritious food. We, too, sometimes have knowledge without understanding. Our schools often encourage rote learning of such facts as the dates of Napoleonic wars or the Latin name for a frog's tonsils. Understanding, in contrast, implies the integration of knowledge with other existing knowledge and its relationship to ourselves and to our primary means of knowledge, our senses. Until we relate knowledge to our own existence and our perceptual knowledge of reality, it is not understood. All knowledge, including abstract concepts, has to be integrated with and related to fundamental experience. A thermostat has knowledge of a temperature change, but not understanding. A flower has knowledge of the rising sun, but no understanding. An animal has the knowledge to feed itself, but only understanding food's significance allows us to farm or select a healthy diet.
There are degrees of freewill similar to degrees of intelligence or compassion. There are also degrees of understanding. Animals have varying degrees of understanding, limited by their inability to think abstractly and their limited awareness of themselves and their thought processes (3). True understanding requires a grasp of the concept of "consciousness" (though not necessarily knowledge of the word) and of the "I" which is experiencing and thinking. The freedom of choice that we enjoy is in a different class than that available to animals; that is why we correctly give it the title "freewill". There is no absolute cut-off point between "normal" choice and freewill; children's freewill develops and surpasses that of chimps at an early age. We recognize this fact of developing freewill in the way we treat babies as compared to how we treat children or adults. All conscious humans have the capacity for freewill, but the scope of actual utilization is variable. We determine the degree of freewill ourselves, we are self-determined. We may do this by implicit, subconscious default or by explicit, conscious decision.
To summarize, freewill is not choice free from the "wiring" of our brains (genes and chemical factors), our life's experiences (environmental influences) or prior thoughts and decisions. Freewill is the extra freedom to create and evaluate options by understanding their implications. The scope of freewill depends on the actual utilization of this unique cognitive ability." - Peter Voss
--------------------
 
"I hate having to pick between the lesser of two evils. But I'm glad Obama was elected. McCain was another war monger. I'd rather deal with our country going into debt than trying to take on afghanistan...oh wait FUCK!" - Fungus_tao
|
Malachi
stereotype
Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: AislingGheal]
#1546777 - 05/13/03 10:21 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
pinksharkmark said,
"Rand originated almost none of the ideas expressed in Objectivism (except for her epistemological work on concept formation) -- virtually everything she outlines was said long ago by Aristotle and/or numerous Enlightenment Era philosophers. Her true accomplishment was arranging those concepts into a coherent system which covers everything from metaphysics to politics."
-right, that's what philosophers do. the "arranging those concepts into a coherent system" part is a philosophy. crazy fucks like charles manson and billy graham also have philosophies. their ideas are also traceable to aristotle. rands philosophy doesn't make any sense. I've heard that their are two branches of objectivism, and that only one of them are really crazy... but in my experience, objectivist are freaky. I mean, why reduce humanity to such a base level? it's so... reductionist. go to
http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm
to read about rand.
"The whole point of Capitalism is not "informed consent", but freedom from coercion. As for the "right" to education, which Capitalist has ever said people have no right to educate themselves or their children? Source, please."
-how can you be free to choose and prioritize all of the elements that create a lifestyle if you have no appreciation for the range of human thought and activity? ignorance is coercion. therefore everyone, even people who have technical vocations, need to be educated in a liberal arts curriculum. I didn't say that capitalist want to prevent people from educating themselves... I said libertarians would not support public education. but now that you mention it, yeah, modern day "capitalists" aren't playing by the rules, they aren't allowing the masses freedom from coercion, because people are not informed enough to vote and purchase (dollar vote) in a manner that accurately reflects their true desires. I base this argument on adam smiths discussion of the importance of liberal arts education in wealth of nations.
.
--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Malachi]
#1546968 - 05/13/03 11:44 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
crazy fucks like charles manson and billy graham also have philosophies.
How does this have any bearing on the merits or shortcoming of Objectivism?
Quote:
rands philosophy doesn't make any sense.
Have you tried English courses?
Quote:
I've heard that their are two branches of objectivism, and that only one of them are really crazy...
So you're basing your assessment of something on someone else's opinions without understanding the topic you are criticizing?
Quote:
in my experience, objectivist are freaky.
What does this mean, that you judge the merits of a philosophy based on the social graces of some of it's adherents?
Quote:
I mean, why reduce humanity to such a base level?
Don't you mean basic level? What is wrong with trying to understand the essence of something?
Quote:
-how can you be free to choose and prioritize all of the elements that create a lifestyle if you have no appreciation for the range of human thought and activity?
These are individual choices, not everyone incorporates the same elements into their personal lifestyles. How does Objectivism exclude the appreciation for the range of human thought and activity? (if this is what you meant)
Quote:
ignorance is coercion.
This makes no sense, ignorance and coercion are two different concepts.
Quote:
... therefore even people who have technical vocations, need to be educated in a liberal arts curriculum.
Please define need in this context and how you arrive at this conclusion.
Quote:
modern day "capitalists" aren't playing by the rules,
What 'rules' are you referring to? Perhaps the legal codes of the particular countires in which these "capitalists" are running their businesses?
Quote:
they aren't allowing the masses freedom from coercion,
There are laws against this in the U.S., what country are you from?
Quote:
because people are not informed enough to vote...
Yes, democracy is a pretty shitty system that way.
Quote:
... and purchase (dollar vote) in a manner that accurately reflects their true desires.
This makes no sense. Are you saying that consumers don't know their own desires? How did you determine this? I say that each individual (other than you) is much more cognizant of his own desires than you.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
AislingGheal
A wave on the ocean
Registered: 02/22/03
Posts: 988
Loc: Northern Ohio
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Malachi]
#1546974 - 05/13/03 11:47 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"...but in my experience, objectivist are freaky. I mean, why reduce humanity to such a base level? it's so... reductionist."
Some objectivist are zombies no doubt, but you can find freaks following any various philosophy, religion, or ideology. Some people are happy to settle on a system and defend it ruthlessly, it's easier and more comfortable that way.
I enjoyed the link you provided, I think it is beyond doubt that Ayn Rand was at times extreme, that she made mistakes along the way. To me that's the human condition, everyone makes mistakes, the friction comes down to do you side with Kant or Rand. I still side more with Rand but that could change, I'm still learning and open to the consideration of other models.
--------------------
"I hate having to pick between the lesser of two evils. But I'm glad Obama was elected. McCain was another war monger. I'd rather deal with our country going into debt than trying to take on afghanistan...oh wait FUCK!" - Fungus_tao
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: AislingGheal]
#1548114 - 05/14/03 12:25 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
NOMAD: ?their definition: 'the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control'
does not sound like an accurate definition of determinism to me... it sounds... almost political.?
I agree. Such emotion-arousing wording should be used sparingly when trying to make you case on reasonable grounds.
Pinksharkmark: Thanks for your comments. See below
AislingGheal: Thank you for the quote. I concede that it appears objectivists are not as polarized on the freewill vs. determinism continuum as I thought. SMILE
Now let?s just take a quick look at Rand's definition quickly.
Quote:
The advance of human choice over that of (current) machines and animals lies in our ability to think abstractly and in our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking. This creates the freedom of choice that freewill represents.
So i.e., due to our ability to create a model of reality, and the application of this ability to model the self, we are able to not only accumulate raw data (ayn?s knowledge) but integrate this with knowledge of reality and our self (ayn?s understanding). This gives us the capacity for making intelligent decisions. She seems to be saying that due to this abiliy, we have many more "choices" upon which to act.
The question I still have, that she did not answer (and is really at the heart of freewill), is- is the capacity to use this ability equally distributed amongst all of us? I.e., is whether we use this ability (that I agree most us have) equally likely for all individuals? No, I don?t think it is. Conditions out of our control affect whether we use this ability, and, thus, to make the sweeping comment that all individuals who do not use it, "choose not to" is overlysimplistic.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
atomikfunksoldier
T'was born oftrue in the yearof the cock!
Registered: 04/07/03
Posts: 1,500
Loc: a human-infested anthill
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: buttonion]
#1548128 - 05/14/03 12:28 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ayn rand sucks.
she was a total creep, in the 50's, during america's insane period of communist paranoia, she was on the forefront of the persecutions. she was part of the "house on un-american activities". which ex-communicated anyone in the hollywood community who wasnt on the extreme right.
--------------------
enjoy the entertaining indentity i have constructed for you while you can.
Edited by atomikfunksoldier (05/14/03 12:29 PM)
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Sclorch]
#1548130 - 05/14/03 12:28 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
my problem comes when the bullshit rhetorical/psychological tactics used in advertising create value systems (in the minds of these inhibited individuals) that THREATEN MY FREEDOM.
I agree with this. Society is shaped by TV.
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Murex]
#1548622 - 05/14/03 03:43 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sclorch: my problem comes when the bullshit rhetorical/psychological tactics used in advertising create value systems (in the minds of these inhibited individuals) that THREATEN MY FREEDOM.
Murex: I agree with this. Society is shaped by TV.
I think it's important to note that it's more like a feedback loop.
Cycles like this are hard to break.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Malachi
stereotype
Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Sclorch]
#1548900 - 05/14/03 05:33 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving --
I was saying that it's more discriptive to call objectivism a cult than a philosphy. pinksharkmark argued that it's more discriptive to call objectivism a philosophy. his grounds for this argument where that ayn rand is just updating aristotle. I said that's bullshit cause you could just as well say that mansion was just updating the bible.
I don't think that english courses will make me understand why I shouldn't feel bad when I see starving people. objectivism trys to tell me that I shouldn't care about starving people. I don't like that. maybe you should take some english courses so that you could compose a more substantial criticsm than one liners.
Informed consent.Informed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consentInformed consent
adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.adam smith.vadam smith.adam smith.vvadam smith.
--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Malachi]
#1550028 - 05/15/03 01:05 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the main problem here is one of thought articulation... accurately putting ideas into words isn't easy. Becoming defensive when someone doesn't get your idea doesn't help.
Everyone has been guilty of this.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit
Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Malachi]
#1550185 - 05/15/03 03:12 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
objectivism trys to tell me that I shouldn't care about starving people. I don't like that.
I haven't read Rand myself, but this comment makes me curious. Does objectivism actually say that you shouldn't care about starving people? That sounds strange coming from Rand who must have seen the effects of Lenin's great famine with her own eyes.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Malachi]
#1550286 - 05/15/03 05:40 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Malachi writes:
his grounds for this argument where that ayn rand is just updating aristotle. I said that's bullshit cause you could just as well say that mansion was just updating the bible.
If you claim Objectivism is not a philosophy then you must similarly reject the philosophies of Kant and Aquinas and Hegel and Hume and Bastiat and Dewey and dozens of others.
objectivism trys to tell me that I shouldn't care about starving people.
Objectivism says no such thing.
maybe you should take some english courses so that you could compose a more substantial criticsm than one liners.
And your one-liner about Objectivism and starving people doesn't count, I presume?
From the comments you have given us in this thread, it is apparent you yourself have read little if any Objectivist writings, and instead are condemning it on the basis of what others have said about it.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Rhizoid]
#1550288 - 05/15/03 05:44 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Rhizoid writes:
Does objectivism actually say that you shouldn't care about starving people?
No. Not even close.
That sounds strange coming from Rand who must have seen the effects of Lenin's great famine with her own eyes.
She left Russia around 1920 or 1921, if I recall correctly. The worst famines were still to come.
pinky
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Objectivism: What a load of.. [Re: Phred]
#1550356 - 05/15/03 07:16 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well well my dear friend, this seems to be just the sort of thread you were asking for all those long months ago. I remember very well you opining that there were no threads about this subject.
Let me make as many comments here as time allows. First of all let me, as moderator, bestow upon upon you the rank of "Vanguard of Reason", a title of high honor, for your answers in this thread and many many others. Wear it with pride. If you would like any spore print that I have in my possession you may pm me and receive it free of charge.
When discussing Objectivism and Ayn Rand you will find the usual Ad Homs, Red Herrings, Straw men, etc from those unacquainted with logical disputation. The bottom line is, and always has been, whether or not we, as rational beings will allow ourselves to be led by reason, or go kicking and screaming against it every step of the way.
Now, Objectivism may have a few minor flaws but as a philosophy I have found very few.
Those that argue against it, I have found, do so from some internal need to rail against a world they see as cold and heartless. Buttonion, a brilliant mind, has been uncomfortable with the idea that there is a universe outside our minds. He has been, as I have known him, a fan of Idealism ala Berkeley. I don't think you could stray further from "Objectivism". In fact, I owe him an explanation of why Goedel's Theorum isn't evidence against the rationalist's or realist's position for months. (Don't worry buttonion, I will get to it eventually)
I find that arguing these kinds of precepts and concepts for too long against those who cannot or will not accept the refined common sense with which they are offered an exercise in futility.
In the meantime I will pop a new batch of popcorn as continue watching the show for the remainder of the thread injecting only where I see absolutely necessary.
Carry on.
Cheers,
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Substrate Bags 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Kratom Extract 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Evolving
1 2 3 all )
buttonion
Ped
Deviate
WhiteRabbitt
Trepiodge
silversoul7
TinTree