Aynd Rand was the greatest philospher. Ever.

TakuanSoho · #**101** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Reality is how consciousness percieves it's environment.....it is subjective.

Some portions of reality are shared, but not all....(at what point does insanity set in?)

That is defined as much by culture as anything else...which is also subjective.

Rand disagrees, and makes an effective argument against it.

One of the reasons intellectuals hate Rand is that she pretty much shreds a lot of philosophical beliefs. Quite effectively as well.

Heckler · #**102** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Rand disagrees, and makes an effective argument against it.

One of the reasons intellectuals hate Rand is that she pretty much shreds a lot of philosophical beliefs. Quite effectively as well.

Yeah, but you gotta have belief to have it shredded.....aren't you agnostic?

....Much of what is called reality is up for debate. It gets really wierd when you get to the quantum level....

Define for us a bit of universally accepted objective reality?

(where does madness start/end?)

TakuanSoho · #**103** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Yeah, but you gotta have belief to have it shredded.....aren't you agnostic?

....Much of what is called reality is up for debate. It gets really wierd when you get to the quantum level....

Define for us a bit of universally accepted objective reality?

(where does madness start/end?)

Well, in addition to shredding religion (rand was an atheist), it equally shreds many schools of philosophy, and being agnostic has nothing to do with that.

Again objective reality simply states that there is something outside of consciousness. Call it nature or whatever, or you can use the quote I provided on the thread about reality: "reality is whatever you wished wasn't"

Heckler · #**104** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Well, in addition to shredding religion (rand was an atheist), it equally shreds many schools of philosophy, and being agnostic has nothing to do with that.

Again objective reality simply states that there is something outside of consciousness. Call it nature or whatever, or you can use the quote I provided on the thread about reality: "reality is whatever you wished wasn't"

Thanks for the answer Takuan......

smart makes a comeback · #**105** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Do you feel the same way about Karl Marx then? Everything equally applies to him (using him as the countering example she was attacking).

Rand never endorsed the things you are talking about. She never attacked charity, in fact she encouraged it. The MAIN difference with her concept of charity was that it should be voluntary not coerced and that you should give it to people who were trying to succeed but could not. Your going on about her anti-altruist stance is another indication that I don't think you read, or if you did read, you properly don't understood her position on it. Altruism as she defined it, was the philosophy that there is virtue in self sacrifice. As she illustrated quite convincingly in her book, the moral foundation of altruism (as she defined it) is self-destructing and self-defeating.

Of coarse the same applies to Marx., as it applies to most who profess an “ISM”

Please clarify YOUR position on HER position on Altrism, because it sounds to me like you are saying I must have misunderstood it, and then you are saying saying the same thing I said

Beyond that, IMHO you credit far too much eloquence to her message. hers is simply a dressed up, sugar coated and quasi intellectual version of what you can hear on dozens of daytime AM radio talk shows hosted by kooks and populist whack jobs.
It is just so much "Feeling bad is feeling good, feeling angry is being happy" quasi philosophy

Now that you have decided to exhale and put your knives down, I will admit you are not a total dumb ass. Unlike Nathan, Dum1 ( who now see via Nathan’s quotes that he apparently answers my posts in the first person, when he knows I have him on ignore..Bwhahahahahaha....what a putz) neither of which has EVER (trust me) EVER read an entire book by Rand, or anything even close

If I may make an observation, methinks you tend to gravitate toward views that are not widely shared, but have enough basis and enough of a consensus to hang your hat on. You seem to find comfort in the right of center.

Just an observation

TakuanSoho · #**106** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Of coarse the same applies to Marx., as it applies to most who profess an “ISM”

Please clarify YOUR position on HER position on Altrism, because it sounds to me like you are saying I must have misunderstood it, and then you are saying saying the same thing I said

Beyond that, IMHO you credit far too much eloquence to her message. hers is simply a dressed up, sugar coated and quasi intellectual version of what you can hear on dozens of daytime AM radio talk shows hosted by kooks and populist whack jobs.
It is just so much "Feeling bad is feeling good, feeling angry is being happy" quasi philosophy

Now that you have decided to exhale and put your knives down, I will admit you are not a total dumb ass. Unlike Nathan, Dum1 ( who now see via Nathan’s quotes that he apparently answers my posts in the first person, when he knows I have him on ignore..Bwhahahahahaha....what a putz) neither of which has EVER (trust me) EVER read an entire book by Rand, or anything even close

If I may make an observation, methinks you tend to gravitate toward views that are not widely shared, but have enough basis and enough of a consensus to hang your hat on. You seem to find comfort in the right of center.

Just an observation

Fair enough, if your attack is based on a distrust of most "-isms", then I have no issues with an attack on objectivism. My issue is more the inaccurate and simplistic (both IMO) method you are using to attack it. In general though, I would agree that hard core objectivists are silly, but at the same time I think there is some important arguments in Rand that one should at least consider when trying to create their own world view.

As for altruism, I was thinking you were taking a broader definition of the world, including helping your fellow man. That was not the definition Rand was using. Even self-sacrifice was something she wasn't against (i.e. she would respect a soldier who died for his nation, a person who died for a cause they believed in, etc).

The difference with her was more of motivation. You can help if you wanted to, you could sacrifice if you thought it was worth dying for. It was not good to do it because you have been told to do it. That is what Rand was saying. She disliked the state, the church, or the society telling people to self sacrifice, and that they should do so because it is a virtue or it was their duty to do so (that was her definition of altruism). What she was calling for was a rational approach to it, not an emotional approach.

Her "John Galt Speech" really goes into this quite sufficiently, and if I had to recommend any of her writing I would recommend that.

nathanbforrest45 · #**107** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Of coarse the same applies to Marx., as it applies to most who profess an “ISM”

Please clarify YOUR position on HER position on Altrism, because it sounds to me like you are saying I must have misunderstood it, and then you are saying saying the same thing I said

Beyond that, IMHO you credit far too much eloquence to her message. hers is simply a dressed up, sugar coated and quasi intellectual version of what you can hear on dozens of daytime AM radio talk shows hosted by kooks and populist whack jobs.
It is just so much "Feeling bad is feeling good, feeling angry is being happy" quasi philosophy

Now that you have decided to exhale and put your knives down, I will admit you are not a total dumb ass. Unlike Nathan, Dum1 ( who now see via Nathan’s quotes that he apparently answers my posts in the first person, when he knows I have him on ignore..Bwhahahahahaha....what a putz) neither of which has EVER (trust me) EVER read an entire book by Rand, or anything even close

If I may make an observation, methinks you tend to gravitate toward views that are not widely shared, but have enough basis and enough of a consensus to hang your hat on. You seem to find comfort in the right of center.

Just an observation

You're right, all I have even read by Rand is Atlas Shrugged (3 times), The Fountainhead, For the New Intellectual, The Virtues of Selfishness, Anthem, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, We the Living, Night of January 16, The Romantic Manifesto, the New Left, and I was a subscriber to the Objectivist Newsletter. So you are right, I have read very little of her works.

nathanbforrest45 · #**108** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Fair enough, if your attack is based on a distrust of most "-isms", then I have no issues with an attack on objectivism. My issue is more the inaccurate and simplistic (both IMO) method you are using to attack it. In general though, I would agree that hard core objectivists are silly, but at the same time I think there is some important arguments in Rand that one should at least consider when trying to create their own world view.

As for altruism, I was thinking you were taking a broader definition of the world, including helping your fellow man. That was not the definition Rand was using. Even self-sacrifice was something she wasn't against (i.e. she would respect a soldier who died for his nation, a person who died for a cause they believed in, etc).

The difference with her was more of motivation. You can help if you wanted to, you could sacrifice if you thought it was worth dying for. It was not good to do it because you have been told to do it. That is what Rand was saying. She disliked the state, the church, or the society telling people to self sacrifice, and that they should do so because it is a virtue or it was their duty to do so (that was her definition of altruism). What she was calling for was a rational approach to it, not an emotional approach.

Her "John Galt Speech" really goes into this quite sufficiently, and if I had to recommend any of her writing I would recommend that.

The book, The Virtues of Selfishness" is really just a collection of the pertinent parts of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. If you want a good overview of her works then this would be a good place to start.

I originally thought of Atlas Shrugged as good science fiction until I began thinking of what she was really saying. All in all, I would rather be 90% Objectivist than 90% Collectivist. I don't believe that collectivism allows for true freedom while I believe Objectivism does. To me Objectivism takes nothing away from anyone. If I can't win the New York Marathon no amount of altruistic ideology will allow me the win. Giving me the win by hobbling my opponents does not make me a better runner. This is how I see the philosophy. Just leave me alone and let me be me, warts and all.

smart makes a comeback · #**109** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

You're right, all I have even read by Rand is Atlas Shrugged (3 times), The Fountainhead, For the New Intellectual, The Virtues of Selfishness, Anthem, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, We the Living, Night of January 16, The Romantic Manifesto, the New Left, and I was a subscriber to the Objectivist Newsletter. So you are right, I have read very little of her works.

The back cover doesnt count Nathan, neither does the summeries forund on line

If you read The Romantic Manifesto, discuss in detail what she wrote about Don Quixote, and be careful, I can spot a google search a mile away

nathanbforrest45 · #**110** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

The back cover doesnt count Nathan, neither does the summeries forund on line

If you read The Romantic Manifesto, discuss in detail what she wrote about Don Quixote, and be careful, I can spot a google search a mile away

OK wiseass, you got me on that one. I don't remember what she wrote about Don Quixote. Its been years since I read the book. I guess that means I am totally discredited in anything I may actually know about Rand.

So, you win, I won't argue with you about Rand any longer.
You still have no concept of Rand if you think she is a fascist and I will never ever believe that you done more than qoogle her. But you did catch me on knowing what she said in The Romantic Manifesto.
Be of good cheer