 |
|

05-22-2008, 05:40 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Uptown Chicago and the Green Mill on a regular basis
Posts: 3,751
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45
Please explain your "feel good by feeling bad" comment. I don't understand
|
Are you familier with rand's writings on the the relationship between reason and emotion ? "
"Emotions, are not tools of cognition"
"We must be guided by our conscious mind,we must not follow our emotions blindly"
"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice — and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man — by choice; he has to hold his life as a value — by choice; he has to learn to sustain it — by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues — by choice"
This is nothing more then a combination of the beleif in a primacy of existence, and Puritan style cleansing through pain, under the guise of self aggrandizement.
Look beyond the "honor of self" rhetoric and read between the lines
__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid
Please give to the fund for Whining Lil White Boys. You dollars could prevent a suicide
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"
|

05-22-2008, 06:08 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback
Are you familier with rand's writings on the the relationship between reason and emotion ? "
"Emotions, are not tools of cognition"
"We must be guided by our conscious mind,we must not follow our emotions blindly"
"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice — and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man — by choice; he has to hold his life as a value — by choice; he has to learn to sustain it — by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues — by choice"
This is nothing more then a combination of the beleif in a primacy of existence, and Puritan style cleansing through pain, under the guise of self aggrandizement.
Look beyond the "honor of self" rhetoric and read between the lines
|
Well, existence has primacy. If you don't believe it does, try jumping off a building and see if you will can overcome gravity.
As for the rest, she said nothing of the kind. She said that one should make decisions based on either knowledge or if on emotions, then a clear understanding of those emotions (you even posted she said we should not follow emotion "blindly". If she wanted us to be robots, she would not have needed to clarify this).
|

05-22-2008, 07:15 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,609
|
|
Quote:
|
This would make sense if Rand was a neocon.
|
Nobody said she was a neocon. But if you do some research on the top dogs of neoconservatism, you will find that they were all Rand disciples.
Last edited by George O Well; 05-22-2008 at 07:16 PM.
Reason: spelling
|

05-23-2008, 10:13 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 11,185
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
Well, existence has primacy. If you don't believe it does, try jumping off a building and see if you will can overcome gravity.
As for the rest, she said nothing of the kind. She said that one should make decisions based on either knowledge or if on emotions, then a clear understanding of those emotions (you even posted she said we should not follow emotion "blindly". If she wanted us to be robots, she would not have needed to clarify this).
|
Tak
The lines are from John Galt's speech I believe. However, they don't mean what Smart seems to think they mean. I don't understand how she makes the leap from making rational choices to living in pain unless her belief is that we should never (1) have to make choices (which is exactly what Rand was against) and (2) any choice we do make should not ever, no matter how irrational, cause us pain, which was also exactly what Rand did not believe
I don't get her thought patterns here
__________________
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Sarah
|

05-23-2008, 11:41 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 4,001
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback
Are you familier with rand's writings on the the relationship between reason and emotion ? "
"Emotions, are not tools of cognition"
"We must be guided by our conscious mind,we must not follow our emotions blindly"
"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice — and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man — by choice; he has to hold his life as a value — by choice; he has to learn to sustain it — by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues — by choice"
This is nothing more then a combination of the beleif in a primacy of existence, and Puritan style cleansing through pain, under the guise of self aggrandizement.
Look beyond the "honor of self" rhetoric and read between the lines
|
Where is the "Puritan style cleansing through pain," as you call it? Using reason doesn't mean that we can't experience joy in our lives. She said don't blindly follow our emotions, which I would think it sound advice. Raw emotions can be unreliable.
__________________
Life is too short for endless patience.
-rice "hussein" chickie
|

05-23-2008, 11:51 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45
Tak
The lines are from John Galt's speech I believe. However, they don't mean what Smart seems to think they mean. I don't understand how she makes the leap from making rational choices to living in pain unless her belief is that we should never (1) have to make choices (which is exactly what Rand was against) and (2) any choice we do make should not ever, no matter how irrational, cause us pain, which was also exactly what Rand did not believe
I don't get her thought patterns here
|
Not hard to gauge. She likes to cherry pick quotes that out of context support her position instead of trying to understand things in its entirety.
Could I pull quotes out of Rand that support Smart's contention. Sure. That isn't the issue. The issue is taking Rand (or any thinker) in total and seeing what she said.
For instance, Lasher is using a quote from Nietzsche that seems to suggest that Nietzsche disliked Jews and supported Antisemitism. The truth is completely the opposite. He hated Antisemitism (the person he disliked most in his life was his brother in law, a leading anti-Semite that he despised). The quote therefore is more a reflection on the stupidity of anti-Semites than a condemnation of Jews.
|

05-23-2008, 02:16 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Uptown Chicago and the Green Mill on a regular basis
Posts: 3,751
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricechickie
Where is the "Puritan style cleansing through pain," as you call it? Using reason doesn't mean that we can't experience joy in our lives. She said don't blindly follow our emotions, which I would think it sound advice. Raw emotions can be unreliable.
|
Once agian, you want to suger coat the syntax to meet your notions.
Rand, as she so often does contends that the polar extremes, in this case, "Rational being or suicidal animal" are the only paths available
As any "rational" person knows. this is never the case
"REASON" derives from obeservation, experience, and yes, EMOTION, and consulting a pre fabricated self centric dogma to reherse reaction, is neither "Rational" or "Self fulfilling"
I t is in fact, the antithesis of both
Her message on reason and emotion is one of secularized Oliver Cromwell style rigidness and zero tolernce to frailty and self compromise
This is supposed to produce "happiness and self fulfillment '?
Hardly
Better one should be a fanatical Christo fascist fundy
Same outome, but at least there is a hope of going to heaven
__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid
Please give to the fund for Whining Lil White Boys. You dollars could prevent a suicide
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"
Last edited by smart makes a comeback; 05-23-2008 at 02:18 PM.
|

05-23-2008, 02:24 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback
Once agian, you want to suger coat the syntax to meet your notions.
Rand, as she so often does contends that the polar extremes, in this case, "Rational being or suicidal animal" are the only paths available
As any "rational" person knows. this is never the case
"REASON" derives from obeservation, experience, and yes, EMOTION, and consulting a pre fabricated self centric dogma to reherse reaction, is neither "Rational" or "Self fulfilling"
I t is in fact, the antithesis of both
Her message on reason and emotion is one of secularized Oliver Cromwell style rigidness and zero tolernce to frailty and self compromise
This is supposed to produce "happiness and self fulfillment '?
Hardly
Better one should be a fanatical Christo fascist fundy
Same outome, but at least there is a hope of going to heaven
|
Uhm, don't you think that you are reading a little too much into with your false dichotomy? I can either be left handed or right handed, but that doesn't mean that I don't use the other hand. One is just dominant. Likewise saying that one can either be a rational human or suicidal animal doesn't mean that at times one isn't the other.
Which generally leads to the more successful outcome: a decision based on reason, or a decision based on emotion? The answer is obvious. Now this doesn't mean that you ALWAYS have to be one or the other, but it is clear that most people are generally one or the other.
Comparing her to Cromwell I do admit it is funny, but for a woman who had no issues with adultery, hardly appropriate.
|

05-23-2008, 02:33 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Uptown Chicago and the Green Mill on a regular basis
Posts: 3,751
|
|
Quote:
View Post Today, 01:24 PM
Remove user from ignore listTakuanSoho
This message is hidden because TakuanSoho is on your ignore list.
|
Dude, when your posts started containing silly ass terms like "Socialism” out of context, and you kept pretending my point of view was something you never herd before, and you kept constructing straw men by taking what I said to insane extremes, I wrote you off as a kook and put you on ignore.
For us to disagree is one thing, but to present yourself a right wing whack job is unforgivable, and only right wing whack jobs use those terms the way you did in this type of discussion, and straw man jockeys are a waste of my time.
If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you lost your prospective temporarily I’m not going to regret it am I ?
Hummm…I wont see your answer will I?
I’ll give this some thought and let you know
__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid
Please give to the fund for Whining Lil White Boys. You dollars could prevent a suicide
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"
|

05-23-2008, 02:39 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Uptown Chicago and the Green Mill on a regular basis
Posts: 3,751
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
Uhm, don't you think that you are reading a little too much into with your false dichotomy? I can either be left handed or right handed, but that doesn't mean that I don't use the other hand. One is just dominant. Likewise saying that one can either be a rational human or suicidal animal doesn't mean that at times one isn't the other.
Which generally leads to the more successful outcome: a decision based on reason, or a decision based on emotion? The answer is obvious. Now this doesn't mean that you ALWAYS have to be one or the other, but it is clear that most people are generally one or the other.
Comparing her to Cromwell I do admit it is funny, but for a woman who had no issues with adultery, hardly appropriate.
|
Ok....you are officially off my iggy list..... for now...(Wags her finger)
(that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee)
I just think you lend a bit too much "moderation and flexibility" to her views
AS for her non objection to adultery....there in is where the dichotomy is found...and my reference to "secularized"
__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid
Please give to the fund for Whining Lil White Boys. You dollars could prevent a suicide
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|