Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I sort of thought the Greeks made a lot of progress , and the Renascence rediscovered and helped improve it. Its basically a language and logic tool good that helps to realize sound logic and inference. After that I just keep seeing the old arguments over and over again .
Note very carefully that: Rand promotes individualism as a social good. If she were so full of self determination, why is she proselytizing anything? This is just fundamentally Socrates and Zeno all over again only applied to man and humanity.
-spread out a sail and cover a number of men -
And her basic philosophy : Be happy.
Didn't I hear something like - pursuit of happiness - somewhere?
The Greeks made a lot of progress because people pretty much knew nothing and all these guys did was sit around and think and exchange opinions all day.
I wish I lived in a society with little demand where I could just observe and exchange musings...how awesome would that be?
But I agree most philosophy now is question begging...all the leg work has been done..people know that people usually act in ones own self interest. Most postmodern philosphers were hacks and Ayn Rand was a hack too but I still agreed with a lot of her principles whether she didn't adhere to them herself or not.
I referenced Rand's non-fiction book, For The New Intellectual. The last thing I want to do is brag about reading Rand's stuff, but I read every piece of non-fiction she ever produced. That you are unaware of this book suggests you know very little about her. This will probably end poorly for you.
I have never claimed to have read "every piece" of Rand's work. Of that which I have read, including Rand's own explanations of her views which critics have deliberately distorted, I have a comfortable understanding of what she held true, and I agree with most of her contentions. Furthermore, it is my opinion that those who hold such animosity toward her are clueless idiots that are not worth their salt. Now, that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with her every remark ... but that's true for everyone. There is no such thing as unanimous agreement between two thinking parties, as there will always be differences of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
That Rand believed that humans have no innate knowledge is far from an obscure point. In fact, it's essential to her belief system which is grounded in her belief in the human mind being a "tabula rosa," as she put it. As a blank slate, she argued that humans need to develop an orderly, rational philosophy in order to survive, unlike other animals who are born with innate knowledge. I'm not going to explain this any further. If you're going to get on here and claim you know something of what she wrote, you really need to actually read her writings. I would suggest moving past her pap, but if you are dead-set in continuing with this, you should at least respect yourself and everyone else enough to take the time to learn what she actually wrote and argued.
You insolent mouth breather ..... you cannot comprehend what this woman was trying to impart. Your "take" is so far removed from what her message was, I'm left wondering whether this is yet another deliberate distortion, or just your lack of intellectual comprehension.
What Rand actually said was that human beings have no innate instincts ... with "instincts" defined as natural, automatic response that demonstrates an innate knowledge of what is beneficial and in keeping with one's own best interests. And this truth is proven, day in and day out, as we become evermore self destructive. Of course, this does not define EVERY human being, and perhaps not even a majority, but it does define a significant portion of society, which I believe Rand was referring to.
I have never claimed to have read "every piece" of Rand's work.
Neither did I after sampling it. I decided not to flog myself. Wear that as a badge of honor.
Quote:
Of that which I have read, including Rand's own explanations of her views which critics have deliberately distorted, I have a comfortable understanding of what she held true, and I agree with most of her contentions. Furthermore, it is my opinion that those who hold such animosity toward her are clueless idiots that are not worth their salt. Now, that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with her every remark ... but that's true for everyone. There is no such thing as unanimous agreement between two thinking parties, as there will always be differences of opinion.
She posted something on CD?
Quote:
You insolent mouth breather ..... you cannot comprehend what this woman was trying to impart. Your "take" is so far removed from what her message was, I'm left wondering whether this is yet another deliberate distortion, or just your lack of intellectual comprehension.
And you are both victims of her ambiguity.
Quote:
What Rand actually said was that human beings have no innate instincts ... with "instincts" defined as natural, automatic response that demonstrates an innate knowledge of what is beneficial and in keeping with one's own best interests. And this truth is proven, day in and day out, as we become evermore self destructive. Of course, this does not define EVERY human being, and perhaps not even a majority, but it does define a significant portion of society, which I believe Rand was referring to.
Ergo a complete rip off British philosophy Berkeley , Lock and Hume.
I referenced Rand's non-fiction book, For The New Intellectual. The last thing I want to do is brag about reading Rand's stuff, but I read every piece of non-fiction she ever produced. That you are unaware of this book suggests you know very little about her. This will probably end poorly for you.
That Rand believed that humans have no innate knowledge is far from an obscure point. In fact, it's essential to her belief system which is grounded in her belief in the human mind being a "tabula rosa," as she put it. As a blank slate, she argued that humans need to develop an orderly, rational philosophy in order to survive, unlike other animals who are born with innate knowledge. I'm not going to explain this any further. If you're going to get on here and claim you know something of what she wrote, you really need to actually read her writings. I would suggest moving past her pap, but if you are dead-set in continuing with this, you should at least respect yourself and everyone else enough to take the time to learn what she actually wrote and argued.
Not to aim at you, but again targeting Rand:
What is funny is how she falls into an old trap besides her me too philosophy. I recall this battle that Schopenhauer waged against Fichte and Hegel. He compared the individual to what he called "the will" of the species or nature's efficiency. Human happiness often gives way to some other will of the species. We become a slave to appetite. It was the source of human misery in is doctrine and considered that the happy man will become parasitic to the will of the species using the power of genius. What is destructive to one will may serve another in any particular model. This is especially a problem with social animals since it is unclear when we act for our own genetic pay load vs that of our relatives. She says the self destructive nature of man is evidence that there is no instinct? She says that to die for family is a selfish act while "altruism" is flawed? Compared to a rock all humanity is our brother. What is her point? some people get a little confused about when they decide to serve the cause of some greater swath of human genetics?
Here is something recent that changes the human survivalist assumption:
The Social Conquest of Earth
Sparking vigorous debate in the sciences, The Social Conquest of Earth upends “the famous theory that evolution naturally encourages creatures to put family first†(Discover). Refashioning the story of human evolution, Wilson draws on his remarkable knowledge of biology and social behavior to demonstrate that group selection, not kin selection, is the premier driving force of human evolution.
So altruism is nothing other than a competing selfishness of a larger group dynamic.
Some small isolated tribes in humanity engage in orgies and have little sexual jealousy. Why? There is enough genetic similarity perhaps?. Then again chimps do the same and fight their wars with sperm instead of mate guarding like a gorilla. . There are plenty of beer bar and coffee house pseudo intellectuals. She was just the most famous.
I find it both comedic and sad that there are so many whose grandiose delusions of themselves and their grossly overestimated intelligence can find such fault with concepts and ideas that they obviously don't grasp. Now, this would be excusable for those who may have rejected Rand's ideas back in the 1950's thru 1970's ... after all, it was just her subjective theories and opinions, which can always be criticized safely. But not now ... there is no excuse for rejecting that which has been proven accurate. The world described in Atlas Shrugged is a virtual mirror of what we see happening at this very moment .... the parallels are too obvious to miss, even for those of marginal intelligence. Consequently, to reject Rand's ideas now is nothing more than pure denial, and stubborn irrational embrace of leftist dogma.
Of course the left HAS TO criticize Rand, since the essence of her every thought and idea directly rejects leftist views in virtually every area. Therefore, there is no alternative, nor any middle ground. In order to agree with Rand, one would necessarily be required to reject leftist ideology outright and completely ... something no leftist will do because the ideology itself is more a cult belief system than anything else. It is certainly not based in rational thought or evidence of positive results. Consequently, neither rational debate, nor any volume of evidence of the abject failure of leftist policy means anything to the liberal, because their views are not associated with logic or reason.
To the left, reality is not fixed and objective ... it is subjective and malleable, subject to alterations as deemed convenient. What was true yesterday doesn't need to be true tomorrow, if the opposite serves a better purpose. This is why the liberal will argue to the end of time how the US Constitution is a "living document", subject to change and reinterpretation. It's quite acceptable to the liberal if liberal judges decide that "Shall not" really means "can do if they have a good excuse" .... while the conservative understands that to allow such manipulation of our Constitution renders the document useless, and not worth the paper it is written on. But again, such arguments are based in rational thought and logic, which are foreign concepts to the leftist liberal.
Hey, this is not rocket science ..... just about every policy and social objective of the left is either counterproductive or totally self destructive. The modern day liberal has never met an irrational idea that shouldn't be embraced with enthusiasm. The more self destructive, the more likely to be championed by the left .... the consistency is astounding, as one can count on this as surely as expecting the sun to set in the evening and rise in the morning.
George Orwell, and his rather prophetic fictional 1984 holds similar parallels as Atlas Shrugged, though Orwell's vision of the future could be labeled optimistic in comparison to current reality, 2013. The common theme of both is the authoritarian nature of those whose love of big government spells the unmitigated disaster that is guaranteed under such tyrannical systems. In short, the leftist liberal is by nature and definition, authoritarian. There is no possible alternative outcome than despotism under leftist control.
When Ayn Rand's objectivism meets the real word... the real world wins.
So what else is new?
The critical difference between Objectivists and Marxists is that Objectivists do not attempt to use the machinery of the state to force their doctrines on the world at large. Supposedly "pure" Objectivist beliefs are no more likely to operate flawlessly in the day-to-day world than technology is expected to function without the grit, sweat, tensions and breakdowns that make up real life.
We all know this, but the usual collection Absolutely Politically Correct whiners who proclaims themselves as "liberals" are as usual, attacking the embodiment of a logically-based system by using a "standard" to which they could not bear to hold themselves.
Your hypocrisy becomes more apparent with every word you post.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-14-2013 at 12:13 PM..
I find it both comedic and sad that there are so many whose grandiose delusions of themselves and their grossly overestimated intelligence can find such fault with concepts and ideas that they obviously don't grasp. Now, this would be excusable for those who may have rejected Rand's ideas back in the 1950's thru 1970's ... after all, it was just her subjective theories and opinions, which can always be criticized safely. But not now ... there is no excuse for rejecting that which has been proven accurate. The world described in Atlas Shrugged is a virtual mirror of what we see happening at this very moment .... the parallels are too obvious to miss, even for those of marginal intelligence. Consequently, to reject Rand's ideas now is nothing more than pure denial, and stubborn irrational embrace of leftist dogma.
WF Buckley was a leftest? i am a leftist? Lot of people say the same thing about George Orwell. There is no excuse for crediting her for her prediction that anyone using the the Tyler cycle et al could do.
Quote:
Of course the left HAS TO criticize Rand, since the essence of her every thought and idea directly rejects leftist views in virtually every area. Therefore, there is no alternative, nor any middle ground. In order to agree with Rand, one would necessarily be required to reject leftist ideology outright and completely ... something no leftist will do because the ideology itself is more a cult belief system than anything else. It is certainly not based in rational thought or evidence of positive results. Consequently, neither rational debate, nor any volume of evidence of the abject failure of leftist policy means anything to the liberal, because their views are not associated with logic or reason.
The "left" is a straw man argument. Attacking them is no exhumation of Rand's philosophy. The only thing new when drinking from her tea cups is underneath it say's invented by Ayn Rand.
Quote:
To the left, reality is not fixed and objective ... it is subjective and malleable, subject to alterations as deemed convenient. What was true yesterday doesn't need to be true tomorrow, if the opposite serves a better purpose. This is why the liberal will argue to the end of time how the US Constitution is a "living document", subject to change and reinterpretation. It's quite acceptable to the liberal if liberal judges decide that "Shall not" really means "can do if they have a good excuse" .... while the conservative understands that to allow such manipulation of our Constitution renders the document useless, and not worth the paper it is written on. But again, such arguments are based in rational thought and logic, which are foreign concepts to the leftist liberal.
Hey, this is not rocket science ..... just about every policy and social objective of the left is either counterproductive or totally self destructive. The modern day liberal has never met an irrational idea that shouldn't be embraced with enthusiasm. The more self destructive, the more likely to be championed by the left .... the consistency is astounding, as one can count on this as surely as expecting the sun to set in the evening and rise in the morning.
George Orwell, and his rather prophetic fictional 1984 holds similar parallels as Atlas Shrugged, though Orwell's vision of the future could be labeled optimistic in comparison to current reality, 2013. The common theme of both is the authoritarian nature of those whose love of big government spells the unmitigated disaster that is guaranteed under such tyrannical systems. In short, the leftist liberal is by nature and definition, authoritarian. There is no possible alternative outcome than despotism under leftist control.
What do you know. We both noticed the same thing. Ever read Edward Gibbon on the Decline of the Roman Empire? It apparently was also co-written by Ayn Rand. She is at best a cover band you happen to like, but it was more likely an old Beatles song.
The problem is other people explained this problem so much better like Montesquieu, JS Mill, Thomas Paine , Tyler and James Madison etc etc. aka Tyranny of the majority. She will blind you to the danger of perfect equality which is so fertile a ground for a new tyranny, just like Marx did for everyone fool enough to follow his Liberation follies. She is like a power saw with out the safety mechanisms. See how the irritating safey features do not get in the way?
In a perfect Libertarian state the first who decide to rule become the effective government:
Stupid arm chair libertarian never bothered to look at their paradise when is scales.
To illustrate this observation, we need only reflect, that there is no superiority of natural strength, artificial weapons, or acquired skill, which could enable one man to keep in constant subjection one hundred of his fellow-creatures: the tyrant of a single town, or a small district, would soon discover that a hundred armed followers were a weak defence against ten thousand peasants or citizens;
[/quote]
So far so good.
[/quote]
but a hundred thousand well-disciplined soldiers will command, with despotic sway, ten millions of subjects; and a body of ten or fifteen thousand guards will strike terror into the most numerous populace that ever crowded the streets of an immense capital.
The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the Government. By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. They consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest, who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed on by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws. The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which, if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable
The critical difference between Objectivists and Marxists is that Objectivists do not attempt to use the machinery of the state to force their doctrines on the world at large. Supposedly "pure" Objectivist beliefs are no more likely to operate flawlessly in the day-to-day world than technology is expected to function without the grit, sweat, tensions and breakdowns that make up real life.
We all know this, but the usual collection Absolutely Politically Correct whiners who proclaims themselves as "liberals" are as usual, attacking the embodiment of a logically-based system by using a "standard" to which they could not bear to hold themselves.
Your hypocrisy becomes more apparent with every word you post.
Sorry but war communism is attributable to Lenin. Marx was a Libertarian.
1) Production should be run by the state. Private ownership should be kept to the minimum. Private houses were to be confiscated by the state.
2) State control was to be granted over the labour of every citizen. Once a military army had served its purpose, it would become a labour army.
3) The state should produce everything in its own undertakings. The state tried to control the activities of millions of peasants.
4) Extreme centralisation was introduced. The economic life of the area controlled by the Bolsheviks was put into the hands of just a few organisations. The most important one was the Supreme Economic Council. This had the right to confiscate and requisition. The speciality of the SEC was the management of industry. Over 40 head departments (known as glavki) were set up to accomplish this. One glavki could be responsible for thousands of factories. This frequently resulted in chronic inefficiency. The Commissariat of Transport controlled the railways. The Commissariat of Agriculture controlled what the peasants did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
