|
|
inevitably, do you think attacking an author attacks the concept? Which part of this falls under metaphysics, btw? Surely there's lots to discuss in this, but let's put each in its appropriate thread (metaphysics, "knowledge," and morality/ethics).Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
When you elevate her ideas above that of Aristotle and Plato, it is important that folks see that there are those who dissent. You're presenting one side of an argument.
As for the "place" of this thread. This is a thread on metaphysics on a political message board...so, a link about one of the "heros" of this thread is not out of place one bit. If you disagree, feel free to appeal to a moderator to have it moved or deleted.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
There are lots of "dissenters" to both Plato and Aristotle (who are fairly strongly opposed to each other) as well.
I can tell you who does not like Randian thought:
1) Leftists, who try to force people into giving up their negative rights for the sake of others
2) Theists and the power systems in religion, who see objectivity as a destruction of their sphere of influence
3) "Conservatives"
4) Fascists (if that term really warrants being on its own)
5) Philosophers, who feel that they are working with something mysterious, and the relative simplicity of objectivist thought thus threatens.
There's probably more...
For what it's worth, I didn't see any real arguments on the page that I wouldnt be happy to refute. But to keep others straight, it would really be helpful to try to categorize the attack as metaphysical, epistimological, or ethical. Each has its own thread. The threads were necessitated by each other, btw., which was prompted by still another thread. I think those that are following along do find it helpful to be able to distinguish what we are talking about where.
But Rand is not saying that Plato/Aristotle are wrong. I am.
that's very relevant to this discussion...
I appreciate your routinely inviting me over for drinks and dinner......
But the cup of tepid kool-"aid" and the cold canned beans you served (above) last night has quenched neither my enormous thirst nor my slim appetite.
If you have nothing better to do this evening...... Feel free to try again.
But if you'd prefer to PASS again...... You KNOW I'll understand.:icon_wink:
HOWEVER...... There is now ON RECORD that last sentence you authored.
"I would recommend that people read Kant and all the rest and not make your mind up on just reading Rand!"
"AND ALL THE REST"......
Sound philisophical advice IMNHO!
But last night......
Both You and Randy were candid enough to detail personal bibliographies of your prior philosophical pursuits to date. You'll have to excuse what remains of my little grey cells if I fail to UNDERSTAND how either list EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHES anything even distantly akin to your "AND ALL THE REST" recommendation.
Confident that you would not RECOMMEND to others any philosophical plateau that you would not easily RECOMMEND TO YOURSELF, and eagerly climb without any "objectivist" hesitation...
I cannot help but wonder how You and Randy have so emperically drawn your epistemological and metephysical lines in such shallow sand, without any seeming need to look up or down or backwards or foward or sideways or ELSEWHERE......
Either toward or into ANY of the "ALL THE REST"......
That lies anchored so near every possible shore of potential knowledge.
Perhaps you would care to EXPLAIN further "AND ALL THE REST"...... In your very own image and likeness......
After you decide about last night's cup and can falderal!
These statements do not follow logically. (And they don't follow scientifically either). For a scientific rejection, consider the law of universal gravitation. Inherently, though, even if a single potency can't actualize itself, why cannot mutliple potencies actualize each other?
and what thoughts of value do you think we've missed?
OF ALL THE GIN JOINTS IN ALL THE WORLD......
At long last we meet to share more than a few cold bottles of quality beer.
If I knew or cared how to "green dot"...... I'd cover your above post with Irish freckles.
Cheers to you, Randy!
To say that we have seldom seen eye to elbow previously......
Would be more than generous.
But HOT DAMN, Johnny......
I cannot help but admire your bare-knuckle bearding of this boards newest lively lions in their own disputatious dens.
Not yet...... But soon!
Good night.
I am not trying to hide anything. I have read the works of many different philosophers ("many" being a relative term indicating that most on this board will find it to be a large quantity). I have probably read even more than what is contained on the list, but it is hard to remember it all when you ask me to produce a list. But I feel like I have given most mainstream philosophical/theological thought "due consideration" and also some that are far from mainstream. I have also read two books that were critiques of objectivism and many articles written by part-time philosophers who attacked it as well. I have been in a position to attack and defend most of the philosophers on that list (as I can tell, this is something I likely have in common with Randy) so I have seen the strengths and weaknesses of each position.
If you have something constructive to add to this dialogue, why are you holding back?
Last edited by Guisslapp; 03-02-2007 at 09:12 AM.
To contextualize this idea of actuation (specifically 2 disconnected objects exerting forces on each other), as well as the Aristotilean flaw in thinking that objects are naturally at rest,
http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_06_02.html.
I might be biased, but I'm pretty sure the 2 things I've described pretty much slam the door on the Aristotilean necessity of an unmoved mover, as well as all derivative thoughts stemming from it (Aquinas, etc.).
Combined with the fact that consciousness cannot come before existence, because to be conscious is to be conscious of SOMETHING, I just don't see a metaphysical argument for the existence of a God as Creator.
So, we are still left with the fundamental metaphysical statements:
The axiom of existence (Existence exists)
The axiom of consciousness
The law of identity (A is A)
To copy from Guisslap's 1st page as a review of where we stand:
It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."
Opponents of the laws of the universe are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.
In the religious version, the deniers advocate a consciousness "above" nature, i.e., superior, and contradictory, to existence; in the social version, they melt nature into an indeterminate blur given transient semi-shape by human desire. The first school denies reality by upholding two of them. The second school dispenses with the concept of reality as such. The first rejects science, law, causality, identity, claiming that anything is possible to the omnipotent, miracle-working will of the Lord. The second states the religionists' rejection in secular terms, claiming that anything is possible to the will of "the people."
Neither school can claim a basis in objective evidence. There is no way to reason from nature to its negation, or from facts to their subversion, or from any premise to the obliteration of argument as such, i.e., of its foundation: the axioms of existence and identity.
Metaphysics and epistemology are closely interrelated; together they form a philosophy's foundation. In the history of philosophy, the rejection of reality and the rejection of reason have been corollaries. Similarly, a pro-reality metaphysics implies and requires a pro-reason epistemology.
For what it is worth, I am heavily influenced by the works of several others.
For example, Michel Foucault (more of a sociologist than a philosopher) is certainly right in his assessment of how power can operate. I think he's gravely flawed epistemologically - in fact, I'd say that systems of power work by encouraging subversion, and they are not inherently a source or channel of knowledge.
To me, his theories reinforce the fact that I should rely explicitly and carefully on my own senses for knowledge.
But metaphysically and epistemologically, after a detailed review of everything that I have read, the thoughts we have outlined are simple, concrete, and explanitive. I don't know why I'd want to invent false or unnecessary constructs, as other philosophers would, in order to explain the origin of existence, the origin of consciousness, etc.
Last edited by randerizer; 03-02-2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason: I can't finish sentences.
I guess what I am missing from you guys/Rand is Purpose. I know that was one of Rand's big three, but I see her view of Reason and Purpose almost working against each other. If all you believe is what you see on this Earth, then what is our purpose here? I dont get a purpose from y'all that is worth living for. Is it just to have "integrity" while on Earth? To say you were more rational than everybody else? Whippie.
Why did Rand despise Kant so much? Was it mostly over his "Critique of Human Reason"? He concluded that we could never really disprove or prove God, while Rand thought it was evident that there was no God. I think Kant was a little more in tune with the fallibility of human reason and nature, whereas I believe Rand has a lot of arrogance of what humans are. I guess if you only thought that the world is what we can sense and nothing else, you probably would think that humans were supreme.
I am still missing our purpose in Rand's world.
You would rather invent a purpose for living? The fact is, you ARE living. But you ARE living by CHOICE. I do not pretend to invent a construct for the purpose of my life, as defined by others. The purpose of my life is to live.
But you want to know about ethics and morality and virtue? Start by reading the thread below.
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39197
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
