Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cretinist · 08-10-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

To this day, I still support the ranks of the numerous recognized world academicians who, themselves - to the last one, admit (publicly and in print) that Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism is the ONLY fully integrated, rational, logical and sensible SYSTEM of philosophy ever conceived.

Start naming these academicians. Start with philosophers.

Cretinist · 08-11-2003, 08:52 PM

bump

Cretinist · 08-12-2003, 07:43 PM

bump

emphryio · 08-12-2003, 08:49 PM

Don't like those Randiods do you Cret?

I have to shamefully admit that I've read pretty much all of Rand's fiction and at the time I read it I mostly liked it. I used to love her philosophy. (If I may even call it that.) It gave me strength. It helped me drag myself out of bed every morning for my mind numbingly boring college classes.

I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7.

JGL53 · 08-13-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emphryio
... I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7.

Exactly. Randroidism seems to be an excellent philosophy - for those in the 14 -25 year old category. When one finds oneself having to get by in the REAL world, one soon discerns that one was not, is not, and never will be a Howard Roark, i.e., that there is pretty much no job openings for 'selfish idealist'.

Tyre · 08-14-2003, 12:18 PM

pariahSS: ��and agree that she is a terrible writer�
would you mind mentioning some noteworthy writers?

Blake: ��if you have anything approaching a full experience of life, I think you'll find Objectivism singularly unsatisfying.�
Please expand on what is considered a �full experience of life�

BDS: ��Like all mammals, humans (women in particular) routinely sacrifice self-interest and scarce resources to nurture others.�
As they also �routinely� use various methods to destroy one another� I do not see where this statement has significant impact.

Alonzo Fyfe: ��Hume's argument that 'is' statements are not sufficient to prove any given ought conclusion�.�
Concrete is hard, therefore it ought to be hard tomorrow unless acted upon by an outside force. Of course that�s not sufficient enough�

Xorbie: �You know why Rand sucks? Because I say so�.�
And I�m sure that the world revolves on its axis for the same reason�

Alonzo Fyfe: ��.'Man is a rational animal' fails as a descriptive definition -- a theory that makes sense of the way people actually use the term. If we take it as a stipulative definition, then the best we can derive from such a definition is that, to the degree that one is irrational, one is not human. But one cannot infer from this that one ought to be rational, any more than one can infer from this that one ought to be a human being�.�
Can you please give me an example of a irrational person? In my lack of experience, I have never met, or heard of one.

JGL53: ��As for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I never got more than a few pages into each without a feeling that my I.Q. was being slowly shrunken by the experience. Thankfully, I stopped before I lost the ability to feed myself. I can only stand in amazement at those who can wade through to the end of either book. In fact, I sort of 'admire' them for possession of an ability I will never be able to fully appreciate��
Didn�t you just insult the books saying that it would take an idiot to read through them, then say that you ADMIRE the idiot for performing an action that you did not find worth your intelligence�.

Xorbie: ��My point was not that capitalism is not necessary, or even pragrmatic. My point was that even in the cases where it is good and effective, it has nothing to do with Rand's rational (no pun intended). Hate to belabor the point, but if man were totally controlled by reason and logic, and if man acted only by reason and logic, capitalism in its purest form would not be the best system��
And what would be? Dictatorship? Pure democracy? Socialism? Care to elaborate?

Pmurray: ��Once again, christians say the same thing about the bible. What they mean is that they personally have managed to ignore objections to thier religious texts.
Why does objectivism have all the earmarks of a cult of personality?��
So then chistianity is a cult? What are the earmarks of a cult personality? And do these earmarks apply to any other examples besides objectivism? So does any strong belief in one direction earn the title of cult?

Adrian Selby: ��Can we name anyone working in the field of philosophy that has taken her seriously enough to mount a refutation of her works that are easily found and coherent anyway?��
�Why I don�t think of you at all��

pariahSS: ��you dont have to qualify your statements....wtf? why wont you back them up?��
throwing stones are we?

emphryio: ��I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7��
ahh, and what did you think of these "others"

JGL53: � �Exactly. Randroidism seems to be an excellent philosophy - for those in the 14 -25 year old category. When one finds oneself having to get by in the REAL world, one soon discerns that one was not, is not, and never will be a Howard Roark, i.e., that there is pretty much no job openings for 'selfish idealist'�
And what constitutes the REAL WORLD� every one always talks about it, and yet I�ve never met any one that will admit to what/where/when it is�

Thank you, for your time, please reply.

xorbie · 08-14-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Concrete is hard, therefore it ought to be hard tomorrow unless acted upon by an outside force. Of course that�s not sufficient enough�

Maybe you don't understand the is-ought problem, but fancy word tricks like this won't cut it to answer. The usage of ought here is not the same as in the is-ought problem, as should be obvious.

With regards to your two comments to me:

The first one you quoted was of me being obviously sarcastic.
With the second one, if you had taken the time to bother reading my previous post to which I was referring, you would see I was talking about the Nash Equilibrium. If everyone was totally logical and rational, they could reach the equilibrium with relative ease by working together. Competition and selfishness is not the logically superior thing to do. Adam Smith was wrong. Sorry.

Tyre · 08-14-2003, 08:55 PM

then what is? you continue to give answers that arent answers, and if i take something out of contex, be assured i do it intentionaly

Tyre · 08-15-2003, 10:16 AM

on another note, why doesnt the is/ought problem work? Is it limited only to the things that you wish it too? Or has Humes specified that it only works on philisophical debates, were in he can use it to countermine a is/ought without using a blatant is/ought to counter it? - i am not familiar with Humes or his is/ought contradictions past what was offered in this thread...
thanx for the patience.

xorbie · 08-15-2003, 11:04 AM

Ok, here is the Nash Equilibrium in a nutshell. Nash mathematically proved that in any situation, there would be an equilibrium in which nobody could better his or her position without worsening someone else's. Once this Equilibrium is found, it can easily be achieved by everyone working together, so I repeat again that laisez-faire capitalism is NOT the most rational or logical system out there.

Here is the is-ought problem in a nutshell. Just because I happent to have something in my nature, does not mean I ought to do it. "Man is a rational animal" (itself contested) does not translate directly into "man should behave rationally." This is not a moral argument, nor a logical one. If the first statement were actually try, I don't see how man would have any option but to behave rationally. Basically, the rule is that you cannot go from a generally descriptive statement ("is") to a moral mandate or command ("ought").

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2003, 08:52 PM	#42
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	bump

08-12-2003, 07:43 PM	#43
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	bump

08-12-2003, 08:49 PM	#44
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Don't like those Randiods do you Cret? I have to shamefully admit that I've read pretty much all of Rand's fiction and at the time I read it I mostly liked it. I used to love her philosophy. (If I may even call it that.) It gave me strength. It helped me drag myself out of bed every morning for my mind numbingly boring college classes. I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7.

08-14-2003, 12:18 PM	#46
Tyre Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 11	pariahSS: ��and agree that she is a terrible writer� would you mind mentioning some noteworthy writers? Blake: ��if you have anything approaching a full experience of life, I think you'll find Objectivism singularly unsatisfying.� Please expand on what is considered a �full experience of life� BDS: ��Like all mammals, humans (women in particular) routinely sacrifice self-interest and scarce resources to nurture others.� As they also �routinely� use various methods to destroy one another� I do not see where this statement has significant impact. Alonzo Fyfe: ��Hume's argument that 'is' statements are not sufficient to prove any given ought conclusion�.� Concrete is hard, therefore it ought to be hard tomorrow unless acted upon by an outside force. Of course that�s not sufficient enough� Xorbie: �You know why Rand sucks? Because I say so�.� And I�m sure that the world revolves on its axis for the same reason� Alonzo Fyfe: ��.'Man is a rational animal' fails as a descriptive definition -- a theory that makes sense of the way people actually use the term. If we take it as a stipulative definition, then the best we can derive from such a definition is that, to the degree that one is irrational, one is not human. But one cannot infer from this that one ought to be rational, any more than one can infer from this that one ought to be a human being�.� Can you please give me an example of a irrational person? In my lack of experience, I have never met, or heard of one. JGL53: ��As for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I never got more than a few pages into each without a feeling that my I.Q. was being slowly shrunken by the experience. Thankfully, I stopped before I lost the ability to feed myself. I can only stand in amazement at those who can wade through to the end of either book. In fact, I sort of 'admire' them for possession of an ability I will never be able to fully appreciate�� Didn�t you just insult the books saying that it would take an idiot to read through them, then say that you ADMIRE the idiot for performing an action that you did not find worth your intelligence�. Xorbie: ��My point was not that capitalism is not necessary, or even pragrmatic. My point was that even in the cases where it is good and effective, it has nothing to do with Rand's rational (no pun intended). Hate to belabor the point, but if man were totally controlled by reason and logic, and if man acted only by reason and logic, capitalism in its purest form would not be the best system�� And what would be? Dictatorship? Pure democracy? Socialism? Care to elaborate? Pmurray: ��Once again, christians say the same thing about the bible. What they mean is that they personally have managed to ignore objections to thier religious texts. Why does objectivism have all the earmarks of a cult of personality?�� So then chistianity is a cult? What are the earmarks of a cult personality? And do these earmarks apply to any other examples besides objectivism? So does any strong belief in one direction earn the title of cult? Adrian Selby: ��Can we name anyone working in the field of philosophy that has taken her seriously enough to mount a refutation of her works that are easily found and coherent anyway?�� �Why I don�t think of you at all�� pariahSS: ��you dont have to qualify your statements....wtf? why wont you back them up?�� throwing stones are we? emphryio: ��I think I grew out of it when I became happy enough to be able to afford to spend some time thinking about others and not just myself 24/7�� ahh, and what did you think of these "others" JGL53: � �Exactly. Randroidism seems to be an excellent philosophy - for those in the 14 -25 year old category. When one finds oneself having to get by in the REAL world, one soon discerns that one was not, is not, and never will be a Howard Roark, i.e., that there is pretty much no job openings for 'selfish idealist'� And what constitutes the REAL WORLD� every one always talks about it, and yet I�ve never met any one that will admit to what/where/when it is� Thank you, for your time, please reply.

08-14-2003, 08:55 PM	#48
Tyre Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 11	then what is? you continue to give answers that arent answers, and if i take something out of contex, be assured i do it intentionaly

08-15-2003, 10:16 AM	#49
Tyre Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 11	on another note, why doesnt the is/ought problem work? Is it limited only to the things that you wish it too? Or has Humes specified that it only works on philisophical debates, were in he can use it to countermine a is/ought without using a blatant is/ought to counter it? - i am not familiar with Humes or his is/ought contradictions past what was offered in this thread... thanx for the patience.

08-15-2003, 11:04 AM	#50
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	Ok, here is the Nash Equilibrium in a nutshell. Nash mathematically proved that in any situation, there would be an equilibrium in which nobody could better his or her position without worsening someone else's. Once this Equilibrium is found, it can easily be achieved by everyone working together, so I repeat again that laisez-faire capitalism is NOT the most rational or logical system out there. Here is the is-ought problem in a nutshell. Just because I happent to have something in my nature, does not mean I ought to do it. "Man is a rational animal" (itself contested) does not translate directly into "man should behave rationally." This is not a moral argument, nor a logical one. If the first statement were actually try, I don't see how man would have any option but to behave rationally. Basically, the rule is that you cannot go from a generally descriptive statement ("is") to a moral mandate or command ("ought").

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.