tk

How dare people say she's a megalomaniac! She just wanted to bring the whole world under her benevolent care. There's a huge distinction to be made here.

And as any serious Objectivist will know, the so-called "bugs" aren't bugs at all. They're just reflections of the contradictory nature of the human condition. Besides, no one's infallible, right? Why so much fuss over a few minor nits?

A while ago I tried to post this under Netscape, but Netscape crashed, so I had to try posting again with a horrible text mode browser. Now that's a bug.

RED DAVE

Since this thread is still a viable entity, I thought I would throw some gasoline on the fire. 99Percent gave a link to the following explication of Rand's philosophy, written by Nathanel Branden.

What I'll try to to is, in successive postings, comment on these one by one.

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A;

This is, I believe, the fundamental philosophical tenet of Objectivism. I heard Branden say as much when he spoke at NYU back during the Dark Ages. The problem is that this is not a statement of philosophy, it's a tautology. The fundamental question is, I believe, not existence itself but the nature of existence. In other words, what things mean. To say that A is A tells us nothing about what A is, how it got to be A, will it remain A forever. In other words, in Hegelian terms, things in their development. I think that the reason that this is the first principle of Objectivism is an attempt to posit capitalism, which doubtless exists, as eternal, necessary and indestructable, none of which it is.

RED DAVE

99Percent

I would like to know where Rand opposed immigration. And how did she "cheat" on her husband when he knew and even approved of her "affair"?

99Percent

This is the typical Platonist response.

The reason A is A is an independent matter that has nothing to do with the fact that A is indeed A. Its a sly attempt to later make A not A and very typical of theists and subjectivists.

"What" A is is still A. Sorry, but the truth is the truth and the basis of existence itself and the basis of why we are even able to have this conversation.

Nice try, but it has been explored many times before.

Robert G. Ingersoll

Stating that A is A is the same as saying "Things are what they are". This is supposed to be profound?

Who denies that A is A? Give me a name. And what is the B that this person insist A really is, instead of being A, which should be obvious to all?

RED DAVE

99:

1. The reason A is A is an independent matter that has nothing to do with the fact that A is indeed A.

What you are positing here is that something can exist, in and of itself, abstracted from its own existence and qualties, which are constantly changing and are in time and space. The definition of something involves a moment of defining, which involves choice, since the defining takes place at one moment, the chosen moment, and not another. The fact that something that I perceive at one moment seems to be the same thing as what I perceive at another moment is not because the two entities are the same by definition, it involves the fact that the changes it has gone through are not sufficiently gross to register according to my criteria.

If I take a table at one point in time, say 11:00 a.m. this morning, and see it again at 1:00 p.m., I declare it the same entity because it hasn't changed enough for me to perceive it as a different entity. If it has changed enough, i.e., burned in a fire, it is no longer the same thing because the changes have registered on my sensorium.

Its a sly attempt to later make A not A and very typical of theists and subjectivists.


That's unsupported and an insult. Slyness implies deception, and I'm not deceiving you. I am neither a theist nor a subjectivist, and if you want to call me either of these, you need to prove or desist. Your language is provocative and uncalled for.


2. "What" A is is still A.

As I stated above, A is still A only because we do not perceive the changes. Change the criteria of change and A becomes something quite different.

[/B]Sorry, but the truth is the truth and the basis of existence itself and the basis of why we are even able to have this conversation.[/B]

The basis of existence, as we experience it, is the relative stability of the structure of the material universe in relation to our bodies, which are part of that universe. If the flux of existence were to increase, as in, say, a nuclear war, our existence would cease. If the flux of the universe were to increase beyond a certain point, the universe would not exist. There is no category of existence outside of the existence of the material universe. Any other definition, of eternal truths outside of matter, is religion.


3. By who? Rand? Where?

RED DAVE

99Percent

This discussion is really starting to become very philosophical in nature so I hope I won't dwelve into it too much .

The fact remains is that your subjective view of the truth must somehow reconcile with mine and everyone else's. At that moment it becomes objective (or intersubjective for those who hate the word objective). Otherwise we couldn't even have this conversation, since every single word of these posts must correspond to an understanding, abstract or concrete in order for them to have any meaning whatsover even though in the absolute sense they are just pixels in a display.

So when in the human realm of understanding I proceed to kill my friend you can objectively (and every single rational human being can indeed objectively) say that I killed my friend even though in another realm of "truthness" my friend was simply a bunch of atoms and was therefore never alive or dead. It doesn't work though because as human beings we can appreciate the fact that indeed we are living and rational and human beings.

Its all a matter of understanding with reason, the human realm of truthness and stop making pretenses that absolute truth does not technically exist.

August Spies

Intersubjective and objective are VERY different things in philosopophy 99.

Are you arguing that because we can understand, generally, the meaning of this or that word that it proves objective reality? not at all...

Proving that the tree outside my window ACTUALLY exists... in that sense exists objectivly, does NOT prove the existance of objective morality or ethics.

RED DAVE

From 99Percent:

Ho, ho, ho!

". . . your subjective view of the truth must somehow reconcile with mine and everyone else's. At that moment it becomes objective . . . "

Do you really want to go there, 99? What you have just said is that objectivity, at least in the realm of human discourse, is a matter of some kind of consensus: no consensus, no conversation.

The establishment of the fact of the killing does not figure in the morality of it. There is still a question of value. If I shoot a bullet at my friend, it penetrates his body and he dies, we would have little problem with the fact that I killed him. However, if my "friend" farms land that I own and I drive him into bankruptcy and his child starves to death, the fact of that killing is not so clear. A socialist such as myself might say that is murder: a question of values. A libertarian might say something quite different: likewise, a question of values.

What do you mean by "absolute truth"? Give me an example of a truth that is not subject to analysis, not subject to relative comparison. Your "understanding with reason" is an extremely old-fashioned understanding.

Let me finish with a quote:

This, from Conan Doyle's A Study in Scarlet is pretty much on target. The species of reason of Rand and Company is on a par with Sherlock Holmes. No wonder she loved Micky Spillane.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

DUMB AYN RAND QUOTE (ADD YOUR FAVORITES):

RED DAVE