Gurdur

Not true.
Which philosophers have you actually studied, or tried to do so ?
And Rand wasn't seeking to make philosophy accessible; she was seeking to make a political appeal dressed up with as much pseudo-legitimization as possible.

Note how "collectivism" has become a standard derogatory term.

August Spies

Ayn Rand is no a philosopher. She is more like Voltaire (who was much better than rand, but anyways) or Jefferson. She ranted about her political ideas, and sometimes pretended to be a philosopher but she never was. Hell, she couldn't even undestand Nietzche or Wittgenstien.

Greg2003

THANK YOU!!!!
And there's a whole host of philosophers that she couldn't understand either.

Hugo Holbling

Yes, you've already amply demonstrated that your understanding of philosophy comes from the back of a cereal packet. If you read those antifoundationalists i suggested to you before, you'd think twice before saying that philosophers are a bore. Perhaps you should take your own advice:

Contemporary epistemology is alive with debate on irrealism and antiessentialism, by way of examples, and if you put in the work required to understand Fine, Rorty or Derrida's deconstruction of Saussurean semiology, you'd see how dead a duck Objectivism is...

99Percent

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
Yes, you've already amply demonstrated that your understanding of philosophy comes from the back of a cereal packet.Must you take this discussion to a personal level?So I must read every single that what ever said on philosphy in order to have a say about it? No thanks, thats why I can think for myself and formulate my own. Wow, sounds impressive. It certainly seems you have certainly read a lot. Care to explain briefly what "Derrida's deconstruction of Saussurean semiology" is all about and I can maybe take it from there making a critique with my own philosophy.

And what is your own philosophy anyway?

Gurdur

Nope; but if you want to talk political philosophy, you should read at least Hobbes (Leviathen) , George Orwell's factual pieces, Hume, Paine and John Dewey.

And if you want to claim philosophy is a bore, well now, critical thinking demands energy.

well now, did you formulate your own Objectivism ?

Hugo Holbling

*sigh*

I said to you awhile back that i refered you to the antifoundationalists because this strand of epistemology is relevant to your claim of "intellectual copout[s]" and the like; you don't have to read anything at all, but i'd appreciate a response (which i've finally got - thank you). Nice attribution of an implication i didn't make, btw.

All these long words may sound high-falutin' but i didn't coin them and i've no desire to impress you; i use them to send you to the areas i think would benefit you if you are interested in deeper criticism of Objectivism. If you aren't then i'd appreciate a retraction of your comment, in the interests of honesty. I've read some philosophy but i expect you've read alot more politics - so what? I'm capable of thinking for myself about politics, but if you suggested a book or two to me i'd consider it and be in your debt.

I don't care to explain Derrida's work to you in a pop-philosophy class. Why not give it a chance and read up, or else search google for "chain of signifiers" to whet your appetite and then read up? I'm hardly likely to convince you of anything about the most important living philosopher with a few moments of posting, nor should i have to if you are keen to continually test your ideas.

Unfortunately i don't take myself seriously enough to have my own philosophy. You may conclude from this whatever you wish.

99Percent

I have read many critiques of objectivism.

Most of them seem to arise out of not understanding it or as I say, from intellectual copouts of those who would like to say that the truth does not exist (becuase its subjective for example) so they can then proceede say anything they want, at best and act irresponsibly at worst.

Anyway I will look up Derrida's work (by the the quick look of it, it seems to deal with linguistics) But I wonder if its already so complicated or is beyond ordinary comprehension because in fact, you are unable to give us even a brief outline to its counter to objectivism and therefore is utterly useless.

You should take yourself seriously enough to have your own philosophy. You are doing yourself a great disservice for not trying to formulate one or by being afraid to try to find its possible faults by exposing it to us here, a great bunch of skeptics and free thinkers.

If you don't take yourself seriously enough then why should I?

Gurdur

You misunderstand Hugo Holbling's point; he meant he has no all-embracing philosophy and sees no point in having one, since it interferes with seeing reality.

For more info, see this new thread here.

ROFL - every time I expose the hard light of scrutiny and freethought onto ideologies like Objectivism, I get the cold shoulder.

Again you misunderstand Hugo Holbling's point; he meant it's possible to take oneself too seriously. .

tk

Did Rand provide the tools for analyzing any philosophy, including her own? More likely, she set up a feedback loop in people's brains, so that they can think `critically' inside the box she created for them.

Check out Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit and Baez's Crackpot Index to see what a real critical thinker will do.

An interesting exercise is to try applying these toolkits to themselves.

You keep ranting about people "not understanding" Randism. Just what do you mean by "understanding"? Must I agree wholeheartedly with Randism before I can "understand" it? And what sort of "reasoning" is this?

Being a student of science, I perfectly understand and acknowledge the idea that objective truth exists. But I still find Randism bogus.