Ayn Rand is HOT!

[The Sloth]

Here’s a story I thought was a hoax.

It came in by e-mail on Dec. 30 from the Ayn Rand Institute, and it had an Onion-type headline that read: “U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims.”

So unsure of its kosherness was I that I called up the author, one David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute.

He vouched for it, though.

The piece began by focusing on the “private organizations and individuals” that are helping the victims. “Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of the affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own,” the piece said.

“May” be entirely proper? Is there a doubt?

And of the more than 133,000 who have died, did any die through fault of their own?

The thrust of the rightwing libertarian group’s piece was that the U.S. government “should not give any money to help the tsunami victims” because “every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first.”

The folks at Ayn Rand don’t believe in taxation.

And beyond that, they don’t even believe in altruism. All they believe in is the market.

Check this out: “It is America’s acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth,” the piece said.

It calls this altruism “a vicious morality.”

What’s vicious is letting millions of people go hungry and homeless and without clean water or medical care.

This self-parody would be easy to laugh off if it did not represent the apotheosis of free market idolatry, idolatry that is worshipped at the highest levels of our government.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0101-03.htm


Now, I wonder if the superstitious patriots at the Ayn Rand institute were denouncing the aid America received after Sept. 11th, 2001 -- from foreign nations imposing such heavy "tax burdens" on their people as well as America imposing such heavy tax burdens on us.

When 9/11 occurred, the international news were all over it for months, and in America, we have witnessed blatant lies such as "9/11 was an attack on our freedoms..." as well as other patriotic non-sense. 3,000 individuals were killed, which is, of course, a tragedy...but over 150,000 individuals in Asia have now been killed as well, and probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more will either be found injured and/or killed due to disease and other impending health catastrophes. This, of course, was covered for a few days in the news -- and now, we see New Years parades, advertisements, etc. instead.

There is no outrage over Asia's inability to buy the necessary equipment, nor construct houses that can actually withstand water/earthquakes to a greater degree. Most of those killed were poor day-laborers and fishermen living in slum-like housing around the coastlines...the businessmen, up in the hills, were able to escape.

Anyway, let's see if the libertarians here agree with the Ayn Rand institute on this one.

Let's see how far they will go to follow the party line.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 2 2005, 04:33 PM

Here’s a story I thought was a hoax.

It came in by e-mail on Dec. 30 from the Ayn Rand Institute, and it had an Onion-type headline that read: “U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims.”

So unsure of its kosherness was I that I called up the author, one David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute.

He vouched for it, though.

The piece began by focusing on the “private organizations and individuals” that are helping the victims. “Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of the affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own,” the piece said.

“May” be entirely proper? Is there a doubt?

And of the more than 133,000 who have died, did any die through fault of their own?

The thrust of the rightwing libertarian group’s piece was that the U.S. government “should not give any money to help the tsunami victims” because “every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first.”

The folks at Ayn Rand don’t believe in taxation.

And beyond that, they don’t even believe in altruism. All they believe in is the market.

Check this out: “It is America’s acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth,” the piece said.

It calls this altruism “a vicious morality.”

What’s vicious is letting millions of people go hungry and homeless and without clean water or medical care.

This self-parody would be easy to laugh off if it did not represent the apotheosis of free market idolatry, idolatry that is worshipped at the highest levels of our government.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0101-03.htm


Now, I wonder if the superstitious patriots at the Ayn Rand institute were denouncing the aid America received after Sept. 11th, 2001 -- from foreign nations imposing such heavy "tax burdens" on their people as well as America imposing such heavy tax burdens on us.

When 9/11 occurred, the international news were all over it for months, and in America, we have witnessed blatant lies such as "9/11 was an attack on our freedoms..." as well as other patriotic non-sense. 3,000 individuals were killed, which is, of course, a tragedy...but over 150,000 individuals in Asia have now been killed as well, and probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more will either be found injured and/or killed due to disease and other impending health catastrophes. This, of course, was covered for a few days in the news -- and now, we see New Years parades, advertisements, etc. instead.

There is no outrage over Asia's inability to buy the necessary equipment, nor construct houses that can actually withstand water/earthquakes to a greater degree. Most of those killed were poor day-laborers and fishermen living in slum-like housing around the coastlines...the businessmen, up in the hills, were able to escape.

Anyway, let's see if the libertarians here agree with the Ayn Rand institute on this one.

Let's see how far they will go to follow the party line.
Please help. I'd like to know what this aid consisted of, where it went, and who was there.

[Urban Rubble]

Please help. I'd like to know what this aid consisted of, where it went, and who was there.

Oh just answer the question will you ? He wasn't talking about specifics, he was talking about the aid that the U.S is giving the victims of the flood. His claim is that the U.S has no business giving away taxpayers money to the flood victims because we did not offer it voluntarily. He believes that is an attack on our freedoms. Do you agree or disagree ?

[Individual]

In reverse..

Fuck the Ayn Rand Institute. Are any of you okay with the fact that tax-payers money is being given away without your consent?

Despite the event, in any case, are you sitting tight with the idea that your government can give away your money without your consent?

[Professor Moneybags]

When 9/11 occurred, the international news were all over it for months, and in America, we have witnessed blatant lies such as "9/11 was an attack on our freedoms..." as well as other patriotic non-sense. 3,000 individuals were killed, which is, of course, a tragedy...but over 150,000 individuals in Asia have now been killed as well, and probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more will either be found injured and/or killed due to disease and other impending health catastrophes.

9/11 was an act off terrorism. A Tsunami is a natural disaster. I don't think the principle is quite the same.


There is no outrage over Asia's inability to buy the necessary equipment, nor construct houses that can actually withstand water/earthquakes to a greater degree. Most of those killed were poor day-laborers and fishermen living in slum-like housing around the coastlines...the businessmen, up in the hills, were able to escape.

What are you and commondelusions.con doing about it, apart from arguing that the non-victims be robbed/enslaved to pay for it ?

Oh, yes very "compassionate", that.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:19 AM
Fuck the Ayn Rand Institute. Are any of you okay with the fact that tax-payers money is being given away without your consent?
That's the ARI's whole argument.

[STI]

9/11 was an act off terrorism. A Tsunami is a natural disaster. I don't the principle is quite the same

Well, even though you "Don't the principle is quite the same", both were unforseen catastrophes.

[GlassDraggon]

I'm afraid I can't take part in this discussion simply because Ayn Rand and "hot" was in the same sentence...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:16 AM
I'm afraid I can't take part in this discussion simply because Ayn Rand and "hot" was in the same sentence...
Not to mention that this is an old thread that hasn't been replied to for over a week.

[Rage Against the Right]

We should have given them aid. Giving them our money without our consent is just the way our system works right now. Some how I'm going to agree with Ayn Rand principle's but disgree with that statement they made.

[Zespris]

Do you also find it fair that your tax dollars are thrown away in buying ammunition to bombard Iraqui villages? People also don't get a say on that, and at least donating to the tsunami is spent on saving lives...

[Xvall]

What a jackass.


considering that most of the affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own,”

What, some of the victims were responsible for the tsunami?

[PRC-UTE]

Ayn Rand are ignorant barbarians who should be forced to live under the policies they advocate.

'Libertarians' should be sued for stealing their name from anarchists, the middle class trash!

[Individual]

Ayn Rand are ignorant barbarians who should be forced to live under the policies they advocate.

Wouldn't that be their goal? :mellow:


'Libertarians' should be sued for stealing their name from anarchists, the middle class trash!

Should be what..? Had you said sued? :unsure:

[PRC-UTE]

Wouldn't that be their goal?

Those chubby middle class intellectuals wouldn't last too long was my point. They've never lived under a free market and have no idea what that would be like.


Libertarians' should be sued for stealing their name from anarchists, the middle class trash!



Should be what..? Had you said sued?

Yes, I said sued. Civil court. They have besmirched the word Libertarian. They didn't give their lives for their belief like Durruti and Ferrer did before they stumbled upon the word.

[Individual]

Those chubby middle class intellectuals wouldn't last too long was my point. They've never lived under a free market and have no idea what that would be like.

Now Libertarians are chubby.. I love it.


Yes, I said sued. Civil court. They have besmirched the word Libertarian. They didn't give their lives for their belief like Durruti and Ferrer did before they stumbled upon the word.

Libertarians stealing a name .. Advocating anarchism .. Sued.. See where I'm heading?

[PRC-UTE]

I say sue them because they're all about making money the greedy scroungers. They don't advocate anarchism because their ideas are incompatible with anarchism.

I've only met a handful of Capitalists calling themselves 'Libertarian'. They were chubby academics. You'd have to be comfortable to advocate thier ideas, just as primitivists are always priveleged suburban wankers.

[Professor Moneybags]

Ayn Rand are ignorant barbarians who should be forced to live under the policies they advocate.

I'd love to. I wish you lot were forced to live under what you advocate too.


'Libertarians' should be sued for stealing their name from anarchists, the middle class trash!

That implies that the term "Libertarian" is a "trademark" that is "owned" by someone. Are anarchists advocates of property rights, now, are they ?

[Xvall]

I wish you lot were forced to live under what you advocate too.

So would I. But for some reason, every time we try to do such a thing, the United States ends up relentlessly encouraging our political opponents to murder us.

[PRC-UTE]

That implies that the term "Libertarian" is a "trademark" that is "owned" by someone. Are anarchists advocates of property rights, now, are they ?

No, but they're exploiting the prestige of the Idea to further sickening goals. I don't seriously advocate suing them, but it would be funny as hell.


I'd love to. I wish you lot were forced to live under what you advocate too.


If you did your fate would probably be as successful as most truly free market enterprises, such as family farmers who are being globally wiped out.

What I advocate? The workshop to the workers? Collectivisation of the economy governed by democratic workers councils? Freedom for marginalised peoples? Well, you couldn't 'force' that on anyone, which shows your ignorance.

We could force people like this ayn rand group into a gulag or up against a wall though! :lol:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 3 2005, 02:57 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 3 2005, 02:57 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 01:19 AM
Fuck the Ayn Rand Institute. Are any of you okay with the fact that tax-payers money is being given away without your consent?
That's the ARI's whole argument. [/b]
That's the point. He's advocating the consideration of your ideas without the consideration of its origin. "Individual" is just in the closet about supporting your beliefs, so don't slag off on him ;)

[Rage Against the Right]

At least Ayn Rand's book are good. :lol:

[Individual]

That's the point. He's advocating the consideration of your ideas without the consideration of its origin. "Individual" is just in the closet about supporting your beliefs, so don't slag off on him

Hey! You've found me again.. I'm also posting in a few topics under Religion, we can settle an appointment for tonight at eight, fit your schedule?

I'm in the closet about supporting right-wing beliefs? Or is it that you support the guys that say shit like this:

Yes, I said sued. Civil court. They have besmirched the word Libertarian. They didn't give their lives for their belief like Durruti and Ferrer did before they stumbled upon the word.

Suing in support of Anarchism! Truly great stuff, you must try it out!

And damnit, in order for you to believe in your ideology and gain respect, you must die!

You think a question like this:

Are any of you okay with the fact that tax-payers money is being given away without your consent?

is in support of Libertarianism..??

You are one trusting man of your government. Who is in support of what here?

I am actually surprised you disagree with that statement. But once again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.. You probably opened your mouth simply because it had to do with me, and you had no real idea what you were saying.

Care to discuss the meaning of that statement? I can help you out..

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 15 2005, 05:23 PM
At least Ayn Rand's book are good. :lol:


If by good you mean horrendously a load of wank

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:33 PM
If by good you mean horrendously a load of wank
Continued failiure to put up sucessful arguments against Rand on your forum have been noted.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

2D Characters and cliched plots that do a piss poor job of covering ill-concieved preaching? That's a pretty good argument.

I mean, christ, I could write that shit.

Strong, aryan, male crushes fat, lazy, "collectivist," and frees beautiful woman. EGO!!!

Give.me.a.fucking.break.

[Professor Moneybags]

What I advocate? The workshop to the workers?

Taken by force ?


Collectivisation of the economy

Achieved by force ? (Yes, the use of democracy to violate the rights of others is force.)


Well, you couldn't 'force' that on anyone, which shows your ignorance.

Oh yes you can force collectivisation of the economy (and the siezure of property too). It's unlikely these things can be achieved without force.

[Professor Moneybags]

Strong, aryan, male crushes fat, lazy, "collectivist," and frees beautiful woman. EGO!!!

Hmm...which page/chapter/book does that scene happen in ? I sure don't remember it. Basing this on hearsay, are we ?


2D Characters and cliched plots that do a piss poor job of covering ill-concieved preaching? That's a pretty good argument.

You clearly haven't read any of it (see above), so how would you know ?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I've read Anthem (Which, hillariously, really does end with "EGO" in all capital letters), The Fountainhead, and a book o' essays - "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (the essay by Greenspan might be pushing an equally stupid position, but at least he can articulate it beyond a gradeschool level). Seriously, Ayn Rand is just a fucking hack.

[Urban Rubble]

Exactly. Ayn Rand is a hack of a writer. It has nothing to do with politics, I'm pride myself on being objective. The fact is, her shit is boring and badly written. There are much better Capitalists.

[ComradeRed]

I thought her style in Atlas Shrugged was hilarious. It ussually begins with something dramatic then moves off into someone ranting some Objectivist ideal :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 12:15 AM
I've read Anthem (Which, hillariously, really does end with "EGO" in all capital letters), The Fountainhead, and a book o' essays - "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (the essay by Greenspan might be pushing an equally stupid position, but at least he can articulate it beyond a gradeschool level).
So I'll ask again : Where is this scene when "Aryans" rescue women from "fat collectivists" ?


Seriously, Ayn Rand is just a fucking hack.

Sadly, this about as intellectual as your arguments get.

"Th33z iZ Sh31t3, Dud3Z !" isn't much of an argument. If you had any real issues, you would have addressed them.

It reminds me of that nazi clown over at thephora who spent half a thread asking questions about the fundamentals of objectivism and then tried to claim that "he used to be one" right at the end.

[Professor Moneybags]

Exactly. Ayn Rand is a hack of a writer. It has nothing to do with politics,

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it doesn't. :rolleyes: :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:45 AM
I thought her style in Atlas Shrugged was hilarious. It ussually begins with something dramatic then moves off into someone ranting some Objectivist ideal :lol:
Another one who's never read it.

Anyone else ?

[Sasha]

Just a correction: The Ayn Rand Institute is not a libertarian group. It promotes the philosophy of Objectivism. Libertarians ignore philosophy and jump straight to politics, which leads to a lot of embarassing errors that give capitalism a bad name - most notable, however, is their pacifist, isolationist foreign policy. Only a group that recognizes the philosophic basis for capitalism can promote a free nation's right to defend itself.

[ComradeRed]

"Professor" Moneysucker, look up John Galt's rant. The first three paragraphs imply something contraversial and "larger than life". By the line "You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis" the rant was really just about to be christened.

[praxus]

"Professor" Moneysucker, look up John Galt's rant. The first three paragraphs imply something contraversial and "larger than life". By the line "You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis" the rant was really just about to be christened.

No where in the first three paragraphs does it have the words "larger then life". I highly doubt that you have read the book, and in all likelyhood just looked up that line.

Dismissing it as a "rant" (whatever that means) isn't going to suddenly make the points made within it disappear.

[ComradeRed]

No where in the first three paragraphs does it have the words "larger then life". I highly doubt that you have read the book, and in all likelyhood just looked up that line. By "larger than life" I didn't mean it verbatim :rolleyes: I meant that it was suspenseful which tried every cliché mechanism that "grabs"[no, that's not in there either] the readers attention. It then dissolves into mindless psycho-babble.


Dismissing it as a "rant" (whatever that means) isn't going to suddenly make the points made within it disappear. It would first require a point for me to ignore.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:18 AM
I meant that it was suspenseful which tried every cliché mechanism that "grabs"[no, that's not in there either] the readers attention.
Such as what ?

[praxus]

It would first require a point for me to ignore.

This statement would be true if you redefined about three of the words :rolleyes:

[ComradeRed]

Such as what ?
Such as
The hand of the clock reached the dot of 8:00.
"Ladies and gentlemen," said a voice that came from the radio receiver -- a man's clear, calm, implacable voice, the kind of voice that has not been heard on the airwaves for years -- "Mr. Thomson will not speak to you tonight.[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder why Mr. Thomson will not speak to me tonight?"] Hist time is up[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder why Mr. Thomson's time is up?"]. I have taken it over.[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder why this fellow has taken it over?"] You were to hear a report on the world crisis. That is what you are going to hear.[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder who, if not Mr. Thomson, will not speak to me tonight on the crisis?"] And so on and so forth. All cliché, all from Seventh grade...where Ayn Rand dropped out of school.



This statement would be true if you redefined about three of the words I am sorry, that is wrong since it is not in accordance to the axiom that "A is A", therefore you are wrong.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:19 AM
In reverse..

Fuck the Ayn Rand Institute. Are any of you okay with the fact that tax-payers money is being given away without your consent?

Despite the event, in any case, are you sitting tight with the idea that your government can give away your money without your consent?
You gave them consent by electing them you twit.

[Individual]

You gave them consent by electing them you twit.

Shemp, twit, idiot.. They don't get any better than that!

Aren't you bar legal by now? Honestly, when was the last time you heard twit at the bar? :huh:

I was asking a question, not stating my opinion. Haven't I gone over this enough times already? You guys still don't get it.. I think I should change my name back to AlwaysQuestion, everyone seemed to get it the first year..

[pandora]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jan 22 2005, 09:54 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jan 22 2005, 09:54 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 11:33 PM
If by good you mean horrendously a load of wank
Continued failiure to put up sucessful arguments against Rand on your forum have been noted. [/b]
I agree that Ayn Rand books are horrid! All that Man over all bullshit. From what I have read by those who have known her (had her visit their schools back in the day) she was a priggish jerk who put down everyone and was not a pleasure to be around. Nor was she attractive. What is so nice about a snotty snob who can't even get her own cup of coffee.

As far as her books, they are ridiculous! :lol: Always some asshole pighead lead male character who runs over everyone around him has no respect for anyone else and in her books gets ahead, in the real world, gets run off a cliff!

I can only conclude that she was drunk on martinis when she wrote most of that shit as the lead characters act like the average drunk at a bar imagines himself acting in the world, but we all know how that person really appears! :lol:

Like the only thing they need to conquer is the nearest ditch. Fuck all this Aryan bullshit, and I don't just mean Ayn Rand's use of Nietzche, whom she badly maims :lol:

Her greatest dream would have been an information officer for the Third Reich only they wouldn't have her. She wrote dime store romances for boys who normally jerked off to porno mags about getting revenge on all your enemies and getting the girl and penetrating her. Utter rubbish.

Why bring that crap best left in the 50's up here, what a waste of time.

Hot! I always think of Ayn Rand as similar in a stick figure like Coco Channel as she got older. An older lady priggish with a pig like snout, clinging to a cigarette, yellowed claws with dyed black hair cut in a bowl cut trying to be sophisticated but being to up tight to be laid back in any sense, and too racist to hang out in Harlem and get some class.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:39 PM
Such as
The hand of the clock reached the dot of 8:00.
"Ladies and gentlemen," said a voice that came from the radio receiver -- a man's clear, calm, implacable voice, the kind of voice that has not been heard on the airwaves for years -- "Mr. Thomson will not speak to you tonight.[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder why Mr. Thomson will not speak to me tonight?"] Hist time is up[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder why Mr. Thomson's time is up?"]. I have taken it over.[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder why this fellow has taken it over?"] You were to hear a report on the world crisis. That is what you are going to hear.[ed-- reader: "Gee willickers, I wonder who, if not Mr. Thomson, will not speak to me tonight on the crisis?"] And so on and so forth. All cliché, all from Seventh grade...where Ayn Rand dropped out of school.
Repeat : How is this a cliche ? (Do you know what the word actually means ?)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:27 AM
You gave them consent by electing them you twit.
Does being elected give them the right to rape/murder you as well as rob you, too ?

:rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

I agree that Ayn Rand books are horrid! All that Man over all bullshit.

You haven't read it, so you would'nt know.

<snip the ad hominem/second-handed rubbish>


As far as her books, they are ridiculous&#33;

How would you know ?


:lol: Always some asshole pighead lead male character who runs over everyone around him has no respect for anyone else

Where, who and in which book do these characters "run over everyone around him has no respect for anyone else" ? (I&#39;ll take any failiure to answer this as proof that you&#39;re a liar.)


Like the only thing they need to conquer is the nearest ditch. Fuck all this Aryan bullshit,

Where&#39;s this "Aryan" crap coming from again ? There aren&#39;t any "Aryans" mentioned.


and I don&#39;t just mean Ayn Rand&#39;s use of Nietzche, whom she badly maims :lol:

Not only have you not read Rand, you haven&#39;t read Neitzche either. I&#39;m sure Geist will clarify that for you. Any more liars want to come forward ?


Her greatest dream would have been an information officer for the Third Reich only they wouldn&#39;t have her.

Let&#39;s leave out the small detail that her books were actually banned by Mussolini. (He had the sense to realise that they were anti-fascist as well as anti-communist.)

<snip the rest of the garbage>

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Boohoo&#33;
Look Prof., you can shout "Liars&#33;" all day, but the fact is, most of us have read Rand&#39;s work (It&#39;s not difficult to happen upon, and it&#39;s certainly not challenging reading), and we didn&#39;t think much of it.
As to the "Aryan" comments, they largely grow out of the fact that Rand&#39;s protagonists tend to be tall, blond, physically well-formed males, whereas antagonists are physically lesser.
In "Anthem" for example, the lead character is held back in his development of electricity by slow-witted, progress-hating, collectivists, but he takes the woman he loves (Sweeps her off of her feet, :lol:) and they flee off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That. Is. Hackneyed. At. Best.

[Anarchist Freedom]

FUck ayn rand the Us goverment already spends tax dollars wtf does it matter?

[praxus]

I am sorry, that is wrong since it is not in accordance to the axiom that "A is A", therefore you are wrong.

Really? How does using a different definition violate the law of identity?

The fact of reality that a word represents never changes, but why can&#39;t that word mean different things to different people?

So please, keep your sarcastic bull shit to yourself.


FUck ayn rand the Us goverment already spends tax dollars wtf does it matter?

Wow, what an amazingly colorful statement completly lacking in substance.

[Anarchist Freedom]

IM just simply stating that there not going to alert people by saying there spending there tax dollars BIG FUCKING SUPRISE PEOPLE&#33; You realize a goverment cant really function well without some form of taxation? what are they going to do hold national bake sales?

[praxus]

Actually you could have a small contract fee , so that in order for your contract to be enforced you have to pay a certain percentage of the worth of the contract to the Government. If you don&#39;t pay, your contract doesn&#39;t get enforced.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Professor Moneysucker+--> (Professor Moneysucker) Repeat : How is this a cliche ? (Do you know what the word actually means ?)[/b] Cliché is French for "block", ussually one that is mass produced and used for printing. It was used as French slang for something that is regularly used and lost meaning; in English it means an overly familiar situation or thing.

How is it cliché? First result for google search "introduction writing grab attention" explains it all. (http://www.aucegypt.edu/academic/writers/introduction.htm)


Praxus
Really?Really really.


How does using a different definition violate the law of identity? Words are part of this reality and therefore are subject to objective definitions. Objective meaning "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"; your "personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" are "distorting" the objectivity of words.


The fact of reality that [what?] a word represents never changes, but why can&#39;t that word mean different things to different people? That makes it relative, and not objective&#33; When you remove the objective absolute reference, you remove objectivity in and of itself.



So please, keep your sarcastic bull shit to yourself. Yes, and likewise. And that goes for your "philosophy" as well as your fetishism with irrational self interest.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:46 AM
Actually you could have a small contract fee , so that in order for your contract to be enforced you have to pay a certain percentage of the worth of the contract to the Government. If you don&#39;t pay, your contract doesn&#39;t get enforced.
Well maybe you should give Ayn Rand a rest a try some "Jennifer Government" you would enjoy it as the companies do away with the government only to realize that they start attacking each other with missles and need the government to keep the peace.

Nice bit in there that you would enjoy where a man is trying to call an ambulance for a girl who has just been shot by some Nike marketing thugs trying to make it look like people are killing one another for sneakers, and the emergency service asks him for his credit card number before they send the ambulance out. he is shaking holding a girl bleeding to death and can&#39;t get his wallet so she dies. I suppose that seems intelligent to you?

[Professor Moneybags]

(Oh look, no response to my challenge. I guess you were lying after all.)


try some "Jennifer Government"

Centrist garbage.

[Professor Moneybags]

Cliché is French for "block", ussually one that is mass produced and used for printing. It was used as French slang for something that is regularly used and lost meaning; in English it means an overly familiar situation or thing.

They are obviously not over-familiar situations or regularly used, otherwise Rand would not be recieving any special attention from anyone. We wouldn&#39;t be talking about her books here, for a state.

Why, where else have you seen similar ideas ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Boohoo&#33;
Look Prof., you can shout "Liars&#33;" all day, but the fact is, most of us have read Rand&#39;s work

You might have heard about it, probably picked up the odd quote or passage from some it, but I should imagine very few of you have ever read it.


As to the "Aryan" comments, they largely grow out of the fact that Rand&#39;s protagonists tend to be tall, blond, physically well-formed males, whereas antagonists are physically lesser.

D&#39;Anconia (latino) ? Roark (Red hair) ? Most of the protagonists are American, so what do you expect ? I should imagine most americans have "aryan" features.


In "Anthem" for example, the lead character is held back in his development of electricity by slow-witted, progress-hating, collectivists, but he takes the woman he loves (Sweeps her off of her feet, :lol:) and they flee off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That. Is. Hackneyed. At. Best.

That&#39;s because slow-witted, progress-hating, collectivists are all pretty much the same.

[praxus]

Words are part of this reality and therefore are subject to objective definitions. Objective meaning "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"; your "personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" are "distorting" the objectivity of words.


You are completly distorting the axiom. For example the being in reality which the word "dog" represents is always a "dog". But the word dog now might have a different definition then it did 700 years ago, but it doesn&#39;t change the fact that, that being is still what it is.

Words are not objective, they are subjective (that is to say dependent on the whims, wishes, desires, etc... of men) unlike what they represent which is objective. The reason people use the same ones with the same definitions is to allow us to cooperate.


Well maybe you should give Ayn Rand a rest a try some "Jennifer Government" you would enjoy it as the companies do away with the government only to realize that they start attacking each other with missles and need the government to keep the peace.

Nice bit in there that you would enjoy where a man is trying to call an ambulance for a girl who has just been shot by some Nike marketing thugs trying to make it look like people are killing one another for sneakers, and the emergency service asks him for his credit card number before they send the ambulance out. he is shaking holding a girl bleeding to death and can&#39;t get his wallet so she dies. I suppose that seems intelligent to you?

Companies aren&#39;t allowed to initiate force under Laissiez Faire. What you are talking about is Anarchy not Capitalism.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Professor Moneysucker+--> (Professor Moneysucker)
They are obviously not over-familiar situations or regularly used, otherwise Rand would not be recieving any special attention from anyone. We wouldn&#39;t be talking about her books here, for a state.[/b] I am not talking about the ideas, I am talking about the writing style itself. And if that was what you meant, touché, it hasn&#39;t gotten any special recognition from anyone. Who would want to recognize a poorly thought-out neo-Midieval Philosophy?


Praxus

You are completly distorting the axiom. For example the being in reality which the word "dog" represents is always a "dog". But the word dog now might have a different definition then it did 700 years ago, but it doesn&#39;t change the fact that, that being is still what it is.Ahem, that is changing A to become non-A. For it to be objective, there must be an absolute definition. Not necessarily an ideal definition, but one that doesn&#39;t change. Yet you admidt it does change, thus making words relative. How can words be relative and objective?


Words are not objective, they are subjective (that is to say dependent on the whims, wishes, desires, etc... of men) unlike what they represent which is objective. Oh, so words are subjective. I presume, in a contextual sense, right? But, regardless, A would not be A because it varies according to my whims, wishes, desires, etc.

Or is it the "concept" of the "A" which remains constant and unchangeable? If that were so, why -then- is the means by which it is expressed is subjective? Wouldn&#39;t the means to express an objective concept be condemned to be objective? :huh:

[praxus]

Ahem, that is changing A to become non-A. For it to be objective, there must be an absolute definition. Not necessarily an ideal definition, but one that doesn&#39;t change. Yet you admidt it does change, thus making words relative. How can words be relative and objective?

I never said words are objective. I said the things in reality which they represent are objective.


Oh, so words are subjective. I presume, in a contextual sense, right? But, regardless, A would not be A because it varies according to my whims, wishes, desires, etc.

Reality is seperate from human consciousness. That is to say our whims, wishes, and desires only affect reality if we act on them with our physical bodies. Simply thinking doesn&#39;t change anything (well except for our brain chemistry, but that doesn&#39;t have any effect outside itself).


Or is it the "concept" of the "A" which remains constant and unchangeable? If that were so, why -then- is the means by which it is expressed is subjective? Wouldn&#39;t the means to express an objective concept be condemned to be objective? :huh:

I didn&#39;t say anything about concepts.

[ComradeRed]

I never said words are objective. I said the things in reality which they represent are objective. Yes, that&#39;s the problem. Should words be subjective, you would have no clue what I am saying, since it&#39;d mean anything you want it to. Words have an objective meaning, although some words have several meanings it doesn&#39;t change its objectivity. When words become subjective, that would be "whereof one cannot speak" consequently "we must pass over it in silence".

Are words "in" reality?


Reality is seperate from human consciousness. That is to say our whims, wishes, and desires only affect reality if we act on them with our physical bodies. Simply thinking doesn&#39;t change anything (well except for our brain chemistry, but that doesn&#39;t have any effect outside itself). Yes yes, yet aren&#39;t words part of our reality? In an -assumed- objective reality, how do you suggest we communicate through subjective means?


I didn&#39;t say anything about concepts. Is it the identity or is it the concept which is objective?

[Professor Moneybags]

Who would want to recognize a poorly thought-out neo-Midieval Philosophy?

You&#39;re a socialist, you tell me.

[praxus]

es, that&#39;s the problem. Should words be subjective, you would have no clue what I am saying, since it&#39;d mean anything you want it to. Words have an objective meaning, although some words have several meanings it doesn&#39;t change its objectivity. When words become subjective, that would be "whereof one cannot speak" consequently "we must pass over it in silence".

Are words "in" reality?

Yes, these words could mean anything to anymore, but people choose to use the same words to represent the same things so they can communicate. That&#39;s the whole point of puting forth definition before a debate, so people understand what everyone is talking about.


Are words "in" reality?

The sound and the symbols which we use to show words are in reality, but the actual meaning of the sounds and symbols is not inherant in the words themselves.


Yes yes, yet aren&#39;t words part of our reality? In an -assumed- objective reality, how do you suggest we communicate through subjective means?


By agreeing to certain definitions. I don&#39;t see what&#39;s so complicated about it.


Is it the identity or is it the concept which is objective?

The identity.

By the way, it&#39;s nice to have a moderately-civilized conversation :D

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Professor Moneysucker+--> (Professor Moneysucker)You&#39;re a socialist, you tell me.[/b]
You&#39;re the Objectivist, you bankrupted your intellect to such a poor philosophy that even the dark ages rejected it.

The "philosophy" of socialism came with the Industrial Revolution...which did not occur in the Middle Ages.

But then again, how would you know, all the libraries around you are like your intellect...closed and vacant.


Praxus
Yes, these words could mean anything to anymore, but people choose to use the same words to represent the same things so they can communicate. That&#39;s the whole point of puting forth definition before a debate, so people understand what everyone is talking about. So, the meanings of words are subjective. But are not the meaning of these words essentially concepts?



The sound and the symbols which we use to show words are in reality, but the actual meaning of the sounds and symbols is not inherant in the words themselves. Ah, so words exist without meaning in this reality. Well, a subjective meaning...yet how can this be? If one says "A is A" and another says "A is not A", they both would be indeterminably true or false. We don&#39;t know what is meant by "A", "is", and "not"; the meaning is then elaborated through further subjective means. How do you propose that we know anything?


By agreeing to certain definitions. I don&#39;t see what&#39;s so complicated about it. That would make them absolute, though, wouldn&#39;t it? By which I mean: 6 a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time <absolute electric units> c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero <absolute temperature>; specifically : KELVIN <10° absolute>
7 : FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE <absolute knowledge>
8 : perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice>
9 : being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music>

And if that were so, why would it be that absolutes are subjective?


The identity [is objective]. How, then, is it that we know whether the concepts are objective too or not?

[Professor Moneybags]

You&#39;re the Objectivist, you bankrupted your intellect to such a poor philosophy that even the dark ages rejected it.

You bankrupted your intellect to such a poor philosophy that you can&#39;t even summon an argument beyond that of the ad-hominem variety.



What incredible debating skills. :rolleyes:

[praxus]

Ah, so words exist without meaning in this reality. Well, a subjective meaning...yet how can this be? If one says "A is A" and another says "A is not A", they both would be indeterminably true or false. We don&#39;t know what is meant by "A", "is", and "not"; the meaning is then elaborated through further subjective means. How do you propose that we know anything?

No the meanings of "A", "is", and "not" are in our minds, seperate from the symbols themselves. The meanings are simply represented in symbols (letters) of "A is not A", but to an outsider knowing nothing of our language would find these symbols utterly meaningless to him.

Someone could say that "A is not A" is the samething as "A is A" by making words mean whatever they wanted to, but they would be commiting an act of intelectual dishonosty, Ignoring the meaning of the words as intended by the person presenting them.


That would make them absolute, though, wouldn&#39;t it?

No, the words and the definitions of the words have evolved overtime, the definitions are not "independent of arbitrary standard" as your definition put it.


How, then, is it that we know whether the concepts are objective too or not?

I&#39;m not very well versed in epistemology but my best answer would be that we have reason and therefor can accurately interprete reality (if we use reason completely and honestly with all the facts nessecary to come to truth).


You&#39;re the Objectivist, you bankrupted your intellect to such a poor philosophy that even the dark ages rejected it.


Really so that would have made Ayn Rand around 1,000 years old when she wrote Atlas Shrugged.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Professor Moneysucker+--> (Professor Moneysucker)You bankrupted your intellect to such a poor philosophy that you can&#39;t even summon an argument beyond that of the ad-hominem variety.[/b] If only that were logical, philosophies and fallacies are not intertwined(with the exception of Objectivism, of course).


Praxus
Really so that would have made Ayn Rand around 1,000 years old when she wrote Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism wasn&#39;t christened off by Ayn Rand. It existed long before she came, she merely tweeked it to a pro-capitalist stance rather than not having an economic stance.


No the meanings of "A", "is", and "not" are in our minds, seperate from the symbols themselves. How do you suggest we transmit objective meanings through subjective means? If one states in a debate with an Objectivist that "A is not A", he would have a very hard time explaining his use "not", as it would be explained through subjective means.


The meanings are simply represented in symbols (letters) of "A is not A", but to an outsider knowing nothing of our language would find these symbols utterly meaningless to him. So the letters have objective meanings which synthesize a subjective means. This subjective means then convey an objective meaning. How do you propose people understand each other?


Someone could say that "A is not A" is the samething as "A is A" by making words mean whatever they wanted to, but they would be commiting an act of intelectual dishonosty, Ignoring the meaning of the words as intended by the person presenting them. But in French "ne" means "no" or "not", yet if I say ...Pourvu que A n&#39;est A from your argument it reads "provided that A is not A"; however, when ne is used after certain words, it has no meaning. Yet neither of us agreed to this. How would you explain this?

How could you explain that the meanings conveyed through words are objective?


No, the words and the definitions of the words have evolved overtime, the definitions are not "independent of arbitrary standard" as your definition put it. So words are subjective. But the meaning conveyed is subjective. How do we know if we know the meaning being conveyed is correct or wrong if the means to verify are the same means which expressed it?


I&#39;m not very well versed in epistemology but my best answer would be that we have reason and therefor can accurately interprete reality (if we use reason completely and honestly with all the facts nessecary to come to truth). How do we know if we reason reality correct? Or that we naturally have reason? Or that reason is not a product of man?

[praxus]

How do you suggest we transmit objective meanings through subjective means? If one states in a debate with an Objectivist that "A is not A", he would have a very hard time explaining his use "not", as it would be explained through subjective means.

No it wouldn&#39;t. I&#39;ve already said that people agree in a society to certain definitions. And just because they agree, does not make it objective.


But in French "ne" means "no" or "not", yet if I say ...Pourvu que A n&#39;est A from your argument it reads "provided that A is not A"; however, when ne is used after certain words, it has no meaning. Yet neither of us agreed to this. How would you explain this?

We don&#39;t have to agree to it, society as a whole did, and if we want to live in it we have to use the agreed vocabulary, sentence structure, of the time period to a very large degree.


So words are subjective. But the meaning conveyed is subjective. How do we know if we know the meaning being conveyed is correct or wrong if the means to verify are the same means which expressed it?

If by "meaning" you mean that which is in reality is being represented by the words, then no it&#39;s not subjective. But if by "meaning" you mean to say the minute details in the definitions which change over time, then yes they are subjective.


How do we know if we reason reality correct? Or that we naturally have reason? Or that reason is not a product of man?

It&#39;s self-evident. All evidence in the universe points to man being a reasonable creature, why would you pluck an arbitrary concept which denies, that which is so obvious?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:19 AM
In reverse..

Fuck the Ayn Rand Institute. Are any of you okay with the fact that tax-payers money is being given away without your consent?

Despite the event, in any case, are you sitting tight with the idea that your government can give away your money without your consent?
THe only thing I dislike about the government spending my money is that it&#39;s going to fund a war I don&#39;t support. If my money is going towards social programs, helping people get jobs, health care, social security, impoverished nations. THen i&#39;m fine. But if they give my money to invade countries then I don&#39;t approve.

[ComradeRed]

Praxus, I will be in and out this week randomly...I have some serious personal business which needs be dealt with, so if I don&#39;t respond in 3 or 4 days that&#39;s why.


No it wouldn&#39;t. I&#39;ve already said that people agree in a society to certain definitions. And just because they agree, does not make it objective. So allow me to get this straight...If something is not objective, it must be subjective. Words are not objective, therefore they are subjective. The definition of objectivity is something that is not affected by a human&#39;s mind, perception, distortions, wishes, whims, wills, etc. etc. etc. Whereas subjuctivity is affected by human&#39;s mind, perception, distortions, wishes, wills, etc. etc. etc. I can suddeny change the meanings of words as to my wishes, my will, can&#39;t I?


We don&#39;t have to agree to it, society as a whole did, and if we want to live in it we have to use the agreed vocabulary, sentence structure, of the time period to a very large degree. So we are "condemned", in a sense, when we live in a certain society to "speak as they do". But no one person can change the meaning, sentance structure, and so on and so forth in this society. How is it then that I can change the meaning of words as I want to?


If by "meaning" you mean that which is in reality is being represented by the words, then no it&#39;s not subjective. But if by "meaning" you mean to say the minute details in the definitions which change over time, then yes they are subjective. No, by "meaning" I mean the thing (the idea, if you will) which I am trying to tell you.


It&#39;s self-evident. All evidence in the universe points to man being a reasonable creature, why would you pluck an arbitrary concept which denies, that which is so obvious? Wait a moment. How do we know reason is a product of nature and not man? If it were of man, how could it "navigate" reality to create concepts?

All evidence in the universe points to man being a rational creature... By choice, of course, as Ayn Rand colorfully illustrates in John Galt&#39;s speech. So how is it that if man were naturally reasonable, he chooses to be reasonable? If it were natural, why would he have to choose?

[Professor Moneybags]

Objectivism wasn&#39;t christened off by Ayn Rand. It existed long before she came, she merely tweeked it to a pro-capitalist stance rather than not having an economic stance.

In which case, what was it called before that and who discovered it ?


How do we know if we reason reality correct?

How can we know anything if we don&#39;t ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:58 PM
All evidence in the universe points to man being a rational creature... By choice, of course, as Ayn Rand colorfully illustrates in John Galt&#39;s speech. So how is it that if man were naturally reasonable, he chooses to be reasonable? If it were natural, why would he have to choose?
Because man is both volitional by nature and reasonable by nature.

[ComradeRed]

Because man is both volitional by nature and reasonable by nature. If man were reasonable by nature, why would it be that he needs to choose to be reasonable rather than choosing to be unreasonable?


In which case, what was it called before that and who discovered it ? It was previously known as "objectivism", without the capitalized "O". As far as "who discovered it" is concerned, I do not have my resources with me, but I would suspect it would be someone who knows latin (objectivismus, -i). I can&#39;t really tell you until I get back home.


How can we know anything if we don&#39;t ? So what we know is based entirely on how we reason? How do we double check our reasoning if the means by which we convey what needs to be double checked are subjective?

[praxus]

So allow me to get this straight...If something is not objective, it must be subjective. Words are not objective, therefore they are subjective. The definition of objectivity is something that is not affected by a human&#39;s mind, perception, distortions, wishes, whims, wills, etc. etc. etc. Whereas subjectivity is affected by human&#39;s mind, perception, distortions, wishes, wills, etc. etc. etc. I can suddenly change the meanings of words as to my wishes, my will, can&#39;t I?

Sure you can, if you do you won&#39;t understand anyone and you won&#39;t be able to communicate with them (unless they choose to use the same language as you), and more then likely everyone will ignore you. So there&#39;s a tremendous incentive to use the same words with the same definitions as the rest of society.

Furthermore, I agree with your definition as to what is "objective" and of "subjective". There isn&#39;t any middle ground between them in this instance. There is something which is not affected by human whims and that which is affected by human whims.


So we are "condemned", in a sense, when we live in a certain society to "speak as they do". But no one person can change the meaning, sentence structure, and so on and so forth in this society. How is it then that I can change the meaning of words as I want to?

Sure you can change it, but you&#39;d have to get most other people to go a long with it. Chances are no one&#39;s going to care and would just dismiss you.


No, by "meaning" I mean the thing (the idea, if you will) which I am trying to tell you.

That depends if the idea is in accordance with reality.


By choice, of course, as Ayn Rand colorfully illustrates in John Galt&#39;s speech. So how is it that if man were naturally reasonable, he chooses to be reasonable? If it were natural, why would he have to choose?

By nature we are given the faculties, which give us the capacity to reason (to be rational). To use it or not is a choice, as man is a volitional creature. Remember by reason I mean that instrument in our brain, which integrates and comprehends the facts of reality.


Wait a moment. How do we know reason is a product of nature and not man? If it were of man, how could it "navigate" reality to create concepts?

What do you mean by "a product of... man"?

[ComradeRed]

Sure you can, if you do you won&#39;t understand anyone and you won&#39;t be able to communicate with them (unless they choose to use the same language as you), and more then likely everyone will ignore you. What do you think would happen if everyone did this?


Furthermore, I agree with your definition as to what is "objective" and of "subjective". There isn&#39;t any middle ground between them in this instance. There is something which is not affected by human whims and that which is affected by human whims. Aren&#39;t things which are objective absolute? Without an absolute reference, it would be relative, or not affected by and affected by human whims.


Sure you can change it, but you&#39;d have to get most other people to go a long with it. Chances are no one&#39;s going to care and would just dismiss you. Why would I need other people to go with it? It&#39;s subjective, I&#39;m right and everyone else is wrong all the time. A is A and not A. You can&#39;t get more subjective than that, can you? But "A is A and not A" is contradictory, isn&#39;t it? And subjective...and, according to Objectivism, wrong.


That depends if the idea is in accordance with reality. So do all ideas depend on this reality, or is that concepts which depend on it? How do we understand the ideas trying to be communicated if the means to do so are subjective? How do we communicate if words are subjective? If we all agree on the meaning of words, why doesn&#39;t it become objective? If I say A is not A, I choose to ignore A being A. Does that mean it is subjective?


By nature we are given the faculties, which give us the capacity to reason (to be rational). Well, to reason is the same as being rational. But isn&#39;t rationalism decoupled from reality? Another Objectivist had this to say "The structure[of rationalism] is internally consistent, but being based on false concepts (not based in reality), the whole thing becomes one giant illusion."


To use it or not is a choice, as man is a volitional creature. Remember by reason I mean that instrument in our brain, which integrates and comprehends the facts of reality. Does volition and reason go together? Are there different types of reasoning? If there are, how can we double check our reasoning to be valid if other forms of reason disagree with each other?


What do you mean by "a product of... man"? I mean that reason would be an artificial cognitive function which was created by man to better understand reality. How do we know that humans naturally have reason and naturally choose to use it or not?

[praxus]

What do you think would happen if everyone did this?

There is no reason to believe that "everyone" would do this, so it shouldn&#39;t even be within the realm of discussion.


Aren&#39;t things which are objective absolute? Without an absolute reference, it would be relative, or not affected by and affected by human whims.

Yes things that are objecitve are absolutes.


Why would I need other people to go with it? It&#39;s subjective, I&#39;m right and everyone else is wrong all the time. A is A and not A. You can&#39;t get more subjective than that, can you? But "A is A and not A" is contradictory, isn&#39;t it? And subjective...and, according to Objectivism, wrong.

It seems that it would be contextual, if you used A is A, then another person could use the words A is not A and have it mean the same thing as A is A, but the two people would have to be operating from two seperate definitions. Another example is that someone write A is A and then 3 minutes from then they write A is not A and intend it to mean the same thing by operating from a different definition. People don&#39;t do this, again because it would lead to, to much confusion.


So do all ideas depend on this reality, or is that concepts which depend on it? How do we understand the ideas trying to be communicated if the means to do so are subjective? How do we communicate if words are subjective? If we all agree on the meaning of words, why doesn&#39;t it become objective? If I say A is not A, I choose to ignore A being A. Does that mean it is subjective?

Look above.


Does volition and reason go together? Are there different types of reasoning? If there are, how can we double check our reasoning to be valid if other forms of reason disagree with each other?

Yes they go together, they are inseperable. If one can not interprate reality and integrate that knowledge then he can not make choices among options, because to him there are none. In order to survive with the lack of reason one must have instincts, man does not have instincts.


I mean that reason would be an artificial cognitive function which was created by man to better understand reality. How do we know that humans naturally have reason and naturally choose to use it or not?

How can it be created, if what you need to create it is what you are creating?

[ComradeRed]

There is no reason to believe that "everyone" would do this, so it shouldn&#39;t even be within the realm of discussion. So words are subjective for some and objective for others?



Yes things that are objecitve are absolutes. What counts as a test for objectivity?


It seems that it would be contextual It would be relative if it were contextual, and thereby relative. Isn&#39;t relativism a rejection of absolutes? And isn&#39;t that which is objective absolute?



How can it be created, if what you need to create it is what you are creating? Well, should man be a volitional animal, he would have options. Man could randomly choose an option, but it wouldn&#39;t be the most advantageous. Reason is that apparatus which yields the best solution from the presented options, wouldn&#39;t you say so?

But we can observe the effects of others&#39; choices, and learn from there. This ability to understand what happens "if p, then q" is called "reason". How do we know that there is an inherent ability to reason or it is merely observation and memory?

And should there be no instincts, how is it that there is a human nature? How is it that communism "goes against human nature," since human nature is an instinct?

[Publius]

As a capitalist and avid reader I must say, Objectivism sucks and Ayn Rand is a boring, repetitive author.

Atlas Shrugged was worth reading but could have been 600 pages shorter if she would cut out all the worthless subplots and characters.

Honestly, her books are nothing but philosophical ramblings, and here philosophy was a non-sensical load of crap.

It&#39;s utterly impossible to look at everything or even anything objectively.

Objectivism descends into "I&#39;m right and your wrong because I&#39;m Objective".

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:28 AM
It&#39;s utterly impossible to look at everything or even anything objectively.
This is a self-contradiction.

[ComradeRed]

Ahem, what is objective (e.g. "A=A") is relative to who perceives what. Does that mean reality that man perceives is independent of man&#39;s mind, wishes, whims, will, etc.? Well, if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to witness it, does it make a sound? That is the question of objectivity.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 2 2005, 04:28 PM




This is a self-contradiction.

No it isn&#39;t.

Can you look at something objectively?

I agree an objective reality exists but I disagree with humanity being able to comprehend it most of the time.

A is A, that I agree with, but much beyond that, nope.

[praxus]

So words are subjective for some and objective for others?

How does it make it objective because everyone choose it? I don&#39;t see the connection.


What counts as a test for objectivity?

What?


It would be relative if it were contextual, and thereby relative. Isn&#39;t relativism a rejection of absolutes? And isn&#39;t that which is objective absolute?


Relitivism the philosophical system contradicts Objectivism, but that doesn&#39;t mean something can&#39;t be relitive. It seems like your trying to make connections where there are none.


Well, should man be a volitional animal, he would have options. Man could randomly choose an option, but it wouldn&#39;t be the most advantageous. Reason is that apparatus which yields the best solution from the presented options, wouldn&#39;t you say so?


Reason comes before volition. We wouldn&#39;t be able to choose at all without reason, because we wouldn&#39;t know how to choose. We would simply die.


But we can observe the effects of others&#39; choices, and learn from there. This ability to understand what happens "if p, then q" is called "reason". How do we know that there is an inherent ability to reason or it is merely observation and memory?

Tell me how do we understand the effects of others choices without reason, how do we integrate what we learn from thoose around us without reason?



And should there be no instincts, how is it that there is a human nature? How is it that communism "goes against human nature," since human nature is an instinct?

Human Nature in the Objectivist sense is not refering to instincts, but our fundamental nature, such as, what are mans requirements to live qua man in society.

[praxus]

Ahem, what is objective (e.g. "A=A") is relative to who perceives what. Does that mean reality that man perceives is independent of man&#39;s mind, wishes, whims, will, etc.? Well, if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to witness it, does it make a sound? That is the question of objectivity.

Say this world is a big illusion. It doesn&#39;t change the fact that what is objective is that which is seperate from human consciousness.

[ComradeRed]

No, you don&#39;t understand what I am saying. The world is relative, not necessarily subjective.

For example, which way is north? Why?

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it, does it make a sound?

Can a thing be both a wave and particle?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Publius+Feb 2 2005, 09:33 PM--> (Publius @ Feb 2 2005, 09:33 PM)
Professor [email protected] 2 2005, 04:28 PM




This is a self-contradiction.

No it isn&#39;t.

Can you look at something objectively?

I agree an objective reality exists but I disagree with humanity being able to comprehend it most of the time.

A is A, that I agree with, but much beyond that, nope. [/b]
Don&#39;t be fooled by the fact that because we&#39;re not 100% omnicent and infalliable, we cannot know or achieve anything, or because we have biases, we can never hold a neutral opinion. You don&#39;t need to know everything to know something.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:27 AM
For example, which way is north? Why?

The way the needle on a compass points. It doesn&#39;t point south tommorrow, or point north for me and south for you. It points noth regardless of who&#39;s looking at it or at what angle.


If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it, does it make a sound?

Yes, but nobody is there to hear it.


Can a thing be both a wave and particle?

No, but this "thing" can exhibit characteristics of both.

[Publius]

But you have absolutely no clue about what you DO know, so it&#39;s all kind of murky.

[ComradeRed]

The way the needle on a compass points. It doesn&#39;t point south tommorrow, or point north for me and south for you. It points noth regardless of who&#39;s looking at it or at what angle. Who decided it? North isn&#39;t inherently north, there is no sign at North, as a matter of fact North isn&#39;t even a place, but who decides it?



Yes, but nobody is there to hear it. But how do we know that? Of coruse, we can assume it, but if no one is there how do you know?


Don&#39;t be fooled by the fact that because we&#39;re not 100% omnicent and infalliable, we cannot know or achieve anything, or because we have biases, we can never hold a neutral opinion. You don&#39;t need to know everything to know something. So you assent that it is impossible to determine objectivity, since we are not "100% omnicent"; how then can you be an Objectivist?



No, but this "thing" can exhibit characteristics of both. How do we know that it isn&#39;t both if it "exhibits" characteristics of both? Why isn&#39;t it both?