Ayn
Rand's objectivism is perhaps the most loathsome of all philosophies.
It is the perfect combination of intellectual and moral stupidity.
She
says that all knowledge comes from reason. In other words, our
senses––what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell––have no effect on our
ability to understand the world. In other words, she sees man as a
thinking machine, a computer. It's a perfectly souless, spiritless view
of humanity.
She also believes that man is an end to himself. In
other words, we have no connection with the rest of humanity or the
rest of the world, and so we should therefore have no care or concern
for the rest of humanity or the rest of the world.
She also
believes that reality is objective––facts are facts. This has been
shown to be wrong through quantum theory. There is no objective
reality, there is no reality without an observer. There is no object
without a subject. Nor is there such a thing as a subject without an
object.
The fact that there are so many people out there who
consider this woman and her philosophy to be even remotely coherent or
admirable is deeply disturbing.
Phylo out. |
|
I love the way you wave your arms in blanket, general statements. (General statement are generally wrong)
Second only to that stupidity is the disjointed idiocy of a post with no point. |
|
|
I
read "Atlas Shrugged" as an important time in my life. I was not
brainwashed by it nor was I ignorant to some of the ideas of the book
either. Today's society teaches us to feel guilty or ashamed by our
success. That the successful men and women are placed in a high tax
bracket and are expected to surrender their wealth, time, energy, and
their mind to the less fortunate. Those without the drive. Nonsense.
Now there is something very admirable about those who use their success
to help others achieve it, but it is a damnable offense in my view for
people to be giving hand outs to people so they expect more hand outs!
The only hand out they should get is "Atlas Shrugged", assuming they
would read it. |
|
You are a perfect example of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Try
going back and reading and UNDERSTANDING all of Rands writings,
including all of her periodicals and non-fiction work and then repeat
that idiotic assessment of objectivism.
You also apparantly know but a little of quantum physics as well. |
|
Most
Republicans I've met have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that smacks
of collectivism. They immediately label it "socialism", which they've
already pre-determined is a failure, and dismiss it out of hand.
It
seems that someone needs to remind you folks of the fact that we
already have many socialized institutions. Public schools, police and
fire departments, the judicial system, roads and bridges, the military,
etc.
Please folks, just because something involves people
getting together to create an institution doesn't automatically make it
a bad institution.
The questions should always be; "What works?" "What makes the country better and stronger?"
Universal
health care is a great example. If universal health care can create a
healthier, more productive populace for less money than private health
insurance than we should do if; if not, we shouldn't.
In other
words, it shouldn't come down to a battle over socialism or capitalism.
That's simply a poor framework through which to view the situation. And
it will inevitably lead to poor decision making.
Phylo out. |
|
Instead
of just telling me I'm wrong, how about explaining how. How about
making what's called an actual "argument". Telling someone they are
wrong doesn't make it so.
Phylo out. |
|
The
Democrats have tapped in to other aspects of "human nature" - the
inability to delay gratification and the envy directed toward those who
can and the benefits they derive from it. It is easy, although morally
and ethically reprehensible, to assuage one's altruistic urges by
tapping into someone else's wallet. As Walter Williams often points out
in his columns, that is nothing other than theft.
Ayn Rand had
some inconsistencies to be sure. But we owe her a debt of gratitude for
her well-voiced stance to repel the siren song of collectivism that was
rampant in her day and gets replayed every time the Democrats campaign. |
|
Your post said it all and it is, my obtuse and ill-informed friend, dead wrong.
That
you think Ayn Rand's philosophy can be explained in a simplistic little
post such as yours proves just how wrong you are to those who have
actually read her writings.
Secondly, Quantum physics has not
proved that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It
pothisizes that at that level, the mere observation alters the outcome. |
|
So if an argument is short, it can't possibly be right?
Ever hear of E=MC2 you idiot?
And
please explain, if you can, how, if everything is made of atoms, what
is true on the quantum level is somehow not true on the everyday level.
What is the reason for the disconnect?
Phylo out. |
|
of
Chuck Colson. When ex-convict and know felon and liar like Colson
demeans a memory of long dead author based on rumors and
scandalmongering. When defeaning the living is not enough...
Maybe
Colson whould take a long hard look on his own perverted "worldview"
that demends him to defecate on graves of the deceased in name of
political advocacy and cheap propaganda shots. But then his morally
superior worldview is all about bearing false witness of others and
milking tax-payers money to his faith based scams. |
|
Phylo wrote:
"The questions should always be; "What works?" "What makes the country better and stronger?"
Well,
marriage works. Delayed gratification works. Sexual continence works.
To repeat George Will's triad, you will not be poor if 1) you get at
least a high school degree, 2) you have no child out of wedlock, 3) you
have no child before age 21. Now, millions don't adhere to those rules.
Democrats pander to them with wealth redistribution programs - but no
matter how many trillions are spent, the ranks of the dependent class
grow from the intergenerational effects of that very well-fed
dependency. Universal Health Care will depend upon SOMEBODY paying for
it. Those people who do pay for it by taxes on their productivity will
become less productive when it is perceived that they aren't getting
their money's worth. And by that time, it's going to be pretty hard to
get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Rock on, Ayn; rock on! |
|
I don't suffer fools well.
E=MC2
is but the conclusion. Explain to me in a simple post, "you idiot," how
Einstein arrived at that conclusion. THAT is what I'm trying to sink
into that thick skull of yours.
Like most liberals, you think a
childishly simple 200 word proclamation will suffice. Sorry Phylo, but
I have a working brain. I don't play dumb games with even dumber people. |
|
Here's a quote by Fritjof Capra, and actual physicist:
"The
crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not
only necessary to observe these properties [such as; position, or
velocity, or mass] of an object, but is necessary even to define these
properties. In atomic physics, we cannot talk about the properties of
an object as such. They are only meaningful in the context of the
object’s interaction with the observer."
In other words, he's saying that there is no object at all without an observer.
But it's not even necessary to get into quantum theory to explain that there is no "objective reality".
Try to imagine a subject without any objects, not even the object known as "empty space".
If
you'll notice it is impossible to think of such a thing because as soon
as you imagine a subject, you SIMULTANEOUSLY create an object. It's
impossible to give a subject any form at all, without also creating an
object.
Comprende?
Phylo out. |
|
The
number of words in an argument has ZERO bearing on the arguments
veracity. If you are too stupid to realize that, there is no point in
arguing with you.
Phylo out. |
|
What's
the matter Phylo? Can't you explain Eistein's theory of relativity in a
simple post, with all of its premises and nuances?
Yet you expect me to do that with Objectivism with its metaphysics, epistemology and volumes of philosophical thought?
Like I said, Phylo, you think like a child - simply and emotionally. |
|
Bob,
seriously, if you're going to continue to argue that the number of
words in my argument renders it untrue, than I can't continue this.
But you should know that NO ONE will buy your argument. EVERYONE sees that you're just avoiding my arguments.
My
argument against Ayn Rands philosophy is very simple. One of the
central tenets of her philosophy is that she believes in objective
reality.
I'm saying her philosophy is wrong because there is no such thing as "objective reality".
I
have offered evidence to back up my assertion in the form of two
arguments 1) the quote by Fritjof Capra and quantum theory itself. 2)
I've argued that it is no possible to have an object without a subject,
nor is it possible to have a subject without an object.
Now, if you want to offer a substantive rebuttal to either of my two arguments I'll be happy to continue. If not, so long.
Phylo out. |
|
Whatever
guys..... It is an "objective reality" that if you want LESS of
something, tax it; if you want MORE of something, subsidize it. I think
Greenspan took that essential lesson from his time spent bs'ing with
Ayn in coffeeshops and living rooms.
Phylo, are you sure you
want to use the public school system and the judicial system (by which
certain malpractice lawyers can pillage their way to North Carolina
mansions and a run at POTUS)as the crown jewels of
collectivism/socialism?
Now, if you want to talk about the
Apollo space program or the Manhattan Project or the Interstate highway
system, you have a point. But all of those are substantively different
from programs that redistribute wealth to those who do little more than
squander it. |
|
Phylo Se Fiser writes:
"The
crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not
only necessary to observe these properties [such as; position, or
velocity, or mass] of an object, but is necessary even to define these
properties.
SO....If a nuclear bomb were to be dropped on Tehran and every observer was immediately vaporized...DID IT REALLY HAPPEN?
|
|
To quote the wikipedia version:
"Objectivism
maintains that what exists does not exist because one thinks it exists;
it simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or
opinion."
In other words, existence exists. I don't think any
mumblings about quantum theory refutes that notion. Quantum mechanics
produces many counter-intuitive results. They defy notions of "reality"
and really do exist. Existence exists. |
|
Well I see Bob C has run away. Typical Republican. Honestly, this happens every time I try to engage Republicans in debate.
To your point butterbarre:
I'm
not arguing that public schools and the judicial system are perfect
institutions. I'm merely arguing that they are a better path to a
better, stronger society than if we were to have a completely private
system. A completely private system would mean that many people, whose
parents couldn't afford to send them to private school, would not have
the skills to compete which makes us weaker as a society. And a
completely private judicial system would obviously lead to enormous
injustices and no central authority.
You don't seriously disagree with that, do you?
Phylo out.
|
|
I
too read Ayn Rand in high school, Atlas Shrugged, and it changed my
life. I reread it every few years like one of the posters above to
check my reality: how am I living up to her precepts or how do I view
them now? But what is really scary is watching the world slide down the
very slippery slope that she described in Atlas Shrugged. Remember
Congress passing the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog law? Think about that next time
you read how the European Union has ordered Microsoft to share all of
its software with its competitors in order to enable them to compete
with Microsoft. Why, Ayn must be spinning in her grave. If Hilary gets
into office, Ayn will have to stage a comeback. Socialism does not work
because it does not recognize the reality of human nature. Ayn said the
worst story we all grew up with was the legend of Robin Hood, who
robbed the rich to give to the poor. Well, isn't that what our
government is doing now? Isn't that what the Democrats are arguing
about: how much they can extort via governmental power (guns) to give
to their favorite groups of sycophants?
P.S. I agree with Uncle
Alby: Reading P.G. Wodehouse is a blast. I read all of the Jeeves books
every few years and laugh out loud. I think I watch House on TV just
for the sheer cognitive dissonance of seeing Hugh Laurie, who played
Bertie Wooster perfectly, now play a curmudgeon.
PP.SS. My handle reflects my reference for Ayn. |
|
|
Ayn
relies on Aristotle's observation that "A is A". A thing is itself.
Funny, the rules of evidence require the proponent of the evidence to
prove that the thing offered as evidence is the "thing intself", i.e.
the thing actually taken into evidence. The sign popular in catalogs
says "It is what it is". These are truisms. You can pretend that
everyone can create their own reality, but they will still bark their
shins on the coffee table. |
|
No surprise that the Bible finished first. But "Atlas Shrugged" which came in second, is also a bible.
It is a bible for conservatism, especially economic conservatism.
This
book, which was written some 60-70 years ago, virtually predicted many
of the liberal policies that continue to threaten our freedom and
prosperity today. I wish I could give Rand credit for prescience, but
Rand was actually writing from her own life's experience with this very
same disastrous institutionalized liberalism.
She was born in
the Soviet Union and lived with the boot of communism on her neck until
she could escape to America. The main theme of all her books is the
necessity of the triumph of the individual over the state, economicaly,
professionally, and politically.
"Freedom lives in the minds and
hearts of men and women. When it dies there no court can save it." (Not
a Rand quote, but I'm sure she would agree.) |
|
What is existence?
And if you can't answer that, than what are you saying exists?
Phylo out.
|
|
Phylo, before I argue the existence of an objective reality, I need to understand your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You
maintain that since there is no such thing as an objective reality (i.e
that nothing exists outside of your tiny little brain) that it would
follow that you and I cannot possibly perceive the same object since no
object exists independant of the two of us. In other words, you don't
really exist outside of my brain - I'm just making you up to darken my
day.
Each of us has our own subjective world in our own brains
and that neither of us are in any way connected to a reality
independant of that which resides in our brains.
Further,
since nothing exists outside of our own subjective realities - those
realities that exists in your brain and mine - it follows that it is
impossible to be affected by anything outside of our worlds-in-a-brain
since nothing exists independant of our brains to affect us.. Am I
correct?
Perception doesn't really exist either since there is
nothing to perceive. The laws of physics aren't real since there is no
physical reality for the laws of physics to govern. There is only a
subjective reality which has no common point of reference. Is that
about it? |
|
|
It is, fundamentally, ostensive. |
|
So you're arguing that a coffee table is a coffee table?
This is called a tautology. And it works just fine for simpletons who don't inquire any further.
But it breaks down as soon as you start to ask "What is the coffee table?"
As
soon as you do that you start coming up with answers like: wood,
screws, etc,. Then you start looking into what wood and screws are, and
you come up with answers like molecules and atoms and such.
And
the upshot of all this is that you end up realizing that a coffee table
isn't JUST a coffee table, it's also wood and screws and atoms and
human thinking and all sorts of other things. If there were no wood, or
screws, or human beings, or atoms, there would be no coffee table. the
coffee table's existence is utterly depended on these other things.
So,
sorry but A is A is incomplete as a theory. Notice that I didn't say
it's wrong. it's incomplete. There is a sense in which a coffee table
is JUST a coffee table, but there is also a sense in which a coffee
table is not JUST a coffee table.
Phylo out
|
|
would it have been necessary to have invented his cutesy "ain't I hip" little sign-off -"Phylo out"?
Do
I understand it that his existence is solely dependent upon our
recognizing him? If we ignore him he won't exactly "go away", but
rather he will have never existed. Gives a whole new meaning to "Phylo
out". |
|
Even
though she deeply admired capitalists and their achievements, she was
no economist and never claimed to play one on TV. She assumed the top
captains of industry actually ran America, and if displeased with what
a growing welfare state was doing, could "go on strike" and by so
doing, bring America to ruin.
In "Atlas Shrugged," her "Atlases" were small enough in number to enjoy an intimate dinner party.
In
reality, it requires a very large number of people with very many and
differing talents and skills and levels of achievement to "run" the
Extended Order, better known as America. As a Hayekian, I can tell you
point blank that no one can comprehend a fraction of what we do as a
people, let alone run it.
I heard that Rand admired Hayek. Too bad she didn't read his work and learn from it. |
|
Neither
was Ayn Rand an evolutionary psychologist. She had no clue that
biologists had been studying acts of altruism in the animal kingdom for
generations before she began writing her books.
Altruism in the
sense of fellow feeling, of sacrificial acts freely made for the
benefit of others. Even birds engage in such acts. Why should humans be
an exception.
That these facts are never brought up, let alone
dealt with in any of her books, weakens her argument severely. The
reader is left to sputter..."But, but..." with no result.
We
know altruism is real. It is a genuine, powerful emotion that leads to
genuine, powerful acts. It permitted our distant ancestors to live
together in reasonable amounts of peacefulness in tight-knit
hunter-gatherer communities. It permitted us to survive, thrive and
flourish around the world. It was one of the main ingredients in our
rise as the dominant species on this planet.
Altruism is no vice. It is a glorious virtue. |
|
Bob
C: You maintain that since there is no such thing as an objective
reality (i.e that nothing exists outside of your tiny little brain)
that it would follow that you and I cannot possibly perceive the same
object since no object exists independant of the two of us. In other
words, you don't really exist outside of my brain - I'm just making you
up to darken my day. Each of us has our own subjective world in our own
brains and that neither of us are in any way connected to a reality
independant of that which resides in our brains.
Further,
since nothing exists outside of our own subjective realities - those
realities that exist in your brain and mine - it follows that it is
impossible to be affected by anything outside of our worlds-in-a-brain
since nothing exists independant of our brains to affect us.. Am I
correct?
Phylo: No you don't understand. You're putting me in a
camp with the subjectivists. I don't believe that reality is entirely
subjective either. My argument is that, ultimately, it's not possible
to separate subject from object.
To be continued... |
|