Existence

[Jim of WVa]

Nah, I've already read most of it, she doesn't have a valid argument and seems to use her own brand of unjustified logic/methodology. I don't think she is even considered a philosopher anymore, more a pseudo-philosopher, much like pseudo-scientists.

Yes, David Brin's new novel is much more fun to discuss than Ayn Rand's copying of real philosopher's work and labeling it as her own. (The story behind his novel was that David Brin had posted the link to his YouTube video of his new novel's preview video at just about the same time as I saw this topic in the forum.)

Furthermore, Sarah Palin is much better looking than Ayn Rand ever was.

 

[Overmind One]

Yes, David Brin's new novel is much more fun to discuss than Ayn Rand's copying of real philosopher's work and labeling it as her own. (The story behind his novel was that David Brin had posted the link to his YouTube video of his new novel's preview video at just about the same time as I saw this topic in the forum.)

Furthermore, Sarah Palin is much better looking than Ayn Rand ever was.

View attachment 7101

View attachment 7102

I guess that empty vacuum in her head preserves her looks?

 

[Joelist]

Usually Ayn Rand appeals a lot to the die hard libertarian set. This isn't surprising given her "objectivism" philosophy. Here's a brief definition off of The Ayn Rand Institute:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

 

[Joelist]

Now if one looks at those tenets, some make sense and others...well...

For example, the notion that there is such a thing as an objective fact is is very sensible and logical. And whether we want to admit it or not this is actually the basis under which we interact with the outside world. We do not casually step out in front of a speeding car because - regardless of what view we may espouse about objective reality - we know the objective fact that stepping out in front of a speeding car is almost certainly going to get us seriously injured or killed. The opposing idea to this is sometimes called "anti-realism" and is typified by George Berkerley's thoughts on the matter (although there are many other approaches that likewise do not subscribe to objective fact).

Her second point (regarding reason) is likewise not that crazy and makes sense. After all, it is simply stating that our reasoning abilities are how we arrive at perceptions of reality. I do think it is a little undefiled, however, because nowhere does she mention the concept of a worldview the framework of ideas and beliefs through which we interpret and interact with the world. Everyone has a worldview whether they want to admit it or not. To me, it is important to understand that because otherwise Rand's definition of reason would mean that we interact with the world in a purely logical manner, and we do not. We also have that worldview where a variety of factors, some intellectual some emotional, shape our way of viewing and reacting to things.

Her third and fourth points are where things really start to run off the rails. This is because she posits being self centered as an ultimate good. I have gotten into arguments with Randian libertarians before on this topic. I would say that being self centered is NOT an ultimate good but instead it is a negative attribute.

Rand seems to picture us all as human islands - we should not use physical force (interesting that it is specifically physical force) against others - that do all our interactions as free traders. This picture makes humanity cold and sterile and removes those qualities of reaching out to help one another, of self sacrifice and love for our fellow man that are the very place where humanity has the capacity to stand out and shine. In my opinion, she gets there from trying to take an economic system and turn it into a life philosophy.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Overmind One]

Now if one looks at those tenets, some make sense and others...well...

For example, the notion that there is such a thing as an objective fact is is very sensible and logical. And whether we want to admit it or not this is actually the basis under which we interact with the outside world. We do not casually step out in front of a speeding car because - regardless of what view we may espouse about objective reality - we know the objective fact that stepping out in front of a speeding car is almost certainly going to get us seriously injured or killed. The opposing idea to this is sometimes called "anti-realism" and is typified by George Berkerley's thoughts on the matter (although there are many other approaches that likewise do not subscribe to objective fact).

Her second point (regarding reason) is likewise not that crazy and makes sense. After all, it is simply stating that our reasoning abilities are how we arrive at perceptions of reality. I do think it is a little undefiled, however, because nowhere does she mention the concept of a worldview the framework of ideas and beliefs through which we interpret and interact with the world. Everyone has a worldview whether they want to admit it or not. To me, it is important to understand that because otherwise Rand's definition of reason would mean that we interact with the world in a purely logical manner, and we do not. We also have that worldview where a variety of factors, some intellectual some emotional, shape our way of viewing and reacting to things.

Her third and fourth points are where things really start to run off the rails. This is because she posits being self centered as an ultimate good. I have gotten into arguments with Randian libertarians before on this topic. I would say that being self centered is NOT an ultimate good but instead it is a negative attribute.

Rand seems to picture us all as human islands - we should not use physical force (interesting that it is specifically physical force) against others - that do all our interactions as free traders. This picture makes humanity cold and sterile and removes those qualities of reaching out to help one another, of self sacrifice and love for our fellow man that are the very place where humanity has the capacity to stand out and shine. In my opinion, she gets there from trying to take an economic system and turn it into a life philosophy.

Just some thoughts...

I feel she is missing something. What about spirituality? I do not mean religion or theistic spirituality. I mean the spiritual motivations behind curiosity of our origins, of natural processes, of the world around us. At the root of all human knowledge is curiosity. Spirituality motivates curiosity, even though it is not acknowledged as such. In my opinion, of course!

 

[Joelist]

Exactly. That is part of what I was thinking of. Her conception of humans makes us come off like a bunch of smartphones and not emotional humans who think in abstract terms.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Why does "curiosty" have anything to do with "spirituality" of any definition?

And really Joe, most people may as well be phones, I just wouldn't grace them with the "smart" Appelation.

 

[Joelist]

Actually I would not say that anyone is a "phone" or a "smartphone". All people regardless of the opinion held of them think in the abstract. And all people do more than just blindly react to external stimuli. And yes I concur with OM that we all have a "spiritual" element to us - a spark that includes curiosity. It's all part of what also call "consciousness".

 

[Overmind One]

Why does "curiosty" have anything to do with "spirituality" of any definition?

And really Joe, most people may as well be phones, I just wouldn't grace them with the "smart" Appelation.

This is difficult to explain. But think of a supercomputer or any machine. Even the most intelligent AI. Curiosity cannot be programmed into a machine. Curiosity is the reason humans live on every continent, why we know what is edible and what is not, why we ask questions about things. This is motivated by a "need to know". This is a SPIRITUAL function, not a biological or genetic one. Hard to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is perceivable when missing. I notice it most in classical musicians. People who master the mechanics of music can play it flawlessly, but they do not FEEL the music, and it comes off as soulless and dry like a machine. But a more spiritual classical musicial can put "feeling" into the same piece, and that is a function of spirituality and not biology or brain function. I CANT PROVE IT, GF! Just saying that it is an element missing from Ann's philosophy, in my opinion.

 

[Joelist]

This is difficult to explain. But think of a supercomputer or any machine. Even the most intelligent AI. Curiosity cannot be programmed into a machine. Curiosity is the reason humans live on every continent, why we know what is edible and what is not, why we ask questions about things. This is motivated by a "need to know". This is a SPIRITUAL function, not a biological or genetic one. Hard to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is perceivable when missing. I notice it most in classical musicians. People who master the mechanics of music can play it flawlessly, but they do not FEEL the music, and it comes off as soulless and dry like a machine. But a more spiritual classical musicial can put "feeling" into the same piece, and that is a function of spirituality and not biology or brain function. I CANT PROVE IT, Joe! Just saying that it is an element missing from Ann's philosophy, in my opinion.

Um...Joe? I am the one agreeing with you - I think this is directed at GF isn't it?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Actually I would not say that anyone is a "phone" or a "smartphone". All people regardless of the opinion held of them think in the abstract. And all people do more than just blindly react to external stimuli. And yes I concur with OM that we all have a "spiritual" element to us - a spark that includes curiosity. It's all part of what also call "consciousness".

Do they?
I wonder about that sometimes to be honest. I think most people tend to think of thier own needs/wants before they consider anything else. Most people are not comfortable in examining the *why* they think the way they do and are just happy enough to be programmed to think the way "everyone else does"

As to OM's "spiritual element", Look, in all honesty, I agree that there is "something" driving such thoughts, I am a spiritual person after all. HOWEVER, there are plenty of people who are not, and according to thier standard (weather any of us agree with it or not) are capable of all the "positive actions" you ascribe to spirituality, some moreso than self proffesed "spiritual/ religious" people.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Um...Joe? I am the one agreeing with you - I think this is directed at GF isn't it?

ROFL
I concur with Joe

 

[Overmind One]

Um...Joe? I am the one agreeing with you - I think this is directed at GF isn't it?

Yes! I just corrected that. You and I are on the same page with this.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Yes! I just corrected that. You and I are on the same page with this.

Actually, all 3 of us are

 

[Overmind One]

ROFL
I concur with Joe

Yes.

Hey man, if you want to see unbridled spirituality, you are going to see it in your kids. I know you are a daddy with young children, and the questions they ask you and their interpretations of things will make you understand (or remember ) what spirituality is. I keep mine strong by meditation and being out in the world, finding places away from all of this artifical garbage we have slathered on the planet. Spirituality tries to answer the single most important question that can be asked: WHY?

 

[Overmind One]

Actually, all 3 of us are

So you acknowledge that spirituality is important, even though we cannot define it?

 

[Overmind One]

Do they?
I wonder about that sometimes to be honest. I think most people tend to think of thier own needs/wants before they consider anything else. Most people are not comfortable in examining the *why* they think the way they do and are just happy enough to be programmed to think the way "everyone else does"

As to OM's "spiritual element", Look, in all honesty, I agree that there is "something" driving such thoughts, I am a spiritual person after all. HOWEVER, there are plenty of people who are not, and according to thier standard (weather any of us agree with it or not) are capable of all the "positive actions" you ascribe to spirituality, some moreso than self proffesed "spiritual/ religious" people.

YAY!

Yes, we are on the same page. I just saw this, and you actually hit on the question: WHY? That is the question that drives curiosity, and the fuel for that curiosity comes from spirituality. At least that is the best way I have found to describe it. I also agree with you that self-professed religious people may not be spiritual at all. Many non-religious people are not spiritual because they have lost the ability.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Yes.

Hey man, if you want to see unbridled spirituality, you are going to see it in your kids. I know you are a daddy with young children, and the questions they ask you and their interpretations of things will make you understand (or remember ) what spirituality is.

Ahh, but I never HAVE forgotten what it is, my sense of joyous childlike wonder at what is and what could be and why is an intrinsic part of my worldview, and while I CAN argue like a total............ Adult ( ) it is more to explore the "why" than anything else. WHY does Joe want to pursue certain elements of his life, WHY do you pay for this site when we have basicly 10 active members, WHY, WHY, WHY .

I keep mine strong by meditation and being out in the world, finding places away from all of this artifical garbage we have slathered on the planet. Spirituality tries to answer the single most important question that can be asked: WHY?

See, here I disagree, Religion tries to answer "WHY", Spirituality, or curiousity, keeps us asking WHY and never be fully satisfied with any one answer. Each answer leads to 10 more questions, and it's when you stop asking questions that *I feel* you have to start worrying.

 

[Joelist]

Back to Rand briefly, there is another inherent problem in her objectivism. Her point #3 basically extols the virtues of narcicissm by saying you have to treat yourself as most important. Even with her stricture against using force against other humans you wind up unable to account for charity, love or any other type of other centered behavior. Objectivism tends to be really popular with people who are self centered.

 

[Overmind One]

Ahh, but I never HAVE forgotten what it is, my sense of joyous childlike wonder at what is and what could be and why is an intrinsic part of my worldview, and while I CAN argue like a total............ Adult ( ) it is more to explore the "why" than anything else. WHY does Joe want to pursue certain elements of his life, WHY do you pay for this site when we have basicly 10 active members, WHY, WHY, WHY .


See, here I disagree, Religion tries to answer "WHY", Spirituality, or curiousity, keeps us asking WHY and never be fully satisfied with any one answer. Each answer leads to 10 more questions, and it's when you stop asking questions that *I feel* you have to start worrying.

And therein is the beauty of WHY. It can NEVER be answered. That is why curiosity and knowledge and exploration of ourselves and the universe will continue, because if it were ever to be fully answered, then there would be no need for curiosity, and therefore no need for knowledge. Religion gives people a false answer. And for people who are uncomfortable with living in a universe that is still a mystery, religion gives them solace. But it is false. In my opinion, of course!

As for this:

"WHY do you pay for this site when we have basicly 10 active members, WHY, WHY, WHY"

Answer: Because you 10 people make me happy. Because I think it provides a way to give something to others. Because it gives me a non-porn site to read!