Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Starjet, Jun 5, 2019.
Einstein was an Atheist: His remark was concerning the idea the idea that anything can be and not be at the same timeline was mocking both God.and Quantam Mechanics.
Furthermore, whatever Quantam Mechanics is, it must assuredly is not magic.
Hmm. I’d rather understand than to blindly accept the given. But, you go for it, Mr. Traditionalist.
The independent mind creates the future; the traditionalists are just ballast.
Ayn Rand on the reasoning mind: ”Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/creators.html
And on ”tradition”: ”It is certainly irrational to use the “new” as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the “old” as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. ”
And more: ”
The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.”
Though is true that children must accept the given; it is only true until they reach the age of reason.
Go look up the word Tautology
Ayn Rand was one of those people who liked to think she was Friedrich Nietzsche and sounded like Donald Duck. Her aesthetics, which can be summed up in the statement "Heroism is the greatest beauty" is the only part of her "philosophy" that has any real coherence or interest
Rand knew how to write a mean speech and some of her lines are among the best bumper stickers in the English language. "I will stop the engine that moves the world" She didn't have to even write the rest of the book.
And she shouldn't have. Her plots are dull as well as unrealistic, her characters one dimensional personifications lacking any sort of real sympathy or appeal and her dialogue.... my god...had the woman never actually talked to another living human being in her entire life?
She gets good sales for the same reason that Avatar got good box office after spending 700 mill on a remake of Disney's cartoon Fern Gully. She's Clive Cussler for the philosophically inclined.
You forgot to mention her natural appeal to idealistic teenagers. I was one of them and I totally fell for her philosophy. I still find it odd though that academic philosophers refuse to take her seriously. I’m repeating myself here but given her continuing influence that’s absurd.
I’ve yet to see a cogent refutation of her epistemology.
And you never will. "A is A", is basically, "It is what it is", and that is the very definition of a tautology, a meaningless phrase in which the same thing is said twice to define it. . "A boat is a boat" is true beyond question, but it tells us nothing about boats. Things are what they are but what ARE they? This is the whole question of epistemology and she dismisses it with a facile absurdity.
Already responded to in post #47
You're not great with the thoughtful replies I see.
Well, I blame myself. That's what happens when I try to get someone with a rigid ideology to think a bit.
It's interesting that you are quoting someone else about the "independent mind." What's your independent contribution?
You have all the reasoning you need to become enlightened. Still, there is safety in tradition and danger in rocking the boat. Probably best you stick with was handed to; independent thought is not for everyone.
The understanding of it. In other words, Rand isn't right because she says she is; Objectivism isn't true because there are some who believe it to be so; Capitalism isn't the only moral system because the rich love being wealthy, and selfishness isn't moral because egoists love their lives. It's true because it's true. Just as gravity isn't attraction because an apple fell on Newton's head; it's the nature of gravity to be gravity.
Yes, I realize that there are many who think 1=1 because that is what they were taught, and for them, no further reasoning is necessary; however, if you are the kind of mind that can turn a bike into a flying machine, then operating on just what "you were taught" without understanding the reasoning behind it will not get your foot off the ground, let alone a flying machine.
"It's true because it's true."
So for all your claim or being a rationalist, you're no empiricist. "...true because it's true" is simply a religious reason.
That clears things up. You believe because you believe. You have faith that what you think is true is true because you believe it's true. No shame in that, but don't claim reason is behind it.
If I may, it's not mysticism; it's axiomatic. However, is you prefer; what is real isn't real because of consciousness; but because it's real, true, actual, take your pick.
A good read on epistemology would be helpful.
As to faith: Faith is driving down the highway with your eyes closed; reason is ”eyes side open” looking and judging reality and acting accordingly.
Indeed, many Randian Objectivists are allergic to it.
Ignoring reality won't help.
I guess I must be a Newtonian then, believing in gravity as I do. It's okay, gravity is still gravity regardless of anything I might say or do. Still, as mentioned, it's not wise to ignore reality, especially if one is close to the abyss of mysticism.
A quick recap:
Some posters are guided by tradition; others by cultural osmosis; others by conforming to society’s prejudices and biases; others by being subservient to a higher authority, mystical or secular; and all have been represented here in various forms.
However, only one postulates this most profound and sacred of all ideals—you have a brain, use it to live your life to its highest potential in the name of the best within you. And that view, that wisdom, that Holy Spirit belongs to one--and only one--philosophy, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
Your life, your choice--and in the name of the best within you, choose wisely.
But that's not what you are doing. You have your eyes closed.
So you say, but yet, haven't walked into any brick walls lately. Besides, the thread isn't about me; it's about what it says it's about. And even if it were true that I'm just parroting, it wouldn't make Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Capitalism, and the Pursuit of Happiness, any less real, would it?
"It is a sin to write this."
Become enlightened or become enslaved. The choice is yours, choose wisely, in the name of the best within you, your reason.
You've no way of knowing if it's real since for all your talk of reason, you've yet to apply any of it. Let me put it this way: Can Randism be proven empirically? If not, why not?
No. Because it violates one of the principles of Objectivism—it places a specific consciousness above reality. However, certainly Objectivism
can--all one need do is think.
If you reject that facile absurdity you have no reason to believe posting your opinions will ever appear where you imagine they are directed.
If, as it appears, you believe we are unable to know what things are and arrive at an agreed definition you may as well give up now. Nothing you say can possibly be communicated.
Separate names with a comma.