PDA

View Full Version : more random houghts



wolfdancer
11-11-2009, 05:09 PM
"Today's subject: Economic philosopher Ayn Rand died in 1982, but her legacy remains very much alive. Unfortunately, some people in positions of power have used parts of her Objectivist teachings to rationalize their own dysfunctional, damaging behavior.

I definitely agree with the benefits of the "rational self-interest" Rand advocated. As a society, the individual drive for achievement inspires us onward and upward. However, some of her adherents seem more keen on the "self-interest" part than the "rational" part. Their ruthless selfishness and soulless narcissism have torpedoed our economic well-being and polluted our culture. Time to face the music, Ayn.

Why you should be indignant: Ayn Rand defended selfishness as a virtue, and rejected the concept of altruism altogether. In other words: Every man (and woman) for him- or herself! Don't feel bad about trampling others to get what you want! It's all about you!

Um, no thank you. Needless to say, the prevalence of that mind-set has screwed us all over, big time. Here are just a few examples of the rampant self-absorption Rand's teachings may have inspired" :
Ann (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/04/the-daily-walk-of-shame-ayn-rand.aspx?source=ihpdspmra0000001)

cushioncrawler
11-11-2009, 05:26 PM
Wiki....................
Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.[2]

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[5]

[edit] Metaphysics: objective reality
Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness.[6] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[7] As Leonard Peikoff noted, Rand's argument "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[8]

Objectivism states that "Existence exists" and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the axiom of identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[9]

Rand held that since one is able to perceive something that exists, one's consciousness must exist, "consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."[10] Objectivism maintains that what exists simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion. This idea is derived from Rand's theory which she called "the primacy of existence"[11], in opposition to the theory of "the primacy of consciousness."[12]

For Rand, this primacy of consciousness is an inherently relational phenomenon. As she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," so that an objective reality independent of consciousness must exist for consciousness to be possible, and that there is no possibility of a consciousness that is conscious of nothing outside itself. Thus consciousness cannot be the only thing that exists. "It cannot be aware only of itself — there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."[13] Objectivism holds that the mind cannot create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[14]

Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation "the law of identity applied to action."[15] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.[16]

Objectivism rejects belief in "every 'spiritual' dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence."[17]

cushioncrawler
11-11-2009, 05:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Today's subject: Economic philosopher Ayn Rand died in 1982, but her legacy remains very much alive. Unfortunately, some people in positions of power have used parts of her Objectivist teachings to rationalize their own dysfunctional, damaging behavior. I definitely agree with the benefits of the "rational self-interest" Rand advocated. As a society, the individual drive for achievement inspires us onward and upward. However, some of her adherents seem more keen on the "self-interest" part than the "rational" part. Their ruthless selfishness and soulless narcissism have torpedoed our economic well-being and polluted our culture. Time to face the music, Ayn. Why you should be indignant: Ayn Rand defended selfishness as a virtue, and rejected the concept of altruism altogether. In other words: Every man (and woman) for him- or herself! Don't feel bad about trampling others to get what you want! It's all about you! Um, no thank you. Needless to say, the prevalence of that mind-set has screwed us all over, big time. Here are just a few examples of the rampant self-absorption Rand's teachings may have inspired"......</div></div>Woofly -- I think that anyone can make anything out of her philosophy. Peoply dedicating their lives to say the poor are just az selfish az anyone else -- koz, there iz good selfishness and there iz bad selfishness.
In Port Phillip there iz even sick shellfishness.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
11-11-2009, 05:36 PM
"....................Rand held that since one is able to perceive something that exists, one's consciousness must exist, "consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."[10] Objectivism maintains that what exists simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion. This idea is derived from Rand's theory which she called "the primacy of existence"[11], in opposition to the theory of "the primacy of consciousness."[12]......."

Rand iz wrong.
CONSCIOUSNESS iznt just about perception -- it iz about remembering.
In fakt TIME iz due to remembering, ie due to consciousness.
In fakt PERCEPTION iz due to remembering.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
11-11-2009, 05:56 PM
".......Objectivism states that "Existence exists" and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the axiom of identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[9]........."

A leaf cannot be red nor can it be green, at the same time or ever. Koz, colors are something made in the mind -- colors do not exist.
Rands analogy re existance iz here based on something that duznt exist -- weird.

A leaf cannot freeze and burn at the same time -- i agree (sort of). To freeze takes time, and to burn takes time -- and they karnt both happen at the same time (sort of).
But here Rand uzes the word TIME -- but, time duznt exist -- time iz a perception -- time iz only due to consciousness.
So, Rands analogy re consiousness iz here based on TIME, which iz due to consciousness -- weird.
madMac.

wolfdancer
11-11-2009, 06:01 PM
Mac, you sound like a "True Believer"!!!
I'm sure that she had her good points, and aren't the philosophical arguments the most interesting? It's too bad they never never let me attend those classes.
I bought" Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers" by Will Durant
when it it first came out in 1991, and haven't finished it yet
The book got as bored with me as I was with it, and just disappeared on it's own.

cushioncrawler
11-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Woofly -- I am a true beleever in Lynds (New Zealand) and Rybczyk (New York).
Rybczyk proved Einstein wrong -- which science knew all along allready -- its just non-scientists that beleev the hollywood version.
And Lynds showed that everyone woz wrong -- there iz no such thing az time -- or, time iznt Time.

Philosophy iz 100% all about logik -- and i 100% luv logik -- not that i am very good at it.
madMac.

llotter
11-13-2009, 10:10 AM
I am somewhat of a fan of Rand. The Motley Fool article is way off the mark to blame her philosophy for the greed in his examples. We live so far from her ideals that is sophomoric to make comparisons.

Rand is definitely a very strong proponent of maximum personal freedom and she has the integrity to address the the fundamental moral problem to which most atheists close their eyes. She is a believer in the Constitution and that we are all doomed if we continue down the path of the welfare state.

wolfdancer
11-13-2009, 02:16 PM
Mac, if I could go back in time, I would definitely study Philosophy. What I did read of Ann quite awhile back, turned me against her....now I see that she was indeed a brilliant woman. (she was almost as smart as a couple of folks here claim to be)
That doesn't mean I have to agree with her thinking in it's entirety.

cushioncrawler
11-13-2009, 04:00 PM
Woofly -- If i had more time i would luv to read more philosophy etc. I would if it helped my billiards.

Yesterday i examined a video of a 323 break by Bob Marshall, shot by shot, writing it all down in my billiards diary.
I woz amazed -- Bob had to play 10 Drop Cannons from In Hand -- 10!!!! -- thats an amazingly hi figure.
And, even tho most of the 323 woz at Top Of The Table play -- Bob only played 3 Cross Loozers -- 3!!!! -- thats an amazingly lo figure.
I guess that he haz hiz own individual philosophy for billiards.

But philosophy iz eezy -- u need to start all philosophical thinking with 3 fakts -- (1) there iz no god or gods -- (2) humans are animals -- and (3) humans are the worst thing to happen to this beautifull planet.
madMac.

wolfdancer
11-13-2009, 04:27 PM
I wish that I knew what a drop cannon was...is that in Lao Tzu's writings?
I've adopted this as my personal philosophy:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've developed a new philosophy... I only dread one day at a time. </div></div> Charles Shultz
way back when.. there was a coffee shop across the street from where I worked, and we had a 10-15 break about every 2 hours,(Union job /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif ) so I was a regular customer there.
The guy that owned the business was Iranian, that had just barely escaped the Ayatollah "purge". Somehow we got into a discussion on Philosophy,( with me?) as I was carrying around a book on it at the time.
Turned out that he taught Philosophy at the University level in Iran, but just the Middle Eastern Philosophers, that I had never heard of. Nice guy and a great family that all chipped in to make the place "go"

cushioncrawler
11-13-2009, 04:45 PM
Philosophy iz hard to read mostly.
What we really need iz a book that haz philosopy plus sex plus magic plus cooking plus murder plus politix plus history plus goodys and badys.
This would havta be a best'seller.
Hmmmmmmm -- where could we find such a book ????????
madMac.

wolfdancer
11-13-2009, 05:14 PM
Only one I know that has all that is....
propriety dictates that I not mention the name.