Forum unknown
· Off the Cuff
#Cops, Courts, Crooks
9 messages in this thread
John,
I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and enjoyed them very much. I
still think that one of Rand's failings is that she confuses science and
morality. If one accepts the fundamental assumptions of the empirical method,
then one can enter into debate over whether one proposition of fact or another
is "true" in the sense of being consisten with empirical data. But when you
talk about scientific or objective moral values, there is no way to prove them
correct or incorrect. You either accept them or you or you don't. You may be
able to prove as a matter of fact that if all people followed a particular set
of moral values, certain consequences will follow, but that doesn't prove that
those particular consequences are "good" or "bad". Fortunately, we seem to
have a substantial consensus as to fundamental values, so we don't have to
prove them to others.
Just as an example, do you think you would be able to prove to Khomeini,
Gorbachev, or whoever else you might pick out that his value system is wrong?
How do you answer a communist when he says "I don't care if individual
enterprise promotes greater societal wealth — promoting equality of all and
economic security for all is morally superior"? I don't happen to agree with
those views, but I don't for a minute think I can prove in any objective way
that those moral values are wrong. Values are a matter of belief and faith,
not proof and demonstration. Darron
You know what I don't like about philosophy? (And psychiatry!) matters are
taken to conclusions that are the personal interpretation of the philosopher or
psychiatrist in question, and then the output of this limited personal
perception is put forth as generalized solutions. It never works. None of it.
–Ben–
Note that "It never works … None of it" is a generalized statement which
purports to say that generalized statements are useless. I disagree completely
that philosophy is just a game. Read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand, if
you dare…
I dare, all right, but so far, my appreciation of philosophers has been dimmed
by every so-called philosophical work I have ever read. I'm generalizing only
in the sense that a _very_ small segment of human studies, philosophy, has no
applicability; I feel that it has no basis in fact, being based upon an
individual perception of the author. Unless you _are_ the author, or want to
_be_ the author, you must create your own system: The systems put forth by such
notables as the authors of the bible, Mr. Sartre, and others I have slogged
through make me ill… simplistic conclusions for a narrow view of the world.
Unfortunately. But I'll go get that Rand title, as it's a general works and
addresses my question directly. I do have my own answer to it, though (Who
needs it) The insecure, the unable to think for themselves, the emotionally
crippled, and the seekers of the 'answer' to life, the universe, and
everything. –Ben–
I dare, all right, but so far, my appreciation of philosophers has been dimmed
by every so-called philosophical work I have ever read. I'm generalizing only
in the sense that a _very_ small segment of human studies, philosophy, has no
applicability; I feel that it has no basis in fact, being based upon an
individual perception of the author. Unless you _are_ the author, or want to
_be_ the author, you must create your own system: The systems put forth by such
notables as the authors of the bible, Mr. Sartre, and others I have slogged
through make me ill… simplistic conclusions for a narrow view of the world.
Unfortunately. But I'll go get that Rand title, as it's a general works and
addresses my question directly. I do have my own answer to it, though (Who
needs it) The insecure, the unable to think for themselves, the emotionally
crippled, and the seekers of the 'answer' to life, the universe, and
everything. –Ben–
Note that "It never works … None of it" is a generalized statement which
purports to say that generalized statements are useless. I disagree completely
that philosophy is just a game. Read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand, if
you dare…
You know what I don't like about philosophy? (And psychiatry!) matters are
taken to conclusions that are the personal interpretation of the philosopher or
psychiatrist in question, and then the output of this limited personal
perception is put forth as generalized solutions. It never works. None of it.
–Ben–
You don't understand very much about Objectivism if you don't understand the
basis of morality (the objective need by humans to have a code of ethics, and
the means by which such a system can be found and validated). Galt's speech in
Atlas Shrugged covers the issue thoroughly. Additionally, 'Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology' is a thorough analysis of the methodology of forming
and validating abstractions, including an article by Leonard Peikoff which
blasts the fallacy of the "Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy".
Rand covers these topics in great detail. Any interested people should refer
to them. I can't begin to paraphrase her here and I won't.
You don't understand very much about Objectivism if you don't understand the
basis of morality (the objective need by humans to have a code of ethics, and
the means by which such a system can be found and validated). Galt's speech in
Atlas Shrugged covers the issue thoroughly. Additionally, 'Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology' is a thorough analysis of the methodology of forming
and validating abstractions, including an article by Leonard Peikoff which
blasts the fallacy of the "Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy".
Rand covers these topics in great detail. Any interested people should refer
to them. I can't begin to paraphrase her here and I won't.