2 ms·

I think a lot of the things you say are contradictions. There's no reason why individuals can only exist 'in a vacuum.' Saying men are 'not ONLY autonomous' is

by Tycho 16y ago

I think a lot of the things you say are contradictions. There's no reason why individuals can only exist 'in a vacuum.' Saying men are 'not ONLY autonomous' is like saying the president is not ONLY elected, he is also unelected. Men are rational beings, ie. they possess the ability to reason (regardless of whether they use it properly or at all), saying men are rational but also not rational is like saying 'this car is a diesel but it is also not a diesel.' If you think irrationality has benefits for survival you need to actually state your case, give examples. I don't think you understand very well what Rand is arguing, either - the reason I responded initially was because you said 'rationality is good' was an unsupported claim by Rand, as if she used it as an axiom but she doesn't. I'm not making any effort to 'exclude' examples that you give - you just don't seem to fully grasp that which you're criticizing, so it's no surprise that you give inappropriate examples. And of course something cannot be rational outside of its context - in man's case the context is the environment (and his own thoughts/memories), hence 'consciousness.' Consciousness implies something to be conscious of. Look, you can try to deny statements like 'doves can fly' (all doves? baby doves? retarded doves? doves with broken wings? doves in cages? war doves?) all you want. You seem determined to deny the basic tenets of human existence - we just think we're individuals, but we're not; we just think we perceive reality, but we don't; we just think words denote reality, but they can't; etc etc. You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions.

ThomPete 16y ago
Welcome to philosophy, that is how it's done. If you want to make universal claims as Rand obviously wanted then you naturally need to take all factors into account. You can't just cherry pick those that seem to support your argument and then skip over the rest. Well you can but then you are not interested in making philosophical arguments. You are just making claims. With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread. But let's look at something she did claim. "Existence exist" The question obviously is, what is existence. You can't just say well the environment seems to have individuals, therefore individuals are a fundamental property of reality. And then use that as if it's a well defined entity. You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions. But that is philosophy whether you like it or not. Philosophy isn't there to let you go by in your daily life. That is not the job of philosophy, luckily as there would have been no intellectual progress. You are confusing what could be called life philosophy with philosophy. You wan't simple answers but in philosophy answers only lead to new questions. You want certainty were none exist. And just to be clear here. Science is disagreeing with Rand, QM, Biology, Neuroscience. Reality is disagreeing with Rand. Even if we were to take experience of reality for what it is. You try and have some children and you will realize that this egomaniac approach is nothing but an illusion that speaks to a very tiny part of the human mind. That doesn't mean that you can't make rational decisions but to claim that it's somehow well defined is simply yet another non philosophical, non-sceptic approach. Your last sentence really says it all. You want a life philosophy, that's all fine and good. Some follow Gods word you follow Rands. But independent rational thinking it is not.
- Tycho 16y ago
  With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread. In this case it is you that needs to properly read my reply. That's the second time you've misread my post (the first was the [insert Objectivism here] bit). I want philosophy to help guide me through life, yeah. Whereas you want philosophy for, um, what exactly? I feel like there's a lot of empty rhetoric in your responses. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. You think you've made the case for this by mentioning the words 'context' and 'vacuum' or something. You also try to use the prestige of science (QM, biology, neuroscience) to trash Rand without offering any specific evidence/argument, and try the same thing with the emotional appeal of family. Maybe you do have arguments involving those things but I've yet to hear them. You also keep saying 'universal claims' without really explaining what you mean. Put it like this. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. Which is fine, because non-rational beings could never understand/use it anyway. She says 'man' in place of 'rational animal' or 'rational being' because on Earth as we know it humans are the only entities that develop rationality. Anyway, if you don't think that usage of the word 'man' is correct, it doesn't really matter - again the point is that anybody reading Objectivism qualifies as a subject. By the way, Rand does discuss epistemology and metaphysics in some detail in her paper 'Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology' if you were interested in reading more about these low-level details of Oism.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    Well you are asking philosophy to do something that it can't. Guiding you through life is the job of self-help books and religion and objectivism. I don't want philosophy to help guide me through life. I use philosophy to constantly question assumptions in order to push my understanding of the world around me, not dictate what is right or wrong which is how Rand uses it. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. Well by all means please show me something that is certain. Existence exist just isn't going to do it as existence itself is an open question. What is existence, how can you with certainty say something is the way you experience it. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But if it goes like in most cases when I ask objectivist to prove their claim there will be silence. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. So the ability to reason makes you rational? Surely you can see what is wrong with that statement. A religious person is able to reason, a communist is able to reason. That isn't what Rand was doing. She was reasoning a specific way based on specific premises. The rationale that followed her premises are what makes for objectivism. It is a specific moral claiming how man ought to be. Of course as most first year student's of philosophy will quickly learn is that there aren't any certain premises. Existence isn't a certain premise as you need to describe what existence is. That is the whole point of philosophy. It's not to give you ten commandments to follow.

by Tycho 16y ago

ThomPete 16y ago

Welcome to philosophy, that is how it's done. If you want to make universal claims as Rand obviously wanted then you naturally need to take all factors into account. You can't just cherry pick those that seem to support your argument and then skip over the rest. Well you can but then you are not interested in making philosophical arguments. You are just making claims. With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread. But let's look at something she did claim. "Existence exist" The question obviously is, what is existence. You can't just say well the environment seems to have individuals, therefore individuals are a fundamental property of reality. And then use that as if it's a well defined entity. You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions. But that is philosophy whether you like it or not. Philosophy isn't there to let you go by in your daily life. That is not the job of philosophy, luckily as there would have been no intellectual progress. You are confusing what could be called life philosophy with philosophy. You wan't simple answers but in philosophy answers only lead to new questions. You want certainty were none exist. And just to be clear here. Science is disagreeing with Rand, QM, Biology, Neuroscience. Reality is disagreeing with Rand. Even if we were to take experience of reality for what it is. You try and have some children and you will realize that this egomaniac approach is nothing but an illusion that speaks to a very tiny part of the human mind. That doesn't mean that you can't make rational decisions but to claim that it's somehow well defined is simply yet another non philosophical, non-sceptic approach. Your last sentence really says it all. You want a life philosophy, that's all fine and good. Some follow Gods word you follow Rands. But independent rational thinking it is not.

Tycho 16y ago
With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread. In this case it is you that needs to properly read my reply. That's the second time you've misread my post (the first was the [insert Objectivism here] bit). I want philosophy to help guide me through life, yeah. Whereas you want philosophy for, um, what exactly? I feel like there's a lot of empty rhetoric in your responses. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. You think you've made the case for this by mentioning the words 'context' and 'vacuum' or something. You also try to use the prestige of science (QM, biology, neuroscience) to trash Rand without offering any specific evidence/argument, and try the same thing with the emotional appeal of family. Maybe you do have arguments involving those things but I've yet to hear them. You also keep saying 'universal claims' without really explaining what you mean. Put it like this. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. Which is fine, because non-rational beings could never understand/use it anyway. She says 'man' in place of 'rational animal' or 'rational being' because on Earth as we know it humans are the only entities that develop rationality. Anyway, if you don't think that usage of the word 'man' is correct, it doesn't really matter - again the point is that anybody reading Objectivism qualifies as a subject. By the way, Rand does discuss epistemology and metaphysics in some detail in her paper 'Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology' if you were interested in reading more about these low-level details of Oism.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  Well you are asking philosophy to do something that it can't. Guiding you through life is the job of self-help books and religion and objectivism. I don't want philosophy to help guide me through life. I use philosophy to constantly question assumptions in order to push my understanding of the world around me, not dictate what is right or wrong which is how Rand uses it. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. Well by all means please show me something that is certain. Existence exist just isn't going to do it as existence itself is an open question. What is existence, how can you with certainty say something is the way you experience it. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But if it goes like in most cases when I ask objectivist to prove their claim there will be silence. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. So the ability to reason makes you rational? Surely you can see what is wrong with that statement. A religious person is able to reason, a communist is able to reason. That isn't what Rand was doing. She was reasoning a specific way based on specific premises. The rationale that followed her premises are what makes for objectivism. It is a specific moral claiming how man ought to be. Of course as most first year student's of philosophy will quickly learn is that there aren't any certain premises. Existence isn't a certain premise as you need to describe what existence is. That is the whole point of philosophy. It's not to give you ten commandments to follow.