 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Narz
|
 |
Seeker of Wisdom
Jul 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Agathon
Rand is a joke; a sort of illiterate and illegtimate dumbed down version of Nietzsche (who would have hated her).
They say that complete selfishness is rational and altruistic behaviour is irrational. How are we supposed to understand this assertion?
If it pertains to the rationality of means rather than ends then it is clearly false since we may need to use altruistic means to achieve selfish ends.
If it pertains to ends, then it isn't clear what it means. Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is an irrational end (because it is contradictory) but being altruistic doesn't suffer from this contradiction [the pseudo argument about me always acting in my own interests notwithstanding, for the fact that I act according to the interests I have does not logically entail that these interests are selfish - I can have unselfish interests].
I don't think intelligent Randians make the foregoing logical errors, but they base their doctrine on unsubstantiated claims about human nature.
What the Randians say is that selfishness is acting in accord with our true nature, which is intrinsically selfish. If you ask for some proof of this claim (metaphysical or scientific) none is forthcoming, Thus if we disagree, we have no reason to believe them.
|
Maybe its just that I'm on 3 hours sleep (car alarm blaring all night, couldn't sleep, had to wake up early) but I'm not really understanding your point here.
I can admit to not having read extensively on philosophy, I'd be interested to read some of the liberatarian authors some of you recommended.
Also, I am aware that her personal life was a bit messy (I'm actually not "aware" of it but I have heard such things) but I don't think there's anyone in history who's ever lived up to his or her highest ideals, still doesn't hurt to have them though, don't you think?
So, not to veer too much off topic but how about using your posts to state which aspects of the Objectivist philosophy you like or dislike and what other philosophies/authors you would recommend (that are widespread enough for me to get for free at the library  ).
Thanks!
- Narz 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
--"Philosophers because it just ignores the last 100 years worth of arguments in ethics"
If age were the primary requirement of an argument, we'd be living on a flat earth.
--"You prove to me why I ought to believe in Objectivism."
Why should I? I don't myself. That's why I rather specifically didn't call myself an Objectivist earlier. I just agree with most of it.
As for convincing you, it's not worth my time. The material's there, if you care. Either way it means nothing to me.
--" Does anyone but me think that this is a silly way to compare philosophers?"
No sillier than pointing out one similarity and saying "see, they're the same". It was just meant as an example, you can make of it what you will.
--"Would Ann Rand advocate making this decision or no?"
She addressed this sort of question specifically, actually. Yes, it is perfectly proper to sacrifice yourself to save someone you love. I won't go into her entire argument, but yes she certainly acknowledges such things.
As I said before, her definition of selfishness is not the one in common use.
--"Anyway, Noam Chomsky came up with a wonderful one line refutation of Libertarianism."
Sorry, but Chomsky is incorrect there. Libertarians are opposed to initiation of force or threat of force. His example is a no-no to a Libertarian.
And is exactly the sort of blanket-condemnation-out-of-ignorance I was commenting on before.
Edit:
I should add that the whole Libertarian thing is a complete tangent to the main point of the thread. Rand refused to have anything to do with the Libertarian Party.
Wraith
"Some would sooner die than think. In fact, they often do."
-- Bertrand Russell
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Yes Narz, philosophy does concern itself with how we live our lives and not just the afterlife. at the same time, the key to our relations with other human beings is based on a set of pre-programmed responses that we have as animals, and then on top of that, a set of value and norms we, as sentient beings, have constructed. Now, we seek ways to try to discover the "best" of these sets of values and ethics, and we also argue about how we would come up with such ans answer. To me, Ayn Rand and her "philosophy" simply does not do a worthwhile job with this. I find many of her assumptions baseless. She ignores the fact that we are social beings, that we live within a web of relations and are not just atoms floating in an eather. I do not think that a working society could be built based on her and her deciple's notions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
If threats count as coercion then why restrict them to threats of force, why not threats of removing certain privileges? |
Because force itself is coercion, but "removing privileges" is not (assuming those privileges are gifts rather than something to which you're entitled).
quote:
Here's another case: in a Libertarian system a boss can threaten to fire his secretary unless she has sex with him. After all he doesn't owe her a job and she's free to seek employment elsewhere. |
This would be coercion if there was any sort of employment contract (express or implied) in place. Let's try a clearer example. Suppose I've been getting my hair cut regularly by a particular female barber. One day, I tell her that I'm going to start going to the shop across the street unless she sleeps with me. Coercion? No, because the barber does not have a right to my business unless I choose to give it to her. If taking my business elsewhere is not a violation of her rights, threatening to do so can't be either.
By contrast, I do have a right to my life, so it is coercive for the guy with the gun to shoot me. That being so, it's coercive for him to threaten to do it. The fact that he gives me another choice (hand over my money) is irrelevant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
--"why not threats of removing certain privileges?"
I think you should look up the root of the word "privilege".
--" in a Libertarian system a boss can threaten to fire his secretary unless she has sex with him."
Depends on the contract they signed. No one has a right to work a specific job, but if some ******* says something like that to a secretary she also has the right to go tell everyone she knows about it. Get in the media and make his business suffer.
--"Oh dear - I know a great deal about Libertarianism"
No, apparently not. I perfectly understand where Chomsky is going with his little example, which is why I'm so irritated with it. People blatantly misrepresenting those who don't agree with them is one of the lowest forms "debate".
--" She ignores the fact that we are social beings, "
She really doesn't. She just seens those relationships differently than you do.
I'll expand upon that whole "someone you love" bit that got brought up above. The basic argument is that if you love someone you value them greatly (yes, Rand is all for selfishness, but she doesn't restrict value to mean money). Therefore it is in your rational self interest for them to be happy and safe.
--"Who makes sure the market is regulated?"
Rand was not an anarchist, she was a minarchist. She felt that government was there to protect people's rights. She wanted a government that was little more than the police and courts.
--"How do you know that what you just got was actually beneficial to you, or what you gave beneficial to them?"
It's called judgement. She understood economics. Value is a subjective thing. A ton of scrap iron may be worthless to me, but someone out there can make damn good use of it. This is just basic capitalism.
--"We're dealing with moral and philisophical arguments, however - not scientific ones!!! Big difference!"
Interesting. The age benefit only applies to philosophical arguments, then? Are they like cheeses or wines?
--"Anyway, Libertarianism doesn't prohibit lying to someone else."
Fraud is considered a form of force.
Please stop making statements about what Libertarianism does or does not do. Your track record there is very poor.
And please stop ignoring my point above about force or threat of force.
Damn it, this is exactly why I stopped getting into these sorts of arguments.
Edit:
--"And you aren't being coerced because you are given a choice."
The Ogre's choice: Die fast or die slow.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If I offer you a choice of me breaking your arm or breaking your leg, it's still coercion. Please, please stop with the strawman arguments. This will never go anywhere if you keep it up.
Wraith
"It's my own fault for getting lured into conversation."
-- Daria ("The Lost Girls")
Last edited by Wraith on 08-03-2003 at 08:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
the Libertarian version of coercion is that I don't get a free choice - the voluntary is the mark of the moral and the involuntary the mark of the immoral. |
No, the Libertarian version of coercion is that you are threatened with the violation of your rights. What Libertarians do not consider coercion is when you are threatened with something which, while undesirable, does not violate your rights (such as the loss of a customer in my example above).
If you want to say that the threat of force isn't coercion even though force itself is, go ahead. Onlookers can judge for themselves if that makes any sense without us continuing to play 'tis so-'tis not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:26
|
|
SHE'S A HOE!!!
Last edited by Ted Striker on 08-03-2003 at 12:31
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2003 03:31
|