EPTSeriously though, the whole thing is ridiculous, but it is a really interesting lens through which to view the world. Even though I don't necessarily agree with them, it's a hella interesting read.
In dire need of philosophy - Page 2
| Blogs > nimysa |
|
-fj.
Samoa462 Posts
Seriously though, the whole thing is ridiculous, but it is a really interesting lens through which to view the world. Even though I don't necessarily agree with them, it's a hella interesting read. | ||
|
Plutonium
United States2217 Posts
I'm not a philosopher, but I do have some experience in the political sciences. I strongly recommend a grounding in logical western philosophy and the foundational thoughts of Liberal Democratic society. After all, it is the one you live in. No use reading up on eastern thought when you don't yet know the foundations of American Philosophy. I'd recommend by starting out reading things like Politica by Aristotle and On Liberty by J.S. Mill. Try reading some of the works of Thomas Jefferson - The Virginia Declaration of Rights is short, and so is Federalist 10 by James Madison. Locke isn't really very helpful to the lay reader. While he makes good arguments, the language he uses is highly esoteric to the point of seeming a bit ridiculous to modern readers. | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
| ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On October 27 2009 10:47 L wrote: You can't perform proper logical analysis without first determining what hidden assumptions you have. No research ever made by humans will be made without hidden assumption. It's built into us | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On October 27 2009 15:20 Plutonium wrote: Don't bother reading anything by Rand. Her 'philosophy' is based on giving insecure pseudointellectuals justifications for thinking that they're intrinsically better than other people, and thus devoid of any sort of social responsibility to anyone but themselves. I'm not a philosopher, but I do have some experience in the political sciences. I strongly recommend a grounding in logical western philosophy and the foundational thoughts of Liberal Democratic society. After all, it is the one you live in. No use reading up on eastern thought when you don't yet know the foundations of American Philosophy. I'd recommend by starting out reading things like Politica by Aristotle and On Liberty by J.S. Mill. Try reading some of the works of Thomas Jefferson - The Virginia Declaration of Rights is short, and so is Federalist 10 by James Madison. Locke isn't really very helpful to the lay reader. While he makes good arguments, the language he uses is highly esoteric to the point of seeming a bit ridiculous to modern readers. I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the validity of Rand's philosophy. I only wish to register my objection to the above way of characterizing Rand's views. This poster does not give any reasons. And, as evidence that Rand's philosophy is not pseudointellectual, below is a link to a paper by an Objectivist Philosopher, Allan Gotthelf. For whatever it is worth, Gotthelf is currently teaching in the philosophy department at the University of Pittsburgh. That department is currently rated #4 in the united states according to The Philosophical Gourmet But this is just an appeal to authority. Don't trust authority? Explain how this paper is light-weight intellectual rubbish then: A "psuedointellectual" paper by an Objectivist philosopher | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
I mean, seriously. | ||
|
Plutonium
United States2217 Posts
On October 28 2009 01:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the validity of Rand's philosophy. I only wish to register my objection to the above way of characterizing Rand's views. This poster does not give any reasons. And, as evidence that Rand's philosophy is not pseudointellectual, below is a link to a paper by an Objectivist Philosopher, Allan Gotthelf. For whatever it is worth, Gotthelf is currently teaching in the philosophy department at the University of Pittsburgh. That department is currently rated #4 in the united states according to The Philosophical Gourmet But this is just an appeal to authority. Don't trust authority? Explain how this paper is light-weight intellectual rubbish then: A "psuedointellectual" paper by an Objectivist philosopher There are professors of microbiology at prestigious institutions who believe in Creationism. Here's one of them. He's one of the crackpots behind the intelligent design movement, but he's also an intellectual. It's just a word that means someone whose job it is to think. Ayn Rand is a crackpot as well, and so is this chump you cited. That doesn't mean that they're not intellectuals, they're just crazy intellectuals. It doesn't change that the vast majority of people in the mainstream who embrace Rand's ideas are insecure antisocial people who couch themselves in pseudointellectualism as a way of affirming to themselves that they're better than other people. That's why every time anything vaguely related to philosophy comes up on the internet, some Objectivist jackass like you shows up to defend their bullshit. The internet is pretty much the natural habitat of the insecure pseudointellectual. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
On October 28 2009 00:49 ManBearPig wrote: Oh if you really want some hardass 'logical' shit that still has a lot of originality and interesting metaphysics, read Spinoza's Ethica. In this book, he tries to make his arguments as rigorous and valid as mathematical proofs. this book is so hardcore. i had to read every passage like 10 times until i was able to follow it but in the end his very analytic and logical style presents a crystal clear idea. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 28 2009 05:56 Plutonium wrote: There are professors of microbiology at prestigious institutions who believe in Creationism. Here's one of them. He's one of the crackpots behind the intelligent design movement, but he's also an intellectual. It's just a word that means someone whose job it is to think. Ayn Rand is a crackpot as well, and so is this chump you cited. That doesn't mean that they're not intellectuals, they're just crazy intellectuals. It doesn't change that the vast majority of people in the mainstream who embrace Rand's ideas are insecure antisocial people who couch themselves in pseudointellectualism as a way of affirming to themselves that they're better than other people. That's why every time anything vaguely related to philosophy comes up on the internet, some Objectivist jackass like you shows up to defend their bullshit. The internet is pretty much the natural habitat of the insecure pseudointellectual. It's hard to tell people that they're idiots when they're in love with a moron whose philosophy was largely rooted in straw men. | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
Oh, and you can probably skip Ayn Rand. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
| ||
|
Mickey
United States2606 Posts
On October 28 2009 08:12 resonance wrote: I looked to philosophy for answers about a year ago. After taking a year long 100 course I realized that they don't give any answers @ all, they just give opinions. Because, there is no solid clear distinct answer. Never will be. On the subject of Rand. I've never read any of her work, but playing Bioshock almost made me read her book Atlas Shrugged. I will probably read it eventually, but just by looking at her wiki page I can tell why most scholars ignore her. | ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
Ignoring Rand's philosophy of morals, I find her idea of a just society to be, well, nuts. Brian Barry (Columbia Professor) explains that theories of Justice basically respond to 2 requirements: Chance and Choice. Chance is the fact that random bad luck shouldn't screw you over. Example: Say Roark is hit by a car in architecture school, and is critically injured. In rand's society, this bad luck basically screws him. Why should anyone be altruistic and help him? It's a much better use of their time to further their own interests. Obviously this is an extreme example, but any theory of justice I am willing to take seriously will have to have some mechanism for mitigating the effects of bad luck. Nozick (who thought Rand was a joke btw) has a similar vision of a just society, but he argues that a just society is any society produced by just processes, thereby skirting the chance/choice dilemma. Rand feels that her society is a just society independent of the processes used to produce it. Frankly, I have no idea why she thinks that beyond some romantic ideal. (If someone has a decent explanation as to why Rand's society is just, that would be nice). It doesn't change that the vast majority of people in the mainstream who embrace Rand's ideas are insecure antisocial people who couch themselves in pseudointellectualism as a way of affirming to themselves that they're better than other people. Every objectivist I've met falls into this category. Small sample size, but I sense correlation...And yeah, reading The Fountainhead was like watching Rand beat the shit out of a bunch of straw men lol. It's easy to make a philosophy assuming that NOT ONE PERSON IN THE DAMN BOOK acts like a person. Great. If you want a philosopher somewhat similar to Rand (kinda...) I recommend The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset. It's short and pretty readable. If you're looking for more "meaning of life" type stuff... sorry, I'm pretty much just into political philosophy :p | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On October 28 2009 05:56 Plutonium wrote: There are professors of microbiology at prestigious institutions who believe in Creationism. Here's one of them. He's one of the crackpots behind the intelligent design movement, but he's also an intellectual. It's just a word that means someone whose job it is to think. Ayn Rand is a crackpot as well, and so is this chump you cited. That doesn't mean that they're not intellectuals, they're just crazy intellectuals. It doesn't change that the vast majority of people in the mainstream who embrace Rand's ideas are insecure antisocial people who couch themselves in pseudointellectualism as a way of affirming to themselves that they're better than other people. That's why every time anything vaguely related to philosophy comes up on the internet, some Objectivist jackass like you shows up to defend their bullshit. The internet is pretty much the natural habitat of the insecure pseudointellectual. Your post should be commended for (1) the amiable, open and considerate way you conduct forum discussion and (2) the way you carefully explain the problems with Rand's philosophy. Cheers~ | ||
|
druj
137 Posts
1.) A= A, existence is existence. This is a rationalistic loop, you start with existence and you claim it exists. A meaningless statement, a better question to be asked is there experience apart from my existence in the first place? Existence can also be denied but what can't be denied is experience (as so even a rationalist like Descartes put it). but if you dare say experience is the experience of something, your already falling for a common trap in Objectivist "metaphysics". The very first thing we have, as it is our senses, whether it come from within or external is precisely the question of metaphysics. The tautology of it is absurd. If existence exists and everything acts according to it, there is NO free will. Objectivist escape this by claiming some made up word called "Aristolean causation" that ideas "act" in accordance with its nature. It ends similarly with deterministic causation with the exception that man has free will and be able to act non-deterministically. she offers no proof to this claim, only insists it. Objectivism denies anything supernatural like "mind over matter" so how is it possible? Its only true one way or the other. 2.) Rand claims she is not a moralist and misinterprets Darwinism. She believes animals only exist to survive, but I will argue it is reproduction that is the biological goal of life. All life dies, only species that make it go on, and the notion that life being the ultimate value of all living things is contradictory. But she admits that choosing life as your greatest value, requires a conscious choice. One way to go about it, presuppose we are in an amoral state before we pick life as our ultimate value. Then we consciously pick life as our ultimate value, it doesn't make sense, you have to exist, its not necessary. 3.) It is psychologically demeaning and absurdly absolutist. She reinforces on the notion that worth has to be earned, giving people standards, and all-or-nothing thinking, will make you a perfectionist, uptight bitch who will never ever match the wits of Kant. I would add more to be more direct and clear, but I feel my efforts will be wasted and I will be preaching the choir. P.S that professor you mentioned is not on the philosophy department list to the University of Pittsburgh, he's one at the college of New Jersey, and only a "visiting professor" to the UoP. Oh and to OP: Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Absolutely delightful and accessible to a noob at philosophy like me. The reason why an intellectual is able to get away with Objectvism nowadays is by using language to escape these loops, give her the charity she didn't mean, and making definitions ever so flexible. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17727 Posts
For that, I recommend reading "History of Philosophy" by William Turner (it's a bit old but it's nicely written and easily introduces you into all of the major philosophical trends and authors throughout the ages). After you go through this (it's 2 volumes, about 300 pages each), you will have the basic knowledge about philosophy and philosophers and you'll be able to choose for yourself those that might interest you and read their works. You will for example know that when it comes to Immanuel Kant, reading his "Critique of Practical Reason" might be a good choice while "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God" is not (because his argument is wrong and it might be hard to figure out by yourself - basically, his theory is good, but for it to work there must be one condition satisfied: the existence of God.). That's the way to go. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
If you haven't seen it, you may enjoy this quick review from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14698215 | ||
| ||
