(June 5, 2012 at 7:17 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 1:09 am)Tempus Wrote:

---

What an interesting philosophy you have.

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance." - Ayn Rand

---

Holly shit now I have lost what little respect I had for Ayn Rand. She was simply the oposite of Marx and Just as utopian in thought. She was a social Darwinist who would love how the top 1 percent is fucking the rest of us over.

There is no such thing as "metaphyisics", that is just si fi woo. Even more reason to hate her.

The point, which was highlighted in bold, is that you're doing philosophy whether or not you're aware of it. As with an assumption, a philosophy is better carefully examined and chosen (or constructed / synthesised) rather than unknowingly accepted. It seems you've chosen to attack Ayn Rand's positions on other, irrelevant matters rather than actually address the statement which was quoted. In fact, if you remove the name the quote is attributed from my post your reply amounts to 'there is no such thing as "metaphyisics", that is just si fi woo'. Yes, metaphysics was just made up by science fiction authors. Well I'm glad we've settled that and equally glad that your avatar had the thoughtfulness to save me the effort of face-palming.

"If we take into our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Consign it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

— David Hume


Ayn Rand was a turnip.

(June 5, 2012 at 1:07 pm)Tempus Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 7:17 am)Brian37 Wrote: Holly shit now I have lost what little respect I had for Ayn Rand. She was simply the oposite of Marx and Just as utopian in thought. She was a social Darwinist who would love how the top 1 percent is fucking the rest of us over.

There is no such thing as "metaphyisics", that is just si fi woo. Even more reason to hate her.

The point, which was highlighted in bold, is that you're doing philosophy whether or not you're aware of it. As with an assumption, a philosophy is better carefully examined and chosen (or constructed / synthesised) rather than unknowingly accepted. It seems you've chosen to attack Ayn Rand's positions on other, irrelevant matters rather than actually address the statement which was quoted. In fact, if you remove the name the quote is attributed from my post your reply amounts to 'there is no such thing as "metaphyisics", that is just si fi woo'. Yes, metaphysics was just made up by science fiction authors. Well I'm glad we've settled that and equally glad that your avatar had the thoughtfulness to save me the effort of face-palming.

I am sorry, but she was NOT an economist nor a PHD scientist. She was a play writer and book writer and political pundit. The atheist version of Ann Coulter. All the economic credulity of laymen with the same woo. I can drive a car and know it is not run on pixy dust, I am certainly just as qualified as she claimed to be.

All she did is successfully market an idea. BIG WOOPTY FUCK. She was an ornate writer and had a big vocabulary. SO WHAT. Lemmings are fooled by the ornate.

Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand are BOTH delusional.

(June 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I am sorry, but she was NOT an economist nor a PHD scientist. She was a play writer and book writer and political pundit. The atheist version of Ann Coulter. All the economic credulity of laymen with the same woo. I can drive a car and know it is not run on pixy dust, I am certainly just as qualified as she claimed to be.

All she did is successfully market an idea. BIG WOOPTY FUCK. She was an ornate writer and had a big vocabulary. SO WHAT. Lemmings are fooled by the ornate.

Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand are BOTH delusional.

Wtf? I wasn't appealing to Ayn Rand as an authority on anything*, it was a quote which - in addition to having nothing to do with economics, politics or Ann Coulter - concisely summarised what I wanted to say. If anything, you seem to be doing a vague appeal to authority by saying she wasn't an economist, or didn't have a Ph.D therefore she couldn't have possibly been correct about anything or have had anything of value to say (even on unrelated topics!). Whether or not you think that, I don't know, but I'm getting that impression. If you'd stop fixating on the author of the quote you might actually have some time to actually look at it.

*I actually disagree with some (possibly many if I knew more) of the things she's said / positions she held. All in all, I'm really not that familiar with her - I guess you could say I know enough to know that I don't want know any more. My personal dislike of her or disagreement with her on other matters does not affect the truth value of the particular statement quoted.

(June 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Tempus Wrote: Wtf? I wasn't appealing to Ayn Rand as an authority on anything*, it was a quote which - in addition to having nothing to do with economics, politics or Ann Coulter - concisely summarised what I wanted to say. If anything, you seem to be doing a vague appeal to authority by saying she wasn't an economist, or didn't have a Ph.D therefore she couldn't have possibly been correct about anything or have had anything of value to say (even on unrelated topics!). Whether or not you think that, I don't know, but I'm getting that impression. If you'd stop fixating on the author of the quote you might actually have some time to actually look at it.

*I actually disagree with some (possibly many if I knew more) of the things she's said / positions she held. All in all, I'm really not that familiar with her - I guess you could say I know enough to know that I don't want know any more. My personal dislike of her or disagreement with her on other matters does not affect the truth value of the particular statement quoted.

Indeed. While I am not a fan of her philosophy as a whole, I will admit that I have read a few of her novels and enjoyed them as literature.

Paraphrased succinctly, that particular quote can be loosely read as "Act consistently with your values, and reasoned values are better than those that aren't".

Whatever you may think of the messenger, the message stands on it's own merit.

(June 5, 2012 at 7:17 am)Brian37 Wrote: Holly shit now I have lost what little respect I had for Ayn Rand. She was simply the oposite of Marx and Just as utopian in thought. She was a social Darwinist who would love how the top 1 percent is fucking the rest of us over.

There is no such thing as "metaphyisics", that is just si fi woo. Even more reason to hate her.

Your hating her does not make her wrong. I see that you failed to provide any argument against what she said - apart from the abysmally ignorant statement that "there is no such thing as metaphysics".

(June 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Tempus Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I am sorry, but she was NOT an economist nor a PHD scientist. She was a play writer and book writer and political pundit. The atheist version of Ann Coulter. All the economic credulity of laymen with the same woo. I can drive a car and know it is not run on pixy dust, I am certainly just as qualified as she claimed to be.

All she did is successfully market an idea. BIG WOOPTY FUCK. She was an ornate writer and had a big vocabulary. SO WHAT. Lemmings are fooled by the ornate.

Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand are BOTH delusional.

Wtf? I wasn't appealing to Ayn Rand as an authority on anything*, it was a quote which - in addition to having nothing to do with economics, politics or Ann Coulter - concisely summarised what I wanted to say. If anything, you seem to be doing a vague appeal to authority by saying she wasn't an economist, or didn't have a Ph.D therefore she couldn't have possibly been correct about anything or have had anything of value to say (even on unrelated topics!). Whether or not you think that, I don't know, but I'm getting that impression. If you'd stop fixating on the author of the quote you might actually have some time to actually look at it.

*I actually disagree with some (possibly many if I knew more) of the things she's said / positions she held. All in all, I'm really not that familiar with her - I guess you could say I know enough to know that I don't want know any more. My personal dislike of her or disagreement with her on other matters does not affect the truth value of the particular statement quoted.

Look, if you read my post I admitted myself that I cant build a car but it doesn't take a car mechanic to drive one and know it is not run on pixy dust. You quoted her, all I was saying is that if you are going to quote her then I am just as qualified.

She had an idea, just like Marx had an idea. The mistake both of them made is that they both postulated a simple solution for a complex society and no society is as simple as one word or one label solutions. Not to mention conditions constantly change so what might work at a certain point may not be a good idea at another point. That was the other thing both of them missed.

Her simplistic idea of "selfishness" was utopian just like always sharing is utopian. People's motivations are a range, not an absolute.

(June 6, 2012 at 6:24 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Tempus Wrote:

---

Wtf? I wasn't appealing to Ayn Rand as an authority on anything*, it was a quote which - in addition to having nothing to do with economics, politics or Ann Coulter - concisely summarised what I wanted to say. If anything, you seem to be doing a vague appeal to authority by saying she wasn't an economist, or didn't have a Ph.D therefore she couldn't have possibly been correct about anything or have had anything of value to say (even on unrelated topics!). Whether or not you think that, I don't know, but I'm getting that impression. If you'd stop fixating on the author of the quote you might actually have some time to actually look at it.

*I actually disagree with some (possibly many if I knew more) of the things she's said / positions she held. All in all, I'm really not that familiar with her - I guess you could say I know enough to know that I don't want know any more. My personal dislike of her or disagreement with her on other matters does not affect the truth value of the particular statement quoted.

---

Look, if you read my post I admitted myself that I cant build a car but it doesn't take a car mechanic to drive one and know it is not run on pixy dust. You quoted her, all I was saying is that if you are going to quote her then I am just as qualified.

People's qualifications don't affect the validity of their points, on this we agree. Why even bring it up? Attempting to cut someone down by asserting they're not qualified, or that you're equally (or more) qualified than them doesn't bolster your argument.

(June 6, 2012 at 6:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: She had an idea, just like Marx had an idea. The mistake both of them made is that they both postulated a simple solution for a complex society and no society is as simple as one word or one label solutions. Not to mention conditions constantly change so what might work at a certain point may not be a good idea at another point. That was the other thing both of them missed.

Her simplistic idea of "selfishness" was utopian just like always sharing is utopian. People's motivations are a range, not an absolute.

As above: irrelevant. It seems you're presenting a form of ignoratio elenchi since this still isn't addressing the content of my initial quotation. You said we don't need philosophy. I responded - perhaps too obliquely - by countering that you do philosophy whether you realise it or not and that it is better you be cognisant of it rather than ignorant. Epistemology, logic, ethics, etc fall under philosophy. Would you say we don't need epistemology, logic, ethics?

ETA: Cthulhu paraphrased the quotation nicely also.

(June 6, 2012 at 11:13 am)Tempus Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 6:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: Look, if you read my post I admitted myself that I cant build a car but it doesn't take a car mechanic to drive one and know it is not run on pixy dust. You quoted her, all I was saying is that if you are going to quote her then I am just as qualified.

People's qualifications don't affect the validity of their points, on this we agree. Why even bring it up? Attempting to cut someone down by asserting they're not qualified, or that you're equally (or more) qualified than them doesn't bolster your argument.

(June 6, 2012 at 6:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: She had an idea, just like Marx had an idea. The mistake both of them made is that they both postulated a simple solution for a complex society and no society is as simple as one word or one label solutions. Not to mention conditions constantly change so what might work at a certain point may not be a good idea at another point. That was the other thing both of them missed.

Her simplistic idea of "selfishness" was utopian just like always sharing is utopian. People's motivations are a range, not an absolute.

As above: irrelevant. It seems you're presenting a form of ignoratio elenchi since this still isn't addressing the content of my initial quotation. You said we don't need philosophy. I responded - perhaps too obliquely - by countering that you do philosophy whether you realise it or not and that it is better you be cognisant of it rather than ignorant. Epistemology, logic, ethics, etc fall under philosophy. Would you say we don't need epistemology, logic, ethics?

ETA: Cthulhu paraphrased the quotation nicely also.

I hate the word "philosophy".

In evolutionary terms, what is really going on is that we seek patterns, "philosophy" is merely a place card word to say, "when we do this it seems to work so lets go with it".

The problem with the word is that it has the baggage of becoming sedentary and dogmatic.

A "philosophy" can be any claimed pattern a person thinks works. The problem is once they take on that "philosophy" they tend to project it on others.

We need to get rid of that word. It has too much baggage.

Brainstorming, having ideas, saying "this seems to work" are much better terms to work with because it is not attached to someone's personal idea of "this is the way things should go".

It frees us up to question and without question our species can get stuck in a rut, including a bad "philosophy".

Banning words is double plus not good.