marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9445
Location: Western Michigan
|
 Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pat_can wrote: | | Quote: | | Then again, economics have little room for empathy and emotions, yes, it would be nice if everyone in the world could live comfortable lives, but its not possible to do so until humanity reaches a point of production, where we can generate what we need without labor and concern for resources. |
We can have better knowledge when we see the economic reality without emotion. The role of economics actors it's to create wealth, not to sacrifice themself for the sake of other. No one (including the governement) have the right to steal people. Easy money creation (inflation by money printing) it's fraud and steal.
Capitalism it's the only way to produce more and self-interest it's the motor of capitalism. Socialism do nothing but equalizing poverty. |
As long as the majority of people do have emotion and don't appreciate being screwed over by your mythical Ayn Rand "self interested actors", your ideology fails even harder than the worst kind of collectivist utopia. It will only lead to a whole lot of anger and social unrest. In order for it to work you'd have to construct your own world of docile emotionless robots who don't mind being lorded over and screwed over at every opportunity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pat_can
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Apr 14, 2012
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There's also the fact that pure non-cooperative competition does not generally lead to the optimal outcome for any given individual. |
In is novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand show that you are right. Some individuals act in cooperative way for their own self interest (Taggart and Rearden) Nash equilibrum don't contradicted objectivism self interest.
Cartel it's a good illustration of Nash equilibrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pat_can wrote: | | Quote: | | There's also the fact that pure non-cooperative competition does not generally lead to the optimal outcome for any given individual. |
In is novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand show that you are right. Some individuals act in cooperative way for their own self interest (Taggart and Rearden) Nash equilibrum don't contradicted objectivism self interest.
Cartel it's a good illustration of Nash equilibrum. |
Keep in mind that Ayn Rand was a dingbat and as good an author as she was a philosopher. Seriously, who puts 70 pages of dry, boring monologue in a work of fiction? Nietzsche and certain other German philosophers are long-winded, dry, writers, but Rand puts them all to shame in terms of non-literary literature.
That is of course, excluding that Rand's "objective reason" isn't so much practical to use since its a philosophical construct, rather than a tool. Reason is a tool, which can never be objective since all information used to gain information are non-objective. I'm not going to get into a discussion about Rand or Objectivism, as its a waste of my time and typing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWC
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | pat_can wrote: | | Quote: | | There's also the fact that pure non-cooperative competition does not generally lead to the optimal outcome for any given individual. |
In is novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand show that you are right. Some individuals act in cooperative way for their own self interest (Taggart and Rearden) Nash equilibrum don't contradicted objectivism self interest.
Cartel it's a good illustration of Nash equilibrum. |
Keep in mind that Ayn Rand was a dingbat and as good an author as she was a philosopher. Seriously, who puts 70 pages of dry, boring monologue in a work of fiction? Nietzsche and certain other German philosophers are long-winded, dry, writers, but Rand puts them all to shame in terms of non-literary literature.
That is of course, excluding that Rand's "objective reason" isn't so much practical to use since its a philosophical construct, rather than a tool. Reason is a tool, which can never be objective since all information used to gain information are non-objective. I'm not going to get into a discussion about Rand or Objectivism, as its a waste of my time and typing. |
Translation:
Ayn Rand is dumb because I don't like her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29705
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: |
Keep in mind that Ayn Rand was a dingbat and as good an author as she was a philosopher. Seriously, who puts 70 pages of dry, boring monologue in a work of fiction? Nietzsche and certain other German philosophers are long-winded, dry, writers, but Rand puts them all to shame in terms of non-literary literature.
That is of course, excluding that Rand's "objective reason" isn't so much practical to use since its a philosophical construct, rather than a tool. Reason is a tool, which can never be objective since all information used to gain information are non-objective. I'm not going to get into a discussion about Rand or Objectivism, as its a waste of my time and typing. |
Do you believe everything you perceive is an illusion?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWC wrote: | | TM wrote: | | pat_can wrote: | | Quote: | | There's also the fact that pure non-cooperative competition does not generally lead to the optimal outcome for any given individual. |
In is novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand show that you are right. Some individuals act in cooperative way for their own self interest (Taggart and Rearden) Nash equilibrum don't contradicted objectivism self interest.
Cartel it's a good illustration of Nash equilibrum. |
Keep in mind that Ayn Rand was a dingbat and as good an author as she was a philosopher. Seriously, who puts 70 pages of dry, boring monologue in a work of fiction? Nietzsche and certain other German philosophers are long-winded, dry, writers, but Rand puts them all to shame in terms of non-literary literature.
That is of course, excluding that Rand's "objective reason" isn't so much practical to use since its a philosophical construct, rather than a tool. Reason is a tool, which can never be objective since all information used to gain information are non-objective. I'm not going to get into a discussion about Rand or Objectivism, as its a waste of my time and typing. |
Translation:
Ayn Rand is dumb because I don't like her. |
Translation:
Her abilities as an author are sub-par given that she would include a 70 page monologue in a work of literary fiction, something which is somewhat of a "no-no" in the creative writing sphere. As I noted in a purely philosophical text, one would expect to find attempts at debating one's own position, including criticisms of it.
From a pure philosophy standpoint, she makes a grave mistake when she views reason as objective, when used to judge reality because in this case reason is depended on subjective perception. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that certain things aren't established facts such as 2+2 = 4, a nuke was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and that 8, 9 millimeter bullets to the head is a permanent solution to a bad headache. Rand's very philosophy is based on this idea, since reason is held as the supreme judge, however if there is no such thing as a subjective perception of an event, or events, Ruveyn and Sweetleaf would have the same view of the "Occupy Wall Street" and "Tea Party" movement.
There are also examples such as the questionable definition of "force"
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html
There is also the really f***ing funny bit where "force" is evil, but just when the force is according to her taste.
| ruveyn wrote: |
Do you believe everything you perceive is an illusion?
|
Not an illusion, just that people are influenced by their various biases, their socialization, education and so on. If I read a Richard Dawkins book and the Bible, I think one is a fantastic piece of factual literature and the other contains a bunch of questionable stories, values and supposed "facts", I'm willing to bet that most of the population of Mississippi disagrees with me on that.
For instance, lets say a man is having sex with a woman, he thinks she's into him, in reality she's thinking of George Clooney in a million dollar mansion |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWC
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: |
Translation:
Her abilities as an author are sub-par given that she would include a 70 page monologue in a work of literary fiction, something which is somewhat of a "no-no" in the creative writing sphere. As I noted in a purely philosophical text, one would expect to find attempts at debating one's own position, including criticisms of it.
From a pure philosophy standpoint, she makes a grave mistake when she views reason as objective, when used to judge reality because in this case reason is depended on subjective perception. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that certain things aren't established facts such as 2+2 = 4, a nuke was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and that 8, 9 millimeter bullets to the head is a permanent solution to a bad headache. Rand's very philosophy is based on this idea, since reason is held as the supreme judge, however if there is no such thing as a subjective perception of an event, or events, Ruveyn and Sweetleaf would have the same view of the "Occupy Wall Street" and "Tea Party" movement.
There are also examples such as the questionable definition of "force"
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html
There is also the really f***ing funny bit where "force" is evil, but just when the force is according to her taste. |
I always thought it was the application of reason that is subjective and not reason itself, hence the differing opinions.
| Quote: | | Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others. |
If this is what you are talking about, sounds pretty clear-cut to me. It is wrong to initiate force against another man, however it is acceptable to defend against the use of force through the use of force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWC wrote: | | TM wrote: |
Translation:
Her abilities as an author are sub-par given that she would include a 70 page monologue in a work of literary fiction, something which is somewhat of a "no-no" in the creative writing sphere. As I noted in a purely philosophical text, one would expect to find attempts at debating one's own position, including criticisms of it.
From a pure philosophy standpoint, she makes a grave mistake when she views reason as objective, when used to judge reality because in this case reason is depended on subjective perception. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that certain things aren't established facts such as 2+2 = 4, a nuke was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and that 8, 9 millimeter bullets to the head is a permanent solution to a bad headache. Rand's very philosophy is based on this idea, since reason is held as the supreme judge, however if there is no such thing as a subjective perception of an event, or events, Ruveyn and Sweetleaf would have the same view of the "Occupy Wall Street" and "Tea Party" movement.
There are also examples such as the questionable definition of "force"
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html
There is also the really f***ing funny bit where "force" is evil, but just when the force is according to her taste. |
I always thought it was the application of reason that is subjective and not reason itself, hence the differing opinions.
|
Reason as objective cannot exist. Reason is defined by dictionary.com as "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences." all 3 are based on data input. It's contradictory. I cannot form a conclusion, judgment or inference from that which is not known to me, therefore information is required for reason. If information is required, that means sources for that information must exist in some form and that those sources were examined by a non-objective human being. Since no humans can be objective, if follows that no reason can gain objective information on every topic.
| JWC wrote: |
| Quote: | | Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others. |
If this is what you are talking about, sounds pretty clear-cut to me. It is wrong to initiate force against another man, however it is acceptable to defend against the use of force through the use of force. |
Yes, hence questionable. For instance, I could lie to you, show you forged documents, get you to sign over your life savings to me for management and then I use that money to fund my lavish lifestyle. It's perfectly permitted as per Rand, however Bernie Madoff isn't getting away with it. Someone could sell heroin to your kid, after all you cannot ban drugs because doing so is encroaching on those who find that being a part of the narcotics supply chain is in their rational self-interest. Furthermore, the participants are only engaging in cooperative and voluntary trades, if your kid dies of an overdose and you shoot the bastard who sold the drugs, then you go to jail for murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWC
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Reason as objective cannot exist. Reason is defined by dictionary.com as "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences." all 3 are based on data input. It's contradictory. I cannot form a conclusion, judgment or inference from that which is not known to me, therefore information is required for reason. If information is required, that means sources for that information must exist in some form and that those sources were examined by a non-objective human being. Since no humans can be objective, if follows that no reason can gain objective information on every topic. |
| Quote: | The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, “follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity). Since each of these elements is based on the facts of reality, the conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.
The alternative to reason is some form of mysticism or skepticism. |
| TM wrote: | | Yes, hence questionable. For instance, I could lie to you, show you forged documents, get you to sign over your life savings to me for management and then I use that money to fund my lavish lifestyle. It's perfectly permitted as per Rand, however Bernie Madoff isn't getting away with it. Someone could sell heroin to your kid, after all you cannot ban drugs because doing so is encroaching on those who find that being a part of the narcotics supply chain is in their rational self-interest. Furthermore, the participants are only engaging in cooperative and voluntary trades, if your kid dies of an overdose and you shoot the bastard who sold the drugs, then you go to jail for murder. |
This would be fraud, which is a type of force, and is NOT permitted anywhere within Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
In Rand's own words:
| Quote: | | A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. |
Maybe your understanding is incorrect, since it directly contradicts Rand's statements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JWC wrote: | | TM wrote: | | Reason as objective cannot exist. Reason is defined by dictionary.com as "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences." all 3 are based on data input. It's contradictory. I cannot form a conclusion, judgment or inference from that which is not known to me, therefore information is required for reason. If information is required, that means sources for that information must exist in some form and that those sources were examined by a non-objective human being. Since no humans can be objective, if follows that no reason can gain objective information on every topic. |
| Quote: | The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, “follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity). Since each of these elements is based on the facts of reality, the conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.
The alternative to reason is some form of mysticism or skepticism. |
| TM wrote: | | Yes, hence questionable. For instance, I could lie to you, show you forged documents, get you to sign over your life savings to me for management and then I use that money to fund my lavish lifestyle. It's perfectly permitted as per Rand, however Bernie Madoff isn't getting away with it. Someone could sell heroin to your kid, after all you cannot ban drugs because doing so is encroaching on those who find that being a part of the narcotics supply chain is in their rational self-interest. Furthermore, the participants are only engaging in cooperative and voluntary trades, if your kid dies of an overdose and you shoot the bastard who sold the drugs, then you go to jail for murder. |
This would be fraud, which is a type of force, and is NOT permitted anywhere within Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
In Rand's own words:
| Quote: | | A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. |
Maybe your understanding is incorrect, since it directly contradicts Rand's statements. |
Ok, so the Madoff thing is out, but the heroin is still in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWC
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Ok, so the Madoff thing is out, but the heroin is still in. |
It's the parent's job to educate and/or supervise the child in order to protect them from this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9445
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The problem I have with Ayn Rand's philosophy is how she pretends one can "derive" moral behavior through reason. It's a kind of sophistry common to a lot of the early Enlightenment thinkers. David Hume was one who was sharply critical of the notion of deriving an "ought" from an "is" which is the central problem with any philosophy that tries to argue moral principles in terms of a limited number of "moral axioms". |
|
| Back to top |
|
Burzum
Indeed
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We were talking about Greece, how the hell did this turn into a philosophy debate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
JWC
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Burzum wrote: | | We were talking about Greece, how the hell did this turn into a philosophy debate? |
Well, this is PPR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Burzum wrote: | | We were talking about Greece, how the hell did this turn into a philosophy debate? |
Because yet another objectivist decided to use Ayn Rand as a source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
