View Single Post
Old January 4, 2013, 10:27 AM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by Dr BB
I see much better now what you intended to say. I was imagining a more modern definition of the term "materialism".
That is the definition of metaphysical materialism. My use was not archaic.

Originally Posted by Dr BB
Reality exists separately of perception. The moon would still exist in its entirety without any difference to the way it is today (minus a flag or two haha) if there were no life on Earth to perceive it. Since this is axiomatic in a discussion, ...
Both you and Rand may assume materialism as an axiom, but this does not make the metaphysical basis of her philosophy and Marxism axiomatic.

If anything, materialism is an antique philosophy that tends to disprove itself.

Originally Posted by Dr BB
To put it simply, If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Objectively yes. However, the irony is we could not discover that objectivity without subjective perception.
I believe you will recognize that your question and answer represent your subjective belief, not an independently existing object. Your observation about irony does not represent an irony but an epistemological limit. You may entertain a belief about an objectively existing sound, but you only entertain that sensation and belief as a function of your mind.

Newton was not the metaphysical materialist. A push for accuracy and consistency in observation may rest on a methodological materialism, but is not a metaphysical assertion. Rand's assertion is metaphysical.

Binswanger's materialism is superfluous to his reasoning and conclusion; one need not be a materialist to note that a statistical argument against an individual right is misplaced.

Randians appear to employ the word "objective" to mean "accurate". Of course that isn't actually what the word means, and the observation that a contrary argument contains an in accuracy would be more coherent if it were decoupled from his superfluous metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Dr BB
The author doesn't like the tone and wants imperfect characters. The point of her novel is to illustrate what is moral, immoral, and amoral. She doesn't believe in gray-scales.
Clearly he didn't understand what she was saying in that speech otherwise he'd be able to deduce the reasoning for the tone and the character development.
It isn't that Whittaker Chambers opposes her characters for being perfect, but that they lack the traits that would permit them to resemble people. This is a fault she shares with the Marx and which may arise out of their metaphysical common ground. Chambers may have enjoyed some advantage in identifying this given his history. I would not be quick to suppose that Rand's critics misunderstand her. On the contrary, they understand her well enough to disagree with her in very specific ways.

Originally Posted by Dr BB
I am still at a loss on how to define and conceive this "materialism" you and the author dislike so much. The concept alludes me.
Metaphysical materialism is the concept that material objects and phenomena enjoy existence independent of perception and comprise the entirety of reality.

Last edited by zukiphile; January 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.03425 seconds with 7 queries