|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 3, 2013, 09:01 AM | #26 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rand's tireless ridicule of the ideas and traditions that compose our social sphere are also consistent with this materialism. Quote:
Early Americans were products of the English Enlightenment, which was far more moderate and pragmatic. Its ideas and temperament distinguish it from what would sweep the continent over the next two centuries. Quote:
Quote:
That isn't a bad ability to have, but it explains how a syphilitic moral terrorist can write "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and have it printed on a million T-shirts. I don't begrudge anyone the inspiration they draw from her text. Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...you/flashback#
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 3, 2013 at 09:37 AM. |
||||||||||||
January 4, 2013, 12:08 AM | #27 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
While heavily redundant ad nauseum, I think you are missing her point. 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, we are left with perceiving reality through the faculties given to us, the senses. Any method that science or technology has given us to perceive this reality outside of our senses is only a result of our previous empiricism based on these original senses. 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. Which is where I think you meet your inherent disagreement with her. My only response is that for hundreds of years, Newton's law of force was widely accept as an objective model to judge reality. However this same model falls apart at subatomic levels. Ultimately imperfect, this pure approach and attempt at objectivity for the calculation of force lead to some of the greatest inventions and revelations ever, including the industrial revolution.. Objective models may be in theory impossible to fully comprehend and establish, yet it is the attempt and the refinement of that attempt that takes our civilization forward. Quote:
Quote:
For one, the 2nd Amendment was and still is an extremely radical concept. Our own damn government wont even recognize the last four words: "Shall not be Infringed". Quote:
Quote:
I also fail to see whats wrong with anyone being "so overridden" with her ideology that they demand individualism and an honest attempt at objectivity in their lives. Quote:
Ironically enough, Ayn Rand specifically addresses such package-dealing and denounces it. 2) Anyone will buy anything catchy, remember when "Soulja Boy" and "Crank That" were big? Now we have gangam style, sigh. 3) If any person were to package deal Randian ideology in a similar manner, the worse that would happen is that everyone thinks they can only rely on themselves to achieve, and would hate the use of coercion to achieve what they want. Don't see a problem there. 4) I vehemently dislike the word and modern conception of "Terrorist". Its childish and lacks meaning other than shock value. Quote:
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. 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.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor Last edited by Dr Big Bird PhD; January 4, 2013 at 12:14 AM. |
|||||||
January 4, 2013, 10:27 AM | #28 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
If anything, materialism is an antique philosophy that tends to disprove itself. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM. |
|||||
January 4, 2013, 10:52 AM | #29 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
An excellent and erudite discussion of Rand, philosophy, her work as literature vs its contents as concepts, etc.
Would it be thuggish of me to suggest a focus more on the OP's points of our right to life, and self defense, and the govt's decent into preventive laws?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 4, 2013, 11:07 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
As a political matter, I imagine there would be a strong consensus here should be free to behave as he pleases until he harms another, in which event he can be prosecuted. As a legal matter, the ship sailed long ago on the issue of whether the federal government has authority to legislate to prevent putative harm. As much as I respect the libertarian impulse, it is not a measure of constitutionality. So, the really persuasive point in the article is that the proposed restrictions are not actually preventative of any harm. The proposed restrictions very conspicuously do not bear on any harmful activity. Beyond Binswanger's conclusion, quite a few here might take exception to his ideas about government, but those would be more broadly political discussions than I understand are sought in this forum.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 4, 2013 at 11:43 AM. |
|
January 4, 2013, 11:20 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
When Whitaker Chambers' book review came out, it was widely viewed as an unfair hatchet-job. Chambers was a celebrity among conservatives because he had been an active member of the communist party, and a spy for the Soviets. He then renounced his prior beliefs and became a critic of communism and the Soviet Union. He was a very effective critic, and his clear logic and eloquent writing style carried a lot of weight with intellectuals and academics. He was one of the good-guys in the moral battle with communism, but his book review of Atlas Shrugs was (in my opinion) unfair and shallow.
As a literary artist, Ayn Rand is average. She is no James Joyce. She is no William Faulkner. But being an average writer with several best selling novels is nothing to be ashamed of. Atlas Shrugs is an allegory, which is a certain kind of novel. Criticizing the work because the characters are 2 dimensional, or in some cases 1 dimensional, is unfair, because allegories are SUPPOSED to be about the distinction between right and wrong, and drawing sharp contrasts between good and evil. Allegory is not a popular genre among modern authors, because they generally want to highlight all the shades-of-gray between good and evil. An allegory does not let them express their world view. But Atlas Shrugs follows a proud American tradition of powerful allegories.... Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, Melville’s Moby-Dick and Billy Budd... Allegories teach by way of example, they provide insights into essential questions of morality. Atlas Shrugs succeeds in this. I don’t have much of a problem with Rand as a novelist... I just wish she would not have turned her novel into a formal philosophy, as sort of a counter-argument against Immanuel Kant. I think her arrogance led her to conclude that her ideas and insights into right and wrong were so compelling, so revolutionary, and so very correct. She certainly had legitimate insights into good and evil, but instead of adding to the discussion, she insisted that there was no discussion, and anyone who disagreed with her was ... well, evil... in the end it was kind of sad. |
January 4, 2013, 07:18 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
I don't know if I'd call it "sad" per se, but I would agree entirely with the rest of your analysis of her.
She is the the most ironically dogmatic person that ever existed. (Mind you I said "ironically dogmatic" not dogmatic, but she's still up there nonetheless) edit: Quote:
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor Last edited by Dr Big Bird PhD; January 4, 2013 at 07:25 PM. |
|
January 4, 2013, 07:39 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 31, 2013, 11:51 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2008
Location: Back in Wyoming
Posts: 1,125
|
Quote:
Honestly couldn't finish Atlas Shrugged. I read Fountainhead and some of her shorter works. At first I was enthralled. It was a good intro to philosophy but on the whole I think she is overly simplistic. I don't know this but I suspect she would have been more on our side than not. Last edited by wyobohunter; January 31, 2013 at 11:57 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|