Skip to comments.
Why They Fear Us
The Rational Argumentator ^
| December 26, 2003
| Henry Emrich
Posted on 12/30/2003 10:29:35 AM PST by G. Stolyarov II
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-284 next last
To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)
In fact, he was very adamant about the fact that most of the "useful" rules in society ... I do not believe you understand what I said, or you are misinterpreting Hayek. I was talking, obviously about our knowledge and how it is derived, not about "rules" in society, which are very different things. In fact, what you quoted is something Hayek claimed to know. Do you suppose he would have claimed to have derived these principle irrationally?
Ayn Rand correctly repudiated Dascarte as a Skeptic. If Hayek really confused Descarte with Objective reason, he may safely be dismissed.
The mind is the only faculty we have for discovering and understanding truth and knowledge, and the process by which we discover knowledge is called reason. Since you seem to think there is some other way to knowledge, would you mind telling us what faculty would be used and by what process it is accomplished?
(I suspect you have no idea what Ayn Rand's philosophy is about if you could equate it with anything collective, statist, or totaletarian, which all leftest, socialist, and modern so-called conservatives are. And what kind of person could repudiate the insistance on reason as the criteria for determining truth?)
Hank
To: nothingnew
Yes, sorry about that. It has become habitual after so much Victor Hugo, Thomas Hardy and Henry James.
To: Hank Kerchief
Hank, think about your own travails. As I said, He only came for those who needed him. If you don't, good luck.
123
posted on
12/30/2003 6:47:50 PM PST
by
richardtavor
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
To: TonyRo76
liberal pseudo-Christian churches...
Well, now I am curious, could you provide an example of such.
To: G. Stolyarov II
"Emrich" is QUITE Correct; EXCEPT, he is IMPATIENT!!
Our Culture will take a Couple of Generations to Get Beyond our Current "State!"
We are STILL the "Best Hope" of Humankind;--& we Might be able to "Drag In" a Couple of OTHER Cultures as we SLOWLY BEGIN to accept the "Culture" Here Described!
The Problem Is, "Current Events" Move SO FAST--& "Cultural Change" is SO SLOW!!
Doc
To: possible
Welcome to Free Republic.
To address some of your questions, Objectivism bases its standard of evidence on the law of identity, A=A, that everything has a specific nature and that it cannot have it and not have it at the same time and in the same respect. The nature of man is that of a rational being who can grasp both his own identity and the identity of external objects and ideas. An idea or concept is an organizing tool that groups concretes based on their essentially similar elements. (For example, the concept "cat" refers to certain empirical and genetic elements of a group of animals that are present no matter what the individual variations within that group are). According to Rand, a concept is neither wholly outside the perceiver (as in Platonism) nor wholly within his mind (as in Subjectivism). Instead, a concept is inextricably linked to a relationship between the mind and reality and is needed for the mind to analyze and grasp it. Rand's theory of epistemology therefore furnishes the link between the conceptual and the concrete that has been needed by defenders of rationality throughout the ages.
Evidence in the philosophical realm is presented as a combination of empirical data (for reasoning on a given social or political subject) and rationally derived principles from a set of incontrovertible axioms (there are three: existence, identity, consciousness). For the immorality of theft, we observe that every man is a rational being whose individual mind can bring about enjoyment of the fruits of his labor, i.e. his property. If we hold the premise of every man's rationality (derived from observation and conceptual integration, as well as examination of one's own mind), it follows that every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit. Theft by any agency (individual or governmental) is a violation of this right and therefore immoral.
Best wishes on your exploration of Objectivism. I would suggest that you read Rand's fiction as well as "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and "The Virtue of Selfishness." If you attain my level of enthusiasm, you will eventually come to have read the vast majority of her published work. My magazine, The Rational Argumentator, should also help you gain an understanding of some of Rand's ideas and their logical extrapolations by various later thinkers.
See TRA's master index:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/masterindex.html
126
posted on
12/30/2003 7:11:42 PM PST
by
G. Stolyarov II
(http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index19.html)
To: Doc On The Bay; Hank Kerchief
"The Problem Is, "Current Events" Move SO FAST--& "Cultural Change" is SO SLOW!!"
I concur with you on this point. Online activism is my leisure pasttime, but I cannot ever find the opportunity to track every change in the political or cultural arena or every new factor that must be considered. My work outside of philosophy is far too time-consuming.
Emrich himself, however, advises that patience and gradual coalition-building with like-minded thinkers can over time bring forth a powerful intellectual force of rationality's advocates in the cultural arena. Perhaps this is why, Mr. Kerchief, he and I refer to an "Objectivist movement." We recognize the need for coordinated action in order to reform the political status quo into a system that facilitates the survival and flourishing of indvidual thinkers and creators.
I have often found that the ideas and analyses of other Objectivists fill in gaps in my awareness that I could not have for sheer lack of time personally addressed.
Perhaps this is why The Rational Argumentator is filled with commentaries by other thoughtful authors. Yours, if you should wish to submit them for publication, would also be welcome.
127
posted on
12/30/2003 7:21:40 PM PST
by
G. Stolyarov II
(http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index19.html)
To: G. Stolyarov II
Oho, another "Vanguard". Just what we need.
128
posted on
12/30/2003 7:24:29 PM PST
by
tet68
To: Centurion2000
For my answer to your question, please read my "Essay Questioning the Validity of Religions" at
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/religion.html Also, quoting from Don Watkins III's "God: Examining the Arguments"
"I will suggest only three examples of sexism (out of about 50 to 60).
1) I Corinthians 11: 3-15; man is head of women, only man is in God's image
2) I Corinthians 14:34-35; Women keep silence, learn only from husbands
3) I Timothy 2:11-14; Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless.
[On Jesus:]
1) Matthew 10:34; "Think not that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I come not to bring peace, but a sword.""
See the whole essay, a thorough defense of atheism, at
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/God.html
129
posted on
12/30/2003 7:31:22 PM PST
by
G. Stolyarov II
(http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index19.html)
To: G. Stolyarov II
To: thoughtomator
"How does an Objectivist reconcile that with the plain language of the First Amendment, which demands, in essence, indifference to religion with respect to government, and not separation?"
Because the mentality behind the liberties and individualism inherent in American law directly contradicts some of the essential precepts of the Bible. See Dr. Harry Binswanger's "The Ten Commandments vs. America"
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/tencommandments.html
131
posted on
12/30/2003 7:39:55 PM PST
by
G. Stolyarov II
(http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index19.html)
To: G. Stolyarov II
For the immorality of theft, we observe that every man is a rational being whose individual mind can bring about enjoyment of the fruits of his labor, i.e. his property. If we hold the premise of every man's rationality (derived from observation and conceptual integration, as well as examination of one's own mind), it follows that every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit.Your account here raises three concerns:
1. Not every man is rational. In fact, the point of your original post was that lots of folks are irrational.
2. Not everyone can bring about the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor. Children are dependent on their parents for many years. Some folks due to disease or accident are disabled and dependent on others.
3. Even if your premises (1 and 2) are granted, I don't see how your conclusion (every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit) follows.
To: possible; G. Stolyarov II
Please bear with me as "Objectivism" is new to me. And I'm new to Free Republic. What is it that counts as teachings that are "based on clear objective reason from observable evidence" ??? For example, is there, on your view, clear objective reason from observable evidence that theft is wrong? What, on your view, is the evidence? I guess you are new to Objectivism, and this is an excellent question. There is very definite evidence that theft is wrong, but it, like the evidence for the principle that oxygen supports combustion, cannot just be pointed to, saying, "see, that is the evidence." There is a chain of reason based on the evidence of the nature of the world we live in and the nature of man and the requirements of his nature.
The long answer is the whole Objectivist ethics, which is most succinctly explicated in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness.
There is also an excellent complete online overview of Objectivist Philosophy here: Importance of Philosophy
But of course you want a short answer. But there are no short answers. Truth is neither simple to understand or easy to discover, and like all other things of value, requires effort and time to acquire. The desire for short easy answers to all questions is a kind of moral evasion of the requirements of reality.
Until you have time to pursue and discover the whole answer to you question, here is something from another publication of mine:
Normal Human Behavior
The question of normality in humans is complicated by the fact that humans are volitional beings. The behavior of all other creatures is determined directly by their nature. Human behavior is determined by their nature only to the extent that some behavior is required but no specific behavior is directly determined.
Does that mean man can do just anything? No, because man does have a specific nature, and whatever behavior is chosen must conform to that nature. For example, the unique psychological characteristic of human nature is volition, the ability and necessity to choose. Normal human behavior must conform to the requirements of this aspect of his nature:
- The ability (and necessity) to choose. A human being can do nothing except by conscious choice, therefore all a human being is or does, his success or failure, his happiness or lack of it, his very life is determined by what he chooses. The necessity to choose cannot be escaped and neither can the consequences of those choices, or his responsibility for them.
- The ability (and necessity) to acquire knowledge. A human being can make choices only if he knows what choices are available and has some way of knowing what the consequences of those choices are. A human being must therefore seek knowledge, and neither pretend to knowledge he does not have, or attempt to evade knowledge he does have.
- The ability (and necessity) to create. A human being must create by productive effort what is required by his nature to live and enjoy his life as a human being. What is required for a human to live and enjoy his life is not provided by nature. Nature provides the resources, but discovering those resources and how to use them to fulfill his desires, and the act of finding and using them is productive effort.
A man may choose not to fulfill the requirements of his psychological nature, but he cannot live normally that way. It is not normal for a human being to live as a parasite, stealing or mooching from others who produce what his life requires, like a bloodsucker or louse. It is not normal for a human being to live as a pet or a slave of others, living on handouts from those he acts to please. It is not normal for a human being to live like a plant, depending on accident or luck, waiting for nature, fortune, or God to provide the things he needs to live and enjoy his life. These ways of living are normal for some organism, because it is their nature, it is not man's nature, however, and no man living contrary to his nature can live successfully or enjoy his life.
...............................
The immorality of stealing is based on the nature of, "property," which Objectivists regard as the product of human productive effort. A person's property is all they have produced by their own effort or acquired by trading the product of their efforts for the propety of others through mutual agreement.
Since the production of property requires both one's time and one's effort, stealing another's property is tantamount to taking away another's effort and time, that is, a portion of their life.
An Objectivist not only considers theft immoral, but regards any gain of value or property that is not earned or produced by one's own effort, theft. Most Objectivits, except under special conditions, do not like to receive gifts, because they so strongly and rightly feel, the unearned is immoral. Human being's must produce to live. That is an ultimate requirement of their nature. Anyone who limits the ability of another human being to produce or takes away what they have produced is interfering in another human being's pursuit of their own life.
That's the best I can do for a short answer for now.
Hank
To: mvpel
Is my love for my wife based on clear objective reason from observable evidence? I do not know about your love for your wife, but my love for my wife is. If your love is based on anything else it is mere whim or irrational passion. How can you possibly know you will still love your wife tomorrow. I know I will, because I know exactly why I love her.
Hank
To: G. Stolyarov II
They are "religious" enough that atheism makes them nervous, but actually have very little understanding of the Bible, Koran, or whatever "holy book" they believe. I stopped there. I tried to read the whole thing, but the premise was flawed:
One of the most vexing problems that I have encountered in my experiences with Objectivism, is the fact that many people seem deathly afraid of our viewpoint...
I'm afraid you are mistaken. I fear not a philosophy, nor viewpoint, nor religion, or man. T'is only The Lord I fear.
That was easy.
5.56mm
135
posted on
12/30/2003 7:50:37 PM PST
by
M Kehoe
To: possible
"1. Not every man is rational. In fact, the point of your original post was that lots of folks are irrational."
Yet, we must still grant that every human being has the CAPACITY to use his reason, should he CHOOSE to do so. Choice is essential in Objectivist ethics. Since man is a being of volitional consciousness, his most fundamental choice is to be aware or not, from which is derived the choice to think and to reason.
If a man chooses not to reason, a society must allow him to fail and suffer for his personal mistakes, but not to inflict force upon others and in any manner impede their rational pursuits.
"2. Not everyone can bring about the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor. Children are dependent on their parents for many years. Some folks due to disease or accident are disabled and dependent on others."
I refer you to a brief account of Objectivism's philosophy on children and their status by psychologist Nathaniel Branden.
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/que02.html Children are not fully rational, but they do have vestiges of reason and the underlying means to become fully rational in the future. Hence, they possess rights to the extent of their rational capacity's maturity.
"3. Even if your premises (1 and 2) are granted, I don't see how your conclusion (every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit) follows."
If my two points are granted, this means that the individual man is most fit to employ his property in his own self-interest (which Objectivism's ethical statement: every man is his own purpose and ultimate object of value) and should thus have the RIGHT to do so.
For a thorough introduction to selfishness as a moral value, see "Anthem" or "The Virtue of Selfishness."
For now, a brief commentary by Michael Miller on what happens when selfishness is NOT embraced should provide support for the argument:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Nihilist_Mutants.html
136
posted on
12/30/2003 7:52:57 PM PST
by
G. Stolyarov II
(http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index19.html)
To: G. Stolyarov II
All that article demonstrates is the obtuseness of self-labeled objectivists with respect to the concept of God, and the ease in which such an author can create a strawman.
Is there any objectivist whatsoever who actually understands the monotheistic concept of God?
137
posted on
12/30/2003 7:59:30 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
To: G. Stolyarov II; Hank Kerchief
Thank you both for your replies. I'm out of time for today. I'll try to understand your responses and reply tomorrow.
To: ArGee; G. Stolyarov II
What I often find about "objectivists" (I won't say it's true of all) is they don't admit there prejudices.LOL I'm an objectivist, and I freely admit my own prejudices. Oh, hell yeah! If it weren't for my own prejudices, I wouldn't be an objectivist.
In fact, I'm a gun-totin', flag-wavin', don't-tread-on-me, bomb-the-Arabs-screamin', Constitution-lovin' objectivist, to boot!
And every bit of my personal ideology can be supported by cold, hard facts and reason. I don't understand why we get ragged on by conservatives so badly. We're all engaged in the fight for the future of humanity, the war between socialistic serfdom and the freedom and dignity of the individual.
As far as religion goes, I think of religious freedom as the natural corollary of freedom of speech, religious freedom denoting freedom of conscience. And without conscience (in this context), there is no speech. Everyone has a right to their own faith, so long as they do not use it as a tool of coercion. (Ie: Islamic fundamentalism)
139
posted on
12/30/2003 8:03:20 PM PST
by
FierceDraka
(Service and Glory!)
To: sauropod
And which Philosophers were the ones that said there was no objective truth?
Descarte, Hume, Kant, Hegel, all of the Platonic and neo-Platonic realists, all of the logcial positivists, and all of the linquistic analysists, off the top of my head.
Hank
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-284 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson