Posted on 04/22/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by RJCogburn
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.
Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.
Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.
Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.
Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.
Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.
Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.
What objective claim have I made? Surely it can't be rocket science to notice that I am arguing for moral relativism, not moral objectivism? Did I not just go through a longwinded argument about there being no objective reason to think humans infecting the universe is objectively "good"? Merely good RELATIVE to humans?
Do you have to practice to be this repeatedly obtuse, or does it come naturally?
Looks like it would have been more intellectually honest just to say that you made a mistake in your choice of words.
It's not our job to overcome anyone's skepticism, only to attest to what we know (including of course the meanings of the word "know" which "objectivists" deny).
You may steer your own way.
That is, of course, utterly irrelevant. In fact, it supports my argument. I already pointed out ad nauseum that if moral inclinations arise from natural causes, than they are not automatically compelling--they are just inclinations, like the desire to run, not bindinging physical laws, such as they ought to be, if God was paying attention when He provided Them.
Hogwash. I have used the word in a very common way. One commonly speaks of people's talents as gifts without any theologically overloaded meaning whatsoever.
Why?
put up or shut up.
And contrary to your private "objectivist" point of view, at the base of it all I'm not here for you or your goodwill.
That is an altruistic suggestion, and therefore, that would not follow from an "Objectivist" point of view, even if I had one, which I don't.
Make an argument or leave me alone, I'm tired of these rude little sound bites. I'm not your socratic hand-puppet, if you have a point, make it.
They warned me that you are just f.christian with full sentences. Apparently they were right. Should you make a coherent argument, featuring sentences connected, in some manner, by a coherent thesis, related to a just-previous contention in some orderly way, such as to constitute an argument, I may return.
Who are you kidding? You have been arguing for MONTHS on this topic. Indeed, in order for a relativist like you to even have a motive to discuss the nature of moral truth, he must assume that there is some objective truth to be ascertained, otherwise the exercise of arguing is a big useless waste of time! In the process, you are secretly presupposing the existence of moral absolutes even as you argue against it. Can't you ever be honest?
Ok. But I don't really care to, thanks.
.Just asking the question.
Well, now. That is just too brilliant for words.
And many other topics, so what?
Indeed, in order for a relativist like you to even have a motive to discuss the nature of moral truth, he must assume that there is some objective truth to be ascertained
I do not like going over things again and again and again. What are you, an intellectual sieve? A moral relativist is an ontological objectivist. Discerning the distinction is not rocket science, your demonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding. Moral relativists think there is an objective phenomenon called humans that can be examined fruitfully, to figure out how they might advance their group welfare by established inbuilt constraints on their behavior. This might not be successfully or accurately done, but that doesn't refute that it's possible or, ignoring that this is an oversimplification, likely the actual explanation of existing morals.
, otherwise the exercise of arguing is a big useless waste of time! In the process, you are secretly presupposing the existence of moral absolutes even as you argue against it.
Arguing is not a waste of time. And I am not "secretly" or overtly assuming moral absolutes. That does not in the least follow from anything I have said in this post or elsewhere on this thread. That is just an attempt to make an argument out of thin air.
Can't you ever be honest?
Look whose talking. Kindly lay out the explicit set of threads that puts me into the camp of moral absolutists. Or is this just as much a bluff as your last bit of rude nonsense about my supposed self-contradictions? What a fluffbutt.
This seems utterly incoherent to me, and is not something I believe--I believe any system of absolute moral precepts has no capacity to be right or wrong, it is aloof from testing as to rightness or wrongness. So I rather doubt that your memory of this is a remotely accurate construct of what I said.
(don't make me go back and find your post because if I have to do that - and I WILL - it will just cause you further embarrassment).
Uh huh. Sure you will.
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.