they do not honestly consider it to be in their enlightened self-interest to contribute to the poor, caring not for societial mores or others suffering. They are strange people, but they exist by their own right.
No, they exist because someone created an unfree market by getting rid of the guillotine. In the old days, they had fun for awhile until it was off with their heads. They didn't breed too successfully. The libertarian solution would be to allow the guillotine thus periodically cleansing the population of sociopaths.
Yeah, the Reign of Terror was totally a triumph of the free market, man!
People interested in Rand's notion of concepts are well-advised to look at the work of Peter Abelard, too. Although he's famous for other reasons, his conceptualist "third way" between nominalism and idealism is actually viable, and quite close to what Rand was dreaming of.
Yeah, it's really too bad philosophers who bang hot chicks and get their junks cut off get known for that instead of their philosophy. I also found Abelard's Ethics to be the most coherent and sensible system of Christian ethics I've ever read, yet it too gets almost completely ignored.
Rand claimed on the one hand to reject these alternatives, but then argued strongly that there was exactly one correct way because "reality really is that way", which is obviously nonsense: even within physics there are frequently several equally correct ways of conceptualizing the same phenomena (Newtonian vs classical physics, for example, which give quite different accounts of the cause of motion, one based on force, one based on the principle of least action or similar.)
Yeah, and of course, it always just happened to shake out that "reality really is" the way she conceptualized it, not the way others did. I always had problems with someone who claimed to rigorously drive for the objective truth yet had no sense of skepticism towards her own beliefs.
Says the guy who has gotten absolutely everything wrong about the economy.
Yeah, everything except predicting that complex derivatives markets would lead to a subprime collapse and that allowing banks to use our deposits to fund speculation would cause a housing crisis to take down the rest of the economy, which is exactly what happened in 2007-8. Aside from that, he got everything wrong. Also, explaining why countries export the same commodities to one another rather than fully specializing. Man, that dumbass was so wrong, because, of course, Japanese never buy Fords and Americans never buy Toyotas, and Europeans never buy Dodges, and Americans never buy Volkswagens.
Seriously, his only solution is "spend more", like a bloodletter of old claiming that he could have healed his patient if only the family had let him drain just one more drop of "bad humor" from his system.
I might buy that if you could show one shred of empirical evidence that spending in time of recession hurts the economy.
I'm a Philosophy student and I think I can speak with a certain degree of authority when I say that Ayn Rand isn't someone you seriously cite in academic philosophy.
No, you can't. As a philosopher of philosophy, I'm taking a cue from philosophers of science and assuming those who practice in the field I study speak with no authority on that field.
I think the obsession with Rand is the scope of her philosophy, and the fact that she wrote fiction which made it more accessible to younger readers. I think Rand could have been a very positive influence in getting young people to think critically and question a great deal about what their governments and religions are telling them, but her personality and the Ayn Rand institute caused a very serious stigma around Objectivism.
I think Rand could have been a very positive influence in getting young people to think critically and question a great deal that they think they know, if her response to nearly every criticism of her philosophy wasn't simply an embellished form of "You're an idiot, and you just don't get it," prompting her impressionable young followers to adopt the same approach to whatever doesn't square with what they "know."
Of course, the voodoo priest might disagree with you on which epistemology to use, but I don't see any real solution to that in any context -- if someone wants to believe that truth is what the voices in their head tell you, they may be crazy, but you can't really make a good logical argument against that.
Unless the voices in their head offer multiple propositions that contradict one another. Though that begs the question: why would they want to believe what the voices in their head tell you? Wouldn't it be simpler just to listen to the voices directly?
You are, I think, confusing the scientific method as used by what we tend to call scientists with the definitions of the "scientific method" and idealized examples used by philosophers of science.
Hmmm. His problem is he's confusing a term as used in the practice with the same term as used by people who purport to study the practice. Whose fault is that?
According to the TFA, this has killed at least 6 people in the last year, so in this case the communication between two machines was 'life and death'. Or wasn't it?
Bah! Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
2. That science, since it has no real epistemological foundation is no more justified
in claiming to be discovering objective truth than, say, a voodoo priest and that
therefore the authority of science should only be accepted in as far as it improves
our quality of life.
Sorry, I don't think that claim makes any sense. How can you state that science isn't justified early in the sentence (due to a missing epistemological foundation), while later on justifying it nevertheless (due to objective observations on the quality of life).
He didn't say it wasn't justified early in the sentence. He said it wasn't justified by one yardstick but was justified by another.
Either science is justified or it isn't. Either an epistemological foundation is required for justification, or it isn't. Don't switch to an empirical observation model when you've just argued that epistemological form is the essential criterion.
Where did he argue that the epistemological form was the essential criterion? Let me rephrase to make it simpler:
2. That science, since it fares no better on criterion A than voodoo, is no more justified by criterion A than voodoo is, and therefore its authority must derive from meeting criterion B.
Disclaimer: I actually disagree with this point 2. I just don't like to see it turned into a straw man.
How about you shut up because you make shitty arguments? I'd say that's a much better reason.
Of course. We've already established that you're so smart I shouldn't make my own decisions, so I guess it makes sense that I shouldn't argue with you. What confuses me is why that's not illegal yet. I mean, people can still do stupid things (disagreeing with you). You should really suggest a law to fix that.
I don't push for laws to be made, I just give friendly suggestions and hope that fixes the problem. If not, I get over it. You should try it some time, it works really well.
Plenty of karma, don't worry. However no mod points, have been posting too actively of late. If I had I would give the GP (-1, offtopic).
Maybe you don't get mod points because your mods are ridiculous? Troll or flamebait maybe, but how is "let the free market decide!" in response to someone who claims to be a libertarian but doesn't want the free market decide in any way off-topic?
Why is it that leftists always mock of libertarianism with this monotonous "free market" chant?
Probably because libertarians argue with the same monotonous "free market" chant.
Economic freedom is *one* of the infinite liberties a person can have. The free market works admirably for what it's meant to do, but it's not a tool for everything.
The free market is *not* intended to maximize the preservation of human life. We do need some regulations for that. Of course, there are private corporations, like this one to verify that regulations are being followed, but they do not make the regulations, that's not what the "free market" is intended to do.
I like your theory. I really do. In fact, it sounds to me a lot like what a lot of Democrats I know believe. Rest assured you are not the target of anti-libertarian rhetoric. Those other libertarians are. You know, the ones that actually do believe and expound this crazy everything-must-be-privatized-and-deregulated shit, no exceptions. The ones who expound Austrian-school economics despite said school's complete inability to deal with contradictory data. The ones who argue that police and fire departments should all be privatized and if that means they end up only protecting the rich, well that means the poor didn't express enough willingness-to-pay. Those are the ones we are mocking.
So, in the end, there must exist some form of governmental or non-market regulations in effect. No libertarian denies that.
Nobody except about 50% of the people I know who self-identify as libertarian. Face it, while you might not be one of them, there are plenty of libertarians out there who are basically just anarchists with the exception of believing in private property and the goodness of corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
they do not honestly consider it to be in their enlightened self-interest to contribute to the poor, caring not for societial mores or others suffering. They are strange people, but they exist by their own right.
No, they exist because someone created an unfree market by getting rid of the guillotine. In the old days, they had fun for awhile until it was off with their heads. They didn't breed too successfully. The libertarian solution would be to allow the guillotine thus periodically cleansing the population of sociopaths.
Yeah, the Reign of Terror was totally a triumph of the free market, man!
I hate those stinking alchemists tainting my physics!
All right then, is light a particle or a wave?
People interested in Rand's notion of concepts are well-advised to look at the work of Peter Abelard, too. Although he's famous for other reasons, his conceptualist "third way" between nominalism and idealism is actually viable, and quite close to what Rand was dreaming of.
Yeah, it's really too bad philosophers who bang hot chicks and get their junks cut off get known for that instead of their philosophy. I also found Abelard's Ethics to be the most coherent and sensible system of Christian ethics I've ever read, yet it too gets almost completely ignored.
Rand claimed on the one hand to reject these alternatives, but then argued strongly that there was exactly one correct way because "reality really is that way", which is obviously nonsense: even within physics there are frequently several equally correct ways of conceptualizing the same phenomena (Newtonian vs classical physics, for example, which give quite different accounts of the cause of motion, one based on force, one based on the principle of least action or similar.)
Yeah, and of course, it always just happened to shake out that "reality really is" the way she conceptualized it, not the way others did. I always had problems with someone who claimed to rigorously drive for the objective truth yet had no sense of skepticism towards her own beliefs.
Says the guy who has gotten absolutely everything wrong about the economy.
Yeah, everything except predicting that complex derivatives markets would lead to a subprime collapse and that allowing banks to use our deposits to fund speculation would cause a housing crisis to take down the rest of the economy, which is exactly what happened in 2007-8. Aside from that, he got everything wrong. Also, explaining why countries export the same commodities to one another rather than fully specializing. Man, that dumbass was so wrong, because, of course, Japanese never buy Fords and Americans never buy Toyotas, and Europeans never buy Dodges, and Americans never buy Volkswagens.
Seriously, his only solution is "spend more", like a bloodletter of old claiming that he could have healed his patient if only the family had let him drain just one more drop of "bad humor" from his system.
I might buy that if you could show one shred of empirical evidence that spending in time of recession hurts the economy.
I'm a Philosophy student and I think I can speak with a certain degree of authority when I say that Ayn Rand isn't someone you seriously cite in academic philosophy.
No, you can't. As a philosopher of philosophy, I'm taking a cue from philosophers of science and assuming those who practice in the field I study speak with no authority on that field.
I think the obsession with Rand is the scope of her philosophy, and the fact that she wrote fiction which made it more accessible to younger readers. I think Rand could have been a very positive influence in getting young people to think critically and question a great deal about what their governments and religions are telling them, but her personality and the Ayn Rand institute caused a very serious stigma around Objectivism.
I think Rand could have been a very positive influence in getting young people to think critically and question a great deal that they think they know, if her response to nearly every criticism of her philosophy wasn't simply an embellished form of "You're an idiot, and you just don't get it," prompting her impressionable young followers to adopt the same approach to whatever doesn't square with what they "know."
If you like something Ayn Rand says, then I guarantee you can find another philosopher said it only in a far more intellectually rigorous manner.
Ha. You assume anything Ayn Rand says can stand up to intellectual rigor.
Not to mention, all of logic prior to the 19th Century. Before George Boole made it a branch of mathematics, logic was solely a branch of philosophy.
A schooner is a sailboat!
I, personally, find it frustrating that we listen to the navel-misspelling philosopher, and forget that the himself is practicing what he condemns.
Of course, the voodoo priest might disagree with you on which epistemology to use, but I don't see any real solution to that in any context -- if someone wants to believe that truth is what the voices in their head tell you, they may be crazy, but you can't really make a good logical argument against that.
Unless the voices in their head offer multiple propositions that contradict one another. Though that begs the question: why would they want to believe what the voices in their head tell you? Wouldn't it be simpler just to listen to the voices directly?
Exactly. I once heard a famous scientist (forget which one at the moment) quoted as saying, "All models are wrong. Some models are useful."
I - personally - find it frustrating that we listen to the naval-staring philosopher, and forget what wisdom is in the same moment.
Then quit listening. Problem solved.
You are, I think, confusing the scientific method as used by what we tend to call scientists with the definitions of the "scientific method" and idealized examples used by philosophers of science.
Hmmm. His problem is he's confusing a term as used in the practice with the same term as used by people who purport to study the practice. Whose fault is that?
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I would replace "very often" with "always" in your statement.
You sound just like the delivery guy from the chinese restaurant.
No, he only requests you wear pants on his own behalf.
I am one of the REALLY HATED libertarians.
Really hated? No.
Mocked and subsequently ignored? Yes.
According to the TFA, this has killed at least 6 people in the last year, so in this case the communication between two machines was 'life and death'. Or wasn't it?
Bah! Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Sorry, I don't think that claim makes any sense. How can you state that science isn't justified early in the sentence (due to a missing epistemological foundation), while later on justifying it nevertheless (due to objective observations on the quality of life).
He didn't say it wasn't justified early in the sentence. He said it wasn't justified by one yardstick but was justified by another.
Either science is justified or it isn't. Either an epistemological foundation is required for justification, or it isn't. Don't switch to an empirical observation model when you've just argued that epistemological form is the essential criterion.
Where did he argue that the epistemological form was the essential criterion? Let me rephrase to make it simpler:
2. That science, since it fares no better on criterion A than voodoo, is no more justified by criterion A than voodoo is, and therefore its authority must derive from meeting criterion B.
Disclaimer: I actually disagree with this point 2. I just don't like to see it turned into a straw man.
Is that like, "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."?
Only under a suitably weird arithmetic.
You replaced nice numbers with ugly '('s and 's's and you made all your strings longer, yet what exactly did you gain?
I think you mean numerals. "s(s(0))" is a number just as much as "2" is.
How about you shut up because you make shitty arguments? I'd say that's a much better reason.
Of course. We've already established that you're so smart I shouldn't make my own decisions, so I guess it makes sense that I shouldn't argue with you. What confuses me is why that's not illegal yet. I mean, people can still do stupid things (disagreeing with you). You should really suggest a law to fix that.
I don't push for laws to be made, I just give friendly suggestions and hope that fixes the problem. If not, I get over it. You should try it some time, it works really well.
Plenty of karma, don't worry. However no mod points, have been posting too actively of late. If I had I would give the GP (-1, offtopic).
Maybe you don't get mod points because your mods are ridiculous? Troll or flamebait maybe, but how is "let the free market decide!" in response to someone who claims to be a libertarian but doesn't want the free market decide in any way off-topic?
Why is it that leftists always mock of libertarianism with this monotonous "free market" chant?
Probably because libertarians argue with the same monotonous "free market" chant.
Economic freedom is *one* of the infinite liberties a person can have. The free market works admirably for what it's meant to do, but it's not a tool for everything.
The free market is *not* intended to maximize the preservation of human life. We do need some regulations for that. Of course, there are private corporations, like this one to verify that regulations are being followed, but they do not make the regulations, that's not what the "free market" is intended to do.
I like your theory. I really do. In fact, it sounds to me a lot like what a lot of Democrats I know believe. Rest assured you are not the target of anti-libertarian rhetoric. Those other libertarians are. You know, the ones that actually do believe and expound this crazy everything-must-be-privatized-and-deregulated shit, no exceptions. The ones who expound Austrian-school economics despite said school's complete inability to deal with contradictory data. The ones who argue that police and fire departments should all be privatized and if that means they end up only protecting the rich, well that means the poor didn't express enough willingness-to-pay. Those are the ones we are mocking.
So, in the end, there must exist some form of governmental or non-market regulations in effect. No libertarian denies that.
Nobody except about 50% of the people I know who self-identify as libertarian. Face it, while you might not be one of them, there are plenty of libertarians out there who are basically just anarchists with the exception of believing in private property and the goodness of corporations.