On Apr 18, 7:55*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/18/11 13:07 , Barry wrote:





On Apr 18, 1:52 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/18/11 06:58 , Barry wrote:

* * *And there you have it: A dismissal based on someone's upbringing. You
freely discuss her upbringing, and you argue that her upbringing frames
her beliefs.

Well, that is often the case. The theology of Karl Barth, for example,
can only really be understood within the context of Nazi Germany. His
distrust of 'systematic theology' was part and parcel of an attempt to
defend the Lutheran church against the corrupting influence of Nazi
ideology. It's clear that Marx's philosophy takes as its starting
point the Hegelianism and Pietism of his youth, imbibed at home and at
school /university.

* * Granted. But the context of upbringing, and indoctrination at
rearing does not preclude the debate of the writings, themselves on
their own merits. Context permits understanding of motivations,
perhaps. And even subtle nuances in the content under contest. But
it does not, perforce, allow for the abject dismissal on context alone..

* * Which is what is presented in this thread.

* * One can, one must, debate the merits of the content on the
content. Not on the personality of the author.

You have just contradicted yourself. We are all chidren of our times.
How can you possibly divorce a person's upbringing from their
opinions?

* *But you do not argue the points she puts forward. You
gratuitously, *dismiss them as flawed. But you offer no reasoning as to
why. Which could produce a fruitful, and intersting, discussion.

* * *But you do not argue her points. You argue the personality of the
author.

Fine. I will play ball (as you quaint colonials say)
instead.

(Matter snipped.)

"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand..
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European *first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective.

* * Nor has anyone asserted that one must. *She as merely asserted
that the input is sensory, and that reason collates the
understanding.

But her problem is that she leaves it at that. She is a bigger
materialist than Marx!

* If there is objectivity, a theoretical possiblity,
but practically rare, so much the better. If there is not, then that
must be sussed at the time of discussion. But the lack of absolute
objectivity does not invalidate the text.

It does if your entire epistemology is rooted in absolute objectivity!

* * There is hardly objectivity in any of the postings here. And yet,
there is a distinct bias in one direction to many of those deemed
good and acceptable, vs those that are not.

I'm not talking about objectivity as a means of defining bias. It goes
deeper than that. this is a debate about the nature of reality itself!

* * The difference is the point of debate. Not cause for dismissal..

The

concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

* * Again, reason for debate of her content. Not dismissal based on
her personality, upbringing, or influences.

We have moved on from the personality issue. I was raising a
fundamental objection to her concept of objectivity.

* * Put that another way, there is nothing in her background that
precludes her from presenting true, meaningful, correct, or
important observations and conclusion. The presentations must be
debated on their face value. Not evaluated by her background and
upbringing.

But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?

Or more simply...one may say a true statement, even if one's
background does not support the saying of true statements.

A true statement? Now that opens a conceptual can of worms!

* It is the statement, itself, that must be debated for it's truth
or falseness. Not the background of the speaker. Or else, we have to
dismiss nearly all writings by those who write fiction, or those who
have overcome their upbringing.

I'm sorry but you are still talking at cross purposes. I want to
debate 'objectivism' versus 'post-modernism'. You don't seem to
realise that.

* *Yes, you do. But only in the context of the author's background.
That is only relevant if we are discussing the author.

I was discussing a point about the nature of reality in
general...nothing to do with her background in this case.


* *I see perhaps I've not been clear.

* *My point in jumping into this thread is that the sum of the
discussion, your own position excluded, has been that the film's
release has been roundly dismissed, as has Rand's work based on her
background, the conflicts that would appear to have risen between
the work and her background, but not the work, itself.

* *In the context of this thread, the condemnation being of the
teller, not the tale. And using the condemnation of the teller to
dismiss the tale.

Fine. Now I'd be obliged if you would deal with the points that I
made.


* *This is as absurd as dismissing the humor of Groucho Marx because
he was chronically depressed. Or dismissing the speeches of Ted
Kennedy about the need of the society to uplift the poor because he
was raised as a child of privilege.

* *The work stands on its own. Regardless of the author's past. Or
even her own philosophy. You seem willing to debate at least the
substance of the themes of the work. And kudos to you.

So debate it!


* *That would make, in all, two, who have participated in this
thread, so willing. The rest are just abject dismissals without
addressing the content.



* * Rand presented theses in Atlas Shrugged that are roundly
dismissed, here, by virtue of her upbringing and the context of the
formation of her values. But no one is debating the content of the
writing, itself. Only her motivations inferred from the politics of
the work, against her background.

I am trying to deabate the content. What did you think I was trying to
do?
Look, forget the first part of my posting and please re-read the
second, after the quote and citations. Then we might be both singing
from the same hymn sheet....

*I see where you're coming from. And your points about
specifically Rand's thinking and the philosophies engaged, here.

And?




Do you have a view on the post-modernist critique of rationalism and
structuralism?

* *Yes, I do. And thank you for asking. But my philosophies are not
at issue here.

Aren't they? I thought that you were a Randian (or whatever they are
called).

* *What I have a problem in all of this, here, is this statement,
which is in fact at the core of this thread:

What statement?


* * But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental

baggage?

* *We, in fact, can. No one says it's easy. But it is possible.

How?

But
why must we? You have your baggage, I have mine, Rand had hers.

Yes, that's the problem.....but you don't seem to realise it....


And
from what I've read, quite a porter of it. So, what? In a practical
and honest discussion, the baggage cancels itself out so that facts
can be debated.

Do you really believe that?

But even that's not the issue that brought me into
this thread.

But you were complaining that no-one criticises Rand on the basis of
her philosophy alone! Now it seems that you don't want to discuss
that.


* *It's the tale, not the teller, that's been at issue in the
thread.

Sorry, but I couldn't give a toss! Do you want to discuss her
philosophy or not?

Specifically, the dismissal of the work based on the
author's upbringing. My point in all of this is that there's been a
cheap sophistic attempt to dismiss the work, largely because it
doesn't suit the tastes of a political body. And the argument has
been couched in rhetoric that seeks to tie the baggage of the author
into the the merits of the work.

That is a post-modernist position that relates to everyone. What makes
Rand any different?



This is not a valid disposition.
Else, we must dismiss everyone who's ever written, because of their
own conflicting baggage. Including Lenin, Plato, Nietzsche, or
Groucho Marx.

We don't dismiss them. We analyse them, we critique them, and we
interpret them. In the process, we find that some are probably more
credible than others.

You still aren't getting the point.

Dr. Barry Worthington


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 4/18/11 14:37 , Barry wrote:

You still aren't getting the point.



Apparently.

Neither are you.

On 4/18/11 14:37 , Barry wrote:

You still aren't getting the point.



Apparently.

Neither are you.

Tim Crowley wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:51*am, CB wrote:

LOL...you be talking about Andy Stern/SEIU and his peeps thinkging


Why do you stil refuse to take than English class. Do you enjoy the
ridicule you get as a ****ing illiterate racist ****?

why are all racists so ****ing illitarate.

"illitarate"

Ayn Rand Shrugged, and then she wrote some books.Like the old saying
goes, That's all she wrote.
cuhulin, Shrugged

On Apr 18, 6:39*pm, "Slackjaw" wrote:
Tim Crowley wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:51*am, CB wrote:

LOL...you be talking about Andy Stern/SEIU and his peeps thinkging

Why do you stil refuse to take than English class. *Do you enjoy the
ridicule you get as a ****ing illiterate racist ****?

why are all racists so ****ing illitarate.

"illitarate"



:-)

On 04/18/2011 01:42 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:47 am, "D. Peter wrote:
That a work of fiction can't be debated on its content is utter
rubbish.

OK, I've rethought this. I agree that it could be done. I'm not in
a position to do so. I was introduced to Ayn Rand with the film
"The Foundainhead" when as a kid I would stay up late and watch
movies. I bought several of her books and read them. When I started
thinking about her philosophy I realized just how bad it was.

Everything we know we know through our senses. So far so good.
Some people are blind and some are deaf. The blind person cannot
know the color red in the same way the sighted do nor can the deaf
know middle C the same way the hearing do. The lack of a sense
doesn't change what actaully exists only our realization of it.
Radiation
existed prior to our ability to detect it.

There is some stuff we do due to our evolutionary heritage. Many
animals survive mainly on inate response to stimulii. We think of
ourselves as thinking beings so when we act without thought we
will try to explain our actions as if rational even where there's
nothing rational going on--evolution selects behaviors based upon
survival; thoughtful action isn't necessarily the most efficient.

Reality has no morality. Even when we discuss morality we limit
it to human actions. This alone should put the lie to it. If
morality
had an objective existence then it would apply to all of reality not
just humans.

Reasoning can improve our survivability. While I'd like to say our
existence proves this I cannot do so directly because traits neither
selected for nor against will randomly drift. I must instead suggest
each look into himself or herself and look for situations where prior
thought has lead to survival. I believe all of us can find such
cases.

We are social animals. Social animals benefit from predicting
the behaviors of one's fellow societal members. This doesn't
make one behavior moral and another immoral. We can modify
our behavior based upon our predictions of others' responses
and we benefit from doing so.

The range of human behaviors is quite large. By restricting those
behaviors with the social context we reduce the complexity in
predicting others' behaviors and responses to our behaviors.
Myths, such as morality, serves to restrict the range of behaviors
we can expect and this aides our survival.

I suspect I've said enough for now and you can find stuff with which
to disagree. Hell, you'll probably discount it yet again becuase
I don't like Ayn Rand's characterization of her philosophy as
"Objectivism" when nothing could be further from the truth.

On 04/18/2011 02:22 PM, China Blue Nile wrote:
In ,
Gary wrote:

OK, I've rethought this. I agree that it could be done. I'm not in
a position to do so. I was introduced to Ayn Rand with the film
"The Foundainhead" when as a kid I would stay up late and watch
movies. I bought several of her books and read them. When I started
thinking about her philosophy I realized just how bad it was.

I'm a programmer and I've worked with programmers; it's a profession that
demands on rationality and creativity and objectivity. The reality is that
programmers don't work tirelessly to the great philosophical ideal. The reality
is programmers whine, bitch, hang out in each others office chatting about
televsion, and stare at walls. They are religious, non-religious, and
areligious. There is a software aesthetic but it's not tied to some great life
encompassing philosophy. Rand's idea of what creative people are like has little
to do with actual creative people.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is stepping up his call for Congress
to let the Bush-era tax cuts lapse.

In an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Greenspan used
his strongest words yet to urge lawmakers to let them expire. The risk
of a U.S. debt crisis, he said, is just too big. Mr. Greenspan, who
retired from the Federal Reserve in 2006, had endorsed the cuts back in
2001 championed by then-President George W. Bush.

“This crisis is so imminent and so difficult that I think we have to
allow the so-called Bush tax cuts all to expire. That is a very big
number,” he said, referring to how much the U.S. government could save
from letting income taxes go back up to levels last seen under former
President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Greenspan was talking about re-imposing the taxes for all

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...s/?mod=WSJBlog

On 04/18/2011 03:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:58 pm, Nickname wrote:
On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "D. Peter wrote:



its really not hard to dismiss rand rants that tried to dress up a
pig. it can be done with as little as one short sentence such as
lincolns quote, or galbraiths quote. others maybe took a small
paragraph or to, to destroy her illusion, and put squarely on the
table what she was, and what she stood for.

"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs."


"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of 
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
their democratic 
state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--
ownership of government by an 
individual, by a group, or by any
controlling private power."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

show me a criminal that is for regulation



" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith


"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.

Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."

Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"

ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.

our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson

definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases

While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill

"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell

Taxes are not "punishment for success". Nor are they "theft". Taxes
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
a shared socio-economic system.

"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
- Common Law maxim

``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.

The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne


teddy roosevelt

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals.

Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean

Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'


"disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern
conservatism."
paul krugman

Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times:
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."


and we can go back to adam smith, who was really a socialist, not a
libertarian, who advocated for wealth redistribution, unions,
regulation, as well as taxation based on ones abilities to pay.