10 showed up, 14 are members so far.

I'm not in support of publicly funded universities. But I am in support of getting a cheap, but very good, education in my field to make up for the years of taxes my parents have paid and that I will probably end up paying.

Maybe you people don't understand. One doesn't need to be a diehard Libertarian Party follower to believe the main concepts and be interested in getting them exposed to more people. I don't consider myself Libertarian (note the capitalization). Most of the people I know who claim they are libertarian have differing opinions on a number of subjects. Shit, even if you don't agree with any libertarian views, the lesser of three evils is better than the lesser of two, no?

But that's enough for me of this thread. If you're not interested, so be it. But there's no need to try and personally attack my efforts in order to draw a little negative attention to yourself. If you are interested, shoot me a PM for the next meeting info (next week).

1/25/2007 5:30:50 PM

I personally salute your efforts.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Specifically which part of objectivism is particularly funny to you?"

The premise for starters. Humans do not gain objective knowledge from sense data. Pure and simple.

1/25/2007 5:48:36 PM

Quote :

"This aside, one of her ideas that really strikes me as being particularly retarded is the rejection of a priori knowledge, that every bit of knowledge can regress back until it terminates in some sort of sense data. This betrays her inexperience and her lack of knowledge and context in philosophy. "

I know you are far beyond me in terms of philosophical knowledge, but I swear there have been a lot of philosophers that were taken seriously even though they believed in only sense data and rejected a priori knowledge.

Also, you should certainly know that not being taken seriously by contemporaries is surely not a reason to write someone off as off-base. You have better reasons and you should stick to them.

I'm not an objectivist and as with any school-of-thought, if you buy into it 100% you're probably a nut-job. That's the case with everything though, and shouldn't be a reason to discount everything within it. Shit, can you imagine 100% existentialists running around and that being a good enough reason to hate Albert Camus?

1/25/2007 6:38:06 PM

Quote :

"I know you are far beyond me in terms of philosophical knowledge, but I swear there have been a lot of philosophers that were taken seriously even though they believed in only sense data and rejected a priori knowledge."

Even empiricists typically end up conceding there's a priori knowledge (especially in the face of an example like math). Even those who think that mathematics gets its start through the senses (Kant) thinks that math is STILL a priori knowledge.

Quote :

"Also, you should certainly know that not being taken seriously by contemporaries is surely not a reason to write someone off as off-base. You have better reasons and you should stick to them."

Of course it isn't, but the reason Rand isn't taken seriously is because she doesn't take philosophy seriously. She has little to no knowledge of the issues and goes off down many paths that have been refuted a long, long time before she was even born.

Quote :

"I'm not an objectivist and as with any school-of-thought, if you buy into it 100% you're probably a nut-job. That's the case with everything though, and shouldn't be a reason to discount everything within it. Shit, can you imagine 100% existentialists running around and that being a good enough reason to hate Albert Camus?"

Camus wasn't a fucking idiot, and he did his homework.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2007 9:31:08 PM

Okay, analogy time:

Imagine someone who never went to medical school, saying:

"I know as much as any medical doctor, and in fact, all the doctors are wrong. Here's why..."

then proceed to write a bunch of non-peer reviewed books, develop a following based on a cult of personality, demand strict adherence to all facets of your teaching by your members, and throw out anyone who doesn't agree with you on every point.

and you wonder why every international body of philosophy summarily dismisses her writings?

1/25/2007 9:40:39 PM

^

You put that way better than I did. Thanks.

1/25/2007 9:43:41 PM

G-Cat:

Quote :

"Humans do not gain objective knowledge from sense data. Pure and simple. "

If we don't experience the world through our senses, what is the alternative? Whether you gain objective information or not doesn't change the objective information. A=A ..despite your subjective take. You cannot wish the piano falling on your head to go away simply because you don't believe it's falling on you. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Would you agree?

1/25/2007 10:28:55 PM

^ It's subjective information about an objective thing. Nothing removes our perspective on contingent things.

1/25/2007 10:50:34 PM

^
I suggest that you could bring all the personal, subjective, introspective perspective you want to the situation... but the piano is still gonna flatten you.

1/25/2007 11:00:44 PM

Of course it is.

But that doesn't mean my perceptions of the piano are the piano, or that they give me objective knowledge of the piano. They don't.

1/25/2007 11:03:31 PM

A society full of people all acting in their own selfish material interests is prone to failure. In this respect, pure libertarianism is undesirable. It also ignores the reality that society has to work together for common goals and for survival.

1/25/2007 11:03:47 PM

^
With very few exceptions, most everyone is working towards their own "selfish material interests."

Do you think the guy making cars on a assembly line is doing it cause he wants you to have one? He's doing it to feed himself and his family and buy the stuff that makes him happy. That's the miracle of capitalism. Everyone works in their own self interest, and society is generally all the better for it.

I agree with you that society has to work together for a common goal. That goal should be the collective protection of individual rights.

1/26/2007 12:10:55 AM

Quote :

"Rand is an all-around joke. You can tell because she got little to no response from the philosophical community."

The philosophical community is an all-around joke. They're all full of bullshit and ridiculous assumptions and Rand has less than most of them. Still, she's far from perfect. Her values of productivity and life are personal, not objective. Her obsessions with making money and self-benefit don't work for everyone or should be applied everywhere. But overall I respect her support for the rights of people to live for their own sake.

Quote :

"Imagine someone who never went to medical school, saying: "I know as much as any medical doctor, and in fact, all the doctors are wrong. Here's why..." then proceed to write a bunch of non-peer reviewed books"

You can't seriously compare medicine to philosophy. One's validity can be measured in healing and the other contains a bunch of old tools that think up crap and try to convince people they're right. Being classically educated or peer-reviewed has no bearing on how right you are about ethics or metaphysics.

1/26/2007 12:13:01 AM

Quote :

"You can't seriously compare medicine to philosophy"

oh, yeah, i know.... philosophy is much more rigorous.

but the analogy still stands.

1/26/2007 12:52:18 AM

Quote :

"The philosophical community is an all-around joke. They're all full of bullshit and ridiculous assumptions and Rand has less than most of them. Still, she's far from perfect. Her values of productivity and life are personal, not objective. Her obsessions with making money and self-benefit don't work for everyone or should be applied everywhere. But overall I respect her support for the rights of people to live for their own sake."

This is funny. So, which contemporary authors do you disagree with, and why? Can you point me to specific contemporary pieces that have driven you to think the entire philosophical community is a joke? I'm interested in knowing why you think this, and not some vague general notion. Be specific.

Quote :

"You can't seriously compare medicine to philosophy. One's validity can be measured in healing and the other contains a bunch of old tools that think up crap and try to convince people they're right. Being classically educated or peer-reviewed has no bearing on how right you are about ethics or metaphysics."

Which old tools do you disagree with and why? I'll be impressed if this doesn't involve a google search and lots of wikipedia.

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 1:07 AM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 1:06:15 AM

someone took an intro to phi class

1/26/2007 1:07:20 AM

Someone's pursuing a PhD in that field.

1/26/2007 1:09:34 AM

Quote :

"So, which contemporary authors do you disagree with, and why? Can you point me to specific contemporary pieces that have driven you to think the entire philosophical community is a joke? I'm interested in knowing why you think this, and not some vague general notion. Be specific. Which old tools do you disagree with and why?"

I took four philosophy classes at State. Pretty much everything I read made me roll my eyes. If what I was taught is the best the "philosophical community" has to offer, I can't respect it. I can be specific about who I disagree with if you like, but it would involve going through my notes and listing every philosopher covered. I'm not sure what period of time you consider to be "contemporary," but if I didn't hear about someone in four semesters, I assume they're not popular enough to represent the community. If there is a recent author you believe to be better than the well-known figures, I'll be happy to read his/her stuff.

1/26/2007 1:11:15 PM

Oh okay so you can't name anything off of the top of your head.

You don't know enough to pass judgment. vv

There are some philosophers whose positions I consider misguided, but not in the same way that Rand's are. Rand just decided one day she was smart as hell, and that all she really needed as a background was some readings in Kant, Nietzsche, and Aristotle. This is how you get a view as distorted and as historically refuted as hers.

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 2:53:38 PM

You really want me to drop a few names that badly? Fine. Bentham, Mill, Kant, Nozick, Nagel...

I don't know enough to pass judgment? What does it take to know enough? Must I spend the next 40 years reading tripe and then more tripe written in agreement or criticism? If I spend the rest of my life reading hundreds of opinions new and old, then will I be well-rounded enough to call out bullshit? I can't just now come out and say, "Person A assumes his values are self-evident and then acts like they're valid and objective. Person B does nothing but state the bleeding obvious, pretend it's extremely meaningful, and makes up words and categories. Person C is completely out of touch with reality and survives on writing long, convoluted books that try to sound intellectual..."?

As for Rand, *shrug*, like I said, I don't think being well versed in others' opinions equips anyone with the ability to know rightness or reality.

1/26/2007 5:02:42 PM

Quote :

"Rand just decided one day she was smart as hell, and that all she really needed as a background was some readings "

I'd bet that is exactly how a lot of philosophers got going in the biz. They probably read some, decided they had all the answers and started telling everyone about it. Blaming Rand for her chutzpah does nothing to negate her ideas.

Give me some specifics of her philosphy that are wrong.

1/26/2007 9:53:44 PM

^^ You're a huge idiot if you think that Bentham, Mill, and Kant can be considered contemporary. At any rate it shows that you don't know what the fuck. Nagel and Nozick I can see, though -- they're both dead, but whatever, they're fairly recent. As for saying they're TRIPE, that's a bit much.

But off of that small ass list you aren't qualified worth a damn. If we're talking current analytic tradition there are tons of great examples of philosophers, many of which aren't as bad as you portray.

Quote :

"I'd bet that is exactly how a lot of philosophers got going in the biz. They probably read some, decided they had all the answers and started telling everyone about it. Blaming Rand for her chutzpah does nothing to negate her ideas. Give me some specifics of her philosphy that are wrong."

A lot of philosophers think they're right, thus they hold strong positions. However, the philosophers who are taken seriously have a good background. It's about knowing what's been discussed in the world literature before you. It HELPS, a great deal.

We could get into her metaphysics and epistemology if you really want, and if you don't at least have a small background in metaphysics or epistemology I'm just not going to waste my time.

1/27/2007 12:00:36 AM

Quote :

"the philosophers who are taken seriously have a good background. It's about knowing what's been discussed in the world literature before you."

You may disagree with her ideas but are you really saying Ayn Rand wasn't learned in the study and background of philosophy? That she wasn't versed in world literature? She was a pretty smart cookie.

1/27/2007 1:08:22 AM

Who writes a work that fundamentally steps into positions that have already been refuted? It's obvious she picked a few authors to rag on (kant especially) and didn't do much of her other reading.

1/27/2007 1:12:28 AM

i dont feel like reading any of the above. but is someone trying to argue that reading 3 or 4 philosophers makes him able to "call bullshit" on the works of hundreds of men over 3000+ years of western civilization.

1/27/2007 1:23:56 AM

Quote :

"But off of that small ass list you aren't qualified worth a damn. If we're talking current analytic tradition there are tons of great examples of philosophers, many of which aren't as bad as you portray."

Hey, you wanted me to list a few people that represent mainstream philosophy, I did. Tell me if I'm wrong. Either way, I'm tired of playing this game where you pretend that people have to study others for years in order to have a valid viewpoint. I know you want to think it's important because you're going for a PhD, but stop it. I only care about two issues in philosophy: what is good and what is real. You want to name someone, contemporary or not, that has logical answers to those, I'll listen. Otherwise, you've learned nothing useful as far as I'm concerned.

1/27/2007 10:28:20 AM

You think they characterized mainstream philosophy? Ahahaha oh shit, god...

I can't decide whether to enlighten you or not, you could certainly look this shit up if you were so inclined. But if, after "four philosophy classes" the shit rolled off of you that bad, I'm just not sure it's worth my time.

You should read some Hume, Frege, and Russell to start. That should occupy you for a little while, at least -- and you might actually like it.

[Edited on January 27, 2007 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2007 10:46:44 AM

Quote :

"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"

What's to refute?

1/27/2007 10:50:06 AM

Because that's not the entirety of her philosophy?

Look I'm down with philosophy that places the human at the center of his own world, don't get me wrong. But self-happiness as the only moral purpose of life could be considered flawed from a variety of angles (either from the concept that happiness itself is the wrong aim of morality, or from people who think that humans are social creatures and should cooperate).

The problem is that self-happiness being the moral purpose of life could be used to justify some pretty horrible shit (as long as it makes me happy).

Most of my problem with Rand comes from her metaphysics. It's a weird smashing together of Locke and Aristotle, at least that's how I view it. She simply tries to step around David Hume, she has nothing compelling to say about his skepticism. Just ignores it. Meh.

What you perceive is not objective reality, and not everything terminates in some sort of sense data.

1/27/2007 11:06:51 AM

If "humans are social creatures and should cooperate" then the only way for us to be individually happy is for us to cooperate.

That is, unless you are wrong and sometimes we feel the need to cooperate and other times we need to be alone. The persuit of happiness will allow for all these scenarios, but the blind persuit of cooperation will not.

1/27/2007 11:21:36 AM

Well can't do much against a strawman argument. I don't think anybody's arguing for the blind pursuit of cooperation.

The pursuit of happiness isn't always congruent to the pursuit of excellence, unless you vacuously redefine happiness as "acting with liberty."

[Edited on January 27, 2007 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2007 11:23:58 AM

Quote :

"You think they characterized mainstream philosophy? Ahahaha oh shit, god..."

Well I guess I need to ask State for my money back for only teaching me bad fringe theories.

Quote :

"You should read some Hume, Frege, and Russell to start. That should occupy you for a little while, at least -- and you might actually like it."

Holy crap, finally a real answer. I respect Hume a decent amount because of his work with the is-ought problem, but I don't remember there being much else I liked about him. Haven't really heard of Frege. I know Russell's done some things in math and is supposed to be a famous atheist, but I don't know much about his philosophy. k, I'll take some time to look at them. Let me know if you have any recommended reading.

1/28/2007 10:30:38 PM

Quote :

"Can you point me to specific contemporary pieces that have driven you to think the entire philosophical community is a joke?"

Truthfully a stint in Early Modern Philosophy convinced me that philosophy wasn't worth my time in understanding. The use of logic aside, I was amazed that so much time was spent on such seemingly useless questions particularly about metaphysics. For the love of Jeebus, we spent 10 weeks before we could get out of our brain-deceiving nutrient vat. Then, when we finally get into the world of making sense, we hit Berkeley who wants to claim nothing exists at all. I don't know how the fuck you ask someone to read a book that you hand to them that tells them that the book (and you) don't actually even exist. That's a fucked up mind...

I digress, but you're right in that Ayn Rand is no philosopher, despite what she fancies herself to be. But as a political philosopher, she does have insight. I don't bother with reading her philosophical nonfiction, which is partly why I come to her defense. I will concede her inadequacy in that field, but I still say her political ideology is defensible to at least some degree.

1/29/2007 12:18:20 AM

Rands political philosophy stems from her metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. You can't separate the views she espoused in her philosophical nonfiction from her political ideology. Either her political philosophy and her philosophical nonfiction is adequate, or it is all inadequate.

BTW, many individuals, myself included, who consider themselves students of Objectivism do not agree with or consider themselves Libertarians.

I really like Shivan Bird and EarthDogg's posts. Do you guys consider yourselves Objectivists?

1/29/2007 12:52:18 AM

Quote :

" Truthfully a stint in Early Modern Philosophy convinced me that philosophy wasn't worth my time in understanding. The use of logic aside, I was amazed that so much time was spent on such seemingly useless questions particularly about metaphysics. For the love of Jeebus, we spent 10 weeks before we could get out of our brain-deceiving nutrient vat. Then, when we finally get into the world of making sense, we hit Berkeley who wants to claim nothing exists at all. I don't know how the fuck you ask someone to read a book that you hand to them that tells them that the book (and you) don't actually even exist. That's a fucked up mind... "

What would happen if you abandoned a study of say, natural science, because you learned about hylomorphism? Seems silly that you would abandon a field basically in its current manifestation's infancy... but whatever.

Your ideas about Berkeley are wrong. He didn't claim nothing exists. On the contrary, he claimed things do exist, but that the only substance was mental in nature. There's a big difference between those claims.

1/29/2007 9:00:40 AM

Quote :

"You should read some Hume, Frege, and Russell to start. That should occupy you for a little while, at least -- and you might actually like it."

Well, I finally got around to this. As I said before, I greatly respect Hume for his recognition of the is-ought problem. I'm also grateful for his theories on skepticism, sentiment-based morality, and a few other points. As for Frege and Russell, I agree with many of their points, but most of what I've seen seems to be a bunch of trivial linguistic analysis that has little to do with my interests in what is good and how one should live.

Quote :

"Well I guess I need to ask State for my money back for only teaching me bad fringe theories."

Seriously though, does mainstream Philosophy today teach better Ethics than what I saw in PHI 375? 'Cause I had very little respect for most of that stuff.

Quote :

"I really like Shivan Bird and EarthDogg's posts. Do you guys consider yourselves Objectivists?"

Sorry I didn't see this before now. No, I don't. I disagree with a lot of Rand's fundamentals, such as the ideas that the external world can be known to exist objectively, that morals are objective, and that an organism must value its own life. However, I think in many areas she ended up in the right place, and I heavily admire her passion for reason, productivity, and individual freedoms.

3/29/2007 2:36:00 PM