I honestly believed.

[abandonconflict]

No closed system can fully describe itself from within itself. cn

I could not agree more.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I believe that most people ... almost all ... have good in them. I also have seen groups left to their own devices breed despots. The best solution gets pushed out by the strongest, and it's my observation of the human condition that strong and good don't easily share a table. Strong equals above reproof or effective guidance, and too few people have a moral compass that is both internal and hard to corrupt.

And there's the kicker as I see it. None of the utopian concepts has an answer for human corruption, the universal spoiler of what could be (if only people saw wisdom, or any of a myriad true but impotent gripes). cn

It's been demonstrated in psychological experiments that humans will bow to violent authority if they believe they won't be harmed themselves. Not all of them, but an overwhelming majority. I think it explains Germany circa 1930/40 pretty well.

It seems there needs to be government, but IMO it needs to be incredibly tiny - unable to write law at all unless via constitutional amendment where things are clearly articulated as best as possible in advance and politicians subject to much higher standards (Lie about something = death). I feel like many court rulings in recent times have pretty much ignored intent of the constitution and instead get into arguments of questionable legal validity such as "The greater public good" overriding what is supposed to be constitutionally protected.

 

[abandonconflict]

Bullshit. You're not getting the taste of the Obama-scrotum off your tongue this easily. I have read countless inane posts filled with Obama-love from you.

Speaking of countless inane posts, this is a cannabis growing site.

 

[ChesusRice]

It's been demonstrated in psychological experiments that humans will bow to violent authority if they believe they won't be harmed themselves. Not all of them, but an overwhelming majority. I think it explains Germany circa 1930/40 pretty well.

It seems there needs to be government, but IMO it needs to be incredibly tiny - unable to write law at all unless via constitutional amendment where things are clearly articulated as best as possible in advance and politicians subject to much higher standards (Lie about something = death). I feel like many court rulings in recent times have pretty much ignored intent of the constitution and instead . get into arguments of questionable legal validity such as "The greater public good" overriding what is supposed to be constitutionally protected.

and on the other side of the argument is questions that cannot be answered without goverment intervention. Like monopolys eviroment social safety nets business regulation

 

[Dr Kynes]

So Kynes, you still just skimming over shit, not really reading it, then assuming you get the jist of what it is there to convey huh?

I was positing that it does and I gave an argument as to why.

Your claim is just a claim.

So when a philosophy uses phrases such as "the nature of reality" and I seek evidence from within the science of physics to disprove it's claims about "the nature of reality", your retort is simply, philosophy and physics are unrelated. Fine, then this selfish bitch was just making shit up, she was talking about the "nature of reality" with absolutely no basis in the scientific study of the nature of reality. Works for me.

more sophistry disguised as philosophy.,

philosophy aims to define the HUMAN condition, and only in an existentialist/cartesian manner would that extend to the universe as we perceive it.
your stated position was the kind of profundity one woulkd expect to hear mumbled by a freshman psychology or philosophy major, or a really wasted pothead, right before he wonders why they call em fingers since he never sees them "Fing"

observing a reaction, an object or an event does not influence the outcome on any measurable scale, it can only be postulated, since there is no control or baseline by which to measure a similar event without observation, as you would have to observe it (DUM DUM DUUUUM!!!) to gather the data to compare with your other tests.

ayn rand was discussing the HUMAN CONDITION and HUMAN MOTIVATIONS not the inner workings of the unseen universe or the new fad of quantum theory.
this is why she wrote about PEOPLE not chemical reactions, free floating neutrons in rotation or fantastical experiments that could possibly create a small black hole and cause switzerland to disappear off the pages of time (Aha! perhaps that was what ahmedinjad meant for israel!)

objectivism is not about "objects" it is about motivations and goals as the spur for HUMAN action (not the movement of sub-atomic particles and galaxies)

example:

wolves dont hunt deer out of some wooly headed concern that ruminant populations may destabilize the ecosystem, they do it to eat.
whales dont strain krill from the sea to reduce the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, they do it because they are eternally hungry.
cats dont chase mice over some ancient feud between rodent and feline (no matter what cartoons might say)
ants dont work reproduce and colonize to spread ant society over the earth in response to some Antish Prophesy of the Coming of the Cremesicle-Apocaplyse
bees dont collect nectar and store it as honey for the benefit of hungry bears.

humans, due to the combined efforts of the gift of intellect and the curse of introspection, have the ability to look both forward and back in time, and thus plan for possible future outcomes, this complicates human motivation as does society, social conventions and superstitions/religions. Ayn Rand's goal (as is the goal of every true philosopher) was to burrow through the bullshit and determine what DOES motivate human action, but also to postulate what BEST motivates human action.

her conclusion may not please you but then, she isnt the empress of earth nor does she force you to adhere to her tenets. i for one despise emanuel kant and hate everything he stands for as well as all the things his shitty ruminations have wrought on our society and our species. but then i also do like neitsche and descartes, but generally im platonic and aristotalian in nature.

stop reading philosophy and assuming "the study of everything" extends beyond it's actual goal, the study of humanity.

 

[cannabineer]

more sophistry disguised as philosophy.,

philosophy aims to define the HUMAN condition, and only in an existentialist/cartesian manner would that extend to the universe as we perceive it.
your stated position was the kind of profundity one woulkd expect to hear mumbled by a freshman psychology or philosophy major, or a really wasted pothead, right before he wonders why they call em fingers since he never sees them "Fing"

observing a reaction, an object or an event does not influence the outcome on any measurable scale, it can only be postulated, since there is no control or baseline by which to measure a similar event without observation, as you would have to observe it (DUM DUM DUUUUM!!!) to gather the data to compare with your other tests.

ayn rand was discussing the HUMAN CONDITION and HUMAN MOTIVATIONS not the inner workings of the unseen universe or the new fad of quantum theory.
this is why she wrote about PEOPLE not chemical reactions, free floating neutrons in rotation or fantastical experiments that could possibly create a small black hole and cause switzerland to disappear off the pages of time (Aha! perhaps that was what ahmedinjad meant for israel!)

objectivism is not about "objects" it is about motivations and goals as the spur for HUMAN action (not the movement of sub-atomic particles and galaxies)

example:

wolves dont hunt deer out of some wooly headed concern that ruminant populations may destabilize the ecosystem, they do it to eat.
whales dont strain krill from the sea to reduce the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, they do it because they are eternally hungry.
cats dont chase mice over some ancient feud between rodent and feline (no matter what cartoons might say)
ants dont work reproduce and colonize to spread ant society over the earth in response to some Antish Prophesy of the Coming of the Cremesicle-Apocaplyse
bees dont collect nectar and store it as honey for the benefit of hungry bears.

humans, due to the combined efforts of the gift of intellect and the curse of introspection, have the ability to look both forward and back in time, and thus plan for possible future outcomes, this complicates human motivation as does society, social conventions and superstitions/religions. Ayn Rand's goal (as is the goal of every true philosopher) was to burrow through the bullshit and determine what DOES motivate human action, but also to postulate what BEST motivates human action.

her conclusion may not please you but then, she isnt the empress of earth nor does she force you to adhere to her tenets. i for one despise emanuel kant and hate everything he stands for as well as all the things his shitty ruminations have wrought on our society and our species. but then i also do like neitsche and descartes, but generally im platonic and aristotalian in nature.

stop reading philosophy and assuming "the study of everything" extends beyond it's actual goal, the study of humanity.

The two are tautologous. All we can know about everything (until we devise a truly nonhuman mind and manage to stay friends with it) is necessarily filtered through our awareness, our perceptions. Philosophy is "the study of everything from the human vantage". cn

 

[OGEvilgenius]

and on the other side of the argument is questions that cannot be answered without goverment intervention. Like monopolys eviroment social safety nets business regulation

Forced social safety nets breed poverty and laziness (in many different ways). There have been plenty of organizations who have done a good job assisting the poor and unfortunate without government forcing anything. Business is better regulated by citizens and law suits in independent courts. Regulations often provide cover for damaging activity, and have the added benefit of keeping small business down, and the large businesses are the regulators (See; FDA). Maybe you can make an argument for government regulators, but the balances against their power would have to be so overwhelming (ie: publicly followed around all the time every movement on camera every phone call recorded and available for public viewing) that no one would ever want to be one or else the position would become corrupted (as it always does).

You can make a case for the break up of monopolies. Make it a constitutional power and clearly define what a monopoly is (CLEARLY, not with some ambiguous statement that's supposed to be really clear and can then be distorted).

Certainly every single person who directly and knowingly benefited from the current crony capitalism that runs rampant needs to be convicted and all assets seized as well. Serious investigations would have to happen.

The practicality of it all seems daunting, but it's not impossible. There would have to be a transition period.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The two are tautologous. All we can know about everything (until we devise a truly nonhuman mind and manage to stay friends with it) is necessarily filtered through our awareness, our perceptions. Philosophy is "the study of everything from the human vantage". cn

i would argue that philosophy is "The study of the human perspective as it relates to Everything."

but the differences are in the shadings.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Forced social safety nets breed poverty and laziness (in many different ways). There have been plenty of organizations who have done a good job assisting the poor and unfortunate without government forcing anything. Business is better regulated by citizens and law suits in independent courts. Regulations often provide cover for damaging activity, and have the added benefit of keeping small business down, and the large businesses are the regulators (See; FDA). Maybe you can make an argument for government regulators, but the balances against their power would have to be so overwhelming (ie: publicly followed around all the time every movement on camera every phone call recorded and available for public viewing) that no one would ever want to be one or else the position would become corrupted (as it always does).

You can make a case for the break up of monopolies. Make it a constitutional power and clearly define what a monopoly is (CLEARLY, not with some ambiguous statement that's supposed to be really clear and can then be distorted).

Certainly every single person who directly and knowingly benefited from the current crony capitalism that runs rampant needs to be convicted and all assets seized as well. Serious investigations would have to happen.

The practicality of it all seems daunting, but it's not impossible. There would have to be a transition period.

Ohh No Brer' Fox, dont throw me in that there Briar Patch!

the government as it stands is not just complicit in crony capitalism but the instigator of the system itself. the government's track record on self-investigation ranks right up there with the good folks at ENRON and their ability to self-police their own accountancy practices....

 

[abandonconflict]

ayn rand was discussing the HUMAN CONDITION and HUMAN MOTIVATIONS

Ayn Rand based her world view on her assumption of nature. She was incorrect in that assumption and therefore her entire world view was bullshit.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Ayn Rand based her world view on her assumption of nature. She was incorrect in that assumption and therefore her entire world view was bullshit.

but thats just, like, your opinion man.

you coul dmake the same argument on descartes' navel gazing and pondering the imponderables of his very existence.

 

[abandonconflict]

but thats just, like, your opinion man.

you coul dmake the same argument on descartes' navel gazing and pondering the imponderables of his very existence.

Descartes sought evidence through physical measurements and experiments to base his world view. He fucking vivisected critters to find the soul.

Philosophical arguments and even ontological arguments have premises and those premises are declarative statements that can be tested.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Descartes sought evidence through physical measurements and experiments to base his world view. He fucking vivisected critters to find the soul.

Philosophical arguments and even ontological arguments have premises and those premises are declarative statements that can be tested.

his failure to find a soul does not disprove the existence of one. just as failure to locate the mountain gorilla before 1847 doesnt mean they spontaneously appeared just before the first european zoologist spotted one.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. likewise absence of evidence is not proof of presence either.

descarters was a product of his time and the philosophies on which he was raised. he influenced the way we look at the universe today, but he should not be taken and the final word, just as your opinion on the validity of Ayn Rand's work is not in any way relevent to the value of the works, or of philosophy in general.

you are influenced by those who created your world view. my world view is different and i see value in Objectivism as a philosophy (despite only lukewarm appreciation of her writing in a literary sense).

 

[cannabineer]

his failure to find a soul does not disprove the existence of one. just as failure to locate the mountain gorilla before 1847 doesnt mean they spontaneously appeared just before the first european zoologist spotted one.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. likewise absence of evidence is not proof of presence either.

descarters was a product of his time and the philosophies on which he was raised. he influenced the way we look at the universe today, but he should not be taken and the final word, just as your opinion on the validity of Ayn Rand's work is not in any way relevent to the value of the works, or of philosophy in general.

you are influenced by those who created your world view. my world view is different and i see value in Objectivism as a philosophy (despite only lukewarm appreciation of her writing in a literary sense).

Ayn thinks that people, left to their own devices, will be nice. That right there puts paid to thousands of pages of indifferent literature. My opinion, man. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

Ayn thinks that people, left to their own devices, will be nice. That right there puts paid to thousands of pages of indifferent literature. My opinion, man. cn

i disagree with that sentiment, she contends, in my view that without an incentive to evil, man would not indulge in evil, which is where her penchant for utopianism leads her astray.

but in small groups and voluntary associations, where there is no incentive for fucking over your neighbor, your neighbors rarely get fucked.

shes not too far from plato's contention that a noble and incorruptible philosopher king would be a good ruler....

until plato demonstrates that even the most benevolent rulers invariably wind up doing more harm the harder they try to do good.

rand didnt get that, so her philosophy is not much use in governance but it can be a fine thing within the self.

 

[cannabineer]

i disagree with that sentiment, she contends, in my view that without an incentive to evil, man would not indulge in evil, which is where her penchant for utopianism leads her astray.

but in small groups and voluntary associations, where there is no incentive for fucking over your neighbor, your neighbors rarely get fucked.

The second part underlines her intrinsic silliness. To reduce us to small groups and voluntary organizations is to return us to the age before masonry. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

his failure to find a soul does not disprove the existence of one. just as failure to locate the mountain gorilla before 1847 doesnt mean they spontaneously appeared just before the first european zoologist spotted one.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. likewise absence of evidence is not proof of presence either.

descarters was a product of his time and the philosophies on which he was raised. he influenced the way we look at the universe today, but he should not be taken and the final word, just as your opinion on the validity of Ayn Rand's work is not in any way relevent to the value of the works, or of philosophy in general.

you are influenced by those who created your world view. my world view is different and i see value in Objectivism as a philosophy (despite only lukewarm appreciation of her writing in a literary sense).

What are you talking about? I'm not attacking Descartes, I'm saying he was looking for physical evidence of a soul, you went a step further to say that I contend he did not find it. I personally believe he did find it actually and that it is the pineal gland. Whether he did or not, my point was simply that he postulated something and sought physical evidence through experimentation and measurement to test his claims which were philosophical and ontological in nature.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What are you talking about? I'm not attacking Descartes, I'm saying he was looking for physical evidence of a soul, you went a step further to say that I contend he did not find it. I personally believe he did find it actually and that it is the pineal gland. Whether he did or not, my point was simply that he postulated something and sought physical evidence through experimentation and measurement to test his claims which were philosophical and ontological in nature.

i didnt even imply you were attacking descartes...
you may have inferred it, but thats most likely a result of your immediate and visceral distrust of anyone who reads Ayn Rand and doesnt immediately demand a book burning.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The second part underlines her intrinsic silliness. To reduce us to small groups and voluntary organizations is to return us to the age before masonry. cn

 

[cannabineer]

... not THAT kind of masonry ...

... this kind. cn