|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 21:40:29 GMT 10
Go to the source itself, rather than rely upon the rantings of the "intellectuals." The progressives would, naturally vilify and ridicule such an individualistic vision. Most responded arbitrarily, without reading the works themselves, as a knee-jerk reaction. I've read reviews of Atlas Shrugged which were written when it was first published in 1957, and it is obvious the author had not bothered to actually read the novel. Ironically, Rand's fictional novel reads like a prophetic revelation when compared to the asinine proposals rammed through this last congress.
I would suggest obtaining a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, by Leornard Peikoff, and investigating it for yourself. Thanks, but no thanks. We have been over this ground before. You have put your case for Rand's Objectivism, it is ridiculed in academic circles and from what I have directly read of her work, I side with the "intellectuals" and "progressives" as you describe them (I guess the alternative is to side with dumb regressives). Hers is indeed an "individualist vision." Rand disdains practically every philosopher except Aristotle and even with him, she is very selective (the historical Aristotle would have much to dispute with the Randian Aristotle). If one sees some merit in any of those philosophers she imperiously rejects why should one take Rand seriously? I would suggest reading more widely.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 3:44:37 GMT 10
That being said, there is nothing to prevent the state governments from providing a social safety net, such as you favor. In fact, this is the intent, under federalism - this is one of the powers reserved to the states, by the constitution under the Tenth Amendment. It is my argument, and that of many others, that the usurpation of powers by the federal government, by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional means, must be curtailed and power restored to the states and the people, where it belongs. What sense does it make for a state to be forced to send it's revenue to a centralized bureaucracy to be doled back out, a dribble here and there, to the very states from whom it was taken in the first place? Local and state governments know their citizens and their local conditions far, far better than some apparatchnik in Washington D.C. with a fancy degree. Also, people having more of their own hard earned wealth results in higher rates of charitable giving and a better chance of that private charity being directed where it will do the most good. The States, particularly in the deep south, have been part of the problem, especially for African-American communities. Consider voting rights, anti-lynching legislation and policies of desegregation. All of which can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrat party. You know, the ones we just voted out of power and to which our current president belongs? Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 3:46:01 GMT 10
We I would suggest reading more widely. I have read quite widely, thank you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 5, 2010 4:05:21 GMT 10
All of which can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrat party. You know, the ones we just voted out of power and to which our current president belongs? Hmmm... Remember, we are talking about State politics: Are you saying these problems didn't exist under southern, State Republican rule and only resumed whenever Democrats were elected?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 5, 2010 4:34:03 GMT 10
I have read quite widely, thank you. ;D Then, of Rand and those representational philosophers she disdains, do you consider her "three A's" to be the only ones of merit (Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn Rand)? Having lauded Enlightenment philosophy, do you agree with her scornful assessment of Enlightenment philosophers, especially Kant? (As with her version of Aristotle, I suspect her version of Kant bears little in common with the historical Kant — so much for being "objective").
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 8:45:39 GMT 10
All of which can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrat party. You know, the ones we just voted out of power and to which our current president belongs? Hmmm... Remember, we are talking about State politics: Are you saying these problems didn't exist under southern, State Republican rule and only resumed whenever Democrats were elected? There was no Republican rule in the South from the time of the War for Southern Independance until recent times. The Democrat party was the one's who stood in the doorway to prevent Black children from integrating into the school system, passed Jim Crow laws, etc. Lyndon Johnson, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was the very one who, in 1957 when Republican legislation (The Civil Rights Act of 1957) was introduced under the leadership of President Eisenhower, would not allow it to come to a vote in Congress. It was, again, the Republicans who pushed the legislation through in 1964, which Johnson finally signed on to. It was Johnson who also pushed through the "Great Society" programs which massively expanded the welfare state and created the failed public housing program which created the Black ghettos in the inner cities and brought about the conditions which deteriorated the stability of Black families.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 5, 2010 9:04:54 GMT 10
So these States are the entities to whom you wish to restrict powers to enact welfare policies!?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 9:06:45 GMT 10
I have read quite widely, thank you. ;D Then, of Rand and those representational philosophers she disdains, do you consider her "three A's" to be the only ones of merit (Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn Rand)? Having lauded Enlightenment philosophy, do you agree with her scornful assessment of Enlightenment philosophers, especially Kant? (As with her version of Aristotle, I suspect her version of Kant bears little in common with the historical Kant — so much for being "objective"). Rand's problem with Kant is his denial of man's rational faculty as a means of perceiving reality. The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world. The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means: things as they are not perceived by man. According to Peikoff in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: "The motive of all the attacks on man’s rational faculty—from any quarter, in any of the endless variations, under the verbal dust of all the murky volumes—is a single, hidden premise: the desire to exempt consciousness from the law of identity. The hallmark of a mystic is the savagely stubborn refusal to accept the fact that consciousness, like any other existent, possesses identity, that it is a faculty of a specific nature, functioning through specific means. While the advance of civilization has been eliminating one area of magic after another, the last stand of the believers in the miraculous consists of their frantic attempts to regard identity as the disqualifying element of consciousness. The implicit, but unadmitted premise of the neo-mystics of modern philosophy, is the notion that only an ineffable consciousness can acquire a valid knowledge of reality, that “true” knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition. The entire apparatus of Kant’s system, like a hippopotamus engaged in belly-dancing, goes through its gyrations while resting on a single point: that man’s knowledge is not valid because his consciousness possesses identity. . . . This is a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such, whether man’s, insect’s or God’s. (If one supposed the existence of God, the negation would still apply: either God perceives through no means whatever, in which case he possesses no identity—or he perceives by some divine means and no others, in which case his perception is not valid.) As Berkeley negated existence by claiming that “to be, is to be perceived,” so Kant negates consciousness by implying that to be perceived, is not to be. . . . From primordial mysticism to this, its climax, the attack on man’s consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is “processed knowledge.” Make no mistake about the actual meaning of that premise: it is a revolt, not only against being conscious, but against being alive—since in fact, in reality, on earth, every aspect of being alive involves a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. (This is an example of the fact that the revolt against identity is a revolt against existence. “The desire not to be anything, is the desire not to be.” Atlas Shrugged.) All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An “unprocessed” knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition. Consciousness . . . is not a passive state, but an active process. And more: the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge." Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 79–81. All of the Enlightenment era philosophers have contributed to man's knowledge, all have also committed errors in their thinking, even as does Rand. The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam being chief among them. Anything which cannot be understood by rational knowledge and the current status of sciences was defied as meaningless or superstitious. Rand dismisses out of hand, albeit on the basis of lack of proof, the existence of a Creator, a Great Architect. I do not follow this line of thinking, because I know that The Great Mystery exists, that individual Gods and Goddesses exist, as well as spirits of the elements, of the land, sea and air, because I have experienced their presence. Rand was a dedicated Atheist, and her followers are as well. I have incorporated many elements of Objectivism into my own world view, but not all. O'ism has merit where it relates to reality and perception thereof, but fails in it's assessment to "other" reality, because it denies the very existence of such because of lack of scientific "proof."
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 9:10:56 GMT 10
So these States are the entities to whom you wish to restrict powers to enact welfare policies!? Philip. it is simply not constitutional for the federal government to do so. This is not the 1950s, my friend, this is almost 2011. There is a Black man sitting in the White House (even though I disagree with his governing policies)(I note also that Australia has yet to elect an Aboriginal PM). It is well established that all men have equal rights, it is simply not an issue. What is, and what needs to be addressed, is the extent of the power of the federal government in our day to day lives and how deeply they can reach into our pockets. As an aside, had I my way, I would see Hillary Clinton in the White House, with a Republican led Congress, so that a balance of power can be achieved, and a competent President is controlling the levers of power.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 5, 2010 10:22:49 GMT 10
This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world. The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means: things as they are not perceived by man. As you are so ready with suggestions as to what I should read (even though I have read enough to form an informed opinion), I suggest you read Kant's noumenal works rather than Rand's phenomenal version. Kant calls for us to apply more reasoning to our perceptions, not less. He never said, "that man's concepts are only a delusion." His analogy was more of an elaboration of Plato's shadows on a cave wall analogy. Phenomena arise from noumena but is filtered through our senses and interpreted by our reason. As such, it is not a delusion nor is it wholly reliable or complete and some of our sensory filters give rise to such qualities as colour and sound where objectively there is only variations in wave length. Sounds a lot like what modern physics is telling us (see what Werner Heisenberg had to say: today's quotes).
|
|