|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 5, 2010 10:36:36 GMT 10
Philip. it is simply not constitutional for the federal government to do so. Then, if you have a problem with Federal welfare measures and, if you're right, you have your answer. I had however, thought we were discussing the spirit of welfare measures rather than the letter of the laws under which they are enacted. The point I am trying to make is that in a socio-economic system which over-privileges some and under-privileges others, a degree of income redistribution is a valid social justice option. If the current laws don't support the policies needed to do so, then that is another issue.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 12:50:46 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). I suggested one book, on one specific topic. I can see we're accomplishing nothing other than to chase our own tails, so I'll simply withdraw from the discussion at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 5, 2010 17:56:27 GMT 10
I suggested one book, on one specific topic.
I can see we're accomplishing nothing other than to chase our own tails, so I'll simply withdraw from the discussion at this point. Well, quite some time ago I purchased Atlas Shrugged at your suggestion (I read enough to agree with the critics). However, you make a fair call: My remark was unwarranted and I regret saying what I did. I was tired and testy this morning (I've since had a nap) and I had at the back of my mind my annoyance with Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, recently read at Brandt's suggestion, (but that had nothing to do with you). Please accept my apology. That said, we have come a long way from Engels to Obama and finally back to Ayn Rand. We have both made our positions clear and I don't think we are likely to arrive at a point of agreement, other than that of agreeing to differ.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 5, 2010 19:06:35 GMT 10
Apology accepted. I think we have too much in common to let such a thing spoil our online friendship. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge, as I hope you do mine. Lord knows we have, at times, on certain fora, been practically the lone defenders of reason.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 7, 2010 6:05:17 GMT 10
Cheers. Thanks Bryan.
|
|