Weirdest, snarkiest and... er... funny(?)

[Brant Gaede]

To restate my own position: All valuing is subjective. Some values are subjective consequently. Objective values are those required by people generally because of their human nature: food and water for starters.

--Brant

Edited June 24, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

To restate my own position: All valuing is subjective.

Indeed it is. It can't be otherwise

Some values are subjective consequently. Objective values are those required by people generally because of their human nature: food and water for starters.

--Brant

But the discussion is about philosophy, not biology. It is about ethical values, not biological necessities.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"I agree with every word written there."

"This is a very convincing argumentation..."

The purpose of argumentation is to state your opinion on an issue and present an argument to convince others to agree with your opinion and adopt it as their own.

Arugmentation involves the use of logic and persuasion, and teach much more than research of a subject. While argumentation requires more of a student than most other types of presentations, e.g., non-argumentation essays, they can also be the most enjoyable type of essay to write.

Argumentation essays allow the writer to express his or her personal views about a subject. The paper does not only deal in facts, but also in emotional appeal. This site exists to help you learn more about argumentation essays, the process behind writing an argumentation essay, and logical arguments in general.

Is that what you meant by argumentation?

Adam

Feel free to quote examples in Dragonfly's # 144 post where you think he was in error on a issue.

So if you disagree with anything written there, quote the passage and explain why you disagree. TIA.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

To restate my own position: All valuing is subjective.

Indeed it is. It can't be otherwise

Some values are subjective consequently. Objective values are those required by people generally because of their human nature: food and water for starters.

--Brant

But the discussion is about philosophy, not biology. It is about ethical values, not biological necessities.

Is this like a perpetual motion machine demo where the inventor slightly touches it every now and then to keep it going, in this case with "ethical"? And why only "biological necessities"? Why not "psychological" necessities too if you are on an exclusion jag? Human necessity is what differentiates subjective from objective values and I grant you there is a big grey area in between.

I do not grant you, however, that ethical values are necessarily subjective--or ethics or politics. But I have already pointed out that bottom line your epistemological excuse for a philosophy logically ends up with anything goes, from Hitler to one's sainted mother. That's because there is no metaphysical tie in on the one side or an ethical and political tie in on the other. You implicitly abjure the hierarchical integration of philosophy without which there is no Objectivism. As long as you do that you can't really mount an effective critique. You don't expect to turn Objectivism into Subjectivism in the minds of its adherents do you? That's what you are up to if you see that or not, but you won't succeed out of your delimited epistemological base.

--Brant

Edited June 25, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Xray,

I agree some of Rand's theories have problems. From reading you, I don't agree that you understand what they are, since you don't show you understand them to begin with.

Thus it has to be about winning. Either that or repetition qua repetition as an end it itself.

Michael

Have you read Dragonfly's # 144 post, Michael?

If yes, what do you think of his arguments? This is a very convincing argumentation imo, dictated by logic and reason, and which addresses the core of the matter. I agree with every word written there.

If you disagree with anything in Dragonfly's post, would you please quote the points of disagreement and explain why you disagree. TIA.

DF critiques some of Rand's formulations. That doesn't mean those cannot be recast to meet his objections. I'm not especially interested in that. I am primarily interested here in objective-subjective only. If I were to do a true critique of Objectivism in detail I'd have to spend about five to ten years research and writing and not just Objectivism but philosophy generally plus ethics and politics. I'm not going to do this. I have other interests and I don't think my brain will last more than another 25 years except for watching TV and Internet postings, so I have to use my time carefully. ;)

--Brant

[Selene]

"I agree with every word written there."

"This is a very convincing argumentation..."

The purpose of argumentation is to state your opinion on an issue and present an argument to convince others to agree with your opinion and adopt it as their own.

Arugmentation involves the use of logic and persuasion, and teach much more than research of a subject. While argumentation requires more of a student than most other types of presentations, e.g., non-argumentation essays, they can also be the most enjoyable type of essay to write.

Argumentation essays allow the writer to express his or her personal views about a subject. The paper does not only deal in facts, but also in emotional appeal. This site exists to help you learn more about argumentation essays, the process behind writing an argumentation essay, and logical arguments in general.

Is that what you meant by argumentation?

Adam

Feel free to quote examples in Dragonfly's # 144 post where you think he was in error on a issue.

So if you disagree with anything written there, quote the passage and explain why you disagree. TIA.

Can you provide me with examples that you believe are relevant in Dragonfly's #144 post?

Moreover, can you link those examples with specific examples of Rand's statements?

:poke:

[Brant Gaede]

Can you provide me with examples that you believe are relevant in Dragonfly's #144 post?

Moreover, can you link those examples with specific examples of Rand's statements?

You've got me confused here, Adam. Isn't all that in DF's post?

--Brant

[Xray]

Can you provide me with examples that you believe are relevant in Dragonfly's #144 post?

Moreover, can you link those examples with specific examples of Rand's statements?

You've got me confused here, Adam. Isn't all that in DF's post?

--Brant

You are of course right, Brant: It IS all in Dragonfly's # 144 post. Selene is merely trying to dilute the contents of the post by creating a smokescreen.

But this tactic is not very effective.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Strange... the message I got was neither serious, nor sneakily trying to create a smokescreen.

I understood Adam to be making an Xray-call.

Sort of like, "Polly want a cracker? Awwwk!" for parrots.

Michael

[Selene]

:cheer: :thumbsup:

[Xray]

Strange... the message I got was neither serious, nor sneakily trying to create a smokescreen.

Michael

Indeed Selene was not sneakily trying to create a smokescreen - he was openly trying to create one.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Can you give me an example of a non existent clear smoke screen?

[thomtg]

On a TV interview (perhaps an old Phil Donahue Show, first visit), a questioner asked Ayn Rand a question from a questionable source of authority. I don't remember the exact question, but it goes in paraphrase: "I used to read Atlas Shrugged and believed in capitalism, but since then my economics professors tell me otherwise. Why do you still believe in capitalism?" Rand's reply was to dismiss the question. It was asked in bad faith.

If I understand Rand's refusal correctly, I conclude that it is all right to question Rand's belief in capitalism, but it is not fine to frame it prefixed within discredit and from a mutually unrecognized authority. A question is asked in bad faith whenever the questioner has failed to pass judgment on a claim but then gone on to ask a question based on the claim. I call it the "stolen-question fallacy."

The stolen-question fallacy is a species of the complex-question fallacy, which in turn is a species of the fallacy of begging the question. The questioner in the TV show above already presumed capitalism to be false; any reply from Rand would have no effect on that as a foregone conclusion. Rand was correct and rightly so to dismiss the question. (See ARA 132-133 for more examples of such improper questions.)

[...]

Here is the

that I mentioned previously that includes a particularly fallacious form of questioning. The rude questioner starts speaking at 8:16.

By the way, what year did Ayn Rand marry Frank O'Connor? Earlier in the segment Rand acknowledged having recently celebrated her 50th anniversary. I am asking this because I am wondering if the date ascribed to the show is correct: 1979. (Also, later in the show, Donahue held up Rand's "latest" book ITOE.)