Brant Gaede
-
Content Count
24,352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Everything posted by Brant Gaede
-
Weird News about Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Brant Gaede replied to Michael Stuart Kelly's topic in Objectivism in Dark Places
At least ARI didn't keep changing its name. --Brant -
Thank you for posting this.. --Brant
-
Read the condensed volume. In hardback. The six are hard to get and expensive. "The Fourth President: A Life of James Madison" --Brant
-
My grandfather was a personal friend of DL Chambers who published most of his books likely making little money for Bobbs Merrill, including his one and really not so good but interesting novel, "Friendly Cove." This is the guy who told A. Ogden No for "The Fountainhead." --Brant
-
The Bill of Rights was a limitation on federal not state power. After the Civil War the "Civil War Amendments" changed that. Irving Brant, "The Bill of Rights, It's Origin and Meaning", 1965, pp 3,4 --Brant
-
A sucker. --Brant
-
Still, a right need not be enumerated. That was settled by the Civil War. The expansion of Federal over State power in this context is the SCOTUS telling the States and sundry they cannot violate a human right. Thus, is there a right for a woman to have an abortion? You answered yes only you called it sovereignty. You could have called it privacy except it's mealy mouthed. --Brant
-
Actually, I wasn't trying to invoke Objectivism. I never do except when I say I am. My only point was a human being includes biology. --Brant we may be over-referencing Rand my Objectivism expertise comes from not being an expert on Objectivism as classically and/or officially rendered (see Peikoff) so man qua man is just as fundamental as biology
-
A right does not need to be enumerated. The right to privacy meant a right to get an abortion, but the Court didn't want to say that. --Brant
-
Saying "biology is fundamental" is saying "man qua man" isn't? --Brant
-
Is abortion an initiation of force against another human being? Man's freedom of action in a social context can only be violated by the initiation of force. Do the unborn lacking the social context get dehumanized through logic and semantics? Forcing a woman to have an abortion is hands down a violation of her rights. Forcing a woman not to have an abortion . . . . My old position from 30 years ago is still my position: the unborn not able to survive outside of the mothers's womb is part of her body--part of her-- and she is free to do as she wants. Brain waves (socially) don't count. --Brant
-
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! --Brant
- 90 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- deep state
- barr
- (and 3 more)
-
Nobody. They are a human political-philosophical invention. But not arbitrary. You use rights by moral-ethical right. That is, you are not initiating force against another person or persons. True, this has to be put into law and properly maintained therein. --Brant Rand's definition is still operative though it may need improving
-
Human life begins at conception. This has nothing to do, however, with rights' theory. Attach a right to life to it and it's religious dogma or faith. Human life beginning with brain activity is yet up in the air respecting theory. --Brant
-
The Real Roots of the Internet and Social Media
Brant Gaede replied to Michael Stuart Kelly's topic in Persuasion Techniques
Using a truth to hide the truth makes a lie. --Brant -
The fundamental grounding for human rights is human nature. Brains applied to biology. Brains are biological too. Thus ideology is neither first nor second to biology; it's just using your brains. An unborn baby has no right to life according to Objectivism. I think that's much too severe. But Rand came out of Jewish culture which seems to be much more amenable than Christian to abortion. If she had an abortion herself in the 1930s, her stance may be that of obviating guilt. In any case she resorted to simplicity and abortion is beyond simplicity. --Brant
- 90 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- deep state
- barr
- (and 3 more)
-
I think we need to differentiate between philosophy and ideology. Everybody has a philosophy. We can even say a culture has a philosophy. It's likely a mess full of contradictions. Then we bring in ideology and the real fun begins. --Brant a philosophy is the operating software of volitional human consciousness
-
Quo vadis, philosophy? --Brant
-
"Kill the human being inside her." I'm all in favor of cultural disapprobation of abortion if only for the mother to not suffer a lifetime of regret and guilt. I've never heard of a mother regretting bringing a healthy baby to term though one must assume there are a few such. My very liberal mother regretting trying to abort her first born and favorite child, my sister. That was for the rest of her life. Her consequent attitude was if you do the sex you have the baby. --Brant
-
Rights come out of ideology referencing human nature. First you make sense then you invent philosophy then you act accordingly. Biology trumping philosophy means no philosophy. You are inhabiting a contradiction. That a woman can't take a morning after pill makes no sense at all. ---Brant
-
Please modify the definition of a human right to fit your understanding of what it should encompass. --Brant
-
I think you've gone off the rails with this one. --Brant
-
Human rights are an ideological invention transmogrified from the ethics into considered law. The right to life is both cultural and ideological. Hence for an Objectivist it begins at birth and the social context. For a devout Catholic it begins at conception. All I can come up with is on the Federal level the woman's right to life is paramount through the first trimester and after that it's a matter of state laws. The conflict is between faith and reason with the former having the upper hand. More broadly the Conservatives are fighting the progressives. They are headed by Donald Trump. This is a cultural war both broad and deep. The age of reason is suspended and Objectivists and libertarians are finding no room at the inn. The liberals gave up the intellectual with the Vietnam War protests of the late 1960s and took up thuggery out of moral hubris. Anything can go because they are right. The same sort of righteousness powered communist and Nazi genocidal totalitarianism. They just did it, no real thinking was required. --Brant
- 90 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- deep state
- barr
- (and 3 more)
-
For a modest fee I can argue for you. --Brant
-
That character is death itself--or whatever you want to make of it--and the story is logically and factually circular. It starts with conception. --Brant the Bidders et al. are on a Russian sleigh ride--and that is what they didn't see coming "Of Living Death"
