What will happen?

[Davy]

hmm.. well I haven't given it a great deal of thought (hey, it's Friday evening and I've had a couple of beers), but it seems to me that it's somehow related to the "analytic-synthetic" distinction. Is it the case that there are truths which can be known independently of empirical (scientific) investigation? if yes, it implies that there ARE "analytic" truths - true by virtue of meaning alone. But ultimately there is no such distinction (between "analytic" and "synthetic").

So a philosophy cannot be completely independent of empirical evidence.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Davy

[anthony]

... will set the stage for the ultimate burial of the philosophy.

Well, don't start dancing on its grave just yet.

Objectivism will outlive us all.

The word "zealot" will outlive us all too.

The interesting question isn't about Objectivism's burial, it's about the revival of reason in the best spirit of the Renaissance.

Shayne

There is nothing like hard times and the rejection of reason to get people to question the status quo and look for real answers.

I am having some youngsters approaching me where I am, keen to find out more about Objectivism.

If it can happen here, it's happening everywhere.

Some folks on this forum may have lost interest and been put off by endless internal squabbles, but young minds are attracted to the rational "package" that O'ism represents.

I'm thrilled.

Tony

[sjw]

Some folks on this forum may have lost interest and been put off by endless internal squabbles, but young minds are attracted to the rational "package" that O'ism represents.

I'm thrilled.

Tony

And history repeats. If they're rational, they'll hit the same wall every previous authentically rational former Objectivist hit.

Shayne

[anthony]

Some folks on this forum may have lost interest and been put off by endless internal squabbles, but young minds are attracted to the rational "package" that O'ism represents.

I'm thrilled.

Tony

And history repeats. If they're rational, they'll hit the same wall every previous authentically rational former Objectivist hit.

Shayne

Shayne,

Two options:

You're right - but masses of people will still be exposed to the philosophy that will stand them in good stead, and probably have a bearing on reason and ethics in the world,

or,

You're wrong - and Objectivism loses its paternalism and enjoys a vibrant revival.

A win-win situation.

[Davy]

But suppose a philosophy of our time disregards empirical evidence and scientific data, how can it claim to be convincing?

David Harriman discusses this in his ARI lecture "The Crisis in Physics—and Its Cause".

I'm not entirely convinced by his argument though.

[sjw]

Shayne,

Two options:

You're right - but masses of people will still be exposed to the philosophy that will stand them in good stead, and probably have a bearing on reason and ethics in the world,

or,

You're wrong - and Objectivism loses its paternalism and enjoys a vibrant revival.

A win-win situation.

Seems all you're saying is that Objectivism has been an overall positive contribution. I'd agree with that, but that's beside the point.

Shayne

[Xray]

There is nothing like hard times and the rejection of reason to get people to question the status quo and look for real answers.

I'm a bit skeptical (to put it mildly) about hard times getting people to find rational answers.

Even if the hard times should "reject reason" - whatever that means: the gamut ranges from stockmarket sharks promising people unrealistic profits, to television evangelists announcing the "rapture" -

from this one cannot infer that people's frustration about promises not being kept will lead to more reason. Instead one can frequently observe the phenomenon of one fallacy fighting another.

Bottom line: criticizing X does not necessarily establish the opposite of X as the solution of the problem.

I am having some youngsters approaching me where I am, keen to find out more about Objectivism.

If it can happen here, it's happening everywhere.

I would encourage youngsters approaching me on this issue to examine the subject on an epistemological level first.

Some folks on this forum may have lost interest and been put off by endless internal squabbles, but young minds are attracted to the rational "package" that O'ism represents.

I'm thrilled.

Young minds look for guidance in the jumble of possibilities. This also explains that the young are far more susceptible to following gurus than the old.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

I am having some youngsters approaching me where I am, keen to find out more about Objectivism.

If it can happen here, it's happening everywhere.

I would encourage youngsters approaching me on this issue to examine the subject on an epistemological level first.

Some folks on this forum may have lost interest and been put off by endless internal squabbles, but young minds are attracted to the rational "package" that O'ism represents.

I'm thrilled.

Young minds look for guidance in the jumble of possibilities. This also explains that the young are far more susceptible to following gurus than the old.

Xray,

Boring.

There are young and old who can think for themselves. Some minds - would you believe it? - have escaped the fascist-progressive jail.

This need to control ("for your own good") is what I loathe about the nanny-State called Europe.

And yes, oh guardian of the youth, they will hear all about the epistemology from me, and since I oppose individualism and glorify authority, I will force their unquestioning acceptance of it.

Tony

[caroljane]

I am having some youngsters approaching me where I am, keen to find out more about Objectivism.

If it can happen here, it's happening everywhere.

I would encourage youngsters approaching me on this issue to examine the subject on an epistemological level first.

Some folks on this forum may have lost interest and been put off by endless internal squabbles, but young minds are attracted to the rational "package" that O'ism represents.

I'm thrilled.

Young minds look for guidance in the jumble of possibilities. This also explains that the young are far more susceptible to following gurus than the old.

Xray,

Boring.

There are young and old who can think for themselves. Some minds - would you believe it? - have escaped the fascist-progressive jail.

This need to control ("for your own good") is what I loathe about the nanny-State called Europe.

And yes, oh guardian of the youth, they will hear all about the epistemology from me, and since I oppose individualism and glorify authority, I will force their unquestioning acceptance of it.

Tony

way to go Frowny Face! I enjoy the idea of you and my bff Xray squaring off in your separate corners. I and my motley crew of middle-aged students will be cheering on the sidelines.

[Xray]

Boring.

There are young and old who can think for themselves.

Some truths may indeed come across as boring because they are so self-evident. I wasn't saying that the young "can't think for themselves", I merely pointed out that they are more inclined to seek for guidance, which is perfectly explainable, given their lack of life experience.

Some minds - would you believe it? - have escaped the fascist-progressive jail.

I don't know where you get the idea that fascism was "progressive" (??). Actually fascism was a horrific backward relapse into the darkest abysses of inhumanity.

This need to control ("for your own good") is what I loathe about the nanny-State called Europe.

Europe as a state does not exist. It is a continent with various states, several of which grant their citzens a lot of liberty.

And yes, oh guardian of the youth, they will hear all about the epistemology from me, and since I oppose individualism and glorify authority, I will force their unquestioning acceptance of it.

Tony

I'm surprised that my harmless remark about epistemology has triggered this rant on your part, Tony. What exactly is it that bothers you?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Progressivism is crypto-fascism. Fascism itself is the foundation of all politically tyrannical systems including Nazi and communist totalitarian. The US today is becoming increasingly fascistic thanks in great part to the progressives who have been a significant political force here going back to before WWI--they helped get the US into that war.

--Brant

[anthony]

Some minds - would you believe it? - have escaped the fascist-progressive jail.

I don't know where you get the idea that fascism was "progressive" (??). Actually fascism was a horrific backward relapse into the darkest abysses of inhumanity.

Europe is a State, de facto; otherwise why are you as a German taxpayer (I guess) helping rescue other bankrupt satellite states in the EU?

Down the scale, how can the Brussels Parliament ban the import of perfectly tasty bananas from a province of Spain to the EU -merely because they don't meet minimum size requirements!!? An absurd example, if it weren't one of thousands of cases of regulatory interference, in Europe. Absurd too, if we are not the ones who suffer the total loss of income. I saw this in Spain seven months ago.

You live under Statism, dear Angela, and have just gotten used to it as the norm. Europeans have become "domesticated", (borrowing Shayne's word) not free. The Socialist/Fascist divide is imaginary, and Europeans have fallen for it, believing there is no alternative: one or the other. Coercion and collectivism are the hall-marks of both. Ayn Rand identified this false dichotomy, and daily I'm seeing its obvious effects where I live, beyond any doubt.

Think about your words:"...various states, several of which grant their citizens a lot of liberty."

"Grant"? A moral government does not grant. It protects individual rights. To "grant", must mean that it has withheld, or is able to remove, those rights.

Tony

[anthony]

And yes, oh guardian of the youth, they will hear all about the epistemology from me, and since I oppose individualism and glorify authority, I will force their unquestioning acceptance of it.

Tony

I'm surprised that my harmless remark about epistemology has triggered this rant on your part, Tony. What exactly is it that bothers you?

Angela, as to this:

I've given up trying to figure out if you understand Objectivism, honestly want to understand, or are an automatic critic of it. For whatever motive.

Certainly you don't miss a chance to add your voice to any criticism of Rand,(character and actions; excerpts from AS and TF; the principles of the philosophy; psychological hazards, etc etc.

So whether my rant was justified THIS time or not, I'm always aware you are disparaging of the metaphysics, the epistemology, the ethics and the politics of Objectivism. All of it, iow. Mostly without due reason.

I don't know what I should expect when you have disregarded the solution to the 'is/ought dichotomy' as nonsense.

That you can't accept laissez-faire capitalism as the final derivation in the chain beginning with metaphysics (to epistemology, to morality), is consistent of you at least.

After all, if you do not accept the Randian metaphysical nature of Man, the rest falls apart.

If you DO accept it, then what he is, is what he should do, right up to rational selfishness and individual rights.

Tony

(The rant was coming sometime. Not an apology, but I feel kinda sorry...)

Edited August 7, 2011 by whYNOT

[Xray]

That you can't accept laissez-faire capitalism as the final derivation in the chain beginning with metaphysics (to epistemology, to morality), is consistent of you at least.

After all, if you do not accept the Randian metaphysical nature of Man, the rest falls apart.

If you DO accept it, then what he is, is what he should do, right up to rational selfishness and individual rights.

Tony

(The rant was coming sometime. Not an apology, but I feel kinda sorry...)

No need to feel sorry, Tony. Rants are only human.

Imo the basic error in your argumentation lies in presenting your personal moral preferences as if they were objective epistemological truths.

'If you don't accept what it says in my preferred source, the rest falls apart', you say.

But if the issue is about examining whether what it says in your preferred source is correct, citing the source again is mere circular reasoning.

What would you say to e. g. a Marxist who told you that if you don't accept his premises, the rest falls apart? See my point?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Imo the basic error in your argumentation lies in presenting your personal moral preferences as if they were objective epistemological truths.

'If you don't accept what it says in my preferred source, the rest falls apart', you say.

But if the issue is about examining whether what it says in your preferred source is correct, citing the source again is mere circular reasoning.

What would you say to e. g. a Marxist who told you that if you don't accept his premises, the rest falls apart? See my point?

Angela,

What would I say to said Marxist? I'd say one of us is totally wrong - there can be no half-measures. What are your premises?

Yes, I do see what you mean, but what you call circular - and even subjective - reasoning ie, based on my "personal moral preferences", is (I repeat) based upon the objectively understood nature of Man, and his methods of concept formation.

His metaphysics and epistemology.

But you're kidding me, right?! Where are you going to find a clever Marxist who would be willing to discuss Marxism's 'm. and e.'? They don't have one, so far as I can tell - which is why Marxism goes straight to ethics and politics, and ignores the fundaments.

The Marxist methodology is "We decree that this be so." Full stop.

That is his sole premise.

So the clever Marxist won't 'go there' in argument since he'd be shooting himself in the foot.

If one asked said Marxist:- How is a person connected to another person? Can he breathe, eat, feel for, work for, choose for, gain knowledge and THINK, for another person? Also, if it is self-evidently true that an individual is self-generating and -directing, can he (should he?) direct any another individual? Finally, can such a person validly and morally claim for himself the rewards of work and thought created by another?

- he would (if honest) have no answers.

For such a Marxist, the is-ought dichotomy must hold true.

If pressed on it, he would have to admit that what a man ISN'T, (a sacrificial being) is what he ought to do and be.

Pure wishful thinking, or a deliberate lie.

There is the 'morality' of Marxism.

As for the 'practicality'... B)

Tony

[GALTGULCH8]

I do know that Objectivism as a philosophy, theoretical and practical, is not dependent for its continuation on the existence of institutions such as ARI or David Kelley’s institution. Scholars, writers, and readers of Objectivism are the essentials, and that part of the culture may flourish without those institutions. Wealthy people can fund chairs in philosophy without those institutions.

It important to separate between Objectivism the philosphy and Objectivism the movement.

As for the Objectivist movement, it suffered two severe blows: the first was the break between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. The second severe blow was the Peikoff-Kelley split.

I don't think the Objectivist movement ever recovered from these two major blows.

As for the Objectivist philosophy and its potential for survival: any claims as to Objectivism making sense only if regarded as a closed sytem will set the stage for the ultimate burial of the philosophy. Why? Because several of Objectivism's premises have turned out to be false, which is why, given the current state of scientific research, one simply cannot rationally defend them anymore.

For example, does anyone really believe one can still rationally defend the Objectivist "man is tabula rasa" tenet today? Of course this can't work, but then how does one deal with the 'closed system' principle which the very founder of the philosophy, Ayn Rand herself, emphasized? ("It's all or nothing" she said).

Bottom line: what does one do after discovering some wrong premises in a system declared as closed by its founder?

Please enlighten me. Just which "concept" is one born with? I still think that the tabula rasa tenet regarding man's conceptual faculty is defensible. Next?

gulch

Edited August 8, 2011 by gulch8

[Xray]

Europe is a State, de facto; otherwise why are you as a German taxpayer (I guess) helping rescue other bankrupt satellite states in the EU?

Down the scale, how can the Brussels Parliament ban the import of perfectly tasty bananas from a province of Spain to the EU -merely because they don't meet minimum size requirements!!? An absurd example, if it weren't one of thousands of cases of regulatory interference, in Europe. Absurd too, if we are not the ones who suffer the total loss of income. I saw this in Spain seven months ago.

You live under Statism, dear Angela, and have just gotten used to it as the norm.

I don't work with the opposition in statism versus capitalism because I'm not an either-or type of person. States as well as capitalism will be subject to change anyway in the future when the global village meets new challenges. Nothing stays like it is, nothing.

Selfish that I am, I pick what suits me best from both the state and capitalism, I prefer being a city employee over working for a private employer. I also have invested a bit of money (not much) in a capitalist enterprise. I see no problem with that.

As for mistakes, both governments and capitalist enterprises can make them. While no doubt there is too much regulation in the example you cited above - but wasn't it too much deregulation which led to the 2008 financial collapse? And didn't Alan Greeenspan himself admit that he may have been wrong in too uncritically applying certain ideas?

Europeans have become "domesticated", (borrowing Shayne's word) not free.

Now really Tony. "Domesticated" makes me think of animals.

(Still waiting btw for Shayne to define "civilized" on the other thread. He thinks we have become more domesticized than civilized).

The Socialist/Fascist divide is imaginary, and Europeans have fallen for it, believing there is no alternative: one or the other. Coercion and collectivism are the hall-marks of both. Ayn Rand identified this false dichotomy, and daily I'm seeing its obvious effects where I live, beyond any doubt.

I'm a European too but don't believe that there is no alternative between socialism and fascism. Nor do the Europeans I know personally exhibit such thinking in black and white.

Think about your words:"...various states, several of which grant their citizens a lot of liberty."

"Grant"? A moral government does not grant. It protects individual rights. To "grant", must mean that it has withheld, or is able to remove, those rights.

Maybe I chose then wrong term with "granted". If it bothers you, I'll leave it out and reduce it to a matter-of-fact statement: an individual is born into a society where he/she has (or does not) have certain rights. You have lucked out if you happen to be born into a society where you have a lot of rights, and a government that protects them. The justice system where I live is excellent.

Angela,

What would I say to said Marxist? I'd say one of us is totally wrong - there can be no half-measures.

It is possible that both A and B are wrong. Also possible that both A and B are in part right. Things are often far more complex than they appear at first glance, and almost always more complex than ideologists will admit.

What are your premises?

You'll get lecture of what it says in "Kapital" then. This is the Marxists' primary source, and typical for ideologists, the primary source is not called into question, but uncritically accepted.

Yes, I do see what you mean, but what you call circular - and even subjective - reasoning ie, based on my "personal moral preferences", is (I repeat) based upon the objectively understood nature of Man, and his methods of concept formation.

His metaphysics and epistemology.

The problem with that is that the Marxist too claims to objectively understand the nature of man.

But you're kidding me, right?! Where are you going to find a clever Marxist who would be willing to discuss Marxism's 'm. and e.'? They don't have one, so far as I can tell - which is why Marxism goes straight to ethics and politics, and ignores the fundaments.

Marxism does have quite an elaborate epistemology. As for 'metaphysics', Marxists don't use the term as Rand used it (pertaining to reality), but as the opposite (dealing with the the transcendent, the supenatural), which they reject.

The Marxist methodology is "We decree that this be so." Full stop.

That is his sole premise.

They won't say "we decree", but refer Marx's work instead, like a Jehova's witness will refer to the Bible.

So the clever Marxist won't 'go there' in argument since he'd be shooting himself in the foot.

The clever Marxist is ofen well trained in rhetoric, debate and propaganda. If memory serves, even Ayn Rand acknowledged that the Communists were quite well versed in these tactics.

one asked said Marxist:- How is a person connected to another person? Can he breathe, eat, feel for, work for, choose for, gain knowledge and THINK, for another person? Also, if it is self-evidently true that an individual is self-generating and -directing, can he (should he?) direct any another individual?

If I were discussing with Marxists, I would not use the "direct another individual" argument in the beginning, since it would only give them the opportunity to argue that the "capitalist ruling class" is the "oppressor of the masses".

Finally, can such a person validly and morally claim for himself the rewards of work and thought created by another?

Again, a slippery slope if you argue to Marxists like that. They'll counter: "Exactly. Who actually built the pyramids? The deprived and oppressed masses." ;)

Edited August 9, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

I do know that Objectivism as a philosophy, theoretical and practical, is not dependent for its continuation on the existence of institutions such as ARI or David Kelley’s institution. Scholars, writers, and readers of Objectivism are the essentials, and that part of the culture may flourish without those institutions. Wealthy people can fund chairs in philosophy without those institutions.

It important to separate between Objectivism the philosphy and Objectivism the movement.

As for the Objectivist movement, it suffered two severe blows: the first was the break between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. The second severe blow was the Peikoff-Kelley split.

I don't think the Objectivist movement ever recovered from these two major blows.

As for the Objectivist philosophy and its potential for survival: any claims as to Objectivism making sense only if regarded as a closed sytem will set the stage for the ultimate burial of the philosophy. Why? Because several of Objectivism's premises have turned out to be false, which is why, given the current state of scientific research, one simply cannot rationally defend them anymore.

For example, does anyone really believe one can still rationally defend the Objectivist "man is tabula rasa" tenet today? Of course this can't work, but then how does one deal with the 'closed system' principle which the very founder of the philosophy, Ayn Rand herself, emphasized? ("It's all or nothing" she said).

Bottom line: what does one do after discovering some wrong premises in a system declared as closed by its founder?

Please enlighten me. Just which "concept" is one born with? I still think that the tabula rasa tenet regarding man's conceptual faculty is defensible. Next?

gulch

There is an interesting discussion about the tabula rasa issue on this older thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=417

Research has shown that learning processes begin in the womb already; in addition, we are born with our evolutionary heritage.

During certain stage of their development, babies react postivley to human faces that are smiling at them.

So they already abstract these faces from their surrounings.

A lion is able to mentally differentiate those animals most likely to yield a meal, etc.

If you limit "concept formation" to the formation of linguistic classes and subclasses though, it is of course true that individuals are not born with knowledge of their mother tongue's audiovisual symbols and what they stand for, but then this linguistic concept formation is usually accomplished quite effortlessly.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Certainly you don't miss a chance to add your voice to any criticism of Rand,(character and actions; excerpts from AS and TF; the principles of the philosophy; psychological hazards, etc etc.

I suppose you will be surprised when I tell you how much I philosophically owe to my studying of Ayn Rand and her thoughts. While I don't share most of her philosophical premises, analyzing her work has had an interesting 'trigger' effect on my own thinking, the effects of which have made a remarkable difference in my life.

It was Rand's "Check your premises" that got me to think more radically, the result being that I was finally able to jettison certain cherished beliefs. (Long overdue, but better late than never!). I just had not epistemologically thought these things through enough before.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

I do know that Objectivism as a philosophy, theoretical and practical, is not dependent for its continuation on the existence of institutions such as ARI or David Kelley’s institution.

Just curious, Stephen: Do you endorse the 'Objectivism is a closed system' principle advocated by ARI, or do you lean more toward David Kelley who tried to introduce open system thinking into Objectivism?

Edited August 10, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The problem with that is that the Marxist too claims to objectively understand the nature of man.

The Marxist is wrong. However, claiming to know objectively "the nature of man" isn't much of an argument for much of anything. The basic problem is absolutism displacing ignorance and it's typical of formal Objectivism and many Objectivists who can say "Absolutely!" in a way absolutely nobody else can.

--Brant

[anthony]

I don't work with the opposition in statism versus capitalism because I'm not an either-or type of person. States as well as capitalism will be subject to change anyway in the future when the global village meets new challenges. Nothing stays like it is, nothing.

Selfish that I am, I pick what suits me best from both the state and capitalism, I prefer being a city employee over working for a private employer. I also have invested a bit of money (not much) in a capitalist enterprise. I see no problem with that.

As for mistakes, both governments and capitalist enterprises can make them. While no doubt there is too much regulation in the example you cited above - but wasn't it too much deregulation which led to the 2008 financial collapse? And didn't Alan Greeenspan himself admit that he may have been wrong in too uncritically applying certain ideas?

Finally, can such a person validly and morally claim for himself the rewards of work and thought created by another?

Again, a slippery slope if you argue to Marxists like that. They'll counter: "Exactly. Who actually built the pyramids? The deprived and oppressed masses." ;)

Angela,

It is not my intention to be prescriptive, but I have to question:

Is it in one's self-interest to cherry-pick from a 'neither/nor' ideology?

For you (or anybody) to be an agnostic - in faith; arbitrarily 'selfish',in turn, collectivist - in ethics; have similar mixed premises in politics and economy ?

I argue that this is a fence-sitting, rationalistic, philosophy. It's one of those times that what seems safe and 'logical', is actually contra-reality, therefore irrational. Middle of the road pragmatism is the most dangerous and morally faint-hearted place to be.

Not levelling this specifically at you, but this is the quality I notice in the many Westerners and Europeans I've known. Morally grey and inhibited, except when a popular politically-correct issue arises. Then such sanctimony!

It's the fear of appearing 'extremist' to others, I guess.

From a long history of national domination and injustice, I suppose.

But there's little chance of true individualism emerging there with that "someone's watching and judging me" collectivist mentality.

(Right now, seeing parts of good old moderate and safe England set on fire by mobs, is a reminder of the ignorance and immorality seething beneath the surface of Statist control and domestification. These people are not radical-individualists, but collectivist herds - a true product of the system.)

You write:

"...but wasn't it too much deregulation that lead to the 2008 collapse?"

No.

I'm amazed you have missed the multitude of references to the subject posted here. Or do you prefer the standard liberal explanation and excuses? While you have similar collapses happening on your own door step, you must be aware that the causes are all welfare-statist, and regulation/coercion by government.

Gov'ments that could not even balance a private home's budget.

"The trouble with Socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples' money." M. Thatcher.

Tony

[Xray]

Is it in one's self-interest to cherry-pick from a 'neither/nor' ideology?

I cannot speak for others and therefore can only say what is in my self-interest: to pick what I have found to stand up to objective scrutiny (to the best of my knowledge) and which I can integrate into my personal philosophy without contradiction.

Nearly every philosopher has got at least something right, and if it fits into the philosophy I myself am working at, I'll integrate it.

From Objectivism for example I have integrated the "Check your premises" principle. Also the rejection as irrational of any ethics based on religion.

As for Rand's take on language, I completely agree with her rejection of the extreme nominalist school which irrationally denies any connection between language and reality.

Kant, so much maligned by Rand, presented philosophy with a shining epistemological diamond with his clear separation of belief from knowledge. In return, his critics called him the "Alleszermalmer" ('all-cruncher') because they saw reduced to dust and ashes any future attempts at presenting a mere belief as if it constituted a fact. No surprise that the Catholic church banned Kant's books.

These are just some examples of the integrative procedure I'm applying. It works just fine and also has the advantage of being flexible enough to integrate new knowledge into the system. And if it should happen that a premise turns out to be false, then it is discarded, even if it hurts.

This can therefore go as far as having to rethink the basis of the whole edifice. That's why my focus is on epistemology because it constitutes the basis of everything else in philosophy.

For example, how is one to work out an ethics for humans if one has not not first studied human nature in detail?

For you (or anybody) to be an agnostic - in faith; arbitrarily 'selfish',in turn, collectivist - in ethics; have similar mixed premises in politics and economy ?

I'm not "arbitrarily" selfish because selfishness is a biological drive that I share with the rest of mankind.

As for mixed premises: as long as they don't contradict each other, I have no problem in working them into my intellectual and philosophical 'quilt'.

I argue that this is a fence-sitting, rationalistic, philosophy. It's one of those times that what seems safe and 'logical', is actually contra-reality, therefore irrational. Middle of the road pragmatism is the most dangerous and morally faint-hearted place to be.

You have thrown a lot into this commment, I suggest we sort it out a bit.

Re fence-sitter: where I am truly a fence-sitter is when it comes to religion. I'm an agnostic currently leaning heavily toward the atheist side of the fence, but not yet prepared to fully come down on that side. A fence-sitting position often reflects the intellectual position of just not knowing the answer.

A fence-sitting position is also far from safe btw.

It's actually quite uncomfortable because it requires constant mental activity in balancing out the unstable fence-sitting position. On the whole, it has more in common with a tightrope walk than with sitting in a cozy armchair.

Re 'rationalistic' philosophy: I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think we can both agree that working out a rational philosophy is a desirable goal.

But I suspect that with "rationalistic", you have a pejorative connotation in mind, and suggest that I am "rationalizing" away issues. But in order for me to answer to that, you would have to name exactly what you think it is that I'm rationalizing away and demonstrate the alleged rationalization.

Not levelling this specifically at you, but this is the quality I notice in the many Westerners and Europeans I've known. Morally grey and inhibited, except when a popular politically-correct issue arises. Then such sanctimony!

Hold your horses a bit, Tony.

Europeans are a mixed bag really. There are conservative traditionalists among them them as well as revolutionary thinkers.

But many of the revolutionary thinkers are spearheading new philosophical movements: It is therefore no surprise that the rise of atheism in recent years has originated in Europe.

It's the fear of appearing 'extremist' to others, I guess.

Dawkins & Co don't have the slightest fear of appearing extremist.

But you do have a point when it comes to politicians, who, for fear of losing votes, cozy up to all kinds of social and religious groups. But politicians are basically the same everywhere.

What we don't have in Europe though is the type of politicians who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible, like Ann Coulter or Michele Bachmann.

I have the impression that the number of religious believers in the US is still quite high, a good deal higher than in Europe.

From a long history of national domination and injustice, I suppose.

But it was also in Europe where the Age of Enlightenment originated.

But there's little chance of true individualism emerging there with that "someone's watching and judging me" collectivist mentality.

I don't know what you mean by "collectivist mentality" here.

Do you mean the fear of rejection by those who hold a different opinion? If that is the case, it has more to do with an individual's lack of self-confidence than with a collectivist mentality.

If you mean by collectivist mentality a "group awareness", this also has a biological heritage: we are group beings and going with the group offers safety.

That this human impulse has been horribly exploited by ruthless dictators is another story. But I think it is important not to demonize human group mentality as such. We all practice it in some form or other; it is as much part of our nature as the wish for personal freedom.

Any ethics which is to work has to constructively balance these two vital human impulses.

(Right now, seeing parts of good old moderate and safe England set on fire by mobs, is a reminder of the ignorance and immorality seething beneath the surface of Statist control and domestification. These people are not radical-individualists, but collectivist herds - a true product of the system.)

But isn't the opposite the case, with the State having been being far too lax instead of stepping on the toes of certain groups who in all seriousness plan (or already have succeeded in doing so) to inroduce their laws?

As for unregulated capitalism as the counter model, do you believe this would stop the problem? What about those who, for whatever reason, fall through the sieve, and thus form a new protest generation? I'd really like to see a model worked out in detail by anti-statists on that.

[Xray]: "...but wasn't it too much deregulation that lead to the 2008 collapse?"

No.

There exist many articles where it says the contrary.

For example here:

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/deregulation-led-to-current-bank-collapse/Content?oid=1116124

I'm amazed you have missed the multitude of references to the subject posted here. Or do you prefer the standard liberal explanation and excuses? While you have similar collapses happening on your own door step, you must be aware that the causes are all welfare-statist, and regulation/coercion by government.

Gov'ments that could not even balance a private home's budget.

But it is often governments that step in to prevent a total catastrophe. It is governments who help failed enterprises. Aren't the states and the capitalists actually bedfellows?

"The trouble with Socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples' money." M. Thatcher.

Where are those socialists today? Most modern states are so capitalist-friendly, with entrepreneurs getting tax relief that the average Joe can only dream of.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Where are those socialists today? Most modern states are so capitalist-friendly, with entrepreneurs getting tax relief that the average Joe can only dream of.

This state-capitalism is basically fascistic and it's natural enough for socialists to take part in that, especially the non-productive (and controlling) part. Even the productive people tend to find a state teat to suck on. Such a teat may be food stamps or a special law protecting one's business from competition and on and on to innumerable ons.

--Brant

tastes pretty good--just don't watch me do it!

[anthony]

Re 'rationalistic' philosophy: I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think we can both agree that working out a rational philosophy is a desirable goal.

But I suspect that with "rationalistic", you have a pejorative connotation in mind, and suggest that I am "rationalizing" away issues. But in order for me to answer to that, you would have to name exactly what you think it is that I'm rationalizing away and demonstrate the alleged rationalization.

Angela,

Rationalizing is distinctly different from rationalist:

EMPIRICISM and RATIONALISM.

"Philosphers came to be divided into two camps: those who claim that man obtained his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of of physical facts.

[The Rationalists.]

-and those who claimed that Man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts.

[The Empiricists.]

To put it more simply,: those who joined the Witch Doctor [the mystics] by abandoning reality - and those who clung to reality by abandoning their mind."

(AR - For the New Intellectual)

Angela,

Of course, Rand rejected both these.

I've not been too surprised to find a rationalist philosophy in people who recently became agnostic/atheist. (Once mystic, always mystic?)

Additionally, from the little I know, it appears there was much in Kant that is rationalistic, originating with Plato.

(Not mentioning any names, but OL has its own Empiricist...!)

Tony

Edited August 14, 2011 by whYNOT