A Randian Falacy


equality72521

Recommended Posts

This Article is meant to spark discussion as well as to examin certain flaws of Randianism. If someone wants to have a Rational discussion I ask that they attack the definition of the terms and attempt to demolish the definition. I will not respond to personal attacks as they are unintellectual and therefore unworthy of my time.

Definition: Randianism/Randian- A specific application/interpertation of Objectivist Philosophy.

One of the greatest Objectivists fallacies is the belief that Ayn Rand created whole and entire Objectivism, while it is true that Any Rand discovered the principles of Objectivism and constructed them into a comprehensive philosophy she no more created those principles than she did the Universe. Many "Objectivists" who believe that Mrs. Rand created the principles of objectivism also view her application and interpretation of those principles as dogmatic and unquestionable. This is one of the many reasons why the Philosophy she discovered has become stagnate, it is only when The Apostles of Objectivism seek out and destroy the Mrs. Rand's contradictions that the Philosophy itself will grow. For this reason I here present the following for discussion and debate.

Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

The politically correct terms of "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are confusing anti-concepts, the fact that both are used and given equal validity can do nothing but cloud the issue. Pro-Lifer's belief that the Fetus is a Human and thus should be gratned all the same Right's and protections of any Human. Pro-Choicers believe that the fetus is not a Human and that it therefore deserves no special considerations and cannot be grated except artificially the same Right's and protections of any other human.

The Pro-Abortion advocates(PAA) claim that it is a womans right to choose, as well as that it is her body which is being invaded by an unwelcome guest, and that just like one should be able to expel an unwelcome guest from their home they too should be able to expel and unwelcome guest from their body. This position is false as it never asks the question weather the fetus is Human.

The Anti-Abortion adovates(AAA) do no better because they fail to ask the same question, and still further they fail to provide any proof as to if the Fetus is Human. Their intellectual cimes go still further in that the vast majority of AAA use "God" as their primary proof as to why Abortion is right or wrong.

Ayn Rand herself held that Abortion was a matter of property Right's and that because a woman owned her body she had the right to expel any invading intruder. She however failed to delve deeper into the question and answer the question 1) is the Fetus a Human, and 2) If so is it an invader?

For simplicity sake I will offer a simple definition of "Human" if someone wishes to offer a better definition which does not confuse the issue I will more than gladly use it. Humans are those animals who share a specific and limited genetic parameter,within Natural Philosophy (what is now commonly and mistakenly called Science) Spicies is a group of organisms which can interbreed and is capable of producing fertile offspring. . According to this definition Fetus's are Human, ie we can distinguish a "Human Fetus" from a "Pig" or "Primate" Fetus. Alternative definitions of Human which I reject are "Humans are Animals capable of advanced rational thought". The reason for rejecting this as a definition is two fold 1) it is becoming more and more possible for genetic manipulation and thus more and more possible to create other rational animals not related genetically and thus unable to cross and bare offspring. 2) this precludes the mentally retarded and small children from the definition of "Human" (If someone really wants to go there I will otherwise I wont waste my time). Philosophically we must speek of "essence" or what is it that is the essentials of being Human, a minimal or maximum rationality level does not preclude or exclude a creature from being Human. "Humans are Animals with certain phical traits." While it is true that genetics does help determine physical traits an individual how has only one arm or leg is no less Human than an individual who has two arms or legs(again if someone really wants to go there I will but i prefer not to waste my time).

Thus according to the definition above a Human Fetus is no less Human than a Human Adolecent or Human Child. This now brings us to Rand's flaw in her argument for abortion. Rand asserts that a Human Fetus which is unwelcome by the mother is an invader and that it has no Right to "initiate force" against the mother. This presumes without proof that the Fetus has infect initiated the use of force. When two adults of opposite sex have sexual intercourse there is the possibility of producing an offspring, while this is not the only reason for having sexual intercourse it is a natural consequence of such an action while the female of the species is fertile. The Sperm and the Egg do not "Initiate force" any more than a damn which breaks initiates force. If a damn breaks it does so because the damn became unsound and according to the Law's of Nature a certain consequence must occur. Because an action can only be moral or immoral for rational creatures a fetus cannot be held responsible for coming into being. (Note we are not here discussing contraceptives). The HUMAN Fetus however once in existance has by its nature all those Right's which other Humans have, in this case the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property (their own body).

"Who's Rights?"

The question will now be raised "Yes but doesn't the mother have the right to decide what will or wont happen to her own body, you are now violating the mothers property Right". This is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the case. Justice imposes upon all men certain obligations, for example the man who steps off the top of a skyscraper in just his shorts must fall. Justice also requires a Murderer be put to death, it requires that when someone steals they must pay due compensation. The woman who becomes pregnant through a consensual act of sex has no Right to blank out the consequences of her actions, she in fact gives up her Right not to bare a child when she becomes pregnant.

In addressing the question of Rape.

I said above consensual sex but what about questions of rape? Does this change the fact that the Human Fetus is not the aggressor? Do you punish Peter for a crime Paul committed, when Peter had no knowledge of the crime, no say in it, and no way to prevent the outcome? This tribalsitic view is beyond destructive, it is the belief that children are responsible for their parents debt even and especially that debt accrued before their existence.

In the question of sickness

The question of a woman being physically sick to the point of near death during pregnancy is the most difficult question to tackle morally. In any situation where two lives are in question and one must be saved over the other or both lost we. This morally must be considered the same as two people hanging on the edge of a cliff and you can only save one. It must be the choice of the mother/father as to who will be saved if it is a matter of life and death. If all options have been exhausted and either the Mother or Fetus will be lost (I am using the term child to denote a born Fetus) those parties able must decide which life is worth more. Though the choice is subjective a lack of choice is a death sentence for both and there is no other standard by which to make the choice.

Again do not attack me attack the argument and specifically definitions. If in fact as a Claim the Fetus is a Human that Humans Right to life cannot be subjugated to the mothers/fathers whim of blanking out the consequences of her actions. Either prove the Fetus is not a Human OR that the Fetus is in fact initiating the use of force. If the Fetus is not initiating the use of force the mother/father is initiating force in the act of abortion.

One Final Note:

This discussion is not meant to determin IF those who have had/preformed abortions should be held accountable for murder, that is another question that must come after this one is resolved. Because a large number of people would or would not be held accountable for murder should have no effect on this debate, or in other words "groupism" is not at question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello equality,

You posed this with such assurance, that I thought you were going to offer some answers - they are coming later I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Abortion is one of the toughest decisions a mother or parents can make - as it should be.

But it must and should be her/their decision, alone.

That is where Rand was absolutely right - in line with Individualism, and volition, always.

No State can interfere in that private and painful decision.

Where I have been uncomfortable,however, was with what I perceive as moralizing on Rand's part, concerning the foetus, mother's body, etc. She effectively blasted away any societal, religious and governmental judgement about abortion, and she should have stopped there.

Even if it's not yet a human life, a foetus is a potential human life, and I feel for anyone having to go through this; it isn't easy, and it should not be easy, IMHO.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EQ, It's best to give a summary of what your central disagreement is.

Here are three examples of how to do that: (1) "I have read all the basic Objectivist books and my central disagreement is in epistemology. I don't think reason is as powerful at arriving at truth as Rand does. It is limited by emotions and by faith."

Note how clear that is and how it orients the reader to the arguments you are offering.

Or: (2) "I disagree with Rand in ethics. People should be partially altruistic and partially egoistic. Or: (3) "Objectivism is wrong in politics: It doesn't go far enough in using competition. There can be a market in retaliatory force. Police, armed forces, and courts can be privatized. Here's how..."

I don't agree with -any- of those criticisms. But each is clear and would prompt me and other readers to continue.

By contrast, your piece rambles. I didn't even finish reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EQ: If you're going to discuss Rand's views on abortion to the extent you do here you're going to need quotations and references or you're going to misrepresent her or at least make it practicably impossible to reply regarding Rand as opposed to what appear to be more your arguments than hers.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's "whose rights," not "who's rights."

Rand's conceptual theory, taken as her hierarchical view of concept formation, her identification of the axiomatic concepts, and her identification of the stolen concept as the essential philosophical fallacy, is a unique accomplishment. These are not mere bits cobbled together. Her metaethical question is also unique, but depends on the epistemological method.

Spinoza's Ethics is wonderous. The Antichrist is an incredible work. Epictetus can bring tears to my eyes.

But Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the greatest work of philosophy since Aristotle.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the greatest work of philosophy since Aristotle.

The mind boggles.

--Brant

I have read the relevant texts, and my opinion is educated and defensible. If you do not accept it offer your alternative.

Wisdom is not a mixture of equal parts ignorance and sarcasm.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Wisdom is not a mixture of equal parts ignorance and sarcasm.

Just ignore him, Ted. Brant does that all the time - he's trying to imitate JR and GHS in elegant put downs or snarkiness, but doesn't have their verbal skill.

ITOE truly is one of the great works of philosophy. There's another thread in which people are showing their ignorance of it by taking silly shots at it. I'd ignore those too.

You simply can't swat down every silly or ignorant argument: There would be no time for anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

As I have stated else where I am dyslexic and it takes may reviews through spellcheck just to make sure that I am spelling things accurate enough for people to understand what I write. If you have a problem with it... I really don't care.

Side note: you may also want to go to the creative writing section and comment that I spelled Prometheus wrong in the title to my poem "Prayer to Prometheus". I spelled it Promethius

For everyone else,

Here is an example of what I meant by a personal attack. Notice that he does not ever once attempt to actually defeat my argument. If someone wants to debate this matter with me they will do so on my terms. The ONLY valid method of debate that of deconstruction and construction, it is only by this method that one can come to validity of an argument. Murder (as opposed to killing) is objectively evil, rape is objectively evil. It is the subjectivists way to grant sanction to the rapist and murder because it was a priority in their hierarchy of values. The question as set before those who wish to carry out this discussion is 1) is the Fetus a Human, and 2) is the fetus the initiator of force, and thus forfeits their Right's.

Now that I have used Ted as an example as to what not to do and what the central points which are up for debate.

Brant,

If you wish for quotes I will refer you to the Ayn Rand online Lexicon. Perhaps I made a mistake and did not make clear what the "Randian" Fallacy is. When I speak of Randian and Randianism I am making a distinction between Objectivism (The Philosophy of Objectivism) and Randianism (Ayn Rand's particular interoperation of that Philosophy). Randians follow the religion of Randiansim and believe every word of the goddess Rand to be true and beyond question because it came from her pen, or lips. I have been blasted by many so called Objectivists for my STAND on abortion, yet none refute or even try to refute what i put forward (as special note: No one not once has addressed a single point I made.) Ayn Rand was 100% right when it came to the discovery of the principles of objectivism, however she was not always consistent in the application of her own philosophy. This is but a single example of how she was wrong in the application. The question at hand is rather simple, is the Fetus Human, if so is it committing an act of aggression, and if not does anyone have the right to destroy the life of another human who has committed no aggressive act?

Philip,

I did not present a summary for good reason. If any single part of what I have put forward is discredited than the whole thing falls apart. I do in fact disagree with Rands (And the vast majority of other objectivists) application of Ethics in this particular issue, this however has no validity on the question of is my position Right or Wrong. Either what I have posited is true and thus the rational thing to do would be to adopt it, or it is false and the logical thing to do is for me to change my position. I have but one God and His name is Truth, if anyone is able to show that I am wrong than I MUST change my position. I left no conclusion because it is not needed I have stated my arguments clear enough. i begin by pointing out the fallacy of the Pro-Life Pro-Choice diachotomy(Stupid spellcheck).

whYNOT,

*Equality72521 Raors in frustration and rips hair out* Here! Here! Here, is something I absolutely HATE. I am asking for people to show the logical fallacies of my arguments so I will do you the favor of doing the same for you.

Hello equality,

You posed this with such assurance, that I thought you were going to offer some answers - they are coming later I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Abortion is one of the toughest decisions a mother or parents can make - as it should be.

But it must and should be her/their decision, alone.

That is where Rand was absolutely right - in line with Individualism, and volition, always.

No State can interfere in that private and painful decision.

Where I have been uncomfortable,however, was with what I perceive as moralizing on Rand's part, concerning the foetus, mother's body, etc. She effectively blasted away any societal, religious and governmental judgement about abortion, and she should have stopped there.

Even if it's not yet a human life, a foetus is a potential human life, and I feel for anyone having to go through this; it isn't easy, and it should not be easy, IMHO.

Tony

Prometheus help me! Where do i begin?

I prefer the Socratic Method of teaching and learning. I have presented my evidence, thy theory is now on trial it must either stand or fail on its own merit, baring any evidence to the contrary there is only ONE single conclusion which can be drawn. I gave concrete examples and am waiting for someone to destroy my theory.

The thing which I hate however above all other things that anyone could have said here is the willful ignorance and the emotionalistic attitude which you adopt regarding abortion. Because some how the decision is some how painful gives it merit? Mean to or not that is what you implied. Further (and still even more outrageous) you assert that Rand is right without any intellectual ideas to back it up. If in fact the theory I put forward is Right than the State MUST act. Rand herself said that the purpose of the state was to stop or punish aggression 'No man may initiate the use of force against another', and to enforce contracts (fraud is the initiation of force. The questions (yet again) are 1) is the Fetus a Human thus possessing the inalienable Rights of all men. and 2) is it an initiator of force?

did I make a Social argument for abortion? No.

did i make a Religious argument? No, in fact i blasted it.

did I make a Governmental/Statist argument? No.

You still go further in the Randianst doctrinism. You (like Rand) FAIL to ask the most vital question to the issue at hand. It is a question which no objectivist who holds to abortion wants to answer. IS the fetus a Human? You assert/assume no. Fine, why? Give me something to work with define Human.

Edited by equality72521
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still go further in the Randianst doctrinism. You (like Rand) FAIL to ask the most vital question to the issue at hand. It is a question which no objectivist who holds to abortion wants to answer. IS the fetus a Human? You assert/assume no. Fine, why? Give me something to work with define Human.

Whether the fetus is a human with rights or not is a matter of opinion and ultimately the laws of the land decide. You cannot "prove" this like some mathematical equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still go further in the Randianst doctrinism. You (like Rand) FAIL to ask the most vital question to the issue at hand. It is a question which no objectivist who holds to abortion wants to answer. IS the fetus a Human? You assert/assume no. Fine, why? Give me something to work with define Human.

Whether the fetus is a human with rights or not is a matter of opinion and ultimately the laws of the land decide. You cannot "prove" this like some mathematical equation.

So that others do not bother to waste space.

You cannot prove that a fetus is human or not? Yet again I ask for a definition of Human. I gave mine. Without a definition you cannot PROVE anyone or anything is human. Define, Define, Define.

Edited:

A wise man once said if you have nothing intelligent to say, do not speak.

You can prove that a Fetus is human by providing a definition for the word Human. Even if it is different than mine provide one, if you disagree with my definition (which is the only way to exclude the fetus from behind Human) than provide a definition for Human yourself. At least give me something to work with. If you are not going to contribute to the discussion don't post.

Edited by equality72521
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EQ: There were two reasons I mentioned references and quotes: The first was I did not recognize Rand when you were explaining her views on abortion. The second was simply a matter of scholarship. The scholarship in quotes and references provides a great foundation for ratiocination, otherwise it's just your opinions and arguments, which is fine as far as it goes but could be a lot more. I generally do not quote or represent Rand myself, but just present my own views on subjects I'm interested in. I made a conscious decision not to study the Objectivist catechism as such any longer many decades ago because too much had been larded onto the philosophy and too much empirical work had not been done apropos that regardless. A gross example is any idea of an Objectivist esthetics. That'd be cultural, not philosophical. I still don't have a handle on "sense of life" either in the abstract or concrete. It strikes me as philosophical forcing.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equality, for someone who makes such grand claims you do make silly mistakes. Does simply having the latter pointed out to you give you a pass on the former?

Yes, one cannot edit one's mistakes in the title of a thread after the fact - something I know from experience - but not because I began a thread called "Rand's Bigest Miskates."

But why do you only take offense at my merely mentioning your misspelling, when my bigger point was that your premise is wrong?

I note that you do not contest my saying that Rand's epistemology is great and unique and not merely cobbled together. I would think you would relish the point of proving me wrong if you actually meant what you said about her broad unoriginality. Or is not meaning what you say another problem from which you suffer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the greatest work of philosophy since Aristotle.

The mind boggles.

--Brant

I have read the relevant texts, and my opinion is educated and defensible. If you do not accept it offer your alternative.

Wisdom is not a mixture of equal parts ignorance and sarcasm.

Unlike political philosophy ITOE has not provided value to any but epistemologists.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Wisdom is not a mixture of equal parts ignorance and sarcasm.

Just ignore him, Ted. Brant does that all the time - he's trying to imitate JR and GHS in elegant put downs or snarkiness, but doesn't have their verbal skill.

ITOE truly is one of the great works of philosophy. There's another thread in which people are showing their ignorance of it by taking silly shots at it. I'd ignore those too.

You simply can't swat down every silly or ignorant argument: There would be no time for anything else.

When someone makes an unsubstantiated and grandiose claim I tend to object in shorthand. One thing I don't do is try to imitate someone. As for my verbal skills, they're pretty good if I crank them up, but that makes me sweat bullets. The two mentioned gentlemen can casually write much better than I can, as does Barbara Branden--and no matter how hard I try I'll never have the ability to turn out as much copy as they can. My posts are thus characteristically short and to the point. I don't have the time to write longer ones for the most part regardless.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot prove that a fetus is human or not? Yet again I ask for a definition of Human. I gave mine. Without a definition you cannot PROVE anyone or anything is human. Define, Define, Define.

OK, a human is a 6 months or greater fetus. So if its less that 6 months old its not human and has no rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I get to Ted,

Brant,

Thank you for giving context to your general position. I have been rather confused by things you have posted, however now they make sense.

As to my not providing quotes mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here I was in error, It is my experience as a general rule that most objectivists know rands view of abortion and hold to a similar view. I do ask pardon for tribalizing, it can be difficult to do when you experience certain groups who identify themselves with certain beliefs to remember that not all who classify themselves as X believe Y. This is no excuse it is a recognition of my mistake and i will work to correct it in the future.

further I do not hold that claiming someones particular application interpretation of a principle is "grandious".

a brief side note on your comment on philosophical forcing.

Here is the difference (at least between you and I), I view all life through the prism of Philosophy. I hold that a "Culture" is a specific group of people who have as their common root philosophy X, and further express said philosophy through Y and Z. You can have sub-cultures and even anti-cultures in a society however a culture is simply an expression of philosophy.

Equality, for someone who makes such grand claims you do make silly mistakes. Does simply having the latter pointed out to you give you a pass on the former?

Yes, one cannot edit one's mistakes in the title of a thread after the fact - something I know from experience - but not because I began a thread called "Rand's Bigest Miskates."

But why do you only take offense at my merely mentioning your misspelling, when my bigger point was that your premise is wrong?

I note that you do not contest my saying that Rand's epistemology is great and unique and not merely cobbled together. I would think you would relish the point of proving me wrong if you actually meant what you said about her broad unoriginality. Or is not meaning what you say another problem from which you suffer?

To begin the Thread is called Randian Falacy (should be 2 L's i know)

However I would like to point out to anyone who cares to observe that the mistake you are making is that of the concrete bound type. You have completely ignored everything I have said. Perhaps you think I am not an objectivist because I disagree with the great goddess? Did I not say that Rand is completely right in the Principle's of her philosophy, perhaps because my dyslexia I am using the wrong Principle but i don't think so. I do not refute a single core doctrine of Objectivism, however as i said that is different than Randianism.

Here is what I want from you ted and I will try to put it in words a child can understand. Define Human. once we have defined Human than we can determine if the Fetus is a Human. Once we know that then we can ask the question is the Fetus an aggressor/initiator of force. You have in no way attempted to address any of these points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot prove that a fetus is human or not? Yet again I ask for a definition of Human. I gave mine. Without a definition you cannot PROVE anyone or anything is human. Define, Define, Define.

OK, a human is a 6 months or greater fetus. So if its less that 6 months old its not human and has no rights.

Ok thank you general semanticist you have given me a place to start. Now why 6 months. is 6 arbitrary or is it an objective definition? if objective please explain why a fetus that is one day 182 days old is less Human than a fetus that is 183 days old? The problem is that you really have not given the definition (essence) of Human, you have said when but not why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I get to Ted,

Brant,

Thank you for giving context to your general position. I have been rather confused by things you have posted, however now they make sense.

As to my not providing quotes mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here I was in error, It is my experience as a general rule that most objectivists know rands view of abortion and hold to a similar view. I do ask pardon for tribalizing, it can be difficult to do when you experience certain groups who identify themselves with certain beliefs to remember that not all who classify themselves as X believe Y. This is no excuse it is a recognition of my mistake and i will work to correct it in the future.

further I do not hold that claiming someones particular application interpretation of a principle is "grandious".

a brief side note on your comment on philosophical forcing.

Here is the difference (at least between you and I), I view all life through the prism of Philosophy. I hold that a "Culture" is a specific group of people who have as their common root philosophy X, and further express said philosophy through Y and Z. You can have sub-cultures and even anti-cultures in a society however a culture is simply an expression of philosophy.

Equality, for someone who makes such grand claims you do make silly mistakes. Does simply having the latter pointed out to you give you a pass on the former?

Yes, one cannot edit one's mistakes in the title of a thread after the fact - something I know from experience - but not because I began a thread called "Rand's Bigest Miskates."

But why do you only take offense at my merely mentioning your misspelling, when my bigger point was that your premise is wrong?

I note that you do not contest my saying that Rand's epistemology is great and unique and not merely cobbled together. I would think you would relish the point of proving me wrong if you actually meant what you said about her broad unoriginality. Or is not meaning what you say another problem from which you suffer?

To begin the Thread is called Randian Falacy (should be 2 L's i know)

However I would like to point out to anyone who cares to observe that the mistake you are making is that of the concrete bound type. You have completely ignored everything I have said. Perhaps you think I am not an objectivist because I disagree with the great goddess? Did I not say that Rand is completely right in the Principle's of her philosophy, perhaps because my dyslexia I am using the wrong Principle but i don't think so. I do not refute a single core doctrine of Objectivism, however as i said that is different than Randianism.

Here is what I want from you ted and I will try to put it in words a child can understand. Define Human. once we have defined Human than we can determine if the Fetus is a Human. Once we know that then we can ask the question is the Fetus an aggressor/initiator of force. You have in no way attempted to address any of these points.

Your condescending attacks on the "great goddess" are a pathetic revelation - about you. You don't know me nor about my specific reasoned disagreements with Rand. Nor that I think she was wrong on some of her arguments regarding abortion. But I don't take it as a proper ground for discussion that I either have to agree with your silly putdowns of Rand or admit myself a bigot.

As for you Brandt, if you don't know the importance of Rand's explaining at length why the stolen concept is a fallacy, you do not understand Objectivism or have anything of interest to say to me.

This has been very educational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I get to Ted,

Brant,

Thank you for giving context to your general position. I have been rather confused by things you have posted, however now they make sense.

As to my not providing quotes mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here I was in error, It is my experience as a general rule that most objectivists know rands view of abortion and hold to a similar view. I do ask pardon for tribalizing, it can be difficult to do when you experience certain groups who identify themselves with certain beliefs to remember that not all who classify themselves as X believe Y. This is no excuse it is a recognition of my mistake and i will work to correct it in the future.

further I do not hold that claiming someones particular application interpretation of a principle is "grandious".

a brief side note on your comment on philosophical forcing.

Here is the difference (at least between you and I), I view all life through the prism of Philosophy. I hold that a "Culture" is a specific group of people who have as their common root philosophy X, and further express said philosophy through Y and Z. You can have sub-cultures and even anti-cultures in a society however a culture is simply an expression of philosophy.

Equality, for someone who makes such grand claims you do make silly mistakes. Does simply having the latter pointed out to you give you a pass on the former?

Yes, one cannot edit one's mistakes in the title of a thread after the fact - something I know from experience - but not because I began a thread called "Rand's Bigest Miskates."

But why do you only take offense at my merely mentioning your misspelling, when my bigger point was that your premise is wrong?

I note that you do not contest my saying that Rand's epistemology is great and unique and not merely cobbled together. I would think you would relish the point of proving me wrong if you actually meant what you said about her broad unoriginality. Or is not meaning what you say another problem from which you suffer?

To begin the Thread is called Randian Falacy (should be 2 L's i know)

However I would like to point out to anyone who cares to observe that the mistake you are making is that of the concrete bound type. You have completely ignored everything I have said. Perhaps you think I am not an objectivist because I disagree with the great goddess? Did I not say that Rand is completely right in the Principle's of her philosophy, perhaps because my dyslexia I am using the wrong Principle but i don't think so. I do not refute a single core doctrine of Objectivism, however as i said that is different than Randianism.

Here is what I want from you ted and I will try to put it in words a child can understand. Define Human. once we have defined Human than we can determine if the Fetus is a Human. Once we know that then we can ask the question is the Fetus an aggressor/initiator of force. You have in no way attempted to address any of these points.

Your condescending attacks on the "great goddess" are a pathetic revelation - about you. You don't know me nor about my specific reasoned disagreements with Rand. Nor that I think she was wrong on some of her arguments regarding abortion. But I don't take it as a proper ground for discussion that I either have to agree with your silly putdowns of Rand or admit myself a bigot.

As for you Brandt, if you don't know the importance of Rand's explaining at length why the stolen concept is a fallacy, you do not understand Objectivism or have anything of interest to say to me.

This has been very educational.

Please and I say this with all sencarity, present your disagreements and corrections to Rands arguments for abortion. The problem I have with you Ted is that you have not made a single argument with my argument. You present no counter argument. Why am I wrong.

Something I find funny.

It is amusing to me that you think "the great goddess" comment is a putdown of Rand. Here is a hint. its not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for you Brandt, if you don't know the importance of Rand's explaining at length why the stolen concept is a fallacy, you do not understand Objectivism or have anything of interest to say to me.

This has been very educational.

But why do you think I care if I "have anything of interest to say" to you?

Consider: ITOE is the greatest philosophical thing since Aristotle. That's an opinion which as an opinion cannot be broadly and truly objectified as it's not science; reasons are interesting, I'm hopefully in this case sure, but not they'll still end up as bottom-line subjective only or I'll be wholly surprised.

If you had said, "In my opinion this is the greatest philosophical treatise since Aristotle," I would have respected that.

By stating it the way you did you were saying your opinion trumps all other, contrary opinions, and without one whit of substantiation too boot--not that that would have done the trick, but that would have been respected to the extent that your substantiation would have deserved being addressed as such.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is an exact Rand quote: "Rights define and sanction man's freedom of action in a social context." What is the fetus's "freedom of action in a social context"? It has no social context, only a biological one. It's human to the extent that it's a human fetus, but it's not a fetus human. Is it a human being? No. It is a human fetus in the process of becoming a human being.

--Brant

rights are a human invention respecting human nature not respecting the nature of a human fetus. Whether a fetus is human or not is actually irrelevant respecting human being and contrastingly human fetus being

no fetus ever invented a right--nor any human baby, of course; that's what adults extended to the baby in so far as the baby could act for its sake in its social context and if we extend rights to a fetus note we have to deny rights to the mother so in that essential conflict, if there be one, it's between a woman and her doctor not between the woman and anyone else

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, "The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept" was an article published in The Objectivist Newsletter by Nathaniel Branden prior to Rand's ITOE published in 1966 or 1966-67 in The Objectivist. So, NB wrote the greatest philosophy since Aristotle?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Wisdom is not a mixture of equal parts ignorance and sarcasm.

Just ignore him, Ted. Brant does that all the time - he's trying to imitate JR and GHS in elegant put downs or snarkiness, but doesn't have their verbal skill.

ITOE truly is one of the great works of philosophy. There's another thread in which people are showing their ignorance of it by taking silly shots at it. I'd ignore those too.

You simply can't swat down every silly or ignorant argument: There would be no time for anything else.

Gee, Phil, I'd accept your opinion, as an opinion, that ITOE is "truly one of the great works of philosophy." But this cannot be objectified, only tended to be objectified.

Your estimation of my verbal skill is okay by me because if you had a contrary opinion I'd be worried, upset and cry a lot.

--Brant

UFC

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now