Xray
-
Posts
4,183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Xray
-
-
I would like to start a discussion of this topic.
I have been reading a number of Stoic classics of late, and even labored through Wolfe's A Man in Full, which is enough to make anybody indifferent about death, or at least willing to contemplate suicide.
I suspect some of OL's posters would find a lot to agree with when it comes to Stoicism. Any thoughts?
But a major characteristic of Rand was her passion. She was passionate about her ideals, passionate in her persoal relationships. Her own passion is also reflected in her fictional heroes and heroines - they too are very passionate.
As for the stoic attitude toward passion: isn't it very different from Ayn Rand's philosophy?
-
Over six billion people are living right now. They are living and they will be living. "Ought" is a smaller ballpark. So, no, for the starting point of ethics is pain. As for your last question, yes, for the idea is to minimize force in human relationships--that is, pain.
--Brant
Pathocentric ethics indeed has a lot going for it. It is based both on empathy and rationality.
-
one can argue there is no necessary ought only oughts and you ought to choose the ought for you--or, if this then that (ought)--so we now get into free will (if, then to free will, then to ought)
so, do you have any oughts?
Plenty.
But the philosophical question is whether my (or anyone else's) "oughts" refer to 'objective' moral values ...
-
When you say ought doesn't follow from is you are demanding a metaphysical absolutism only possible from science and are actually saying philosophy doesn't follow from any "is."
I said that an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is". Big difference.
Which means that the mere existence of a fact (= an "is") does not imply the necessity that one "ought to" act in a certain way in relation to that fact.
Example: Does from the fact that ultrarich people exist necessarily follow that they "ought to" donate a large part of ther wealth to charity?
One could even argue that telling others what they "ought to" do is the very opposite of individualism.
-
If the job of ethics is to determine how volitional beings ought to live, then the question is: Why is there necessarily an "ought"?
Imo there isn't, because an "ought" does not necessarily follow from an "is".
-
Ayn is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for nothing, not, a hole or a void.
Ba'al Chatzaf
In Wikipedia it is translated as "eye":
Hebrew word עין (ayin, meaning "eye")
an eye is a hole. the word also applies to a well.
You will also notice our symbol for zero (which goes back to Sumer) is a round hole.
Ba'al Chatzaf
"Ayin" ('eye'), can mean 'hole' then? ("Eye" of a needle comes to mind, or "window").
For in your July 13 post, you wrote [bolding mine]:
Ayn is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for nothing, not, a hole or a void.
-
I just saw an ad for a movie "The Hot Flashes" about a a women's basketball team consisting of pre-menopausal women.
Two of the cast, Darryl Hannah and Brook Shield. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph --- from Splash and Blue Lagoon to the verge of menopause! What can I say? Time sure do fly.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Your post made me think of Shakespeare's words:
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
-
Ayn is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for nothing, not, a hole or a void.
Ba'al Chatzaf
In Wikipedia it is translated as "eye":
Hebrew word עין (ayin, meaning "eye")
-
I don't recall where I saw this (Barbara Branden's bio?), but it has been mentioned that "Ayn" is a Finnish feminine name that she adopted for her own.
From the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
-
Though I came from Ayn Rand’s side, there too there are 10 groups amongst their miniscule numbers, and you almost have to be a robot to belong to a group, taking enmity with several others – else you are an outsider to all of them.
Battles about the 'true doctrine' are fairly frequent among ideological groups.
If I were a Randian, I'd look for some basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and take it from there.
-
Funny! I didn't understand #12 though. Or #22.
#22 might refer to the "never ending fractal shapes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoit_Mandelbrot
-
Quite ironic that Obama once praised whistleblowers and promised to protect them:
When campaigning in 2008, Obama promised to protect whistleblowers, saying their “acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled,” ABC News’ Megan Chuchmach and Rhonda Schwartz reported on Aug. 4, 2009.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/30/obama-s-war-on-whistleblowers/
-
-
I was brought up to be somewhat observant. It did me no harm since nothing about being Jewish requires one to park has brains at the door.
Ba'al Chatzaf
What is your opinion on "full Torah observance"?
-
Oh, I've overlooked that typo - thank you, Ellen! "God created the 'word' in seven days", lol.
That's called a Johnian Slip.
Good one!
-
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."
Read carefully, the Word was already there on Day Zero. Never mind whether they really had the concept Zero.
Genesis 1:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
The whole thing is a cascade of contradictions. No surprise there. But what else can be expected, given the many different authors?
-
I could listen to Pat Condell forever, and just love it how he hits nail on the head with every sentence!!
Angela:
Speaking of inappropriate metaphors ...Jesus and hitting the nail on the head!
Adam,
Maybe may subconscious mind played a role my choice of that specific metaphor. I'm an ex-Christian, after all.
-
I could listen to Pat Condell forever, and just love it how he hits nail on the head with every sentence!!
-
Sharpton about the philosophy in Atlas Shrugged: "That's s okay for a book but it has no place in reality".
So he attacks people who advocate what it says in a book, but he himself doesn't seem to have any problem preaching about stuff that is also only in a book: The Bible.
Yeah, but that was based on a true story.
Like for example God created the word in seven days, yeah right.
-
Sharpton about the philosophy in Atlas Shrugged: "That's s okay for a book but it has no place in reality".
So he attacks people who advocate what it says in a book, but he himself doesn't seem to have any problem preaching about stuff that is also only in a book: The Bible.
-
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BARBARA
To the Lady who wrote THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, the standard of excellence to which further biographies of Ayn Rand will be compared..
Reading Barbara's fascinating biography of Ayn Rand has my via regia to understanding Ayn Rand.
Happy birthday, Barbara, and thank you so much again for having written this inspiring and deeply insightful book about AR!
-
On balance, people are ruled more by their passions than by logic and reason.
Do logic and reason have more 'ancillary' qualities then, which humans will apply if it helps them to fulfill their desires/reach their goals?
(Example: the desire for faster and easier movement led to the invention of the wheel).
-
... someone on Facebook posted this video and I found it very insightful and thought provoking.
There's a lot of food for thought in what Lakoff says here.
-
George Lakoff is a famous linguist, who was once a student of Noam Chomsky's.
Especially Interesting is the recent controversy between Lakoff and Steven Pinker. Pinker wrote a scathing review of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom, calling it "a train wreck": http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_09_30_thenewrepublic.html
Lakoff's equally scathing rebuttal ("When Cognitive Science Enters Politics"): http://web.archive.org/web/20080517092902/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics
The battle about "the nature of language and the mind" (G. Lakoff) rages on.
A New Religion
in Objectivist Living Room
Posted
Nothing new under the sun. "God has gave [sic] you special power", the politically indocrinated kid faithfully recites.
For ages, political leaders have been claiming the power of a god helping them.
Which raises the question: "Do there exist any rational arguments to give religion a voice in politics?"
Imo, no.
But maybe 'rationaliity' for a politician means to suck up to powerful religious groups in the electorate? After all, his goal is to profit, i. e. to come out the winner.
In other words: can any President of the USA afford to ignore the power which religious groups have in this country?