Elizabeth Warren and the Social Contract...

[George H. Smith]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

Ayn Rand pointed out the truth; John Dewey did the opposite. So there is some reason to conclude that the power of influence would be of a completely different character, that perhaps Ayn Rand could genuinely create a positive influence, whereas Dewey can only preach to the choir. Concerning myself, I know that Ayn Rand definitely had a positive influence on me, whereas Dewey had no meaningful influence. I can't imagine that Dewey could influence anyone who had any concern for the truth, so he could only have influence by preaching what certain people already wanted to hear.

Shayne

The problem with your analysis is the Dewey was largely responsible for creating the choir that you speak of. He originated, or at least formalized, a good deal of what became the standard philosophy of progressivism. The guy was a genius, and that is what made him so dangerous.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Which means he ain't no Baruch Spinoza...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT55J2KF0FY

This was shown at Python's Hollywood Bowl performance in 1982. Wendy and I were there, along with two friends.

Ghs

[Selene]

One of their best pieces and that means a lot -- which means...a hectare? hmmm

[Xray]

Transcript of Limbaugh's commentary.

RUSH: The central flaw in Elizabeth Warren's belief and that of the far left in this country, that nobody got rich on their own, the central flaw, where did the money come from to build the roads?

But is to believe that "nobody got rich on their own" really a fallacy? Doesn't this actually point to a simple fact that applies to all economical stystems, whether they are 'state-operated'' or private?

Imo the flaw in Warren's argumentation lies not in what she believes, but in that her belief can be used against her own position as well.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more personal unhappiness.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

But is to believe that "nobody got rich on their own" really a fallacy? Doesn't this actually point to a simple fact that applies to all economical stystems, whether they are 'state-operated'' or private?

The "nobody got rich all on his own" argument suffers from irrelevance, not incorrectness. None of us acquired his "crib and cradle" language all by himself. We all need nurturing adults to guide and teach us until we get to the point where we can do something original.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

But is to believe that "nobody got rich on their own" really a fallacy? Doesn't this actually point to a simple fact that applies to all economical stystems, whether they are 'state-operated'' or private?

The "nobody got rich all on his own" argument suffers from irrelevance, not incorrectness. None of us acquired his "crib and cradle" language all by himself. We all need nurturing adults to guide and teach us until we get to the point where we can do something original. Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree with the "irrelevance, not incorrectness".

It is not for a bureaucrat to know how someone got rich - or poor, for that matter.

This is related to the 'zero-sum, wealth-pie' ignorance.

"You took your 'slice' from 'somewhere', with the help of 'the people', and we can take it back any time."

Brute force, that's all.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more personal unhappiness.

--Brant

Do you think that O'ists tend to be happier than other people?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more personal unhappiness.

--Brant

Do you think that O'ists tend to be happier than other people?

Ghs

Oh, I have no data on that. I simply think that millions of her readers have been exposed to her sanctioning of self interest and the pursuit of happiness sans guilt generated by altruistic ethics.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more personal unhappiness. --Brant

Do you think that O'ists tend to be happier than other people? Ghs

Oh, I have no data on that. I simply think that millions of her readers have been exposed to her sanctioning of self interest and the pursuit of happiness sans guilt generated by altruistic ethics. --Brant

Okay, I agree. Rand freed O'ists up to feel guilty about other things.8-)

Ghs

[Xray]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more personal unhappiness. --Brant

Do you think that O'ists tend to be happier than other people? Ghs

Oh, I have no data on that. I simply think that millions of her readers have been exposed to her sanctioning of self interest and the pursuit of happiness sans guilt generated by altruistic ethics. --Brant

Okay, I agree. Rand freed O'ists up to feel guilty about other things.8-)

Ghs

Indeed Objectivism does not erase feelings of guilt. For from the premise that every action is regarded as either moral or immoral, it follows that those who accept this premise will continually have to question themselves whether their actions get the green (Objectivist) light.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Addendum: Let me ask you this question: How would the world be different today if Ayn Rand had never lived?

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more personal unhappiness. --Brant

Do you think that O'ists tend to be happier than other people? Ghs

Oh, I have no data on that. I simply think that millions of her readers have been exposed to her sanctioning of self interest and the pursuit of happiness sans guilt generated by altruistic ethics. --Brant

Okay, I agree. Rand freed O'ists up to feel guilty about other things.8-)

Ghs

Indeed Objectivism does not erase feelings of guilt. For from the premise that every action is regarded as either moral or immoral, it follows that those who accept this premise will continually have to question themselves whether their actions get the green (Objectivist) light.

Ethics is about control. Morality too, assuming some difference in meaning.

--Brant

[Xray]

[Replying to R. Bissell]

You have gone to considerable trouble to prove me wrong -- which means: You have a deeply flawed psycho-epistemology -- which means: You will never change my mind, no matter how much evidence you give -- which means: I am a superior person-- which means: Q.E.D.

Smart move to use Objectivism's own terminology here.

As for "psycho-epistemology":

TIA to anyone who can convincingly explain what differentiates it from simple epistemology.

The guy [Dewey] was a genius, and that is what made him so dangerous.

What makes you think of Dewey as a genius?

Edited September 25, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

[indeed Objectivism does not erase feelings of guilt.]

And you know this - how, exactly?

[For from the premise that every action is regarded as either moral or immoral, it follows that those who accept this premise will continually have to question themselves...]

Well, that's how it goes with an individualist 'self- morality'.

Aristotle:-

"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do from fear of the Law".

(Or God, or Society.)

[...whether their actions get the green (Objectivist) light.

...as opposed to getting the green (Socialist- Statist) light?

Tony

Edited September 25, 2011 by whYNOT

[George H. Smith]

[Replying to R. Bissell]

You have gone to considerable trouble to prove me wrong -- which means: You have a deeply flawed psycho-epistemology -- which means: You will never change my mind, no matter how much evidence you give -- which means: I am a superior person-- which means: Q.E.D.

Smart move to use Objectivism's own terminology here.

As for "psycho-epistemology":

TIA to anyone who can convincingly explain what differentiates it from simple epistemology.

The guy [Dewey] was a genius, and that is what made him so dangerous.

What makes you think of Dewey as a genius?

I've read a lot of Dewey over the years (though nothing recently), and he wrote on a wide variety of topics. Some of his books, such as How We Think, are actually pretty good. This is because epistemological pragmatists typically emphasize the purposeful nature of reasoning, and some (not all) of their insights can be used to supplement Rand's approach.

I am not willing to go to the wall to defend my use of the label "genius" in regard to Dewey, largely because the concept is so vague. I am willing to substitute "extremely intelligent," if that makes you feel better.

Ghs

[Selene]

It didn't take long for Sen. Scott Brown's naked centerfold in Cosmopolitan magazine to come up in his bid for reelection.

Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren took a shot at Mr. Brown this week, responding, "I kept my clothes on" when asked at a primary debate how she paid for college.

"Thank God," Mr. Brown said, when asked for a response on the Boston radio station WZLX.

Mr. Brown, a Republican, has frequently defended his 1982 appearance in the magazine, where he posed nude to earn money for college.

Drawing laughter from the disc jockeys, he added, "Whatever, let her throw stones, I did what I had to do. But not for having that opportunity, I never would have been able to pay for school and I probably wouldn't have gone to school and I wouldn't be talking to you, so whatever."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have no desire to argue against Warren (or her views) at all.

George,

I just got to this thread. I think the answer is in the posts quoted below.

Rush Limbaugh did a good commentary on all this yesterday. He correctly observed that Warren's comments are the best presentation of the philosophic foundations of Obama-style progressivism that we are ever likely to hear.

Transcript of Limbaugh's commentary.

I read about half the transcript in total focus and skimmed the rest.

From what I read, Rush did a pretty good job of the intellectual donkey-work, i.e., identifying Warren's premises and refuting them.

I can't think of much that could be added to it without simply repeating the same things in different words.

Well, here's one thing.

I used to have a fried in Brazil (Djalma) who won a scholarship to study at the Rimsky Korsakov Conservatory (now called the Saint Petersburg Conservatory) in Saint Petersburg (called Leningrad back then). He came back to Brazil totally indoctrinated. During one argument we had when I mentioned that communist countries always have exit restrictions, he "patiently" explained to me that the problem was economic, not political.

He said if a person pays back the government for the hospital costs when he was born, all the food he ate over his lifetime, housing costs, education, etc., all costs which--by-the-way--the government paid for, the government would gladly let him leave.

I asked where a person was supposed to get money for this since the only money he could earn under such a system was from the government. He replied, with a superior air, "Well, that's a problem, isn't it?"

This illustrates the whole premise of Warren's argument.

There.

I think I just said the same thing Rush did in different words.

Michael

[Selene]

The intellectual progressive bitch is back!

Elizabeth Warren says she ‘created intellectual foundation’ for Occupy Wall Street movement

By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff

In a new interview, Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren claims much of the credit for the Occupy Wall Street protests sweeping the nation.

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” the Harvard Law School professor and former Obama administration consumer advocate told Samuel P. Jacobs of The Daily Beast. “I support what they do.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, charged with helped Senator Scott Brown win reelection, jumped on the comment.

“Warren’s decision to not only embrace, but take credit for this movement is notable considering the Boston Police Department was recently forced to arrest at least 141 of her Occupy acolytes in Boston the other day after they threatened to tie up traffic downtown and refused to abide by their protest permit limits,” NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh wrote.

Glen Johnson can be reached at johnson@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @globeglen.

[sjw]

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” the Harvard Law School professor and former Obama administration consumer advocate told Samuel P. Jacobs of The Daily Beast. “I support what they do.”

More like: She intends to usurp the movement for her own ends. But if people are going to be anti-intellectual then this is what they deserve.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,”

That's almost as good as Al Gore inventing the internet.

[George H. Smith]

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,”

That's almost as good as Al Gore inventing the internet.

I don't think Gore ever said this. He claimed that he backed legislation that led to the creation of the Internet. The original interview is available on YouTube.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Gore said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet," which can sound like he's taking credit for creating or inventing it.

J

[George H. Smith]

Gore said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet," which can sound like he's taking credit for creating or inventing it.

J

Here is the video. Immediately before the remark in question Gore speaks of his "service" in Congress, and immediately after the remark he speaks of taking other initiatives in Congress. I have no desire to defend that creep, but I think he is clearly speaking of legislation.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I don't think Gore ever said this.

Yeah, and Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her house. It was blown out of proportion and became a comedy thing.

Now, Manbearpig is different. Al Gore is definitely on tape talking about that one.