does pure objectivism work.. does pure self interest really benefit the human race? - i argue absolutely

[Xray]

never got into epistemology , only looked at ethics so far.. so i wouldnt understand exactly what you are saying.

I strongly suggest you get into epistemology first. For it deals with what we know, what we can know, and how knowledge is acquired.

This makes epistemology the basic discipline of all philosophical reasoning.

As opposed to mere allegations which are not supported by empirical evidence, arguments based on firm epistemological ground will be a lot harder to refute.

[PDS]

never got into epistemology , only looked at ethics so far.. so i wouldnt understand exactly what you are saying.

I strongly suggest you get into epistemology first. For it deals with what we know, what we can know, and how knowledge is acquired.

This makes epistemology the basic discipline of all philosophical reasoning.

As opposed to mere allegations which are not supported by empirical evidence, arguments based on firm epistemological ground will be a lot harder to refute.

Xray: why you wanna go piling on with Daunce like that? Remind me not to get on yours or Daunce's bad side in the future.

[Xray]

i believe if you are creative enough.. you can almost always figure out how to have your cake and eat it too

Can you provide a concrete example?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Either reply to him or not. Putting him down achieves nothing.

Michael,

The problem comes from posting long-winded rapid-fire posts that essentially ape Galt's speech--but just the preachy parts.

Some of that's OK (not really OK, but passable), but when that's all you've got, that ain't discussion.

I generally encourage spunk and what I like to call piss and vinegar in young people (and in older people, too ), especially those bitten with the Rand bug. There is something aggressive and precious that needs to stay alive to reach greatness, but too often dies in a play along to get along culture. When I see that, I put up with a lot of shit and equivocations as the person finds his or her way, and I try not to squash it.

But when someone shows up out of nowhere preaching poorly rehashed Rand--and his errors of her--and that's all he's got, he's playing a vanity game.

Let me put it more in granular terms. There is a huge difference between a blossoming teen who has been trampled for his good creative hero-aspiring qualities and a spoiled brat who feels entitled to attention. They can sound similar at times when the spoiled brat learns some Randian catch-phrases, but there is a world of difference between them.

Notice I didn't ban the dude. I just stopped him dead in his forum-polluting tracks and restricted him to five posts a day. If I'm wrong, his participation will prove it over time and I will be glad to revise my opinion. But for now, eighteen long hostile-sounding substance-challenged posts to perfect strangers in a very short time is plenty to get a first impression.

Michael

[audiognostic]

I will make the attempt to use more proper punctuation and organization in future posts..

1. I hope you can realize that coming here, I did not previously know the nature of this forum, nor of the personal values of its posters... therefore had no reasonable basis on which to act other than on that which was my own best guess.

2.Please forgive me for my ignorance of Rands complete works.. but the reason I came here is in fact to get feedback, to learn more, not to simply preach.. although it may mistakenly come across that way..

In other words, please consider my perspective.. is there a certain amount of Rands work I must have read before posting here?

Half the posts in the lexicon? John Galts Speech? All the Lexicon? Some interviews? Every book and every interview and every lexicon post???

In other words, please do not judge me upon a requirement which I know nothing of or of which I have not even the awareness of existence..

I came here primarily to learn.. I have no real interest in preaching anything..

Often times my posting style is that of a statement rather than a question.. the purpose being to bounce around ideas and get feedback, as that is how I usually do it and prefer to do it..

[audiognostic]

i believe if you are creative enough.. you can almost always figure out how to have your cake and eat it too

Can you provide a concrete example?

I already have

As I have looked into some of Rands epistimology.. I have discovered the source of the statement to be.. you CANNOT have your cake and eat it too IF AND ONLY IF it is physically impossible.. such as a circle and a square at the same time..

However if it is physically possible.. upon sufficient creativity, one can theoretically always figure out how to do so..

One of my examples was donating to charity.. what if you want to donate to charity and contribute to a cause AND you want to gain something tangible in return of equal value for yourself out of it?

That would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it too..

I hear the tax code allows charity donations to be tax deductible . meaning that one can contribute to a cause, not have to pay taxes, and not lose any money to a place he does not want to lose it to..

How is that not having your cake and eating it too?

If this is not a physical impossibility.. then it is possible..

Even with eating cake.. If i have a cake, logically unless someone takes it away from me and I cant figure out a way to get it back, I can eat it too...

"you cant have your cake and eat it too" is a rather random imposed expression which I do not like because it can be imposed onto any two objects to make a person feel as if they are limited in a way in which they are not..

Such as a mother telling a child who wants a Snickers bar AND a Twix bar that he cant have his cake and eat it too.. This is not a physical impossibility.. if the child is creative enough or capable of getting a dollar for himself.. he CAN have his cake and eat it too..

This is my point

That the entire statement is in itself subjective

Edited September 27, 2012 by audiognostic

[anthony]

It's a metaphysical statement - of reality and existence: An entity cannot exist, and not-exist, at the same time. You are giving it the epistemological and moral treatment, which is a 'primacy of consciousness' approach - subjectivism - and that's how you conclude it is a subjective statement.

But Objectivism elevates 'primacy of existence'. An empty glass is not a full glass. A is not non-A.

[audiognostic]

like i said..

a better argument would be "you cant have something be impossible and possible at the same time"

"you cant have your cake and eat it too" is a rather stupid expression in my opinion

because theoretically, if i have a cake, i can eat it..

like i said.. i dont like it because it can randomly be applied to any two given objects to give the illusion of impossibility.. when in fact thats not the case

the example of having a cake and eating it.. is the perfect example.. and a perfect irony to illustrate what im saying

since you CAN have a cake and eat it..

Edited September 27, 2012 by audiognostic

[anthony]

You're tying yourself up in semantics.

It's an old saying which predated Rand: reverse it, if you want.

"You can't eat your cake, and still have it."

[caroljane]

Or, you cannot eat the cake, and simultaneously retain it uneaten, to eat later or sell or give away. The cake is no more, it has passed on, it is an ex-cake.

[Brant Gaede]

You can eat my cake and have my wrath--too.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Grapes are healthier.

[Dglgmut]

And here comes Carol with the birthday grapes. Worst birthday ever.

[caroljane]

And here comes Carol with the birthday grapes. Worst birthday ever.

And here comes Carol with the birthday grapes. Worst birthday ever.

lol You're welcome. You can keep the whole bunch, or you can eat them all, or...

[Selene]

Ontological questions...

Can you eat the inside of a grape without breaking the skin?

What came first the grape or the vine?

If you drink enough wine from grapes and a tree falls in the woods, will you be agile enough not to get killed when in falls on your drunken ass?

[caroljane]

Yes, depends on who you ask, and probably not.

Make mine a Moosehead.

[blackhorse]

You can't have your cake and eat it, too, not in the sense the saying was meant. You CAN have a cake, and you CAN eat it, but once it is eaten it is no longer a cake in its true form, but rather it is a mush of chewed up food being digested in the stomach.

[caroljane]

never got into epistemology , only looked at ethics so far.. so i wouldnt understand exactly what you are saying.

I strongly suggest you get into epistemology first. For it deals with what we know, what we can know, and how knowledge is acquired.

This makes epistemology the basic discipline of all philosophical reasoning.

As opposed to mere allegations which are not supported by empirical evidence, arguments based on firm epistemological ground will be a lot harder to refute.

Xray: why you wanna go piling on with Daunce like that? Remind me not to get on yours or Daunce's bad side in the future.

Yo, if you wanna go piling on the bad side that is X-tra.

[caroljane]

You can't have your cake and eat it, too, not in the sense the saying was meant. You CAN have a cake, and you CAN eat it, but once it is eaten it is no longer a cake in its true form, but rather it is a mush of chewed up food being digested in the stomach.

And you can get heartburn or half heartburn...or develop an allergy to cake as metaphor... and live happily ever after with half a loaf which is better than none.

[audiognostic]

ah my bad....

First I misread the quote and I do not like the proper "easier to say" version of it which goes "you cannot have your cake and eat it too" which doesnt make any sense..

but when said

" you cannot eat your cake and have it too"

that makes a lot more sense

I have just heard that expression being used about a lot of stupid crap in my life

[anthony]

Yes, Ye Olde English. It goes down with that other one I used to puzzle over:

"You can't see the wood for the trees".

Wood? What wood?

Ah - "woods". As in, you can't see the *forest* for the trees.

[Selene]

Yes, Ye Olde English. It goes down with that other one I used to puzzle over:

"You can't see the wood for the trees".

Wood? What wood?

Ah - "woods". As in, you can't see the *forest* for the trees.

Tony:

The only way I ever heard it was:

You can't see the forest for the trees.

Adam

[caroljane]

Yes, Ye Olde English. It goes down with that other one I used to puzzle over:

"You can't see the wood for the trees".

Wood? What wood?

Ah - "woods". As in, you can't see the *forest* for the trees.

Tony:

The only way I ever heard it was:

You can't see the forest for the trees.

Adam

Especially if you're wandering around the forest swigging Soave--watch out...TimBERRR!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pope,

I'm going to do somthing that I would not do under normal circumstances.

I'm releasing your restriction. Judging by your response, I believe you "got it."

And I beleive you are weighing carefully what you want to say before you use up one of your five posts. So you know the feeling. (It's basically a pause before sounding off. It's making sure to give value in order to receive it. You have to give your best if you want to receive the best from others. That's a fair exchage when you appear before strangers, and I believe a fair exchange in general.)

I know your cognitive mind knows something obvious like this, but now I believe your emotions know it, too.

Anyway, go slow and you'll do fine. There are many good intelligent people around here. Not all are Objectivists, but all are good intelligent people who will challenge your thinking and welcome you challenging theirs.

Just to be clear, I'm not manipulating you. The learning stuff is secondary (albeit I am delighted when I see someone learning the good stuff). My main value here is to be traffic cop and keep the forum running smoothly according to the standards laid out in the posting guidelines--with a little flexibility thrown in. It's a selfish thing.

I hope my evaluation works like I believe it will.

btw - I have earmarked several points in your posts I will be getting to later,

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Not that you need my approval, however it is clear that he is making a significant effort to present his ideas clearly.

PDS noticed a good mind there and I did also.

I just let my emotions explode because of the 911 garbage which is certainly extremely personal to me.

Adam