Yes, You Are a Philosopher!

[Jim Klein]

From Greg Swann:

"This is the truth of your life, concealed from you until now: Each one
of us is a philosopher. Most of us, most probably including you, have
just been bad at the job. You have surrendered your mind to other people
-- to theologians or philosophers or academics or artists or journalists
-- or politicians -- and those people have abused your misplaced trust in
them. This was villainous on their part, but the error before that one
is much worse, and it is no one's fault but yours: You were a volunteer
for your own despoiling. Other people cannot think for you, no matter
how much you might wish they could."

THIS is what Rand understood and the Church of Objectivism, does not.

THIS is what Galt's Speech is about. There might be 50+ pages of
tips and clues, but THIS is what it was about.


jk


Discover the Fundamental Premise
http://selfadoration.com

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

Objectivism was a real turn off for me at first but I realized it
wasn't because of Rand. Whether one agrees with everything she had to
say or not she was a brilliant philosopher that provoked thought. The
problem was the church you mention. Collectivized Objectivism is a
contradiction in terms.

It's understandable why it happens though. Pining about the virtues of
some ideology tends to lead to collectivized action revolving around
that ideology. It's a focal point for common interests. She joked
about her "collective" but there was some contradiction there. She
herself politicized Objectivism (which leads to that exact sort of
collectivized action) rather than keeping it purely in the realm of
philosophical debate. (to let readers themselves decide their
individual interests)

For example, it might actual be someone's rational self-interest to
be a communist, a religious fundamentalist, or even Nazis.

Now I don't actually believe that but empiricism is part of reason not
purely speculative a priori moral theories. A claim of something is in
our interests is not actually the same as it being in our interests.
We cannot yet assert pure capitalism (or liberalism, or whatever) is
in our ideal self-interests with certainty with absolute confidence.
Complex moral and economic issues remain unresolved. This is not to
say these issues can't eventually be resolved but as it stands there
is still uncertainty.

Its funny. When I was a young man I thought I knew everything. As I
get older I realize more how little I actually know and just how
complex issues can be. It's easy to let hubris tell us we know
something but we are often just fooling ourselves by just letting out
egos take command rather than reason.

[Charles Bell]

On Apr 10, 9:23 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>  From Greg Swann:
>

Greg Swann thinks Steve Jobs was a genius because he made his toy
computers in very pretty colors, and that he attempted twice with the
ipod and then then ipad to use his entertainment industry associations
to monopolize, through itunes DRM, emusic and ebooks, was merely
incidental to the fact that monopolies never materialize without
government intervention and as nothing to do with the odious character
and mindset of men such as Steve Jobs.

> "This is the truth of your life, concealed from you until now: Each one
> of us is a philosopher.

Jim Klein and Greg Swann are themselves proof of the falsity of this
proposition.

[Charles Bell]

On Apr 13, 2:36 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Objectivism was a real turn off for me at first but I realized it
> wasn't because of Rand.

Statements like this from a socialist, who by the very nature of his
political ailment must be a liar, can be tedious and boring outside
the context of such leftist entertainment shows like Meet the Press or
the Succubus goo squirted from Obamabot, David Friedman and the
Commuist, Dan Clore.

> Whether one agrees with everything she had to
> say or not she was a brilliant philosopher that provoked thought.  The
> problem was the church you mention. Collectivized Objectivism is a
> contradiction in terms.
>

The art of effective propaganda contains mastery of manipulation of
naive credulity, which you have never mastered. The above pounds the
mind with such utter gibberish, no philosophical simpleton will get
the intended message of manipulation against Rand and Objectivism, and
the philosophical sophisticate, for whom Objectivism has the greatest
appeal, will ignore.

[acar]

On Apr 24, 5:03 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Each one
> > of us is a philosopher.
>
> Jim Klein and Greg Swann are themselves proof of the falsity of this
> proposition.

Charles omits himself out of (unjustified) false modesty.

.
.
.

[Charles Bell]

I include myself implicitly by the exclusion of Klein.

There is no false modesty in answering: is there anything other than
life or death for any living organism? without resorting to <<each one
of us is a philosopher>> A is not not-A, but rather with a "No."
Whether one dares to answer a yes-or-no question with a yes-or-no
answer *ought not to be* the mark of a philosopher but rather to know
that such a question *is* a yes-or-no question.

[acar]

On Apr 26, 6:45 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:34 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 5:03 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Each one
> > > > of us is a philosopher.

Whether or not the subject knows that it is a yes or no question is
irrelevant. We are many things, but philosophers is not one of them.
That title flows from a consensus toward the subject. When the subject
refers to himself as a philosopher there is a much better chance that
he is an idiot.

[Charles Bell]

On May 1, 11:50 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 5:03 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Greg Swann/Jim Klein wrote:
> > > > > Each one
> > > > > of us is a philosopher.
>

> There is no false modesty in answering: is there anything
> other than life or death for any living organism? without

> resorting to <<each one of us is a philosopher>>

> Whether or not the subject knows that it is a yes or no question is
> irrelevant.

Really? That is your version of what it takes to be a "philosopher"?
At the very least, a simpleton understands that a question can be
answered yes or no, even if he is unwilling or incapable of doing so,
or that a question cannot be answered with a yes or no, even if he
cannot understand why. Ask a five-year-old (1) Do you like ice-cream?
(2) Have you stopped hitting your little brother? and you will find a
better "philosopher" than Jim Klein or Greg Swann

> We are many things, but philosophers is not one of them.
> That title flows from a consensus toward the subject. When the subject
> refers to himself as a philosopher there is a much better chance that
> he is an idiot.

It is not idiocy but outright lying to claim that "Is there an
alternative to life or death for any living organism?" cannot have an
answer other than "yes" or "no" or "I do not know, but were I to know,
it would be either 'yes' or 'no.'"

It is idiocy to claim that a consensus is philosophical (or
scientific) or a measure of a man as a philosopher (or scientist) or
anything other than the result of counting opinions.

[acar]

On May 2, 5:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> It is idiocy  to claim that a consensus is philosophical (or
> scientific) or a measure of  a man as a philosopher (or scientist) or
> anything other than the result of counting opinions.

That depends on whose opinion you count.

.
.

[Charles Bell]

Sure, count only those opinions with which you agree and call that
your "consensus."


x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.