Ayn Rand bashing (long)
Jeff Dalton
>Words, yes. Because there is only one word to express one particular concept.
For some reason, Randians have adopted a magical theory of meaning.
And they think they know the One true Meaning for every word.
>About style: if I feel strongly about one subject, it is normal that I
>use strong words.
And the same ones Rand uses?
>: [...] (Btw: Rand has a tendency to designate
>: statements contrary to her philosophy as "meaningless".)
>
>Not exactly. Some statements contradict reality. That is why they
>are meaningless
randians hoave their own notion of "meaningless".
I suggest we adopt a practice used elsewhere in the Net and
prefix randion words with a dollar sign (one of their favorite
signs). Now we have: Some statements $contradict $reality. That
is why they are $meaningless.
Now all you have to do is learn the Randian meanings for all
these terms and you will be able to understand what Magnus
is saying.
>[for example, "don't be sure of anything -- nobody
>can be sure of anything" (Bertrand Russel). How can he utter such a
>statement, if he can't be sure of anything, including everything he
>says?
I don't know. Probably by moving his mouth, etc., like everyone else.
> His statement *is* meaningless.]
Nope. Necessarily false, perhaps.
>Note that truth depends upon *knowledge*of*reality*, not upon whims.
"Whim" is a favorite randian term of abuse.
>For example, the law of gravitation, discovered by Newton, was not
>invalidated by Einstein's theories. It is still true, in the appro-
>priate context of knowledge, and it has been refined, because our
>knowledge of physical phenomena has expanded.
Yes, the world is still flat and there are four elements too.
>For further discussion of such issues, read _Introduction to
>Objectivist Epistemology_, by Ayn Rand.
read it. Twice. Not very good.
>of the USA today, read _The Ominous Parallels_, by Leonard Peikoff [you
>might learn a few things about Nazi Germany at the same time.]
You'll also get a hint about what the Randians think of Godel.
>Yes. Now, tell me why simple answers should automatically be rejected?
Not automatically, but when it's easy to see where they go wrong,
it's also easy to reject them.