Immanuel Kant hates when....
Fred Weiss
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1711#comic
(Just to start the new year off right).
Fred Weiss
Tim
Tim
doesn't have a clue so he resorts to petty jokes, that someone else
thought up.
You randroids sure are pathetic.
Mark N
> On Jan 7, 5:48 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
>>....his girlfriend calls his penis "the-thing-in-itself".
>>
>>http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1711#comic
>>
>>(Just to start the new year off right).
>
> doesn't have a clue so he resorts to petty jokes, that someone else
> thought up.
>
> You randroids sure are pathetic.
Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into
the proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
Mark
x
x
acar
Coming from am Objectivist, the joke is irrational and contradictory.
The face value meaning of the phrase "the thing in itself" is "the
thing considered apart from the observer". Isn't that what Objectivism
is about? If Kant's girl friend were an Objectivist she would be
interested only in the thing in her (just like her teacher).
Ray
news:hi51j1$8aa$1...@vulture.killfile.org...
> Tim wrote:
>
>>
>> You randroids sure are pathetic.
>
> Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into the
> proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
> launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
>
Randroid?
Isn't that a name of the new cell phone?
Ray
Tim
What is needed is the injection of some credible analysis and
criticism of Kant by the randroids. This of course is a virtual
impossibility :)
It was a launching pad for Weiss's repeated evasion of Kant. A
philosopher whom Weiss has repeatedly demonstrated complete ignorance
of other than what he accepts on faith from his randroid cult leader,
who also appeared to be ignorant of Kant, despite the fact that she
called him a monster and claimed that he was wrong, without ever
actually citing where Kant said all these monsterous things. Now
that's weird, that's randroid.
Charles Bell
Fred Weiss
> Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into
> the proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
> launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
The humor in this case may be a little too subtle for Tiny Tim.
Here's another from the same site which even he should be able to
understand:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1750#comic
Fred Weiss
Dan Lind
> On Jan 7, 11:19�am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> > Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into
> > the proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
> > launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
>
> The humor in this case may be a little too subtle for Tiny Tim.
>
> Here's another from the same site which even he should be able to
> understand:
I doubt it.
Can you imagine any woman, even the dumbest of the dumb or the most
desperate of the desperate, to have an interest in little boy Tim?
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1750#comic
Dan Lind
Dan Lind
Woops. I thought you were referring to the video clip below the God
thing. <smile>
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Malrassic Park
>It was a launching pad for Weiss's repeated evasion of Kant. A
>philosopher whom Weiss has repeatedly demonstrated complete ignorance
>of other than what he accepts on faith from his randroid cult leader,
>who also appeared to be ignorant of Kant
The cult doesn't believe it's possible to understand a tome as massive
and circumlocuted as the Critique of Pure Reason. Then the cult will
claim that the CPR fosters collectivism over individualism, indicating
that they believe to have understood it after all.
I can never get a straight answer from the cult as to how they know
what the book is about without understanding it.
Tim
Agreed, when I questioned Jim Klein he dodged by pointing out that
he'd forgotten pretty much everything he read on Kant. Funny how he
remembered Kant was wrong but couldn't put his finger on why. Fred
Weiss readily admitted that he did not understand Kant, yet he still
vouched that Kant was wrong. Michael Gordge --- keerist, I won't even
go there -- something about Ewe's, commies, and knuckle draggers.
Charlie Brown knows Kant is wrong because you apparantly have been
coming here often armed only with ad hominem--apparently noting the
many flaws in her attempts at philosophy is ad hom. and constitutes a
good excuse for the randroids to run away. And then there is that guy
Peikoff -- ever watched him on U-Tube? Talk about a melt down, all he
knows to do is scream! randroids sure are easy to unseat.
Tim
>
> > On Jan 7, 11:19 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into
> > > the proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
> > > launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
>
> > The humor in this case may be a little too subtle for Tiny Tim.
>
> > Here's another from the same site which even he should be able to
> > understand:
>
> I doubt it.
>
Well that's what a good randroid does. Unfortunately for you and
weiss, you failed to recognize the flaw in the Kant cartoon, as did
the writer. The jokes on you randroids.
> Can you imagine any woman, even the dumbest of the dumb or the most
> desperate of the desperate, to have an interest in little boy Tim?
>
Now, now Danny Boy, just because you are a forty year old virgin
doesn't mean you should act one.
> >http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1750#comic
>
> Dan Lind
Tim
>
> > Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into
> > the proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
> > launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
>
> The humor in this case may be a little too subtle for Tiny Tim.
>
The humour in your Kant cartoon is based on a misreading of Kant.
Don't worry though faulty facts, you already admitted that you didn't
understand Kant, so it's no surprise that you missed the point. But I
suggest you stick to posting flawed jokes, they are much easier to
take than the nonsense you spout re. infinite oil and population
densities. Snicker.
Jim Klein
> Agreed, when I questioned Jim Klein he dodged by pointing out that
> he'd forgotten pretty much everything he read on Kant.
Actually, it was that I had (luckily!) forgotten nearly
everything I read BY Kant.
> Funny how he
> remembered Kant was wrong but couldn't put his finger on why.
Actually, I did put my finger on it. When I read Rand's (and
even Peikoff's) comments on the matter, I realized that this
was very nearly my distaste for Kant. You do understand,
don't you, that because I've forgotten nearly everything
Kant has written today, that this was not necessarily the
case when I came across the Rand & Peikoff stuff?
And for that matter, even if I had (which I had not), that still
wouldn't detract from my awareness that what they were
saying was along the lines of my distaste even years earlier.
You have several times requested that I post up some "non-ad-
hom" critique of Kant. Not only have I never here implied that
I could, I freely admitted that I have (in the intervening decades)
forgotten (luckily!) nearly everything he wrote. So I don't know
what use my critique would be anyway. I try to stay away from
writing about things of which I'm ignorant, and I think you
might find that to be a useful strategy too. Try it, maybe.
Also, this doesn't mean I'm not able to spot Kantian garbage when
I see it, particularly when the speaker himself is adamant about
how Kantian is his POV. But even without that, I also didn't say
I forgot everything ABOUT it!
I see that you're realizing not everything is as you assumed. That's
nice because it means you're able to integrate facts. For me,
there's nothing more a stranger can offer, along with the ability
to use the facts he's integrated. So all I'm requesting here, is
that with me, you stick to the damn facts.
jk
Tim
> On Jan 10, 12:50 pm, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, when I questioned Jim Klein he dodged by pointing out that
> > he'd forgotten pretty much everything he read on Kant.
>
> Actually, it was that I had (luckily!) forgotten nearly
> everything I read BY Kant.
>
Right, but you just can't remember why you are lucky.
> > Funny how he
> > remembered Kant was wrong but couldn't put his finger on why.
>
> Actually, I did put my finger on it. �When I read Rand's (and
> even Peikoff's) comments on the matter, I realized that this
> was very nearly my distaste for Kant.
What, like their total failure to ever cite Kant. It's easy to straw-
man Kant; it's even easier when you refuse to cite where he makes his
'monsterous' assertions.
�You do understand,
> don't you, that because I've forgotten nearly everything
> Kant has written today, that this was not necessarily the
> case when I came across the Rand & Peikoff stuff?
That was not your original claim. Still dodging, eh jimmy boy.
>
> And for that matter, even if I had (which I had not), that still
> wouldn't detract from my awareness that what they were
> saying was along the lines of my distaste even years earlier.
>
> You have several times requested that I post up some "non-ad-
> hom" critique of Kant. �Not only have I never here implied that
> I could, I freely admitted that I have (in the intervening decades)
> forgotten (luckily!) nearly everything he wrote. �So I don't know
> what use my critique would be anyway.
Be honest randroid, you don't have a critique, you've let those two
idiot baubble heads: rand and wankoff dictate your views to you, and
you've swallowed their crap hook, line, and sinker.
�I try to stay away from
> writing about things of which I'm ignorant, and I think you
> might find that to be a useful strategy too. �Try it, maybe.
Yet you still come back with nothing to say. Hey jimmy boy you are in
no, I mean no position to tell me that I'm ignorant. You ran away
pleading forgetfulness, or have you forgotten that too.
>
> Also, this doesn't mean I'm not able to spot Kantian garbage when
> I see it, particularly when the speaker himself is adamant about
> how Kantian is his POV. �But even without that, I also didn't say
> I forgot everything ABOUT it!
Do you have a point to make jimmy boy?
>
> I see that you're realizing not everything is as you assumed. �
You see what's in your imagination, nothing else.
That's
> nice because it means you're able to integrate facts. �For me,
> there's nothing more a stranger can offer, along with the ability
> to use the facts he's integrated. �So all I'm requesting here, is
> that with me, you stick to the damn facts.
>
> jk
Done, fact is that you and the randroid herd don't have a clue about
the issues you claim knowledge of.
Ken Gardner
"Mark N" wrote:
> Dude, it's a *cartoon*. Something intended to inject some *humor* into the
> proceedings. It's OK if you don't find it funny. But to use it as a
> launching pad for insults? That's pretty weird.
I'm guessing that as a Canadian (I think), Tim is probably in a very foul
mood following the glorious Team USA overtime victory over Team Canada in
the recent gold metal game in the World Junior Hockey Championships. I have
to say that Don Cherry was less ungracious about it than I expected him to
be, but he wasn't too happy about it either.
But that doesn't explain why you are still in a good mood. Wait, you are
ALWAYS in a good mood.
Tim
"Ken Gardner" <kesgar...@att.net> wrote in message
news:hiec8d$nod$1...@vulture.killfile.org...
> I'm guessing that as a Canadian (I think), Tim is probably in a very foul
> mood following the glorious Team USA overtime victory over Team Canada in
> the recent gold metal game in the World Junior Hockey Championships. I
> have to say that Don Cherry was less ungracious about it than I expected
> him to be, but he wasn't too happy about it either.
You'd guess wrong, I don't follow sports, I couldn't really care less, but
heh, I did see that Canada won it four years running, I believe they beat
out the USA each time. So good for you USA, but what took so long?
Now my guess is that you and your randroid ilk are in foul moods because the
US banking system collapsed, while Canada's weathered the US caused
finnacial meltdown. But the real cause is that you guys keep gettting called
out on the objectivist crap and no one has the brains or the balls to be
able to defend the objectivist dogma. Jim Klien forgets everything, Charlie
Brown's only defence is calling me retarded, faulty facts weisss ends up
foaming at the mouth about AS sales and infinite oil resources, and the best
you can do is point out that the US finally won a hockey game - big deal.
Now do you have an none ad hominem critique of Kant's philosophy or do you
just rely on rand's (whatever rand's is becuase she sure didn't cite any
Kant)?
My guess is that you've never heard of Kant, hockey then, seems more suited
to your intellectual capacities.
Jim Klein
> Jim Klien forgets everything,
I thought you said you were "Done" dealing with me,
with anything but the facts.
Did you change your mind already? Why?
Don't you realize that one of the premises of statists
generally, and Objecti-statists in particular, is that
nobody can be trusted? Do you also believe that?
If so, then it's noted. If not, then why would you be on
the frontlines giving them evidence? Just curious.
FYI, some people CAN be trusted, including at least
one against whom you've been busy throwing invectives.
jk
Tim
> On Jan 11, 9:46 am, Tim <t...@arc.com> wrote:
>
> > Jim Klien forgets everything,
>
> I thought you said you were "Done" dealing with me,
> with anything but the facts.
Idiot, you said deal with the facts. I said I was and would ie DONE.
You really need to do some memory exercises.
>
> Did you change your mind already? �Why?
>
Nope, but apparently you are losing yours. No need to explain, I'm not
interested.
> Don't you realize that one of the premises of statists
> generally, and Objecti-statists in particular, is that
> nobody can be trusted? �Do you also believe that?
>
Don't you realize that you are babbling, again?
> If so, then it's noted. �If not, then why would you be on
> the frontlines giving them evidence? �Just curious.
>
> FYI, some people CAN be trusted, including at least
> one against whom you've been busy throwing invectives.
>
> jk
Too bad you can't be.
Jim Klein
> > > Jim Klien forgets everything,
>
> > I thought you said you were "Done" dealing with me,
> > with anything but the facts.
>
> Idiot, you said deal with the facts. I said I was and would ie DONE.
Oh, so now you're saying it's a fact that "Jim Klein forgets
everything"...is that your point?
Are you truly that stupid, or are you a goddammed liar?
Or are you witty enough to come up with a third alternative?
One thing emotionalists often forget around here, is that
it ALL stays on the record, forever. In case you don't
know it, you will grow up one day.
jk
Tim
"Jim Klein" <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7910d667-e6cb-4823...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 11, 2:27 pm, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
>> > > Jim Klien forgets everything,
>>
>> > I thought you said you were "Done" dealing with me,
>> > with anything but the facts.
>>
>> Idiot, you said deal with the facts. I said I was and would ie DONE.
>
> Oh, so now you're saying it's a fact that "Jim Klein forgets
> everything"...is that your point?
You forgot that done pertained to facts and not to you, what the hell do you
expect me to conclude?
>
> Are you truly that stupid, or are you a goddammed liar?
I'm asking the very same about you, can you remeber why now?
>
> Or are you witty enough to come up with a third alternative?
Wit seems to fly right over the head of the average randroid, so I wouldn't
waste my time.
>
> One thing emotionalists often forget around here, is that
> it ALL stays on the record, forever. In case you don't
> know it, you will grow up one day.
>
Yes that goes for you too. History will note your evasion.
> jk
Jim Klein
> >> > I thought you said you were "Done" dealing with me,
> >> > with anything but the facts.
>
> >> Idiot, you said deal with the facts. I said I was and would ie DONE.
>
> > Oh, so now you're saying it's a fact that "Jim Klein forgets
> > everything"...is that your point?
>
> You forgot that done pertained to facts and not to you, what the hell do you
> expect me to conclude?
AFAIK, I have forgotten nothing here and apparently you
can't follow. So maybe you're saying you are that stupid.
Personally, I doubt it...you seem more immature than stupid.
But like I said earlier, you haven't said much of anything, so it's a
little tough to tell.
This ain't rocket science. I wrote...
---------------------------------
> So all I'm requesting here, is
> that with me, you stick to the damn facts.
---------------------------------
to which you replied...
----------------------------------
Done, fact is that you and the randroid herd don't have a clue about
the issues you claim knowledge of.
----------------------------------
Notice that I didn't even quibble about "don't have a
clue..." I took it as it was intended, as a simple, if
misguided, insult. Meanwhile...
I took "done" exactly as you have subsequently explained...
"It's a done deal. " As you put it later, "I said I was and would
ie DONE."
Well, when you wrote "Jim Klein forgets everything," was
that you dealing in facts as you in your own words "said
I was and would"?
That's all. I don't give a shit either way...neither whether
you stick to your word nor whether you really believe
that it's a fact that I "forget everything."
It's just that since I know you're chomping at the bit to
actually say something here, which is good, I thought
a little practice in clearly saying what you mean, might
be helpful.
Don't get me wrong...I suspect you actually have nothing
to say anyway, but there's always that outside possibility!
jk
Tim
> This ain't rocket science. I wrote...
>
No it isn't. Why you can't figure it out is your problem.
> ---------------------------------
>> So all I'm requesting here, is
>> that with me, you stick to the damn facts.
> ---------------------------------
>
> to which you replied...
>
> ----------------------------------
> Done, fact is that you and the randroid herd don't have a clue about
> the issues you claim knowledge of.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Notice that I didn't even quibble about "don't have a
> clue..." I took it as it was intended, as a simple, if
> misguided, insult. Meanwhile...
Duh, notice that you've now changed the subject back from being done with
you to dealing with the facts-- fact being the first word after done in what
I wrote. Are you following this, yet?
>
> I took "done" exactly as you have subsequently explained...
> "It's a done deal. " As you put it later, "I said I was and would
> ie DONE."
Check your premises randroid. You claimed I used done in the sense of being
done with you. All you need to do is check your earlier post and what you
wrote above. Stop squirming; it's not befitting of a human being.
> Well, when you wrote "Jim Klein forgets everything," was
> that you dealing in facts as you in your own words "said
> I was and would"?
>
> That's all. I don't give a shit either way...neither whether
> you stick to your word nor whether you really believe
> that it's a fact that I "forget everything."
I don't give a shit either.
>
> It's just that since I know you're chomping at the bit to
> actually say something here, which is good, I thought
> a little practice in clearly saying what you mean, might
> be helpful.
But you have nothing to say, remember. And I've been clear from the start.
The best you've done is vacillate around your misunderstanding of the use of
the word done in respect to your demand for facts. And then you have the
gall to say I'm not clear, ha.
> Don't get me wrong...I suspect you actually have nothing
> to say anyway, but there's always that outside possibility!
>
>
It's you who is getting it wrong, I know you have nothing to say, your
replies are proof of that. You admit to not being able to discuss Kant. You
need to have a look in the mirror before you accuse me of having nothing to
say. I outlines my contention re. randorids and Kant, so far you've done
nothing but prove my point. Are you done yet?
Jim Klein
> Duh, notice that you've now changed the subject back from being done with
> you to dealing with the facts-- fact being the first word after done in what
> I wrote. Are you following this, yet?
No. I was under the impression that "Done" meant, "It's done;
I do and will deal with the facts." Do I have that wrong?
> Check your premises randroid. You claimed I used done in the sense of being
> done with you.
Done dealing with me with anything but the facts.
Do I have that wrong?
> All you need to do is check your earlier post and what you
> wrote above.
I'm not talking about what I wrote. I'm talking about what
you wrote. Didn't "Done" mean, "Roger, it's done" or
something like that? If not, what did it mean?
> Stop squirming; it's not befitting of a human being.
>
> > Well, when you wrote "Jim Klein forgets everything," was
> > that you dealing in facts as you in your own words "said
> > I was and would"?
>
> > That's all. I don't give a shit either way...neither whether
> > you stick to your word nor whether you really believe
> > that it's a fact that I "forget everything."
>
> I don't give a shit either.
You don't give a shit whether something you write is factual?
That's noteworthy alright. I'll keep it in mind. So will
others, probably.
> > It's just that since I know you're chomping at the bit to
> > actually say something here, which is good, I thought
> > a little practice in clearly saying what you mean, might
> > be helpful.
>
> But you have nothing to say, remember.
Pronoun confusion?
> And I've been clear from the start.
About what? Hell man, you haven't even made it clear
as to what "Done" meant. I mean, I thought it was clear enough
the first time and your second explanation seemed to
confirm that. Yet twice now you say I've got it wrong.
Okay. What's right, then?
> The best you've done is vacillate around your misunderstanding of the use of
> the word done in respect to your demand for facts.
I don't recall any demand. Maybe you should check your...
uh...facts.
AFAICT, you alleged that you were dealing and will deal strictly
with the facts. Do I have that wrong TOO?
Since then, you have at least twice offered up non-facts.
Considering that you still haven't come up with anything
relevant to say and have only written about me and what
you meant with "Done," I think that's pretty remarkable.
You must really go on a tear when you actually say something!
> And then you have the
> gall to say I'm not clear, ha.
Well, apparently you weren't clear even to yourself. What
sort of chance do I have?
> > Don't get me wrong...I suspect you actually have nothing
> > to say anyway, but there's always that outside possibility!
>
> It's you who is getting it wrong, I know you have nothing to say, your
> replies are proof of that. You admit to not being able to discuss Kant. You
> need to have a look in the mirror before you accuse me of having nothing to
> say.
Did I do that? Now that would be my senility, if so. I've been
wondering
all along if you do. Indeed, I thought I even asked a time or two.
If I did that, then I'm sorry. The only charge you deserve along
those
lines is that you haven't said anything YET!
> I outlines my contention re. randorids and Kant, so far you've done
> nothing but prove my point. Are you done yet?
What "contention" is that, that no randroid can come up with
a non-ad-hom critique of Kant? That's quite a contention if so,
since I don't think there have been any of those. Do you have
an example or two?
That's not a contention; it's a catharsis of imagination or something
like that. Who here has offered an argument along the lines of,
"Kant was an asshole; therefore his theories are wrong."
That's what an ad hom is, in a philosophical context, you know.
You did know that, didn't you? If so, then where are your
examples or do you just wildly fling charges pulled out
of thin air? If not, then what the hell are doing yapping
about ad homs if you don't even know what they are?
Just curious, if you care to share. You see, I keep thinking
that somewhere along the line, you might eventually break
down and actually say something...I mean /something/
that has to do with reality. Or the facts, as you promised.
Really, I'm just wondering about the liklihood. And believe
me...that liklihood ain't rising with each post of yours!
jk
Tim
> On Jan 12, 11:26 am, Tim <t...@arc.com> wrote:
>
>> Duh, notice that you've now changed the subject back from being done with
>> you to dealing with the facts-- fact being the first word after done in
>> what
>> I wrote. Are you following this, yet?
>
> No. I was under the impression that "Done" meant, "It's done;
> I do and will deal with the facts." Do I have that wrong?
>
No, that's what I meant. I'm glad you've finally figured it out -- though
I've lost count as to how many posts it took you.
Jim Klein
> No, that's what I meant. I'm glad you've finally figured it out -- though
> I've lost count as to how many posts it took you.
Oh, that's easy. It's the number of posts since you
failed to answer the following question:
---------------------------------
Oh, so now you're saying it's a fact that "Jim Klein forgets
everything"...is that your point?
---------------------------------
You're doing well, Tim...much better than many. One of
these days I'll squeeze something relevant out of you
and it might even be good!
jk
Charles Bell
> You're doing well, Tim...much better than many.
Is it time then to give retarded Timmy a cookie?
�
Tim
You, on the contrary, are not doing well. You've spent a lot of energy
trying to cover up the fact that you categorically refuse to discuss the
issue of Kant. I doubt you have anything of value worth squeezing, that's a
fact.
Tim
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:b8c05667-a99d-44d3...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 2:36 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> You're doing well, Tim...much better than many.
>
> Is it time then to give retarded Timmy a cookie?
>
>
>
Maybe he can clean your dirty backside for you, charlie brown. No cookie for
you until you can kick the ball.
Charles Bell
> "Charles Bell" <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Timmy, no good. Timmy, no get cookie.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
Mal
> On Jan 7, 5:48�am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > ....his girlfriend calls his penis "the-thing-in-itself".
>
> >http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1711#comic
>
> > (Just to start the new year off right).
>
> > Fred Weiss
>
> Coming from am Objectivist, the joke is irrational and contradictory.
> The face value meaning of the phrase "the thing in itself" is "the
> thing considered apart from the observer". Isn't that what Objectivism
> is about? If Kant's girl friend were an Objectivist she would be
> interested only in the thing in her (just like her teacher).
The thing-in-itself is the appearance with space and time disregarded.
In that case, it is no longer regarded as appearance,
It is practically the same idea as measurement-omission, since the
measurements omitted in ITOE are usually spatial.
The thing-in-itself also refers to any non-appearance that can never
be
an appearance, such as the concept of human rights.
acar
> On Jan 7, 9:52�am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> The thing-in-itself is the appearance with space and time disregarded.
> In that case, it is no longer regarded as appearance,
> It is practically the same idea as measurement-omission, since the
> measurements omitted in ITOE are usually spatial.
>
thought of "the thing itself" as referring to a specific thing. (A
property of the object that is not captured by the senses.) Am I
correct? Of course if what the senses are able to capture is a
function of space and time, I can see that the thing itself can not be
perceived; but it would still be a pecific object rather than a class
of objects as in measurement omission. May be you are saying that by
omitting measurements one captures a non-material object which however
has specific characteristics. Please clarify.
acar
By the way, Google claims that I changed the title of thread. I didn't.
Mal
"Measurement omission" refers to a step in Rand's concept-formation
process.
The appearance is an undetermined object of empirical intuition.
The thing-in-itself is simply its counterpart as a non-spatial and
non-temporal thought-object. Like appearance, it is also
undetermined, but also the thought of something indeterminate.
Kant has not thereby reduced all reality to thought, he has only
stated that while he can think of things as spatial and temporal,
he can also things of these same things as non-spatial
and non-temporal. In thinking the latter they have been reduced
to concept.
The reversal Kant has made is this: he reduced things to concept,
but then tossed these aside for the moment and considered only
that element which was subtracted: space and time themselves.
Kant's argument then revolves around these in abstraction from
all else, regarded as separate in thought, although not in reality
separable, so space and time can be discussed separately in
abstraction from material things.
This process has two important by-products: appearance and the
thing-in-itself. The former thought-object serves an intellectual
"container" for all that which appears, that is, all possible spatial
and temporal matter. The latter thought-object serves as an
intellectual "container" for everything else.
All this discourse takes place on the highest intellectual plane,
it does not regard any real matter of experience whatsoever, like
some highly abstract calculus consisting entirely of symbols.
Kant's symbols consist of words (his argument is thus discursive
not mathematical), but the idea is the same. And it's not an
arbitrary game any more than calculus is an arbitrary game.
That is why the "thing-in-itself" is often regarded as a kind of
"place-holder" concept, like a mathematical 0. It serves a very
important function, and one cannot imagine doing mathematics
without it, although in itself a 0 represents a literal nothing yet
has mathematical meaning. So does the thing-in-itself for
transcendental discourse, it reserves an important intellectual
space for 'things' which literally represent nothing in empirical
reality yet can nevertheless be filled with transcendental meaning.
Mal
> The face value meaning of the phrase "the thing in itself" is "the
> thing considered apart from the observer".
I'm not disagreeing with that, although I'm not entirely agreeing
with it either. As ambiguous, it leaves room for definite negative
interpretations. So while I can see it in a positive light, others are
predetermined by Rand and Peikoff to give it a negative
interpretation.
When I learned to view Critique as formulated in terms as abstract
as higher mathematics, although discursive and not mathematical,
this took the wind out of a lot of negative interpretations. One does
not take higher mathematics literally, it is a construct based upon
axioms. While there are obviously rules, higher math is literally
freed
from the constraints of empirical, Aristotelian logic. So I reject
the
view that the thing-in-itself is an empirical thing considered apart
from observation, just as any normal person would reject the view
that the symbol for a partial differential literally represents
something
in reality beyond the service it provides for calculus.
acar
> On Jan 7, 9:52�am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> When I learned to view Critique as formulated in terms as abstract
> as higher mathematics, although discursive and not mathematical,
> this took the wind out of a lot of negative interpretations. One does
> not take higher mathematics literally, it is a construct based upon
> axioms. While there are obviously rules, higher math is literally
> freed
> from the constraints of empirical, Aristotelian logic.
I've been pretty sick the last few days but I found your replies and
enjoyed studying them. They have helped me change and refine my rather
naive concept of Kantian epistemology and I thank you. Your
contributions to this ng are indispensable. Remember sticks and
stones.
.
.
.
Mal
Wow, a compliment on this forum. You're not going to die on us, are
you, Acar? (I'm just dying for more compliments, that's all.) Luckily
I
haven't been seriously ill myself this winter, maybe just more than
the
usual aches and pains. and a winter head cold. Since I turned 40
aches and pains have increasingly become the norm, a daily reminder
of eventual mortality.
The thing I like about your original post, Acar, is that it expresses
some of the Enlightenment backdrop for the conversation regarding the
nature of the senses which led to the Aesthetic. It just so happens
that the Aesthetic is not about the nature of the senses or even
phenomenology, it is about the nature of space and time. But then
again, space and time are of that very nature, they are inseparable
from the senses, or better, from the faculty of sensibility.
Then some will ask 'troubling' questions found online such as:
"But if the mind actively generates perception, this raises the
question
whether the result has anything to do with the world."
Is that question troubling? Not really. Not if the answer is, by
generating perception, the sensibility and understanding also generate
the real world we experience. In that case, it has everything to do
with the world, so the original question was nonsense.
The troubling question would go something like, is there a world
NOT of experience? If the real world is the one we experience,
then there can be no other world as some kind of non-experienced
albeit real counterpart, such as a world containing a noumenal table
versus a world containing a phenomenal table. However, that being
said, the theory that the real world is the same as the world of
experience does open up the intellectual possibility of a world not
of experience although it is not a realm of noumenal things such
as noumenal tables. It is a realm of concepts and ideas to be
employed by man in the phenomenal realm and thus to be regarded
AS IF they are real in a very real, practical sense.
Mal
> On Jan 31, 10:20�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> Then some will ask 'troubling' questions found online such as:
> "But if the mind actively generates perception, this raises the
> question
> whether the result has anything to do with the world."
>
> Is that question troubling? Not really. Not if the answer is, by
> generating perception, the sensibility and understanding also generate
> the real world we experience. In that case, it has everything to do
> with the world, so the original question was nonsense.
Here's another example of a "troubling" online 'question':
"Since mathematics derives from our own sensible intuition, we can
be absolutely sure that it must apply to everything we perceive, but
for
the same reason we can have no assurance that it has anything to do
with the way things are apart from our perception of them."
And this implies what? That there are two real worlds, one of the
senses and one not of the senses. But where is the Kantian context
for such a claim? Blank-out.
We intellectually assume that there is a world not of the senses,
but mathematics doesn't apply there anyway since it is not a realm of
"noumenal tables," so the question is still not problematic. We assume
such a realm for moral, not scientific, purposes.
The entire purpose of the notion of a thing-in-itself (which Kant
NEVER
referred to as "things-in-themselves" but only in the singular), is to
open up a space of intellectual possibilities. It is not a concept of
ontology. It is to say that through this transcendental method we may
derive a thing-in-itself, and similarily, we can derive a noumenon.
The noumenon is a notion that is truly more "realm-like." The
thing-in-itself is the barest notion that there is "something else"
albeit
in such a way that its identity has not been firmly established.
Only when we have derived the noumenon can we truly say that
it IS a "realm" although not a realm of earthly non-phenomenal things
beyond the senses. It is a "realm" filled with the potential for
human
volitional action directly known as the moral realm.
Volitional action is not, as in the Objectivist sense, the creator or
initiator of thought. It is a rather sad commentary on Objectivists
that
they have to willfully force themselves to think. Furthermore, their
theory brings moral judgment to the realm of thought itself, in which
thoughts themselves are judgeable as morally right or wrong. That is
nothing more than Objectivist "political correctness" - say the wrong
thing and you're ousted from the cult.
Volitional action is any activity that moves against inclination -
impulse,
habit, addiction, activities that require no volition but only moving
with
lower animal/sensual desire. However, Kant uses the example, not
of a drunk, but of the humanitarian who has spent a lifetime giving
to
others and simply does so out of inclination. His activity is
praiseworthy,
but not moral. Likewise for the capitalist industrial magnate, for all
that
Objectivists say he is giving back to society through his productive
endeavors, such activity is praiseworthy - and I'm absolutely sure
Kant
would even say that the competition engendered by capitalism
strengthens a society as a whole - but it is not moral in the Kantian
sense. They do however serve as symbols to guide others, that is,
those who are not inclined to be either humanitarian or productive.
acar
> On Jan 31, 10:20�pm,acar<acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>You're not going to die on us, are
> you,Acar?
Not to worry, I am well on the mend and will be 100% in a day or two.
Your instruction to "not die" will be strictly observed.
There is much to assimilate in your replies. For one thing they show
that there is much more to the world than the 3D model of Ayn Rand.
Unfortunately for me my own philosophizing struggles to rise above the
default in which the Objectvist model is stuck.
Some time ago you talked about writing a book on Kant. If this has not
been done or if it is not in progress, I hereby encourage you to do
so, since your perspective as an ex-Objectivist will be particularly
useful.
Mal
> On Feb 1, 2:14�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't talked about writing such a book in maybe 10 years, so you
must have an amazing elephant-like memory. It would require
researching the Akademie edition of Kant's works which I believe is
only in German, and my German sucks.
The Randroids don't care what I write about Kant as long as I don't
try to draw any connection with Rand. After all, they are exactly
the opposite philosophically, but not for the reason they claim.
The reason is that Rand had no transcendental distinction, so in
that sense Kant is the opposite of every philosopher who lacked
one.
The biggest hurdle to understanding Kant is the inability to
make the transcendental distinction (or confusing it with
Platonism). The arguments regarding space and time are
crucial to making the distinction. There is one and only one
goal involved in it, and that is the invention of transcendental
logic.
Transcendental logic, not the usual Aristotelian empirical logic,
is the key to solving metaphysical problems. Empirical logic
cannot be used to solve non-empirical problems. (Attempting
to do so is known as the Fallacy of the Metaphysical
Question.) While empirical logic was derived from looking at
the empirical world, transcendental logic was derived from
examining the transcendental basis for the empirical.
Here is how I see the average reader of the Critique:
"Aesthetic of space and time - must be some kind of ontology.
Next chapter- transcendental logic?? Oh well, skip it till later.
Transcendental deduction of categories, I've heard of that
one, they say nobody has ever understood it and nobody ever
will..."
This imaginary reader has no basis for appreciating what Kant
has done, and Kant himself is partially responsible for that
since he doesn't explain it very well. Even the Prolegomena,
which is still a bit too dense, fails to properly explain it.
If I were to write a book it would have to deal with this kind of
background information, and it is obviously the book inside of
me waiting to be born, because I discuss it whenever I can.
acar
>
Then get started. After that you will not be able to stop. (And I
don't think that it as been 10 yrs! :))
.
.
.
Mal
> On Feb 2, 5:46�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 2, 1:05�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > If I were to write a book it would have to deal with this kind of
> > background information, and it is obviously the book inside of
> > me waiting to be born, because I discuss it whenever I can.- Hide quoted text -
> Then get started. After that you will not be able to stop. (And I
> don't think that it as been 10 yrs! :))
What should I call it?
Arnold Broese
news:2d0d7c9b-cc79-4d0e...@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Why E Kant explain himself.
.
.
.
.
.
--
Arnold
acar
> On Feb 2, 5:16�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> What should I call it?
You can figure that after you finish.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 2, 5:16�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:46�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 2, 1:05�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> .
> > > If I were to write a book it would have to deal with this kind of
> > > background information, and it is obviously the book inside of
> > > me waiting to be born, because I discuss it whenever I can.- Hide quoted text -
> .
> > Then get started. After that you will not be able to stop. (And I
> > don't think that it as been 10 yrs! :))
>
> What should I call it?
/What I Could Do If I Were Master of the World?/
"The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
Immanuel Kant, "On History," Idea for a Universal History from a
Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784).
Mal
wrote:
> "Mal" <male...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d0d7c9b-cc79-4d0e...@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:16 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 5:46 pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 2, 1:05 pm,
> >> > If I were to write a book it would have to deal with this kind of
> >> > background information, and it is obviously the book inside of
> >> > me waiting to be born, because I discuss it whenever I can.- Hide
> >> Then get started. After that you will not be able to stop. (And I
> >> don't think that it as been 10 yrs! :))
> > What should I call it?
> �Why E Kant explain himself.
Catchy, just might sell.
Mal
> On Feb 2, 7:59�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
> > What should I call it?
> /What I Could Do If I Were Master of the World?/
> "The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
> eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
> kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
> respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
> have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
> impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
> thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
> a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
> Immanuel Kant, "On History," �Idea for a Universal History from a
> Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784).
The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal.
acar
> On Feb 3, 3:27�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 7:59�pm, Mal > .
> > "The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
> > eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
> > kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
> > respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
> > have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
> > impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
> > thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
> > a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
> .
> > Immanuel Kant, "On History," �Idea for a Universal History from a
> > Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784).
>
> The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
> self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal.
Is 50 years enough time to asses the validity of a philosophical
challenge to the status quo? Ayn Rand's open and almost hysterical
attack on Kant, dating back to before 1953, is not yet regarded as
significant, despite the hopeful claims of Ayn Rand's ever-patient
disciples. Whereas Kant took the philosophical world by storm and
achieved recognition in his lifetime, Rand faced painful
disappointment on the seemingly inexplicable failure of a throng
intellectuals to beat a path to her door after the publication of
Atlas Shrugged. Indeed she expected Atlas Shrugged to do for the men
of the mind, her peers, what The Fountainhead had already done for a
handful of teen-agers. The fountainhead set off a pilgrimage of 2 or 3
sensitive boys and girls that appeared at her doorstep from
territories far and near.
There are of course many reasons for the fact that Ayn Rand's
philosophy has not "taken". One of the reasons is the massive
CONTRADICTION between her emphasis on IDENTIFICATION and the erroneous
identification of the target of her philosophy -- man. Rand identifies
man as a volitional being with access to the means that are necessary
for perfect rationality. To this effect she puts instincts and
emotions under the full control of reason. Given those mechanics, any
deviations from perfect rationality are a matter of choice.
Overwhelming instincts do not exist in humans, she claims, and
emotions are tabula rasa at birth. Since neither instincts nor
emotions are capable of overpowering reason, in her view the perfectly
rational man is an achievable moral ideal. To this effect she creates
fictional super heroes such as Howard Roark and John Galt. Then she
proceeds to claim, arbitrarily, that such men actually exist. Rand
rants against the doctrine of original sin, explaining that there is
no congenital flaw that will keep humans from achieving perfect
rationality. That identification of the human species is a whim. It is
not to be found in nature. It is contrary to the record of history.
Kant on the other hand knows man for what it is. Our resident Rand
scholar Charles Bell has provides us with a pertinent quote:
" Man ... certainly abuses his freedom with
> respect to other men, and although as a reasonable being he wishes to
> have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
> impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
> thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
> a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
To which you reply:
"The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal."
Obviously the master can not be another human that would respond to
the same description.
Or perhaps that is also a reason why humans have always looked for
perfection in the supernatural; where they also find redemption and
forgiveness of sins; since the only freedom from the wages of his
trespasses is forgiveness.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 3, 3:27锟絘m, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 7:59锟絧m, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > > What should I call it?
> .
> > /What I Could Do If I Were Master of the World?/
> .
> > "The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
> > eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
> > kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
> > respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
> > have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
> > impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
> > thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
> > a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
> .
> > Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784).
>
> The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
> self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal.
Interesting how www.marxist.org where this quote can be found does not
put this in that context but in a context any thinking person would
put it.
However. prove your point: set the context where "abuses his freedom
with respect to other men . . . but as a reasonable being he wishes to
have a law which limits his freedom." can mean anything other than a
reference to an exterior authoritative force through a Master and His
law. Close your eyes and hear those words as if coming from Hobbes
("typical Enlightenment moral goal") with respect to his Absolute
Sovereign.
Note also that, in contrast, Rand's only reference to any *moral
imperative* is what government, laws and it agents must do for the
individual -- never the other way around.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 3, 3:13�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:27�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 7:59�pm, Mal > .
> > > "The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
> > > eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
> > > kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
> > > respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
> > > have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
> > > impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
> > > thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
> > > a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
> > .
> > > Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784).
>
> > The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
> > self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal.
>
> Is 50 years enough time to asses the validity of a philosophical
> challenge to the status quo? Ayn Rand's open
. . and entirely correct understanding of Kant's philosophy is
verifiable in Kant's plain speaking essays such as the one quoted
above. Kant believed in benevolent despotism that is not only the
philosophical grandfather of Marxism but rather tersely totalitarian
in its own right.
> To which you reply:
> "The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
> self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal."
>
> Obviously the master can not be another human that would respond to
> the same description.
>
Kant and Hobbes emphasized peace and order under a Sovereign Master
and never individual expression (except, for Kant, in freedom of
speech) that may conflict with the Master. Hobbes simply put his
moral basis for sovereign power in Thomist Christianity, but Kant had
his own in moral imperatives that can be derived independently from
Christianity.
Mal
> On Feb 3, 3:13�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:27�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 7:59�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > .
> > .
>
> > > > What should I call it?
> > .
> > > /What I Could Do If I Were Master of the World?/
> > .
> > > "The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
> > > eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
> > > kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
> > > respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
> > > have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
> > > impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
> > > thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
> > > a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free."
> > .
> > > Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784).
>
> > The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
> > self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal.
>
> put this in that context but in a context any thinking person would
> put it.
>
> However. prove your point: set the context where "abuses his freedom
> with respect to other men . . . but as a reasonable being he wishes to
> have a law which limits his freedom." can mean anything other than a
> reference to an exterior authoritative force through a Master and His
> law. Close your eyes and hear those words as if coming from Hobbes
> ("typical Enlightenment moral goal") with respect to his Absolute
> Sovereign.
>
> Note also that, in contrast, Rand's only reference to any *moral
> imperative* is what government, laws and it agents must do for the
> individual -- never the other way around.
So Rand used the phrase "Moral imperative" in a negative context.
That doesn't mean a thing. I could use the phrase "Charles Bell"
in a negative context too. Or I could use it positively. It requires
nothing
more than a rhetorical play of words.
Placing Kant in the context of the e-vil Hobbes is nothing more
than the same rhetorical device.
Here is the link to Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?"
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html
Consider the *historical* context in which Kant wrote this essay.
Kant lived underneath the rule of princes and kings, he knew of
no other political system. Therefore he had to place his hope for
freedom
in an external authority - Frederick - about whom he wrote:
"A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes
it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men
complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the
arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to
be
praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least
where the government is concerned, to release the human race from
immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all
matters
of conscience."
Remember the first amendment of the Constitution? Doesn't it say
something about religious freedom?
Notice the slap gives to the face of arrogant "tolerance." I love that
because it is a slap in the face of political correctness over 200
years
in the future. Frederick did not have to arrogance to *tolerate*
anything,
he simply allowed it by prescribing nothing. And for this, Kant
bequeathed him the title of "Enlightened ruler," the highest honor he
or anyone could bestow.
Are we therefore to judge Kant simply because he praised a king
or prince? THERE WAS NO OTHER POLITICAL SYSTEM except
for the very tiny and very new US of A far across the Atlantic.
The most Kant could hope for in his day and age was to be
ALLOWED the freedom to express himself. And from there, who
knows?
Mal
> On Feb 3, 3:13�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only master "under which each can be free" is found through
> > self-mastery. That is a typical Enlightenment and Kantian moral goal.
>
> Interesting howwww.marxist.orgwhere this quote can be found does not
> put this in that context but in a context any thinking person would
> put it.
>
> However. prove your point: set the context where "abuses his freedom
> with respect to other men . . . but as a reasonable being he wishes to
> have a law which limits his freedom." can mean anything other than a
> reference to an exterior authoritative force through a Master and His
> law. Close your eyes and hear those words as if coming from Hobbes
> ("typical Enlightenment moral goal") with respect to his Absolute
> Sovereign.
By the way, you should no doubt read the relevant parts of that
essay on Universal History. You want context, but then you demand
it of me when in fact that context is in the very essay you cited
and quoted from out of context.
Why am I always in the position of having to do your homework
for you, Charles?
No doubt because you yourself rejected context and started shouting
stuff from Marxist.org as if you were a regular Lenin follower.
But there is really only one quote I need to extract from the entire
essay to prove my point:
"The highest master should be just in himself, and yet a man."
acar
.
.
.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 3, 3:12�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > However. prove your point: set the context where "abuses his freedom
> > with respect to other men . . . but as a reasonable being he wishes to
> > have a law which limits his freedom." can mean anything other than a
> > reference to an exterior authoritative force through a Master and His
> > law. Close your eyes and hear those words as if coming from Hobbes
> > ("typical Enlightenment moral goal") with respect to his Absolute
> > Sovereign.
>
> > Note also that, in contrast, Rand's only reference to any *moral
> > imperative* is what government, laws and it agents must do for the
> > individual -- never the other way around.
>
> So Rand used the phrase "Moral imperative" in a negative context.
She did not use the phrase in a negative context but in an ironic way,
perhaps. She explicitly said that no government genuinely creates
rights, and Kant believed that the Sovereign did create rights, except
a fundmental right of free speech (and by implication, religion).
.
>
> Placing Kant in the context of the e-vil Hobbes is nothing more
> than the same rhetorical device.
>
Kant himself put Kant in a Hobbes context..
> Here is the link to Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?"
>
> �http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html
>
> Consider the *historical* context in which Kant wrote this essay.
> Kant lived underneath the rule of princes and kings, he knew of
> no other political system. Therefore he had to place his hope for
> freedom
One can certainly put Hobbes in that historical context. He was born
two hundred years before Kant was writing. The two are the bookends of
the Enlightenment which created the *end* of despotic rule in the form
of the U.S.A., but -- no -- Kant looked backwards and thus created the
rules for the Romantic revival of despotism, just not in the hands of
national monarchs but of international movements. That is Kant's
legacy: European international socialism, from Marx to Soros.
> in an external authority - Frederick - about whom he wrote:
>
> "A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes
> it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men
> complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the
> arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to
> be
> praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least
> where the government is concerned, to release the human race from
> immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all
> matters
> of conscience."
>
That is but a reflection that, although Hobbes lived at the beginning
of the Thirty Years War of religious strife in Europe, Kant could look
back at the evidence of the destructive nature of theocratic statism.
> Remember the first amendment of the Constitution? Doesn't it say
> something about religious freedom?
>
Kant recognized only the individual right of free speech -- nothing
else. He did not recognize the right of self-government. He just
replaced the divine right of kings with some other superstition of
right (force) to rule by right (moral) ideas. So says the Taliban and
the Iranian mullahs, and every socialist that has ever lived -- it is
an old idea dressed up in new garb that forms the basis of despotism
of the collective over the individual.
And, may I add, pseudo-Objectivists like Prescott, try to make out
that Rand and Objectivism reached for the same goal, but they are
fundamentally wrong from the second paragraph in any exposition they
may make in any defense of that position.
acar
> On Feb 3, 8:30�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 3, 3:12�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Are we therefore to judge Kant simply because he praised a king
> > or prince? THERE WAS NO OTHER POLITICAL SYSTEM except
> > for the very tiny and very new US of A far across the Atlantic.
>
> In other words: CONTEXT!
>
is not rocket science. It is a matter of record. In order to live
productively with other men there must be limits to individual
freedom, and there must be an agency that enforces those limits. In a
Utopian Gulch where all agents are rational and value is exchanged for
value on a voluntary basis, there would be no conflict of interests.
But in the real world there is a need for rules and for an enforcing
agency. Rand, perhaps self-contradictorily, was quick to recognize the
need for a government and laws.
So did Kant. Rand had the benefit of being able to contrast a
government by men with a government by law. Kant had no such benefit,
and so he put on the ruler -- the only government around - the burden
of striking a balance between freedom and regulation.
Given the fact that Kant emphasized the need for an authority in a
properly functioning society, he has been accused of promoting
dictatorships and collectivism. A better logic would give him credit
for fathering the rule of law in which his complaints about the human
identity are eliminated.
Mal
I don't know that Kant emphasized the need to find a
governmental authority. But men are inclined towards a certain
cognitive laziness when it comes to self-development. Case
in point - Randroidism. There is little difference between attending
a church sermon and attending an Objectivist conference with
speakers. But there is a big difference in effect - Rand makes one
feel like a self-mastering, enlightened individualist when it is
in fact far from the case. Rand is telling them what to think
while disguising it (epistemology, for instance) as a theory
regarding how to think.
Absolute self-mastery, according to Kant, is impossible. I don't
know that that's exactly true, but in his social theory it is
deemed impossible. Kant, however, does not set up an
authoritarian dictator or ruler as the master over society,
he believed in a constitutional republic. I don't see this as
a set of guidelines and restrictions imposed on the government
as it is in the US, but a doctrine designed to impose limits
on the populace via a theory of rights. A right, in Kant's theory
is a limit imposed on individual freedom such that it can
co-exist with the freedoms of others yet never hinders their
freedom.
So although Kant personally knew no other system of
government than monarchy, he was able to theorize about
other forms of government (such as absolute democracy), and
so he was also able to theorize about the form of government
he deemed should work best for the populace: a
constitutional form of republic.
Mal
> On Feb 3, 8:30�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:12�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > However. prove your point: set the context where "abuses his freedom
> > > with respect to other men . . . but as a reasonable being he wishes to
> > > have a law which limits his freedom." can mean anything other than a
> > > reference to an exterior authoritative force through a Master and His
> > > law. Close your eyes and hear those words as if coming from Hobbes
> > > ("typical Enlightenment moral goal") with respect to his Absolute
> > > Sovereign.
>
> > > Note also that, in contrast, Rand's only reference to any *moral
> > > imperative* is what government, laws and it agents must do for the
> > > individual -- never the other way around.
>
> > So Rand used the phrase "Moral imperative" in a negative context.
>
> She did not use the phrase in a negative context but in an ironic way,
> perhaps. She explicitly said that no government genuinely creates
> rights, and Kant believed that the Sovereign did create rights, except
> a fundmental right of free speech (and by implication, religion).
Rand did not use that phrase ironically in this quote:
"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his
right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an
evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."
I would say that is quite emphatically, and not ironically, in
favor of a moral imperative - as long as it does not emphasize
any Kantian form of duty.
She used it negatively in the following two quotes:
"A man cannot think if he places something--anything--
above his perception of reality. He cannot follow the evidence
unswervingly or uphold his conclusions intransigently, while
regarding compliance with other men as his moral imperative..."
"The moral imperative of the duty to sacrifice oneself to duty,
a sacrifice without beneficiaries, is a gross rationalization for
the image (and soul) of an austere, ascetic monk who winks
at you with an obscenely sadistic pleasure..."
> > Placing Kant in the context of the e-vil Hobbes is nothing more
> > than the same rhetorical device.
>
> Kant himself put Kant in a Hobbes context..
So Hobbes led to Kant, who led to Hegel and Marx?
> > Here is the link to Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?"
>
> > �http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html
>
> > Consider the *historical* context in which Kant wrote this essay.
> > Kant lived underneath the rule of princes and kings, he knew of
> > no other political system. Therefore he had to place his hope for
> > freedom
>
> One can certainly put Hobbes in that historical context. He was born
> two hundred years before Kant was writing. The two are the bookends of
> the Enlightenment which created the *end* of despotic rule in the form
> of the U.S.A., but -- no -- Kant looked backwards and thus created the
> rules for the Romantic revival of despotism, just not in the hands of
> national monarchs but of international movements. �That is Kant's
> legacy: European international socialism, from Marx to Soros.
>
> > in an external authority - Frederick - about whom he wrote:
>
> > "A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes
> > it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men
> > complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the
> > arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to
> > be
> > praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least
> > where the government is concerned, to release the human race from
> > immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all
> > matters of conscience."
>
> That is but a reflection that, although Hobbes lived at the beginning
> of the Thirty Years War of religious strife in Europe, Kant could look
> back at the evidence of the destructive nature of theocratic statism.
Kant believed that governments have the power to improve society,
and that spending funds to attack other countries - in the
manner of Nazi Germany - was a waste of money better spent
on one's own citizenship.
> > Remember the first amendment of the Constitution? Doesn't it say
> > something about religious freedom?
.
> Kant recognized only the individual right of free speech
As I just said, Kant recognized right to religious expression
- but his essay on Enlightenment also recognized freedom from
the pulpit, freedom to think for oneself. During Kant's life church
attendance in his town dropped dramatically. Kant praised
Frederick for his enlightened - governmental hands-off - view of
morality. That is just the opposite of some autocratic or
theocratic government, not even close to being Taliban-like.
Try reading the essays for a change, Charles, your ideas
are drowning in an ocean of irrelevant analogies.
-- nothing
> else. He did not recognize the right of self-government. He just
> replaced the divine right of kings with some other superstition of
> right (force) to rule by right (moral) ideas. �So says the Taliban and
> the Iranian mullahs, and every socialist that has ever lived -- it is
> an old idea dressed up in new garb �that forms the basis of despotism
> of the collective over the individual.
Kant recognized the constitutional republic form of government.
This is discussed in the context of Kant's own writings,
the stuff you mentioned is not.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 4, 5:25�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Note also that, in contrast, Rand's only reference to any *moral
> > > > imperative* is what government, laws and it agents must do for the
> > > > individual -- never the other way around.
>
> > > So Rand used the phrase "Moral imperative" in a negative context.
>
> > She did not use the phrase in a negative context but in an ironic way,
> > perhaps. She explicitly said that no government genuinely creates
> > rights, and Kant believed that the Sovereign did create rights, except
> > a fundmental right of free speech (and by implication, religion).
>
> Rand did not use that phrase ironically in this quote:
>
> "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his
> right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
> only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
> All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an
> evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."
>
. . . Cut from context of government, not an individual, being the
sole provider of retaliatory force.
Just what/who is expected to use force in a certain morally
(imperative) way : government/the agents of goverment. There is no
imperative imposed on any individual, except as agents of government.
Rand is being ironic EXACTLY in that she is stating the very opposite
of what traditional individual-government relationship is thought to
be: the individual having some duty to the government or to the
"people".
Mal
> On Feb 4, 5:36�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his
> > right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
> > only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
> > All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an
> > evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."
.
> . . . Cut from context of government, not an individual, being the
> sole provider of retaliatory force.
.
> Just what/who is expected to use force in a certain morally
> (imperative) way : government/the agents of goverment. There is no
> imperative imposed on any individual, except as agents of government.
> Rand is being ironic EXACTLY in that she is stating the very opposite
> of what traditional individual-government relationship is thought to
> be: the individual having some duty to the government or to the
Well I don't know, Rand didn't say government or citizens, so I
have to assume either/or. "Man's right to self-defense" is strangely
vague. Does it mean "a man"?
Charles Bell
> On Feb 5, 3:52�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:36�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
> > > "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his
> > > right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
> > > only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
> > > All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an
> > > evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."
> .
> > . . . Cut from context of government, not an individual, being the
> > sole provider of retaliatory force.
> .
> > Just what/who is expected to use force in a certain morally
> > (imperative) way : government/the agents of goverment. There is no
> > imperative imposed on any individual, except as agents of government.
> > Rand is being ironic EXACTLY in that she is stating the very opposite
> > of what traditional individual-government relationship is thought to
> > be: the individual having some duty to the government or to the
> > "people."
>
> have to assume either/or. "Man's right to self-defense" is strangely
> vague. Does it mean "a man"
It is from an essay called /The Nature of Government/
<< The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence
to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who
committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and
enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without
such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of
force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into
mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or
vendettas.
<<If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men
need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights
under an objective code of rules.>>
Institution = government
There is no moral essence to a government that does not do what it is
charged to do. THAT IS GOVERNMENT'S MORAL IMPERATIVE: to act as the
retaliatory use of force as one means of self-defense for every
individual of the society: that no criminal get away with his crimes.
Mal
> On Feb 5, 7:15 pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is from an essay called /The Nature of Government/
.
> << The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence
> to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who
> committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and
> enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without
> such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of
> force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into
> mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or
> vendettas.
.
> <<If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men
> need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights
> under an objective code of rules.>>
.
> Institution = government
.
> There is no moral essence to a government that does not do what it is
> charged to do. �THAT IS GOVERNMENT'S MORAL IMPERATIVE: to act as the
> retaliatory use of force as one means of self-defense for every
> individual of the society: that no criminal get away with his crimes.
.
You mean if someone attempts to kill me I'm supposed
to do nothing but wait for the government to retaliate against him?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jim Klein
> > > > "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his
> > > > right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
> > > > only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
> > > > All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an
> > > > evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."
> > .
> > > . . . Cut from context of government, not an individual, being the
> > > sole provider of retaliatory force.
> > .
> > > Just what/who is expected to use force in a certain morally
> > > (imperative) way : government/the agents of goverment. There is no
> > > imperative imposed on any individual, except as agents of government.
That's extremely misleading, at least as far as her
argument is concerned. Firstly, the "moral imperative"
bit PRECEDES the derivation of why Govco is necessary.
That alone implies that it's intended to be just what she
says...a moral imperative. And both you and I know to
what sort of entity anything moral may apply, exclusively.
But she also makes it explicit 3 pages later:
"The source of the goverment's authority is 'the consent
of the governed.' This means that the government is
not the /ruler/, but the servant or /agent/ of the citizens;
it means that the government as such has no rights
except the rights /delegated/ to it by the citizens for a
specific purpose." [emphasis HERS]
So whatever "moral imperative" the government may
have, according to her argument--and her moral
theory generally--it could only get there because
the governed citizens had it in the first place.
> > Well I don't know, Rand didn't say government or citizens, so I
> > have to assume either/or. "Man's right to self-defense" is strangely
> > vague. Does it mean "a man"
>
> It is from an essay called /The Nature of Government/
Aw c'mon, Charles. Her argument reads straightforwardly,
and it's NOT that Govco has some "moral imperative"
separate and apart from the citizens.
It's stuff like this that makes Objectivism look like
a laughing-stock to so many. I don't mean her
argument; I mean when bright guys like you
simply /refuse/ to acknowledge reality. You
think you're doing some service to her philosophy,
I know, but it's the greatest DISservice you could do.
I mean, you get the practical results right, even by her
argument---that individuals may do whatever they wish,
except that which is prohibited, and Govco may only
do that which is expressly permitted.
And that permission, of course, comes from the only
place it could come from---the consent of the governed.
And the reason rational men would so consent, according
to her argument, is to remove the judgment of when
retaliatory force ought to be used, from individual
judgment. All of which makes perfect sense, as far
as it goes.
It's still the case that she offered a "moral imperative"
with regard to retaliatory force, and it WASN'T what
you imply here. It was what she said it was:
"In a civilized society, force may be used only against
those who initiate its use. [BTW, I have no problem
at all with that sentence. It's the next one that carries
the false premise...] All the reasons which make the
initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of
physical force a moral imperative."
Oh, really? So enumerate "all the reasons which
make the initiation of force an evil" and see if
they indicate some "moral imperative" (yuk, yuk)
to retaliate. Then go look up the fallacy of Tu Quoque.
That's all. It's just a false premise. It doesn't negate
the argument for an (attempted) monopoly of
force under objective Rule of Law, and it surely
doesn't change that ever-important point that
citizens may do anything not expressly forbidden,
and the government may do only that which is
expressly permitted.
While the conclusion may be false, it's not
necessarily false because of the false premise.
You can have an argument with false premises
and nonetheless true conclusions. Whether this
is an example of that, remains subject to debate.
What isn't subject to debate, is that /this/ particular
argument fails, in the sense of not being a validly
derived conclusion from valid (sound) premises.
And yes, I know the preceding sentence..."The
necessary consequence of man's right to life
is his right to self-defense." And yes, I agree
with that one 100%. But that doesn't mean,
"Well, that's what she must've meant when
she talked about retaliation." No...on matters
such as these, she must be taken to mean what
she writes. ESPECIALLY her, and ESPECIALLY
invoking a "moral imperative." Retaliation
is NOT self-defense; self-defense would be
that. The reason (IMO) that she did that, is
that she HAD to do that, because there's no
valid way to get from self-defense to retaliation.
Those are two completely different things, with
completely different justifications, or lack of them.
This is getting afield, but stop and think for a
moment. Doesn't it strike you that there MUST
be a false premise held for thousands of years,
such that every attempt to instantiate justice,
civility and order among men ALWAYS fails
ultimately? I mean, what else COULD cause
that except some faulty underlying premise?
We are creatures of reason, after all.
Well, whaddyaknow? That's all it ever was, a
simple false premise---that our actions should
be guided by the behavior of others. That's
all; it was always quite that simple. Maybe in
another 10,000 years, folks will be brave
enough to admit it.
> There is no moral essence to a government that does not do what it is
> charged to do. THAT IS GOVERNMENT'S MORAL IMPERATIVE: to act as the
> retaliatory use of force as one means of self-defense for every
> individual of the society:
That's NOT how her argument reads (nor is), even
as that IS the conclusion.
> that no criminal get away with his crimes.
Gee, then I wonder why they need to keep building
so many more courts and prisons as time goes by.
Do you suppose there were just as many criminals
years ago, and the institutions just hadn't gotten
around to protecting us from them yet?
If so, when do you suppose they'll be done?
jk
Charles Bell
> On Feb 5, 8:35 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his
> > > > > right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used
> > > > > only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
> > > > > All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an
> > > > > evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."
> > > .
> > > > . . . Cut from context of government, not an individual, being the
> > > > sole provider of retaliatory force.
> > > .
> > > > Just what/who is expected to use force in a certain morally
> > > > (imperative) way : government/the agents of goverment. There is no
> > > > imperative imposed on any individual, except as agents of government.
>
> That's extremely misleading, at least as far as her
> argument is concerned. �Firstly, the "moral imperative"
> bit PRECEDES the derivation of why Govco is necessary.
>
What is misleading is to suppose that the quoted section w/re: "moral
imperative" has anything whatsoever to with moral imperative in
regards to any individual, and it does not matter in which direction
the argument runs. If I were to write an essay on White Birds and you
were to quote one sentence in it about "black birds" (in the middle,
end or beginning of the essay) you are not entitled to claim that my
essay is about "black birds".
>
> So whatever "moral imperative" the government may
> have, according to her argument--and her moral
> theory generally--it could only get there because
> the governed citizens had it in the first place.
>
Nonsense. For one thing, she does not say: the government has a
"moral imperative"; the moral imperative --- I repeat, this is used in
an ironic sense in any case -- is imposed upon the government.
Moreover, it is not reasonable to suppose that for the sake of one
sentence Mal wishes to misinterpret that Rand intended to contradict
everything that is Objectivism.
Charles Bell
> You mean if someone attempts to kill me I'm supposed
> to do nothing but wait for the government to retaliate against him?
> .
> .
Yes, I am quite certain that Rand specifically was referring to you
and only you that you stand still, and even be quite cooperative in
evey way that you can, while someone is beating you to death.
Malrassic Park
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 9:21�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
..
>> You mean if someone attempts to kill me I'm supposed
>> to do nothing but wait for the government to retaliate against him?
..
>Yes, I am quite certain that Rand specifically was referring to you
>and only you that you stand still, and even be quite cooperative in
>evey way that you can, while someone is beating you to death.
Now you're just being silly. But in fact, you (not Rand) are arguing
that only the government can defend the citizens through retaliation.
You are confusing self-defense with retaliation.
Charles Bell
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:25:30 -0800, Charles Bell
>
>
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 5, 9:21�pm, Mal <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ..
> >> You mean if someone attempts to kill me I'm supposed
> >> to do nothing but wait for the government to retaliate against him?
> ..
> >Yes, I am quite certain that Rand specifically was referring to you
> >and only you that you stand still, and even be quite cooperative in
> >evey way that you can, while someone is beating you to death.
>
> Now you're just being silly.
No, you are, if you think Rand or anyone is confusing what you may do
on your own behalf and what you might expect others in society to do
in your behalf. In the essay Rand isolates "retaliatory force"
through society as a means of self-defense quite different than what
one might do /in flagrante delicto/ of an offense against one
personally, not even under discussion. Retaliatory force /in
flagrante/ does not even make sense.
> But in fact, you (not Rand) are arguing
> that only the government can defend the citizens through retaliation.
Both Rand and I are arguing that retaliatory force, not self-defense
in flagrante delicto more broadly, ought only be used by a proper
government under objective laws and due process -- in contrast to
revenge, lynch mob or blood feud. Politically in specifics, not even
discussed in that essay, I have a broader meaning for "force" -- not
just retaliatory -- against criminals than does Rand. However, the
point to made here is that a government that either acts as a mere
lynch mob or fails to effectively act at all is acting outside a moral
imperative of what a government ought to do.
chazwin
> ....his girlfriend calls his penis "the-thing-in-itself".
>
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1711#comic
>
> (Just to start the new year off right).
>
> Fred Weiss
Cartoons???
Just about the level of the debate on this thread. You ought to be
ashamed!
Jim Klein
> > So whatever "moral imperative" the government may
> > have, according to her argument--and her moral
> > theory generally--it could only get there because
> > the governed citizens had it in the first place.
>
> Nonsense.
Do you mean, "That has no meaning" or do you mean,
"But I disagree with it." In either case, you're wrong. You
might disagree, of course, but then you'd be wrong.
> For one thing, she does not say: the government has a
> "moral imperative";
Uh, yes...that was my point. You were saying that she
intended the moral imperative to apply--as a moral
imperative, not merely the agent who carries it out--
to the government. As I readily demonstrated, this
claim is false.
> the moral imperative --- I repeat, this is used in
> an ironic sense in any case --
You mean, "It's ironic in my mind." Well sure,
because it's so plainly false. So naturally you
have to justify it and the best way you can, is to
pretend that it was used "ironically."
No shit...its usage was "ironic" as hell! BUT NOT BY
HER, which is the point here. One doesn't invoke a
"moral imperative" generally in an ironic fashion.
And one especially doesn't do it in that manner at
the BEGINNING of a derivation. And one REALLY
doesn't do it, when one's name is Ayn Rand and
one is addressing when and how force ought to be
used socially.
This is utter rationalization on your part, and is well
beneath you. She made a mistake, one which
doesn't /necessarily/ make her conclusions false.
Get over it and move on.
Objectivism is supposed to be about /your/ mind,
not hers.
> is imposed upon the government.
You mean, "The application of the moral imperative
is to be imposed on the government." Well yes,
that's what she, and you, believed ought to be the
case. That's fine and dandy, except it's still not an
excuse for you to pretend that any such "moral
imperative" could possibly exist in any sort of
entity besides an individual. C'mon---are you
really going to sacrifice the one thing you best
understand, in order to falsely defend Rand?
I'd hope not. So after you make that decision,
maybe you'll explain how a group of individuals
is to "impose" something on that which they've
established as the monopolist of force.
Unless "impose" means "beg," that'll be some trick.
> Moreover, it is not reasonable to suppose that for the sake of one
> sentence Mal wishes to misinterpret that Rand intended to contradict
> everything that is Objectivism.
Look, "reasonable" and "Mal" hardly belong in the same
sentence. But interestingly, what you charge of him is
nearly exactly what you're doing! You're talking of
"moral" anythings that apply to something other than
individuals. You're blindly accepting this "moral
imperative" without even checking how SHE offered it,
which was in essence, "Blank-out." DID you enumerate
"all those reasons which make the initiation of force
an evil" and DO they create such a "moral imperative"
of retaliation?
IMO you're doing just what Peikoff did...sacrificing a
great mind in the interest of something you each
believe(d) is some "nobler cause." The WHOLE
point of RAND'S Objectivism, is that this is a /factual/
error, and will serve neither yourself or others.
jk
Charles Bell
> On Feb 6, 6:22 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > So whatever "moral imperative" the government may
> > > have, according to her argument--and her moral
> > > theory generally--it could only get there because
> > > the governed citizens had it in the first place.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Do you mean,
In the context of an article on Government her meaning is crystal
clear.
Find any mention, not only in chronologically but logically prior
essays -- like "Man's Rights" or in VOS -- where any mention is made
of imperative moral duty upon an individual as you are suggesting she
is doing here.
Moreover, no Objectivist writer has ever made that suggestion either
in connection with this essay (i.e., on the individual and not on
government and its agents) or in anything else in Objectivism in any
way shape or form
No where in the entire 285 pages of Tara Smith's /Ayn Rand's Normative
Ethics/ is there made mention a single instance of any moral
imperative upon individuals.
Thus, your statement: "Whatever 'moral imperative' the government may
have . . . according to her moral theory generally -- it could only
get there because the governed citizens had it in the first place" has
no support in Rand's essay on Government, in the entirety of Rand's
writings, or in any writings by Objectivists.
Neither Rand or anyone but you and Mal here is confusing what one may
do on his own behalf and what one might expect others in society to do
in one's behalf.
<<In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and
only against those who initiate its use.>>
Get it? "Society."
A hypothetical man-in-a-state-nature living a brutish existence where
another man may jump upon him without warning or provocation may use
any means necessary in his moral right to defend himself. With or
without civilized society (under government) this moral right does not
go away but --- after the fact -- may be exercised in a different
fashion. That is what Rand is saying. She does not say "because a man
has a imperative duty to defend himself." She does not say that in
the essay. She does not say that any where in her writing. No
Objectivist says that.
In the essay Rand isolates "retaliatory force" through society as a
means of self-defense quite different than what one might do /in
flagrante delicto/ of an offense against one's person. Retaliatory
force /in flagrante/ upon an individual does not even make sense, nor
certainly any "imperative" applied thereto.
Rand argues that retaliatory force, not self-defense in flagrante
delicto more broadly, ought only be used by a proper government under
objective laws and due process -- in contrast to revenge, lynch mob or
blood feud. The point made here by Rand is that a government that
Jim Klein
> In the context of an article on Government her meaning is crystal
> clear.
The article was titled "The /Nature/ of Government," and it was
clearly an attempt to identify that nature. And it began,
rightfully so, with an examination of /why/ a "proper government"
should be formed.
> Find any mention, not only in chronologically but logically prior
> essays -- like "Man's Rights" or in VOS -- where any mention is made
> of imperative moral duty upon an individual as you are suggesting she
> is doing here.
There won't be any, and likewise with good reason. That doesn't
change the /fact/ that in /this/ essay, it /did/ appear and it /was/
both chronologcally and logically prior to the formation of her
"proper government."
Stop it, already. I don't have the essay with me, but was there
any mention whatsoever of the government /before/ there was
any mention of this "moral imperative"?
And besides, as I've already noted several times, to what
sort of entity /could/ a "moral ___________ " apply /except/
to an individual, according to /everything/ Rand wrote?
> Moreover, no Objectivist writer has ever made that suggestion either
> in connection with this essay (i.e., on the individual and not on
> government and its agents) or in anything else in Objectivism in any
> way shape or form
>
> No where in the entire 285 pages of Tara Smith's /Ayn Rand's Normative
> Ethics/ is there made mention a single instance of any moral
> imperative upon individuals.
Well, that's great. And nor should there be, for obvious reasons.
That still doesn't change the /fact/ that Rand /did/ use "moral
imperative" and that it /was/ the basis for her derivation.
Sometimes, you nearly drive me crazy. You deny this obvious
fact, just like you deny that there was no government in the
Gulch. I mean, it's not like I say, "Therefore you can throw out
everything Rand had to say," but there simply can be no benefit,
none at all, for refusing to acknowledge simple facts.
IMO you really, really need to consider why you do that.
> Thus, your statement: "Whatever 'moral imperative' the government may
> have . . . according to her moral theory generally -- it could only
> get there because the governed citizens had it in the first place" has
> no support in Rand's essay on Government,
But that's what she wrote! Y'know, your excuse for her is even
worse than the actuality. According to you, she was implying
some "moral imperative" on an institution, rather than
individuals. C'mon already---you know better.
> in the entirety of Rand's
> writings, or in any writings by Objectivists.
Agreed, but irrelevant to the point at hand.
> Neither Rand or anyone but you and Mal here is confusing what one may
> do on his own behalf and what one might expect others in society to do
> in one's behalf.
Like I say, you're just digging a deeper hole. Now you're implying
that she was saying there's some "moral imperative" for someone
to do something on someone /else's/ behalf. Check Galt's Oath, and
then check yourself.
> <<In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and
> only against those who initiate its use.>>
>
> Get it? "Society."
"IN a civilized society"...Get it? IN a society.
Now let's see...what sort of entity would Rand suggest that
was IN a society? That's a toughie, eh?
> A hypothetical man-in-a-state-nature living a brutish existence where
> another man may jump upon him without warning or provocation may use
> any means necessary in his moral right to defend himself. With or
> without civilized society (under government) this moral right does not
> go away but --- after the fact -- may be exercised in a different
> fashion. That is what Rand is saying. She does not say "because a man
> has a imperative duty to defend himself." She does not say that in
> the essay. She does not say that any where in her writing. No
> Objectivist says that.
>
> In the essay Rand isolates "retaliatory force" through society as a
> means of self-defense quite different than what one might do /in
> flagrante delicto/ of an offense against one's person. Retaliatory
> force /in flagrante/ upon an individual does not even make sense, nor
> certainly any "imperative" applied thereto.
Right...which is why we can say she was WRONG on that
point. IOW, it's FALSE. For crissakes, get over it already.
The sentence and her argument read plain and straightforward.
Your beloved "necessity of government" won't fall apart
because of this. Though it might fall apart because of
OTHER misidentifications that you yourself make. Or it
might not, but we'll never get to find out if you can't get
beyond this simple obstinate evasion on this simple,
clear point.
But hers does, at least in THAT particular derivation. I
mean, now it's like you're denying the accuracy of our
sensory input...all in defense of some faith you have.
According to everything you've ever written, that ain't
you fundamentally, and you're doing a very poor job
of trying to explain why it is.
> Rand argues that retaliatory force, not self-defense in flagrante
> delicto more broadly, ought only be used by a proper government under
> objective laws and due process -- in contrast to revenge, lynch mob or
> blood feud. The point made here by Rand is that a government that
> either acts as a mere lynch mob or fails to effectively act at all is
> acting outside a 'moral imperative' of what a government ought to do.
Yes, that is the ultimate claim of hers. It's still not that
particular derivation and it's NOT what she wrote. What
she wrote is on the record and it's not really subject to
much interpretation nor misunderstanding.
At least if one relies on one's identification of the facts,
it isn't.
jk
Charles Bell
> On Feb 7, 11:41 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > In the context of an article on Government her meaning is crystal
> > clear.
>
> The article was titled "The /Nature/ of Government," and it was
> clearly an attempt to identify that nature. �And it began,
> rightfully so, with an examination of /why/ a "proper government"
> should be formed.
>
And reasons for which a government might be considered morally
debased. That was the clear intent of the quote cited.
> > Find any mention, �not only in chronologically but logically prior
> > essays -- like "Man's Rights" or in VOS -- where any mention is made
> > of imperative moral duty upon an individual as you are suggesting she
> > is doing here.
>
> There won't be any, and likewise with good reason. �That doesn't
> change the /fact/ that in /this/ essay, it /did/ appear and it /was/
> both chronologcally and logically prior to the formation of her
> "proper government."
>
The argument on that one point was not structured that way at all --
i.e. throughout the entirety of the essay. It was contained in a
single paragraph by itself with three logically sequenced parts: (1)
self-defense a moral right; (2) what a society through institutional
means can do to effect self-defense better than an individual may do
for himself; (3) what that institution can do to screw it
> And besides, as I've already noted several times, to what
> sort of entity /could/ a "moral ___________ " apply /except/
> to an individual, according to /everything/ Rand wrote?
>
Again, Rand was being ironic in saying EXACTLY the opposite of
collectivist "moral societies" say: the society-government HAS A DUTY
to the individual, not the other way around. Literally, societies do
not have moral obligations, only individuals -- that is EXACTLY why
one believes Rand is being ironic/metaphoric and not precise/literal.
> > Thus, your statement: "Whatever 'moral imperative' the government may
> > have . . . according to her moral theory generally -- it could only
> > get there because the governed citizens had it in the first place" has
> > no support in Rand's essay on Government,
>
> But that's what she wrote!
No she didn't. That is your weird interpretation. Now, if you claimed
to be both an Objectivist and beholden to your weird interpretation(s)
one might grant you the same status as Prescott for very similar
reasons. However, as it is, and as I have said, no Objectivist writer
upholds your weird interpretation.
Jim Klein
> Again, Rand was being ironic in saying EXACTLY the opposite of
> collectivist "moral societies" say: the society-government HAS A DUTY
> to the individual, not the other way around. Literally, societies do
> not have moral obligations, only individuals -- that is EXACTLY why
> one believes Rand is being ironic/metaphoric and not precise/literal.
Here's how this translates, Charles: "I am stubbornly going
to rationalize whatever I wish in order to evade the simple
and obvious point you are making, Jim."
To that, I can only respond, "Okay, Charles. As a volitional
human you can do anything you wish and I don't intend
to do a single thing about it."
I'll just sum up my particular defense to what I'm saying, on
the slight chance that you might hear. First, there's the
obvious point that this would be a remarkable position for
her to enter irony. She very rarely used that technique and
there's not the least reason to imagine that she did at the
/beginning/ of her derivation of the necessity and nature
of government.
Secondly, it would be sort of silly to offer the "duty" that
the government has to its citizens /before/ she established
what that government was; i.e., what was its nature. And
she was silly even less than she was ironic.
Thirdly, you can't point to /anything/ in black-and-white
in /that/ essay that supports your interpretation. All you
can do is take what you know were her conclusions--and
you have that right BTW--and say, "Therefore that must
be the source of her intentional irony at the beginning
of her argument."
I could go on, but that's sufficient. I can also note that
YOU are doing what YOU regularly do, and offering YOUR
justifications for what other people "must obviously mean."
And on that point, I can further note that this is an incessant
attribute held by nearly everyone steeped in that monstrosity
of a philosophy I denote as ARIanism.
That its adherents get some kick out of calling me a
"rationalist" just goes to prove yet another point:
"Hypocrisy is easily the most unnerving trait common
to many ARIans."
jk
Charles Bell
> On Feb 7, 2:10 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Again, Rand was being ironic in saying EXACTLY the opposite of
> > collectivist "moral societies" say: the society-government HAS A DUTY
> > to the individual, not the other way around. �Literally, societies do
> > not have moral obligations, only individuals -- that is EXACTLY why
> > one believes Rand is being ironic/metaphoric and not precise/literal.
>
> Here's how this translates, Charles: �"I am stubbornly going
> to rationalize whatever I wish in order to evade the simple
> and obvious point you are making, Jim."
>
No, it translates: just because the words: "moral imperative" were
used, does not mean that Rand meant that any individual has a "moral
imperative" .
> I'll just sum up my particular defense to what I'm saying, on
> the slight chance that you might hear. �First, there's the
> obvious point that this would be a remarkable position for
> her to enter irony. �
She used it all the time. It was her style, as was the double and
triple negative (perhaps coming from Russian). She used BOTH irony
and the double negative in GS here:
"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None --
except the obligation I owe to myself.'
It is inverting the expected or more common meaning of a phrase. In
this case, EXACTLY in the same way with the same intent as in "moral
imperative" in /Nature of Government/. I do not believe that was a
coincidence, either.
Interestingly enough, this is how Gordon Solars came to believe that
Rand must have believed
there was a moral imperative of the negative obligation -- using the
same weird interpretation you are now using.
> Secondly, it would be sort of silly to offer the "duty" that
> the government has to its citizens /before/ she established
> what that government was;
She established it in the first sentence. The rest of the essay was
to elaborate on its functions for the reason established in the second
sentence. Claiming that an individual has a moral imperative was
never implied before or after or during the paragraph cited.
> Thirdly, you can't point to /anything/ in black-and-white
> in /that/ essay that supports your interpretation. �
In this case, you are making a unsupported (and unsupportable) claim.
Claiming that an individual has a moral imperative was never implied
before or after or during the paragraph cited. You *could* provide
textual evidence elsewhere in her writing to support what you claim
she meant to say, but you can't can you? Why is that?
acar
> On Feb 7, 2:10 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Thirdly, you can't point to /anything/ in black-and-white
> can do is take what you know were her conclusions--and
> you have that right BTW--and say, "Therefore that must
> be the source of her intentional irony at the beginning
> of her argument."
>
humans, and that is because of their capacity to choose. A moral
system differentiates between good and evil, and compels the agent to
do the good. The imperative is implied by the definition of the terms
"good" and "evil". Moral systems put a gun to the head of the agent
and dares him to choose: "Avoid evil or else". It is silly to argue
that an agent who commits to a moral system is not bound by a moral
imperative.
It is even more silly to argue about the opinion of Joe Blow. Who
cares about what Ayn Rand thought? What Ayn Rand or any other
thoughtful person opined should be examined thoughtfully and
seriously. Then one should make one's own decision. To argue about
what Rand wrote or did not write as if the discussant with the correct
version would be winner of the moral argument is a typical "second-
hander"'s scenario, that ignores one of Rand's principal commandments:
"Think for yourself". Each individual is the owner of his life and as
such he and he alone is responsible for his own fate. One may argue
about Joe Blow's opinion as reflected by what he wrote, but that
argument should not carry the implication that Joe is the standard of
truth.
Charles Bell
> ANY moral system is about imperatives.
No, it isn't.
> Moral systems apply only to
> humans, and that is because of their capacity to choose.
Therefore, in the first instance, morality would *not* be about
imperatives. What would the point of a /must/ if any real choice is
available, and if any real choice is available why would a choice
*not* related to causality be interesting?
> A moral
> system differentiates between good and evil, and compels the agent to
> do the good.
There is no real compelling force unless you wish to speak of the
Taliban, for example.
> The imperative is implied by the definition of the terms
> "good" and "evil".
No, it isn't. The defintion of "good" and "evil" implies choice, and,
as above, if there is any real choice, what is the point of a choice
unrelated to causality.
> Moral systems put a gun to the head of the agent
> and dares him to choose: "Avoid evil or else". �
As a far *your* Taliban moral system, how well put! Don't forget
stoning, whipping, cutting off of hands . . .
Jim Klein
> ANY moral system is about imperatives.
Sure, why not? I mean if identification is about something
other than identity, then I'm sure morality can likewise be
about ol' thing you say it is.
> Moral systems apply only to
> humans, and that is because of their capacity to choose.
I caught that news flash, but thanks anyway.
> A moral
> system differentiates between good and evil, and compels the agent to
> do the good.
Neat trick, this "compels." Sounds like Prescott's "obligates" to me.
> The imperative is implied by the definition of the terms
> "good" and "evil".
IOW "ought" means "must." Got it.
> Moral systems put a gun to the head of the agent
> and dares him to choose: "Avoid evil or else".
I thought it compels. What sort of compulsion allows
for choice?
Bank robber: "I'm holding a gun. Now either put the
money in the bag or you may choose to decline."
"I'm compelling you, so go ahead and choose."
> It is silly to argue
> that an agent who commits to a moral system is not bound by a moral
> imperative.
Sillier than this? That's pretty tough to swallow!
> It is even more silly to argue about the opinion of Joe Blow. Who
> cares about what Ayn Rand thought? What Ayn Rand or any other
> thoughtful person opined should be examined thoughtfully and
> seriously. Then one should make one's own decision.
Well yes; this must be Stopped Clock Syndrome. Indeed, I've
been trying to make that point to Charles for a long time now.
> To argue about
> what Rand wrote or did not write as if the discussant with the correct
> version would be winner of the moral argument is a typical "second-
> hander"'s scenario, that ignores one of Rand's principal commandments:
> "Think for yourself".
That's right and I made that very point as well. Unfortunately,
it doesn't change the fact that this particular interchange
between Charles and me, is only about what she wrote, not
about what's right or wrong.
> Each individual is the owner of his life and as
> such he and he alone is responsible for his own fate.
Oh, so he's not compelled. That's what I thought.
> One may argue
> about Joe Blow's opinion as reflected by what he wrote, but that
> argument should not carry the implication that Joe is the standard of
> truth.
I wasn't aware that either Charles or I made that argument, or
offered that implication in this interchange.
But since identification is of something other than reality,
I'm sure you could identify that we did!
jk
Jim Klein
> No, it translates: just because the words: "moral imperative" were
> used, does not mean that Rand meant that any individual has a "moral
> imperative" .
I don't think you realize how your stock is plummeting with
each subsequent evasion. I said I didn't have a copy with
me, not that I'd never be able to look at one.
I've already asked you several times, "To what COULD a
moral ____________ refer, if not an individual?" You never
directly answered though you seem to say, "An individual,
except when one is writing with explicit irony, in which
case it could be anything."
I don't seek to put words into your mouth...that IS your
answer, isn't it?
> > I'll just sum up my particular defense to what I'm saying, on
> > the slight chance that you might hear. First, there's the
> > obvious point that this would be a remarkable position for
> > her to enter irony.
>
> She used it all the time. It was her style, as was the double and
> triple negative (perhaps coming from Russian). She used BOTH irony
> and the double negative in GS here:
>
> "Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None --
> except the obligation I owe to myself.'
I fail to see either the irony or the double-negative. Using "except"
is not a classic case of double-negative.
In any event, I don't think Rand was particularly noted for
her irony. And even if she were, this is /clearly/ not a
case of it.
> It is inverting the expected or more common meaning of a phrase. In
> this case, EXACTLY in the same way with the same intent as in "moral
> imperative" in /Nature of Government/. I do not believe that was a
> coincidence, either.
You make it sound like that essay was written as a joke or
something. Some joke. Do you know of any so-called
Objectivist writers who agree with you...that her
usage of "moral imperative" was an INTENDED irony,
that she frequently used irony in her writing, or that
this particular essay was intended as a joke?
Don't get me wrong...the phrase is ironical as hell.
My point is that it wasn't WRITTEN as irony.
> Interestingly enough, this is how Gordon Solars came to believe that
> Rand must have believed
> there was a moral imperative of the negative obligation -- using the
> same weird interpretation you are now using.
Well, she spoke of (the equivalent of) "negative obligation" as
far as what folks /may not do/ with respect to others having
rights. I would've thought she used those very words, but
maybe she didn't. Either way, that's afield of what we're
discussing and I happen to know you agree with it anyway.
> > Secondly, it would be sort of silly to offer the "duty" that
> > the government has to its citizens /before/ she established
> > what that government was;
>
> She established it in the first sentence. The rest of the essay was
> to elaborate on its functions for the reason established in the second
> sentence. Claiming that an individual has a moral imperative was
> never implied before or after or during the paragraph cited.
You may drive me crazy, but I'm sure you'll be there to
greet me! The second sentence establishes nothing and,
in fact, completely supports what I'm saying. To review,
here's the first sentence:
"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive
power to /enforce/ certain rules of social conduct in a
given geographical area."
Okay, that's her definition of "government," and a weak
one at that. But no matter, since we're just at the start.
And what does the second sentence say? Oh, it says...
"Do men need such and institution--and why?"
Say what you will, Charles, but this fairly clearly
establishes the /question/ to be addressed in the
rest of the essay. And from my quick skimming,
the word "government" does not appear after
her definition even a single time before the
phrase "moral imperative"...
"Do men need such and institution--and why?"
Now according to you, she took her conclusion
(which was much later established), secretly
inserted it somewhere between her question
and the use of "moral imperative," and then
topped it off with an ironical claim INTENDED
to refer to the government and not to individuals.
And she did all this, IN SPITE OF a very fundamental
primary of her entire ethical approach being that
no entity is capable of morality, save an individual.
That's an awful lot to pretend is going on behind
the scenes. It's much easier, not to mention far
more obvious, that this is just you rationalizing
her ill-advised derivation.
I don't have to tell you the moral reasons not to
lie or to rationalize---you seem to have a solid
grounding in (at least the factual basis of) egoism.
But here you demonstrate how the moral is the
practical...you just keep digging the hole deeper
and deeper. First, she was just using "irony." Now,
in order to defend that plainly ridiculous claim,
you are accusing her of all kinds of shady writing
including not meaning what she said in all sorts
of ways, as well as being a liar about what type of
entity to which morality can apply, exclusively.
Keep this up and pretty soon you'll be accusing
her of being the most ignorant person who ever
lived, while Mal and acar cheer in the background!
jk
Jim Klein
> You *could* provide
> textual evidence elsewhere in her writing to support what you claim
> she meant to say, but you can't can you? Why is that?
Because she didn't offer the derivation anywhere else.
Besides, technically I'm not claiming that's what she
meant anyway. Plus, I'm saying that your defense
of "irony" is one of the craziest things I've ever
seen you write, and that's sayin' something!
Alright, implying that there can be advantages
without a purpose comes pretty close! Notice how
the two are related---they are BOTH examples of
derivations that Rand offered, that failed. Now you
tell me...why are you so allegiant to /failed/
derivations, and not necessarily allegiant to
other ones?
Never mind, I'll tell you. It's because the goddammed
Inversion is just that...inverted. It's the /failed/
derivations that become the /primary/ principles.
You're not a particularly allegiant guy otherwise,
are you? But when it comes to Objectivism, your
allegiance is proportional to what you believe,
wrongly, are its fundamental principles. You're
no sheep, but on this you are. Your /strongest/
beliefs are exactly on the few things she got
wrong. That's what happens with faith, and
you of all people should know better. Anyway...
I'm only claiming that's what she WROTE, and
that there's no "hidden irony" in lemon juice or
invisible ink or something.
She HAD to put it that way because otherwise
the argument doesn't leave the drawing board.
HER argument, I mean.
And for good reason, since the faulty premise isn't
necessarily about monopolizing force, but rather
about retaliation. I would say it's no coincidence
that this was the ONLY place where she EVER made
such a blunder in this fashion. That's what happens
when you try to "prove" a falsehood; there's no way
to get there except through definition or via an
imperative. Ask acar.
What she meant was, "ASF, and that's that"...the same
as any other yokel would mean it. But she knew that
"Always State First" isn't rational. After all, who doesn't,
except for Jim Prescott and most of the gang over at
the Church of the One Rational Method? Everything
else is just one rationalization or another.
Hell, I give her credit for being so honest! From all
the arguments I've heard, the "moral imperative"
of retaliation as good as any, with yours being
perhaps the sole exception.
Indeed, I think your own derivations
are far more sensible than hers, but
your little admission about Democracy told me
that it must be full of holes too. Nobody could
have a solid grounding in this stuff and think
that pure Democracy, at any level, can possibly
have anything to recommend it.
BTW, how are you coming along trying to show
that Rand wasn't against Democracy? Shall we
short more of your stock now, or do we have time?
jk
acar
>
> > The imperative is implied by the definition of the terms
> > "good" and "evil".
>
"Compel" does not mean to physically wrestle with a physically weaker
person and make them do the action. It means to exert unbearable
pressure, to give the agent a choice "that he can not refuse" (so to
speak). It means "Do it or else." That is the choice that is offered
by a moral system. That is what a moral system does. The claim that a
moral system is neutral between good and evil is incorrect. "Good" has
a definition that everybody understands. So does evil. Accepting a
moral system is only possible for an agent that has the ability to
choose between good and evil. One function of a moral system is to
warn the agent of the dire consequences of the wrong choice. That is
what "to compel" means -- to exert extreme force without negating the
choice. The force is not physically irresistible. It is irresistible
in the sense that evil is a catastrophic alternative.
To repeat - moral systems are not neutral.
Your condescending style makes you look silly when it turns out that
you are wrong.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 7, 3:37 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > No, it translates: just because the words: "moral imperative" were
> > used, does not mean that Rand meant that any individual has a "moral
> > imperative" .
>
> I don't think you realize how your stock is plummeting with
> each subsequent evasion. �I said I didn't have a copy with
> me, not that I'd never be able to look at one.
>
That would matter to me only if you (1) were an Objectivist or a
solidly consistent "student of Objectivism" or (2) a thoughtful critic
of Objectivism. The bee in your bonnet is all about what you call
ARIanism about which I see nothing as relevant.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 7, 3:37 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > You *could* provide
> > textual evidence elsewhere in her writing to support what you claim
> > she meant to say, but you can't can you? �Why is that?
>
> Because she didn't offer the derivation anywhere else.
What you allege she is saying does not exist in the text cited nor in
anything she has ever written nor referred to by any Objectivist.
That's good enough evidence that you have nothing more to say.
Jim Klein
> What you allege she is saying does not exist in the text cited...
Wow...now you're asserting that the words on the page aren't
the words on the page. That's remarkable, even for you. This
appears to be a direct and affirmative claim that A is not A.
Indeed, the way you've worded it, there's not even room for
interpretation or ambiguity. Well, at least we agree on one
thing---it inevitably comes down to an individual's choice.
"The final refuge of an ARIan is always dishonesty." We make
our choices and we live with them. As the Christians say, your
faith will carry you through. As Rand says, it won't.
Please be careful; it'd be a shame if Rand were right about this too!
jk
Jim Klein
> Your condescending style makes you look silly when it turns out that
> you are wrong.
Thank you. I wouldn't want being wrong to look any other way.
jk
Jim Klein
> That would matter to me only if you (1) were an Objectivist or a
> solidly consistent "student of Objectivism" or (2) a thoughtful critic
> of Objectivism.
That's an interesting standard. BTW I just discovered last week
that indeed "Objectivism" WAS rigorously defined. All these
years and all these silly arguments about "What is Objectivism,"
including by me, and all along it has a specific referent. It's
hard to believe that in all this time, nobody noticed.
Or maybe someone noticed, but decided to pretend that it
didn't exist. Now it could be that it was redefined by Rand,
and no doubt there'll be a rising chorus of, "Well, that's not
what she really meant," like there always is with the Faithful.
I'm bettin' twenty bucks Charles, that YOU don't know what
this rigorous definition was. Show me wrong--not whether or
not it was redefined, but whether or not it was once rigorously
and explicitly laid out--and I'll mail you the money. And
"rigorous definition" here doesn't mean "rigorous AS a
definition," but rather "rigorous AS an explicit declaration
of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
specific words, and according to Rand. Deal?
Hell, it's not even a bet. You don't have to send me
anything if you don't know where this lies or what
it was. But you can buy the first round if we ever
meet!
> The bee in your bonnet is all about what you call
> ARIanism about which I see nothing as relevant.
Well hey, at least you've explained how you're
nothing like Mal. He's got, "Look, say" while
you've got "Won't look; won't see!"
This could be the easiest twenty bucks you ever make.
According to Rand, what is the philosophy of Objectivism?
And no deal if you don't know but somebody tells you;
I'll take you at your word about that. So nobody should
tell Charles in the next day or two, since you'd be
screwing him out of twenty bucks.
jk
Charles Bell
> On Feb 8, 5:22 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > That would matter to me only if you (1) were an Objectivist or a
> > solidly consistent "student of Objectivism" or (2) a thoughtful critic
> > of Objectivism.
>
> That's an interesting standard.
Glad you agree. Move along, now; there's nothing to see here.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 8, 5:25 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > What you allege she is saying does not exist in the text cited...
>
> Wow...now you're asserting that the words on the page aren't
> the words on the page.
No, I have claimed the words on the page are EXACTLY the words on the
page, and not something else. Much like your other preposterous
assertion that Rand wrote: "Plants have values" when she did not.
This sort of thing is as obvious as they come. It is not like: Rand
wrote, "Plants have values" ; "The individual has a moral imperative
to defend himself through retaliatory force", but what she really
meant was . . . This is easy. She never wrote those statements, and
therefore there is nothing to explain. What you are doing is
presenting an interpretation that prima facie is absurd with the hope
that unsupported assertions will back up your unsupportable
interpretation. I asked you to give a single instance where Rand
might have repeated herself in a different context, as she always did
on fundamental points, and you cannot. I have asked to cite a single
Objectivist writer who reiterated these points along the lines of your
interpretation, and you cannot.
You lose. Get over it.
acar
> On Feb 8, 5:22 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > That would matter to me only if you (1) were an Objectivist or a
> > solidly consistent "student of Objectivism" or (2) a thoughtful critic
> > of Objectivism.
>
> that indeed "Objectivism" WAS rigorously defined. �All these
> years and all these silly arguments about "What is Objectivism,"
> hard to believe that in all this time, nobody noticed.
>
yada-yada-yada. It's hard to believe that these are two chronological
adults. Klein (reminiscent of Prescott) is so sure about his version
of Randinism that he dares Bell to define Objectivism. So, what the
hell I will descend to the sandlot and define Objectivism. Objectivism
is the philosophy that Ayn Rand put together under the stimulation,
encouragement and inspiration of Nathaniel Branden. In other words,
Obectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
"Aha!", says Klein. "That's my concept!" "Aha!", says Prescott.
"That's my concept!" "Aha!", says Kelley, "That's my concept." "Aha!",
say others. "That's my concept!" And finally "Aha!", says Peikoff,
"That's my concept!". But Klein did not make a pilgrimage to Rand's
home as a post adolescent. Neither did Prescott. Neither did Kelley.
Neither did any others with the exception of Nate and Barbara. Klein,
Prescott, or Kelley did not walk with Rand, they did not converse with
Rand year after year on a daily or nearly daily basis. They were not
members of the Collective. They did not learn at her feet. They were
not present at the "trials", which are so crucial to the understanding
of Ayn Rand's philosophy. They were not tutored by Ayn Rand. Only
Peikoff did all those things and was all those things. And Peikoff was
singled out BY RAND her INTELLECTUAL heir.
Of all those mentioned and not mentioned, who knew better what Rand
meant when she wrote what she wrote? On whose shoulders did Rand put
the mantle? Who was explicitly anointed by the use of the words
"intellectual heir"? The inevitable, logical and objective conclusion
is that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as explained by
Peikoff. All other versions are "improvements" rationalized under the
unconscious influence of Kant.
Jim Klein
> Bell and Klein continue wasting everybody's time with their puerile
> yada-yada-yada. It's hard to believe that these are two chronological
> adults. Klein (reminiscent of Prescott) is so sure about his version
> of Randinism that he dares Bell to define Objectivism. So, what the
> hell I will descend to the sandlot and define Objectivism. Objectivism
> is the philosophy that Ayn Rand put together under the stimulation,
> encouragement and inspiration of Nathaniel Branden. In other words,
> Obectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
We already know your philosophy is crackpot, but could you
at least demonstrate that you can pay attention? Please?
The particular words to Charles were:
-----------------------------------
but rather "rigorous AS an explicit declaration
of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
specific words, and according to Rand.
-----------------------------------
Get it? "Those specific words." I also mentioned that even
with a decent familiarity with her writings, I had never
noticed this. Or at least it never quite clicked. Apparently
you didn't notice either, else you wouldn't have bothered
with this screed.
> "Aha!", says Klein. "That's my concept!" "Aha!", says Prescott.
> "That's my concept!" "Aha!", says Kelley, "That's my concept." "Aha!",
> say others. "That's my concept!" And finally "Aha!", says Peikoff,
> "That's my concept!". But Klein did not make a pilgrimage to Rand's
> home as a post adolescent. Neither did Prescott. Neither did Kelley.
> Neither did any others with the exception of Nate and Barbara. Klein,
> Prescott, or Kelley did not walk with Rand, they did not converse with
> Rand year after year on a daily or nearly daily basis. They were not
> members of the Collective. They did not learn at her feet. They were
> not present at the "trials", which are so crucial to the understanding
> of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
"Crucial"...to whom? A philosophy can stand on its own,
and in this case it does and was quite carefully presented---
"IN THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS."
> They were not tutored by Ayn Rand. Only
> Peikoff did all those things and was all those things. And Peikoff was
> singled out BY RAND her INTELLECTUAL heir.
Take a hike---you can't even get the simplest of facts right.
Rand only once in her life proclaimed anyone her
"intellectual heir" and it was NOT Leonard Peikoff.
Like most things ARIan, this false claim is just another
case of, "Well, that's what she obviously meant."
> Of all those mentioned and not mentioned, who knew better what Rand
> meant when she wrote what she wrote? On whose shoulders did Rand put
> the mantle? Who was explicitly anointed by the use of the words
> "intellectual heir"? The inevitable, logical and objective conclusion
> is that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as explained by
> Peikoff.
Fuck off. I understand that it's very, very important to you
to show how ridiculous Rand's philosophy of Objectivism
is, and I realize that this is the easiest way to do that.
Trouble is, "easy" does not equate with "true."
> All other versions are "improvements" rationalized under the
> unconscious influence of Kant.
Not that it particularly matters, but it turns out that there
was ONE version of Objectivism and it was EXPLICITLY
denoted as such.
My point has never been, "Oh, one ought to do or follow
what Rand says, and not Peikoff." My point is that Objectivism
is about quite the opposite...it's about an appeal to reality
and the nature of how things are, AND that we can know it.
It is THIS which Peikoff and the Church have inverted and in
so doing, have taken a splendid reality and happiness-
oriented philosophy and turned it into just another run-of-
the-mill set of edicts and proclamations that appeal to
little else than the "Proper Method" and the unswerving
allegiance to a set of pre-ordained principles.
Further, it's plainly obvious to me that this is not what Rand
intended, particularly philosophically speaking. One of
the fundamental points of Rand's Objectivism, if not the
most fundamental, is that there's no such thing as a
"pre-ordained principle." All principles ensue from
rationality (or lack of same), which itself is an outgrowth
of identification.
To this day, I really don't see what's so objectionable
about any of that, even as I can readily see what's so
objectionable about many so-called Objectivists. Like
anything else, there's got to be a reason, a cause, and
in this case I think the cause is more than obvious.
jk
acar
> On Feb 9, 1:58 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > not present at the "trials", which are so crucial to the understanding
> > of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
>
See below/
> Fuck off. �I understand that it's very, very important to you
> to show how ridiculous Rand's philosophy of Objectivism
> is, and I realize that this is the easiest way to do that.
>
Is it your contention that Rand did not mean for Peikoff to carry on
the torch of Objectivism; to be her intellectual heir? Is it your
contention that Peikoff's claim to that effect is a false claim?
> My point has never been, "Oh, one ought to do or follow
> what Rand says, and not Peikoff." �My point is that Objectivism
> is about quite the opposite...it's about an appeal to reality
> and the nature of how things are, AND that we can know it.
Not Rand. Not Peikoff. Klein! Kleinerism.
> All principles ensue from
> rationality (or lack of same), which itself is an outgrowth
> of identification.
You just encapsulated Acarism. (This is not a helminthic
infestation.)
The fact remains that short of Nathaniel Branden nobody knew Rand's
thought better than Peikoff. Peikoff's rendition of Rand's thought is
different from yours and from Pescott ad from Kelley and from others
but, since Rand is dead and since you and Peikoff have different
versions of what her writings mean today and since Natahaniel Branden
is still alive and since Nathaniel is no longer accepted by Peikoff as
an exponent of Ayn Rand's ideas; IMO this is what you should do, if
you are convinced that Kleinerism is the true representation of Ayn
Rand's thought:
Since Branden is not inclined to make a pilgrimage to your door, you
go to see him. Explain your ideas to him and if he is swept off his
feet by your insights, maybe he will reconvert and start an Institute
to promote your re-discovery of Ayn Rand's philosophy. After this I
project that a think tank similar to the Ford Institute will arrange
for a train to bring you to their meetings where you can lecture them
on the real dope about Objectivism.
Short of that, anything that you say or write will rot in anonymity in
the proverbial dustbin, and the world will never know if you are
correct in your challenge of what is now officially regarded as the
true ideas of Ayn Rand.
I am particularly surprised by your disagreement with the statement
tat the "trials" are crucial in understanding the nature of
Objectvism, since Rand lent to those trials her positive sanction by
the act of her presence, and since the trials were discontinued not
out of repentance of recognition of error, but as still another act of
political correctness by the latter day inquisitors.
Charles Bell
None of this has anything to do with you.
> is that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as explained by
> Peikoff. All other versions are "improvements" rationalized under the
> unconscious influence of Kant.
acar is a moron with a hairy butt.
Jim Klein
> Is it your contention that Rand did not mean for Peikoff to carry on
> the torch of Objectivism; to be her intellectual heir?
Just because you attach equivalence to those phrases,
doesn't mean they're equivalent.
> Is it your
> contention that Peikoff's claim to that effect is a false claim?
Even I'll agree that it's trivial...just another little lie, that's
all.
What isn't trivial is what I say---how the /principles/ that
meant so much to Rand, are so completely inverted.
I know your case, that Rand herself had a big hand in a
lot of the nonsense. Alright...personally I don't think it
was that big a part, but I get the point. And I wouldn't
care to dispute it, just as I really don't like focussing on
Peikoff so much.
What's the diff, you might ask? Simple---Rand's nonsense
didn't affect the gist of her philosophy to the degree
Peikoff's has. Maybe it would've if she lived long enough;
I can't deal with such extreme counterfactuals.
But the fact is that her philosophy stands roughly on its
own, with relatively clear meaning on all sorts of topics.
And it's likewise a fact that Peikoff and the other HIgh
Priests of the Brotherhood, chose to completely /miss/
the relevant fundamentals.
Worse---considering that he obviously /did/ have a very
solid grasp on this stuff, especially epistemology, there's
simply no excuse.
[snip]
>Since Branden is not inclined to make a pilgrimage to your door, you
>go to see him. Explain your ideas to him and if he is swept off his
>feet by your insights, maybe he will reconvert and start an Institute
>to promote your re-discovery of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Aw, who gives a shit? I don't rail against Peikoff and/or ARIanism
because I care about either. I care about the /philosophy/ of
the matter and even Rand is irrelevant to that point. But this
is all in a context of Objectivism--you can check the group
name--and Rand had some major (IMO) contributions with
regard to a rational, egoistic approach to philosophy. So in
that context, Peikoff and ARIanism are extremely relevant in
view of the fact that Rand's views are so extraordinarily mis-
represented.
And like I keep saying, the more fundamental the point, the
greater the misrepresentation.
>I am particularly surprised by your disagreement with the statement
>tat the "trials" are crucial in understanding the nature of
>Objectvism, since
Well, you can relax because I don't even know to what you're
referring. My comment that they weren't crucial was because
of the reason I stated above---they /couldn't/ be crucial. The
most they could be is evidence of the role that Rand herself
might have had in whatever craziness followed her death.
Well okay, I can stipulate to that. Many others here have taken
up that particular issue with me, explaining this fact. That's
alright, but like I say it didn't bring her whole damn philosophy
down. This would be as opposed to what Peikoff has managed
to do in large part, IMO.
For me, it's not that big a deal that it was /her/ philosophy. It
was /a/ philosophy and no, it didn't hold every key to every
philosophical lock there is. But it held a ton of value and one
thing I never could tolerate, is waste. And from my POV, the
misrepresentations of the simplest of philosophical principles
that Rand managed to identify and integrate, has amounted
to a ton of waste. And in large part, it's been a ton of waste of
some very good minds. That's all.
jk
Charles Bell
> I know your case, that Rand herself had a big hand in a
> lot of the nonsense. �Alright...personally I don't think it
> was that big a part, but I get the point. �And I wouldn't
> care to dispute it, just as I really don't like focussing on
> Peikoff so much.
>
> What's the diff, you might ask? �Simple---Rand's nonsense
> didn't affect the gist of her philosophy to the degree
> Peikoff's has. �Maybe it would've if she lived long enough;
> I can't deal with such extreme counterfactuals.
>
In two instances of your false assertions that Rand was wrong: you
say, (1) there is no such a thing as non-human animate goal-
orientation, and you claim that Rand stated, (2) there is at least one
moral imperative imposable on an individual, you can only be saying
that Rand might as well scrap Objectivist moral theory, having gutted
it herself.
Jim Klein
> In two instances of your false assertions that Rand was wrong: you
> say, (1) there is no such a thing as non-human animate goal-
> orientation,
Well, even she said that really. This is why she had to invent
"non-purposeful goal direction" to pass the point. But it turns
out it still doesn't pass, since "seeking ends" or "having ends"
doesn't do the trick either.
> and you claim that Rand stated, (2) there is at least one
> moral imperative imposable on an individual,
Look, I know she didn't believe in moral imperatives and I'm
not saying that this somehow establishes that she did. I'm
saying what I mean to say, which is that the particular
derivation in NOG fails, period. That doesn't prove that
there's no rational derivation of the necessity of formalized
government. Technically it doesn't prove anything at all,
since the denial of an antecedent tells us nothing about
the truth of the consequent.
And I don't mean to imply that it proves anything at all,
though I think the imagined morality of retribution does
deserve a much closer look by bright minds, if only on
the off-chance that it is what it appears to be---the fallacy
of Tu Quoque.
Further, while I can imagine that your defense of this
particular argument is well-intentioned, I find it so
ludicrous--considering the actual words and the
actual argument--that it's just not worth much
examination. I do NOT judge your own particular
derivations that way, which is why I get frustrated
that your apparent devotion to Rand and Objectivism
causes you to make such ridiculous arguments about
such an important topic.
To me, it's quite similar to my analysis of what happened
to Peikoff Post-Mortem. In the end, I find both actions an
example ultimately of what Rand was trying to say all
along...that sacrifice is WRONG.
> you can only be saying
> that Rand might as well scrap Objectivist moral theory, having gutted
> it herself.
No, because there's tons of truth in many aspects of her moral
theory. To me, this is just another example of the Perfect Inversion,
whereby errors get elevated to the level of Fundamental Principle.
AND that the means of this action is particularly the means against
which Rand stood all her life...specifically, faith.
You can look at it as either a matter of fact or value, of
identification
or of sanction. Any ol' way you cut it, irrespective of what it might
mean with relation to her philosophy, the false should be scrapped.
jk
Mal
> On Jan 7, 10:48�am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
.
> > ....his girlfriend calls his penis "the-thing-in-itself".
.
> >http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1711#comic
.
.
> > Fred Weiss
.
> Cartoons???
> Just about the level of the debate on this thread. You ought to be
> ashamed!
That's pretty much what Objectivism amounts to, argument by cartoons.
Malrassic Park
>"Aha!", says Klein. "That's my concept!" "Aha!", says Prescott.
>"That's my concept!" "Aha!", says Kelley, "That's my concept." "Aha!",
>say others. "That's my concept!" And finally "Aha!", says Peikoff,
>"That's my concept!". But Klein did not make a pilgrimage to Rand's
>home as a post adolescent. Neither did Prescott. Neither did Kelley.
>Neither did any others with the exception of Nate and Barbara. Klein,
>Prescott, or Kelley did not walk with Rand, they did not converse with
>Rand year after year on a daily or nearly daily basis. They were not
>members of the Collective. They did not learn at her feet.
They did not develop Russian accents.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Malrassic Park
>singled out BY RAND her INTELLECTUAL heir.
>
Don't you mean intellectual HAIR? Because that's about all the
intellect Rand possessed.
acar
> On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> the matter and even Rand is irrelevant to that point. �But this
> is all in a context of Objectivism--you can check the group
> name--and Rand had some major (IMO) contributions with
> regard to a rational, egoistic approach to philosophy.
> For me, it's not that big a deal that it was /her/ philosophy. �It
> was /a/ philosophy and no, it didn't hold every key to every
A case can be made for the primacy of reason over instincts and
emotions. Indeed that is the hallmark of civilization. But the denial
of innate instincts and emotions is a grossly incorrect identification
of the human species, and a philosophy that rests on such premises can
not be the correct philosophy for man. Such a philosophy would teach,
and actually teaches, that rational perfection is possible to man, and
as proof of that claim, its original proponent alleges that such men
actually exist. That is a whim and an illusion. Regardless of how many
useful insights it may incidentally contain, IMO Objectivism is rotten
at its core and can not be the basis for a well rounded human
existence.
acar
>
> Don't you mean intellectual HAIR? Because that's about all the
> intellect Rand possessed.
Heh heh. I know that you don't mean that. You are going for a laugh. I
don't mean to ignore your talent for humor but the fact is that I do
respect Rand's intellect. However she failed to realize that she, like
the rest of us, was a product of her life experiences. That is a net
that ensnares talent, and prevents among other things, objectivity.
Philosophy can not be perfectly objective because all of our
perceptions must pass through the filter of our life experiences. I
suspect that most Obectivists were egotistical, atheists, and/or
rebeliious of religion before they ever heard of Objetivism. I also
suspect that Obectivsm has not made many converts among enlightened
altruists.