• Egyptian Revolution Was Against Neoliberalism- The Best Opinion Piece I've Seen In A While
    505 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28488750]I'm going to try and explain something for the last time hopefully... Nothing. is. objective. The key view point of a philosophy being "Tell yourself your moral convictions are unbreakable and to adhere to this..." etc is pretty, well, down right arrogant and basically shows me a religious conviction to "stick to your guns". I hate that. I don't stick to my guns, I fucking jump, squirly, from one idea to the next based on every new tidbit I find because holy shit, it's cool to look at things from new perspectives.[/QUOTE] I know that you disagree with objectivism but we were arguing about its fundamental nature. Hopefully we are done now.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488760]1-0 baby.[/QUOTE] [quote=Strider*]Monopolies if they exist are for the good of the people[/quote] 10-0.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488738]I never claimed that. Quote me on it, capitalism is the moral standard for objectivism is what I've said.[/QUOTE] yeah except it's not, reason is she actually says it in that quote what she means is that capitalism is where people are treated as equal human beings, artists and sculptors. the reason she considers capitalism to be the best solution is because her moral standard is one of reason and ethics. she believed reality is objective, thus the best thing a person can do is pursue for the self
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28488770]Obviously being convinced that you're right 100 percent of the time works perfectly. I mean just look at Strider, he hasn't been proven wrong even one time.[/QUOTE] Nope not exactly I made a mistake earlier in the thread and misread assuming that thisispain was quoting me on something other than what he was quoting. So I was wrong in that respect. Other than that yeah you're right. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28488776]10-0.[/QUOTE] Monopolies outside of corporatism.
he's being sarcastic peikoff
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488784]Nope not exactly I made a mistake earlier in the thread and misread assuming that thisispain was quoting me on something other than what he was quoting. So I was wrong in that respect. Other than that yeah you're right. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] Monopolies outside of corporatism.[/QUOTE] James Cameron looks at you and says "wow, this guy is full of himself". And that's like Hitler calling you mean.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488773]I know that you disagree with objectivism but we were arguing about its fundamental nature. Hopefully we are done now.[/QUOTE] You can't argue when you're "morally convicted" with religious fervor to an ideal. You can just restate and restate, arguing implies an exchange of ideas, and whilst almost all your ideas are based on ideals, fantasies, and fictionalizations of your dreams and systems, and thusly easily shot down. Pretty much everything we've said is based in reality and things happening now. You maintain an objective view still.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28488779]yeah except it's not, reason is she actually says it in that quote what she means is that capitalism is where people are treated as equal human beings, artists and sculptors. the reason she considers capitalism to be the best solution is because her moral standard is one of reason and ethics. she believed reality is objective, thus the best thing a person can do is pursue for the self[/QUOTE] You're right the fundamental makeup of objectivism is reason and individual rights. They both exist in the best condition and unshackled in capitalism. This is what I've been trying to exhort this whole thread. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] I think we've got this settled what else do you all want to argue about after I get a good nights rest?
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488784]Nope not exactly I made a mistake earlier in the thread and misread assuming that thisispain was quoting me on something other than what he was quoting. So I was wrong in that respect. Other than that yeah you're right. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] Monopolies outside of corporatism.[/QUOTE] So basically... you want the ideal of a free market with none of the problems that a real free market brings? Okay cool, Cause, you know, I'd love the ideal of any system as it is written on paper and as it is in our heads and our own worlds, but for fucks sakes, wake up, none of these systems work in real life, you really, really need to realize, nothing works as its ideal is supposed to.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488800]You're right the fundamental makeup of objectivism is reason and individual rights. They both exist in the best condition and unshackled in capitalism. This is what I've been trying to exhort this whole thread. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] I think we've got this settled what else do you all want to argue about after I get a good nights rest?[/QUOTE] not the way exhort is used btw that's two mistakes bro, the counter is ticking
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28488807]So basically... you want the ideal of a free market with none of the problems that a real free market brings? Okay cool, Cause, you know, I'd love the ideal of any system as it is written on paper and as it is in our heads and our own worlds, but for fucks sakes, wake up, none of these systems work in real life, you really, really need to realize, nothing works as its ideal is supposed to.[/QUOTE] Which problems? And you want all the benefits of a free market without any of its causes.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488800]You're right the fundamental makeup of objectivism is reason and individual rights. They both exist in the best condition and unshackled in capitalism. This is what I've been trying to exhort this whole thread.[/QUOTE] except you utterly failed. you tried to paint capitalism from a moralist standpoint while doing absolutely nothing to appeal on the concept of reason and individuality in the context of reality. that's why i got absolutely pissed off because you completely butchered the concepts of ayn rand and with your bony head stuck by a completely closed and frankly incomplete interpretation of her works. you only made people angry, you only misrepresented ayn rand, and worst of all, you completely abandoned any attempt of making a rational argument and based everything on concept that only you understood without rationalizing because you pretended that ayn rand did most of the work for you intellectual laziness is what we call it
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488784]Nope not exactly I made a mistake earlier in the thread and misread assuming that thisispain was quoting me on something other than what he was quoting. So I was wrong in that respect. Other than that yeah you're right. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] Monopolies outside of corporatism.[/QUOTE] I can accept I've been proven wrong by people before, you're way of saying we're wrong and saying you're right is "I'm right, if you don't get that, i can't explain it to you". [b]that's why being morally and "religiously" convicted is a fucking bad thing.[/b] You can't accept faults, and if you want to grow a a human being, you must accept faults.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488695]The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962. by Ayn Rand "At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows: 1. Metaphysics Objective Reality 2. Epistemology Reason 3. Ethics Self-interest 4. Politics Capitalism If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.” If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics. My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." Okay man whatever you say I didn't just discredit almost everything you said except the reason comment. Source:[url]http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro[/url] Now kindly sit down.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what the fuck did you just prove? That has nothing to do with what he said.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28488815]except you utterly failed. you tried to paint capitalism from a moralist standpoint while doing absolutely nothing to appeal on the concept of reason and individuality in the context of reality. that's why i got absolutely pissed off because you completely butchered the concepts of ayn rand and with your bony head stuck by a completely closed and frankly incomplete interpretation of her works. you only made people angry, you only misrepresented ayn rand, and worst of all, you completely abandoned any attempt of making a rational argument and based everything on concept that only you understood without rationalizing because you pretended that ayn rand did most of the work for you intellectual laziness is what we call it[/QUOTE] It's obvious that you don't get it.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488812]Which problems? And you want all the benefits of a free market without any of its causes.[/QUOTE] Because socialist democracies aren't doing well... The problems of corruption, poverty, the things that happen in reality and not in your ideal? An ideal is an ideal because it cannot exist in reality, it is JUST an ideal.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28488826]Because socialist democracies aren't doing well... The problems of corruption, poverty, the things that happen in reality and not in your ideal? An ideal is an ideal because it cannot exist in reality, it is JUST an ideal.[/QUOTE] we've already said that scandinavian countries are mediocre god you seriously don't get it
[QUOTE=Strider*;28485571]No scientific, artistic, or any other form of achievement is achieved alone? Ridiculous. It's statements like that which defy the ego of individuality and the scientific as well as creative drive of man. How can you say something like this and then say "no one here wants to be less individualistic"? The rationale behind the American government and constitution was the most individual revolution of known history, and yet you condemn it. Individual rights are suppressed under socialism if you can't see this I need not explain it. When my property, my work, and my productivity are subjugated to the "common good" of all I cease to have individual rights. Capitalism and individuality go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] There is part of my moral defense of capitalism thisispain.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28488820]It's obvious that you don't get it.[/QUOTE] hi there man how you doing, doing good?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28488831]we've already said that scandinavian countries are mediocre god you seriously don't get it[/QUOTE] i'm sorry! I just can't get my head around the fact there's only one view point to see anything from
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488812]Which problems? And you want all the benefits of a free market without any of its causes.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah the government keeps oppressing my individualism up here
[QUOTE=thisispain;28488836]hi there man how you doing, doing good?[/QUOTE] I'm getting it. Maybe you should stop being such an uneducated PLEBIAN and join me. I've been exhorting you to do so.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488835]There is part of my moral defense of capitalism thisispain.[/QUOTE] what the fuck is ego of individuality, creative drive of man, and individual revolution? i've studied ayn rand and i barely know what you are even talking about when you got called out on it you just said "AYN RAND said it take it up with her"
[QUOTE=thisispain;28488815]except you utterly failed. you tried to paint capitalism from a moralist standpoint while doing absolutely nothing to appeal on the concept of reason and individuality in the context of reality. [/QUOTE] Why don't you try arguing against the points I've brought up in the context of objectivism if you believe I have misrepresented Ayn Rand. Objectivism isn't a dogma. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;28487827]that's just stupid, it's got nothing to do with capitalism in fact ayn rand would also disagree so *blows raspberry*[/QUOTE] You were the first to bring up Ayn Rand [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;28488849]what the fuck is ego of individuality, creative drive of man, and individual revolution? i've studied ayn rand and i barely know what you are even talking about when you got called out on it you just said "AYN RAND said it take it up with her"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488835]There is part of my moral defense of capitalism thisispain.[/QUOTE] It's like you don't even read what people reply to what you say. [b]this is why moral conviction of your views is wrong, you can't possibly not see why pure moral conviction and objective view is bad. [/b]
[QUOTE=thisispain;28488849]what the fuck is ego of individuality, creative drive of man, and individual revolution? i've studied ayn rand and i barely know what you are even talking about when you got called out on it you just said "AYN RAND said it take it up with her"[/QUOTE] Do I have to keep telling you people what Striders response is? "you don't get it", "you can't read, "Ayn Rand" etc...
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488851] Objectivism isn't a dogma.[/QUOTE] hah there's where you are completely wrong and you proved it by quoting the ayn rand institute and saying my interpretation was wrong objectivism is a dogma, you are either objectivist or you are not
[QUOTE=Strider*;28488851]Objectivism isn't a dogma. [/QUOTE] The radical belief in fiction might paint it in a similar way.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28488842]Oh yeah the government keeps oppressing my individualism up here[/QUOTE] hey, we're very oppressed here in vancouver, a city in a socialist democracy...
[QUOTE=thisispain;28488863]hah there's where you are completely wrong and you proved it by quoting the ayn rand institute and saying my interpretation was wrong objectivism is a dogma, you are either objectivist or you are not[/QUOTE] Objectivism is confirmed through reason. A dogma isn't questioned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.