About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dean, ask your friend if the value of a marginally stronger (on average) group of producers - off in the future - is a proper goal for a philosophy that is based upon the individual's life as the standard of value - and maybe we should even sacrifice some individual values to gaining that goal.  

 

There seems to be too much "Sure, I'm hitting my thumb with a hammer now, but just imagine how fantastic it will feel when I stop."  

 

Evolution, of any form, can be tricky to reconcile with a philosophy where the standard is man's life but the purpose is the individual's happiness.  And if the long run results of marginal predation/parasitism are a good, then either the predation/parasitism are good themselves (which makes no sense) or we are at the place where we say that the means are justified by the ends.  (i.e., "Hey let's not get rid of these minor evils, because they will lead to a greater good.")



Post 21

Sunday, January 26, 2014 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Steve,

 

First, the ‘you’ wasn’t intended for you; my sincere apologies for what was obviously a poor ellipsis.

 

 Rather, it was an indirect pronoun referring to Piaget. ‘If you , Piaget, want to make such extraordinary claims, you’d need to back it up with some form of acceptable evidence”.

 

Klineberg’s work—that demonstrated, empirically speaking, how different children really are at any age---literally tore the guts out of Piaget. Today, spouting off Piaget in either academia or a real, live therapeutic session will get you laughed at.

 

Much like psychoanalysis and chiropractics, there is a ‘Piaget society’ that promotes his work. If he were accepted, having a ‘society’ would not be necessary.

 

>>>>The questions that make sense are about the relationships between the components in the stages, the usefulness of the model, the accuracy of the descriptions of the components, etc<<<<

 

Indeed. His are wrong by any standard.

 

Eva



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Sunday, January 26, 2014 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Eva:

 

Marx wanted...

 

Me, straining to find significance in what "Marx wanted."

 

Emperor Marx?

 

regards,

Fred



Post 23

Sunday, January 26, 2014 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

Kindly, then, 'strain' back into your own previous post: you were the one who introduced Marx to the conversation.

 

My 'sigificance', as stated,. is that the goals of Marx and Durkheim were totally opposed.

 

What was yours?

 

Eva



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.