| | Edward,
No need to be rude mates, it won't add anything to the discussion . . . Forget it though. I'm not inclined to humor disrespect, even on message boards.--Joseph Funk Okay. Good. That's a statement of something. A statement that we've been rude and disrespectful (to Joseph Funk). Now, let's just take a moment to verify this accusatory claim with the available empirical evidence ...
"Selfishness" and "pride" are, as you note, ambiguous. Rand wants to disambiguate them. That's part of a philosopher's job. Your accusations might hold up if she weren't clear about her meaning and about her reasons for preferring these meanings, but she is.--Peter Reidy Recap:
Peter gratuitously finds common ground with Joseph regarding the ambiguity of the terms selfishness and pride. Peter offers an alternative view that reconciles the ambiguity.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
A definition, properly, is a denotation... if it includes a connotation, then it is a 'biased' definition - one with a flaw... what Rand did was keep the definition without the bias, then go on and explain what was wrong with the usually given connotations, the bias... --Robert Malcom Recap:
Robert reflects on what, precisely, a definition ought to be. He offers an example (connotation) of what it ought not be. He roughly describes Rand's method of definition.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
Joseph,
If you have some time, I would recommend you read this speech of mine:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Eliminating_the_Altruistic_Baggage.shtml
I think it provides a good explanation of how conventional morality does in fact promote sacrifice.--Joe Rowlands
Recap:
Joe R. politely invites Joseph F. to consider reviewing work already done that addresses Joseph F.'s questions.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
Joesph Funk,
All good arguments begin with the definition of one terms. Rand defined her's quite clearly. I too suggest reading Joe's article.
Ethan
Recap:
Ethan politely affirms Joe R.'s recommendation as something worthwhile to look into.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
You could make up your own word as an intellectual experiment and attach the meanings you believe to be virtuous to that made up word. Then the question is does your newly labeled virtue benefit you? Benefit society? Can it be logically integrated with your most basic premises?
You need to ask why did she purposefully fly in the face of conventional usage on those particualar words? Why did she name a book after selfishness? Why did she consider the tale of Robin Hood vile?--Steve Wolfer
Recap:
Here, Steve presents an analogy meant to improve understanding -- placing word definitions in the context of personal and societal benefit. On this very important note, Confucius said it best when he said ...
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. Now, Steve does challenge Joseph to ask himself 6 questions, but that challenge was not rude or disrespectful.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
[Dean's post 8 might be viewed, from a special perspective, as being somewhat rude]
Joseph -- A lesson from Rand: Focus on the phenomena. Words often have contradictory meanings. So for sacrifice, for example, focus on the phenomenon of someone forgoing a lesser value, e.g. a new car, for a greater value, helping their wife or children. Then focus on someone who is guilt-tripped into majoring in a subject they don't really care and giving up one you love because relatives and the community in general feel the career that would result carries more prestige. Evaluate which is good or bad morally and why. Then figure out which words are best to communicate these distinctions.
Make similar distinctions for the other concepts.--Ed Hudgins
Recap:
Ed Hudgins politely advises Joseph to focus on experienced phenomena -- when attempting to formulate definitions.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
Joseph: first you postulate that Objectivism is widespread and then you point to behaviour that is incompatible with Objectivism and use that to show that Objectivism would be disastrous.
Huh?
Sam
Recap:
Sam straightforwardly points out a contradiction in Joseph's line of reasoning.
Evidence of rudeness or disrespect: None.
This post is getting too long now -- so here is a recap:
What follows in the thread are some respectful and some disrespectful comments (with the respectful ones outweighing the disrespectful ones by a large margin).
Anyway, my point is that we've been primarily respectful to Joseph (though he -- nor Edward C. -- has not credited us with that; but just the opposite).
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/09, 5:59pm)
|
|
