RoR: Forum

I really do love that quote, Steve.

Thanks.

Ed

Post 1

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 9:12pm

Thanks, Ed.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 4:31am

Her [Ayn Rand's] absolutism is a reasoned position that contrasts with altruistic or low self-esteem positions that value or use large doses of uncertainty or humility.

This sounds like something you want to agree with, but really, it is a pastiche of emotionalist symbols devoid of meaning. Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism, not Absolutism. Objective truths are both rationally derivable and empirically evident.

"Her [Ayn Rand's] absolutism "
As opposed to other kinds of absolutism? Absolutes are independent of context. The law of identity is an absolute. The street speed limit is not. Religions are often absolutist. "Thou shallt not" begins these absolute declarations. Totalitarian governments engage absolute laws -- being Jewish is bad; owning a business is bad; being an atheist is bad; all regardless of context.

"is a reasoned position"
As opposed to an empirically verified or verifiable position? The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is validated by the fact that absolutes are rational statements, whereas empirical observations are contigent. So, the Law of Identity is an absolute, but whether this dress makes me look fat is not. So, Ayn Rand's insistence on reason is a denial that her claims rely on physical facts? I think not and I think that she would also demurr (if not denounce) on that point. T

The qualifier "her reasoned position" is only to differentiate her absolutism from the constrasting non-absolutisms that follow, but it does not -- and cannot -- separate her absolutism from other other absolutisms.

"that contrasts with altruistic [positions] or [contrasts with] low self-esteem positions"
Is that the exclusive disjunction? Is that the inclusive disjunction? Can you have both at the same time? Branden would insist that it must be so, that altruism is rooted in low self-esteem. Therefore the "or" is unnecessary. In fact, it obfuscates.

Then it gets complicated...
that value or use large doses of uncertainty
that value or use large doses of humility.
that value large doses of uncertainty or humility.
that use large doses of uncertainty or humility.
that value large doses of uncertainty
that value large doses of humility.
that use large doses of uncertainty
that use large doses of humility.
... the laws of distribution in symbolic logic indicate that this apparent host of branches is actually a maze of useless detours as all of them actually lead back to the same single statement:

Large doses are bad.
How large a dose is a large dose? Is the fundamental error that small doses are appropriate but large ones are not?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/17, 4:37am)

Post 3

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 6:16am

Mike,

******************
"Her [Ayn Rand's] absolutism "

As opposed to other kinds of absolutism? Absolutes are independent of context.
******************

Stop being an antagonist for a moment and analyze this better. Geez! The qualifier "her" in Steve's quote isn't meant to change or add to the common definition of absolutism, but to assign absolutism (under it's common definition) to a particular person -- in this case, to Ayn Rand.

******************
"is a reasoned position"

As opposed to an empirically verified or verifiable position? The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is validated by the fact that absolutes are rational statements, whereas empirical observations are contigent.
******************

Get a hold of yourself, man. What's gotten into you, anyway? Here is another case of antagonism without wisdom. First off, you don't even seem to understand the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and what it means in real life. You might understand it, but you do not write as if you do.

Secondly, Steve used the adjective "reasoned" in order to differentiate Rand's position from other kinds of positions people do hold -- but hold, or cling to, without ever having gone through explicitly logical steps in their mind. When someone says that if you aren't happy with Obama, then you're a racist -- that is not a reasoned position.

Instead, it is a position that someone clings to (out of emotions such as fear) while foregoing the mental steps required in order to make it explicitly reasoned out.

*******************
"that contrasts with altruistic [positions] or [contrasts with] low self-esteem positions"

Is that the exclusive disjunction? Is that the inclusive disjunction?
*******************

Geezus Kryste, Michael. Look at the context. It's obvious it's the latter because of the sentence's structure. But why in the hell are you going through all of this nit-picking, tiddly-wink antagonism in the first place?

Steve, would you please comment on my comments (so Michael can see whether you would agree with me on this or not)?

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/17, 5:01pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 1:31pm