|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| But why do the few absurd things she wrote cause people to reject her writing wholesale? No one rejects Aristotle's book on logic because he supported slavery. Why treat Rand any differently? |
cdninkorea, maybe you missed this, but we don't read Aristotle because he was right; we read him because he was first. We have to have an understanding of the development of ideas lest we make the same mistakes that were being made 2,500 years ago. We don't reject Aristotlean logic because Aristotle supported slavery; we reject it because it's wrong. With Rand it's the same, except that we also get no benefit from studying Rand, except as a lesson on 'how not to.'
I'm not interested in writing a refutation of Ayn Rand's objectivism, largely because I don't think it's worthy of refutation, but I will say that I think it's a thinly disguised attempt at a moral justification for selfishness, and that it's now being promoted by corporate interests not because it is right or true, but because it advances the corporate agenda. You're right to make the connection with Friedman, whose work is another example of morally bankrupt and logically faulty conclusions that have been adopted and promoted because of their utility to business.
You seem like a nice enough guy, cdninkorea, so I don't feel good about saying this, but if you have a philosophy degree and consider Ayn Rand's ideas to be philosophy, you may have wasted four years of your life. I know people with BA philosophy hear that all the time, but in your case, I mean ON TOP of that. |
Not for the first time gang ah gee you have saved me from having to reply. Rand seem now, in hindsight as nothing more than a hateful shallow proto-neo con. Im sure that apart from the anti religion stuff that her and Anne Coulter would get on rather well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to show how the enlightenment and everything since has been 'completely useless' 'existentialism and post modernism'. |
I never said the enlightenement was useless at all- it's quite the opposite. And not everything since has been useless either- just a lot of it, and most of the dominant stuff.
So the burden of proof is on me, is it? Okay, I'll take a crack at it *cracks knuckles*
The task of philosophy was once to discover reality and learn how to live within it. Most of the dominant works since (not including) the Enlightenment have gone against that- existentialism, post modernism, logical positivism, deconstructionalism, etcetera.
One could argue that Hume planted the seed in An Enquiry Into Human Understanding (something like that... I don't remember the exact title)when he argued that there exists a dichotomy between analytic and synthetic knowledge, the latter being of one we can never know with complete certainty.
Really though, it was Kant that started the awful trent away from Enlightenment thinking, by arguing that there is no objective reality (noumena), and if there is, we can never know anything about it. The influence Kant has had on philosophy since is enormous.
| Quote: |
| cdninkorea, maybe you missed this, but we don't read Aristotle because he was right; we read him because he was first. We have to have an understanding of the development of ideas lest we make the same mistakes that were being made 2,500 years ago. We don't reject Aristotlean logic because Aristotle supported slavery; we reject it because it's false. With Rand it's the same, except that we also get no benefit from studying Rand, except as a lesson on 'how not to.' |
This is the first time I've heard anyone say that. What I've heard, from several of my former professors (one of them having a doctorate in logic) is that logic has since been built upon and beyond what Aristotle wrote by people like Frege, Montague, etcetera. To use an analogy: just because cell phones exist today doesn't make Alexander Graham Bell's first theories wrong.
| Quote: |
| I'm not interested in writing a refutation of Ayn Rand's objectivism, largely because I don't think it's worthy of refutation, but I will say that I think it's a thinly disguised attempt at a moral justification for selfishness, and that it's now being promoted by corporate interests not because it is right or true, but because it advances the corporate agenda. You're right to make the connection with Friedman, whose work is another example of morally bankrupt and logically faulty conclusions that have been adopted and promoted because of their utility to business. |
Oh please. How often do you hear any corporation advancing Rand or Friedman? How often do you hear them saying anything remotely like "we have a right to our profits"? I never have. Instead I hear companies practically bellowing on rooftops about how much they give to charity, how many people they employ, how much good they do for the community, etcetera. Its good when companies do all of these of course, but these are secondary, not primary justifications for capitalism. They need no sanction to exist, yet they shout these pleas, all but begging for the sanction of others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coolsage wrote: |
| .... Krishnamurti was the real deal, ..... |
Thanks for saying that. Some believe otherwise. I cannot see how he could have been otherwise though, just upon reading a bit of what he had to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
Really though, it was Kant that started the awful trent away from Enlightenment thinking, by arguing that there is no objective reality (noumena), and if there is, we can never know anything about it. The influence Kant has had on philosophy since is enormous. |
Dogg, you need more details - it doesn't suffice to shoehorn existentialism, postmodernism into the 'dominant post-enlightenment' philosophies, because outside of some revisionist fools, everyone knows that you're talking about 20th century, and mostly post-WWII approaches. Seems to me that you don't feel comfortable with approaches that challenge notions of reliable epistemology - but keep in mind that without modern 'no truth' approaches to truth we couldn't have modern science. Is what I'm saying right? I don't know. I don't have a degree in philosophy.
| Quote: |
This is the first time I've heard anyone say that. What I've heard, from several of my former professors (one of them having a doctorate in logic) is that logic has since been built upon and beyond what Aristotle wrote by people like Frege, Montague, etcetera. |
'False' is the wrong word. But find me a tenured, published philosopher at a real university who argues for the validity of Aristotlean logic in the 21st century, and I'll find you a real philosopher who argues for Rand's objectivism. ie, there will always be some fools out there.
| Quote: |
Oh please. How often do you hear any corporation advancing Rand or Friedman? How often do you hear them saying anything remotely like "we have a right to our profits"? I never have. Instead I hear companies practically bellowing on rooftops about how much they give to charity, how many people they employ, how much good they do for the community, etcetera. Its good when companies do all of these of course, but these are secondary, not primary justifications for capitalism. They need no sanction to exist, yet they shout these pleas, all but begging for the sanction of others. |
Read Rand and Friedman a little deeper, and the secrets of the friendly, sanction begging corporation shall be revealed, my naive little canadian. And who do you think funds the Ayn Rand foundation and other neo-con think tanks? Randroids are corporate rubes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coolsage
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: The overcast afternoon of the soul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jajdude wrote: |
| coolsage wrote: |
| .... Krishnamurti was the real deal, ..... |
Thanks for saying that. I cannot see how he could have been otherwise though, just upon reading a bit of what he had to say. |
Amid the faux-philosophers who came at us during the late 60's-early seventies, Krishnamurti was the one who disavowed the prevailing notion of 'guru', unfortunately popularized by the Beatles, but you have to start somewhere. To transcend religion with no hope of virgins and/or Rolls-Royces, is to be true to one's connection with the infinite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coolsage wrote: |
| jajdude wrote: |
| coolsage wrote: |
| .... Krishnamurti was the real deal, ..... |
Thanks for saying that. I cannot see how he could have been otherwise though, just upon reading a bit of what he had to say. |
Amid the faux-philosophers who came at us during the late 60's-early seventies, Krishnamurti was the one who disavowed the prevailing notion of 'guru', unfortunately popularized by the Beatles, but you have to start somewhere. To transcend religion with no hope of virgins and/or Rolls-Royces, is to be true to one's connection with the infinite. |
It took a lot of balls to say that on this board. I am impressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your approach is all wrong, CDninkorea. Kant didn't start anything awful! He simply pointed out that we cannot have objective knowlege because reality does not contain the features of mind that we have in any description of it. Reality is non-linguistic, non-conceptual. That's very reasonable, and it's certainly an advance on Plato, who felt there is a realm of true propositions independent of humans ever thinking about them, ensuring the truth of our statements. Reality - das ding an sich in German (things in-themselves) is/are unknowable. Sadly, I can only explain Kant via a metaphor. Thinking of reality is like a baron, featureless, desert landscape, and our mind, concepts, perception, do a lot of 'coloring-in'. Creatures with different concepts, different shaped eyes, different brains, perceive the world differently, paint a different picture - there's just no way of testing whether our view of reality is the correct one! Cats can see in the dark much better than we can, dogs can smell and hear much more than we can - how on earth can we possibly say objective knowledge is possible with our 5 puny senses and capacity for abstract thought?
Consequently, instead of attempting an understanding of wider (non-human) reality, Philosophy instead is Conceptual Analysis - the Science of Abstraction (upper case is mine). Philosophy looks at the things the empirical sciences cannot reach yet are still vitally important - ethics, concepts, metaphysics, aesthetics, logic.
That's the method adopted by almost any 20th century philosopher of note I can think of and I see little reason to re-visit that here.
Depressingly enough, the conclusion of Kant - the most important philosopher - is to not bother with the inquiries philosophy wanted to talk about in the first place, what Socrates argued against (that we can have no knowledge...or there are clear limits to our knowledge).
Last edited by SPINOZA on Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:07 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coolsage
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: The overcast afternoon of the soul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flotsam, I'm gratified that we're for once on the same page. It was undoubtedly before your time, but a good measure of LSD graced these lips back then. As far as I know, only Schwa any I are actual survivors of that era.( Perhaps Ya-ta can pipe up here.) And, Spinoza, the vital difference between cats and dogs and humans is that only humans can have sex on the internet. Happy Chuseok to all, and to all a good night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Dogg, you need more details - it doesn't suffice to shoehorn existentialism, postmodernism into the 'dominant post-enlightenment' philosophies, because outside of some revisionist fools, everyone knows that you're talking about 20th century, and mostly post-WWII approaches. |
Read what I wrote about Hume and Kant- was I shoehorning anything into 20th century or post-WWII approaches?
But if the Hume and Kant bit didn't do it for you, how about this: Soren Kierkegaard, who is considered the father of existentialism, was born in 1813 and died in 1855. This was before the 20th century, and even longer before the post WWII era.
| Quote: |
| Seems to me that you don't feel comfortable with approaches that challenge notions of reliable epistemology - but keep in mind that without modern 'no truth' approaches to truth we couldn't have modern science. Is what I'm saying right? I don't know. I don't have a degree in philosophy. |
Why wouldn't we have modern science if our culture were still in an Englightenment frame of mind? Scientists usually ignore those "no truth" philosophies, don't they? I can't imagine a scientist saying "well, this airplane looks like it'll fly according to all these mathematical models we have, but I can't really be sure because there is no Truth."
And isn't the statement "there is no Truth" a Truth statement in itself? I suppose if you don't believe in Truth you don't feel confined by the Law of Non-Contradiction...
| Quote: |
| 'False' is the wrong word. But find me a tenured, published philosopher at a real university who argues for the validity of Aristotlean logic in the 21st century, and I'll find you a real philosopher who argues for Rand's objectivism. ie, there will always be some fools out there. |
Aristotle's book on logic was, at its time, groundbreaking and brilliant. Because we have advanced far beyond it now, Aristotle's book on logic was, by today's standards, very basic.
But tell me: what makes it invalid? Are the logical fallacies (e.g. argumentum ad misercordium or "appeal to pity") he identified invalid? Are his syllogisms invalid (e.g. decuctive logic: "if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal")? What exactly is the problem?
Spinoza, I'll have to get back to you because I don't have the time now to type out a worthy reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My thread title was unclear. I meant "philosopher wanna-bes". I have no problem with folks who philosophize themselves up an original idea but 95% of the time, it's all recycled paper and plastic.
As I see it, anyone who titles a thread "Do you exist?" could VERY easily fit that description. Frankly, I would consider him a "wanna be" until he could reason himself up a ladder to get outta that hole.
But this thread has become exactly what I was hoping it wouldn't  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| But if the Hume and Kant bit didn't do it for you, how about this: Soren Kierkegaard, who is considered the father of existentialism, was born in 1813 and died in 1855. This was before the 20th century, and even longer before the post WWII era. |
So the 'father of existentialism' was writing less than 200 years ago? In that case I'm satisfied that you've shown that dominant philosophies of the past several hundred years have NOT been existentialist and postmodernist (unless you want to make the case for a pre-modern postmodernity).
| Quote: |
Why wouldn't we have modern science if our culture were still in an Englightenment frame of mind? Scientists usually ignore those "no truth" philosophies, don't they? I can't imagine a scientist saying "well, this airplane looks like it'll fly according to all these mathematical models we have, but I can't really be sure because there is no Truth."
And isn't the statement "there is no Truth" a Truth statement in itself? I suppose if you don't believe in Truth you don't feel confined by the Law of Non-Contradiction... |
'No truth' applies to epistemology rather than 'reality', and this is a fundamental feature of scientific method now. 'Truth' values generally have to be determined through inferential statistics, and it is understood that there is always a slight possbility that any result could be due to chance. I suggest that you do some reading in philosophy of science to help you understand the problems with the enlightenment/Baconian model of scientific method.
| Quote: |
| But tell me: what makes it invalid? Are the logical fallacies (e.g. argumentum ad misercordium or "appeal to pity") he identified invalid? Are his syllogisms invalid (e.g. decuctive logic: "if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal")? What exactly is the problem? |
Harr! I adimit that I've never read Aristotle and I don't know anything about Aristotlean logic except that it hasn't been the dominant logic in Western philosophy since your man Kierkegaad was around. Aristotle isn't the point though, except in as much as his work makes a poor analogy with Ayn Rand's excretia.
| khyber wrote: |
| But this thread has become exactly what I was hoping it wouldn't |
Yes, I was enjoying the irony of that too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hairy sue
Joined: 18 May 2006
Location: weewee heaven
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: Re: I HATE philosophers...wannabes...ugh |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
I'm on another forum and reading these people prattle on in an effort to sound smarter than someone else is enflaming. It utterly burns me up what kinda retardedness people will extend their, otherwise feeble selves in order to look smarter than someone else.
I can understand dealing with concretes and sensible things, but *beep*, come on "my favorite paradox is the one with the donkey and the two bales of hay where he starves in the middle". This is then followed by a 3 page argument over definitions, explainations, explanations of definitions, vice versa.
Who *beep* HATES philosophers!!??!!! |
great post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Contemporary science now says we affect a phenominon by the mere act of observing it. That relates to the deconstructionist view of subjectivity.
Rand is nothing but a shallow selfish greedy corporate whore... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
"the dogs bark, the caravan passes."
Reading this thread has been real torture. Sorry I don't have the style or wherewithall to contribute.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delirium's Brother
Joined: 08 May 2006
Location: Out in that field with Rumi, waiting for you to join us!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Reading this thread has been real torture. Sorry I don't have the style or wherewithall to contribute. |
Sure you do! Don't underestimate yourself  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
