Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/18/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    softwareNerd

    True objectivists in real life

    There's a sense in which they are. Rand wanted her heroes to be perfect. So, it would not be enough to give Howard Roark his single-minded passion and rationality; she also had to have him be right in his choices. Rationality can lead to the "right" conclusion in the sense that it is the conclusion that all the available evidence, known to the decider at that point in time. points to that conclusion. Unfortunately, this is not how reality works: rationality does not lead to coming to the "retrospectively-right" conclusion 100% of the time. Rational people have to re-evaluate, correct mistake, an change path all the time. This is something that Rand's writing misses. Further, humans are not rational in every moment. We are rational animals... not just rational "beings". Our rationality allows us to be alert about our "animal" impulses and our irrational biases, and allows us to correct conclusions and actions that arise from them. So, once again, the process is not smooth. If you look at some of Rand's positive characters: Rearden is often used as an example, but you have Dominque and Steve Mallory and so on... then Rand does give them some flaws and idiosyncrasies. But, she seems to have had this idea that the hero should be flawless. So, if you want to look for a Howard Roark in the real world, ask yourself if the real world has got people who have a single-minded vision, and pursued it against contemporary advice, and had to fight all sort of battles, but came out vindicated and successful in the end. Turn on the NPR "How I Built This" podcast, and you should find a few examples.
  2. 1 point
    Citation needed. I've worked in some academic medical fields. It has always seemed to me that the academic community often doesn't like the FDA, and I'm not aware of any people who like it. If there are people who like it, is probably people who abuse the system, or choose to be part of it by joining it. The FDA is more like an overlord that you must obey, and if you don't obey, your career is screwed. The bureaucrats act as gatekeepers, they determine what counts as permissible evidence, and what counts as worthwhile. So I wouldn't call it symbiotic, I would say the FDA is parasitic upon academia.
  3. 1 point
    I think the title for this thread represents the dichotomy you've set here. I don't see a clear attempt to integrate anything. Frankly, I find your replies to be unfocused, evasive, and poorly written. I've made a real effort to contribute something, because you're investigating a very tough and fundamental question. But it doesn't seem like you're actually interested in criticism ("gripes"?!). It sounds like you want to rant. So I'll leave you to it.
×
×
  • Create New...