Just joined forum

[RationalBeing]

[NOTE: I would really appreciate feedback on this. Time is money, a word or two would be a blessing]

------------------------------------

Hey. I am new to this forum-- i am an ayn rand fanatic, usually post on 'atlas society' as of a week ago. you are not allowed to talk about philosophical views of A.R. in that forum, so i thought i would check this one out.

i need to borrow someone's brain. i am doing an essay for a scholarship application and i really want to win. the all-too-common question- 'Why should we choose you? 'is one that i have answered a million times for scholarship apps.

this time, i want to take a different approach:

i am going to write about the kind of person who does not deserve to be winner, and use the reasons why i should be chosen to prove that i am not this person.

here is my stalemate:

i need a compelling argument to characterize the 'don't choose' person. traits of the person that are not-so-obvious, or all-too-obvious that the average person would overlook them.

this is your chance to 'strut your stuff' for all you people out there who complain about an 'intellectual famine'.

for the record:

i am a philosophy student-19-surrounded by liberals-'experiencing' gender stratification-inlove with ayn rand's works and perspective-very interested in modern & post-modern literature discussion-very eager to hear comments from anyone on any of the topics mentioned, emphasis on the scholarship dilemma.

proud to be a member,

-m.

Edited December 23, 2003 by GreedyCapitalist

[RationalBeing]

Hello Daniel,

I am a 'newbie'. I read your essay and I have some comments:

"A sense organ has no choice about what to do when acted upon, while thinking must take an active role and create the intelligible thing."

is this your interpretation? can you define sense organ? depending on your stipulative definition, i can think of some exceptions, if you are interested.

important to stick to aristotle's exact vocab choice. avoid extremes such as right and wrong. this is a compliment to you. it would be like generalizing if you were to do otherwise. a lot of people do this when they are talking about aristotle. example: non-voluntary-voluntary-involuntary-ignorance-in ignorance- out of ignorance. hospers and rawls are fine-tuned as well, cause confusion/generalizations. example, while they embellish an 'extreme' veiw, they are not necessarily putting down the opposite view (particularily in their pieces on justice as utilitarianism). i could go on here but i have other things to say:

i have a 'knack' for math and theology-- physics is another story. why do you suppose that is? what makes physics diff. for me?

a few things that are especially important to keep in mind in reading aristotle (more so than some other philosophers' work):

historical point of reference: one example--in talking about intellect and passive action. people born with systematic mal-functions not included in thinking. back then, people would have been killed for being born as such.

very abstract- read his other works on different topics to make complicated formulas more concrete. distinctions blurry- this actually helps when looking at only one philosopher's thoughts across the board. makes it easier to answer question. "well what do you suppose aristotle would say about this. . . ?"

stemming from abstraction note: literal interpretations (or the most literal interpretations given that we are talking philosophically) are usually lacking in one respect or another.

a lot of his work, at least i think, has an ethnocentric element to it. disses women, other races, non-intellectuals etc., in other words, like other philosophers, in writing his views, they are more or less written in stone. for a lot of his work, it is only fair to use the principle of charity- more so for our own sake in understanding the complexities of his arguments than his.

one thing is for sure about a lot of aristotle's work:

he assumed that people reading it would have half the brain capacity he did.

any thoughts/criticism welcome,

maggie