Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DannyBoyPoker

Newbies
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DannyBoyPoker

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Occupation
    Court reporter
  1. Actually, I think that Rand and I have a great deal in common. The thing that brings me to this thread is that I'm turned off by her intolerance for disagreement, and by her lack of serious effort to engage with opposing points of view. I still think these criticisms of Rand are largely accurate. I'm tempted to add some kind of crack about one important point that I underrated -- that her followers are worse! Well, I can try to be an example. And, happily, I can agree with Rand when she saw herself as a pathbreaking original thinker who had discovered important philosophical and political trut
  2. I'm not interested in what you suppose Danny boy to prefer, so much as I am in what you prefer. If Rand's approach is not socially conscious, then I wonder what is the point. You need her permission to be a jerk? I suspect that putting the question that way is unlikely to receive a direct answer, so I'll rephrase. We're committed to being rational here, aren't we? Good. Well, at least I am. This is what I prefer. Also, I haven't claimed to dislike anything of Rand's philosophy, that I can recall, though I've had the opportunity.
  3. I'm right here. And I'm here, to discuss 'big ideas'. And, I'm not picky. Anytime! I didn't anticipate that anybody was likely to gather the impression that I was trying to impress them with my vocabulary..this is not, actually, technically, beyond the 12th grade reading level, is it? 'Saying "maybe I do blow hot air just to hear the sound of it" is just not cool, no matter how you twist up the sentence structure.' Noted, though I didn't say that. I have, however, stressed that ludicrous paraphrasing is not cool, imho.
  4. I don't want to just, at this moment, be diligent at 'marking work'. I don't want to be 'expert at my subject', at this moment. I mean, I may or may not be..but..it doesn't make me cool. I look back, at my posts here, and I wonder about what is 'canny', about me attempting a 'chalk and talk'. This sort of thing can often be dull. It's relatively cheap and easy to provide. But, is there a right way, a right time? Is it 'well done'? It is easy to do badly, is what it is. Hard to do well. People talk about teaching being “relevant”, as this is a good starting point. that is, motivation is
  5. okay, what is the justification for Kant, why is he the central figure in modern philosophy. He supposedly set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and supposedly continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. It ought to be possible to say what is the 'fundamental idea'. Well, Kant argues that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience. And, a related point, he also argues that human reason gives itself the mora
  6. 'Explain your view of how Kant should not be labeled an indirect realist, please don't dance around by talking about Hume or say Kant didn't call himself one.' I'd appreciate it if you accept my efforts in good faith. If these issues had been easy to clear up, they'd have been cleared up before now and I don't mean the pitiable results of this 10+ year thread. Upon reflection, I realize that I'm testy about some other threads entirely, but nevertheless I am testy. Dan
  7. *Disco? <-- this means, 'are we happy? Is it, hopefully, Miller Time?' If we are, indeed, happy, then the occasion might be compered by a disc jockey and feature special lighting effects.. *You ask about A. D. Smith's book. I recognize the title, I've flipped through it. I could mention, I suppose, that Kant figures ambiguously in the debate that is hotly debated *within* the camp of direct perceptual realists themselves, between conceptualists and non-conceptualists, being claimed as an illustrious predecessor by both sides. And, I think there are interesting relations between Kant’s
  8. This is going to get rough, so let me start by tossing a bone: I think that Ayn Rand's ethics is the best legitimate heir to Aristotle's on the contemporary field. Just like her politics is the best legitimate heir to that of "lightweights" Locke, Jefferson and Spencer. And, I'm willing to suppose that Rand was *fundamentally* right there in the philosophical mainstream -- or, at least, just what the mainstream has been yearning for, for who-knows-how-long now. So far, I've honed in on Rand's polemical style, which does leave something to be desired, from a certain point of view. Namely,
  9. Some points: *I've hinted that by the time Kant was developing his own account, the notion that the mind related to the world indirectly, through a ‘veil of ideas’ (if at all), and the particular conception of ideas as images, held considerable ground in both rationalist and empiricist quarters – not only in Britain but also in Germany. *Also, direct realism is usually understood – under the name of ‘naïve realism’ – as a purely empirical, even commonsensical view. I'm not touting so-called naïve realism, not as an interpretation of Kant, or if it comes to it of Rand. Then, there is no
  10. I didn't tarry to quibble w/you here, but I could. I'm unhappy with the phrase 'there are such realities', here. Also, 'is one form of idealism'. I'm fine if we don't care, actually, so much about Kant. Suppose that I simply take credit for my own views, here, and nevermind whether they coincide with Kant's views. One thing is for certain, I didn't get my views on Kant from Rand. Disco? So what. Kant doesn't matter he's dead and in the ground. But I liked that you mentioned 'empirical realism', something that I've already copy/pasted/endorsed in your summary on Kant. I fear that the te
  11. '(as long as you don't say he's a direct realist)' bub, this hardly matters what is a 'direct realist'? Did Rand describe herself in these terms?
  12. suppose that I came on here to assert that 'Reality is NOT an objective absolute. There's no way to tell whether reality is objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively!! (& Howard Roark was a lousy architect!!)' well, I didn't.
  13. 'What is wrong with the Oist view of presentationalism? Is it just that its not presented in the more constructivist-multiculturalist, PC type of postmodernist "coexist" demeanor?' Maybe I do reduce this style of utterance to an intriguing form at the expense of content. For me, agreeing or not with Rand's positions does not slake the weird interest her work engenders. It's, shall we say, a little exciting to be hectored. -- rather than seduced, sobered, flattered. I'm not sure that I can honor these verbal idioms, at least not in moral arrogance. Though I approve, of provoking questions a
  14. I am not trying to be cryptic, in reference to what might be Kant's views -- I objected to the 'indirect realist' label. I also don't mean to keep people guessing as to whether I'm informed about Rand's epistemology, etc. I'm interested in Rand. I'll offer this quote: "It seems also evident, that, when men follow this blind and powerful instinct of nature, they always suppose the very images, presented by the senses, to be the external objects, and never entertain any suspicion, that the one are nothing but representations of the other. This very table, which we see white, and which we fee
×
×
  • Create New...