jacassidy2

The headline in the link and topic title is misleading, as it's about "pure" reason.
 
He's talking about "pure" reason, not reason wholesale. But what he does is worse - he racializes the whole topic. Yes, Kant and Descartes' view on reason is wrong, but it's not their whiteness or culture. It phrases the issue as though philosophers are merely products of society's norms. I'd agree that, say, Kant has had a negative impact on society, but to go on to make it about white males is a cop out for a real criticism of pure reason.

Notice how the professor says he conceives of reason: "the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness." So, maybe this is a case of a philosopher having his context set by intrinsicists, denying the intrinsicist premise, and swinging over to subjectivism.

It is my observation that Catholic societies are more left-leaning while protestant societies are more right-leaning. I believe that this stems from the Spanish colonial centralized form of government and legal system in the former. The British common law legal system is predominant in the latter, except in India which became independent in the golden age of socialism.

Welfare is a complex, many defining steps to the basics, derivative concept.  Most people only understand the direct effect it has on them as a recipient or as a taxpayer.  Politics, and its products, is far removed from basic ideas in ethics, which are somewhat removed from more basic ideas in epistemology and metaphysics.  Because the ultimate truth in reality exists thru knowledge your friend will probably never seek, you cannot gain the value of informing them and changing their mind by debating the surface film of more fundamental knowledge.
 
So the answer is no.  Don't waste your time arguing.  But I've been tempted in the past to plant an intellectual seed.  Say something like, "that's great for you and you can go far if you try - but where did the value come from to make it possible?"  "Who bought the food, shelter, or education you benefit from?"  If they are a good person, they may increase the value of the gift in their mind and use it wisely.

Modern folks who decide there is no value in mysticism, have only pragmatism and altruism as substitutes.  While these ideas are not limited to supporting concrete ideas on the left, while the concretes on the right are just different expressions of the same basic ethics, the left is more consistent in the application of these ideas in ethics and law.  If you are looking for a consistent philosophy without studying philosophy, the answer lies in the policies of the left.  The right is a mess of conflicting ideas without a clear fundamental purpose. 

The question asked was what should America do about ISIS?
 
I prefer not to be negative, but it's required here.  If you are old enough, you may remember an idea. It was held in the free world, in the decades before the break up of the Soviet Bloc, by a limited number of people who understood the philosophical foundation beneath the political ideas of freedom and liberty. 
 
This idea expressed a concern that citizens of totalitarian countries would cease to be inspired to desire change because countries like America were steadily losing their image as the beacon of liberty and opportunity by slowly adopting policies in line with the fascist and socialist tendencies at the economic base of their totalitarian homelands.  I'm wondering, especially with the availability of information on the internet,  whether this idea is even more true today as relates to things like ISIS? 
 
Let's say you're a normal young person living in a Muslim community almost anywhere.  Your parents are just trying to make a living, support their kids, and enjoy their lives (the world is populated primarily by these people, not by Bin Ladens, the Saudi royals, or the political elites in America or elsewhere).  You're maybe between age 16 and 25 and you've been raised with few ideas outside of your religious life, even if they are the mainstream, non-violent, ideas.  You believe there's got to be more to life and you search the web about liberty and freedom in America and about the struggle of disenfranchised people,  loosely of Arab and Islamic heritage.  You are looking for meaning in life.
 
Today, for the average person, what would be so different about America if you didn't know or understand the founding principles, basing your view on the speeches of current newsmakers, political or otherwise - or basing your judgment on the interpreted history of Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc. and the modern history of decisions, personal and public, of leaders like Bill Clinton and George Bush? 
 
In the wider conceptual sense, ISIS is the current result of the skepticism that develops among average citizens after a period of new philosophical development that has failed to provide opportunity for those willing, able, and interested in living life by seeking happiness through supporting their own values.  Other examples of this in history are the rise of Roman Catholicism after ca. 500AD, the Reformation ca.1500AD, and the American experiment based on ideas ca. 1700AD.  The current crisis is related to the failure of communism and socialism, with a background of America no longer providing a clear alternative. (This is not an academic paper, it was not edited, and these observations are not meant to represent the total of historical cause and effect, they are examples of one overlooked influence used here to make a point).  
 
Yes, we have to protect our concrete and current interests as relate to the activities of ISIS and the activities of recent past, and future movements.  But these challenges will never stop as long as America bases its policies, domestic and international, on principles inconsistent with those upon which the country was based. 
 
The philosophical foundation of those principles in ethics and law do not need to be internalized by all citizens, but they do by people like those attracted to this site.  Those principles are based in the metaphysics of Aristotle as extended by Ms. Rand and others now and in future, and by epistemological principles developed by Ms. Rand and others now and in future.  We don't all have to know about and agree on the axioms in meta/ep, but some of us must be able to reduce the concepts of liberty and freedom epistemologically to metaphysical axioms when the debate requires foundation.  The founding fathers did some great things, but the previous part of this paragraph is the basis of their failure and the legacy we deal with today.  Thanks, Jack

I believe it's a contradiction to say that human nature, qua animal, is selfish, but qua man, isn't selfish; that there's selfish, and then there's selfish.  An image of the Elephant Man comes to mind asserting, "I'm not a (selfish) animal!  I am a (selfish) human being!"  Man is a rational animal, selfish and I would add inquisitive by nature, which means by the time one pauses to reflect on the meaning of life, one has already selfishly chosen to hang around long enough to invest in some personal improvements.
 
Yes, he can choose to act unselfishly, or indifferently; he can even ape being an ape.  The philosophical point is not to return man to a state of tabula rasa so that he can then choose to become rationally selfish.  The point is to properly identify and work with what he already has going for him; to go from "one small step" beyond animal instinct, to "one giant leap for mankind."

My reference to bodies in motion is meant to point out that choosing to live is the redundant feature of natural programming; a default state of being one step removed from natural instinct.  Self aware, volitional beings cannot choose to be born, but they can choose to die, and every action that avoids that event is a selfish vote to continue to exist.  Human nature is selfish in that respect.
 
Ethical behavior is the add on.

The intellectual battle is not an end to itself. However, staying silent as our social order descends into darkness should not make any rational individual feel comfortable. As I've said in other threads, arguing with the irrational and/or collectivist types is an exercise in futility. So, forget it. I've found that there are many people who are confounded with the current state of affairs in the both the USA and the world. Speaking entirely for myself, I enjoy connecting with people who've thought about it, and who have a well-formulated opinion, even when it is not an opinion with which I entirely agree. When your interlocutor is articulate, focused, and is not prone to emotional outbursts, you are talking to a person who will at very least respect your right to express a rational argument. In such engagements, there is no battle. And your experience of exchanging ideas with an enlightened (and hopefully active) mind can be very satisfying. Therefore, you have enjoyed one more moment in your life,  and quite possibly "struck a blow for the cause."

I note that several posters remark based on the nature of the politics of the high court.  But no one comments on the issue being debated.  Should local government agencies treat marriage contracts without reference to the sex of the applicants.  I say yes, even though I don't get it.   

I don't understand the desire of a human to bind their life to a same sex relationship.  But my understanding is irrelevant in this case.  The issue is liberty versus the initiation of force/fraud thru a representative government.  People who see their lives as happier in these relationships, some my friends, do not impose anything on me but a concept I cannot relate to.  I can't understand why a person would want to be a politician either.

With some scathing remarks about John Roberts, Dr. Hurd adds this excerpt from his article:
 
The morality, or lack thereof, in the concept of gay marital unions should not be an issue for the law. The law is supposed to define rights, not determine what’s morally correct or not. In upholding the right to marriage for same-sex couples, the Court is not “making up” a right as it does, for instance, when it makes up a “right” to free medical care, or free education, or free housing. These made-up, false rights actually violate rights, because some are forced to pay for the goods and services of others. A right to a private contract, as in a marriage, is not a violation of anyone’s right. It’s simply a recognition of a legal right that always existed, only it didn’t come to the forefront because most people did not wish to face the fact that same-sex relationships exist.

Thomas, it's Jack.  I hope I led you to a place that improves your life.  My advice is that if you have any or no background in western philosophy, that you ignore Rand's fiction for now.  Go to the Ayn Rand Institute website and purchase the two audio courses of Leonard Peikoff on western philosophy - the best $40 I ever spent.  Then read Peikoff's works specifically on Objectivism including the newer extended version of Rand's Objectivist Epistemology.  Ms. Rand originated the ideas, but Mr. Peikoff has the benefit of Ms. Rand's knowledge without the emotional legacy of early childhood in the Russian Revolution as a motivation.  This stuff is great, but it's not like reading a great Rand novel, it's work.
 
Rand's ideas in ethics and politics are better understood if you first spend some time studying her ideas in epistemology and interpretation of Aristotelian metaphysics - otherwise, your basis of interpretation of the ethics and politics may be too influenced by the culture we grew up in.  Also, I disagree with the earlier post that recommended the chat feature on this site.  I have not found that these chat participants know much about Objectivism or Ayn Rand.
 
Gosh, keep me in the know regarding your study.  Jack

Yes, there is a distinction between public vs private, and it should not be flown by governing bodies. I did tip my hat to it, thus raising the issue, so I would not consider it that unrelated.
 
The irritating part to me is the timing, bringing it up in the wake of a tragedy. It's as if they can not make a principled case  for the position, rather they'll try to piggyback on the publicity generated by Dylann Roof's actions and maybe then it can get removed from the flagpole that way.

It is not critique immune.  On the contrary, in the absence of ANY evidence whatever tending to show that some positive assertion about reality is true (which for here, there is none), holding the assertion as possible, probable, or true is completely futile. 
 
You speak of "disproof".  There is not such requirement.  The onus of proof is on the one who claims the positive.  Far from immune to criticism, a positive assertion lacking any firm evidence becomes the target of criticism because it is an arbitrary statement of no cognitive value whatsoever. 
 
If I say to you there is a little invisible undetectable blue devil in another dimension making you think you are who you are but you are really a poached egg... well that statement is ridiculous, it's fantastic, it's unbelievable,  ... on what basis would I have to even claim such a thing?  None whatever.  What do you need to do in order to disclaim and ignore such an arbitrary statement that I have made?  Simply point out, there is NO evidence which supports my position, NO reason in reality for my saying it or claiming it to be true, and no reason for you to give it any weight. 
 
Why should one not try to disprove an arbitrary assertion for which there is no evidence?  Because if the arbitrary statement is a falsehood, it is a statement about a non-existent, until there is evidence of its existence there can be no appeal to reality to prove its non-existence.  There are no facts of reality that are a consequence of the non-existence of the blue devil... non-existents can have no consequences, and to search for such evidence would be misguided and unnecessary. 
 
You need not "undermine" such an assertion , nor "disprove" it.  You need only observe, that if you choose to be rational, any assertion which is truly arbitrary, i.e. lacking any evidence in reality tending to show its truth, you must completely ignore and dismiss it as cognitively invalid.