Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Axiomatic

Regulars
  • Posts

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Axiomatic

  1. This looks very interesting and promising.
  2. He is a spineless scumbag libertard with no consistent philosophy you mean? Yes, I agree.
  3. OK, if this is merely an argument over usage of the term 'honesty', then I will drop that term and use 'consistent' in its place. Consistency however is not the meat of my argument, the meat of my argument is the acceptance of the implications of accepting a notion in one philosophical category and being true to its consequences higher up in the philosophical heir-achy. If one can see and understand this, one already has an adequate understanding of the power of ideas and how they shape every aspect of ones life and how we interact with the world.
  4. It is not useless. What is useless is your attempt to belittle my correct observation and identification.
  5. How so? I certainly think that outright socialism is more consistent with altruism than a mixed economy based upon mixed premises.
  6. Furthermore O'ism has a better chance of reaching people of the Left as it provides an honest and consistent connection between ethics and politics, not to mention that it is supportive of the rejection of irrational metaphysical positions.
  7. Agreed, but you are missing the point. Intellectual honesty in the context I am stating is the recognition of the connection between political theory and ethics. Those who divorce ethics from political theory are of course more intellectually dishonest as they knowingly evade the truth of their ethics and the implications in political application. I am not going to repeat myself again as you are the one now splitting hairs when I have made myself abundantly clear.
  8. I did not once state that the political philosophy of socialism was consistent (with reality) or intellectually honest (as a political philosophy in relation to reality). I am saying that socialists are intellectually honest in the strict sense that they connect their ethics to their political philosophy in a consistent manner. Read my answer above.
  9. Yes it is, but you are taking it outside the strict context which I outilined. I made no such assertion. Read my arguments again. You are dropping the strict context in which I employ the concept of intellectual honesty I have not specified 'committed' socialists as a target audience. I agree that socialism is built upon evasion but it is consistent in its deriving from its ethics a full political philosophy, that no doubt needs to be refuted directly.
  10. Yes, I mean altruism. I am asserting that the religious right accept the notion of God in their metaphysics and that Libertarianism is agnostic on the issue and leaves the door open for any metaphysical position, including UFO's and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am asserting that the politics of individual rights and freedom is not at all compatible with altruistic ethical positions and religious metaphysical positions. As such I am stating that those who attempt to support freedom on that basis are intellectually dishonest in the wikipedia definition of the term you have cited I am not splitting hairs, where did I make any such broad generalisations about psychoepistomologies? I am stating, as a matter of fact, that socialists do not disconnect their ethics from their political views and as such they are more intellectually honest and consistent. People who wear the clothes and speak the rhetoric of freedom whilst holding altruistic ethics and metaphysical positions that are not consistent with reality however, are not intellectually honest in the manner I have stated. This invariably includes the religious Right and can also include Libertarians, who as is well known, have no consistent philosophical basis. No, I am outlining the difference between specific audiences and which would be most receptive to a philosophy which is intellectually consistent in morality, metaphysics, epistemology and politics. You however have just made a giant bit of rationalism by broadly generalizing about the epistemology of socialists. The Target Audience should be whoever will be most receptive, but from which platform one stands dictates which kind of typical audience you are speaking too. For example, if I were to go and speak at a particular venue, say a KKK rally to choose an extreme context, then that audience is a subset of 'the whole world, but it is certainly not an audience that would be receptive to my message. Not only this but in speaking at that Klan rally I am implicitly saying that the Klan and the Klan host of the event are worthwhile people to have a discussion with. If I then proceed to agree with Klan members on political points, such as their position on wanting less government, then this is even worse. Now, I did not bring up Fox News here and that can of worms is already open in existing thread, so take your argument over there.
  11. Does anyone actually have a valid objection to my original post?
  12. I agree to some extent that there are those on the 'right' that are only members of that group for sense of life reasons, but that is about as far as it goes. I also think these people are not anywhere near the majority that make up the conservative right.
  13. This whole post of yours is what is completely out of context.
  14. Do you consider philosophical precedent to be anecdotal? If that is your method of discrediting my assertions than I consider you to be just as intellectually dishonest as the conservative right from which you were spawned.
  15. To further clarity, I put this post in this section of 'Political philosophy' to debate the relevant principles involved, and as such I ask that it remain on that topic no matter how others might try to derail the discussion.
  16. You are obscuring the issue by presenting an Objectivist and anti-Objectivist dichotomy in political views . The fact is that Libertards and Republicans have similar political goals 'on the surface', but do not really support such Liberties or a rational way to make them possible in reality. Therefore any agreement on those political issues with such persons give credence to those who are the worst enemies of freedom. You know exactly which examples I refer too. There is already a thread on that particular issue that I will add to at a later date when I have the appropriate emailed response.
  17. Sitting down with such peoples to a discussion and agreeing on political issues, obviously.
  18. To make it more clear, which statement do you think is more intellectually honest: "Let them have fun for a while and then eventually we will get around to sacrificing them" OR "We must sacrifice them right away because it is the right thing to do on ethical grounds" ??? Edit: I think I just summed up the the left/right dichotomy in the U.S right there.
  19. Notice that I said 'philosophically' more intellectually honest. As in, the fundamental philosophy connects ethics to politics, rather than divorcing them from each other. This post after all, in context is about the target audience.
  20. This is a subject that I have been mulling over for a while now and have come to a few conclusions I thought I would share here. A bit of background information first. I was once a socialist. The reason for my being a socialist was that it was the only political view that was compatible with the existing philosophy that I held in metaphysics and and the dominant ethics of this age. I think that is why young people generally get involved with socialism and socialist activism. Republicanism and Libertarianism are intellectually dishonest doctrines as they both implicitly accept altruism as the fundamental ethics. Socialism on the other hand accepts into a complete political framework the dominant ethics of our age and builds a system not only based upon those ethical principles but allows for and supports the outright rejection of the supernatural. Now onto Target Audiences. I think that young socialists are more intellectually honest and this is why they would be a more receptive audience to the overall philosophy of Objectvism. I have come to the conclusion that Republicans and Libertarians are the worst enemy as they corrupt and pervert the cause of Liberty by wearing the political clothes of Freedom and espousing the rhetoric of small government and individual rights. We have John Locke to thank for the this in the US. "The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure." - John Locke The Republicans and the Libertards are wolves in sheep's clothing carrying the ethics of altruism, allowing for the metaphysics and epistemology of religion whilst wearing the clothes of supposed Liberty. As such O'ists should guard against this worst of enemies and target as a valid audience of their views the left which by philosophical standards are at least more intellectually honest and semi-rational people. This collaboration and agreement on political issues with the religious right and the libertarians that I see in the media and also within O'ist circles is disturbing and undermines the course of our future, by giving an unearned legitimacy to the irrational Right and the Libertarians and this is exactly what they are seeking and hoping for at this time. This is just a warning, I hope it will be received well.
×
×
  • Create New...