Rainer

BurgessLau, the epistemology to metaphysics shift: Just because you think it is so, does not necessarily mean it IS so. Just because societies vary in their UNDERSTANDINGS of morality does not necessarily mean that morality itself also varies. I used the terms metaphysically. I realize that "objective" is not best applied to metaphysical situations, but I do so for convenience. The Trendy Cynic, the quote neverborn wrote is what I responded to, and I responded accordingly. You proceeded to rip apart my response by moving outside of the quote neverborn provided. THAT is taking a person out of context, it is wrong. For argumentation and discussion in general: I would have done well to have asked neverborn to provide more specific, detailed information.

Back up even farther, slick....

The Trendy Cynic, did you even read what neverborn said? You just talked about your own experiences. Which is fine. But you quoted me out of context.

It is still a moral statement dictating what you ought or ought not do.... My point is that moral absolutism is inescapable. Even if a person claims that an action cannot logically occur, moral claims will continue to follow. However the hell the relativist means them Actually, I will respond later, gotta run right now...just writing to let you know I'm not forgetting.

Arguments for moral relativity take several forms. The one you present is culturally based. But, to start, adding to what the tortured one said. (the tortured one drops context a bit; the proper argument follows....) "Morals are relative, therefore everything our moral disagreement is permissible," is what the person said; its equivalent is: "Morals are relative, therefore you should not judge others based on your morality." However, saying that one should not judge others based on one's own morality IS a MORAL absolute. That is a self-contradiction. As for culturally based arguments, they always follow this structure: 1. "Iraqis do things this way; the Japanese do it that way..." 2. No two cultures share the SAME morality, they are all radically different from one another. 3. Therefore, morality is not universal, objective, or absolute. 4. Morality is relative to the culture...*self-contradictory statements follow* Look at numbers 2 & 3, note the illogical & illegal step from epistemology to metaphysics--the argument is horribly false.

Wittgenstein is one of the most respected philosophers of the 20th century. Many regard him as the best philosopher since Kant. One of my friends, David Egan, wrote a play called "The Fly-Bottle" about Ludwig and Bertrand and Karl at the Cambridge Moral Science club. We talked a great deal about Objectivism and of Wittgenstein. While Wittgenstein was very well the antithesis of Rand, there seemed to be some interesting parallels between the two--they held similar conclusions, though for very different reasons. Wittgenstein embraced the context of concepts--whereas Bertrand Russell failed in retaining any context. After Wittgenstein point this, among other facts, out Russell's own work seemed to slow considerably (score one!) Wittgenstein was in with the Ordinary Language school of thought--which advocated a brand of naive realism. I forgot the name of the work, but in it they (Ordinary Language people) used the "pencil in a glass of water" analogy to attest the accuracy of the senses. For Wittgenstein and like thinkers our senses were trustworthy. I'd draw more parallels, but I'm low on time, hopefully I can add later. For an Objectivist student, reading the Tractatus is not absolutely necessary. But if you really like philosophy, it is worth a read.

Hm.... I never thought colleges gave people grades for various "special" needs. I guess I'm fortunate, my classes don't really take attendence into account for grade. Just how well you do on tests and labs and papers--the grades on those are final and irreversible.

Skrewdriver...can't say I've heard of them. So I won't coment. And his line in the hotel room...forgot how it went...how the hippies really didn't think things through and set into motion their doom. From what I've gathered, he vehemently hated the beatniks as well--hippies were just another object of his disgust with the world. It was a pretty sweet (Napoleon Dynamite voice) moment of insight on his part.

ha! But here is the thing--he wrote about them. He never reccomend doing drugs or alcohol. I suppose you could say that he was glorifying drug use--but that is hard to say. Fear and Loathing is, in part, an idictment of guilt on part of the new left of the 60's druggie counterculture.

He loved the book--that's all. His own writing had a much different philosophical framework.

I don't think he promoted the mindless drug scene...unless you have a quote where he does so.

I enjoyed his writing--in several works he displayed some great ability. As for drugs and alcohol...and his 40+ years of his use of them...I am quite sure he knew where it would end. I think he wanted it that way. For him, it was just one way for him to individualize himself--he had a fear, from what I've read, of "merely existing." Meaning that he didn't want an office-bound career or a family. I think his psychological fallacy was in failing to recognize that having an office job and a family was not necessarily a loss of individuality--even on the grounds that "everyone else was doing it." The alcohol and drugs were all the rebellion against the "traditional" American lifestyle of the 20th century--predicated on, in Thompson's own words, "a lame [epsitemological-ethical] fuck-around."

I had a bit of a snit fit with QM to which Speicher saw...I regret that...I have a lot of respect for him. Harriman, is that the guy's name? The Objectivist physicist. The many-worlds interpretation has been linked to Berkeley--who was a God Damn Bishop. Anyways, the Copenhagen interpretation is the one that is the most messed up. It is only an interpretation. It is only a reflection of irrational epistemology and metaphysics. You can even trace the similarities between the interpretation and the epistemology from Popper and Kuhn and Lakatos and ultimately Kant. It is pretty interesting.

Yeah, I really liked the first chapter of the book. I'd love to write about irrational, scientific epistemology from an Objectivism-influenced viewpoint. But I have a feeling some one will beat me to it. Tom Rexton, have you ever heard of the bizzare statement: "Science is the new religion"? It is contradictory in a sense, but there really is a limited way of discussing the issue. I talked to a Darwinian in a debate once--ultimately we traced his ideas back to metaphysical materialism. That is dangerous. Materialists are just as mystical as the religious--the only difference is that the former claims to worship "science" that isn't really rational; the latter worships God. "Scientific materialism" and "scientism" also pop into mind. Essentially, they deny both deny reason, while at the same time claim to worship it. At least religious people are straight forward and honest when they say they worship something irrational--those freaks who ascribe to scientism are the opposite "rationally speaking, we don't have consciousness." I've had discussions on ethics, and one cannot say to such people that Objectivist ethics is a scientific explanation of ethics--because in their minds, "science" denies ethics. It can be frustrating because those people are everywhere. "Ethics doesn't exist--and even if it did, we could never know it because philosophy has no 'method' like science does. Only the 'scientific method' can give us objective knowledge of reality. We can't observe and test ethical theories."

Also, as an aside, I think one the greatest threats to reason is coming from scientific materialists. Kantians and Marxists are horrid, but I think that thousands of conceited 24 year olds have replaced God, not with society, but with the "scientific method."

From what I've seen, he is "anti-Darwinist" but I don't think he is against the theory of evolution. Darwinism, if it is to be taken as a philosophical doctrine, contradicts simple common sense observations about our own species. We are an exception to some of the generalizations of that theory. I don't think he has mentioned God in any of the articles he has written online. This is weird, talking about another philosopher here...maybe inappropriate. But anyways, I just wanted to point you guys in that direction. It is nice to see a philosopher who is for reason but is against materialism, and not with Objectivism. A rare breed.

Yes, you are right. I didn't think my post through when I wrote it. I was meaning to ask and kept forgetting, and when I remembered and when I was online I had to go right away. So I wrote in haste. From what I've seen, Stove is Aristotelian.

Very sorry, didn't realize I might have broken some rules. Remove the links if you wish.

Thanks, I gave it a couple more shots but it didn't take. (Amazing! Over 50 post views but no reply. Maybe this is just normal.)

I'm not a poetry aficionado. I prefer novels. But I am a pilot, and I love arrogance, and I think this poem gets it...at the very least it captures the imagery of flight. You've probably read it, but it deserves to be mentioned. "High Flight" by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew - And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Sorry if he has been discussed before, I was having trouble with the search feature. Has anyone else encountered D. C. Stove? From what I've read of his, he seems like a truly great philosopher. He didn't have a "philosophy" exactly, but he spent most of his time trying to destroy other philosophical doctrines. Anyways, I'm short on granting him my respect until I read into him a bit more. But I thought I'd say something about him on here. [MISCELLANEOUS FORUM, MODERATOR: With poster's permission, edited to remove links that possibly violate Forum Rules against posting primarily to advertise other sites, especially those contrary to the purpose of this forum.]

Aviators are arrogant individualists (generally speaking.) They have to be. I dunno how strict you are about only business-related material, but I'd recommend Bob Hoover's autobiography Forever Flying. On Amazon you can get a look inside the book. I was fortunate to meet him and got his autograph and he told me and a group of my friends his life story--basically a shorter version of the biography. He is a really smooth, elegant, daring, and independant man--the sort of man that some people try not to believe in. He wanted to fly, so he stuggled past some rugged airsickness and memorized eye charts to pass eye exams, among other things. Was assigned to a transport airplane, but he wanted to fly fighters--so he talked to a US Army general and got an assignment from the general to fly fighters. He shot down a lot of enemy airplanes. Was a POW, escaped from the Nazi prison camp, stole a Nazi aircraft and flew it out of Germany.... All kinds of stories. I even talked to some of his friends and heard a lot of stories about him that aren't in the biography. Just standing next to the guy was inspiring. His ultimate message was that people can get anything they want, if they are commited entirely to what they want and who they are--he wanted to fly fighter airplanes, so he did, even when he was in the worst possible position to do so.

You can only *really* say that if the burrito had been from Qdoba. But fine. OPAR is an beautiful, elegant work that does well to bring the full Objectivist system into perspective within a single volume--a grand & splendiferous achievement that I'm sure the (metaphorical) Gods smile upon.

Well, I guess I use understatement naturally. But don't get the impression that I thought it was a not-so-good book. It was good. Really, really fucking good. How's that?

Thanks, Bryan. Bowzer, why do you say that? Did you not like OPAR? Did you think it was bad?