Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hello, Not An Objectivist.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You can't reject metaphysics completely.  It means in one sense, philosophy as such. 

I think Geist is referring to "metaphysics" as the term is commonly understood - not the technical, Objectivist definition. Go into a "metaphysical bookstore" sometime and you'll see what I mean.

On a similar note, go to a "pagan" gathering sometime.

Brush up on your newspeak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Geist is referring to "metaphysics" as the term is commonly understood - not the technical, Objectivist definition. Go into a "metaphysical bookstore" sometime and you'll see what I mean.

On a similar note, go to a "pagan" gathering sometime.

Brush up on your newspeak.

By Geist, I take you to mean a Universal Spirit that manipulates human history. What is a metaphysical bookstore? What is a Pagan and where do they gather; do they meet in Toronto? What is newspeak and white size brush is best to use?

Americo.

P.S. The humor is just playfulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I would not be considered a Marxist by any Marxist I know, I am more of a populist supporting people like Chavez and Castro than supporting the idea of some Trotskyist or Leninist revolution..

That's like saying, "I would not be considered a Nazi by any Nazi I know, I am more...like Mussolini or Tojo than ....Hitler."

Gee, we're impressed.

(These days since Marxism/communism has been so thoroughly discredited and its apologists can no longer defend it, all of sudden they are no longer "really" Marxists or "really" communists. Now they support something else - usually some cockamamie notion of "worker democracy" - which has never existed and can never exist and which is merely one more of a long line of leftist subterfuges to mask their true intentions - which is to get us to bloody dictatorship.)

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't reject metaphysics completely.  It means in one sense, philosophy as such.  And it means the most fundamental branch of philosophy, the one about the fundamental nature of the universe.  Do you believe in one realm or two realms?  The answer is your metaphysics.

Social metaphysics, means that people's opinions, not the nature of the objects outside your consciousness in relation to the nature of human consciousness, govern your convictions.  An objectivist does not want to accept anyone's theory without seeing it for himself with his own eyes.

How is this possible? Well you need a certain theory of metaphysics and epistemology.  That's much work.  The tools of production won't help you.

Americo.

Thanks, this post cleared up some things for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not a Marxist, you just support people who are Marxist.

Castro and Chavez are progressive, populist leftist, in fact Chavez has stated that he dosent want to go ahead with communism but hey you wouldnt havnt have heard that on Fox News, hell you wouldnt even find out for yourself what is going on in Venezuala.

What a load of rubbish.

I read that post. You think that, because there aren't many Objectivists and there are many commies, that Objectivism is wrong.

No, I think that the strength of objectivism's ideas are weaker in convincing people than Marxism, not that either was better but that Marxism has more support.

Metaphysics is the study of existence. You cannot reject it.

Straw man. Rationality is not infallibility.

As objecitvisits you essentially oppose every metaphysicist that has ever existed, metaphysics at it's bare, basic Aristotle just made this word up is the study of existence, beyond physics yada yada yada but basically has come to stand for idealism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anybody that doesn't know what that means. It means a breathtaking and spellbinding ability to evade catastropohic mountains of evidence of communist failure and death, and still, incredibly, like Forrest Gump gakked on acid, support the ideas and intentions that made that nightmare possible.

What?

Marxian is a term used by postmodern theoriests like Adoro, Debord etc. who reject completely communism but realise the usefulness of concepts put forward by Marx such as alienation, concepts used by all kinds of philosophers.

You see the word Marx and you jump to conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Geist is referring to "metaphysics" as the term is commonly understood - not the technical, Objectivist definition. Go into a "metaphysical bookstore" sometime and you'll see what I mean.

On a similar note, go to a "pagan" gathering sometime.

Brush up on your newspeak.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Geist (whose commie droolings are on at least three commie sites) means it technically. All of it is the same to him on Humian grounds. He'd throw the whole of Objectivist metaphysics in the pile as well.

I've left Che-Lives and E-G, gave up my modship on the world's largest leftist site yet still people bullshit about me being a Marxist all day long. Well only here really as the others sites have coped on. What is the third site by the way? You just make that number up? At least 3? I doubt there are more than four good commie sites online.

My 'metaphysics' differ in that they have departed from the modernist style of metaphysics which means I have little time for the 'old', so yes you I probably would lump it in there.

Now can we keep the Ad Hominem's out of this thread or is that the only mean's of attack you can muster up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Castro and Chavez are progressive, populist leftist, in fact Chavez has stated that he dosent want to go ahead with communism but hey you wouldnt havnt have heard that on Fox News, hell you wouldnt even find out for yourself what is going on in Venezuala.

Castro is a communist dictator. As for Chavez, well I don't get Fox news anyway as I live in Britain.

As for progressive, Castro is not. He is a marxist dictator. He was supported by the Soviet Union for decades. To pretend that he is progressive in any meaningful sense is dishonest evasion on your part.

No, I think that the strength of objectivism's ideas are weaker in convincing people than Marxism, not that either was better but that Marxism has more support.
Marxism appeal is demagogic in nature. It is a system of looting rationalized as helping the poor.

As objecitvisits you essentially oppose every metaphysicist that has ever existed, metaphysics at it's bare, basic Aristotle just made this word up is the study of existence, beyond physics yada yada yada but basically has come to stand for idealism.

This is gibberish.

Marxian is a term used by postmodern theoriests like Adoro, Debord etc. who reject completely communism but realise the usefulness of concepts put forward by Marx such as alienation, concepts used by all kinds of philosophers.

You see the word Marx and you jump to conclusions.

Marxian is an excuse to be in favour of the cause but not in favour of the effect. Von Mises used the term 'Marxian' more than half a century ago and he did not mean it the way you have been using the term. Marxian and Marxist are interchangeable and your stated views are proof of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chavez is the president of Venezuala who has twice survived attempts by U.S. backed counter -revolutions to remove him from office.

Chavez is an anti-American who has forged close links with the Marxist dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro.

Castro abandoned the communist system, it is a socialist system and it suits the island. I'm not for pushing this on the U.S. or Europe, we suit capitalism, that's great but the U.S. has no right to dictate what the Cuban people should live like.
This is relativist drivel. Socialism suits nobody. First of all, Communism is a form of socialism. Secondly, the Russians knew this and that is why the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics backed Castro so strongly. Thirdly, Socialism makes economic calculation impossible and must result in chaos. Fourth, Socialism is dictatorial in all it's forms such as National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. Fifth, it is Castro who dictates that the Cuban people should live in dire poverty. Sixth, Castro's socialism represents an economic embargo placed on his own people. This is the same with all forms of Socialism. The same embargo was placed on the Ukraine in the 1930's and millions starved in a country fertile enough to feed the entire world.

And where is the Capitalism in Europe anyway?

I have never been able to convince anybody who is a capitalist of the good in Cuba so I won't bother.

That is because it is a leftist lie.

Progressive is being a third world country and having one of the best healthcare and educational system's in the world.
More leftist trolling. Cuban healthcare is free and well worth the price paid for it. The education system is an indoctrination in Marxist pig ignorance (a tautology, I know). Even if it were as good as it is made out, Castro controls who gets what employment.

I don't give a fuck what you people think of Cuba because you don't care about Cuba.

You certainly don't care about the fate of the Cuban people. You support the marxist dictatorship which crushes them.

What are you telling me for? I am not interested other than a few concepts I find interesting for explaining the negative aspects of capitalism.
Negative aspects? Such as what?

Get a counter-argument and I might give two fucks what you think.

No counter-argument is required to refute gibberish. And the bit I quoted was indeed gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Well I would not be considered a Marxist by any Marxist I know, I am more of a populist supporting people like Chavez and Castro than supporting the idea of some Trotskyist or Leninist revolution.

Social metaphysics? What the feck does that even mean? I reject metaphysics completely, I am a humanist, explain how you came to that view.

I am rational and irrational at times, in that I am human, I make errors.

Social Metaphysics, I think means that you believe that what is necessary to existence is determined by society and not reality. Or, that you believe society is the ruling party in morality. An objectivist's metaphysics is an objective reality. Yours would be society.

Humans make errors, but not in rationality. They make errors in knowledge, but not in morality. At least, the proper kind of person does. You are not likely to get very far on these boards by rationalizing the fact that you are irrational.

Consequently, call yourself whatever you like, but Marxists, Socialists, Facists, etc. all come from irrationality. Also, please refrain from the use of profanities (even incorrectly spelt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...