cliveandrews Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I've been fascinated with Greenspan recently and have been trying to come up with an explanation for his actions as the Fed chairman. One interesting train of thought is that he never really departed from Objectivism, and that he intentionally accelerated the destruction of the mixed economy with the goal of destroying altruism. Is this a possible explanation for the course Greenspan took in life, or do you think it's silly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I've been fascinated with Greenspan recently and have been trying to come up with an explanation for his actions as the Fed chairman. One interesting train of thought is that he never really departed from Objectivism, and that he intentionally accelerated the destruction of the mixed economy with the goal of destroying altruism. Is this a possible explanation for the course Greenspan took in life, or do you think it's silly? I did a search for Greenspan earlier today. There is a lot of discussion here about your exact question. This one comes to mind: Is Greenspan really Francisco D'Anconia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippa1 Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I've raised this question before on this forum, to much ridicule (and admittedly well deserved). Is Greenspan John Galt or is he Francisco D'Anconia? Rand may have provided a clue to the answer, in the final line of one of her most important essays, Egalitarianism and Inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockefeller Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) Objectivist Conspiracy Theories! (pun and ridicule intended) Edited October 18, 2009 by Rockefeller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 No, Greenspan is simply a (self-described) pragmatist who once believed "philosophically" in laissez-faire, but only on the "higher philosophical level," ie., totally divorced from one's actions, which means he is a Keynesian coward that hides behind his philosophical labels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliveandrews Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Objectivist Conspiracy Theories! (pun and ridicule intended) What's wrong with conspiracy theories? Do consipiracies only occur in movies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 What's wrong with conspiracy theories? Do consipiracies only occur in movies? Conspiracies happen all the time. But here's something that only happens in movies: someone formulating a theory that guesses the details of a complex plot, based on no evidence whatsoever. Those are your usual conspiracy theories, and what's wrong with them is that they are the result of fantasy, not reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockefeller Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 What's wrong with conspiracy theories? Do consipiracies only occur in movies? Validity of a conspiracy theory depends on whether or not it is based on conclusive evidence. A "train of thought" becomes rationalism as soon as it departs the station of reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wynnbrando Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Extremely silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Conspiracies happen all the time. But here's something that only happens in movies: someone formulating a theory that guesses the details of a complex plot, based on no evidence whatsoever. Those are your usual conspiracy theories, and what's wrong with them is that they are the result of fantasy, not reason. That's right and that's what I love about Objectivism. You validate a position by the evidence and logic, which includes banging out contradictions, hierarchy of knowledge and context. Random bits of knowledge can easily be built into virtually any position you like, which is why there are so many wild conspiracy theories out there that people believe. The cure for that problem is to realize that you have to integrate all of your knowledge, and you have to have enough information on a subject to reach a valid conclusion. It's very much like puzzle building when you don't know the picture that is on the outside of the box. Eventually you will be able to make out what the picture is, but you need to put a lot of the pieces together logically (correctly) for that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.