Mnrchst Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn036.pdf Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Sounds like someone who desires to get by on the minimum necessary virtuous aspirations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Ravid Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) This is not a critique. It doesn't even seem to apply to any fundamental aspect of the philosophy (or any aspect at all), it merely deals with . . . well, words. It is closer to a detached from reality set of pans.The writer seems to completely misunderstand Rand's wording, and he uses that as a virtue. "One plus one makes two." "Well, there are LOTS of gaps in your very argument. One what? Does one plus one always make two? Does one isotope plus one static public class make a pair of male common unicorns? And why use the odd term 'make?' Is this some kind of an all-powerful creator that brings numbers into existence? And why not simply say: two times one makes two? Jeez, I'm suchah genius." He should seriously work on his conceptual faculty. Furthermore, in my judgment, he may have a discussion with an actual, confident, knowledgeable, living Objectivist who will show him what worth his 'arguments' are of in practice. Edited October 3, 2011 by Tomer Ravid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Some notes while I read: A primary is not subject to analysis. A value is not a primary because it can be analyzed into the actor and the object of the action. It is a relationship and all relationships require at least two things participating in it. Group selection is deprecated in evolutionary theory. RE: Reproduction vs. survival of the individual are two sides of the same coin. See thread "Biological Basis Of Teleological Concepts" for some discussion. He misused the term 'elision'. He meant omission. Anyway, he is wrong because that is the the move from 'is' to 'ought'. Some thought is required, more is better, in principle it ought to be done as much as possible, as well done as possible. For the rest of essay he can't get over the is-ought gap. Thinking in principle is foreign to him, it seems weird to him, he grapples with the obstacle by calling Rand a moral physician. dream_weaver 1 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.