BlazingTruth.com

Productivity
1

Hey all,

I’ve started a philosophy blog located at http://blazingtruth.com

The purpose is to spread awareness of Objectivist philosophy, in particular its moral principles and ethics; to blaze the path to truth through rational thought. The content on the website may not be much of an eye-opener to “seasoned” Objectivists, but I try to write with an intended audience of readers who are unfamiliar with Objectivism and philosophy in general. I discuss ideas as they are presented, and try not to put too many labels on them (except when dispelling them), so as to avoid polarizing my potential readership. I take on and debunk popular mantras such as “I think, therefore I am” and “Ignorance is bliss” to raise the consciousness of individuals when they hear those phrases. I also provide personal anecdotes of my life to demonstrate how philosophy is crucial. This is my first time seriously blogging and writing, and my first time hosting a website – I know I have plenty to learn. So, if you could take the time and provide constructive criticism on the content and layout, I would love to hear it and grow from this opportunity. At my age, this is my way of contributing to my own personal knowledge and growth.

Thank you for your time and patience,

David

2

Good luck with your project, but don’t expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence.

Elsewhere, I’ve heard the type called “Objectionists.”

1 Like
3

I like the look of your blog, dmastt. I read two of the blog posts, and I thought they were nicely done. Sometimes, keeping it simple is very important when it comes to understanding something on your own. Your posts do that. Heavier on personal examples may make it more interesting to read for people who are quite familiar with all the content. When it comes to discussing ideas of existing authors, your own personal experience or examples keeps things interesting. I haven’t read all the posts or really analyzed what you wrote in-depth, but of the two I did read, you definitely have the right idea on how to keep relatively simply material worth taking a few minutes to read. One criticism, though, is that being structured as a *blog* might not be the most efficient given the length of what you write. It’s somewhere between forum thread and blog post.

As for layout, the facebook/twitter/etc buttons along with the login are a bit distracting where they are. I’d find it better if those were on the bottom of that section. I like the tabs that show up when I hover my mouse over the icons on the bottom left side.

You might not have noticed, but the banner shows a small strip of white. Not a big deal, yeah, but the most miniscule attention to detail always makes a difference.

4

I really like the content on your blog. Particularly, I think the personal aspects of your posts are very engaging. As for the layout, I don’t like the fact that the content is restricted to this iPad-looking window inside the webpage rather than simply going from top to bottom. Less content fits on the screen and the reader has to scroll more often. However, others seem to like the look, so take that as you will.

5

Dmastt, I like your blog! The design is different and interesting. I will keep it in mind and check it for content in the future.

Good luck with your project, but don’t expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence.

Elsewhere, I’ve heard the type called “Objectionists.”

Consider the fact that you have been proven wrong already in this thread.

Consider, perhaps, that people that give respect get respect. You make a regular habit out of insulting the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivists. Cynicism, ridicule, and sarcasm seem to be a highlight of your activity here. When you post things like this on your profile, clearly suggesting that we make up excuses to justify whatever actions we feel like, “brb, gone to snort coke off an enslaved sexworkers ass. all within the proper context of course.” that is not something that gives you positive attention, nor should you expect it.

Consider, perhaps, that people are likely to react better and be more supportive of an Objectivist-centric blog that posts actual content, rather than simply posting pictures with little quotes under them, essentially making it a website full of nothing but motivational posters of which there are billions and contribute little to nothing to the advancement of Objectivism or the knowledge of it. Show us something praiseworthy and we will “praise it.”

Maybe the judgement goes one way in your mind because the negativity is directed at you because you deserve it for being such a tool.

4 Likes
6

To divert from what could be a flame war:

I haven’t read anything there yet, but the design of the blog is cool. Did you use a specific software or are you just good at HTML and all?

7

Cool website! I would also like to know the answer to TheEgoist’s question.

8

Dmastt, I like your blog! The design is different and interesting. I will keep it in mind and check it for content in the future.

Consider the fact that you have been proven wrong already in this thread.

Consider, perhaps, that people that give respect get respect. You make a regular habit out of insulting the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivists. Cynicism, ridicule, and sarcasm seem to be a highlight of your activity here. When you post things like this on your profile, clearly suggesting that we make up excuses to justify whatever actions we feel like, “brb, gone to snort coke off an enslaved sexworkers ass. all within the proper context of course.” that is not something that gives you positive attention, nor should you expect it.

Consider, perhaps, that people are likely to react better and be more supportive of an Objectivist-centric blog that posts actual content, rather than simply posting pictures with little quotes under them, essentially making it a website full of nothing but motivational posters of which there are billions and contribute little to nothing to the advancement of Objectivism or the knowledge of it. Show us something praiseworthy and we will “praise it.”

Maybe the judgement goes one way in your mind because the negativity is directed at you because you deserve it for being such a tool.

Its likely getting posts because of what I said :slight_smile: thats why i waited a full day before saying thing about it. If i hadn’t said anything, would people still be commenting? Who knows, there is no way to objectively test that hypothesis now, but i doubt it, just based on the statistical probability, referenced from the number of responses to ANY thread in this section.

I really don’t know who you are, but you are very assumptive. It is a cognitive bias that Objectivists are prone to.

And its fine, if you don’t like my work, (God forbid anyone makes a website that JUST praises the good; to be a real Objectivist website it has condemn, criticize, and complain. lol) but I know for a fact that many do. My posts do get a lot of positive comments, on other forums, and hundreds of views per day. Its just this board that has a negative atmosphere…

Oh, well. I will keep posting my work and those who find it valuable will continue to look at it. Detractors and nay-sayers are less than nothing to me.

10

Good luck with your project, but don’t expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence.

Elsewhere, I’ve heard the type called “Objectionists.”

I apologize for this post. It was made out of anger at a non-related issue. The reasoning used is fallacious, guilty of hasty generalization.

1 Like
11

you are very assumptive. It is a cognitive bias that Objectivists are prone to.

Here we go again…

And I am unsure how you don’t know who she is, she has been in the chatroom with you plenty of times.

“to be a real Objectivist website it has condemn, criticize, and complain.”

This is not what she said, not even close.

Its just this board that has a negative atmosphere…

This thread seems to be pretty positive with the exception of the conversations with you. As was mentioned before, perhaps there is a connection, and the forum which has numerous people of different backgrounds who may or may not know you is not the problem.

Detractors and nay-sayers are less than nothing to me.

They seem to stir up a lot of emotion and attention from you if that is the case.

For now, I personally am going to assume (yes there we Objectivists go again, we just can’t stop ourselves!) that your apology is more to save face than anything, and is not very sincere. A post will not convince me (I am not, of course, suggesting that you care at all) in this instance, your general behavior towards people on this website from this point forward will.

1 Like
13

@WeDontNeedGod, I will most-definitely be adding a link to your blog from mine. Thank you for your input, and I do readily think that we could be valuable assets for the growth of each other’s websites.

Thank you! I will link to you as well :slight_smile:

15

Posted a new entry on Immanuel Kant and his Categorical Imperative, step right up to see the Kantian circus for yourself!

http://www.blazingtruth.com/?p=191

Have you read the Critique of Practical Reason? It’s much easier reading than the Critique of Pure Reason. While there’s plenty to object to in Kant’s ethics, the moral maxims you’ve taken from the Groundwork aren’t really the problem. They’re just a kind of restatement of the Golden Rule, also found (with better prose) in Confucius, Rabbi Hillel, and Jesus. It’s a call for principled morality, as opposed to the one rule for the King, another for the Aristocrats, and another for the Lumpen situation you had under, say, the casuist Jesuits of Louis XIV. Objectivism calls for principled moral thinking as well, it’s just that the guiding principles are so different. Derived rationally, while Kant ultimately rests it all on God. You move on to mocking other aspects of Kant’s ideas, but they don’t follow necessarily from the maxims, then the cartoon of Kant at the bottom is simply juvenile. Plus you roll out what must be my least favorite Peikoff quote. No, I’m being too nice: those may be the two most stupid sentences I’ve ever read.

EDIT: Ayn Rand didn’t write this, but I think she could have: Act on the non-initiation of force principle yourself, if you intend it to be a principle others act on in their dealings with you. Is this inconsistent with Kant’s maxims?

17

I have not read Critique on Practical Reason. However, because Kant calls for principled moral thinking does not vindicate him from any irrationality.

My purpose isn’t to vindicate Kant, it’s to communicate to you that your piece isn’t any good. You don’t build a logical argument. You hold up one of the best things Kant wrote to juvenile mockery on grounds that have nothing to do with the content of what you’re quoting. Why not quote material that backs up what you want to criticize?

After all, principled moral thinking isn’t hard to come by, look no further than the Ten Commandments.

I would say the Ten Commandments are anything but principled, in the sense of being universal moral maxims. Consider the context, immediately after being commanded Thou Shalt Not Kill, what are we told happened? The Jews loyal to Moses kill everyone who had worshiped the golden calf. Fast forward to the book of Joshua and you read a chronicle of genocide. The commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill should read: Thou Shalt Not Kill Other Jews. But no, for if a Jewish woman is found, on her wedding night, to not be a virgin, she’s to be stoned. There are plenty of other examples, a favorite is that if another Jew suggests you go check out a nearby pagan feast, you are commanded to kill him instantly. My main point, though, is that this is a tribal morality, giving free rein to the chosen people to murder or enslave other groups.

You are right, the ideas of which I spoke do not follow necessarily from his maxims – they are primary to them.

Primary? I contend that they are not even necessarily derivative from them. And I rephrased an Objectivist principle so that it sounded like it was derived from them.

Kant’s metaphysics is simply atrocious.

Huh? We’re talking ethics. I suggest you read this:

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/

And I suggest being very careful critiquing Kant. In my experience Rand fans itch to denounce him, but don’t understand, and typically misrepresent him. It’s long been a stumbling block to respectability for Objectivism.

18

I suggest you read this:

Thanks for the link, I’ve been looking for the text of that.

19

Thanks for the link, I’ve been looking for the text of that.

Sure thing. It jibes with all the first hand reading of Kant that I’ve managed, anyone who’s tried knows that he’s very tough going. George Walsh was participant “F” in the epistemology workshops printed in the expanded edition of ITOE (e.g. Leonard Peikoff was “E”) and took part in TJS etc. before the Kelley split. I have it on good authority that Peikoff once publicly praised him with the words: on the subject of religious history, Walsh is “omniscient”.

You are right, the ideas of which I spoke do not follow necessarily from his maxims – they are primary to them.

I think I misunderstood this sentence earlier, I see that you’re evoking hierarchy. I still disagree, but I’d have to know what you think Kant’s metaphysics consists of to discuss it further.

22

From there, he seemed to say that we need to accept faith in some respects in order to make up for this. Perhaps he’s right in the context of his writing and was using words in ways which I wasn’t familiar.

I suggest you also look up Fred Seddon’s article on faith in Kant. Just google “Seddon Kant faith” and it’ll come up. He claims that the line “deny knowledge to make room for faith” is mistranslated, which my German-English dictionary (Cassel’s) doesn’t entirely agree with, it lists faith as one of the English equivalents for the word Kant uses.

Kant had censorship issues following the death of Frederick the Great, who was replaced by the 18th century equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian crusader, I’ve long been interested in whether Kant changed his tune to be something more pleasing to the devil’s ear. Remember that this was the era of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Helvetius being hounded by the authorities in France, facing book burnings, fines and exile.

It’s worth remembering that Kant’s goal was to defend Newton from the skepticism of Hume. I can’t help thinking that he succeeded primarily by means of giving all subsequent philosophers massive headaches.

24

In all seriousness, to the best of my understanding Kant did use the word “God”, did he not?

In the 2nd preface to the Critique of Pure Reason? No, at least not the line “limit knowledge to make room for faith”, it doesn’t say God. He wrote about God and religion of course, and probably was a Deist, so he wasn’t very different from Paine, Jefferson, or Franklin. You couldn’t openly be an atheist in his time and place, that meant unemployment.