Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Dante, Jan 13, 2009.
There is nothing objectionable to me about the concept that "A Distinct Reality Exists Independent Of Perception."
Then what is your objection to Objectivism?
If they stopped there, there is none.
If they buy into the blather that Rand though was reality?
My objection is their complete lack of historical background that explain why things are as they are.
We start from a place where the world is unfair, and now they demand a system that they describe as fair, but which rewards those what has who in most cases got their advantages unfairly.
So...my grandfather left me a pile because he ripped off people.
NOW I want a completely fair system because that pile I have would mean in that "fair system" I can enjoy my pile without guilt.
In a nutshell, that is my complaint about most objectivist libertarians.
The refuse to acknowledge that history plays a huge part in the state of affairs we find ourselves in today.
You disagree with Objectivism, yet you find nothing objectionable about the above concept. Uh, okay.
I've heard about it but don't know much about it except that it hasn't apparently had much of an influence. Or am I totally wrong?
you'd get an argument from the followers because a few very influential people look like they may be Objectivists because they belong to Libertarian-like groups or belong or speak at the Federalist Society,..
but reality says the no limits Free Markets kooks and other nitwits who espoused Randian bs during the last few GOP admins and congresses, are in hiding for a while.
There is nothing wrong with believing that one or a few of the premises of a kook like Ayn Rand are valid without buying into the false conclusions of their theories.
in short, it isn't the concept above I disagree with, it is the shit attached to it that takes it from that concept into Randian Objectivist nitwitticism
Of course, but you didn't explain why your were so against Randian Objectivism. Perhaps you've since then explained yourself, but we can't read your mind.
Here's at least something to discuss:
So what part of this do you disagree with and why?
Separate names with a comma.