My my! You do sound lie an effete and condescending person! Are all of you "Soft" scientists that belligerent and arrogant and making judgements on so little empirical data?

Since you seem to be the expert on "Idealism" and who is and who is not an idealist by some measure that only you "guardians" of knowledge seem to control, perhaps you can tell me more about my "humble" and totally uneducated self?!

I love having people who like to feel superior rail at everyone who does not subscribe to their obviously successful "indoctrination". How much did that indoctrination cost you or your parents?

I also strongly suggest that you be a little more humble and introspective when trying to lecture to people about something that when you think about it, has no right or wrong answer to it!

You do understand don't you that philosophy is not something that lends itself well to testing one's rhetoric unless the debate ground rules have be carefully defined and understood by all.

Your "shoot from the hip" sophistry relating to my understanding of the word "idealism" and my usage being false is almost laughable coming from someone who fancies themselves as being so "enlightened".

After all, wasn't it you "soft" science types that gave the world the idiocy of "Political Correctness"? Look at how that has turned out!!

If you understand what the word "idealism" means in philosophy then you realize that your statement is false. Let me know how you decide what is "real" and what is "ideal" in your epistemology.

Schrodinger's cat

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013...

I have friends who are not Objectivists and I know that there will be places where out friendship is limited and know that most people given the opportunity will not rob an individual and almost all who are given the opportunity will loot through the process known as 'law'.

Since you did not "misread" my words, I have to ask which ivory tower do you live in? Since perfection only exists in theory (and academia), I suspect that is where your thoughts lie. I for one choose to deal from reality tempered with idealism however I will not let the theoretical rule my life. Your judgemental style is "interesting" if not realistic...

I did not misread your words and I have no clue as to your thoughts if they are not your words: post-truth divorces words and thoughts: not recommended for negotiations. where people tend to rely on words.

You misread my thoughts on this issue. I was merely stating an "unfortunate" paradox. Purity for purity's sake is all well and good if you do not care about attaining your goals and Truths, whatever they may be.

Unfortunately, we do not live in that "perfect" world whereas we can be purists and still attain the Truths that we believe are immutable. Compromise and negotiations on some issues may be the only viable way of attaining our Truths and goals.

I agree with you about science, because it is the study of the world external to ourselves. No two different answers can both be correct.
In philosophy we are dealing with morals and values which are all internal to our minds. The marxists and keynsians believe they are correct just as strongly as we do.
In my opinion, the polarizing stance that others have to agree 100% or else they are the enemy does not serve any purpose except isolation.

I have good friends who are certainly not Objectivists. I can't say that I would marry somebody who did not accept Objectivist principles, but the requirements are not the same for a friend. And somebody who externally believes some false doctrines will not necessarily carry them to their ultimate conclusion. (Also, not everybody who claims to
be an Objectivist really is one).
.

Being a gun owner is about being an individual. Every gun owner has firearms that is different as the next and we have have strong opinions regarding them. Even at the range some are firing 45 and higher calibers, and myself firing my Ruger Mark lll with a 2# trigger sending 10 22ca. rounds into a target in a matter of a few seconds. Then the competition erupts.

That seems a pretty practical way of operating. I
think that where one may differ philosophically, it
is sometimes all right to form at least a temporary
alliance politically; for instance, although I oppose religion
philosophically, I believe that Catholic hospitals, being private, have the right to refuse to pre-
scribe birth control pills or abortions. It's their
hospital.--And if they are not allowed property rights, who's next?

What is Marism?

Hardly anyone uses explicit rules of thought and humans have been quite successful though might be much more successful should they all be educated in methods of thinking.

Most thought is done at the subconscious level and most people do not monitor the results of that thought. The brain will just use whatever premises happen to be accepted by the thinker and automatically use logical mental processes to produce conscious thoughts. The process of checking premises is what is missing in most people but if the thinking is not too far from rational, then humans can thrive due to, possibly, riding the shirt sleeves of those who are better at thinking. They may not be successful in happiness but will continue their lives. It all depends on what is considered successful. Humans have been most successful in reproduction which takes little rules of thought.

Forgetting they are enemies can and often does lead t disaster.

We see this more on the left side. Progressives, communists, marxist, every tyrant and fascist, racist, muslim and if we dig far enough, I am sure there are some cannibals in the mix too!..all gathered against reason, reality and consciousness.

It was speculated, wondered about, as to what would happen if any of these idiots won the day...the answer of course...the war would continue because as you say...they are not friends.

And sometimes what appears to be the right answer again leads one down the wrong path. Sometimes, at least in theoretical science, there are more than one path to go which each satisfies the data but years or decades later turn out to be the same theory after new mathematical connections are developed. Correct answers in many cases need to be modified later. In most cases of measurement close is good enough, so one sets acceptable tolerances for answers. If you mean that nature in no case under the same state will give different outcomes, notwithstanding quantum physics which has inserted probabilities into measurements, you are most likely correct.

In philosophy, even ideas that appear correct will, with the finding of definitions being found full of floating abstractions or even platonic ideals, need to be rethought.

Rules established by institutions are not always logical. Even people who act in a seemingly illogical way can, on occasion, be successful, either because they're entertaining, or because they've discovered new facts that defy accepted rules of logic. Many scientific discoveries have faced an uphill battle against a community that believed such things impossible. Risk takers are often the most frowned upon members of society, despite the evidence that tells us they are the agents of change and innovation.

Hello dbhalling,
Indeed. Perhaps it is different for you, but I am mostly surrounded by people with the wrong philosophy and answers... By my estimation, people are wrong about a great many things. Out of necessity I tolerate quite a bit, and where possible I try to persuade. Some of these wrong philosophies and answers are harmless to me, while others present a danger to my ability to freely practice my own philosophy. This is why I have a hierarchy. I focus my attention on those philosophies/answers on my list based on their capacity to impede me. In my field and throughout my life, I have always had to approach problems methodically, assessing, prioritizing the most urgent problems and tackling them first.

An Austrian economist with power may present an obstacle, but a Keynesian in a similar position could make my economic outlook impossible. For example: I place Rand/Objectivism's capitalism at the top of my hierarchy in the field of economic philosophy and Marx and Engels near the bottom. In between are various threat levels.

Faced with a multitude of enemies and being a fearless defender of what I believe in, I prioritize my foes and attack Goliath first! I will attend to his minions similarly. :) Should we not cut off the head of the snake? Some will not learn and must be defeated, while others, watching on the sidelines may learn from the spectacle.
To my way of thinking this is the most efficacious way of surviving to teach and hopefully persuade another day.

Regards,
O.A.

You can go looking for friends and you can go looking for enemies. You'll get what you seek either way.

Well said.

Like being undressed

Well put

Philosophy is not fashion, there are correct answers and following the wrong answer leads to disaster

Yes excellent point. That compromise lead to the cold war. On a short term basis it seemed to be a good idea, but in the long term it is hard to say it was not disaster. The 3/5ths compromise in the constitution lead directly to the Civil War.


On a short term political basis you may work with enemies, but you can never forget that they are not your friends.