Huemer is Huemerous
Posted by TylerNewsome 10 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
Okay guys, Hope your having a looter/moocher free weekend, I was in a debate via facebook when someone referred me to Michael Huemer, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado, and his critique of Rand's work. That critique can be found here >>>>> http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm.
I followed along with Paul McKeever's critique of Huemer's critique. This guy pretty well destroyed Huemer.
Here is a direct copy paste of something I realized and posted in my debate, before I heard McKeever's video: Okay, this guy, so far, is a joke. His third premise of Rand's argument, "No non-living things face any alternatives," is so skewed. He uses the example of a computer no longer working, by saying that this will cause him to destroy it, thus creating an alternative for a non living thing. He failed to recognize that Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, works on the axiom of individualism, meaning that each individual is an end in himself and no one else. The computer itself was not faced with the alternative. It hadn't the choice to work or not. But the individual, in this case Huemer himself, had an alternative to either keep it or destroy it. The computer had no values, and no choice of action to pursue in order for survival.
McKeever's video can be found here >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRIFysTpv...
I followed along with Paul McKeever's critique of Huemer's critique. This guy pretty well destroyed Huemer.
Here is a direct copy paste of something I realized and posted in my debate, before I heard McKeever's video: Okay, this guy, so far, is a joke. His third premise of Rand's argument, "No non-living things face any alternatives," is so skewed. He uses the example of a computer no longer working, by saying that this will cause him to destroy it, thus creating an alternative for a non living thing. He failed to recognize that Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, works on the axiom of individualism, meaning that each individual is an end in himself and no one else. The computer itself was not faced with the alternative. It hadn't the choice to work or not. But the individual, in this case Huemer himself, had an alternative to either keep it or destroy it. The computer had no values, and no choice of action to pursue in order for survival.
McKeever's video can be found here >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRIFysTpv...
I could take a point-by-point of the Huerner critique, and with virtually NO understanding of Rand, rip it apart with such ease that is is embarrassing that he posted it for the world to see!
Some of his comments were correct. So I could start by acknowledging them, giving the (true) appearance of being fair in my critique. I could honestly be fair, and give the dude his due for the correct comments. But then the bulk of the critique would be tearing the rest of it apart.
My understanding of Obama's comments was that he felt that the Constitution was too restrictive from the government's stance, which was the intent of the Founding Fathers. He was looking for "positive rights", that applied only to the standing government, to encroach in social areas they are purposely barred from.
Henry Kissinger once wrote an essay saying that modern day treaties with the U.S.S.R. were practically worthless, since their definition of "peace" was 180 from ours. They defined "peace" as a world under their domination, and had no problem signing peace treaties that they could interpret to that end.
I don't see any definitive solution to this dilemma...or is it conundrum?