Objectivists
Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
It is interesting to me how hard core Objectivists interact with me on this site (the only one that I participate in as the truly hard core Objectivist sites are so militant as to be irrational).
On the one hand, as one who has a foundation of Catholic faith, I am told that I must accept anything that comes out of Rome as an absolute - that I cannot use my own rationality to decide for myself "truth", and that religion isn't a menu that one can choose from.
And on the other hand, when I point out inconsistencies with Objectivism, I'm told that "AR said it, so it's truth" and those people refuse to use their own rational mind to evaluate things for themselves.
This seems to be a stark inconsistency and irrationality to me.
On the one hand, as one who has a foundation of Catholic faith, I am told that I must accept anything that comes out of Rome as an absolute - that I cannot use my own rationality to decide for myself "truth", and that religion isn't a menu that one can choose from.
And on the other hand, when I point out inconsistencies with Objectivism, I'm told that "AR said it, so it's truth" and those people refuse to use their own rational mind to evaluate things for themselves.
This seems to be a stark inconsistency and irrationality to me.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Philosophy: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
Religion: Religions attempt to answer basic questions intrinsic to the human condition - or more succinctly, the nature and meaning of life.
Other labels I enjoy using include 'bleeding heart libertarian', and 'extreme right wing fundamentalist iconoclast'. The label -starkly inconsistent and irrational, also appeals.
Further, I have no intention of choosing between 'hard-core' and 'soft-core', until I change my mind.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods:
Philosophy: |fəˈläsəfē| noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy
Apples and walnuts.
On the other hand, I can see how anti-Objectivist, anti-Rand, anti-logicial or anti-reason people would be shunned.
However, to answer your question, you will find this in the Gulch Code of Conduct:
"Debate is fine, but remember this site is specifically for supporters of Ayn Rand's ideas. If you don't support Ayn Rand's ideas, you're in the wrong place."
Quotation without analysis or interpretation is tantamount to citation of source documentation - or "AR said it, so it's truth."
Following up with "and from that I determine...," or "what that means to me..." would be citation of a reference and analysis. Otherwise, as someone else said, this is merely an echo chamber, with no independent thought.
http://www.quotationmarks.org/ironic-usa...
AR might have been precise, but she was inconsistent with common usage definitions.
The bible might be quoted "all over the place in here" (did I get the use of "quotation marks" correct here?), but not by me. I have used such on occasion, as have others. OK, that's a source document. The beliefs of AR on things like the definition of verbiage is not a source document, and thus is not something that is necessary to be quoted or regurgitated. She said what she said, that does not make it truth. Citing what she said is fine. Using it as proof of anything is not. I challenge you to cite an instance of where I (or others for that matter) have cited the Bible and said that just because it says it there, it is truth. I, for one, will use a Bible citation to get the statement correct, and them give my understanding/interpretation of what that passage means, at least to me. I don't think that I've ever made a Bible citation and said - "there, that's the truth." (again, did I get the use of quotation marks "correct?")
As for "bible thumping" (use of quotation marks here is for a paraphrase of a statement you made but is not a direct quotation, again, a use of quotation marks that I was taught to indicate paraphrasing a reference to something said even though not precisely what another said - although I have since learned that such is not necessary - but old habits are difficult to break), I can't keep up on every post and comment in every thread, so I cannot speak to that. I can't remember in recent discussions such, but again, I can't speak for everything in the open side, and certainly not on the closed side.
There might be some "thumpers" here (have I made my point yet about the quotation marks?), but I don't see them. Of course, I have different sensitivities about such things, so I might not be the best judge.
Ayn Rand was extremely precise in her definitions, so what's wrong with quoting her to make a point. The bible gets quoted all over the place in here I don't see you complaining about that?
"Enslavement" to me... grow up.
Why does the bible get thumped so much in here? And so insistently too. Speaking of intellectual honestly....
Load more comments...