Philosophy On One Foot-The Basics of Objectivism by Ayn Rand
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
During the last week, we've had 2 or 3 posts related to Conservatism vs Objectivism. I ran into this brief reply by Ayn Rand when she was asked if she could explain her philosophy while standing on one foot.
Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:
" Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics."
That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .
Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:
" Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics."
That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
-You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.
-Man is an end in himself.
-Give me liberty or give me death.
Regardless, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this thread.
and it's a "jpg" photo which can be grabbed and printed!
Thank You, Emma!!! -- j
Mugwumping is better put as seizing any opportunity for agreement even though one loses all values in the trade. Doesn't apply.
The challenge I personally find is that to pic someone down, you have to establish some SERIOUS common ground. Since few people understand logic, and the majority of those swallowed Kantian premises, they refuse to be pinned - rationality be damned.
In the 25 years of championing Rand's work, I rarely find it worth my time to do so.
While his heroes tend to be rational themselves, and while he champions rationality, it is not rigorous. If he were to say - "humans are ALSO rationalizing animals - and as a betting man, I am not surprised when they use their intelligence to rationalize ..." I think this is a fair statement.
Most people don't check their premises. Most people blank out. They can start that journey and it is their moral responsibility. And most don't.
Edit:typo
"If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought" (emphasis added)
your contributions, sir! -- john
.
this pm -- it's my birthday and I'm headed to my sister's
place for supper. -- j
.
But almost always I find that they're really spewing words from others and not from their own thoughts or actual comprehension.
One of the best ideas of the political spectrum I've seen is of a four (4) sided matrix, with freedom being at one corner vs the others.
Load more comments...