The problem of universals and why Ayn Rand is a dumbass.

[Cliche Guevara]

I know this seems like a real school-type philosophical discussion, but I'm curious to see where you all stand on this topic. Someone on this forum asked me why I thought Ayn Rand was a fucking dumbass, and this why. Ayn rand claimed to have solved the problem of universals, when all she really did was ignore very important aspects of the question and simply took a twist to the realists view on univerals.

The problem of 'universals' is an age old metaphysics 'dilemma' so to speak. In this context a universal are qualities that objects have in common. For example is this object triangular? or is that person human? Or the colour red.
In other words they are qualities that an object possesses.

The 'dilemma' is whether these similarities exist independent of our thoughts or not and if things that share these qualities really are similar. (In other words, Does the fact that we acknowledge red objects as red come from the mind or not?) And if these qualities are similar is there must be a universal universal. (as in there must be a universal shade of red). When we call a truck red and an apple red. Do they really possess the similar quality called red? Are they really relatable to each other under the umbrella term red? Or is it just a way for our minds to organize things in to neat little easy to talk about categories? Ayn Rand claimed by adding degrees to universals, all entities of red are the same red entity and thus she has solved the problem. :facepalm: Surely you can see the humor and stupidity behind that.

There are only two answers, a realist answer and a nominalist one.

Nominalists view the quality of redness as just a way to categorize things that resemble each other. For example, Red we know now is something that a reflect or absorb a dominant wave length of 625-740nm. When we see two objects that both have the quality of reflecting light at a wave length of 625-740nm with our minds we organize them into the same group called red. They may fit into other categories, but we know that these two objects still share the quality of red. In this viewpoint, the quality of redness is simply a matter of language. Any resemblance we see in objects are simply because we categorize them as such for our own human convenience, not because things share identical universal qualities.

Platonic Realists believes that universals exists outside of the mind, now I don't quite know how to explain it in very good detail because It is not a view that I share, but for the most part, the realist view on the matter is that there is a phenomena of redness that exists as an entity outside of our minds that we identify and then categorize with our minds as things that are red. Or in other words, redness is metaphysical entity. I'm not sure but I think that means there is something called red floating around in some other dimension (Something Plato believed, "world of ideas").

Realists of more modern times, i.e Bertrand Russel (Aristotelian realists) argue that universals exists, but they are only dependant on the particulars they define. (as in physical or quantifiable objects). They claim they are real because with out the universals that define them (i.e an apple for example, one of its defining characteristics is red). However the quality of red, although inherently necessary to define an apple, it is by no means a quality only of an apple, thus, red must be a separate real 'entity'. When we see red objects we know they are red not not because our mind is organizing objects into more convenient ways to think, but because 'something' tells us that it is red. (spooky). It may seem hard to believe and recently I read something kind of cool, Bertrand Russell In response to nominalist ideas claimed that even if all the nominalists said is true, there still exists one universal, the universal or similarity. (i know, woah)

You can see why there is a dilemma. Are universals just a way for our human senses to observe incoming stimuli? What does it mean for two objects to be similar? (i.e a red rose and a red truck). These secondary qualities locke mentions, are something that we cannot observe with our senses. But that does not mean it is non existent, we cannot see an objects gravitational pull but we now know all objects displace space and thus, gravity.

I may be wrong but, Ayn Rand however, claimed to have solved this problem by simply adding degrees of universals. (Something Berkeley already kind of did). By not addressing the metaphysical nature of the reality of concepts, but by addressing it as simpler problem. She just defined what a concept was and how they are formed and claimed she had solved the problem. By adding degrees of universals (i.e how red something is) does not really solve anything. She never once addresses the metaphyics behind whether similarities between objects are in the human mind or not. The problem of universals isn't a question on how and why we form concepts of similarity. It must ascertain the reality of similarity or not. I may be wrong but she completely misapprehended the question, and is a complete fraud.

It is an interesting thing to think about and there is no adequate solution (and it was seriously retarded of Ayn Rand to pretend she had solved it) , and it has many implications with how the universe operates.

[fallinghouse]

Going by your summary, it seems to me that she basically considered the whole realism vs anti-realism question to be a non-issue arising from a tendency of philosophers to forget the way words are actually used, and this is a position which sounds little different to the views taken by several respected philosophers of the ordinary language philosophy persuasion.

Also, are you seriously criticising someone for daring to create their own theory rather than supporting the established theories?


Now, I've never read Ayn Rand, I don't follow her philosophy, and I disagree utterly with the small amount of her philosophy that I have come across; I just don't think you've managed to demonstrate her stupidity here.

[Zay]

I'm not really sure what problem with objectivism you're talking about in the way you described it.

Before we talk about red and human, let's talk about space because it's a lot more simple. If we measure the trajectory of a comet, it's objective. It's there, our observation and perception of it has no effect on whether it exists or not. Now, that comet can be beautiful, ugly, awe-inspiring, imminent doom, whatever. Those are our perceptions. That's subjective. But shit, what if we don't know the comet is there, never discover it and measure it's trajectory and whatnot? Well, it's still there, doing its thing.

Now, red. If red describes a specific wavelength/frequency, then it's objective. When your eyes see red though, your mind processes it. If you're a certain type of color-blind, however, you may not see that red the same way that everyone else does. However, that has no effect at all on the objectivity of what light it absorbs/reflects.

What's the problem again? I don't see how that's such a dumbass concept.

[Zay]

Now, I've never read Ayn Rand, I don't follow her philosophy, and I disagree utterly with the small amount of her philosophy that I have come across; I just don't think you've managed to demonstrate her stupidity here.

Rational self-interest is awesome. What part of rand do you dislike? I'm no rand expert, but like you I've had a little exposure but I have quite the opposite impression. I simply cannot ignore that all altruism is selfish. There's no evidence of a soul, we have to assume all events going on in the brain are matter-energy causality. No matter what concept you think up of altruism, your brain is still giving you a buzz every time you do something you think/know is a good deed, whether you're conscious of it or not. It's built into our biology. Even if you put aside all biological drives(like a hunger strike or a life sacrifice) for some glorious cause, up until you cease to exist you're in a beautiful(to me) way a selfish creature. Is that discomforting? No doubt it is to some people. It's a concept with profound implications.

[skinny love]

objectivism is silly and idealistic because there are too many people who are incapable of being productive and intelligent and so we have to lower our standards and help these retards with welfare and medicaid and thousands of tax dollars trying to fix public schools in inner cities. upper class white men have to support the inner city minorities because we dealt them a shitty hand and now they have a culture that champions ignorance and violence, and individualism doesn't work in the ghetto and morals are a luxury nowadays. who can save the earth? only the ones who can pay for organic shit and hybrid cars. who will follow the rules and get good grades? the white kids who dont have to worry about food stamps and momma gettin pregnant again. in an ideal world, we could all be rewarded for our individual merits but ayn didnt realize that the weak in a society will always burden the wealthy, and whether we agree with it or not, not everyone is born equal and we don't all have the same opportunities in regards to education/intelligence, and wealth and privilege. /rant

[Cliche Guevara]

I'm not really sure what problem with objectivism you're talking about in the way you described it.

Before we talk about red and human, let's talk about space because it's a lot more simple. If we measure the trajectory of a comet, it's objective. It's there, our observation and perception of it has no effect on whether it exists or not. Now, that comet can be beautiful, ugly, awe-inspiring, imminent doom, whatever. Those are our perceptions. That's subjective. But shit, what if we don't know the comet is there, never discover it and measure it's trajectory and whatnot? Well, it's still there, doing its thing.

Now, red. If red describes a specific wavelength/frequency, then it's objective. When your eyes see red though, your mind processes it. If you're a certain type of color-blind, however, you may not see that red the same way that everyone else does. However, that has no effect at all on the objectivity of what light it absorbs/reflects.

What's the problem again? I don't see how that's such a dumbass concept.

Yes you're right ,in the end we will always perceive it the comet, red, human (or in the example of colorblindness, you wont). The problem of universals is whether or what we are perceiving actually exists in reality or if its the mind simply categories similarities between objects. However the problem only comes when we are trying to understand perceiving universals, because we cannot be sure of their physical existence.

However, with the example of the comet, in philosophical terms is known as a particular, rather than a universal. Because the comet is a physical object and displays what locke calls primary qualities, it is not subject to the mysterious nature of universals. We can also verify the comet fills space with material, while universals do not.

Universals are quite an anomaly to philosophers because they are in a sense very real and unreal. Surely the concept of red must be real, if not how could the apple be coloured at all. Without certain 'universals' an apple would not even be an apple at all.

But on the other hand how can the concept of red be as real as a comet?, surely there there uncountable instances of red in the universe, but how can something exist in more one place at once, if it is entity as opposed to an idea.

the problem with Rand's 'philosophy' is that it circumvents all of these ontological dilemmas and answers what is already relatively obvious, although in a very clear and well defined way. However, she is redefining the problem, and taking the 'credit' of answering the paradox of universals. When at best she is merely redefined and structured the question, in a way she thought was more 'relevant'. Fallinghouse, although she considered it to be a non-issue, that is because she is simple. She misapprehended the question, jumped the gun, and claimed to solved some ancient philosophical/ontological paradox. THe issue at hand is not the vague definitions of concept formation, the issue at hand is determining the ontology of universals. Perhaps if she didn't so grandiosely claimed to have solved the paradox of universals with a third option of her own inventions her, I admit, very clear definitions would have been taken at face value for what it was. However she claimed to have solved something that at present is unsolvable.

Academic philosophy has slowly whittled the solutions into two schools of thought, honed through the ages. The fact that she solitarily and independently came to a 'brilliant conclusion', with no philosophical influence is :facepalm: to say the least. She is not above academic philosophy as she so claims. She is a fraud and farce. As for the rest of her pseudophilosophy, it is trendy elitist hogwash.

[Zay]

too many people who are incapable of being productive and intelligent and so we have to lower our standards and help these retards with welfare and medicaid and thousands of tax dollars trying to fix public schools in inner cities. upper class white men have to support the inner city minorities because we dealt them a shitty hand and now they have a culture that champions ignorance and violence, and individualism doesn't work in the ghetto and morals are a luxury nowadays. who can save the earth? only the ones who can pay for organic shit and hybrid cars. who will follow the rules and get good grades? the white kids who dont have to worry about food stamps and momma gettin pregnant again. in an ideal world, we could all be rewarded for our individual merits but ayn didnt realize that the weak in a society will always burden the wealthy, and whether we agree with it or not, not everyone is born equal and we don't all have the same opportunities in regards to education/intelligence, and wealth and privilege. /rant

That's partly my take on it as well. It's a stretch, but as far as utopias go it's definitely more morally consistent than communism or whatever fucked up fantasy has everyone being " equal." However, once you accept that reality, you can't unlearn it. Reevaluate where your goals come from, work out whose interest you're working towards, and be morally consistent. Morality may be subjective and godless, but it's also preferable. By being moral you're satisfying a biological need, and as an added bonus you contribute. Your niche in the world is yours alone, don't be ashamed of any marketable qualities you have or talents or any obligations. Millions of other people in the world resent the idea of you, but you can't help being born smart or having good money or talent or w/e it is. Resenting someone born into wealth is no different than hating someone in a racist manner or hating them for being ugly. What about humility? Others will say: "Well, if I can't beat him, I'll out-humble him!" Stuff in Ayn Rand's style set you free. Take taxes for example. If you understand that taxation=theft, and that you never signed the goddamned social contract everyone seems to bring up, but also that you have no choice or efficacy in the matter, you at least have some partial sense of freedom. Left-leaning ideologies, however, will come up with countless burdens in order to instill "guilt" on you.

[Zay]

Yes you're right ,in the end we will always perceive it the comet, red, human (or in the example of colorblindness, you wont). The problem of universals is whether or what we are perceiving actually exists in reality or if its the mind simply categories similarities between objects. However the problem only comes when we are trying to understand perceiving universals, because we cannot be sure of their physical existence.

However, with the example of the comet, in philosophical terms is known as a particular, rather than a universal. Because the comet is a physical object and displays what locke calls primary qualities, it is not subject to the mysterious nature of universals. We can also verify the comet fills space with material, while universals do not.

Universals are quite an anomaly to philosophers because they are in a sense very real and unreal. Surely the concept of red must be real, if not how could the apple be coloured at all. Without certain 'universals' an apple would not even be an apple at all.

But on the other hand how can the concept of red be as real as a comet?, surely there there uncountable instances of red in the universe, but how can something exist in more one place at once, if it is entity as opposed to an idea.

the problem with Rand's 'philosophy' is that it circumvents all of these ontological dilemmas and answers what is already relatively obvious, although in a very clear and well defined way. However, she is redefining the problem, and taking the 'credit' of answering the paradox of universals. When at best she is merely redefined and structured the question, in a way she thought was more 'relevant'. Fallinghouse, although she considered it to be a non-issue, that is because she is simple. THe issue at hand is not the vague definitions of concept formation, the issue at hand is determining the ontology of universals. Perhaps if she didn't so grandiosely claimed to have solved the paradox of universals with a third option of her own inventions her, I admit, very clear definitions would have been taking at face value for what it was. However she claimed to have solved something that at present is unsolvable.

Academic philosophy has slowly whittled the solutions into two schools of thought, honed through the ages. The fact that she solitarily and independently, with no philosophical influence is :facepalm: to say the least. She is not above academic philosophy as she so claims. She is a fraud and farce. As for the rest of her pseudophilosophy, it is trendy elitist hogwash.

I really don't know what exactly the claim she made is so I'm not burdening myself with defending her. By your own admission she put things very eloquently for people that can't be fucked debating universals and particulars. I do however, see it comically ironic that on the basis of that, you dismiss everything else she writes as pseudo-philosophy. That is probably more elitist hogwash than anything else she wrote. I'm not convinced she's a dumbass.

Also, what if red just has more than one definition? If "red" is our word for a specific causality, then that definition of red is as objective as a comet. I read hawking's book a looooong time ago, and it basically got into the details of photons, quanta, frequency, wavelengths, and all that jazz. How is that less objective than a comet? Whether me and you perceive red the exact same way because our brains may be wired differently is a separate issue. Your red may be to some other person what green is to you.

Why fuck with red though? Look at magenta.
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/profs-probings/colour_spectrum_magenta_complimentary_bizarre
That may either open up more questions or it may alleviate whatever pain rand causes you. Enjoy.

[Cliche Guevara]

no don't get me wrong, I don't mention ever saying this is the only Rand I've ever looked at. I'm not judging her philosophy based on her inability to grasp the concept of univerals. I'm judging her by her inability to follow standard philosophical processes, and for considering herself above academia.

I've read atlas shrugged, and the fountain head. Took a long look at her philosophy and have come to the conclusion that everything she says is retarded. She just writes about a variety of topics with no connecting ideology. She tries to cover all aspects of life with her philosophy but in the end they are just random offshoots of various other philosophies.

She also discourages independent thinking, she is horribly guarded about her intellectual property. Her philosophy is non fluid, there can never be change to it, because she in convinced everything she says is solid and right. She actually said this. "If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship for the parts you agree with — and then indulge any flights of fancy you wish, on your own." This is something no philosopher would ever say. She effectively calls any idea that is not her own 'flights of fancy'

Altas shrugged is "preachy, sophomoric and unoriginal" (wikipedia), she herself had admittedly mentioned she had never read Kant. Which is completely retarded, seeing how her philosophy is called 'objectvism'.

At best it is more of an ideology, than an academic philosophy. And for her to claim it as such, is insulting to anyone interesting in the subject. Her grandiose oversimplifications and arduous claim over her own 'intellectual' works is frankly, simply ridiculous.

A quote
Objectivism has been largely ignored or harshly criticized by academics. Objectivism has been called "fiercely anti-academic." David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.

Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

I'm not out to convince any of anything. If you can't at face value see her work for what it is , (trendy, elitist bullshit for pseudointellectuals who can't take the time to learn real philosophy but then reads ayn rand and suddenly they have a waterdowned,e over simplified opinion on every major philosophical topic) than theres nothing I can say anyways.

[Zay]

Women. http://bbs.zoklet.net/images/smilies/facepal.gif

In all seriousness though, thanks for the quotes. People that are overly critical of the "system" usually have some grudge to settle. I'll be on guard next time I come across her stuff. There are some sound critiques of academica ones though, such as a criticism of free-market academics that live the benefits of state subsidies, but I don't think that was rand anyways.

[Cliche Guevara]

You're right, She grew up in Russia around the time of the revolution, and I looked at her life on wikipedia and It says her dad's pharmacy was seized by the soviets. Its not that surprising her political views became so extremely laissez faire and individualistic

[WAN]

Ayn Rand was a good looking (just being objective here) jewess who dreamed of being raped by Aryan men.

She considered self-interest to be rational because to her jew mind, the Aryan concepts of altruism and self-sacrifice seemed alien and incomprehensible, which I don't blame her for, because she descended from semites, who did NOT evolve under the harsh conditions of Mount Caucasus.

She also believed in lassez faire capitalism, which is basically a law-less type of economic system, which works best to the advantages of jews, because jews have no morals and they increase wealth not through hard work and innovation, but through taking advanges of existing flaws in the current legal/economic system, or through exploiting other people.

And her husband, who was Irish and therefore not even Aryan? lol. I bet every night she dreamed of being raped by a German doctor (every jewish girl's dream) but she always woke up just before the good part.

Also, inb4fucklatinoJimcarrey'srage, whatever the hell his name is. He's a jew.

[Zay]

Ayn Rand was a good looking (just being objective here) jewess who dreamed of being raped by Aryan men.

She considered self-interest to be rational because to her jew mind, the Aryan concepts of altruism and self-sacrifice seemed alien and incomprehensible, which I don't blame her for, because she descended from semites, who did NOT evolve under the harsh conditions of Mount Caucasus.

She also believed in lassez faire capitalism, which is basically a law-less type of economic system, which works best to the advantages of jews, because jews have no morals and they increase wealth not through hard work and innovation, but through taking advanges of existing flaws in the current legal/economic system, or through exploiting other people.

And her husband, who was Irish and therefore not even Aryan? lol. I bet every night she dreamed of being raped by a German doctor (every jewish girl's dream) but she always woke up just before the good part.

Also, inb4fucklatinoJimcarrey'srage, whatever the hell his name is. He's a jew.

What batshit insane stormfront propaganda have you been reading? Holy crap you're retarded.



Unlike many other religions, Judaism does not focus much on abstract cosmological concepts. Although Jews have certainly considered the nature of G-d, man, the universe, life and the afterlife at great length (see Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism), there is no mandated, official, definitive belief on these subjects, outside of the very general concepts discussed above. There is substantial room for personal opinion on all of these matters, because as I said before, Judaism is more concerned about actions than beliefs.

Judaism focuses on relationships: the relationship between G-d and mankind, between G-d and the Jewish people, between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, and between human beings. Our scriptures tell the story of the development of these relationships, from the time of creation, through the creation of the relationship between G-d and Abraham, to the creation of the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, and forward. The scriptures also specify the mutual obligations created by these relationships, although various movements of Judaism disagree about the nature of these obligations. Some say they are absolute, unchanging laws from G-d (Orthodox); some say they are laws from G-d that change and evolve over time (Conservative); some say that they are guidelines that you can choose whether or not to follow (Reform, Reconstructionist). For more on these distinctions, see Movements of Judaism.


In Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that G-d formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).

The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments. See Bar Mitzvah.

The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.

The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion.

The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. The idea that "the devil made me do it" is not in line with the majority of thought in Judaism. Although it has been said that Satan and the yetzer ra are one and the same, this is more often understood as meaning that Satan is merely a personification of our own selfish desires, rather than that our selfish desires are caused by some external force.

People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.


See, having been raised as a Christian and having studied a deal of psychology, I can say they've got a good cultural thing going on. Their view on morality screams "FREUD"(rather, it's no coincidence that Freud was a Jew), as opposed to the Christian way of teaching morality as external forces of good and evil. There is more focus on living in the world and not worrying too much about heaven/hell and the afterlife. Other than the genital mutilation thing they have going on, Jewish children are taught to be responsible, free thinkers(you are allowed to question rabbis on the nature of things), and that they can enjoy the fruits of their hard labor. I met a Jewish couple that took their 3-year-old son to a THERAPIST for being insubordinate. When I was young, I was hit with a BELT for being insubordinate. I don't agree with all of their teachings, but it's not hard to see how throughout history they've been out-forced but not always outsmarted. Weren't they blamed for the bubonic plague because of their hygienic practices?

Don't post again you dumb cunt. There are tens of thousands of genes in a human, and billions upon billions of neural connections. Nature is in the genes, nurture affects the neural connections. You'll have a hard time trying to prove that the myriad of teachings and child-rearing methods of Jews just occur spontaneously. Or in your language "DUUURRR DURRRR DURRRRR." You'll have a hard time proving that Jews have some overly enlarged hippocampus or some defect in the parietal lobe that makes them all amoral, snobby and cold. Not that I'm begging the question, I'm just really curious as to how you'll make your case.

You want better revisionism?
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/02/20/the-childhood-origins-of-world-war-ii-and-the-holocaust/


World War II and the Holocaust have been studied by historians and political scientists more than any war in history. Their conclusions about what caused them are that Germans were simply obeying Hitler, a case of “mass hypnosis” by one man: “Historians are, rightly, nearly unanimous that…the causes of the Second World War were the personality and the aims of Adolf Hitler” [F. H. Hinsley]; “the war Hitler started was one which he alone wanted” [William Manchester]; “only one European really wanted war—Adolf Hitler” [John Keegan]; “no Hitler, no Holocaust” [Klaus Fischer].1
Psychiatrists have usually followed the lead of historians, claiming for instance that they could find no psychopathology in the Nazi leaders who were given Rorschach tests at Nuremberg—they were “all too normal” people, and their mass murders were committed by “well-integrated, productive and secure personalities”2 who were merely “obeying orders.” That a theory which posits millions of people choose a leader who promises them they can kill millions of other people only because they were “following orders” is a pure tautology never occurs to them. When Eichman bragged “I laughed that I have killed five million Jews” and psychiatrists claim his statement was “normal,” it demonstrates not “the banality of evil” but the banality of psychiatry.
When states go to war because they re-enact the nightmares of child abuse that are embedded like time bombs in their brains in violent alters, and if they usually do so when they experience growth panic following an historical period of dangerous new freedom and growth, then each phase of going to war should betray historical evidence of real childhood traumas being re-experienced. In order to understand the traumatic nightmares being acted out in World War II and the Holocaust, we will have to first understand in detail the nightmarish terrors of German, Austrian and Japanese childrearing at the beginning of the 20th century.
If the caucus is so hood, so gangsta, why weren't farming, written language, and gunpowder invented there?

[ChickenOfDoom]

Sort of off topic, but I don't care enough to know the specifics of what she said. All I know is that anti-trust and employee protection legislation is absolutely necessary, and that her personal life demonstrates that she was batshit crazy (she used her ideas to justify an affair and threw a tantrum when the guy she was cheating with cheated on her).

Also, redness is a concept like time or objects or air or anger. There are things in the view of your mind, thats all. Why do they have to represent anything real? What could lead anyone to believe, on a very basic level, that there exists anything beyond the fact that we percieve? The level of language and communication and shared concepts is irrelevant; people are concepts themselves just as much as red is. I don't see how a realist perspective is any more rational than Rand; both are based on assumptions that you can't really make.

[Cliche Guevara]

Exactly Ayn Rand is a complete farce, and normally I would leave her and the people who choose to absorb her words to their own retarded devices, but the fact that the leaders of the objectivist movement are donating free objectivist textbooks to high schools is highly disconcerting, and there claim to want the curriculum taught in every high school is downright spooky. (and its not just contained within the shitty american borders. )

As of 2007, ARI has distributed over 700,000 free copies of Ayn Rand’s novels to high schools around the country. In 2005 ARI opened a branch in Canada, which distributes free books to Canadian schools

that is completely :facepalm:. Her philosophy is borderline dangerous and makes a farce of real philosophy and it should not be taught in high school. It really bothers me there are two tenured professors of objectivism at major universities. (thankfully not any really academically prestigious university)


But more to your point, any rational person can see that the government is necessary for most aspects of our lives. The government is a physical embodiment of our attempts to restrain (not the best word) ourselves from our basic instincts. (after all we have only stopped duelling each other and taking people as slaves for only a few centuries now) It is our series of checks and balances, and a breakdown of that (anarchism essentially) is completely backwards from what even the early philosophers believed in. (i.e john locke)

Also what you said about Rand's 'radical' solution to universals being really just a subset of realism is also very true.

I hope my built in spell checker continues to see objectivism as a spelling mistake, and it will be a sad day when it is otherwise.

[Cliche Guevara]

I really don't know what exactly the claim she made is so I'm not burdening myself with defending her. By your own admission she put things very eloquently for people that can't be fucked debating universals and particulars. I do however, see it comically ironic that on the basis of that, you dismiss everything else she writes as pseudo-philosophy. That is probably more elitist hogwash than anything else she wrote. I'm not convinced she's a dumbass.

Also, what if red just has more than one definition? If "red" is our word for a specific causality, then that definition of red is as objective as a comet. I read hawking's book a looooong time ago, and it basically got into the details of photons, quanta, frequency, wavelengths, and all that jazz. How is that less objective than a comet? Whether me and you perceive red the exact same way because our brains may be wired differently is a separate issue. Your red may be to some other person what green is to you.

Why fuck with red though? Look at magenta.
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/profs-probings/colour_spectrum_magenta_complimentary_bizarre
That may either open up more questions or it may alleviate whatever pain rand causes you. Enjoy.

Didn't see the edit, but you raise a good point. Why isn't red different than a comet? But answer me this, when you are talking about red being photons of lights and wavelengths 'all the jazz', is red the actual photon? or is red just what our human eye perceives when photons enter into our light absorbing organs.

We take that perception of photons and wavelengths and categorize them into our head into the section 'red' if you will. We know things are red, because they are well, red. The problem of universals is whether that acknowledgement that red is red comes from the mind or not. Rand tried to solve the problem by saying by adding degrees of redness, you are solving the problem. (i.e magenta). But I really as a rational thinking person I struggle to see how that solves anything.

is red an organizational concept or something real that exists outside of our minds and humanity. If you think about it really is puzzling, (you cannot not even imagine red as anything physical unless you apply some other property along with it. (a red train, or house, red in the face). The question is how do these ideas and concepts relate to the world, is it just in our heads or is it something more mysterious and yet unknown.

A good way to visualize this whole concept is with the idea of numbers, a concept like red but something that doens't ever exist in corporeal form. the logic of numbers can be built up into more complex logical truth called mathematical equations, which are commonly discussed in conversations regarding univerals.




We only perceive
I chose color because its a very obviously general quality and it is easier of a topic to mold than say, humanity or something ideological.

[Cliche Guevara]

huge update to OP. easier to understand now :D

[never]

Exactly Ayn Rand is a complete farce, and normally I would leave her and the people who choose to absorb her words to their own retarded devices, but the fact that the leaders of the objectivist movement are donating free objectivist textbooks to high schools is highly disconcerting, and there claim to want the curriculum taught in every high school is downright spooky. (and its not just contained within the shitty american borders. )



that is completely :facepalm:. Her philosophy is borderline dangerous and makes a farce of real philosophy and it should not be taught in high school. It really bothers me there are two tenured professors of objectivism at major universities. (thankfully not any really academically prestigious university)


But more to your point, any rational person can see that the government is necessary for most aspects of our lives. The government is a physical embodiment of our attempts to restrain (not the best word) ourselves from our basic instincts. (after all we have only stopped duelling each other and taking people as slaves for only a few centuries now) It is our series of checks and balances, and a breakdown of that (anarchism essentially) is completely backwards from what even the early philosophers believed in. (i.e john locke)

Also what you said about Rand's 'radical' solution to universals being really just a subset of realism is also very true.

I hope my built in spell checker continues to see objectivism as a spelling mistake, and it will be a sad day when it is otherwise.


Whoah, hey man... you're really against a company distributing literature to schools? People act as filters not as sponges. I'm all for a company GIVING books to schools, Ayn Rand wrote great novels. Regardless of what you think about her philosophy, Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are CLASSICS. In the sense, that they've stood the test of time so far. Made evident by the fact that people are still arguing over it. Promoting discussion like this, and having kids read novels is never something that should be discouraged EVER.

[xisle35]

Firstly, let me thank Zoklet.net. I used to play on the temple forums and loved everybit of it, it's cool to see it archived, and a newer, fresher scene coming right along.
That said, time for some food for thought.



Exactly Ayn Rand is a complete farce, and normally I would leave her and the people who choose to absorb her words to their own retarded devices,

Firstly
"people are concepts themselves just as much as red is. I don't see how a realist perspective is any more rational than Rand; both are based on assumptions that you can't really make."

I believe is the statement which prompted said reactionary response of agreeance, "Exactly"! Despite Chicken of Dooms sincerity, he's not stating fact, but his own understanding of the universal nature and there for can NOT support your assumption that Rand is a Farce.

Further more, I've read only one real argument out of you in supporting this claim, that is, paraphrasing for dramatic effect, "Ayan Rand doesn't agree with my philosophy book."
or more accurately quoted

I'm not judging her philosophy based on her inability to grasp the concept of univerals. I'm judging her by her inability to follow standard philosophical processes, and for considering herself above academia.

News flash bro, your philosophy book isn't the definitive answer to the questions argued over the universe. It doesn't have ALL the answers. The "answers" it does have are up for constant debate, and peer review; such is the nature of The Book.

I should clarify, I'm using 'your philosophy book' as a metaphor for "academic philosophy" in general, as a way to simplify the difference between, someone having an epiphany on a highly debated philosophical question; and a bunch of old wealthy professors being paid to sit around smoking pipes and bickering over what they have deemed 'the nature of the universe.'

I won't even get into the politics of academia, the struggles and established status quo hurdles involved in getting any actual progress out of these kinds of people and establishments.

'Credibility' and 'established rules of philosophic academia' are your rulers for measurement in the debate as to whether or not someone's argument holds water, need you really be reminded that "E=Mc2" (the most famous mathematical concept pretty much ever; so much that the undereducated mistake Einstein for who's head the apple fell upon) was scribbled on note paper of a patent clerk? A failed mathematician. pretty much least 'credible' guy.

Have we forgotten the perils of those who brought us heliocentric planetary alignments? Really. Your going to say Rand is a Farce because she didn't follow the rules! WHEN IN THE FUCK HAS FOLLOWING THE RULES EVER CONTRIBUTED TO PROGRESS? FUCK ME are you serious!

Ultimately, Chicken of Doom had it right when he said, "both are based on assumptions that you can't really make." I just don't think he realized it pertained also directly to his statement. he would have been better quoted if he said "all three are..." I digress. My point is, the whole damn argument can't be proven, only supported by cyclical evidence, and all hangs upon the foundation that, one, or the other (realist/nominalist) is inexplicably true.

This breeds the real question. Why fucking argue over the nature of 'red'; 'the apple' or 'the firetruck.' ....when a building catches fire, a red fire truck comes; we can all agree on that right? So, is it a perception of the brain, and in 'reality' something else is really occurring, we're just 'perceiving' it this way?

let me ask you this, a more important question. if the house burns down with the babies in side do they die?

I'm more interested in why are so many people dead set on the idea that physicality isn't "REAL." does anyone know the entomology of the word REAL? and more valuable, the entomology of the word Reality?

Real, and Reality:
These are things owned and accepted by the king. It was described to me this way, if the king didn't accept lesbianism, lesbians weren't Real, and thus, not part of Reality. Does this mean there was no feminine feline feasting going on? Probably not, only that, it wasn't accepted by the king, and may be punishable anyway said king saw fit.

This conceptualization has tumbled down through the ages, slowly gathering mass as individualism rose, each man his own king, Reality was built by the en mass. Into what we have today.

so again, is this really a question you should be asking, "is red real? or just an explanation to my mind?" or is it more important to get the fuck out of the big red trucks way?

The real laugh here is that, both are right. Red is a perception, and a reality, Since we have obviously now broken 'reality' away from it's entomological roots, and have described it instead as the difference between the 'metaphysical/spiritual/energetic real' and physicality....(ie. dualistically, 'physical is real, spirit is imagined' vrs. 'only the spirit is real, the physical is a perception/illusion')

here's the paradox,

the object which is red, is like all matter, energy condensed to a very slow vibration; energy is the nature of spirit/metaphysical. The out come of said matter is dependent then upon the nature of the energy it is comprised of. Therefore it stands to reason that, there is a metaphysical/energetic 'red' as, the 'matter' (or for those nominalists, the object your brain is perceiving) is being perceived as red.

If an object is blue, it stands to reason the energy the object is comprised of is different than that of a object which is red. This is not to say the vibration of energies are static, and incapable of change, perhaps when metal is heated, the energy moves slightly faster, causing it to turn red, until moving so fast, it burns white... The last is simple conjecture, of application of the concept.

More importantly, it is only the natural progression and evolution of thought for new metamorphosed and mutated completely ideas to develop over time. to try and stifle this with, "But the philosophers in the books have already narrowed it down," well, obviously not, because ayan rand says different, and instead of showing us, where in the historical timeline of the great debate, her ideas were previously weeded through; giving us, only the two options. So, come back with a history lesson, or prepare to consistently be made to look like a moron.


but the fact that the leaders of the objectivist movement are donating free objectivist textbooks to high schools is highly disconcerting, and there claim to want the curriculum taught in every high school is downright spooky. (and its not just contained within the shitty american borders. )


Are you as pissed off about the 'anti drug literature' or the 'abstinence first' doctrine that's being freely distributed to kids? Kid's reading and thinking is never a bad thing. Did they release an objectivists read along with them?


that is completely :facepalm:. Her philosophy is borderline dangerous and makes a farce of real philosophy and it should not be taught in high school. It really bothers me there are two tenured professors of objectivism at major universities. (thankfully not any really academically prestigious university)
[qoute/]
again, utilizing academic prestige as your philosophical argument; do you have any thoughts on the nature of red? or can i get your idea's pretty well summed up for me in a cliff notes book? fuck. who is this guy?

[quote]
But more to your point, any rational person can see that the government is necessary for most aspects of our lives. The government is a physical embodiment of our attempts to restrain (not the best word) ourselves from our basic instincts. (after all we have only stopped duelling each other and taking people as slaves for only a few centuries now) It is our series of checks and balances, and a breakdown of that (anarchism essentially) is completely backwards from what even the early philosophers believed in. (i.e john locke)


I'm gonna take issue first with the concept that 'any rational person' your aware that rationalism is a defense mechanism used to avoid dealing with conflict, guilt, other such things folks don't want to deal with...like, obvious truth that the world your in, your in. Like it or not. even if it isn't real :eek:

now, as for pretty much everything you've said after 'rational person' I can only say a few things... government, that being, organized state, has been the cause of more unnatural human death than ANY OTHER SOURCE OF UNNATURAL DEATH ever, in all of history, not even the plague took the numbers State has accumulated.

Also, it's not rule of law that has us in a place where we're no longer dueling, it is that man kind has found there are more beneficial ways to settle disputes. Like forced redistribution of wealth and private property. Why get five minutes of satisfaction watching some ass hole die, when, you could take his house, get him fired, make his wife leave him, sue his ass,etc.
Some would argue the state and 'government' is responsible for this development. Only responsible for setting the stage. At any moment, one man could shoot the other, he's stopped not by the state, not by the law, but by the motivation of another solution. It's why he served the ex wife with papers, or called 911 instead of grabbing a gun.

In fact, this is all I have to say. I could continue, but i'm not gonna break every sentence of that bibble babble last statement down, the ignorance is in the writing. Organized state as John Locke and friends developed it has failed just the same as every other, and led only to massive destruction around the world for the convenience and benefit of a few.

any logical individual can see that governments don't restrain anything with in us, only our desired compliance does this. Someone please look into the concept of RuleScape society, and type it out. I'm tired.

[Terrestrial Mass]

a dumbass? you try writing 13+ books, some of them being about a thousand pages (the fountain head,atlas shrugged). I can see you not agreeing with her. i think some of the stuff she says is sorta questionable but is she really a dumbass?

[Terrestrial Mass]

I may be wrong but

after all that...