| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 12:07:38 PM |
|
|
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That is pretty irrelevant since when Rand was alive, the Objectivist
crowd in New York operated in much the same fashion as a religious
cult, with Atlas Shrugged being their Bible (heck, they even had
excommunications of "heretics" who questioned Rand's "Objectively
Right" pronouncements). People even had excerpts of Atlas Shrugged
read at their weddings.
I was asking about her ideas, not people's reaction to them. I'm aware
that one could right a book on the subject (Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult),
but I consider ideas more important than gossip.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
02 Oct 2005 01:55:02 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That is pretty irrelevant since when Rand was alive, the Objectivist
crowd in New York operated in much the same fashion as a religious
cult, with Atlas Shrugged being their Bible (heck, they even had
excommunications of "heretics" who questioned Rand's "Objectively
Right" pronouncements). People even had excerpts of Atlas Shrugged
read at their weddings.
I was asking about her ideas, not people's reaction to them. I'm aware
that one could right a book on the subject (Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult),
but I consider ideas more important than gossip.
True enough. SOME of Rand's ideas are valid. Questioning basic
premises, for one (although sadly Randians never questioned Rand's
premises). OTOH, the Objectivist philosophy is flawed in that while
there may be an "objective" reality, it's hard to believe a woman named
Ayn Rand had the "one true objective" view, especially when she started
to pass off her taste in music and fiction as "objective."
What we believe in is based on experience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
02 Oct 2005 03:06:55 PM |
|
|
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That is pretty irrelevant since when Rand was alive, the Objectivist
crowd in New York operated in much the same fashion as a religious
cult, with Atlas Shrugged being their Bible (heck, they even had
excommunications of "heretics" who questioned Rand's "Objectively
Right" pronouncements). People even had excerpts of Atlas Shrugged
read at their weddings.
I was asking about her ideas, not people's reaction to them. I'm aware
that one could right a book on the subject (Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult),
but I consider ideas more important than gossip.
True enough. SOME of Rand's ideas are valid. Questioning basic
premises, for one (although sadly Randians never questioned Rand's
premises). OTOH, the Objectivist philosophy is flawed in that while
there may be an "objective" reality, it's hard to believe a woman named
Ayn Rand had the "one true objective" view, especially when she started
to pass off her taste in music and fiction as "objective."
She never claimed that humility was a virtue, although she did write in
The Romantic Manifesto that she had only a hypothesis on the esthetic
evaluation of music.
What we believe in is based on experience.
So what experience is the basis of creationists' beliefs in ID?
Colin Day aa #1500
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
17 Oct 2005 12:33:37 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That is pretty irrelevant since when Rand was alive, the Objectivist
crowd in New York operated in much the same fashion as a religious
cult, with Atlas Shrugged being their Bible (heck, they even had
excommunications of "heretics" who questioned Rand's "Objectively
Right" pronouncements). People even had excerpts of Atlas Shrugged
read at their weddings.
I was asking about her ideas, not people's reaction to them. I'm aware
that one could right a book on the subject (Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult),
but I consider ideas more important than gossip.
True enough. SOME of Rand's ideas are valid. Questioning basic
premises, for one (although sadly Randians never questioned Rand's
premises). OTOH, the Objectivist philosophy is flawed in that while
there may be an "objective" reality, it's hard to believe a woman named
Ayn Rand had the "one true objective" view, especially when she started
to pass off her taste in music and fiction as "objective."
She never claimed that humility was a virtue, although she did write in
The Romantic Manifesto that she had only a hypothesis on the esthetic
evaluation of music.
What we believe in is based on experience.
So what experience is the basis of creationists' beliefs in ID?
That varies, but I'd imagine most were raised as Christians and find ID
to be their sort of "God in the gaps" in an attempt to explain away
evolution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 06:54:02 AM |
|
|
On 27 Sep 2005 22:26:59 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That is pretty irrelevant since when Rand was alive, the Objectivist
crowd in New York operated in much the same fashion as a religious
cult, with Atlas Shrugged being their Bible (heck, they even had
excommunications of "heretics" who questioned Rand's "Objectively
Right" pronouncements). People even had excerpts of Atlas Shrugged
read at their weddings.
So, because some people have become passionate about an idea that
makes it less credible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
02 Oct 2005 01:42:20 AM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On 27 Sep 2005 22:26:59 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That is pretty irrelevant since when Rand was alive, the Objectivist
crowd in New York operated in much the same fashion as a religious
cult, with Atlas Shrugged being their Bible (heck, they even had
excommunications of "heretics" who questioned Rand's "Objectively
Right" pronouncements). People even had excerpts of Atlas Shrugged
read at their weddings.
So, because some people have become passionate about an idea that
makes it less credible?
Do you even KNOW what Objectivism is about?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1919 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
27 Sep 2005 11:48:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That's nice. Drink your koolaide.
Colin Day aa #1500
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 12:39:47 PM |
|
|
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That's nice. Drink your koolaide
Colin Day aa #1500
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 04:42:18 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com>
wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand
envisioned could only exist on the frontier; and even then,
the freedom was severely tempered by the constant threats
posed by other humans in a lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to
boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a
Strange Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist,
she does a better job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with
plot.
Bwahahahahahah! Her pathetic attempts made me laugh at her
feeble propaganda.
She is right down there with Elron Hubbard.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 04:28:39 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com>
wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand
envisioned could only exist on the frontier; and even then,
the freedom was severely tempered by the constant threats
posed by other humans in a lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to
boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a
Strange Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist,
she does a better job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with
plot.
Bwahahahahahah! Her pathetic attempts made me laugh at her
feeble propaganda.
She is right down there with Elron Hubbard.
El Ronhubbard? Aha, another Arab! The world is full of evil!
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
02 Oct 2005 01:56:55 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land.
I can tell you never actually read that book. And no, I'm not an
Heinlein fanboy because I never bothered with Starship Troopers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
02 Oct 2005 01:42:57 PM |
|
|
Chris Hayes wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land.
I can tell you never actually read that book. And no, I'm not an
Heinlein fanboy because I never bothered with Starship Troopers.
Yes I read it and yes it rambles.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1919 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 01:28:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That's nice. Drink your koolaide
Colin Day aa #1500
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 04:07:59 PM |
|
|
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
Of Heinlein, I've read only SIASL, Starship Troopers, and The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress. As I don't know how to prove ramblingness, I'll have to
let that go.
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
I don't believe that she "missed" that. She never denigrated cooperation
as such, though she criticized compulsory "cooperation".
Also, her ethics aren't really based on evolution, as she looks more
towards the generic needs of individuals, without regard to propagation.
Nevertheless, Rand continues to have a cult following, een though such
a following contradicts her philosophy.
My view of Rand is not cult-like.
That's nice. Drink your koolaide
Colin Day aa #1500
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "HMS Beagle" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 08:50:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
Oh no! It's much worse than that. Ayn Rand literally wrote that
American Businessmen are the HIGHEST TYPE OF HUMAN BEING.
Take a look at chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, and parts of Herbert
Spencer's Man vs. State (1884). You will see some like minds there.
And don't mince words. You are dealing with people who think they
have found out the meaning of life and all the "rules" of human
history. None of these people were advanced thinkers. The message
is rather clear: Life is a battle over wealth, let whomever dies with
the most toys win. Therefore, the American Industrialist is the
winner, and therefore the highest type of human being. It takes
facists 80 pages to say this, but that's essentially what it boils
down to. Every facist has his or her own measuring stick for what
direction he thinks evolution is taking the human species. With
Hitler is was German culture. With Spencer it was apathy and
stoicism. With Rand it was money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
29 Sep 2005 03:37:16 AM |
|
|
It takes
facists 80 pages to say this, but that's essentially what it boils
down to. Every facist has his or her own measuring stick for what
direction he thinks evolution is taking the human species.
What makes you assume that fascism is based on the darwinian nonsense
theory of evolution?
it's an economic system.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 03:39:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
"*****, man, TELL me about it. I was gonna be a doctor, git a pilot's
licence, do all this great significant ***** and change the world.
Well, I'm 38, and it don't look much changed, and I ain't got no MD,
and I sure as hell can't fly safely, I'm about half blind! <Sighs>
Depressed right now cos I fuckin' hate my boss, may she get 50
different varieties of pox-fuckin'-crotch rot. Gaahhd, I have *got*
to get me a better job, I'm gettin' too old for all this wannabee
slavedriver headfuck *****."
--Zepp Greywolf Jamieson Jun 3 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/d9e18dcaf78fdba9?hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
28 Sep 2005 11:40:33 PM |
|
|
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
29 Sep 2005 06:17:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:40:33 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
such are the words of the losers of the world.... men who have no
wealth and power and status and aren't capable of getting any, and
seek to have the government steal it from others who have earned it
and give it to them....
Paul
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
29 Sep 2005 10:58:34 PM |
|
|
in article hlgnj1t8qi3i54f6i3c9vh0077qc5ump7q@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/29/05 7:17 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:40:33 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
such are the words of the losers of the world.... men who have no
wealth and power and status and aren't capable of getting any, and
seek to have the government steal it from others who have earned it
and give it to them....
Steverino...where do YOU expect to get YOURS?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
30 Sep 2005 05:59:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:58:34 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article hlgnj1t8qi3i54f6i3c9vh0077qc5ump7q@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/29/05 7:17 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:40:33 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
such are the words of the losers of the world.... men who have no
wealth and power and status and aren't capable of getting any, and
seek to have the government steal it from others who have earned it
and give it to them....
Steverino...where do YOU expect to get YOURS?
I pretty much have it, although I do expect to make another nice
little bundle when I sell two of the three luxury condos I bought on
speculation. I did quite nicely on that a while back, and my
Apartment building and commercial strip netted a pretty good profit.
Paul
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
30 Sep 2005 09:27:59 PM |
|
|
in article 8e5qj19s9mafqg410p12425vjpqnhcg2ki@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/30/05 6:59 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:58:34 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article hlgnj1t8qi3i54f6i3c9vh0077qc5ump7q@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/29/05 7:17 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:40:33 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
such are the words of the losers of the world.... men who have no
wealth and power and status and aren't capable of getting any, and
seek to have the government steal it from others who have earned it
and give it to them....
Steverino...where do YOU expect to get YOURS?
I pretty much have it, although I do expect to make another nice
little bundle when I sell two of the three luxury condos I bought on
speculation. I did quite nicely on that a while back, and my
Apartment building and commercial strip netted a pretty good profit.
If you have a pile, why do you spend so much time sitting behind a
computer instead of enjoying yourself?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "1932 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
30 Sep 2005 10:15:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:27:59 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article 8e5qj19s9mafqg410p12425vjpqnhcg2ki@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/30/05 6:59 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:58:34 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article hlgnj1t8qi3i54f6i3c9vh0077qc5ump7q@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/29/05 7:17 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:40:33 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
such are the words of the losers of the world.... men who have no
wealth and power and status and aren't capable of getting any, and
seek to have the government steal it from others who have earned it
and give it to them....
Steverino...where do YOU expect to get YOURS?
I pretty much have it, although I do expect to make another nice
little bundle when I sell two of the three luxury condos I bought on
speculation. I did quite nicely on that a while back, and my
Apartment building and commercial strip netted a pretty good profit.
If you have a pile, why do you spend so much time sitting behind a
computer instead of enjoying yourself?
He's an utter fraud. He pulls the "Thurston Howell III" crap, partly
to massage his badly dented ego, and because he thinks he can annoy
liberals with it. We've been collecting his self-aggrandizing claims.
He's a multimillionaire with a glass eye and four tuxedos who owns two
or three yachts, an apartment complex, three luxury condos, is part
Cherokee, has a black wife, and is a secret corporation.
Who spends much of his time in the wee hours of the morning linked to
Usenet via a dial-up...
Paul
"'I知 not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I知 concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
01 Oct 2005 06:22:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:15:36 -0700, 1932 Dead
<zepp1932#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:27:59 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article 8e5qj19s9mafqg410p12425vjpqnhcg2ki@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/30/05 6:59 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:58:34 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article hlgnj1t8qi3i54f6i3c9vh0077qc5ump7q@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/29/05 7:17 AM:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:40:33 -0400, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net>
wrote:
in article n2vlj1t04rok7mjh2fra1ks9udpn7psu4m@4ax.com, nevermore at
stevencanyon@y***hoo.com wrote on 9/28/05 4:39 PM:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:28:17 -0700, 1919 Dead
<zepp#22111919dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:39:47 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:50:39 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
1919 Dead wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:27:08 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Even Heinlein made it clear that the sort of culture Rand envisioned
could only exist on the frontier; and even then, the freedom was
severely tempered by the constant threats posed by other humans in a
lawless culture.
And Heinlein would be expert on this?
At least as well qualified as Rand, and a better writer to boot.
At least Rand never wrote a book as rambling as Stranger in a Strange
Land. Also, for all her reputation as a propagandist, she does a better
job than Heinlein at integrating ideas with plot.
Hmmm. Heinlein could certainly write rambling novels, and some of his
last ones were pretty bad. But SIASL was not one of them./
OK, you don't like her politics. What about her metaphysics? Her
epistemology? Her ethics? Her esthetics?
Bland verging on sterile.
The primacy of existence? Maybe bland.
Building up concepts from perception, and then using those concepts to
form more abstract concepts, and so on. Yes, that's bland, certainly not
as much fun as auras or revelation.
Acting on one's own behalf?
Art with values? With people pursuing goals? Or paintings with
cognizable objects? Nah, who needs that?
Act with selfishness, you mean. What Rand missed -- entirely, is that
evolution is cooperative as well as competitive, and that humans are
social animals.
<LOL> What socialist losers like Jamieson don't understand is that
while we're social animals, we're only really communalistic with those
that we're bonded to and while we're only too happy to lend a helping
hand to victims of real undeserved consequences, those individuals
like Jamieson who preferred booze to his college opportunity, and any
others who similarly squander their opportunities, can starve, or
freeze, or raid garbage cans...... or whatever.....
The lonely cry of the American loser... "We're social animals so you
should not be selfish and you should give me some of your wealth.....
--
Such are the words of the Nevermores of the world...men who have no
wealth and power and status, yet worship it as the zenith of all virtue.
such are the words of the losers of the world.... men who have no
wealth and power and status and aren't capable of getting any, and
seek to have the government steal it from others who have earned it
and give it to them....
Steverino...where do YOU expect to get YOURS?
I pretty much have it, although I do expect to make another nice
little bundle when I sell two of the three luxury condos I bought on
speculation. I did quite nicely on that a while back, and my
Apartment building and commercial strip netted a pretty good profit.
If you have a pile, why do you spend so much time sitting behind a
computer instead of enjoying yourself?
He's an utter fraud. He pulls the "Thurston Howell III" crap, partly
to massage his badly dented ego, and because he thinks he can annoy
liberals with it. We've been collecting his self-aggrandizing claims.
He's a multimillionaire with a glass eye and four tuxedos who owns two
or three yachts, an apartment complex, three luxury condos, is part
Cherokee, has a black wife, and is a secret corporation.
Greywolf Jamieson apparently has *NOT been "accurately collecting*
anything about me .... He's just angry because I exposed the fact
that he's been denied his American citizenship after he lied on Usenet
about being able to vote, and lately, he's really miffed because I
proved that he'd been posting under the name of Greywolf the Wanderer
and posting all of his inner fears and fantasies, which make him look
like a real freak show....
I have two tuxedos, actually, my lady does a few formal things and
likes her "sailorman" along.... It's no big deal... Although it
would be a "very big" thing for Jamieson since he's currently
somewhere between 270 and 325 lbs....
...one boat that qualifies as a yacht, she's an old schooner that I
had converted to a modified ketch rig.. two that don't qualify, one
of which I've now pretty much signed over to a vet group that takes
handicapped veterans fishing.... I sold the apartment complex and
bought the pre-construction condos on speculation, except that I might
decide to live in one of them.. I'm about half American Indian, only
a small part of that is cherokee, and actually, the cherokee lineage
is somewhat questionable.. we know that line is indian, but not sure
which one.... I *had* a black wife that died over twenty years
ago, and information about my corporation is available to anyone who
might know it's name, <LOL> it's just that I won't tell Jamieson
it's name...
The glass eye thing is correct, although sometimes I wear an eyepatch,
too, when I want to be dramatic, LOL, it goes well with one of my
captain's caps.
Who spends much of his time in the wee hours of the morning linked to
Usenet via a dial-up...
You'll find damned few, if any of my posts, were made between the
hours of ten PM and five AM... early to bed, early to rise, my pop
used to say.... I don't know why Jamieson views an early riser as
something to scoff at, .... as for dialup, I haven't been using that
since I moved out of the apartment complex, I might use it again after
I move into the condo... It has more to do with the systems on the
boat, actually.... and also the fact that I don't do anything on the
internet that requires broadband. The boat is a very long way from
where I'm living right now so that whole system is shut down....
--
"One night when I was about fourteen or so I was outside, camping,
and I heard the brothers-in-fur begin their nightly song to the Moon. Next
thing I knew, I was on all fours, nose pointed at the sky, joing in for all
I was worth."
--Greywolf Zepp jamieson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/f7d2591e3b7951a0?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
| User: "RyanT" |
|
| Title: Re: In defense of Rand |
18 Oct 2005 12:44:32 PM |
|
|
You really should understand that, on Usenet, nobody gives a ***** about
those things. You are lonely, sad, and in self-denial. (Which often
seems to be the case for many of the hardcore Randriods.)
What you may not realize that your situation is a direct cause of your
beliefs. No man is an island.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
