I guess I am an "intuition-ist" or a "intuitive-ist" because I rely primary on my instincts for evaluating situations with logic being a secondary function. I don't know how I know what I know, but when I know, I know I know.
Interesting attempted linkage of philosophical 'isms' to behavioral 'isms', but quite invalid.
Behavioral 'isms' tend to occur in reality, whereas very few philosophical 'isms' do. Few are the valid philosophers in the ancient Greek mold (ie those who used geometric/mathematical proofs to underscore their philosophy).
Religion is not thought. It is the antithesis of said...it is mere pronouncement, like Canon Law. Explicitly not the Godhead.
So philosophical "isms" like communism do not occur in reality? Nepotism is a philosophy -- so you don't see that in reality? You don't see eugenicism in reality? Racism?
These are all philosophies. And they also translate completely into what is done in reality. Why you now introduce the subdividing of "ism's" into "behavioral" and "philosophical" glitches me up, because all philosophies ultimately translate into some kind of behavior at the bottom line.
@TheLogicJunkie Communism...a euphamism for Divine Right, just like Fascism. Both have the same Roman parent. 'Nepotism, an informal form of nobless oblige. You will find most theological and political -isms are invalidities. Racism is a nothingness...it is simply a euphamism for base ignorance and the outcomes of base ignorance.
Most of the so called 'political philosophies' are not philosophy at all, by the old standard.
You need a Greek to speak here, because "-ism" is the Greek (Hellenic) "-ismos" and a Greek understands it better. Words ending in -ismos do not represent philosophies, not the way you mean it here. "Anything-ismos" means the tendency to become follower of this "Anything", trying to look like it, go with it... If this "Anything" is a philosophy then, as an "Anything-ist", you are Anything's follower, and this is called "Anything-ismos".
But -in general- this anything does not have to be a philosophy. There is the word Hellen-ismos, and it is not a philosophy. The word appeared for the first time in the Old Testament and it refers to Jewish people who liked more the Hellenic style (religion, way of life,...). The Hellenic way of life/style/values/philosophies/religion/... is not a certain philosophy.
I too used to be very big on Rand, although many of her ideals, especially without humanism and compassion, I no longer relate too(more left-libertarian than right-libertarian now).I enjoyed her logical analogies and her philosophy much better than her fiction. Thank you for mentioning Ingersoll, I will seek him out at my library. Coincidentally, I was going to ask you of your opinion of Peirce and William James. What about Mencken(Hitchens reminds me in many ways of him).
Logicism failed as regard to mathematics, because the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice cannot be taken as logical axioms, but are required for math. Moreover, the math cannot go without impredicative definitions while logic should strictly forbid them. Math is something bigger than logic, actually I think due to its infinity and ontological aspect, so it is impossible to reduce it into logic. Now, life seems to me richer than math. How can a logisist for life possible?
Yeah, a logician is more someone who applies logical analysis to a task, and logicism is a philosophical movement.
My point is that it's the philosophical movement itself that one embraces, in order to more fully implement logic in one's life... at least as far as I generalize Frege's idea.
Hitchens is one of the least logical writers that I know of. He mainly uses ridicule and character assassination. He is very good at that, but he isn't logical.
I've studied Objectivism for two years, including the non-fiction.
Not coming up with a new idea is not a sign of being "sub-human," and Rand doesn't say anything like that in her texts. So long as you're applying your mind to reality, it doesn't matter if someone formed the idea you now have first.
Perhaps it was simply your interpretation that you need to rethink.
I don't understand how you can read atlas shrugged and think that Rand advocated people being "at each other's throats in order to be unique". I think you really don't understand her ideas. Read her nonfiction.
I very much disagree. Rand does not advocate obsessively striving for originality qua originality, but only demands that every person consider each situation objectively and reach conclusions justified by reason alone, independent of the thoughts of others, though one can take their insight to help arrive at the objective truth.
Originality is an asset to the human race, and should be valued where it improves man's life, but that does not mean that we should obsessively berate ourselves for...
Whenever talk turns to Ayn Rand, almost inevitably that damn word "qua" makes it through the gates. Ugh.
Anyhow, there is no way that I'm going to get sucked into yet another tiresome tar-baby debate over what Ayn Rand said or didn't say, except to say that the mentality she espoused of pure reason does not explicitly emphasize the supremacy of evidence over cognition, and that's why it's fatally flawed.
Rand's flaw in reasoning, goes to the flaw of reason itself: it is, at best, a simulacrum of reality -- and, at worst, a factory for imaginative, albeit logically air-tight, rationalizations of self-serving imagery that must, of course, be "truth", as they are so compelling and beautiful.
Rand makes it a habit of dismissing all evidenciary phenomena which do not support her romanticized fetishes as "human error" or "deception" of some kind.
If reason isn't a slave to evidence, it's worthless.
I do regard the study of Ayn Rand as essential for any person who aspires to actually live, because her encapsulated emphases on premise-checking and individual initiative are critical to life itself.
...With that said, Rand, too, had her limitations, and they are the ones I've just laid out here. And they, too, are critical ones.
@TheLogicJunkie And what of prima facie evidence? Said is based on cognition alone and is quite valid.
It is interesting that you want to make pronouncements on what Rand meant or stated, and then wish to escape all discussion on the merits of your opinion via open discourse...assuming all said wil be 'tar-baby debate'. Rather convenient for you, wouldn't you say?
I guess I am an "intuition-ist" or a "intuitive-ist" because I rely primary on my instincts for evaluating situations with logic being a secondary function. I don't know how I know what I know, but when I know, I know I know.
WJValente 3 weeks ago
Then I think you'd be very interested in Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Blink", if you haven't read it already...
TheLogicJunkie 3 weeks ago
The Virtue of Selfishness
ramindsr 1 year ago
Interesting attempted linkage of philosophical 'isms' to behavioral 'isms', but quite invalid.
Behavioral 'isms' tend to occur in reality, whereas very few philosophical 'isms' do. Few are the valid philosophers in the ancient Greek mold (ie those who used geometric/mathematical proofs to underscore their philosophy).
Religion is not thought. It is the antithesis of said...it is mere pronouncement, like Canon Law. Explicitly not the Godhead.
abbesieyes 1 year ago
So philosophical "isms" like communism do not occur in reality? Nepotism is a philosophy -- so you don't see that in reality? You don't see eugenicism in reality? Racism?
These are all philosophies. And they also translate completely into what is done in reality. Why you now introduce the subdividing of "ism's" into "behavioral" and "philosophical" glitches me up, because all philosophies ultimately translate into some kind of behavior at the bottom line.
TheLogicJunkie 1 year ago
@TheLogicJunkie Communism...a euphamism for Divine Right, just like Fascism. Both have the same Roman parent. 'Nepotism, an informal form of nobless oblige. You will find most theological and political -isms are invalidities. Racism is a nothingness...it is simply a euphamism for base ignorance and the outcomes of base ignorance.
Most of the so called 'political philosophies' are not philosophy at all, by the old standard.
abbesieyes 1 year ago
@TheLogicJunkie
You need a Greek to speak here, because "-ism" is the Greek (Hellenic) "-ismos" and a Greek understands it better. Words ending in -ismos do not represent philosophies, not the way you mean it here. "Anything-ismos" means the tendency to become follower of this "Anything", trying to look like it, go with it... If this "Anything" is a philosophy then, as an "Anything-ist", you are Anything's follower, and this is called "Anything-ismos".
erinyahellenica 1 year ago
@TheLogicJunkie
But -in general- this anything does not have to be a philosophy. There is the word Hellen-ismos, and it is not a philosophy. The word appeared for the first time in the Old Testament and it refers to Jewish people who liked more the Hellenic style (religion, way of life,...). The Hellenic way of life/style/values/philosophies/religion/... is not a certain philosophy.
erinyahellenica 1 year ago
@TheLogicJunkie
Atheism is not a philosophy. An atheist is one who accepts and supports the idea that god (or gods) does not exist.
erinyahellenica 1 year ago
That's a philosophy.
TheLogicJunkie 1 year ago
I too used to be very big on Rand, although many of her ideals, especially without humanism and compassion, I no longer relate too(more left-libertarian than right-libertarian now).I enjoyed her logical analogies and her philosophy much better than her fiction. Thank you for mentioning Ingersoll, I will seek him out at my library. Coincidentally, I was going to ask you of your opinion of Peirce and William James. What about Mencken(Hitchens reminds me in many ways of him).
alizee2010 1 year ago
I've not read those other guys, although I suppose I'll get around to them eventually. Thanks for the tip.
TheLogicJunkie 1 year ago
Logicism failed as regard to mathematics, because the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice cannot be taken as logical axioms, but are required for math. Moreover, the math cannot go without impredicative definitions while logic should strictly forbid them. Math is something bigger than logic, actually I think due to its infinity and ontological aspect, so it is impossible to reduce it into logic. Now, life seems to me richer than math. How can a logisist for life possible?
McTheaven 2 years ago
Comment removed
McTheaven 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was not agaist innovation. i.e. you are not a second hander if you produce something new out of someone else's work.
dharmashapta 3 years ago
Yeah, that's an important point: originality is all a matter of perspective.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
8:32 to 5:35 a rule to base your entire life on
chachieb 3 years ago
But going from 8:32 to 5:35 is going backwards in time... I don't understand what you mean.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Too much Southern comfort last night, =( I meant 8:32-8:35
chachieb 3 years ago
hahahahaha
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Dont you mean logician? Honestly WTF is a logic-ist?
variable9989 3 years ago
Ugh, no.
Watch the video!!
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
logician is like an actual title for someone who determines the logic of shit.
logiscism is like an intellectual movement/idea. just wanted to clairify it for u.
djtanner66 3 years ago
Thanks.
Yeah, a logician is more someone who applies logical analysis to a task, and logicism is a philosophical movement.
My point is that it's the philosophical movement itself that one embraces, in order to more fully implement logic in one's life... at least as far as I generalize Frege's idea.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Hitchens is one of the least logical writers that I know of. He mainly uses ridicule and character assassination. He is very good at that, but he isn't logical.
Matur1n 3 years ago
I'm starting to notice that, too. He's very good when he talks, but he's definitely dependent on flaming snobbery when he writes.
Glad you said that.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I've studied Objectivism for two years, including the non-fiction.
Not coming up with a new idea is not a sign of being "sub-human," and Rand doesn't say anything like that in her texts. So long as you're applying your mind to reality, it doesn't matter if someone formed the idea you now have first.
Perhaps it was simply your interpretation that you need to rethink.
Youhavethebody 3 years ago 2
Or perhaps not.
Perhaps I instead need to remember that there will always be people who will want to try and keep their choices seeming valid, no matter what.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
i am a logicist (sonds like a drinking song)
toadenk 3 years ago
And what a damn awesome drinking song that would be.
*BRRRRRAAAAPPPP*
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
"I'm a logicist and I'm OK
I sleep all night and I work all day..."
CognosSquare 3 years ago
hahahahahahah
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I don't understand how you can read atlas shrugged and think that Rand advocated people being "at each other's throats in order to be unique". I think you really don't understand her ideas. Read her nonfiction.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
I've read all her nonfiction... seriously.
I have enormous admiration for her and her ideas, but I find that there is always an undertone of obsession in her works that borders on pathology.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it all seems to espouse a philosophy of life that is untenably high-maintenance.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I very much disagree. Rand does not advocate obsessively striving for originality qua originality, but only demands that every person consider each situation objectively and reach conclusions justified by reason alone, independent of the thoughts of others, though one can take their insight to help arrive at the objective truth.
Originality is an asset to the human race, and should be valued where it improves man's life, but that does not mean that we should obsessively berate ourselves for...
Quidtimeam 2 years ago
Whenever talk turns to Ayn Rand, almost inevitably that damn word "qua" makes it through the gates. Ugh.
Anyhow, there is no way that I'm going to get sucked into yet another tiresome tar-baby debate over what Ayn Rand said or didn't say, except to say that the mentality she espoused of pure reason does not explicitly emphasize the supremacy of evidence over cognition, and that's why it's fatally flawed.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
Rand's flaw in reasoning, goes to the flaw of reason itself: it is, at best, a simulacrum of reality -- and, at worst, a factory for imaginative, albeit logically air-tight, rationalizations of self-serving imagery that must, of course, be "truth", as they are so compelling and beautiful.
Rand makes it a habit of dismissing all evidenciary phenomena which do not support her romanticized fetishes as "human error" or "deception" of some kind.
If reason isn't a slave to evidence, it's worthless.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
I do regard the study of Ayn Rand as essential for any person who aspires to actually live, because her encapsulated emphases on premise-checking and individual initiative are critical to life itself.
...With that said, Rand, too, had her limitations, and they are the ones I've just laid out here. And they, too, are critical ones.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
@TheLogicJunkie And what of prima facie evidence? Said is based on cognition alone and is quite valid.
It is interesting that you want to make pronouncements on what Rand meant or stated, and then wish to escape all discussion on the merits of your opinion via open discourse...assuming all said wil be 'tar-baby debate'. Rather convenient for you, wouldn't you say?
abbesieyes 1 year ago
not being perfectly original all the time.
Quidtimeam 2 years ago