Immanuel Kant (2 of 3)

...

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Mrcropper
• immanuel
• kant
• reason
• virtue
• peikoff
• OPAR
• philosophy
• ethics
• morality
• catagorical

[acerb45666555]

5*****!

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Using the system as an approach to science wouldn't be mysticism, because it is founded (somewhat poorly it seems) on rationality and objectivity. Believing in it's superiority knowing that it is largely rejected in favor of more efficient methods IS mysticism.

Now I'll go off topic for a minute: Are you so emotionally invested in such a trivial point because you feel, somehow, all of your parents money for college will have been in vain if you "lose"?

[sotoxful]

the thing about the categoric imperative is that it demands you to act by duty. It does not matter if the result benefits you or not. that does not means that you should not act if there is a benefit from you. Results are irrelevant.

[rh001YT]

a large percent, say 70, of the politicians in India are objectivists. A small percent are brought up on corruption charges, and some are convicted. These politicians know they are breaking laws, but they dont think they are doing anything "wrong", as they do deliver on the bribes they take. The corruption is traditionally Indian and has been well documented during the Mughal period. It's a way traditional way of doing business. The masses do suffer, but not (usually)due to direct violence

[godofreudson]

And Rand too has many mistakes, such as her Hobbesian egoism, instead of an Aristotelian one.

So... each philosopher has his/her good things... to simply despise Kant like many Randroids do is just plain ridiculous. Another thing: Analytic philosophers (not logical positivism) such as Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke, John McDowell, etc. are urgently needed in objectivist circles. In fact, i think both sides would benefit immensely from each other.

[godofreudson]

Fuck.. I like Rand, but Randroids are such a pain in the ass. I bet these people don't even know about P.F. Strawson's book on Kant, which shows the most important and consistent part of his philosophy makes him a Realist.

He has lots of good things, such as his insistence that we can't make sense of perceptual experience without conceptual content, something that Rand's philosophy should take into account.

[SalvoTheSoul]

Well, we finally have prove: schrödinger's cat is alive!

[999gandalfthekid]

oh no a black cat just crossed my path!

[sybo59]

@XcPromise 4) My point was clear, but let me make it crystal: "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof".The mysticism isn't in the failed philosophy which tried to be rational, but in continued belief in a system once it's proven inferior.The accepted allegation "without evidence or proof" would be belief in logical positivism itself. You were thinking "it's not mystical, because it tries to be rational!", failed to see the correct context, and can't admit a mistake.

[sybo59]

1) See definition of "ad hominem". I used it literally, and correctly in context.

2) My ad hominem remark, right or wrong (right), had nothing to do with the meat of my comment; this is why it is a peripheral distraction tactic on your part. I accuse you of wasting words off topic, and spend many more to prove me wrong.

3) The last three responses from you have no content related to the subject at hand.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Yeah, and how was that 1) used to prove a point, which would make it ad hominem, and not me belittling your fucking intelligence, and 2) how is the fact that an ad hominem is not an accepted fallacy anymore a peripheral point when we are talking about ad hominem? How stupid are you exactly? Poor economy of words? You've resorted to talking like a pseudo-intellectual dumb ass in order to assume an air of intelligence have you? You don't understand anything I've said. Stop wasting time.