The Philosophical Hierarchy and why it matters

An explanation of what the philosophical hierarchy is and why it cannot be inverted.

The Leonard Peikoff lecture mentioned at the start:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_peikoff_intro

Oh, and this has nothing to do with the video, but I think it's really awesome and you should check it out:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1118555081221

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Objectivism
• Leonard
• Peikoff
• Ayn
• Rand
• Metaphysics
• Epistemology
• Ethics
• Politics
• Aesthetics
• the
• stolen
• concept
• fallacy
• philosophy

[efghijkl8]

I was being patient/interested in you but instead of discussion you swear at me/everyone, provide no evidence, refuse to answer direct questions and dismiss others as idiots without knowledge or respect. Don't you get respect if you show it to others?

[dannidandannikins]

@efghijkl8 Not to mention that you call Rand - and therefore me by extension, as an advocate of her philosophy - a crackpot, a bitch and an idiot. Plus you accuse me of being arrogant, ignorant, soap-boxing...

And you wonder why i get annoyed?

[Thill029]

I was discussing politics with my friend's girlfriend and I told her that politics is all about philosophy, so much so that it is defined as the branch of philosophy dealing with human interaction. She got really irritated, claiming that I'm wrong and just clinging to definitions (whatever that means). Meanwhile she has very strong political opinions, and she doesn't even know what politics is.

[MrGentlemanly]

LMAO @ 4:20!

That's exactly how my anarchist classmates act!

[dannidandannikins]

@efghijkl8 yeah, i said it is immoral as a general rule, not in all instances. Similarly killing another person is immoral as a general rule, but in some circumstances it is moral.

You seem to have this weird idea that Objectivism hands down intrinsicist moral commandments... 'do/don't do x'

[dannidandannikins]

@efghijkl8 It was subjectivist tripe. Strictly speaking, it was even wrong, it was meaningless.

[efghijkl8]

@dannidandannikins As for making effort to understand others', I gave you a great book on art to read, you immediately said it was crap (wrong), I mentioned the sense in which knowledge may evolve and within 2 seconds you disdainfully reject it as for idiots and irrationalists.

[efghijkl8]

@dannidandannikins I remember you telling me that suicide was immoral and me challenging you on it whilst you were enjoying my hospitality. Don't you? My understanding is that agent relative morality based only on individual survival as a standard of value does not substantiate the extended moral and psychological claims you proclaim.

[efghijkl8]

no not really.I suggest reading Prescott because he writes about being an angry close minded objectivist, Nyquist beause he references ideas that you have no knowledge of because of your refusal to read about a subject before forming opinions, and Huemer because he raises several very strong criticisms that you have not made the effort to understand.

[efghijkl8]

I asked for evidence you said you don't have any. So your truths about the human brain derive from Rand's axioms and your own introspection about scenarios which you have no experience of. Any reason why someone can't introspect anything else, e.g god? not by your reasons.

[dannidandannikins]

@efghijkl8 Instead, you've made a lot of effort to find the internet's most dishonest critics of Objectivism: Nyquist, who denies the validity of reason; Heumer, who straw man's Rand's ethics and falsely accuses her of hero-worshipping a child-killer; Prescott who rejected Objectivism in favor of his beliefs in psychic powers! All of whom accuse Objectivism of being a cult, which means that you, by demanding that I read and respond to them, are accusing me of being a member of a cult.