Umm where chris where, I can't see it? Cheers, Lee.
On 1 Sep, 15:44, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I addressed it! :D > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:02 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > That's all well and good BB, I don't see the relevamce though. > > > All I asked was you show a little patiaence, I explianed my post was > > merely my initial thoughts and during the term of this thread I'm sure > > that there will be plenty of time to disect things. In essance I was > > answering your query about wheter or not there would be more rational > > debate on this topic. > > > Sadly though I have tried to stick to the OP, indeed read my response > > to Chris, yet I notice that this reponse has not been addressed (I > > belive it contians what you where asking for) although other flippant > > posts of mine has. Ahhh well life, it's a funny old game. > > > On 28 Aug, 22:40, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think you need to understand my “modus operandi” here. I see ideas > > > as having a box around them. The lines of the box may be blurry or > > > sharp, but they “contain” the idea. Outside of the box the idea > > > breaks down or is no longer useful. When I hear an idea, let’s take > > > socialism or communism, I don’t approach the analysis of that idea > > > like most people it appears. Instead of staying in the center of that > > > idea “on face value” I immediately run off to the edges of the idea > > > to find its “limits.” I will ask questions from way over on the edge > > > of the idea, and you think “what is he doing way over there?” Well, I > > > am finding the edges of the idea. I am yelling back to you “is this > > > where the line is? I need to know where that idea might go if it was > > > not examined and was allowed to travel to its extreme limits of its > > > value. I am testing it by asking questions. That is how I find the > > > limits. I find this very useful! I may be alone in this approach, > > > but if you look at anything I have ever said in here, you can see this > > > modus operandi at work. > > > > On Aug 28, 2:39 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Patience sir, as you can see by the words that I used, this is indeed > > > > my first instinct and mentioned to 'get the ball' rolling, plenty of > > > > time to discect it huh. > > > > > On 27 Aug, 19:57, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 27, 8:29 am, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Umm yeah good one Chris. > > > > > > > My first instinct is that communist philosphy on paper says the > > right > > > > > > things, whilst of course Rand does not. > > > > > > Thank you for the opening thoughts, will there be a more thorough > > > > > analysis forthcoming? Will there be any rational debate or more in > > > > > depth discussion or even semi-rational exchanges on such a wonderful > > > > > topic? > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 16:12, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From here: > >http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/08/24/what-we-are-not-emb... > > > > > > > > " > > > > > > > > Here is a good debate proposition: It ought to be less > > embarrassing to have > > > > > > > been influenced by Ayn Rand than by Karl Marx. > > > > > > > > The most powerful way to argue the affirmative is to compare the > > number of > > > > > > > human beings murdered by the devotees of each. That line of > > attack ought to > > > > > > > be decisive, but I’m afraid it won’t get you far with the > > multitude of > > > > > > > highly-self-regarded thinkers influenced by Karl Marx. Fact is, > > commitment > > > > > > > to some kind of socialism and fluency in the jargon of Marxism > > used to be > > > > > > > mandatory for serious intellectuals. And there’s something > > glamorous in the > > > > > > > very idea of the intellectual. Even for those of us who came of > > age after > > > > > > > 1989, Marxism, like cigarettes, remains linked by association to > > the idea of > > > > > > > the intellectual, and so, like cigarettes, shares in the > > intellectual’s > > > > > > > glamour. I don’t know if cigarettes or Marxism have killed more > > people, but > > > > > > > it’s pretty clear cigarettes are more actively stigmatized. > > Marxists, > > > > > > > neo-Marxists, crypto-Marxists, post-Marxists, etc. have an > > enduring > > > > > > > influence on intellectual fashion. So it is not only possible > > proudly to > > > > > > > confess Marx’s influence on one’s thought, but it remains > > possible in some > > > > > > > quarters to impress by doing so. It ought to be embarrassing, but > > it isn’t. > > > > > > > Being a bit of a Marxist is like having a closet full of pirate > > blouses but > > > > > > > never having to worry." > > > > > > > > This gave me pause for consideration. Rand's philosophies have > > been much > > > > > > > maligned as "uncompassionate", while certain "socialist" (Marxist > > Communist) > > > > > > > policies have been held up as an ideal, and yet, how many people > > have been > > > > > > > killed in the name of Randian philosophy, and how many have been > > killed in > > > > > > > the name of Marxist philosophy? > > > > > > > > What do YOU think? ;)- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
