Heh sorry Slip I'll try to play nice huh. Yes a fact is a fact and that is a fact!
Although I think you would be hard pressed to find a true objective (science not-withstanding) fact, your dog food example, for umm example. Dog food is only for dogs because that is what we subjectivly use it for. A fact is that most food can be eaten by most animals, including ourselfs. I guess what I'm trying to show is that this: 'Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, so we should work from there.' Is not objectivly true. Of course facts can be subject to subjectivity. If the meaning of the word 'fact' is a play on the word 'truth' then any fact that is not scientific in nature can be subjectivly true. It is an objective fact that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, except of coure if you measure me in meters. It is a subjective fact that a Socialist goverment is better for the whole of sociaty than a Conservitive goverment. Philosophy, politics and religon are all subject to relative arguments, each person will take a stance and claim it as truth. I claim that Rands philosophy does not work in the real word, my evidance is purly subjective and bassed upon my own interactions with follows of Rand, but I can certianly say that my claim is fact, as Rand can claim that: 'Every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.' Is also a fact. The true fact is that both of us have uttered what is no more than opinion. Unless of course you can objectivly show me why the above is fact? On 14 Sep, 19:09, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Come'on mon, stop jerkin me chain. > > I changed it to "Product", not any specific product that you can turn > into argumentative matter, but point is subjectivity does not change > fact. > It's "NOT" about any car lee, nor about debating a product's value. > > FACT: Dog food is for dogs. > Billy Bob: "I think dog food tastes good" > Sally: "I mix dog food with my Ramen". > Lee: "Dog food has real food in it" > SO which is it? > Fact A: Dog food is not dog food because "some" people like to eat it. > OR > Fact B: Dog food is still dog food even though some people like to eat > it. Dog food is for dogs. > > I go with Fact B. > > On Sep 14, 7:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Well I'll take that as a compliment Slip, cheers mate. > > > Your reply to my first post was though full of subjectivity. You did > > not mention any particular car, so without the full information I > > could only assume you meant all cars, or cars in general. The fact is > > that some cars are better built than most, yes some are junk some are > > not. > > > So when you say 'the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk', well I see > > no fact there at all merely opinion, and thus my response. If you had > > made your analogy clearer, then my response would have been differant, > > or I may have even agreed with you. > > > Yes I have agreed that I can see some validty in the quote of Rands > > that you provided, my main thrust is that in my experiance the > > philosphy of Rand simply does not work in the real word. > > > I wonder now would you see such a statment as objective fact or > > subjective opinion? > > > On 14 Sep, 12:34, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding>>Lee > > > > You can color facts all you want but "fact" remains unchanged. > > > > I think you have a tendency to get a bit microscopic in your analysis, > > > not to mention that you are not addressing the point made but > > > emphasizing subjectivity. It's not about cars! > > > The "fact of subjectivity" does not alter the "fact". > > > If a product is junk, the fact that people may perceive it to be other > > > does not change the fact that the product is junk. > > > > Rand can be chilly but not totally without validity in regards to > > > alternative thinking. It's not about the differences in people. > > > > On Sep 14, 3:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Slip. > > > > > Umm much to say on this. > > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding. A car > > > > to you may be a piece of junk, but to others represents freedom of > > > > movment as well as being a marvel of engineering, these are both facts > > > > also. However they seem to go against what you claim is the fact of > > > > the matter re: cars. > > > > > So which facts are objectivly correct? > > > > > This: > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose > > > > of > > > > his life." > > > > > On the surface does look like good advice and I do see some merit in > > > > it, yet it still ignores the differances in people, and it reminds me > > > > a ot of certain Church of Satan creeds, again I also have known many > > > > such Satanists and I can say without fear of contridiction that such a > > > > philosophy when put into practice makes for a cold human being. > > > > > No I'm much more comfatable with the philosophy 'be the person you > > > > wish to be'. If that is to be selfish then that is at least your > > > > choice, and if that is to be alturisitic again that is personal > > > > choice. > > > > The highest moral porpouse then must be live your life how you will, > > > > in accordance with the law of the land. > > > > > I am not a fan of soldiers on the whole, our(the UK) armed forces > > > > takes in children and passes out wankers, of course though I see the > > > > need and I don't blame the individual squaddies for the lack of care > > > > that our goverement gives them. Would you say that to be a soldier is > > > > in keeping with Randian thought? Or that it is more self sacrificial > > > > in nature? > > > > > I would argue the latter. So you see the word Randriod is very apt, > > > > no it would bloody awful if we all thought like that, viva la > > > > differance! > > > > > On 13 Sep, 08:25, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the link Molly; > > > > > Lee, > > > > > It's really just a ground level platform on which to expand. Rand > > > > > simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled > > > > > world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, > > > > > so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile > > > > > commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk > > > > > but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are not > > > > > dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can altruistically give > > > > > a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you will > > > > > still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try in some > > > > > way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes > > > > > precedence over the other. Rand states: > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of > > > > > his life." > > > > > It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, that > > > > > is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part of your > > > > > own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much good if > > > > > you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if you > > > > > were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide in > > > > > excess of your self interest and happiness. > > > > > > On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy of Rand. > > > > > > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with. > > > > > > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose, can > > > > > > readily fit alongside my own, 'right to be'. But this idea that we > > > > > > all should rely on our own (absolute) reason, negects some inherent > > > > > > parts of our 'nature'. > > > > > > > We are not purely reasonable creatures, and some of us seem to live > > > > > > a > > > > > > life without any form or reason at all. It is admiral that we seek > > > > > > to > > > > > > better ourselves, yet not all of us do, it is admiral that we seek a > > > > > > morality with which to better ourselvs, yet some are bound to > > > > > > disagree > > > > > > on what that morality should be. > > > > > > > All in all I think that any philosophy NOT grounded in the reality > > > > > > of > > > > > > the situation is bound to fail. Rand discounts that most of us work > > > > > > on multilevels, some of our decistions and actions stem from > > > > > > emotion, > > > > > > some of our belifes are unreasonable. To suggest that doing so is > > > > > > unethical ignores the way we work, indeed as I have said to Chris, > > > > > > I > > > > > > have met enough followers of Rand's philosophy to make up my mind on > > > > > > how such philosophy actualy works in the real world and what it does > > > > > > to people. They are on the whole, cold, selfish, unemotional > > > > > > people, > > > > > > yes of course this is merely my opinion but one I certianly hold to > > > > > > be > > > > > > true due to my experiances. > > > > > > > Rands objectivism simply does not work, if followed it changes > > > > > > people, > > > > > > and not for the better. > > > > > > > On 8 Sep, 01:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is substance there if one considers the indiscriminate > > > > > > > drive to > > > > > > > love one another, the warped sense of loving thy enemies. We know > > > > > > > that one cannot begin to love another without loving self first. > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > counseled many who stated "my whole world revolved around > > > > > > > her/him", > > > > > > > which obviously reveals itself to be the problematic issue, we > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > support our individuality. Once we lose our individuality we fade > > > > > > > away, exist without substance. Rand's sacrificial analogy is not > > > > > > > without relevance in that we should not become martyrs for the > > > > > > > sake > > > > > > > of someone's survival, and of course the issue of whether someone > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > deserves the love or attention. I agree that we all should rely > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > our own (absolute) reason and reiterate Kant's "duty of > > > > > > > happiness". > > > > > > > Rand lays it out as achieving our own happiness as the highest > > > > > > > moral > > > > > > > purpose. I've recently jousted with Lee on that very ideal in > > > > > > > which I > > > > > > > felt his concern for families of murderers was misguided and > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > foundation which reveals his personal slant toward the opposing > > > > > > > side > > > > > > > of Rand's proposal which ultimately resulted in assessing my view > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > selfish. I think Rand sees through all the bullshit and all the > > > > > > > corruptness that comes with modified government regulated > > > > > > > capitalism > > > > > > > (now that's a laugh). Altruism is somewhat honorable when you > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > billions of dollars but for most it is simply a way to dig a > > > > > > > grave. > > > > > > > It's funny that Wallace spews out how we are taught to have > > > > > > > concern > > > > > > > for our fellow man, a "religious" indoctrination by which people > > > > > > > become subservient with the notion that they are > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
