I don't agree with your definition of "facts", Lee. We speak of facts when we mean things that theoretically everyone has the potential to access, no matter which way the person perceives this. Children included! :-)
On 15 Sep., 10:49, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ourse factts 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. > > I is an objeective fact that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, except of > coure if you measure me in eterss. > > It is a subjective fact that a Socialist goverment is better for the >whole of sociaty than a Conservitive goerment.. > > Pilosophy, pooitics andd religon are all subject to relatve > ar rguments, 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 bsed uponon mown i interactions wi > fol ollows of Rand, but I can certianly say that my claim is facas > Rand > Rand can claim that: > 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] 14 Sep, 1 > > > Come'on mon, stop jerkin me chain. > > > I changed it to "Product", not any specific product t to "Puodun 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 foos it?ause "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 RaI can see that you provided, my main thrust is that in my experiance the > > > philosphy of Rand simplriance not work in the real word. > > > > I wonder now would you see such a statmentwonder nowive fact or ee such ajective opinion? > > > > On 14 Sep, 12:34, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Fa <bug...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 o tors 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 > > > > > that youer 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, > > > > Hecrificing 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 catanists ann that such a > > > > > philosophy when puthanto practice makes for a cold human being. > > > > > > No I'm much more comfatable with the philosophy 'be the person yole > > > > > with the p ish to be'. If that is to be selfish then that is at least your > > > > > choice, and if that is to be alturisitic agae, and if personal > > > > > choice. > > > > > The highest moral porpouse then must be live your life how you will, > > > > > in accordance with the law of the land. n accordanc > I am not a fan of soldiers on the whole, our(the UK) armed forces >the whol 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 argu in natureer. So you see the word Randriod is very apt, > > > > > no it would bloody awfapt, > e all thought like that, viva la > > > > > differance! > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 08:25, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > c <bug..anks for the link Molly; > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > It's really just a ground level platform on ally just xpand. 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, '> > > reabe'. 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 all. > > > 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 on is bot 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 > > > > > s I have sat enough folloI > > > > nd's philosophy to make up my mind on > > > > > > > how suce up mysophy 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
