Meh! Well that's what you say Slip, I find it valid to show that Fact can be subjective.
Another example. Many people use the expression 'fact of life' often what they mean is personal opinion on some facet of life. Now no doubt you shall accuse me of being pedantic and playing semantic games, but the word fact can, is, and will continue to be used to mean both objective and subjective reality. So when Rand pulls down this curtian and talks about objectivity, we must ask exactly which objective realities or facts she means. Then if we can show that one or two of these facts are quiet subjective what does that mean? Slip, you accuse me of looking too microscopicly and say that I intruduce inane arguments into the factor. No sir I say it is looking properly, picking up the rocks to see what is really there. On 15 Sep, 20:11, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > The FACT is, Lee, that the sun rises. That IS the fact. Putting a > time element in the mix so you can disqualify the fact and turn it > into fuzzy subjectivity is simply a waste of time. > > You complicate things with inane elements. For example: someone says > "The sunshine is warm" and then you will come in with "well not if > there are clouds". Fact: sunshine IS warm > > On Sep 15, 10:22 am, "[email protected]" > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes of course we are. > > > But where in the world are you Gabs and did the sunrise at this > > morning at 06:34 wherever it is? > > > Facts can indeed be subjective huh. > > > On 15 Sep, 16:14, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm not following the ramadan rules, so I can allow myself to be lazy > > > enough to believe that what you are saying is a fact. Still friends, > > > aren't we? > > > > On 15 Sep., 17:03, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Ahhh Gabs you can disagree with me any time you like darlin'! > > > > > However if I say it is a fact that sunrise this morning was at 06:34. > > > > Is it a fact or not? > > > > > On 15 Sep, 15:46, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
