Anti-Rand

[Nonson]

...the problem of...how cognition...is possible at all...can never be answered on the basis of a prior knowledge of the transcendent [i.e. the external, spatio-temporal, empirical]...no matter whence the knowledge or the judgments are borrowed, not even if they are taken from the exact sciences.... It will not do to draw conclusions from existences of which one knows but which one cannot "see". "Seeing" does not lend itself to demonstration or deduction. [Husserl 1964a, pp. 2-3]

[Nonson]

The naïveté of speaking about "objectivity" without ever considering subjectivity as experiencing, knowing, and actually concretely accomplishing, the naïveté of the scientist of nature or of the world in general, who is blind to the fact that all the truths he attains as objective truths and the objective world itself as the substratum of his formulae (the everyday world of experience as well as the higher-level conceptual world of knowledge) are his own life-construct developed within himself--this naïveté is naturally no longer possible as soon as life becomes the point of focus.

Husserl, Quotations

[Ronald_Barbour]

Interesting...But what do you think? Quotations are a dime a dozen without a context......

Sincerely, Ronbo

[Nonson]

Ronbo, apparently your grasp of semiotics is non-existent. _____________________________________________ "...without a context." ? Know anything about coherence and syntax? _____________________________________________ Generally, idiotic employment of words are ignored by all on BBs. But ever so often along comes an A##HOLE who sets himself up as the TERMINATOR, and he must be treated as such.

[This message has been edited by ILay (edited 31 December 2000).]

[Ronald_Barbour]

Sheer Nonsense:

Apparently your grasp of reality is not what it should be -- This is not surprising in a leftist dweeb who quotes pseudo-intellectuals he only half understands in a pathetic attempt to be profound.

Very Sincerely, Ronbo

[Nonson]

How did the eugenicist's eradicators miss this less than suitable life form?

[Dashenka]

Hey guys,
I am also Anti-Rand, but Nonson, I didn't understand much of those terrible run on quotes you wrote down. Sometimes I feel that philosophy is a ridiculous and excurtiating exercise..if still necessary. It's been a while since I thought about this, so I won't be as eloquent as I could be. Philosphy sort of drifts away if you don't brush up on it or contemplate it often. My first experience with Ayn Rand was in high school. I read "Atlas shurgged" and I loved it. I praised Rand and thought she really had something, that she'd put her finger on what was wrong it our American capitalism, that it wasn't complete, pure enough. I agreed that one cannot ask people to compete and suceed and then ask them to give up some of their winnings to make it easier for others to compete. But, as I got a little older and reflected back I saw I'd been sucked into a trap for the mentally lazy. Objectivism is nothing but the WORST of capitalism expemplified. It it utterly selfish! Though Rand views this selfishness in a good light, in reality, if everyone practiced it the world would be filled with only ruthless, disconnected people. Objectivism is also in direct oposition to love. You can't love someone while still behaving in the selfish way Rand prescribes one should. Love is by nature UN-selfish. Rand does not look deep enough into human nature. There is something in us that looks for comfort in other people. We all want to find love and approval, comfort and peace free of the ruthless tensity of competition. I don't believe that one could practice pure objectivism and have friends and lovers..you would always be slipping. I also don't have much respect for Rand herself. She took a lover in order to write, which I don't approve of. I think that is a lazy and pathetic way to rationalize and justify infidelity. A person can write without a physical muse. The muse is something created in one's self. It also bothers me that she testified as a friendly witness before the HUAC, instead of denouncing McCarthyism, like many other strong principled academics did.

Dasha!