Henrik's comments

Henrik's comments from the Happy & Brainy Group group.

Note: Henrik is no longer a member of this group.

While not necessarily against all you say here, Ilyn, this group has now turned down a ridiculous lane of bashing. And knowing that if anyone said something to voice a disagreement it would either fall to deaf ears or be, just like that, called "irrational." The whole "if you're not with me, you're against me" agenda. Ugh.

And knowing that in reality there's almost none of the "rationality" hailed here (and, yes, I know what I am talking about; I have a degree in philosophy & teach theory of science, so I know a thing or two about the various positions, incl. rationality), I hereby leave this group.

Take care, everyone.

Henrik

Argh. I think you're right, Kendall. Sorry about that one, Ilyn. And thanks for clearing it up for me, Kendall.

I also see your point re. pragmatism. Thanks for sharing those thoughts.

Hi Ilyn,

Well, that doesn't really answer my question, does it?

Either way I am not so sure you're right when saying that about Galileo. First and foremost because nowadays his views are (on the whole) the ones that are accepted today, so he probably wouldn't be called an extremist--at least not by people believing in science;-)

Secondly, the pragmatist doesn't really care whether something is "ultimately true" or not, but basically only about what "works." So if Galileo's theory turned out to work, they'd have no problem accepting it.

Please note that I am not defending pragmatist as the way (not by a long shot), but merely stating what they are about and what they are not about.

LOL. Well, Ilyn, I guess I had that short reply coming, given the way I phrased my question:-D

Let me rephrase it, then: Can I get an argument, or line of reasoning, for why you don't think so?

Ilyn wrote: "I don't agree with pragmatism."

I know you don't, Ilyn, but that & the rest of that reply didn't really answer my question, which was:

[D:]oes that mean that when the pragmatist calls the "person who has convictions" an extremists, that's okay as long as it's done with the present in mind?

I won't go into a debate pro et con subjectivism, pragmatism etc., etc.; much of which we've discussed elsewhere. But I am honestly curious as to how you'd answer my question, given what you said in message #1.

Ilyn,

Fair enough, of course. My mistake.

So--does that mean that when the pragmatist calls the "person who has convictions" an extremists, that's okay as long as it's done with the present in mind?...

Ilyn wrote:

"“Extremist?”

“A pragmatist’s description of one who has convictions.”

“Pragmatist?”

“One who blanks out the past, the future, the whys, the wherefores, and the hows.” "

So... One who blanks out the past, the future, the whys, the wherefores, and the hows describes one who has convictions as an "extremist"?

How is that even possible if the pragmatist leaves everything as blank as you say here?

Thanks for clearing that up, Jim.

I agree with you most of the way. But agreement is not the point--understanding is. And your answer helped me understand what you meant. Thanks.

I won't go more into this, since it would stray too far for the topic of the thread, which is Politics;-)

Furthermore, Jim, philosophy too tries to describe reality as close to "reality" as possible. That's what most philosophy aims at, anyhow... So how do you discern philosophy and science?

Just curious:-)

Well said, Jim, but I must disagree with you that philosophy is "just" a soft science--and your idea of what is science sounds rather too idealistic (when one looks closer at the various scientific disciplines it becomes quite obvious that they don't really know what "grounds" the theories are built upon; or, at best, these "grounds" are not as one-sidedly evident as those believing in the given theory think).

Physical laws can be many things, remember. And nowadays most of us accept, say, Newton's laws of physics--and they seem to work excellent. But that says nothing about it being a true description of the world as such; interestingly, if one instead applies some consequences of Einstein's laws of relativity, gravity would seem not so much as being a pull down to earth (Newtonian Physics) but more a matter of a push of the universe around a planet (Einstein). The result, obviously, is the same--but the cause is immensely different!

So science is often more complicated than we think, regardless of how well a given theory works;-)

I just realized, Ilyn, that perhaps you were refering to the specific situation in the US where the Congress is trying to remedy the situation today. My comment to this is of a more general nature, but it's not to downplay the seriousness of the current, actual situation in the US.

Thanks for clearing that up, Ilyn:-)

Even so, I think you're mixing two very different kinds of "laws" here--that of nature (gravity) and that of something specifically man-made (loan). I agree, of course, that mankind is a creature of nature, but that's not the same as saying that everything works in the exact same way all the way round. And when it comes to lending people money, it's also a matter of taking into account if you think it's worthwile "in the long run" to lend money to someone, even if perhaps they cannot pay mortgages here and now (which, then, the loan supposedly is to help one doing). So, in fact, it can be rational to do so;-)

Now, I am not saying that's what happened in most cases, considering the dire situation the world, along with the US, is in financially. All I am saying is that it can be like that, and, I think, from time to time it also is.

Ilyn, you say in message #171: "It is not rational to defy gravity and jump from a skyscraper without a parachute. It is impractical to lend to homebuyers with no capacity to pay home mortgages "

Does that mean that to you the "rational" is the same as the "practical"? That's how this sentence reads to me--or, at any rate, that the "non-rational" is the same as "impractical".

Ilyn,

We've been down that road before in another thread. And what you say still doesn't add up to the complexity of those examples (as history of science as well as philosophy well ilustrates, up to this day). However, I don't think we will get any further discussing this in this thread either, so I'll stop myself here. It would also veer too far from the topic, which is politics.

I know this is something that was touched a while ago in the Philosophy postings, but since it's reared it's head here I just have to throw in a few thoughts myself...

For a moment ignoring whether I agree with the whole "Objectivist ethics" idea or not, the "metaphysical reality" is nonetheless quite harder to "catch" than what you and, apparently, Ayn Rand seem to think.

It sounds very nice, but really doesn't say anything at all.

Other than basing such ideas on certain assumptions, there's still no real proof (logical term) or evidence of one, single, clear-cut Reality. One thing is (possible) logical consistency, another is having this emerging with the empirical world (the physical world, what we normally refer to as "the world we live in").

Likewise with expressions such as "Rights are based on man's nature and his relationship to existence." Fine words indeed... But what do they mean? Okay, you've tried to elaborate on a lot of this before, Ilyn, I know that. It still doesn't hold up, though, because these assumptions (although often called "axioms") are nothing but words. The necessary connection with the physical world is still lacking.

Personally, when people start basing political ideas on some unclear, yet-to-be-verified ideas of metaphysics I become wary. Sounds too much like fundamentalism to me, then.

As I've said in earlier posts, I am not saying there's no Objective Reality, merely that so far there's still no, philosophically and scientifically verified, 100% evidence for such one (even less of what kind of Objective Reality; funnily enough, people who argue for such rarely agree entirely on what it really means, when it comes down to it).

Lucille,

Dead Poets Society is a favourite of mine as well. It has certainly been an inspiration in my life:-)

Will, it's good to hear your mentioning of the Communism--Socialism--Capitalism positions. Too often I've heard people confuse/blend the two latter into the same chategory. (Not on this list, but many other places.)

Hehehe... Hi Lucille.

A regular gathering, eh?;-)

Hi Ilyn:-)

I know you were honest, Ilyn. And that's great:-) So was I. Incl. about not necessarily glorifying something just because an author writes about it (cf. Message #15).