group discussion
topic:
Advocate Reason
Comments
(showing 17-66)
post a comment »
By Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D.
Reprinted by permission from The Intellectual Activist, Volume V, Number 1 (1989) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...
From the article's conclusion:
It is perhaps too early for there to be a mass movement of Objectivists. But let those of us who are Objectivists at least make sure that what we are spreading is Ayn Rand’s actual ideas, not some distorted hash of them. Let us make sure that in the quest for a national following we are not subverting the integrity of the philosophy to which we are dedicated. If we who understand the issues speak out, our number, whether large or small, is irrelevant; in the long run, we will prevail.
If we engage in quality-control now, refusing to sanction the rewriters of Objectivism whatever the short-term cost and schisms, the long-range result will be a new lease on life for mankind. If we don’t, we are frauds in the short-term and monsters long-range.
Let us not cohabit with or become alchemists in reverse, i.e., men who turn the gold of Ayn Rand into lead.
Paraphrasing Marx: in demanding intellectual consistency, we have nothing to lose but our deluders—and we have the world to win.
Purveyor of Truth (Part 1) – Definitions: Guardians of Rationality
http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2009/11/pur...
Excerpt:
When called upon to do good by force – to be King of the United States – George Washington took offense, calling it “abhorrent!”
Those who live by the facts of reality accept these truths: man has free will, and individuals have equal, inherent, inalienable rights. Those who go by the truth advance their moral values by using reason and persuasion. Never by force.
A purveyor of truth is on the side of reason and rights. Like Thomas Jefferson, he avows, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
By Harry Binswanger, as published in Why Businessmen Need Philosophy, pages 153–166 http://atlasshrugged.com/book/dollar-and...
A Lecture in RealVideo by Leonard Peikoff - Introduction to Objectivism http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...
Israel's and America's - Fundamental Choice
By Leonard Peikoff http://www.peikoff.com/essays/israel.htm...
Radicals for Capitalism
Reason celebrates freedom and the ideas of Ayn Rand http://reason.org/news/show/1008645.html...
Government health care in America – part 2
September 15, 2009 by Jeff Scialabba http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/government...
The unfairness of “fair speech”
September 10, 2009 by Don Watkins http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-unfair...
Surrender in book on Mohammad cartoons
September 4, 2009 by Elan Journo http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/surrender-...
Government health care in America – part 1
September 2, 2009 by Jeff Scialabba http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/government...
How to eliminate health care injustices (part 2)
August 28, 2009 by Alex Epstein http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/how-to-eli...
Taliban wins in Afghan election
August 25, 2009 by Elan Journo http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/taliban-wi...
The Vatican’s assault on capitalism (part 2)
August 6, 2009 by Alex Epstein http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-vatica...
The Vatican’s assault on capitalism (part 1)
August 5, 2009 by Alex Epstein http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-vatica...
The Iranian regime’s true character
June 19, 2009 by Elan Journo http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-irania...
Sotomayor’s oath: fingers crossed?
June 22, 2009 by Tom Bowden http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/sotomayors...
UCLA climate change panel — follow-up
April 17, 2009 by Keith Lockitch http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/ucla-clima...
Genachowski is right to oppose the Fairness Doctrine – Part II
July 7, 2009 by Don Watkins http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/genachowsk...
To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical. [George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover:]
Ayn Rand on the Fairness Doctrine
August 3, 2009 by Don Watkins
http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/ayn-rand-o...
Where’s Exxon’s “windfall losses” tax credit?
Posted By Alex Epstein: 30 Jul 2009 01:26 PM PDT
For years, every time Exxon Mobil and other successful oil companies made a large profit, they were blasted for making “too much” money, hauled in front of Congress to explain themselves, and threatened with a “windfall profits” tax.
Well, now that Exxon and Shell have just revealed that their profits fell 2/3 from last year, is Congress going to offer them a sympathy card, an apology, and a “windfall losses” tax credit? After all, if the oil industry deserves extra taxation just for making unusually high profits, shouldn’t it receive compensatory tax credits when its profits crash? Why the double standard?
Of course, Congress has no interest in fairness or consistency with regard to oil companies. If it did, it would be grateful to them for providing a product vital to our lives, admire their efficiency and profitability, and recognize that what they really deserve — and have an inalienable right to — is to be free of government interference, with complete responsibility for their losses and an absolute right to their profits.
http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/wheres-exx...
Voices for Reason
Sotomayor’s mask of objectivity
Posted by Tom Bowden: 31 Jul 2009 01:00 AM PDT
“Sotomayor Emphasizes Objectivity”—that was the headline in a recent Washington Post. It was a line worthy of the satirical newspaper known as The Onion, which deals routinely in turning the tables for humor’s sake, inverting truth and fiction. And the newly objective Sonia Sotomayor is a pure work of fiction.
During her hearings, Sotomayor said all the right things. She told the committee that her judicial philosophy is “fidelity to the law.” She told Senator Jon Kyl that the “job of the judge is to apply the law” and “it’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases.” She told him: “We apply law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts….” And she passed off her famous “wise Latina” remark as a “rhetorical flourish” meant to inspire other minorities, not to express her philosophy of judging.
Based on this performance, Sotomayor is virtually certain to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to submit her nomination to the full Senate. But how are the senators supposed to square her recent professions of judicial objectivity with her public paeans to the opposite view?
When Sotomayor claimed that a Latina judge will usually make better decisions than a white male, she was not just dispensing a “rhetorical riff” in the emotional heat of the moment. On the contrary, that claim was the thematic centerpiece of her 2001 speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice.” You have to read the whole speech. It’s all of a piece. Anyone can be forgiven a “rhetorical flourish” which, taken out of context, conveys a view contrary to one’s well-considered opinions. But that’s not what happened in that speech (later authorized by her to be reprinted as a law review article). The speech/article is a complex, extended meditation on “how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul,” and the inevitable relativism that sex, race, and upbringing impose on the task of judging cases in court.
As Senator Kyl observed, the speech did not convey that prejudices based on race, gender, and upbringing must be fought and surmounted by careful, rational identification and extirpation. On the contrary, Kyl told her “you seem to be celebrating it.” And indeed, that’s the only objective interpretation of her speech/article.
At the hearing, she responded defiantly by saying: look at my written decisions and tell me where the prejudice is. But that’s no defense—it’s just a confession that she can’t get away with what she’s preaching, so long as objectivity retains any status as a judicial ideal. It’s as if a teacher who advocates for biblical creationism in the public schools were to say, “I’m no danger to the separation of church and state—just show me when I’ve ever taught the Bible in class before now.”
Sotomayor should not be allowed to get away with claiming that her stated ideas are just so much hot air, having no real-world significance. Consider, for example, the following statements from her speech: “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” and “‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.’” If those words mean anything, what do they permit? At a minimum, they permit trial judges to rationalize a choice to select which facts to consider, and which to ignore, based on his or her personal “perspective.” Which facts? Well, you might never know, because the decision to consider or ignore facts will be made in the privacy of the judge’s mind. This is subjectivism—the idea that one’s emotional reactions are a sufficient basis for making intellectual decisions. No appellate court, not even the Supreme Court, can be expected to catch and correct such subjective corruption of the fact-finding process.
And that’s just for starters. As the most prominent current advocate of non-objective judging, Sotomayor will be able to influence the entire judiciary in this direction, using the prestige of her new position on the nation’s highest court. Will her accession send the Court immediately into a downward spiral of blatant subjectivity? No, of course not. These things take time. She will be one among nine justices. She will be watched closely. But while her every word is parsed for subliminal racism, judges throughout the land will be able to cite a Supreme Court justice in their defense if they happen to get caught “choosing what facts to see” based on their race, gender, or upbringing.
In in the long run, Sotomayor’s subjectivism can be expected to further undermine the already-discredited idea that the U.S. Constitution has objective meaning. (See my article on “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution.”) And that will spell disaster for the Supreme Court’s ability to protect individual rights.
Ask any parent. Which best reflects a child’s true beliefs: what he says to his friends when no one else is listening, or what he says to adults when they’ve called him on the carpet? When Sonia Sotomayor was chatting among friends (in speeches and articles), she revealed the soul of a thoroughgoing subjectivist. But now her “parents,” the members of the United States Senate, seem willing to accept her lip service to objectivity at face value. Unfortunately, it is the American people who will suffer for the Senate’s lack of intellectual discipline.
There is still an opportunity for the Senate to do the right thing: Sonia Sotomayor should be denied confirmation to the post of associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Ayn Rand Institute Announces $2 Million Fundraising Campaign—the Atlas Shrugged Initiative
IRVINE, CA, July 24, 2009—The Ayn Rand Institute has announced a $2 million fundraising campaign — the Atlas Shrugged Initiative—in an unprecedented effort to increase readership of Ayn Rand’s best-known novel, Atlas Shrugged.
The impetus behind the Atlas Shrugged Initiative, explains ARI President and Executive Director Yaron Brook, is the fact that “At no time in history has there been greater public interest in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. And its message has never been more urgent.
“The torrent of destructive, statist policies emanating from Washington represents both a crisis—and an opportunity. Through the Atlas Shrugged Initiative, we intend to capitalize on the soaring grassroots interest in Ayn Rand and her ideas.”
Adds Dr. Brook, “The Atlas Shrugged Initiative is off to an outstanding start. A very generous benefactor has already offered to match every dollar donated to this Initiative—up to a total of $500,000—and as a result of early and substantial funding, the bookstore promotions that are a key component of the Initiative are already well underway.”
Key elements of the Atlas Shrugged Initiative include significant bookstore promotions of the novel; an expansion of ARI’s web-based efforts to spur readership of Atlas Shrugged; expansion of ARI’s long-running educational programs for high school and college students; and targeted outreach to pro-liberty, pro-capitalist activists around the nation.
Visit the Ayn Rand Institute’s Atlas Shrugged Initiative campaign page to learn more or to support this campaign.
### ### ###
Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.
For more articles by Yaron Brook, and his bio, click here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=N...
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Institute are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARI's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrand.org/contribute.
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for noncommercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
Voices for Reason
Wanted: serious students of Ayn Rand’s philosophy
Posted by Debi Ghate: 17 Jul 2009 02:14 AM PDT
The Objectivist Academic Center http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p... is currently accepting applications for its Fall 2009 incoming class. Designed to provide a comprehensive and systematic study of the philosophy of Objectivism and the art of objective communication as well as an introduction to philosophy more broadly, this unique program is for those who are serious about advocating pro-reason, pro-individual rights, pro-capitalism views.
The program is especially designed for full-time college students, for whom there is next to no cost. Applications from professionals interested in pursuing careers as intellectual activists are also welcome.
For those who are not able to commit to a full program, the OAC offers an auditing http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p... option. Consider taking our “Seminar in Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Objectivism.”
The final application deadline for this year is July 31, 2009.
Republican Party of Virginia 2009 State Convention—Keynote Address
http://arc-tv.com/republican-party-of-vi...
http://www.facebook.com/friends/?ref=tn#...
Why we have free speech in America - Part I
Posted by Don Watkins: 17 Jun 2009 02:00 AM PDT
A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of visiting Montpelier, the former home of James Madison. There were conspicuously few visitors–and none of the others appeared to be under 70 years of age. It was emblematic, I think, of how little awareness there is of the Founding Fathers today. Sure, we still invoke them regularly, but how many Americans actually study their writings?
Contrary to conservatives, the primary value of studying the Founders is not to learn about our “great traditions.” It’s to discover great minds wrestling with important ideas. And if you think their arguments aren’t relevant to today, think again.
In the wake of the recent series of apparently ideologically-motivated shootings, a growing number of voices are warning us that we are seeing the perils of free speech. The most open statement I found was on the Daily Kos blog; its author was someone who posts as “citisven.” The post was titled, “Why we don’t have ‘free speech’ in Germany.” (You’ll have to ask citisven why he put free speech in scare quotes.)
In Germany, where I’m from, we collectively decided after what happened in the 1930’s and 40’s that there are limits to free speech. Yes, you can have reasonable disagreements, but you cannot incite violence nor can you say things that are blatantly and patently false. Thus it is illegal to display swastikas or say that the holocaust never happened. . . . In light of the recent murders at the Holocaust Museum and the Wichita church it seems to be a fair question whether freedom of speech is an absolute right or whether it should be limited in certain circumstances.
You can read the entire thing for his defense of Germany’s restrictions. But the basic idea is that free speech goes too far. Sure, people should be able to have “reasonable” disagreements–but they shouldn’t be able to advocate any idea. Ideas that “incite violence” or are “blatantly and patently false” should be taken off the table.
Given how crucial the right to free speech is to the maintenance of a free society–and given how many martyrs to that freedom fill the pages of history–you might think that advocates of restricting speech would take great care to understand and grapple with the ideas of the Founding Fathers. But you would be wrong.
Notice, first of all, how citisven blends together two fundamentally different things: “blatant and patently false” speech, and “incitement to violence.” The Founders recognized that these were two essentially different issues that had to be addressed separately.
First, take the notion that the government should ban speech that is “blatantly and patently false.”
According to this view, we gain nothing from “blatant” falsehoods, and we risk much harm by failing to squelch them. We gain nothing by allowing people to deny the Holocaust–and we risk another one if those who hold this position are free to advocate it.
Before the Founders, virtually everyone took it for granted that the government should ban the communication of so-called “false facts.” But leading American thinkers identified that such a doctrine threatened all speech.
In his dazzling 1799 defense of free speech, George Hay (a member of the Virginia House of Delegates at the time) warned that, should the government start restricting “false” speech:
The officers of the government would have a right to invade this fortification, and to make prisoners of the garrison, whenever they thought there was a failure in the duty of publishing only the truth, of which failure persons chosen by the government are to judge. This is too absurd even for ridicule.
Hay was saying that allowing the government to suppress falsehoods would make the government the judge of truth–and that that would mean the end of free thought. He went on to argue that there is nothing to fear from falsehoods under a regime of free speech, that “truth was always equal to the task of combating falsehood without the aid of government; because in most instances it has defeated falsehood, backed by all the power of government. . . . [T:]ruth cannot be impressed upon the human mind by power, with which therefore, it disdains an alliance, but by reason and evidence only.”
And Hay wasn’t alone. A popular 1801 tract by John Thomson took up the issue of censoring falsehoods and concluded that, “Let not the Government interfere,” even in the communication of blatant untruths. “In no case whatever use coercive measures. . . . Coercion may silence, but it can never convince.”
In his Notes on the Virginia Resolutions, a tour de force in defense of free speech, James Madison argued that trying to limit censorship to false facts and opinions was hopeless. In order to protect the discovery and communication of true ideas, Madison argued that the Founders had made sure to erect an unqualified, unrestricted principle barring the government from restricting speech: “[I:]t would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution as it originally stood; and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.”
In my next post, I will discuss the Founders discussion of the second kind of case: ideas that should supposedly be suppressed on the grounds that they “incite violence.”
VOICES for REASON - Here’s one you won’t hear from Al Gore
Posted by Keith Lockitch: 15 May 2009 02:27 AM PDT
For years, scientists critical of the claims of catastrophic, man-made climate change have pointed out that even if the earth were warming–whether from human causes or not–there would be many positive benefits. For instance, warmer climate conditions combined with higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide–a.k.a. plant food–would dramatically promote plant growth. (See here for evidence this has already occurred, due to today’s CO2 levels and the slight temperature increase since the ’80s.)
The response from climate change alarmists has been either to completely ignore or dismiss such evidence–or, more recently, to trot out all manner of studies asserting that higher CO2 levels would primarily benefit harmful, pollen-spewing villains such as ragweed. And the media, of course, dutifully chimes in with gloomy headlines such as “Allergies Getting Worse Due to Global Warming” or “Climate Change: Something to Sneeze At.”
Well, here are some other “inconvenient truths” you won’t hear from Al Gore.
Scientists attempting to explain why flu is so seasonal have found evidence suggesting that the flu virus spreads faster in colder, drier conditions. An author of the study, Dr. Peter Palese of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, was interviewed on NPR last Friday:
“What we found specifically was that cold temperatures, around 40 degrees, and low humidity–exactly the conditions in temperate zones in winter–are much more favorable for transmission of flu,” Palese says. “At 75 to 80 degrees, we don’t see any transmission.”
That’s partly because of how temperature and humidity affect flu viruses, and partly because of how the environment affects the respiratory tracts of humans and other mammals.
Palese says flu viruses are more stable in colder, drier conditions.
Equally important, the droplets of fluid that people (and guinea pigs) spray with each sneeze and cough are much smaller at lower temperatures and humidity levels. So these droplets carry much farther and stay suspended in the air longer.
The droplets also penetrate deeper into the respiratory passages and lungs when breathed in, Palese says.
“At higher humidity, the droplets become much bigger and sink to the floor,” he adds.
Colder, drier air also affects mammals’ respiratory tracts in a way that gives flu viruses a boost.
So a warmer and more humid climate could be a huge benefit to flu sufferers. It’s too bad that global average temperatures have plateaued and currently appear to be declining.
For those interested in reason, civil discussion, and the basic elements of intellectual discussion check out The Reasonable Woman by Wendy McElroy. Becoming familiar with the common errors in discussions and arguments, as well as the strengths of reason will help avoid many of the gaffs and unfortunate assertions we see so often. This book is a great tool for that end. Ms McElroy writes in a way to make the material very accessible to the layperson, while offering insights of value even to those who have studied logic/reason for years. Far from a boring dry text, this book reads easily and smoothly.
See why appeals to authority do not support any claim. See why fallacies should be avoided, even or perhaps especially when the argument reaches a conclusion you actually like. See why persuasive arguments do not necessarily lead to true conclusions. See why the emotional reactions some choose to have when another offers a better argument, or offers a refutation, simply have no merit nor any place in any civil discussion. As Socrates cautioned us over two thousand years ago: Ideas are not our children we should not treat them as such. The point is that ideas should be compared to reality to determine truth, not against some emotional reaction. Insulting someone who offers refutation serves no purpose and does not support nor refute any argument or claim. Only comparison to reality can determine truth. This book helps us all avoid these simple, common, emotion based reactions which detract from learning, knowledge, and civil discussion.
Anyone engaging in any honest civil intellectual discussion, or even reading the heated diatribes we so often see, should have this book on their shelves.
You make a rather basic error when you embrace equivocation with regard to the ideas "liberty" "justice" "reason" and "reality"None of these are subjective, as you clearly assert. These are objectively determined, not subject to changing to suit whim or desire.
BTW You differ from Rand and Objectivism as well as I have shown repeatedly previously. Your embracing of X = - X is but one fine example, as is the abandoning of reason for faith, but what is truly telling is that even here you are employing a fallacy: Appeal to (pseudo) authority. If you embraced reason, as you claim to, then you would seek to avoid such clear and simple fallacies (well you would seek to avoid all fallacies, but avoiding these clear and simple ones is quite easy.) Where Rand was right was where her statements corresponded with reality. Those statements were not right because she uttered them, but rather were correct because they correspond with reality.
If as you seem to imply, we are supposed to deny reality where it conflicts with your desires, then reality has a harsh lesson waiting for you at some point. Truth is determined not by matching with your desires, but rather with corresponding to reality.
For clarity's sake:
Reason: logic. (the application of logic, the following of logic to necessary conclusions)
Liberty: Self-ownership, self-rule, the absence of rulers, the absence of slavery, freedom. The state in which no other person or entity has a claim over your life.
Reality: what is.
True: the condition in which the belief, statement, assertion, etc. corresponds with reality.
False: condition in which the belief, statement, desire, assertion, etc. is not identical to reality, or is in conflict with reality.
If you are using the words to mean something else, then you are engaging in yet another fallacy: that of equivocation.
It is very clear that we have different values, and that your understanding of concepts, like liberty - reason - reality, differs from mine. Clearly, you differ from Ayn Rand - Objectivism is not for anarchy.
Kudos to the Declaration signers and their concepts of government and liberty. Kudos to Thomas Jefferson, his definition of liberty, and his thoughts about reason.
So that is a no... Hopefully others will answer in the affirmative.That said clearly we have different goals then. I desire justice, liberty, and knowledge of reality (the last being necessary for the first two, and the first two being for all, not merely for myself). I am perfectly willing to follow where reason and reality lead, if I do not like what is necessarily true, then I abandon that false belief, because reality simply is never wrong.
As Thoreau realized so long ago, to be a philosopher is to so love reason as to live according to its dictates. I gladly live according to the dictates of reason and reality. And whenever and wherever belief (mine or that of others) is in conflict with reason and reality, I always place my bet on the sure thing: reality!
I totally agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Signers:
The Declaration of Independence explicitly states the only function of government: ‘ — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — …’
I follow my convictions. Excerpt from Royal Serf:
In a live broadcast, Apollo declared his party’s fundamentals. “A political party based on reason, the MikeMilkenist Party honors the most glorious achievement on Earth: the Declaration of Independence. This party adheres to the philosophy of Objectivism, and holds that religion is a private choice for each individual.
My party’s concretes shall never contradict these fundamentals.
The MikeMilkenist Party salutes the uncommon man. A man of integrated body and soul, the uncommon man esteems his own mind and values happiness. He respects himself no matter how poor he may be and endeavors to rise to the greatest heights. He takes pride in work and achievement. He glories in pursuits of genius and happiness. He reveres Liberty. He cannot be ruled by men because he is ruled by reason.
The Declaration of Independence states, ‘We hold these truths …’
The truth is what conforms to reality. Honesty is the pursuit of truth; it is the refusal to evade or fake reality. George Washington said, ‘I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.’
The exalted purity to the pursuit of truth belongs to the field of philosophy. Objectivism advocates capitalism as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. Politics, the fourth branch of philosophy, is based on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The political principles of this party are based on the facts of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence.
An intellectually honest individual concerned about alleviating human poverty and suffering uses the law of identity and the law of causality to discover their cause. A century laden with proofs, the unprecedented prosperity-explosion after the founding of the United States of America, would shine light on the answer: capitalism is the only social system that enables men to produce abundance - and the key to capitalism, to a coercion-free economic system, is individual freedom.
The metaphysically given is the standard of right or wrong. In order to succeed, an individual’s values and actions must conform to metaphysically given facts. Man cannot fly, so the Wright brothers invented the airplane; they found a way to counteract the force of gravity. Man cannot walk on water, so we build boats. Man cannot move a mountain, but we can build a tunnel through it. We can’t prevent earthquakes, so we must erect buildings that could withstand them. Man is a mortal being - doctors and pharmaceutical industries try to save and prolong lives.
The purpose of epistemology is to define a method of cognition that makes a fallible being capable of truth, a method that enables man to gain knowledge of an independent reality. Objectivity requires this method of cognition: logic.
Logic is noncontradictory identification within the full context of one’s knowledge.
Epistemology is a practical necessity – it guides man in the proper use of his conceptual faculty. Thinking, to be valid, must adhere to reality. If man’s goal is knowledge, rather than error or delusion, he must use reason.
Reason is the faculty that organizes perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. Reason is the existence-oriented faculty. It is the faculty of proof.
Knowledge, i.e. knowledge of reality, is contextual and hierarchical. Man’s only direct contact with reality is the data of sense – therefore, they are the standard of objectivity. Reduction is the means of connecting an advanced knowledge to reality, i.e. to the perceptually given, by retracing the essential logical structure of its hierarchical roots. Proof is a form of reduction.
Logic is the means of validating a conclusion objectively. Including the recognition of context and hierarchy, logic is the method of achieving objectivity. Only by using logic could man base his conclusions on reality.
Are you willing to follow reason to truth, even if or perhaps especially when reality (truth) is not of your liking?
VOICES for REASON
Ayn Rand: Capitalism’s enduring crusader
Posted by Tom Bowden: 30 Apr 2009 04:35 PM PDT
The title of this article in The Week magazine was so perfect, I made it the title of this post. Ayn Rand was indeed a crusader for capitalism, one whose works have proven to be enduring. Just witness the surging sales of Atlas Shrugged and the burgeoning interest in her philosophy.
The article has some factual errors (such as describing Alan Greenspan’s tenure at the Federal Reserve as the “apogee of Objectivism”) and misses some big points. However, I can’t resist quoting a few of the article’s better passages:
[I:]t was Atlas Shrugged that made her a national institution and gave the world a new philosophy, known as Objectivism.
What is Objectivism? Rand described it as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” The only social system consistent with this morality, Rand insisted, is pure, unfettered capitalism, and the only function of government is the protection of individual rights.
John Galt in his own words. The hero of Atlas Shrugged outlines Objectivism in a 60-page speech. These excerpts provide a sense of the character’s-and the author’s-intensity: “While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem, I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.”
…”The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
It’s never a bad day when thousands more readers are treated to a taste of Ayn Rand’s provocative point of view, in her own words. Qualified kudos to the editors of The Week.
