I'm lost

[DougShrapnel]

No worries, I know that you've read Rand in your younger days, you talked about getting a better memory and the coolness of the aliteration of your edits aside (self-sacrifice, subjective, self-interest, survival( your memory can't be that bad. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] She does use the term survival in her earlier work, but as you state self-interest is more what she means.

Can't leave out the OP. Dude don't worry, the first philosophers are really just counters to the way people thought in thier day and age. So it's best not to seriously argue against them, just to read how the next person in line answered him. By the time you get to Ayn Rand I don't think you'll have to much of an issue pointing out the overstatements. It may be off benefit just to think of it as history and not philosphy right of the bat.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. She didn't arbitrarily choose survival as the starting point. She realized that no moral system makes any sense without survival as the starting point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is still a subjective starting point. Just like I can subjectively start at the point of “there is a God”.

Survival is not a proven fact, therefore not an Absolute. If it were then the argument might hold. Although, I don’t think it must hold. Even if it were a proven fact, then we still have subjective free will to override the goal of survival. So, that moral system only works for those who have survival as their goal. To those who choose to rebel against survival there are options: suicide is an extreme example; sacrificing one’s life for another (can be considered a somewhat honorable act, depending on the reason) is a not so extreme example.

[ QUOTE ]
If it's not, the concept of "values" winds up being meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of values is meaningless in the context of absolutes, i.e. objective values.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Differences in specifics between individuals don't disprove the fact that the general principles are objective and universal.


[/ QUOTE ] Honestly jth, it's subjective. It's just that the philosophy tries to hide the subjective nature by instead calling them values, and then agreeing that some of those values(not all) are subjective.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be off benefit just to think of it as history and not philosophy right of the bat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good advice, I think.

Or as Hegel says, and I’ll paraphrase: Philosophy is only man’s time reflected in thought.

Regard the OP, we’ll get back on track soon or later. At work now. I gotta get some work done!!!!

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Survival is not a proven fact, therefore not an Absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[ QUOTE ]
To those who choose to rebel against survival there are options: suicide is an extreme example

[/ QUOTE ]

Values are meaningless in the case of suicide. They serve no purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of values is meaningless in the context of absolutes, i.e. objective values.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're gonna have to explain that one.

[RJT]

Doug,

Can you take it from here for a while? I have to get some work done. Thanks.

RJT

[DougShrapnel]

RJT, I could try, what do you do? I guessed that you are a lawyer, pa? Forget, the clients today they can go advocate themselves.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense. Philosophy demands no respect, in fact if anything it demands the reverse. No philosopher want you to believe them because they are cleverer. They do not want you on a leash.

You're confusing education with religon.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that in its pure form, philosophy is not about being on a leash. The same is true for science and religion IMO. The fallible humans who practice the stuff, however, have an unfortunate tendency to use their power in ways that please their masters rather than in pure pursuit of knowledge. It's a natural function of the way it's all organized and financed.

Hats off to the exceptions to the rule, though, because I know there are some.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Rand subjectively uses as her standard “…selfishness is the moral ideal.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought selflessness was/is the moral ideal. You detach from the fears/worries/desires that make up the ego and see that there is no conceptual you, just a physical you with an awareness that is capable of understanding the truth about reality, that reality = truth. Since there is no conceptual you, you are not worrying about protecting the ego and you do not desire anything so all there is to do is continually give yourself away i.e. Mother Teresa, Jesus, both selfless.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense. Philosophy demands no respect, in fact if anything it demands the reverse. No philosopher want you to believe them because they are cleverer. They do not want you on a leash.

You're confusing education with religon.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that in its pure form, philosophy is not about being on a leash. The same is true for science and religion IMO. The fallible humans who practice the stuff, however, have an unfortunate tendency to use their power in ways that please their masters rather than in pure pursuit of knowledge. It's a natural function of the way it's all organized and financed.

Hats off to the exceptions to the rule, though, because I know there are some.

[/ QUOTE ]

just when I was ready for a good argument we end up agreeing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'll have to make do with disagreeing with the extent of the problem. I seriously doubt any philosophy course suffers from this problem and see no reason to conclude that the OP is a victim of fallable humans attempting to please their masters.

chez