Category: book Nook
I could go on, plato, aristotle, Rand, lameck, ghandi, king, mencius, conffucious, and so forth but I won't, but anyway, what do you think about these thinkers/writers and there written works? talk about there works and literature, and the ideas conveyed in there books. who are your favorites?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ayn rand is not in the same class of philosopher as confucius.
Ok, if you claim she isn't, prove it. Explain why. If you're going to laugh at someone else's thought, at least have the evidence to back it up. Why do you not think Rand is in the same league as someone who may or may not have actually even existed?
And please, please, if you're going to say something that someone else thought up and you're just regurgitating, don't say anything. If you can't come up with an original thought, shut up and let those of us who can do all your arguing for you. After all, you're just a parrot, and parrots are annoying.
Now then, whatcha got for us pumpkin?
I think Kant's essay on the role of the enlightenment is interesting. He puts a heavy emphasis on the role of knowledge and the power it holds, and explains that knowledge is the heart of enlightenment. It's always fun to contrast Adam Smith'sInvisible Hand ideas with Marx's communism. They both present convincing arguments for their sides, though I would argue thatMarx and Angles make some pretty grand leaps of assumption about human nature, assuming that the proletariat would react in such a unified manner against the bourgeoisie. Similarly, however, Adam Smith assumes that trickle-down and self-interest would eventually resolve social issues. I feel that neither are the case, but anyway. I love reading the ideas of philosophers, not just for the ideas themselves but also because I find their presentation interesting.
Great topic.
at SilverLightning, I didn't think any explanation was required, but since you want it, here it goes.
In a nutshell, Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism contrasts in a quantifiable way with hard science. Rand's primary thesis, the common element that runs through all her work, is that only human individuality and the primacy of the individual will have merrit enough to achieve creativity. She believes that nothing is to be gained by altruism, or collectivism. She believes that the only achievements in history were arrived at by the intelegence and force of will of one human being.
If seeing her philosophy laid bare in the previous few sentences hasn't convinced you of it's lack of credibility, consider the following.
Science, psychology, and sociology have shown in countless ways that the human is a social animal. Our culture, ideas, thoughts, and words are created and passed down from person to person, through the generations. Rand herself stated in her book "the virtue of selfishness" that she had no idiological forbearers except for Aristotle. She claimed that Aristotle was the only philosopher, other than herself of course, who had ever had any decent ideas.
She failed to take into account that the thoughts she had wouldn't have been possible without the language that was created by other people. The writing she did wouldn't have been possible had someone before not come along and invented writing as a system.
The very language with which she so stupidly dismissed the creativity of others was created by generations of speakers that came along long before she did. Her entire philosophy is a joke, and doesn't deserve serious consideration.
Do I think she had some good ideas? Yes, she had some interesting and unique ideas. She is part of idiological history, but her philosophy as a hole, is ridiculous and childish.
well, that's interesting......, though, I'd say I'd associate her with locke which is why you only take some of what she says and serve yourself other parts of the puzzle. if you read either atlas shrugged or the fountainhead you have to admit that she had a point there? and also, I admit she's probably not good at anything else but some ethics and her politics is excellent.