First of all

This is my first blog post ever and I have no specific topic in mind so I’ll just ramble off a few of my latest musings.

I’m currently unemployed so I have had plenty of time these last few weeks to catch up on some films I’ve not seen including 7 or 8 by Woody Allen followed by some Kubrick, Hitchcock and Fellini gems.

Making my fiimg_02271rst batch of Limoncello in preparation for spring.  Test sample at week 2 of the infusion process was not particularly inspiring.  Let’s hope time improves things.  Limecello and Clemencello to follow.  (Can I get the rights to the name Clemencello right now?)  That’s almost as good as when I made a Black and Tan with Guinness and Magic Hat #9 and called it ‘Black Magic’.

Seeking strong counter arguments to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.  I have spent the last 10 years absorbing the principles and now have interest in becoming more familiar with the most distinct oppositions.  Who or what exactly are they?

Though I’m totally broke and unemployed, It costs nothing to mess around on travelocity.com and plan trips I will not be taking any time soon.  Top 2 destinations at present are:  (1) Mombasa, Kenya – It’s on the Indian Ocean and it borders the worlds largest tropical lake.  (2) Barcelona, Spain –  Just because it’s a great town.  Really I just want to stay there so I can take a train to Amsterdam and visit the museum where the largest collection of M.C. Escher’s work is displayed.

Advertisements

5 responses to “First of all

  1. WHAT ABOUT MORE INTERVIEWS?

  2. Dearest Andrew,

    First, I enjoy this. Post more.

    Second, there is a lot to say in terms of objections to objectivism.

    Like always, I believe first it is best to define our terms. Objectivism as I will use it in this post, is something that exists independent of whether I think it does or not. My thinking that I desire a unicorn in my living room, does not make it so. People at this stage often get caught up and make confusing examples which are bound to subjectivity, or intersubjectivity. This occurs when a “fact” is totally bound by the subjective agreement about its existence. ( i.e. it is a fact that New Jersey is in the northern hemisphere. Would that fact be true without subjective agreement about its truth?) For the objectivist there exists a world totally mind independent. There exists a right, there exists a wrong.

    One of Ayn Rand’s big philosophical ideas was the idea of an unregulated free capitalist society. Only in this society can one truly exercise their freedom. I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to see where unregulated capitalism can put a society. Turn on the news. The response that in theory it has no inherent contradictions does not save it. Rand wrote what she believed was the best way for an economy to work.

    Ayn Rand gets a lot of flack for defining many of her “axioms” as self evident.

    Also if you were a true objectivist you would not let anyone tell you what to do, including Ayn Rand.

    There is a reason why Rand is not taken seriously amongst philosophers, I wish you reason and rationality on your journey to realize it.

    • Dearest Ann Marie,

      Thank you for your insights and for once again making me think about unicorns.
      To address your points in order, I would say that yes, objectivism exists independently of Ann Marie’s awareness of it. It is nothing but an approach to reality holding as its fundamental premise that ‘reason is [man’s] only absolute’ -Atlas Shrugged- This, I believe, is all the philosophy requires accepting as ‘self evident’. The rest is only a derivation.
      Secondly, you assert that one need only turn on the news to see where unregulated capitalism can lead a society. My dear, I’m afraid you have missed the point. In the 1950’s when objectivism was forged, the economy was already too regulated for her liking and it is certainly farther from her ideal today than it was then. Any financial disarray on the news today Ayn Rand would consider a credit to her philosophy, not a condemnation. It has arisen because man, enabled by government regulations, has found ways to trade things that have no objective value like loans. All laws are designed with good intent. However, their repercussions seldom achieve these intentions. Take minimum wage laws for example. You set a minimum rate of pay so that the poor will have more money. However, consider the business owner who pays an employee $3 an hour because it’s profitable to do so. When you force him to pay the same employee $3.50 it does not magically make his employee any more productive and, as a result, he can no longer afford to employ him
      Thirdly, I do not call myself an objectivist, much less a ‘true’ one. I do not call myself anything. If you read my post, it simply states that, as a conscientious intellectual, I am interested in learning more about the oppositions so that I can forge my own opinion. This is exactly what Ayn Rand would tell me to do.
      That having been said, I am privileged to have had your opinion as the first official comment on my blog.

  3. In response to your first point, on mans only absolute as reason.

    There is no denying that all of Randian philosophy is very dialectical and an extreme version of anti-dualism. For Rand there are two sides to every situation man may end up in, mentally and physically, a right and a wrong side. All things that lie in the middle are intrinsically evil. Under this view one determines absolute right, absolute wrong and absolute truth through reason. Upon meditation on that concept how can one not help but think that since science and reason are human activities, they will forever be bound up with bias and never truly reflect an objective nature with an objective right and wrong. I feel pessimistic saying it, however even our most fundamental scientific laws are founded on induction. This should not warrant any confusion over my belief that the best way to know and understand our reality is through the application of science, with an acknowledgement of its limitations. Perhaps you or I may take a more Kantian view and repute all axioms except those of mathematics.

    In response to your second point. I hate politics. Is that a concession?

    In response to your third. I thought that was funny? Didn’t you?

  4. godd!!! the way u and AM talk turns me on so much haha thats what i miss most about our job,,, YEEAAAAAHH sick site dude keep it up

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s