The focused mind is mans basic guide to life. Conformism and non-conformism are irrelevant. Burke hated the focused mind, rationalizing it with an appeal to self-contempt, "Suppose you're stupid." Thus the sustainable stupidity of 300,000 years of conservative cultures. And the conservative claim that the only alternative is non-conformi…
The focused mind is mans basic guide to life. Conformism and non-conformism are irrelevant. Burke hated the focused mind, rationalizing it with an appeal to self-contempt, "Suppose you're stupid." Thus the sustainable stupidity of 300,000 years of conservative cultures. And the conservative claim that the only alternative is non-conformism. And thus Ayn Rand's recognition (_The Fountainhead_, 1946) that using conformism, pro or con, as a standard, is a rationalization of the evasion of the focused mind. She satirizes modern art. Non-conformism is not a positive alternative. Both conformism and non-conformism are products of the unfocused mind.
Assuming that you mean Humes claim about reason ( a method of knowledge), no. You evade the common human experience of immediate, direct control of the mind,ie , the power to focus and reason or evade and rationalize. And since emotion (passions) is a psychosomatic response to a value and values are the product of the choice to focus or evade, passion is the slave of reason. The Devil did not make you do it. You did. There is no Original Sin or any other innate idea. Man chooses to form specific ideas. But that requires the self-responsibility hated by the advocates, traditionalist or "progressive" of the unfocused mind. Thus "suppose that you are stupid" and sacrifice your mind to tradition to evade mans basic responsibility, to focus and reason. Thats how man survives, literally. Reason integrates complexity, guiding man to see the forest for the trees or, w/Newton, to integrate motion on this planet w/motion in the entire universe. Your car works and you have artificial light because Newton chose to focus and reason. Tradition, from a rational perspective, is a starting point. Newton, as he said, "stood on the shoulders of giants [prior scientists and philosophers]." Newton, contra Burke, did not sacrifice his mind to tradition. You can see traditionalism growing in America, w/both Left and Right attacking science, tech and capitalism. Rightists want the Christian Dark Ages and Leftists want primitive tribalism. Both attack Ayn Rands respect for mans free will mind.
"Both attack Ayn Rands respect for mans free will mind."
And where did Ayn Rand's perfect reason lead her? To "reason" her husband into allowing her to fuck other men? To start a cult, sorry I mean social group, that banned anyone who strayed from her biases, sorry I mean perfect reason? Howard Roarke and John Galt do not exist, and everyone, including Randians, arrive at most of their beliefs by their non-rational means, and then create a rationalization around them. The most dangerous and ridiculous people are those who think they're different.
>ridiculous people are those who think they're different.
Your rationalization of the terror of independent judgment is noted.
> Ayn Rand's perfect reason
Rand's perfection is rationally contextual, ie, a scientific parameter. In context A, B is perfectly rational. More knowledge may change the context of perfection. This is not mystical perfection revealed to any empty, passive mind. The mind is active in processing the evidence of the senses to produce rational knowledge of concrete reality.
>Randians, arrive at most of their beliefs by their non-rational means
All of Rands ideas are explicit inductions from sense-based ideas. She rejects arbitrary-based deductions. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind. Modern culture is a product of the demons in the unfocused mind.
Rands ideas are not her life. Your mistake is a very strange use of the mind. But modern culture is the unfocused mind. Its a train to nowhere, as the 60s bluesrock group, Savoy Brown, sang.
If her ideas are not her life, then who embodies her ideas? If no one in the real world, and they are reserved only for Galt and Roarke, her ideas are useless. It's why even Rand herself preferred Aristotle over Plato.
Ideas are true or false, rational or irrational, independently of their creators' lives or of any cultural influence. That does not mean that ideas are useless. It means that no one has chosen to use them. Oil was a sticky mess for farmers until somebody discovered its energy potential. Aristotle had little to no cultural influence until the 17th century Scientific Revolution. New ideas typically take a long time to replace the current culture. Further, some Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have said that Rand influenced them. Or do you think that cultural change occurs at the stroke of midnight and then totally? Perhaps Pragmatism has disintegrated your mind and you're impatient. The American Revolution was brewing in the new respect for Aristotle's philosophy of reason since, at least, Aquinas in the 13th century. The Greek discovery of the mind gathered steam since early Greek literature, e.g.,"the wily Odysseus." The Ayn Rand Institute has donated a large number of Rand's novels to high school English teachers. The effect can't be predicted. Man has free will.
How does Rand's preference for Aristotle logically connect to your earlier remarks?
The idea that Aristotle was irrelevant until the 17th century is negated by you mentioning Aquinas, let alone people like Alexander the Great and other great men and thinkers from Antiquity, Medieval, and Renaissance periods.
And my point was that Rand's ideas have not manifested themselves in the real world. The industrial titans like Vanderbilt and Ford didn't need Objectivism. All the Objectivists I see seem to be weirdos like Yaron Brook, who claim to be an individualist but jump on the Zionist ethnostate bandwagon. I judge ideas by their fruit. You sound like a commie who says "Real Objectivism has never been tried!"
God alone knows what you mean by irrelevant. In the ancient world, post-Aristotle, philosophy lost its nerve and disintegrated into Stoicism, hedonism, Cynicism, and various Platonisms. Aristotles discovery of rational system was culturally impotent until the Sci Rev and the Enlightenment. A few supportive thinkers here and there diddnt create a new culture of reason. See The Aristotle Adventure by Burgess Laughlin for his many minor influences.
>And my point was that Rand's ideas have not manifested themselves in the real world
You evade my discussion of the time needed for fundamental ideas to become culturally dominant. This is not a debate about chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream.
Aristotles rational system, via the Sci Rev, caused the Industrial Rev, obviously w/science and tech, and, not obviously, in the rationally systematic thinking needed for industry. It was in the cultural air. Man as a miserable sinner lost cachet to the great-souled man of the Ethics. Vanderbilt and Ford, etc would have been burned at the stake in the Christian Dark Ages. Recall the fate of the Tower Of Babel for challenging Gods glory. Even more, Objectivism is an induction, not a deduction, from common human experience and history. Rand abstracted the causes of worldly success from concrete examples. And so does everyone who rationally achieves. But only Rand integrated that knowledge into a philosophical system. That provides intellectual control and the potential cultural dominance that I discussed and you evaded. I feel like my car mechanic when he corrects my out-of-context knowledge of car repair. He knows how the parts integrate into a working car. You dont. Youre a Pragmatist, looking for a quicky nirvana, as in a Rockford Files satire of religion.
Again, cultural change takes time and is unpredictable. However, Rand influenced economist Martin Anderson to contribute to influencing Nixon to end the draft. The growing "wellness" movement has been greatly influenced by the self-esteem movement in psychology, in turn influenced by early Rand colleague, N. Branden, and his _Psy. Of Self-Esteem_ . But these are small and isolated.
"Weirdos" is a metaphor for your ignorance of a rational category to understand what you want to understand. But I agree. Everybody who I dont like is a weirdo. Note the intellectual precision. Israel is an outpost of the rational West in a region of religious ethnostates. Its start as a refuge for persecuted Jews did not stop it from becoming Western, scientific, hi-tech, entrepreneurial, w/many Nobel winners and individualist, w/real elections, Arab and Moslem
national legislators and vastly more protection of the individual rights of Arab and Moslems than elsewhere in the Mideast. Are you a Leftist who hates individual achievement? Or merely a sleazy anti-Semite who dare not speak that name?
Where has Obj been tried? Relative to the dominant culture of nihilist modernism, its barely a blip on the radar screen. Or did you expect an Objectivist President a year after Atlas Shrugged? Even more important than your lack of rational ideas, you need to learn how to use your mind. Coincidences are not causes. And basics are not non-basics. And a random bunch of causally and logically isolated concrete facts are not the rational unity needed for mans life.
The focused mind is mans basic guide to life. Conformism and non-conformism are irrelevant. Burke hated the focused mind, rationalizing it with an appeal to self-contempt, "Suppose you're stupid." Thus the sustainable stupidity of 300,000 years of conservative cultures. And the conservative claim that the only alternative is non-conformism. And thus Ayn Rand's recognition (_The Fountainhead_, 1946) that using conformism, pro or con, as a standard, is a rationalization of the evasion of the focused mind. She satirizes modern art. Non-conformism is not a positive alternative. Both conformism and non-conformism are products of the unfocused mind.
Reasons are the slaves of the passion. Seems like you are saying that if you just think clearly enough the right answer will come.
Maybe Burke was saying, suppose knowledge is limited and decisions are not objective in a complex world. e.g. is getting married a good idea.
Tradition provides a starting point and not always a bad one.
Assuming that you mean Humes claim about reason ( a method of knowledge), no. You evade the common human experience of immediate, direct control of the mind,ie , the power to focus and reason or evade and rationalize. And since emotion (passions) is a psychosomatic response to a value and values are the product of the choice to focus or evade, passion is the slave of reason. The Devil did not make you do it. You did. There is no Original Sin or any other innate idea. Man chooses to form specific ideas. But that requires the self-responsibility hated by the advocates, traditionalist or "progressive" of the unfocused mind. Thus "suppose that you are stupid" and sacrifice your mind to tradition to evade mans basic responsibility, to focus and reason. Thats how man survives, literally. Reason integrates complexity, guiding man to see the forest for the trees or, w/Newton, to integrate motion on this planet w/motion in the entire universe. Your car works and you have artificial light because Newton chose to focus and reason. Tradition, from a rational perspective, is a starting point. Newton, as he said, "stood on the shoulders of giants [prior scientists and philosophers]." Newton, contra Burke, did not sacrifice his mind to tradition. You can see traditionalism growing in America, w/both Left and Right attacking science, tech and capitalism. Rightists want the Christian Dark Ages and Leftists want primitive tribalism. Both attack Ayn Rands respect for mans free will mind.
"Both attack Ayn Rands respect for mans free will mind."
And where did Ayn Rand's perfect reason lead her? To "reason" her husband into allowing her to fuck other men? To start a cult, sorry I mean social group, that banned anyone who strayed from her biases, sorry I mean perfect reason? Howard Roarke and John Galt do not exist, and everyone, including Randians, arrive at most of their beliefs by their non-rational means, and then create a rationalization around them. The most dangerous and ridiculous people are those who think they're different.
>ridiculous people are those who think they're different.
Your rationalization of the terror of independent judgment is noted.
> Ayn Rand's perfect reason
Rand's perfection is rationally contextual, ie, a scientific parameter. In context A, B is perfectly rational. More knowledge may change the context of perfection. This is not mystical perfection revealed to any empty, passive mind. The mind is active in processing the evidence of the senses to produce rational knowledge of concrete reality.
>Randians, arrive at most of their beliefs by their non-rational means
All of Rands ideas are explicit inductions from sense-based ideas. She rejects arbitrary-based deductions. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind. Modern culture is a product of the demons in the unfocused mind.
Are you really arguing for Rand's rationality based on her own life? She ran a ridiculous cult that demanded they worship her perfect reason.
Rands ideas are not her life. Your mistake is a very strange use of the mind. But modern culture is the unfocused mind. Its a train to nowhere, as the 60s bluesrock group, Savoy Brown, sang.
If her ideas are not her life, then who embodies her ideas? If no one in the real world, and they are reserved only for Galt and Roarke, her ideas are useless. It's why even Rand herself preferred Aristotle over Plato.
Ideas are true or false, rational or irrational, independently of their creators' lives or of any cultural influence. That does not mean that ideas are useless. It means that no one has chosen to use them. Oil was a sticky mess for farmers until somebody discovered its energy potential. Aristotle had little to no cultural influence until the 17th century Scientific Revolution. New ideas typically take a long time to replace the current culture. Further, some Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have said that Rand influenced them. Or do you think that cultural change occurs at the stroke of midnight and then totally? Perhaps Pragmatism has disintegrated your mind and you're impatient. The American Revolution was brewing in the new respect for Aristotle's philosophy of reason since, at least, Aquinas in the 13th century. The Greek discovery of the mind gathered steam since early Greek literature, e.g.,"the wily Odysseus." The Ayn Rand Institute has donated a large number of Rand's novels to high school English teachers. The effect can't be predicted. Man has free will.
How does Rand's preference for Aristotle logically connect to your earlier remarks?
The idea that Aristotle was irrelevant until the 17th century is negated by you mentioning Aquinas, let alone people like Alexander the Great and other great men and thinkers from Antiquity, Medieval, and Renaissance periods.
And my point was that Rand's ideas have not manifested themselves in the real world. The industrial titans like Vanderbilt and Ford didn't need Objectivism. All the Objectivists I see seem to be weirdos like Yaron Brook, who claim to be an individualist but jump on the Zionist ethnostate bandwagon. I judge ideas by their fruit. You sound like a commie who says "Real Objectivism has never been tried!"
God alone knows what you mean by irrelevant. In the ancient world, post-Aristotle, philosophy lost its nerve and disintegrated into Stoicism, hedonism, Cynicism, and various Platonisms. Aristotles discovery of rational system was culturally impotent until the Sci Rev and the Enlightenment. A few supportive thinkers here and there diddnt create a new culture of reason. See The Aristotle Adventure by Burgess Laughlin for his many minor influences.
>And my point was that Rand's ideas have not manifested themselves in the real world
You evade my discussion of the time needed for fundamental ideas to become culturally dominant. This is not a debate about chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream.
Aristotles rational system, via the Sci Rev, caused the Industrial Rev, obviously w/science and tech, and, not obviously, in the rationally systematic thinking needed for industry. It was in the cultural air. Man as a miserable sinner lost cachet to the great-souled man of the Ethics. Vanderbilt and Ford, etc would have been burned at the stake in the Christian Dark Ages. Recall the fate of the Tower Of Babel for challenging Gods glory. Even more, Objectivism is an induction, not a deduction, from common human experience and history. Rand abstracted the causes of worldly success from concrete examples. And so does everyone who rationally achieves. But only Rand integrated that knowledge into a philosophical system. That provides intellectual control and the potential cultural dominance that I discussed and you evaded. I feel like my car mechanic when he corrects my out-of-context knowledge of car repair. He knows how the parts integrate into a working car. You dont. Youre a Pragmatist, looking for a quicky nirvana, as in a Rockford Files satire of religion.
Again, cultural change takes time and is unpredictable. However, Rand influenced economist Martin Anderson to contribute to influencing Nixon to end the draft. The growing "wellness" movement has been greatly influenced by the self-esteem movement in psychology, in turn influenced by early Rand colleague, N. Branden, and his _Psy. Of Self-Esteem_ . But these are small and isolated.
"Weirdos" is a metaphor for your ignorance of a rational category to understand what you want to understand. But I agree. Everybody who I dont like is a weirdo. Note the intellectual precision. Israel is an outpost of the rational West in a region of religious ethnostates. Its start as a refuge for persecuted Jews did not stop it from becoming Western, scientific, hi-tech, entrepreneurial, w/many Nobel winners and individualist, w/real elections, Arab and Moslem
national legislators and vastly more protection of the individual rights of Arab and Moslems than elsewhere in the Mideast. Are you a Leftist who hates individual achievement? Or merely a sleazy anti-Semite who dare not speak that name?
Where has Obj been tried? Relative to the dominant culture of nihilist modernism, its barely a blip on the radar screen. Or did you expect an Objectivist President a year after Atlas Shrugged? Even more important than your lack of rational ideas, you need to learn how to use your mind. Coincidences are not causes. And basics are not non-basics. And a random bunch of causally and logically isolated concrete facts are not the rational unity needed for mans life.