General Discussion: This is a discussion on Neo, let's debate. within the Discussion forums, part of the extensive steroid information at MESO-Rx; "I should say I don't mean to pick on her, I'm sure she was a fine person! It's just that ...
"I should say I don't mean to pick on her, I'm sure she was a fine person! It's just that she believed the biggest load of horse manure since communism, and was a proponent of rationalism with flawed roots. "
Explain this please. It's in reference to the post on Ayn Rand. I'm sure I can guess at your reasoning, but I'm curious as to the "flawed roots" of her rationalism.
To add fuel:
At which point does the "I" become the "we". When consistently taking care of "us" when does the individual's needs get met?
Aw hell, that didn't come out right! Anyhow, we'll debate after a response has been made and there's more to go on. We'll have a grand old time, I tell you!
Oh yeah, and, as Kayz mentioned, when has your "love" put food in your belly, clothes on your back or a roof over your head? It can work part of the time, like when you have a benefactor who "loves" you and then gives you those things, but he had to DO something to get that stuff to give to you out of love. He did not conjure it out of his love for the rest of humanity.
__________________
I just don't understand it. How could you not like to suck dick? [QUOTE=Grizzly
I want to be the horse because i love being ridden hard by a cowboy "grizzly"
Disclaimer: Thick is a fictional character that enjoys roleplaying to pass the time. Nothing stated by thick should be taken as truthful or real. Also, by no means should any advice given by thick be used in the real world.
Your looking for the flaw inherint in rationalism?
It is by defiinition limited, and therefore cannot properly describe or predict the universe accurately. It will always eventually lead to error and limitation.
Let me give you this from another site. It pretty much explains the flaw, or limitations.
Rationalism is a method of inquiry that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge and, in contrast to empiricism, tends to discountenance sensory experience. It holds that, because reality itself has an inherently rational structure, there are truths--especially in logic and mathematics but also in ethics and metaphysics--that the intellect can grasp directly. In ethics, rationalism relies on a "natural light," and in theology it replaces supernatural revelation with reason.
The inspiration of rationalism has always been mathematics, and rationalists have stressed the superiority of the deductive over all other methods in point of certainty. According to the extreme rationalist doctrine, all the truths of physical science and even history could in principle be discovered by pure thinking and set forth as the consequences of self-evident premises. This view is opposed to the various systems which regard the mind as a tabula rasa (blank tablet) in which the outside world, as it were, imprints itself through the senses.
The opposition between rationalism and empiricism is, however, rarely so simple and direct, inasmuch as many thinkers have admitted both sensation and reflection. Locke, for example, is a rationalist in the weakest sense, holding that the materials of human knowledge (ideas) are supplied by sense experience or introspection, but that knowledge consists in seeing necessary connections between them, which is the function of reason.
Most philosophers who are called rationalists have maintained that the materials of knowledge are derived not from experience but deductively from fundamental elementary concepts. This attitude may be studied in Ren Descartes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Christian von Wolff. It is based on Descartes's fundamental principle that knowledge must be clear, and seeks to give to philosophy the certainty and demonstrative character of mathematics, from the a priori principle of which all its claims are derived. The attack made by David Hume on the causal relation led directly to the new rationalism of Kant, who argued that it was wrong to regard thought as mere analysis. In Kant's views, a priori concepts do exist, but if they are to lead to the amplification of knowledge, they must be brought into relation with empirical data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly
"I should say I don't mean to pick on her, I'm sure she was a fine person! It's just that she believed the biggest load of horse manure since communism, and was a proponent of rationalism with flawed roots. "
Explain this please. It's in reference to the post on Ayn Rand. I'm sure I can guess at your reasoning, but I'm curious as to the "flawed roots" of her rationalism.
To add fuel:
At which point does the "I" become the "we". When consistently taking care of "us" when does the individual's needs get met?
Aw hell, that didn't come out right! Anyhow, we'll debate after a response has been made and there's more to go on. We'll have a grand old time, I tell you!
Oh yeah, and, as Kayz mentioned, when has your "love" put food in your belly, clothes on your back or a roof over your head? It can work part of the time, like when you have a benefactor who "loves" you and then gives you those things, but he had to DO something to get that stuff to give to you out of love. He did not conjure it out of his love for the rest of humanity.
I didn't understand the first part of the below quote, so I have to ignore it.
you said:
Oh yeah, and, as Kayz mentioned, when has your "love" put food in your belly, clothes on your back or a roof over your head? It can work part of the time, like when you have a benefactor who "loves" you and then gives you those things, but he had to DO something to get that stuff to give to you out of love. He did not conjure it out of his love for the rest of humanity.
me:
That's inherintly flawed, like rationalism.
Your assumption is self centered, making you all important, or at least more important than everyone else.
If everyone had this attitude, it would be anarchy. It is this thing which causes all social problems. It is this which will destroy our country as it has destroyed every civilization in history.
But to be specific, love is not a thing, it does however motivate people who have, to give and help those who have not. They do what they can, perhaps making money, maybe helping mow a lawn... Love 'causes' work in that sense, because people who have love, seeing a need, will try to fill it.
Love therefore has value. It brings us together, forms relationships and brings about joy and a fullfilling life.
Lack of love is selfish, destroys, keeps to self... causes wars, hatred, and prejudice.
The fault in your question is it begs itself by determining that all things not immediately beneficial in a physical way, are useless.
Joy, happiness, pleasure, love... all of these things are what men really want, what really satisfies them. But none of them will put food on the table. That is not their purpose.
You basically asked what good is a humming bird since it won't put a man on the moon. That is not it's purpose. It's purpose it to be beautiful, to inspire, to cause men to rejoice in creation. It's purpose is to pollinate, etc... but not to put a man on the moon.
The purpose of love is far better and nobler than merely putting food on the table. BUT, of course putting food on the table is important... and love ENABLES food to be put on the table. Love prevents wars and men destroying each other. Love allows men to grow things, have property, and exist peacefully, and more importantly, in a way beneficial to everyone... but indirectly. It motivates men to connect and help one another.
Love will keep a family together, love will make a man get up and want to go to work to feed his family, to provide for them physically.
I'm for capitalism, but not selfish capitalism. Unfortunately capitalism is like rationalism, inherintly flawed. It seems to say 'look out for number one', and 'take care of self even if it hurts others'.
Add love to that, and it works. Take it away, and civilization falls apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly
To add fuel:
At which point does the "I" become the "we". When consistently taking care of "us" when does the individual's needs get met?
Aw hell, that didn't come out right! Anyhow, we'll debate after a response has been made and there's more to go on. We'll have a grand old time, I tell you!
Oh yeah, and, as Kayz mentioned, when has your "love" put food in your belly, clothes on your back or a roof over your head? It can work part of the time, like when you have a benefactor who "loves" you and then gives you those things, but he had to DO something to get that stuff to give to you out of love. He did not conjure it out of his love for the rest of humanity.
I was in the middle of a large response that was quite good and the computer died. So, let me sum up:
That article is flawed. Reasons to follow if you wish. Namely, in its relation to Rand's Objectivism/rationalism. Major point: In John Galt's radio address he says something to the effect of, "there was a great travesty in the world of philosophy when it was stated backwards. I am, therefore I think."
Also, empiricism(as I understand it) would only strengthen rationalism. As Rand states as her "truth", A is A. In otherwords, a dog is a dog. At no point does a dog become anything other than a dog. Where is the flaw here?
Your flaw is simply falsely equating logic with rationalism. A=A is logic, and by definintion true. This is the basis for all things in that logic describes principles by which all things relate.
Rationalism is a false application of logic. It is faulty because it ignores spirituality and things of great value to men. It ignores the heart and motivations, focusing on intellectual understanding, at the expense of the heart, spirituality, and by application, God.
Rationalism denys the very things I live by. It says in essence anything that cannot be directly tested, cannot be trusted or known.
I did happen to find God by way of logic, but logic which allowed my mind to open up and let God touch my heart. It was logic applied to subjective sensations and experiences. Rationalism would not have allowed this.
I experienced God then, and reality shifted as I became aware of a universe my previous rationalism would not have allowed me to see. And I now live by that dimension, as I have found it the substance, and this physical universe the shadow.
Living as I do now, is a thing of the heart rather than the mind. Basing your life on love and relationships rather than by the minds application of a certain philosophy.
Rationalism is a philosophy, and like most, it seeks to be more than a philosophy, and pretends to be truth. Rationalism conveniently describes truth in a practical and very selfish way. It is attractive to the selfishness inherint in man. It lets him think he can know and be in control. It makes him proud in the worst of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly
I was in the middle of a large response that was quite good and the computer died. So, let me sum up:
That article is flawed. Reasons to follow if you wish. Namely, in its relation to Rand's Objectivism/rationalism. Major point: In John Galt's radio address he says something to the effect of, "there was a great travesty in the world of philosophy when it was stated backwards. I am, therefore I think."
Also, empiricism(as I understand it) would only strengthen rationalism. As Rand states as her "truth", A is A. In otherwords, a dog is a dog. At no point does a dog become anything other than a dog. Where is the flaw here?
That's basically what I was expecting from the beginning. Suffice it to say that that which turns you off "Rationalism is a false application of logic. It is faulty because it ignores spirituality and things of great value to men. It ignores the heart and motivations, focusing on intellectual understanding, at the expense of the heart, spirituality, and by application, God." is exactly that which appeals to me.
Neo, let's debate. 
Linear Mode
