User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 41

  1. #11
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Hatter View Post
    / godwin

    // thread
    Godwin's law doesn't end a thread. Where does it say that?

    But I admire his prowess at keeping it below the debate level.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #12
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    I think that Utilitarianism is naive, psychologically ignorant, and completely impracticable, for which reasons I would never use its principles to evaluate someone else's principles. I find moralism in general to be unfortunate and even poisonous, in that it, ironically, leads people to ignore what they know is right in a pre-moral sense, and has contributed to more suffering, hatred, and inhumanity than any other human force in existence. Between Kant and Rand, Rand is clearly superior, in that she cuts out a whole vast dimension of moral imperatives (specifically, altruistic morals) and puts an emphasis on doing what feels right and comfortable (even if she tries to qualify this feeling with moral language). Kant, on the other hand, tells us that feelings, instincts, intuitions don't matter, in the least; we're to follow a "law," a blind, impersonal "law." People love the blind, rock-likeness of morality; they love having a set of ready-made directions on what to do, directions that don't need to be adapted or interpreted in the least, directions that often have very little to do with real, endlessly variable situations, because it frees them from having to decide anything for themselves; all the work is done for them. And it also frees them from having to take responsibility for their actions; it wasn't them doing any of it, and at any rate, all of it was the *right* thing to do; they were robots obligated to carry out the actions embedded in the flawless program called morality, and no criticisms can be leveled against them. And what actions they take in its name! Violence, dehumanization, intolerance, self-hatred, poisoned "kindness," and dishonesty through the roof.

    Get rid of morality right now, and we'll have world peace tomorrow.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  3. #13
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    I think that Utilitarianism is naive, psychologically ignorant, and completely impracticable, for which reasons I would never use its principles to evaluate someone else's principles. I find moralism in general to be unfortunate and even poisonous, in that it, ironically, leads people to ignore what they know is right in a pre-moral sense, and has contributed to more suffering, hatred, and inhumanity than any other human force in existence. Between Kant and Rand, Rand is clearly superior, in that she cuts out a whole vast dimension of moral imperatives (specifically, altruistic morals) and puts an emphasis on doing what feels right and comfortable (even if she tries to qualify this feeling with moral language). Kant, on the other hand, tells us that feelings, instincts, intuitions don't matter, in the least; we're to follow a "law," a blind, impersonal "law." People love the blind, rock-likeness of morality; they love having a set of ready-made directions on what to do, directions that don't need to be adapted or interpreted in the least, directions that often have very little to do with real, endlessly variable situations, because it frees them from having to decide anything for themselves; all the work is done for them. And it also frees them from having to take responsibility for their actions; it wasn't them doing any of it, and at any rate, all of it was the *right* thing to do; they were robots obligated to carry out the actions embedded in the flawless program called morality, and no criticisms can be leveled against them. And what actions they take in its name! Violence, dehumanization, intolerance, self-hatred, poisoned "kindness," and dishonesty through the roof.

    Get rid of morality right now, and we'll have world peace tomorrow.
    Kant said he was only clarifying those precepts which people were following all along, only vaguely, without the guidance of clear moral thinking. On the other hand, it doesn't answer for everything. It doesn't tell you in any particular circumstance whether to state the honest truth or to state nothing (which at least isn't a lie unless it's a lie of omission). And he also wrote an essay called Perpetual Peace.

    I don't think Rand would be very comfortable with your statement that hers is a morality of feeling, because she equated that with whim.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #14
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Kant said he was only clarifying those precepts which people were following all along, only vaguely, without the guidance of clear moral thinking. On the other hand, it doesn't answer for everything. It doesn't tell you in any particular circumstance whether to state the honest truth or to state nothing (which at least isn't a lie unless it's a lie of omission). And he also wrote an essay called Perpetual Peace.
    Kant's philosophy is very blatantly prescriptive. He says that people should not do certain things, because, in his view, these things are self-contradictory. In doing this, he assumes that people are bound to possess a particular kind of moral consciousness, when they're not bound to possess a moral consciousness at all; and, purely as a matter of taste, he attempts to stigmatize vagueness of thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+
    I don't think Rand would be very comfortable with your statement that hers is a morality of feeling, because she equated that with whim.
    Ayn Rand felt that a person should, within certain confines, pursue their own happiness, which makes her morality, in that sense, a morality of feeling. Kant believed that a person had to avoid making what he considered to be logical errors, and as far as he was concerned, feelings or instincts had little do with it; good action was "purely a matter of reason," whatever pure reason is (I think efforts toward "pure reason" are a form denial and self-punishment).
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #15
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Every time I think I couldn't dislike Ayn Rand more, I find a way to dislike her more.

    I think Kant's philosophy is flawed (even occasionally in the same way as Rand, which is to say over-idealizing people in slightly different ways), but I find it much preferable to Rand's.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  6. #16
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    Kant's philosophy is very blatantly prescriptive. He says that people should not do certain things, because, in his view, these things are self-contradictory. In doing this, he assumes that people are bound to possess a particular kind of moral consciousness, when they're not bound to possess a moral consciousness at all; and, purely as a matter of taste, he attempts to stigmatize vagueness of thought.

    Ayn Rand felt that a person should, within certain confines, pursue their own happiness, which makes her morality, in that sense, a morality of feeling. Kant believed that a person had to avoid making what he considered to be logical errors, and as far as he was concerned, feelings or instincts had little do with it; good action was "purely a matter of reason," whatever pure reason is (I think efforts toward "pure reason" are a form denial and self-punishment).
    Rand wasn't the "pure reason" philosopher. That would be Kant (Critique of Pure Reason). I searched for the "purely a matter of reason" quote on my Objectivist Research Cd-rom and came up with no hits. But does Objectivist morality prescribe a form of denial and self-punishment? I'm sure the Randroids would deny that. Yet they have very strict sexual mores, believe it or not. And the Randroid lifestyle would have to constitute a severe rigidity of behavior - work, sleep, eat, work, sleep, eat. Heavy emphasis on "work," as productivity is one of their primary virtues. I should also include "studying Objectivism." But anybody claiming that all this is a form of denial and self-punishment obviously has, in the Randroid view, bad philosophical premises. It is not a lifestyle of denial, but of acceptance of reality; not of self-punishment, but of purest psychological joy and happiness. Or so they force themselves to believe.

    If anybody would seem to be a more explicit "denial and self-punishment" philosopher, it would be Kant the "pure reason" guy. Except I don't see that in his moral philosophy. Kant puts some (not a lot) of emphasis on happiness, whether for oneself or others. When I say "not a lot" I mean that happiness is more of an indirect value. After all, searching for happiness is not like searching for a job, because happiness is something of a more immaterial and ephemeral nature.

    This is why Schopenhauer called Kant an Eastern philosopher, like a Zen Buddhist (partly because Schope was taken by Eastern mysticism, and partly because Kant gives this same appearance). The detached "pure reason" atmosphere of Kant's philosophy gives some people the impression of a denial system. But it is aimed toward personal enlightenment, not quite in the Buddhist sense but approximately along the same indirect lines: if you search for it, you'll never find it.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #17
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Rand wasn't the "pure reason" philosopher. That would be Kant (Critique of Pure Reason). I searched for the "purely a matter of reason" quote on my Objectivist Research Cd-rom and came up with no hits. But does Objectivist morality prescribe a form of denial and self-punishment? I'm sure the Randroids would deny that. Yet they have very strict sexual mores, believe it or not. And the Randroid lifestyle would have to constitute a severe rigidity of behavior - work, sleep, eat, work, sleep, eat. Heavy emphasis on "work," as productivity is one of their primary virtues. I should also include "studying Objectivism." But anybody claiming that all this is a form of denial and self-punishment obviously has, in the Randroid view, bad philosophical premises. It is not a lifestyle of denial, but of acceptance of reality; not of self-punishment, but of purest psychological joy and happiness. Or so they force themselves to believe.
    Right, I was referring to Kant's philosophy when I said "'purely a matter of reason.'" And the quote was meant to be a caricature, not a record of his literal words. And I was saying that I think rationalism in general is a form of denial and self-punishment, which was probably obscured by my putting quotation marks around "pure reason."

    For the record, I'm not advocating hedonism; I'm advocating a clear, which is to say, pre-moral, conscience. And I think that Rand, who spent far more time criticizing morals than she did advocating them, came a lot closer to agreeing with me than Kant did.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  8. #18
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    Right, I was referring to Kant's philosophy when I said "'purely a matter of reason.'" And the quote was meant to be a caricature, not a record of his literal words. And I was saying that I think rationalism in general is a form of denial and self-punishment, which was probably obscured by my putting quotation marks around "pure reason."

    For the record, I'm not advocating hedonism; I'm advocating a clear, which is to say, pre-moral, conscience. And I think that Rand, who spent far more time criticizing morals than she did advocating them, came a lot closer to agreeing with me than Kant did.
    That makes more sense. I'd read the word "Kant" as "Rand" in your paragraph that started out with Rand, because I guess I need to buy new Dollar store glasses, but I still managed to talk about Kant. A few scholars will claim that Kant was a rationalist, but the more observant ones will find that he was advocating Critique over both rationalism and empiricism. He went through periods of rationalism and empiricism before finally developing his Critical method over a 10 year period.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #19
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    They both try to quantize things that are continuous, non-discrete, and emergent. I feel that this is the mistake that both of them made.

    Setting down rules in this manner changes the nature of the whole thing. By quantizing morality, they alter it - maybe even destroy it.

    IMO the real beauty and impact of morality is when you do it without knowing 'the rules'.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    In the OP I have edited in the Rand affair with Branden, because that goes opposite to Kant's image of being morally pure.

    I don't buy your take on Kant's moral philosophy, and I'm not sure you've accurately characterized Rand's. So you are in the "fairly sketchy knowledge" camp of Rand detractors. But as a Kant and Rand scholar, I can clarify all those kinds of issues.
    Please, are you the random Randian who keeps turning up from time to time to troll the forums with posts about your hero, I get Rand because Rand is easy, selfishness is a virtue, no sacrifice no way never, certainly not self-sacrifice, capitalism is the bomb and has not casualties or collateral damage. Its all balls though. Kant was seriously intellectually superior to a bad novelists from Russia.

Similar Threads

  1. Who is the person you admire most and what is his MBTI type
    By yenom in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 08-28-2012, 05:36 AM
  2. Who is the sanest person on TypC?
    By wolfy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 03:36 AM
  3. Is the glass half full or half empty?
    By pippi in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-26-2009, 11:04 PM
  4. Who is the most protective type?
    By kathara in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 11:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO