Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Mar '15 07:03
    Before yesterday I had never heard of Ayn Rand. I can see in the maths of natural numbers that an abstract reality exists, one ball + one ball equals two balls ,so far so good . What about probability, rolling a six sided dice should give a 1/6 chance of a chosen number coming up. Now here is the rub , it needs to be a perfect dice, which obviously does not exist. So for dice dice throwing probability no objective reality exists , an axiomatic reality or human construct exists where we assume the dice is perfect.
    Now I'm probably going to get shot down here because I don't know anything really of Ayn Rand , if objective realism isn't applicable to dice throwing how can you apply it to the economic and social sciences (sciences used loosely). Just as an instance Economics isn't an objective reality , its a set of observations under contrived conditions .
  2. 03 Mar '15 09:31
    Originally posted by crikey63
    Before yesterday I had never heard of Ayn Rand. I can see in the maths of natural numbers that an abstract reality exists, one ball + one ball equals two balls ,so far so good . What about probability, rolling a six sided dice should give a 1/6 chance of a chosen number coming up. Now here is the rub , it needs to be a perfect dice, which obviously does not ...[text shortened]... e Economics isn't an objective reality , its a set of observations under contrived conditions .
    "Now I'm probably going to get shot down here because I don't know anything really of Ayn Rand"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)


    first you read about a subject. then you try debating it.
  3. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    03 Mar '15 09:34
    And then, when the debate is over, we'll all conclude that
    Rand is a phony and her "philosophy" is mere bombastic
    verbalization of teenage selfishness and douchebaggery.
  4. 03 Mar '15 09:40
    Originally posted by Seitse
    And then, when the debate is over, we'll all conclude that
    Rand is a phony and her "philosophy" is mere bombastic
    verbalization of teenage selfishness and douchebaggery.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
  5. 03 Mar '15 10:39
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Now I'm probably going to get shot down here because I don't know anything really of Ayn Rand"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)


    first you read about a subject. then you try debating it.
    Go through this in simpletons terms , Ayn Rands central tenets are that things exist outside human consciousness, even abstract things like natural numbers. Now natural numbers do seem have an abstract existence. There are things that don't however , I just wondered how she arbitrarily decided what existed and what didn't and what was a human construct , that's all .
  6. 03 Mar '15 10:46
    Originally posted by crikey63
    Go through this in simpletons terms , Ayn Rands central tenets are that things exist outside human consciousness, even abstract things like natural numbers. Now natural numbers do seem have an abstract existence. There are things that don't however , I just wondered how she arbitrarily decided what existed and what didn't and what was a human construct , that's all .
    ayn rand objectivism relates to humans, not abstract notions. it is meant as an excuse to laissez-faire capitalism. you cannot twist her philosophy to the point it has 0 in common with its original purpose.

    that is why you research a subject before discussing it.
  7. 03 Mar '15 11:32
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    ayn rand objectivism relates to humans, not abstract notions. it is meant as an excuse to laissez-faire capitalism. you cannot twist her philosophy to the point it has 0 in common with its original purpose.

    that is why you research a subject before discussing it.
    There goes my chair in Philosophy at Cambridge , actually it was more of a question than a debating issue, objective realism obviously means different things to different people , LOL.
  8. 03 Mar '15 11:54
    Originally posted by crikey63
    There goes my chair in Philosophy at Cambridge , actually it was more of a question than a debating issue, objective realism obviously means different things to different people , LOL.
    yes, that is why we specify we are talking about randian crap to make the subject clear.


    in my opinion, what you are talking about, while a meritous subject in itself, has nothing to do with randian drivel.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    03 Mar '15 12:44
    Originally posted by Seitse
    And then, when the debate is over, we'll all conclude that
    Rand is a phony and her "philosophy" is mere bombastic
    verbalization of teenage selfishness and douchebaggery.
    Fitting that she's so popular with conservatives.
  10. 03 Mar '15 13:18
    Originally posted by vivify
    Fitting that she's so popular with conservatives.
    conservatives who are ignorant of rand's views on God. or abortion. or Reagan. or taking social security when one really needs it.
  11. 03 Mar '15 13:33
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    conservatives who are ignorant of rand's views on God. or abortion. or Reagan. or taking social security when one really needs it.
    I'm out of the loop here, is there a Ayn Rand for Dummies
  12. 03 Mar '15 14:03
    Originally posted by crikey63
    I'm out of the loop here, is there a Ayn Rand for Dummies
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
  13. 03 Mar '15 14:38
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
    Thx
  14. 03 Mar '15 14:39
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    conservatives who are ignorant of rand's views on God. or abortion. or Reagan. or taking social security when one really needs it.
    I'm well aware of her views on such issues, but it does not detract from her prophetic visions of how government would snuff out freedom.

    Apparently, we are to focus on peoples short comings instead of focusing on their strengths, unless it is an enlightened progressive who has no short comings, that is.
  15. 03 Mar '15 14:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    I'm well aware of her views on such issues, but it does not detract from her prophetic visions of how government would snuff out freedom.

    Apparently, we are to focus on peoples short comings instead of focusing on their strengths, unless it is an enlightened progressive who has no short comings, that is.
    i can respect an informed opinion