"The success of the Europeaan tribesmen (inaccurately termed "The White Man") was a Darwinian contest of the FITTEST."
In what sense was it even remotely "Darwinian"?
Atlas Shrugged Part 1
by littlerockguy 126 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Terry
You see it on the streets every day.
Somebody with talent and ambition will paint a beautiful mural in an urban setting and transform a bleak landscape into a work of art.
And then...somebody else with no talent and full of anger will splash ugly words and grafitti all over it!
Those who can create will create.
Those who cannot and who are envious can only criticize, deface and distort.
-
Terry
"The success of the Europeaan tribesmen (inaccurately termed "The White Man") was a Darwinian contest of the FITTEST."
In what sense was it even remotely "Darwinian"?
Charles Darwin:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
"In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment."
"The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient"
-
SixofNine
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
What is the context of the following two quotes? Was Darwin comparing human societies or technological advances when he said the following?:
"In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment."
"The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient"
-
Terry
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
Have you read this thread and all the injected Jared Diamond nonsense, or what?
What is the context of the following two quotes? Was Darwin comparing human societies or technological advances when he said the following?:
"In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment."
"The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient"
Why do you waste people's time with temporizing and dissembling?
The American Indian (it was asserted by Rand) did not deserve to win the battle to retain ownership of the land because they never developed it nor adapted their society to improving themselves to the point they could assert rights or defend it successfully.
-
Quentin
Litlerockguy, in answer to your question, no I've not seen the movie. Probably won't since I doubt it will be shown localy. If Netflix makes it avaliable I'll order it.
BizzyBee, on page one of the topic you made this comment, by the way, the topic was rolling along disscusung the OP question until Bohm posted a cut and past, There was some lite back and forth then this comment from BizzyBee; ...Rand fans will have their brains in neutral and MINDS MADE UPBEFORHAND, OF COURSE. I find that statement to be VERY disingenuous, especialy your sentence end tag, of course, of course as opposed to what?
Terry made this comment on page three;
"... If an architect is a child molester and builds a fantastic building why should we decry the architecture? Creationists still attack Charles Darwin rather than the actual science of Evolution. They even make up stories about a deathbed confession... At some point in all this there is an undomfortable feeling of trying to hard to hate something or somebody past all reasonableness. Whatever kind of person Ayn Rand was... we have the Objectivist Philosophy to deal with which I find quite extraordinary in many ways. For one thing, it is rational to the point of being consistent with itself which is more than you can ever say for Christianity. (Thou shall not kill vs Just War, for example.) You can take or leave her books on their own merit..."
All hell breaks loose, ad hominem attaks begin, in jumps Terra Incognitta with their post about Native Amercians. Absolutly no disscussion of Rands philosophy, simply an attack on the person of Rand. I have grave doubts Terra that you have ANY concerene about Native Amercians. Your post used Rand as an ad hominem aginst Terry.
Terra drops out of the disscussion and up pops a sleif dyfansdotlir to continue ad hominem attaks aginst Terry. You guys know each other? Like the snap of the fingers one leaves, an other jumps in. Hmmmm, convinent, eh?
Some Observations:
The thread has gone off topic. Littlerockguy asked if anyone has seen the movie, well, BissyBee, Terra, a sleif, Bohm, Robdar, eh? Crickets and the bloated hot air of ad hominem is all I see.
Darth fader, six of nine, you have asked some very pointed questions, seems they got lost amongst the howles of protest. Six you got parts of your comments answered, although I get the impression not to satisfaction. Hard to do when one has to duck and weave inflamatory, pointless questions.
My Conclusion, for now:
Lets get this out in the open and out of the way, so it will not cloud my remaining in the disscusion, Terry is my friend, hate to see people I know ganged up on. ( he and I don't agree on everything he says. In fact we are in a disscussion about science and mystsim, guess which side he takes ). I would jump to the defence of anyone of you for the same reasons. Not one person has debated Rands phiosophy, none. Certain of you are akin to a mob of villagers with torchs and pitch forks rampaging toward the castle.
Okay, question of the day; who amonst you has studied philosophy and I don't mean googled some terminology then cut and pasted it as an answer, how many have studied history? I ask because this discussion has turned into one of philosophy and the merits of Rand's definetion of primacy of existence. Did you know that she chose the term objectivism because exatenilism had already been taken? Her philosophy is a re-working of ideas that go all the way back to Airistole and Plato. Forget about her as a person, many philosopher's were mad as a hatter. Others desputated their philosophy on it's marits. They did not engage in ad homienems. Stick to the merits folks, that's what any credited philospher, or historian would do.
-
Terry
Discussion of Philosophy never ends up being about philosophy. I think that is because you have to know something about it first.
I know when I was younger (and a JW) I thought philosophy was old Greek men in sheets with funny haircuts pontificating.
So much for my limited education!
It wasn't until I reached my 40's I picked up and read my very first Philosophy book by a real philosopher.
And the ONLY reason I started reading it is that I was killing time in the Fort Worth Public Library waiting to pick up my son at school.
I saw the title: 10 PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES by Mortimer J. Adler. I recognised Adler's name. He had started the Encyclopedia Britannica
GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD series and wrote the perennial favorite: How to Read a Book. Both of these I loved.
So, I picked up Adler's book and read it cover to cover like eating a chocolate bar.
My luck was astounding!
Had I tried any other philosophy book I'd have dropped it like a hot potato in minutes.
Adler's book covered some of my prejudices, objections and ignorant presuppositions instantly and dispelled my prejudice.
I dived right in.
Long story short, Adler was an Aristotelian and so was Ayn Rand. That is what they have in common.
There are 2 main schools of thought: Reality and Mysticism. Those are the main branches of Philosophy.
Either the world and knowledge of it stems from REALITY and FACT, or....
The world is an illusion and is mystical which means the only reality is inside your head.
Rand and Adler go with Fact and Reality as the source of knowledge.
Philosophy did more to straighten me out after Jehovah's Witnesses distorted reality with their superstitious authoritarian mysticism than anything
else in my experience.
When I appear to defend RAND the PERSON I'm really not. I'm defending her Aristotelian philosophy which is OBJECTIVE and based on reality.
Those who attack Rand are stomping on the goose that laid the golden egg.
I think the lack of a Philosophical education has limited certain posters to drawing mustaches on the paintings hanging in the Louvre.
It is a poor substitute for criticism.