for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Cappytan has created a fine opportunity for discussion about Ayn Rand in this thread, and I'd hate to hijack it with personality colorations from respondents.
Then ... don't hijack it?
We've been discussing Ayn Rand and philosophy. You seem to think something else is going on. What that is, I've no idea.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Without considering the dynamics of the formation of the universe, the Bible makes the remark "inexcusable" (vs plausible), referring to God's "invisible qualities" . In other words the Bible declares that it is not plausible, the ONLY conclusion is creation; The other argument is the house analogy(design).
I admit that I know that God is a reality. I do not conclude that from faith or from the Bible, or from deductive or inductive reasoning or from any logic or feelings or experiences or because of something that I read, because in those things there is the possibility of being mistaken.
In my thinking now, the knowledge of God trumps.
Any pretense you initially made about wanting to know more was swiftly proven false. You're just preaching and trying to somehow show the Bible and science reconcile.
They do not.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
It is simply an observation on the pot calling the kettle 'black.'
In what way? The topic requested opinions on Ayn Rand. That was what I offered. It didn't ask for opinions about another guy.
But, snipes and catcalls from the bleachers are merely interruptions and often lead to bad manners.
Which is exactly why I asked about you sniping at someone else who offered his opinion on Ayn Rand, which is the topic.
Now, in response what do we see? Is there discussion? Or, is there peremptory dismissal?
You got a specific reason why I found Adler to be lacking. What were you expecting?
You see, I think it is good to express yourself with alternatives and suggested options for others to consider. If you consider path A to be worthless, then suggested path B and tell why it is better.
You got that. What were you expecting?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Of course a group need not be religious to be a cult.
Agreed.
But I was thinking how ironic it is in this case. The very idea of there being a leader with followers is antithetical to Rand's philosophy of individualism.
It absolutely drops with irony.
I guess it just proves that some people can't help their narcissistic bent and others can't help but adore them.
Interestingly, Ayn Rand became that which she preached against, much like in Animal Farm :)
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
That quotation is by a fellow named John Rogers. One of his claims to fame involved writing the script to the movie CATWOMAN. He's obviously marvellously well-qualified to criticize :)
Surely, Terry, you aren't going down the road of criticizing who said it rather than the substance of the argument itself, are you?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Viviane, how do you feel about Mortimer J. Adler's philosophy books such as 10 Philosophical Mistakes?
I've not read it, but I have read his book "How to Think about God". I found it quite overbearing in in trying to tell others what they mean and believe and then knocking that meaning and belief down.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Next question: how did the energy get there?
The total energy of the universe is zero. And, it appears that there is no such thing as nothing, an absence of everything and anything and that, were it possible to create such a thing, it's incredibly unstable.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
My opinion of Ayn Rand is that she was an extraordinary genius with extraordinary flaws. She was always the smartest person around which must have driven her quite mad with frustration. She had a tough time suffering fools.
Mine is that she thought she was the smartest person around with extraordinary flaws on top of that and that, far from suffering fools, she surrounded herself with them and in the end, proved to be one.
So, I say to you Viviane, Rand may be your encounter at the oasis. Why go thirsty?
I have read her books, her philosophy, many personal observations about her. I find nothing of value there. Why assume I am thirsty just because I don't find value in Rand?
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Since the big bang is considered to be the "beginning" of the known universe, it would be logically incorrect to assume this law would have governed the the big bang itself. In other words, the big bang is largely responsible for the creation of such laws.
Other universes likely exist, and are not governed by the same laws that govern ours.
That is one of the greatest questions in physics. If there are other universes, could they have other rules? Are the rules we see in this universe a consequence of existence, could they be different or are these rules we see around us the only possible configuration? What drives the rules being what they are?
No one knows, but they are trying to find out!
