Sure, from a philosophical perspective that wasn't terribly evidentiary or quantifiable. He had some very good ideas rooted in truth, but as far as predictive analysis goes, he wasn't even in the solar system. I'm not sure how that applies.
The big thing seems to be conflict. I did some research for a story about the anarchists of the period from about 1900-1920, and one thing they said that stuck in my mind, was that "The working man has nothing in common with the employers." I don't know if the struggle is as great anymore ... or is it?
Well, the idea of materialism fits in when we consider the consciousness limited to the brain, but the idea of dialectics requires two opposing views, which means we bring society into it.
This is interesting. Apologies, I'll bring Rand into this because your point is coming pretty close to her thoughts on moral objectivity. Ayn Rand actually used the falsifiability principle strictly in the philosophical sense. Well, she spoke of philosophical fact and indicated that philosophy is a science, but I want to avoid muddying the waters as much as possible. Hopefully this doesn't just derail into being about her in general. I think she had some really good—isolated—points about how people passively take on philosophy which leaves them open to bad philosophy. I recommend reading the whole Philosophy: Who Needs It essay because it's a wild ride listening to someone criticize contemporary philosophy while stroking West Point grads in 1974. https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Philosophy-Who-Needs-It-text.pdf
Looks interesting, and I am going to try to find some time tonight to read it. Thanks for sharing! Right now I am really into the story I am writing, and then my brother is coming over for our Scrabble game.
Got around to reading it! Rand sure gives a lot of food for thought. Definitely very pro-philosophy, but I don't agree with everything she says. Here are a few quotes from her address and some thoughts that came to me in response: The first two questions can be asked scientifically, too. But the last question – the asking of “should” – like the asking of “ought” - belongs to philosophy. But it’s important to remember that there is not only one answer to the “should” and the “ought” questions. Also - I would say that philosophy is not considered a science. Philosophy does not make use of the scientific method, but relies on logic and analyzing concepts. And their focus is different. Science focuses on the natural world and tries to explain it through empirical testing, whereas philosophy focuses on the unanswerable questions about reality, etc. And we could find a philosophy that answers each of these questions in the affirmative. The distinction between the abstract and the concrete has always been an important question in philosophy. Here, Rand is first saying that the abstract depends on the concrete, then in the next statement she is saying that the concrete depends on the abstract. That they intersect seems like a reasonable conclusion to make. So, maybe, their relationship can best be symbolized with an Ouroboro – the circle of a serpent eating its own tail. Spoiler: Ouroboros I happened to read an article from Nautilus recently that suggested just that in trying to make sense of the distinction between physical and conceptual reality. They ask: And then conclude: The question becomes: What is the starting point? What is foundational? A material scientist would say this: Concrete > Abstract > Concrete Whereas a philosopher might answer: Abstract > Concrete > Abstract If we define philosophy as “the abstract” – yes that is something we cannot avoid. Our minds are made to analyze, synthesize, make inferences, and judge. Which in turn is determined by his genetics and environment I think she is making a plea here for critical thinking. Is this why ruling by fear works? Reminds me of the post I made – Dawkins asks “How?” and Socrates asks “Why?” Socrates looked upon refutation as a compliment. Rand is a little more combative. I guess her philosophy is grounded in “winning.” And we do see that in politics today – it becomes not about the issues but “getting the other side.” She lost me with this. I was under the illusion that she was speaking of human nature in holistic terms and including all of humanity in her observations. This reduces her whole essay to ridiculousness.
Possibly. I think she saw aggression where others usually wouldn't, and in some cases she was right. If a philosopher claims he is unwilling to declare honour killings or sexual assault wrong because 'morality is relative,' that can come across as passive in the context of a mild man in a quiet study. However the content or implications of his statement are arguably quite hostile. She lost me there, too. The duality of this essay is pretty wild, which in some ways is charming.
I'm a member on The Philosophy Forum - which I recommend if you are into interesting discussions. They have a lounge, too, where you can spout off about Trump! https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions Anyway, they have recently announced the "Philosophy Writing Challenge." If you think it might be something you are interested in, please check it out! From their website:
This has got me thinking about what motivates humanity. I suppose we all have different motivations? Some are motivated by truth, and some are motivated by comfort. And that of course makes me question what it is that provides comfort. My thoughts tend to the social nature of humanity. It's comforting to belong to the group, be accepted by the group. It takes a lot of courage to break free from the group and follow truth.
