Posted by Sorenmad's ass on December 24, 1999 at 15:00:30:
In Reply to: Re: Nietzsche and Ayn Rand connection posted by Sorenmad on December 24, 1999 at 06:24:04:
:
: With the Ayn Rand connection in mind I checked out a book of essays by AR today, called "The Voice of Reason" I have read about 20 pages and must say this is some of the greatest filth I have ever seen parading under the mask of philosophy. In the intro L. Peikoff notes: 'From the intellectuals, however, she evoked for the most part the opposite (of the american crowd/herd admiration) :hatred" (PoR intro p.ix) It didn't take me long to figure out why: "In regard to the humanities, consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, most people revert to the epistimology of prehistoric savages, i.e., to subjectivism." (AR, VoR p.18-19) Not content with merely calling me a prehistoric savage, she then proceds to give her 'objective' description of subjectivism:
: "Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, inditerminite realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the conciousness of the preciever - i.e., by his feelings, wishes, or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man- an entity or a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature - can, somehow, live, act, and achieve his goals apart from andf/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e. apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the mature of the universe. (This is the "mixed," moderate or middle of the road version of subjectivism. Pure or "extreme" subjectivism does not recognise the concept of identity, i.e. the fact that man or the universe or anything posseses a specific nature.)" (VoR, p.19)
: This is twaddle. First of all, I dont consider myself a 'subjectivist' (or an 'existentialist' for that matter), But I still feel the sting of her poison. Nietzsche called it resentment, and ayn has filled me with it. Therefore, ayn is full of it. And furthermore, AR can kiss my ass.
: "The weak and the failures shall perish, first principle of our love of man. And they shall be given every possible assistance." (N, A-C, ch. 2)
Are you going to be OK Sorenmad? TAke care you don't drink too much coffee when you read her books. Remember what happened when you first read W. Kaufmann's books? HEE-HA HEE-HA HEE-HAA !!! I have not read much more AR than you, but I have found she has a knack for reducing her opponents to Shirly MacLaine and Benny Hinn, when they are really Keirkegaard, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and yes - Neitzsche:
Psychological history of the concept "subject" The body, the thing the "whole" construed by the eye, awaken the distinction between a deed and a doer; the doer, the cause of the deed, concieved ever more subtly, finally left behind the "subject" (WtP 547)
let me re-quote your AR twaddle:
"Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, inditerminite realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the conciousness of the preciever - i.e., by his feelings, wishes, or whims.
I AM A PART OF A UNIVERSE THAT IS FILLED WITH MOTION. MOTION=FLUX=DIFICULTIES IN PRECEPTION. AND TO MAKE IT WORSE, IT FOLLOWS THAT I MYSELF AM IN FLUX, BUT THIS DOESNT MEAN EVERYTHNG IS HOPELESS, LET US GO KILL ISSAAC AND BURN THE BOOKS AND THE WITCHES - ECT. NOR DOES IT MEAN I THINK I HAVE SOME SORT OF KOOKY MYSTYCAL POWERS. IF I AM A PART OF REALITY (AND I DARE ANYONE TO DENY ME THIS OBJECTIVLY), MY OWN SUBJECTIVE DESICIONS THAT I CHOOSE FOR MYSELF, LIKE CALLING AYN A... /OR CHOOSING NOT TO CALL AYN A.. SOMETIMES MUST BE MADE WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF VALIDITY TO KEEP THE GRADGRIND-IN-DISGUIZES HAPPY, AND I CAN GIVE AT LEAT ONE REASON FOR THIS, BECAUSE I DONT HAVE TIME TO INVOKE GRADGRIND EVERY TIME I MAKE A DECISION THAT DETERMINES MY STATE OF BECOMING!? AND I GUESS I SHOULD MOVE ON...MORE AYN:
"This brings us to the lowest type of psychologizing, exemplified by lilian Rerden.
Though her behavour was a very calculated racket, the same policy is practiced by many people, in many different forums, to varying expents, moved by various mixtures of cunning, internia and irresponsibility. The common denoninator is the concous flouting of objectivity-in the forum of the self-admitted inability and/or unwillingness to explain one's actions. (VoR p.30)
This should be compared with Heideggers observaton:
As the global epoch of homanity, the atomic age is distinguished by the fact that the power of the mighty Principal, of the principum reddendae rationis, displays itself (if not completly unleashed) in a strange manner in the normative domain of human existence. When I use the word "strange" here, i mean not in a sentimental sense. One must think of it in both a literal and a substantive sense, namely, that the unique unleashing of the demand to render reasons threatens everythng of human's being-at-home and robs them of the roots of their substance, the roots, the roots from hwich every great human age, every world opening spirit, every molding of the human form has thus far grown. (Heidegger, The Principle of Reason, Lilly tr, p.30)
and a few more to ponder:
When we think about the relation of the objects surrounding us to our personal experiences of them, we are sometimes tempted to say that these personal experiences are the material of which reality consists...When we think in this way we seem to loose our firm hold on the objects surrounding us. And instead we are left with a lot of seperate personal experiences of different individuals. These personal experiences again seem vague and seem to be in constant flux. Our language seems not have been made to describe them. We are tempted to think that in order to clear up such matters philosophically our ordinary language is too course, that we need a more subtle one.
We seem to have made a discovery - which I could describe by saying that the ground on which we stood and which appeared to be firm and reliable was found to be boggy and unsafe (Wittgenstein, Blue Book, p.45)
When the understanding flaunts its magnificence in comparison with the paradox, which is most lowly and despised, the understanding has not originated it, but the paradox itself is the originator who hands over all the splendor to the undertanding, even the glittering vices (vitia splendita) [...] When the understanding cannot get the paradox into its head, this did not have its origin in the undErstanding but in the paradox itself, which was paradoxical enough to have the effontry to call the understanding a clod and a dunce who an at best say "yes" and "no" to the same thing, which is not good theology. So it is with offense. Everything it says about the paradox it has learned from the paradox, even though making use of an acoustical illusion, it insists that it itself has originated in the paradox. (Kierkegaard Fragments, Hong, p.52-53)
By beginning at once to use ethical categories in criticism of the objective tendancy, one does it an injustice, and fails to make contact with it, because one has nothing in common with what is under attack. But by remaining in the metaphysical sphere, one is enabled to use the comical, which also lies in the metaphysical, so as to bring such a transfigured professor to book. If a dancer could leap very high, we would admire him. But if he tried to give the impression that he could fly, let laughter single him out for a suitable punishment; even if it might be true that he could leap as high as any dancer ever had done. Leaping is the accomplishment of a being esentially earthly, one who respects the earth's gravitational force, since leaping is only momentary. But flying carries a suggestion of being emancipated from telluric conditions, a privilige reserved for winged creatures, and perhaps also shared by inhabitants of the moon - and there perhaps the system will first find its true readers
.(Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Swensen-Lowrie, p.112-113)
Ethically-religiously, the emphasis is again on: how. But this is not to be understood as manner, modulation of voice, oral delivery, etc., but it is to be understood as the relation of the existing person, in his very existence, to what is said. Objectively, the question is about categories of thought; subjectively, about inwardness. At its maximum, this how is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the very truth. But the passion of the infinite is precisely subjectivity, and thus subjectivity is the truth. From the objective point of view, there is no infinite decision, and thus it is objectively correct that the distinction between good and evil is canceled., along with the principle of contradiction, and thereby also the infinite distinction between truth and falsehood. Only in subjectivity is there decision, whereas wanting to become objective is untruth. The passion for the infinite, not its content, is the deciding factor, for its content is precisely itself. In this way the subjective how and subjectivity are the truth." (K: CUP, Hong, p. 202-03)
Once again!:
From the objective point of view, there is no infinite decision, and thus it is objectively correct that the distinction between good and evil is canceled., along with the principle of contradiction, and thereby also the infinite distinction between truth and falsehood. Only in subjectivity is there decision, whereas wanting to become objective is untruth. (ibid)
HEE-HA says the donkey - Lee 'Scratch' Perry
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS