Well, that’s fair enough…forgive me for any oversight there
Well, I don’t necessarily think that abstract is less important than concrete (ie, empiricism) just as concrete is not less important than abstract (rationalism). I simply feel that for the beginning philosophy student, throwing around terms like “apriori knowledge” and axioms such as “existence exists” can be a little intimidating and scare people away from what can be a very enjoyable and life-fulfilling study. People think much more in concrete terms than abstract ones, so starting off with the concrete idea of ethics is a good one (as I’m glad that we agree). Then, epistemology and metaphysics can be introduced and better comprehended. So, in the context of beginning the study of philosophy, I would say that ethics is more important…but I think in general that a balance between the two is necessary.
Ohh…and I found a metaphysics selector under the philosophy selector page…seems quite useful (except for the fact that they don’t list Rand as a valid source of metaphysics).
Good God…can’t even escape political correctness in a philosophy thread!! sigh
Well, if they don’t have an Eastern philosophy selector, one of the nice things about the site is the ability to build selectors of your own!! Feel more than free to create an Eastern philosophy selector and post it up here!
Kant can be rather difficult to read. If you are interested, I would start out with Critique of Pure Reason, and relating to the ethics we’ve discussed, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. I notice that you also got 100% for Ayn Rand. I’m much more familiar with her philosophy of Objectivism, so if you’d be interested in learning about that, I’d be more than willing to help.
Perhaps the reason they don’t list Rand as a valid source of metaphysics is because she isn’t a valid source–of metaphysics, or anything else for that matter!
Ockham (6%)
I didn’t have strong feelings about many of the answers. Bentham, Mill and the Epicureans sit well with me. Perhaps I shall take the test again and see if anything changes.
I’d love to see something like this for epistemology, which I prefer over ethics by a mile.
Interesting. I’m sure my library has those books, so the next time I’m in there I’ll look into them.
**
I’m not familiar with Ayn Rand, either. I know she’s the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but that represents the sum total of what I know about her. I wouldn’t mind hearing your recommendations.
That looks about right. The deists on the bottom and the grouchy rationalists on top. I am a bit surprised the Cynics didn’t rank a bit higher tho’. Where the heck is Bertrand Russell in all this?
Well…the philosophy orthodoxy speaks! So, instead of debating the relative merits of Objectivism, the method is to attempt to ridicule it and hope the hell that it’ll go away. I hope this doesn’t end up getting this bumped to GD, but well…if “something” is the mindless nihilism/deconstructionism of 20th century philosophy, then I’ll take what you say as a compliment!
Well, that’s a lot more than most people know ;). The two books you mention are Ayn Rand’s fiction, but she also wrote several non-fiction philosophy books(The Virtue of Selfishness, dealing with Objectivist ethics; Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, deriving the philosophy into a political/economic system of laissez-faire capitalism, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, explaining the theories of knowledge that Ayn Rand had). If you were interested in starting reading, I would highly recommend the Fountainhead. It’s an enjoyable read and gives a basic introduction to the ideas that eventually came to be Objectivism. Also, if you have the Bravo TV network, tonight (Thursday) at 8 PM, they’re showing a documentary about Rand’s life Ayn Rand: a Sense of Life. It can be a little fawny, but in general is a good introduction to the woman behind the philosophy.
Hey, RugbyMan, do you get most of your exercise from jumping to conclusions? For the record, I am not a member of the “Orthodoxy” or a disciple of nihilism/deconstructionism. I’m actually an existentialist in the tradition of Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Camus. I find Nihilism just as bad as Objectivism.
Last semester, an engineering prof offered a course in Objectivism, but I was the only one who signed up for it, so it was cancelled. In preparation, I had read most of Piekoff’s “The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.” I was horrified.
The whole thing is based on an essesntially meaningless tautology, “A is A.” Selfisheness is a virtue. Capitalism is the only Moral economic system.
The biggest Hypocrisy of Objectivism, IMHO, is the assertion that it is based on rationalism–when it actually stems from emotional narcissists like Rand who don’t like other people telling them what to do, and who feel no responsibility toward anyone else. How immature. I was like that when I was in puberty, but, unlike some people, I grew out of it. Folks like Piekoff and Rand never did.
Hmm. I knew Nietzsche and Sartre would be up there. I’m not familiar with Stoics and Hume. Time to read up. Also, I’m glad to see that Plato is near the bottom and that Augustine is way down there. I must say, this is pretty good.
Well, to be honest, I find existentialism to be rather silly posturing. I exist, and I believe that most unequivocally. My perception of reality in no way affects that reality; it is what it is whether I perceive it or not.
My mentor mentioned this as a suggestion to existentialists, so I thought I’d share it here: If you don’t believe that reality is real and that we exist, why not walk off of a building or throw yourself in front of a train? If the laws of reality don’t exist, then nothing should happen to you!!
If you remember back to your high school math days, A is A is not a “meaningless tautology”, but is the most fundamental axiom of all of mathematics: the Axiom of Identity. 2 is 2; 2 is not 1 or 3. The use of the identity axiom in Objectivism is just as fundamentally important. A dog is a dog, a dog is not a cat, and regardless of our perception is still a dog.
I would certainly say so, as long as you clarify that to state RATIONAL selfishness. If man is a rational being, then the most rational state for him to exist in is living for his own self-interest and not sacrificing himself to others.
This follows from the idea above. Any other system of economics requires a man to sacrifice himself to the state (even in the mixed system of the US, taxes have filled in the place of tribute to the lord of the manor). Laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that allows a man to live for his own means and not be beholden to another.
Objectivism is based on rational thinking, not rationalism, which is a totally different concept (floating abstractions without any concrete grounding). I fail to see how having a responsibility to another person is rational…please feel free to enlighten me.
Incidentally, I’m not a member of the ARI orthodoxy, so I disagree with Peikoff’s rationalism, and think that they have done the philosophy a lot of harm with their closed-minded approach. Did Aristotle’s followers suggest that once he died that noone afterwards could add to it? I consider Objectivism to be an open system with plenty of room to grow, unlike Peikoff who would say that Objectivism ended when Rand died.
