Saturday, November 12, 2005

Tough questions

The essential difference between an individualist and the leftwing pragmatists is our view of reality.

Individualists-- the objective right wing (excludes social cons.)-- believe reality exists independent of our conceptualizing abilities-- A is A, regardless of what we believe--- to say this simpler... Reality is OBJECTIVE! Because reality is objective this in no way impies that all is known, rather it says that truth is being continually dicovered and learned. Thus attempts to change metaphysical truth through social engineering is naive, oppressive and ultimately leading to misery.

Leftist, collectivists, relativists and Pragmatists on the other hand believe that truth is determined by men and thus we should strive to create the "fairest truths" possible. Rawls asked the ignorant quetion "if you were not born yet, and your place of birth was random-- meaning that is was more likely you ended up in Calcuttata rather than Canada-- what type of world would you want?" Implying that we create truth, so we should create more regulation and restribution-- which has the purpose of nullifying the individual mind--, instead of actual equality, but I digress. The point being here is that the left firmly believes that reality is SUBJECTIVE. Hence their foolish belief in social engineering and regulation.

Now I have had this fight in academic circles many times, and I will tellm you that there is no way to logically convince someone that objective reality exists as they are apt to hide behind Kantian defenses (sensory filters...), so I want to ask every thinker out there, including pragmatists and relativists one simple question about there statement that truth is subjective, that there is no objective reality...

Did you discover the fact that was thought be objective was in fact subjective?

If you to have discovered the truth that reality is subjective, is this not an objective truth? This is a contradiction to the actual claim of subjectivity. You are being illogical.

And if you claim that you created the truth that reality is subjective then you are whimsical and not to be taken seriously.

Possibly, the Objective Roughneck

4 Comments:

At 12:19 AM, Blogger Joe Green said...

"A is A" is the ultimate proof that Ayn Rand could not reason or think. Have you never heard of a "circular argument". Rand erected Objectivism upon a circular argument. She "starts in the middle and ends in the middle".

What I find incomprehensible is how much time you waste on this whore.

 
At 7:22 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

Explain her circular argument one point a time.

 
At 7:09 PM, Blogger Socialist Swine said...

Angry,

Actually, most on the left aren't constructionists or post modernists. Granted, there are some but I think that most hold the notion that there is objective truth and that the truth of the matter regarding social issues is best addressed through "liberal" or "progressive" policies. As for Ayn Rand, I would argue that her primary mistake is to suggest that her views are reflective of the objective truth without adequate support or argument. She presupposes that she is right and goes from that position to argue against the views of others. Which, while being completely acceptable in the realm of politics, rhetoric, or daily conversation, is sloppy in a scholarly context.

-Socialist Swine

 
At 9:53 PM, Blogger angryroughneck said...

Ayn's politics are dependent upon her ethics, which is dependent on her epistomology, which is dependent on metaphysics. As to say How to organize society is dependent on "what is the good" which is dependent on "What is knowlege and how does man acquire it." which is dependent on"what are the proveable fact of existence." Her defenition and validation of concepts is the most poignant philophical contribution to philosophy in the last 200 years.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home