I've always thought logic should trump emotion (I've actually got it tattooed in a well hidden spot). But this ayn character is new to me so I'm not ignoring the possibility that what I am hearing is just my own spin on a cliff note version and what she really stood for was grossly different than what I believe. Nuance can be everything
This is true, which I like. Her fundamental idea is that reason must always be a product of logic, and there does exist a logical absolute. But although I support the philosophy, I agree what was stated about her ignorance on certain issues. Personally, I believe that her system of economics is perfect, but it could never be implemented because we live in an imperfect world. I also believe that logic does trump emotion on many issues, If not all. However, I don't agree with her absolute dismissal of such notions as sympathy and altruism. Each emotion must be felt for the self, not for the sake of others. For example, if you express sympathy for the poor, it should not be done on the basis that the poor NEED your sympathy, instead it should be expressed because you yourself have the desire to serve others, and the action of doing so satisfies this desire. But like many have said before me, her philosophy, while perfect from the standpoint of purpose, is in itself flawed because it came from an imperfect mind. I believe that it is a noble endeavor, and it seeks to give power back to the self, making you the master of your own life. However, it gives no basis for ethics, although it seeks to. From the objectivist standpoint, what is morally right is what reason based upon and absolute logical truth would lead you to do in a particular situation. But because we are ignorant of such a truth, we can never know what is truly morally right and what is morally wrong. Even though you may act for yourself, you may not be making the correct decision for yourself. In general though, this would work for the most part to benefit society, but one can never know that a decision is absolutely correct and ethically straight. I believe this is what you are talking about when you say that reason often time leads to a common result among individuals.
On her dismissal of faith and other non-reason based ideas, I can not agree. Simply due to the notion that because no man possesses infinite knowledge about the universe and all of existence and all of time, then we can't do away with what is not understood because it seems illogical. Often times observed phenomena in the universe can not be explained by OUR reason or logic. But it still occurs, thus implying imperfection in our attempts to rationalize the universe. But, this train of though ultimately implodes due to the nature of the arguments: if an absolute reason exists, then a perfect being would always follow this absolute to act. If this being always follows this absolute in all actions, then he must be aware of this absolute truth.
Ayn rand argued against the existence of God, but if her philosophy is correct, then there must be a god, or atleast some equivalent. Otherwise, there is an absolute truth and no way of knowing it because we are not perfect. If this is the case, then any attempt to justify an action based on logic and reason is purposeless because the truth can never be known.
But....like I said, a noble endeavor and there are a lot of great points in her books that I think everyone should be aware of
Which is why we wait for the response
Haha, I've seen that one before, and love it.
There's an entire other philosophical argument to be had here. I especially take issue with the last part about Rand's philosophy and the existence of God, but that's for another place.This is true, which I like. Her fundamental idea is that reason must always be a product of logic, and there does exist a logical absolute. But although I support the philosophy, I agree what was stated about her ignorance on certain issues. Personally, I believe that her system of economics is perfect, but it could never be implemented because we live in an imperfect world. I also believe that logic does trump emotion on many issues, If not all. However, I don't agree with her absolute dismissal of such notions as sympathy and altruism. Each emotion must be felt for the self, not for the sake of others. For example, if you express sympathy for the poor, it should not be done on the basis that the poor NEED your sympathy, instead it should be expressed because you yourself have the desire to serve others, and the action of doing so satisfies this desire. But like many have said before me, her philosophy, while perfect from the standpoint of purpose, is in itself flawed because it came from an imperfect mind. I believe that it is a noble endeavor, and it seeks to give power back to the self, making you the master of your own life. However, it gives no basis for ethics, although it seeks to. From the objectivist standpoint, what is morally right is what reason based upon and absolute logical truth would lead you to do in a particular situation. But because we are ignorant of such a truth, we can never know what is truly morally right and what is morally wrong. Even though you may act for yourself, you may not be making the correct decision for yourself. In general though, this would work for the most part to benefit society, but one can never know that a decision is absolutely correct and ethically straight. I believe this is what you are talking about when you say that reason often time leads to a common result among individuals.
On her dismissal of faith and other non-reason based ideas, I can not agree. Simply due to the notion that because no man possesses infinite knowledge about the universe and all of existence and all of time, then we can't do away with what is not understood because it seems illogical. Often times observed phenomena in the universe can not be explained by OUR reason or logic. But it still occurs, thus implying imperfection in our attempts to rationalize the universe. But, this train of though ultimately implodes due to the nature of the arguments: if an absolute reason exists, then a perfect being would always follow this absolute to act. If this being always follows this absolute in all actions, then he must be aware of this absolute truth.
Ayn rand argued against the existence of God, but if her philosophy is correct, then there must be a god, or atleast some equivalent. Otherwise, there is an absolute truth and no way of knowing it because we are not perfect. If this is the case, then any attempt to justify an action based on logic and reason is purposeless because the truth can never be known.
But....like I said, a noble endeavor and there are a lot of great points in her books that I think everyone should be aware of
Also:
a quicker way to lose credibility i cannot conceive
