Philosphy as Religion (an aside to Ms. Rand thread)

[3113]

Figures. Just my luck. I wonder if the particular principles are identical or not. To me, the idea is that everyone gets precisely what they deserve, no better, no worse.

Here you go, Sev! Check it out and compare:

Meritocracy

 

[3113]

But who defines 'merit'?

Oh! Oh, I know the answer to that one! (Waves hand):
Answer: Me! I get to define it!

Will it allow human beings to live in harmony with one another and the world? Or will it sharpen the already too vicious competition people already have with each other?

They'll be competing for my favor. Which is always a good thing.

Will it allow people to exploit and harm one another if such action is 'meritorious'?

Gosh, I hope so!

Is there any room at all in such a system for people without 'merit'?

Oh! I know the answer to this one, too!
Answer: No. To the salt mines with the undeserving!

 

[rgraham666]

I guess as a mentally ill, poorly educated individual I'd better grab my pick right now and save time later.

 

[3113]

I guess as a mentally ill, poorly educated individual I'd better grab my pick right now and save time later.

Naw. I plan to put you in charge of my male harem. You'll be given pleny of beer and porno/sports videos with which to drug them if the testosterone levels get too high.

 

[rgraham666]

Naw. I plan to put you in charge of my male harem. You'll be given pleny of beer and porno/sports videos with which to drug them if the testosterone levels get too high.

I can think of worse fates.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

What I read indicates that this is a political philosophy, not a moral philosophy like mine. Of course, there is some overlap. As the originator of the moral philosophy (or at least, the reorganizer of it), I believe myself entitled to decide what is merit and who has it. Merit applies to an individual context. You get exactly what you deserve. If you murder, you are executed. If you rape and kidnap, you go to prison and get raped by your cellmates. If you do harm to society through being a deadbeat dad, you get a proper dose of shame, humiliation, and pain through a public flogging. Child molesters, frankly, should get stuck in prison until they are too old to be as likely as to offend. 30 years to life should do the trick.

In terms of the workplace, wages should be based on willingness to do extra work. The harder a worker, the more motivated, the more initiative they show, the more he or she deserves to be paid, regardless of sex. If that happens to favor a particular sex, statistically, then so be it. Such sacrifices deserve promotions and raises more than employees who do the bare minimum.

Children who are more helpful should be given larger allowances than those who are idle. And while I'm no fan of the welfare state, people who are doing society a service by raising infants, by themselves, who aren't old enough to go to school deserve some form of local public assistance. Of course, once the kids go to school, the single parents need to go back to work ASAP. Foster parents, in particular, deserve more recognition for what they do for society. However, they also need to be monitored to prevent abuses.

On a more private level, and more pertinent to the original meaning of my idea, is that you should treat somebody as he or she treats you: no better (mercy) and no worse (cruelty). This is a temperate, moderate, rational, consistent approach to how to behave toward your fellow man.

 

[Pure]

Comments on the penal portion of Sev

Merit applies to an individual context. You get exactly what you deserve. If you murder, you are executed. If you rape and kidnap, you go to prison and get raped by your cellmates. If you do harm to society through being a deadbeat dad, you get a proper dose of shame, humiliation, and pain through a public flogging.

This sounds like a fairly impressionistic list based on sev's feelings about the severity of the crime. The phrase 'exactly what you deserve' is not really analyzed or explained.

Example one: For rape and kidnap, you go to prison to get raped by your cellmates (how many times? by one, or by a gang?). Here 'what you deserve' is construed to mean something quite similar happens to you. That's why kidnap is there, so that 'prison' will resemble. Maybe where there's no kidnap there should be no prison.

So for simple rape, maybe let the person go, then have him attacked by state thugs who shove a baseball bat up his ass. Should it be one-for-one, though? Perhaps have this happen twice to teach a lesson.

What should be the penalty for second degree murder (in a rage) or manslaughter (a fight that gets out of hand, for one party).

If I invade a home--this is tricky, I'm not sent to prison, but let go....home. Then one night some state appointed thugs break in and terrorize me and my family and steal some stuff.

The child abuser is a bit of a problem, but, assuming he has children, perhaps his children should be abused by state appointed punishers.

The slanderer: Is he to be slandered? In some cases, this seems too light.
----
Looking at the non resembling case:

The deadbeat dad is shamed and flogged.

Here "what you deserve" is said to be some kind of embarrassment and pain. This is NOT similar to what's inflicted, but is simply sev's preferred way of inflicting pain (corporal punishment). Why flogging and not jail time? Why flogging and not, say, scalding (an arm immersed in boiling water)?

Taking the case of a thief, would it be flogging? Perhaps, say, drive a few nails through the hand.

What about the Ken Lay, the white collar thief of millions: Maybe a series of floggings, one every week. There is always 'ducking'; tie the fellow to a chair on the end of a pole and immerse him in water till he almost drowns, then bring him up again. Repeat as desired by the victims.

Coming back to the slanderer, maybe he should have his tongue ripped out with pliers, instead of the above.
------

There are nice cases of 'poetic justice,' like having the litterer clean litter from highways for a while. Of course if the 'similarity' criterion is used, he has to pick up only say, 10 things, since that's what he threw out the window. Or do we mulitply by 7? or by 7 times 7?

---
Conclusion: "what's deserved" is of course an axiom of justice. The resembling action done to oneself seems too harsh in some cases, too easy in others Non-resembling pain inflictions are hard to quantify, and the type of pain or discomfort is hard to figure out; no reason is given for flogging as opposed to the discomfort of jailing (presumably with no rape, or is that a bonus for the worst offenders?)

What's needed, following Nietzsche, is a re evaluation of the goal, here, in a justice system. Is it eye for eye? What about public entertainment? Is it some 'equivalent' in suffering, or the amount of suffering to teach a lesson? Or the amount to create terror in those observing? Is it to prevent or deter crimes?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Merit applies to an individual context. You get exactly what you deserve. If you murder, you are executed. If you rape and kidnap, you go to prison and get raped by your cellmates. If you do harm to society through being a deadbeat dad, you get a proper dose of shame, humiliation, and pain through a public flogging.

This sounds like a fairly impressionistic list based on sev's feelings about the severity of the crime. The phrase 'exactly what you deserve' is not really analyzed or explained.

Example one: For rape and kidnap, you go to prison to get raped by your cellmates (how many times? by one, or by a gang?). Here 'what you deserve' is construed to mean something quite similar happens to you. That's why kidnap is there, so that 'prison' will resemble. Maybe where there's no kidnap there should be no prison.

So for simple rape, maybe let the person go, then have him attacked by state thugs who shove a baseball bat up his ass. Should it be one-for-one, though? Perhaps have this happen twice to teach a lesson.

What should be the penalty for second degree murder (in a rage) or manslaughter (a fight that gets out of hand, for one party).

If I invade a home--this is tricky, I'm not sent to prison, but let go....home. Then one night some state appointed thugs break in and terrorize me and my family and steal some stuff.

The child abuser is a bit of a problem, but, assuming he has children, perhaps his children should be abused by state appointed punishers.

The slanderer: Is he to be slandered? In some cases, this seems too light.
----
Looking at the non resembling case:

The deadbeat dad is shamed and flogged.

Here "what you deserve" is said to be some kind of embarrassment and pain. This is NOT similar to what's inflicted, but is simply sev's preferred way of inflicting pain (corporal punishment). Why flogging and not jail time? Why flogging and not, say, scalding (an arm immersed in boiling water)?

Taking the case of a thief, would it be flogging? Perhaps, say, drive a few nails through the hand.

What about the Ken Lay, the white collar thief of millions: Maybe a series of floggings, one every week. There is always 'ducking'; tie the fellow to a chair on the end of a pole and immerse him in water till he almost drowns, then bring him up again. Repeat as desired by the victims.

Coming back to the slanderer, maybe he should have his tongue ripped out with pliers, instead of the above.
------

There are nice cases of 'poetic justice,' like having the litterer clean litter from highways for a while. Of course if the 'similarity' criterion is used, he has to pick up only say, 10 things, since that's what he threw out the window. Or do we mulitply by 7? or by 7 times 7?

---
Conclusion: "what's deserved" is of course an axiom of justice. The resembling action done to oneself seems too harsh in some cases, too easy in others Non-resembling pain inflictions are hard to quantify, and the type of pain or discomfort is hard to figure out; no reason is given for flogging as opposed to the discomfort of jailing (presumably with no rape, or is that a bonus for the worst offenders?)

What's needed, following Nietzsche, is a re evaluation of the goal, here, in a justice system. Is it eye for eye? What about public entertainment? Is it some 'equivalent' in suffering, or the amount of suffering to teach a lesson? Or the amount to create terror in those observing? Is it to prevent or deter crimes?

I understand your concerns, but those are examples of what I think is fair. Most rape, after all, does involve a form of false imprisonment, if only for a little bit. I am trying for the nearest approximation. The psychological and bodily harm caused by deadbeat dads should be matched by similar pain to the deadbeat (hence the humiliation and flogging).

And the child molester might find his lifestyle hampered by incarceration and constant mistreatment by cellmates. I am aiming for the most proportionate penalty, though absolute justice is sometimes impossible (e.g. you could only execute Hitler once, not 6 million times).

It still beats the coddling of the criminals in the current system and the cruelty of a "just" God imposing eternal torment for finite "sins". My ideal involves fewer laws, much more strictly enforced, rather than many laws halfheartedly enforced.

 

[3113]

If you rape and kidnap, you go to prison and get raped by your cellmates.

But when do you get out...and does this put an end to your desire to rape. I know YOU, Sev, may think so, but you're not likely to go out an rape someone. If a person has that urge, that need, can being raped themselves put an end to it?

Your hope is that suitable punishment will deter crime. But most criminals, like teenagers who think they're going to live forever, don't think they're going to get caught. If the punishment doesn't stop a person from committing a crime, AND it doesn't stop them from committing it again once they've suffered it...what good is it?

Which, mind you, is why I feel the current justice system doesn't work. Revolving door prisioners, in and out of jail, does society no good. To my mind, the best way to deal with criminals is to prevent their creation. But as that may not be entirely possible, then the next best thing is to find someway to get into their heads and stop them from committing the crime again.

By the by, I assume you'd manage to find suitable work for just about anyone no matter how disabled...but what about the really disabled? Mentally ill? And what about those falsely accused of crimes? If you're going to make a man suffer rape for raping...how to you insure that he really committed the rape and deserves the punishment?

 

[Pure]

sev: "coddling of the criminals"

given that US prisons are stacked to the rafters, and that more people per capita are imprisoned than in most 'advanced' countries, I wonder what evidence you have in mind, that criminals are coddled? Also a number of states have 'three strikes' rules, so that potentially, the third time you steal a car, you go up for 99 years. (Let's leave aside Chuck Colson, Martha Stewart and Robert Blake and co.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

given that US prisons are stacked to the rafters, and that more people per capita are imprisoned than in most 'advanced' countries, I wonder what evidence you have in mind, that criminals are coddled? Also a number of states have 'three strikes' rules, so that potentially, the third time you steal a car, you go up for 99 years. (Let's leave aside Chuck Colson, Martha Stewart and Robert Blake and co.)

Since the topic of the thread has now evolved somehow to prison reform, let's do some real reforming. Mostly that involves sentencing. Mainly, stop locking people up for possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use. That alone would end prison crowding.

Three strike laws should only include crimes of violence or potential of violence, such as armed robbery or residential burglary or abduction. They should not include car theft although they should include carjacking.

Colson and Stewart were convicted of white-collar type misdemeanors and did short sentences in minimum security prisons. Blake was acquitted of the most serious charges.

 

[Pure]

Box said, Colson and Stewart were convicted of white-collar type misdemeanors and did short sentences in minimum security prisons. Blake was acquitted of the most serious charges.

I conceded some 'coddling', by the justice system, of the three people mentioned. The fact that 'white collar' crime leads to 'minimun security'
(i.e. with golf courses) sorta proves my point.

Since by Colson and Stewart were convicted in Federal court on obstruction of justice charges, I very much doubt it's a 'misdemeanor', though I don't have direct proof.

Blake, after his criminal acquital, was found guilty in a civil trial of intentionally causing his wifes death, and judgment for 30 million was rendered. He then declared bankruptcy. If Box or anyone thinks this would be the outcome of a non famous and non rich person's 'causing' their spouses death, let me know, here. Give reasons.

As I said, the best--and rare-- cases of 'coddling' seem to involve family, family and/or money.

 

[ishtat]

???

quickly. I don't think any discipline promotes mental facility like a well taught philosophy class.

I personally believe mathematics is as effective . However, I'm biased having taught mathematics and philosophy for a great many years.We could have an interesting debate perhaps defining the relationship of mathematics and philosophy for example.

The biggest problem that I encounter every day as a teacher is finding students who can even suspend their preconceptions for an instant and undertake the discipline of arguing a point without relying on the comfort of believing in it beforehand.

 

[3113]

The biggest problem that I encounter every day as a teacher is finding students who can even suspend their preconceptions for an instant and undertake the discipline of arguing a point without relying on the comfort of believing in it beforehand.

Which brings in religion which, unlike most philosophies, creates a reality that is not suppose to be questioned. It's that saying you sometimes see on bumperstickers: "God said it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it!"

Comforting to have the truth all there, no need to think for yourself. But I wonder it this is a chicken-or-egg situation. Does religion keep people from questioning so they become uncomfortable with doing so...or do people gravitate to religion because they're uncomfortable with a world of questions?

I have an in-law who, amusingly, was converted by his wife to a particular Christian Church. Now he wants to be a minister...but the church is telling him that he shouldn't go into religious studies because it makes students "think too much."

I find it really ironic that religions are even afraid of letting people study religion for fear that the person will start to ask questions and think for themselves.

 

[Liar]

I find it really ironic that religions are even afraid of letting people study religion for fear that the person will start to ask questions and think for themselves.

And to top that... By isolating themselves from ciritic thinkers and debate, they are sending out a strong signal hollering "My religion is a weak one, I don't have faith enough in it to allow it to even be discussed."

So, they are in reality giving their own faith a big thumbs down.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

But when do you get out...and does this put an end to your desire to rape. I know YOU, Sev, may think so, but you're not likely to go out an rape someone. If a person has that urge, that need, can being raped themselves put an end to it?

Your hope is that suitable punishment will deter crime. But most criminals, like teenagers who think they're going to live forever, don't think they're going to get caught. If the punishment doesn't stop a person from committing a crime, AND it doesn't stop them from committing it again once they've suffered it...what good is it?

Which, mind you, is why I feel the current justice system doesn't work. Revolving door prisioners, in and out of jail, does society no good. To my mind, the best way to deal with criminals is to prevent their creation. But as that may not be entirely possible, then the next best thing is to find someway to get into their heads and stop them from committing the crime again.

By the by, I assume you'd manage to find suitable work for just about anyone no matter how disabled...but what about the really disabled? Mentally ill? And what about those falsely accused of crimes? If you're going to make a man suffer rape for raping...how to you insure that he really committed the rape and deserves the punishment?

Since neither the herd's concern (prevention), nor the nobler one of justice or punishment are absolutely possible in all cases, I prefer to make justice the higher priority. This is the problem with utilitarian ethics. They cover only the trees, not the forest. They ignore the big picture and settle for the lowest common denominator. In the long run, they backfire, so they are not even practical. This probably had something to do with Aristotle's preference for virtue over expediency.

My position remains that it is better to have fewer laws, more stringenly enforced, than to have many laws and coddle the lawbreakers with psych evaluations, which I seriously doubt will prevent crime. Crime can probably be prevented to a large extent by deporting all convicted felons to Alaskan penal colonies for life, but I don't see anyone advocating THAT here. Prevention is a secondary concern. Justice
is my primary concern.

I suppose that it just means that I am still capable of severity. That is a large part of why I call myself "SEVERUSMAX". I believe that crime MUST carry a price, a sacrifice on the part of the criminals, a forced occasion to experience empathy with the victims. I believe that something reasonably equivalent that makes only the guilty suffer (hence I wouldn't favor a certain poster's tongue-in-cheek suggestion that children of child molesters be molested) is the best policy here. But that is just a case in point, criminal justice.

The overall principle is to elevate the quid pro quo, or merit, or justice, above all other moral or ethical principles. The foundation of my beliefs is this principle of merit.

 

[OutshinedOne]

I think there's something that needs to be addressed here, especially given Rand's philosophy and the way people are interpreting things as religion or religious. Philosophy has undergone such a radical shift since Kant that I think it needs some explanation since there are a few misconceptions at play here.

Rand, as a whole, has mostly been ignored in the academic philosophical communtiy. None of her philosohpy has been published in peer-reviewed journals. She's not a philosopher in much the same way people such as Aristotle, Hume, and Sartre are. She has such a fixation on things such as self-interest, ethics, and rationality that it gets in the way of a number of her conclusions and attempts at solving philosophical puzzles and arguments. Moreover, her use of fiction and romantic-style literature does not lend itself well to being distilled into philosophical form. Many philosophers have written fiction in order to help spread their philosophical dieas (Camus and Sartre, for example), but they supplemented it with academic works that are able to be easily criticized and evaluated (Myth of Sisyphus, Being and Nothingness). Rand writes in such a one-dimensional way with her characters that it just does not seem to be realistic by any stretch of the imagination. People are so much more complex and in-depth than the way she writes them. In short, she does an unsatisfactory job in planting down an academic philosophy and a "life" philosophy, if you will.

However, back to that shift I mentioned above for a moment. Prior to Kant, most philosophers focused on material all across the board. You can find material on metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, free will, and a number of other philosophical topics addressed in the writings of Plato, Descartes, Hume, and Kant. These men cast a broad net in their teachings and, in some cases, did so in quite an impressive manner. Almost all of their teachings are found in high schools and colleges across the world. The impact they had in so many areas is in all honesty quite impressive.

However, following Kant, philosophy split off into two branches, analytic and continental. I'll address each, starting with analytic.

Analytic philosophy was originally categorized by its focus on logic and language. It's mostly focused in Great Britain and the United States. Even today, it is heavily based in rational lines of thinking and utilizing the natural sciences (namely physics) to explain how the world works beyond what traditional science can teach us. This particular philosophy is highly specialized. Most philosophers in this school are not like the above-mentioned philosophers. They focus on a particular area, such as metaphysics, aesthetics, and so on. Most people never hear about these guys because their work is so dense and philosophically-based that it really is hard for a person uneducated in philosophy to understand what these people are talking about. People you'll find in this field include Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, David Lewis, Daniel Dennett, Hilary Putnam, John Rawls, and Noel Carroll.

Continental philosophy, on the other hand, finds its roots in continental Europe. It's harder to define this philosophy, but essentially most of the philosophers who work within it are highly skeptical and often utilize abstract ideas to discuss how we operate and exist in the world. There are a lot of adherents of Marx and Freud within this particular school, although both of these lines of thinking have been declining recently due to the fall of the USSR and the surging rise of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Existentialism also finds its home here. Rand tends to fall into this particular category, but the majority of continental philosophers ignore or despise her works because of the above mentioned reasons. People in this school include Jean Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Soren Kierkegaard, and Karl Jaspers.

Now...of the above people I named, I doubt that the majority of Americans would recognize many these names. You don't see religions popping up around their works much in the same way you do with Rand. Heck, some of them operated in existing religion in their works (Dennett and Kierkegaard, for example). Some philosophers do try to explain the way the world works, but they take a highly logical and coherent (ideally) approach to it. They attempt to avoid logical contradictions and tend to focus more on what is than what should be (with a few exceptions). Rand relies on shaky logical grounds and looks at the world through a certain lens that really does not belong to academic philosophy.

Philosophy in the mainstream and philosophy in academia are two incredibly different things...I don't think people truly understand that distinction. People tend to think of philosophy as a way of living and functioning in the world. I've heard numerous people refer to the Bible as a philosophical text. Problem is, the Bible was not a philosophical work; not by any stretch of the imagination. There are a scant few passages contained within the Bible that contribute anything to the academic field of philosophy.

I think it's important for people to realize that distinction in this argument.

I also think they would do well to read some of the above mentioned philosophers because they have some awesome ideas about the way things work.

 

[Pure]

The overall principle is to elevate the quid pro quo, or merit, or justice, above all other moral or ethical principles. The foundation of my beliefs is this principle of merit.

I guess the details and place of this theory are just not yet clear. Is it a theory of law? or of interpersonal conduct? Most people think that public laws have a narrower scope than morality (for some things are immoral but not illegal). so let's not just talk about who you think should go to jail and for how long.

Is this a theory of egoism? in what sense.

Does 'render quid pro quo' and 'render according to merit' mean the same thing.

 

[Pure]

Nice posting, out!

Yes, I think Rand lies outside academia, be it continental or analytic philosophy.

And it's interesting your point that her fiction does not stand up as such, compared with Camus or Sartre. People read Camus who would dispute the philosophy. Rand's novels are like Chinese opera during the heyday of the Cultural Revolution.

Of course being outside academia does not mean lack of merit, and in fact several philosophers you mention functioned that way, namely Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche after he left his professorship. Neither was Camus much of an academician. You say,
[he wrote] academic works that are able to be easily criticized and evaluated , mentioning the Myth of Sisyphus. Yet the evaluation of that book is quite low, from most philosophers I've encountered. He seems, perhaps somewhat like Rand, a bit over his head. (As Sartre pointed out.)

It is hard to find a category for Rand, a parallel, since she 1) aimed for a following, and 2) aimed to change the world. The best parallels would be some marxists like Marcuse, or Cohn Bendit or Chomsky. Even these do not quite have the 'cult' like quality that Rand sought. Possibly Marx or Kropotkin would fit. And there are some philosophers of the right.

As far as following goes, one has to remember that quality, depth, etc is not necessarily connected, esp. outside academia. So while one may be tempted to dismiss Rand, one has to remember people like Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard-- neither of whose 'philosophy' made a dent in the academy. I think this is what Sev is getting at, in starting the thread--trying to get us to look at something besides content.

 

[OutshinedOne]

Yes, I think Rand lies outside academia, be it continental or analytic philosophy.

As it's interesting your point that her fiction does not stand up as such, compared with Camus or Sartre. People read Camus who would dispute the philosophy. Rand's novels are like Chinese opera during the heyday of the Cultural Revolution.

Of course being outside academia does not mean lack of merit, and in fact several philosophers you mention functioned that way, namely Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche after he left his professorship. Neither was Camus much of an academician. You say,
[he wrote] academic works that are able to be easily criticized and evaluated , mentioning the Myth of Sisyphus. Yet the evaluation of that book is quite low, from most philosophers I've encountered. He seems, perhaps somewhat like Rand, a bit over his head. (As Sartre pointed out.)

It is hard to find a category for Rand, a parallel, since she 1) aimed for a following, and 2) aimed to change the world. The best parallels would be some marxists like Marcuse, or Cohn Bendit or Chomsky. Even these do not quite have the 'cult' like quality that Rand sought. Possibly Marx or Kropotkin would fit. And there are some philosophers of the right.

As far as following goes, one has to remember that quality, depth, etc is not necessarily connected, esp. outside academia. So while one may be tempted to dismiss Rand, one has to remember people like Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard-- neither of whose 'philosophy' made a dent in the academy. I think this is what Sev is getting at, in starting the thread--trying to get us to look at something besides content.

There is nothing wrong with taking a critical approach to any writings, beliefs, or methods that people employ in the world. A number of people did not influence great numbers of people until well after their deaths. Sometimes academia and the mainstream are slow on the uptake; it's only natural.

However, what I was trying to get at was attempting to separate Rand from academic philosophy, which I think many people confuse. She's not some one cut from the same cloth as Aristotle. Instead, I think she falls into a similar category as Marx and Freud. Neither men were philosophers per se, but they did have a remarkable influence of the world and eventually did find their ideas distilled into the academic realm (for better or worse).

As for the philosophers you mentioned above, a number of them did leave their respective professorships and the halls of academia as it were, but they still wrote a large number of texts which to this day have varying levels of importance in the academic world. Descartes supposedly wrote his Meditations while lying in bed, yet that work ranks among some of the most important in philosophy.

Camus' problem was that he died before he could bring out a single unifying work. He was more comparable to Leibniz's works than anyone else in that respect, where you could find a number of philosophical ideas and whatnot among his various novels and the Myth, but he never was able to bring all of that material together into a single place, much like Sartre did with Being and Nothinginess (which ranks among the most headache-inducing books I've ever had to read...yeesh).

I was just trying to provide an important distinction, some background, as well as some criticism in my post. Philosophy has managed to become one of those things in my life I can't help but think about, needless to say.

 

[amicus]

Jeesh and jumpin up and down Christ, the pointy heads emerge from the woodwork in full force.

I would like to welcome: "...OutshinedOne
Experienced


OutshinedOne is Offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Madison, WI or Chicago, IL
Posts: 41 ..."

...to the forum... before I nuke this person.

It is all well and good to be in the enclave of 'academia', and you may well be just that. But I surmise you miss a rather important aspect of philosophy, namely, that the world has changed somewhat since the days of Kierkegarde and Sartre and Camus and is no longer the province of opium users and bohemians and Kantian Confusionists.

I offer you a long winded observation I made, just this evening after watching, closely watched, mind you, replay of a CSPAN replay of the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate public hearing on the oil industry, rising prices and mergers within the industry.

I digress: Somewhere in Atlas Shrugged, I think, the plot included a scenario where Washington beaurocrats were plotting, planning and scheming how to prevent productive businessmen from doing their thing, in the oil, railroad, steel and transportation industries.

Well, a half a century after Ayn Rand wrote that scene, I saw it replayed in real life in the United States Senate committee hearing today.

The players were: (I may have missed some) Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, Chairman

Senator Patrick Leahy D-Vermont, Ranking member

Senator Mike DeWine R-Ohio

Senator Joseph Biden D-Delaware (asshole)

Senator John Coryn R-Texas (I took a lot of notes on his comments)

Senator Herb Kohl D-Wisconsin

Senator Chuck Grassley R-Iowa

Senator Charles Shumer D-New York (Nasty Bastard)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was a televised hearing, with two panels, the first of which I did not take notes on, but included severe criticism from State Attorney's general, and private lawyers who were seeking to limit and control oil companies.

There main impetus was to control and regulate the energy industries to suit the general and greater good of the consuming public against the greed and avariciousness of the 'oil barons'.

I threw things at the screen during this portion of the broadcast.

The second panel was composed of CEO's of the major oil companies:

Exxon Mobile, CEO Rex Tillerson
Conoco Phillips, CEO James Mulva
Chevron, CEO David O'Riley
Valero Energy (18 refineries), CEO Bill Klesse
Shell Oil, CEO, President, John Hofmeister
BP America, CEO, Ross Pillari

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now...Ayn Rand carefully painted her characters in black hats and white hats, for those of you who have read her novels, and I swear, it was art replacing reality as I watched the confident, self secure, knowledgeable businessmen of the oil industry, rip to shreds the fat, incompentent, unknowing, ignorant and flaccid members of the United States Senate.

These men of action, the 'John Galt' and 'Hank Reardon' types, washed over the whining policticians as a wave on a sandy beach.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Academic philosophers, teachers, to be explicit, are no doubt a fine lot of fellows and I do not begrudge, well, actually I do, their sinecures.

Much like theologians, they remain shrouded in mystery, esconsced in the womb of protective academia, unto themselves and others of their ilk, demure in sacrifice and suffering, aspiring to classical recognition.

"OutshinedOne" has a pre Victorian view of the place and function of Philosophy and Philosophers in the post Industrial era.

The 'real' philosophers of the modern era, as a transitional phenomena, are the movers and shakers of the late 19th and early 20th century. The Thomas Edisons, the Alexander Graham Bell's, the men of science and industry and medicine and chemistry and metallurgy that turned a pastoral world into an industrial and modern one.

Ayn Rand is the first and foremost of those who took philosophy out of the catacombs and into a new world of reason and rationality in all things, sans the cobwebs of faith and fantasy.

I challenge any of you who doubt what I say, to read any or all of the philosophers quoted and named above. I have read them all and I swear to you, you will stop reading after a few pages of any book by any one of them.

I struggled through them, all, each, one by one, so that I might know what they spoke of. Some had a little to offer; most, nothing. But of course, if you seek and claim to know, you have to read them and their critics to understand the evolution of philosophical thought.

Philosophy goes back beyond Thales, maybe 2500 years ago. The torturous course it took in the divorcement from religion, was excruciating and is still ongoing.

Ayn Rand is to Philosophy what the Hubble telescope is to astronomy, what Einstein was to Relativity, do not dismiss her lightly because the pampered professors of academia wish to secure their tenure.

amicus...

(yeah, I know, bite me!)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The overall principle is to elevate the quid pro quo, or merit, or justice, above all other moral or ethical principles. The foundation of my beliefs is this principle of merit.

I guess the details and place of this theory are just not yet clear. Is it a theory of law? or of interpersonal conduct? Most people think that public laws have a narrower scope than morality (for some things are immoral but not illegal). so let's not just talk about who you think should go to jail and for how long.

Is this a theory of egoism? in what sense.

Does 'render quid pro quo' and 'render according to merit' mean the same thing.

I mean it as a moral philosophy, not just a legal one. Like you said, what's immoral shouldn't necessarily be illegal.

Literally, "quid pro quo" means "this for that", but that fits in nicely with my theory.

As far the analytic and continental schools go, I have found value in some from each. I don't completely buy into Russell, Nietzsche, or Sartre, but they all have some good ideas. And bear in mind, at the risk of sounding like amicus in defending Rand, that most historical philosophers were unpopular with or rejected by academic establishments. Merely being out of the mainstream doesn't mean being wrong per se.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I personally believe mathematics is as effective . However, I'm biased having taught mathematics and philosophy for a great many years.We could have an interesting debate perhaps defining the relationship of mathematics and philosophy for example.

The biggest problem that I encounter every day as a teacher is finding students who can even suspend their preconceptions for an instant and undertake the discipline of arguing a point without relying on the comfort of believing in it beforehand.

I think the biggest problem is that Philosophy requires critical thinking skills. It does something that has basically becpome extint in the class room, it challenges everything. It demands that you divest yourself of apriori assumptioons and evaluate information in a way most kids simply have no experience in doing.

The main thing is, philosophy provides no concrete answers and often simply creates more questions. For kids raised on sit coms and television drama, where complex problems are solved in a thrity minute installment, that's as alien a way of thinking as you can come up with.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Hey Outshined... welcome to the fray...

I really appreciated your differentiation... and your criticism. I have a very strange take on philosophy, and got in trouble a lot when I wrote papers... although I always got A's somehow *scratching head.* I understand your wanting to separate religion and philosophy, but for me, they seem to be seeking an answer to the same question. I know when a philosophy or a religion has hit its mark when my heart sings... Rand doesn't make my heart sing. <shrug>

It's no rational or logical or objective system... Ami is rolling his eyes and mumbling about "silly slits" as I speak.... *smile*

I, for one, am glad you took a break from academia to post...

 

[rgraham666]

My favourite non-fiction authour refers to the 'analytic' philosophers as 'scholastics' because they so much resemble the Scholastics of the Middle Ages.

They've trapped philosophy inside their comfortable little world. They use obscure language to keep their knowledge from seeping out into the world at large as such an event will decrease their power. And their chief purpose is to support those in power.

The mediaeval Scholastics invoked God as the centre of their philosophy, and the modern ones invoke science and economics.

But they're essentially the same people.