Must atheists believe in evolution?

[Gonz]

...try to avoid controversy. try to watch what you say as i will too as you are dealing wiht peoples beliefs and that can hit a nerve.

What the hell for? I love controversy. It's name calling that gets out of hand. as far as thier beliefs, test 'em once in awhile

 

[Luis G]

defining the terms is a larg part OF the discussion


it's what makes it interesting...to see how people have different views on the same terms

define define, because if you are talking about giving your point of view you can be wrong, we need an absolutely correct definition of define before we can go on with this argument

 

[Gonz]

Pronunciation: di-'fIn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·fined; de·fin·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French definer, from Latin definire, from de- + finire to limit, end, from finis boundary, end
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human> b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)

 

[outside looking in]

I disagree completely with that definition.

 

[Ardsgaine]

A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept.

It is often said that definitions state the meaning of words. That is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines--by specifying their referents.

The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.

Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.

--Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

 

[Aunty Em]

--Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Define "Objectivist Epistemology" ..................................

 

[RD_151]

Ok, I finally have to read sometihing from Ayn Rand. Where is the best place to start? I'm curious now. I know you gave me links last time, but I can't remember which thread they were in. What about a book? I think I will pick one up today or tomorrow.

 

[Aunty Em]

Ok, I finally have to read sometihing from Ayn Rand. Where is the best place to start? I'm curious now. I know you gave me links last time, but I can't remember which thread they were in. What about a book? I think I will pick one up today or tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-2561115-3005643?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Capitalism and contextuality: epistemology subsumes all, July 12, 2002
Reviewer: A reader
According to Rand's Objectivist epistemology, if one accepts the premises of modern philosophy, one is faced with a choice: either accept constructivism or conclude that the raison d'etre of the poet-philosopher is deconstruction. In her own writings, however, the subject is contextualised into a capitalist paradigm of context that includes narrativity as a paradox.

'Consciousness is responsible for the status quo,' says the social metaphysician. It could be said that in _The Fountainhead_, Rand herself examines such social-metaphysical simulacra; in _ATLAS SHRUGGED_, however, she denies their efficacy as agents of change in neoconstructive theory. The subject is interpolated into a presemanticist paradigm of reality that includes language as a reality.

But Rand uses the term 'epistemology,' as she elsewhere (_The Romantic Manifesto_) uses the term 'art,' to denote the role of the writer as both observer and participant. The characteristic theme of her epistemology, then, is not, in fact, knowledge-of, but knowledge-that.

It could be said that the premise of the capitalist paradigm of context states that the law is capable of truth, but only if art is distinct from consciousness; otherwise, Marx's model of constructivism replaces that of 'Spencerian power relations,' and hence becomes part of the fatal flaw of truth. The primary theme of Rand's own model of neoconstructive concept-formation is the stasis, and some would say the rubicon, of textual/contextual class. In a sense, the subject is _absolutely contextualised_ into a postmodernist theory that includes philosophy as a whole within epistemology. In effect Rand thereby promotes the use of neoconstructive theory to attack hierarchy.

Thus, Rand uses the term 'psycho-epistemology' to bridge the gap between epistemology and art -- and also, as implicitly suggested above, to denote the role of the artist as participant-observer. This approach suggests the use of neoconstructive theory to analyse and modify sexual identity.

'Knowledge [so-called] is fundamentally used in the service of the status quo,' say the nihilists; however, according to Rand, it is not so much knowledge that is fundamentally used in the service of the status quo, but rather belief in the futility of knowledge. (It could be said that Rand implies that the works of Nietzsche are thus reminiscent of Kant!) In the final analysis, she suggests the use of the capitalist paradigm of context to read consciousness.

However, her unintentionally dialectic paradigm of 'contextual absoluteness' suggests that culture _is_, after all, capable of significance, even if only a limited kind (or degree). By Rand's own approach to contextuality, then, the subject of epistemology is contextualised into a constructivism that includes not only all of philosophy, but even language as a whole! This is perhaps the single most striking feature of her work.

In a sense, then, Rand's epistemological work suggests the use of substructuralist desublimation to challenge sexist perceptions of society. If subconstructive dialectic theory holds, we have to choose between capitalist objectivism and subconceptualist discourse. And -- through her theory of concept-formation by measurement-omission -- Rand makes clear that, for her at least, the latter option is no option at all, thereby establishing capitalist objectivism as the only philosophically 'live option.'

Of course this argument presumes an a- or post-cultural paradigm of context that includes reality as a totality! Rand badly needs a defense of this principle in order for her epistemology to stand. However, this single weakness does not diminish the cultural significance of her overall project.

17 pages of excerts to read...Interesting.

The how and why of Objectivist thinking, 26 August, 1997
Reviewer: [email protected] from Seattle, USA
Philosophy has traditionally (since the nineteenth century) been the province of "intellectuals", religious Pooh-Bahs and the like who seem to derive some sort of perverse pleasure out of constructing riddles out of real-world moral and ethical questions. As Rand herself put it, "The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power. The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default." This book explains the fundamentals of Objectivism it's shared roots (Aristotle's) and it's opposition (Mysticism, Kant, etc.). It's not an easy read, but the author doesn't talk down to the reader and it is readily understandable by someone with a high-school education. I wouldn't recommend this book for folks who are new to philosophy as it requires some background knowledge. For this I would recommend Rand's wonderful introduction (to philosophy in general and Objectivism specifically) entitled "Philosophy, Who Needs It?"

Think I might go for "Philosophy, Who Needs It?"

 

[freako104]

...try to avoid controversy. try to watch what you say as i will too as you are dealing wiht peoples beliefs and that can hit a nerve.

What the hell for? I love controversy. It's name calling that gets out of hand. as far as thier beliefs, test 'em once in awhile

the reason i said that is because the controversy itself can get out of hand. its good to test your beliefs not good when you attack the person(as ive seen on here and on jjr512 and xibase too) which is what im hoping to avoid.

 

[RD_151]

Aunty Em,

Thanks, I read up a little on this already this morning. Maybe I will pick up the book after work.

 

[Aunty Em]

I ordered the "Philosophy who needs it?", but being an American book it could be up to 4 weeks before I get it. I never could get that interested in Rousseau and all the rest, but maybe this will be different. There's too much jargon about if you ask me.

 

[RD_151]

Yep, definitely a lot of jargon. I don't remember too much of it either. It could be a 'fun' read I hope its not too overly jargon filled, but since most philosophical works are, I don't expect this to be any differnent.

 

[Janimal]

Aunty Em,

Thanks, I read up a little on this already this morning. Maybe I will pick up the book after work.

I would actually start with a book called "Loving Life" by Craig Biddle. I found it a good layman's introduction to Objectivist philosophy. Then I would go for "The Virtue of Selfishness", which is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and others.

 

[Ardsgaine]

There is an awful lot of jargon out there, and it usually serves to obscure the person's meaning rather than clarifying it. That one review you quoted was a classic example. It reminded me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips:

Calvin: I used to hate writing assignments, but now I enjoy them. I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog! Want to see my book report?

Hobbes (reading): "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes."

Calvin: Academia, here I come!

I find Rand to be very clear and easy to understand. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, though, is probably her most difficult work. It's just a more difficult subject and requires the use of specialized terms, although I think she does a good job of defining the terms she uses.

The ones Jan recommended are good to start with, but Philosophy, Who Needs It? is good too.

 

[Aunty Em]

Aunty Em,

Thanks, I read up a little on this already this morning. Maybe I will pick up the book after work.

I would actually start with a book called "Loving Life" by Craig Biddle. I found it a good layman's introduction to Objectivist philosophy. Then I would go for "The Virtue of Selfishness", which is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and others.

I will bear these 2 in mind for when I've finished the other one. It may take a few basic beginners books to get it straight in my head.

 

[Aunty Em]

Calvin: I used to hate writing assignments, but now I enjoy them. I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog! Want to see my book report?

Hobbes (reading): "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes."

Calvin: Academia, here I come!

Sounds just like Environmental Science - I've come to the conclusion that the jargon is there in the "ologies" to make it more difficult for lesser mortals to understand your conversations, so that you can gossip about them without the fear of being overheard.

Of course it may also be used like the masons secret handshake to say whether you're "in" or "out" of a particular clique.