No need to apologize, Bill. You thought I had made an unfair comparison and said so. That's fine. So I explained that I had not meant to compare Rand to Hitler or to anyone else. You accepted that explanation and that, too, is fine. You didn't try to tell me that I had meant to say something which I never had any intention of saying. That is the significant difference between you and rufio.
Re: the Webster's definition. Fine. As I said, if the definition we accept is broad enough, anybody who writes a book or an essay can be called a philosopher.
truth
Andrew, what a disappointment that you are not a damsel. I can't believe I came to the rescue of a man. Please don't tell anyone.
truth
OCCOM BILL, I wouldn't make that confession if I were you. It suggests that you have read no other philosophers. And if you have...worse.
And I'm quite serious; I have no desire to be insulting.
ebrown_p
There is no need to apologize for your tone, or content. I lack the time to go back to school and do comprehensive studies in this field and I have no trouble admitting to my ignorance.
Adrian posted a link that I am still studying that proves not only my Newtonian assumption was wrong, but also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that matter does expand.
I didn't post the link to teach anyone anything. I posted it in order to learn myself. It's title has attracted responses from people who know far more than I do (like you). In this way I am able to get a grasp on a subject that interests me, without years of prerequisite learning. My ignorance should offend no one, as I've never claimed any expertise. Any "relevant" links you'd like to post would be most welcome. As are all opinions that help explain my errors.The residual effect of this thread will be to help laymen, like myself, get a better understanding of an interesting subject, without having to dedicate our lives to it. This will be my last post addressing my intentions. Thank you, and everyone, for your consideration.
Now, can anyone address my question about the watch experiments?
Oops, this last post went to the wrong thread. sorry.
truth
O-Bill. I'm sorry if I seemed aggressive. Actually, I see you as a very nice person, and one who is likely to know more than I do at my present age--which is probably double that of yours.
Setanta, it has been shown that perhaps the "noble savages" that were so in the vogue then actually had more leisure time than we do.
MA, you clearly stated that you thought Hitler was as philosophical as Ayn Rand. If you want to revoke that statement, go right ahead.
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:OCCOM BILL, I wouldn't make that confession if I were you. It suggests that you have read no other philosophers. And if you have...worse.
And I'm quite serious; I have no desire to be insulting.
If I knew you well enough to respect your opinion of me, I would be quite offended. Your assumption that I am either not well read, or worse, is a holier than thou kind of statement, which leads me to value your opinion less. If your subsequent post is meant as a complete retraction, than I'll wipe the proverbial slate clean. If not; I would have to consider you a person who presupposes that people with opposing opinions could only do so out of ignorance. In which case; I would place no value on your opinion of me whatsoever.
I'm actually really curious, JL. What do you think makes a "good philosopher"? Or do you just not agree with her philosophy?
truth
O-Bill, I hope you read my apologies.
Rufio, you ask questions that would require a book to answer. It's like asking me to prove why I think Picasso is a better painter than Kincaid. It's really not worth the effort--even if I could write that book.
Then why make the statements if you don't want to think about why? Surely if you can easily put things into groups, you can easily define the qualities of those groups.
Edit: Ooh, I know, I'll make another thread. Some of these do turn out rather as long as books....
truth
Rufio, o.k., I don't have to write an original book evaluating philosophers, especially with the purpose of placing Ayn Rand outside or among the ranks of philosophers. One criterion which should suffice is that in all my 48 years of reading philosophy I have NEVER seen any reference to her ideas or works by known philosophers. That is to say, she simply is not treated as significant by philosophy. She's discussed, when she is discussed, more as a pop philosopher, not a serious one. Also, I cannot see that her IDEAS have themselves influenced the development of western philosophy (forget about the lack of reference to her work). Now if you disagree, if you think that "Randism" is a viable word, that she HAS had a significant impact on western philosopshy, show me. The ball is in your court. But I hope you'll just put it away. I'm hear to play and work, not to labor.
I thought you said popularity didn't matter in determining good philosophy.
rufio wrote:Setanta, it has been shown that perhaps the "noble savages" that were so in the vogue then actually had more leisure time than we do.
Typical response . . . statement from authority, without attribution. At any event, it was Thomas Hobbes who wrote that philosophy derives from leisure. You could go dig him up and beat some sense into him, or you could posit that the "noble savage" was likely a philosopher. I really don't care which you do, either will be equally hilarious.
truth
O-BILL, you ask me if I have any questions. Yes, how does what you present answer my question. Academy awards and number of novels sold have absolutely nothing to do with any effect on Western Philosophy. It just shows that she has a lay following, including you. She has undoubtedly had more books sold per unit of time than has Kant, Descartes, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Russel, Ayer, Quine, Rorty, etc. etc. But their works have been massively studied in universites and are required reading in all philsophy major programs. But I'll bet Rand is never assigned reading.
And Rufio, is that another example of your frequent expressions of bad faith? You know that when I talk about a philosopher's significance in terms of his or her impact on western philosophy I am not talking about "popularity." Now leave me alone.
Alright.
Scroll down to the bottom where it talks about "Misconceptions about Foraging"
http://anthro.palomar.edu/subsistence/sub_2.htm
There are others as well, in print, no doubt.
It was an off-hand comment, not an attack. Calm down.
That's just popularity of another kind, JL....
truth
Lee's findings about time spent working focuses, does it not, on the labors of bushmen hunters and gatherers. Their women provide most of the calories. The men "work" very enjoyably hunting giraffe and other animals. And spend much less time doing so. An interesting thing about them, as I recall, is that the women's efforts, which are MUCH more productive in terms of calories provided, bring them very little prestige and influelnce for their efforts. The men's efforts, while providing much less calories, provide food that is very desireable and shared among families, thus providing those who bring back large kills of meat much political prestige. Lee's findings on the Kalahari bushmen may be exceptional. Many hunters and gatherers spend much more time earning a living. Nevertheless, it was a shocker years ago to find that at least SOME hunters and gatherers lived a relatively leisurely life--but not their women. Thanks for the link.
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:O-BILL, you ask me if I have any questions. Yes, how does what you present answer my question.
Isn't that obvious? You asked:
Quote:if you think that "Randism" is a viable word, that she HAS had a significant impact on western philosopshy, show me.
I gave you:
Quote:In 1991 in a joint survey by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club, Atlas Shrugged ranked second (to the Bible) on a list of "books that made a difference" in peoples' lives.
What difference could Atlas Shrugged possibly have made in peoples lives if not a philosophical one?
Your condescending attitude is both insulting and indicative of a feeling of superiority. Are you saying that me, the 20,000,000 other fans, and everyone surveyed by the Library of Congress are all "lay persons" and as such; are too ignorant to have opinions on philosophy? My earlier perception of you has now been realized, so I will weigh your words accordingly.
