Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
One of the 2 I saw.Liu Junning is Chinese.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One of the 2 I saw.Liu Junning is Chinese.
Well, he was listed as "influenced".Interesting, because he was Marxist-Left.
I know.Which, is in line with my claim that outside of America she doesn't really have a following outside of a scant following. Her fame and influence is pretty much regarded and acknowledged as an American thing.
I'm not. I'm just 100% against her being considered a philosopher because she did not engage with the field, did not make any sort of contributions to the field, and she didn't come up with anything original.I'd think that you wouldn't be 100% against all of Rand's views.
Originality is over-rated.I'm not. I'm just 100% against her being considered a philosopher because she did not engage with the field, did not make any sort of contributions to the field, and she didn't come up with anything original.
Not really. Marx's idea of Communism was basically an anarchist state, and Thompson was opposed to Capitalism.More Randist than Marxist, eh.
But by Thompson's lifetime, the reality of MarxismNot really. Marx's idea of Communism was basically an anarchist state, and Thompson was opposed to Capitalism.
I don't either. It's interesting.But really, I've not clue about how her writing
influenced him,
Problem is unequal power dynamics. One party may have no viable option but to accept exploitation or starve. This was traditionally addressed by government regulation and labor unions -- which Rand opposed.In Rand's view, any mutually beneficial, voluntary agreement is the basis for good business. Problem is, what might be mutually beneficial for two parties (coal miner and power plant for example) may be detrimental to third parties (environmental pollution.)
"In other words, me before you — first and always."Can you give specific examples of where you believe the author of that piece was "bending the truth", please?
You realize Darwin was a biologist, right?
I am sure that at some point you will realize how misguided these statement of yours are.You realise humans are biological organisms, right?
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum free of consequences, intended or otherwise, and Darwin's ideas were very much applied to human society.
As quoted, Darwin held views that could be classified as 'social Darwinist' that derived from his scientific beliefs. He was influenced by 'Social Darwinists' like Malthus and Spencer and by using their language in his scientific theories helped (inadvertently or otherwise) spread social Darwinist ideas. His cousin, Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin, even invented the term eugenics.
It is not a great calumny against Darwin to note the link between Darwin's theories and the increasing popularisation of social Darwinism.
This is why it is better to look at the history of ideas in their social contexts rather than mouthing empty platitudes based on ideological convenience.
I am sure that at some point you will realize how misguided these statement of yours are.
You don't see too inclined to conform to the "social contract"
in all its details, demands, & defects.
...since philosophy does not deal with 'truth.'
Given that it is obvious to nearly any informed person that there are many ways in which philosophy does in fact deal with "truth", what are the ways in which you believe it does not deal with truth?
You realise humans are biological organisms, right?
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum free of consequences, intended or otherwise, and Darwin's ideas were very much applied to human society.
As quoted, Darwin held views that could be classified as 'social Darwinist' that derived from his scientific beliefs. He was influenced by 'Social Darwinists' like Malthus and Spencer and by using their language in his scientific theories helped (inadvertently or otherwise) spread social Darwinist ideas. His cousin, Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin, even invented the term eugenics.
It is not a great calumny against Darwin to note the link between Darwin's theories and the increasing popularisation of social Darwinism.
This is why it is better to look at the history of ideas in their social contexts rather than mouthing empty platitudes based on ideological convenience.
It's been over 40 years since I've read her.So, how well informed do you consider yourself to be on social contract theory and/or Rand's opinion/interpretation of social contract theory?
Philosophy in history does not even deal with objective verifiable evidence. It deals with the subjective 'thinking' to be applied to our world from the human perspective. Even science dealing with consistent methods and objective verifiable evidence will not make claims of 'truth.' Philosophies may become more objective when applied to the eal world objective verifiable evidence as with Popper's philosophy of science, but even this does not lead to conclusions of 'truth.'
It's been over 40 years since I've read her.
So I claim only remote familiarity on the details.
But I think I have much of the spirit sussed.
How about you?