Your words speak volumes about your grasp of philosophy.
Thank you for the compliment, even though it was not intended, Sarcasm noted.
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!
Your words speak volumes about your grasp of philosophy.
The problem I have with calling it a "contract"On Rand's social contract theory, we both need to brush up. I'm vague on the details of her social contract theory.
By the way, social contract theory in general has often enough been used by both sides of the draft issue. When used to oppose the draft, social contract theorists have argued that the elites have broken the contract and thus have no right to levy a draft. Social contract theory is far from being a blanket endorsement of the "establishment" -- to borrow a term from the 60s.
Social contract theory originated over 400 years ago as an attempt to find a reasonable and rational grounds for believing the absolute, despotic power of the era's kings was naturally limited. You will recall that was back in the day when people quoted the Bible and spoke of the "divine right of kings" to rule any which way they saw fit. Social contract theory is basically a way to rationally argue that there are limits to the legitimate rights and powers of rulers and governments. That is why it was almost routinely employed to argue against the daft during the Viet Nam War.
I'm not a social contract theorist, by the way. Much more in line with Rawls.
With all due respect, t-ball is not played at the pee-wee level, so Rand would be a strictly t-ball league player.People think it doesn't matter. Turns out when people take the words of people who are experts in fields that aren't things like pathology, immunology, biology, and medicine get taken as experts in that field when they say vaccines cause autism. Rand gets credit and attention, people think she's a philosopher, and if she's any sort of philosopher she's a pee-wee t-ball league player. Bill Nye isn't a scientist, Dr. Phil isn't a psychologist, and Rand isn't a philosopher.
This resembles strongly the unfortunate view of Charles Darwin and science of evolution by many misguided Creationists.
You need to separate Darwin's limits of knowledge and mid nineteenth century philosophy with his science of evolution which was beyond any science of his time.
As far as 'Social Darwinism' this is simple an unfortunate misuse of the science of evolution and long ago fortunately discarded by science many years ago. It is only used today by Creationists trying to justify an anti-science agenda against evolution.
I believe you should no better than bringing up this moldy oldy ridiculous nonsense.
4) Does Rand have any significant influence beyond America's borders? Is she a world-class philosopher or is she merely a local American philosopher?
No, it resembles (i.e. is) peer-reviewed critical scholarship published in a secular journal.
That you think it is even remotely resembles creationist attempts to refute the science of evolution is telling.
I don't need to separate anything when I am talking about what people, including Chucky D, believed in the 19th C with recourse to his verbatim words. I note you are unable to actually explain why any of the specific points are incorrect, just repeat platitudes.
The popularisation of Darwinism aided the popularisation of social Darwinism.
Darwin believed ToE had social implications for humans
Darwin held views that clearly could be considered 'Social Darwinist'
From a moral perspective, CD was not an ardent social Darwinist
These are facts whether you acknowledge them or not. They have zero implication regarding the validity of ToE, creationism or whatever agenda you like. It's just history.
Anyway, it's off topic for this thread so I'll stop derailing further.
Then start a thread to support this meaningless nonsense. It is not supported by reputable contemporary scientific literature on evolution.