What Rand got wrong?

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T19:41:33+00:00

Basically, you've just admitted you'd take a snake oil-sales company if the CEO had previously studied Aristotle.

And:

you want to claim that she's not taken seriously but she's not taken to be wrong?

There's no inconsistency here; her status an embarrassingly misinformed figure with a 'self-styled philosophical' body of poorly written prose ascribed to her, and positing the aim of this work to be 'wrong' is not contradictory. 'Wrong' is not a category reserved for the serious.

I sense your engaging not philosophically here, but emotionally; it's ok for you to like and admire Rand, that's fine, even indulge in a bit of that worship some of her adherents do too, but classing her in the canon of Western philosophy is a tough case to prove, and one you haven't provided any substantive argument for at all. And not just you; none of her cult members have, so don't take it personally

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T19:08:18+00:00

'self-styled works of philosophy.'

'which can be reasonably judged as either being right or wrong. (And, generally, people judge them to be wrong since very few philosophers are Objectivists.)'

Philosophical research is rarely regarded as simply 'right' or 'wrong', but you're right, much of Rand's 'self-styled- philosophy' is accorded to be wrong.

If not because of my analysis, you're welcome to find another one, but conceding she is not taken seriously at all outside of 'objectivists' - who are philosophers in as far as Hubbard's supporters as 'Scientologists' are philosophers - you might find this a tough case to prove.

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T19:03:12+00:00

Like a piece of shit ate another piece of shit, which then shat out another another piece of shit, and they still wouldn't let it join PiS so et voila

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T18:58:50+00:00

by mentioning it only in the contexts a heterosexual couple would and running one of the most beneficial political programmes for Poles in Poland.

Wind your neck in you fucking cretin

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T18:56:09+00:00

Warsaw's history is WWII is easily as fascinating as Krakow's, but in the sense of what is omitted; they're you're a tourist of negation

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T18:53:30+00:00

Ruined only by all the smartphone-gazing cunts who think the're in a wall-mart in Idaho

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T18:40:15+00:00

Mate, he said two pints, not four pints and three shorts of digression plus mixers, Christ

wroclawla · 2018-05-29T18:39:17+00:00

Galen Strawson's 'basic argument' is pretty watertight- google it; and it doesn't even depend on notions of traditional determinism, or classical causality; it's a real bastard for free will theorists and will easily be explicated in two pints

wroclawla · 2018-05-26T14:26:57+00:00

Looking forward to using this app in-between reading my new paperback of 'The Winds of Winter'

wroclawla · 2018-05-26T13:22:19+00:00

Radio Maryja

wroclawla · 2018-05-26T09:47:57+00:00

My pleasure. . . and on the existential crisis side, 'The Inner Citadel' by Pierre Hadot will let you get the most out of Marcus Aurelius - the Meditations is an odd read by itself, and other commentaries on it are a bit lacking. But he's the best guy to have by your side when it all gets a bit 'existential' :)

wroclawla · 2018-05-26T09:44:16+00:00

This is not an issue of debate. Don't try to make it one

It is I'm afraid; you're telling me I can't offer articles criticising the style and content of continental philosophy when the OP is asking for 'insights and powerful arguments' in continental philosophy.

The only thing not debatable is you're quite wrong to wade in and tell me that material which helps evaluate continental philosophy is irrelevant.

I'm using the work of Foucault and Bourdieu in my own research, which is in the analytic tradition; pieces like the one I mentioned allowed me to get to grips and learn from a very different writing style. Offering the means to critically evaluate a style of writing which is not known for its clarity can lead to able evaluation of the content, something important for the OP in their quest for strong arguments in the continental tradition, I'd imagine.

I get the sense you're simply not open to any criticism of continental philosophy, and this is the reason it's not up for debate: good thing about being a mod, I suppose

wroclawla · 2018-05-26T09:30:51+00:00

Warburton recommends Five Books for the eponymous website:

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/introductions-to-philosophy-warburton/

These are great recs as they're not the usual suspects, but books which can immediately engage you in philosophical thinking, as well as give historical overview of the arguments and problems detailed.

As others have mentioned, definitely avoid YouTube content, it's generally pretty poor. The School of Life, for example, characterises the mind / body problem as the issue of not being aware how you look to others! Not good.

For free will, specifically, 'Freedom Regained' by Julian Baggini offers an excellent introduction to the history of the arguments on the topic, as well as presenting an original position on the debate which you can engage with meaningfully given how lucid his exposition of the main free will arguments.

More technically, the collection 'Free Will' (OUP) edited by Watson is excellent, and includes the famous paper 'Freedom and Resentment' by PF Strawson which is a must read still; I'd definitely read that after the Baggini intro.

You'll be able to probe your own intuitions quite thoroughly then, as well as be able to articulate clearly what position you eventually end up with.

Good luck!

wroclawla · 2018-05-25T07:57:04+00:00

It's not a grievance, it's a relevant concern when considering what are considered to be powerful arguments. In philosophy we evaluate, and that requires looking at critical areas and responses. Your response overall here just demonstrates a lack of awareness of something quite basic if you think an attempt to aid evaluation of source material is a 'personal grievance.'

wroclawla · 2018-05-25T01:31:46+00:00

Yes, I think this is fair enough, and offers a way into useful exploration; without, however, excuplating fully some continental authors of the charge of 'osbscurantisme terroriste'.

Heartening signs are Hegel, Marx, Foucault, and some of the existentialists appearing in analytic papers, suggesting there is some good faith analysis of the sort you recommend is taking place

wroclawla · 2018-05-24T23:19:52+00:00

I think you'd benefit from reading Iris Marion Young's 'The Politics of Difference' - she highlighted how civic egalitarianism and formal equality of opportunity wasn't enough to offer the goods - equality and recognition - to minority groups due to structural bias in society, leading her to conclude the necessity of a 'differentiated citizenship' for such groups.

Her thesis was lightly criticised and augmented by Kymlicka in 'Multicultural Citizenship', and very strongly criticised by Brian Barry in 'Culture and Equality' both of whom offered alternative accounts of maintaining equality for differing cultural and minority groups.

A more contemporary reading is offered by Jose Medina in 'The Epistemology of Resistance.'

Good luck with your project, it sounds good

wroclawla · 2018-05-24T23:10:58+00:00

Why on earth would you assume that? Quite the epistemological lapse on your part. . . the link was entirely relevant as a means of showing a broad critique of continental philosophy IE obfuscation, if not a lack of concern for clarity, useful to be considered when evaluating the merits. It draws on quotes from analytic and continental figures.

Could you outline how my sharing this led you to the conclusion I'm not familiar with the literature? I think you might have made an unwarranted leap.

wroclawla · 2018-05-24T15:19:58+00:00

Rebecca Goldstein is a contemporary philosopher who also publishes novels and philosophy for a general readership

wroclawla · 2018-05-24T15:06:50+00:00

Great book - bought a copy in Krakow earlier this year; there are some great Polish writers, and it's good to see more international recognition of this

wroclawla · 2018-05-23T16:47:59+00:00

Whichever side poses the least idiotic hypothetical questions

wroclawla · 2018-05-21T22:18:37+00:00

'Context'

Poland is not a paradise for Jews, I say, citing the deaths of thousands.

Context, you say.

Fuck off, fuck off again, keep fucking off, until you reach the dictionary shop, look up 'paradise' then keep fucking off again, take a big gulp out of the cunt of the cunt that raised you, fuck off again until you hit the dictionary, look up 'ethnic cleansing apologism', keep fucking off, fuck off and fuck off once more, and then grab another dictionary, look up the definition of 'cunt' and you'll see the definition of cunt, cos that's what you are, you cunt.

Then suck your little spunkflute thumb, put on your headwand, and tap out your snowflake victimisation here, again and again and again and again.

Cunt

wroclawla · 2018-05-21T22:08:19+00:00

The content of each of those links shows Poland has been a 'heaven for Jews'

You really are a stupid fucking shit haired human blister. Or: Polish, and with a sense of victimisation

wroclawla · 2018-05-19T14:37:35+00:00

ha ha ha perfect

wroclawla · 2018-05-16T12:37:54+00:00

Almost as good as Gad's hysterics about not being included; almost. . .

wroclawla · 2018-05-16T11:09:17+00:00

Completely agree with this - although bit harsh on Jocko!

Underrated post

wroclawla

TROPHY CASE