defining the atheist life....

evince said:
Kant & Rand on Rationality & Reality
Dana Andreicut tells us about their philosophical differences and similiarities.
Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged has recently made a comeback after more than half a century, largely due to the financial crisis and the reassessment of capitalism brought about by it. The novel presents a provocative thought experiment: industrious free-market proponents oppose an all-encroaching authoritarian government by going on strike. Production and innovation grind to a halt, leaving a crumbling American society behind.

Whilst timely in its exposure of an old battle between left and right, the novel goes much deeper than that. The book in fact brings to the fore an interesting philosophical dispute between Rand and one of modern philosophy’s finest, Immanuel Kant. The two have often been portrayed as philosophical opponents. What scholars have failed to reveal, however, is how much the two share when it comes to the nature of rationality and the self.
Click to expand...



https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/Kant_and_Rand_on_Rationality_and_Reality



Goat apparently does more reading than you BP
 
There was a poster here once called thingy

Pretending to be left for years


Until I noticed he ALWAYS hated the Democratic nominee


Railed against them every time


Thingy doesn’t post here anymore
 
evince said:
Kant & Rand on Rationality & Reality
Dana Andreicut tells us about their philosophical differences and similiarities.
Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged has recently made a comeback after more than half a century, largely due to the financial crisis and the reassessment of capitalism brought about by it. The novel presents a provocative thought experiment: industrious free-market proponents oppose an all-encroaching authoritarian government by going on strike. Production and innovation grind to a halt, leaving a crumbling American society behind.

Whilst timely in its exposure of an old battle between left and right, the novel goes much deeper than that. The book in fact brings to the fore an interesting philosophical dispute between Rand and one of modern philosophy’s finest, Immanuel Kant. The two have often been portrayed as philosophical opponents. What scholars have failed to reveal, however, is how much the two share when it comes to the nature of rationality and the self.
Click to expand...
If BP read Kant or Rand, or even a book that analyzes philosophy, he would know that Rand had many similarities with Kant that she did not recognize.
 
He is either a very young person

Or

Is a deep fake who has spent time posting as a liberal for a time to whip up fights to make liberals look divided


I know many resist the FACT


But the FBI has clearly stated that this type of thing is done by putin


It’s real
 
Cypress said:
I can respect that.

It might be possible the universe popped into existence from a quantum fluctuation, and all of reality just consists of quarks, leptons, and bosons.

I do not rule it out as a possibility.

On the other hand there might be a deeper spritual truth, a creative force, an ultimate reality beyond our sensory perception and beyond our ability to reason which will ever remain incomprehensible to us.

I believe that is why so many scramble to claim the agnostic label, rather than the atheist label. We retain that uncertainty no matter how small. And the fact that it crosses all cultures and and all history suggests to me that this intuition is evolutionary.
Click to expand...

I think it is evolutionary. That doesn't mean the belief is correct. And ultimately, you have to answer how God came into existence, which would certainly take a unique set of circumstances. So for me, God just isn't a necessary part of the equation. I believe God 'exists' only insomuch as man created the concept. But our understanding of the natural universe is just incredibly limited. So what we may think of as God at work almost certainly has a natural explanation. Strictly viewed from a scientific bent.
 
goat said:
It's difficult to have morals with Kant's free will on pleasure.

Btw, Rand was a hypocrite on her version of capitalism.
Click to expand...

I am just going by the words that came out of Rand's own mouth as captured on video: she despised Kant, she thought Kant was evil, she thought Kant was worse than Marx.
 
Cypress said:
I am just going by the words that came out of Rand's own mouth as captured on video: she despised Kant, she thought Kant was evil, she thought Kant was worse than Marx.
Click to expand...
What I enjoy the most about philosophy is figuring out for myself what and why a philosopher is wrong. Freud was wrong about everything yet he's still relevant today. I also like reading Greek mythology to try to decipher the symbolism. I have a lot to contribute to the defining the atheist life thread so it's foolish for BP to call me a troll for disagreeing with him.

Rationale doesn't come from one video of someone filled with hate.
 
goat said:
What I enjoy the most about philosophy is figuring out for myself what and why a philosopher is wrong. Freud was wrong about everything yet he's still relevant today. I also like reading Greek mythology to try to decipher the symbolism. I have a lot to contribute to the defining the atheist life thread so it's foolish for BP to call me a troll for disagreeing with him.

Rationale doesn't come from one video of someone filled with hate.
Click to expand...


Just say what Kant's philosophy is. You keep asserting you know but cannot say anything.
 
Concart said:
I think it is evolutionary. That doesn't mean the belief is correct. And ultimately, you have to answer how God came into existence, which would certainly take a unique set of circumstances. So for me, God just isn't a necessary part of the equation. I believe God 'exists' only insomuch as man created the concept. But our understanding of the natural universe is just incredibly limited. So what we may think of as God at work almost certainly has a natural explanation. Strictly viewed from a scientific bent.
Click to expand...

I think to some extent it is a problem of language. Words like "natural" and "supranatural" are invented linguistic constructs to format ideas to conform to our limited cognition.

There is nothing in those words which are an actual manifestation of objective reality in and of itself.

Quantum mechanics shows that there can be uncaused causes. The first cause does necessarily not need a cause preceeding that.

That does not have to imply an purposeful design to reality though.

But this is so deep into metaphysics that it is just something we will never understand. Science is mankind's best tool for answering the question "how?" but it has never been equipped to answer the question "why?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top