21 Oct 06
Originally posted by spruce112358Agreed spruce, the recognition of the concept of rights is good for society. For society is comprised of individuals. Unfortunately "what is good for society" is often used as an excuse for the violation of rights.
I'm saying rights are like laws -- they are man-made. You can say, 'this law was passed at such-and-such a time' but the origin of rights is much further back. They come down like an oral tradition. That's why rights are more fundamental but at the same time less specific than laws. Laws are passed to 'flesh out' rights with details and most importantly ...[text shortened]... has consequences. But it may take time for such consequences to come home to roost.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
H. L. Mencken
No where is this more clear than in the way far left types are attracted to the environmental cause like flies to a turd. I see some contradiction in your post, at one time refering to fundamental rights but then speaking of "unanimous consent" and "racial wisdom".
My position is clear: In order for man to survive - as man - he must be free to act on his own reason. The only way rights may be violated is by the prime evil - force - and it's derivative, fraud.
This position can be arrived at regardless of your cultural background or society in which you exsist, it is arrived at by applying one self to the question "What is man?"
Apologies Seitse, something must have been lost in translation, I have missed your point.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and...discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape... Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant."
Cite a malignant one for us, please.
You can discuss that one with Bbarr if you wish. Actually, since I know Bbarr is big on Kant, I wouldn't mind hearing his take on the Rand/Kant controversy myself.
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf the nature of the Rand/Kant controversy is meant to be encapsulated in the above quote, then what is there to discuss? Kant is a brilliant philosopher and Rand is a shrieking harpy.
"Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and...discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape... Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant."[ Bbarr is big on Kant, I wouldn't mind hearing his take on the Rand/Kant controversy myself.
Seriously, though, I'd be interested in discussing either Rand's epistemology or ethics in relation to Kant. So, if Herr Doctor wants to take the Randian positions we can commence.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by bbarrThe good doctor seems to have grown rather quiet on the topic. Surely he'll sally forth and take up the challenge. Or perhaps he really does prefer arguing with Lucifershammer.
If the nature of the Rand/Kant controversy is meant to be encapsulated in the above quote, then what is there to discuss? Kant is a brilliant philosopher and Rand is a shrieking harpy.
Seriously, though, I'd be interested in discussing either Rand's epistemology or ethics in relation to Kant. So, if Herr Doctor wants to take the Randian positions we can commence.
25 Oct 06
Originally posted by rwingettSo you went gooogling for bile, Ayn + Rand + quotes, and you come back with something about Kant that you don't even understand....c,mon...you can do better.
I fail to see why a collectivist would be 'freaked' by this quote. Of all the bile that Rand has vomited forth, that seems rather benign.
25 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaThe quote was chosen intentionally and has served my purposes admirably. I understand it, but Kant is not my speciality. I think what you meant to say is that YOU don't know anything about Kant, so you've got about as much to say on the quote as Dr. S did.
So you went gooogling for bile, Ayn + Rand + quotes, and you come back with something about Kant that you don't even understand....c,mon...you can do better.