Objectivism

[Birkeland]

When you become one with inner self, you will physically time travel.

Rand on platonic realism: The Platonist school begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence, by assuming that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the other way around—on the premise that the presence of any notion in man’s mind proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality.

[Grey Cloud]

When you become one with inner self, you will physically time travel.

Rand on platonic realism: The Platonist school begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence, by assuming that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the other way around—on the premise that the presence of any notion in man’s mind proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality.

Soulsurvivor,
As the above was written by Ayn Rand, well then, it must be true. From this it follows logically, that the following may also be dismissed as they agree in essence with Plato:
Homer, all the presocratics, Pythagagoras, Aristotle, Iamblichus, Plotinus, Porphry, Marcus Aurelius, the Huna tradition of Polynesia, Shintoism, Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Buddhist philosophy, Sufi philosophy, every mythology in the world, Liebniz and Nietzsche to name a few. So, just to make it clear, the capitalist, materialist Ayn Rand is correct and all the above philosophers and -ies that have been studied, in most cases for thousands of years, are wrong.
Personally, I'm not convinced.

“The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead.”
Albert Einstein

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Albert Einstein

“You do not experience the world as IT is. You experience it as YOU ARE.” - Socrates

“Each portion of matter may be conceived as a garden full of fishes. But each branch of the plant, each member of the animal, each drop of its blood is also such a garden or such a pond…. Therefore, there is nothing fallow, nothing sterile, nothing dead in the universe, no chaos, no confusion, except in appearance; somewhat as a pond would appear from a distance, in which we see the confused movement and swarming… of the fishes, without discerning the fishes themselves.”
Leibnitz

What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lives within us.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

All of Man's problems stem from his inability to sit quietly with himself
Pascal

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.
Jesus Christ

“We never learn anything we didn’t already know.”
Aristotle

[Birkeland]

As the above was written by Ayn Rand, well then, it must be true.

It's primerally what she says thats important, not that she says it.

From this it follows logically, that the following may also be dismissed as they agree in essence with Plato:
Homer, all the presocratics, Pythagagoras, Aristotle, Iamblichus, Plotinus, Porphry, Marcus Aurelius, the Huna tradition of Polynesia, Shintoism, Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Buddhist philosophy, Sufi philosophy, every mythology in the world, Liebniz and Nietzsche to name a few.

Fallacious reasoning. Another thing: To claim that Aristotle in essence agrees with Plato is...how should I put it...somewhat amazing.

So, just to make it clear, the capitalist, materialist Ayn Rand is correct and all the above philosophers and -ies that have been studied, in most cases for thousands of years, are wrong.

Yes she is right, but then again: as a result of what she says, not that she says it. An important distinction.

Personally, I'm not convinced.

And I'm not surprised you're not convinced taken your fallacious reasoning into account. Try focusing on what she says.

[Plasmatic]

GC you do understand that no Objectivist would disagree with your claim right? We are well aware that Rand was the first to dismantle all the centuries of complete nonsense since Aristotle . Also no one would dispute that Platonic remnants within Aristotle are a fact. However the parts Aristotle did repudiate are the cause and foundation of all that is good in the past centuries. And the rest is the cause of all that is left........

An exellent example of the momentous intellectual feat she accomplished.

Shoot ,and just when we had something pleasant to agree on.....

[Grey Cloud]

GC you do understand that no Objectivist would disagree with your claim right? We are well aware that Rand was the first to dismantle all the centuries of complete nonsense since Aristotle . Also no one would dispute that Platonic remnants within Aristotle are a fact. However the parts Aristotle did repudiate are the cause and foundation of all that is good in the past centuries. And the rest is the cause of all that is left........

An exellent example of the momentous intellectual feat she accomplished.

Shoot ,and just when we had something pleasant to agree on.....

Plasmatic,
She is not the first to dismantle anything because she has not dismantled anything and she is not even the first to attempt it.
Can you provide examples of Platonic ideas which Aristotle repudiated?

And, don't worry, with Altonhare around, I'm sure we will agree again.

[Grey Cloud]

Birkland,
You wrote:

It's primerally what she says thats important, not that she says it.

I never intimated otherwise. Her 'philosophy' is crap. True Philosophers such as Plato expext you to read their work and think for yourself. The likes of Rand (and she is by no means the only one) expect you to learn her diefinitions of words and her her works. In other words she tells you how and what to think using her vocabulary. No great teacher has ever done this.

Why was my list of others to be dismissed fallacious reasoning? They all essentially agree with Plato on there being a world of the senses and an underlying Reality beyond it, etc. So if you are dismissing Plato for advocating this idea, it surely follows that one can also dismiss others who hold the same idea?
You wrote:

To claim that Aristotle in essence agrees with Plato is...how should I put it...somewhat amazing.

Have you read either Plato or Aristotle or is that the opinion of St. Ayn? Could you furnish any examples of where Aristotle refutes Plato?

"The first science deals with things that both exist separately and are immovable" (hê de prôtê kai peri chôrista kai akinêta) (Metaphysics 6.1; 1026a 15).

Nothing, then, is gained even if we suppose eternal substances, as the believers in the Forms do, unless there is to be in them some principle which can cause change; nay, even this is not enough, nor is another substance besides the Forms enough; for if it is not to act, there will be no movement. Further even if it acts, this will not be enough, if its essence is potency; for there will not be eternal movement, since that which is potentially may possibly not be. (Metaphysics 12.6; 1071b 14-19)

In this passage he is saying that the Platonic idea of Forms does not go far enough because it does not explain things fully. He is not saying tht the idea of Forms was wrong per se.

"There must, then, be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality. Further, then, these substances must be without matter" (Metaphysics 12.6; 1071b 19-22).

So much for Aristotle the nuts n bolts materialist.

"There is therefore also something which moves it. And since that which moves and is moved is intermediate, there is something which moves without being moved, being eternal, substance, and actuality" (esti toinun ti kai ho kinei. epei de to kinoumenon kai kinoun [kai] meson, toinun esti ti ho ou kinoumenon kinei, aïdion kai ousia kai energeia ousa) (Metaphysics 12.7; 1072a 23 - 26)

"And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal" (kai zôê de ge huparchei: hê gar nou energeia zôê, ekeinos de hê energeia: energeia de hê kath' hautên ekeinou zôê aristê kai aïdios) (Metaphysics 12.7; 1072b 25-27).

"We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God" (phamen dê ton theon einai zôion aïdion ariston, hôste zôê kai aiôn sunechês) (Metaphysics 12.7; 1072b 28-29).

Since we can see that besides the simple spatial motion of the universe (which we hold to be excited by the primary immovable substance [hê prôtê ousia kai akinêtos]) there are other spatial motions—those of the planets—which are eternal (because a body which moves in a circle is eternal and is never at rest—this has been proved in our physical treatises); then each of these spatial motions must also be excited by a substance which is essentially immovable and eternal. (Metaphysics 12.8; 1073a 28-34)

"But the primary essence (to ti ên einai) has not matter; for it is complete reality (to prôton). So the unmovable first mover (to prôton kinoun akinêton on) is one both in definition and in number; so too, therefore, is that which is moved always and continuously; therefore there is one heaven alone" (Metaphysics 12.8; 1074a 36-39)

For a fair and balanced overview of the Plato-Aristotle problem see here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-met.htm#H1
The IEP has never struck me as a particularly radical organ and the guy makes some good points about the way these two great minds are taught in academia. The author also makes the excellent point that A's Metaphysics is not a book as such but a complilation of A's lecture notes. And, as he was lecturing on the philosophy of Plato it is no surprise that Plato's philosophy is examined and criticised.

Rand misrepresents both Aristotle and Plato in order to boost her own case. For example, that definition of Platonic Realism from her lexicon is at best a gross-oversimplication and at worse...

[Plasmatic]

GC Im eager to answer you,but is there a way we can do this without destroying Altons thread any further? I mean starting another thread would be fine except that wed have a subject completely disconnected from the forums goals as it is from Altons thread. Shall we continue privately?

"So good-bye to the Forms. For they are nonsense" Aristotle

[Birkeland]

Birkland,
You wrote:

It's primerally what she says thats important, not that she says it.

I never intimated otherwise.

Yes you did. You wrote: As the above was written by Ayn Rand, well then, it must be true. In other words: your statement points to the fact that she says it in contrast to what she says.

Her 'philosophy' is crap.

En empty statement does not make sense.

True Philosophers such as Plato expext you to read their work and think for yourself.

Remarkable statement. Regardless of any philosophy: you don't escape thinking for yourself.

The likes of Rand (and she is by no means the only one) expect you to learn her diefinitions of words and her her works. In other words she tells you how and what to think using her vocabulary. No great teacher has ever done this.

The true greatness of Objectivism is that it gives you the tool - the methodology: how to identify the non-contradictionary reality. The thinking is up to you.

Why was my list of others to be dismissed fallacious reasoning?

Your premise: that she says it.

They all essentially agree with Plato on there being a world of the senses and an underlying Reality beyond it, etc.

Is this a subjective (non-)reality (religion) or an objective reality? That's the issue.

So if you are dismissing Plato for advocating this idea, it surely follows that one can also dismiss others who hold the same idea?

It depends on the abovementioned distinction between a subjective approach (religious) or an objective approach (scientific).

Have you read either Plato or Aristotle or is that the opinion of St. Ayn? Could you furnish any examples of where Aristotle refutes Plato?

A is A - Rand completes the law of identity: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. Plato does not draw the line between reality and fantasy.

Rand misrepresents both Aristotle and Plato in order to boost her own case. For example, that definition of Platonic Realism from her lexicon is at best a gross-oversimplication and at worse...

...an undeniable fact. All one has to do is read through the endless religious kumbayah presented by platonist on this very forum to understand that she's right.

[Solar]

Despite the fact that I consider The Objectivist Philosophy to be one of the most beautiful I've ever encountered I would agree that a separate thread, or private communication between you chaps, is needed. All of Alton's threads appear to have been derailed.

[Grey Cloud]

GC Im eager to answer you,but is there a way we can do this without destroying Altons thread any further? I mean starting another thread would be fine except that wed have a subject completely disconnected from the forums goals as it is from Altons thread. Shall we continue privately?

"So good-bye to the Forms. For they are nonsense" Aristotle

Hi Plasmatic,
I appreciate the offer of carrying this on via other means and the reason for the offer but I don't really have the time so I will have to decline for the present. No doubt the subject will raise its head again at some future time.

Have you a source for the Aristotle quote?

[Plasmatic]

Solar I think we are all in agreement on the derailing of this thread. Ive copied the aside and will request that it be deleted from this thread .

[Grey Cloud]

Birkland,

As the above was written by Ayn Rand, well then, it must be true.

This is irony (or perhaps a poor attempt at). The comment was made in response to the way yourself and Plasmatic cite Rand as if she is some kind of authority on anything. I object to objectivism not Rand herself. My only problem with her is that she is the one who came up with the Ojectivism (and that she needs a lexicon ).

Her 'philosophy' is crap.

Furnish me with an example of something which is, or can be looked at, objectively.

True Philosophers such as Plato expect you to read their work and think for yourself.

There is thinking and there is thinking. The likes of Plato and Aristotle write in an entirely different way than do modern writers (not just Rand). If one studies Plato in the modern sense of the word then one will not hear what he is saying. One has to study Rand in the modern sense because it does not have the depth of Plato (or Aristotle). Rand is WYSIWYG, Plato is most certainly not.
If you wish to be objective consider this. Rand's work has been around for approximately half a century what impact has it made?

The true greatness of Objectivism is that it gives you the tool - the methodology: how to identify the non-contradictionary reality. The thinking is up to you.

Just what the world needs, yet another methodology. What non-contradictory reality? What contradictory reality?

I asked:

Why was my list of others to be dismissed fallacious reasoning?

to which you replied

Your premise: that she says it.

That was not my premise. My premise was as you quoted directly below that:

They all essentially agree with Plato on there being a world of the senses and an underlying Reality beyond it, etc.

Is this a subjective (non-)reality (religion) or an objective reality? That's the issue.

What the hell does this mean? What is a 'subjective (non) reality (religion') or an 'objective reality'? And for that matter, why did you bring in religion? I am not, never have been nor ever will be a member of a religion. Nor is Plato's philosophy in any way religious.

It depends on the above mentioned distinction between a subjective approach (religious) or an objective approach (scientific).

This is a false dichotomy. Where is it written that things can only be viewed through the lens of religion or science. I do not think in terms of either. In fact, I tend to avoid both like the plague. I've never lived in a pigeon-hole in my life and I'm too old to climb into one now.

I asked

Have you read either Plato or Aristotle or is that the opinion of St. Ayn? Could you furnish any examples of where Aristotle refutes Plato?

To which you answered

A is A - Rand completes the law of identity: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. Plato does not draw the line between reality and fantasy.

I'll take that as a 'no' then. The first sentence is just you parroting Rand and the second sentence is meaningless.

I wrote

Rand misrepresents both Aristotle and Plato in order to boost her own case. For example, that definition of Platonic Realism from her lexicon is at best a gross-oversimplication and at worse...

to which you replied

...an undeniable fact. All one has to do is read through the endless religious kumbayah presented by platonist on this very forum to understand that she's right.

I know it's a fact. I cannot recall ever seeing anyone pushing any religious doctrine on the forum. If I'd have seen it I would probably have attacked it.
For the record the definition of religion I am using here is the common one of 'a set of organised beliefs and practices', not my own definition, which is 'state-controlled spirituality'.

I notice that you did not address the Aristotle quotes. I was wondering how you or Rand explain away Aristotle's use of the dreaded 'g' word. I posted the quotes in response to your statenment

Another thing: To claim that Aristotle in essence agrees with Plato is...how should I put it...somewhat amazing.

Incidentally, those quotes (well, most of them) are taken from the part of Aristotle's Metaphysics dealing with motion so I wasn't, technically, too far off-topic. He also mentions time in that part too.

[Birkeland]

Oh boy - you're heading for the abyss. I don't think I will follow you down. However:

Her 'philosophy' is crap.

...your main "point" needs to be clearified.

[Grey Cloud]

Oh boy - you're heading for the abyss. I don't think I will follow you down. However:

Her 'philosophy' is crap.

...your main "point" needs to be clearified.

What abyss and why am I heading down it?
Until someone can explain to me how anything can be viewed objectively, then her philosophy is crap.
And I'm still waiting for someone to reconcile Aristotle's words with Rand's take on Aristotle.
The problem of Rand and her Randians is that they are arguning from a position of ignorance. Just because they have never experienced something they assume nobody else has.

[Plasmatic]

GC ,we really are destroying this thread. Since hopefully this all will get deleted Im gonna add this. You have made several assertions about Rand her philosophy and the folks that have found it to be coherent. Question: what have you actually read by Rand? Your statement

Until someone can explain to me how anything can be viewed objectively, then her philosophy is crap.

Is interesting because one who reads her philosophy will realize the entire body of works is concerned with explaining what objectivity is,and the exact method and means that results in this objectivity.
Do you have any specific refutations?

Are you aware she was dead when the lexicon was made? Are you aware a student of Aristotle did the same thing? What has Rand said specifically that makes her a 'materialist'.What specific observation led you to claim someone has asserted that Aristotle was a materialist What experiences are students of Objectivism 'ignorant' of? Are you aware that Aristotle criticised Plato for exactly the kind of writing you suggest Aristotle employed [ie writing that is not wysiwyg].What are the specific claims need 'reconciling' as when you stated:

And I'm still waiting for someone to reconcile Aristotle's words with Rand's take on Aristotle.

What in your understanding did Rand mean by objective,as in your usage of it [ "how anything can be viewed objectively"]

Again we should be doing this elsewhere. I wil do this privately but you said you didnt have time....