'for if hume is the strong (though unacknowledged) precursor for much
of what passes for current postmodernist wisdom, then it is in kant,
or the criticisms which kant brings against hume, that this wisdom
encounters the greatest challenges to its powers of creative
misprision.'

the truth about postmodernism
christopher norris
p.82

(why is it all the randite dickheads (oops redundant me) are to be
found on usenet and not at uni?)

Kant couldn't carry Hume's jockstrap.

On 15 feb, 06:39, "Kingo Gondo" gmail.org> wrote:

oops dopey from knocked up judd apatow world has turned out to be pomo
despite the denial

NO SURPRISE THERE!

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:28:57 -0800, sirblob2 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

In article X.net>,
ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

But Bubbles Greenspan turned out to be a false Randian,
at least with regard to monetary policy. I am sure
that, looking down from Valhalla, Ayn regards him as
one who gave himself up to the Dark Side of the Force.

On Feb 15, 8:49 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Always such a tickle to see these RAB dilettantes prancing in poses of
knowing what they're talking about, when in fact there's not a one
among the lot that knows his Kant from a hole in her . . . or
his . . . er . . . ah . . . "thing in itself"?

Had Ayn Rand not been such a hot little sexpot, she might have got a
lot more fairly decent philosophy done in her time. But, such as it
was, between those torrid and steamy rolls in the hay with Branden,
for those who enjoy the challenge of being made to think logically,
sexy Ayn's essay, "The Objectivist Ethics" in her book, *The Virtue of
Selfishness* can do that fabulously, if unlike sirblob and anarcissie,
you have the a priori equipment for it, i.e. a logically functioning
brain with which to do your thinking.

Clare Quilty bigstring.com> wrote:

On 16 feb, 23:56, David Oberman wrote:

On Feb 16, 5:24 pm, Clare Quilty bigstring.com> wrote:

Content. That is the answer.

The "Golden Rule" or "Categorical Imperative" are empty floating
abstractions and they do not in themselves provide a basis for
determining what one should do - nor for that a matter a standard for
judging it. Those rules merely say in effect, "don't be a hypocrite"
or "be consistent", i.e. don't do anything you would not expect and
accept others also doing, including to you.

The Objectivist version of that is, "neither sacrifice yourself to
others, nor sacrifice others to yourself".

I'm wondering if Rand was not really Chance the gardener from *Being
There*. At the egging on of a friend, I read Atlas Slogged during one
long and dreary grind. In there, I saw an ethos of greed, yes, yet no
nuts and bolts beyond labeling. Any nation has the right to defend
itself, she writes, so she justifies a navy. On taxing, she says through
her one-dimensional hero, it should be dissolved. She doesn't seem to be
bothered by the details, just like Chance. Great wisdom shall spring
from mighty proclamation. Let all the little underlings handle the elements.

I didn't even follow her into home and family. Daffy slept her way up
the scale, and one of her rungs was named Rearden or something, and he
offered her an anniversary present, I believe it was, and they discussed
how that might be possible in a greedy universe. I give this beaver coat
to you for my own good, he grinned. I would've thrown it back in your
face otherwise, she smiled. They had to come up with some plausible
excuse for being human, after all.

Rearden is pressed by his wife to hire a useless uncle down at the metal
works. He doesn't see why he should hire someone who would do him much
harm and no good. But then he has kids, and those are the worst
investment in time and money a greedy gob could come up with!