[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

Thanks Craig, for the discussion .... you are seeing my frustration at
trying to have this discussion a year or so ago, when I put some
serious effort and reading time into researching Rand at Platt's
recommendation, and Platt walked away from any discussion, not even of
the "truisms" as you put it.

I don't think I did skim Atlas Shrugged, but these few exchanges this
week are all from memory ... I used the word "captial" pretty
generally - the whole ownership of the production resources, and yes,
whilst hard work was a feature, it was the efforts of the
entrepreneurs themselves that seemed to being put on a pedestal,
rather than "labour" of the workforce.

The debate about whether "objective" truth has relation to the
assumption of the place of objects in the worlds (which I say clearly
does), is probably more fundamental (metaphysically / philosophically)
than the important political one about freedoms and power, where
ideology seems to obscure quality of reasoning.

The irony is - this Randian thread is a complete digression - a
rhetorical diversion which I handed Platt on a plate, and have lost
the original thread. Ho hum, situation normal. I think David M has
picked up the threads though .... must go back to those.

Ian

On 8/17/07, craigerb at comcast.net <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> [ian]
> > [Rand's] crude comparative politics - from totalitarian socialism to free-market democracy.
>
> She also investigated "mixed economies" (see "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"); didn't like them.
> [ian]
> > [Rand] didn't seem to add anything, beyond the no-brainer "easy-bits" aka - Freedom good,
> > imposition of force bad, and take responsibilty for your own philosophy of life.
>
> You're only looking at her CONCLUSIONS.  Her genius lies in her ARGUMENTS for what to you (but unfortunately not enough others) are truisms.
>
> [ian]
> > a Pirsigian recognises that the primacy of "objects" (e.g. capital) is a fallacy in the first place.
>
> You must have skimmed "Atlas Shrugged"!  In it, it's not capital but productive labor that is primary (in particular, by people of ideas).  It seems you've taken two words--"Objectivism" & "Capitalism"--& reconstructed Rand's philosophy in terms of your understanding of them.  Rand used the term "objective" not because she thought OBJECTS were primary, but because she thought TRUTH was OBJECTIVE.  Her definition of Capitalism: "a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."  (Notice, property need not be individually owned, it could be owned by, e.g., a commune, if that commune were formed according to the rights of its individual members.)  Capital, in economic terms, plays no essential role in Rand's Capitalism.  It is just an embodiment of indivual rights, as is labor.
> Craig
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>