[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?
Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.
We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]
Do you dislike Ms. Rand’s writing style or her philosophy? I’m a Randite (though not dogmatically so) and would enjoy reading counterarguments to her philosophy.
Just to expand – I believe that one can have subjective experiences of God and that these are not delusional. Ms. Rand would kick me out of her group (as she did Rothbard) for such ideas.
[/quote]
She was a terrible writer, and her political philosophy was childish and overly simplistic.
[/quote]
How so? Philosophy that’s too complicated is worthless to most people so even if her’s is those things, that doesn’t make it incorrect or worthless. I hear this description of her philosophy a lot but never an adequate explanation of why that makes it wrong.
What’s wrong with plain and simple? That’s worse than complex and confusing?
[/quote]
Politics and economics are complicated. Ideologies like libertarianism and socialism are too simple to be useful on a broad scale… they have their uses, but in limited situations and combined with other ideas.
What’s wrong with plain and simple is that it blunts the critical thinking skills necessary to come up with solutions to complex problems.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Apparently this groundbreaking revelation didn’t include the insertion of an “h” in the word “thread”.[/quote]
I have a long way to go when it comes to english, but my english has improved since I started posting here.
The “revelation” boils down to that I aknowledge I dont know as much as I like to think and being comitted to an ideology dont change that. Also it feels like a burden liftet off me shoulders, I feel somewhat releved.
If one wishes to understand any ideology one needs first to learn how to analyze the actions contained within the framework of the particular ideology as well as the consequences of those actions. It is not the intent, it is the result that matters.
My advice would be that you would look into voluntaryism
The only political filosofy that doesnt want to hurt or rob people.
I would suggest looking at freedomainradio.com (or on youtube :stefbot)
he has got a terrific podcast series, great books and great youtube videos!
Sincerely. You’ve just done something that many people don’t accomplish in their ENTIRE LIVES, and that is to rethink the foundational framework and assumptions that you believe. That is extremely difficult to do on many levels, not the least of which is that it basically amounts to a) admitting you were wrong, which is something people positively HATE and b) is anti-ego. Most people live by their egos.
This is invaluable and as long as you continually do this throughout your life–and stay open to potentially changing everything you believe–you will find a deep well of wisdom piling up, one that is not dependent on fads or current academic thinking but rather driven by deep thought and critical thinking. Thats a foundation of wisdom my friend, not “knowledge”. The two are quite, QUITE distinct.
I’m not claiming to be “wise” but the one thing that I have work hard at mastering is the ability to constantly and continually analyze my beliefs and philosophy. This has enabled me to see things in a much wider scale, and has helped me immeasurably both in my personal life and in my philosophical life. May I never cease doing so.
I’m sure I’ll probably disagree with a large portion of what you eventually end up advocating, but that’s neither here nor there–it’s the journey that counts. I, for one, wish you well on it.
As they say in academia, “Do not let facts (or reality) ruin a good theory.” An ideology is just a perspective on the world. There is a reason there are many ideologies, they are all flawed. I think you can learn something from most but how you apply that knowledge should not be dependent on the authors of the theories.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
As they say in academia, “Do not let facts (or reality) ruin a good theory.” An ideology is just a perspective on the world. There is a reason there are many ideologies, they are all flawed. I think you can learn something from most but how you apply that knowledge should not be dependent on the authors of the theories.[/quote]
Ideology, first and foremost, refers to the possibility of human action. An ideology without applicability to human action is no ideology at all.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Let it never be said PWI has never changed someone’s opinion.[/quote]
I count myself as the changed, I started back in the day as a NEO-CON as can be whitnessed in many of my postings prior to say 2008 or so. I am decidedly more libratarian now.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Let it never be said PWI has never changed someone’s opinion.[/quote]
I count myself as the changed, I started back in the day as a NEO-CON as can be whitnessed in many of my postings prior to say 2008 or so. I am decidedly more libratarian now.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I smiled big time when I read the title.[/quote]
because I used a word thats common in religious terminology?[/quote]
No, because I know you got rid of that Marxist nonsense. ;)[/quote]
LOL
sorry to disappoint you I still hold Marx in higest regard, as I hold adam smith in hig regard.
Its moronic to dismiss them completly, they have both contributet with important perspectives to our
collective knowledge base. ( hope that made sense haha )
but I digress. When you get rid of your libertarian nonsense we can share a glass of your monestary ale
your where talking about in another thread. I assume you are buying.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?
Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.
We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]
Do you dislike Ms. Rand’s writing style or her philosophy? I’m a Randite (though not dogmatically so) and would enjoy reading counterarguments to her philosophy.
Just to expand – I believe that one can have subjective experiences of God and that these are not delusional. Ms. Rand would kick me out of her group (as she did Rothbard) for such ideas.
[/quote]
She was a terrible writer, and her political philosophy was childish and overly simplistic.
[/quote]
Stephen King thinks she is a great writer in certain aspects. Specifically her dialogue.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?
Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.
We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]
Do you dislike Ms. Rand’s writing style or her philosophy? I’m a Randite (though not dogmatically so) and would enjoy reading counterarguments to her philosophy.
Just to expand – I believe that one can have subjective experiences of God and that these are not delusional. Ms. Rand would kick me out of her group (as she did Rothbard) for such ideas.
[/quote]
She was a terrible writer, and her political philosophy was childish and overly simplistic.
[/quote]
How so? Philosophy that’s too complicated is worthless to most people so even if her’s is those things, that doesn’t make it incorrect or worthless. I hear this description of her philosophy a lot but never an adequate explanation of why that makes it wrong.
What’s wrong with plain and simple? That’s worse than complex and confusing?
[/quote]
Politics and economics are complicated. Ideologies like libertarianism and socialism are too simple to be useful on a broad scale… they have their uses, but in limited situations and combined with other ideas.
What’s wrong with plain and simple is that it blunts the critical thinking skills necessary to come up with solutions to complex problems. [/quote]
Occam’s razor. Politics and economics is easy, any complication is complication for complications sake. Is the government worthless because there is a intertwined conspiracy by greedy people to control the world, or because there are greedy people.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?
Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.
We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]
yes why so shocked? I defended that doctrine in several treads on this forum.
[/quote]
I don’t read every thread here… so, yes it was a bit of a shock.
Marxism is foolish in so many ways. It just surprises me when people associate themselves with it… kind of like libertarianism. Both are interesting and undoubtably have some useful points… but ultimately foolish.[/quote]
I would not use the word foolish to describe them, but a person who bases his entire understanding of human society on them can be pretty dogmatic. Being dogmatic is absolutly foolish.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I’ve said many times (and have been ridiculed for saying) if a 20 something thinks that he will have the same ideas at 40 something as he does now he is indeed mistaken. This is a good example of a smart guy who, as he gains more facts about the world around him is also changing his opinion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I smiled big time when I read the title.[/quote]
because I used a word thats common in religious terminology?[/quote]
No, because I know you got rid of that Marxist nonsense. ;)[/quote]
LOL
sorry to disappoint you I still hold Marx in higest regard, as I hold adam smith in hig regard.
Its moronic to dismiss them completly, they have both contributet with important perspectives to our
collective knowledge base. ( hope that made sense haha )
but I digress. When you get rid of your libertarian nonsense we can share a glass of your monestary ale
your where talking about in another thread. I assume you are buying.
[/quote]
What do you like about Marx? My problem with him is that his solutions violate basic psychological principals, particularly opperant conditioning. Opperant conditioning is the basis for most human behavior his principals to work require that people’s efforts give them only a small percentage of their yield and that someone who who does not put forth effort reap the same yield.
Actually, I think Marx was wrong about everything. Anybody can criticize, but putting forth valid solutions is something else altogether. Where ever marxism has been tried it has failed. It eneviatalby requires force to enforce the desired behavior.
I know the attractiveness of it is that everyone is provided for therefore one has the “freedom” to pursue their one artistic and intellectual endeavors. What inevitably happens though is that people are trying to make up for the short comings of a failing system and therefore do not have time for their personal persuites.
Another issue, is that cash flows in one direction, up. So when the powers that be redistribute the mula, there is far less of it coming down then going up. Eventually, the well runs dry.
I could go on, but those are some of the reasons I think Marx was fundamentally wrong.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
You were an admitted Marxist?
Fuck. Well… I once thought I was a socialist. I also once though Ronald Reagan was awesome and Ayn Rand was a great author.
We all have to start making sense some day. [/quote]
Do you dislike Ms. Rand’s writing style or her philosophy? I’m a Randite (though not dogmatically so) and would enjoy reading counterarguments to her philosophy.
Just to expand – I believe that one can have subjective experiences of God and that these are not delusional. Ms. Rand would kick me out of her group (as she did Rothbard) for such ideas.
[/quote]
She was a terrible writer, and her political philosophy was childish and overly simplistic.
[/quote]
I agree, I think she was a sucky philosopher. I am a staunch capitolist, but I recognize the flaws of a militant individualism.
