If anyone can translate this into English I would appreciate it.
freediver wrote on Jan 10
th, 2024 at 11:45am:
Is the little pink trying to tell us we have to take John seriously?
No; I have outlined why your "individual freedom" values ideology is an illusion. Rand fell for it, and so do you.
Hence neither you nor Graps has the nous to refute my post (#21), because analysis based on reason, NOT ideology, is required.
Pity about that...
freediver wrote on Jan 11
th, 2024 at 3:41pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11
th, 2024 at 1:54pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 11
th, 2024 at 12:46pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11
th, 2024 at 12:45pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 11
th, 2024 at 12:21pm:
Quote:I have outlined why your "individual freedom" values ideology
What ideology is that? I don't think you ever said. You just started ranting about it.
The ideology based on the
illusion of 'natural individual rights", based on survival/competitive
instincts of individuals.
Whereas sweet
reason, and concepts like "fairness" are cortex-based.
Your task in life is to be 'reason-able', rather than blindly driven by self-interested survival instincts.
Yeah, that's what your rants sound like.
What ideology is that?
The ideology of Reason, not accessible to your blind individual instinct-driven brain.
Hence the endless wars and and entrenched poverty in our world - an entirely
unreason-able outcome of human relations.
So you think you have proven that reason itself is an illusion?
No; and that's obviously not even what I
wanted to prove, your thinking is already confused.
I think I have proven reason, in consideration of universal wellbeing (as in the UNUDHR) is incompatible with "reason" based on the (individual) "freedom" illusion.
(Unregulated individual freedom is an illusion if the world has more than one self-interested individual in it...).
The illusion is the (individual) "freedom" ideology, arrived at by the
unreason of instinct-driven thought.
Note: everyone has shouted "that's not fair", sometime in their life; they are reasoning from their
own perspective of "fairness".
The solution (other than via resort to un-reasoning conflict) is acceptance of
rule of law to adjudicate "fairness", from the point of view of justice determined by the collective, not the self-interested individual.
The quality of the justice is evident in the outcomes in the community (eg, order, tranquility, versus hyper-partisanship).
So what exactly is this ideology you are projecting onto me, and what do you think you have disproven?
Forum
Pages: 1
little pinks vs reason and Randianism (Read 199 times)
