What is happening here.
This topic has gone full out of the rail.
2 Likes
This is false. You can have texts with a philosophical view and not be a philosopher yourself, unless you count anyone who is a writer also a philosopher, which again is a personal position. You can have âphilosophical viewsâ without being a philosopher yourself. In this case, the phrase underlines distance from philosophy, not closeness.
Read this bit for example: âBy 1958, Randâs novels, increasingly philosophical, had won her ideas a sufficiently devoted following for her to form, ⌠an official âObjectivistâ philosophical movement, complete with journals and lecture courses.
Not only her movement is taken with a grain of salt, but the encyclopedia quickly follows what is claimed above with: âFor all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously.â
These remarks are all throughout the page.
Ive quoted the most professional site out there. You can find a lot of webpages about why Rand isnât considered a philosopher.
Just top google results here:>
Why Do Philosophers Ignore Ayn Rand?
Because Ayn Rand was not a philosopher.
https://www.google.it/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1994413/amp
The problem with Ayn Rand? She isnât a philosopher
https://www.google.it/amp/s/bigthink.com/the-problem-with-ayn-rand.amp.html
However, as of that same year, few universities included Rand or Objectivism as a philosophical specialty or research area, with many literature and philosophy departments dismissing her as a pop culture phenomenon rather than a subject for serious study.(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#cite_note-203)
I donât want to sound (too) glib, but youâll be hard-pressed to find a serious philosopher who takes Ayn Rand seriously. The only significant philosopher I can think of who bothered to engage with Randâs work seriously is Robert Nozick, who only did so in order to point out some of the flaws in her argumentation.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1663/what-philosophers-have-built-on-ayn-rands-objectivism
And I could get more quotes, but I think the point is clear.
no oneâs reading or impressed by ur pseudo-intellectual waffle â get a job
8 Likes
Dude unironically linking Huffpost opinion pieces now as backup.
oh my christ, iâm off back to reading
2 Likes
Anyways guys.
I think most of us do not want out server too be a sandbox server for streamers that attract disturbing and noicy oocers that killing the server hamster.
After all we have been struggling with ooc poopers more than 7 years.
So its very understandable people having enough and taking harsh actions against anything that causing disruption.
Of course not all oocers are bad and some people defends them and they are here to avoid sharding.
But the thing is: Argent Dawn is an Role Play Server, There is not really any good reason to take space here, all other role play servers have died out because of bad ooc population apparently.
Do a kind service by let us have an healthy and happy role play server.
3 Likes
I know, Iâm glad youâre not counting me among those, doggo.
Why do you assume that! Youâre the reason this even came up!
Is this still Going on? You know he will Just keep at like a broken record? As for the troll trial account, fine, here its how its Gonna be, either log on your main account, or keep being a trolling moron who hides behind a fake account.
The fact that many texts will have a philosophical stance is specifically why they would have differentiated between texts which are specifically philosophical and those which just have a slight slant towards it.
Yet the quotes you posted did not support what you were saying. The issue isnât the source used it was the quote you used.
That you canât quote? Yeah I got that.
Ignoring the Huff Post link because itâs Huff Post and Huff Post is a joke.
The article in link two can basically be summed up as saying sheâs bad at it, which has never been up for debate. Hell I agree with that position.
The fact that a few did itself speaks volumes.
Sheâs not considered a subject for âserious studyâ. Again itâs stating that she is bad at it rather than not being a philosopher.
Again nobody takes her âseriouslyâ. Theyâre not saying she isnât one.
Lol! Man youâre either thick in the head or new on the forums!
Mhm. I see.
5 Likes
This meaning⌠Oh I know⌠You are the exact guy I keep describing, the one who âLol funny⌠Wahhh⌠Pfa⌠You dont like to be mocked, uncool bro, why are you so hostile?â kind of social para site.
Edit: The âLol, its the Internetâ doesnt make it less true.
Howâs it going my full time forum posters?
Wtf are you talking about! Iâm just saying youâre a noob for not being able to guess why Iâm altposting!
Nah, you May try to convice others (and failing) but we all know you are Just Another troller hiding behind a fake account, sĂł you are the noob if you think people ever fall for you trolling and belive it.
His Main Was Killed In An Air Raid
2 Likes
It does. Most likely, you just donât know how to read proper academical work.
Not really? You have universities speaking creationism and ghosts - it doesnât mean this stuff is deemed science.
Again, the quote implies she isnât. Not being taken seriously as a philosopher means that she isnât taken as a real philosopher. Iâm not sure why youâre clinging to this bit as a precious âgotcha momentâ.
edit.
Ah, we have come full circle then. Look â I can respect your position which claims that you can freely decide if a writer is, or not, a philosopher. But this begs the question, why did you support and side with the position that demanded evidence about my claims that Rand isnât a philosopher?
Clearly, back then, you sympathized with a position that is incoherent with your current ideas. So you have either to abandon the previously held position, which claimed that subjectively rejecting someone as a philosopher is arrogant and egocentric, or denounce your currently held beliefs as arrogant and egocentric (that you can subjectively decide who is a philosopher) â the two arenât compatible.
All I have to say on this is WHAT?