I can direct you to the Atlas Society or the Prometheus Foundation for competitors of ARI. As for unrelated fields I imagine it's the result of her philosophy's impact allowing them to become experts in otherwise unrelated fields. The practical application of Philosophy.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

tvcrhttps://www.youtube.com

[removed]

[removed]

No worries, thanks for contributing to the comment!

I do share a similar feeling and background to you. For example, I can't imagine needing to speak or debate Hegel. Wittgenstein probably wouldn't even want to talk anymore :D

Depends on what you mean by "nothing". Are you a materialist? Dualist? Other?

Maybe truth is chaotic and even seemingly inconsequential truths can have effects far away.

Handbook of Panpsychism or start with wikipedia and Stanford online Plato encyclopedia. I've been reading a lot about that and idealism lately. I am leaning towards the latter view now.

> It seems to me like you're dismissing expert opinion.

How come the only experts that defend Rand are associated with the Ayn Rand Institute or are experts in an unrelated field?

Where should I go to learn more about panpsychism? Any books I should read or lectures I should watch?

I think you would get a lot out of reading Sarte, if I were you I would dive into Being and Nothingess (better translated as Being And Non-Being, in my opinion, but c'est la vie) and not look back.

Thank you for such an in-depth explanation, I appreciate it

!RemindMe 24 hours

>對牛彈琴

I had to research that proverb, but I like it. Seems fitting XD

I’m going to go completely off-topic but the idea of conversing with mighty philosophers has always frightened me immensely. I’m not a genius or a published philosopher, I don’t even have a degree in philosophy but even then I have read a fair amount of text and have been seeking to further increase my understanding and interpretation of said texts. That being said, conversing or debating with those kind of philosophers would have left me either awestruck for weeks, completely convinced of whatever they told me or in a worst case scenario, completely hopeless and full of doubts. I would love to converse with those philosophers, some living and others dead but I don’t really know if that would be healthy for me.

Anyways, sorry for hijacking your comment.

[deleted]

What's the issue exactly? It seems to me like you're dismissing expert opinion. I'm wondering how you might extend this sort of logic to any other Philosopher and their alleged defenders.

I still haven't read existentialism, except for Louis Lavelle, which is not very famous, but has a great philosophy. So, I think I'd say yes to the question.

E.g.1: there has to have formal, fixed rules of Nature, or else no science would ever evolve from one generation to another. We found Newton didn't have the complete equations, although they still work within a certain scope. But the fact we could change it to Einstein and Planck's model means the real laws themselves are fixed. (although they're most likely not Newton's, nor Einstein or Planck's, and maybe we never even get the complete version of it, but the fact our laws predict true events means they both shows the true laws exist and points to them).

E.g.2: The same way, each male has a lot of common features. If it wasn't so, you couldn't use the knowledge of one man to another, so each man you meet would be the first and only one, and that would be like every person speaking a language on their own, completely unrelated one another, thus incommunicable. That's literally impossible. Even more: what we know about a man we can apply, to a certain degree, to a woman. Because in a more general way, both are human beings. You can expand this and basically say that the same possibility of analogy and metaphor human mind can do proves the fact that everything is connected in this "more abstract category" which we call the Being. (Being is basically a word to call the most abstract aspect of an object, which everything necessarily has in itself. So there's me, I'm a man, that is a human being, that is an animal, that is living thing, that is an existence, that is a being: each category gets more abstract; we may think about it in another terms or more terms, but Being is the most abstract nonetheless).

So there's essence, which is this structural aspect, and each thing grabs a lot from each of these categories, from the being to itself. The point of the self, though, is the existence. We may say it doesn't change the essence, because a human man can't do what is inherently impossible to it. But we can do things that are unlikely. For instance, a man can decide he is a woman, and then change many of its atributes. He may look a lot like a woman, but it unfortunately doesn't change the fact that in reality he is a man who opened such possibilities, which weren't very common before 20th century. Because of that we may try to say "existence changes essence", but it isn't true. We may even accept as a woman, in existence/phenomenical world, but it can only be so because man and woman are both from a very close structure. If a man, though, for a different reason would try to truly identify with something else, whatever it is, that would be much harder, though.

OK, OK, but hear me out...How about I misquote Plato and then abuse basic rules of logic in defense sociopathic levels of self-interest?

Now you have to agree with me! Checkmate!

>we can’t see the meaning of things as the Omniscient could, in a perfect way, in perfect categories, but we we can see meaning through our imagination. We create it, yet it exists as a possibility of the things.

so do you believe the essence of a thing preceeds its existence? Is the conceptual, in your mind, more pressing in regard to the nature of a thing than the physical?

man does create meaning from nothing, that's basically one of mind's basic skills. A kid can get a corn cob and play with it like it was a doll, or put wheels on it and make it a car.

But if the point you ask is as to whether this meaning was invented or it existed in reality, well, that's both. Every science is a human invention, and yet it has real objects as its basis. So what it tells points to the real object, thus it's true, once decodified in facts. That is the same as for meaning itself. We may phrase it like that: we can't see the meaning of things as the Omniscient could, in a perfect way, in perfect categories, but we we can see meaning through our imagination. We create it, yet it exists as a possibility of the things.

I'm not sure if this is clear, but I hope it's understandable.

Oh, Randians whining that they're not taken seriously? Shocking.

> is reference to an idea that has been thoroughly debunked in any number of ways

What idea and debunked how?

Your post very much sums up discourse these days. Someone says "this idea is incorrect" is reference to an idea that has been thoroughly debunked in any number of ways, and you claim they're "screaming Nazi and running away." You blatantly mischaracterize what was said.

An article defending Rand written by a director of the Ayn Rand Institute, posted on a site that explicitly endorses and pushes Rand's philosophy to the exclusion of others.

Very low-quality post.