RE: "a true master"

RE: "a true master" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 4:59:16 PM)
M. Galt- Before anything else, I do want to admit that on first seeing your 'handle' I thought- 'Damn- I should have thought of that!'. This despite my opinions of Rand both as an author and a human being. On that subject: I confess that my first asumptions when you pulled objectivism out of your quiver was that you were either young or not terribly bright. Your writing skills belie the second, and your profile seems to oppose the first option, so I must think that you simply have not examined the system espoused by that woman in any depth. I am not aware of any serious attempts to revive objectism since the Reagan adminstration, and I am fairly sure, having been a staff member of what was considered to be a leading objectivist journal from '82-'89, that there were no successful attempts to validate it at that time. I was initally attracted to objectivism, but found that it only worked if you agreed with the subjective values that other objectivists held forth as absolutes. At best, it is a shortcut to fascism, at worst, a sort of a whiney version of exisentalism. Of course, this is only my opion, and certainly subjective<g>. I have enjoyed your interactions here on the board, and hope to see more in the future. Stay warm, Lawrence PS- as to your list, I think it made many uneasy because that often, when someone seems to be over-stating the obvious, it is often a false representation. I thought it was a bit simplistic, but basiclly valid.

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 5:02:00 PM)
quote: 'God' toys with all of us, get in line :) Midear Stef- what is that quote about the gods toying with those they will destroy? Not the 'wanton boys' one from Shakespear- there is another on the tip of my brain... Stay warm, Lawrence

NoCalOwner -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 5:16:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules quote: The modern climate of "everything is ok, everything is relative, knowledge and certainties are impossible" is largely the intellectual offspring of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Kant holds that knowledge and reason are invalid tools, simply because your view of the world is shaped by your senses. Where exactly did Kant say that? My recollection of Kant was that he broke down possible knowledge into analytical and synthetic categories of a priori and a posteriori. Knowledge based on empirical observation would tend to be synthetic a posteriori, and Kant didn't question the validity of that type of data. Descartes did ponder the veracity of sense-based information, but I was thinking that it was Leibnitz who really went off the deep end with that idea. So, philosophically speaking, I think that you have this argument by the monads.

NoCalOwner -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 5:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topcat what is that quote about the gods toying with those they will destroy? Not the 'wanton boys' one from Shakespear- there is another on the tip of my brain... "Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make proud." -- Sophocles

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 5:26:25 PM)
AH!- excellent! thanks- it was really starting to bug me...

GoddessJules -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 5:55:16 PM)
Hello NoCal, I just find it amusing that Randanistas/Randroids have no problem quoting Kant secondhand via Rand by saying things such as "Kant said that men know nothing." He never said that at all. And they have no qualms about putting those inaccuracies into propositions created by themselves. . .and since they don't bother to study logic (for the most part) they don't understand that even if it sounds all nice and fancy. . .it means absolutely nothing. A superstructure built on a fucked foundation will still be fucked up in the end. quote: My recollection of Kant was that he broke down possible knowledge into analytical and synthetic categories of a priori and a posteriori. Knowledge based on empirical observation would tend to be synthetic a posteriori, and Kant didn't question the validity of that type of data. Indeed. He said that we could know phenomena from here til the cows came home. Jules P.S. . .we need to stop all of the epistemology talk. . .it's getting me. . . .aroused.

GoddessJules -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 6:03:22 PM)
Awwwwwwwwwwwww shucks!!!!!!!!!! I am a great admirer of you as well. I remember your "stay warm" closing in one of your replies to my first postings on collarme. I thought. . .now THIS must be a warm guy. You consistantly prove that you are. Jules

JohnGalt -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 7:23:46 PM)
Randinista! Oh my god, what a delightful term. I only wish I'd thought of it. Regarding my evaluation of Kant; I am referring to his differentiation between the 'nomuenal world' and the 'phenomenal world.’ At its core, this separation implies that we can not know a thing as it IS, and since we cannot, all interpretations are equally valid. I confess that I have not read all his works on the topic. For a précis read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumena As far as the 'revival' of objectivism and the Reagan administration are concerned... um... I missed the connection, could you please rephrase it for me? The assertion that you must subscribe to objectivism’s core axioms for it to make any sense is correct. The same can be said of any philosophical system. Objectivism asserts that 'life is good, anti-life is bad.' as it's core. (Oversimplifying here... for a précis: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs) Most of the system is derivied from that axiom. There are other supporting axioms as well, Existence, Consciousness and Identity. Which of the axioms of objectivism do you dispute, and why? For Jules, Madame, I cannot resist arousing you further... Axiom, nomenclature, assumption, assertion, affirmation of the consequent, argumentum ad verecundiam, non causa pro causa, and various other epistemological and logical concepts, keywords and fetish phrases. :) Perhaps this thread needs a new name. Or a new venue ;) I remain, John Galt, Randinista at large

GoddessJules -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 7:56:31 PM)
quote: Perhaps this thread needs a new name. Or a new venue ;) I agree. I'm sure 99.999% of the board doesn't want to hear us ponder the lofty premise. (and even though I pulled that number out of thin air, I'm sure the standard deviation is low.) quote: For Jules, Madame, I cannot resist arousing you further... Axiom, nomenclature, assumption, assertion, affirmation of the consequent, argumentum ad verecundiam, non causa pro causa, and various other epistemological and logical concepts, keywords and fetish phrases. :) Keep taunting me. . .I shall put you on iggy for 581 days.[;)] quote: Randinista! Oh my god, what a delightful term. I only wish I'd thought of it. Isn't it great? I must admit I started enjoying where this tread was going a bit too much. Perhaps we can continue in another place at another time. Jules

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 8:08:35 PM)
M.Galt- We could hang it off the end of this one: http://www.collarme.com/forum/m_18706/mpage_1/key_ayn%252Crand/tm.htm#18718 Stay warm, Lawrence

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 8:13:16 PM)
quote: I remember your "stay warm" closing in one of your replies to my first postings on collarme. I thought. . .now THIS must be a warm guy. You consistantly prove that you are. Milady Jules- Why thank you. I do try- it's a cold, cold world, and it seems to be the best thing we can be... http://www.collarme.com/forum/m_4242/mpage_1/key_warm/tm.htm#4242 the above is actually the origin of my use of it. Stay warm, Lawrence

proudsub -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 8:29:28 PM)
quote: We could hang it off the end of this one: http://www.collarme.com/forum/m_18706/mpage_1/key_ayn%252Crand/tm.htm#18718 Thanks Lawrence for saving me the trouble of finding that thread.[:)]

perverseangelic -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 10:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules I agree. I'm sure 99.999% of the board doesn't want to hear us ponder the lofty premise. (and even though I pulled that number out of thin air, I'm sure the standard deviation is low.) Oh I do, I do! If you -do- move off to another thread, please tell us where so we can follow. :) I'll admit, I'm a crappy student of philosophy, but I like to read people who know more than me argue.

srahfox -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 6:07:04 AM)
ack opps, put the wrong thing in the wrong place. Sorry guys.

srahfox -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 6:34:57 AM)
okay now I'm in the right place at the right time. I love hearing people debate, I just lack the schooling. I have to bring all this back to one of the subjects for a minute. You can have a true long distance relationship. It's might be hard BDSM wise, but it can be done. It's just hard. My husband and I dated for a year threw letters and the phone, I loved him with all my heart before I moved up here to be with him. This dec will hae been 10 years. Just my two cents.

Destinysskeins -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 8:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnGalt quote: At its core, this separation implies that we can not know a thing as it IS, and since we cannot, all interpretations are equally valid. Greetings, Ok, i'm far from being a student of these philosophies but this statement strikes me. Forgive me if this was not a supporting statement for Your argument (i'll admit i've only skimmed through most of this thread) as for the purposes of this post i am assuming that it is. Apply this statement to the original purpose of the thread - 'Defining a True Master' and i'm left with a bit of a contradiction. If one cannot truly know how a thing is and if all interpretrations are equally valid then any definition contrived will therefore be based soley upon Your interpretrations and reasoning and is thereby subjective soley to Your own perceptions. Correct? Though now that i'm reading this in print and having had skimmed through the Objectivism link You had posted earlier i do believe that i'm pitching for the other team and that this comment was more than likely not in support of Your original thread intent. Well Wishes

Thanatosian -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 9:45:54 AM)
quote: P.S. . .we need to stop all of the epistemology talk. . .it's getting me. . . .aroused. So would it be accurate to say that this type of discussion makes you Randy? couldn't resist - anyone have the number for punsters united anonymous? thats PU anonymous[;)]

aliljaded1 -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 10:12:56 AM)
ok im going to sound "jaded' yet again . i dont buy it . it sounds like He found this somwhere and decided that this is what every sub/slave needs to hear and wants in a "perfect" Master . thing is if Hes so great whys He still alone ? hmmmm. [>:]

aliljaded1 -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 10:27:29 AM)
"PS - Based on that picture are you some kind of "rocket scientist" or something? " ok , ok that last line made me spit green tea all over my screen. i was thinking the EXACT same thing . lol.... (grrrr this was supposed to be under Merc&Beths ..... i am not a rocket scientist but imma trying )

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 2:53:21 PM)
Midear Destiny- Excellent point- However, it wasn't in support of his view- it was his understanding of the opposing philisophy- that things like true, good, etc., are subjective. Objectivism holds that there is absolute good, that there is absolute truth (It might be clearer to say they believe in veiwing the world as having 'objective [as opposed to subjective or realitive] good. I am trying to think of a way to complement you on making a good point from a flawed premise without sounding patronising. I can't. but I did think it was a good point. Stay warm, Lawrence

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02