Huemer is Huemerous

Posted by TylerNewsome 11 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
10 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Okay guys, Hope your having a looter/moocher free weekend, I was in a debate via facebook when someone referred me to Michael Huemer, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado, and his critique of Rand's work. That critique can be found here >>>>> http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm.

I followed along with Paul McKeever's critique of Huemer's critique. This guy pretty well destroyed Huemer.

Here is a direct copy paste of something I realized and posted in my debate, before I heard McKeever's video: Okay, this guy, so far, is a joke. His third premise of Rand's argument, "No non-living things face any alternatives," is so skewed. He uses the example of a computer no longer working, by saying that this will cause him to destroy it, thus creating an alternative for a non living thing. He failed to recognize that Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, works on the axiom of individualism, meaning that each individual is an end in himself and no one else. The computer itself was not faced with the alternative. It hadn't the choice to work or not. But the individual, in this case Huemer himself, had an alternative to either keep it or destroy it. The computer had no values, and no choice of action to pursue in order for survival.

McKeever's video can be found here >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRIFysTpv...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by LeeCrites 11 years, 5 months ago
    The majority of my social research involved critiquing the previous attempts by others. You take their research, their reports, their methods, the bias of the individuals who designed it, etc, all into account, and then you look for holes in the research they did. One point I found was how easy this was to do. Most sociologists are secular humanists, left-of-left leaning liberals. Since so many of them have the same basic bias, the glaring weaknesses in their studies, literally, become invisible.

    I could take a point-by-point of the Huerner critique, and with virtually NO understanding of Rand, rip it apart with such ease that is is embarrassing that he posted it for the world to see!

    Some of his comments were correct. So I could start by acknowledging them, giving the (true) appearance of being fair in my critique. I could honestly be fair, and give the dude his due for the correct comments. But then the bulk of the critique would be tearing the rest of it apart.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 5 months ago
    I can't believe they let this guy teach philosophy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago
      The professor does not use words as tools of understanding in making the argument against Rand but tools of deception. This was clearly purposely done. For instance, the prurposeful confusion of the word "existence" of which Rand meant Life or not life. One of the greatest practitioners of this in recent history is our President with his "positive rights" vs negative rights. this is a anti concept. Real rights are positive by their existence. There is no such thing as a negative right.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 5 months ago
        Semantics can be a tool, or a club.

        My understanding of Obama's comments was that he felt that the Constitution was too restrictive from the government's stance, which was the intent of the Founding Fathers. He was looking for "positive rights", that applied only to the standing government, to encroach in social areas they are purposely barred from.

        Henry Kissinger once wrote an essay saying that modern day treaties with the U.S.S.R. were practically worthless, since their definition of "peace" was 180 from ours. They defined "peace" as a world under their domination, and had no problem signing peace treaties that they could interpret to that end.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago
    thanks for posting. but before I watch it, is it really heumerous or just painful-because if goes on and on about comparing a human to a computer-well....head shake
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo