It’s funny that the same questions and debates are always the same. Interesting interview. I just watched all three parts.

If you can’t open this link, go to youtube and search for interview, ayn rand, mike wallace.


7 Responses to “philosophy”

  1. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    I watched all three. Very interesting. A few things I agree with (religion, self-sufficiency, etc) but she’s a COMPLETE idealogue–which of course is the point, and her ideals could never be sustainable or attainable in any society. Taxes for one. The belief in no taxes is almost moronic–that people will simply give, out of their own self interest, to pay for things like defense and roads and so forth is sillly. And that certain people, “very few” I think she said, are worthy of love. Everybody is worthy of love, which is not self-sacrificing; it is evolutionary biology. It is what makes us human. I guess what she is saying is that there is no unselfish act–that for example, people help others because it makes them feel good. People marry, and have kids, and pay for dinner, and call to say hello only because it makes them feel good…which I think is not entirely true. We all do things we don’t want to do to make others happy….simply for the kindness of it. I could write an entire monologue here, but let me get to the point which I think you may be hinting at. Almost nothing is completely objective, which is why we need judges in the first place. If everything were clear cut, right wrong, with no subjectivism and no influence due to life experience, gender, race, etc then there would be no need for interpretation of law. It is in fact so subjective that we have 9 justices to untangle things. Objectivism is reality, in her own words, and everybody has his/her own reality, in life, in politics, in economics, in religion and so I therefore reject a good portion of her philosophy.

  2. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    She is very extreme without question. When I read Atlas Shrugged, I grasped on to the self responsibility side of her philosophy. And that it was immoral to blame others for the decisions and actions that I took in my life. In regards to objectivism, I see it entirely differently, especially when it comes to the law. I believe that the wise judge should strip away textures of experience and should strive to interpret the law solely on the facts. This is precisely what the battle is about between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to the courts. Obama and Sotomayor have said that identity and empathy are integral to interpreting the law. I believe just the opposite.

  3. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Well it’s a noble attempt–and it should be strived for. That is why Lady Justice is blind. However, I think it is nearly impossible. How could I possibly see the world the same way as a Saudi woman? Or how could you see the world the same way as the Pope? The thing is, and you really should read more on the science of sociology, is that our reality is always seen through the culture lens–always. People honestly think that murdering their daughter because she was seen with a man from the wrong village is the right, moral thing to do–in fact it is an obligation. So if you were a judge in one of those countries, but with your Western enculturation, could you rule that murdering a daughter is the just thing to do? No way. That is an extreme of course, but reality is always shaped through culture. If you disagree, then why are there appeals courts? Why are there 9 justices? Why are rulings often 5-4? Why was OJ found not guilty? And the Rodney King cops, which caused LA to burn? It is just that we find it difficult to see our own culture biases and don’t like to admit that we have them, but we all do.

    Also, under your philosophy, the nation would be just as well served with 9 justices who were all parapalegic black lesbians from Des Moines who went to Catholic school , right? I mean, what’s the difference really since they would all “strip away textures of experience.”

  4. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    You are misinterpreting or misconstruing my words to make a point. I’m not saying that the content of our experiences don’t shape our reality. I’m saying that this is what we should strive for. I’m saying a Supreme Court Justice should “strip down like a runner” when they put on that black robe. Sotomayor is saying the exact opposite. As a matter of fact she is saying that her unique experiences will make her a better judge. All of these types of comments along with her comment that the court of appeals makes policy show she is an activist judge. And upholding the ruling in regards to the firefighters in Connecticut was disgraceful. Lady justice didn’t look so blind there. The ironic part of that case is that it may be overturned in the Supreme Court that she sits on.

    Can you imagine if Rush Limbaugh went on the air and said “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

    Sotomayor basically has a relativist utilitarian legal philosophy and can be summed up in the following quote: “law is only what most of the people think at that moment of history, and there is no higher law. It follows, of course, that the law can be changed at any moment to reflect what the majority currently thinks. More accurately, the law becomes what a few
    people in some branch of the government think will promote the present sociological and economic good. In reality the will and moral judgment of the majority are now influenced by or even overruled by the opinions of a small group of men and women. This means that vast changes can be made in the whole concept of what should and what should not be done.
    Values can be altered overnight and at almost unbelievable speed.” C. EVERETT KOOP

    I don’t need to withold judgement until I know more about her. I know plenty. This is a classic battle that has been going on for years.

  5. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    So someone upholds a ruling and they are disgraceful–if they overturn then they are “activist.” It’s only because you don’t agree with that ruling that you say that. I don’t agree with it either myself, but come on– you can’t have it both ways. A little consistency and honesty in your belief would be nice.

    I don’t have to imagine if Rush said that–he says shit like that every single day. He calls her a racist (pot, meet kettle) And you know damn well that she is catching heat for it, so don’t act like it has gone unnoticed. Here is what she said after that infamous quote which the liberal media doesn’t report:

    I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

    Again, I really don’t know this woman. But just as I suspected, there are immediate kneee-jerk reactions from conservatives.

    Also as you well know, there is a diference between law and justice. Do you think schools should still be segragated? That poll taxes are just? That sodomy laws should be prosecuted? If the public voted on those (in the south) even 25 years ago, the answer would be yes–but clearly they are unjust and a judge or a president or local authorities decided against popular sentiment and undid them.

    I’m not sure why you think that, while society–values, morals, acceptance– constantly changes, that laws should not reflect that. As things change laws too must change or we end up in a backward ass society like Iran or Pakistan.

    And let me ask you this again–why should we not simply have an all white male Supreme Court? I’d like to hear your answer.

  6. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    First of all, Rush does not say things like that every day (sheeple meet the mainstream media that distorts Rush Limbaugh).

    I believe separate but equal was a supreme court decision that set back rights for african americans for decades. Once you have a supreme court decision, it’s not easy to override.

    Laws should change, but they should not be changed by the interpretation of them.

    I would be ok with an all white supreme court or all black lesbians. I think it’s better that we have a balanced court, but that is not the most important thing we should be striving for.

    Gotta go for now. Will be more than happy to pick up on this later. I need to call you. I have a few new things to tell you. Later.

  7. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    You might find that interesting. But then again, who knows with you. 🙂

    Give me a call any evening (except Mon.) Sounds like you’ve got news on the adoption?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: