|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Objectivism.. Here We Go Again!
#5277095 - 02/08/06 11:32 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This discussion has come up in another thread. I figured was time to fully embroil the community in this discussion once again.
Objectivism is a complete fantasy and has no bearing on reality whatsoever. It opens the door to arrogance, and many proponents of objectivism did succumb to the transparency of an inflated ego, including the objectivist icon Ayn Rand. The reason objectivism has this effect on people is that it allows an individual to believe that their ideas are best in accordance with some kind of objective truth. This creates a fundamental discordance between speaker and audience, whereby the speaker or writer is invariably elevated over his or her audience.
Since no such objective truths exist, so too does the distinction between objectivist propnent and audience not exist, and so too are all feelings of confidence and self-assuredness derrived from the egocentric nature of objectivist thinking completely false. This is what makes objectivism among the most foolish and childish philosophies ever conceived, second only to LaVeyan Satanism, in my opinion.
Ayn Rand's ideas do sound liberating, but in reality they function as the actual chains of mental, emotional, and spiritual bondage. All of the suffering in the world today arises directly from the objectivist and therefore pluralistic relationship we've had with reality since living beings formed their first conceptual awarenesses. Ayn Rand's elegant, modernized articulation of this ancient and deeply ingrained worldview lends it no more value or accuracy than it's had since the very beginning.
The idea that we can derrive knowledge through the cataloguing of an objective reality occuring external to the mind is completely wrong.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Annom
※※※※※※



Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
#5277119 - 02/08/06 11:37 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why is it less arrogant, foolish and childish to say that there exists no such objective truth than to say that it does exist?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
#5277128 - 02/08/06 11:39 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Annom said: Why is it less arrogant, foolish and childish to say that there exists no such objective truth then to say that it does exist?
As I said in the other thread, my problem is not that Objectivism claims that there is an objective truth, but rather that it claims to know it. Also, I think it neglects the idea of subjective truth. By this, I don't simply mean things are open to interpretation, though many things are, but rather that we exist as both subject and object, and that both those forms of existence have their own validity. As a subject, we exist as consciousness. As an object, we exist as matter. Both subjectivism and objectivism try to say the other view is wrong, or an illusion. I happen to think that both are correct.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Ped]
#5277133 - 02/08/06 11:40 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Do you care to back up any of your attacks on Objectivism?
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
#5277153 - 02/08/06 11:46 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>> Why is it less arrogant, foolish and childish to say that there exists no such objective truth then to say that it does exist?
I had expected this point would be made, but I didn't expect that it would be among the first.
I'm just trying to speak their language; it's a debate technique. One of the big problems objectivists have with subjectivists is that subjectivists seem to them spineless and wishy-washy. If in keeping with humility I refrain from making any pointed, concrete statements, there will be little interest from objectivists in carrying on this debate, and this may even be used to paralyze my position. Sometimes it's helpful to take on certain roles for the sake of creating the conditions necessary for an engaging discussion.
Good call, though.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Annom
※※※※※※



Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: As I said in the other thread, my problem is not that Objectivism claims that there is an objective truth, but rather that it claims to know it.
Does it claim to know the objective truth? In what way? I'm not well known with the "official" definition of Objectivism or with the specific ideas of Ayn Rand.
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Redstorm]
#5277184 - 02/08/06 11:53 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>> Do you care to back up any of your attacks on Objectivism?
No object can be apprehended as an existent without the involvement of perceptual cognizer. Because this is true, it is impossible to know a reality that exists separate from consciousness. For this reason, even if an objective reality were to exist, it would be fundamentally unapproachable. This defeats the objectivist philosophy.
All aspects of the reality we are involved with are articulated and imputed by consciousness. In the asbence of consciousness, no such inherent attributes can be said to exist, and therefore no such objective reality exists. For an object to exist inherently, we must be able to identify it's inherent nature. We can take any object and investigate it for it's inherent nature, and we will find that it is an investigation without end. This defeats objectivist philosophy.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Annom
※※※※※※



Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
#5277197 - 02/08/06 11:55 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I see your point and it indeed is good for the discussion. I was a bit shocked to see you saying such things, it had to check it I hope I didn't ruin your idea. I can edit it out if you want?
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Ped]
#5277770 - 02/08/06 02:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ped writes:
Quote:
Objectivism is a complete fantasy and has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
To the contrary. Objectivism is the ONLY philosophy extant of which I am aware which requires nothing more than the recognition of two axioms --
1) Existence exists 2) Existence is knowable to humans
All else follows. It is thus exclusively reality-based.
Quote:
It opens the door to arrogance, and many proponents of objectivism did succumb to the transparency of an inflated ego, including the objectivist icon Ayn Rand.
-- If any philosophies can be said to be "arrogant", it is those which require the bestowing of divine revelation on its adherants. These adherants then arrogantly classify those other humans they encounter as either "enlightened" or unenlightened -- with the enlightened necessarily being superior to the rest.
-- what opponents of Objectivism decry as "arrogance" is nothing more than self confidence, but hey... why use an accurate term when a negative one is handy?
-- everything you said about arrogance and inflated egos of various proponents of Objectivism holds true of various proponents of all philosophies.
-- the way proponents of Objectivism (or of any other philosophy) feel about their beliefs changes not a whit the validity (or lack thereof) of the philosophical principles themselves.
Quote:
The reason objectivism has this effect on people is that it allows an individual to believe that their ideas are best in accordance with some kind of objective truth.
And how is this different from other philosophies which allow individuals to believe their ideas are best in accordance with some kind of subjective "truth"?
Quote:
This creates a fundamental discordance between speaker and audience, whereby the speaker or writer is invariably elevated over his or her audience.
Same comment as above.
Quote:
Since no such objective truths exist...
A self-evident fallacy.
Quote:
... so too does the distinction between objectivist propnent and audience not exist...
Ah. The standard and oft-repeated (with no backup) Ped false claim that there is no such thing as "boundaries". "We are all one."
Quote:
... and so too are all feelings of confidence and self-assuredness derrived from the egocentric nature of objectivist thinking completely false.
If in fact there is no such thing as existence, or even if there is such a thing as existence but humans cannot know it, then the Objectivist's feeling of self-confidence is indeed unwarranted. However, to accept either premise necessarily means rejecting the two axioms listed at the beginning of my post. Note that if one rejects either of these two axioms, all further involvement with philosophy -- ANY philosophy -- is futile.
Quote:
This is what makes objectivism among the most foolish and childish philosophies ever conceived, second only to LaVeyan Satanism, in my opinion.
Rejecting the evidence of one's senses and rejecting reason -- a human's two primary tools of survival -- necessarily leaves one in a position to accept any non-reality based philosophy that passes by. Such philosophies are foolish and childish. Wishing doesn't make it so. What counts is reality.
Quote:
Ayn Rand's ideas do sound liberating, but in reality they function as the actual chains of mental, emotional, and spiritual bondage.
If living one's life based on the most scrupulously complete recognition of facts on the ground one is capable of mustering is to be described by you as "bondage", I will leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether they choose to live their lives in such "bondage" or if they choose instead to succumb to whichever unprovable fantasy the next Mystic peddles to them.
Quote:
All of the suffering in the world today arises directly from the objectivist and therefore pluralistic relationship we've had with reality since living beings formed their first conceptual awarenesses.
To the contrary. While the facts of the universe are such that living entities must exert effort (often unpleasant effort) in order to continue their existence as living entities, the suffering such effort (and various accidents of nature) entails is but a tiny fraction of the suffering produced by following faulty ideas. One need look no further than the vast amount of suffering caused by such ideas as Fascism, Communism, and Islam (to name but three easily recognizable ones) for proof of that.
Quote:
Ayn Rand's elegant, modernized articulation of this ancient and deeply ingrained worldview lends it no more value or accuracy than it's had since the very beginning.
This sentence implies that such a worldview is both valueless and inaccurate -- a false assertion if ever there was one.
Quote:
The idea that we can derrive knowledge through the cataloguing of an objective reality occuring external to the mind is completely wrong.
On what are we to rely in its stead? Divine revelation of a "life to follow" which bears no relation to that which we directly apprehend?
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Ped]
#5277780 - 02/08/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ped writes:
Quote:
No object can be apprehended as an existent without the involvement of perceptual cognizer.
Correct.
Quote:
Because this is true, it is impossible to know a reality that exists separate from consciousness.
Debatable, but even if true not applicable to the conclusion you are about to reach. The fact that there are entities within existence which are able to apprehend their surroundings does not mean that if such consciousnesses were to disappear their surroundings would also disappear.
Quote:
For this reason, even if an objective reality were to exist, it would be fundamentally unapproachable.
Incorrect. You reached this conclusion due to your irrelevant premise.
Quote:
This defeats the objectivist philosophy.
It does no such thing.
Quote:
All aspects of the reality we are involved with are articulated and imputed by consciousness.
Incorrect. They are observed by our consciousness. Not the same thing at all.
Quote:
In the asbence of consciousness, no such inherent attributes can be said to exist, and therefore no such objective reality exists.
Incorrect. In the absence of conscious entities, the non-conscious entities of existence still exist, it's just that none of them are aware they exist.
Quote:
For an object to exist inherently, we must be able to identify it's inherent nature.
Incorrect. It can exist whether there is another entity around to identify it or not. It's just that in the absence of entities capable of identification, its inherent nature remains unidentified.
Quote:
We can take any object and investigate it for it's inherent nature, and we will find that it is an investigation without end.
Incorrect. To accurately identify every possible aspect of an entity's nature is immensely complicated and time-consuming, but not in principle impossible.
Quote:
This defeats objectivist philosophy.
Incorrect.
You make arbitrary pronouncements which are not only unsupported by even an attempt at argument, but which also contradict the evidence of the senses of every reader of this thread. This does nothing to "defeat" Objectivism, but it does speak volumes about your own "arrogance".
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
Paradigm writes:
Quote:
As I said in the other thread, my problem is not that Objectivism claims that there is an objective truth, but rather that it claims to know it.
Not quite correct. Objectivism recognizes the axiom that reality is knowable by humans. Then -- using observations repeatable to all humans in possession of all their senses and capable of reason -- they elaborate on the philosophical implications of this axiom. At every step along the way the reader is invited to verify for himself the validity of these observations.
Quote:
Also, I think it neglects the idea of subjective truth. By this, I don't simply mean things are open to interpretation, though many things are, but rather that we exist as both subject and object, and that both those forms of existence have their own validity. As a subject, we exist as consciousness. As an object, we exist as matter. Both subjectivism and objectivism try to say the other view is wrong, or an illusion.
You haven't grasped the Objectivist viewpoint, then. Objectivism vehemently denies the "mind-body" dichotomy you describe. It instead integrates the two seamlessly.
Phred
--------------------
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Phred]
#5278201 - 02/08/06 04:01 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
AYN RAND

Well I didn't know much about objectivism so I looked it up and...... Not to be an ass but GOD DAMN! I would have to create new words to describe that kind of beauty. Other then that I kind of agree and disagree with that philosophy.
" 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute?facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."
True enough I guess.
"2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival."
Not quite. Emotions are a kind of reason as well. They are the instincts that keep us alive. If you could totally ignore them you would be a sociopath.
3. Man?every man?is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
I disagree with that. You don't HAVE to live for yourself and doing so is generally considered (by most) rather selfish and immoral. It basically throws out the concept that the theory itself could be wrong and insists IT IS THE ONLY RIGHT WAY.
"4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
Capitalist Marxism without the Lenin. I can just so see mankind getting together declaring everyone equal and well, setting up a global communist state like that one. LOL. It's actually crappier then communism if that is possible. Right, we are all going to abide by that and no one is simply going to buy up all the poorer interests and well make this world back into exactly what it is now. It's like dude I can I sum up communism in 4 paragraphs!1!!!1!. In reality that kind of government is China. Just ripped off a whole bunch of Karl Marx's ideas and tried to pass them off as her own.
My apologies to people really believing this philosophy. I am not trying to insult you, if anything protect you from this type of stuff. (this thread really belongs in the political forum) I did a pretty in depth study of communism, Lenin and Stalin quite recently. This bitch is just another snake oil peddler. Same old ideas in a different "better" package. Wouldn't be surprised if she was a card carrying communist herself. Actually I quite like communism, I don't like to bash it because it is based on pure human kindness and a truly better world which is a good thing. However, that system has been tried many times and it just does not work without a brutal dictator standing there with a whip. It infuriates me when people steal other peoples ideas and not only pass them off as their own, but disguise them as something else. I hate it when someone tries to put the wool over the eyes of the public like that. It Makes me veenomus.
OMG lol the word Veenom is in the spell checker now.
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Phred]
#5278208 - 02/08/06 04:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Very well done.
Ped, let me just ask you this: What Objectivist works have you actually read?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5278327 - 02/08/06 04:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not quite. Emotions are a kind of reason as well. They are the instincts that keep us alive. If you could totally ignore them you would be a sociopath.
Reason is man's faculty of knowing reality. Humans cannot function or survive by the guidance of mere sensations or emotions. You, being a conceptual being, cannot initiate any action unless you know the nature and purpose of your action. I cannot pursue any goal unless I identify it and understand the nature of such a goal, and how to achieve it.
I disagree with that. You don't HAVE to live for yourself and doing so is generally considered (by most) rather selfish and immoral.
The irrefutable fact is: You must live for yourself, one way or the other - else, you will die. Considered selfish and immoral by most? Might doesn't make right - just as the mere fact that a majority of folks in various parts of USA [read: Bible-belt] think that the entire human race was spawned by two fully grown humans and that something called "the rapture" is coming, does not validate any such beliefs. Selfishness is a virtue, just like any other virtue - believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with being selfish, as there is nothing wrong with treating yourself good, as no other human has primacy over your own life. Objectivism does not advocate being a leech - rather, it advocates being a trader.
To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts but offers nothing in return is an act of injustice: you reward them for nothing and you sacrifice your resources. Rewarding people for nothing only enables them to continue a life of begging and needing. You also loose your resources. Wouldn't you rather trade in a mutually beneficial manner? It makes so much more sense to trade with a person that produces value for you. Now you are rewarding people for doing things that you want, plus you are net gaining from the trade.
To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts the offer, who offers something in return, yet uses the resources you provide them to perform things contrary to your goals and values may very well also be a bad decision. Do you net gain or loose? How much value are they providing you in the trade? How much will they destroy your values with the resources you provide them? It would make sense to only reward people who promote your goals. Rewarding people who will destroy your goals results in the destruction of your goals.
Capitalist Marxism without the Lenin.
I admit, political philosophy is not my forte. Either Phred or Redstorm will have to address your assertions, as this is my rather weak area, and they are both regulars in the PA&L forum to begin with.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5278406 - 02/08/06 04:52 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you, Dmonikal. You summed it up better than I could.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5278431 - 02/08/06 05:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
3. Man?every man?is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
I disagree with that. You don't HAVE to live for yourself and doing so is generally considered (by most) rather selfish and immoral.
Living for yourself is the only moral way to live. The only reason you find it immoral is that selfishness has for some reason been viewed as a vice rather than a virtue for countless years. It has been drilled into the minds of anyone who has been alive in the modern age that the needs or wants of the community outweigh the needs or wants of the individual. Objectivism does not say that you should never cooperate with others to get things done or that you should never help other people. It says that one should worry about his or her interests first. This is not unreasonable at all.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Redstorm]
#5278457 - 02/08/06 05:07 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
One should not live exclusively for themselves. One should understand that they are a part of something greater, and act accordingly. No man is an island. While the rights of the individual are important, they are not, and should not, be the be-all and end-all. There is a greater good to which we are called.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5278476 - 02/08/06 05:17 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Here is another Intro to O'ism:
Quote:
What is Objectivism?
Let its founder speak first. Asked to specify Objectivism's essentials standing on one foot, Ayn Rand, standing on one foot, said:
Quote:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality 2. Epistemology: Reason 3. Ethics: Self-interest 4. Politics: Capitalism
Writing about this episode later, she went on to say:
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
Quote:
1. 'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed' or 'Wishing won't make it so.' 2. 'You can't eat your cake & have it too.' 3. 'Man is an end in himself.' 4. 'Give me liberty or give me death.'
If you held these concepts with total consistency, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency - to understand, to define, to prove & to apply them - requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot - nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
Neither it can, & so it is.
Ayn Rand herself, relative to other philosophers, didn't write "volumes." In terms of quality & import, however, she out-wrote most of them combined & multiplied. Some philosophers (not many) had argued discretely for one or more of the above; she integrated ALL of it & brought esthetics into the mix as well. She argued that facts are facts; that reality is what it is, independent of our feelings or wishes; that human reason is able to grasp what it is; that reason's tools - sense-perception, concept-formation & logic - are, contrary to many philosophers, valid; that these facts have irresistible & demonstrable implications for ethics, politics, economics & art: they enjoin rational self-interest, individual liberty, capitalism & what she called "romantic realism" as part of "man's proper estate" - an "upright posture."
Along the way, she demolished several age-old dilemmas & dichotomies. She disposed of the "is/ought" dichotomy - that you can't derive values from facts - by pointing out that an entity's actions are determined by that entity's nature & that a volitional, conceptual entity such as man can derive values, by thought & choice, ONLY from facts. She pointed out that trying to derive values from OTHER sources - such as "divine revelation" or range-of-the-moment whims can lead only to disaster, & in so doing busted the intrinsicist/subjectivist dichotomy.
She pointed out that volition is a causal agent, & so resolved the free will/determinism controversy.
She pointed out that facts without logic are as useless as logic without facts, & so busted the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy.
She pointed out that consciousness is not rendered invalid by the fact that it has organs - that we are not deaf BECAUSE we have ears that can hear - & so busted Kant's noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy.
She exposed the lethal incoherence of requiring that we must know EVERYTHING in order to know ANYTHING (see modern physics).
She pointed out the logical absurdity of the traditional ethic of self-sacrifice for the sake of others - if I am here to sacrifice for you, & you are here to sacrifice for me, what good does that do either of us? What is the point? She highlighted its logical/practical effect, all too eloquently exemplified during the twentieth century in which she lived: humanity's being divided up into those who make sacrifices & those who receive them; thence, bloodbaths & concentration camps.
She pointed out the existential monstrosity of an ethic that says we should act from duty & eschew happiness. "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer & die, but to enjoy yourself & live." With that, she launched a revolution.
Ayn Rand showed that we can not only contemplate the stars, but we can also reach them - in part by dispensing with the notion that we'll find a "God" there. "My philosophy, in essence" she said, "is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, & reason as his only absolute."
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
|
"The irrefutable fact is: You must live for yourself, one way or the other - else, you will die."
That is a semi-truth. You will die if you don't live for yourself in this society which is quite correct. My point is this does not have to be.
"Considered selfish and immoral by most? Might doesn't make right - just as the mere fact that a majority of folks in various parts of USA [read: Bible-belt] think that the entire human race was spawned by two fully grown humans and that something called "the rapture" is coming, does not validate any such beliefs. Selfishness is a virtue, just like any other virtue - believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with being selfish, as there is nothing wrong with treating yourself good, as no other human has primacy over your own life. Objectivism does not advocate being a leech - rather, it advocates being a trader."
Selfishness is not a virtue. Considering yourself and doing the right thing is. Selfishness has BECOME a virtue in this society. It does not have any inherent goodness about it. Might does not make right which is true enough. There is nothing wrong at all with treating yourself well. Objectivism is simply a way of trying to express a newer form of communism called socialism. All the same ideals. In a communist society men and women are considered equals and everyone "trades" their skills for the common good of all man kind. Since no one is trying to hurt anyone and everyone gets along just fine. In reality that is just a fairy tale, proven over and over in the history books. That has been tried over and over and it just doesn't work because there will always be corruption (democracy is the same Idea just with incentives for hard work)and communism is one of the easiest of all governments to corrupt because the government ENFORCES the supposed great ideals. You simply end up with suppression of free thought and not much in the way of a free press (see communist China and the soviet Union). Marxists have been trying to make that shit work for near a hundred years. It does work to an extent, but when those masses start picking up books and reading them it go's right down the gutter.
To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts but offers nothing in return is an act of injustice: you reward them for nothing and you sacrifice your resources. Rewarding people for nothing only enables them to continue a life of begging and needing. You also loose your resources. Wouldn't you rather trade in a mutually beneficial manner? It makes so much more sense to trade with a person that produces value for you. Now you are rewarding people for doing things that you want, plus you are net gaining from the trade.
Trade is only slightly mutually beneficial, someone always profits more then the other. Like I said before this is simply capitalist Marxism or a "socialist" government like Canada's or many in Europe.
To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts the offer, who offers something in return, yet uses the resources you provide them to perform things contrary to your goals and values may very well also be a bad decision. Do you net gain or loose? How much value are they providing you in the trade? How much will they destroy your values with the resources you provide them? It would make sense to only reward people who promote your goals. Rewarding people who will destroy your goals results in the destruction of your goals.
They are going to haggle like a MOFO trying to get as much as they can. That is nicely worded socialism. Socialism is simply the idea that the government SHOULD control these things and work for the benefit of all. All of the rich western states are socialist to one extreme or the other. Socialism is welfare, health care, police etc. They are not free however and draw from the resources of everyone in the form of much beloved TAXES. For example the US is on the right wing of this (less free health care,welfare etc) and Canada is further to the left wing (free health care, many nationalized industries etc) on the opposite sides of these extremes are Nazi Germany (right wing) and Stalinist Russia (left wing) All nations fall between these 2 ideals. The real dangerous nations are the ones that go too far towards either of these ideas. Both sides are supposed to be "free" but neither really are. MASSIVE propaganda machines on either side. In reality both are absolutely fucking wrong. Hitler did not come to power because he was a nice guy who believed in equality. People on the far right have no real rights and people on the far left have no real rights either. Less government means more freedom but also total anarchy. The far right side DOES work, because if you have no freedoms, privacy or the right to be a Jew for instance, you can't really do too much wrong.
NO MAN IS TRULY FREE IN THIS WORLD! now that is a truth.
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5278730 - 02/08/06 06:36 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Umm and to sum this up for the people not familiar with political systems I drew this bar. It is MUCH more dangerous to swing too far to the right then the left. Least on the left the government is at least LYING about standing for equality.
NAZI------------US---------------------------Canada--------------------China <---l-------------l-------------------------------l--------------------------------l------>
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
|