|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5278736 - 02/08/06 06:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I would like to point out that the third and fourth principles of Objectivism, taken together, would lead to widespread starvation. I do not necessarily believe that laissez-faire capitalism by itself would have such an outcome(though it would certainly suck to be poor in such a society), since people would still give to charity in such a society. However, if everyone's just looking out for number 1, that means people would not be motivated to donate to charity, as it is not in their individual self-interest. This is why I consider Objectivism to be more comtempable than other libertarian ideas, because there might still be hope for the poor in a libertarian society, but a society of Objectivists would mean certain death for the poor.
--------------------
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
|
And that's exactly what happened to Russia Paradigm. People starved to death by the many millions. Something like 30 million Russians (their satellite states included) starved to death during world war 2 (might be wrong bout the exact numbers it has been awhile) and they had to resort to cannibalism. There was a story in a textbook by the BBC (I think) about how a few people in Siberia found a 2 week dead rotting horse carcass and ate it maggots and all. I really feel for them since my ancestors happened to be in the Polish Ukrainian area and no longer exist.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
#5279062 - 02/08/06 07:53 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
Nope, it ultimately holds true in ALL situations. If you think you know of a case whereby one need not expend any effort to further one's own thrival in existence, I'm listening.
Selfishness is not a virtue. Considering yourself and doing the right thing is.
This statement contradicts itself. If you grok how this is so, then perhaps you will also understand the semtantical confusioon there is with the word selfish, here.
Selfishness has BECOME a virtue in this society.
I can not possibly agree. Selfishness wasn't a virtue for those before this society? In one respect, I can see how one might think that selfishness wasn't a virtue until man declared it to be so - but this extends to ALL moral principles established by man. Outside of such ethical devices, the actions which man must perform to futher his own existence shows that, to one level or another, selfishness is indeed an important value, as one's own existence is a fundamental basis for morality.
It does not have any inherent goodness about it.
To carry this statement to its full rammifications, is for you to claim that furthering your own existence and achieving values, goals, etc., are not efficacious to you.
I'm simply not going to bother dissecting your attempts to tie in politics, i.e., "communist-socialism" with trader ethics of O'ism - which, at any rate, is a simple system of ethics found almost EVERYWHERE we go, although, some -for whatever reason- don't like to admit it, at least in certain, sensitive situations. The bottom line is that Objectivism does not advocate being a homo leecherandmoochens, it emphatically advocates being a homo traderandproducens. If your contention - simplified - is that we shouldn't trade values for values, then what do you propose in place of such? I admit, I can think of no other possibility than to divide humans into the sacrificers and the takers.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
|
Well discussing that will never go anywhere. You cannot hold to know the ABSOLUTE truth and neither can I. An idea can have neither good nor evil about it, it is just words after all. In this case I have many threads elsewhere about what I really believe. Not too many people will have a leg to stand on discussing politics with me either. meh.
My school was so poor we had to import textbooks from other countries (the US and Britain mostly) and had some very carefully masked as CANADIAN US made textbooks. After reading 3 sides of each issue and my own research, I read some pretty fucking horrific shit all sides did and quite frankly communists came out as the good guys. Whites vs reds Mao etc. The propoganda on all sides became quite apparent as the American books masked all of the bad things they did and the British masked all the bad things they did. The British, oddly enough did not have quite so bad an oppinion of the French and Russians, nor any particular reason to make Russia look good (this was during the cold war when some of these books were written). After awhile I threw my hands up with disgust on the atrocities commited by western society on communists and threw out all my (media induced) opinions on all sides. For one the west owes Russia big time for its fighting 3/4 of Germany while we fought old men and children. Of course after 30 million dead russians (which not that many people even know about)vs the 6 million jews dead (which WE called a holocaust) the west offered only non communist states aid. So Russia was SOL, pissed and basically the cold war started. Truman made no attempt whatsoever to compromise. Then of course came that fun communist witch hunt. Arms build up etc. During the Russian revolution the west sided with funded and helped actually fight against the communist goverment of Russia. Which beat the shit out of the Russian infrastructure even further then the totalitarian previous ruler had. Lenin and his reds had to fight off the whole fuckin world and won. Then Lenin died and Stalin took over who rebuilt Russia with a whip and sending anyone who disagreed with him to siberia (can be argued by either side that it was good or evil) After the rise of Hitler (It is not like Russia didn't offer alliance to the west either who ignored Russia) Russia was stuck between a rock and a hard place had only one choice Hitler. Then Hitler betrayed Russsia and invaded them. Then the world more or less watched and hoped that Russia would be wiped out while they pleaded for aid (which eventually came in the form of rundown used junk to equip 100 000 of their many million army). Then a few years later when Russia was obviously going to win the west leapt up and very quickly made sure to occupy the western countries of europe so those sneaky Russians didn't just take over europe all by itself. About all we did to support Russia (which ended up needing no help at all) was that operation torch travesty. Well anyways I have a really shitty jaded opinion of EVERY side of this mockery of a world we have now. Fucking media.
-------------------- 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]
#5279247 - 02/08/06 08:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Reading all that history without giving a fuck about opinions the world looks an awful lot worse, if you just look at what happened and not who is RIGHT, the picture suddenly changes.
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
Objectivism does not advocate being a homo leecherandmoochens
And especially frowns on homo sexuals.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
|
The truth about all philosophical and spiritual debates is no one really (subconsciously) wants to know the answer, because the real answer would destroy them. We as a species hang onto our beliefs as a defense mechanism from the unknown. Our minds learn well and build and build, eventually one day maybe we will be ready to know the real answer. Even if one were to state the real meaning of life, or the best government system, no one would believe it. We are taught our beliefs and we build upon them and become individuals, when really our minds are all linked together. Our evolution is a kind of hive mind (basically everything we know we store in some way), the internet is the beggining of that. Merely with better memory such a thing will happen. Perhaps being actually psychic is impossible but imagine a implant that read our brain waves and helped to broadcast them to eachother (not really that far away). Transcendence of the flesh. Neuromancer made real.
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
Lakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Phred]
#5280613 - 02/09/06 03:18 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: 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
Arguing according to theories about logical phallus-ies is extremely manipulative and out of context. In addition, appeal to any logical fallacy is itself an Appeal to Authority (of logical fallcy).
Your final argument regarding the senses of the readers of this thread is very presumptious and cites some vague rule of epistemology wherein the senses are good for the taking. The senses are often wrong in correlation to phenomena, especially the phenomena of other's senses.
I'd also like to mention, which has been excluded from this post, that the cognition of the perceiver/beholder of truth is something tied to a language. Most of you have been discussing "existence" and various entities, not taking the essential measures needed to understand how language is that which has created these things -- how it makes these entities and how it then makes their study possible.
Denying any arrogance to objectivity would require releasing it from its sociological beginnings (which scientists and analytical philosophers are keen on, and na?ve enough, to try). Only in forgetting that claims regarding objectivity have a social and cultural context can they be taken as VERITAS.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
MushmanTheManic writes:
Quote:
Read. http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm
I have read it. Have you? I have also read several excellent refutations of it.
Huemer's logic is faulty, he (apparently deliberately) misrepresents Objectivism, uses straw man arguments, contradicts himself in his arguments, conflates principles, and more.
Even at that, he is in agreement with almost every basic tenet of Objectivism. To quote from the link --
Quote:
Probably the most controversial parts of Objectivism are these five claims: (1) Reality is objective.
(2) One should always follow reason and never think or act contrary to reason. (I take this to be the meaning of "Reason is absolute.")
(3) Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason.
(4) Every person should always be selfish.
(5) Capitalism is the only just social system.
It is in holding to these five propositions that Rand's philosophy most contrasts with the prevailing philosophical attitudes of our culture. Our current intellectual culture is shot through with collectivism, irrationalism, and subjectivism.
This is bound to make my disagreement with Objectivism seem small, at least to most non-Objectivists: I agree with 1, 2, 3, and 5. In fact, I regard each of those propositions as either self-evident or else provable beyond any reasonable doubt through philosophical argument and (in the case of #5) historical evidence. I would even go so far as to say that the continuing resistance to these facts is due essentially to evasion. And I regard #1 as so obvious as to be beneath a philosopher to argue.
He then goes on to spend an inordinate amount of verbiage attempting to attack #4 -- "every person should always be selfish". The problem of course is that Objectivism nowhere says that every person should always be selfish.
Part of his attack is an incredibly lengthy and convoluted attempt to show that the furthering of one's survival cannot be logically proven to be good, therefore there can be no objective basis for Objectivist morality (or for that matter any morality at all), since without the concept of "good" there can be no morality.
He ignores the simple fact that Objectivism presents the question not as an "is-ought", but as an "if-then", i.e. "If it is correct for a human to attempt to continue his life, then it is correct for that human to perform actions which will further his life." So if Huemer (or anyone else) decides that it is not correct for him (a human) to attempt to continue his life, he bows out of the discussion. The concept of "good" is of interest only to those who have decided to continue to survive. That's the whole point of the science of ethics (morality) -- to discover a set of guiding principles by which humans should live their lives.
Here is just one of many refutations of Huemer. It's not the most complete one I've seen, but I'm in a rush this morning and this is the first one I could think of.
http://www.noblesoul.com/rl/essays/huemer.html
Phred
--------------------
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Phred]
#5281645 - 02/09/06 12:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
On this issue, there are two camps: subjectivism as truth, and objectivism as truth. From my point of view, the subjective nature of reality is self-evident. Because it appears to me as such, I am secure in that view and feel no need to back-up every statement I make about the relationship I have with reality. I have already decided how things are and feel no need to investigate it further or justify my own claims. Sound familiar?
Objectivist thinkers here are doing precisely the same thing. To them, the objective nature of reality is self-evident. They dismiss my comments about reality as "self-evident fallacies", offering no substantive back-up to these claims. Why? Because they are relating to reality in the way they take as legitimate, and are operating from the assumption that I, being an opponent to their relational paradigm, am simply mistaken.
Nothing concrete has yet been offered to substantiate either the idea of a subjective reality nor an objective one, yet both parties are behaving as though their own stance is obviously, and objectively correct.
I have been behaving, quite deliberately, as though a subjective reality were objectively true. This is an obvious contradiction: although I am advocating subjectivity, I am speaking as an objectivist. Even though that contradiction was highlighted in the first reply to this thread, nonetheless my contrived and hyper-exaggerated objectivist stance was of such inflammatory power that it solicited tremendous criticism from actual objectivist thinkers. What they do not realize is that through criticizing me and my modes of thinking, they have only been highlighting the fundmental error of their own.
This proves that objectivist thinking, by it's very nature, has not and can not ever come close to approaching the nature of reality. By presenting subjectivism as an objective truth, and by reflecting the views and ideals innate to objectivist thinking, I have solicited -- from objectivists -- the same criticism deserving of all other objectivist claims. The fundamentally self-limiting nature of imputing objectivity on to any observed phenomenon has been brightly underscored in this.
All of that being said, I would offer this challenge to any and all objectivists: prove it. Prove it in the way you've proven everything else you're so proud of. Show us the inherent nature of an object. Use any example. Reveal to us, without using erroneous terms like "self-evident", or "obviously", the existence of an object which carries on apart from consciouness. Show us the inherent nature of consciouness which carries on independent of the "external" world. If such an inherent nature exists, either as an attribute of consciousness or any other mundane phenomenon, and if it is knowable by human beings as objectivism claims, then any objectivist thinker here ought to be able to guide us to the inherent nature of an object: it's permenent existential quality existing independent of consciousness.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
Edited by Ped (02/09/06 12:45 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
#5281654 - 02/09/06 12:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
On this issue, there are two camps: subjectivism as truth, and objectivism as truth.
Actually, I belong to a third camp: the recognition of both as complementary truths.
--------------------
|
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: Lakefingers]
#5281689 - 02/09/06 12:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The senses are often wrong in correlation to phenomena, especially the phenomena of other's senses.
Correction: Our interpretations of the senses are what may be "right or wrong". Our senses themselves, are in-fallible. Take the example of a pencil submerged in the water. This gives the appearance that the pencil is bent - and indeed, our senses are registering the facts infallibly. However, if we were to interpret this sensory input as: "The stick is actually bent.", then we have a case of incorrect interpretation. In reality, our senses have obeyed nature perfectly [nature does not contradict itself]- for there is a phenomenon called "refraction", which is the cause for the aforementioned appearance of the pencil submerged in water.
I'd also like to mention, which has been excluded from this post, that the cognition of the perceiver/beholder of truth is something tied to a language. Most of you have been discussing "existence" and various entities, not taking the essential measures needed to understand how language is that which has created these things -- how it makes these entities and how it then makes their study possible.
A bit vague, but from what I can see, you are attempting to reverse a process that takes place in reality. Existence and various entities are not derived from language - rather the opposite, and to put it more accurately: language is derived from concepts, and concepts are derived from the condensation of data formed through our faculty of reason, which recieves sensory data via the faculty of perception, from existence and various entities.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain



Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
Absolutely. Part of the subjectivist canon is the idea of a union between conventional and ultimate truths. Conventional truths possess some element of objectivity, although not inherently so. A conventional truth is something decided upon when a group of people agree on some aspect of reality. For example, when someone points at John and says "that is John", this is a conventional truth. However, a subjectivist also understands that ultimately, that no such distinction, and by extension no other conceivable distinction between phenomenon, exists anywhere but within consciousness.
--------------------
Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
#5281748 - 02/09/06 01:08 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yourself being a Subjectivist, you would agree the fundamental primary of your philosophy holds that the Primacy of Consciousness is true. Yes or No?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
I think most of us belong to that third camp.
Objective truth only takes you so far into the multilayers of truth.
We can use objectivity to determine that the stereo is on and playing audible music and the true octave volume of the stereo. That as far as it gets us.
If I think its just perfect and my daughter thinks its toooooooo loud, which one of us is right? Who is telling the truth? Is it perfect or to loud? There are two contradicting truths at play.
Subjective truths and dealing with them is just as much a part of reality as objective existence is.
Human beings are not exact carbon copies, one size truth fits all objects.
In solving the conflict of the stereo volume, relative philosophy also comes into play to discerning truth. It shows you, one is right to experience the volume to be perfect and another is right to be experiencing it be to loud.
Humanistic philosophy comes into play and the objective truth doesn't even matter anymore to help solve the conflict. The feelings of each other have to matter for a fair and peaceful compromise to be struck.
I think I go beyond the 3rd camp and see practical use for ALL of the philosophies out there and find they work well together. Just using one would be so restrictive to realizing or fulfilling a larger picture at play.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
Quick question: How does objectivism deal with the Objectivst Law of Causality in the face of the uncertainty principle establishes that nothing can be predicted with certainty, at the quantum-mechanical level?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I don't believe any Objectivists have yet addressed my point about starvation. Perhaps I should further elaborate. I see several possibilities here:
1. Objectivists are willing to leave poor people to starve in order to be consistent with their principles, in which case it is a cruel and heartless philosophy, which is reason enough to reject it outright.
2. Objectivists naively believe that laissez-faire capitalism by itself will stop starvation, in which case it is clearly disconnected from reality.
3. Objectivists are willing to give to charity, thus violating the third principle of Objectivism, making it internally inconsistent.
4. Objectivists are willing to leave the charity work to non-Objectivists, in which case they are hypocrites, and again in violation of the third principle.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
I don't think you are understanding the type of subjectivism that is diametric to Objectivism. Your outlined cases deal more with subjective ethics.
By subjectivism, we don't mean merely the quality of being subjective [defined as particular to], rather we are talking about the doctrine which holds that all knowledge is restricted to the mind, without reference to reality. We're talking about the doctrine which holds that, metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations.
In contrast, Objectivism holds that knowledge and facts are not intrinsic to reality nor are they merely subjective - rather they are determined by the nature of reality, and are to be discovered by man's mind. It holds that metaphysically, existence is objective - and is knowable.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
I understand that. I think all of us do. Some of us are just saying that it alone is not the absolute stystem that serves us in every situation. It takes us as far as to what we can all objectively know, like the music being played and its octave.
Two human beings, real and live are in conflict over its volume. Now how does objective philosophy solve the conflict? Would objective philosophy even acknowledge the existence of two people being in conflict or would they say, it being perect or loud is all in their minds and walk away?
If so, then like, paradigm said, the objectivists goes into denial of reality.
And will someone address paradigms questions to help some of us understand? It would be interesting to see how objective philosophy "alone" serves one in real life human dilemmas.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
|