|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
|
The real answer to this is: You will never know the answer unless you discard all your beliefs and rebuild them totally ignoring all opinions on anything whatsoever. Then all you can see are facts. Then you can make your own mind up about what you believe.
-------------------- 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...
|
|
And will someone address paradigms questions to help some of us understand?
What Paradigm really means, is that the third and fourth principles of O?ism taken to the extremes [read: taken irrationally], would lead to such & such. Of course, O?ism does not advocate any such exaggerations. Anybody who understands O?ism knows that rationality and logic is a key principle in O?ist ethics ? hence whenever you see one who makes claims similar to Paradigm?s, or Heumer?s, it is most surely a result of nescience on the matter ? or in some cases, intentional misrepresentation.
He willingly establishes possibilities based on his misconstrued conceptions of O?ism, but neglects to explore scenarios whereby everyone involved is a full, card-carrying O?ist. If everyone were so, then in various respects, everybody would be looking out for each other not because they hold altruism is the highest moral good, but because it entails looking out for themselves, e.g., the trader ethics, and so forth ? in other words, because it is in our rational self-interest. The primary difference between these two opposing approaches, is merely the order of priority or esteem.
O?ism does not advocate childish selfishness ? it advocates rational selfishness.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/09/06 05:26 PM)
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said:
O?ism does not advocate childish selfishness ? it advocates rational selfishness.
is that a typo, or were you seriously thinking it made sense?
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
|
It makes perfect sense to me.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Redstorm]
#5282660 - 02/09/06 05:23 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"I dont believe in false gods, only the true god"
yes, I guess it does make sense....
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
That's how I approach life monicle! 
Skorp, can I ask how Objectivism approaches rationalizing priorities and esteem.
Like in my stereo example, If someone told me I was playing music to loud for their comfort, and they couldn't leave the environment, like in a car, I would turned it down. Consideration, for another's subjective experience made that decision for me. I treat that as an objective fact.
The two made up the reality at hand.
(this is hypothetical)
What if I said to her, "Its my car, I'm the adult, the volume stays where I like it, deal with it." I've seen parents pull that rank, where their needs and wants are the priority because of their seniority and power of authority over the child. Objectivive philosophy can prove them true and make it right as well.
Is it right?
Without any recognition of the child's, subjective experience, can you see where taking such an objective factual position of authority over another can open things up to being abusive because they are in the objective right to be so?
How does prioritizing work with objectivity? Whose needs and wants are deemed more important then others, objectively speaking?
One could easily argue that it is a knowable objective fact, that the one with the most power to enforce its will is the top dog. The objective facts of reality support might making right. Is might being right the truth of what is right for all? The kid will say, "that loud music blasting my ear drums, when i have no escape from it, just isn't right"
Who is right, the parent or the child?
You might say, "well, now you are getting into ethics of right and wrong" yes I am because dealing with them is a known fact and part of reality. People get hurt and abused if we don't. Is that all in our minds too?
We are all still waiting for someone to address how objective philosophy handles it.
A ten year old can ration the fact that he is bigger then the 4 year old and can take his toys away from him. Thats a known objective fact and true.
Do you end it there and let him, because its the truth of what he can do? The ten year old in the objective right, is being childish in my opinion. Does it not take a subjective and rational adult to jump in and say, "10 year old, even though you do have more power over a 4 year old, it does not give you the right to forcibly take his toys away from him."
If it were not for the people in this world, going beyond objective truth and seeing further into subjective truth and feeling compassion for the less powerful and able, this world would SUCK BALLS being over run with objective only tyrannies who live by the known fact easily rationed that might makes right.
Please argue against that tyranical reality, keeping within how objective philosophy would handle it. PLEASE. If you can't, then objective philosophy is some scary shit if it takes over the mind set of the planet.
Please show me where objective philosophy rationalizes compassion care and protection for the less able and less powerful.
I want to understand why you think its the ultimate, one and only correct navigational tool to live by and with for all of life.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
I forgot to ask in my last reply how objective philosophy rationalizes the difference between these two?
Quote:
O?ism does not advocate childish selfishness ? it advocates rational selfishness
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: He willingly establishes possibilities based on his misconstrued conceptions of O?ism, but neglects to explore scenarios whereby everyone involved is a full, card-carrying O?ist.
Actually, that was precisely the scenario I presented. If everyone looked out only for their own individual self-interest, then they would engage in trade, but not charity. Charity does not benefit the individual giving to it in any way except to satisfy their need to be altruistic -- a need which goes against the idea that selfishness is a virtue. The people who are starving are usually not a regular sight for those who are well-off, and thus are not a concern for any purely self-interested person. For the person who is starving, the most rational thing they could do in their self-interest is steal, yet this also violates the third principle because it treats others as a means to an end. Thus, his next best option is to scavenge whatever he can out of dumpsters and such. Of course, with no welfare to care for the poor, this would mean that a lot more poor people would be competing for these morsels of food.
The only hope such people would have would either be a government-funded social safety net, or private charity. In order for either of these things to exist, there would have to be non-Objectivists in society.
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Phred]
#5283004 - 02/09/06 07:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
what opponents of Objectivism decry as "arrogance" is nothing more than self confidence
"It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people's model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense. Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of the irrational." -- Nathaniel Branden
I hope you won't irrationally claim you know Ayn Rand better than the man she credited with understanding Objectivism better than any other person.
I have read it. Have you?
No, of course not, I just googled "Why Objectivism sucks", found that, and posted it.
We're talking about the doctrine which holds that, metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations.
I think you're confusing subjectivism with solipsism.
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
"Tenets" not "axioms"... this is poor tautology. If existence is all that exists than what is 'existence'? A substance? "Existence" and "exist" are both philosophically, linguistically, and ontologically loaded terms. Terms which need to be presented clearly first in order for us understand "Existence exists". The words have ambiguous meanings and rely on other concepts, consequentially, they're not necessarily equivalent and hardly the theorems of an axiomic set.
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
|
This is getting a little cyclical. She is false. Any man who thinks they have the answer is wrong, because no man CAN know the answer. Her theory is alright I guess. A better one is believe in NOTHING. Cast out every opinion about every damn thing, even your opinions on taste smell, god, law, philosophy, etc. Or you will never see the real answer in your entire life. Our knowledge is teribly perverted by time and THEORIES. Cast out your views on good and evil, religion, sex, love, hate, evolution, existence, every damn thing you think you KNOW. Do not even consider opinions. Then read. There is an answer there for all of you, but if you keep thinking about SELF and desire, well forever you are bound in it. 777.
-------------------- 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...
|
|
Actually, that was precisely the scenario I presented.
No, it wasn?t ? because your scenario does not envelope an accurate understanding of the O?ist philosophy, hence does not apply to O?ists
If everyone looked out only for their own individual self-interest, then they would engage in trade, but not charity.
Here we see the insistence on the narrow-minded misconstrued conception that because O?ists hold their self-interest as their highest priority, they would, in effect, be unable or unwilling to place altruism and generosity in any other priority. I can think of several O?ists that I personally know, including myself, who are living examples which negate such small minded conceptions.
Charity does not benefit the individual giving to it in any way except to satisfy their need to be altruistic -- a need which goes against the idea that selfishness is a virtue.
If it satisfies an individual need, then obviously, there is selfishness involved in such an action.
For the person who is starving, the most rational thing they could do in their self-interest is steal, yet this also violates the third principle because it treats others as a means to an end. Thus, his next best option is to scavenge whatever he can out of dumpsters and such. Of course, with no welfare to care for the poor, this would mean that a lot more poor people would be competing for these morsels of food. The only hope such people would have would either be a government-funded social safety net, or private charity. In order for either of these things to exist, there would have to be non-Objectivists in society.
You provide restricted scenarios that most suit your position, but in reality I think it would be much fairer to say that there are usually other options ? options which need not violate any moral principle of O?ism. I refuse to bother speculating about neither your nor my conceived possibilities because, frankly, it would result in endless hair-splitting and speculative dead-ends. Furthermore, keep in mind that you are applying your scenarios in mid-stream, rather than speculating about possibilities involving individuals that are O?ists from an early of an age as possible ? born and raised in an O?ist society/community, and so forth.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
Here we see the insistence on the narrow-minded misconstrued conception that because O?ists hold their self-interest as their highest priority, they would, in effect, be unable or unwilling to place altruism and generosity in any other priority.
To be fair, people generally consider Objectivism as a total rejection of altruism. I think this is because Rand had a strange definition of altruism that was synonymous to self-destruction or self-desecration. While she repeatedly denounced [her definition of] "altruism", I can't recall her ever denouncing kindness or helping others.
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
#5283306 - 02/09/06 08:22 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: Quick question: How does objectivism deal with the Objectivst Law of Causality in the face of the uncertainty principle that establishes that nothing can be predicted with certainty, at the quantum-mechanical level?
Would any of you Objectivists care to address this?
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
#5283465 - 02/09/06 08:54 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quantum mechanics and objectivism go to together about as well as vinegar and baking soda. They make a huge mess.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
To be fair, people generally consider Objectivism as a total rejection of altruism. I think this is because Rand had a strange definition of altruism that was synonymous to self-destruction or self-desecration. While she repeatedly denounced [her definition of] "altruism", I can't recall her ever denouncing kindness or helping others.
Essentially, Rand was referring to that general type of altruism ? to a lesser or more extent. Because of this, some people indeed misinterpret this and take it to mean that she therefore dissents against altruism on ALL accounts. Rand was against altruism in the form of self-sacrifice for the sake of others ? which, some think is the most noblest way to live.
Also worth noting is the fact that many O?ist-uneducated opposers aren?t privy to the fact that Rand and Objectivism holds that productivity/productive achievement is man?s noblest, highest virtue. If they knew this, perhaps they would see that there are indeed forms of altruism that Objectivism advocates ? philanthropy.
?I do not build in order to have profits. I have profits in order to build.? ? Ayn Rand
I think you're confusing subjectivism with solipsism.
Solipsism is a form of subjectivism, whereby its differentia is found in the belief that only the solipsist exists.
-------------------- 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: spud]
#5283525 - 02/09/06 09:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
From Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:
Many commentators on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle claim that, because we cannot at the same time specify fully the position and momentum of subatomic particles, their action is not entirely predictable, and that the law of causality therefore breaks down. This is a non sequitur, a switch from epistemology to metaphysics, or from knowledge to reality. Even if it were true that owing to a lack of information we could never exactly predict a subatomic event--and this is highly debatable--it would not show that, in reality, the event was causeless. The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not by itself enable us to predict specific occurrences; it does not provide us with a knowledge of particular causes or measurements. Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
spud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
No offense, but that's a ridiculous attempt to cop out of the question at hand.
There is a difference between randomness out of ignorance and randomness due to true, undeniable nature of the event at hand.
When it comes to the uncertainty principle it is not the present that is unknown as Rand attempts to illustrate. In contrast, the problem is that the future cannot be predicted, contrary to Rand's original claim. I'm a student of philosophy and I am also familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivist metaphysics, this contradiction that I pointed out is still a prevalent criticism against Rand and so far there has been no competent refutations.
If you hold the same view as the post you just made, I highly recommend you talk to a physicist at a local university on the issue at hand. He could perhaps enlighten you further.
|
Cherk
Fashionable


Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
#5283668 - 02/09/06 09:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
IMO there are far too many things happening outside of human awareness in order to predict the future. We do not know of everything going on, which would be required in order to predict the future.
Edit, Rand says that the future is ultimately predictable, not that we have the ability to do so, as far as I understand anyways.
--------------------
I have considered such matters. SIKE
Edited by Smoker For Peace (02/09/06 09:34 PM)
|
Cherk
Fashionable


Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Objectivism [Re: Cherk]
#5283710 - 02/09/06 09:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Couldn't the objective truth be something as intangible as the Tao?
--------------------
I have considered such matters. SIKE
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: Essentially, Rand was referring to that general type of altruism ? to a lesser or more extent. Because of this, some people indeed misinterpret this and take it to mean that she therefore dissents against altruism on ALL accounts. Rand was against altruism in the form of self-sacrifice for the sake of others ? which, some think is the most noblest way to live.
And yet, this is exactly what philanthropy is -- self-sacrifice for the sake of others. How is giving the product of labor to others while getting nothing in return from them anything other than self-sacrifice for the sake of others?
--------------------
|
|