Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5284175 - 02/09/06 11:35 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

What he speaks of is psychological egoism, which is considered extremely flawed and incoherent for quite some time.
Here, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Quote:


All forms of egoism require explication of ?self-interest? (or ?welfare? or ?well-being?). There are two main theories. Preference or desire accounts identify self-interest with the satisfaction of one's desires. Often, and most plausibly, these desires are restricted to self-regarding desires. What makes a desire self-regarding is controversial, but there are clear cases and counter-cases: a desire for my own pleasure is self-regarding; a desire for the welfare of others is not. Objective accounts identify self-interest with the possession of states (such as virtue or knowledge) that are valued independently of whether they are desired. Hedonism, which identifies self-interest with pleasure, is either a preference or an objective account, according to whether what counts as pleasure is determined by one's desires.

Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target -- such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare.

Psychological egoism is supported by our frequent observation of self-interested behavior. Apparently altruistic action is often revealed to be self-interested. And we typically motivate people by appealing to their self-interest (through, for example, punishments and rewards).

A common objection to psychological egoism, made famously by Joseph Butler, is that I must desire things other than my own welfare in order to get welfare. Say I derive welfare from playing hockey. Unless I desired, for its own sake, to play hockey, I would not derive welfare from playing. Or say I derive welfare from helping others. Unless I desired, for its own sake, that others do well, I would not derive welfare from helping them. Welfare results from my action, but cannot be the only aim of my action.

The psychological egoist can concede that I must have desires for particular things, such as playing hockey. But there is no need to concede that the satisfaction of these desires is not part of my welfare. My welfare might consist simply in the satisfaction of self-regarding desires. In the case of deriving welfare from helping others, the psychological egoist can again concede that I would not derive welfare without desiring some particular thing, but need not agree that what I desire for its own sake is that others do well. That I am the one who helps them may, for example, satisfy my self-regarding desire for power.

A bigger problem for psychological egoism is that some behavior does not seem to be explained by self-regarding desires. Say a soldier throws himself on a grenade to prevent others from being killed. It does not seem that the soldier is pursuing his perceived self-interest. It is plausible that, if asked, the soldier would have said that he threw himself on the grenade because he wanted to save the lives of others or because it was his duty. He would deny as ridiculous the claim that he acted in his self-interest.

The psychological egoist might reply that the soldier is lying or self-deceived. Perhaps he threw himself on the grenade because he could not bear to live with himself afterwards if he did not do so. He has a better life, in terms of welfare, by avoiding years of guilt. The main problem here is that while this is a possible account of some cases, there is no reason to think it covers all cases. Another problem is that guilt may presuppose that the soldier has a non-self-regarding desire for doing what he takes to be right.

The psychological egoist might reply that some such account must be right. After all, the soldier did what he most wanted to do, and so must have been pursuing his perceived self-interest. In one sense, this is true. If self-interest is identified with the satisfaction of all of one's preferences, then all intentional action is self-interested (at least if intentional actions are always explained by citing preferences, as most believe). Psychological egoism turns out to be trivially true. This would not content defenders of psychological egoism, however. They intend an empirical theory that, like other such theories, it is at least possible to refute by observation.

There is another way to show that the trivial version of psychological egoism is unsatisfactory. We ordinarily think there is a significant difference in selfishness between the soldier's action and that of another soldier who, say, pushes someone onto the grenade to avoid being blown up himself. We think the former is acting unselfishly while the latter is acting selfishly. According to the trivial version of psychological egoism, both soldiers are equally selfish, since both are doing what they most desire.

The psychological egoist might handle apparent cases of self-sacrifice, not by adopting the trivial version, but rather by claiming that facts about the self-interest of the agent explain all behavior. Perhaps as infants we have only self-regarding desires; we come to desire other things, such as doing our duty, by learning that these other things satisfy our self-regarding desires; in time, we pursue the other things for their own sakes.

Even if this picture of development is true, however, it does not defend psychological egoism, since it admits that we sometimes ultimately aim at things other than our welfare. An account of the origins of our non-self-regarding desires does not show that they are really self-regarding. The soldier's desire is to save others, not increase his own welfare, even if he would not have desired to save others unless saving others was, in the past, connected to increasing his welfare.

The psychological egoist must argue that we do not come to pursue things other than our welfare for their own sakes. In principle, it seems possible to show this by showing that non-self-regarding desires do not continue for long once their connection to our welfare is broken. However, evidence for this dependence claim has not been forthcoming.

Faced with these difficulties, the psychological egoist might move to what Gregory Kavka 1986 64-80 calls ?predominant egoism:? we act unselfishly only rarely, and then typically where the sacrifice is small and the gain to others is large or where those benefiting are friends, family, or favorite causes. Predominant egoism is not troubled by the soldier counter-example, since it allows exceptions; it is not trivial; and it is empirically plausible.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
    #5284189 - 02/09/06 11:39 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Actually, that was from Dr. Peikoff, not Rand.

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action, and existence is identity. This in mind, take into consideration what Heisenberg says in his 1927 paper on the uncertainty principle: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it. "

As a particular commentator put it, "Heisenberg realized that the uncertainty relations had profound implications. First, if we accept Heisenberg's argument that every concept has a meaning only in terms of the experiments used to measure it, we must agree that things that cannot be measured really have no meaning in physics. Thus, for instance, the path of a particle has no meaning beyond the precision with which it is observed. But a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. [This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philosophers.] Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them."

In light of the above, obvious is it that Heisenberg's view is in flat contradiction with O'ist metaphysics and with the Primacy of Existence. His uncertainty principle - as he construed it - is as clear and unqualified a statement of the primacy of consciousness as one can get! However, quite apart from the corrupt philosophical construction which Heisenberg placed on his "uncertainty principle," that principle nevertheless does describe something real. As a fellow O'ist put it:

Quote:


Heisenberg states that you can only measure (in the usual meaning of measure; i.e. with instruments) the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle to accuracies that satisfy his uncertainty relation. The classical reason for this is found in most Modern Physics books.

In order to measure the position of something, you have to probe it with, for instance, light with a wavelength smaller than the position accuracy desired. Now, the momentum of light is inversely proportional to its wavelength, so the smaller the wavelength [and so, the more accurate a position measurement] the greater the momentum of the probe. This will affect the subatomic particle?s momentum, due to the collision of the light and the particle. So if the particle?s momentum was known prior to the probe, it is now uncertain by an amount given by the momentum exchange during the collision. So, basically, the measurement disturbs that which is being measured. It can be shown that the product of the uncertainty of the momentum and the uncertainty of the position of the particle cannot be less than h/4pi.

What I think Peikoff is saying, and what I think is true, is that this problem of measuring something extremely small is an epistemological problem. That is, it says nothing about whether the subatomic particle has a precise trajectory and obeys causality when not being measured. That would be a metaphysical statement and Heisenberg had no justification for saying that based on his uncertainty relation. Hence Peikoff?s statement... ?Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.?





Another way of looking at it is: Accepting that we have empirical-cum-'ontological'? 'metaphysical'?]-existential limits-of-measurement [or knowledge-acquisition] may determine our epistemological limits; but, it really implies nothing metaphysically [contrary to Heisenberg's view] beyond that.

Heisenberg probably read too much Berkeley.

If you disagree, then feel free to explain what justification Heisenberg had for claiming that this was a metaphysical problem and not an epistemological one.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5284242 - 02/10/06 12:01 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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?

Where did I talk about giving labor to others for nothing in return? And come to think of it, it's rather extremely rare that one never gets anything in return - even if it's an intangible return, or a long-term return. An O'ist wouldn't place productivity with little to no profitibility [in the widest sense], in a very high order. This isn't to say that he or she would never take up any sort of activity as you describe, of course.

By self-sacrifice, we are talking about literally sacrificing our own happiness, integrity or personal goals merely for the sake of others - not about acts of charity in times of abundance, or building profitable businesses or industries to further the quality of mankind, and so forth.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5284255 - 02/10/06 12:08 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
By self-sacrifice, we are talking about literally sacrificing our own happiness, integrity or personal goals merely for the sake of others - not about acts of charity in times of abundance, or building profitable businesses or industries to further the quality of mankind, and so forth.



If that is what is meant by self-sacrifice, then it is a straw man. Almost no one desires to do such a thing. People value self-sacrifice as as personal goal, and certainly consider it to entail integrity in and of itself. Here, you have fundamentally redefined the common notion of self-sacrifice for your own purposes.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5284270 - 02/10/06 12:14 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

feel free to explain what justification Heisenberg had for claiming that this was a metaphysical problem and not an epistemological one

Heisenberg, I'm assuming, was a phenomenalist or representationalist, so to him, reality can't be experienced, only our perception-of-reality can be. (And, according to phenomenalism, our perception is reality.) Hence metaphysics and epistemology become synonymous.

I'm currently not in the best state of mind to make a case for representationalism (and I don't even want to touch upon Berkeleys sophistries.) Maybe tomarrow.


Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/10/06 12:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
    #5284284 - 02/10/06 12:22 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

While I see that there are similar elements of psychological egoism between O'ism and what you've posted, but after reading various parts, I cannot agree that O'ists [least, not all of us] are entirely psychological egoists. The only similarities I see all come down to the tenet that our own individual life is our highest priority.

But this does not mean that such prioritization isn't subject to changes in accordance to situations at hand. O'ism does not say anywhere, that everyone should always be selfish all the time. An O'ist parent would have no conflicts in dying for their children, merely because they are O'ists.
One of the reasons that there wouldn't be any contradictions, is due to the fact that, like Phred pointed out earlier, Objectivism establishes its moral principles via "if-then", not "is-ought".

Moreover, I can't think of any philosophy that establishes moral ethical principles with EVERY clauses, sub-clauses, sub-sub-clauses possible. O'ism maintains rationality, logic, reason and objectivity as tools of cognition - these tools are to be used in assessing situations.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5284295 - 02/10/06 12:28 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

If that is what is meant by self-sacrifice, then it is a straw man. Almost no one desires to do such a thing.

Indeed, not many desire to do such things - but does this mean that there aren't many folks in the world who commit such actions anyway, out of some belief that it is morally favorable? I admit, I've fallen under this notion in the past more than once - and I sure as hell didn't learn such behavior on my own, and nor am I a virgin witness to such behaviors.

People value self-sacrifice as as personal goal, and certainly consider it to entail integrity in and of itself. Here, you have fundamentally redefined the common notion of self-sacrifice for your own purposes.


Oh please. If you're going to get all hung up on semantics, okay then. Just drop the term "self-sacrifice" and look at how I'm defining the term itself - and use whatever term you feel like in place of the aforementioned term.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/10/06 12:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5284356 - 02/10/06 01:04 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Your definition of self-sacrifice is utterly meaningless in the real world. Thus, you have made a non-point regarding altruism. Essentially you're saying, "Altruism is bad, unless you like it." But people value altruism precisely because it gives them the satisfaction of doing the right thing. I'm tempted to pull an Ayn Rand here, and dismiss you as hopelessly irrational, but I know you better than that, and I know you're too smart to be making such foolish arguments.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5284414 - 02/10/06 01:34 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Your definition of self-sacrifice is utterly meaningless in the real world. Thus, you have made a non-point regarding altruism. Essentially you're saying, "Altruism is bad, unless you like it." But people value altruism precisely because it gives them the satisfaction of doing the right thing.

Alright, I admit I got sidetracked with this discussion on ethics and altruism - my fault, as I didn't stay on target and forgot what O'ism, overall, is against.

Carrying along back on track..

"It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others - a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal..."
Ayn Rand, The Objectivist, June 1966


As an O'ist, what I'm dissenting here is the code of ethics which holds the welfare of others as the standard of "good', and self-sacrifice as the only moral action.

The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person [forcing them to be sacrificed] or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so?

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is, of course, false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

This isn't to say that benevolence and good will are immoral, of course. It is only sacrifice that is immoral, and being generally benevolent is not a sacrifice but a benefit and a virtue. The difference is that to be "good" according to Altruism, one must hand out blank checks to all who claim a need; while according to O'ism, ones own life is one's ultimate standard of value against which all acts must be analyzed.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnom
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5284640 - 02/10/06 05:04 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I agree with spud on the problem with Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:

That is, it says nothing about whether the subatomic particle has a precise trajectory and obeys causality when not being measured.




Quote:

Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.




Are you familiar with the EPR paradox, Bell's theorem and the Bell test experiment?

It ruled out (local) hidden variables and causality; particles don't have a position and speed when not measured, they don't follow a path according to Quantum Mechanics. The Bell experiment brought this question into science. It's only possible to explain this with a non-local hidden variable theory; the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm not known with any details of the Bohm interpretation, but many don't find it convincing.

If you are not familiar with this, you should buy a book, search the web or talk to a physicist about it. It's very interesting!

I'm not saying that this is the ultimate truth because it's not science to say anything about the ultimate truth, but Objectivism, as you present it, is a believe that does not fit with the main interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. You have to accept this.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeepDish
Stranger
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 86
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
    #5285121 - 02/10/06 09:33 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I'm not saying that this is the ultimate truth because it's not science to say anything about the ultimate truth, but Objectivism, as you present it, is a believe that does not fit with the main interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. You have to accept this.




Given the two major axioms of objectivism, as outlined by phred,
1. Existance exists
2. Existance is knowable by humans

I am assuming you are saying quantum mechanics violates the second one. The "correctness" of objectivism is not dependant on humans knowing everything about the universe at any given point in time. Just because the physical mechanisms behind parts of quantum theory are not fully developed, does not mean they are not knowable nor does it imply they will never be elucidated.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnom
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: DeepDish]
    #5285318 - 02/10/06 10:22 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Just because the physical mechanisms behind parts of quantum theory are not fully developed, does not mean they are not knowable nor does it imply they will never be elucidated.




Einstein had the same thought when he said "God does not place dice".

Have you read about Bell's theorem, the Bell experiment and the EPR paradox?

Those were all about the hidden variables(or physical mechanisms behind quantum theory) and it took a while before someone (Bell) came up with an experiment that moved the discussion from philosophy into science and then it took a while before they could actually do the experiment.

You really should read about it.

There are ways out in different interpretations of QM, but Bell's experiment is a real bitch for causality and (local) hidden variables.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
    #5285479 - 02/10/06 11:11 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

In order to be objective, you got to have NOTHING to do with the disputed situation and still know all the facts from all the sides. One you get to know every detail - so you can be objective - you start to feel. To have some sort of feelings about the things you find out. And you're not objective anymore. Cause in order to determine the right thing you make a choice based on what you know and also on what you FEEL about the thing you must "judge". Therefore, once you feel something you can no longer be objective.
Of course, you can switch sides just because you feel you realize you developed some sort of feelings about the matter, but still you are subjective cause you made that choice because you felt you became subjective.
I think that this objectivsm matter is indeed a bullshit cause it doesn't exists. And if a person tires to be subjective, it's just an illusion. As long as there is involves any feeling or "sensation" there is no objectivism. Ans as long as you're human you have both of them even if you don't realize.
Most people try to lie to themselves with this objectivism because that makes them feel that there is a "fair" world. Which it is, bun not as they try to make it.
If we will ever be able to reach it, then we won't be able to feel and become machines. Jut for the sake of bad idea which in their minds "protects" them from something bad.
We have to learn how to deal with our own feelings and with or own entireties by accepting and becoming strong, cause there's no suck thing as one and only one truth.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
    #5285580 - 02/10/06 11:42 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I still don't get how this isn't, like Dr. Peikoff says:

"this problem of measuring something extremely small is an epistemological problem. That is, it says nothing about whether the subatomic particle has a precise trajectory and obeys causality when not being measured. That would be a metaphysical statement and Heisenberg had no justification for saying that based on his uncertainty relation."

..an epistemological problem.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnom
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5285617 - 02/10/06 11:56 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The Bell experiment does say a lot about whether the subatomic particle has a precise trajectory and obeys causality when not being measured.

Again, are you familiar with the EPR paradox, Bell's theorem and the Bell test experiment?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
    #5285642 - 02/10/06 12:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Again, are you familiar with the EPR paradox, Bell's theorem and the Bell test experiment?

Not intimately, but if you could explain in just a nutshell, how Bell's theorem & test experiment shows this paradox/problem/issue isn't a switch from epistemology to metaphysics, or from knowledge to reality.. It'd be much appreciated.

And let's say that I must, per suggestion, simply accept that there exists such a metaphysical phenomenon. Does this render the Law of Causality invalid on all accounts? Well, certainly not, for it most certainly is irrefutable on the macroscopic context. In essence, what I can take from this, is that the LoC is contextual - much like many existential laws and conditions. Very well then, perfectly acceptable.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/10/06 01:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #5286054 - 02/10/06 02:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Nice reply here mushroom trip.

I got to thinking, the more I read here about Ayn Rand is that, there is NO WAY this woman had children. I decided to google it and sure enough, she decided not to. If she did, her actions would have blown her philosophy as an absolute to smithereens.

I think taking on as much of an objective view as we can at times has a place and use, however, it doesn't cover all of dealing with reality. I just don't see it as an absolute philosophy for the "realistic" governing of ones life who is in the care of others less able to care for themselves, like children or the impoverished.

Regarding the comments on altruism and conflicts of interest and contradictions;

A single mom has to work to feed her children. If one is up sick all night, mom who needs to get sleep for work, will have to sacrifice that sleep to care for her sick child through the night. She just will because that is what a mothers love does.

She may either have to call out of work the next day to stay home and care for the sick child or mess up at work the next day and get fired due to the lack of sleep.

Is it in her best interest to get the sleep and go to work and leave the sick child unattended to?

There is a conflict of interest here and a contradiction as both getting the sleep and going to work, and staying up and home to care for the child, serve the best interest of caring for the child and can not be at the same time.

Thats just one example. Parents sacrifice their own selfish interests for the greater good of their children's all of the time and that is reality. Call it irrational all you want to, but it would appear that providing children with the best of care at the e xpense of ones self care,  is an irrational thing to do by the objectivists view.

That is so silly and unrealistic its laughable. There are parents whose self care is compromised and sacrificed greatly to care for their childrens and thats what unconditional love for others does, as irrational as it may be, and any of us who had parents like that are glad we them.

At least Ayn rand had the good sense to realize, her selfish self shouldn't have children.

I'll applaud her for that because if she did, she would have had to renig on her absolute philosophy for life and loose her status as queen authrority on it or she would have been a neglectful and abusive parent and in so doing exposed its flaws.

Take it further and look at a single mom like Erin Brockovich. She had to find others to care for her children for her, when they wanted mom doing it, because she elected to care for the thousands of children and adults who didn't have the power to get themselves safe water and they were dying horrible deaths.

She sacrificed her children having MOMs TLC and put them into the hands of others so she could care for over 100,000 people who wern't able to care for themselves. She didn't do it for the money because there was no guarantee of it. She did it because, she cared about those people more then herself or her own children because those towns people were even less able to care for themselves without legal help they couldn't afford.

There was no guarantee of any pay back for all of her work , time and effort exposing that plants knowing contamination of the towns water supply.

I'm glad that there are people out there looking out for the best interest of others over their own selfish good. Erin didn't live in the town being effected by it. Her and her children were not exposed. She didn't have any reason to feel or care for those people  like she did other then that she just did and that's a reality the objectivists philosophy seems call irrational.

If it is irrational to sacrifice your own self interest for the greater good of others then I am glad such irrational people exist in this world.

I'm still waiting for some objectivist to answer all of my other questions.

Perhaps they can't be, because objectivism, doesn't apply to all that is really happening. It writes off what it does not have the tools or concern for dealing with as being irrational and delusional and does deny realities and parts of existence in that sense.

Objectivism ALONE, serves the selfish and self centered in my view unless someone will prove me wrong. If they think thats a good thing, then I say it doesn't cover reality to the full because it says, "I am an object separate from you. So what hurts you does not hurt me." If everyone thought that way the blacks would still be slaves here in the U.S.  :thumbdown:

Lincoln had no self interest for freeing them. He had to give up free labor and pay his servants too. He did something irrational and decided to declare by law that all men were created equal.

Even though it is truth and fact that men can enslave other men there for making them not truly equal, something in his heart told him, it wasn't "right" even though it was a provable truth of reality.

A humanitarian has to use objectivity to recognise what is and then, subjectivity to make positive change for the greater good of all.

An absolute objectivists looks at what is and if its not effecting his personal selfs or interests in a wrongful way, he doesn't have reason within the philosophy to give shit about the next guy.

I wouldn't want to grow up or live in a world ruled by the objectivists philosophy "alone".

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5286124 - 02/10/06 02:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Jiggy, I have not forgotten about your response. I will now answer your questions.

Skorp, can I ask how Objectivism approaches rationalizing priorities and esteem.

The formal O'ist approach is guided by tools of cognition, primarily objectivity, logic, reason, knowledge, standard of evaluation, values, focus, context, integration and rationality, to name most. The ground by which one evaluates priorities using these tools, is one's own life.

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.

Your decision was honorable, and in fact, corresponds with O'ist philosophy. O'ists understand that between rational people, there should be a harmony of interests. O'ism is against the use of force [aside from retaliatory force] against someone's consent. Man's nature is such that he survives by reason. Survival by reason requires the ability to act on your reason. Force destroys that ability.
When you use force against someone, you are destroying their ability to survive by destroying their ability to use reason, and their ability to survive will suffer to the extent that force is used.
It is an objective fact that it takes effort to further one's own existence, one must exert effort to use the faculty of reason - to hinder that survival, is utterly immoral.
I'm most certain you understand this, as you are a mother who is [from what I've seen] vehemently against the use of force on children. This paragraph is going to be referenced throughout the remainder of my response, as it is the main embodiment of my response.


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. Objective philosophy can prove them true and make it right as well.

Is it right?


No, it is not right - and you are wrong in that O'ist philosophy would prove them wrong. What O'ist books have you read?

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?

No, see above.

How does prioritizing work with objectivity?
See above.
Whose needs and wants are deemed more important then others, objectively speaking?
An O'ist should evaluate their own wants and needs by their own life, and take the best course of action that allows to achieve their values and promote their life, to flourish - and allow others to flourish as well, which again, comes to the harmony of interests as mentioned earlier.

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?


Obviously the parent is wrong, for he/she is initiating force on his/her child, and hindering the child's survival, by causing hearing-loss and setting an extremely poor example of reason - really, the entire lack of reason.

We are all still waiting for someone to address how objective philosophy handles it.

:smile:

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.

Incorrect. See above. Your conceptions of how O'ism works are skewed - that's because all you can do is make assumptions, in the absence of actual knowledge. In any case, I'm glad I am at least enlightening another person on this matter. All your following paragraphs warrant the same referential response, so I'm going to skip a few:


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.

You've never seen me say this - that's because I've never said it. I am well aware that O'ism is one of many, many, many philosophies. So the applicable question is: "Why do I find myself a correspondent of O'ism?" Because it doesn't conflict with my informal philosophies, and it is very empowering, down to earth and devastatingly applicable to real-life. It's simple, straight-forward and reality-based - and extremely integrated.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #5286170 - 02/10/06 02:30 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

From what I can gather in your post, you are committing two fallacies: The notion that you must know EVERYTHING in order to know ANYTHING.. And, the common yet mistaken notion that one cannot be objective if one has a personal stake involved in something - or is passionate emotional about something. The implication here is that the passion or motivation necessarily obviates one to be accurate. Since objectivity is the act of conforming one's thoughts to reality, it should be clear that this is possible regardless of any such influence.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5286318 - 02/10/06 03:22 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

There is a conflict of interest here and a contradiction as both getting the sleep and going to work, and staying up and home to care for the child, serve the best interest of caring for the child and can not be at the same time.

Thats just one example. Parents sacrifice their own selfish interests for the greater good of their children's all of the time and that is reality. Call it irrational all you want to, but it would appear that providing children with the best of care at the e xpense of ones self care, is an irrational thing to do by the objectivists view.

That is so silly and unrealistic its laughable.


Ah, but you commit the same error that was pointed out by Phred earlier.
O'ist moral principles [as with most philosophies] are established via if-then. If we have the right to further our own existence, then [none of which you've said would apply to O'ists]

Moreover, you imply that an O'ist parent wouldn't recognize the fact that to neglect their children and their needs is tantamount to abuse. Such, would be very immoral, for it damages their ability to survive.
Furthermore, a rational O'ist parent should realize that by taking excellent care of their children, they are not only creating a benevolent life for their children, they are also investing in their own future; their security. In other words, it is in their rational self-interest to excel as parents, just as it is in our rational self-interest to have friends, romantic partners and so forth.

Not to mention that you are drawing an exaggerated view of the third principle of O'ism. As Phred pointed out, nowhere in O'ism does it say that everyone should always be selfish all the time - that would equate to childish, irrational selfishness.

Objectivism ALONE, serves the selfish and self centered in my view unless someone will prove me wrong. If they think thats a good thing, then I say it doesn't cover reality to the full because it says, "I am an object separate from you. So what hurts you does not hurt me." If everyone thought that way the blacks would still be slaves here in the U.S.

Here's a clue: Ayn Rand dissented against slavery.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/10/06 03:38 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Objectivism - The Libertarians? Albatross Evolving 887 5 11/03/04 08:48 PM
by Frog
* Reality: Our objective, benelovent friend SkorpivoMusterion 1,314 11 11/19/05 03:04 PM
by Ped
* Objectivism?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
WhiteRabbitt 5,592 65 12/14/04 03:40 PM
by Phred
* objectivism on free will Deviate 775 3 12/16/05 05:33 AM
by Seuss
* An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity SkorpivoMusterion 1,451 8 04/22/06 05:40 AM
by fresh313
* Objectivism: What a load of..
( 1 2 3 all )
buttonion 6,004 52 05/19/03 09:19 AM
by Anonymous
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,845 31 06/14/03 10:42 AM
by NewToTrippin
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,744 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,226 topic views. 0 members, 10 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.