|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Since I know you [and others in this thread] will probably never pick up a book on O'ism, allow me to share an article that illustrates O'ism rather nicely for one who is a bit of a tyro on the matters. It brings up many points of O'ism that has been discussed here, and illustrates them much better than I have, IMHO.
Quote:
The Benefits of Objectivism by Barry Kayton
Objectivism is a philosophy based in this world; a philosophy for your mind, your life, your liberty; a philosophy for life as it could be and should be. As such, the benefits of Objectivism are the benefits of life itself: priceless. Are there any hazards to applying Objectivism? Yes, as surely as there are hazards to driving a BMW (or any other vehicle). (See "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement" by Nathaniel Branden.) However, the benefits of successfully applying Objectivism to your own life outweigh these hazards (in the same way that the benefits of responsible driving outweigh the risks of being on the road).
Applying Objectivism means living by principles that enable and encourage you to honour reality, your mind, your values, the individual rights of others and your own sense of life. That means the deepest respect for facts, a serious regard for the content and processes of your mind, healthy concern with the development of your self and the realisation of your goals, benevolence toward others, and a passion for life-affirming art. But these are features of the philosophy. What are the benefits?
The Benefits of a Philosophy Based in This World
Applying Objectivism means developing a deep respect for facts of reality. Whether the context is a business problem or a personal dilemma, being an Objectivist means identifying and relying on all the relevant facts and acting accordingly. The obvious benefit of this policy is that it empowers you to succeed more often than you fail. Instead of allowing yourself to be at war with reality, you ensure that reality is your permanent ally.
Respect for reality leads to a deeper appreciation of the world around you and the people you love. This contributes to a deep feeling of serenity; of being at harmony with the world; and to a joyful sense of life, since you know and feel that you're in touch with what really counts in life: the true, the good, the right, the beautiful.
Human life and values are always at the centre of your thinking as an Objectivist; not ghosts, ghouls, goblins or gods. This potentially makes you especially sensitive to the full reality of life's experiences (both your own and those of your family and friends). Instead of sleep-walking through life waiting for a life-hereafter, Objectivists seize the day and make their lives extraordinary.
The Benefits of a Philosophy for Your Mind Living as an Objectivist means living consciously, being aware not only of what you think but how you think. Objectivism offers you an empowering vocabulary that enables you to understand, control and improve your thinking. This enables you to make decisions less hastily but more decisively, to identify connections between seemingly disparate issues, to cut to the root of philosophical, business or personal challenges, to eliminate stressful complexities from your thinking, and to improve your capacity for creative problem solving and imaginative inventiveness.
Since it's not a simple system of thought, Objectivism actually helps you to develop your capacity for self-expression as you learn to make finer and finer distinctions between ideas. This offers you the opportunity to learn to communicate more effectively, and thereby to reduce poor communication in your business and personal relationships. Thus, by getting your messages through to others and understanding their messages in return, you are able to reduce the stress caused by poor communication and benefit from more productive and meaningful relationships.
By internalising the principles of Objectivist philosophy ; rather than the repressive psychology of some of Ayn Rand's fictional characters ; you are able to develop your capacity for passionate feelings, bringing greater harmony to your mind's complementary processes of reason and emotion.
The Benefits of a Philosophy for Your Life Objectivism helps you to be more self-accepting, self-responsible, self-assertive and independent. All in all, you'll build a healthier self-image and greater self-esteem if you get in touch with who you are in reality, eliminate your weaknesses and develop your strengths. By reminding you that your choices matter ; that your self and your life matters; Objectivism helps you to avoid (or eliminate) self-sabotaging behaviour. This leads to greater strength of character.
Objectivism inspires you to set and achieve practical short-term goals and ambitious long-term goals. It empowers you to dissolve irrational habits in order to achieve long-term interests. Being more goal-directed leads to a growing sense of pride in more and greater achievements. And being more active and creative in your career (whatever it might be) leads to greater career fulfillment and perhaps greater prosperity.
Does this mean Objectivism is all work and no play? Of course not. Objectivism is a rational philosophy for living. As such, it encourages you to develop your sense of fun and adventure. Whether you're playing basketball, traveling abroad or exploring a romantic relationship, the Objectivist world view says not only that healthy pleasure is okay but that it's good. (It's not the only good, of course. But, provided there's no clash with reality, the pursuit of pleasure amongst other values is a good thing.)
Objectivism provides a foundation for building deep, lasting, loving relationships. This has less to do with two people agreeing on philosophical principles, and more to do with learning how to really appreciate your partner, how to show and share appreciation and love, and how to be honest, open and committed.
Objectivism stands against both the tide of relativism and the tide of fundamentalism (of whatever variety). Objectivism helps you to learn to judge yourself and others by rational ethical standards. This leads to a deeper sense of right and wrong. Of course, there's a danger here. Many Objectivists struggle to balance the value of moral judgment with the higher value of rationality. Hasty and frequent moral judgment is no better than relativism. But as you mature and your understanding of the philosophy deepens, and your appreciation of the worth of people around you deepens, so you learn to apply moral judgment with the circumspection of a supreme court judge. It's when you struggle to appreciate the worth of real individuals (especially your friends and family) that you get swept up in the tide of moralism.
The Benefits of a Philosophy of Individualism
Objectivism encourages you to stand against the initiation of force by standing up for the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. This leads to sensible, coherent and compelling political opinions. The fog of politics gives way to a systematic understanding of freedom. This empowers you to judge for yourself any action by government or pressure groups ; rather than relying on the judgment of others. And, if you're so inclined, Objectivism suggests ways in which you can make a difference politically, whether by using your voice, your pen or your vote to protest against every encroachment by government on individual liberty.
Being an individualist does not mean living in isolation. Instead, by practising the virtue of benevolence, Objectivism helps you to develop your capacity for civility, sensitivity and generosity. You learn to approach others as a trader, offering your best and encouraging their best in return. This holds out the potential for developing meaningful friendships and rewarding partnerships.
The Benefits of a Philosophy of Romanticism Objectivism offers you a heroic vision of human greatness. It appeals to and encourages a radiant feeling of well-being in oneself and goodwill towards life, and a fervent craving for beauty and grandeur. As an Objectivist you develop a passion for life-affirming art, inspiring literature and music that reaches the depths of your soul. Life-affirming art is revitalising. It restores your capacity for benevolence and your passion for life. By appreciating art that celebrates life, you rejuvenate your inner commitment to your own life.
The Benefits of Living the Philosophy of Objectivism Ultimately, Objectivism is about pursuing a life of extraordinary experiences and doing so honestly and benevolently with regard to reality, reason, your self and others. Disregard any one of these and the result is stagnation or decline. Balance them all by the standard of what human life demands, and the result is progress towards enduring happiness and well-being.
The benefits of Objectivism are the benefits of life: priceless.
I have nothing to add - it says it all right there, for me.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Wow, I appreciate the time you took to answer my questions or respond to comments from your POV and knowledge about Objectivists philosophy. I wanted to understand where you are coming from better.
I was under the impression from other posts that you saw it as a flawless philosophical approach to life and all the others to be flawed and useless. Now you say a multi philosophical approach to life is what you use.
My apologies if that impression I had was wrong. Open communication and seeking understanding is key to keeping us from making false judgments. Thats where I want to be, in understanding, not false judgment. 
I was thinking about all of this earlier and found a funny irony. The people finding flaws with objective philosophy could only do that if the were using objective philosophy and the people who can't be critically objective about it's flaws are using subjective philosophy. The cosmic joke is rich.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Well, after all, I guess there is one more thing to add as well. Obviously, the central concept and name which Ayn Rand chose for Objectivism, has unfortunately been the source of much confusion and debate.
Rand first focused on objectivity as an ethical matter, an aspect of rationality. For Rand, rationality - the basic virtue - entailed the respect for and recognition of facts. Every other virtue was an aspect of rationality and involved, in some way, the recognition of a significant fact of reality.
Objectivity, too, was also a virtue, in that it involved one?s recognition of two basic aspects of ?the relationship of consciousness to existence?, as shown below:
Quote:
1.) To be metaphysically objective, or to possess metaphysical objectivity, one must recognize that the world exists and is what it is ?independent of any perceiver?s consciousness.? Consciousness holds existence as its object; it does not create the world.
2.) To be epistemologically objective, or to possess epistemological objectivity, one must recognize that, to know the world, man must adhere to reality by using a specific means (reason) in accordance with a certain method (logic). Consciousness can know the world as it is; it is not blocked from reality and need not distort reality, but knowledge is not automatic or causeless.
In each case, however, it must be remembered that we are speaking of the objectivity not of reality, but of one?s recognition of how reality and awareness relate to one another?i.e., not of ?objective reality,? but of one?s objective recognition of reality?s being independent of awareness. That is, both elements of the distinction in Rand's first 1965 essay are volitional aspects of what I call epistemic objectivity, i.e., a consciousness (and person) that is adhering to reality. It is not until later that year that Rand succeeded in articulating both epistemic objectivity, in its more general form, and ontological objectivity. As for reality, it does not, strictly speaking, have objectivity. Reality only has objectivity in relation to consciousness.
Thus, to speak of reality as being objective, apart from consciousness, is a misnomer, which Rand took pains to correct by introducing the term ?intrinsic? in referring to existence apart from consciousness. In this way, she was able to abandon the misleading phrase of ?objective reality.?
The metaphysical aspect of this basic respect for facts, now most commonly referred to by Objectivists as the Primacy of Existence, is sometimes also referred to as ?metaphysical objectivity? or ?metaphysical objectivism? or ?metaphysical realism.? Rand?s phrase ?objective reality? thus was taken to reflect this metaphysical view, that reality is the object, not the subject or creation of consciousness.
But is this true? In one sense, no. Consciousness is real, too, and some real aspects of consciousness are generated by, created by, a person?s conscious acts. Both subjective aspects such as dreams or imagination and objective aspects such as sense data are generated by consciousness (i.e., a person?s being conscious). But in another sense, yes. Even things generated by consciousness are not generated by an act of consciousness that views them.
Thus, while consciousness (i.e., a person being conscious) helps create objective and subjective (but not intrinsic) phenomena, consciousness (a person being conscious) does not create them in the process of viewing them (i.e., holding them as its object). Everything that is held as the object of an act of viewing consciousness is independent of that act of consciousness.
In other words, everything that is held as the object of an act of viewing consciousness has metaphysical primacy over that act of consciousness. Even subjective phenomena (e.g., fantasies, etc.) have metaphysical primacy over an act of consciousness that holds them as its object!
So, "objective reality" is a misleading term. In full, it means: that which, in existing (or being able to exist) as the object of an act of consciousness is not thereby the creation of that act of consciousness. (In other words, reality exists apart from consciousness, but it is not objective apart from consciousness.
Everything that exists is "objective" in this sense, even subjective (consciousness- generated) phenomena and intrinsic (non-consciousness-generated) phenomena. This use of the term is vacuous, which may be why Rand quietly phased it out in favor of Primacy of Existence. Furthermore, ?mind-independent? is vacuous in this sense, as well. Everything that is being held as the object of a mind is uncreated by and thus independent of that act of a mind?even subjective phenomena that are generated by some other act of a mind than the act that views them.
The only sense of ?mind-independent? that is not vacuous is that which pertains to things that are uncreated by any act of mind (i.e., intrinsic phenomena)?as against things that are generated by an act of mind (i.e., objective and subjective phenomena). And the only sense of ?objective? that is not vacuous is that which pertains to things insofar as they are held as the object of an act of consciousness?as against the ?intrinsic? (i.e., things apart from an act of consciousness that holds them as its object)?and as against the ?subjective? (i.e., acts of awareness apart from a thing that they hold as their object.
Thus, ?mind-independent? in the non-vacuous sense and ?intrinsic? are equivalent terms. However, the former has seriously misleading implications. The ?mind-independent/mind-dependent? distinction is a non-fundamental distinction, a package deal, lumping together the polar opposite of mind-independence (the subjective) with a third view that is fundamentally opposed to both of them (the objective).
The non-vacuous sense of ?objective,? however, has no misleading implications. It fundamentally opposes itself to both false, incomplete alternatives, showing them to be ?opposite sides of the same coin.?
For this reason, the ?mind-independent/mind-dependent? distinction, and its other traditional form, ?objective/subjective,? should be avoided as vacuous. Instead, Rand's trichotomy of intrinsic-objective-subjective should be adopted as a fundamental distinction of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities.
"Evolution of the Objective" - Roger E. Bissell
Hope this clears up some confusion.
-------------------- 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...
|
|
I was under the impression from other posts that you saw it as a flawless philosophical approach to life and all the others to be flawed and useless.
O'ism is, as far as I've seen, the only completely integrated and non-contradictory philosophy there is, which requires zero leaps of faith. It, alone can indeed suffice as a guide to one's entire course of life. It isn't flawless, in the sense that it isn't complete [i.e., it doesn't address the ultimately unknown questions of life] - and probably won't be for a very long time. Within the most elite of O'ists, there is some agreement that there is room for improvement in some of the more "finer" or "erudite" areas of O'ism - i.e., Rand's Trichotomy, or Floating Abstractions, etc. But aside from that and the fact that it - like ANY other philosophy - has potential hazards in applying it, it is quite flawless.
Now you say a multi philosophical approach to life is what you use.
And where did I say this?
The people finding flaws with objective philosophy could only do that if the were using objective philosophy
This makes no sense. People finding [aside from aforementioned] flaws with O'ist philosophy can only do that if they've misunderstood or are attempting to misrepresent it for whatever personal reasons.
the people who can't be critically objective about it's flaws are using subjective philosophy.
Incorrect. See: Ped.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/10/06 05:43 PM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Jig said:
Now you say a multi philosophical approach to life is what you use.
Skorp said:
And where did I say this?
Here-
Quote:
Jig said:
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.
Skorp said:
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.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
How about: To be epistemologically objective, or to possess epistemological objectivity, one must recognize that, to know the world, man must adhere to reality by using a specific means (experience) in accordance with a certain method (science).
The baseless continental 'reason' of the 17th century has shown itself to be false. Likewise, the tenets of Objectivism rely on too much a priori foundationalism for my personal tastes. I refuse to believe, simply because Objectivism is coherent after a few 'self-evident' assumptions, that O'ism is something more than a faith. Nature is not obliged to follow man's reason.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
What I was trying to say is that O'ism naturally envelopes my informal philosophies - hence, no conflicts and contradictions. I used the phrase informal philosophies as another way of saying "general attitudes and thinking".
I notice you bolded the word integrated - not sure why. That was entirely in reference to Objectivism. Objectivisim is very integrated.
-------------------- 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...
|
|
Nature is not obliged to follow man's reason.
Of course. But man's reason is free to follow nature. 
-------------------- 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
|
|
Quote:
The people finding flaws with objective philosophy could only do that if the were using objective philosophy
This makes no sense. People finding [aside from aforementioned] flaws with O'ist philosophy can only do that if they've misunderstood or are attempting to misrepresent it for whatever personal reasons.
Same thing I have seen skeptics here do against believers. They are being skeptical against your strong belief in something and are approaching it the same way any skeptic would with questions and challenges. I admittingly don't know enough about the ultimate and undisputed true objective philosophy to know if your answers come from it OR your integration of informal philosophies that you have built into it to better serve you. That can make a big difference. I'm just taking your word on it for now.
Quote:
the people who can't be critically objective about it's flaws are using subjective philosophy.
Incorrect. See: Ped.
You lost me there.
I will clarify my comment. To be objective towards objective philosophy requires a subject that is independent of it. If one, such as yourself, uses the rules of objective philosophy to validate it then, you are treating it subjectively, not objectively.
It's a closed looped self supporting system.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
People finding [aside from aforementioned] flaws with O'ist philosophy can only do that if they've misunderstood or are attempting to misrepresent it for whatever personal reasons.
Crimestop? This is the most scarily dogmatic sentence I've ever read on this forum...
Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/10/06 07:24 PM)
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: They are being skeptical against your strong belief in something and are approaching it the same way any skeptic would with questions and challenges.
How else should philosophical concepts be approached?
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
But man's reason is free to follow nature.
And, in order for us to determine if our reason is following nature, we must compare our reason with our experiences of nature?
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: What I was trying to say is that O'ism naturally envelopes my informal philosophies - hence, no conflicts and contradictions. I used the phrase informal philosophies as another way of saying "general attitudes and thinking".
I notice you bolded the word integrated - not sure why. That was entirely in reference to Objectivism. Objectivisim is very integrated.
If its very integrated with reality, then why does it object to so much of it as being false, wrong and or irrational?
Seems to me that objectivity adheres to whatever the subject using it wants it to from how I am reading all of your replies and answers.
Why not just call all you say and share in here "Skorps philosophy" on life?
Why do you need philosphical backing to stand in front of or to give your words weight?
Just curious.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Same thing I have seen skeptics here do against believers. They are being skeptical against your strong belief in something and are approaching it the same way any skeptic would with questions and challenges.
Being skeptical does not equal being objective [see: irrational skepticism].
To be objective towards objective philosophy requires a subject that is independent of it. If one, such as yourself, uses the rules of objective philosophy to validate it then, you are treating it subjectively, not objectively.
Do you not see the contradiction in this paragraph? You state that in order to be objective towards [let's just say, any] philosophy, this requires [one that experiences and is subject to] that is independent of it - and then conclude that when one does precisely that, then one is not being objective? And how is one not exercising objectivity if one is using the very rules of objective philosophy? I am not, of course, saying that this wouldn't be an individual experience subject to oneself - nor would this vitiate the adherence and recognition of facts -objectivity- by that individual.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said:
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: They are being skeptical against your strong belief in something and are approaching it the same way any skeptic would with questions and challenges.
How else should philosophical concepts be approached?
I don't know. Its what we are doing and skorp has accused us all of making mis-assumptions. Same thing believers of things say skeptics do.
Like when Dano posts ET craft stuff and a skeptic says, "that's a weather balloon," and dano will say, thats your assumption because you don't want to know or understand the truth. Dano will say he beleive ET is visiting us because, he experienced something such as that adheres to the fabric of his reality. Same thing skorp is saying about objectivism.

I can only take things so seriously here for a bits at a time until I start seeing the humor in life here.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Do you not see the contradiction in this paragraph?
I do. I was wondering when you are ever going to. I closed loop system can not contradict itself. How can anyone truly be objective about objectivity itself using the rules of objectivity?
THAT is why mush is calling it faith based.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
If its very integrated with reality, then why does it object to so much of it as being false, wrong and or irrational?
Well, I meant O'ism is integrated in its own philosophy. In other words, every single principle and tenet is all closely tied together into one whole package, all built hierarchally. No random junk or arbitrary bull.
I notice you seem to be under the impression that for one to be "integrated with reality", one must therefore welcome and believe every bit of falsehoods [which, are parts of reality] that comes their way.. Hmmph!
-------------------- 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
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: This is the most scarily dogmatic sentence I've ever read on this forum...
QFT
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Its what we are doing and skorp has accused us all of making mis-assumptions. Same thing believers of things say skeptics do.
Like when Dano posts ET craft stuff and a skeptic says, "that's a weather balloon," and dano will say, thats your assumption because you don't want to know or understand the truth. Dano will say he beleive ET is visiting us because, he experienced something such as that adheres to the fabric of his reality. Same thing skorp is saying about objectivism.
Well, I'll be damned. I actually thought a few posts back, you and I came to an understanding over your own misunderstandings. I posted alla that for nothing? And then you come back to compare me, who is backing up an entirely verifiable, well-known, well-documented and observable philosophy, complete with books, sites, and articles against certain people who know next to NOTHING about O'ism, thus create their own misbegetton exaggerated notions about it - with someone else who vehemently defends the existence of spaceships flying in the sky? Well...I'll be damned.
-------------------- 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...
|
|
How can anyone truly be objective about objectivity itself using the rules of objectivity?
I'm supposed to understand this incoherence? 
How can anyone truly be logical about logic itself using the rules of logic?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
|