| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
And, in order for us to determine if our reason is following nature, we must compare our reason with our experiences of nature?
In order to determine this, one should keep in mind that nature does not contradict itself - hence, one must employ the art of non-contradictory identification, a.k.a., logic, in assessing our reason. A rather simplified, crystallized statement, but you get the gist. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
Well, I'll be damned. I actually thought a few posts back, you and I came to an understanding over your own misunderstandings.
I thought the same thing until you said that you don't use other philosophies like I thought you said you did when you said you have informal ones you used and I thought you meant you integrated them into objective philosophy to round it out better.When I thought you said that, then I thought I understood where you were coming from in a way that I had no further questions or comments on it. Then you cleared up that is not what you meant. The mutual understanding we thought we both had was a misunderstanding. ![]() I don't agree with (for myself) the sole use of objective philosophy only or some higher authority to follow with so many strict and fixed rules to follow, which I find limiting. You don't agree with anyone integrating other philosophies along with objectivity to create a broader philosophical approach to life. Other wise you think they are irrational, illogical and delusional. I'm not about to validate a philosophy that has the power of authority to invalidate so much of what I have really experienced to be true of existence simply because, I have no concrete proof that would satisfy all. If I applied it, I would have to go into denial of my experiences. Wouldn't that then put me in self delusion? How can a philosophy that is suppose to keep people free from it so easily put them there? It's flawed IMO. I'm glad we have other philosophical appraoches to determining truth, reality and existnce to act as a balance and check to draw from.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes it does when you get to the quantum level. Thats what annom was trying to tell you. Diploid has even posted on those findings.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
Quote: eh?
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
Being skeptical does not equal being objective [see: irrational skepticism].
True, its nearly polarized to objective realism. Skepticism is more like radical empiricism.... Good ol' Doctor Sextus Empiricus. Big fan, to say the least! In order to determine this, one should keep in mind that nature does not contradict itself - hence, one must employ the art of non-contradictory identification, a.k.a., logic, in assessing our reason. As long as reason follows the laws of logic, its true? Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/10/06 11:42 PM)
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: QFT = "Quoted For Truth" --------------------
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I thought the same thing until you said that you don't use other philosophies like I thought you said you did when you said you have informal ones you used and I thought you meant you integrated them into objective philosophy to round it out better.
When I thought you said that, then I thought I understood where you were coming from in a way that I had no further questions or comments on it. If you can accept that by informal philosophies, I mean: general attitudes and thinking-styles, then yes; Objectivism is my philosophical integrater/organizer/enhancer/concretizer. And keep in mind, I certainly don't believe that there are no other philosophies which are just as fine and valid as a guide for navigating through ones life. So when you say: You don't agree with anyone integrating other philosophies along with objectivity to create a broader philosophical approach to life. Other wise you think they are irrational, illogical and delusional. Something obviously got lost in translation and another misunderstanding arose. I'm not about to validate a philosophy that has the power of authority to invalidate so much of what I have really experienced to be true of existence simply because, I have no concrete proof that would satisfy all. If I applied it, I would have to go into denial of my experiences. Wouldn't that then put me in self delusion? Depends. Concrete proof isn't necessarily the only qualifier for the validity of concepts of beliefs - but that depends on how you classify such a concept or belief, and what purpose it serves, what it actually refers to. But on the other hand, if you've really accumulated so much arbitrary junk, unwarranted conclusions, forms of philosophical onanism, and anti-reality based psychological litter, and have identified and attached yourself with it all, then stay the hell away from O'ism - if you feel content with yourself. Volition - what a great thing, eh? Oh, and that's one thing that you may find yourself agreeing with, least of all things - O'ism rejects determinism and accepts free-will, but I digress. I'm glad we have other philosophical appraoches to determining truth, reality and existnce to act as a balance and check to draw from. I too, enjoy the diversity, for it keeps the forum interesting and creates contrast. And I'd like to mention, that I regret coming off as dogmatic, as Mushman pointed out - to be honest, I didn't even notice [well, of course] until it was pointed out. It was a poorly made statement and was not very O'ist, at least, not to me. On a side note.. Although I feel I've done, at the very least, adequately at backing up O'ism -an often misunderstood philosophy-, at the same time I feel that I've failed in other areas - namely, illustrating the common grounds of O'ism and bringing it under a much more positive light that most outsiders don't get to see during all the defenses/attacks. But given the general counter-culture psyche of the populace in this forum, and the simple fact that there will always be a majority of dissenters -as with any philosophy- I cannot bring too much blame to myself. This is the first time that I've had to go considerable lengths to defend and explain O'ism, and I've learned a few things. I hope I will be more successful in bringing O'ism to a much more understandable and welcoming light, to be more proactive rather than reactive, next time such a subject as this ever comes up - if at all. But I must learn and move on, evolve into a better human being. I will remain with utmost confidence and fortitude.. -=Gallantly holds chin up high, with glorious beams of sun shine on my face=- 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. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I appreciate your words Skorp. You certainly did clear up misunderstandings and mis assumptions I had about O'ism. It's not that I don't use it or appreciate it because I do.
Its strange, this thread had me realizing how much I did prescribe to it before my daughter was born. That experience is what opened me up more and almost forced me to have to take on new philosophical approaches to life to manage all of the internal changes that occurred. Suffice it to say, the combination of approaches I have integrated keep me in my own place of general good to great well being, functionality and sanity. Somethings working in whatever formula I have customized for navigating my way through existence. ![]() I do weed out the junk and excess baggage when it no longer serves me. I like to travel light- ![]() You work with one that serves you well so thats really all that matters. I know from past posts that you do not advocate the abuse or taking advantage of the less able or powerful and so, you have always remained "sound" from my POV. I liked how in the how to help others post, you recommended that the poster help his friend get clear on his goals and then use a philosophy that would serve him best. You kept it flexible and open to the goal in need of being served. Thats cool. I think remaining flexible in order to adapt to changes or reach new goals is key to our mental, emotional and physical survival as individuals and a species. Thats why rigid systems I think can do more harm then go if they don't allow for themselves to change as the working environment does. I think you understand and appreciate that to. From what more you taught me about O'ism, it sounds like it does or can allow room for A lot more then I previously was under the impression it did. I appreciate all of your contributions here Skorp! They do make for interesting discussions I learn from!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Dr. Teasy Thighs Registered: 12/02/05 Posts: 14,794 Loc: red panda villag Last seen: 2 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If you come to think about it, it does makes sense. nd the thing about you swithching words in order to get it dosen't works. It works JUST with objectivism. -------------------- ![]() ![]() ![]() 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
Edited by MushroomTrip (02/11/06 04:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
Interested In Your Brain Registered: 08/30/99 Posts: 5,494 Loc: Canada Last seen: 7 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Wow, I've missed a lot here. I've been out with the flu.
Skorp, this term "primacy of consciousness" has come up in many similar debates. It's never really been clear to me what this refers to. If "primacy of consciousness" is meant to describe consciousness as being some sort of ground to stand on, no, I am not an advocate of this view. On the Ethics and Practicality of Objectivism: I've thoroughly explored Barry Kayton's article describing Objectivism, and have found that it lacks a certain objectivity. It opens first by admitting that the application of Objectivist philosophy has inherent risks, and then minimizes these risks by reminding us that enjoyable activities such as driving luxury cars also carry inherent risk. After dismissing the dangers to be found in Objectivism, it carries on it's praises of the philosophy at great length, neglecting ever to be specific about it's pitfalls, or to remind the reader to be cautious of them. Indeed, the article has the flavor of a sales pitch. If Objectivism can't even relate to it's own ideology without bias, how is it ever to approach the nature of reality without bias? Don't get me wrong. I'm not considering Barry Kayton as the sole representative of Objectivism. His views, attitudes, and base assumptions about life, however, are stereotypical of all other Objectivist literature I've explored. Quite fitting it was, in my opinion, for an advocate of Objectivism to use a BMW to deliver an ideological self-affirmation. I'd imagine most self-identified objectivists would consider the BMW, an elite vehicle for a special class, to be their automobile of choice. What stood out the most about the article was that it's was aimed at one person: your self. The article reaches out to the reader, isolates them as a self, and makes many promises about how this and other Objectivist views lead to successful careers and satisfying relationships. The focus of the article is on how Objectivism can benefit one person; it does not go beyond this scope even for an instant. This is indicative of Objectivism's base paradigm: selfishness as virtue. The simple truth of the matter is, however, that a person cannot have a happy life, a successful career (in terms of it's potential for fulfillment), or a meaningful relationship, unless they are able to consider others' wellbeing ahead of their own mere satisfaction. In fact, it is selfishness, the neglect of others' wellbeing in pursuit of our own, which is near the root of all the world's suffering. Only one thing has been more problematic than this: the view that reality is an independent and self-existent phenomenon. Since selfishness is an attitude which flows from the view believing in true-existence of self and phenomena, I would say that Objectivism is nothing more than the actual conceptual articulation of the root cause of all suffering, disharmony, and dissatisfaction. Kayton's article attempts, but in my opinion does not succeed, to present Objectivism as a modern, balanced, rational system of thought serving as the vehicle delivering a being to wholeness and self-empowerment. Behind this obvious effort, however, I feel that the article reveals Objectivism, as a philosophy for living, to be small-minded and self-centred, two qualities we usually associate with children. Considering the childish behavior of those presenting themselves as Objectivists in the public eye, I think we can gather safe conclusions about the limited nature of this philosophy. On Objectivism as Metaphysics: There still hasn't been any reasoning presented supporting the notion that there is such a thing as "the" reality, a self-existent and therefore permanent phenomenon. Neither has anything been offered to support the approachability of such a reality. The following two ideas have yet to be supported by anything more substantive than assumption: Existence exists. Existence is knowable. Lets have it. -------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: Just like any cult. Would you like some Kool-Aid? Quote: So does Communism. Now now quit being so bourgeois and awaken to class consciousness. Quote: I suppose this is why Nathaniel Branden left his wife to have an affair with Ayn Rand, which also ended badly, and ultimately led to him being "excommunicated" by her. Quote: Of course, "liberty" is never something which involves improving the conditions for the less fortunate. It means the liberty for you to make more money. And there isn't even enough room here for me to get into the complicated and illusory nature of property rights. Quote: I'm sorry, but there's nothing heroic about being a self-promoting workaholic. You know who offers a heroic vision of human greatness? Jesus of Nazareth. He fed the masses, healed the sick, turned the other cheek, and made the ultimate sacrifice of his own life for all mankind. He is the antithesis of Objectivist values, and that is why he is the greatest hero of all time. Quote: Hogwash. It tells you what to consider beautiful. And there are certainly other philosophies and beliefs I can think of that encourage a greater sense of well-being and goodwill towards life. Quote: Priceless? Actually, that'll be $24.95. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
Concrete proof isn't necessarily the only qualifier for the validity of concepts of beliefs
Personally, I don't feel anything justifies a belief... but to you, what other than proof validates a belief?
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: Thats a beleif mush. How do you justify it?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Ped, prior to your return in this thread, I was going to leave my above post as my final post. After reading your post, I've decided I'll try my best to reason with you - and only yourself.
It opens first by admitting that the application of Objectivist philosophy has inherent risks, and then minimizes these risks by reminding us that enjoyable activities such as driving luxury cars also carry inherent risk. And I'm sure we can agree that -overlooking automobile analogies- there are hazards and risks in any philosophy, correct? We are all human, and therefore, we can all err. After dismissing the dangers to be found in Objectivism, it carries on it's praises of the philosophy at great length, neglecting ever to be specific about it's pitfalls, or to remind the reader to be cautious of them. Indeed, the article has the flavor of a sales pitch. If Objectivism can't even relate to it's own ideology without bias, how is it ever to approach the nature of reality without bias? It provides a reference to an article authored by Nathaniel Branden, which is quite specific and honest in illustrating the hazards of O'ism. Here is the link to the reference: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html Quite fitting it was, in my opinion, for an advocate of Objectivism to use a BMW to deliver an ideological self-affirmation. I'd imagine most self-identified objectivists would consider the BMW, an elite vehicle for a special class, to be their automobile of choice. From a perspective that is colored in a negative tone, I can see how one may arrive at such a conclusion. If you were to ask me, I would say that I think most people -regardless of religion or philosophy- would naturally feel more inclined to fancier cars, be it in analogies whereby the goal is to paint a pleasant picture or in actual purchase. The simple truth of the matter is, however, that a person cannot have a happy life, a successful career (in terms of it's potential for fulfillment), or a meaningful relationship, unless they are able to consider others' wellbeing ahead of their own mere satisfaction. Indeed, yet this does not conflict with O'ism. O'ism does not preach anti-social behavior. O'ism advocates selfishness - but not as some extreme absolute. Rather, in terms of priority and esteem, it is a star which we guide by. In other words: ultimately speaking, self-interest is the key principle in O'ist ethics. In fact, it is selfishness, the neglect of others' wellbeing in pursuit of our own, which is near the root of all the world's suffering. But is it the kind of selfishness that O'ism advocates? Certainly not. Now, does this mean that O'ists will therefore automatically be exempt from such detrimental selfishness? Of course not - but there are, unfortunately, bad apples in any philosophy or religion - but that does not mean the tree is bad. I, for one, wouldn't think any less of Buddhism itself, simply because there exists bloodshed between Buddhists, for instance. If you are cognizant of the fact that selfishness in its own extreme is detrimental and a root of suffering, then you are also aware that its polar opposite is also detrimental, and a root of suffering. O'ism advocates the middle-path, except with one increment leaning towards the selfish side - as in reality the spectrum will never be perfectly split down the middle, just as nothing else is when it comes to human behavior. I'm sure you are aware of other philosophies that prefer one increment towards the opposite direction. You and I surely understand that we are both free to move to and fro, as we're not talking about an exclusive, all-or-nothing line being drawn. Rather, as mentioned before, it's more of the "guiding star" or "home-base" that is being concretized. Only one thing has been more problematic than this: the view that reality is an independent and self-existent phenomenon. I do not see how this is, unless you mean it is the [implicit or explicit] denial that reality has a nature independent of us. Accepting that reality must be obeyed to be commanded has rather benefited me immensely - it most certainly matured myself. Since selfishness is an attitude which flows from the view believing in true-existence of self and phenomena, I would say that Objectivism is nothing more than the actual conceptual articulation of the root cause of all suffering, disharmony, and dissatisfaction. I would say that O'ism is a philosophy that emerged out of suffering, disharmony, and dissatisfaction from evasions of reality, ignorance of facts, neglection of reason. But now we're merely divided even further. I'd like to find some common grounds with you, and possibly come to a mutual understanding, but to be honest, this looks like it could be an extremely hairy task. Skorp, this term "primacy of consciousness" has come up in many similar debates. It's never really been clear to me what this refers to. If "primacy of consciousness" is meant to describe consciousness as being some sort of ground to stand on, no, I am not an advocate of this view. Okay, the PoC is a metaphysical theory. It holds that consciousness somehow creates reality. Typically, it either takes form in a divine consciousness that creates reality, or in the form of an individual consciousness each creating their own personal realities. In either case, inherent is a contradictive flaw. To be conscious is to be aware [of something]. One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent. Hence, this gives rise to the Primacy of Existence theory. The PoE theory holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that consciousness cannot exist without reality - but reality can exist without consciousness. This is the axiomatic principle upon which the very notion of an independent reality is established, that you have shown animosity towards. There still hasn't been any reasoning presented supporting the notion that there is such a thing as "the" reality, a self-existent and therefore permanent phenomenon. Neither has anything been offered to support the approachability of such a reality. The following two ideas have yet to be supported by anything more substantive than assumption: Existence exists. Existence is knowable. Lets have it. I think ultimately, this is always going to be debatable in the absence of concrete proof. And because there is no such proof, we are to use philosophical proof, as shown above, for instance, where proof is shown that the PoC theory is faulty. So to the axiom: Existence exists. What supports this? The fact that we are at all conscious of anything, proves that existence exists. Once more, I reference the PoE theory. Existence is knowable. Pardon my brevity, but doesn't applied science show this everyday? -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
Its not a belief, its a suspicion.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
A suspicious belief/opinion.
![]() I think skorp was referring to the part where I asked why I would validate a philosophy that invalidates a huge portion of my life's experience, because of what I have no concrete proof for having experienced. Say you believe someone is funny. He makes you laugh so hard tears well up in your eyes and no one else is laughing. To you, he is funny and you believe him to be a funny guy. How do you prove it to people? If you can't, does that mean, "objectively speaking" he truly is not funny and you are delusional or irrational to believe so? Think of how much of our life experiences, things we truly really experience as being such and such, have no way of being concretely proven to any one. Some things are just self evident to some, making them, there own closed looped systems of objectivity, I suppose, like each being the center of their own universe. Lets stick with it being a subjective truth of subjective reality I am referring to. I was wondering if objective truth allowed for subjective truth as a part of knowable reality or existence. If I am an objectivists and say, "No, he is not funny, that's just your opinion" Did I or did I not just invalidate something you honestly and really experienced? How does this work. Would your experience of finding him funny be a "part" of knowable reality making it a part of objective existence and your opinion therefore validated to be a "truth" of knowable reality? I think I read somewhere here that in objective philosophy, for something to exist, it must exist independently of an observer. In such a case, no matter who thought he was funny, it was a delusion of the mind that he is. Or are you only delusional if you can't prove the guy you think is funny exists? Is that how this works? Examine this one- I was reading at another forum and this gal I've known on line for years, was talking about her daughter saying this angel as big as the house hangs around and makes her laugh and helps her with her school work. The son who "sees' stuff too validated this angel hanging around for his sister to their mom. The daughter said his name was something like memeton, she thought. The mom asked, "Do you mean Metatron?" (Same angel dude Carlos Santana said helped to turn his life around) The girl and boy said, "Yes! Thats it!" She was asking board members if they thought it could be him. Then others at the board who know him personally replied and said, "Yes, metatron usually appears with a huge head so its no surprise your daughter described him as being as big as the house. Are all those other members, the boy and girl and Carlos Santana delusional or experiencing some part of knowable existence the rest of us just haven't discovered or uncovered yet? If many people discover the same thing to exist who have never met or spoken to one another, is such an experience still a part of subjective reality or does it become a part of objective existence? Where's the difference?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Ped writes:
Quote: Anyone can buy a BMW. There's nothing "elite" about them. But you're correct that many Objectivists would choose one, simply because they have been for at least thirty-five years one of the best engineered cars on the planet. Quote: "Ahead" of their own satisfaction? Not so. This is yet another typical Ped assertion dropped in the middle of a reply with no attempt at supporting argument. Quote: Same comment as above. Not only is this an arbitrary and unsupported statement, but it is observably false. Quote: Anyone who chooses the Primacy of Consciousness view of reality over the Primacy of Existence view will naturally reject Objectivism as a philosophy. But the fact that some reject the core axioms of existence doesn't alter the fact that they axiomatic. Quote: That's because existence is axiomatic. The only way to demonstrate existence is ostensively. Reason doesn't enter into it. Every input from a human's senses verifies existence. The only way to deny it is to reject the evidence of one's senses. Rejecting the evidence of one's senses leads ultimately (surprise, surprise) to Solipsism. And as has been shown over and over in this forum, Solipsism isn't philosophy, but an anti-philosophy. Skorp had asked which Objectivist works you had read. I, too, would be interested in your answer. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Although Skorp has already covered the distinction between altruism and philanthropy (and the Objectivist view of each), there's a quote of Rand's I've always thought covered it in a pithy manner:
Quote: Collectivists say you do not. Phred
| |||||||
|
Registered: 08/26/05 Posts: 6,440 Loc: mumuland |
| ||||||
Quote: Ah, more interpretation of senses. Quote: According to an idea about senses and physical causes. Your realism has bored me enough now. Quote: Might be vague. Look it up. It's called constructivism and post-structuralism, basic Wittgenstein, among other things. There are no processes that take place in reality. your rude comments aimed directly toward other members have been edited out.. There was no "derived" in there. There are no concepts without language. This is a common concept itself, and it is called, among other things, "world as ideas" (See Wittgenstein, among aforementioned schools of thought). Your world is experienced as ideas and the same applies to your world, your "reality" (that you try to uphold because if you didn't you'd loose your control, which is why you're a realist [you need that control]). Language is not a mechanical expression of some inner-process of man. Language is makes those dispositions. Just think: wow, Lakefingers is right. But maybe I'm not. Afterall, you only have to do something so commonplace (as you imply): show me that concepts exist without language. Another thing, enough atomism/functionalism; humans are not computers and their experiences and impressions are not, and should not be referred to as, data. But, that's just your language going off again. Edited by I_was_the_walrus (02/21/06 02:47 AM)
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
There are no processes that take place in reality.
Demonstrably false. It is only by a specific, certain process in reality that you can type up your thoughts and transmit them via the internet and allow the audience to read what you've wrote, for instance. There is no reality but the one in your head Solipsism? Thanks, but no thanks. There are no concepts without language. Correction: There are no concepts expressed without language. From Wikipedia: Quote: I certainly do not challenge the fact that language and concepts have a mutual partnership - that wasn't my contention. What I was addressing was your contention that [emphasis mine]: Quote: Language does not "make" these entities and nor existence itself - that is my contention. Your realism has bored me enough now. Your irrealism has entertained me enough for now. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Objectivism - The Libertarians? Albatross | 887 | 5 | 11/03/04 08:48 PM by Frog | ||
![]() |
Reality: Our objective, benelovent friend | 1,314 | 11 | 11/19/05 03:04 PM by Ped | ||
![]() |
Objectivism? ( |
5,592 | 65 | 12/14/04 03:40 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
objectivism on free will | 775 | 3 | 12/16/05 05:33 AM by Seuss | ||
![]() |
An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity | 1,451 | 8 | 04/22/06 05:40 AM by fresh313 | ||
![]() |
Objectivism: What a load of.. ( |
6,004 | 52 | 05/19/03 09:19 AM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
Question for moral objectivists ( |
3,845 | 31 | 06/14/03 10:42 AM by NewToTrippin | ||
![]() |
can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality? ( |
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, 7 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

I thought the same thing until you said that you don't use other philosophies like I thought you said you did when you said you have informal ones you used and I thought you meant you integrated them into objective philosophy to round it out better.







