Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5322944 - 02/21/06 04:20 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
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.






Demonstrable with your a priori concept "process", among much other prejudice and lingual infliction upon some eventual "external reality".

When you say "It is...", what is "it"?
"It"? Is "it" there? Or here? Do you have "it"? I don't have "it". What is "it" and what are you, in truth, saying?

You've only proven my point. If you wish to call all that a process, then of course it will be a process. Once again, your idea, and the lingual focus, has upheld and created "reality".


Quote:


There is no reality but the one in your head

Solipsism? Thanks, but no thanks.






See, I have avoided discussing with you on the forum previously, because I don't like playing the game of running in circles in philosophical terminology. I just don't find that particularly productive. In the game, anything anyone states is met with a preconceived response (citation of logical phallus-es and paradigmatic grammar invented by morbid philosophers, etc). It might not be that the activity is trite, but I find it trite.

But to be kind I'll go along with this for now. We'll even call my statement "S1" for "solipistic statement one". (I am, nevertheless, not a solipsist; and even if I were I would not reduce myself to that term!). Now does S1 have any correspondence to an S2? Or S3? or Sx? Who knows? Let's incite some "contradictions" (oh, don't worry, they refer to "real" things) to beat the philosophical crap out of S1. Let's call in "R1" for "na?ve realism one" (your position). Now, S1 and R1 seem to be quite different from one another. One supposes that this is a type of "antagonism" (yep, another snide word invented by philosophers): S1 contains the statement "A" and R1 contains the statement "~A". We're in trouble here -- that is, S1 is in trouble -- because R1 denies that S1 has any "truth value". Hell, R1 says S1 is irrelevant. Imagine that. With all these funny concepts we've invented for finding "con traditions" we found "contradictions".
So now what do we do? Well, we have to explore them deeper to see if S1 and R1 joined by a "holism", or if they're "incommensurable", but there are also other tricks we philosophical dogs are trained to do. Maybe if S1 and R1 are called "incommensurable" we can "fix" the "problem" by looking into their "intersubjectivity".
But wait, wait! What if there's an "antagonistic tolerance" here, that makes the statements "true" or "false" whereby we can see whether R1 is "true" or S1 is "false", or whereby we can see if we have any "relativism", "objectivism"...or TERMINOLOGISM at all.
But hey, all these quotation-marked words just refer to "real" things and "reality" so don't take "it" personally.


Quote:


There are no concepts without language.

Correction: There are no concepts expressed without language.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:

Concepts are bearers of meaning, as opposed to agents of meaning. A single concept can be expressed by any number of languages. The concept of dog can be expressed as Hund in German, as chien in French, and perro in Spanish. The fact that concepts are in some sense independent of language makes translation possible - words in various languages have identical meaning, because they express one and the same concept.









You could quote Wikipedia or the Discovery Channel, neither will have much to do with intelligent science.

Yes, there are no concepts expressed without language, because there are no concepts without language. Language is that which has created concepts: both ontologically (that the concepts are inflicted upon "reality") and ontically (that the concepts are dictated by their lingual forms).

Furthermore, regarding the Wikipedia entry:
This presupposes your viewpoint --and it gives no support for the concept that a concept can be expressed by a number of languages. Just as you have not done. This definition of "concept" is overly presumptious; most linguists, and many philosophers, would disagree with the idea that any one concept can be expressed in multiple languages or with multiple words. That being because the words (the text) in their context (the language) constitute the concepts.

Not only is it unlikely that concepts are trascendent of languages, but that they are trascedent of speakers of the same language. It is not likely that any two Germans have the same concept of dog. And certainly you and I have different concepts of "concept", "philosophy", "discourse", "argumentation", "house", "dog"...

Precisely the last part of the entry, which is in bold, is a very debatable statement. This is not a "fact", but a presumption (that concepts are independet of language). Very heavy philosophical arguments and linguistic empiri would be needed to argue for this today. See above.

Quote:


Language does not "make" these entities and nor existence itself - that is my contention.





Thank you for clarifying, but I understood that a few posts ago.

Quote:


Your realism has bored me enough now.

Your irrealism has entertained me enough for now.





Good now we're pigeonholed, but that is the intent with analytical philosophy, isn't it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5326135 - 02/21/06 09:35 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Hi Skorp,

I haven't waded through all the posts in this thread. I became a great fan of Ms. Rand's Objectivism when I first read "For The New Intellectual." I read all of her non-fiction that I could get my hands on, but was bored by most of her fiction (with the exception of Anthem). I have spent a LOT of time with Objectivists and Objectivist-leaning individuals. Before encountering Objectivism, as a psychology student, I encountered the work of Nathaniel Branded (he's quite good) and benefited from his writings. I have also had the pleasure to meet Barbara Branden and to hear her speak at an international conference on her experiences in the cultish atmosphere and intellectual incest of Ayn Rand's inner circle. I noticed in Rand's personal life, as well as in her writings, that she (often enough to notice) couched rationalizations under the guise of rational thought or 'heroic' symbolism. I have encountered this a lot with many objectivists, and they are quite religious and closed minded about it too. Please don't let yourself fall into this trap (not that you will). Look at Objectivism as part of a tool kit that can be useful in your intellectual journey, it is not THE answer, it is not a destination.

If I may suggest some reading to tickle your neurons... first, check out http://www.abelard.org/ In particular, start with this link, "Aristotle?s logic - Why Aristotelian logic does not work." Then when you get a chance, relax with your favorite mind opening substance (I prefer a mild to moderate dose of shrooms) and read a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's "The Cosmic Trigger, Final Secret of the Illuminati." I would also recommend that you delve into Karl Popper's writings, a good place to start would be "Objective Knowledge, An Evolutionary Approach."

Oh, ignore the rabid responses of those who obviously hate Rand and Objectivism. Almost anyone can teach us something in this life, if we are willing to learn. Some of us close ourselves off reflexively, fearful of undermining our sense of comfort, hating the prospect that we may be wrong about what we believe and hold dear. Your mind needs to be exercised (and exorcised) or it will atrophy into the same thought patterns... that's not good whether you come from an Objectivist direction or from a Christian direction.

Carry on my brother...


--------------------
Sincerely,

Skeptikos


Edited by Skeptikos (02/21/06 10:39 PM)


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.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Skeptikos]
    #5327082 - 02/22/06 03:07 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I haven't waded through all the posts in this thread.

At the risk of killing brain cells, perhaps it is a good thing you didn't. :smile:


I have also had the pleasure to meet Barbara Branden and to hear her speak at an international conference on her experiences in the cultish atmosphere and intellectual incest of Ayn Rand's inner circle.

While I've not had the opportunity to meet Barbara Branden, I have conversed with and observed discussions regarding these so-called Oists that tend to give Oism a bad name with unhealthy applications of Oist principles - an unfortunate issue that any philosophy and/or religion faces.

Indeed, I understand that because Oism is an immensely powerful philosophy due to it's devastating applicability in reality, it is also capable of turning the less emotionally disciplined into monsters of the intellect - much like any powerful tool, position, philosophy or religion. Because of the fact that O'ism is very strict in it's devotion to solid facts and reality, it places itself in a high rank amongst philosophies that will conflict with other philosophies - particularly the mystical/religious kind. This quality of O'ism seems to magnetize the power-hungry types, who forget or totally disregard the fact that, Oism, properly used, is a tool for living, not a weapon with which to bash those one disagrees with.

Unfortunately, because of such poor examples of Oism in action, many people tend to blame the tool itself, rather than the person themself - akin to the bad rap that hallucinogenic mushrooms may often recieve - due to all the misinformation and immature, uneducated and emotionally unstable people who don't treat the entheogen with respect.


I have encountered this a lot with many objectivists, and they are quite religious and closed minded about it too. Please don't let yourself fall into this trap (not that you will). Look at Objectivism as part of a tool kit that can be useful in your intellectual journey, it is not THE answer, it is not a destination.

Indeed, Oism - like any philosophy, religion or spiritual practice, is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. When people forget that their philosophy is a guide to a specific process, be it happiness, success, insight, or mature control, they become prone to thinking - as you said - that it is THE answer; the destination. O'ism is a tool for living.


If I may suggest some reading to tickle your neurons... first, check out http://www.abelard.org/ In particular, start with this link, "Aristotle?s logic - Why Aristotelian logic does not work."

I will submit this to my Ivory Tower of Oists and check out the site at a later time - I must get shut-eye soon.


Then when you get a chance, relax with your favorite mind opening substance (I prefer a mild to moderate dose of shrooms) and read a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's "The Cosmic Trigger, Final Secret of the Illuminati."

-=Massages Temples=- Sigh. I apologize, I cannot help but cringe at the sight or sound of the word "Illuminati". I've seen nothing but crackpots of conspiracy theories regarding the subject - all based on vague premises, arbitrary ideas and rather ridiculous assumptions. I simply feel no need to clutter up my head with such litter. Come to think of it, if you looked at my personal library, which encompasses nearly 100 books ranging on a variety of subjects, you would find zero fiction. That's just the type of person I am - I prefer non-fiction over fiction. If you, as an Objectivist, can honestly tell me that this book written by Robert Anton Wilson is not fiction posing as non-fiction, then perhaps I will review it, with a healthy dose of skepticism.


I would also recommend that you delve into Karl Popper's writings, a good place to start would be "Objective Knowledge, An Evolutionary Approach."

Now that sounds like more my cup of tea. I will check it out.


Oh, ignore the rabid responses of those who obviously hate Rand and Objectivism.

I've come to realize that this is just an inevitability - at least with most. If there's one thing I've learned about those people, it's the fact that they are usually not interested in understanding Oism - only in attacking it.

It's really not that hard, O'ism simply boils down to being objective and fact-oriented. The goal of philosophy has always been happiness. Oism is built on Aristotle's ethics, sans mysticism.

To live in reality, and live the good life - that is happiness. That was the point that Rand attempted to get across but that people just couldn't get.


Almost anyone can teach us something in this life, if we are willing to learn.

Indeed. Some may be surprised to know that I've picked up valuable gems of wisdom pertinent to psychology from other religions, such as Christianity and Buddhism, as I am usually more well-read and open-minded than some may give me credit for. The fact that I am able to seperate the wheat from the chaff shows that I am not close-minded nor gullible, rather I am rationally analytical, and as such, I simply do not take everything at face value, nor do I dismiss anything for the sake of dismissiveness. Like fellow friends who once posted here on this site, but left, I approach religious and mystical concepts or ideas from a scientific approach, read: an objective approach. I can see the underlying, "mundane" [for lack of a better word] truth underneath all the high-flying gobbledygook. Where other people point to the sky, I point to the ground, here on Earth - if you catch my drift.

The reason I've gravitated to Objectivism is because of its universality; its respect for facts and actualities; I need a philosophy for living here and now. I don't need a leash, I don't need an owner, I don't need to expend energy and effort for blind faith in some unprovable, unnecessary and arbitrary beliefs or premises. I certainly don't need some mystical god to be a moral, fearless and rational individual. This is my life and my responsibility, and if I'm going to use a tool for living my life, I'll be sure to use a most well-engineered tool for living here on Earth, read: for living in reality, read: for living life - which is a road in itself, not a destination.



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


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/22/06 03:34 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5327145 - 02/22/06 04:30 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

The reason I've gravitated to Objectivism is because of its universality; its respect for facts and actualities; I need a philosophy for living here and now. I don't need a leash, I don't need an owner, I don't need to expend energy and effort for blind faith in some unprovable, unnecessary and arbitrary beliefs or premises. I certainly don't need some mystical god to be a moral, fearless and rational individual. This is my life and my responsibility, and if I'm going to use a tool for living my life, I'll be sure to use a most well-engineered tool for living here on Earth, read: for living in reality, read: for living life - which is a road in itself, not a destination.






Ethics, philosophy, ideology (e.g. Objectivism), materialist thought (sans mysticism) are leashes. Realpolitik, a hearty smile and the attitude of a pirate, might be the mode of being you are trying to fill --


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5328147 - 02/22/06 01:59 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I prefer non-fiction over fiction. If you, as an Objectivist, can honestly tell me that this book written by Robert Anton Wilson is not fiction posing as non-fiction, then perhaps I will review it, with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The Illuminati is a motif Robert Anton Wilson uses in his literature. (His first major publication was The Illuminatus! Trilogy).
Cosmic Trigger is autobiography of Robert Anton Wilson and mainly deals with him trying to juggle the bizarre experiences he has with psychedelics with his scientific skepticism.

I think you would be interested in reading his foward which seems to sum up his general philosophy: http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Lakefingers]
    #5328177 - 02/22/06 02:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Ethics, philosophy, ideology (e.g. Objectivism), materialist thought (sans mysticism) are leashes
nice. i resonate. maybe temporarily. or not


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5328740 - 02/22/06 05:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
I prefer non-fiction over fiction. If you, as an Objectivist, can honestly tell me that this book written by Robert Anton Wilson is not fiction posing as non-fiction, then perhaps I will review it, with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The Illuminati is a motif Robert Anton Wilson uses in his literature. (His first major publication was The Illuminatus! Trilogy).
Cosmic Trigger is autobiography of Robert Anton Wilson and mainly deals with him trying to juggle the bizarre experiences he has with psychedelics with his scientific skepticism.

I think you would be interested in reading his foward which seems to sum up his general philosophy: http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml



Thank you Mushman.

Skorp, I should inform you that Wilson is a bit of a joker as well as a philosopher of an unconventional sort. Cosmic Trigger IS non-fiction. It isn't (in my eyes) so much of an autobiography as it is his musing on the nature of existence, reality and consciousness as it relates to his life experiences and stories from others. It is not easily classified. It is like ingesting a mind altering substance merely by reading. I do suggest that you check out the link that Mushman has provided.


Edited by Skeptikos (02/22/06 08:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
    #5425660 - 03/21/06 02:50 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I have a question for Skorpivo:

You said in another thread that people should be good to each other because it is in their own self-interest. Yet objectivism teaches that man is an end unto himself. If I am good to people merely because it is in my own self-interest to do so, am I not using people as means to an end? How does objectivism resolve this apparent contradiction?


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


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]
    #5425760 - 03/21/06 03:11 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Yet objectivism teaches that man is an end unto himself.

Every man's life is an end in itself.

If I am good to people merely because it is in my own self-interest to do so, am I not using people as means to an end?

I think you misunderstand. Benevolence is a product of rationality. If one is rational, benevolence naturally follows. Benevolence, as a result, benefits yourself and others as well.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5426372 - 03/21/06 05:33 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I think you misunderstand. Benevolence is a product of rationality. If one is rational, benevolence naturally follows. Benevolence, as a result, benefits yourself and others as well.

Not necessarily. Hitler, for instance, was a very rational man. He reasoned that if possible, one should strive to create the ideal society and ideal race. He gained power and quickly realized that it was possible. Thus began the Final Solution in an effort to create an Aryan race of supermen who were strong in body and mind and able to advance evolution by leaps and bounds. In his mind, the end justified the means. He failed, but he used rationality to justify the Holocaust, arguably one of the most evil events of the past several centuries, if not millenia.

Benevolence CAN follow from rationality, but so can atrocities of mind-blowing proportions.

I'm not sure of the context of your statement, but it just caught my eye.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


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: dblaney]
    #5427955 - 03/21/06 10:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I realize what you're saying here. I've covered that same point before as well:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/5410784/an//page/0/vc/1

But for the sake of brevity, I simply let the basic context take care of the unsaid disclaimers.

Immanuel Kant is another example of a philosopher who was very rational in the sense that he excercised rationality - but like Hitler, the fundamental premises and grounds of his philosophy were -to put it politely- "askew". So although both of these men excercised their capacity to rationalize, their premises and beliefs were quite irrational - as demonstrated by the destructive effects of their philosophies.

In the words of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead:
"Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

And in the words of Bill Whittle:
"Because it is so susceptible to fact and logic, the very best way to fight magical thinking is to simply grant the premise and look at the consequences. This is a silver-tipped, hardened oak stake dipped in garlic paste made from holy water when it comes to demolishing some of these ideas. "



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


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

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


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 6 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.