Home | Community | Message Board


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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Objectivism.. Here We Go Again!
    #5277095 - 02/08/06 11:32 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

This discussion has come up in another thread. I figured was time to fully embroil the community in this discussion once again.

Objectivism is a complete fantasy and has no bearing on reality whatsoever. It opens the door to arrogance, and many proponents of objectivism did succumb to the transparency of an inflated ego, including the objectivist icon Ayn Rand. The reason objectivism has this effect on people is that it allows an individual to believe that their ideas are best in accordance with some kind of objective truth. This creates a fundamental discordance between speaker and audience, whereby the speaker or writer is invariably elevated over his or her audience.

Since no such objective truths exist, so too does the distinction between objectivist propnent and audience not exist, and so too are all feelings of confidence and self-assuredness derrived from the egocentric nature of objectivist thinking completely false. This is what makes objectivism among the most foolish and childish philosophies ever conceived, second only to LaVeyan Satanism, in my opinion.

Ayn Rand's ideas do sound liberating, but in reality they function as the actual chains of mental, emotional, and spiritual bondage. All of the suffering in the world today arises directly from the objectivist and therefore pluralistic relationship we've had with reality since living beings formed their first conceptual awarenesses. Ayn Rand's elegant, modernized articulation of this ancient and deeply ingrained worldview lends it no more value or accuracy than it's had since the very beginning.

The idea that we can derrive knowledge through the cataloguing of an objective reality occuring external to the mind is completely wrong.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
    #5277119 - 02/08/06 11:37 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Why is it less arrogant, foolish and childish to say that there exists no such objective truth than to say that it does exist?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
    #5277128 - 02/08/06 11:39 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Annom said:
Why is it less arrogant, foolish and childish to say that there exists no such objective truth then to say that it does exist?



As I said in the other thread, my problem is not that Objectivism claims that there is an objective truth, but rather that it claims to know it. Also, I think it neglects the idea of subjective truth. By this, I don't simply mean things are open to interpretation, though many things are, but rather that we exist as both subject and object, and that both those forms of existence have their own validity. As a subject, we exist as consciousness. As an object, we exist as matter. Both subjectivism and objectivism try to say the other view is wrong, or an illusion. I happen to think that both are correct.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Ped]
    #5277133 - 02/08/06 11:40 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Do you care to back up any of your attacks on Objectivism?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Objectivism [Re: Annom]
    #5277153 - 02/08/06 11:46 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

>> Why is it less arrogant, foolish and childish to say that there exists no such objective truth then to say that it does exist?

I had expected this point would be made, but I didn't expect that it would be among the first.

I'm just trying to speak their language; it's a debate technique. One of the big problems objectivists have with subjectivists is that subjectivists seem to them spineless and wishy-washy. If in keeping with humility I refrain from making any pointed, concrete statements, there will be little interest from objectivists in carrying on this debate, and this may even be used to paralyze my position. Sometimes it's helpful to take on certain roles for the sake of creating the conditions necessary for an engaging discussion.

Good call, though.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5277159 - 02/08/06 11:46 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
As I said in the other thread, my problem is not that Objectivism claims that there is an objective truth, but rather that it claims to know it.




Does it claim to know the objective truth? In what way? I'm not well known with the "official" definition of Objectivism or with the specific ideas of Ayn Rand.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Redstorm]
    #5277184 - 02/08/06 11:53 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

>> Do you care to back up any of your attacks on Objectivism?

No object can be apprehended as an existent without the involvement of perceptual cognizer. Because this is true, it is impossible to know a reality that exists separate from consciousness. For this reason, even if an objective reality were to exist, it would be fundamentally unapproachable. This defeats the objectivist philosophy.

All aspects of the reality we are involved with are articulated and imputed by consciousness. In the asbence of consciousness, no such inherent attributes can be said to exist, and therefore no such objective reality exists. For an object to exist inherently, we must be able to identify it's inherent nature. We can take any object and investigate it for it's inherent nature, and we will find that it is an investigation without end. This defeats objectivist philosophy.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
    #5277197 - 02/08/06 11:55 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Yeah, I see your point and it indeed is good for the discussion. I was a bit shocked to see you saying such things, it had to check it :smirk: I hope I didn't ruin your idea. I can edit it out if you want?  :grin:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Ped]
    #5277770 - 02/08/06 02:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Ped writes:

Quote:

Objectivism is a complete fantasy and has no bearing on reality whatsoever.




To the contrary. Objectivism is the ONLY philosophy extant of which I am aware which requires nothing more than the recognition of two axioms --

1) Existence exists
2) Existence is knowable to humans

All else follows. It is thus exclusively reality-based.

Quote:

It opens the door to arrogance, and many proponents of objectivism did succumb to the transparency of an inflated ego, including the objectivist icon Ayn Rand.




-- If any philosophies can be said to be "arrogant", it is those which require the bestowing of divine revelation on its adherants. These adherants then arrogantly classify those other humans they encounter as either "enlightened" or unenlightened -- with the enlightened necessarily being superior to the rest.

-- what opponents of Objectivism decry as "arrogance" is nothing more than self confidence, but hey... why use an accurate term when a negative one is handy?

-- everything you said about arrogance and inflated egos of various proponents of Objectivism holds true of various proponents of all philosophies.

-- the way proponents of Objectivism (or of any other philosophy) feel about their beliefs changes not a whit the validity (or lack thereof) of the philosophical principles themselves.

Quote:

The reason objectivism has this effect on people is that it allows an individual to believe that their ideas are best in accordance with some kind of objective truth.




And how is this different from other philosophies which allow individuals to believe their ideas are best in accordance with some kind of subjective "truth"?

Quote:

This creates a fundamental discordance between speaker and audience, whereby the speaker or writer is invariably elevated over his or her audience.




Same comment as above.

Quote:

Since no such objective truths exist...




A self-evident fallacy.

Quote:

... so too does the distinction between objectivist propnent and audience not exist...




Ah. The standard and oft-repeated (with no backup) Ped false claim that there is no such thing as "boundaries". "We are all one."

Quote:

... and so too are all feelings of confidence and self-assuredness derrived from the egocentric nature of objectivist thinking completely false.




If in fact there is no such thing as existence, or even if there is such a thing as existence but humans cannot know it, then the Objectivist's feeling of self-confidence is indeed unwarranted. However, to accept either premise necessarily means rejecting the two axioms listed at the beginning of my post. Note that if one rejects either of these two axioms, all further involvement with philosophy -- ANY philosophy -- is futile.

Quote:

This is what makes objectivism among the most foolish and childish philosophies ever conceived, second only to LaVeyan Satanism, in my opinion.




Rejecting the evidence of one's senses and rejecting reason -- a human's two primary tools of survival -- necessarily leaves one in a position to accept any non-reality based philosophy that passes by. Such philosophies are foolish and childish. Wishing doesn't make it so. What counts is reality.

Quote:

Ayn Rand's ideas do sound liberating, but in reality they function as the actual chains of mental, emotional, and spiritual bondage.




If living one's life based on the most scrupulously complete recognition of facts on the ground one is capable of mustering is to be described by you as "bondage", I will leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether they choose to live their lives in such "bondage" or if they choose instead to succumb to whichever unprovable fantasy the next Mystic peddles to them.

Quote:

All of the suffering in the world today arises directly from the objectivist and therefore pluralistic relationship we've had with reality since living beings formed their first conceptual awarenesses.




To the contrary. While the facts of the universe are such that living entities must exert effort (often unpleasant effort) in order to continue their existence as living entities, the suffering such effort (and various accidents of nature) entails is but a tiny fraction of the suffering produced by following faulty ideas. One need look no further than the vast amount of suffering caused by such ideas as Fascism, Communism, and Islam (to name but three easily recognizable ones) for proof of that.

Quote:

Ayn Rand's elegant, modernized articulation of this ancient and deeply ingrained worldview lends it no more value or accuracy than it's had since the very beginning.




This sentence implies that such a worldview is both valueless and inaccurate -- a false assertion if ever there was one.

Quote:

The idea that we can derrive knowledge through the cataloguing of an objective reality occuring external to the mind is completely wrong.




On what are we to rely in its stead? Divine revelation of a "life to follow" which bears no relation to that which we directly apprehend?



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Ped]
    #5277780 - 02/08/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Ped writes:

Quote:

No object can be apprehended as an existent without the involvement of perceptual cognizer.




Correct.

Quote:

Because this is true, it is impossible to know a reality that exists separate from consciousness.




Debatable, but even if true not applicable to the conclusion you are about to reach. The fact that there are entities within existence which are able to apprehend their surroundings does not mean that if such consciousnesses were to disappear their surroundings would also disappear.

Quote:

For this reason, even if an objective reality were to exist, it would be fundamentally unapproachable.




Incorrect. You reached this conclusion due to your irrelevant premise.

Quote:

This defeats the objectivist philosophy.




It does no such thing.

Quote:

All aspects of the reality we are involved with are articulated and imputed by consciousness.




Incorrect. They are observed by our consciousness. Not the same thing at all.

Quote:

In the asbence of consciousness, no such inherent attributes can be said to exist, and therefore no such objective reality exists.




Incorrect. In the absence of conscious entities, the non-conscious entities of existence still exist, it's just that none of them are aware they exist.

Quote:

For an object to exist inherently, we must be able to identify it's inherent nature.




Incorrect. It can exist whether there is another entity around to identify it or not. It's just that in the absence of entities capable of identification, its inherent nature remains unidentified.

Quote:

We can take any object and investigate it for it's inherent nature, and we will find that it is an investigation without end.




Incorrect. To accurately identify every possible aspect of an entity's nature is immensely complicated and time-consuming, but not in principle impossible.

Quote:

This defeats objectivist philosophy.




Incorrect.

You make arbitrary pronouncements which are not only unsupported by even an attempt at argument, but which also contradict the evidence of the senses of every reader of this thread. This does nothing to "defeat" Objectivism, but it does speak volumes about your own "arrogance".



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5277956 - 02/08/06 03:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Paradigm writes:

Quote:

As I said in the other thread, my problem is not that Objectivism claims that there is an objective truth, but rather that it claims to know it.




Not quite correct. Objectivism recognizes the axiom that reality is knowable by humans. Then -- using observations repeatable to all humans in possession of all their senses and capable of reason -- they elaborate on the philosophical implications of this axiom. At every step along the way the reader is invited to verify for himself the validity of these observations.

Quote:

Also, I think it neglects the idea of subjective truth. By this, I don't simply mean things are open to interpretation, though many things are, but rather that we exist as both subject and object, and that both those forms of existence have their own validity. As a subject, we exist as consciousness. As an object, we exist as matter. Both subjectivism and objectivism try to say the other view is wrong, or an illusion.




You haven't grasped the Objectivist viewpoint, then. Objectivism vehemently denies the "mind-body" dichotomy you describe. It instead integrates the two seamlessly.


Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: Phred]
    #5278201 - 02/08/06 04:01 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

AYN RAND


Well I didn't know much about objectivism so I looked it up and......
Not to be an ass but GOD DAMN! I would have to create new words to
describe that kind of beauty. Other then that I kind of agree and disagree with that philosophy.

"  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute?facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

True enough I guess.

  "2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival."

Not quite. Emotions are a kind of reason as well. They are the instincts that keep us alive. If you could totally ignore them you would be a sociopath.

  3. Man?every man?is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

I disagree with that. You don't HAVE to live for yourself and doing so is generally considered (by most) rather selfish and immoral.
It basically throws out the concept that the theory itself could be wrong and insists IT IS THE ONLY RIGHT WAY.

  "4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

Capitalist Marxism without the Lenin. I can just so see mankind getting together declaring everyone equal and well, setting up a global communist state like that one. LOL. It's actually crappier then communism if that is possible. Right, we are all going to abide by that and no one is simply going to buy up all the poorer
interests and well make this world back into exactly what it is now.
It's like dude I can I sum up communism in 4 paragraphs!1!!!1!.
In reality that kind of government is China. Just ripped off a whole bunch of Karl Marx's ideas and tried to pass them off as her own.


My apologies to people really believing this philosophy. I am not trying to insult you, if anything protect you from this type of stuff. (this thread really belongs in the political forum) I did a pretty in depth study of communism, Lenin and Stalin quite recently. This bitch is just another snake oil peddler. Same old ideas in a different "better" package. Wouldn't be surprised if she was a card carrying communist herself. Actually I quite like communism, I don't like to bash it because it is based on pure human kindness and a truly better world which is a good thing. However, that system has been tried many times and it just does not work without a brutal dictator standing there with a whip. It infuriates me when people steal other peoples ideas and not only pass them off as their own, but disguise them as something else. I hate it when someone tries to put the wool over the eyes of the public like that. It Makes me veenomus.

OMG lol the word Veenom is in the spell checker now.  :tongue:


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


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: Phred]
    #5278208 - 02/08/06 04:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

:congrats: Very well done.

Ped, let me just ask you this: What Objectivist works have you actually read?



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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
    #5278327 - 02/08/06 04:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Not quite. Emotions are a kind of reason as well. They are the instincts that keep us alive. If you could totally ignore them you would be a sociopath.


Reason is man's faculty of knowing reality.
Humans cannot function or survive by the guidance of mere sensations or emotions. You, being a conceptual being, cannot initiate any action unless you know the nature and purpose of your action. I cannot pursue any goal unless I identify it and understand the nature of such a goal, and how to achieve it.

I disagree with that. You don't HAVE to live for yourself and doing so is generally considered (by most) rather selfish and immoral.

The irrefutable fact is: You must live for yourself, one way or the other - else, you will die.
Considered selfish and immoral by most? Might doesn't make right - just as the mere fact that a majority of folks in various parts of USA [read: Bible-belt] think that the entire human race was spawned by two fully grown humans and that something called "the rapture" is coming, does not validate any such beliefs.
Selfishness is a virtue, just like any other virtue - believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with being selfish, as there is nothing wrong with treating yourself good, as no other human has primacy over your own life. Objectivism does not advocate being a leech - rather, it advocates being a trader.

To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts but offers nothing in return is an act of injustice: you reward them for nothing and you sacrifice your resources. Rewarding people for nothing only enables them to continue a life of begging and needing. You also loose your resources. Wouldn't you rather trade in a mutually beneficial manner? It makes so much more sense to trade with a person that produces value for you. Now you are rewarding people for doing things that you want, plus you are net gaining from the trade.

To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts the offer, who offers something in return, yet uses the resources you provide them to perform things contrary to your goals and values may very well also be a bad decision. Do you net gain or loose? How much value are they providing you in the trade? How much will they destroy your values with the resources you provide them? It would make sense to only reward people who promote your goals. Rewarding people who will destroy your goals results in the destruction of your goals.


Capitalist Marxism without the Lenin.

I admit, political philosophy is not my forte. Either Phred or Redstorm will have to address your assertions, as this is my rather weak area, and they are both regulars in the PA&L forum to begin with.



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
    #5278406 - 02/08/06 04:52 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Thank you, Dmonikal. You summed it up better than I could.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
    #5278431 - 02/08/06 05:00 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


3. Man?every man?is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

I disagree with that. You don't HAVE to live for yourself and doing so is generally considered (by most) rather selfish and immoral.




Living for yourself is the only moral way to live. The only reason you find it immoral is that selfishness has for some reason been viewed as a vice rather than a virtue for countless years. It has been drilled into the minds of anyone who has been alive in the modern age that the needs or wants of the community outweigh the needs or wants of the individual. Objectivism does not say that you should never cooperate with others to get things done or that you should never help other people. It says that one should worry about his or her interests first. This is not unreasonable at all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: Redstorm]
    #5278457 - 02/08/06 05:07 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

One should not live exclusively for themselves. One should understand that they are a part of something greater, and act accordingly. No man is an island. While the rights of the individual are important, they are not, and should not, be the be-all and end-all. There is a greater good to which we are called.


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


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: Dmonikal]
    #5278476 - 02/08/06 05:17 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Here is another Intro to O'ism:

Quote:


What is Objectivism?

Let its founder speak first. Asked to specify Objectivism's essentials standing on one foot, Ayn Rand, standing on one foot, said:
Quote:


1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism




Writing about this episode later, she went on to say:

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
Quote:


1. 'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed' or 'Wishing won't make it so.'
2. 'You can't eat your cake & have it too.'
3. 'Man is an end in himself.'
4. 'Give me liberty or give me death.'





If you held these concepts with total consistency, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency - to understand, to define, to prove & to apply them - requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot - nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

Neither it can, & so it is.

Ayn Rand herself, relative to other philosophers, didn't write "volumes." In terms of quality & import, however, she out-wrote most of them combined & multiplied. Some philosophers (not many) had argued discretely for one or more of the above; she integrated ALL of it & brought esthetics into the mix as well. She argued that facts are facts; that reality is what it is, independent of our feelings or wishes; that human reason is able to grasp what it is; that reason's tools - sense-perception, concept-formation & logic - are, contrary to many philosophers, valid; that these facts have irresistible & demonstrable implications for ethics, politics, economics & art: they enjoin rational self-interest, individual liberty, capitalism & what she called "romantic realism" as part of "man's proper estate" - an "upright posture."

Along the way, she demolished several age-old dilemmas & dichotomies. She disposed of the "is/ought" dichotomy - that you can't derive values from facts - by pointing out that an entity's actions are determined by that entity's nature & that a volitional, conceptual entity such as man can derive values, by thought & choice, ONLY from facts. She pointed out that trying to derive values from OTHER sources - such as "divine revelation" or range-of-the-moment whims can lead only to disaster, & in so doing busted the intrinsicist/subjectivist dichotomy.

She pointed out that volition is a causal agent, & so resolved the free will/determinism controversy.

She pointed out that facts without logic are as useless as logic without facts, & so busted the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy.

She pointed out that consciousness is not rendered invalid by the fact that it has organs - that we are not deaf BECAUSE we have ears that can hear - & so busted Kant's noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy.

She exposed the lethal incoherence of requiring that we must know EVERYTHING in order to know ANYTHING (see modern physics).

She pointed out the logical absurdity of the traditional ethic of self-sacrifice for the sake of others - if I am here to sacrifice for you, & you are here to sacrifice for me, what good does that do either of us? What is the point? She highlighted its logical/practical effect, all too eloquently exemplified during the twentieth century in which she lived: humanity's being divided up into those who make sacrifices & those who receive them; thence, bloodbaths & concentration camps.

She pointed out the existential monstrosity of an ethic that says we should act from duty & eschew happiness. "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer & die, but to enjoy yourself & live." With that, she launched a revolution.

Ayn Rand showed that we can not only contemplate the stars, but we can also reach them - in part by dispensing with the notion that we'll find a "God" there. "My philosophy, in essence" she said, "is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, & reason as his only absolute."









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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5278651 - 02/08/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"The irrefutable fact is: You must live for yourself, one way or the other - else, you will die."

That is a semi-truth. You will die if you don't live for yourself in this society which is quite correct. My point is this does not have to be.

"Considered selfish and immoral by most? Might doesn't make right - just as the mere fact that a majority of folks in various parts of USA [read: Bible-belt] think that the entire human race was spawned by two fully grown humans and that something called "the rapture" is coming, does not validate any such beliefs.
Selfishness is a virtue, just like any other virtue - believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with being selfish, as there is nothing wrong with treating yourself good, as no other human has primacy over your own life. Objectivism does not advocate being a leech - rather, it advocates being a trader."

Selfishness is not a virtue. Considering yourself and doing the right thing is. Selfishness has BECOME a virtue in this society. It does not have any inherent goodness about it. Might does not make right which is true enough. There is nothing wrong at all with treating yourself well. Objectivism is simply a way of trying to express a newer form of communism called socialism. All the same ideals. In a communist society men and women are considered equals and everyone "trades" their skills for the common good of all man kind. Since no one is trying to hurt anyone and everyone gets along just fine. In reality that is just a fairy tale, proven over and over in the history books. That has been tried over and over and it just doesn't work because there will always be corruption (democracy is the same Idea just with incentives for hard work)and communism is one of the easiest of all governments to corrupt because the government ENFORCES the supposed great ideals. You simply end up with suppression of free thought and not much in the way of a free press (see communist China and the soviet Union). Marxists have been trying to make that shit work for near a hundred years. It does work to an extent, but when those masses start picking up books and reading them it go's right down the gutter.

To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts but offers nothing in return is an act of injustice: you reward them for nothing and you sacrifice your resources. Rewarding people for nothing only enables them to continue a life of begging and needing. You also loose your resources. Wouldn't you rather trade in a mutually beneficial manner? It makes so much more sense to trade with a person that produces value for you. Now you are rewarding people for doing things that you want, plus you are net gaining from the trade.

Trade is only slightly mutually beneficial, someone always profits more then the other. Like I said before this is simply capitalist Marxism or a "socialist" government like Canada's or many in Europe.

To trade by giving your resources to someone who very happily accepts the offer, who offers something in return, yet uses the resources you provide them to perform things contrary to your goals and values may very well also be a bad decision. Do you net gain or loose? How much value are they providing you in the trade? How much will they destroy your values with the resources you provide them? It would make sense to only reward people who promote your goals. Rewarding people who will destroy your goals results in the destruction of your goals.

They are going to haggle like a MOFO trying to get as much as they can. That is nicely worded socialism. Socialism is simply the idea that
the government SHOULD control these things and work for the benefit of all. All of the rich western states are socialist to one extreme or the other. Socialism is welfare, health care, police etc.
They are not free however and draw from the resources of everyone in the form of much beloved TAXES. For example the US is on the right wing of this (less free health care,welfare etc) and Canada is further to the left wing (free health care, many nationalized industries etc) on the opposite sides of these extremes
are Nazi Germany (right wing) and Stalinist Russia (left wing)
All nations fall between these 2 ideals. The real dangerous nations are the ones that go too far towards either of these ideas. Both sides are supposed to be "free" but neither really are. MASSIVE propaganda machines on either side. In reality both are absolutely fucking wrong. Hitler did not come to power because he was a nice guy who believed in equality. People on the far right have no real rights and people on the far left have no real rights either. Less government means more freedom but also total anarchy. The far right side DOES work, because if you have no freedoms, privacy or the right to be a Jew for instance, you can't really do too much wrong.

NO MAN IS TRULY FREE IN THIS WORLD!
now that is a truth.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
    #5278730 - 02/08/06 06:36 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Umm and to sum this up for the people not familiar with political systems I drew this bar. It is MUCH more dangerous to swing too far to the right then the left. Least on the left the government is at least LYING about standing for equality.


NAZI------------US---------------------------Canada--------------------China
<---l-------------l-------------------------------l--------------------------------l------>


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
    #5278736 - 02/08/06 06:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I would like to point out that the third and fourth principles of Objectivism, taken together, would lead to widespread starvation. I do not necessarily believe that laissez-faire capitalism by itself would have such an outcome(though it would certainly suck to be poor in such a society), since people would still give to charity in such a society. However, if everyone's just looking out for number 1, that means people would not be motivated to donate to charity, as it is not in their individual self-interest. This is why I consider Objectivism to be more comtempable than other libertarian ideas, because there might still be hope for the poor in a libertarian society, but a society of Objectivists would mean certain death for the poor.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5278764 - 02/08/06 06:44 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

And that's exactly what happened to Russia Paradigm. People starved to death by the many millions. Something like 30 million Russians (their satellite states included) starved to death during world war 2 (might be wrong bout the exact numbers it has been awhile) and they had to resort to cannibalism. There was a story in a textbook by the BBC (I think) about how a few people in Siberia found a 2 week dead rotting horse carcass and ate it maggots and all. I really feel for them since my ancestors happened to be in the Polish Ukrainian area and no longer exist.


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: Dmonikal]
    #5279062 - 02/08/06 07:53 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

That is a semi-truth. You will die if you don't live for yourself in this society which is quite correct. My point is this does not have to be.

Nope, it ultimately holds true in ALL situations. If you think you know of a case whereby one need not expend any effort to further one's own thrival in existence, I'm listening.

Selfishness is not a virtue. Considering yourself and doing the right thing is.

This statement contradicts itself. If you grok how this is so, then perhaps you will also understand the semtantical confusioon there is with the word selfish, here.


Selfishness has BECOME a virtue in this society.

I can not possibly agree. Selfishness wasn't a virtue for those before this society? In one respect, I can see how one might think that selfishness wasn't a virtue until man declared it to be so - but this extends to ALL moral principles established by man. Outside of such ethical devices, the actions which man must perform to futher his own existence shows that, to one level or another, selfishness is indeed an important value, as one's own existence is a fundamental basis for morality.


It does not have any inherent goodness about it.


To carry this statement to its full rammifications, is for you to claim that furthering your own existence and achieving values, goals, etc., are not efficacious to you.


I'm simply not going to bother dissecting your attempts to tie in politics, i.e., "communist-socialism" with trader ethics of O'ism - which, at any rate, is a simple system of ethics found almost EVERYWHERE we go, although, some -for whatever reason- don't like to admit it, at least in certain, sensitive situations. The bottom line is that Objectivism does not advocate being a homo leecherandmoochens, it emphatically advocates being a homo traderandproducens. If your contention - simplified - is that we shouldn't trade values for values, then what do you propose in place of such? I admit, I can think of no other possibility than to divide humans into the sacrificers and the takers.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5279225 - 02/08/06 08:42 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Well discussing that will never go anywhere. You cannot hold to know the ABSOLUTE truth and neither can I. An idea can have neither good nor evil about it, it is just words after all. In this case I have many threads elsewhere about what I really believe. Not too many people will have a leg to stand on discussing politics with me either. meh.

My school was so poor we had to import textbooks from other countries (the US and Britain mostly) and had some very carefully masked as CANADIAN US made textbooks. After reading 3 sides of each issue and my own research, I read some pretty fucking horrific shit all sides did and quite frankly communists came out as the good guys. Whites vs reds Mao etc. The propoganda on all sides became quite apparent as the American books masked all of the bad things they did and the British masked all the bad things they did. The British, oddly enough did not have quite so bad an oppinion of the French and Russians, nor any particular reason to make Russia look good (this was during the cold war when some of these books were
written). After awhile I threw my hands up with disgust on the atrocities commited by western society on communists and threw out all my (media induced) opinions on all sides. For one the west owes Russia big time for its fighting 3/4 of Germany while we fought
old men and children. Of course after 30 million dead russians (which not that many people even know about)vs the 6 million jews dead (which WE called a holocaust) the west offered only non communist states aid. So Russia was SOL, pissed
and basically the cold war started. Truman made no attempt whatsoever to compromise. Then of course came that fun communist witch hunt. Arms build up etc. During the Russian revolution the west sided with funded and helped actually fight against the communist goverment of Russia. Which beat the shit out of the Russian infrastructure even further then the totalitarian previous ruler had. Lenin and his reds had to fight off the whole fuckin world and won. Then Lenin died and Stalin took over who rebuilt Russia with a whip and sending anyone who disagreed with him to siberia (can be argued by either side that it was good or evil)
After the rise of Hitler (It is not like Russia didn't offer alliance to the west either who ignored Russia) Russia was stuck between a rock and a hard place had only one choice Hitler. Then Hitler betrayed Russsia and invaded them. Then the world more or less watched and hoped that Russia would be wiped out while they pleaded for aid (which eventually came in the form of rundown used junk to equip 100 000 of their many million army). Then a few years later when Russia was obviously going to win the west leapt up and very quickly made sure to occupy the western countries of europe so those sneaky Russians didn't just take over europe all by itself. About all we did to support Russia (which ended up needing no help at all) was that operation torch travesty. Well anyways I have a really shitty jaded opinion of EVERY side of this mockery of a world we have now. Fucking media.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: Dmonikal]
    #5279247 - 02/08/06 08:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Reading all that history without giving a fuck about opinions the world looks an awful lot worse, if you just look at what happened and not who is RIGHT, the picture suddenly changes.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5279507 - 02/08/06 09:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Objectivism does not advocate being a homo leecherandmoochens

And especially frowns on homo sexuals.  :grin:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5279543 - 02/08/06 09:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5279892 - 02/08/06 10:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The truth about all philosophical and spiritual debates is no one really (subconsciously) wants to know the answer, because the real answer would destroy them. We as a species hang onto our beliefs as a defense mechanism from the unknown. Our minds learn well and build and build, eventually one day maybe we will be ready to know the real answer. Even if one were to state the real meaning of life, or the best government system, no one would believe it. We are taught our beliefs and we build upon them and become individuals, when really our minds are all linked together. Our evolution is a kind of hive mind (basically everything we know we store in some way), the internet is the beggining of that. Merely with better memory such a thing will happen. Perhaps being actually psychic is impossible but imagine a implant that read our brain waves and helped to broadcast them to eachother (not really that far away). Transcendence of the flesh. Neuromancer made real.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Phred]
    #5280613 - 02/09/06 03:18 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Ped writes:

Quote:

No object can be apprehended as an existent without the involvement of perceptual cognizer.




Correct.

Quote:

Because this is true, it is impossible to know a reality that exists separate from consciousness.




Debatable, but even if true not applicable to the conclusion you are about to reach. The fact that there are entities within existence which are able to apprehend their surroundings does not mean that if such consciousnesses were to disappear their surroundings would also disappear.

Quote:

For this reason, even if an objective reality were to exist, it would be fundamentally unapproachable.




Incorrect. You reached this conclusion due to your irrelevant premise.

Quote:

This defeats the objectivist philosophy.




It does no such thing.

Quote:

All aspects of the reality we are involved with are articulated and imputed by consciousness.




Incorrect. They are observed by our consciousness. Not the same thing at all.

Quote:

In the asbence of consciousness, no such inherent attributes can be said to exist, and therefore no such objective reality exists.




Incorrect. In the absence of conscious entities, the non-conscious entities of existence still exist, it's just that none of them are aware they exist.

Quote:

For an object to exist inherently, we must be able to identify it's inherent nature.




Incorrect. It can exist whether there is another entity around to identify it or not. It's just that in the absence of entities capable of identification, its inherent nature remains unidentified.

Quote:

We can take any object and investigate it for it's inherent nature, and we will find that it is an investigation without end.




Incorrect. To accurately identify every possible aspect of an entity's nature is immensely complicated and time-consuming, but not in principle impossible.

Quote:

This defeats objectivist philosophy.




Incorrect.

You make arbitrary pronouncements which are not only unsupported by even an attempt at argument, but which also contradict the evidence of the senses of every reader of this thread. This does nothing to "defeat" Objectivism, but it does speak volumes about your own "arrogance".



Phred




Arguing according to theories about logical phallus-ies is extremely manipulative and out of context. In addition, appeal to any logical fallacy is itself an Appeal to Authority (of logical fallcy).

Your final argument regarding the senses of the readers of this thread is very presumptious and cites some vague rule of epistemology wherein the senses are good for the taking. The senses are often wrong in correlation to phenomena, especially the phenomena of other's senses.

I'd also like to mention, which has been excluded from this post, that the cognition of the perceiver/beholder of truth is something tied to a language. Most of you have been discussing "existence" and various entities, not taking the essential measures needed to understand how language is that which has created these things -- how it makes these entities and how it then makes their study possible.

Denying any arrogance to objectivity would require releasing it from its sociological beginnings (which scientists and analytical philosophers are keen on, and na?ve enough, to try). Only in forgetting that claims regarding objectivity have a social and cultural context can they be taken as VERITAS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5280751 - 02/09/06 05:47 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

MushmanTheManic writes:

Quote:

Read.
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm




I have read it. Have you? I have also read several excellent refutations of it.

Huemer's logic is faulty, he (apparently deliberately) misrepresents Objectivism, uses straw man arguments, contradicts himself in his arguments, conflates principles, and more.

Even at that, he is in agreement with almost every basic tenet of Objectivism. To quote from the link --

Quote:

Probably the most controversial parts of Objectivism are these five claims:
(1) Reality is objective.

(2) One should always follow reason and never think or act contrary to reason. (I take this to be the meaning of "Reason is absolute.")

(3) Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason.

(4) Every person should always be selfish.

(5) Capitalism is the only just social system.

It is in holding to these five propositions that Rand's philosophy most contrasts with the prevailing philosophical attitudes of our culture. Our current intellectual culture is shot through with collectivism, irrationalism, and subjectivism.

This is bound to make my disagreement with Objectivism seem small, at least to most non-Objectivists: I agree with 1, 2, 3, and 5. In fact, I regard each of those propositions as either self-evident or else provable beyond any reasonable doubt through philosophical argument and (in the case of #5) historical evidence. I would even go so far as to say that the continuing resistance to these facts is due essentially to evasion. And I regard #1 as so obvious as to be beneath a philosopher to argue.




He then goes on to spend an inordinate amount of verbiage attempting to attack #4 -- "every person should always be selfish". The problem of course is that Objectivism nowhere says that every person should always be selfish.

Part of his attack is an incredibly lengthy and convoluted attempt to show that the furthering of one's survival cannot be logically proven to be good, therefore there can be no objective basis for Objectivist morality (or for that matter any morality at all), since without the concept of "good" there can be no morality.

He ignores the simple fact that Objectivism presents the question not as an "is-ought", but as an "if-then", i.e. "If it is correct for a human to attempt to continue his life, then it is correct for that human to perform actions which will further his life." So if Huemer (or anyone else) decides that it is not correct for him (a human) to attempt to continue his life, he bows out of the discussion. The concept of "good" is of interest only to those who have decided to continue to survive. That's the whole point of the science of ethics (morality) -- to discover a set of guiding principles by which humans should live their lives.

Here is just one of many refutations of Huemer. It's not the most complete one I've seen, but I'm in a rush this morning and this is the first one I could think of.

http://www.noblesoul.com/rl/essays/huemer.html




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Objectivism [Re: Phred]
    #5281645 - 02/09/06 12:38 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

On this issue, there are two camps: subjectivism as truth, and objectivism as truth. From my point of view, the subjective nature of reality is self-evident. Because it appears to me as such, I am secure in that view and feel no need to back-up every statement I make about the relationship I have with reality. I have already decided how things are and feel no need to investigate it further or justify my own claims. Sound familiar?

Objectivist thinkers here are doing precisely the same thing. To them, the objective nature of reality is self-evident. They dismiss my comments about reality as "self-evident fallacies", offering no substantive back-up to these claims. Why? Because they are relating to reality in the way they take as legitimate, and are operating from the assumption that I, being an opponent to their relational paradigm, am simply mistaken.

Nothing concrete has yet been offered to substantiate either the idea of a subjective reality nor an objective one, yet both parties are behaving as though their own stance is obviously, and objectively correct.

I have been behaving, quite deliberately, as though a subjective reality were objectively true. This is an obvious contradiction: although I am advocating subjectivity, I am speaking as an objectivist. Even though that contradiction was highlighted in the first reply to this thread, nonetheless my contrived and hyper-exaggerated objectivist stance was of such inflammatory power that it solicited tremendous criticism from actual objectivist thinkers. What they do not realize is that through criticizing me and my modes of thinking, they have only been highlighting the fundmental error of their own.

This proves that objectivist thinking, by it's very nature, has not and can not ever come close to approaching the nature of reality. By presenting subjectivism as an objective truth, and by reflecting the views and ideals innate to objectivist thinking, I have solicited -- from objectivists -- the same criticism deserving of all other objectivist claims. The fundamentally self-limiting nature of imputing objectivity on to any observed phenomenon has been brightly underscored in this.

All of that being said, I would offer this challenge to any and all objectivists: prove it. Prove it in the way you've proven everything else you're so proud of. Show us the inherent nature of an object. Use any example. Reveal to us, without using erroneous terms like "self-evident", or "obviously", the existence of an object which carries on apart from consciouness. Show us the inherent nature of consciouness which carries on independent of the "external" world. If such an inherent nature exists, either as an attribute of consciousness or any other mundane phenomenon, and if it is knowable by human beings as objectivism claims, then any objectivist thinker here ought to be able to guide us to the inherent nature of an object: it's permenent existential quality existing independent of consciousness.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Edited by Ped (02/09/06 12:45 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]
    #5281654 - 02/09/06 12:40 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

On this issue, there are two camps: subjectivism as truth, and objectivism as truth.



Actually, I belong to a third camp: the recognition of both as complementary truths.


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


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: Lakefingers]
    #5281689 - 02/09/06 12:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The senses are often wrong in correlation to phenomena, especially the phenomena of other's senses.


Correction: Our interpretations of the senses are what may be "right or wrong". Our senses themselves, are in-fallible. Take the example of a pencil submerged in the water. This gives the appearance that the pencil is bent - and indeed, our senses are registering the facts infallibly. However, if we were to interpret this sensory input as: "The stick is actually bent.", then we have a case of incorrect interpretation.
In reality, our senses have obeyed nature perfectly [nature does not contradict itself]- for there is a phenomenon called "refraction", which is the cause for the aforementioned appearance of the pencil submerged in water.


I'd also like to mention, which has been excluded from this post, that the cognition of the perceiver/beholder of truth is something tied to a language. Most of you have been discussing "existence" and various entities, not taking the essential measures needed to understand how language is that which has created these things -- how it makes these entities and how it then makes their study possible.

A bit vague, but from what I can see, you are attempting to reverse a process that takes place in reality. Existence and various entities are not derived from language - rather the opposite, and to put it more accurately: language is derived from concepts, and concepts are derived from the condensation of data formed through our faculty of reason, which recieves sensory data via the faculty of perception, from existence and various entities.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5281706 - 02/09/06 12:56 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Absolutely. Part of the subjectivist canon is the idea of a union between conventional and ultimate truths. Conventional truths possess some element of objectivity, although not inherently so. A conventional truth is something decided upon when a group of people agree on some aspect of reality. For example, when someone points at John and says "that is John", this is a conventional truth. However, a subjectivist also understands that ultimately, that no such distinction, and by extension no other conceivable distinction between phenomenon, exists anywhere but within consciousness.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


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: Ped]
    #5281748 - 02/09/06 01:08 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Yourself being a Subjectivist, you would agree the fundamental primary of your philosophy holds that the Primacy of Consciousness is true. Yes or No?



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5281761 - 02/09/06 01:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I think most of us belong to that third camp.

Objective truth only takes you so far into the multilayers of truth.

We can use objectivity to determine that the stereo is on and playing audible music and the true octave volume of the stereo. That as far as it gets us.

If I think its just perfect and my daughter thinks its toooooooo loud, which one of us is right? Who is telling the truth? Is it perfect or to loud? There are two contradicting truths at play.

Subjective truths and dealing with them is just as much a part of reality as objective existence is.

Human beings are not exact carbon copies, one size truth fits all objects.

In solving the conflict of the stereo volume, relative philosophy also comes into play to discerning truth. It shows you, one is right to experience the volume to be perfect and another is right to be experiencing it be to loud.

Humanistic philosophy comes into play and the objective truth doesn't even matter anymore to help solve the conflict. The feelings of each other have to matter for a fair and peaceful compromise to be struck.


I think I go beyond the 3rd camp and see practical use for ALL of the philosophies out there and find they work well together. Just using one would be so restrictive to realizing or fulfilling a larger picture at play.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5281814 - 02/09/06 01:25 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quick question: How does objectivism deal with the Objectivst Law of Causality in the face of the uncertainty principle establishes that nothing can be predicted with certainty, at the quantum-mechanical level?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5281839 - 02/09/06 01:30 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I don't believe any Objectivists have yet addressed my point about starvation. Perhaps I should further elaborate. I see several possibilities here:

1. Objectivists are willing to leave poor people to starve in order to be consistent with their principles, in which case it is a cruel and heartless philosophy, which is reason enough to reject it outright.

2. Objectivists naively believe that laissez-faire capitalism by itself will stop starvation, in which case it is clearly disconnected from reality.

3. Objectivists are willing to give to charity, thus violating the third principle of Objectivism, making it internally inconsistent.

4. Objectivists are willing to leave the charity work to non-Objectivists, in which case they are hypocrites, and again in violation of the third principle.


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5281877 - 02/09/06 01:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I don't think you are understanding the type of subjectivism that is diametric to Objectivism. Your outlined cases deal more with subjective ethics.

By subjectivism, we don't mean merely the quality of being subjective [defined as particular to], rather we are talking about the doctrine which holds that all knowledge is restricted to the mind, without reference to reality. We're talking about the doctrine which holds that, metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations.

In contrast, Objectivism holds that knowledge and facts are not intrinsic to reality nor are they merely subjective - rather they are determined by the nature of reality, and are to be discovered by man's mind. It holds that metaphysically, existence is objective - and is knowable.



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5281934 - 02/09/06 01:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I understand that. I think all of us do. Some of us are just saying that it alone is not the absolute stystem that serves us in every situation.  It takes us as far as to what we can all objectively know, like the music being played and its octave.

Two human beings, real and live are in conflict over its volume. Now how does objective philosophy solve the conflict? Would objective philosophy even acknowledge the existence of two people being in conflict or would they say, it being perect or loud is all in their minds and walk away?

If so, then like, paradigm said, the objectivists goes into denial of reality.

And will someone address paradigms questions to help some of us understand? It would be interesting to see how objective philosophy "alone" serves one in real life human dilemmas.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5282163 - 02/09/06 02:58 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

The real answer to this is: You will never know the answer unless you discard all your beliefs and rebuild them totally ignoring all opinions on anything whatsoever. Then all you can see are facts. Then you can make your own mind up about what you believe.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5282436 - 02/09/06 04:21 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

And will someone address paradigms questions to help some of us understand?

What Paradigm really means, is that the third and fourth principles of O?ism taken to the extremes [read: taken irrationally], would lead to such & such. Of course, O?ism does not advocate any such exaggerations. Anybody who understands O?ism knows that rationality and logic is a key principle in O?ist ethics ? hence whenever you see one who makes claims similar to Paradigm?s, or Heumer?s, it is most surely a result of nescience on the matter ? or in some cases, intentional misrepresentation.

He willingly establishes possibilities based on his misconstrued conceptions of O?ism, but neglects to explore scenarios whereby everyone involved is a full, card-carrying O?ist. If everyone were so, then in various respects, everybody would be looking out for each other not because they hold altruism is the highest moral good, but because it entails looking out for themselves, e.g., the trader ethics, and so forth ? in other words, because it is in our rational self-interest. The primary difference between these two opposing approaches, is merely the order of priority or esteem.

O?ism does not advocate childish selfishness ? it advocates rational selfishness.




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


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/09/06 05:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5282490 - 02/09/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

O?ism does not advocate childish selfishness ? it advocates rational selfishness.







is that a typo, or were you seriously thinking it made sense?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #5282611 - 02/09/06 05:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

It makes perfect sense to me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: Redstorm]
    #5282660 - 02/09/06 05:23 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

"I dont believe in false gods, only the true god"

yes, I guess it does make sense....


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5282723 - 02/09/06 05:45 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

That's how I approach life monicle! :wink:

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

Like in my stereo example, If someone told me I was playing music to loud for their comfort, and they couldn't leave the environment, like in a car, I would turned it down. Consideration, for another's subjective experience made that decision for me. I treat that as an objective fact.

The two made up the reality at hand.

(this is hypothetical)

What if I said to her, "Its my car, I'm the adult, the volume stays where I like it, deal with it." I've seen parents pull that rank, where their needs and wants are the priority because of their seniority and power of authority over the child. Objectivive philosophy can prove them true and make it right as well.

Is it right?

Without any recognition of the child's, subjective experience, can you see where taking such an objective factual position of authority over another can open things up to being abusive because they are in the objective right to be so? 

How does prioritizing work with objectivity? Whose needs and wants are deemed more important then others, objectively speaking?

One could easily argue that it is a knowable objective fact, that the one with the most power to enforce its will is the top dog. The objective facts of reality support might making right. Is might being right the truth of what is right for all? The kid will say, "that loud music blasting my ear drums, when i have no escape from it, just isn't right"

Who is right, the parent or the child?

You might say, "well, now you are getting into ethics of right and wrong" yes I am because dealing with them is a known fact and part of reality. People get hurt and abused if we don't. Is that all in our minds too?

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

A ten year old can ration the fact that he is bigger then the 4 year old and can take his toys away from him. Thats a known objective fact and true.

Do you end it there and let him, because its the truth of what he can do? The ten year old in the objective right, is being childish in my opinion. Does it not take a subjective and rational adult to jump in and say, "10 year old, even though you do have more power over a 4 year old, it does not give you the right to forcibly take his toys away from him."

If it were not for the people in this world, going beyond objective truth and seeing further into subjective truth and feeling compassion for the less powerful and able, this world would SUCK BALLS being over run with objective only tyrannies who live by the known fact easily rationed that might makes right.

Please argue against that tyranical reality, keeping within how  objective philosophy would handle it. PLEASE. If you can't, then objective philosophy is some scary shit if it takes over the mind set of the planet.

Please show me where objective philosophy rationalizes compassion care and protection for the less able and less powerful.

I want to understand why you think its the ultimate, one and only correct navigational tool to live by and with for all of life.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5282742 - 02/09/06 05:51 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I forgot to ask in my last reply how objective philosophy rationalizes the difference between these two?

Quote:

O?ism does not advocate childish selfishness ? it advocates rational selfishness




:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5282764 - 02/09/06 05:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
He willingly establishes possibilities based on his misconstrued conceptions of O?ism, but neglects to explore scenarios whereby everyone involved is a full, card-carrying O?ist.



Actually, that was precisely the scenario I presented. If everyone looked out only for their own individual self-interest, then they would engage in trade, but not charity. Charity does not benefit the individual giving to it in any way except to satisfy their need to be altruistic -- a need which goes against the idea that selfishness is a virtue. The people who are starving are usually not a regular sight for those who are well-off, and thus are not a concern for any purely self-interested person. For the person who is starving, the most rational thing they could do in their self-interest is steal, yet this also violates the third principle because it treats others as a means to an end. Thus, his next best option is to scavenge whatever he can out of dumpsters and such. Of course, with no welfare to care for the poor, this would mean that a lot more poor people would be competing for these morsels of food.

The only hope such people would have would either be a government-funded social safety net, or private charity. In order for either of these things to exist, there would have to be non-Objectivists in society.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: Phred]
    #5283004 - 02/09/06 07:03 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

what opponents of Objectivism decry as "arrogance" is nothing more than self confidence

"It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people's model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense. Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of the irrational." -- Nathaniel Branden

I hope you won't irrationally claim you know Ayn Rand better than the man she credited with understanding Objectivism better than any other person.

I have read it. Have you?

No, of course not, I just googled "Why Objectivism sucks", found that, and posted it.  :rolleyes:

We're talking about the doctrine which holds that, metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations.

I think you're confusing subjectivism with solipsism.

Objectivism is the ONLY philosophy extant of which I am aware which requires nothing more than the recognition of two axioms --

1) Existence exists
2) Existence is knowable to humans


"Tenets" not "axioms"... this is poor tautology.
If existence is all that exists than what is 'existence'? A substance? "Existence" and "exist" are both philosophically, linguistically, and ontologically loaded terms. Terms which need to be presented clearly first in order for us understand "Existence exists". The words have ambiguous meanings and rely on other concepts, consequentially, they're not necessarily equivalent and hardly the theorems of an axiomic set.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5283053 - 02/09/06 07:16 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

This is getting a little cyclical. She is false. Any man who thinks they have the answer is wrong, because no man CAN know the answer.
Her theory is alright I guess. A better one is believe in NOTHING.
Cast out every opinion about every damn thing, even your opinions on taste smell, god, law, philosophy, etc. Or you will never see the real answer in your entire life. Our knowledge is teribly perverted by
time and THEORIES. Cast out your views on good and evil, religion, sex, love, hate, evolution, existence, every damn thing you think you KNOW. Do not even consider opinions. Then read. There is an answer there for all of you, but if you keep thinking about SELF and desire, well forever you are bound in it. 777.


--------------------
Give your money or your life
Take 'em both for all I care
Dump your bullets right here


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]
    #5283079 - 02/09/06 07:23 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Actually, that was precisely the scenario I presented.

No, it wasn?t ? because your scenario does not envelope an accurate understanding of the O?ist philosophy, hence does not apply to O?ists

If everyone looked out only for their own individual self-interest, then they would engage in trade, but not charity.

Here we see the insistence on the narrow-minded misconstrued conception that because O?ists hold their self-interest as their highest priority, they would, in effect, be unable or unwilling to place altruism and generosity in any other priority. I can think of several O?ists that I personally know, including myself, who are living examples which negate such small minded conceptions.

Charity does not benefit the individual giving to it in any way except to satisfy their need to be altruistic -- a need which goes against the idea that selfishness is a virtue.

If it satisfies an individual need, then obviously, there is selfishness involved in such an action.

For the person who is starving, the most rational thing they could do in their self-interest is steal, yet this also violates the third principle because it treats others as a means to an end.
Thus, his next best option is to scavenge whatever he can out of dumpsters and such. Of course, with no welfare to care for the poor, this would mean that a lot more poor people would be competing for these morsels of food.
The only hope such people would have would either be a government-funded social safety net, or private charity. In order for either of these things to exist, there would have to be non-Objectivists in society.


You provide restricted scenarios that most suit your position, but in reality I think it would be much fairer to say that there are usually other options ? options which need not violate any moral principle of O?ism. I refuse to bother speculating about neither your nor my conceived possibilities because, frankly, it would result in endless hair-splitting and speculative dead-ends.
Furthermore, keep in mind that you are applying your scenarios in mid-stream, rather than speculating about possibilities involving individuals that are O?ists from an early of an age as possible ? born and raised in an O?ist society/community, and so forth.



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5283184 - 02/09/06 07:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Here we see the insistence on the narrow-minded misconstrued conception that because O?ists hold their self-interest as their highest priority, they would, in effect, be unable or unwilling to place altruism and generosity in any other priority.

To be fair, people generally consider Objectivism as a total rejection of altruism. I think this is because Rand had a strange definition of altruism that was synonymous to self-destruction or self-desecration. While she repeatedly denounced [her definition of] "altruism", I can't recall her ever denouncing kindness or helping others.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
    #5283306 - 02/09/06 08:22 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
Quick question: How does objectivism deal with the Objectivst Law of Causality in the face of the uncertainty principle that establishes that nothing can be predicted with certainty, at the quantum-mechanical level?




Would any of you Objectivists care to address this?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
    #5283465 - 02/09/06 08:54 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quantum mechanics and objectivism go to together about as well as vinegar and baking soda. They make a huge mess.


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: MushmanTheManic]
    #5283486 - 02/09/06 08:57 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

To be fair, people generally consider Objectivism as a total rejection of altruism. I think this is because Rand had a strange definition of altruism that was synonymous to self-destruction or self-desecration. While she repeatedly denounced [her definition of] "altruism", I can't recall her ever denouncing kindness or helping others.

Essentially, Rand was referring to that general type of altruism ? to a lesser or more extent. Because of this, some people indeed misinterpret this and take it to mean that she therefore dissents against altruism on ALL accounts. Rand was against altruism in the form of self-sacrifice for the sake of others ? which, some think is the most noblest way to live.

Also worth noting is the fact that many O?ist-uneducated opposers aren?t privy to the fact that Rand and Objectivism holds that productivity/productive achievement is man?s noblest, highest virtue. If they knew this, perhaps they would see that there are indeed forms of altruism that Objectivism advocates ? philanthropy.

?I do not build in order to have profits. I have profits in order to build.? ? Ayn Rand


I think you're confusing subjectivism with solipsism.

Solipsism is a form of subjectivism, whereby its differentia is found in the belief that only the solipsist exists.




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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
    #5283525 - 02/09/06 09:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

From Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

Many commentators on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle claim that, because we cannot at the same time specify fully the position and momentum of subatomic particles, their action is not entirely predictable, and that the law of causality therefore breaks down. This is a non sequitur, a switch from epistemology to metaphysics, or from knowledge to reality. Even if it were true that owing to a lack of information we could never exactly predict a subatomic event--and this is highly debatable--it would not show that, in reality, the event was causeless. The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not by itself enable us to predict specific occurrences; it does not provide us with a knowledge of particular causes or measurements. Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5283648 - 02/09/06 09:29 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

No offense, but that's a ridiculous attempt to cop out of the question at hand.

There is a difference between randomness out of ignorance and randomness due to true, undeniable nature of the event at hand.

When it comes to the uncertainty principle it is not the present that is unknown as Rand attempts to illustrate. In contrast, the problem is that the future cannot be predicted, contrary to Rand's original claim. I'm a student of philosophy and I am also familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivist metaphysics, this contradiction that I pointed out is still a prevalent criticism against Rand and so far there has been no competent refutations.

If you hold the same view as the post you just made, I highly recommend you talk to a physicist at a local university on the issue at hand. He could perhaps enlighten you further.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCherk
Fashionable
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: spud]
    #5283668 - 02/09/06 09:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

IMO there are far too many things happening outside of human awareness in order to predict the future. We do not know of everything going on, which would be required in order to predict the future.

Edit, Rand says that the future is ultimately predictable, not that we have the ability to do so, as far as I understand anyways.


--------------------
I have considered such matters.

SIKE


Edited by Smoker For Peace (02/09/06 09:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCherk
Fashionable
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: Cherk]
    #5283710 - 02/09/06 09:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Couldn't the objective truth be something as intangible as the Tao?


--------------------
I have considered such matters.

SIKE


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5284110 - 02/09/06 11:17 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Essentially, Rand was referring to that general type of altruism ? to a lesser or more extent. Because of this, some people indeed misinterpret this and take it to mean that she therefore dissents against altruism on ALL accounts. Rand was against altruism in the form of self-sacrifice for the sake of others ? which, some think is the most noblest way to live.



And yet, this is exactly what philanthropy is -- self-sacrifice for the sake of others. How is giving the product of labor to others while getting nothing in return from them anything other than self-sacrifice for the sake of others?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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





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

Heisenberg probably read too much Berkeley.

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




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


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

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

How is giving the product of labor to others while getting nothing in return from them anything other than self-sacrifice for the sake of others?

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

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



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

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

Quote:

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



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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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




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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Carrying along back on track..

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


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

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

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

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



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


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

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

I agree with spud on the problem with Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:

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




Quote:

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




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

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

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

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


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

Quote:

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




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

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


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

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

Quote:

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




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

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

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

You really should read about it.

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


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

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

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


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

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


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

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

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

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

..an epistemological problem.




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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

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

Nice reply here mushroom trip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:peace: :heart:


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


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

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

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

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

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

Like in my stereo example, If someone told me I was playing music to loud for their comfort, and they couldn't leave the environment, like in a car, I would turned it down. Consideration, for another's subjective experience made that decision for me. I treat that as an objective fact.

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


What if I said to her, "Its my car, I'm the adult, the volume stays where I like it, deal with it." I've seen parents pull that rank, where their needs and wants are the priority because of their seniority and power of authority over the child. Objective philosophy can prove them true and make it right as well.

Is it right?


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

Without any recognition of the child's, subjective experience, can you see where taking such an objective factual position of authority over another can open things up to being abusive because they are in the objective right to be so?

No, see above.

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

One could easily argue that it is a knowable objective fact, that the one with the most power to enforce its will is the top dog. The objective facts of reality support might making right. Is might being right the truth of what is right for all? The kid will say, "that loud music blasting my ear drums, when i have no escape from it, just isn't right"

Who is right, the parent or the child?


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

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

:smile:

A ten year old can ration the fact that he is bigger then the 4 year old and can take his toys away from him. Thats a known objective fact and true.

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


I want to understand why you think its the ultimate, one and only correct navigational tool to live by and with for all of life.

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




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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

That is so silly and unrealistic its laughable.


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

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

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

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

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




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


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5286445 - 02/10/06 04:14 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5286579 - 02/10/06 04:51 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.  :sun::heart:

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.:lol:

:peace: :heart:


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5286582 - 02/10/06 04:51 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5286708 - 02/10/06 05:25 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5286933 - 02/10/06 06:59 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.




:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5286959 - 02/10/06 07:07 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5286971 - 02/10/06 07:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


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: MushmanTheManic]
    #5286996 - 02/10/06 07:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Nature is not obliged to follow man's reason.

Of course. But man's reason is free to follow nature. :wink:




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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287006 - 02/10/06 07:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287008 - 02/10/06 07:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5287015 - 02/10/06 07:21 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287018 - 02/10/06 07:22 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287036 - 02/10/06 07:29 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.

:peace: :heart:


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5287071 - 02/10/06 07:41 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5287081 - 02/10/06 07:45 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.

:shrug:

I can only take things so seriously here for a bits at a time until I start seeing the humor in life here.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287097 - 02/10/06 07:49 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.

:peace: :heart:


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287114 - 02/10/06 07:54 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5287139 - 02/10/06 08:05 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
This is the most scarily dogmatic sentence I've ever read on this forum...



QFT


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5287162 - 02/10/06 08:10 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5287179 - 02/10/06 08:16 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

How can anyone truly be objective about objectivity itself using the rules of objectivity?

I'm supposed to understand this incoherence?  :confused:

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.


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: MushmanTheManic]
    #5287229 - 02/10/06 08:36 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287585 - 02/10/06 11:07 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Well, I'll be damned. I actually thought a few posts back, you and I came to an understanding over your own misunderstandings.

:lol: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. :tongue:

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.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287593 - 02/10/06 11:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

]SkorpivoMusterion said:

one should keep in mind that nature does not contradict itself - hence,




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.

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: Silversoul]
    #5287605 - 02/10/06 11:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
This is the most scarily dogmatic sentence I've ever read on this forum...



QFT




eh?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287631 - 02/10/06 11:27 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5287677 - 02/11/06 12:02 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:

Paradigm said:
Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
This is the most scarily dogmatic sentence I've ever read on this forum...



QFT




eh?



QFT = "Quoted For Truth"


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5287685 - 02/11/06 12:09 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287719 - 02/11/06 12:31 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.:lol:

I do weed out the junk and excess baggage when it no longer serves me. I like to travel light- :wink:

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! :thumbup:

:peace: :heart:


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


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

Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5287907 - 02/11/06 04:19 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
How can anyone truly be objective about objectivity itself using the rules of objectivity?

I'm supposed to understand this incoherence?  :confused:

How can anyone truly be logical about logic itself using the rules of logic?






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.


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

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Edited by MushroomTrip (02/11/06 04:22 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5288509 - 02/11/06 12:16 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


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


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5288549 - 02/11/06 12:30 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Living as an Objectivist means living consciously, being aware not only of what you think but how you think.



Just like any cult. Would you like some Kool-Aid?

Quote:

Objectivism offers you an empowering vocabulary that enables you to understand, control and improve your thinking.



So does Communism. Now now quit being so bourgeois and awaken to class consciousness.

Quote:

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.



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:

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.



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:

Objectivism offers you a heroic vision of human greatness.



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:

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.



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:

The benefits of Objectivism are the benefits of life: priceless.



Priceless? Actually, that'll be $24.95.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5288997 - 02/11/06 03:01 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5289212 - 02/11/06 04:13 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Personally, I don't feel anything justifies a belief...




Thats a beleif mush. How do you justify it?


:peace: :heart:


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


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

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
    #5289532 - 02/11/06 05:34 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Objectivism [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5289852 - 02/11/06 07:50 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Its not a belief, its a suspicion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Objectivism [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5290098 - 02/11/06 09:19 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

A suspicious belief/opinion. :tongue:

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. :confused:

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?

:peace: :heart:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Ped]
    #5298040 - 02/14/06 04:07 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Ped writes:

Quote:

I'd imagine most self-identified objectivists would consider the BMW, an elite vehicle for a special class, to be their automobile of choice.




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:

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.




"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:

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.




Same comment as above. Not only is this an arbitrary and unsupported statement, but it is observably false.

Quote:

Only one thing has been more problematic than this: the view that reality is an independent and self-existent phenomenon.




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:

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.




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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Objectivism [Re: Phred]
    #5298044 - 02/14/06 04:18 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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:

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime."





Collectivists say you do not.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLakefingers

Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
Re: Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5320286 - 02/20/06 03:16 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
The senses are often wrong in correlation to phenomena, especially the phenomena of other's senses.


Correction: Our interpretations of the senses are what may be "right or wrong". Our senses themselves, are in-fallible. Take the example of a pencil submerged in the water. This gives the appearance that the pencil is bent - and indeed, our senses are registering the facts infallibly. However, if we were to interpret this sensory input as: "The stick is actually bent.", then we have a case of incorrect interpretation.





Ah, more interpretation of senses.


Quote:


In reality, our senses have obeyed nature perfectly [nature does not contradict itself]- for there is a phenomenon called "refraction", which is the cause for the aforementioned appearance of the pencil submerged in water.





According to an idea about senses and physical causes.

Your realism has bored me enough now.

Quote:


I'd also like to mention, which has been excluded from this post, that the cognition of the perceiver/beholder of truth is something tied to a language. Most of you have been discussing "existence" and various entities, not taking the essential measures needed to understand how language is that which has created these things -- how it makes these entities and how it then makes their study possible.

A bit vague, but from what I can see, you are attempting to reverse a process that takes place in reality. Existence and various entities are not derived from language - rather the opposite, and to put it more accurately: language is derived from concepts, and concepts are derived from the condensation of data formed through our faculty of reason, which recieves sensory data via the faculty of perception, from existence and various entities.





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)


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: Lakefingers]
    #5322637 - 02/21/06 12:14 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

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:

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.




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 is that which has created these things ["existence" and various entities] -- how it makes these entities and how it then makes their study possible.




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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


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, 13 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 0.063 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 12 queries.