Are there any Objectivists out here? (nope...looks like only me and DD)
I was wondering if there are any Objectivists out there among you people?
I would say, given the way most people think that there are not. But, it is possible that I am wrong, so I will ask anyway...
I would say, given the way most people think that there are not. But, it is possible that I am wrong, so I will ask anyway...
Pastafarianism is the one true path.
Would the opposite of objectivist be subjectivist? not sure what it means and I'm too bored to look it up... If not being objectivist means a tree falling in a forest alone doesn't make a sound, then hell yes I'm an objectivist.
Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
She then translated those terms into familiar language:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:
Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
Esthetics
“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself — not as a means to any further end.”
That was taken off the Objectivist Online web site and supplied to them by the Ann Rand Institute.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
She then translated those terms into familiar language:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:
Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
Esthetics
“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself — not as a means to any further end.”
That was taken off the Objectivist Online web site and supplied to them by the Ann Rand Institute.
I hope your joking... Wikipedia says Pastafarianism is a joke religion that was made to make fun of Inntelligent Design. And Objectivism is the only true path... read my post on what it is for why i believe this. Objectivism totally rejects any possibility of the divine, mystical or the spritual as being impossibilities.
To be pedantic, a tree falling down in a forest does make a sound. There is still vibration of air, so there is still sound. Just because there is noone there to hear the sound, does not mean it does not exist.
Lol..but if a tree falls down in a forest on your head does it make a sound?
Lol..but if a tree falls down in a forest on your head does it make a sound?
To sum it up better.
Objectivism is the philosophical system for rational people whom fully value their lives. To be an Objectivist is to understand the neccessity and place of rational thought and the critical importance of acting in ones rational self interest.
A is A, the real is real, and only be recogising this and acting according to the laws of reality can one succeed.
Knowledge is the conclusion reached by analysing the material provided by the senses. True knowledge, ie that which corresponds to reality can only be acquired by a rational mind, not by chance or whim.
One must look after ones own self before all others, neither sacrificing oneself to others or sacrificing any other to yourself. A sacrifice is the exchange of that which you value for somethign you do not value, or the exchange of something you value for something of lesser value.
Capitalism is the only economic system fully compatible with the pursuit of rational self interest and individual rights, which start with the right to live and as a direct result, property rights. Only capitalism fully protects these rights.
And art can be summed up as a physical recreation ones metaphysical value judgements, if it says nothing about an artists value judgements, it is not art but the artist babbling on.
Objectivism is the philosophical system for rational people whom fully value their lives. To be an Objectivist is to understand the neccessity and place of rational thought and the critical importance of acting in ones rational self interest.
A is A, the real is real, and only be recogising this and acting according to the laws of reality can one succeed.
Knowledge is the conclusion reached by analysing the material provided by the senses. True knowledge, ie that which corresponds to reality can only be acquired by a rational mind, not by chance or whim.
One must look after ones own self before all others, neither sacrificing oneself to others or sacrificing any other to yourself. A sacrifice is the exchange of that which you value for somethign you do not value, or the exchange of something you value for something of lesser value.
Capitalism is the only economic system fully compatible with the pursuit of rational self interest and individual rights, which start with the right to live and as a direct result, property rights. Only capitalism fully protects these rights.
And art can be summed up as a physical recreation ones metaphysical value judgements, if it says nothing about an artists value judgements, it is not art but the artist babbling on.
Lol..but if a tree falls down in a forest on your head does it make a sound?
That depends... is the person's head fairly large and pillow-like? It might not make a sound then.
That depends... is the person's head fairly large and pillow-like? It might not make a sound then.
I can say without a doubt, that I am not an objectivist. Yep, good. Its good to know I'm not. Yep.
Good? How is it good? To be one is good, and not to be one is [worse]. After, all it is the philosophy for those whoms minds are fully on this earth. 
In other words DD, I am a scientist.
Scientists do not neccesarily have their philosophy right eithear sadly. For instance, the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle is a philosophicaly invalid (actually invalid).
Why is this?
Because in saying that a particle has indertiminate states it contradicts a basic prinicple of [Objectivist]philsophy, the Law of Identity, that says something that exists must have definite properties, or it does not exist.
The Heisenberg Principle is wrong for other reasons too, which I will go into if anyone wants. The science might appear right, but rememeber, science has proven itself wrong many times before despite being totally convinced it was right, and having 'proven' so.
Why is this?
Because in saying that a particle has indertiminate states it contradicts a basic prinicple of [Objectivist]philsophy, the Law of Identity, that says something that exists must have definite properties, or it does not exist.
The Heisenberg Principle is wrong for other reasons too, which I will go into if anyone wants. The science might appear right, but rememeber, science has proven itself wrong many times before despite being totally convinced it was right, and having 'proven' so.
Ah, thanks, I've always wondered what objectivism was... and why so many people find you Randroids so obnoxious. I appreciate that you have wholly demonstrated that fact.
I'm perfectly fine with my own, personal philosphies.
I'm perfectly fine with my own, personal philosphies.
Well, of course I would not dream of asking you to change your beleifs on my see so. I would hope you would only do so because I could demonstrate the error of your ways. Freedom of choice, based on ones own rational judgement is a key point of Objectivism.
I object.I object to this whole thread!I'm not out of order.You're out of order!This whole place is out of order!
If a tree falls on my head in the forest
I doubt I'd be wondering about the sound.
If a tree falls on my head in the forest
I doubt I'd be wondering about the sound.
Lol...finally someone figured out the tree falling on the head bit... I didnt think it was all that hard.
Yes, and my rational judgement says your reasoning is flawed.
Metaphysics... although there is an objective reality, subjective reality also exists and can affect objective reality. So subjective reality must be included in any objective view of reality as a whole.
Epistemology... reason is not the only way that humans acquire knowledge, intuition is as well. There is no reasoning for the actions that some people take during crisis situations. It happens too fast, and intuition is what is used.
Human nature... now it almost looks as if Objectivism realizes that subjective reality exists. Except that now it starts ignoring the objective reality that stuff like economic factors, genetics, and etc can and do affect how well one can exercise free will (subjective reality). If one is born with a genetic defect, all the free will in the world is not going to change those genes.
Ethics... I can get behind this one better. If taken the right way, this could actually be a good thing. Enlightened self-interest. But it taken another way, it is every man for himself with no integration into the whole. And considering the short-sightedness of the average person, the latter is a much more likely scenario.
Also, someone might have a purpose to kill someone, and use reason to justify it, and gain self-esteem from a job well done afterwards, as self esteem can be gained from many different things, some of which may be detrimental to the being.
Politics... there are plenty of other means of controlling others that are far worse than physical force. It also ignores simple generosity, from which the open source community would not exist.
Aesthetics... not much to argue here, except that to say that art is an expression of the artist's fundamental view of existence ignores that it might be an experience rather than a view. Or perhaps an exploration rather than a fundamental. But fairly cool overall.
Metaphysics... although there is an objective reality, subjective reality also exists and can affect objective reality. So subjective reality must be included in any objective view of reality as a whole.
Epistemology... reason is not the only way that humans acquire knowledge, intuition is as well. There is no reasoning for the actions that some people take during crisis situations. It happens too fast, and intuition is what is used.
Human nature... now it almost looks as if Objectivism realizes that subjective reality exists. Except that now it starts ignoring the objective reality that stuff like economic factors, genetics, and etc can and do affect how well one can exercise free will (subjective reality). If one is born with a genetic defect, all the free will in the world is not going to change those genes.
Ethics... I can get behind this one better. If taken the right way, this could actually be a good thing. Enlightened self-interest. But it taken another way, it is every man for himself with no integration into the whole. And considering the short-sightedness of the average person, the latter is a much more likely scenario.
Also, someone might have a purpose to kill someone, and use reason to justify it, and gain self-esteem from a job well done afterwards, as self esteem can be gained from many different things, some of which may be detrimental to the being.
Politics... there are plenty of other means of controlling others that are far worse than physical force. It also ignores simple generosity, from which the open source community would not exist.
Aesthetics... not much to argue here, except that to say that art is an expression of the artist's fundamental view of existence ignores that it might be an experience rather than a view. Or perhaps an exploration rather than a fundamental. But fairly cool overall.
Subjective reality does not exist. Only OBJECTIVE reality, ie that which actually exists can exist, nothing else. so if subjective reality is defined to be different, then by definition it does not exist, and cannot.
Intuition cannot impart knowledge. One someone acts quicly as you say, their mind acts on knowledge they have (which they might not consciously recall they have) and then they act. Noone can act do something they have no idea how to do, eithear they know from the start how to do it, or they figure it out quickly.
there is not a part of the brain which gives someone ways to do things out of thin air. it has to come from somewhere, ie knowledge.
The nature of human kind derives from his OBJECTIVE NATURE. That he is a being of violational conscioussnes, he chooses his actions, and whether or not to think (which is the fundamental human choice). All those factors you mentioned are decided by reality, what really happens, ie objective reality. Not a reality subject to human whim, not subjective reality.
Free will means that one must make their own decisions. Everything we do, our brain has decided to do. Even when we are physically bullied into doing something ,we still choose to do it, I mean we COULD choose the consequences of not doing so, even choosing to be shoot is a choice, an exercise of free will. Noone is a puppet, if their mind doesnt make decisions, they are essentially an empty shell. Your mind makes those decisions, someone else doesnt steal your decision making ability and do it for you.
Free will is unavoidable.
Rational self interest is NOT every man for himself. That is not rational behaviour, largely because normally because you will be punished severly for doing this.
Anarchy, which is what you are suggesting, can never be in ones best interest, nor is acting in a way that harms others just to get what you want.
How does your bit about murder refute my claims? Of course someone has a purpose for murder, even if it is abit hazy for them. But unless it is objectively reasoned out, it is not justified, it is just wrong dressed as a justification.
Physical force is not toobe taken totally literally here. to make someone do something against their will, you must force them, and if they refuse, you must make them fear imprisonment, violence or etc. Generally if someone knows their actions will have no real consequences, or that the person trying to make you do something wont really do anything physical (ie use more than mere words) then they wont change their behaviour.
an experience is not art. Art is physical, or at least ohservable as equivalent to a physical object (say an image on a computer screen perhaps). Art is a recreation, not something that happens to you. So calling it an expereince is nonsensical.
It might though be an expereince in the sense that the creation theject is an exploration for the artist of their value judgements.
Do i get the prize for the longest entirely self written post on the network? lol
Intuition cannot impart knowledge. One someone acts quicly as you say, their mind acts on knowledge they have (which they might not consciously recall they have) and then they act. Noone can act do something they have no idea how to do, eithear they know from the start how to do it, or they figure it out quickly.
there is not a part of the brain which gives someone ways to do things out of thin air. it has to come from somewhere, ie knowledge.
The nature of human kind derives from his OBJECTIVE NATURE. That he is a being of violational conscioussnes, he chooses his actions, and whether or not to think (which is the fundamental human choice). All those factors you mentioned are decided by reality, what really happens, ie objective reality. Not a reality subject to human whim, not subjective reality.
Free will means that one must make their own decisions. Everything we do, our brain has decided to do. Even when we are physically bullied into doing something ,we still choose to do it, I mean we COULD choose the consequences of not doing so, even choosing to be shoot is a choice, an exercise of free will. Noone is a puppet, if their mind doesnt make decisions, they are essentially an empty shell. Your mind makes those decisions, someone else doesnt steal your decision making ability and do it for you.
Free will is unavoidable.
Rational self interest is NOT every man for himself. That is not rational behaviour, largely because normally because you will be punished severly for doing this.
Anarchy, which is what you are suggesting, can never be in ones best interest, nor is acting in a way that harms others just to get what you want.
How does your bit about murder refute my claims? Of course someone has a purpose for murder, even if it is abit hazy for them. But unless it is objectively reasoned out, it is not justified, it is just wrong dressed as a justification.
Physical force is not toobe taken totally literally here. to make someone do something against their will, you must force them, and if they refuse, you must make them fear imprisonment, violence or etc. Generally if someone knows their actions will have no real consequences, or that the person trying to make you do something wont really do anything physical (ie use more than mere words) then they wont change their behaviour.
an experience is not art. Art is physical, or at least ohservable as equivalent to a physical object (say an image on a computer screen perhaps). Art is a recreation, not something that happens to you. So calling it an expereince is nonsensical.
It might though be an expereince in the sense that the creation theject is an exploration for the artist of their value judgements.
Do i get the prize for the longest entirely self written post on the network? lol
Its not yelling really... we are trying to explain our reasoning to each other (my reasoning is better than his ).
).See, this is why I usually just make fun of people as opposed to engage them in a real debate. You are professing your One Truth, I cannot disuade you from your view of the One True Path, as it is the only path that exists.
All I can say is that your view is far more subjective than you would care to admit.
All I can say is that your view is far more subjective than you would care to admit.
Ahh. I think I met one of your friends.
Well, the reason you cannot dissuade me is because my path corresponds to reality more so than yours, and I do not wish to abdicate my beleif in it, which is well founded.
And I am OBJECTIVE, that is our problem. I am totally sure and unwilling to knowingly bend to unrealistic philsophy.
It doesnt help that your arguments are in my opinion not all that well thought out, though better than many others I have seen, so you can be proud about that if you wish.
And I am OBJECTIVE, that is our problem. I am totally sure and unwilling to knowingly bend to unrealistic philsophy.
It doesnt help that your arguments are in my opinion not all that well thought out, though better than many others I have seen, so you can be proud about that if you wish.
Hmm... I think this guy fits him quite well, too.
Lol..I come on...Im not that bad am I? I was merely trying to make my point... no its OK, I do have a sense of humour
Just so you know, Objectivism is quite different to scientology.
Thanks for moving the thread Redink.
Just so you know, Objectivism is quite different to scientology.
Thanks for moving the thread Redink.
Ummm...im having a blind day today...
Im not familari with StarCraft, who is that SC alien?
Im not familari with StarCraft, who is that SC alien?
Hmm... isn't a personal opinion subjective?
it is objective if it corresponds to reality it is objective. It is only subjective if it is seperate from reality.
Ahh...I see. I must play that game, I keep meaning too. I guess delaying things is part of being a Dinker... ahh certain key developers...
Ahh...I see. I must play that game, I keep meaning too. I guess delaying things is part of being a Dinker... ahh certain key developers...
Scientology, Fundementalist Christiany, Objectivism all different guises for those who believe they know the One Truth. Because you know the One Truth and what it describes, that truth is always right. It's a nice little bit of circular logic.
September 27th 2005, 11:33 PM
Lurkala
"The science might appear right, but rememeber, science has proven itself wrong many times before despite being totally convinced it was right, and having 'proven' so."
In the scientific process there are only theories, not beliefs. Theories stand only until something has been proven to be better than the previous theory. This is how science works, and it has nothing to do with belief. It is not wrong, it is in the process of continuing to better define what is right. It is also much less subjective than claiming that any way of viewing the world is totally right.
You seem to be saying that you are right and not offering objective evidence that you are right -only your own beliefs/opinions. (Which, as Striker has said elsewhere, is subjective.) As well, you are not even trying to understand any other beliefs posted here, then merely claiming that they are not well thought out.
Perhaps you need to objectively examine other beliefs more before you stick by any one belief system as offering Truth.
In the scientific process there are only theories, not beliefs. Theories stand only until something has been proven to be better than the previous theory. This is how science works, and it has nothing to do with belief. It is not wrong, it is in the process of continuing to better define what is right. It is also much less subjective than claiming that any way of viewing the world is totally right.
You seem to be saying that you are right and not offering objective evidence that you are right -only your own beliefs/opinions. (Which, as Striker has said elsewhere, is subjective.) As well, you are not even trying to understand any other beliefs posted here, then merely claiming that they are not well thought out.
Perhaps you need to objectively examine other beliefs more before you stick by any one belief system as offering Truth.
Umm NOOO. You miss the point....
Christanity is totally different, it has an total irrational base, Objectivism by definiton does not.
Scientology makes a partial effort, but fails, partially by not applying enough philosophy.
I can say I know the Truth (and that is DDs words not mine) because it is reality and I know reality...because im a rational person.
Reality by definition is always right, and that is what i am trying to demonstrate to you.
Christanity is totally different, it has an total irrational base, Objectivism by definiton does not.
Scientology makes a partial effort, but fails, partially by not applying enough philosophy.
I can say I know the Truth (and that is DDs words not mine) because it is reality and I know reality...because im a rational person.
Reality by definition is always right, and that is what i am trying to demonstrate to you.
Not listening?...wrong. I am listening, but I do not buy it, that is all. the assumption that i am not listening even though I refute his claims is poor to say the least.
I have been through many beleif systems before coming to this one, and I have rejected them all (eventually) as invalid.
Until your offer me factual evidence I will not change my philosophies.
As for the proof you wanted...i will give you some more when I return abit later. For starters though, how can something not have precise properties like Heisen claims? Thats a contradiction, contradictions cannot exist in reality in part or in whole.
How can an electron be a 'probablity field'? it has an effect on physical objects, so it must also be a physical objects. Physical objects cannot be probablitity fields, that is another contradiction...
I have been through many beleif systems before coming to this one, and I have rejected them all (eventually) as invalid.
Until your offer me factual evidence I will not change my philosophies.
As for the proof you wanted...i will give you some more when I return abit later. For starters though, how can something not have precise properties like Heisen claims? Thats a contradiction, contradictions cannot exist in reality in part or in whole.
How can an electron be a 'probablity field'? it has an effect on physical objects, so it must also be a physical objects. Physical objects cannot be probablitity fields, that is another contradiction...
Yes, but sadly, as we can see here, even rationality is subjective. But that's your that's your own little reality. 
September 28th 2005, 12:02 AM
Lurkala
Christianity by it's own definition of truth is Truth. Scientology by it's own definition of truth is Truth. And I don't see any different behaviour in Objectivism so far - by it's own definition of truth, it is Truth.
Reality is always real, yes. However, you do not seem to understand what subjective reality actually is when you claim that it doesn't exist - it is one particular view of reality, and every single human being has a different view based on their own understanding of the world. Can any human understand the workings of the whole universe and the meaning of life? Objectively, we can't. Then how can anyone claim to know the Truth?
You reject science as non-objective. Yet you post with subjective reasoning, and when others objectively point out that you're not being objective, you take refuge in saying "I am right because my beliefs are based on believing that these beliefs are objective reality" which proves nothing more than that you are no different from a Christian who quotes from the Bible to support that the Bible is the only Truth rather than using objective evidence. This entire thread offers you objective evidence of your own subjectivity, and you deny it because you believe that subjective reality does not exist even as you demonstrate that it does.
If you are truly objective, then you will examine your beliefs to see if there is any trace of subjectivity there, any circular reasoning, and you will eliminate those beliefs rather than clinging to them because you believe them. Right?
Reality is always real, yes. However, you do not seem to understand what subjective reality actually is when you claim that it doesn't exist - it is one particular view of reality, and every single human being has a different view based on their own understanding of the world. Can any human understand the workings of the whole universe and the meaning of life? Objectively, we can't. Then how can anyone claim to know the Truth?
You reject science as non-objective. Yet you post with subjective reasoning, and when others objectively point out that you're not being objective, you take refuge in saying "I am right because my beliefs are based on believing that these beliefs are objective reality" which proves nothing more than that you are no different from a Christian who quotes from the Bible to support that the Bible is the only Truth rather than using objective evidence. This entire thread offers you objective evidence of your own subjectivity, and you deny it because you believe that subjective reality does not exist even as you demonstrate that it does.
If you are truly objective, then you will examine your beliefs to see if there is any trace of subjectivity there, any circular reasoning, and you will eliminate those beliefs rather than clinging to them because you believe them. Right?
I read "The Fountainhead" and I do believe its a remarkable book. While I understand where Ayn Rand is coming from and while I undestand how she can be so passionate about her ideals I dont fully accept Objectivism since I'm religious.
I do however admit that a lot of strife could be avoided if people realised their own actions and how they affected the world.
This should get confusing.
,
The Vault Dweller
I do however admit that a lot of strife could be avoided if people realised their own actions and how they affected the world.
This should get confusing.
,The Vault Dweller
According to what NZ 60 minutes said about Intelligent Design, it is a pseudo science based on religion, or in other words delusions and the unrealistic.
It is not wrong, it is in the process of continuing to better define what is right. It is also much less subjective than claiming that any way of viewing the world is totally right.
That is a poorly thought out argument. Just because it is a thory instead of a belief does not exclude it from being right or wrong. Weither or not something is right or wrong is determined by weither or not reality really is the way you belif/theorize it to be.
You seem to be saying that you are right and not offering objective evidence that you are right -only your own beliefs/opinions. (Which, as Striker has said elsewhere, is subjective.) As well, you are not even trying to understand any other beliefs posted here, then merely claiming that they are not well thought out.
This is not neccessarily a problem. If someone believed that the earth is banana shaped, to steal of monty pythos and the holy grail, would you suggest that I investigat into why he thinks it and give him a chance to prove it, even though it contradicts my beliefs, which state that that is un realistic? To do so would be rediculous and contradictory to say the lest.
That is a poorly thought out argument. Just because it is a thory instead of a belief does not exclude it from being right or wrong. Weither or not something is right or wrong is determined by weither or not reality really is the way you belif/theorize it to be.
You seem to be saying that you are right and not offering objective evidence that you are right -only your own beliefs/opinions. (Which, as Striker has said elsewhere, is subjective.) As well, you are not even trying to understand any other beliefs posted here, then merely claiming that they are not well thought out.
This is not neccessarily a problem. If someone believed that the earth is banana shaped, to steal of monty pythos and the holy grail, would you suggest that I investigat into why he thinks it and give him a chance to prove it, even though it contradicts my beliefs, which state that that is un realistic? To do so would be rediculous and contradictory to say the lest.
Good response with your first point, though poor is an understatement. And your statement about requiring factual evidenc is very valid. And that contradictions point is extremly true.
Obnoxious? There is nothing obnoxious about beliving you ar right and others are wrong when they do not supply any evidence or poor evidence. It is oly rational to behave in that way.
And he is right about being an objectivist being good an not being on being wrong. After all, it's cor belief is that reason is mans only way of determining the way reality really is and is our greatest tool. What is wrong with that? All other parts of objectivism springs from that bedrock.
And he is right about being an objectivist being good an not being on being wrong. After all, it's cor belief is that reason is mans only way of determining the way reality really is and is our greatest tool. What is wrong with that? All other parts of objectivism springs from that bedrock.
I'll start with responding to theart view, since as a person that has been writing for 13+ years I uinderstand art wll. That exprienc thing does not contradict the metaphysical value part. If the artist is expressing that exprienc it is because ve values that experience.
Now to the first comment... Rational thinking can only applaud objectivism, not dis it, as rational thinking is the bedrock of objectivism. Anything else is a poor pseudo attempt at reason.
As for subjective reality... the very concpt is a contradiction, and the fact there is both and that either can affect the othr even more so. As DunkRand stated, contradictions can not exist in reality, not in part nor in whole, which is a direct quote from a book called Chainfire, from a series called th Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind.
And intuition does not o it. We cannot get out of fire unlss w know things like "get on the ground an crawl out of building" and "stop, drop and roll if on fire", which is why we are taught these things at school. Intuition cannot be taught. If we want anything more than a mindless temporary physical survival we need to think, not just act.
As for objectivism realizing subjective reality exists... it doesn't. It flatly denies the possibilites of it. nad you missintepretd that comment about gnes and stuff. It onl;y states that we are not ruled by them, not that thy don't affect us. The only way an outside force or person can rule us is if we let them/it.
What it means by slf intrest is... rational self intrest... or in other words... putting yourself ahead of others without unfairly affecting others or breaching the rights of others.
Try reading Sword of bTruth series for good arguments on objectivism. You might like it anyway, as it is an engaging fantasy series that is read by many nonobjectivists.
Now to the first comment... Rational thinking can only applaud objectivism, not dis it, as rational thinking is the bedrock of objectivism. Anything else is a poor pseudo attempt at reason.
As for subjective reality... the very concpt is a contradiction, and the fact there is both and that either can affect the othr even more so. As DunkRand stated, contradictions can not exist in reality, not in part nor in whole, which is a direct quote from a book called Chainfire, from a series called th Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind.
And intuition does not o it. We cannot get out of fire unlss w know things like "get on the ground an crawl out of building" and "stop, drop and roll if on fire", which is why we are taught these things at school. Intuition cannot be taught. If we want anything more than a mindless temporary physical survival we need to think, not just act.
As for objectivism realizing subjective reality exists... it doesn't. It flatly denies the possibilites of it. nad you missintepretd that comment about gnes and stuff. It onl;y states that we are not ruled by them, not that thy don't affect us. The only way an outside force or person can rule us is if we let them/it.
What it means by slf intrest is... rational self intrest... or in other words... putting yourself ahead of others without unfairly affecting others or breaching the rights of others.
Try reading Sword of bTruth series for good arguments on objectivism. You might like it anyway, as it is an engaging fantasy series that is read by many nonobjectivists.
Good comments about the brain and mind there. If you look at the biology of the brain and mind, there is much there to back you up.
Look I've discuss his views with him many a time (well ours actually) and I have to say that there is nothing sunjective about them, quite the reverse. To say otherwise is to totally misunderstand where he is coming from.
Umm... not it is not his own little reality. There is and can be only one reality, noone has there own reality. That is a contradiction and contradictions cannot exist in rality.
Yes h does know what subjectiv reality is. All he is saying is that reality does not chang base on our belief nor is it bnased on our belief.
And the point of objectivism is that, meaning it doesn't go for that "truth by definiton of one's definition of truth", instead it goes for "truth as defined by reality".
Also instead of saying "truth as defined by one's definition of truth" you should be saying "truth as one percievs it", which is bettr wording for what you seem to b saying.
And no he does not use subjective reasoning, nor does he act at all like Christians (his belifs are quite different to theirs) and he oes not prove subjective reality. And don't argue with me about what words mean, I've studies th dictionary quit ea bit, which I doubt that you have, so i bet i know what most words mean better than you.
And the point of objectivism is that, meaning it doesn't go for that "truth by definiton of one's definition of truth", instead it goes for "truth as defined by reality".
Also instead of saying "truth as defined by one's definition of truth" you should be saying "truth as one percievs it", which is bettr wording for what you seem to b saying.
And no he does not use subjective reasoning, nor does he act at all like Christians (his belifs are quite different to theirs) and he oes not prove subjective reality. And don't argue with me about what words mean, I've studies th dictionary quit ea bit, which I doubt that you have, so i bet i know what most words mean better than you.
Religion?! Religion is simply a self-imposed delusion that ignores reality and contradictions. Tak for example the fact that the bible states that god exists out side of reality? How can he possibly exist if he is out side of reality? That is rediculous, but worse yet it is a contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist in reality.
September 28th 2005, 09:56 AM
Chris
Oh one can have a different reality than others, I'm sure. You would also know if you'd eat a magic mushroom or two.
Subjective Reality: Reality created by those living in it. If there's no one alive, the world does not exist.
Objective Reality: Reality that is there regardless of the people.
Of course, everyone has their very individual subjective view of the world. Not having a subjective view of the world is plain impossible, regardless of whether the whole world exists objectively or not. (Take hot and cold for example - those are subjective feelings, and do not exist objectively)
After doing research on the subject and reading this thread I've come to the conclusion objectivism is a way of life that's similar in type to buddhism. Not my cup of tea, and I'd wish no one would preach for it as the One True Faith (like Striker said), that's extremely annoying.
Objective Reality: Reality that is there regardless of the people.
Of course, everyone has their very individual subjective view of the world. Not having a subjective view of the world is plain impossible, regardless of whether the whole world exists objectively or not. (Take hot and cold for example - those are subjective feelings, and do not exist objectively)
After doing research on the subject and reading this thread I've come to the conclusion objectivism is a way of life that's similar in type to buddhism. Not my cup of tea, and I'd wish no one would preach for it as the One True Faith (like Striker said), that's extremely annoying.
For some reason I don't believe all people are rational beings...
Those people were misguided, but I'm pretty sure they were rational.
Hey, I just hope you guys can find joy in your rigid, orderly realm. 
September 28th 2005, 01:59 PM
Idler
"And don't argue with me about what words mean, I've studies th dictionary quit ea bit, which I doubt that you have, so i bet i know what most words mean better than you."
So you've studied what words mean from a dictionary, but you didn't study from it on how to spell?
So you've studied what words mean from a dictionary, but you didn't study from it on how to spell?
This thread gained posts fast 
No that's not a seperate reality, it's a delusion. The word reality means "that which exists" not that which is imagined.
Yes w do fin joy in many things. Our beleifs are a source of joy. As is our writing and computer related work. And think about it logically... if I din't find joy in making Dink projects and coming here would I do either of them of course not.
No! It is not at all like buddism! Budism is a religion. Objectivism is not, it rejcts religion. It has quite different to religion.
And ours is an Objective view of reality... in other words we do not lt our opinions of things get in the way... we tak the world as it really is by using rational thinking.
I like the definitons that you gave in the first to paraghraphs, though. They are corrcts.
And ours is an Objective view of reality... in other words we do not lt our opinions of things get in the way... we tak the world as it really is by using rational thinking.
I like the definitons that you gave in the first to paraghraphs, though. They are corrcts.
What the term "Man is nature is as rational beings" means is that manking is capble of being rational not that all numans act rationjally. And no scrispy they weren't rational. They breaached the rights of others. There is nothing rational about that, it is irrational, not to mention immoral.
So what? I get prosecuted for being human now? I am human, which is to be imprfect. Doesn't even try to tll me that you haven't ever press the wrong key or an extra key due to thir closness. Besides even the best professors in English are not perfect spellers, as they are still human.
But for a "writer of 13+ years," you seem to be making quite a large number of typos in this thread. 
Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, you should know that.
Your objectivism is viewed through your own subjective lense, just as any other religious adheriant views his or her belief. You have stumbled upon nothing special, just a way to frame your life that fits you.
Ramen.
Your objectivism is viewed through your own subjective lense, just as any other religious adheriant views his or her belief. You have stumbled upon nothing special, just a way to frame your life that fits you.
Ramen.
September 28th 2005, 03:40 PM
Chris
I'm curious, how would you describe "blind love" in objectivism? And there are a LOT of contradictions everywhere, saying contradictions don't exist is not making your belief all that well thought out.
September 28th 2005, 03:43 PM
Idler
Oh no, I've never claimed to be perfect at spelling, or grammar, and I've never claimed that I know more words and their meanings than others. In fact, I don't mind typos or bad grammar. Your statement was ironic because you were trying to insult that person's intelligence by asserting that you know more than he does just because you've studied a dictionary, and yet failed to realise that your lack of spelling implies that you need to read the dictionary more carefully. That was why I made that post.
September 28th 2005, 04:04 PM
Lurkala
"If someone believed that the earth is banana shaped..."
Yes, you should investigate it rather than reject it out of hand, or you're no better than someone who says the Earth is banana-shaped and rejects out of hand any possibility that it might be otherwise.
Don't forget, there were very many highly intelligent, highly educated people who knew that the Earth was flat because religious leaders told them so, and persecuted people who thought that it might possibly be round. And now that we have had people travel all the way around the world there is evidence that it is not flat.
If you are truly objective, then you will actually investigate when a new approach is suggested to you. And that is what science does that Objectisism it seems does not.
Science, unlike religion, does not deal in beliefs. Theory is held to be "the best explanation we have at this time" rather than absolutely true, and belief is held to be "absolutely true" - QUITE a difference.
If Objectivism is not a religion, then it will not have beliefs at all, because beliefs are always subjective.
Apparently, people who believe in Objectivism cannot tolerate any ambiguity. Unfortunately, ambiguity is also a part of reality.
Yes, you should investigate it rather than reject it out of hand, or you're no better than someone who says the Earth is banana-shaped and rejects out of hand any possibility that it might be otherwise.
Don't forget, there were very many highly intelligent, highly educated people who knew that the Earth was flat because religious leaders told them so, and persecuted people who thought that it might possibly be round. And now that we have had people travel all the way around the world there is evidence that it is not flat.
If you are truly objective, then you will actually investigate when a new approach is suggested to you. And that is what science does that Objectisism it seems does not.
Science, unlike religion, does not deal in beliefs. Theory is held to be "the best explanation we have at this time" rather than absolutely true, and belief is held to be "absolutely true" - QUITE a difference.
If Objectivism is not a religion, then it will not have beliefs at all, because beliefs are always subjective.
Apparently, people who believe in Objectivism cannot tolerate any ambiguity. Unfortunately, ambiguity is also a part of reality.
You dont understand...Objectivism by DEFINITION is not subjective.
Subjective beleifs are seperate from reality, objective beleifs are not, it is that simple.
it is not a religion. Why not? Religions by their nature are irrational based on whim, Objectivism is not, it is based on FACT. That alone means it CANNOT be a religion.
Subjective beleifs are seperate from reality, objective beleifs are not, it is that simple.
it is not a religion. Why not? Religions by their nature are irrational based on whim, Objectivism is not, it is based on FACT. That alone means it CANNOT be a religion.
Love is the emontional recoginition of the fact that you deeply respect ones identity and share a significant amount of their values. Recognising it for what it is is a the celebration of these values and your own and that persons identity.
'Blind love" is not love, it is emontinoal attachment which you mistake for love.
In reality, ie amongst tangible things and how they behave, contradictions cannot occur, somethign cannot be flying and yet not, cannot both exist and not exist.
Granted humans can hold contradictory views of reality etc, but that is not reality, that is human thought.
'Blind love" is not love, it is emontinoal attachment which you mistake for love.
In reality, ie amongst tangible things and how they behave, contradictions cannot occur, somethign cannot be flying and yet not, cannot both exist and not exist.
Granted humans can hold contradictory views of reality etc, but that is not reality, that is human thought.
September 28th 2005, 04:12 PM
Lurkala
Nobody claimed that intuition was the only way to process knowledge. The claim was that reason is not the only way.
Yes, fire is a good example of the failure of intuition. However there are many dangerous situations where reason fails. Read "The Gift of Fear" and you'll understand.
Yes, fire is a good example of the failure of intuition. However there are many dangerous situations where reason fails. Read "The Gift of Fear" and you'll understand.
Reason is the recoginition of fact and it tells what you need to do in order to survive. So by definition, does this not mean it is by far the best tool available for this sort of thing?
September 28th 2005, 04:20 PM
Lurkala
Well, insult is usually the tactic used in a debate by a person with poor skills in logic and reasoning. I find that more ironic than his lack of correct spelling.
September 28th 2005, 04:30 PM
Lurkala
So, you are saying that you believe that your beliefs are well-founded? You believe that your belief corresponds to reality more than another belief? That's fine, that's good. That's all anyone can do, really.
However, please do allow a slight possibility that your belief in the reality of your beliefs may not be the final answer. Perhaps the original, base belief is flawed. Perhaps. Do you know owe it to objectivism itself to investigate whether that is so?
If you do not investigate whether the beliefs of objectivism have evidence that they are true, then your belief in it is not based on objectivity but on subjectivity.
Is reason the ONLY measure of what is real? What happens if you have an experience that reason cannot explain? Did the experience not happen, not exist? If so, then how is it that you experienced it? If there truly is no reasonable explanation, then is reason still the ONLY measure of what is real?
However, please do allow a slight possibility that your belief in the reality of your beliefs may not be the final answer. Perhaps the original, base belief is flawed. Perhaps. Do you know owe it to objectivism itself to investigate whether that is so?
If you do not investigate whether the beliefs of objectivism have evidence that they are true, then your belief in it is not based on objectivity but on subjectivity.
Is reason the ONLY measure of what is real? What happens if you have an experience that reason cannot explain? Did the experience not happen, not exist? If so, then how is it that you experienced it? If there truly is no reasonable explanation, then is reason still the ONLY measure of what is real?
September 28th 2005, 04:38 PM
Lurkala
If reason is defined as the recognition of fact and the thing that tells you what to do with that fact...
Then intuition is also defined as reason, and must be included in your view of what is valid. Because intuition often recognizes fact that the conscious thought (the reason we are aware of, I suppose you could call it) does not. As in the cases where people slam on the brakes 3 seconds before a car speeds out of a hidden driveway that they had no way of knowing was there, or run away from a kidnapper who told them that they wouldn't be harmed and then went to the bathroom to take out and prepare the gun. They must have been using reason.
But you have already said that "And intuition does not o it."
So, is intuition valid or not?
Then intuition is also defined as reason, and must be included in your view of what is valid. Because intuition often recognizes fact that the conscious thought (the reason we are aware of, I suppose you could call it) does not. As in the cases where people slam on the brakes 3 seconds before a car speeds out of a hidden driveway that they had no way of knowing was there, or run away from a kidnapper who told them that they wouldn't be harmed and then went to the bathroom to take out and prepare the gun. They must have been using reason.
But you have already said that "And intuition does not o it."
So, is intuition valid or not?
Didnt I already say that I beleived that at least 12 million times (give or take )?
The reason i beleive my beleifs are better more suited to reality is due to EVIDENCE, and logical analysis of reality started from true axioms.
Anyone can make that claim , but that does mean it is accurate. Which is why if they are too beleived by skeptics they should at least attempt to prove their point(s).
I will not allow that my beleifs are wrong just because you claim them to be. I will not abdicate my beleifs (and neither will DD) unless you present us with evidence we accept, which you have not come close to doing yet.
I have spent a long time thinking and investigating the truths of Objectivsim and the alternatives, but I it always turns out that Objectivism is right, and that the confliciting theory is wrong. This may not always be the case, there may be parts of it that are wrong in some small ways, and there may be exceptions I have not yet encountered/identified.
that is why I say my beleits are objectively based, not subjectively based.
Reason is capable of explaining everything that happens. Just because YOU cannot explain it with your abiity to reason, does not mean reason cannot explain it. It means that you cannot.
)?The reason i beleive my beleifs are better more suited to reality is due to EVIDENCE, and logical analysis of reality started from true axioms.
Anyone can make that claim , but that does mean it is accurate. Which is why if they are too beleived by skeptics they should at least attempt to prove their point(s).
I will not allow that my beleifs are wrong just because you claim them to be. I will not abdicate my beleifs (and neither will DD) unless you present us with evidence we accept, which you have not come close to doing yet.
I have spent a long time thinking and investigating the truths of Objectivsim and the alternatives, but I it always turns out that Objectivism is right, and that the confliciting theory is wrong. This may not always be the case, there may be parts of it that are wrong in some small ways, and there may be exceptions I have not yet encountered/identified.
that is why I say my beleits are objectively based, not subjectively based.
Reason is capable of explaining everything that happens. Just because YOU cannot explain it with your abiity to reason, does not mean reason cannot explain it. It means that you cannot.
September 28th 2005, 04:42 PM
Lurkala
Sometimes you love someone without sharing many of their values or being emotionally attached to them. Sometimes you love someone totally opposite to your values and yet accept them for who they are and still cherish their presence in the universe even though it does not benefit you in any way.
Your definition of love is a little narrow.
Your definition of love is a little narrow.
Then its not love is it? Im clearly not going to agree with you if your definition of love is diferent to what you think is love.
You cannot love someone whom is opposite to you, that is attraction of some sort (it depends on the situation, it might just be physical attraction, which alot of people fool themselves into thiking is love...I done it once a fair while ago).
You cannot love someone whom is opposite to you, that is attraction of some sort (it depends on the situation, it might just be physical attraction, which alot of people fool themselves into thiking is love...I done it once a fair while ago).
September 28th 2005, 04:56 PM
Chris
So now your deciding for people what is love? You're saying that your definition of love is the right one, and if someone claims he/she loves someone who is (nearly) opposite to him/herself, he/she simply isn't in love?
That makes you either a supernatural being, knowing all definitions for everyone, which your own beliefs rejects, or makes you a very arrogant person.
That makes you either a supernatural being, knowing all definitions for everyone, which your own beliefs rejects, or makes you a very arrogant person.
Idiot! I am stating my concept of love, based on my objective assessment of fact. Use your own if you wish, but I will not acknowledge it as love. THINK before you post.
I am not arrogant, but my beleifs do not bend to what people think, unless they can present fact.
I am not arrogant, but my beleifs do not bend to what people think, unless they can present fact.
September 28th 2005, 05:10 PM
Chris
Exactly what I thought. Arrogant. Also a very bad "discussionist" (lost the correct wording, sorry). You start to yell, which, objectivly is a sign of weakness. I'll let you on your so called objectivism rant on for a while. It is of no use to discuss with someone -who simply put- can't discuss.
September 28th 2005, 05:18 PM
Joyce
What facts do you carry out to support you own belief? (which is actually spelled *this* way) And now I don't want to hear: 'everything I say is objective because that's the way it is.' but plain, solid proof. Facts, so to speak. Not just your own beliefs and your own point of view, because you so obviously do not wish to listen to our opinion or even accept our opinion because they're not actual facts, so why should we accept your believes if you use the same method as us. Where is your hard evidence?
* shrug* I dont really care.
Im not yelling , the capitals are emphasis, the equivalent of prouncing a word distinctly.
Just because I yell does not objectively indicate weakness, it indicates frustration. Which you could interpret in different ways. But the frustration is that you dont get it.
Probably that shouldnt bother me, but there is a part of me that is annoyed... yeah i know, im not perfect, and I do admit that much.
As for "cant" discuss, well that is unfounded. The last 70 odd posts have been a discussion, albeit not one many results, but its a discussion. I have made my arguments about as logically as I could in most cases (a few might have been presented not quite as well). I could however say your arguments are poor, that you are not good at discussign things. I wont, you are OK at discussing things, but you use poor arguments, there is a difference.
You are right though about the discussion being pointless. Clearly we do not agree, and unless one of us changes our views, we never will.
I must say, its been sort of fun for me, even at the end. Im sorry if I offended you too much, I didnt mean to. I just think you need to think things through abit more.
Im not yelling , the capitals are emphasis, the equivalent of prouncing a word distinctly.
Just because I yell does not objectively indicate weakness, it indicates frustration. Which you could interpret in different ways. But the frustration is that you dont get it.
Probably that shouldnt bother me, but there is a part of me that is annoyed... yeah i know, im not perfect, and I do admit that much.
As for "cant" discuss, well that is unfounded. The last 70 odd posts have been a discussion, albeit not one many results, but its a discussion. I have made my arguments about as logically as I could in most cases (a few might have been presented not quite as well). I could however say your arguments are poor, that you are not good at discussign things. I wont, you are OK at discussing things, but you use poor arguments, there is a difference.
You are right though about the discussion being pointless. Clearly we do not agree, and unless one of us changes our views, we never will.
I must say, its been sort of fun for me, even at the end. Im sorry if I offended you too much, I didnt mean to. I just think you need to think things through abit more.
September 28th 2005, 05:23 PM
Lurkala
"logical analysis of reality started from true axioms."
All I am saying that that the "axioms" upon which your base your beliefs must also be proven to be true by objective evidence. I have not yet seen you (or DraconicDink) do so in this thread. You assume (believe) that the base belief (axiom) is true, then base your evidence upon that, when it is nothing more than a theory itself.
Then rather than rectifying your error in logic and proving the base belief really is true by objective means, you insult other theories.
All I am saying that that the "axioms" upon which your base your beliefs must also be proven to be true by objective evidence. I have not yet seen you (or DraconicDink) do so in this thread. You assume (believe) that the base belief (axiom) is true, then base your evidence upon that, when it is nothing more than a theory itself.
Then rather than rectifying your error in logic and proving the base belief really is true by objective means, you insult other theories.
Ok, fair enough I guess.
Do you feel like reading a long book, it does it better than I could do it.
If not I could try...
Do you feel like reading a long book, it does it better than I could do it.
If not I could try...
You know what I've learned from all this? Even if a one true objective truth exists, the human mind is subjective, even when using reason.
We can only really try to be objective, and recognize that the end result of that reasoning may still be flawed.
It is because of this fact that I reject your assertations of an absolute truth crafted by a human through her own, subjective lense, as all religions are.
We can only really try to be objective, and recognize that the end result of that reasoning may still be flawed.
It is because of this fact that I reject your assertations of an absolute truth crafted by a human through her own, subjective lense, as all religions are.
Partially right. the human mind often fails to apply reason. This is a shame, because it would be better off it it did.
Even I will admit that everyone fails sometimes, sometimes i do fail to apply reason, quite badly on the rare occassion.
The absolute truth though is not crafted by our mind, but already existing for the mind to recognise, or it would not be truth. Truth (in reality, that seperate from the midn) is independent of human thought.
Even I will admit that everyone fails sometimes, sometimes i do fail to apply reason, quite badly on the rare occassion.
The absolute truth though is not crafted by our mind, but already existing for the mind to recognise, or it would not be truth. Truth (in reality, that seperate from the midn) is independent of human thought.
September 28th 2005, 05:45 PM
Lurkala
They breached the rights of others who they considered to be causing grievious harm to them. Such defense is allowed under Objectivism, and Objectivism does not allow for altruistic compassion for people considered to be weak.
Hitler acted with the purpose of restoring Germany's glory and bringing the new race of mankind into being.
This was a good purpose... however it had a monstrous effect because his purpose was not a high enough purpose, and he did not trust the evolution of human understanding to bring in the new man naturally, so he tried to force it by removing what he considered to be genetic weaknesses from the gene pool.
Hitler acted with reason. Not only that, he was inspired by Nietsche, as was Ayn Rand.
Hitler acted with the purpose of restoring Germany's glory and bringing the new race of mankind into being.
This was a good purpose... however it had a monstrous effect because his purpose was not a high enough purpose, and he did not trust the evolution of human understanding to bring in the new man naturally, so he tried to force it by removing what he considered to be genetic weaknesses from the gene pool.
Hitler acted with reason. Not only that, he was inspired by Nietsche, as was Ayn Rand.
September 28th 2005, 05:54 PM
Lurkala
It shouldn't really need a long book. It should need several points with no circular logic and well-defined terms.
Have you been here?
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/
Have you been here?
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/
This must be in response to a post I missed...
that is not a good purpose, it is evil because the means are evil. the ends do not justify the means and vice versa.
His INTENTIONS might have been good (in small parts), but his means were horrific! So the whole act of trying to make Germany great was horrific.
Reason would tell Hitler that it is not in his best interest to start a war, which he knew would happen. Reason would have told him he would lose eventually (it was certaintly very evident during the war, particulary the later parts).
Rand was partially inspired in her early years by a SMALL PART of Neitsches work, ie the part that glorifys man as a noble being, but not really much of the rest of it. She came to realise that how Neitsche proposed to act on hi beleifs were terrible, and that she was looking at a far too narrow aspect of his work.
that is not a good purpose, it is evil because the means are evil. the ends do not justify the means and vice versa.
His INTENTIONS might have been good (in small parts), but his means were horrific! So the whole act of trying to make Germany great was horrific.
Reason would tell Hitler that it is not in his best interest to start a war, which he knew would happen. Reason would have told him he would lose eventually (it was certaintly very evident during the war, particulary the later parts).
Rand was partially inspired in her early years by a SMALL PART of Neitsches work, ie the part that glorifys man as a noble being, but not really much of the rest of it. She came to realise that how Neitsche proposed to act on hi beleifs were terrible, and that she was looking at a far too narrow aspect of his work.
Ok then, I will start a series of posts to try and make it very simple even for you....
Axiom One....
The real is real, reality is reality. A is A.
The nature of that which exists (that which is not in the human mind, things such as trees, apples, benches etc) cannot be affected by human thought or wishes (but possibly by human actions of course, which is not the same thing).
That is the first axiom, the most fundamental...any arguments with this?
Axiom One....
The real is real, reality is reality. A is A.
The nature of that which exists (that which is not in the human mind, things such as trees, apples, benches etc) cannot be affected by human thought or wishes (but possibly by human actions of course, which is not the same thing).
That is the first axiom, the most fundamental...any arguments with this?
September 28th 2005, 06:01 PM
Lurkala
"You cannot love someone whom is opposite to you"
Then you are saying that something I personally experienced does not exist. I am not talking about attraction or physical love, I am talking about "loving the person for who they are and cherishing their presence in the universe" (not in my life, in life itself). I experienced it, and therefore it is a fact that it does exist.
You have ignored what I actually said, and you wonder why I think you do not listen?
Then you are saying that something I personally experienced does not exist. I am not talking about attraction or physical love, I am talking about "loving the person for who they are and cherishing their presence in the universe" (not in my life, in life itself). I experienced it, and therefore it is a fact that it does exist.
You have ignored what I actually said, and you wonder why I think you do not listen?
Im not saying your expereince did not occur. I am saying you mistook it for something other than it really was. Remember, i said such and such is love, if you claim something else is, then I will say that it is not love. I did not say I think it does not exist, or did not happen did I?
Should i think it is love despite my definition of it just because you maintain it is? You would do that if i said it, so why expect me to?
And you said I ignored what you said?
Should i think it is love despite my definition of it just because you maintain it is? You would do that if i said it, so why expect me to?
And you said I ignored what you said?
September 28th 2005, 06:12 PM
Lurkala
"that is not a good purpose"
To restore a country is not a good purpose to have?
Yes, the means were horrific. But they are not forbidden by Objectivism as evil, as Objectisism allows self-defense and does not protect the weak.
The weak are weak because they choose to be weak by their free will. The people put in gas chambers chose to be there, because if it wasn't their free will, they wouldn't have been there. That is what you are saying when you say that there are no limits on free will placed by other factors.
According to reason, Hitler was doing the right thing. You are scrambling to try to prove otherwise because now we all know that what he did was wrong.
The only way that Hitler's reasoning to justify his purpose can have been wrong, is if the base assumptions he used were flawed. If the Jews actually contributed to the German economy and were not genetically weak, then he was wrong. Then it can be seen clearly that his reasoning is flawed, although it is reasonable from that point on.
If Hitler reasoned that he was right based on this fundamental flaw, then he had no choice but to go to war for what he thought was right, because the reasoning that led him to war after that flaw was reasonable.
This is the limit of logic. Garbage in, garbage out, even with perfect processing.
To restore a country is not a good purpose to have?
Yes, the means were horrific. But they are not forbidden by Objectivism as evil, as Objectisism allows self-defense and does not protect the weak.
The weak are weak because they choose to be weak by their free will. The people put in gas chambers chose to be there, because if it wasn't their free will, they wouldn't have been there. That is what you are saying when you say that there are no limits on free will placed by other factors.
According to reason, Hitler was doing the right thing. You are scrambling to try to prove otherwise because now we all know that what he did was wrong.
The only way that Hitler's reasoning to justify his purpose can have been wrong, is if the base assumptions he used were flawed. If the Jews actually contributed to the German economy and were not genetically weak, then he was wrong. Then it can be seen clearly that his reasoning is flawed, although it is reasonable from that point on.
If Hitler reasoned that he was right based on this fundamental flaw, then he had no choice but to go to war for what he thought was right, because the reasoning that led him to war after that flaw was reasonable.
This is the limit of logic. Garbage in, garbage out, even with perfect processing.
September 28th 2005, 06:19 PM
Lurkala
"Don't forget, there were very many highly intelligent, highly educated people who knew that the Earth was flat because religious leaders told them so"
Just to add to this that these people also had the evidence of the horizon being a straight line. So of course the Earth must be flat!
Just to add to this that these people also had the evidence of the horizon being a straight line. So of course the Earth must be flat!
Its a good intention, at least put like that.
And yes they were forbidden. I might not have said this, but Objectivism says it is wrong to initatie force against any other (unless you have reason to think you need to do it to prempt violence, Hitler might have thought he had reason, but he did not).
And initating force was exactly what Hitler did, you would not argue that Im sure
Reason tells you that it is not race that determines anything but physical qualities, and it was generally not physical qualities Hitler used as "reasons for killing Jews.
Killing someone due to their race is too attach nonexistent signifance to racial influences on personality. That is not reason ....that is irrationality.
Not only did most jews not have the qualities he ascribed to them (which proof it was not a reasoned decision), but they did contribute greatly to Germany.
And yes they were forbidden. I might not have said this, but Objectivism says it is wrong to initatie force against any other (unless you have reason to think you need to do it to prempt violence, Hitler might have thought he had reason, but he did not).
And initating force was exactly what Hitler did, you would not argue that Im sure
Reason tells you that it is not race that determines anything but physical qualities, and it was generally not physical qualities Hitler used as "reasons for killing Jews.
Killing someone due to their race is too attach nonexistent signifance to racial influences on personality. That is not reason ....that is irrationality.
Not only did most jews not have the qualities he ascribed to them (which proof it was not a reasoned decision), but they did contribute greatly to Germany.
They did not have evidence for something that was not true, they just thought they did. There is a nontrival, important difference.
September 28th 2005, 06:23 PM
Lurkala
If reality cannot be affected by human thought or wishes, why is it that light is in particles when not observed by humans and waves when observed by humans? (Or was it the other way around, I forgot, sorry. Anyway, the observation of the thing effects different results.)
If reality really cannot be affected by human thought then light doesn't exist.
If reality really cannot be affected by human thought then light doesn't exist.
No, that theory is wrong. Light is in one form all of the time. We might observe it as having properties of particles, but that could be interpreting what we see wrong. Sadly us humans do that alot.
Light has one form, it cannot somehow change when we look at it. How would it know? How would it change form?
The theory that light changes upon observation is wrong, but light does exist. Your conclusion is insane!
Light has one form, it cannot somehow change when we look at it. How would it know? How would it change form?
The theory that light changes upon observation is wrong, but light does exist. Your conclusion is insane!
September 28th 2005, 06:34 PM
Lurkala
If you are saying I mistook it, you are saying that it did not occur. The feeling of love is something felt. Either it is felt or not, there is no mistake.
I did not say that your view of what love is was totally invalid (as you are saying to me), I merely said it is narrow: it does not include very many valid experiences of love.
I can even love you.
I did not say that your view of what love is was totally invalid (as you are saying to me), I merely said it is narrow: it does not include very many valid experiences of love.
I can even love you.
September 28th 2005, 06:36 PM
Lurkala
"(unless you have reason to think you need to do it to prempt violence, Hitler might have thought he had reason, but he did not)."
If he thought he had reason, then his actions were reasonable according to Objectivism.
We know that he did not have reason, of course.
If he thought he had reason, then his actions were reasonable according to Objectivism.
We know that he did not have reason, of course.
NO! They din't know it! They thought they knew it! Thinking something is correct doesn't make it knowledge! Knowledge is knowing the facts. Incorrect thought are by definition not facts and as such cannot be knowlg, only what one incorrectly thin ks is knowledge.
No, I am saying you mistook what it was. That it was one thing, but you thought it was another. think you moron, what I said did not imply it does not exist.
As far as i am concerned, love is love, it is the same thing for everyone.
You felt something else, I dont know what it was if not love, but something else.
Narrow maybe, you could say that I suppose. But for good reason
As far as i am concerned, love is love, it is the same thing for everyone.
You felt something else, I dont know what it was if not love, but something else.
Narrow maybe, you could say that I suppose. But for good reason
Thinking you have reason does not make it so...only if it is realistic, corresponds to reality is it reason. His actions were not factually based, so they were not acts of reason.
How many times must I say this?
How many times must I say this?
No. You are interpreting intuition as the wrong thing. Any acting on knowledge/fact is a concious thing not subconcious. Intution is subconcious and as such cannot im part or act on knowledge.
And the car thing? It was something that was known, just that we didn't realiz w knew it
The gun one? That is fear not knowledge. people in that situation don't believe their captures.
Besides he is not saying intuition does not exist only ineffectiv for humans.
And the car thing? It was something that was known, just that we didn't realiz w knew it
The gun one? That is fear not knowledge. people in that situation don't believe their captures.
Besides he is not saying intuition does not exist only ineffectiv for humans.
Of course I know repating does not equal accuracy? What do you think I am? An idiot?
And how many times do we have to say we base it on reality not opinions nd that we do not let opinions get in the way of seing the way things really are
And how many times do we have to say we base it on reality not opinions nd that we do not let opinions get in the way of seing the way things really are
Plus religions blive in gods, mysticism and the spritual. Objectivism does not. That is why it is not a religion. It is also a form of atheism, which by definiton is not a religon, it is the absience of such. Meaning thnt objectivism is the lack of religion, not a religion.
As I said i was only human. just because i've ben a writer for 13+ years doesn't mean i am exempt from making human mistakes by accidently pressing the wrong key when typing. Plus with writing a book you get a lot of time to edit. You on't really with net posting.
Contradictions ocur only in people thoughts and behaviour not reality.
I was not trying to insult intelligenc only state that i have mor eperience and knowledge. And it oes not imply that. It implies that i am lazy at checking what i type, which i am.
Yeap he is lazy at typing. Which has no bearing on his ability to think of good stories and too construct them in practise...that he is good at (Im beter though ).
).Let me clarify what arrogance is and why I am not arrogant:
Arrogance = The beleif that you are right/superior despite evidence to the contrary.
Now, as far as I am concerned, there is no evidence to the contrary, so I am not arrogant. You might think I am, but you are wrong. And if I am wrong about THAT, give me evidence.
Arrogance = The beleif that you are right/superior despite evidence to the contrary.
Now, as far as I am concerned, there is no evidence to the contrary, so I am not arrogant. You might think I am, but you are wrong. And if I am wrong about THAT, give me evidence.
How do you not have the time to proofread and edit a brief post here at the Dink Network, especially given the handy addition of a Modify button? I fart in your general direction.
And while this may seem like a silly thing to contemplate, it looks to me like anything goes in this thread, regardless of how painfully dumb it is!
And while this may seem like a silly thing to contemplate, it looks to me like anything goes in this thread, regardless of how painfully dumb it is!
September 28th 2005, 09:24 PM
Idler
"I've studies th dictionary quit ea bit, which I doubt that you have, so i bet i know what most words mean better than you."
You might not have intended it to sound as an insult, but it did come out that way. This assumption that the person you were responding to probably hasn't read a dictionary and therefore knows less than you is another way to call him stupid.
"Arrogance = The beleif that you are right/superior despite evidence to the contrary."
arrogance = unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people.
This whole "my belief is superior to yours" is an example of arrogance. Claiming that you know more than they do and belittling the evidence they've offered to support their claims or refute yours is another.
You might not have intended it to sound as an insult, but it did come out that way. This assumption that the person you were responding to probably hasn't read a dictionary and therefore knows less than you is another way to call him stupid.
"Arrogance = The beleif that you are right/superior despite evidence to the contrary."
arrogance = unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people.
This whole "my belief is superior to yours" is an example of arrogance. Claiming that you know more than they do and belittling the evidence they've offered to support their claims or refute yours is another.
the reason is that i am to busy doing toher things on the web as well as post here, such as right now i am also at the objectivist online forum.
"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way of grasping reality; it is our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see." - Terry Goodkind, Faith of the Fallen, Sword of Truth series.
So just tell me if i'm correct about this one thing. An Objectivist is a "man of reason" relating everything back to his own reason to shape his view of the world. So Christianity/religion is always wrong no matter what because it professes that there are other things at work in the world besides the thoughts of humans. So Christianity is unreasonable because of the fact it states there to be other forms of gaining knowledge, i.e. God.
No, it is the case of reason coming back to the reality of the world.
Any christian beleif which contradicts reality, which is what Objectivist beleifs are based on, is by definition wrong. Not because i say so, but because it is that way.
Any christian beleif which contradicts reality, which is what Objectivist beleifs are based on, is by definition wrong. Not because i say so, but because it is that way.
But it does seem me and DD know more about this issue than you do....so I would hardly call acting on accordingly unpleasant.
My beleif is superior to yours if you disagree with reality and I agree with it. Its that simple. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it.
Im a man of huge, founded ego. I am proud of my identity, and so I should be.
My beleif is superior to yours if you disagree with reality and I agree with it. Its that simple. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it.
Im a man of huge, founded ego. I am proud of my identity, and so I should be.
"My beleif is superior to yours if you disagree with reality and I agree with it. Its that simple."
But it is you who says that I disagree with -reality- is it up to me and you to determine what -reality- is? Is it too much for you just to accept the world as it is and not have to overanalyze it to a point where it is up to you to determine what is wrong and what is right.
But it is you who says that I disagree with -reality- is it up to me and you to determine what -reality- is? Is it too much for you just to accept the world as it is and not have to overanalyze it to a point where it is up to you to determine what is wrong and what is right.
Reality is what it is. OK, im sure we dont doubt that...
If I realise that and you dont, then my knowledge can be used to more succesfully acheive my goals, as I understand what is and therefore how to act accordingly in a realistic manner.
but you on the other hand, would not know how. If you did succeed somehow (perhaps by riding on someone elses success), then it would be by chance , or acting as a parasite.
It is not too much for me accept the world as it is, cant you read? That is what I try to do, and what I mostly do manage to do. there is no such thing as "overanalysing it".
If I realise that and you dont, then my knowledge can be used to more succesfully acheive my goals, as I understand what is and therefore how to act accordingly in a realistic manner.
but you on the other hand, would not know how. If you did succeed somehow (perhaps by riding on someone elses success), then it would be by chance , or acting as a parasite.
It is not too much for me accept the world as it is, cant you read? That is what I try to do, and what I mostly do manage to do. there is no such thing as "overanalysing it".
September 28th 2005, 10:47 PM
Idler
There is such a thing as respecting the views of others, and not assuming that you know more than they do. It's a crucial ingredient in any good debate. You may not agree with what other people say, but please learn to respect their views and not resort to insults.
i dont respect your irrational views, and I will not pretend to your sake.
A good debate does rely on respect. It depends on a good topic being argued, which is independent of whether or not one respects the other person.
A good debate does rely on respect. It depends on a good topic being argued, which is independent of whether or not one respects the other person.
September 28th 2005, 11:04 PM
Idler
I honestly don't know why you keep asserting that my views are irrational when I've never stated what my belief is.
Respect is crucial to any good debate because a debate can't move forward if the debators do nothing but insult one other as stupid or insane. Respect means that you treat your fellow debator as a human being, and an equal, even if you disagree with his stand.
Respect is crucial to any good debate because a debate can't move forward if the debators do nothing but insult one other as stupid or insane. Respect means that you treat your fellow debator as a human being, and an equal, even if you disagree with his stand.
Because you have made sooo many irrational arguments the rational...so i assume that is what you beleive too be true.
Just because i dont respect you does not mean I will not argue against you, should i say debate with you. That is mostly what I have been doing after all, debating, even though I dont respect you all that much.
And i am treating you as a human being, I am arguing with you. Sure, i am not treating you as you would like , but still as a human being or I would ignore you wouldnt I?
As for being an equal, i dont think that, neither should I if I beleive you are inferior. Which is my judgement of you based on your apparent intelligence.
Just because i dont respect you does not mean I will not argue against you, should i say debate with you. That is mostly what I have been doing after all, debating, even though I dont respect you all that much.
And i am treating you as a human being, I am arguing with you. Sure, i am not treating you as you would like , but still as a human being or I would ignore you wouldnt I?
As for being an equal, i dont think that, neither should I if I beleive you are inferior. Which is my judgement of you based on your apparent intelligence.
September 28th 2005, 11:29 PM
Idler
You just made no sense whatsoever. "sooo many irrational arguments the rational."?
When you name-call others, insult their views, and treat them as stupid, it's no longer debating. It's called flaming. And it's counter-productive to a good debate. I just find it pitiful that you just can't see how many logical errors you've made, that you've completely ignored what others have said, and continue to treat others as less than human to you, even though you think you're not. Carry on then. A narrow-minded person can never learn.
When you name-call others, insult their views, and treat them as stupid, it's no longer debating. It's called flaming. And it's counter-productive to a good debate. I just find it pitiful that you just can't see how many logical errors you've made, that you've completely ignored what others have said, and continue to treat others as less than human to you, even though you think you're not. Carry on then. A narrow-minded person can never learn.
Umm, yes sorry, that did not come out how i meant...
I meant: so many arguments against the irrational.
It is still debating for the most part, except fo the occasional insult. Ok, maybe this is not so true lately..
You show me some of the logical errors... I would like to see what you consider them to be (i admit i may have made a few, im only human last time I checked)>
As for ignoring it: NO, if i was ignoring it I would not respond would i? Refusing to agree is not ignoring it.
And if you make me think of you as less than me, i will treat you as such. maybe i am wrong, but you will need to show me why this is the case if you want me to think that.
As for not learning, i disagree. I am good at learning, my Uni grades are good, as are my school grades. I pick up ideas easily enough. But not crap like you are spouting...
I meant: so many arguments against the irrational.
It is still debating for the most part, except fo the occasional insult. Ok, maybe this is not so true lately..
You show me some of the logical errors... I would like to see what you consider them to be (i admit i may have made a few, im only human last time I checked)>
As for ignoring it: NO, if i was ignoring it I would not respond would i? Refusing to agree is not ignoring it.
And if you make me think of you as less than me, i will treat you as such. maybe i am wrong, but you will need to show me why this is the case if you want me to think that.
As for not learning, i disagree. I am good at learning, my Uni grades are good, as are my school grades. I pick up ideas easily enough. But not crap like you are spouting...
September 29th 2005, 12:20 AM
Idler
Perhaps you might want to just show how I'm "spouting crap" rather than just label it as such. As far as I can see, I have done nothing to indicate that I am stupid or inferior to you, and yet you keep claiming that over and over without proving it. And not once have I called you stupid, even though I disagree with the way you go about 'proving' you're right. As long as you treat others as stupid and show disrespect to them, they'll just do the same back to you. Hence the debate goes nowhere and is therefore pointless to continue, so I'll stop here now.
September 29th 2005, 02:25 AM
Lurkala
They used reason to reach that conclusion from the evidence that they had. Once we had more evidence, it became clear that it didn't work that way.
Because humans can never truly know the universe in it's entirety, that is why it is necessary to have theories rather than beliefs. Because beliefs insist that they are the truth, when the truth really is unknowable. Only parts of the truth are knowable. Theories take this ambiguity into account, which is much more objective than sticking to one's view of the way the universe works no matter what later evidence is presented.
To be truly objective, you would not believe anything, even Objectivism.
Because humans can never truly know the universe in it's entirety, that is why it is necessary to have theories rather than beliefs. Because beliefs insist that they are the truth, when the truth really is unknowable. Only parts of the truth are knowable. Theories take this ambiguity into account, which is much more objective than sticking to one's view of the way the universe works no matter what later evidence is presented.
To be truly objective, you would not believe anything, even Objectivism.
September 29th 2005, 02:31 AM
Lurkala
"Intution is subconcious and as such cannot im part or act on knowledge."
Have you checked that theory out with what modern psychology says about the subconscious? Or is it a belief and therefore evidence is irrelevant?
If the knowledge is subconscious it is no less knowlege. If the actions start in the subconscious and move the foot without the conscious mind being aware of the reason for the action, is that not the subconscious creating action?
Is self-sabotage not a decision in the unconscious due to fears that are not known by the conscious mind? Then how is the conscious supposed to be processing this knowledge?
Have you checked that theory out with what modern psychology says about the subconscious? Or is it a belief and therefore evidence is irrelevant?
If the knowledge is subconscious it is no less knowlege. If the actions start in the subconscious and move the foot without the conscious mind being aware of the reason for the action, is that not the subconscious creating action?
Is self-sabotage not a decision in the unconscious due to fears that are not known by the conscious mind? Then how is the conscious supposed to be processing this knowledge?
September 29th 2005, 02:39 AM
Lurkala
The book "The Gift of Fear" describes the difference between the true fear than informs intuition and the false fear fomented by societal expectations of situations.
Women often have so much fear of walking alone at night that they are unable to recognize the difference between a valid fear and their normal false fear of walking alone. The false fear makes it difficult for the intuition to get accurate information from the environment. The false fear gets processed in along with the real fear and the truth is obscured.
In the cases the book talks about, the rational mind had no way of knowing the situation, and the processing definitely happened completely on a subconscious level. According to the psychologists who interviewed the subjects, that is... but of course you would know more about psychology and the function of the mind than they do because you're an Objectivist.
Women often have so much fear of walking alone at night that they are unable to recognize the difference between a valid fear and their normal false fear of walking alone. The false fear makes it difficult for the intuition to get accurate information from the environment. The false fear gets processed in along with the real fear and the truth is obscured.
In the cases the book talks about, the rational mind had no way of knowing the situation, and the processing definitely happened completely on a subconscious level. According to the psychologists who interviewed the subjects, that is... but of course you would know more about psychology and the function of the mind than they do because you're an Objectivist.
September 29th 2005, 02:46 AM
Lurkala
Possibly because you have to not say it but prove it with evidence rather than just saying it over and over.
September 29th 2005, 03:02 AM
Lurkala
So now you insult my judgement as to what love is? And you wonder why people are asking you to stop insulting people and calling them stupid because they do not share your narrow view of the way reality is?
I know love. I feel love. I love very many people and some animals. I can have the same feeling about someone completely opposite to me in every respect that I do for my spouse with whom I do share values. The only thing I do not feel for anyone else is that my spouse definitely is first in my heart of all the people I love. Why is this so strange to you?
Because we share values and physical attraction as well I chose to make this one person my mate and partner, but I also love other people - even though I might not want to live with them! So if you are claiming that I do not know what love is and would mistake something else for it, you are very mistaken. I'm sorry.
"Atoms are bound together by weak attraction. Why do we not admit that the universe is bound together with love?" Quote from someone famous, I forgot who though.
I know love. I feel love. I love very many people and some animals. I can have the same feeling about someone completely opposite to me in every respect that I do for my spouse with whom I do share values. The only thing I do not feel for anyone else is that my spouse definitely is first in my heart of all the people I love. Why is this so strange to you?
Because we share values and physical attraction as well I chose to make this one person my mate and partner, but I also love other people - even though I might not want to live with them! So if you are claiming that I do not know what love is and would mistake something else for it, you are very mistaken. I'm sorry.
"Atoms are bound together by weak attraction. Why do we not admit that the universe is bound together with love?" Quote from someone famous, I forgot who though.
September 29th 2005, 03:06 AM
Lurkala
So according to your definition of reality, thoughts don't exist because they can be contradictory and nothing contradictory can exist.
Unless thoughts exist in a separate reality from reality, of course.
Unless thoughts exist in a separate reality from reality, of course.
September 29th 2005, 03:15 AM
Lurkala
I think he meant to say yes rather than no, but for this reason: Objectivism views Christianity as wrong not for the reason you suggest, but because Christianity states that God is "outside" reality... and to an Objectivist that means that God isn't real. Once God is proved to not be real, it would be silly to worship him or think that he has any effect on the world.
My opinion is that Christians *meant* to say that God is outside matter (the physical) but that he exists as the absolute Truth, instead of saying he is outside of reality. Of course, that is my opinion and I am not claiming that it is absolute Truth, much less of a religion where I am not exactly a member.
(Since the Bible has been translated so many times and was written in a completely different cultural viewpoint and way of speaking than us, it is rather difficult to discern what was really meant even by sentences in the Bible that seem to us to be obvious in the translated versions.)
Hmm. Sleeeeeeep.
My opinion is that Christians *meant* to say that God is outside matter (the physical) but that he exists as the absolute Truth, instead of saying he is outside of reality. Of course, that is my opinion and I am not claiming that it is absolute Truth, much less of a religion where I am not exactly a member.
(Since the Bible has been translated so many times and was written in a completely different cultural viewpoint and way of speaking than us, it is rather difficult to discern what was really meant even by sentences in the Bible that seem to us to be obvious in the translated versions.)
Hmm. Sleeeeeeep.
September 29th 2005, 03:21 AM
Lurkala
His actions were based on some facts. That they were not based on all the facts is undeniable, however what human being knows everything? Who is able to grasp all of absolute reality?
Honestly, if anyone claims that they can, they are an arrogant fraud.
Honestly, if anyone claims that they can, they are an arrogant fraud.
September 29th 2005, 05:04 AM
Idler
"A narrow-minded person can never learn." - me
"As for not learning, i disagree. I am good at learning, my Uni grades are good, as are my school grades. I pick up ideas easily enough." - DuckRand
So you're admitting that you're a narrow-minded person, given that you've disagreed with me that narrow-minded people cannot learn by using yourself as a counter-example? *g* Of course, I'm not surprised that you chose to took a narrow view of what learning is as well.
"As for not learning, i disagree. I am good at learning, my Uni grades are good, as are my school grades. I pick up ideas easily enough." - DuckRand
So you're admitting that you're a narrow-minded person, given that you've disagreed with me that narrow-minded people cannot learn by using yourself as a counter-example? *g* Of course, I'm not surprised that you chose to took a narrow view of what learning is as well.
I didn't want to get involved into this, but somehow this came accross my path on the internet:
Dictionary.com: religion
Definition 4: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
In this case, Objectivism is a principle and you are clearly pursuing it with zeal (Dictionary.com: zeal: Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance).
So by definition, Objectivism is a religion, as is atheism, agnosticism, etc.
If not, give evidence, proof and a logic reasoning why this definition is wrong.
EDIT:
Of course, you should not make use of the words "per definition", because what you are trying to prove is that there are wrong definitions. Using "per definition" when proving there are wrong definitions just says that your proof is not valid. Of course, if you want to use a definition, prove first that it is right. Apply this for all used definitions recursively.
Dictionary.com: religion
Definition 4: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
In this case, Objectivism is a principle and you are clearly pursuing it with zeal (Dictionary.com: zeal: Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance).
So by definition, Objectivism is a religion, as is atheism, agnosticism, etc.
If not, give evidence, proof and a logic reasoning why this definition is wrong.
EDIT:
Of course, you should not make use of the words "per definition", because what you are trying to prove is that there are wrong definitions. Using "per definition" when proving there are wrong definitions just says that your proof is not valid. Of course, if you want to use a definition, prove first that it is right. Apply this for all used definitions recursively.
This post seriously annoys me. Arrogance and zealous behavior all over the place. Oh, and I have a question for you objectivists.
If everything has objective attributes, then explain to me what objective beauty is. Because... really... I haven't yet experienced objective beauty. For instance, I can tell a friend of mine how I find this particular girl really beautiful, and he can respond to me with "Nah, she's nothing out of the ordinary", whereas he can say that some other girl is really beautiful, and I might disagree with him with that particular girl. This also goes with arts, such as music. What is objectively beautiful music? I happen to like music that others find horrible. And some people like Hip-hop, which just... disgusts me mostly.
So... tell me. What's objective beauty?
If everything has objective attributes, then explain to me what objective beauty is. Because... really... I haven't yet experienced objective beauty. For instance, I can tell a friend of mine how I find this particular girl really beautiful, and he can respond to me with "Nah, she's nothing out of the ordinary", whereas he can say that some other girl is really beautiful, and I might disagree with him with that particular girl. This also goes with arts, such as music. What is objectively beautiful music? I happen to like music that others find horrible. And some people like Hip-hop, which just... disgusts me mostly.
So... tell me. What's objective beauty?
Another point:
You said: A is A
Now I ask: A is Ä?
If not, who decides that? It must be clearly a person. And since this persons thought should be the consequence of his rational thoughts, every rationaly thinking person should get this outcome. But on what basis? When is an A still an A? if a person can recognize it as an A? If so you're saying that reality is dependant on a man’s consciousness. If not I'd like to know when you think an A is an A.
If yes, the same applies.
If undecided, then you're doubting the point of man's rationality.
I'll explain: DraconicDink posted the following sentence when explaining the believes of Objectivists: 'Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality.' If it's impossible for a man to decide whether or not an A is Ä, how can it be posible for a man to reason more important things, like if Objectivism is true? In that case I think Objectivists are arrogant, since they say they know the truth while they can't even decide if an A is an Ä.
You said: A is A
Now I ask: A is Ä?
If not, who decides that? It must be clearly a person. And since this persons thought should be the consequence of his rational thoughts, every rationaly thinking person should get this outcome. But on what basis? When is an A still an A? if a person can recognize it as an A? If so you're saying that reality is dependant on a man’s consciousness. If not I'd like to know when you think an A is an A.
If yes, the same applies.
If undecided, then you're doubting the point of man's rationality.
I'll explain: DraconicDink posted the following sentence when explaining the believes of Objectivists: 'Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality.' If it's impossible for a man to decide whether or not an A is Ä, how can it be posible for a man to reason more important things, like if Objectivism is true? In that case I think Objectivists are arrogant, since they say they know the truth while they can't even decide if an A is an Ä.
September 29th 2005, 11:06 AM
Jigen
Well it's been a while but we still haven't seen any of this so-called evidence you keep referring to. So far the sum of your argument is: You disagree with me, therefore you are wrong and/or stupid and/or irrational. Just because my belief system says you are wrong.
If you handed in an essay using your style of 'reasoned' argument to any university, you'd fail. That's a an objective fact. You never qualify your statements, your argument is based on the flawed idea that simply by prescribing to a philosophy containing the word 'objective' in the name that you automatically know all the factors involved in a given situation and that any definition you apply to something is automatically correct.
Here's your D-
If you handed in an essay using your style of 'reasoned' argument to any university, you'd fail. That's a an objective fact. You never qualify your statements, your argument is based on the flawed idea that simply by prescribing to a philosophy containing the word 'objective' in the name that you automatically know all the factors involved in a given situation and that any definition you apply to something is automatically correct.
Here's your D-
ok aside from all this nonsense that no one to bother to read ill share with you some true insight.
A if you believe that metaphycisal exists (meaning anything not purely pysical, like an atom, a tree, a rock) you cannot prove that the physical exists outside of your metaphyical persception. therefore you can believe in god, souls, however with the notion that anything pysical is your perception and cannot be logically proven to exists independentally.
B you belive that physical exists, meaning ONLY purely physical. you can believe in atom placements and chemical states which the concepts of we know to be trees, rocks, emotions, etc. likewise you cannot logically prove anything metaphysical to exist apart from your physical reality.
so in other words dualism is illogical. you can either believe in A or B but YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY JUSTIFY BOTH without a degree of personal "believe" or "fiath" which may be hed outside of philophy unless you want to look like a one-sided idiot with no sense of logic.]
therefore you can either believe A that people hold the capacity for good and evil, that people have souls and life has meaning, or you can believe that B life does not exist apart from an arrangement of atoms and that hacking a human bean to pieces is no different that hacking a chair to pieces apart from the chemical arrangement in ones brain to make them feel outraged. there is no
"sin" or "wrongdoing" involved whatsoever. this is the bleak path you choose to take as objectiveist merely because you are an eliteist shoothead who cant admit that there are things in the world which YOU CANNOT CONTROL and that YOU CANNOT CATEGORIZE INTO A SIMPLE CHART or Graph. its all an ego problem, not want to admit that you cant hold everything to a standard of understanding. what it comes down to is you thinking you are cooler than you really are.
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
A if you believe that metaphycisal exists (meaning anything not purely pysical, like an atom, a tree, a rock) you cannot prove that the physical exists outside of your metaphyical persception. therefore you can believe in god, souls, however with the notion that anything pysical is your perception and cannot be logically proven to exists independentally.
B you belive that physical exists, meaning ONLY purely physical. you can believe in atom placements and chemical states which the concepts of we know to be trees, rocks, emotions, etc. likewise you cannot logically prove anything metaphysical to exist apart from your physical reality.
so in other words dualism is illogical. you can either believe in A or B but YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY JUSTIFY BOTH without a degree of personal "believe" or "fiath" which may be hed outside of philophy unless you want to look like a one-sided idiot with no sense of logic.]
therefore you can either believe A that people hold the capacity for good and evil, that people have souls and life has meaning, or you can believe that B life does not exist apart from an arrangement of atoms and that hacking a human bean to pieces is no different that hacking a chair to pieces apart from the chemical arrangement in ones brain to make them feel outraged. there is no
"sin" or "wrongdoing" involved whatsoever. this is the bleak path you choose to take as objectiveist merely because you are an eliteist shoothead who cant admit that there are things in the world which YOU CANNOT CONTROL and that YOU CANNOT CATEGORIZE INTO A SIMPLE CHART or Graph. its all an ego problem, not want to admit that you cant hold everything to a standard of understanding. what it comes down to is you thinking you are cooler than you really are.
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
September 30th 2005, 12:07 PM
Chris
You know, I was waiting for one of Josh's remarks on this topic. It's a nice one at that, too.
What I get tired of in this post is not him insulting people, its the whole premise around his view of judging rational behavior from irrational.
Objectivists claim from looking at everything objectivly, but they do not. They look at it wanting for it to fit into their worldview, that is not being objective. Its being subjective.
I just don't get why anyone would want to go through life like that.
Objectivists claim from looking at everything objectivly, but they do not. They look at it wanting for it to fit into their worldview, that is not being objective. Its being subjective.
I just don't get why anyone would want to go through life like that.
existencialists could kick the friggin crap out of objectivists any day of the week. that quote by pascal is powerful enough alone to make many philosies look like human reassurance. thats all youre doing is trying to make yourself feel good about life and trying to give yourself a meaning in life but not answering the questions or asking any beyound a small scope of what you deem reality.
Since you opened up the quoting, here's one from my homepage this morning:
"There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."
- Alfred Korzybski
"There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."
- Alfred Korzybski
