Objectivism 101

Individual rights are objective in that they're not just my opinion, they're also yours, ie, I'm not controlling, violating or discriminating against anyone when I recognize their IR's, but yes, obeying them is optional in that you can choose to be a scumbag, but you do risk suffering the wrath of righteous people.

One of the paradoxical things about philosophy is that at some levels, it's amazingly simple, but as I've said before, the problem with being stupid is that both the complex and the simple are beyond you.

But the very fact that you can choose whether to obey IR's or not, I think makes objectivist ethics subjective, because having that choice makes it neither true nor false.

And just because we share the same opinion does not make it objective, at the very least it makes it intersubjective.

Intersubjective is a redundant term when applied to ethics, and to some degree redundant when applied to physical science in that it seeks to dilute ethics power by virtue of it being a human activity.

You're another person who wants philosophy to epistemologically force you to accept the "truth" about ethics, but the truth is, humans can violate themselves and others, all I'm doing is saying "hey, here's the deal folks"......I can't force you to be reasonable, all I can do is appeal to you to be reasonable, and considering IR's don't discriminate against you, what right have you got to disobey....of course you don't have any such right, and subsequently, you'd be classified as a criminal for doing so.

Remember, it's not just the fear of the police that protects you, it's also a respect for IR's+ if you were to openly declare IR's{life, liberty, property, happiness} as subjective{and thus optional}, then I can do whatever I want to you, and you'd have no moral justification to seek retribution.

Maybe you have a deathwish, but I wouldn't be trying to downplay the objective nature of IR's, and the necessary social contract that binds them....or maybe you're currently involved in all manner of criminal activity and don't like being exposed

You're right, I would be classified as a criminal in a social context, which IR's only apply to.

Outside society, IR's do not apply, which means they are not objective, they are in a social context, but ultimately they are subjective.

This is all just to do with how society structures itself, which is not based on some objective, independent rules. If they were then they would be objective.

I like the view that there can be no objective morality because God does not exist.

Only a God or Gods could create objectivity in ethics, and because there is no God or Gods, then right and wrong is merely opinion, and there is nothing objective about that.

IR's aren't a physical object subject to scientific scrutiny, also, that we are human and have choices is what prompts us to form ethics, so to suggest that ethics are subjective unless they exist apart from humans{and essentially invalid} is the height of nonsense.

But that aside, do you grant me the right to rape, beat or steal from you?

Ayn Rand's writings cannot reasonably be referred to as a philosophy. She entirely misunderstood Kant's work, and, like those who continue to adhere to a Tomistic doctrine by doing nothing more than insisting on an unsubstantiated "realism," insists that reality is "objective" and we, in some unspecified way come to know it through reason. What is reason? How do we know that reason is entirely objective? Rand's version of explaining reason is by writing about characters who possess some kind of creative talent (architects, discovering technology, etc.) and then claiming that the ability to produce something new means that reality is objective.

It bewilders me that people can, after the Depression, insist that an *entirely* laissez-faire economic system is not inherently unstable. Rand makes the assumption that most extremely arrogant people make: that everyone is born into the same exact economic background and therefore has an equal opportunity. If a person is born into an economically poor region, it is possible that they will never have any chance of becoming educated enough or having time to exercise the creative genius that Rand seems to think that she had, as shown by her extraordinarily shallow and unrealistic characters.

What arguments does Rand actually make? She makes a lot of assertions that are just restatements of a nearly century old trickle-down theory of economics (the fruits of the unfettered genius's production will benefit all of mankind), but none of them have any backing. Why can't my desire to help other people be a form of production? Nietzsche argued against compassion, but he did it in a way that criticized the overly sentimental and superficial forms that I guess Rand might be responding to, but without becoming a crazy megalomaniac (okay, he was a self-aggrandizing in his later years, but he was also a profoundly compassionate humanist.)

Whenever I talk to people who really like Rand, I am reminded of the warning to never be a follower of one book. Reading Atlas Shrugged does not make you educated or well versed in philosophy. And for whoever is shallow enough to pride themselves on the length of the book, at least bother to sit down and read War and Peace or In Search of Lost Time, which are at least good works of literature. As some advice, sit down and read a few hundred books of literature and philosophy before you decide that you have the authority to claim that Ayn Rand's work is perfect and the best ever written.

Thalion, you nailed it.

And if your going to pick one book and base a philosophy around make it Voltaire's Candide.

Thalion.....read the thread and stop making ass-umptions....that said, when someone is so stoopid as to doubt reason and reality, it's not like logical progress is possible.

In order to take on an enemy the magnitude you are talking about david will take a collective. Thats why you are here to build that collective. You are chained to the masses including that Mexican dishwasher. Your philosophy that others are less then or unworthy is exactly where "Zionism" as you call it gets its power over you and all of us. Each person exploiting the person under us like a pyramid.

The "Zionist" is at the top, The mexican dishwasher is at the bottom and you are somewhere in the middle. To the people above you you are a mexican dishwasher. That is reality. You are in your rightful place in your own philosphy as is the Mexican dishwasher in relation to you.

I believe this;

Parts of movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BVNN1wqw3k&NR=1


Whole Movie:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

What do you think?

existential potential,

Only individuals exist, society is only a group perception, a figment of your imagination.

The laws of human nature are objectively established. Your heart is programmed to survive which is beyond your individual thought, making it objectively establish. If I stuck your head in the toilet, your body would fight for air, which is objectively established. You have to subjectively defy this law of human nature to kill yourself.

There is another law of nature that is objectively established, which is law of reciprocal actions, which means, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now, objectively established laws, are leaned by a child, just like the law of gravity is learned, that jumping off a high raised building without splattering yourself, is defying an objective law.

Therefore, either one is brain dead, or has a mind of a child, or is a socopathic tyrant criminal, will understand that it is objectively establish, if you violate my individual rights and sovereignty, then I have a right to violate your individual rights and sovereignty, to your death.

Are you stupid enough to subjectively defying an objective law of human nature, or just a socopathic tyrant criminal?

Amigo,

The power of the system come from the belief in who has the moral authority. That is why "GOD said" or "might makes right" has been programmed in your mind, so that you will submit to a higher moral authority, the witches in black robes. Once you understand where moral authority originates and "GOD Said" is nothing more than a fraud, a crime against humanity; one person with the moral authority, can bring down a million criminals.

How does one person bring down an Army of millions?

That Army of millions have to have the moral authority to fight. That is the objective of patriotism aka collectivism, is to make you believe that you have a legitimate reason to fight (moral authority). Individually, are you going to kill someone that you don't believe you have a moral right to kill?

Collectivism is getting the collective to do what one could not do, individually, a criminal act. There would be no war, without collectivism, criminality.

That doesn't tell me how one man brings down an army of millions.

Religion, ideologies, nationalism, yes these collective ideas are how you get men to kill in mass. That is widely understood.

But objectivism Vs Collectivism is not the crux of the entire problem.

I wanted an argument. You're the one thinking some random hissy-fit would prove your point. So who's the one thinking might makes right?

Also: What makes you think I'm bible-thumping? I'm not the one believing that a fictional book holds all the philosophical answers...

I'm out of here. Neither you nor Davidlg have anything to offer but rants and hissy-fits. Suffering from delusions of grandeur, well ... look in the mirror my dear.

The fact is, we all judge people, and unlike most people in the west, I judge people by their levels of intelligence, knowledge and wisdom, IOW, I don't care if you have money, it doesn't thrill me, what I care about is whether you're honest, trustworthy and at least capable of intellectual growth.

For those of you who stick up for the symbolic Mexican dishwasher, you're most likely immigrants or deluded, ie, you're more concerned that America progresses economically than spiritually{the nexus between man, nature and the universe}, so it doesn't matter who comes into your country, even if they lack a strong sense of ethics, and or the intelligence to comprehend them.

You're also confused about the operation of a society that functions under IR's, ie, as long as groups{physical} of people don't make decisions on behalf of other groups{abstract}, then no-one's IR's will be violated, as such, people can work in a collaborative fashion for the benefit of themselves and by extension, other members of their society.

You're just one more fly-by wanker who adds nothing to the thread and is obviously philosophically illiterate...so by all means exit the thread.
You collective dumbfucks think it's cool to piss on us, but inappropriate for us to spit back in your ugly faces.

I've spent months discussing philosophy and society with other genuine philosophers{even though we had some fundamental disagreements}, but because we both acted like adults, we were able to sustain ongoing high level conversations.

I'm grateful for the challenge and knowledge that genuine truthseekers offer me, and hopefully I'm able to return the favour, but this is the philosophy section of this message board, minimum standard is patience, a respect for logic, and a respect for other respectful and forceful people/opponents, but most of you spit the dummy unless we kiss both your asscheeks within the first 5 minutes....well sorry "fucko's", if you lack the intelligence or wisdom to recognize what both JJ and I can offer you, then don't expect us to roll out the red carpet each time you grace us with your magnificence{laughing out loud}

Theoretically, by convincing people to swap God/Gov/King said with "Individual rights" said.

I thought Carlin was hilarious in the beginning of the film.....I'm watching the whole thing now.

I'm trying to figure out what Objectivist epistemology actually claims. All knowledge comes from observing the world, but how do these observations actually lead to knowledge? What is knowledge, and how can we have confidence in what we hold to be knowledge? How do we know that an objective world exists? My main complaint is with the moral claims that Objectivism makes: It is just asserted that material production is the ultimate goal of mankind's existence is that actions that lead to self-sufficient production are the only morally acceptable actions. Granted that this kind of economic claim was the norm in America when Rand wrote, but more contemporary studies in complex adaptive systems and the inter-relations between subsystems of a given body seem to contradict this rather exaggerated reductionism. Rand rejected most of the essential elements of what it means to be human.