Objectivism 101

Thanks for the welcome.

As I said, David commented on one of my forums and I felt the need to follow it up here. (since he never gave evidence to back up his belief in objective morals).

Therefore logic and reason play no role in truth.....thanks for verifying what we already knew about you ep, ie, you're religious.

You're commenting on the social contract....and both JJ and I are telling you it's optional but desirable*, however, the IR's are objective in that they derive from the human condition and they don't discriminate against anyone.......as I've said before, if we enforced subjective ethics upon people, then they'd have legitimate grounds to reject, but what grounds does anyone have to murder, rape, beat, or steal from an innocent person...the answer is none, and by the measure of the basic moral axioms, they're deemed criminals[anti-humanity}

*but as I said before, most crims want their IR's respected even after they've flagrantly violated others.

demonicturtle,

The right to act (right from wrong) is based on the laws of nature, objectively established. One has to be brain dead to go into a den of vipers expecting not to have to defend themselves. Based on the law of self-preservation, if a snake is threatened, it will attack.

It is a universal law, to ensure continual survival. One is a criminal to deny the universal law or to create a collectivist paradigm of subjective rights (group rights) that violate one's individual rights and sovereignty. It is nothing more than a fraud to manipulate, by using the collective to get the individual to do what they could never get them to do individually.

The reason why I and David are viciously attacked, is because we have entered a den of viciously vipers that are trying to defend their subjective criminal mentality by trying to defy the laws of nature (walk into walls expecting to walk through).

No matter how much you try to defend your depraved criminal mentality, the subjective mentality of "God Said" or "might makes right" will always violate the laws of nature. The truth is on the reality side which will always defend against vipers.

Anyone can become an "instant" objectivist by reading the material provided at the website for Ayn Rand Institute.

By all means, I agree with you both, so long as we assume that the human condition is objective. But that is the exact issue I was speaking of, the 'human condition'. Our conditions have varied greatly since the beginning of the establishment of our earliest civilizations. If I am correct, objective things are associated with reality, and I do not see reality to vary as the human condition does. Therefore, I am inclined to perceive the human condition as situational, and thus subjective. Beings that you derive your individual rights and morals from the human condition, I can also conclude that they are subjective as well.

Am I flawed in my reasoning?

What's the matter? Touched a nerve? I can certainly understand why you don't want me bringing up your subjectivist past, what with you trying to impress your objectivist girlfriend and all. The sad thing, though, is that JJ is probably some 45-year old overweight single man living in his mother's basement who blames the Jews for the fact that he can't get promoted to assistant supervisor of the returns department at Best Buy and who is, right now, eating a Cheeto that he dropped in his beard two days ago.

demonicturtle : so long as we assume that the human condition is objective.

The human condition is human nature, which is objectively establish. For example, I never asked or created the human condition for the necessity of breathing, eating and eliminating, did you? It was objectively established, out of yours or my control.

demonicturtle : I do not see reality to vary as the human condition does.

What varies in human nature?

demonicturtle : Beings that you derive your individual rights and morals from the human condition

No, one derives their individual rights and sovereignty, through the right to act and interact, based on the laws of nature, objectively established.

demonicturtle wrote


Your reasoning is fine. However your premise about "reality" being objective...indeed "objectivity" itself ...is philosophically problematic.

Also, critical self examination tends to reveal multiple personality facets such that even the concept of "the individual" is meaningful only in the nebulous context of "the generalised other" and has little import in actual dynamic moral decision making.

Hi ViciousViper, I'm a snake charmer.

fresco : However your premise about "reality" being objective...indeed "objectivity" itself ...is philosophically problematic.

Reality is objectively established. What is problematic, is your perception of reality, based on your limited five senses. There is no one more blind than one who refuses to see.

demonict

......in short even "the self" is a collective !

JJ,

Grow up! What YOU refuse to see is that science has moved on from naive realism.

Read Kant and the phenomenologists....then read Heisenberg.

fresco : YOU refuse to see is that science

Who is the one that still believes that "one is born a Jew", claiming I'm attacking someone, when all I am doing is exposing Judaism? One can not have an understanding of the biological reproductive process (science) and still believe in Judaism (subjective reality), head banger.

Davidig said: The IR's are objective in that they derive from the human condition.

It seems to me, Jenifer (assuming that you agree with him), you guys are saying that morals are derived from the human condition, since morals come from rights in your book.

Regardless of if I know how to define reality (or indeed even know what it is), I do know that its established definition marks it as an unchangeable state, whereas society (the human condition) is changeable. This is the flaw that I was speaking of. The human condition and objectivity can not be associated due to their inconsistencies, and by extension, neither can rights or morals, in an objective fashion.

In referrence to the confusion of the 'human condition' variance, I meant this. Look at all of the different government types that have sprouted in the history of mankind. All of them were at least partially flawed, all changed over time, and all required different fixes for their faults. This variance makes them inconsistent with the unvariable reality and therefore objectivity as well.

Well done ! That's the typically deranged non sequitur we have come to expect from you. The "reproductive process" clearly throws up some interesting specimens ! :wink:

BINGO!

demonicturtle,

No, one derives their individual rights and sovereignty, through the right to act and interact, based on the laws of nature, objectively established.

I don't truly see how anything in your argument is established, for the reasons I have previously stated. Perhaps if you or David could be so kind as to define the qualities of the 'laws of nature' I could understand your system of morals more clearly (and just maybe I'll agree on their establishment!). In any case, I will try to remain civil with you both lest I be called a 'head banger', jew, or 'joo'.

demonicturtle : whereas society (the human condition) is changeable.

If society is the human condition in your mind, then I can understand why you think the human condition is subjective.

Only individuals physically exist. Groups (Society) is only a perception in your mind that does not physically exist. All interaction is between individuals, not a fiction in reality. In that case, I would not define the human condition as human nature.