Objectivism 101

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

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.

Wait, now I've lost your reasoning completely.

If society, in this instance, is abstract (and thus subjective), wouldn't the social contract dependent on the society also be subjective, in turn making your moral code subjective?

0 Replies

demonicturtle : define the qualities of the 'laws of nature'

It blows my mind that I would even have to go to this level to address this.

The laws of nature are reality (objectively) established (independent of individual thought, true for me as it is for you), example: physical law, laws of physics, law of gravitation, the three laws of motion, laws of supply and demand, laws of human nature, laws of thermodynamics, ect...ect....

0 Replies

demonicturtle : wouldn't the social contract dependent on the society also be subjective, in turn making your moral code subjective?

It is not a contract, it is an understanding of mutually insured destruction (law of reciprocal actions). Is there a contract between you and the snake? NO. It is an understanding that if you screw with the snake, the snake will screw with you!

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

demonicturtle : define the qualities of the 'laws of nature'

It blows my mind that I would even have to go to this level to address this.

The laws of nature are reality (objectively) established (independent of individual thought, true for me as it is for you), example: physical law, laws of physics, law of gravitation, the three laws of motion, laws of supply and demand, laws of human nature, laws of thermodynamics, ect...ect....

Sorry to make you stoop to my level, I guess that's what sucks about being a philosopher on a pedestal, huh? :wink:

So if somebody commits a crime, they would violate your ethics, subsequently violating your morals, distort your views of rights, ultimately compromising nature, which according to your definition, is established as a reality.

So, in other words, commiting a crime against your code of ethics could not possibly be a reality?

0 Replies

demonicsquid

Do you want the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

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.

**** KANT!!!!....I can't be more economical Cool

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

demonicsquid

Do you want the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?.

To be short, I sure do David.

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

DavidIg wrote:
demonicsquid

Do you want the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?.

To be short, I sure do David.

Do you think enforcing those rights discriminates against anyone?

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

demonicturtle wrote:
DavidIg wrote:
demonicsquid

Do you want the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?.

To be short, I sure do David.

Do you think enforcing those rights discriminates against anyone?

No, I wouldn't say so.

0 Replies

joefromzoo wrote:

his beard two days ago.

JJ would still look hot with a beard.

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

DavidIg wrote:
demonicturtle wrote:
DavidIg wrote:
demonicsquid

Do you want the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?.

To be short, I sure do David.

Do you think enforcing those rights discriminates against anyone?

No, I wouldn't say so.

Well at least we're off to a reasonable start Mr Turtle, unfortunately, I have to disappear till tomorrow, at which point we can focus on the objections you've raised.

0 Replies

Indeed. We'll debate tomorrow.

To be continued...

0 Replies

demonicturtle,

If you try to defy reality, by stepping in front of a speeding train, it has nothing to do with me. You try to violate someone's individual rights and sovereignty, they have the right to violate you, so the law of reciprocal actions, has nothing to do with me. It is not my code, it is reality.

0 Replies

Jewfromthezoo,

http://www.individual-sovereignty.com/pic/jj003.gif

0 Replies

Quote:

KANT!!!!....I can't be more economical

... spoken with the "subtle tongue" of one who feels the need to proudly publish pictures of his bookshelf !
Did you think of that all by yourself?... looks like JJ had a hand in it !

0 Replies

BTW The idea that the concept of "the individual" is anything to do with the concept of "physical reality" is the level many philosophers have the problem of descending to !

Humans originated from tribal primates. We have the greatest period of child-adult dependency of all mammals during which time we undergo socialisation via a collective language. Language constitutes shared "group spectacles" which categorize "reality". Insofar as "science" uses the relatively culture free metalanguage of mathematics, we have the agreed concept of "universal physical laws". However the concept of a unitary "self" may be merely an epiphenomenon of language and culture which assigns us a "permanent name" and potential culpability within a society. The "reality of the individual" may be no clearer for humans than it is for bees in a hive, even if we are members of several such hives.

0 Replies

Jenifer: it is reality

I do not see how it can be a reality if I have the possibility of defying it. Are you claiming that crimes and evil motives are not real?

Jenifer: it has nothing to do with me

Indeed, I don't see why one would be a philosopher with this kind of attitude. Maybe taking up the trivial task of proving your theories is too much for you. Dabbling in ethics is dangerous if you are ultimately uncaring of your subject, and are just out to prove a point.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

BTW The idea that the concept of "the individual" is anything to do with the concept of "physical reality" is the level many philosophers have the problem of descending to !

Humans originated from tribal primates. We have the greatest period of child-adult dependency of all mammals during which time we undergo socialisation via a collective language. Language constitutes shared "group spectacles" which categorize "reality". Insofar as "science" uses the relatively culture free metalanguage of mathematics, we have the agreed concept of "universal physical laws". However the concept of a unitary "self" may be merely an epiphenomenon of language and culture which assigns us a "permanent name" and potential culpability within a society. The "reality of the individual" may be no clearer for humans than it is for bees in a hive, even if we are members of several such hives.

I understand how this would normally be a problem, but in this example, reality has been given a name. Let me give you an example. People and things are constantly flawed where none could ever be flawless. However, this did not stop us from establishing the term 'perfect' which attempts to label the fictitious state of being that a thing could never attain. In reality's case, it has been given a name that may be difficult to make a claim at what it is, but I have specifically told you what it can't be: a changeable state.

0 Replies

demonict

So you are basically advocating a sort of Platonic "reality" of ""ideal forms". Such would surely be a quasi-religious position which many would have difficlty with. Ironically the two protagonists here epitomise such a position even they they claim to be atheists. Rand herself may be little more than a reactionary expressing the secularism and individualism adopted by her Jewish parents in moving from their native Soviet Union. "Positions" are integrally bound up with their logical complements.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

demonict

So you are basically advocating a sort of Platonic "reality" of ""ideal forms". Such would surely be a quasi-religious position which many would have difficlty with. Ironically the two protagonists here epitomise such a position even they they claim to be atheists. Rand herself may be little more than a reactionary expressing the secularism and individualism adopted by her Jewish parents in moving from their native Soviet Union. "Positions" are integrally bound up with their logical complements.

I suppose I'll take your word for it, I haven't read much of Plato (I'm 14). All I'm saying is, I don't know how to define reality, but I do know what it can't be (if you look in any dictionary, I'm sure that none say that reality can change). This is my reasoning in determining that reality is unalterable, otherwise, the term's existence would have no meaning. *shrugs*

0 Replies

Objectivism 101

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know