Objectivism 101

1. By far, the most impugning has been done by David and Jenifer.
2. Judaism is irrelevant to this topic and was falsely injected into this topic by David and Jenifer.

0 Replies

ViciousViper,

This thread is all about the mentality based in reality (Objectivism 101) versus the subjective dillusional self-righteous sanctimonious bible-thumping sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

The truth threatens their whole existence.

Especially if they're Jews.
To my way of thinking, if one can't do a quick google and determine that by and large, Jews own and control the US mass media, then there's no way they're ever gonna accept reality as absolute as both are just basic facts.

0 Replies

existential potential wrote:

David, could you please sum up the points you have made thus far on this thread, seeing as you have accused virtually all of us that we cannot make a good point, or when someone does make a point their labelled a Jew.

Sum up your main points.

Reality is absolute.
A=A

Knowledge is referenced to reality, as such, using that which reality is responsible for helping to create{maths and language} against itself is utterly stupid, however, Objectivism has detailed the fact that knowledge is objectively structured, whereas most other philosophers and incomplete epistemologies merely speculate about what knowledge is, or stupidly declare what it isn't.

IR's are objective.
There is such a thing as creating objective ethics{an entire system of ethics/rules}

Most people hate truth and are brainwashed, impatient, impulsive and defend Jews/Zionist's despite never having studied the subject.

0 Replies

Beings that you took another stroll to the Philosophy Forums claiming that I used ad hom, I suppose you want more of me, eh?

Regardless of whether or not I'm the Jew-lover you think I am, you still have a chance to persuade me. I will willingly consider your argument (along with all its discriminatory concepts) if you can answer this one question for me:

How is the human condition (human nature, whatever it may be that you call it) consistent with reality?

0 Replies

Human nature is dynamic, it fluctuates between good and evil/productive/destructive.....our goal is to learn about reality and mesh with it rather than fight against it.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

David, the reason why these head banger go out on the net to try and hunt us down...

paranoid much, JJ?

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

Human nature is dynamic, it fluctuates between good and evil/productive/destructive.....our goal is to learn about reality and mesh with it rather than fight against it.

I feel that our inclination to mesh with it only shows that we are not in sync with it already. Reality does not fluctuate as our nature does.

Therefore:

REALITY > HUMAN NATURE > RIGHTS > MORALS > OBJECTIVE ETHICS

cannot be, because reality does not decide individual (human) nature.

Objections?

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

Jenifer Johnson wrote:
The truth threatens their whole existence.

Especially if they're Jews.
To my way of thinking, if one can't do a quick google and determine that by and large, Jews own and control the US mass media, then there's no way they're ever gonna accept reality as absolute as both are just basic facts.

You two are hysterical. I categorically state as truth that you and your friends live on Uranus. Do a quick google search for proof. If you can't be bothered, or you aren't knowledgeable enough to figure out how to do then then you and JJ are just scum-sucking pigs. Seems simple enough, right?

0 Replies

Yes, people can defy reality and suffer the consequences, however, as I said before, unless one starts with a basic moral axiom such as "man's life and his well being", then life and decay are as good as each other.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

Yes, people can defy reality and suffer the consequences, however, as I said before, unless one starts with a basic moral axiom such as "man's life and his well being", then life and decay are as good as each other.

I don't like how you phrased that. Reality cannot be 'defied' but merely 'ignored'. I'm curious, would a man that kills fighting for his country (we assume this country is fighting for the moral good) be a criminal, a sociopath, or have the maturity of a child?

0 Replies

demonicturtle,

What is consider human nature, are those things that are common in everyone human, which one does not have a choice in the matter (objectively established). Example: In order for you to live another day, you have to kill or have another living organism killed on your behalf. You are a predator, which is beyond your control.

0 Replies

demonicturtle: would a man that kills fighting for his country (we assume this country is fighting for the moral good) be a criminal, a sociopath, or have the maturity of a child?

All war is the by-product of collectivism (getting the collective to do what one could not do individually). Without collectivism, there would be no war.

Whether something is right from wrong, has to be put into an individual perspective. An act of aggression that violates another's individual rights, "the cause", gives the victim moral authority and the right to take life in defence of one's own sovereignty. Defence is a moral imperative, because the price of individual freedom is eternal vigilance. Individual responsibility balances individual rights.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

demonicturtle,

What is consider human nature, are those things that are common in everyone human, which one does not have a choice in the matter (objectively established). Example: In order for you to live another day, you have to kill or have another living organism killed on your behalf. You are a predator, which is beyond your control.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you mean. This may be the case of an individual at the stage of infancy. But a characteristic also common in humans is, well, that they have character. When humans grow to where they possess opinions, they then have defining qualities that make them unique.

Perhaps you would understand my point better if I provided an example:

By nature, humans are mostly carnivorous. However, due to the influence of their own opinions, some people become total vegetarians. This undoubtably becomes part of their human nature, which considers not only objective biological qualities, but how subjective, individual opinion affects said qualities. The vegetarian is not causing a deficiency in their ability to survive, so their choice is still ethical, all the while proving that human nature is separable from reality in many individual cases. Since human natures differ, they are clearly not a reality, and cannot be a derivation for individual rights.

0 Replies

Call the phenomena, the laws of human nature, then. If human nature has objective and subjective components as you have pointed out, then the subset of objective components would be the laws of human nature, like the laws of nature are objective.

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

By nature, humans are mostly carnivorous. .

What utter nonsense......by which measure are we mostly carnivore's?
And WTF has people's opinion on which food groups are best have to do with IR's.....actually, WTF are you even talking about Shocked

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

I'm curious, would a man that kills fighting for his country (we assume this country is fighting for the moral good) be a criminal, a sociopath, or have the maturity of a child?

Being that you have no definition of right from wrong, one of your options is to ask such questions.........however, it should be obvious that anyone can kill any aggressor at anytime if the threat warranted it.......one doesn't have the right to initiate force, but one has full moral authority to retaliate.

0 Replies

DavidIg : What utter nonsense......by which measure are we mostly carnivore's?

I think he is trying to make the claim that being a vegetarian is some how not killing a living organism. A vegetarian has no more moral high ground than a meat eater. No one can survive on rocks.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

DavidIg : What utter nonsense......by which measure are we mostly carnivore's?

I think he is trying to make the claim that being a vegetarian is some how not killing a living organism. A vegetarian has no more moral high ground than a meat eater. No one can survive on rocks.

He has a bad habit of trying to win the argument in each post he makes....rather than seek to fully understand what we're saying.

That said, for a 14yr old{if true}, he's shown more merit than many of the senior members role playing philosophers Shocked

0 Replies

Do vegetarians kill life? - yes

Are vegetarian actions morally better than those of others? - no

I think you misinterpreted the entire meaning of my statement. I was showing how human nature differs from reality. (I wasn't contradicting any of the statements above, as you assumed)

Davidig: by what measures are humans mostly carnivores?

You mean to tell me that, without prior knowledge to vegan diets, most of your diet wouldn't consist of meat without even thinking about it?

lol. I didn't say anything about diets deciding one's moral alignment, just to clear that up.

0 Replies

Objectivism 101

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know