Objectivism 101

Man is a conceptual being, as such, his nature is relative to various factors, yet you base yours on a standard that has man as a primitive.
Basic observation proves that man has a dynamic nature, however, one must investigate the subject before they can assume nature or nurture.

IMO, given a IQ baseline of probably 105, all people are capable of good aka accepting and enforcing IR's and Obj ethics.....reasonable intelligence is required so that one can both act upon and accept the ethics....as I said before, if someone believes they're being discriminated against, then they're less likely to obey, especially without the use of force or a threat, which then exposes people to crimes of opportunity.

My apologies, it seems in this post you got the meaning of my example. Now that we've established that your only referencing one aspect of human nature, we can move on.

But, as I said before, both aspects (objective and subjective) must be considered when determining human action. This is because our actions are the product of our objective limitations and subjective desires.

In the case of the vegetarian, his actions concerning his diet are determined by his subjective nature, though his vegan diet contrasts with humans' tendencies to eat meat (as I said, if it weren't for some peoples' vegetarian values, we would all eat some meat if able), which are objective (in the case that every human has it). Obviously, his beliefs are not harming 'man's life and well being', so taking up a vegan diet is not a morally bad act by your standards. However, at the same time you indicate that a contradiction of human nature (in this case, being an omnivore) and human actions (in this case, being a vegetarian) implies the deprivation of one's rights. But think about it, are anyone's rights being violated here? Do you understand now how human nature cannot be divided by its subjective qualities and objective qualities?

The reason why one becomes vegetarian, is because they believe they are pursuing better health for themselves. Nutrition has a lot to do with who we become,"you are what you eat".

That is why right from wrong has to be broken down into, actions and interactions.

I don't know where you came into this thread at and I'm not going to go look for it, so I will reiterate what establishes right from wrong.


What establishes right from wrong is the basis for all of one's actions, the right to act. Law equals the right to act which equals moral authority. Rights comes from knowing the difference between right from wrong, in all actions and interaction between individuals.

Right from wrong has to be broken down into action and interaction.

The laws of Nature dictates most of one's individual rights to act. One learns quickly not to put one's hand on a hot plate or step in front of a speeding car. The process of critical thinking is where one uses logic, reasoning and rational thinking, for all their actions. It is the process of learning, where some people will try anything once, to their death. The first mistake is chalked up to experience, but the second mistake is shame on you.

Because no one else is responsible for the consequences of another's choices, no one can be dictated to by another what those choices should be. One's right to act can only be from a subjective mode because it comes from the individual's perspective, because no one else can live their life for them. We all have to be free to make our own choices.

But, what establishes right from wrong for interaction is absolute between individuals and comes from common sense of mutually insured destruction.

In order for you to live another day, you have to kill or have a living organism killed on your behalf; which is a valued life. You are a predator, no different than a lion. There is no sanctimonious position for mankind and there is no God on earth to establish authority. Therefore, the only way to create legitimate law (moral authority), is through a mutual agreement that if you don't violate my individual rights and sovereignty, then I won't violate yours.

No matter what religion one professes to believe in, or what code of law is considered just, the most basic criteria for what can be considered right or wrong is, no one has the right or authority to violate another's individual rights and individual sovereignty. No one on earth is god, so no one has authority or right to control another. A violation of one's individual rights and individual sovereignty, is a crime against humanity.

A right to interact is objective or universal, meaning it applies to all independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers the same. Any top down system of control using the collectivist paradigm, is totally illegitimate authority unless one has consented.

I can't help but feel that humans have a very different ethical code than other animals. Ethics, in their most primitive form (action and reaction), state that the only time to agressively act or react is for one's survival (be it for eating or self-defense). Humans, with their supposed 'free will' and pride, follow a much different code. If you were any other animal, and I killed your mother after you came of age to not be dependent on her, you would not go through the bother of hunting me down, because it did not affect your survival. However, a human would make sure to incorporate revenge (or karma, whatever you wish to call it) into the process, and either imprison them (what equivalent do other animals have to prison?) or kill them. The animals' ethics, as you can see, considered only the individual. The judgmental ethics that we follow acknowledges society, which you claimed didn't exist. I do not believe looking to other animals will suffice to your form of ethics.

When we say reality is absolute, it means reality is what it is, and it has no opposition or opposite, IOW, there's no other dimensions and we have to conform to its requirements to maximize our lives, now sure, humans being conceptual creatures capable of choice, we can defy reality, but all it proves is that reality is absolute in that reality won't let you off the hook if you jump in front of a speeding vehicle.

Reality is the benchmark, baseline, bedrock, you name it, it all starts right here…..for example, one cannot form higher level mathematics without the concept of one, and the concept of one requires an object{any object} from the external world to be used as a unit/reference point, ie, one cannot start with an abstraction as a mathematical unit, as an abstraction is a derivative of something{an object of the external world}…….so when cosmologists and their apologists propose preposterous theories about the microscopic/macroscopic world by virtue of a mathematical slight of hand, they've immediately broken convention and left the building.

Remember, big bangers are religious, ie, an implicit and sometimes explicit feature of their theories is the notion of something coming from nothing, of course, this isn't possible, and unless we factor in a "God did it event", we're back to square one.

I hope people realize that proposing "God did it" solves and explains nothing, ie, who created God, where is God, what does he look like etc, IOW, at every level you must be accountable, and if we undertake that challenge in a bid to be objective and to expose our work/theories to independent verification, we have no choice to but to declare {and be certain of it}, that the universe is eternal.

Proof that the universe is eternal is a logical deduction, but proof that the universe exists is an ostensive affair, ie, one only has evidence that the universe is here, and no evidence of God or a something from nothing event, therefore the only remaining and plausible explanation is that it was always here, and the only way to prove it exist is by looking at it.

Once we accept that the universe had no creator, we can quickly move onto the idea that the universe is infinite in both size and age and will always continue to exist and that we're only at the mercy of cosmic forces{physical ones}, ie, no God, and no longer a need to value the collective teachings of those who erroneously claim a non-existence boss exists……obviously this leads to the formation of objective ethics, ie, ethics that can be verified by anyone with the knowledge{something that can be learnt}, as opposed to ethics based on a dubious relationship between God and Priest, and typically not open to scrutiny.

When I began studying philosophy about 7-8 yrs ago, I was both puzzled and fascinated by what I was reading, ie, I had this gut feeling that the answers were just around the corner, but at the same time, most philosophy was clearly speculative, even if the level of speculation was rather complex, although one author actually suggested that philosophy had the status of "talk about talk", and it certainly felt that way to some degree.

To cut a long story short, I eventually discovered Objectivism {primarily its epistemology and metaphysics}, and was greeted with a literal avalanche of truth and obviously many answers to the questions I was seeking.

As I've already suggested and implied, the fundamental difference between Objectivism and virtually every other philosophy I've heard of is that Objectivism is reality based, whereas most other philosophies often just secularize religious thinking, or are outright religious/mystical in construction, and even then, it's often a "to the best of our knowledge" deal……not good enough I'm afraid, I need certainty so I can act without guilt, doubt or general confusion,…..of course, what fun would it be to have such certainty, I'd be difficult to control or hoodwink, and we can't have that.

Atm, we all live in societies that force us to behave in certain ways, and limit our potential/freedom…..we're forced to do this because truth, knowledge, justice and ethics are deemed of secondary importance to servitude of our masters and their views on progress, IOW, a handful of people are forcing the rest of us to do what the man says, and where force is inappropriate or ineffective, there's nothing like old fashioned brainwashing.

These forums are a shining example of brainwashing in action, ie, most people believe that by and large, the authorities are okay and trying their best, when the truth is, they're trying their best to further deprive you of your IR's and any possibility of society based on objective ethics and the physical realities of such a move, IOW, according to the current NWO , more people, more technology, more pollution, more crime, more stress, more cost pressures are all good for you.

demonicsquid.

The human condition is not the animal condition.....we're conceptual beings capable of complex thought, planning etc.....so your lower animal musings do nothing to contradict anything either I or JJ have said, in fact, I urge you to keep that line of thought to yourself, cause despite how deluded your philosophy teachers might be, even they won't be convinced by your undeveloped and confused interpretations.

JJ: you are no different from a tiger

Apparently, I did contradict her.

Whatever you want David. I suppose we can agree to disagree (if you are capable of such a notion). But please, try to work out the grey areas that are created when you merge objective and subjective concepts. Your theory implicates too many absolutes for its own good.

With lulz,
Demonicturtle (or in your case 'squid')

P. S. Did you notice only half of your posts seem to be directed at someone? It almost sounds like your giving a speech. lol. Oh, yeah, and I don't have philosophy teachers or lecturers (I'll be in ninth grade this year)

Did you comprehend it?

Once the basics have been established, the rest logically follows....but how would you know anyway?....exactly what are you thoughts on the origin of the universe etc?

There is no way for one to know. Any opinions regarding the origin of the universe use assumptions as the basis (which is one of the fallacies of your argument, by the way). Also, you cannot state that anything has been 'established' when the topic is based on the validity of those very subjects. (you're once again making your argument convenient)

demonicturtle : I can't help but feel that humans have a very different ethical code than other animals.


Any time you would like to articulate what you think that human ethical code is, we'll be waiting. But, after 51 pages, we won't be holding our breath.

How are you defining "know"....?

I believe I offered an example in the very post that you are criticizing. I don't think you have the ability to hold your breath anyway, because you can't keep anything from going down your throat.

'know' as in: to scientifically regard as true

'scientifically' as in: determine in a process exclusive to assumptions

Do you know that reality exists?

No. I can only compile ideas that I see as objective (this would be from a subjective point of view) into a term that I deem 'reality'.

Can you know?

So in your esteemed opinion, human's can't know that reality is real because we're humans.....sounds very mystical son, you better open your eyes cause it's as plain as daylight.

What grounds have you to doubt the validity of the senses, especially when we can confirm stuff empirically?

It would be reasonable for me to have grounds to trust my senses before considering them valid.

Indeed, I do not think that we can consider anything true to the extent of being absolute. Even if our senses are reliable in the information they provide, who's to say that they are not limited?

demonicturtle : I believe I offered an example in the very post that you are criticizing.

I must of missed it, then qualify it again. This time formulate it into a understandable rule.

To know is to be aware of the truth. Cognizant of reality. That's why head bangers (by nature) are not cognizant, therefore psychotic.