Objectivism 101

demonicturtle wrote:

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?

Sounds very religious mate.......see, you define truth and knowledge as "all that which has ever existed, all that which currently exists, and all that which will exist".....of course the only thing capable of knowing this would be a God as typically defined.

Another problem for you is you're trying to use langauge to denounce reality, when reality is the basis of all knowledge, obviously including language, but then I guess you think concepts have no relationship to reality,....... not that you have any proof.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

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.

Okay, let me break it down

Human Ethics:

A man gets a call one day, hearing that his mother was shot and murdered in her own home. The murderer is later arrested and taken to court. He pleads that he suffered temporary insanity when killing the mother, but the angry son persists with the case. He finally convinces the judge that the man is fully guilty, and he sentences the murderer to spend most of his life in jail. Wouldn't you agree that this murderer got his justice in the end? (if anything, he got off easy) Let's look at how this would have turned out if they were any other animals.

'Primitive' (animal) Ethics:

A boar is trudging through the tall grass one day, when suddenly, he hears a gun shot. The grass up ahead rustles, as if some creature was scared off from the sound of the shot. The boar presses ahead to see what happened. What he sees stuns him. The bloody carcass of what he knows to be his mother is sprawled on the ground. His sounder (a sounder is a group of about 20 boars. I had to look that up lol) is flanking him from behind, but they don't pursue the lion that had apparently killed her. Why would they? That would cause several casualities for the boars. Besides, it was the mother's duty to fight back, for she was the one who was attacked.

See the difference? The animals feel that they should fight back only if they were the individual attacked. Otherwise, they take no extra steps to enforce justice, for only the individuals are responsible for protecting their individual rights. The humans, however, functioned as a society to enforce justice in the same scenario.

You claim that the 'laws of nature' are one and the same, but they are clearly not. Since they are inconsistent with each other, they cannot both be considered objective. So which one are you always referring to? 'Primitive ethics' would make society function individually, which is equivalent to there being no society at all. Human ethics, on the other hand, would cause ethics to be enforced in a group.

In other words, considering human ethics to be objective would force you to recognize society and other groups to indeed be a reality, and not merely a state of mind.

So, pick your poison. Which do you consider objective?

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

demonicturtle wrote:

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?

Sounds very religious mate.......see, you define truth and knowledge as "all that which has ever existed, all that which currently exists, and all that which will exist".....of course the only thing capable of knowing this would be a God as typically defined.

Another problem for you is you're trying to use langauge to denounce reality, when reality is the basis of all knowledge, obviously including language, but then I guess you think concepts have no relationship to reality,....... not that you have any proof.

Indeed, I don't see why I should pretend to understand all aspects of reality by simplifying it and making rough generalizations as you do. If being humble in that fashion makes you religious, then call me a preacher.

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

Indeed, I don't see why I should pretend to understand all aspects of reality by simplifying it and making rough generalizations as you do. If being humble in that fashion makes you religious, then call me a preacher.

JJ's gonna love that, LOL.

0 Replies

squid.

The laws of nature we're refering to is that we are automatically geared towards living, ie, the automated bodily processes.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

squid.

The laws of nature we're refering to is that we are automatically geared towards living, ie, the automated bodily processes.

I suppose you also mean that we're geared to total individuality as other animals are then? (as I mentioned in the post above) So, in your opinion, society is not only a state of mind, but its process is considered unnatural? Therefore, functioning as a society is considered unjust according to your natural, objective, individual ethics?

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

I suppose you also mean that we're geared to total individuality

No, we're conceptual beings, our level of self-respect and regard for maximizing our potential is relative to our knowledge and intelligence.
Society must be built from the individual upwards, and IR's must be preserved and enforced.....problems arise when we politicize groups{which don't physically exist}, and we constrict IR's in favour of groups rights, ie, minority rights.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

demonicturtle wrote:

I suppose you also mean that we're geared to total individuality

No, we're conceptual beings, our level of self-respect and regard for maximizing our potential is relative to our knowledge and intelligence.
Society must be built from the individual upwards, and IR's must be preserved and enforced.....problems arise when we politicize groups{which don't physically exist}, and we constrict IR's in favour of groups rights, ie, minority rights.

I dunno. Individual rights would go through such a stage of conversion in order to govern society as 'social rights' (I think that sounds more accurate when applied to a group), that I don't see them as being natural anymore. In fact, what your describing sounds exactly like what most societies have already attempted...and failed at. When keeping order with a large sum of people, laws are going to become subjective so as to appeal to others. Face it, individual rights can only be secured to an individual. Otherwise, it's like trying to fit two people in one seat.

0 Replies

demonicturtle :See the difference?

Yes, but you didn't articulate any rules.

As a sovereign (adult), one is responsible for one's own protection. The fact that we have the appearance of a judicial system, the ultimate responsibility still is on the individual. The judicial system is only there to profit off of one's demise and perpetrates a fraud. In order to have a valid contract, something of value must be exchanged between parties. From the start of any conflict, the police are there only to bring the body bag, and the judicial system is not legally liable to the victim for not protecting them. Therefore, society only gives the appearance of protection or social justice, while perpetrating a fraud as a parasitic leach.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

demonicturtle :See the difference?

Yes, but you didn't articulate any rules.

.

Modern philosophy teaches him that not knowing is a virtue.

0 Replies

demonicturtle : Otherwise, it's like trying to fit two people in one seat.

Exactly. That is why promoting collectivism is a fraud at its core. Group rights (civil rights) automatically violate one's individual rights and sovereignty.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

Jenifer Johnson wrote:
demonicturtle :See the difference?

Yes, but you didn't articulate any rules.

.

Modern philosophy teaches him that not knowing is a virtue.

'Virtue' does not at all reflect my meaning for this. Ignorance is never a good thing. That is why if we don't know something about a subject, or have no way of gauging our understanding of a subject, we should not act as though our assumptions are true.

I'm not seeing why you call me religious, David (though I do believe in God, I don't see how my decision making was affected by my belief). I have not used God in any way to justify my arguments. Instead of making the assumption that 'God said' as you two always say, I choose not to act on a subject I am otherwise ignorant of.

If you could, will you answer these questions for me? (yes or no answers)

1. Does the basis of reality vary?
2. Does the human nature consist of subjective components?

(this isn't a yes or no question lol) Since we're getting deeper into this discussion, how would the ideal society retaliate to a man robbing a family's house? What punishment is ethical?

0 Replies

Your questions are too vague, but as I've said, we prove reality exists via our senses, we can also investigate aspects of reality via provisional science{still an objective body of knowledge though}.
Human nature is dynamic, so we could call it subjective, but because human nature is dynamic, we can form a model of an ideal mindset.

I nominated you as religious as you reject basic facts, the hallmark of a religious mentality.

As for the burglar, depends on his record, but as a first timer, I'd suggest jail with genuine options to learn something, ie, my jails would be places of learning....of course, a 2-3 strikes you're out policy should apply....that said, I believe people are entitled to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property against criminals.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

Your questions are too vague, but as I've said, we prove reality exists via our senses, we can also investigate aspects of reality via provisional science{still an objective body of knowledge though}.
Human nature is dynamic, so we could call it subjective, but because human nature is dynamic, we can form a model of an ideal mindset.

I nominated you as religious as you reject basic facts, the hallmark of a religious mentality.

As for the burglar, depends on his record, but as a first timer, I'd suggest jail with genuine options to learn something, ie, my jails would be places of learning....of course, a 2-3 strikes you're out policy should apply....that said, I believe people are entitled to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property against criminals.

Of course we can prove that reality exists (at least our perception of it). This does not mean that we are fully capable of understanding it, so we should not make assumptions regarding the matter.

Remaining indecisive about the origin of concepts does not make me religious.

I think it's curious, though, that you said "we can form a model of an ideal mindset". So, this is essentially the process we have established:

1. Reality bestows consistent concepts into the mindset of the human, one such concept allowing the ability for opinion, these concepts are the essence of our nature
2. When opinion is applied, it causes a subjective mentality in both the actions and beliefs of the human
3. This subjectivity is natural, since the concept of opinion itself is natural
4. However, individual rights should be considered with opinion as a basis to the axiom 'man's life and his well being'
5. man's subjective mindset should be shaped in accordance to the enforcement individual rights

Am I correct?

fallacies: individual rights are not justified as being derived from reality, they are only believed to be

-assuming that what is natural is what is morally good (naturalistic fallacy?)

my conclusion: The ideal mindset concerning individual rights cannot be attained without the abolition of opinion. Since opinion is a natural concept, abolishing it is equivalent to rejecting reality. Since the enforcement of individual rights violate reality, they are not to be considered an appropriate ethical code.

0 Replies

Reality establish the rules that everything evolves around through the laws of nature. Defy the laws of nature at its own demise. Individual rights come out of the laws of nature through self-preservation instinctive law. When you violate another's individual rights (the right of self-preservation), you are defying the laws of nature at your own peril.

0 Replies

demonicturtle : Remaining indecisive about the origin of concepts does not make me religious.

What makes you religious is your collectivist mentality.

At the core of the problem with religion, is a control system that is based on external control, whether it is "god said" or "government said" or "collective said". Adulthood is accepting responsible for one's actions, where the control system is internal. What we have is a society full of children expecting a fiction in reality to make things all right for them, which collectively results in slavery for everyone, but the controllers.

The collectivist has it backwards.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

demonicturtle : Remaining indecisive about the origin of concepts does not make me religious.

What makes you religious is your collectivist mentality.

At the core of the problem with religion, is a control system that is based on external control, whether it is "god said" or "government said" or "collective said". Adulthood is accepting responsible for one's actions, where the control system is internal. What we have is a society full of children expecting a fiction in reality to make things all right for them, which collectively results in slavery for everyone, but the controllers.

The collectivist has it backwards.

Actually, you have it backwards, dipwad. Making generalizations about reality as you do leads to assumptions that are fictional in their own right. Choosing not to assume anything about the immensity of subjects like reality and sticking only to what I know would make me the opposite of religious. (again: you put a one-liner at the end of your post that seems to be projected to an imaginary crowd lol)

Jenifer Jew: individual rights come out of the laws of nature through self-preservation instinctual law

instinctual- coming from biological nature (funny how everytime I disprove an argument, you come up with new vocab to support the statement)

Err... How does self-preserving our biological composure have anything to do with rights? It seems to me like your just restating the 'abolition of opinion' problem I mentioned earlier (trying to candy-coat it are we?). Human nature is not about what we are born with, it is about our habits during certain situations (those habits may be mental or physical), which are bound (the habits, that is) to have subjective aspects. You cannot derive any consistency from opinion, nor can you try to lop off the subjective side of the equation to avoid the truth. I have proved to you on multiple occasions how reality and habitual nature are dysfunctional together, but you continue to avoid the issue.

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

Of course we can prove that reality exists (at least our perception of it). This does not mean that we are fully capable of understanding it, so we should not make assumptions regarding the matter.

Remaining indecisive about the origin of concepts does not make me religious.

Our perception of reality is all we have....there's nothing else, so we can be absolutely sure that reality exists, and we can use science to make sense of its bits and pieces, ie, science deals with fragments of reality, but determining that reality exists is a simple matter of perceiving it....also, determining the origin of reality is beyond the scope of science as science can only deal with bits and pieces, we can't do a test to verify infinity.

Doubt about the nature of concepts and their connection to reality is the reason philosophers and students end up intellectually detaching themselves from reality, of course, in a physical sense, reality has you under control at al times.

FYI, I've never said that we know everything about all aspects of reality, but we do know that reality{the universe} is absolute and eternal......I can't be contradicted when I make that claim{even though people will do their best}, but when people ass-ume that big bangs and the like are possible, they're operating with religious premises, and inevitably will fail to provide a logical account of the origin of the universe, as their premises are botched......one can only make logical, coherent and ultimately truthful claims if all parts of the chain are linked, ie, premises, logic, and conclusion.

Remember I said that one has to make a choice as to whether they're going to be good or bad, and if they're going to be good, they have to know what distinguishes right from wrong, however, if they actively choose evil or apathy, then ignorance is not only acceptable, but necessary to ensure that one can rationalize their actions.

If you think that because people can make choices, then all bets are off wrt to reality and objectivity, you're wrong and have misunderstood what we're saying....for ex, when JJ speaks of adulthood, the implication is that one has been up close and personal with reality and people and have learnt some basic lessons, and in a bid to ensure their safety and to satisfy their conscience, they must choose to be mature/rational/scientific/objective.

0 Replies

demonicturtle wrote:

Actually, you have it backwards, dipwad.
Jenifer Jew.

Look out Jen, you're obviously dealing with a real philosopher, LOL

How come I've been let off the hook?......, normally people are polite to women, and rude, macho and aggressive towards the guys, but in this case, our 14yr old know it all who knows nothing thinks that blatant ad hom will win him respect....well, I guess he's literally still in the playground Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

demonicturtle wrote:

Actually, you have it backwards, dipwad.
Jenifer Jew.

Look out Jen, you're obviously dealing with a real philosopher, LOL

How come I've been let off the hook?......, normally people are polite to women, and rude, macho and aggressive towards the guys, but in this case, our 14yr old know it all who knows nothing thinks that blatant ad hom will win him respect....well, I guess he's literally still in the playground

I'm merely returning the favor. In the context that you use 'religious' it really does sound like a playground insult.

You have yet to amend your theory in accordance to the flaws I have politely pointed out until I was deemed to have a religious mentality. You should follow your own advice and either put up or shut up, instead of whining about getting flamed because you call rational individuals Jews or religious nuts. You hurl the ad hom, I put forward my arguments to this point.

0 Replies

Objectivism 101

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know