2
   

Objectivism 101

 
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:02 am
DavidIg wrote:
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.


1. Objective things have realistic value no matter the circumstances
2. you claim ethics are objective
3. ignoring these ethics disposes their value (in other words, ethics are not realistic under every circumstance)
Conclusion: Ethics are not objective because they would have to be agreed on subjectively in order to be seen as real.

A tree does not vanish just because I do not agree with its existence. This makes it objective. Your ethics do not work in the same fashion. Understand?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:11 am
demonict

You've just been awarded the "A2K Tolerance Medal" for going the distance with these two jokers !

Don't forget that your contributions would be welcomed on philosophy threads other than those requisitioned as platforms for misfits.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:15 am
demonicturtle wrote:
A tree does not vanish just because I do not agree with its existence.


If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to here it, do the other trees laugh it scorn and slag it unmercifully?

I just thought i'd add something worth discussing, as opposed to the drivel JenHen have been puking up for far too long.
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:19 am
fresco wrote:
demonict

You've just been awarded the "A2K Tolerance Medal" for going the distance with these two jokers !

Don't forget that your contributions would be welcomed on philosophy those other than those requisitioned as platforms for misfits.


*starts bursting into an unplanned acceptance speech*

I... I don't know what to say. I promised myself I wouldn't cry. *tears up* Thank you to everyone who made this award possible! (yes, even you, David)

Yes, I will try to post more on the other threads later. That is, after I hear David admit that he is wrong, or at least try to fix his broken theory into some presentable piece.
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:21 am
Setanta wrote:
demonicturtle wrote:
A tree does not vanish just because I do not agree with its existence.


If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to here it, do the other trees laugh it scorn and slag it unmercifully?

I just thought i'd add something worth discussing, as opposed to the drivel JenHen have been puking up for far too long.


Possibly. I suppose it depends on whether or not the trees have mouths, and if the tree that fell was an important contributor to the forest.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:36 am
demonicturtle wrote:
Yes, I will try to post more on the other threads later. That is, after I hear David admit that he is wrong, or at least try to fix his broken theory into some presentable piece.

You're young yet -- the rest of us couldn't wait that long.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:37 am
demonicturtle wrote:
[A tree does not vanish just because I do not agree with its existence. This makes it objective. Your ethics do not work in the same fashion. Understand?


Religious turtle.....you haven't the foggiest idea of the difference between objective and subjective, nor how to determine right from wrong.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 09:52 am
The interesting question regarding "reality" and "existence" is this:

Can any "thing" exist without a "thinger" ? That "tree in the forest with or without a mouth" IS being "thinged" in our "mind's eye". Ergo existence=relationship between thing and thinger irrespective of whether such a relationship is one of "physicality" or otherwise...and physicality is merely the expectation of a potential physical relationship. Since we have no such expectation of "trees with mouths" this does NOT imply their "non-existence" (consider e.g. Venus Fly Traps), it merely means that our (Western cultural) )relationship with such trees is considered "fanciful".

This ontological issue, the relativity of reality, which appears to be beyond the "ken" of our Objectivist protagonists", explains for example the futility of arguments between believers and atheists about "God's existence". Each camp is merely expressing their relationship with the concept "God" in terms of its impact on life decisions.
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 10:13 am
DavidIg wrote:
demonicturtle wrote:
[A tree does not vanish just because I do not agree with its existence. This makes it objective. Your ethics do not work in the same fashion. Understand?


Religious turtle.....you haven't the foggiest idea of the difference between objective and subjective, nor how to determine right from wrong.


Once again avoiding the topic with a style that could be considered anything but graceful.
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 10:16 am
joefromchicago wrote:
demonicturtle wrote:
Yes, I will try to post more on the other threads later. That is, after I hear David admit that he is wrong, or at least try to fix his broken theory into some presentable piece.

You're young yet -- the rest of us couldn't wait that long.


Yep. Very Happy However, the longer this debate drags out the more I feel like I'm aging lol.
0 Replies
 
Jenifer Johnson
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 01:55 pm
David,

These people that haven't broken through the collectivist paradigm, is for good reason; they still have the mind of a child (the 14 yr old as a prime example). Religion, where the control is external, they never have to grow up and become an adult. This perpetual childhood is promulgated by the criminal mentality to have a permanent master/slave relationship, camouflaged as the parent/child relationship.


We can never expect them to be adults, when they still have the mind of a child.http://www.individual-sovereignty.com/pic/thumbsup.gif
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 02:29 pm
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
David,

These people that haven't broken through the collectivist paradigm, is for good reason; they still have the mind of a child (the 14 yr old as a prime example). Religion, where the control is external, they never have to grow up and become an adult. This perpetual childhood is promulgated by the criminal mentality to have a permanent master/slave relationship, camouflaged as the parent/child relationship.


We can never expect them to be adults, when they still have the mind of a child.http://www.individual-sovereignty.com/pic/thumbsup.gif


You have proven yourself to be the prime dealer of ad hominem.

Also, I find your mutilation of ethical terms and overall molestation of the English language to be appalling.

Oh, and there are theories that childish thoughts are purer due to their lack of being biased. Who woulda thought?

By assuming all of the debaters to be impotent, you've essentially made yourself a cruddy, discriminative, and, as you say, a criminal[/I philosopher.

Your collectivist, religious pal from under the sea,
Demonicturtle
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:20 pm
fresco wrote:

This ontological issue, the relativity of reality, which appears to be beyond the "ken" of our Objectivist protagonists", explains for example the futility of arguments between believers and atheists about "God's existence". Each camp is merely expressing their relationship with the concept "God" in terms of its impact on life decisions.


Rubbish.....I defy you or anyone to define God and allow me to consider his/it's possible existence....that said, God is typically defined as omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnipresent.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:23 pm
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
David,

We can never expect them to be adults, when they still have the mind of a child.http://www.individual-sovereignty.com/pic/thumbsup.gif


You got it....they barely care about the distinctions between right and wrong because Daddy/Gov will decide on their behalf, and in keeping with their childlike mentalities, appear terminally brainwashed by their favourite celebrity philosophers{who they hero worship, and subsequently have an instant dislike for people capable of critical analysis...ie, us}.
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:44 pm
JJ wrote:
"This perpetual childhood is promulgated by the criminal mentality to have a permanent master/slave relationship, camouflaged as the parent/child relationship."

I think that JJ was brought up by a drill instructor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:31 pm
Quote:
Rubbish.....I defy you or anyone to define God and allow me to consider his/it's possible existence....that said, God is typically defined as omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnipresent.


Laughing You don't get it ..existence IS relationship. The fact that "you" are prepared to talk about "God" at all means you have a relationship with that concept. The concept of "you" and the concept of "God" are co-existent. Definition of either doesn't come into it. All that matters for practical purposes is the nature of the relationship.

If you insist on definition..."you" are the the junction of your relationships and "you" change as your relationships change like the shifting of a node in a complex wave network. Think about that shifting "you" of last night's dream or the foul mouthed "you" as it flips into aroused bigot mode.

Such is "reality"....all is in flux....there are no absolutes...all we have is concepts.
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:35 pm
DavidIg wrote:
fresco wrote:

This ontological issue, the relativity of reality, which appears to be beyond the "ken" of our Objectivist protagonists", explains for example the futility of arguments between believers and atheists about "God's existence". Each camp is merely expressing their relationship with the concept "God" in terms of its impact on life decisions.


Rubbish.....I defy you or anyone to define God and allow me to consider his/it's possible existence....that said, God is typically defined as omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnipresent.


Religion isn't rubbish, it is merely a subjective assumption. Fresco has pretty much hit the nail on the head with this observation. Due to our opinionated nature, reality can only be viewed through a subjective lens. In this respect, your ethical beliefs are just as valuable as my religious beliefs. (the dots in your post even show the hesitation in your reasoning)
0 Replies
 
demonicturtle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:39 pm
fresco wrote:
Quote:
Rubbish.....I defy you or anyone to define God and allow me to consider his/it's possible existence....that said, God is typically defined as omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnipresent.


Laughing You don't get it ..existence IS relationship. The fact that "you" are prepared to talk about "God" at all means you have a relationship with that concept. The concept of "you" and the concept of "God" are co-existent. Definition of either doesn't come into it. All that matters for practical purposes is the nature of the relationship.

If you insist on definition..."you" are the the junction of your relationships and "you" change as your relationships change like the shifting of a node in a complex wave network. Think about that shifting "you" of last night's dream or the foul mouthed "you" as it flips into aroused bigot mode.

Such is "reality"....all is in flux....there are no absolutes...all we have is concepts.


I'm curious. How is the concept of reality characterized if not for its absolutes? How does it differ from being abstract?
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:49 pm
fresco wrote:


Such is "reality"....all is in flux....there are no absolutes...all we have is concepts.


Are these concepts referenced to reality, ie, is reality the basis for the information we have about a table?
Also, if there aren't any absolutes, why would I take anything you say seriously?
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:50 pm
demonicturtle wrote:
[ Due to our opinionated nature, reality can only be viewed through a subjective lens. )


Yep, and that neither of us can fly is just a coincidence Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Objectivism 101
  3. » Page 28
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 07:39:16