2
   

Objectivism 101

 
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 09:37 pm
Chumly wrote:
I would place the role of security pretty much in line with the role of paranoia, except in times of clear, present, imminent, obvious danger.


Phoenix sounds like a neo-con to me Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 09:45 pm
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't expect you to get beyond your fundamentalism to understand. I just put that in for others to see.



edgarblythe,

I understand perfectly your collectivist mentality. My question is, do you know the difference between right from wrong?


A perfect illustration of my point. I pull for both; you can only see that I pull for the one you reject.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 09:49 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't expect you to get beyond your fundamentalism to understand. I just put that in for others to see.



edgarblythe,

I understand perfectly your collectivist mentality. My question is, do you know the difference between right from wrong?


A perfect illustration of my point. I pull for both; you can only see that I pull for the one you reject.


You planning on answering JJ's question though edgar?
0 Replies
 
Jenifer Johnson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 09:56 pm
Chumly : I'm not convinced I see the two as mutually exclusive,

Individuals physically exist. Groups are a fiction in reality, only a group perception in one's mind.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 10:00 pm
To answer that question to one who has an obviously closed mind is an exercise in futility. I figure I know as much about right and wrong as the next person. Like it or not, we all are a part of not just humanity, but, human society. I have run out of time for tonight, but will be back on the board tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 10:05 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
To answer that question to one who has an obviously closed mind is an exercise in futility. I figure I know as much about right and wrong as the next person. Like it or not, we all are a part of not just humanity, but, human society. I have run out of time for tonight, but will be back on the board tomorrow.


I've also asked the question, and this question is central to the formation and legitimacy of any society.
0 Replies
 
Jenifer Johnson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 10:05 pm
DavidIg : You planning on answering JJ's question though edgar?

A no answer is the answer.


The last thing a criminal will ever do is expose their own criminal mentality.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 10:07 pm
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
DavidIg : You planning on answering JJ's question though edgar?

A no answer is the answer.


The last thing a criminal will ever do is expose their own criminal mentality.


Hmmm, it does seem as though these guys want to modify slavery rather than abolish it..... Mad Mad
0 Replies
 
Jenifer Johnson
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 10:10 pm
DavidIg : this question is central to the formation and legitimacy of any society.


Exactly, which exposes the fraud behind collectivism. It is like the cross is to a vampire.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 10:14 pm
DavidIg wrote:
Chumly wrote:
I would place the role of security pretty much in line with the role of paranoia, except in times of clear, present, imminent, obvious danger.


Phoenix sounds like a neo-con to me Rolling Eyes
I suppose you world need to ask: precisely what this "preeminent role" would be trying to secure from, and/or would be trying to secure to.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 11:16 pm
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
People believe that the right to life, liberty, and property do not exist, only because of the collective force to make laws. On the contrary, it is the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

A rather odd "fact" -- if it be one. To talk of "rights" in a pre-social "state of nature" is to posit something that makes little sense. The primordial cave dweller may indeed have had "rights" to life, liberty, and property, but those "rights" were only co-extensive with his ability to protect those rights. In this respect, Hobbes, who understood that the state of nature was a state of war, was far more insightful than Locke. For Locke (and Rousseau), the sagacious, rights-bearing savages got together to form governments because a few troublemakers would inevitably take advantage of the good nature of the majority, whereas Hobbes recognized that everyone had an incentive to take advantage of everyone else, and so formed governments more from fear than from hope or empathy.

Both Locke and Hobbes, however, were convinced that there were "natural rights" possessed by all humans. Yet rights without a corresponding obligation on the parts of others to respect those rights are no rights at all, and, in the states of nature posited by both Locke and Hobbes, no one had such a binding obligation. In such a state, the "rights" to life, liberty, and property are simply the same as one's capacity to protect one's life, liberty, and property, which mean that "naturel rights" might be inherent but they are also inconsistent and uncertain. Everyone might be created equal, but some would clearly be more equal than others. For Locke that was unfortunate, for Hobbes that was inevitable. Neither, however, saw that paradox as fatal to their view of "natural rights."

Objectivists, like Rand, have never been able to solve that paradox -- not that they've been particularly interested in solving it. Rand took it as a given that humans had natural rights without really looking at the meaning of "natural rights" or attempting to explain their nature. That, I suppose, comes from the certainty that one has upon discovering the immutable (and empty) tautology that "A = A." When one bases one's entire philosophy on such vacuous truisms, one is inclined to believe in all sorts of nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Jenifer Johnson
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 01:06 am
joefromchicago :with his ability to protect those rights

That is only from the perspective of a sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality where "might makes right" or a brain dead individual that bounds off the wailing wall. Any sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality can violate another's individual rights and sovereignty, but the question is, will they survive to live another day. The part of the equation that is missing is, we are all programmed with the "instinct of self survival". Understanding right from wrong, insures one's continual survival, not the power to violate another's rights and sovereignty.

That is why collectivism was devises in the first place, to con the individual out of their individual rights and sovereignty. "God said" is nothing more than a sock puppet used to divert the attention away from the sociopathic tyrant criminal, so they can commit their crimes under the shroud of self righteous indignation.

"Government said" is only the same old con-game, with a new facelift.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 02:15 am
Joefromchicago.

The obligation is optional, however, it's what ensures we're safe.
Btw, A=A is actually quite simple, but I guess you believe you can fly if you put your mind to it.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 02:20 am
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
JJ said.


JJ, remember what I said about people who "suck the teat" of big name philosophers.....well joefromchicago strikes me as one of these people.
I suspect we'll see loads of eloquence but minimal comprehension+ the rejection of reality and common sense to boot.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 04:54 am
I suspect we'll see loads of eloquence but minimal comprehension+ the rejection of reality and common sense to boot.

Laughing

Well, I'm off to work. Got to go be evil to my fellow mn today. Hope you can convert me before it's too late.
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 05:24 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I suspect we'll see loads of eloquence but minimal comprehension+ the rejection of reality and common sense to boot.

Laughing

Well, I'm off to work. Got to go be evil to my fellow mn today. Hope you can convert me before it's too late.


Remember, this is a philosophy topic in the philosophy section of this message board, I expect people to either know their ****, or to shut their pieholes, ie, rubbishing philosophers or philosophical concepts without logical justification just won't do.

I can't do a damn thing for idiots or the evil.....one must have a degree of intelligence and decency to start with+I'm not here to be popular, I'm here to express the truth, ideally amongst "some" genuine truthseekers.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 07:24 am
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
That is only from the perspective of a sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality where "might makes right" or a brain dead individual that bounds off the wailing wall. Any sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality can violate another's individual rights and sovereignty, but the question is, will they survive to live another day. The part of the equation that is missing is, we are all programmed with the "instinct of self survival". Understanding right from wrong, insures one's continual survival, not the power to violate another's rights and sovereignty.

That is why collectivism was devises in the first place, to con the individual out of their individual rights and sovereignty. "God said" is nothing more than a sock puppet used to divert the attention away from the sociopathic tyrant criminal, so they can commit their crimes under the shroud of self righteous indignation.

"Government said" is only the same old con-game, with a new facelift.

Spoken like a true acolyte in the temple of Rand: empty cant and emptier jargon, and not much else.

You defend the existence of natural rights by assuming that they exist. That isn't an argument, that's begging the question. So, to get you out of your logical cul de sac, let me ask: where do those natural rights to life, liberty, and property come from?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 07:32 am
DavidIg wrote:
Jenifer Johnson wrote:
JJ said.


JJ, remember what I said about people who "suck the teat" of big name philosophers.....well joefromchicago strikes me as one of these people.
I suspect we'll see loads of eloquence but minimal comprehension+ the rejection of reality and common sense to boot.

Ah, David Henry, back for some more humiliation, eh? And now you're a Randroid? My goodness, our little boy is all grown up!

Why don't you explain to us again how morality is based on intersubjective agreement and how that can be reconciled with your new-found belief in objectivism.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 07:34 am
DavidIg wrote:
JJ, remember what I said about people who "suck the teat" of big name philosophers.....well joefromchicago strikes me as one of these people.


DavidIg, three hours later, wrote:
Remember, this is a philosophy topic in the philosophy section of this message board, I expect people to either know their ****, or to shut their pieholes, ie, rubbishing philosophers or philosophical concepts without logical justification just won't do.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
DavidIg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 07:41 am
Joe.
Tell us how you determine right from wrong in an objective manner...with any luck you won't confuse yourself.
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 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 07:30:04