Objectivism 101

edgar.

Man is a conceptual being that needs reason to survive and flourish....so please tell us what you consider the basis of ethics to be.
IMO, it's "man's life and his well being" or expressed more specifically, man's inidvidual rights, ie, life, liberty, property and happiness.

The individual rights should form the very basis of ethics and law, however, my government in partnership with the disgusting Zionist infested US gov is killing people on my behalf, using my money without my consent.

Anyone who rejects IR's exposes themselves to ongoing abuse, IOW, if you reject these basic rights, then why should I do the right thing by you?....and once I've violated you, why would you seek retribution?

Which argument?....can I beat, rape and steal from you, yes or no...?

DavidIg:Anyone who rejects IR's exposes themselves to ongoing abuse, IOW, if you reject these basic rights, then why should I do the right thing by you?....and once I've violated you, why would you seek retribution?

Right from wrong is instinctively established the same way that logic establishes whether one own's them self or not.

It is self evident to any thinking individual that isn't a criminal, because if one answers that they do not own them self, then what possible objection can they raise to anything that anyone may want to do to them?

It is only a sociopathic tyrant criminal that wants dominion over another.

The silly part is that these "philosophers" advocate slavery when they declare ethics as subjective, or mumble and stumble over a definition that makes about as much sense as the output from most of the famous philosophers of the past.

Kant said this, Plato said that, Hume mused etc....but if a nobody comes along and expresses the truth in plain English, they're written off as pretentious and obviously wrong somewhere, somehow, someway.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread explain to us how they establish right from wrong in an objective manner.

That's rich. I come here and get mocked by you for referring to philosophers like Locke and Hobbes, and then the best you can do is come up with "Days of our Lives." I gotta' say, you were a whole lot funnier when you were obsessing over butt-munching.


As far as I can tell, I'm one of the few participants in this thread who has made a genuine attempt to discuss the issues -- as opposed to spouting standard Randian gobbledigook. But I do insist that people respond to my questions just as they expect me to respond to theirs. I am willing to participate in a discussion, not in an interrogation. You're the one who backed out of this discussion by refusing to answer my questions. The blame, then, is entirely yours.

I'm glad this is all fun and games to you, but there's not much point discussing philosophy with a fool who ass-umes that I'm a hardcore Objectivist when I've made it clear I'm not, also, I rarely mention other philosophers as back up, I simply make my point.

Also, It seems you're still in favour of gross pornography.....a Jewish speciality.

Getting back on topic.....are you able to tell us how you determine right from wrong in an objective manner?

Really?


Sounds pretty hardcore to me.


You're an anti-Semite now too? You certainly are full of surprises, David.


By reference to a moral code.

Ladies and gentlemen and joe.

Whilst I flirted with the idea of studying philosophy when I was a teenager, nothing came of it, granted I put that down to the fact that I sought out who I thought was the biggest name in philosophy{I was repeatedly told Kant}, and was disappointed, mystified and literally stupefied by some of his thoughts, especially in relation to ethics….so it wasn't until I was about 32 that I developed a serious and long term interest in philosophy/science and knowledge in general.

One of the first books I read was Paul Davies "The Mind of God"…. I enjoyed reading this book, however, I knew I had to up my knowledge bank, and also noticed the strong tie between science and philosophy as it related to cosmology, so inevitably I undertook a study of both philosophy and the philosophy of science whilst also developing an interest in a handful of scientific subjects.

I can still remember reading about the "celebrity" philosophers and feeling as though I needed to make a breakthrough somewhere so as to make sense of what they're saying, but being I was in my 30's, I soldiered on in a bid to get a hang of it…..however, as my knowledge was building{I ended up buying 80-120 books during a short span of time}, it occurred to me that I either missed something fundamental, or these guys were talking "****".

The constant theme of philosophy appeared to be a rejection of both reality and knowledge, ie, what we knew about each was effectively based on intuition, trial and error and some clever guesswork often backed by elaborate mathematics…..but it just seemed like common sense to me that there was such a thing as knowledge and that our senses were reliable….and as it happened, I discovered Objectivism, and many of my doubts and suspicions where explored and explained.

One of the mistakes the average philosophy punter makes is to assume that because Objectivist political philosophy has it's glaring weaknesses, then it's epistemology and metaphysics must also be of dubious value, but IMO, Objectivism is the only philosophy that actually has a developed epistemology, and in fact, it describes exactly what knowledge is….thus, it supplies answers to questions relating to subjects such as "truth, knowledge, religion, cosmology, logic" etc….and lucky for me to as I was faced with the prospect of having to at least attempt to do what Rand did wrt metaphysics and epistemology, which would've been easier said than done, and most likely would've resulted in me abandoning philosophy altogether.

What you need to understand is that Objectivism tackles and refutes most of the big name philosophers, namely in OPAR and ITOE, and it gives you the detail necessary to fully comprehend it's analysis, so naturally, not only do supporters of Objectivism think little of the many of the famous philosophers, but they have the textbooks to justify their approach to metaphysics and epistemology.

This is why it annoys me when online philosophers name drop, as it avoids having to thrash out some of the details, and is really just an appeal to authority….that said, for me to go to the bother of trying to teach someone Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics, I'd need them to buy both OPAR and ITOE, and I'd also require that they've behaved in a reasonably civilized manner towards me/Objectivism….so any anonymous dickhead role playing a philosopher expecting me to toe the line is "******* dreaming".

I've created a forum for those serious about philosophy/knowledge, and one can also join JJ, myself and a few other truthseekers at [Edit: Link Removed by Moderator] , my forum is an instant registration process, whereas JJ's requires you answer an email validation….either way, if you're serious about truth, knowledge, justice and ethics, then feel free to join either forum, but be warned, you won't last long if you troll or act the fool.

It should've occurred to you that both JJ and I have asked that people explain how they determine right from wrong in an objective manner, but as yet, no-one seems to know, and most of you seem more than happy to assume it's all subjective and beyond objective qualification, however, both objective axioms and objective ethics are possible, but not if you're going to ass-ume everything that comes out of the mouths of history's great ancient philosophers has precedence.

When you think about it, proper critical thinking isn't possible unless one knows what objective ethics are, as you're merely focused on and analysing your existing prejudices, so if you're interested in some genuine knowledge, and want the ability to properly analyse a subject, especially a political one, then consider joining either forum, but I dare say, our stay at this dump is limited.

joe, how does calling someone an anti-Semite facilitate debate?

Hi guys!

I'm curious about this. How do you find an objective basis for rights?
Would be neat if someone could explain this to me.

In a discussion where the objective is only the truth, there is no point in directing the discussion towards either party.

This is a tactic of kill the messenger when you can't refute the message. Same criminal mentality when the Jews killed Christ.

Pete34: How do you find an objective basis for rights?

The simple and direct answer is : One's rights comes from the laws of Nature.


Truths are eternal, objectively established. I exist, therefore I have a right to my life and the self-defense of that life.

DavidIg :Getting back on topic.....are you able to tell us how you determine right from wrong in an objective manner?

joefromchicago : You're an anti-Semite now too?

Joe just played his hand.

Judaism at its core is the "might makes right", "God said", criminal mentality.

The game is over for Joooo.

By all accounts joe is pro-Zionism, pro-gross pornography and most definately thinks ethics are subjective.....sounds very Jewish to me
He's probably a atheist Jew heavily brainwashed by the religious aspects of Judaism.

Judaism is a political system of control, that uses the collectivist mentality of "born a Jew" to create the collectivist paradigm, in order to use the sock puppet of "God said" as the ultimate authority.

So an Atheist Jew, is only one that still believes in the collectivist mentality of "born a Jew" in order to create the collectivist paradigm (collectivism), but is suffering from the God Complex, that realizes by using the sock puppet, only makes them look like an idiot or a fool, but with the same sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality.

It doesn't.

It just keeps getting more and more bizarre.

Joe,

What I find bizarre, is that you have probably reached the age of adulthood, but still can't articulate the objective axiom which establishes right from wrong.

Yep, having your brainwashing exposed can be a rather odd experience.

Jenifer Johnson....these so-called philosophers seem as dumb as **** to me, they're more so historians rather than philosophers capable of making sense of data/information/knowledge/history....of course I spoke about this earlier, ie, one requires philosophies skillset, not just hard facts about philosophers and historical dates.

Having said that, joe's so dopey, he's oblivious to Jewish influence on western culture, and not surprisingly, thinks disgusting sexual acts are "normal".....but then again, he might be playing dumb, if so, he's done a marvellous job of it.

I'm disturbed by both the disgusting influence of Judaism, and also the the parade of sycophants that rush to rescue the Jews and their degrading mentality.

Well, actually I haven't seen you do it either. And since you're the one who thinks it's so important, maybe you can articulate it.