Objectivism 101

DavidIg : then who's to say what is or isn't right

Their imaginary friend using their sock puppet of "God said" or "King said" or "Tyrant said" or "Government said", for their own benefit. It is the oldest con-game known to man.

Collectivism is perceived that right from wrong is subjectively establish by "x said", rather than objectively establish through individual rights and sovereignty. Collectivism uses the collective through "might makes right" to get the individual to do what they could never do individually, a criminal act.

Collective Control is the sole objective. The same political thought is used today in our government, except it is "Government Said", instead of "God Said" creating an organized crime syndicate.

David,

Exposing criminals here is as easy as dragging a 10 dollar bill through a trailer park. Now I know why Joo'o has accused us of trolling.

At this dump, it's checkers not chess

LOL, The Matrix must be this forum's favourite movie.....you guys probably also like "Plan 9 from outer space".....LOL.

This thread has exposed the fact that not a single philosopher or anonymous net identity role playing a philosopher has the foggiest idea of the difference between right and wrong in an objective manner, instead, most of them have attacked JJ and I as being wrong/trolls/racist/children……there's the value of mainstream philosophy right there folks.

We all have Individual rights, and they're proven each time you reject the advances of a thief, rapist, murderer or con-man, ie, IR's are our "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness"…..of course, for these rights to have merit, people must become aware of them and actually agree to them as part of the social contract, ie, you don't violate me, and I won't violate you……this social contract protects innocent people when the police aren't around, which is almost always the case.

But according to the participants in this thread, these rights don't exist, and knowing right from wrong is sheer guesswork…..sounds like something Ted Bundy would say, LOL.

I'm suggesting to you that most of ancient philosophy{and science other than basic principles} is close to worthless, the 20th century saw a dramatic output of objective knowledge in both philosophy and many of the scientific fields, yet most of the people in this thread will name drop and harp on about ignorant philosophers as somehow contradicting basic and provable knowledge.

You want to be studying Objectivist and Individualist principles, and ideally spending some time studying the philosophy of science, otherwise you're a sitting duck for these bullshitters and their antiquated and unoriginal thoughts.

Are you aware that a group of people who call themselves Objective scientists exist?.....these people don't believe in half of the crap that modern cosmologists parade as truth and credible science, and this includes the idea the reality has been refuted, whatever the **** that really means.

David,

Looks like no one wants to defend their subjective collectivist criminal mentality.

They can't, LOL.

It seems to me that most "dickheads" use philosophy to justify slavery, collectivism, subjective ethics etc.
This is why I consider us to be living in a destructive* paradigm and why most people are full of **** regardless of their levels of education.

It must be very embarrassing having to admit that one's expensive education was bogus.

Sux to be brainwashed!!

*.....the basis is internal rage and a dissatisfaction with the constraints of being human.....it's kind of childlike, ie, as a child you wish/imagine you could do all sorts of things, and then BOOM!!!!!!, you get hit upside the head with reality in the form of higher awareness, but the childlike state was so psychologically comforting, that they refuse to exit it and become adults

Okay - I have a question - and I will not even pretend to have a dog in this race as my education did not include philosophy- I've never taken even one single philosophy course - not even philosophy 101. I've never even read a book on philosophy- so I'm a perfectly blank slate as far as philosophies go....and I'm not ashamed to say so.

Jennifer - you're pretty good at explaining the fundamentals. I think I got the gist of what you were saying in terms of exactly what the philosophy of objectivism posits.

You said that objectivism lauds or emphasizes the individual's right to the pursuit of his or her own liberty and happiness and that allegiance to the collective is a form of 'slavery' .

But what if an individual truly feels happier or more liberated when he or she focuses on the needs and welfare of the collective?
What if that is the most loved or favored focal point of that particular individual's unique perception?
What if that is what he or she thinks is most important and what he or she is happiest ensuring? Wouldn't you consider that person to be 'enslaved' by objectivist or individualist dogma if he or she were unable to pursue happiness or the feeling of personal liberation that might be found for that individual in following his or her own particular 'bliss'- which in this case is the collective?
In order to be considered an objectivist - does a person have to have his or her own needs and self as the primary focal point? Are you saying that everyone automatically does?

Just wondering?
(And yes, as far as philosophy goes - I play checkers moreso than chess- not ashamed to admit my ignorance - how else can I learn?)

Since you've asked JJ the questions, I'll let her answer your exact questions, however, neither JJ nor I are true Objectivists, the truth is, we both value some of the basic principles of Objectivism, but Objectivism doesn't have a monopoly of ethics or political theory.

Because I'm heavily influenced by Objectivism, and because I believe that there's tremendous value to be gained from studying Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics, I titled this thread "Objectivism 101", but I can be considered a plain jane philosopher, ie, someone interested in truth, knowledge, wisdom and the skillset of philosophy.

As for your state of knowledge, that's cool....it took me years to get the hang of it, ie, I had to remove all the doubt and junk knowledge that had accumulated over the years.....so your story won't be any different, but having an open but critical mind certainly helps.

Hi Aidan,

To clarify, I am a realist, where reality is objectively establish. Truth establishes reality, so if you want to label me something, call me a truth-seeker.

You seem to be addressing me, with questions about objectivism, where as a dogma, I know as much about objectivism as a philosophy, that you seem to. David has, so maybe he will answer your questions for you.

In order for you to understand what I am saying, I will have to start at the beginning.

There are only two states of being, true or false. Truth is what has being objectively established, being true for everybody, because it is true. Reality is the state of being true, where there is only one reality, but there are as many perceptions of reality, as there are people. This perception of reality, is a function of our five sense to perceive reality that establish one's belief system in order to function in reality. A sighted individual has a better perception of reality than a blinded individual.

There is Duality in everything, just as there are only two states of being. The duality of reality is the objective reality and subjective reality. Reality is objective, as to the state of being true, where as subjective reality, is only one's perception of the state of being true. From birth, we are on a path in the pursuit of truth e.g., objective reality, as to that which works for our own survival (the value of one's own existence).

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 agreed to it, by their own consent in every interaction.

Objective morality is basically the value one places on their own existence. To assert that objective morality does not exist, one is only denying the value of their own existence. I exist, therefore the objective reality is my own existence where the morality is the value placed in the mutual agreement, to insure the prevention of the destruction of my own existence.

By showing that morality can only be based in objective reality, which establishes right from wrong, one can see that subjective morality, manifested by the psychopathic mentality (bible thumping political whores), is a fraud at its core. There is a difference between doing what is right from wrong, and forcing someone else to do what they thinks is right from wrong.

Collectivism is where the direction of control, is from the group to the individual; where one is expected to give up their individual rights and sovereignty, for the good or benefit of the group. Which in reality, is only for the benefit of the controllers of the group. It achieves its authority by creating the collectivist mentality, then by imposing tyrannical dictatorial control over the individual by force, not by agreement. Because people don't want to take responsibility for their own mess in their life, they call on government to make up for their own inadequacies. A good example of what the collectivist mentality creates, is the relationship of master/slave dominant/submissive control.

The collectivist mentality only has legitimacy in a parent/child relationship which maybe why most are blind to see the unhealthily aspects it manifests in a social setting, to which it was never intended. In the collectivist paradigm, the parent/child relationship, is valid because until a child becomes an adult mentally, they can not be responsible for their own actions, therefore can not be in control. Children are always trying to test the limits of their authority. One can not contract with a minor, because they have not reached their mental maturity. The only point is, some of us grow into adulthood but some want to stay a child in perpetual adolescence.

Religion and politics have grown out of the parent/child mentality using a fiction in reality as their parent to be the ultimate external enforcer, which is nothing more than a con-game for them to have illegitimate control, a fraud at its core. People misconstrue government as an entity having a parent/child relationship, with an instinct to provide for the citizen, from cradle to grave. That was never the intent of the agreement or the relationship to be created, in the declaration of independence. It was an agreement between sovereigns, which are only adults.

The balancing mechanism in adulthood, is authority versus responsibility, where one can not have authority without responsibility, just like, one can not have responsibility without authority. Outside the parent/child relationship to which it was intended, the collectivist paradigm becomes a Master/Slave relationship, perpetrating criminality. The pathology of the collectivist mentality in society, is the sociopathic sycophant tyrant versus the depend parasitic delinquent bottom feeder.

For the people that want to stay in the collectivist paradigm as adults manifesting the collectivist mentality, one has to question their mental stability as an adult, because it is the basis for all criminality.

OUCH!!!!, I've been struck down by a power crazed mod......the mod felt it necessary to remove something that JJ advertises in her profile each time she posts, LOL.....are you drunk Mr Moderator?

Jennifer - thanks for explaining. I found absolutely nothing to disagree with in what you wrote. And you answered my next question - can you separate objectivist thought from collectivist action?

From your explanation - I think you can- would that be accurate?

Because I almost always find myself in admiration or respect of people who are able to think and act independently, - but I also know that I admire and respect people who act on behalf of a collective - and by that I mean in terms of society as an entity.

Is the key that any action taken is independently decided upon by the individual and not as a result of coersion by a particular group?

If so, then I think I might be an objectivist...does it really only mean that I decide and do what I believe it is right for me to do - no matter what the collective would dictate. Although sometimes it's allowed that what I decide to do may be right and beneficial for the collective?

I'm just curious why you guys took such a dirisive tone later into your spiel? Is that some sort of collective response (per you and David) or did you each individually feel that was necessary?

Seriously - just curious...

aidan : can you separate objectivist thought from collectivist action?

Gold has intrinsic value (objective thought) because of the properties of gold, not because of consensus (collectivist action).

Aidan, You keep asking me question about Objectivism, please address them to David.

aidan : I'm just curious why you guys took such a dirisive tone later into your spiel?

Aidan, please try to differentiate between "you guys", the whole forum is full of "you guys".

I'm an Objectivist. Just the other day my boss came up to me and said to me,

" were lowering your wages"

So I took a computer monitor and smashed it over his head. Boy, the collectivist went crazy.....those weak f#@ks. I took out a couple more collectivist and they seemed to understand how objectivism works

Amigo, Objectivist or not, you are a treasure.

Thanks.

You're most likely an illegal immigrant working with dishes and detergent.....the only thing that might resemble a PC at your place of work would be the cash register....is that what you were referring to?

Thats your reply? "truthseeker"?

Your not very good. Your wrong to the core, I can see it plain as day.

You should leave objectivism out of your bull$hit that is if you could stand on your own.

There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" in the laissez-faire capitalism of objectivism you f#@ken clown.

Dummy, settle down and read the thread before making an ass of yourself.......I'm not a proper Objectivist.

I know what you are thats why I treat you like $hit.

read the thread?!?!

Inproper Objectivism 101 (my Bull$hit in alot of big words with somebody elses ideas )

What the F#@K is an Inproper Objectivist?????????