To add to her comments on death and how to look at it, she said in another interview I always remember: "Eternity is now..."
In one of her annual Ford Hall Forum talks in Boston, she responded to a questioner who asked her what she thought would happen to her when she died (to some laughter since she was well known as an atheist), "I presume I will be buried." (more laughter)
Then she added, "Seriously, my body and my mind will cease to exist, but I trust, my ideas will not."
Her ideas break through the many delusions many have about life, society, and people.... that is the main reason so many loathe her, and find any sophomoric rationalizations to discredit her.
This is awesome. She is spot on, on the universities, on Carter ("peculiar creature") and it is completely current for today. What the heck would she say about the present state we're in??
3:25 I will not die... it is the world that will end...
Profound... If we really understand those words correctly... Each one of us is a world unto ourselves... Within each of our heads exists a different world... And every chance we get to communicate with each other we are exchanging glimpses of different worlds.
I speculate that when we die we retreat to our subconscious fantasies. This is based on the law of conservation of energy. Clearly this law indicates that we don’t die, but we somehow transform. Why would we transform into the fantasies of our subconscious? Perhaps for the same reason we dream while we sleep. An important consideration in discussing the topic of death is that we can do nothing more than speculate...
@LeoLeoni13 She did not confuse them, she lumped them into the same pile where they rightfully belong. Plato was the original intellectual mystic who made Kant possible.
i would hardly call this woman a genius. she has some good ideas, but many are flawed.
she believes in the intellect, but not the emotions.
we are emotional beings. our intuition and our emotions guide us more than our intellect.
she doesnt believe in God. but how can anyone make the claim they know for "SURE" like she states in many interviews, that there is no God. Noone kows for sure!
@LadyScorpio39 Surely we're emotional beings, but that doesn't set aside logic and the importance of rational faculty. To claim our "intuition" and "emotion" guide us more than intellect is certainly plausible but to proffer the alternative that it doesn't have to be as such is more reasonably understandable. By your capitalization of "god" I take it that you're in some mode a religious person, which places you in a stilted and biased perception.
i am not a religious person at all......you missed my point entirely.
i was saying that noone can say for sure whether God exists or does not. it is arrogant to say that you know for sure whether there is a God, or there isnt a God. I am saying we can have our beliefs, whether pro or con for the existence of God, but we will never know for SURE until we take out last breath.
I am a Deist. I believe in a Creator, but i do not follow any religion. i beleivereligions are corrupt
Because you shouldn't be called upon to prove a negative. It's like saying "You can't PROVE that there isn't a magical invisible hippo in the room". We shouldn't have to unless there is evidence there is. The responsibility of proof lies with the claim that it DOES exist.
And people are ruled mostly by emotion, not intellect. That is what she's trying to reverse
It is very difficult for average and even smart people to see but Ayn Rand is making fun of all of you. I can either think see Rand as an idiot, which I do not believe, or I see her as someone who is making an argument which she knows is wrong which then challenges all the unwashed masses to find the flaw in it. If they can't then they deserve destruction if they can then society moves forward. Smart enough to see it is wrong or it looks correct and can't be proven wrong.
@lnqusitor i love ayn but she's limited. there are really 2 segments to metaphysics. there's a faith and reasoned aspect. faith/religion is either theistic or non-theistic. i believe that in order to control all the stuff that comes before we have consciousness at around 5-7, we have to rely on a certain faith or what i call PHILOGENETICS. OUR womb+birth order, sex drive, pre-conception parental dynamics all impact+drive us. theistic religions suck but nontheism's fine +they help to grasp others
I can't believe that this interview was taken in 1981. It is as actual today as it was 30 years ago with only one difference: America has degraded dramatically. degraded economically, socially and politically. SHE IS THE GENIUS.
Are most capitalists in England Closet socialists I have worked in the city for 25 years - when I started I would say 50% were socialist - now I think its more like 80%.
Read what you wrote. "Altruism doesn't mean putting someone ahead of yourself". Followed directly by "it means thinking in terms of someone else". Are you serious? You call me stupid. Then you claim that Ayn doesn't like altruism because she doesn't like socialism, which she CLEARLY states why she doesn't like altruism, not using the word socialism. She talks about self sacrifice for others. Other are more important than you, the life of your fellow man SHOULD be more valuable than your own.
I don't think she understands altruism. Altruism isn't sacrificing yourself. Yes, it does entail doing something for someone other than yourself. But pack thinking makes the pack successful, and therefore the individual members of it. So, although circumspectly, altruism IS self-interest. But she doesn't get that. She's seeing a kind of altruism as being some inherently misguided brand of socialism. Socialism and altruism are not synonyms. Many pack members are just plain evil.
@CuddlyBadger Sharing is for pussies and socialist. I am a HUMAN BEING, not a pack animal who relies on the pack in order to hunt successfully.
FYI - I deliver my own mail. Hunt my own food with handcrafted weapons. Built my own motorhome down by the river. Tires crafted from rubber tree drippings.
@CuddlyBadger You contradict yourself with exactly what she said about altruism and sacrificing yourself. It's not about actually dying for someone else, it's putting others BEFORE yourself. Putting others happiness and well being before your own. The pack thinking may make the pack successful in the sense that it doesn't perish, however, that doesn't mean the pack will be the most successful. Also, what is good for the majority is not always good for every individual.
@oliwa09 I don't contradict myself, you're just stupid. Altruism doesn't mean putting someone ahead of yourself, it means thinking in terms of someone else, or a group, which doesn't require killing yourself (as I stated). Ayn Rand was confused about this, too. She thought self-interest was contradictory to altruism because she didn't like socialism. That's fine, but not accurate. I'm an individual with my own vehicle, but if I can't think altruistically, then I won't survive the highway.
@CuddlyBadger i dont think she was confused. i think she saw the objective reality to altruism. Ideologically it might sound peachy, but realistically it expresses itself in weaknesses. I personally believe that once you master objectivism then the proper form of altruism can be expressed properly
@majikstranger I think that was absolutely her original intent, but she was just so obsessed with it that she bypassed any perspective. I mean, Objectivism (if I understand it) just means objectivity in moral philosophy. That's not controversial. What is controversial is what she's describing as completely dispensable... as they happen to be all the things we WANT to make true. I mean, she keeps saying human imagination and collaboration are bogus, but those things are EVERYTHING to us.
@CuddlyBadger I will agree that she was so obsessed she bypassed some perspective but at the time of her life it was that necessary as she was fighting against the grain. I have found the Kabbalah teachings perfectly blend Objectivism/selfishness and altruism. Our nature is selfish and we should act on desires but at the same time selfishness isnt the end all goal. These terms selfish and altruistic are umbrella terms for deeper philosophies and understandings. Thanks for the debate
@CuddlyBadger Old comment, I know, but I have to respond to this and say that rather, you don't understand what Rand meant by alruism. She draws a distinction between acts that serve your values and those that do not. If I help a loved one in some way, I am not engaging in altruism. She is against the contradictory morality that an anti-concept like "unconditional love", or the "public good" creates. They are unknown and unknowable entities, because they do not exist. There are only individuals.
2:05 "If you know that this life is all that you have... wouldn't you make the most of it?" There we finally see the beating heart of her philosophy. Bull's eye. But you still can't get past the cliche of it until the chilling next line, and her nemesis comes out of its cave: "I can be wasteful... of my own life." That's raw.
She's right. of course--if people don't know what's in their own best interest, there's no way their altruism can ever be sincere, or accurate, or... altruistic.
@teapartyxpress i didn't read her book but i will try to explain that metaphor. I think (my own opinion) that she meant that medicare is a cause that tries to justify its means. Health care for all is a champagne, something precious, but the means to achieve it are coercion (robbery).
@teapartyxpress Let let her speak for herself then. In the essay "On The Question of Scholarships" she explains why people who oppose government programs should still use them. Find a passage where she writes that it's wrong to use them. There isn't one.
As an individual you have no choice about whether these programs exist and will bear the costs regardless of whether you use them. It is far from hypocrisy to use them.
Rand has given me the moral certainty and clarity to act in my own self-interest without feeling shame or guilt, and I really appreciate her for that.
Ayn Rand is dead-on about altruism. All my life, I've been ingrained with the idea that "caring about others" is a virtue in itself, as opposed to it being a good thing to the extent that I enjoy charity. As a result, I've been acting charitably and helping others without necessarily finding joy in it, just on the notion that it's the right thing to do, and I've led a miserable existence. (cont'd)
@ColdCypher " Bottom line - you cant beat her philosophy so you attacked her personality and her label for her philosophy the entire time."
No, actually I beat the dogshit out of her pseudointellectual philosophy. It's built on the logical fallacy of "objectivism." It goes downhill from there.
@ColdCypher "Actually I HAVE been in Mensa since 9th grade. 23 years old here"
OK, that explains A LOT. The teenaged wise man.
"You believe in charity, you abhor imperialism and coercion when manifested by governments, you abhor the excesses of capitalism, so you could probably be labeled as a liberal atheist. That about right?"
@ColdCypher "Btw youre doing a good job of labeling your weaker points as spam. Sad, but in your best interest. LOLOLOL!!!"
Yeah, actually I haven't labeled anything as spam at all. I'm not afraid of ideas I disagree with, especially the lame ones presented by Rand. Once you got into the nanny nanny boo boo stuff about mice brains I lost interest.
@Tanfeliz Well, somebody has been labeling only a couple of specific comments all of which belong to you, as spam. Somehow... In case youre an idiot, which you have been in multiple instances, that comment was a complete mockery of your charity and empathy based philosophy.
@ColdCypher Hey, I know you're probably late for your MENSA meeting, and I've already gone on to more interesting stuff, so let me say this again. You don't know what my philosophy is, because I haven't stated one here.
Bottom line: Ayn Rand is a pseudointellectual shitbag. I get that you refuse to understand that. Adios!
@Tanfeliz Actually I HAVE been in Mensa since 9th grade. 23 years old here my friend. Youve alluded to it. You believe in charity, you abhor imperialism and coercion when manifested by governments, you abhor the excesses of capitalism, so you could probably be labeled as a liberal atheist. That about right? Bottom line - you cant beat her philosophy so you attacked her personality and her label for her philosophy the entire time.
@ColdCypher "Wrong Buddha himself did not cast off the coddled wealth of his inheritance and his wife for QUITE some time. Hypocrisy 101. "
No, actually Siddhartha didn't become the Buddha until AFTER he rejected his wealth. Are you claiming that after he wrote all the stuff he became like a televangelist, got rich and had a wife? Because that's what it would take to make him the massive hypocrite that Rand was.
@Tanfeliz Ridiculous. Were talking about the whole life here. You cannot pick and choose time periods during their lives if we are to compare the two entities together. Were talking about the hypocrisy of the individuals.
@ColdCypher "Ridiculous. Were talking about the whole life here. You cannot pick and choose time periods during their lives if we are to compare the two entities together. Were talking about the hypocrisy of the individuals. "
Again, I don't know what you're referring to. Please copy and paste.
@Tanfeliz That point was regarding the accuracy of scientific analysis via the consistency of definition. Not objective reality. EPIC FAIL! Dont believe me? Reread my post.
@ColdCypher "That point was regarding the accuracy of scientific analysis via the consistency of definition. Not objective reality. EPIC FAIL! Dont believe me? Reread my post."
Again, I don't know what you're referring to. Please copy and paste.
@Tanfeliz Wow you certainly know how to get off topic and create straw man arguments thats for sure. Me claiming that you have been guilty of using ad hominem in your argument does not necessarily mean that you have used them against ME PERSONALLY, but rather against the object of this discussion. Namely, Ayn Rand. No, nobody is beyond reproach and she doesnt claim to be either. No, you do not have the upper hand whatsoever. As has been clearly demonstrated especially with my last few points.
@Tanfeliz Oh. My. God. Are you just skipping over my responses or what???????
1. I HAVE STATED IN PLAIN ENGLISH REPEATEDLY THAT SHE HAS CHALLENGED HER OWN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE.
2. AYN RAND DID INDEED HERSELF LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER PHILOSOPHY.
She may have not lived according to her philosophy PERFECTLY, as you no doubt do according to your own, being the flawless individual that you are, but yes. She is not a hypocrite despite your desperation.
@Tanfeliz A relatively objective statement. Yes. And it is true do you disagree? What, youre now going to refer back to the "incredible cruelty" to which western civilization subjected the natives to in order to make a non-existent point? Last time I checked, we didnt scalp any of the natives.
Relative, yes. Objective, no. Do you not see what a massive ball of assumptions is required to say that someone is a "savage," in the first place? That's hugely emotional and not even close to purely logical. This is why Rand discusses "morals" instead of "ethics"; she's imposing her own subjective stuff left and right.
"@ColdCypher "Last time I checked, we didnt scalp any of the natives."
Well, you might want to check again! Scalping was initiated by European descendents, as they received a bounty for each scalp they brought in. But that's beside the point. Did the Indians paddle their canoes over to Spain and rob them blind?
@Tanfeliz I knew youd try this line. You grasped the ONLY straw you could see and ran with it. Here let me copy and paste like you do. OK, so when Rand says things like "the naked savages want what you have," you're saying that that's an objective statement? LOL Really? So instead of talking about Colonialism regarding the natives, show me how that wasnt an objective statement as made by Ayn Rand regarding the natives.
@ColdCypher "2. AYN RAND DID INDEED HERSELF LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER PHILOSOPHY."
So when other people collect Social Security and Medicare it's because they're immoral drains on society, but when Rand does it it's OK? Are you not aware that Rand collected Social Security and Medicare under the name Ann O'Connor pursuant to her lung cancer?
@Tanfeliz Since when has Ayn Rand been a drain on society? Because she promotes an ideology that praises self-reliance and self-esteem? Last time I checked, its the PEOPLE and the MARKET that provided her with her success popularity. Not a government subsidy. Yes, that was the last name of her husband so what? She took advantage of a social security system by acting in her own best interest which is what she promotes above all else. Its not like she did it her whole life. Once again, not perfect
@ColdCypher "Since when has Ayn Rand been a drain on society?
Hey, understand. I'm not the one having an issue with people collecting Social Security. Rand is.
"She took advantage of a social security system by acting in her own best interest which is what she promotes above all else."
But when other people collect those benefits she condemns them. Much like you told me to go ask Obama for my welfare check. Which was equally valid to the entire Ayn Rand house of cards.
@Tanfeliz Once again, youre getting away from the Ayns philosophy and are trying to distract the topic of conversation by attempting to paint Ayn Rand as a hypocrite. Are we to discard the philosophy of Christ because he did not love the moneychangers in the temple as he "loved himself"? According to your logic we should. And Christ was a hypocrite. Therefore the house of cards of christianity and of charity collapses. And no, collecting benefits for a single operation is not equivalent. Sorry.
@ColdCypher "Me claiming that you have been guilty of using ad hominem in your argument does not necessarily mean that you have used them against ME PERSONALLY"
Well, you've used them against me, personally. You've also made wild assumptions about me and my philosophy. I guess that's "relative objectivism," a/k/a pure bullshit.
@Tanfeliz OH so relative objectivism doesnt exist then? You need to go back to high school Im afraid my friend... perhaps you arent intelligent enough to comprehend what is being said here. After all, Ive had to state positions Ive already made SEVERAL times in order for you to process them apparently.
@Tanfeliz Lets not forget that your belief in your having the upper hand in this discussion is a "house of cards" because you are obviously not coming to that conviction via ABSOLUTE objectivism. LOL!!!
@ColdCypher "Lets not forget that your belief in your having the upper hand in this discussion is a "house of cards" because you are obviously not coming to that conviction via ABSOLUTE objectivism. LOL!!! "
See, here's what intellectual consistency looks like. I'm going to copy and paste what I said before. "Here's an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as objective reality. That is absolute. You cannot separate the perception from the perceiver."
@Tanfeliz Once again, your stubbornness and your REFUSAL to admit error, even when it is as plain as DAY does not refute my objective reality example with the robot.
@ColdCypher "Once again, your stubbornness and your REFUSAL to admit error, even when it is as plain as DAY does not refute my objective reality example with the robot."
OK, if you still don't get that we can go over it again. So you believe that a robot is capable of objectivity? I disagree, and I'm wondering if you can see your logical error without me spelling it out.
@Tanfeliz Yes as we can both review, you never refuted that point. The robot is aware of its surroundings. A robot does not do "what is in its best interest" rather what it is programmed to do. Even if it were to mean its own destruction it would act accordingly. So yes, it is an example of purely objective reality. So yes. PLEASE do spell it out oh great one LOL!!!
@ColdCypher "So yes, it is an example of purely objective reality. So yes. PLEASE do spell it out oh great one LOL!!!"
Hey I'm glad to know you think so much of me.
Do robots invent themselves? If not, how do they overcome the thoughts and unconscious assumptions of their designers? Do robots program themselves? If not, how can their programming be "objective"?
If there were such a thing as objective reality, how would we be able to identify it? Measure it?
@Tanfeliz Its called sarcasm. I know its hard for you to grasp things that dont exist in a purely material sense, but PLEASE do try to keep up. Youre getting off the topic. Now youre talking about the objectivity of the design of the robot. Not of the objective nature of the robots reality. Its an entirely different principle that you are targeting here. Objective. As in without bias or element of self-interest.
@ColdCypher "Objective. As in without bias or element of self-interest. "
Actually, my definition of "objective" and "subjective" don't include "self-interest" at all. I'm strictly talking about biases and unchallenged assumptions.
I'm asking how a robot, created by a human being, overcomes that human being's subjectivity and unchallenged assumptions to achieve pure objectivity? Are you saying that a flawed human being can produce a perfect machine?
@ColdCypher "objective -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
Again, how does a robot manage to be free of any trace of the biases, interpretations and prejudices of its maker? And if it were free of those things, how could we verify that without automatically introducing our own biases and assumptions again?
@Tanfeliz According to the very definition of objective, the robot is incapable of being subjective. The robot assassin does not kill because it does not "like" its target, or because the target insulted the robots mother, and does not hesitate whatsoever to do so. It does not stop for a second and ask, "should I do this"? This concept is pretty elementary really, I dont know why youre having so much trouble with it. The nature of objectivity frankly, is self-evident.
@ColdCypher ", I dont know why youre having so much trouble with it. The nature of objectivity frankly, is self-evident."
Actually I'm not the one having trouble with it. I'm clear that even if it did exist, we wouldn't be able to verify that because any potential verifiers would have subjectivity. I'm not arguing that robots can do things without sentience. However, since Rand talks about "reality" and real conditions, and we don't live in robot world... objectivism is bullshit.
@Tanfeliz Good god what are you 5? Thats a ridiculous explanation. By extension, we cannot prove anything. Everything is reduced to a solipsism. Yes, Rand talks about objecvism. LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR THE LAST TIME. WHEN AYN RAND REFERS TO OBJECTIVISM IT IS ----------------RELATIVE----------------- OBJECTIVISM. Good god you make idiotic statements over and over, I refute them, you move on, and when youre done you refer back to your old points saying nothing new whatsoever.
@ColdCypher "By extension, we cannot prove anything. "
Right. This is back to the epistemology problem on which Rand's entire house of cards falls down. "Relative" objectivity = bullshit. It's a way of being subjective while pretending you're objective. Bullshit.
@Tanfeliz Thats not "right", because the assertion that leads to that conclusion is complete nonsense. It can be said that a judge, when presiding over a civil court hearing, is "relatively objective" when being compared to whom the civil trial is pertaining to. Therefore, your argument on this point is moot.
@ColdCypher "It can be said that a judge, when presiding over a civil court hearing, is "relatively objective" when being compared to whom the civil trial is pertaining to. "
Again, this is really hard to parse in standard English. Are you arguing that judges are more objective in that they are disinterested parties? Has a judge ever been found to be completely biased? Is it possible for a judge to have an agenda that neither of the two parties is aware of?
@Tanfeliz Objectivity, as well as virtually every other notion ever devised by man, is entirely subject to the consistency of completely arbitrary definitions. We reach a consensus via communication and analysis, and then thats that. There is nothing more to discuss on this point.
@Tanfeliz The point of this subtopic was whether or not an objective reality can exist. I just proved to you how it can. A robot is objective automatically. Regardless of what it was programmed to do. No, perfection does not exist. Why? Because nothing is absolute. You could say that you could make a perfect killing machine. The notion of perfection directly relates onto its purpose. Efficiency is potentially limitless. Instead of killing in 5 seconds, it can kill in 1. Instead of 1, .01.
@ColdCypher "Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice."
Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute, on Social Security.
@Tanfeliz Notice how she said, "from the consequences of their own actions". Obviously excluding victims of natural disasters etc. You claimed that she received welfare to pay for cancer therapy etc. Who is to say she was the cause of her lung cancer? You may say she was a smoker, but that does not necessarily dictate that her cancer was a result of her own behavior. Once again, youre targeting her, not her philosophy which you cannot successfully do.
@ColdCypher "Notice how she said, "from the consequences of their own actions". Obviously excluding victims of natural disasters etc. "
Actually Alex Epstein said it, not sure if that was a quote from Rand. Are you saying Rand would approve of community support for victims of natural disasters? How would that work? Even for people who can't afford to pay? Doesn't that make them "looters"?
@ColdCypher "Once again, youre targeting her, not her philosophy which you cannot successfully do."
Actually I've been successful on every point, up to and including the fact that her philosophy was so deeply flawed that even she herself couldn't live by it. It is a house of cards in that it is named after something which does not exist (objectivity) and entirely ignores the many benefits EACH member of a society receives from the others.
@Tanfeliz Actually you havent been successful on even a SINGLE point. I obliterated your nonsense regarding objective reality. You dodged my question asking you to negate the comment Ayn made about the natives, and Ayns personal behavior has nothing to do with the purity of her philosophy considering the same thing can be said about virtually EVERY philosopher in human history including Christ.
@ColdCypher "You dodged my question asking you to negate the comment Ayn made about the natives"
No, I answered it. The whole concept of "I worked for what I have, and I shouldn't apologize to the savages about it" is pure and total bullshit. Unless of course by "working for it" she means "going to the other side of the world, killing everybody and taking all their stuff." In that case, yes, she's correct. I call it murder/robbery.
@Tanfeliz Ridiculous comparison. Native Americans have access to the same educational systems that the rest of us do. The same, if not more so, due to affirmative action, amount of jobs as any of us do. We all have access to opportunity in this system as citizens.
@ColdCypher "Native Americans have access to the same educational systems that the rest of us do. The same, if not more so, due to affirmative action, amount of jobs as any of us do. We all have access to opportunity in this system as citizens."
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I'm referring to the FACT that massive amounts of natural resources were STOLEN through MURDER and brought to Europe, greatly enriching the European economy.
@Tanfeliz Ayn Rands philosophy regards an aggressive foreign policy as necessary in those regards. As do I. As do you until you throw away your computer, your car, and everything that you own and your family owns and your friends own until the total amount robbed of others by others throughout the whole of history has been made up for. LOL
@Tanfeliz Sure it does. It just requires a brain to comprehend it. Perhaps you can grow one on the back of a lab mouse that has been infused with DNA only after it has voluntarily forfeited any claim of liability against the med labs that conduct the experiments via writing. LOL!!!
@ColdCypher Oh, OK. Well, it's been a laugh riot, but I'm off to do some productive stuff. Have fun following the idiocy of an emotionally retarded hypocrite!
@Tanfeliz A laugh riot indeed. I didnt know it was possible for a single person to backtrack SO many times and create SO many straw man arguments in such a short period of time. Cheers to your exceptional "ability" my friend.
@Tanfeliz And I was, for the record, referring to your complaints of "pillaging" "murder" and so on as committed against a variety of peoples throughout human history, predominantly by Europeans in recent history.
@ColdCypher "And I was, for the record, referring to your complaints of "pillaging" "murder" and so on as committed against a variety of peoples throughout human history, predominantly by Europeans in recent history."
You don't stick to things I actually said, because your whole philosophy is a house of cards. The sociopath Rand claims to have rightful ownership of wealth gotten from murder/theft, and resentment of those whose ancestors her prosperity was stolen from. Objectivism=denial.
@Tanfeliz OH I see. Let me copy and paste for you.
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I'm referring to the FACT that massive amounts of natural resources were STOLEN through MURDER and brought to Europe, greatly enriching the European economy.
Thats pretty close to what you said lol. Once again, not a single Indian alive today was killed in a war or has family who were killed in a war, or was deprived of VAST territories that they themselves owned. So no, they arent owed anything.
@Tanfeliz Yes, I did tell you about it. You either cant read, or arent reading. The subjective intentions regarding the construction of said robots are IRRELEVANT. We are talking about OBJECTIVE REALITY. NOT OBJECTIVE PURPOSE. Purpose and reality are NOT synonymous. Wrong again? I havent been wrong yet. As opposed to you, who has been wrong on virtually every point. Wrong Buddha himself did not cast off the coddled wealth of his inheritance and his wife for QUITE some time. Hypocrisy 101.
@ColdCypher "We are talking about OBJECTIVE REALITY. NOT OBJECTIVE PURPOSE. "
Oh, we are? You (and Rand) keep using the word "reality," so I thought that was what we were talking about. Objective behavior in a robot is still subject to the programming of the human being who programmed it. Whatever LOL
@Tanfeliz Yes. We were talking about whether or not objective reality exists. Which I proved it does. You counter and say that the objective reality that exists is subject to a subjective purpose. Which may very well be the case but it does not mean that the robots reality is not objective. Not in the least. So yeah whatever LOL
@ColdCypher "Which may very well be the case but it does not mean that the robots reality is not objective."
A robot may have an objective reality or purpose, however we, as humans, cannot verify that. Be that as it may, for the third time, we don't live in robot world. So it's a bit silly to call your philosophy "objectivism," when you cannot possibly achieve that.
@Tanfeliz Its becoming more and more obvious that I am arguing with a wall. Frankly, you do not need to admit that youre wrong. Its pretty obvious in fact. ONCE AGAIN, I trumped your pathetic notion that "objective reality" doesnt exist. You proved nothing. You said nothing. More and more straw man arguments. Thats all you know how to do. Run around, flailing about for loose straws, with virtually no consistency, and no valid points whatsoever, screaming "I WIN I WIN! the entire time"
@ColdCypher "Perhaps your philosophy is best kept to yourself and should not be the philosophy of America as a whole, but it satisfies you. And thats what matters now."
Well, unlike Rand, I'm not trying to get anybody else on board with mine. And I would assert that Rand's philosophy should not be the philosophy of America as a whole, because it is an intellectual house of cards.
@Tanfeliz Well once again, if you listened to Ayn Rand, she states quite clearly that she does not wish that her philosophy be adopted by as many people that have adopted Christianity per say as their dogma of choice. Once again, your entire rant against Ayn Rand is based SOLELY upon the fact that you, in futility, examine her labeling of her philosophy as being objective, as her labeling her philosophy as being ABSOLUTELY objective instead of correctly being labeled as relative objectivity.
@Tanfeliz You cannot say a word against a single detail of her philosophy except your contention with her labeling of it as being "technically" and "absolutely" objective. It has NOTHING to do with her laissez faire perspective, or of her transference of moral placements onto temporal phenomena and consequences (reactions)
Here's an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as objective reality. That is absolute. You cannot separate the perception from the perceiver.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself is not absolute. Thou shalt not steal is not absolute. Thou shalt not kill is not absolute. You follow me? NOTHING is absolute"
Please copy and paste where I made any of those arguments.
@Tanfeliz Not correct. Subjectivity requires a bias. The existence of bias requires the need to ingratiate ones self. This requires greed. Take my example of the machine. It possesses all of the qualities that define life, and yet, performs all of its functions without subjective processing. Technically, that is an objective reality. It is aware of its surroundings, and yet utterly without emotion or bias. I never said that you made those statements. I was comparing theology with objectivism.
@ColdCypher "The existence of bias requires the need to ingratiate ones self. "
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that subjectivity automatically implies "the need to ingratiate one[self]?" Does that mean there's a way to not be subjective?
@ColdCypher "Technically, that is an objective reality. It is aware of its surroundings, and yet utterly without emotion or bias."
Wait, I thought we were discussing "This is not a question of whether the social system ought to be the one we live in, rather this is the social system we DO live in now, and this is the way to thrive within it."
@Tanfeliz Wow really? Im saying that your notion that what you made incorrect regarding absolutism
*Here, Ill copy and paste for you*
Here's an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as objective reality. That is absolute. You cannot separate the perception from the perceiver.
The statement you made was false. I provided you with an example that directly contradicted it. Period. The robot example provided you with an objective reality.
@ColdCypher "The statement you made was false. I provided you with an example that directly contradicted it. Period. The robot example provided you with an objective reality."
OK, so robots have access to an objective reality, at least in theory?
@Tanfeliz Yes, robots are, provided by their manufacturers, access to objective unbiased realities. Not imagination per say, not "creativity" but yes, an objective reality.
A little more on the gas shortage example, I actually do not understand why and how cutting back on oil consumption will diminish a nation's pride and its people's self-esteem. I would tend to think that a country plagued by oil shortages and forced to be at the mercy of oil-supplying nations of the middle east would actually be more demoralizing for its people. Just my 2 cents.
Ironically, by making extreme generalizations, she actually seems plagued by bias and emotions herself. Also, I do not think she really understand the economics that lie behind the so called "altruistic" proposals. Take the gas shortage for example, it is simple economics (perhaps even simple logic) that if people consume less, the oil shortage will be mediated.
However, I must say, I do agree with a bulk of what she is saying regarding how man can/should only be guided by his reason.
@Tanfeliz Pseudointellectual? Who in the hell are you you nobody? What books have you written? What TV hosts have interviewed you? Go beg Obama for your welfare check you nothing.
@ColdCypher See, this is what I mean by pseudointellectual. It's not logical to argue that a true intellectual would be interviewed by TV hosts. Fame does not equal intellect, you see. Since you asked so nicely who I am, I'm a firefighter and paramedic. So maybe you think of my paycheck as a welfare check, unknown.
Yes, Ayn Rand is a pseudointellectual. Her shit doesn't make sense, starting with the name "objectivism." Can you please tell me what objectivism means?
@Tanfeliz Oh wow. Such profound revelations you are offering us -unknowns- on youtube. It does not follow that being on television makes you an intellectual, but it can follow that being a significant intellectual can get you on TV. Compared to the likes of Ayn Rand, you are on welfare. Thx. She doesnt make sense? She makes PERFECT sense. Perhaps not to an inferior intellect like your own.
@ColdCypher "Compared to the likes of Ayn Rand, you are on welfare. "
So people who receive public paychecks for work performed are on welfare? Are you arguing that the world would be a better place if there were no paramedics and firefighters, but rather a world full of self-absorbed novelists?
@ColdCypher OK, so people who make less money than others are inferior? The value of a human being is their bottom line? Can you explain to me why it's unethical for me to have a job that I'm well-suited to, that pays me a living wage? Would it be more "moral" for me to get paid a lot more money to write? You've mentioned me being on welfare twice, is it "immoral" to be paid by the community to perform a service?
@Tanfeliz Not necessarily inferior. If they are doing what they do solely to make money however, and they are making less money than the other guy, than yes they are inferior. No, it is not immoral to be paid by the community for a service. It would be immoral for you to perform a life threatening service for strangers for nothing because it would promote the unsustainable and destructive collectivist mindset. The point is to survive and thrive. Not equality, not fairness.
@ColdCypher OK, so in order to be "moral" (to use Rand's words, I prefer to discuss ethics myself) one has to aggressively pursue money? Personal satisfaction should come only from cash? Rand married an artist, by that logic wouldn't it have been more moral for her to marry, say, a banker?
@Tanfeliz Once again, reality is about satisfaction. Physical, mental, and emotional satisfaction. How to enable yourself to better acquire this satisfaction? By increasing your capacity to influence ones environment. In our social system, this is done by means of financial manipulation. This is not a question of whether the social system ought to be the one we live in, rather this is the social system we DO live in now, and this is the way to thrive within it.
@Tanfeliz If you listened to her, which you obviously didnt, she never claimed that money alone, is the source of satisfaction. Money is certainly indeed, a powerful method of acquiring satisfaction, but is only a means to an end. Not an end unto itself, which is what you are confusing it to be.
@ColdCypher "If you listened to her, which you obviously didnt, she never claimed that money alone, is the source of satisfaction. "
I was responding not to Rand, but to your comments about me being on welfare compared to the amazing Ms. Rand, and the other silly things you said about my job.
@Tanfeliz You could construe from what I just said, as being of my own convictions. If you are a fireman for the salary, then yes you are inferior. Period. If you do it to satisfy some sense of obligation towards others or towards community, than your position would be justified according to your own philosophy. Perhaps your philosophy is best kept to yourself and should not be the philosophy of America as a whole, but it satisfies you. And thats what matters now.
@Tanfeliz You might as well condemn the pursuit of good looks. Since good looks as we all know, is a powerful method of acquiring satisfaction. Are you willing to now, condemn the "opportunistic" behavior of trying to improve ones own looks? Should good looks be the source of all social prowess?
@ColdCypher I haven't condemned anything here. Again, copy and paste. Copy and paste. Oh wait, you can't. Like Rand's house of cards, you're just spouting nonsense.
You never answered my question about epistemology. Has Rand successfully challenged her own subjective, emotional, culturally relative assumptions and biases in the formation of her "relatively objective" nonsense?
@Tanfeliz Yes I did answer your question. And your 'Rand's house of cards' is the nonsense here. Not what I'm saying. Like a child who is running out of steam, youre getting desperate now. Calm down, and take your time.
Her 'subjective' assumptions as you call them are relatively speaking, in contrast to the current philosophical and ethical system by which you and I abide by, is actually objective but Ill let that slide again.
@ColdCypher "Her 'subjective' assumptions as you call them are relatively speaking, in contrast to the current philosophical and ethical system by which you and I abide by, is actually objective but Ill let that slide again. "
I can't parse that sentence. Are you saying that Rand's philosophy is closer to objective than the "philosophical and ethical system by which you and I abide by [sic]"? Are there any massive unchallenged assumptions there? LOL
@Tanfeliz Once again, to avoid being accused of dodging your question, she CLEARLY points out what necessarily follows if her methods are not inculcated into at least the guiding philosophy of any given nation community etc. Crony capitalism, economic collapse, nihilism and self-destruction follow from a failure to adopt her philosophy. Which in case you havent been paying attention, is the road that intelligent Americans are going down right now.
@ColdCypher "Once again, to avoid being accused of dodging your question, she CLEARLY points out what necessarily follows if her methods are not inculcated into at least the guiding philosophy of any given nation community etc."
So are you saying that Rand walked the walk then? She followed her own guidelines in her personal life?
@Tanfeliz Her philosophy of objectivism is based upon a system of morality based upon reality and self interest. Not upon intangible and, lets be honest, false promises of a rewards system in the so called afterlife. A system of morality that is not based upon achieving the impossible. Namely, love thy neighbor as thyself. A system that is based upon laissez faire principles. Let the able be able and productive, and create a self-sustaining system w/o government intervention period.
PLIZ somebody told me what you said at 3:26
alaa8989 6 days ago
@alaa8989 "I will not die, it's the world that will end".
WHIREAS 3 days ago in playlist Ayn Rand
Her basic philosophy is charming, her economics make me gag.
dnm25 1 week ago
Ayn Rand always was an intellectual giant, and she still was at this old age! She has all my respect.
DasHinchen 3 weeks ago
If we live in an objective reality, how can she say it is not me who will die, it is the world that will end?
And wouldn't that make her a nihilist? Why not be reccless and destructive. It's not me who will suffer, it's the world that will end.
TimeWarp66 3 weeks ago
To add to her comments on death and how to look at it, she said in another interview I always remember: "Eternity is now..."
In one of her annual Ford Hall Forum talks in Boston, she responded to a questioner who asked her what she thought would happen to her when she died (to some laughter since she was well known as an atheist), "I presume I will be buried." (more laughter)
Then she added, "Seriously, my body and my mind will cease to exist, but I trust, my ideas will not."
Very profound.
ryckoffr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
is it just me or did she say quite a few things that blew my mind.
luigiperso 1 month ago 2
Her ideas break through the many delusions many have about life, society, and people.... that is the main reason so many loathe her, and find any sophomoric rationalizations to discredit her.
JoshieDoozie 1 month ago
@JoshieDoozie Well said. People hate that which they don't understand and fear.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
This is truly amazing, a very interesting mind this women had. Some I agree with, other very much oppose. Fascinating
qland 2 months ago
This is awesome. She is spot on, on the universities, on Carter ("peculiar creature") and it is completely current for today. What the heck would she say about the present state we're in??
1600sally 2 months ago 2
3:25 I will not die... it is the world that will end...
Profound... If we really understand those words correctly... Each one of us is a world unto ourselves... Within each of our heads exists a different world... And every chance we get to communicate with each other we are exchanging glimpses of different worlds.
batfly 2 months ago
But isn’t the faculty of logical speculation, the subconscious, and imagination quite interesting in relation to our thoughts on death?
ExpandingUponWealth 3 months ago
I speculate that when we die we retreat to our subconscious fantasies. This is based on the law of conservation of energy. Clearly this law indicates that we don’t die, but we somehow transform. Why would we transform into the fantasies of our subconscious? Perhaps for the same reason we dream while we sleep. An important consideration in discussing the topic of death is that we can do nothing more than speculate...
ExpandingUponWealth 3 months ago
Tom Snyder was an amazing interviewer! Too bad his show was on at 1:00 AM. Most people never saw him.
cks761 3 months ago
wow ...interpretation of philosophy by Rand should be taught in the arts department, in the theatre of the absurd ...
tapolna 4 months ago
@tapolna i know..right something about her eyes makes her so fuckable does anyone agree?
martystreets 4 months ago
she confuses Kant with Plato.. and attributes the theory of forms to Kant, pfft.
LeoLeoni13 4 months ago
@LeoLeoni13 She did not confuse them, she lumped them into the same pile where they rightfully belong. Plato was the original intellectual mystic who made Kant possible.
Success0527 3 months ago
@Success0527 Yeah and I along with your mom made you possible
LeoLeoni13 1 month ago
i would hardly call this woman a genius. she has some good ideas, but many are flawed.
she believes in the intellect, but not the emotions.
we are emotional beings. our intuition and our emotions guide us more than our intellect.
she doesnt believe in God. but how can anyone make the claim they know for "SURE" like she states in many interviews, that there is no God. Noone kows for sure!
LadyScorpio39 6 months ago
@LadyScorpio39 Surely we're emotional beings, but that doesn't set aside logic and the importance of rational faculty. To claim our "intuition" and "emotion" guide us more than intellect is certainly plausible but to proffer the alternative that it doesn't have to be as such is more reasonably understandable. By your capitalization of "god" I take it that you're in some mode a religious person, which places you in a stilted and biased perception.
ihatemyjobman 5 months ago
@ihatemyjobman
i am not a religious person at all......you missed my point entirely.
i was saying that noone can say for sure whether God exists or does not. it is arrogant to say that you know for sure whether there is a God, or there isnt a God. I am saying we can have our beliefs, whether pro or con for the existence of God, but we will never know for SURE until we take out last breath.
I am a Deist. I believe in a Creator, but i do not follow any religion. i beleivereligions are corrupt
LadyScorpio39 5 months ago
@LadyScorpio39 same thing with unicorns... we can't disprove them either. We don't know for sure!
CoCaCharles 5 months ago
@LadyScorpio39 She has replied to all the objections you just raised. Will you read that part?
impratik 5 months ago
@LadyScorpio39
Because you shouldn't be called upon to prove a negative. It's like saying "You can't PROVE that there isn't a magical invisible hippo in the room". We shouldn't have to unless there is evidence there is. The responsibility of proof lies with the claim that it DOES exist.
And people are ruled mostly by emotion, not intellect. That is what she's trying to reverse
SomeUsefulIdiot 2 months ago 8
It is very difficult for average and even smart people to see but Ayn Rand is making fun of all of you. I can either think see Rand as an idiot, which I do not believe, or I see her as someone who is making an argument which she knows is wrong which then challenges all the unwashed masses to find the flaw in it. If they can't then they deserve destruction if they can then society moves forward. Smart enough to see it is wrong or it looks correct and can't be proven wrong.
lnqusitor 6 months ago
@lnqusitor i love ayn but she's limited. there are really 2 segments to metaphysics. there's a faith and reasoned aspect. faith/religion is either theistic or non-theistic. i believe that in order to control all the stuff that comes before we have consciousness at around 5-7, we have to rely on a certain faith or what i call PHILOGENETICS. OUR womb+birth order, sex drive, pre-conception parental dynamics all impact+drive us. theistic religions suck but nontheism's fine +they help to grasp others
reg12269 6 months ago
I can't believe that this interview was taken in 1981. It is as actual today as it was 30 years ago with only one difference: America has degraded dramatically. degraded economically, socially and politically. SHE IS THE GENIUS.
mk181818 6 months ago 15
We are an accident in the universe
IrishCaucasian 6 months ago
'... people are moving to the Right , this is a good sign... but there is no leadership.. '
'.. the most dangerous thing in this country are the universities.. '
lunarmation 7 months ago
'... people are , this is a good sign... but there is no leadership.. '
'.. the most dangerous thing in this country are the universities.. '
lunarmation 7 months ago
Are most capitalists in England Closet socialists I have worked in the city for 25 years - when I started I would say 50% were socialist - now I think its more like 80%.
wolfen682 7 months ago
Read what you wrote. "Altruism doesn't mean putting someone ahead of yourself". Followed directly by "it means thinking in terms of someone else". Are you serious? You call me stupid. Then you claim that Ayn doesn't like altruism because she doesn't like socialism, which she CLEARLY states why she doesn't like altruism, not using the word socialism. She talks about self sacrifice for others. Other are more important than you, the life of your fellow man SHOULD be more valuable than your own.
oliwa09 7 months ago
I don't think she understands altruism. Altruism isn't sacrificing yourself. Yes, it does entail doing something for someone other than yourself. But pack thinking makes the pack successful, and therefore the individual members of it. So, although circumspectly, altruism IS self-interest. But she doesn't get that. She's seeing a kind of altruism as being some inherently misguided brand of socialism. Socialism and altruism are not synonyms. Many pack members are just plain evil.
CuddlyBadger 8 months ago
@CuddlyBadger Sharing is for pussies and socialist. I am a HUMAN BEING, not a pack animal who relies on the pack in order to hunt successfully.
FYI - I deliver my own mail. Hunt my own food with handcrafted weapons. Built my own motorhome down by the river. Tires crafted from rubber tree drippings.
teapartyxpress 7 months ago
@teapartyxpress Yeah but your mail comes in on a donkey. No offense or anything, just saying... some of us can't wait.
CuddlyBadger 7 months ago
@CuddlyBadger You contradict yourself with exactly what she said about altruism and sacrificing yourself. It's not about actually dying for someone else, it's putting others BEFORE yourself. Putting others happiness and well being before your own. The pack thinking may make the pack successful in the sense that it doesn't perish, however, that doesn't mean the pack will be the most successful. Also, what is good for the majority is not always good for every individual.
oliwa09 7 months ago
@oliwa09 I don't contradict myself, you're just stupid. Altruism doesn't mean putting someone ahead of yourself, it means thinking in terms of someone else, or a group, which doesn't require killing yourself (as I stated). Ayn Rand was confused about this, too. She thought self-interest was contradictory to altruism because she didn't like socialism. That's fine, but not accurate. I'm an individual with my own vehicle, but if I can't think altruistically, then I won't survive the highway.
CuddlyBadger 7 months ago
@CuddlyBadger i dont think she was confused. i think she saw the objective reality to altruism. Ideologically it might sound peachy, but realistically it expresses itself in weaknesses. I personally believe that once you master objectivism then the proper form of altruism can be expressed properly
majikstranger 7 months ago
@majikstranger I think that was absolutely her original intent, but she was just so obsessed with it that she bypassed any perspective. I mean, Objectivism (if I understand it) just means objectivity in moral philosophy. That's not controversial. What is controversial is what she's describing as completely dispensable... as they happen to be all the things we WANT to make true. I mean, she keeps saying human imagination and collaboration are bogus, but those things are EVERYTHING to us.
CuddlyBadger 5 months ago
@CuddlyBadger I will agree that she was so obsessed she bypassed some perspective but at the time of her life it was that necessary as she was fighting against the grain. I have found the Kabbalah teachings perfectly blend Objectivism/selfishness and altruism. Our nature is selfish and we should act on desires but at the same time selfishness isnt the end all goal. These terms selfish and altruistic are umbrella terms for deeper philosophies and understandings. Thanks for the debate
majikstranger 5 months ago
@CuddlyBadger shes not saying not to do for others but that it shouldnt be mandatory. It should be your desire not forced upon you
majikstranger 5 months ago
@CuddlyBadger Old comment, I know, but I have to respond to this and say that rather, you don't understand what Rand meant by alruism. She draws a distinction between acts that serve your values and those that do not. If I help a loved one in some way, I am not engaging in altruism. She is against the contradictory morality that an anti-concept like "unconditional love", or the "public good" creates. They are unknown and unknowable entities, because they do not exist. There are only individuals.
ScionAscendant 1 month ago
2:05 "If you know that this life is all that you have... wouldn't you make the most of it?" There we finally see the beating heart of her philosophy. Bull's eye. But you still can't get past the cliche of it until the chilling next line, and her nemesis comes out of its cave: "I can be wasteful... of my own life." That's raw.
She's right. of course--if people don't know what's in their own best interest, there's no way their altruism can ever be sincere, or accurate, or... altruistic.
CuddlyBadger 8 months ago
Comment removed
CuddlyBadger 8 months ago
Justifying her actions is intellectually dishonest and a form of cognitive dissonance. I prefer to let Rand speak for herself.
In her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness' Ayn Rand clearly compares Medicare to a hoodlum who robs and kills to acquire a yacht and champagne.
...are you going to say she didn't mean it that way?
teapartyxpress 8 months ago
@teapartyxpress i didn't read her book but i will try to explain that metaphor. I think (my own opinion) that she meant that medicare is a cause that tries to justify its means. Health care for all is a champagne, something precious, but the means to achieve it are coercion (robbery).
Mishkafofer 8 months ago
@teapartyxpress Let let her speak for herself then. In the essay "On The Question of Scholarships" she explains why people who oppose government programs should still use them. Find a passage where she writes that it's wrong to use them. There isn't one.
As an individual you have no choice about whether these programs exist and will bear the costs regardless of whether you use them. It is far from hypocrisy to use them.
thinkingisawesome 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've given up on Rand. See accepted Medicare and Social Security.
teapartyxpress 8 months ago
@teapartyxpress She payed into Medicare and Social Security and was paid back. She never endorsed them.
mrrobotica 8 months ago
Rand has given me the moral certainty and clarity to act in my own self-interest without feeling shame or guilt, and I really appreciate her for that.
teejay1618 8 months ago
Ayn Rand is dead-on about altruism. All my life, I've been ingrained with the idea that "caring about others" is a virtue in itself, as opposed to it being a good thing to the extent that I enjoy charity. As a result, I've been acting charitably and helping others without necessarily finding joy in it, just on the notion that it's the right thing to do, and I've led a miserable existence. (cont'd)
teejay1618 8 months ago
Amazing mind.Just like mine:)
phillozoph50 8 months ago
I love this woman
Kaledrums 8 months ago
@ColdCypher " Bottom line - you cant beat her philosophy so you attacked her personality and her label for her philosophy the entire time."
No, actually I beat the dogshit out of her pseudointellectual philosophy. It's built on the logical fallacy of "objectivism." It goes downhill from there.
Now fuck off, punk.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Actually I HAVE been in Mensa since 9th grade. 23 years old here"
OK, that explains A LOT. The teenaged wise man.
"You believe in charity, you abhor imperialism and coercion when manifested by governments, you abhor the excesses of capitalism, so you could probably be labeled as a liberal atheist. That about right?"
No, but who gives a shit? LOL
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Btw youre doing a good job of labeling your weaker points as spam. Sad, but in your best interest. LOLOLOL!!!"
Yeah, actually I haven't labeled anything as spam at all. I'm not afraid of ideas I disagree with, especially the lame ones presented by Rand. Once you got into the nanny nanny boo boo stuff about mice brains I lost interest.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Well, somebody has been labeling only a couple of specific comments all of which belong to you, as spam. Somehow... In case youre an idiot, which you have been in multiple instances, that comment was a complete mockery of your charity and empathy based philosophy.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher Hey, I know you're probably late for your MENSA meeting, and I've already gone on to more interesting stuff, so let me say this again. You don't know what my philosophy is, because I haven't stated one here.
Bottom line: Ayn Rand is a pseudointellectual shitbag. I get that you refuse to understand that. Adios!
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Actually I HAVE been in Mensa since 9th grade. 23 years old here my friend. Youve alluded to it. You believe in charity, you abhor imperialism and coercion when manifested by governments, you abhor the excesses of capitalism, so you could probably be labeled as a liberal atheist. That about right? Bottom line - you cant beat her philosophy so you attacked her personality and her label for her philosophy the entire time.
Auf Wiedersehen!!
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Wrong Buddha himself did not cast off the coddled wealth of his inheritance and his wife for QUITE some time. Hypocrisy 101. "
No, actually Siddhartha didn't become the Buddha until AFTER he rejected his wealth. Are you claiming that after he wrote all the stuff he became like a televangelist, got rich and had a wife? Because that's what it would take to make him the massive hypocrite that Rand was.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Ridiculous. Were talking about the whole life here. You cannot pick and choose time periods during their lives if we are to compare the two entities together. Were talking about the hypocrisy of the individuals.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "Ridiculous. Were talking about the whole life here. You cannot pick and choose time periods during their lives if we are to compare the two entities together. Were talking about the hypocrisy of the individuals. "
Again, I don't know what you're referring to. Please copy and paste.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz You already posted this comment.......
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "We reach a consensus via communication and analysis, and then thats that. There is nothing more to discuss on this point."
So you're arguing that agreed-upon reality = objective reality. Epic fail! Don't believe me? Ask Galileo.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz That point was regarding the accuracy of scientific analysis via the consistency of definition. Not objective reality. EPIC FAIL! Dont believe me? Reread my post.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "That point was regarding the accuracy of scientific analysis via the consistency of definition. Not objective reality. EPIC FAIL! Dont believe me? Reread my post."
Again, I don't know what you're referring to. Please copy and paste.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "OH its me whos dispensing with the ad hominems"
Yes. Have I attacked you personally? Copy and paste.
"calling Ayn Rand, a celebrated philosopher, a pseudo-intellectual. "
Well, going on talk shows to talk about your philosophy opens you up to criticism, doesn't it? Should she be beyond reproach?
"while pretending to have the upper hand? "
No, I DO have the upper hand. Me and Descartes LOL Again, are you saying Rand walked the "objectivist" walk in her own life?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Wow you certainly know how to get off topic and create straw man arguments thats for sure. Me claiming that you have been guilty of using ad hominem in your argument does not necessarily mean that you have used them against ME PERSONALLY, but rather against the object of this discussion. Namely, Ayn Rand. No, nobody is beyond reproach and she doesnt claim to be either. No, you do not have the upper hand whatsoever. As has been clearly demonstrated especially with my last few points.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher You haven't demonstrated a single thing.
Let me ask you again, very clearly and concisely:
1. Do you feel that Rand challenged her own underlying assumptions enough to be considered credible?
2. Did Rand herself live in accordance with her philosophy?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Oh. My. God. Are you just skipping over my responses or what???????
1. I HAVE STATED IN PLAIN ENGLISH REPEATEDLY THAT SHE HAS CHALLENGED HER OWN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE.
2. AYN RAND DID INDEED HERSELF LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER PHILOSOPHY.
She may have not lived according to her philosophy PERFECTLY, as you no doubt do according to your own, being the flawless individual that you are, but yes. She is not a hypocrite despite your desperation.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher 1. "I HAVE STATED IN PLAIN ENGLISH REPEATEDLY THAT SHE HAS CHALLENGED HER OWN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE."
OK, so when Rand says things like "the naked savages want what you have," you're saying that that's an objective statement? LOL Really?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz A relatively objective statement. Yes. And it is true do you disagree? What, youre now going to refer back to the "incredible cruelty" to which western civilization subjected the natives to in order to make a non-existent point? Last time I checked, we didnt scalp any of the natives.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "A relatively objective statement."
Relative, yes. Objective, no. Do you not see what a massive ball of assumptions is required to say that someone is a "savage," in the first place? That's hugely emotional and not even close to purely logical. This is why Rand discusses "morals" instead of "ethics"; she's imposing her own subjective stuff left and right.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
"@ColdCypher "Last time I checked, we didnt scalp any of the natives."
Well, you might want to check again! Scalping was initiated by European descendents, as they received a bounty for each scalp they brought in. But that's beside the point. Did the Indians paddle their canoes over to Spain and rob them blind?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tanfeliz I knew youd try this line. You grasped the ONLY straw you could see and ran with it. Here let me copy and paste like you do. OK, so when Rand says things like "the naked savages want what you have," you're saying that that's an objective statement? LOL Really? So instead of talking about Colonialism regarding the natives, show me how that wasnt an objective statement as made by Ayn Rand regarding the natives.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "2. AYN RAND DID INDEED HERSELF LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER PHILOSOPHY."
So when other people collect Social Security and Medicare it's because they're immoral drains on society, but when Rand does it it's OK? Are you not aware that Rand collected Social Security and Medicare under the name Ann O'Connor pursuant to her lung cancer?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Since when has Ayn Rand been a drain on society? Because she promotes an ideology that praises self-reliance and self-esteem? Last time I checked, its the PEOPLE and the MARKET that provided her with her success popularity. Not a government subsidy. Yes, that was the last name of her husband so what? She took advantage of a social security system by acting in her own best interest which is what she promotes above all else. Its not like she did it her whole life. Once again, not perfect
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Since when has Ayn Rand been a drain on society?
Hey, understand. I'm not the one having an issue with people collecting Social Security. Rand is.
"She took advantage of a social security system by acting in her own best interest which is what she promotes above all else."
But when other people collect those benefits she condemns them. Much like you told me to go ask Obama for my welfare check. Which was equally valid to the entire Ayn Rand house of cards.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Once again, youre getting away from the Ayns philosophy and are trying to distract the topic of conversation by attempting to paint Ayn Rand as a hypocrite. Are we to discard the philosophy of Christ because he did not love the moneychangers in the temple as he "loved himself"? According to your logic we should. And Christ was a hypocrite. Therefore the house of cards of christianity and of charity collapses. And no, collecting benefits for a single operation is not equivalent. Sorry.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "And no, collecting benefits for a single operation is not equivalent. "
Ok, so how much can one receive in government benefits before becoming "immoral" as described by Rand?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Me claiming that you have been guilty of using ad hominem in your argument does not necessarily mean that you have used them against ME PERSONALLY"
Well, you've used them against me, personally. You've also made wild assumptions about me and my philosophy. I guess that's "relative objectivism," a/k/a pure bullshit.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz OH so relative objectivism doesnt exist then? You need to go back to high school Im afraid my friend... perhaps you arent intelligent enough to comprehend what is being said here. After all, Ive had to state positions Ive already made SEVERAL times in order for you to process them apparently.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "OH so relative objectivism doesnt exist then? "
"Relative objectivism" is a euphemism for "subjective self-righteousness."
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Lets not forget that your belief in your having the upper hand in this discussion is a "house of cards" because you are obviously not coming to that conviction via ABSOLUTE objectivism. LOL!!!
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Lets not forget that your belief in your having the upper hand in this discussion is a "house of cards" because you are obviously not coming to that conviction via ABSOLUTE objectivism. LOL!!! "
See, here's what intellectual consistency looks like. I'm going to copy and paste what I said before. "Here's an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as objective reality. That is absolute. You cannot separate the perception from the perceiver."
I don't believe true objectivity exists.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Once again, your stubbornness and your REFUSAL to admit error, even when it is as plain as DAY does not refute my objective reality example with the robot.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Once again, your stubbornness and your REFUSAL to admit error, even when it is as plain as DAY does not refute my objective reality example with the robot."
OK, if you still don't get that we can go over it again. So you believe that a robot is capable of objectivity? I disagree, and I'm wondering if you can see your logical error without me spelling it out.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Yes as we can both review, you never refuted that point. The robot is aware of its surroundings. A robot does not do "what is in its best interest" rather what it is programmed to do. Even if it were to mean its own destruction it would act accordingly. So yes, it is an example of purely objective reality. So yes. PLEASE do spell it out oh great one LOL!!!
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "So yes, it is an example of purely objective reality. So yes. PLEASE do spell it out oh great one LOL!!!"
Hey I'm glad to know you think so much of me.
Do robots invent themselves? If not, how do they overcome the thoughts and unconscious assumptions of their designers? Do robots program themselves? If not, how can their programming be "objective"?
If there were such a thing as objective reality, how would we be able to identify it? Measure it?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Its called sarcasm. I know its hard for you to grasp things that dont exist in a purely material sense, but PLEASE do try to keep up. Youre getting off the topic. Now youre talking about the objectivity of the design of the robot. Not of the objective nature of the robots reality. Its an entirely different principle that you are targeting here. Objective. As in without bias or element of self-interest.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Objective. As in without bias or element of self-interest. "
Actually, my definition of "objective" and "subjective" don't include "self-interest" at all. I'm strictly talking about biases and unchallenged assumptions.
I'm asking how a robot, created by a human being, overcomes that human being's subjectivity and unchallenged assumptions to achieve pure objectivity? Are you saying that a flawed human being can produce a perfect machine?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Here let me spell it out for you.
objective -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
objective - intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
A robot obviously does not feel, or second guess. Therefore, it is completely objective. The subjective nature of its maker is irrelevant.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "objective -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
Again, how does a robot manage to be free of any trace of the biases, interpretations and prejudices of its maker? And if it were free of those things, how could we verify that without automatically introducing our own biases and assumptions again?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz According to the very definition of objective, the robot is incapable of being subjective. The robot assassin does not kill because it does not "like" its target, or because the target insulted the robots mother, and does not hesitate whatsoever to do so. It does not stop for a second and ask, "should I do this"? This concept is pretty elementary really, I dont know why youre having so much trouble with it. The nature of objectivity frankly, is self-evident.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher ", I dont know why youre having so much trouble with it. The nature of objectivity frankly, is self-evident."
Actually I'm not the one having trouble with it. I'm clear that even if it did exist, we wouldn't be able to verify that because any potential verifiers would have subjectivity. I'm not arguing that robots can do things without sentience. However, since Rand talks about "reality" and real conditions, and we don't live in robot world... objectivism is bullshit.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Good god what are you 5? Thats a ridiculous explanation. By extension, we cannot prove anything. Everything is reduced to a solipsism. Yes, Rand talks about objecvism. LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR THE LAST TIME. WHEN AYN RAND REFERS TO OBJECTIVISM IT IS ----------------RELATIVE----------------- OBJECTIVISM. Good god you make idiotic statements over and over, I refute them, you move on, and when youre done you refer back to your old points saying nothing new whatsoever.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "By extension, we cannot prove anything. "
Right. This is back to the epistemology problem on which Rand's entire house of cards falls down. "Relative" objectivity = bullshit. It's a way of being subjective while pretending you're objective. Bullshit.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Thats not "right", because the assertion that leads to that conclusion is complete nonsense. It can be said that a judge, when presiding over a civil court hearing, is "relatively objective" when being compared to whom the civil trial is pertaining to. Therefore, your argument on this point is moot.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "It can be said that a judge, when presiding over a civil court hearing, is "relatively objective" when being compared to whom the civil trial is pertaining to. "
Again, this is really hard to parse in standard English. Are you arguing that judges are more objective in that they are disinterested parties? Has a judge ever been found to be completely biased? Is it possible for a judge to have an agenda that neither of the two parties is aware of?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Objectivity, as well as virtually every other notion ever devised by man, is entirely subject to the consistency of completely arbitrary definitions. We reach a consensus via communication and analysis, and then thats that. There is nothing more to discuss on this point.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz The point of this subtopic was whether or not an objective reality can exist. I just proved to you how it can. A robot is objective automatically. Regardless of what it was programmed to do. No, perfection does not exist. Why? Because nothing is absolute. You could say that you could make a perfect killing machine. The notion of perfection directly relates onto its purpose. Efficiency is potentially limitless. Instead of killing in 5 seconds, it can kill in 1. Instead of 1, .01.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice."
Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute, on Social Security.
WHICH AYN RAND RECEIVED! ROFLMAO
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Notice how she said, "from the consequences of their own actions". Obviously excluding victims of natural disasters etc. You claimed that she received welfare to pay for cancer therapy etc. Who is to say she was the cause of her lung cancer? You may say she was a smoker, but that does not necessarily dictate that her cancer was a result of her own behavior. Once again, youre targeting her, not her philosophy which you cannot successfully do.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Notice how she said, "from the consequences of their own actions". Obviously excluding victims of natural disasters etc. "
Actually Alex Epstein said it, not sure if that was a quote from Rand. Are you saying Rand would approve of community support for victims of natural disasters? How would that work? Even for people who can't afford to pay? Doesn't that make them "looters"?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Once again, youre targeting her, not her philosophy which you cannot successfully do."
Actually I've been successful on every point, up to and including the fact that her philosophy was so deeply flawed that even she herself couldn't live by it. It is a house of cards in that it is named after something which does not exist (objectivity) and entirely ignores the many benefits EACH member of a society receives from the others.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Actually you havent been successful on even a SINGLE point. I obliterated your nonsense regarding objective reality. You dodged my question asking you to negate the comment Ayn made about the natives, and Ayns personal behavior has nothing to do with the purity of her philosophy considering the same thing can be said about virtually EVERY philosopher in human history including Christ.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "You dodged my question asking you to negate the comment Ayn made about the natives"
No, I answered it. The whole concept of "I worked for what I have, and I shouldn't apologize to the savages about it" is pure and total bullshit. Unless of course by "working for it" she means "going to the other side of the world, killing everybody and taking all their stuff." In that case, yes, she's correct. I call it murder/robbery.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Ridiculous comparison. Native Americans have access to the same educational systems that the rest of us do. The same, if not more so, due to affirmative action, amount of jobs as any of us do. We all have access to opportunity in this system as citizens.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Native Americans have access to the same educational systems that the rest of us do. The same, if not more so, due to affirmative action, amount of jobs as any of us do. We all have access to opportunity in this system as citizens."
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I'm referring to the FACT that massive amounts of natural resources were STOLEN through MURDER and brought to Europe, greatly enriching the European economy.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Ayn Rands philosophy regards an aggressive foreign policy as necessary in those regards. As do I. As do you until you throw away your computer, your car, and everything that you own and your family owns and your friends own until the total amount robbed of others by others throughout the whole of history has been made up for. LOL
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Ayn Rands philosophy regards an aggressive foreign policy as necessary in those regards. As do I. As do you "
I'm sorry, that just doesn't parse in standard English. WTF are you talking about?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Sure it does. It just requires a brain to comprehend it. Perhaps you can grow one on the back of a lab mouse that has been infused with DNA only after it has voluntarily forfeited any claim of liability against the med labs that conduct the experiments via writing. LOL!!!
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher Oh, OK. Well, it's been a laugh riot, but I'm off to do some productive stuff. Have fun following the idiocy of an emotionally retarded hypocrite!
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz A laugh riot indeed. I didnt know it was possible for a single person to backtrack SO many times and create SO many straw man arguments in such a short period of time. Cheers to your exceptional "ability" my friend.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz And I was, for the record, referring to your complaints of "pillaging" "murder" and so on as committed against a variety of peoples throughout human history, predominantly by Europeans in recent history.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "And I was, for the record, referring to your complaints of "pillaging" "murder" and so on as committed against a variety of peoples throughout human history, predominantly by Europeans in recent history."
You don't stick to things I actually said, because your whole philosophy is a house of cards. The sociopath Rand claims to have rightful ownership of wealth gotten from murder/theft, and resentment of those whose ancestors her prosperity was stolen from. Objectivism=denial.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz OH I see. Let me copy and paste for you.
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I'm referring to the FACT that massive amounts of natural resources were STOLEN through MURDER and brought to Europe, greatly enriching the European economy.
Thats pretty close to what you said lol. Once again, not a single Indian alive today was killed in a war or has family who were killed in a war, or was deprived of VAST territories that they themselves owned. So no, they arent owed anything.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Btw youre doing a good job of labeling your weaker points as spam. Sad, but in your best interest. LOLOLOL!!!
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "I obliterated your nonsense regarding objective reality."
No, you've never told me how robots overcome the subjectivity of their design and programming, or how we can objectively verify objectivity.
"the same thing can be said about virtually EVERY philosopher in human history"
Wrong again! My favorite two are Epictetus and Descartes, not to mention Buddha, all of whom DID live up to their own philosophies. Unlike Rand.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Yes, I did tell you about it. You either cant read, or arent reading. The subjective intentions regarding the construction of said robots are IRRELEVANT. We are talking about OBJECTIVE REALITY. NOT OBJECTIVE PURPOSE. Purpose and reality are NOT synonymous. Wrong again? I havent been wrong yet. As opposed to you, who has been wrong on virtually every point. Wrong Buddha himself did not cast off the coddled wealth of his inheritance and his wife for QUITE some time. Hypocrisy 101.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "We are talking about OBJECTIVE REALITY. NOT OBJECTIVE PURPOSE. "
Oh, we are? You (and Rand) keep using the word "reality," so I thought that was what we were talking about. Objective behavior in a robot is still subject to the programming of the human being who programmed it. Whatever LOL
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Yes. We were talking about whether or not objective reality exists. Which I proved it does. You counter and say that the objective reality that exists is subject to a subjective purpose. Which may very well be the case but it does not mean that the robots reality is not objective. Not in the least. So yeah whatever LOL
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "Which may very well be the case but it does not mean that the robots reality is not objective."
A robot may have an objective reality or purpose, however we, as humans, cannot verify that. Be that as it may, for the third time, we don't live in robot world. So it's a bit silly to call your philosophy "objectivism," when you cannot possibly achieve that.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Once again, refer to my "relative objectivity" points.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Its becoming more and more obvious that I am arguing with a wall. Frankly, you do not need to admit that youre wrong. Its pretty obvious in fact. ONCE AGAIN, I trumped your pathetic notion that "objective reality" doesnt exist. You proved nothing. You said nothing. More and more straw man arguments. Thats all you know how to do. Run around, flailing about for loose straws, with virtually no consistency, and no valid points whatsoever, screaming "I WIN I WIN! the entire time"
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Perhaps your philosophy is best kept to yourself and should not be the philosophy of America as a whole, but it satisfies you. And thats what matters now."
Well, unlike Rand, I'm not trying to get anybody else on board with mine. And I would assert that Rand's philosophy should not be the philosophy of America as a whole, because it is an intellectual house of cards.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Well once again, if you listened to Ayn Rand, she states quite clearly that she does not wish that her philosophy be adopted by as many people that have adopted Christianity per say as their dogma of choice. Once again, your entire rant against Ayn Rand is based SOLELY upon the fact that you, in futility, examine her labeling of her philosophy as being objective, as her labeling her philosophy as being ABSOLUTELY objective instead of correctly being labeled as relative objectivity.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz You cannot say a word against a single detail of her philosophy except your contention with her labeling of it as being "technically" and "absolutely" objective. It has NOTHING to do with her laissez faire perspective, or of her transference of moral placements onto temporal phenomena and consequences (reactions)
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher
"NOTHING is absolute."
Here's an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as objective reality. That is absolute. You cannot separate the perception from the perceiver.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself is not absolute. Thou shalt not steal is not absolute. Thou shalt not kill is not absolute. You follow me? NOTHING is absolute"
Please copy and paste where I made any of those arguments.
"Just like your entire personal philosophy."
Which is.... what again? Please copy and paste.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Not correct. Subjectivity requires a bias. The existence of bias requires the need to ingratiate ones self. This requires greed. Take my example of the machine. It possesses all of the qualities that define life, and yet, performs all of its functions without subjective processing. Technically, that is an objective reality. It is aware of its surroundings, and yet utterly without emotion or bias. I never said that you made those statements. I was comparing theology with objectivism.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "The existence of bias requires the need to ingratiate ones self. "
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that subjectivity automatically implies "the need to ingratiate one[self]?" Does that mean there's a way to not be subjective?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Technically, that is an objective reality. It is aware of its surroundings, and yet utterly without emotion or bias."
Wait, I thought we were discussing "This is not a question of whether the social system ought to be the one we live in, rather this is the social system we DO live in now, and this is the way to thrive within it."
Are you saying we live in a world run by robots?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Wow really? Im saying that your notion that what you made incorrect regarding absolutism
*Here, Ill copy and paste for you*
Here's an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as objective reality. That is absolute. You cannot separate the perception from the perceiver.
The statement you made was false. I provided you with an example that directly contradicted it. Period. The robot example provided you with an objective reality.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "The statement you made was false. I provided you with an example that directly contradicted it. Period. The robot example provided you with an objective reality."
OK, so robots have access to an objective reality, at least in theory?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Yes, robots are, provided by their manufacturers, access to objective unbiased realities. Not imagination per say, not "creativity" but yes, an objective reality.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz So you misread or intentionally mislabeled my argument to get me to run in circles. You failed. Next...
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher No, I'm trying to understand what you're saying, which is frankly complicated by your usage of English.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz I dont think so but lets continue.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
A little more on the gas shortage example, I actually do not understand why and how cutting back on oil consumption will diminish a nation's pride and its people's self-esteem. I would tend to think that a country plagued by oil shortages and forced to be at the mercy of oil-supplying nations of the middle east would actually be more demoralizing for its people. Just my 2 cents.
sumokiller 8 months ago
Ironically, by making extreme generalizations, she actually seems plagued by bias and emotions herself. Also, I do not think she really understand the economics that lie behind the so called "altruistic" proposals. Take the gas shortage for example, it is simple economics (perhaps even simple logic) that if people consume less, the oil shortage will be mediated.
However, I must say, I do agree with a bulk of what she is saying regarding how man can/should only be guided by his reason.
sumokiller 8 months ago
It slays me that anyone can pay attention to this pseudointellectual shitbag.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Pseudointellectual? Who in the hell are you you nobody? What books have you written? What TV hosts have interviewed you? Go beg Obama for your welfare check you nothing.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher See, this is what I mean by pseudointellectual. It's not logical to argue that a true intellectual would be interviewed by TV hosts. Fame does not equal intellect, you see. Since you asked so nicely who I am, I'm a firefighter and paramedic. So maybe you think of my paycheck as a welfare check, unknown.
Yes, Ayn Rand is a pseudointellectual. Her shit doesn't make sense, starting with the name "objectivism." Can you please tell me what objectivism means?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Oh wow. Such profound revelations you are offering us -unknowns- on youtube. It does not follow that being on television makes you an intellectual, but it can follow that being a significant intellectual can get you on TV. Compared to the likes of Ayn Rand, you are on welfare. Thx. She doesnt make sense? She makes PERFECT sense. Perhaps not to an inferior intellect like your own.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Compared to the likes of Ayn Rand, you are on welfare. "
So people who receive public paychecks for work performed are on welfare? Are you arguing that the world would be a better place if there were no paramedics and firefighters, but rather a world full of self-absorbed novelists?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz That point was not made on the basis of asserting what should or shouldnt be prioritized, but rather on your comparable levels of income.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher OK, so people who make less money than others are inferior? The value of a human being is their bottom line? Can you explain to me why it's unethical for me to have a job that I'm well-suited to, that pays me a living wage? Would it be more "moral" for me to get paid a lot more money to write? You've mentioned me being on welfare twice, is it "immoral" to be paid by the community to perform a service?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Not necessarily inferior. If they are doing what they do solely to make money however, and they are making less money than the other guy, than yes they are inferior. No, it is not immoral to be paid by the community for a service. It would be immoral for you to perform a life threatening service for strangers for nothing because it would promote the unsustainable and destructive collectivist mindset. The point is to survive and thrive. Not equality, not fairness.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher OK, so in order to be "moral" (to use Rand's words, I prefer to discuss ethics myself) one has to aggressively pursue money? Personal satisfaction should come only from cash? Rand married an artist, by that logic wouldn't it have been more moral for her to marry, say, a banker?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Once again, reality is about satisfaction. Physical, mental, and emotional satisfaction. How to enable yourself to better acquire this satisfaction? By increasing your capacity to influence ones environment. In our social system, this is done by means of financial manipulation. This is not a question of whether the social system ought to be the one we live in, rather this is the social system we DO live in now, and this is the way to thrive within it.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "your capacity to influence ones environment. In our social system, this is done by means of financial manipulation. "
So there's no other way to influence one's environment, other than "financial manipulation?"
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz There are, but none are as powerful obviously. You cannot negate that fact with any sense of seriousness.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "There are, but none are as powerful obviously. You cannot negate that fact with any sense of seriousness. "
What is this in reference to?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz If you listened to her, which you obviously didnt, she never claimed that money alone, is the source of satisfaction. Money is certainly indeed, a powerful method of acquiring satisfaction, but is only a means to an end. Not an end unto itself, which is what you are confusing it to be.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "If you listened to her, which you obviously didnt, she never claimed that money alone, is the source of satisfaction. "
I was responding not to Rand, but to your comments about me being on welfare compared to the amazing Ms. Rand, and the other silly things you said about my job.
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz You could construe from what I just said, as being of my own convictions. If you are a fireman for the salary, then yes you are inferior. Period. If you do it to satisfy some sense of obligation towards others or towards community, than your position would be justified according to your own philosophy. Perhaps your philosophy is best kept to yourself and should not be the philosophy of America as a whole, but it satisfies you. And thats what matters now.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz You might as well condemn the pursuit of good looks. Since good looks as we all know, is a powerful method of acquiring satisfaction. Are you willing to now, condemn the "opportunistic" behavior of trying to improve ones own looks? Should good looks be the source of all social prowess?
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher I haven't condemned anything here. Again, copy and paste. Copy and paste. Oh wait, you can't. Like Rand's house of cards, you're just spouting nonsense.
You never answered my question about epistemology. Has Rand successfully challenged her own subjective, emotional, culturally relative assumptions and biases in the formation of her "relatively objective" nonsense?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Yes I did answer your question. And your 'Rand's house of cards' is the nonsense here. Not what I'm saying. Like a child who is running out of steam, youre getting desperate now. Calm down, and take your time.
Her 'subjective' assumptions as you call them are relatively speaking, in contrast to the current philosophical and ethical system by which you and I abide by, is actually objective but Ill let that slide again.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
@ColdCypher "Her 'subjective' assumptions as you call them are relatively speaking, in contrast to the current philosophical and ethical system by which you and I abide by, is actually objective but Ill let that slide again. "
I can't parse that sentence. Are you saying that Rand's philosophy is closer to objective than the "philosophical and ethical system by which you and I abide by [sic]"? Are there any massive unchallenged assumptions there? LOL
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Once again, to avoid being accused of dodging your question, she CLEARLY points out what necessarily follows if her methods are not inculcated into at least the guiding philosophy of any given nation community etc. Crony capitalism, economic collapse, nihilism and self-destruction follow from a failure to adopt her philosophy. Which in case you havent been paying attention, is the road that intelligent Americans are going down right now.
ColdCypher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColdCypher "Once again, to avoid being accused of dodging your question, she CLEARLY points out what necessarily follows if her methods are not inculcated into at least the guiding philosophy of any given nation community etc."
So are you saying that Rand walked the walk then? She followed her own guidelines in her personal life?
Tanfeliz 8 months ago
@Tanfeliz Her philosophy of objectivism is based upon a system of morality based upon reality and self interest. Not upon intangible and, lets be honest, false promises of a rewards system in the so called afterlife. A system of morality that is not based upon achieving the impossible. Namely, love thy neighbor as thyself. A system that is based upon laissez faire principles. Let the able be able and productive, and create a self-sustaining system w/o government intervention period.
ColdCypher 8 months ago