Objective doesn’t mean unconditional. It’s your choice to live that gives morality its "authority" over you. It's observable (objectively) that living creatures' ultimate goal is survival/reproduction, (they are not the means to any other end.) As a human, you can choose your ultimate value other than life, but your nature will not permit you to live, long-term. You are committing suicide by slow torture. Thus, you have chosen death, so why not get it over with? Read Viable Values by Tara Smith.
The video says that 'if-clauses' are always subjective, never objective. Let's try this one: "If you heat the water to a high enough temperature, it ought to boil". This is about rational expectations based on scientific knowledge, which is based on objective observations.
Perhaps all that is called for here is a more careful wording of what is meant.
Well, the video states, 'all VALUES come from if-clauses which are always subjective, never objective'. I am not talking about general conditional propositions, of which yours is an example.
Ought-clauses that PRESCRIBE actions, are always based on subjective if-clauses. General conditional propositions (e.g. "If you heat water, it ought to evaporate") DESCRIBE actions, and are thus not the concern of normative moralists (such as 'Objectivists').
Boy Ayn Rand sure does seem to hit a lot of people's vital nerves. Pretty funny. The ought from is issue has been laid to rest convincingly, not just by Ayn Rand, but by other brilliant thinkers such as Richard Carrier and Sam Harris. Get over it. Hume is dead. LOL Also, the problem of induction is now a non-problem. Solved. Like it or not, it is what it is. You can keep recycling the same old philosophy over and over all you like. It's like continuing to believe in the geocentric theory.
@PeteUtonic Sorry but I have neither the time nor the interest to educate you. Much like eating, it's something one has to do for oneself. Especially since I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter with the caveat that my information and understanding may be incomplete or mistaken. However, based on what I know and my own understanding, which is all any of us have, this is how I see it. The references were citations, not appeals.
@Ontologistics Uh huh! You (or Hume) asserts it, therefore it must be so. Bottom line, I don't care whether you think the problem has been solved or not, or whether you think ethics is objective or subjective, so long as you are a good person. I don't care what reasons you have for being good. You can't think ethics is some fictional made up nonsense all you want.
@Ontologistics Uh huh! You (or Hume) asserts it, therefore it must be so. Bottom line, I don't care whether you think the problem has been solved or not, or whether you think ethics is objective or subjective, so long as you are a good person. I don't care what reasons you have for being good. You can't think ethics is some fictional made up nonsense all you want.
@PeteUtonic I teach Logic 101 so I'm pretty sure I know what the fallacy called argument from authority is and citations are not equivalent to them. Hate to burst your bubble.
@britishbrainz It seems to me that those with whom you have been arguing have thus far been thoroughly unconvinced. I am among those who do not find your comments compelling. If you're truly passionate about convincing the people of YouTube that your beliefs are true, why not compose a video or series of videos in which you can make a clear and complete case for the point you wish to make? Merely a thought.
@RenegadeSalmon Ref: Convincing others- Rand has already produced whatever needs to be produced. On top of that there is a multi-million dollar Objectivist estate (her heirs) that have 'that' job. On top of that there is Ron Paul and (Ayn) Rand Paul as congressmen that do that. For my part I am fine exercercing benevolence in this way.
Your suggestion of using video IS VERY GOOD though. Others have done that I am clean up crew! ;)
This is a great logical explanation of her massive errors. You can be an Objectivist, but please know it fails many many many logic patterns. One being the prisoner's dilemma, & the other the volunteer's dilemma. It's sad, & hilarious to watch someone try to vilify altruism
@Bolgernow Demonstrate how it fails. Are the prisoner's dilemma and volunteer's dilemma zero sum false dilemmas of the kind nobody ever actually finds themselves in? If so they are mere speculation. One example of this being life boat ethics. Care to explain these in detail and demonstrate how Objectivism fails? Otherwise this is a mere assertion and there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
@MagisterPridgen this is argumentum verbosum fallacy. Read my post again. in Ayn Rands world the entire FOX HOLE BLOW UP because EVERYONE acted in THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST KILLING EVERYTHING. It's very specific. Either directly address that Objectivism fails those two logic patterns aside from "Nuh-huh it DOESN'T" or we have nothing to discuss
@MagisterPridgen still didn't address the logical dilemma errors. You ignored them, made a non-factual statement, & then asked a silly question. In all of her work she states "rational self-interest" being the key component of Objectivism. A solider thinks "Let some OTHER chump fall on the grenade in the foxhole". But, if EVERYONE in the foxhole THINKS LIKE THAT, NO ONE will fall on it. BOOM, the whole fox hole blows killing/injuring everyone. 14 lost instead of 1. Irrational
@Bolgernow Here you perfectly demonstrate how you have thoroughly bought into the false premise upon which altruism is based. It isn't an either all of us are willing to jump on the grenade or none of us are. You have perfectly illustrated my point here, although in a half measure. It's true that if nobody is willing then fourteen are lost, but IT IS ALSO TRUE that if everyone is willing then the body count is the same, hence the false dilemma, since the outcome is the same either way
@MagisterPridgen totally incorrect, false dilemma. Not EVERYONE is Altruistic, no one ever made that claim. Ergo, not everyone jumps on it. Only the brave, the selfless, or the courageous MIGHT. However, in Rand's world, she claims the height of man would be where NO ONE EVER WOULD. In her view of the world, Captain America is an evil, unfit, wrong monster for jumping on it. That's the entire point. Thanks for proving it. Please address the Prisoners dilemma
@Bolgernow Further, you then go on to demonstrate how what you yourself said is a contradiction and therefore self-refuting. If Rand advocated rational self-interest and the scenario in which you describe the loss of fourteen lives is due to irrationality, well then that can't very well be what Rand meant now can it? Unless you're suggesting that she intended her words to mean the exact opposite of what she said, which would be pretty silly.
@MagisterPridgen you prove my point again. Thanks. Rational self-interest for each person would be NOT TO DIE. But, in agreeing to that logic, everyone might. It IS irrational, that's why I pointed it out showing the massive logic flaw. You can't just repeat the flaw with "Well then they'd never do that". It's a propositional fallacy of Affirming A Disjunct-you concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B
@Bolgernow How about pick up the grenade and throw it out of the foxhole? Your idea that there are only two possible courses of action is pathetic and unimaginative. How about saving fifteen lives instead of expecting someone to sacrifice themselves? You could at least try and then if someone gets killed it's not because you accepted one death as inevitable. Trying and failing is better than not trying.
@MagisterPridgen agreed, totally possible. However, for logic sake since that's not the dilemma model, let's say the grenade will explode now. Then let's say the fox hole was filled with Objectivists. They'd have to abandon their logic, or all 14 might die. Personally, I'd call that "a good start", but that's just me
@Bolgernow And so you demonstrate the logical outcome of your preference for altruism. Would you jump on the grenade if you were the fifteenth in a hole filled with fourteen Objectivists? The outcome of which I speak is, when it comes down to brass tacks, while the altruist speaks of self sacrifice it is other selves he prefers to sacrifice in a pinch, hence you would sacrifice the fourteen Objectivists so you could survive, making them proper altruists.
@MagisterPridgen if we're following my example no Altruists were in the foxhole, ergo, the explosion. False dilemma. You're getting good at fallacies. Perhaps you'll list all them. You can't address the gaping hole in Objectivist logic here, so you're attempting to change the subject to bash Altruism. You've also not addressed the Prisoners dilemma
@Bolgernow Apparently you haven't read any Objectivist literature or you would know that Rand rejects the notion of sacrifice entirely, neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself. The idea is to create win/win scenarios, not win/lose or lose/lose. Of the three options, win/win, win/lose, or lose/lose, which do you prefer? If you say win/win then you are in agreement with Objectivism.
@MagisterPridgen red herring judgmental language fallacy. It's pointedly clear I know & understand Objectivism. It's clear you wish I didn't. Life doesn't always furnish us with win/win. Reality & such. If your logic only accepts win/win, I suggest you bat .1000 which is impossible or you fail your own theory. You either can't or won't address the dilemma failure. Ok
@Bolgernow That doesn't mean we can't try. If mankind had been so complacent as to resign itself to whatever happened to be the case in reality we may never have bothered to work for most of the things we have accomplished, such as air travel, modern medicine, industrial civilization, etc. Of course you're not going to succeed every single time, if so there would be no struggle and no reason to do anything. Life would lose all purpose and meaning in such a universe.
@MagisterPridgen I suggest you try. Ironically right now, in all our posts you have created a lose/lose in never addressing the dilemma's, so your failing in trying to follow your own logic. In all the posts you're bat -.900. Your losing battle with reality isn't my concern, it's yours
@Bolgernow Now you're just being a troll. I suggest you remove your head from your own ass. This will be my final response to you. I have far more productive things to do with my time than to "debate" with those suffering from self-induced myopia. I'm sure you will imagine that I have committed all of these fallacies and that you have somehow "won" this debate. It is of course out of my control and hurts no one other than yourself. Enjoy your imagined victory.
@MagisterPridgen this was never a debate. All I did was a post two proven logic flaws in Objectivism. You responded MANY times without ever correctly addressing them. It was a fallacy fest on your part, & I sited all my work. Now you finish off with Ad Hominem in "troll", "self-induced myopia", & "remove your head from your own ass". This isn't about "winning". It's about basic logic fact/reality vs fantasy/fiction. I hold no ill will towards you, take care!
@Bolgernow Finally, we both agree on something, that this was never a debate, and you have proven/demonstrated nothing, despite being asked to. Asserting that I have committed all of these logical fallacies is not the same as actually having committed them. A couple of comments on that point: 1) I did look up argumentum verbosium and it's intended as a joke, i.e. not even a real logical fallacy, which is why I had never heard of it, and 2) an insult is not an ad hominen. Google it.
@MagisterPridgen you never addressed either dilemma that exposes logic flaws in Objectivism. You totally ignored them. 1) I already listed it's definition, sorry you can't read words/understand definitions. You teach logic & think personally insulting me instead of answering the dilemma logic errors I pointed ISN'T Ad Hominem? Students should ask for their $ back
@Bolgernow I didn't address them because they are non-problems. Making assertions and saying here are two problems that are basically strawmen in that they are not even objections to/arguments against Objectivism means they aren't worthy of attention, so of course I'm not going to address them. Further, if you actually care to do so you can discover this for yourself.
@MagisterPridgen you didn't address them b/c you can't. You only make circular arguments not based in reality. Not very rational. It appears you ARE clinically insane. Good luck in life, you're going to seriously need it!
I advise you to return to your 'Temple of Set' and try your 'black magic'' on your opponents, as your website states. Keep your cult to yourself please.
@Bolgernow You have simply made assertions and have failed to point out any flaws or logical errors in Objectivism. You don't even appear to understand anything about it, so how could you? Any more than an ID/Creationist is capable of pointing out flaws or logical errors in Evolutionary Biology. It just doesn't happen. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. Asserting something to be the case doesn't make it so. Sorry!
@Bolgernow Further, as you have demonstrated nothing other than myopic thinking, as demonstrated by your poor understanding of what logical fallacies actually are, as opposed to what you imagine them to be, my characterization of you is and can only be based on what I have been shown, so while this characterization could be argued to be insulting, it is not synonymous with an ad hominem. An example of the latter would be "Joe has a dark, squared off mustache, therefore Joe is a nazi."
@Bolgernow Finally, there's no reason for either of us to have ill will, since we don't even know each other. This isn't about ill will, it's about you either being full of shit, knowing it, and being dishonest about it, or you are unaware, hones, and therefore myopic. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by concluding the second. Otherwise it would have been ad hominem as an attack on your character/integrity. You take care as well and hopefully you have learned something.
@MagisterPridgen Me: "It is clear people who believe X haven't thought about dilemma's Y, & S which fail logic patterns". You: "Your head is up your ass, & you're a troll". Me: "You're ignoring the argument & just calling me names, that's Ad Hominem". You: "No it's not, Google it". Ad hominem–attacking the arguer instead of the argument. You might be clinically insane
@Bolgernow Perhaps if you were to actually present a coherent argument against Objectivism rather then presenting non-problems as if they were problems then I would respond to that rather than to you. Everything you've said is hypothetical, mere speculation and conjecture. How do you propose to test your hypothesis about fifteen Objectivists in a fox hole? When do you ever expect this situation to arise in reality? It's nonsense.
@Bolgernow Bottom line, if altruists are so eager to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others then why is it that they preach self sacrifice and then it is always other selves who they expect to be the victims rather than themselves? If they really wanted to sacrifice themselves they could go ahead and do it and we would be rid of them. Then we could move on to the win/win scenarios where everyone benefits and there are neither victims nor victimizers.
@MagisterPridgen argumentum verbosium again also making it circular argument. Either address the logic errors Objectivism has with the prisoner's dilemma, & the volunteer's dilemma. Up to this point you have done neither. If you give me another fallacy, I will not respond to you any longer as this is circular & boring
@Bolgernow I teach Logic 101 and you are flat making shit up. My reasoning is not circular and I have never even heard of a fallacy called "argumentum verbosium." All that would translate to is a verbose argument, and an argument that is verbose does not a fallacy make. Further, I would actually prefer that you not respond, since you obviously have not clue what the fuck you are talking about and are apparently pulling this stuff out of your ass.
@MagisterPridgen proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation). I assume you can use the internet since you're posting. ANY single search will show you. Sorry, your students are being gravely cheated of a quality experience. Now let's add argument from authority to your irrational growing fallacy list. You can't stay on topic, or address the dilemma's. Glaring hole in poor irrational Objectivist logic
@Bolgernow Vilify altruism? That's hilarious. If you want to sacrifice your needs and interests to the needs and interests of others that's your choice, but if you ask me to feel obligated to do so I'll tell you to go fuck yourself. If everyone did that our species would become extinct very quickly. None of us are any good to any of the rest if we're all dead, which is what altruism ultimately leads to.
There is no good or evil? By what definitions of the terms? If there is no good or evil than doesn't it follow that there are no values? And if there are not values then what motivation is there to take any action in life?
@Ontologistics Note: if one chooses life over death, this fact is Objectively a moral right, as opposed to a wrong. It is a moral right because man has the inalienable right to life : one can not relinquish this right even if one so chooses, but if one does so abdicate it then they are committing a moral wrong - Objectively. To commit a wrong is a subjective decision, and the person may think it is right [e.g. Bin Laden] just because he thinks it is right does not make it: its Objectively wrong
If there is no moral right or wrong, does that mean it is not morally wrong for Whites to reject multi-racialism and work to create all-White homelands? I do not believe it is morally wrong, as I do not believe in an absolute, universal morality.
@Eopyk Incorrect. Let's prove it with a thought experiment: you harm another or try to take their property, they will beat you or kill you; and/or the police will incarcerate you. If you get away, because morality is Objective: all will attempt to find you spending time, effort and (State or private) money. I want to come and take your woman, your property - let's make a public contract ? If you refuse, then you value your property and morality.
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Incorrect. Let's prove it with a thought experiment: you harm another or try to take their property, they will beat you or kill you; and/or the police will incarcerate you. If you get away, because morality is Objective: all will attempt to find you spending time, effort and (State or private) money. I want to come and take your woman, your property - let's make a public contract ? If you refuse, then you value your property and morality.
Values in Rand's theory are always relative to valuers but still objective in that the utility an individual receives from the achievement of a value is independent of his judgement. It is possible that there are some values worth risking your life for or even losing your life for because life without those values would not be desirable.
@Eopyk I can prove virtues are objective. That is key point: not my saying nor yours but evidence. Saying gravity does not exist does not lead to floating like superman. Virtues are "acts" to gain and/or keep values. Values are tangible or intangible [e.g. water, pee, bathroom,iPad2, beautiful spouse desires etc.] To be Objective: virtues must apply to a lone man on a desert island. A lone man MUST exercise virtues to sustain life and pursue happiness: be rational, productive etc. to live
@Eopyk It that were true: let's test it. I challenge you to go against your 'natural' conditions of feeding yourself food and water. Rand would say you must exercise the mind properly (rationality virtue) and productivity virtue and selfishness (seeking your RATIONAL self interest) virtue, but you say this is only in the mind. So let's test it !
In fact, there's faster way, put a plastic bag over your head. Yes: it is IRRATIONAL but you are arguing there is no rational virtue, so it is oK. ok?
@britishbrainz "In fact, there's faster way, put a plastic bag over your head. Yes: it is IRRATIONAL "
No, it´s not and it´s actually a way to bring people back to safer conditions when they tend to hyperventilate. Of course the bag is only kept over the head for half a minute or so.
Falsified.
Besides: humans do commit suicide. What does it take to do that?
Irrational ethics?
If humans do behave irrationally, then your idea of objective ethics is just that: an idea.
@TheHomoludens Thanks. Response: you have missed the point. The point is Not to live! If you remove the bag or breath, you are "seeking life", seeking to be "rational", seeking to exercise Objective virtues: rationality, "selfishness: seeking your RATIONAL self interest, not MY self interest!", and if you choose to find/pay for food, water (etc.) then you must exercise the virtue of Productivity, Justice (reap what you sow), etc. Objective ethics is nailed above. Please do comment. Q.E.D.
@TheHomoludens This is note 2 (continued from below). You said "Human do ..suicide..what does it take to do that?..Irrational ethics"? Answer: it takes "irrationality", just like you attacking an old lady is irrational. There is no such thing as "irrational ethics" just like there is no such thing as "Nazi Democracy".
Humans are Not automatically rational! That's Rand's point: Virtues must be ACTIVELY practiced. Virtues like rationality (needs the method of reason and logic), productivity etc.
@TheHomoludens Forgive me. I thought you are versed in philosophy. Like Math, precision (semantics) is of utmost importance in philosophy. I do not define things the dictionary does. We have 2 faculties of thinking: rationality and emotions. Both are important, but rationality is the way to reach valid conclusion. Emotions are the fuel to act upon the conclusion. Emotional faculty is the wrong one for higher level thinking. You need to read Ayn Rand. Everything is provable: not my/her say so.
@britishbrainz "I thought you are versed in philosophy. "
Don´t get snobbish, I am - but I´m German and I start realizing that there are different traditions. You can´t debate s.o. with an hinduistic background and simply claim he´s not versed, just because his vocabulary is different - that´s why good philosophies start from scratch.
"Everything is provable" -If it´s all plausible and logic, then fine. But proveable? Imho only in maths and elementary logic can anything be proven.
@TheHomoludens [1] Objectivism is not plausible. It is fact. The statements are all subject to validation or proof. [2] There ARE different traditions, but all traditions are NOT equal! There is correct and incorrect. A culture where you are FREE to do whatever you like EXCEPT force or fraud (save in self defence) is correct; OTHERS are flawed. But one must Not use debate/FORCE against person of different culture either! Within one's own land: one must PERSUADE for your inalienable rights
@britishbrainz Would it be rational to call you a cocksucker? I know Rand wasn't a big fan of pleasing anyone, so I'm still confused why so many objectivists composes themselves as you do.
@DefenceSpeech You tell me - is it rational to insult another instead of being able to put up a rational argument? You judge- if you were doing this in an academic essay, exam; or putting your argument across in a court of law or in Congress: would you gain "1" point even? I suggest you use your brain properly, I welcome the toughest logical argument.
@DefenceSpeech Note 2: So "bring it"- I want your strongest, toughest logical argument to show if even "1" statement by Rand or me is incorrect. I genuinely and really welcome it because I've been looking for years for "1" item in Objectivism that is wrong. In contrast all other philosophies are in error. But worse: to date you can't even argue. You need to attend logic and argument class. Fight like a smart man not a brute in jail. Bring it on buddy, I am waiting.
@TheHomoludens Note 2: below I showed you the only way to reach valid conclusion is the faculty of rationality by using the method of reason. Emotions can be objectivised: such as love. If you do not feel love (for family, parents, lover) then you have brought into false philosophy or have unidentified philosophy. These concepts like "love" are real, pertain to reality. If you feel this for someone, then your mind can identify it and if right you can choose to act upon it to win their heart.
@TheHomoludens This is incorrect. Why because empirical tests are based upon "interpreting" the results of such tests too. That interpretation requires background philosophy. For example: the researchers of IQ found whites have higher IQ (fair enough) but then interpreted that non-whites should not therefore get positions of leadership (false).
So philosophy comes first [forest floor] and science and all other subjects are trees in the forest.
@britishbrainz "If you remove the bag or breath, you are "seeking life", seeking to be "rational", seeking to exercise Objective"
Again, disagree.
I don´t need to seek life or seek rationality, because i simply am all of that: I´m alive, I´m rational, I´m irrational, I´m emotional...
"objectivism" to me is a projection of duality, that i don´t perceive (not meaning to say I can´t distinguish) and of a teleologic state of mind (doing something for a purpose).
@TheHomoludens You "do" need to seek life: and choose to do the "right" things to seek life, eat good foods, find foods, drink water (not poison) etc. For that you need to exercise virtues like rationality to judge where to find foods, or more important where to find "work", so you can earn, and then pay for foods. Ethics are Objective. You have a choice NOT to do all this. Rationality is Not automatic. But if you wish to sustain life and be happy you must exercise virtues. More in note 2 above
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continued from below). You have not read Objectivism and are criticising it. Its like arguing with someone that has not read science. Every point you make is incorrect. "Objectivism" is neither dualism nor monism. In dualism: there is a separation between the mind and body/brain. It comes from Plato's fallacy that existence is forever unknowable (if this is true then how can he "know" this to be true). Monism denies the mind and higher level concepts like ethics,love, time
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continued from note 2 below). Objectivist epistemology means the mind of man interacts with existence. It is neither monism nor dualism. There is "existence": we can validate it, and get to know "facts" pertaining to existing using the method of reason and logic. [The standard is Never perfection though: not omniscience]. I have been brief and hopefully precise: you have to read Ayn Rand for the rest.
@britishbrainz What I´m trying to get accross is: my main wishes are: to learn/experience and to enjoy!
These "activities" serve no other purposes! And they can´t be achieved purely rationally.
I don´t believe in morals either - imho all it really takes is empathy. Of course one could state it like that: it may be rational not to be rational all the time...
@TheHomoludens You are seeking to exercise the virtues of happiness and selfishness ("my main wishes: to learn/experience and to enjoy!). Well done. UNLESS you are merely seeking enjoyment for the moment mostly, which is the flawed philosophy of HEDONISM I fell for at age 18 to 24 and ended up homeless, two failed universities, much sex but homeless. Wasted life. Objectivism: you seek to be happy MEASURED against the long term.Hedonism: seek happiness ONLY in the now. More in note 2.
Yep, then I´m a hedonist and I refuse to make plans in order to be happy tomorrow.
"Emotions can be objectivised: such as love."
How so? Disagree.
"But this is like saying you don't believe in atoms or in math."
And I don´t either: I reckognize "atom" is an accurate model for discussion of matter in chemistry and physics and that maths are a logically consistent body.
@TheHomoludens [1] Hedonism: that is your "choice". That's the beauty of liberty. You can choose to deny math, deny morality but you will "always" reap the consequences ! Please do contact me "then" [2] "Love": its in the dictionary. It can be defined. It is already objectively defined. "We" could not talk about this label (love) unless we understood what we were talking about ! [3] You said "I recognise atom is accurate model..." If what you say is true, then you "believe" it to be so! Proved.
That´s just ridiculous, I´ve even studied maths - ok, only on school teacher level, but still....
"You said "I recognise atom is accurate model..." If what you say is true, then you "believe" it to be so!"
Your logic isn´t accurate - I can go and learn all physics and chemistry AND empirically test it´s accuracy - it becomes a decision based on propability.
Believe is defined as beyond verification/falsification - "atom" isn´t.
I repeat what I already wrote: just because your theoretic system is logically consistent, doesn´t mean it´s "true".
I don´t believe in reason to be the single source of peace and liberty and rather value empathy as equally important.
Call me "socialist" all you want, I don´t identify with any ideology and I´m a pretty active person working as freelancer, not one of those academics at universities.
@TheHomoludens you said "just because your theoretic system is logically consistent, doesn´t mean it´s "true" " . In logic - this is called a "contradiction". You are saying just because it is "A, it doesn't matter it is true it is A". With respect: hogwash.
EMPATHY suggests the emotional faculty. This is VERY important. But it is Not the faculty that is used to reach RATIONAL conclusion. Example: WW2, SMASH Japs with atom OR NOT? Rational=>Get them hard, fast as possible. Emotional=>no!!
@Ontologistics The answer "no". I have no "duty" to answer you. Rand said I am sovereign. But if you look through my writings above and below you may see I have covered all the points. Also if you want to address what YOU consider is the "main" point, then put it to me in brief in writing, so everyone understands it is a "key point" and so I can assess it.
@britishbrainz "It means YOU are SOVEREIGN and can SUPPORT others (virtue of benevolence) but NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU nor take away YOUR property (money) to reattribute to others. "
Idealistic BS! When in history of humanity have things worked the way you describe it?
What´s the use of creating imaginery systems like objectivism?
@britishbrainz "you said "just because your theoretic system is ...´s "true" " . In logic - this is called a "contradiction". You are saying just because it is "A, it doesn't matter it is true it is A". With respect: hogwash."
We come back to similar points again and again. Maybe I should have used "an accurate description of reality/ the only possible and accurate description of reality"" instead of "true".
You don´t seem to distinguish between "reality" and "ideas/systems/...".
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continuing...). I repeat emotional faculty (empathy) is VERY important. We CAN put down on paper, our "feelings". However we MUSTN'T exclusively use these but must primarily use RATIONALITY to examine whether our feelings taken in full context with other data, suggests feelings are correct OR another conclusion is MORE appropriate. In WW2: we decided to drop 2 atom weapons on Japan and INSTANTLY stop them. That IS rational and it IS horrible too! But STOP them or lose war
@britishbrainz "We CAN put down on paper, our "feelings""
No, we can´t. We can name something, but we can´t recreate it this way - so: the map is not the territory, writing "I´m happy" is not the same as experiencing "happiness".
Your example of atomic bombs is propably inaccurate: Japan had already offered surrender (only condition was, they should be able to keep the emporer), the bombs were possibly dropped to impress the Russians and stop them from expanding.
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continuing..) Objectivism is the MOST empathetic system. It means YOU are SOVEREIGN and can SUPPORT others (virtue of benevolence) but NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU nor take away YOUR property (money) to reattribute to others. You can DECIDE to "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, OR teach a man to fish and feed him for life, or ignore another man". You are Sovereign WITH emotions. Only Objectivism recognises EMOTIONS in full and full context. Agreed?
@TheHomoludens I missed you today. Thought more of your argument: that socialism that you support enables me to have 'educated' people around me that benefit me. But it does not. I do not want to be around 'educated people from non Ivy League' whom I have to pay more. It would benefit me to have uneducated people whom I can pay less, therefore keep more profits, and 'still' get to hang out with Ivy League (my personal chioce). Once again: the key is "choice", Not ur force upon me
@britishbrainz "that socialism that you support enables me to have 'educated' people around me that benefit me. But it does not. I do not want to be around 'educated people from non Ivy League' whom I have to pay more. It would benefit me to have uneducated people whom I can pay less, therefore keep more profits, and 'still' get to hang out with Ivy League (my personal chioce)."
This comment clearly reveals your egocentricity and arrogance!
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continued from below). You say you don't believe in morals. But this is like saying you don't believe in atoms or in math. Whether or not your believe does not "make existence so"! Besides: I gave you tests, you can exercise morality by sustaining life and enjoy it: needs you to work to earn, to pay for food (etc.) or you can choose to starve to death (irrational) OR choose to drink yourself silly daily till you are homeless (irrational) or a drunkard.
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continued from below). What is morality? Virtues are "acts" to gain or keep values (things that you value, tangible like iPad- or- intangible like state of love). Virtues are Objective if they apply to you on a desert island too (i.e. not dependent upon others). Virtues are: rationality, productivity, sex, Selfishness (seeking your RATIONAL self interest), happiness, justice, honesty, integrity, pride,independence (self responsibility).
@TheHomoludens Note 4: if you are Not paying for food but it is being provided by parents. Then it is rational IF they love you and they gain benefits from you (e.g. love and/or others like you help them or their values etc.). So you are still exercising morals. IF you need to earn, to pay for food, then it is rational. If you seek to seduce/attract a mate and do rational things then it is fine (e.g. seduction requires the option of poetic words or insult etc. - whatever works).
@britishbrainz "You "do" need to seek life: and choose to do the "right" things to seek life, eat good foods, find foods, drink water (not poison) etc. "
Doesn´t become true by repetition.
"Ethics are Objective." - only if the person creating ethics (or do they drop from the sky?) could transcend his/her epistemological limitations, which they can´t.
You´re trying to push everything in philosophy since Kant aside and I´m still pretty inconvinced.
Ayn Rand acknowledged that there was no reason to live or to die. She held that man has one fundamental choice to live or to die. Her ethics or ethics in general is only relevant to being who desires to live because action is required to live and thus value judgements. If one choose to die then no action was needed thus no value judgements are necessary.
@aphorism100 Incorrect. Her ethics is Objective: meaning that even if a person wishes to die, then it is IRRATIONAL, it is wrong, it is immoral. It is not "person dependent , it is NOT therefore subjective". In analogy: you can WISH to steal another's property believing it to be all right, but it is not subjective, it is Objectively a wrong.
@aphorism100 It could be you are right. She is not my "God". I am my God, you are yours. I get the feeling you are stripping the context from what she said. Regardless: let me state it 'my' way. To live is rational. To choose to die is irrational. Man indeed has choice. Man must exercise Objective virtues to sustain life and be happy. Virtues like rationality, productivity, SELFISHNESS etc.- to gain food, to "do" things (e.g.dancing), to live, to be happy measured against long term always.
@aphorism100 Note 3: Here is a list of Objectivist virtues. They apply whether you are by yourself on a desert island or amongst others in society (i.e. they are Objective, not dependent upon others): rationality, productivity, justice, happiness, integrity, honesty, sex, SELFISHNESS (seeking your RATIONAL self interest), individualism (of mind: you are self responsible for your conclusions at the end of the day: you can't blame a guru/leader/others for ur acts), for the rest , read Ayn Rand.
Like henry770, I suggest you read first and then opine. But, no one is saying that is and ought are equal. What a proper understanding of an objective world demonstrates is that, due to the nature of the brain and decisional capacity, IF you wish to be happy, then you must be rational and act in your own self-interest, for there is no other way to consistently act in order to be successful in whatever you want in life. Sacrifice, is not consistently possible. Clean your posts up.
For anyone seeking Objectivism's response to this subjectivist tripe, it was happily and already offered by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, two decades ago. Interested parties may consult pages 247 & 248 of his book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
@henry770 Objectivists cannot understand that IS is not OUGHT than Rand cannot bring anything to the table. Moral oughtis just bound to our head to our values they do not exist outside of it. There is meaning to life because meaning depend on values that are subjective in nature. Ayn Rand is dead
@Eopyk With respect: you are wrong. You do not understand higher level concepts - like the word 'furniture' (or love, or time or rights, or value/s) pertain to reality. Indeed the mind of man must grasp these properly using the method of reason and logic, and words like furniture are unique to man: but they are 'real, pertain to reality'. What is reality? An interaction between "existence" & the mind. Using the mind, we grasp 'facts of existence" such as the concept:rights,values or love, etc.
@britishbrainz ''You do not understand higher level concepts'' Same response I get from theism.
Words are abstraction of concepts, phenomina and what a culture or a person precives as a thing or word.
All that comes from the mind, emotion, colours, sounds etc are subjective. Objective means what exists without the mind. Morals and meanings are not one of them.
@Eopyk [1 of several] Thanks for responding. I will distinguish my talk always from theism and thanks for pointing that out. It is hard to have this conversation without a strong grasp of the hierarchy of concepts. Imagine a table with 3 different types,colours and shapes of chairs in a living room, with sofa, TV, carpet, windows, curtains, door, door knob, table has vase with flowers in it. All of these are LEVEL 1 concepts in this discussion.
@Eopyk [2 of several] LEVEL 1 concepts=> table, chair/s,sofa=> "Furniture"! "Fittings and fixtures"=> carpet, curtain,door knob and windows. "Decor"= flowers, vase, and others (e.g. if there is painting), wall paper. LEVEL 3 concept= LIVING ROOM=> Sum total of LEVEL 2 concepts=> furniture+decor+Fixtures & Fittings. LEVEL 4 concept=> Living room+ other rooms+common areas=>HOUSE. Level 5=Street=>Houses ordinarily with the same street address.Level 6 concept=>District/Neighborhood= streets+park etc
@Eopyk [3 of several] So now you understand the hierarchy of concepts better. Is the "furniture" real ? Yes. Is the "living room" real? Yes. They both pertain to reality. How do YOU or I know that? By grasping it using our "MIND". So we learn that the mind of man "grasps" reality. We know that man must use the mind properly: i.e. using the method of reason and logic to grasp concepts properly, to find the truth and distinguish it from falsity This:the 2nd branch of philosophy=> epistemology.
@Eopyk [4 of several] Using the mind we "identify" facts of "existence". In metaphysics (first branch of philosophy), "existence exists". You now learn "furniture" is not mysticism, nor is "a home", nor is "your rights", nor is "love" nor is "time" nor is "murder" etc. These are real concepts, pertain to reality, identifiable by man [not by any other animal: e.g. a lion often kills fellow lion, kills the cubs and takes the pride. In humanity this is called violent rape & brutality, real concepts
@Eopyk [5] Indeed "colours and sounds' are real, pertain to reality. Sounds have specific frequency and so do colours, identifiable by man, if man uses the proper methods. Man grasps "existence" in all things at all times by using man's unique faculty: the mind. EXPERIMENT: if you do not think you are real, do this: go get a knife and STAB YOURSELF VERY HARD in the stomach, make sure the knife PENETRATES spilling gut. You will die very slowly and extremely painfully: it is "real" !
@Eopyk [6] Now I am going to go in the proper order. [I] [a]Metaphysics: existence exists. You [and a blind, deaf and mute man too] can validate it with your sense organs, touch things. 1B] Consciousness affirmed (it validates earlier) 1C] Law of identity affirmed: truth/falsity, otherwise it is just subjective. 2] Epistemology: we grasp metaphysics OR any knowledge using our mind, using the method of reason and logic. 3] Morality are Objective. As man you have inalienable rights.
@Eopyk [7] You as a man must do certain "acts' [virtues] to gain values, like food, water, pee, poo, find bathroom, get iPad, find sexy gal etc. But NOTHING is AUTOMATIC. You must "ACT". What are major virtues? Rationality, Justice, Honesty, Pride, Sex, Productivity, Happiness, Independence [of mind], Integrity. They apply to you whether you live by yourself on a DESERT island or not: they are OBJECTIVE not subjective. Even on a desert island you must "act" to sustain life [above actions].
@Eopyk [8] SUMMARY of all the point below. You grasped that you must use the mind, but use it properly to identify concepts like the colour red, or the mind itself [or love, or furniture]. Concepts are real, pertain to reality. You also noticed provocative thought experiments: like deny reality then go ahead and stab yourself very hard and as you die you will feel great pain. At some point you will come to know reality, but it may be too late if you lose enough blood or pass out on journey= life
@britishbrainz Concepts are analyeses. Your logic here is odd. Colour that you talked is a representive of light frequency. Sound is a representive of air waves. Without the brain there is no colour some species see other representives than we some cannot see certain representives like blue. If you took away the brain there would be no colour nor sound but air wave and and photon.
The subjective world demands a experiencer and the objective does not.
@Eopyk CORRECT: withOut the brain functioning there is no colour perception[e.g. colour blindness, of red]. That does Not mean "red' is non-existent.
A Commie (born there 18 y/old N.Koreans) turned adult does Not excuse one from Objective ethics: where every man has inalienable rights Objectively, no man is a slave. Similarly a child not knowing gravity does Not lead to floating.
Objective=interaction of mind with existence. Subjective=mind only [mysticism]. objective=out there only [Plato]
@TheHomoludens Let's TEST your premise! I challenge you to go against your 'natural' conditions of feeding yourself food and water. Rand would say you must exercise the mind properly (rationality virtue) and productivity virtue and selfishness (seeking your RATIONAL self interest) virtue, but you say this is only in the mind. So let's test it !
In fact, there's faster way, put a plastic bag over your head. Yes: it is IRRATIONAL but you are arguing there is no rational virtue, so it is oK. Okay?
@britishbrainz "Rand would say you must exercise the mind properly "
I don´t care what anybody says, I check if statements are accurate and realistic.
Your example of water and stick doesn´t really relate to "objectivism" as much as you think, it only highlights the ways we deal with infos: extrapolation, induction and deduction. And reason and logic are no exclusive features of "objectivism", but part of science and philosophy since the beginning.
@TheHomoludens You said "I don't care what anybody says...I check if statements are accurate...". If this is true THEN well done! You are exercising SELFISHNESS (you are seeking your rational SELF interest) and exercising RATIONALITY. Both Objective virtues! You are choosing to do this: i..e exercising an "act' (virtues).
My example relates to Objectivism because Rand used it! Court system is feature of Statism [Nazism, Communism] and democracy. It doesN't therefore make Nazism right. Get it ?
@TheHomoLuden Note 2 (continuing from note 1 below). The stick illusion analogy relates to Objectivism because: to prove and validate Objectivsm requires the method of reason and logic (and to show all other ways are wrong). Reason belongs to Epistemology, the second main brain of philosophy. Existence is validated by consciousness in metaphysics. These are the "roots", from which we get the fruits like "Objective ethics". She can't, I can't, you can't "make it up even"!That's why its Objective
@TheHomoludens This is note 2 (continued from below). This is also Experiment 2 or 3 to "test" your premise, there are no objective ethics. ou harm another or try to take their property, they will beat u &/or the police will incarcerate you. If u get away, because morality is Objective: all will attempt to find u spending time, effort & money. I want to come and take your woman, your property - let's make a public contract ? If you refuse, then you value your property and morality.Q.E.D.
@TheHomoludens. Your question: how does the mind interact with existence? Let's say you dip a straight stick into visible water (e.g. beaker). The sticks 'appears' to be bent in the water. Your mind is interaction with existence to create a "perception of reality". This is not enough: you must then use the method of reason and logic to determine if the stick is bent or not. Further you must use this method to determine why it appears to bend. We know now it is because light travels slower in H20
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continued from note 1 below): You have confused subjective with objective with "O"objective. Subjective is the way the agent/you perceive reality (e.g. straight stick appears to bend in water). objectively you can determine it does not bend. Subjectively you may think that your perception is FLAWED. It is NOT in fact flawed! Ayn Rand identified this. "O"bjectively:using the method of reason: Rand determined your perception if fine but not enough,light travels slower in H20
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continued from below): So "O"bjectively you must use deliberately exercise the virtue of rationality (ethics) to determine "facts of existence". Your mind interacts with existence to reach conclusions. It reaches valid conclusion if reason is proactively used.
Note 2: You have confused "o"objective with "O'bjective (Ayn Rand). You have Not properly read and/or grasped "O"bjectivism. "O"bjective= interaction of the mind WITH existence. "Subjective"=pertains to the agent's mind only. "o"bjective= pertains to (shadows of) existence only [e.g. Plato]. 3 different concepts here.
@Eopyk Objective does not mean exists without the mind. That would contradict the objective existence of minds as minds certainly do exist and cannot exist without themselves. Objective means truth without necessity of qualification, and while I understand this to be a contradiction in and of itself, it is one of the logical conundrums which exist that cannot be avoided in philosophy.
@killerinthenameof86 Nope. Subjective means first person knwolage what is bound to the I.
My ethics, belives, morality, philosophy, values. Are all subjective. There is no meaning to life outside what we form as such there is no moreality outside of our mind.
@Eopyk Values are subjective-CORRECT. Virtues are Objective. Man must exercise Virtues to gain and/or keep values. Values are tangible or intangible [e.g. water, pee, bathroom,iPad2, beautiful spouse desires etc.] To be Objective: virtues must apply to a lone man on a desert island. A lone man MUST exercise virtues to sustain life and pursue happiness: be rational, productive, etc. to live, to go pee/poo, shelter etc. Ayn Rand IS dead and identified major virtues: leading to Objective ethics.
@Eopyk "IS' is a concept in metaphysics. "Ought' is a concept in Epistemology. It is my belief that Hume et. al. believe ought is a concept in metaphysics and/or "is" is a concept in epistemology. Hume et. al. are wrong and I can prove it: that is the main point, not my opinion but evidence. Ought suggests "choice", man must use his mind properly using reason and logic to reach valid conclusion.
Each particular value is, how you say, necessarily particular to the subject, but not the principles that allow you to obtain your values. These principles, in Ayn Rand's opinion, are independence, pride, justice, productivity, integrity and honesty.
The ifs are what bridge the gap. If you wish to be happy, then you must... And there are objective principles that can guide a person towards their rational self-interest. Everyone, if they wish to be happy must have certain virtues that are necessary because of the structure of our brains and the nature of reason.
Can you make the text go any faster?
AgApE010 1 week ago
Objective doesn’t mean unconditional. It’s your choice to live that gives morality its "authority" over you. It's observable (objectively) that living creatures' ultimate goal is survival/reproduction, (they are not the means to any other end.) As a human, you can choose your ultimate value other than life, but your nature will not permit you to live, long-term. You are committing suicide by slow torture. Thus, you have chosen death, so why not get it over with? Read Viable Values by Tara Smith.
SwordOfApollo 2 weeks ago
@SwordOfApollo value is subjective because it only exists in the mind.
There.
Eopyk 1 day ago
Comment removed
SwordOfApollo 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SwordOfApollo 2 weeks ago
Point two is a reference to Russell's Paradox isn't it?
niriop 2 weeks ago
@niriop
Not exactly, but it is of course related. Well spotted!
Ontologistics 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
StygianDysnomia 2 weeks ago
The video says that 'if-clauses' are always subjective, never objective. Let's try this one: "If you heat the water to a high enough temperature, it ought to boil". This is about rational expectations based on scientific knowledge, which is based on objective observations.
Perhaps all that is called for here is a more careful wording of what is meant.
ssppeellll 3 weeks ago
@ssppeellll
Well, the video states, 'all VALUES come from if-clauses which are always subjective, never objective'. I am not talking about general conditional propositions, of which yours is an example.
Ought-clauses that PRESCRIBE actions, are always based on subjective if-clauses. General conditional propositions (e.g. "If you heat water, it ought to evaporate") DESCRIBE actions, and are thus not the concern of normative moralists (such as 'Objectivists').
Ontologistics 2 weeks ago
Could you lift the music at all?
Kleinfurkon 4 weeks ago
Randianism is a religion, not a rational worldview.
perfectibility999 1 month ago 10
Boy Ayn Rand sure does seem to hit a lot of people's vital nerves. Pretty funny. The ought from is issue has been laid to rest convincingly, not just by Ayn Rand, but by other brilliant thinkers such as Richard Carrier and Sam Harris. Get over it. Hume is dead. LOL Also, the problem of induction is now a non-problem. Solved. Like it or not, it is what it is. You can keep recycling the same old philosophy over and over all you like. It's like continuing to believe in the geocentric theory.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen
Hume's problems have certainly not been solved. If you're so certain, please explain how rather than appealing to 'authority'.
PeteUtonic 1 month ago
@PeteUtonic Sorry but I have neither the time nor the interest to educate you. Much like eating, it's something one has to do for oneself. Especially since I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter with the caveat that my information and understanding may be incomplete or mistaken. However, based on what I know and my own understanding, which is all any of us have, this is how I see it. The references were citations, not appeals.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen
Obviously you're hiding the fact that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged - spare me your excuses.
Ontologistics 1 month ago
@Ontologistics Uh huh! You (or Hume) asserts it, therefore it must be so. Bottom line, I don't care whether you think the problem has been solved or not, or whether you think ethics is objective or subjective, so long as you are a good person. I don't care what reasons you have for being good. You can't think ethics is some fictional made up nonsense all you want.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ontologistics Uh huh! You (or Hume) asserts it, therefore it must be so. Bottom line, I don't care whether you think the problem has been solved or not, or whether you think ethics is objective or subjective, so long as you are a good person. I don't care what reasons you have for being good. You can't think ethics is some fictional made up nonsense all you want.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@PeteUtonic I teach Logic 101 so I'm pretty sure I know what the fallacy called argument from authority is and citations are not equivalent to them. Hate to burst your bubble.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@britishbrainz It seems to me that those with whom you have been arguing have thus far been thoroughly unconvinced. I am among those who do not find your comments compelling. If you're truly passionate about convincing the people of YouTube that your beliefs are true, why not compose a video or series of videos in which you can make a clear and complete case for the point you wish to make? Merely a thought.
RenegadeSalmon 1 month ago
@RenegadeSalmon Ref: Convincing others- Rand has already produced whatever needs to be produced. On top of that there is a multi-million dollar Objectivist estate (her heirs) that have 'that' job. On top of that there is Ron Paul and (Ayn) Rand Paul as congressmen that do that. For my part I am fine exercercing benevolence in this way.
Your suggestion of using video IS VERY GOOD though. Others have done that I am clean up crew! ;)
britishbrainz 1 month ago
You wrong
MrScaurus81 1 month ago
@MrScaurus81 Which is convincing coming from someone who fails at spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
This is a great logical explanation of her massive errors. You can be an Objectivist, but please know it fails many many many logic patterns. One being the prisoner's dilemma, & the other the volunteer's dilemma. It's sad, & hilarious to watch someone try to vilify altruism
Bolgernow 1 month ago 11
@Bolgernow Demonstrate how it fails. Are the prisoner's dilemma and volunteer's dilemma zero sum false dilemmas of the kind nobody ever actually finds themselves in? If so they are mere speculation. One example of this being life boat ethics. Care to explain these in detail and demonstrate how Objectivism fails? Otherwise this is a mere assertion and there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen this is argumentum verbosum fallacy. Read my post again. in Ayn Rands world the entire FOX HOLE BLOW UP because EVERYONE acted in THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST KILLING EVERYTHING. It's very specific. Either directly address that Objectivism fails those two logic patterns aside from "Nuh-huh it DOESN'T" or we have nothing to discuss
Bolgernow 1 month ago 3
@Bolgernow I never read anything like that in her books. Can you point out which book(s) contain this?
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen still didn't address the logical dilemma errors. You ignored them, made a non-factual statement, & then asked a silly question. In all of her work she states "rational self-interest" being the key component of Objectivism. A solider thinks "Let some OTHER chump fall on the grenade in the foxhole". But, if EVERYONE in the foxhole THINKS LIKE THAT, NO ONE will fall on it. BOOM, the whole fox hole blows killing/injuring everyone. 14 lost instead of 1. Irrational
Bolgernow 1 month ago 2
@Bolgernow Here you perfectly demonstrate how you have thoroughly bought into the false premise upon which altruism is based. It isn't an either all of us are willing to jump on the grenade or none of us are. You have perfectly illustrated my point here, although in a half measure. It's true that if nobody is willing then fourteen are lost, but IT IS ALSO TRUE that if everyone is willing then the body count is the same, hence the false dilemma, since the outcome is the same either way
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen totally incorrect, false dilemma. Not EVERYONE is Altruistic, no one ever made that claim. Ergo, not everyone jumps on it. Only the brave, the selfless, or the courageous MIGHT. However, in Rand's world, she claims the height of man would be where NO ONE EVER WOULD. In her view of the world, Captain America is an evil, unfit, wrong monster for jumping on it. That's the entire point. Thanks for proving it. Please address the Prisoners dilemma
Bolgernow 1 month ago 2
@Bolgernow Further, you then go on to demonstrate how what you yourself said is a contradiction and therefore self-refuting. If Rand advocated rational self-interest and the scenario in which you describe the loss of fourteen lives is due to irrationality, well then that can't very well be what Rand meant now can it? Unless you're suggesting that she intended her words to mean the exact opposite of what she said, which would be pretty silly.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen you prove my point again. Thanks. Rational self-interest for each person would be NOT TO DIE. But, in agreeing to that logic, everyone might. It IS irrational, that's why I pointed it out showing the massive logic flaw. You can't just repeat the flaw with "Well then they'd never do that". It's a propositional fallacy of Affirming A Disjunct-you concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow How about pick up the grenade and throw it out of the foxhole? Your idea that there are only two possible courses of action is pathetic and unimaginative. How about saving fifteen lives instead of expecting someone to sacrifice themselves? You could at least try and then if someone gets killed it's not because you accepted one death as inevitable. Trying and failing is better than not trying.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen agreed, totally possible. However, for logic sake since that's not the dilemma model, let's say the grenade will explode now. Then let's say the fox hole was filled with Objectivists. They'd have to abandon their logic, or all 14 might die. Personally, I'd call that "a good start", but that's just me
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow And so you demonstrate the logical outcome of your preference for altruism. Would you jump on the grenade if you were the fifteenth in a hole filled with fourteen Objectivists? The outcome of which I speak is, when it comes down to brass tacks, while the altruist speaks of self sacrifice it is other selves he prefers to sacrifice in a pinch, hence you would sacrifice the fourteen Objectivists so you could survive, making them proper altruists.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen if we're following my example no Altruists were in the foxhole, ergo, the explosion. False dilemma. You're getting good at fallacies. Perhaps you'll list all them. You can't address the gaping hole in Objectivist logic here, so you're attempting to change the subject to bash Altruism. You've also not addressed the Prisoners dilemma
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Apparently you haven't read any Objectivist literature or you would know that Rand rejects the notion of sacrifice entirely, neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself. The idea is to create win/win scenarios, not win/lose or lose/lose. Of the three options, win/win, win/lose, or lose/lose, which do you prefer? If you say win/win then you are in agreement with Objectivism.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen red herring judgmental language fallacy. It's pointedly clear I know & understand Objectivism. It's clear you wish I didn't. Life doesn't always furnish us with win/win. Reality & such. If your logic only accepts win/win, I suggest you bat .1000 which is impossible or you fail your own theory. You either can't or won't address the dilemma failure. Ok
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow That doesn't mean we can't try. If mankind had been so complacent as to resign itself to whatever happened to be the case in reality we may never have bothered to work for most of the things we have accomplished, such as air travel, modern medicine, industrial civilization, etc. Of course you're not going to succeed every single time, if so there would be no struggle and no reason to do anything. Life would lose all purpose and meaning in such a universe.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen I suggest you try. Ironically right now, in all our posts you have created a lose/lose in never addressing the dilemma's, so your failing in trying to follow your own logic. In all the posts you're bat -.900. Your losing battle with reality isn't my concern, it's yours
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Now you're just being a troll. I suggest you remove your head from your own ass. This will be my final response to you. I have far more productive things to do with my time than to "debate" with those suffering from self-induced myopia. I'm sure you will imagine that I have committed all of these fallacies and that you have somehow "won" this debate. It is of course out of my control and hurts no one other than yourself. Enjoy your imagined victory.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen this was never a debate. All I did was a post two proven logic flaws in Objectivism. You responded MANY times without ever correctly addressing them. It was a fallacy fest on your part, & I sited all my work. Now you finish off with Ad Hominem in "troll", "self-induced myopia", & "remove your head from your own ass". This isn't about "winning". It's about basic logic fact/reality vs fantasy/fiction. I hold no ill will towards you, take care!
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Finally, we both agree on something, that this was never a debate, and you have proven/demonstrated nothing, despite being asked to. Asserting that I have committed all of these logical fallacies is not the same as actually having committed them. A couple of comments on that point: 1) I did look up argumentum verbosium and it's intended as a joke, i.e. not even a real logical fallacy, which is why I had never heard of it, and 2) an insult is not an ad hominen. Google it.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen you never addressed either dilemma that exposes logic flaws in Objectivism. You totally ignored them. 1) I already listed it's definition, sorry you can't read words/understand definitions. You teach logic & think personally insulting me instead of answering the dilemma logic errors I pointed ISN'T Ad Hominem? Students should ask for their $ back
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow I didn't address them because they are non-problems. Making assertions and saying here are two problems that are basically strawmen in that they are not even objections to/arguments against Objectivism means they aren't worthy of attention, so of course I'm not going to address them. Further, if you actually care to do so you can discover this for yourself.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen you didn't address them b/c you can't. You only make circular arguments not based in reality. Not very rational. It appears you ARE clinically insane. Good luck in life, you're going to seriously need it!
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Finally, I don't require your benevolence, good will, or well wishes. So how about you go fuck yourself.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen
I advise you to return to your 'Temple of Set' and try your 'black magic'' on your opponents, as your website states. Keep your cult to yourself please.
Ontologistics 1 month ago
@Bolgernow You have simply made assertions and have failed to point out any flaws or logical errors in Objectivism. You don't even appear to understand anything about it, so how could you? Any more than an ID/Creationist is capable of pointing out flaws or logical errors in Evolutionary Biology. It just doesn't happen. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. Asserting something to be the case doesn't make it so. Sorry!
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Further, as you have demonstrated nothing other than myopic thinking, as demonstrated by your poor understanding of what logical fallacies actually are, as opposed to what you imagine them to be, my characterization of you is and can only be based on what I have been shown, so while this characterization could be argued to be insulting, it is not synonymous with an ad hominem. An example of the latter would be "Joe has a dark, squared off mustache, therefore Joe is a nazi."
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Finally, there's no reason for either of us to have ill will, since we don't even know each other. This isn't about ill will, it's about you either being full of shit, knowing it, and being dishonest about it, or you are unaware, hones, and therefore myopic. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by concluding the second. Otherwise it would have been ad hominem as an attack on your character/integrity. You take care as well and hopefully you have learned something.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Google ad hominem vs insult to see the difference.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen Me: "It is clear people who believe X haven't thought about dilemma's Y, & S which fail logic patterns". You: "Your head is up your ass, & you're a troll". Me: "You're ignoring the argument & just calling me names, that's Ad Hominem". You: "No it's not, Google it". Ad hominem–attacking the arguer instead of the argument. You might be clinically insane
Bolgernow 1 month ago 2
@Bolgernow Perhaps if you were to actually present a coherent argument against Objectivism rather then presenting non-problems as if they were problems then I would respond to that rather than to you. Everything you've said is hypothetical, mere speculation and conjecture. How do you propose to test your hypothesis about fifteen Objectivists in a fox hole? When do you ever expect this situation to arise in reality? It's nonsense.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen What argument have you been given.
Objectivism do not even know the diffrence beetwen intersubjective and objecyive.
It commits the IS and OUGHT fallacy. And it's argument for free will is the lamest I have ever seen.
Eopyk 1 month ago 5
@Bolgernow Bottom line, if altruists are so eager to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others then why is it that they preach self sacrifice and then it is always other selves who they expect to be the victims rather than themselves? If they really wanted to sacrifice themselves they could go ahead and do it and we would be rid of them. Then we could move on to the win/win scenarios where everyone benefits and there are neither victims nor victimizers.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen argumentum verbosium again also making it circular argument. Either address the logic errors Objectivism has with the prisoner's dilemma, & the volunteer's dilemma. Up to this point you have done neither. If you give me another fallacy, I will not respond to you any longer as this is circular & boring
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow I teach Logic 101 and you are flat making shit up. My reasoning is not circular and I have never even heard of a fallacy called "argumentum verbosium." All that would translate to is a verbose argument, and an argument that is verbose does not a fallacy make. Further, I would actually prefer that you not respond, since you obviously have not clue what the fuck you are talking about and are apparently pulling this stuff out of your ass.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation). I assume you can use the internet since you're posting. ANY single search will show you. Sorry, your students are being gravely cheated of a quality experience. Now let's add argument from authority to your irrational growing fallacy list. You can't stay on topic, or address the dilemma's. Glaring hole in poor irrational Objectivist logic
Bolgernow 1 month ago
@Bolgernow Vilify altruism? That's hilarious. If you want to sacrifice your needs and interests to the needs and interests of others that's your choice, but if you ask me to feel obligated to do so I'll tell you to go fuck yourself. If everyone did that our species would become extinct very quickly. None of us are any good to any of the rest if we're all dead, which is what altruism ultimately leads to.
MagisterPridgen 1 month ago
@MagisterPridgen you just proved my point. You vilified altruism
Bolgernow 1 month ago
There is no good or evil? By what definitions of the terms? If there is no good or evil than doesn't it follow that there are no values? And if there are not values then what motivation is there to take any action in life?
marce11o 2 months ago in playlist Objectivism Fails
This has been flagged as spam show
@marce11o "And if there are not values then what motivation is there to take any action in life?"
Does a bird need "values" to fly?
Do you need "values" to feel attracted by a person?
Do you need "values" to know when you´re hungry or tired?
I think you´ve been fooled by a quasi-religious system - objectivism and its subsets "Austrian economincs" and "praxeology".
Want to free y.s.? Delete that word from your vocabulary (and keep it for maths).
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
This video fails to understand Objectivism
90jmt 2 months ago
@Ontologistics Note: if one chooses life over death, this fact is Objectively a moral right, as opposed to a wrong. It is a moral right because man has the inalienable right to life : one can not relinquish this right even if one so chooses, but if one does so abdicate it then they are committing a moral wrong - Objectively. To commit a wrong is a subjective decision, and the person may think it is right [e.g. Bin Laden] just because he thinks it is right does not make it: its Objectively wrong
britishbrainz 2 months ago
If there is no moral right or wrong, does that mean it is not morally wrong for Whites to reject multi-racialism and work to create all-White homelands? I do not believe it is morally wrong, as I do not believe in an absolute, universal morality.
NIETZSCHEAN14 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Ontologistics
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Nietzache did not. He belived in perspectivism and morality was subjective you wannabe Nietcshean Nazi.
Eopyk 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eopyk Incorrect. Let's prove it with a thought experiment: you harm another or try to take their property, they will beat you or kill you; and/or the police will incarcerate you. If you get away, because morality is Objective: all will attempt to find you spending time, effort and (State or private) money. I want to come and take your woman, your property - let's make a public contract ? If you refuse, then you value your property and morality.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Incorrect. Let's prove it with a thought experiment: you harm another or try to take their property, they will beat you or kill you; and/or the police will incarcerate you. If you get away, because morality is Objective: all will attempt to find you spending time, effort and (State or private) money. I want to come and take your woman, your property - let's make a public contract ? If you refuse, then you value your property and morality.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
Fail!
sudy5997 2 months ago
Comment removed
sudy5997 2 months ago
Values in Rand's theory are always relative to valuers but still objective in that the utility an individual receives from the achievement of a value is independent of his judgement. It is possible that there are some values worth risking your life for or even losing your life for because life without those values would not be desirable.
aphorism100 2 months ago 2
@aphorism100 Correct me if I am wrong. VALUES are SUBJECTIVE, Major Virtues are Objective. Ethics is Objective.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz No virtiues are not objective it and ethics only exist in the human mind.
Eopyk 2 months ago
@Eopyk I can prove virtues are objective. That is key point: not my saying nor yours but evidence. Saying gravity does not exist does not lead to floating like superman. Virtues are "acts" to gain and/or keep values. Values are tangible or intangible [e.g. water, pee, bathroom,iPad2, beautiful spouse desires etc.] To be Objective: virtues must apply to a lone man on a desert island. A lone man MUST exercise virtues to sustain life and pursue happiness: be rational, productive etc. to live
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk It that were true: let's test it. I challenge you to go against your 'natural' conditions of feeding yourself food and water. Rand would say you must exercise the mind properly (rationality virtue) and productivity virtue and selfishness (seeking your RATIONAL self interest) virtue, but you say this is only in the mind. So let's test it !
In fact, there's faster way, put a plastic bag over your head. Yes: it is IRRATIONAL but you are arguing there is no rational virtue, so it is oK. ok?
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz "In fact, there's faster way, put a plastic bag over your head. Yes: it is IRRATIONAL "
No, it´s not and it´s actually a way to bring people back to safer conditions when they tend to hyperventilate. Of course the bag is only kept over the head for half a minute or so.
Falsified.
Besides: humans do commit suicide. What does it take to do that?
Irrational ethics?
If humans do behave irrationally, then your idea of objective ethics is just that: an idea.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Thanks. Response: you have missed the point. The point is Not to live! If you remove the bag or breath, you are "seeking life", seeking to be "rational", seeking to exercise Objective virtues: rationality, "selfishness: seeking your RATIONAL self interest, not MY self interest!", and if you choose to find/pay for food, water (etc.) then you must exercise the virtue of Productivity, Justice (reap what you sow), etc. Objective ethics is nailed above. Please do comment. Q.E.D.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens This is note 2 (continued from below). You said "Human do ..suicide..what does it take to do that?..Irrational ethics"? Answer: it takes "irrationality", just like you attacking an old lady is irrational. There is no such thing as "irrational ethics" just like there is no such thing as "Nazi Democracy".
Humans are Not automatically rational! That's Rand's point: Virtues must be ACTIVELY practiced. Virtues like rationality (needs the method of reason and logic), productivity etc.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz Ok, it´s really getting into semantics here.
I don´t fully agree that selfishness equals exercising rationality. To the contrary: I like being empathic and emotional.
Emotions can not be objectivised and therefore can only in a limited way be explained and understood - and only after experiencing them.
Maybe it´s just that I cling more to the traditional definition of "objective": independent of subjects.
Semantics...
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Forgive me. I thought you are versed in philosophy. Like Math, precision (semantics) is of utmost importance in philosophy. I do not define things the dictionary does. We have 2 faculties of thinking: rationality and emotions. Both are important, but rationality is the way to reach valid conclusion. Emotions are the fuel to act upon the conclusion. Emotional faculty is the wrong one for higher level thinking. You need to read Ayn Rand. Everything is provable: not my/her say so.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz "I thought you are versed in philosophy. "
Don´t get snobbish, I am - but I´m German and I start realizing that there are different traditions. You can´t debate s.o. with an hinduistic background and simply claim he´s not versed, just because his vocabulary is different - that´s why good philosophies start from scratch.
"Everything is provable" -If it´s all plausible and logic, then fine. But proveable? Imho only in maths and elementary logic can anything be proven.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens [1] Objectivism is not plausible. It is fact. The statements are all subject to validation or proof. [2] There ARE different traditions, but all traditions are NOT equal! There is correct and incorrect. A culture where you are FREE to do whatever you like EXCEPT force or fraud (save in self defence) is correct; OTHERS are flawed. But one must Not use debate/FORCE against person of different culture either! Within one's own land: one must PERSUADE for your inalienable rights
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz "Objectivism is not plausible. It is fact. "
Lol! Now you sound like a dogmatic priest, very unconvincing!
"validation or proof"
How? A logically consistent philosophy does not equal it´s "real".
My epistemological pov is critical rationalism.
The basic statement of CR is: humans can´t prove a theory, only falsify incorrect theories.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@britishbrainz Would it be rational to call you a cocksucker? I know Rand wasn't a big fan of pleasing anyone, so I'm still confused why so many objectivists composes themselves as you do.
DefenceSpeech 1 month ago
@DefenceSpeech You tell me - is it rational to insult another instead of being able to put up a rational argument? You judge- if you were doing this in an academic essay, exam; or putting your argument across in a court of law or in Congress: would you gain "1" point even? I suggest you use your brain properly, I welcome the toughest logical argument.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@DefenceSpeech Note 2: So "bring it"- I want your strongest, toughest logical argument to show if even "1" statement by Rand or me is incorrect. I genuinely and really welcome it because I've been looking for years for "1" item in Objectivism that is wrong. In contrast all other philosophies are in error. But worse: to date you can't even argue. You need to attend logic and argument class. Fight like a smart man not a brute in jail. Bring it on buddy, I am waiting.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 2: below I showed you the only way to reach valid conclusion is the faculty of rationality by using the method of reason. Emotions can be objectivised: such as love. If you do not feel love (for family, parents, lover) then you have brought into false philosophy or have unidentified philosophy. These concepts like "love" are real, pertain to reality. If you feel this for someone, then your mind can identify it and if right you can choose to act upon it to win their heart.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz "the only way to reach valid conclusion is the faculty of rationality by using the method of reason."
That´s too little imo. It takes empriric tests, too.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens This is incorrect. Why because empirical tests are based upon "interpreting" the results of such tests too. That interpretation requires background philosophy. For example: the researchers of IQ found whites have higher IQ (fair enough) but then interpreted that non-whites should not therefore get positions of leadership (false).
So philosophy comes first [forest floor] and science and all other subjects are trees in the forest.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz "If you remove the bag or breath, you are "seeking life", seeking to be "rational", seeking to exercise Objective"
Again, disagree.
I don´t need to seek life or seek rationality, because i simply am all of that: I´m alive, I´m rational, I´m irrational, I´m emotional...
"objectivism" to me is a projection of duality, that i don´t perceive (not meaning to say I can´t distinguish) and of a teleologic state of mind (doing something for a purpose).
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens You "do" need to seek life: and choose to do the "right" things to seek life, eat good foods, find foods, drink water (not poison) etc. For that you need to exercise virtues like rationality to judge where to find foods, or more important where to find "work", so you can earn, and then pay for foods. Ethics are Objective. You have a choice NOT to do all this. Rationality is Not automatic. But if you wish to sustain life and be happy you must exercise virtues. More in note 2 above
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continued from below). You have not read Objectivism and are criticising it. Its like arguing with someone that has not read science. Every point you make is incorrect. "Objectivism" is neither dualism nor monism. In dualism: there is a separation between the mind and body/brain. It comes from Plato's fallacy that existence is forever unknowable (if this is true then how can he "know" this to be true). Monism denies the mind and higher level concepts like ethics,love, time
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continued from note 2 below). Objectivist epistemology means the mind of man interacts with existence. It is neither monism nor dualism. There is "existence": we can validate it, and get to know "facts" pertaining to existing using the method of reason and logic. [The standard is Never perfection though: not omniscience]. I have been brief and hopefully precise: you have to read Ayn Rand for the rest.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz What I´m trying to get accross is: my main wishes are: to learn/experience and to enjoy!
These "activities" serve no other purposes! And they can´t be achieved purely rationally.
I don´t believe in morals either - imho all it really takes is empathy. Of course one could state it like that: it may be rational not to be rational all the time...
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens You are seeking to exercise the virtues of happiness and selfishness ("my main wishes: to learn/experience and to enjoy!). Well done. UNLESS you are merely seeking enjoyment for the moment mostly, which is the flawed philosophy of HEDONISM I fell for at age 18 to 24 and ended up homeless, two failed universities, much sex but homeless. Wasted life. Objectivism: you seek to be happy MEASURED against the long term.Hedonism: seek happiness ONLY in the now. More in note 2.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz "seek happiness ONLY in the now."
Yep, then I´m a hedonist and I refuse to make plans in order to be happy tomorrow.
"Emotions can be objectivised: such as love."
How so? Disagree.
"But this is like saying you don't believe in atoms or in math."
And I don´t either: I reckognize "atom" is an accurate model for discussion of matter in chemistry and physics and that maths are a logically consistent body.
No believe involved.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens [1] Hedonism: that is your "choice". That's the beauty of liberty. You can choose to deny math, deny morality but you will "always" reap the consequences ! Please do contact me "then" [2] "Love": its in the dictionary. It can be defined. It is already objectively defined. "We" could not talk about this label (love) unless we understood what we were talking about ! [3] You said "I recognise atom is accurate model..." If what you say is true, then you "believe" it to be so! Proved.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz "You can choose to deny math"
That´s just ridiculous, I´ve even studied maths - ok, only on school teacher level, but still....
"You said "I recognise atom is accurate model..." If what you say is true, then you "believe" it to be so!"
Your logic isn´t accurate - I can go and learn all physics and chemistry AND empirically test it´s accuracy - it becomes a decision based on propability.
Believe is defined as beyond verification/falsification - "atom" isn´t.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@britishbrainz "Proved."
I´ll keep it short this time:
I repeat what I already wrote: just because your theoretic system is logically consistent, doesn´t mean it´s "true".
I don´t believe in reason to be the single source of peace and liberty and rather value empathy as equally important.
Call me "socialist" all you want, I don´t identify with any ideology and I´m a pretty active person working as freelancer, not one of those academics at universities.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens you said "just because your theoretic system is logically consistent, doesn´t mean it´s "true" " . In logic - this is called a "contradiction". You are saying just because it is "A, it doesn't matter it is true it is A". With respect: hogwash.
EMPATHY suggests the emotional faculty. This is VERY important. But it is Not the faculty that is used to reach RATIONAL conclusion. Example: WW2, SMASH Japs with atom OR NOT? Rational=>Get them hard, fast as possible. Emotional=>no!!
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz
Address the main point of the video, point 2 (at 2:02), if you have something to say of any worth.
Ontologistics 1 month ago
@Ontologistics The answer "no". I have no "duty" to answer you. Rand said I am sovereign. But if you look through my writings above and below you may see I have covered all the points. Also if you want to address what YOU consider is the "main" point, then put it to me in brief in writing, so everyone understands it is a "key point" and so I can assess it.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz
That's an obvious evasion.
Ontologistics 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz "It means YOU are SOVEREIGN and can SUPPORT others (virtue of benevolence) but NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU nor take away YOUR property (money) to reattribute to others. "
Idealistic BS! When in history of humanity have things worked the way you describe it?
What´s the use of creating imaginery systems like objectivism?
I don´t see any.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz "you said "just because your theoretic system is ...´s "true" " . In logic - this is called a "contradiction". You are saying just because it is "A, it doesn't matter it is true it is A". With respect: hogwash."
We come back to similar points again and again. Maybe I should have used "an accurate description of reality/ the only possible and accurate description of reality"" instead of "true".
You don´t seem to distinguish between "reality" and "ideas/systems/...".
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continuing...). I repeat emotional faculty (empathy) is VERY important. We CAN put down on paper, our "feelings". However we MUSTN'T exclusively use these but must primarily use RATIONALITY to examine whether our feelings taken in full context with other data, suggests feelings are correct OR another conclusion is MORE appropriate. In WW2: we decided to drop 2 atom weapons on Japan and INSTANTLY stop them. That IS rational and it IS horrible too! But STOP them or lose war
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz "We CAN put down on paper, our "feelings""
No, we can´t. We can name something, but we can´t recreate it this way - so: the map is not the territory, writing "I´m happy" is not the same as experiencing "happiness".
Your example of atomic bombs is propably inaccurate: Japan had already offered surrender (only condition was, they should be able to keep the emporer), the bombs were possibly dropped to impress the Russians and stop them from expanding.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continuing..) Objectivism is the MOST empathetic system. It means YOU are SOVEREIGN and can SUPPORT others (virtue of benevolence) but NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU nor take away YOUR property (money) to reattribute to others. You can DECIDE to "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, OR teach a man to fish and feed him for life, or ignore another man". You are Sovereign WITH emotions. Only Objectivism recognises EMOTIONS in full and full context. Agreed?
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens I missed you today. Thought more of your argument: that socialism that you support enables me to have 'educated' people around me that benefit me. But it does not. I do not want to be around 'educated people from non Ivy League' whom I have to pay more. It would benefit me to have uneducated people whom I can pay less, therefore keep more profits, and 'still' get to hang out with Ivy League (my personal chioce). Once again: the key is "choice", Not ur force upon me
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz "that socialism that you support enables me to have 'educated' people around me that benefit me. But it does not. I do not want to be around 'educated people from non Ivy League' whom I have to pay more. It would benefit me to have uneducated people whom I can pay less, therefore keep more profits, and 'still' get to hang out with Ivy League (my personal chioce)."
This comment clearly reveals your egocentricity and arrogance!
No good starting point for philosophy!
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continued from below). You say you don't believe in morals. But this is like saying you don't believe in atoms or in math. Whether or not your believe does not "make existence so"! Besides: I gave you tests, you can exercise morality by sustaining life and enjoy it: needs you to work to earn, to pay for food (etc.) or you can choose to starve to death (irrational) OR choose to drink yourself silly daily till you are homeless (irrational) or a drunkard.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continued from below). What is morality? Virtues are "acts" to gain or keep values (things that you value, tangible like iPad- or- intangible like state of love). Virtues are Objective if they apply to you on a desert island too (i.e. not dependent upon others). Virtues are: rationality, productivity, sex, Selfishness (seeking your RATIONAL self interest), happiness, justice, honesty, integrity, pride,independence (self responsibility).
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens Note 4: if you are Not paying for food but it is being provided by parents. Then it is rational IF they love you and they gain benefits from you (e.g. love and/or others like you help them or their values etc.). So you are still exercising morals. IF you need to earn, to pay for food, then it is rational. If you seek to seduce/attract a mate and do rational things then it is fine (e.g. seduction requires the option of poetic words or insult etc. - whatever works).
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz "You "do" need to seek life: and choose to do the "right" things to seek life, eat good foods, find foods, drink water (not poison) etc. "
Doesn´t become true by repetition.
"Ethics are Objective." - only if the person creating ethics (or do they drop from the sky?) could transcend his/her epistemological limitations, which they can´t.
You´re trying to push everything in philosophy since Kant aside and I´m still pretty inconvinced.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
Ayn Rand acknowledged that there was no reason to live or to die. She held that man has one fundamental choice to live or to die. Her ethics or ethics in general is only relevant to being who desires to live because action is required to live and thus value judgements. If one choose to die then no action was needed thus no value judgements are necessary.
aphorism100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aphorism100 Incorrect. Her ethics is Objective: meaning that even if a person wishes to die, then it is IRRATIONAL, it is wrong, it is immoral. It is not "person dependent , it is NOT therefore subjective". In analogy: you can WISH to steal another's property believing it to be all right, but it is not subjective, it is Objectively a wrong.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@aphorism100 It could be you are right. She is not my "God". I am my God, you are yours. I get the feeling you are stripping the context from what she said. Regardless: let me state it 'my' way. To live is rational. To choose to die is irrational. Man indeed has choice. Man must exercise Objective virtues to sustain life and be happy. Virtues like rationality, productivity, SELFISHNESS etc.- to gain food, to "do" things (e.g.dancing), to live, to be happy measured against long term always.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@aphorism100 Note 3: Here is a list of Objectivist virtues. They apply whether you are by yourself on a desert island or amongst others in society (i.e. they are Objective, not dependent upon others): rationality, productivity, justice, happiness, integrity, honesty, sex, SELFISHNESS (seeking your RATIONAL self interest), individualism (of mind: you are self responsible for your conclusions at the end of the day: you can't blame a guru/leader/others for ur acts), for the rest , read Ayn Rand.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Eopyk,
Like henry770, I suggest you read first and then opine. But, no one is saying that is and ought are equal. What a proper understanding of an objective world demonstrates is that, due to the nature of the brain and decisional capacity, IF you wish to be happy, then you must be rational and act in your own self-interest, for there is no other way to consistently act in order to be successful in whatever you want in life. Sacrifice, is not consistently possible. Clean your posts up.
MCTMD1 2 months ago
For anyone seeking Objectivism's response to this subjectivist tripe, it was happily and already offered by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, two decades ago. Interested parties may consult pages 247 & 248 of his book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
henry770 2 months ago
@henry770 Objectivists cannot understand that IS is not OUGHT than Rand cannot bring anything to the table. Moral oughtis just bound to our head to our values they do not exist outside of it. There is meaning to life because meaning depend on values that are subjective in nature. Ayn Rand is dead
Eopyk 2 months ago
@Eopyk With respect: you are wrong. You do not understand higher level concepts - like the word 'furniture' (or love, or time or rights, or value/s) pertain to reality. Indeed the mind of man must grasp these properly using the method of reason and logic, and words like furniture are unique to man: but they are 'real, pertain to reality'. What is reality? An interaction between "existence" & the mind. Using the mind, we grasp 'facts of existence" such as the concept:rights,values or love, etc.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz ''You do not understand higher level concepts'' Same response I get from theism.
Words are abstraction of concepts, phenomina and what a culture or a person precives as a thing or word.
All that comes from the mind, emotion, colours, sounds etc are subjective. Objective means what exists without the mind. Morals and meanings are not one of them.
Eopyk 2 months ago
@Eopyk [1 of several] Thanks for responding. I will distinguish my talk always from theism and thanks for pointing that out. It is hard to have this conversation without a strong grasp of the hierarchy of concepts. Imagine a table with 3 different types,colours and shapes of chairs in a living room, with sofa, TV, carpet, windows, curtains, door, door knob, table has vase with flowers in it. All of these are LEVEL 1 concepts in this discussion.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [2 of several] LEVEL 1 concepts=> table, chair/s,sofa=> "Furniture"! "Fittings and fixtures"=> carpet, curtain,door knob and windows. "Decor"= flowers, vase, and others (e.g. if there is painting), wall paper. LEVEL 3 concept= LIVING ROOM=> Sum total of LEVEL 2 concepts=> furniture+decor+Fixtures & Fittings. LEVEL 4 concept=> Living room+ other rooms+common areas=>HOUSE. Level 5=Street=>Houses ordinarily with the same street address.Level 6 concept=>District/Neighborhood= streets+park etc
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [3 of several] So now you understand the hierarchy of concepts better. Is the "furniture" real ? Yes. Is the "living room" real? Yes. They both pertain to reality. How do YOU or I know that? By grasping it using our "MIND". So we learn that the mind of man "grasps" reality. We know that man must use the mind properly: i.e. using the method of reason and logic to grasp concepts properly, to find the truth and distinguish it from falsity This:the 2nd branch of philosophy=> epistemology.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [4 of several] Using the mind we "identify" facts of "existence". In metaphysics (first branch of philosophy), "existence exists". You now learn "furniture" is not mysticism, nor is "a home", nor is "your rights", nor is "love" nor is "time" nor is "murder" etc. These are real concepts, pertain to reality, identifiable by man [not by any other animal: e.g. a lion often kills fellow lion, kills the cubs and takes the pride. In humanity this is called violent rape & brutality, real concepts
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [5] Indeed "colours and sounds' are real, pertain to reality. Sounds have specific frequency and so do colours, identifiable by man, if man uses the proper methods. Man grasps "existence" in all things at all times by using man's unique faculty: the mind. EXPERIMENT: if you do not think you are real, do this: go get a knife and STAB YOURSELF VERY HARD in the stomach, make sure the knife PENETRATES spilling gut. You will die very slowly and extremely painfully: it is "real" !
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [6] Now I am going to go in the proper order. [I] [a]Metaphysics: existence exists. You [and a blind, deaf and mute man too] can validate it with your sense organs, touch things. 1B] Consciousness affirmed (it validates earlier) 1C] Law of identity affirmed: truth/falsity, otherwise it is just subjective. 2] Epistemology: we grasp metaphysics OR any knowledge using our mind, using the method of reason and logic. 3] Morality are Objective. As man you have inalienable rights.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [7] You as a man must do certain "acts' [virtues] to gain values, like food, water, pee, poo, find bathroom, get iPad, find sexy gal etc. But NOTHING is AUTOMATIC. You must "ACT". What are major virtues? Rationality, Justice, Honesty, Pride, Sex, Productivity, Happiness, Independence [of mind], Integrity. They apply to you whether you live by yourself on a DESERT island or not: they are OBJECTIVE not subjective. Even on a desert island you must "act" to sustain life [above actions].
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@Eopyk [8] SUMMARY of all the point below. You grasped that you must use the mind, but use it properly to identify concepts like the colour red, or the mind itself [or love, or furniture]. Concepts are real, pertain to reality. You also noticed provocative thought experiments: like deny reality then go ahead and stab yourself very hard and as you die you will feel great pain. At some point you will come to know reality, but it may be too late if you lose enough blood or pass out on journey= life
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz Concepts are analyeses. Your logic here is odd. Colour that you talked is a representive of light frequency. Sound is a representive of air waves. Without the brain there is no colour some species see other representives than we some cannot see certain representives like blue. If you took away the brain there would be no colour nor sound but air wave and and photon.
The subjective world demands a experiencer and the objective does not.
Eopyk 2 months ago
@Eopyk CORRECT: withOut the brain functioning there is no colour perception[e.g. colour blindness, of red]. That does Not mean "red' is non-existent.
A Commie (born there 18 y/old N.Koreans) turned adult does Not excuse one from Objective ethics: where every man has inalienable rights Objectively, no man is a slave. Similarly a child not knowing gravity does Not lead to floating.
Objective=interaction of mind with existence. Subjective=mind only [mysticism]. objective=out there only [Plato]
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz "Objective ethics"
There´s no such thing! Get over it!
"Objectively, no man is a slave. "
Yeah sure! That sentence alone proves that your ideology is far from reality.
Or are you going to say that only those willing to die for their freedom deserve it?
But then, what about the "value of life"?
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens Let's TEST your premise! I challenge you to go against your 'natural' conditions of feeding yourself food and water. Rand would say you must exercise the mind properly (rationality virtue) and productivity virtue and selfishness (seeking your RATIONAL self interest) virtue, but you say this is only in the mind. So let's test it !
In fact, there's faster way, put a plastic bag over your head. Yes: it is IRRATIONAL but you are arguing there is no rational virtue, so it is oK. Okay?
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz "Rand would say you must exercise the mind properly "
I don´t care what anybody says, I check if statements are accurate and realistic.
Your example of water and stick doesn´t really relate to "objectivism" as much as you think, it only highlights the ways we deal with infos: extrapolation, induction and deduction. And reason and logic are no exclusive features of "objectivism", but part of science and philosophy since the beginning.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
@TheHomoludens You said "I don't care what anybody says...I check if statements are accurate...". If this is true THEN well done! You are exercising SELFISHNESS (you are seeking your rational SELF interest) and exercising RATIONALITY. Both Objective virtues! You are choosing to do this: i..e exercising an "act' (virtues).
My example relates to Objectivism because Rand used it! Court system is feature of Statism [Nazism, Communism] and democracy. It doesN't therefore make Nazism right. Get it ?
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Comment removed
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Comment removed
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHomoLuden Note 2 (continuing from note 1 below). The stick illusion analogy relates to Objectivism because: to prove and validate Objectivsm requires the method of reason and logic (and to show all other ways are wrong). Reason belongs to Epistemology, the second main brain of philosophy. Existence is validated by consciousness in metaphysics. These are the "roots", from which we get the fruits like "Objective ethics". She can't, I can't, you can't "make it up even"!That's why its Objective
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHomoludens This is note 2 (continued from below). This is also Experiment 2 or 3 to "test" your premise, there are no objective ethics. ou harm another or try to take their property, they will beat u &/or the police will incarcerate you. If u get away, because morality is Objective: all will attempt to find u spending time, effort & money. I want to come and take your woman, your property - let's make a public contract ? If you refuse, then you value your property and morality.Q.E.D.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz "Objective=interaction of mind with existence."
Haha, how could the "mind" interact? Only from a position of non-existence would there be an interaction with existence...
"Subjective=mind only" Are feelings part of the mind or the body?
"objective=out there only [Plato]"
Without subjects there is only a lot of indistinct matter.
TheHomoludens 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens. Your question: how does the mind interact with existence? Let's say you dip a straight stick into visible water (e.g. beaker). The sticks 'appears' to be bent in the water. Your mind is interaction with existence to create a "perception of reality". This is not enough: you must then use the method of reason and logic to determine if the stick is bent or not. Further you must use this method to determine why it appears to bend. We know now it is because light travels slower in H20
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens Note 2 (continued from note 1 below): You have confused subjective with objective with "O"objective. Subjective is the way the agent/you perceive reality (e.g. straight stick appears to bend in water). objectively you can determine it does not bend. Subjectively you may think that your perception is FLAWED. It is NOT in fact flawed! Ayn Rand identified this. "O"bjectively:using the method of reason: Rand determined your perception if fine but not enough,light travels slower in H20
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@TheHomoludens Note 3 (continued from below): So "O"bjectively you must use deliberately exercise the virtue of rationality (ethics) to determine "facts of existence". Your mind interacts with existence to reach conclusions. It reaches valid conclusion if reason is proactively used.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@britishbrainz Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Still, I agree with the video and disagree with your logic.
And I still consider the mind to be a part of existence , not seperate.
TheHomoludens 1 month ago
Note 2: You have confused "o"objective with "O'bjective (Ayn Rand). You have Not properly read and/or grasped "O"bjectivism. "O"bjective= interaction of the mind WITH existence. "Subjective"=pertains to the agent's mind only. "o"bjective= pertains to (shadows of) existence only [e.g. Plato]. 3 different concepts here.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eopyk Objective does not mean exists without the mind. That would contradict the objective existence of minds as minds certainly do exist and cannot exist without themselves. Objective means truth without necessity of qualification, and while I understand this to be a contradiction in and of itself, it is one of the logical conundrums which exist that cannot be avoided in philosophy.
killerinthenameof86 2 months ago
@killerinthenameof86 Nope. Subjective means first person knwolage what is bound to the I.
My ethics, belives, morality, philosophy, values. Are all subjective. There is no meaning to life outside what we form as such there is no moreality outside of our mind.
The universe is cold and indiffrent.
God is dead and so is Ayn Rand.
Eopyk 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eopyk Values are subjective-CORRECT. Virtues are Objective. Man must exercise Virtues to gain and/or keep values. Values are tangible or intangible [e.g. water, pee, bathroom,iPad2, beautiful spouse desires etc.] To be Objective: virtues must apply to a lone man on a desert island. A lone man MUST exercise virtues to sustain life and pursue happiness: be rational, productive, etc. to live, to go pee/poo, shelter etc. Ayn Rand IS dead and identified major virtues: leading to Objective ethics.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eopyk "IS' is a concept in metaphysics. "Ought' is a concept in Epistemology. It is my belief that Hume et. al. believe ought is a concept in metaphysics and/or "is" is a concept in epistemology. Hume et. al. are wrong and I can prove it: that is the main point, not my opinion but evidence. Ought suggests "choice", man must use his mind properly using reason and logic to reach valid conclusion.
britishbrainz 2 months ago
Each particular value is, how you say, necessarily particular to the subject, but not the principles that allow you to obtain your values. These principles, in Ayn Rand's opinion, are independence, pride, justice, productivity, integrity and honesty.
MCTMD1 2 months ago
The ifs are what bridge the gap. If you wish to be happy, then you must... And there are objective principles that can guide a person towards their rational self-interest. Everyone, if they wish to be happy must have certain virtues that are necessary because of the structure of our brains and the nature of reason.
MCTMD1 2 months ago
@MCTMD1 Who says self intrest is rational ? That is value and opinion from my view self intrest is often emotional and seldom rational.
It is still bound to your mind objective outside of your mind. Values and morals do not exist without existence of a experiencer.
Eopyk 2 months ago