Pwning Objectivism: Appeal to progress

[StudentOfObjectivism]

'Appeal to progress' = referencing the obvious fact that the maintenance of an individual's life requires the achievement of values. Achieving those values more efficiently is the essence of growth - which the lecturer in that silly video you mentioned asserts to be bad because growth (by the nature of exponential functions) is unsustainable and therefore bad.

[dakshinamurti]

@StudentOfObjectivism Do you believe unsustainability to be good? If so, how/why is it good?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@dakshinamurti I think 'sustainability' and 'unsustainability' are anti-concepts. I won't explain why. Treat it as an assertion if you like. I don't think there is any purpose in explaining things to you.

[dakshinamurti]

@StudentOfObjectivism I shall treat it as a copout. I can't imagine why you would take time to comment/criticicize a video that you had no intention to debate and if you were not open to answering questions about your objections. If there is "no purpose in explaining things to me" then you probably should've kept the original remark to yourself. Don't mean to be beligerent. It's just that your actions were incongruent.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@dakshinamurti The purpose of my comment was to highlight the superficiality of your claim that Objectivists are committing some kind of 'Appeal to Progress' - that what Objectivists are really appealing to is the requirements of man's life. The purpose was not to get dragged into a debate about whatever anti-concepts you want to conjure out of thin air; nor indeed to debate anything with you.

[dakshinamurti]

@StudentOfObjectivism Venus project proponents talk constantly about the "objective requirements of man's life" You may conjure whatever criticism you want against the venus project, but keep it real... they are constantly talking about scientific objective assessment of human needs and what they say is that they are aiming for sustainable ways to achieve them. You reject things as anticoncepts without any debate, commiting intellectual evasion which is the cardinal sin of your religion.

[dakshinamurti]

I could provide definitions for sustainability, with clear real world examples, but you prefer to label words that represent reallllllll inconveniances to your philosophy as floating abstractions... commiting intellectual evasion, the cardinal sin of your religion. Dude, keep on living in lala land, sucking on Rand's balls. C ya.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@dakshinamurti The fact that you regard Objectivism as a religion is why I will not debate with you.

[rebelq1]

If you mean self interest as in what benefits you only, then that's a jerkish thing!

Selfishness means caring for yourself only not what you're interested in doing, if it includes helping others too.

And now, to the facts! Because humans are social beings, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others, and if you can then do try to help those in need. I think that we can all agree on that, can't we?

[dakshinamurti]

@rebelq I certainly can. I see altruism as a modality of egoism, and so I believe that egoism versus altruism to be a false dichotomy. I don't even believe rand's definition of altruism is something more than a floating abstraction. hehe

[rebelq1]

@dakshinamurti

No unnecessary and unjust physical or psychological harm.



[TGLymantaiste]

So what are the problems that you are talking about. Capitalism is the engine of progress and is the only way to solve the "environmental problems"I think those are all valid questions. No he doesn't assume it is not possible he's pointing out that it will take more than a pipe dream to make it happen.

Your artificially accelerated drivel made no sense at all and no points and I want my 6 min. back

[dakshinamurti]

@TGLymantaiste lol ridiculous conclusion and unreasonable request.

[Soupflakez]

You're describing an 'Argument from Intimidation' tactic if the supposed "Objectivists" are simply stating that any arguments to the contrary are anti-progress. Surprisingly enough, you've identified a logical fallacy that Rand discovered first, coined, and explained. Self-proclaimed Youtube Objectivists cannot properly (or formally) be spokesmen for all people who decide to adhere to that specific philosophy.

[Aliothemage]

Also, you asked how "greed" can be used as a moral basis for a civilization. It is pretty easy to do so when greed is a universal and strong impulse in all humans and can easily be used to encourage productive and peaceful cooperation with the rest of humanity. This is exactly what capitalism does. It does not SET greed as the exemplary motivation, it ACKNOWLEDGES that it is the universal motive of humanity and uses that motivation to benefit all of man kind.

[dakshinamurti]

@Aliothemage To understand greed to be universal, you must have a pretty twisted or particular meaning of greedy, so as to include people like jacques fresco, anarcho-primitivists, members of tribes, and all sorts of collectivist oriented people.

[Aliothemage]

Greed is a necessary part of human nature. It is what keeps us alive and competing for the evolutionary tug of war against everyone else. Even supposedly collectivist people are greedy. Do you think that Native Americans didn't fight wars with other tribes in their greed for dominance or better territory? Of coarse they did. But in capitalism greed is harassed in a peaceful manner so instead of fighting it is channeled into production and invention.

[dakshinamurti]

@Aliothemage Everything is necessary according to determinism. That's irrelevant. You are conflating greed with some sort of life-preservation force/tendency/impulse. See I told ya you'd have to be using some peculiar sense of greed. That is not the greed I accept as Greed, with is denial of other people's needs, meaning, your selfish desires (like any desire selfish in an egoist sense) do not fulfill other people's desires. See, you can be egoist and altruist at the same time. But greed, nah.

[Aliothemage]

"you can be egoist and altruist at the same time. But greed, nah."

Then you are using a very narrow definition of the term greed and amounts to the irrational desire seeking that Rand warns us against.

[Nades129]

@Aliothemage Here is what you, or Ayn Rand, know about human nature: 0. Greed is far from a necessary as a part of human nature. If you look at studies in psychology(especially in children and human universals) you will find that universal concepts (Donald E Brown) like justice, equality, freedom, and reciprocity exists . But of course there are negative concepts but those negative concepts doesn't even attribute an ounce to Rand's argument for greed.

[Aliothemage]

@Nades129

You can deny it all you like Nades, but any reasonable person is going to agree that greed can be found in all people some of the time and in part of any society at all times. The fact of the matter is that this "greed" isn't a wholly bad thing. It is only bad when it is followed irrationally. Wanting to provide better for your children then other children is greedy, but it is not irrational, and is not negative. Rand just wants us to recognize that reason is what is important.

[Nades129]

@Aliothemage

I have not denied greed as a part of human nature. What I disagree was the premise that greed is necessary as a part of human nature. Rationality in actions can exist independent of greed. But justifying greed is nothing more than an excuse for people.

If you study psyche101 uwill know that greed has only a micropart in the human construct. Attributing greed and rationality with an over exaggerated claim by Rand that works on human is in itself irrational act to justify greed.

[Aliothemage]

@Nades129

Self interest, IS rational. Only I know what my inner most goals, values, skills, abilities, ect are and therefore it is only I who can best utilize my kills to reach my goals. A rational society is one of individuals looking out for their own self interest. it is the most efficient and sensible way for each of us to accomplish our goals. This could be seen as being greedy, but it is perfectly rational.

[Nades129]

@Aliothemage Read her books, it was ok. However, declaring that you know what your most inner goals, values, and skills etc are shows a lack of understanding in the human psyche. You do know that for most of your beliefs r not yours. They come from the collective of the past. And these goals you speak of, I doubt they are truly yours. Most of your present goals I assume are suxess, wealth or something of the like. They are not yours to begin with. Some of them come from ancestry(gene)&history.

[Aliothemage]

@Nades129

So no one really has any actual SELF we are just mindless reflections of our experiences and chemical makeup? Congratulations you have just made life meaningless for yourself.

I, on the other-hand, will continue to believe that we can rationally discover our own personal goals and values in life with simple reasoning.

[Nades129]

@Aliothemage

Wow, that is one of the saddest things I hear commonly uttered in life. It would have been better if the reasoning was laid out instead of the claim that you can reason for meaning.

As for your connection between meaninglessness and the self, I have no idea what reasoning made you conclude such. It's like saying the earth isn't the center of the Universe, therefore meaning doesn't exist.

I recommend you think things thoroughly before acting on rash judgments.

[Aliothemage]

I think FREE WILL is a pre-requisite for life to have any meaning. The location of earth has nothing to do with anything, but free will is clearly related to life having meaning. As you believe we are just pre-programmed by genetics and experiences you must not believe in free will. Therefore, if you are right, life must be meaningless.

Connecting free will to life having meaning is much more sensible then the location of earth.

[Nades129]

@Aliothemage

Oh boy, I hope you don't mean religious free-will; I wouldn't bet my money on that. Studies in genetics(Alzheimers, language, down syndrome, and psych temperaments) are starting to show that a lot of the human psyche are nature.

But I'm sure even within that pre-programmed concept, that I think we both are currently thinking, your idea or concept of free-will might still exist. It certainly looks like free-will. But I suggest you call it free-choice rather than free-to-will.

[Nades129]

@Nades129 Because calling it free-will does a great disservice to those who suffer from brain disease that really are pre-programmed in their genes(ticking time bomb). Persons who have down syndrome can't be brought up the same way as the average persons do because their development is quite different.

As for your axiom of free-will as a prerequisite to meaning I still have no idea where you got that idea from.

[Aliothemage]

If I meant "religious" free-will (whatever that is) I would have said that. And just because SOME people whose brain doesn't function normally don't truly have free will doesn't mean the rest of us don't. And free-will is an obvious prerequisite for a meaning for life because if no one has free will then we are nothing more then overly complicated chain reactions, not beings that create meaning for ourselves. In such a world none of your thoughts, ideas or emotions would even be real.

[Aliothemage]

@Nades129

Rand never tried to justify negative actions motivated by greed. In her masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, many of her most loathsome characters were greedy, but in irrational ways that sought to sacrifice others instead of simply being productive themselves. It is not greed and self interest that is bad, but irrationality and sacrifice.

[Aliothemage]

Also, you accuse objectivists of using "low tactics" and "psychological bull sh** " and yet in this very same video you end up accusing ALL them of being "defeatists" and "greedy".

[dakshinamurti]

@Aliothemage Actually I accuse people who say the things I aid were being said of being defeatists and greedy. If you think that is all objectivists, I won't argue. I explained in what meaning these people are defeatists, and about being greedy, it should make an objectivist quite proud being called such, as becomes apparent by your posts.

[Aliothemage]

Well, you did say "this is what we can expect from objectivists". Also, it is sort of difficult to notice details in your video anyways since for some reason you have sped it up. Why did you do that? Aside from our differences in philosophical outlook I can't understand why you would purposefully make your video hard to hear and rather annoying to listen to.

As far as being proud of our greed, it is more that we are proud to be honest with ourselves and each other.

[dakshinamurti]

@Aliothemage I sped it up so it would fit into the available time. I did not want to make a 2 part video, because by my experience, people will not watch both parts, and almost always watch the second part first.

Hitler was honest. Honest on its own is not a desirable trait. One can be filth an mean as a snake and be perfectly honest about that.

[Aliothemage]

It is not that we will find more coal or oil or gas, it is that humans are awesome at creating resources from trash. Oil used to be considered a waste product until capitalist found a use for it. We also created plastics, synthetic rubbers, and we've figured out ways to recycle our resources and increase their efficiency. People have predicted that we would run out of resources for hundreds of years but they have always been proven wrong because the market avoids pitfalls with innovation.

[Zerofire18]

Objectivists are driven by rational self interest not greed. To be asked to be selfless and care for everyone is not only immoral but impossible. You should understand Objectivism before you bash it otherwise you are only bashing an illusion of what you think objectivism is, and that is lame and a waste of time.

[dakshinamurti]

Dude, you're preaching the gospel to the pope here. I didn't read about objectivism last week. It's a life-long study. I am 28, and I was first introduced to Ayn Rand just before I turned 20. Practically 10 years. Everything you said, I already know. Rational self-interest is impossible because of the axiom of psychological egoism. If it's a normative thing (like ethics) it's impossible, because you will only do what you desire the most at any given time, and your decisions are alien determined.

[dakshinamurti]

This means that metaphysical libertarianism is false, until proven true (aka, until determinism has been proven false). If anything you do, you couldn't have done otherwise (like determinism says), and if morality implied that "an Ought implies a Can", then ethics is an illusion, because you can only do one thing, determined by circumstances outside of your control, and controlled by your desires, also out of your control.

[rebelq1]

@Zerofire18

What do you mean by rational self-interest? What benefits you only, what gives you pleasure?

[Zerofire18]

@rebelq1 By rational self-interest I mean you can do anything you like that benefits you as long as you do not harm or impose on the individual rights of others.

[rebelq1]

@Zerofire18

No concern for those in need?

[dakshinamurti]

What part of "you ignored the first over 3 minutes of my case" didn't you get?

[dakshinamurti]

And what part of "you said nothing about the gist of the video" didn't you get? Because you say nothing that addresses my main objection to your criticism, namely, that you comment on a video out of a 6 seconds irrelevant point, while ignoring over 6 minutes of non poisoning the well material. I'm sorry, but I will only accept your criticism when I hear something ABOUT the messages of the video.

[Merryjest]

"Forget what I said"

You know very well that what is said out loud cannot be magically forgotten. The well's already poisoned, all you do afterward is try to pretend as if you didn't. It's a cheap tactic that sensationalist lawyers use in courtroom circus tactics. If you want to be taken seriously, stop resorting to such 'low frames of mind.'

[dakshinamurti]

I do not believe you are being neutral and objective in your evaluation of the video clip.

The video is 6:30 minutes long. It is well presented and argued for. Yet, your entire comment, the sole contribution you give to the readers of this comment section, has to do with 6 seconds of the video, namely, from 3:09 to 3:15. Judging a 6:30 minutes video because of 6 seconds of irrelevancy (and those 6 seconds should be irrelevant to anybody as they are merely a blurb of my opinion) is not fair,

[dakshinamurti]

and most of all, when there had been over 3 minutes of content, to which you do not refer, and over 3 minutes of comments after, that you also do not refer to.

This is highly indicative that you didn't even want to appear fair when commenting. It shows us what you tookaway from the video. The problems of unsustainability and the evasion commited by objectivists towards it, as well as the REAL poisoning the well that they are doing of the Venus Project (not to mention strawmaning,

[dakshinamurti]

by putting intentions on Fresco that he does not have) were all irrelevant to you, but the only aspect that prompted you to make this comment was the only irrelevant part of the video (a ultrabrief sidenote of highly subjective content that does not replace what is coming next unedited, so it does not replace the viewer's own judgement).

I hope you realize this and start to address video's real concerns instead of fait-divers.

[Merryjest]

I am being pretty neutral. In a court testimony, your poisoning of the well would have caused the rest of your argument or testimony to be struck from the record--- but by that point you would have already planted your intentions at the very beginning. So it really is irrelevant what you say after that, since you have already established your agenda from the very beginning.

[mikepunkasswest]

Brilliant post my man. I've spent the last few nights trying to introduce the concept of a Resource Based Economy to Objectivists on a New Zealand Objectivist site. Wow, it's hard going, they're super set in their ways alright. I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand, but much moreso of Jacque Fresco as his ideas are certainly more relevant nowadays. Tell them to use REASON to assess the Venus Project. Most of them are too lazy to research it for themselves. A real objectivist would utilise reason & b pro RBE

[FreakishDonQuixote]

Objectivism is kind of a easy target

[DotPaulish]

I think you forgot to link to Arron.

[dakshinamurti]

Done :)

[Transitiving]

Social engineering or planning scares me even if its done by men that are totally good at hart. I would rather be poor than a slave. It is true that some objectivist see liberty as only a means to wealth or technology which would imply that if people chose to be poor then they must be compelled to work. Which Im sure isnt much different than the communist at the venus project.

[Orygyn]

There wasn't a letter you said that I disagreed with in this entire video. If anyone's anti-progress, it's the objectivists opposed to Project Venus.

[XOmniverse]

I think the philosophy driving Project Venus, which is that productive effort is inherently a burden that drains life, is corrupt. At least, this is the impression I got some an advocate that I spoke with.

I also don't think we need anything but economic freedom in order for the availability of basic needs, like food, water, and shelter, to continue to grow. People naturally seek to maximize profit from the resources they have access to.

[CousinoMacul]

Is that documentary online? Is there a link?

[dakshinamurti]

Sure it is :) see the video I did before this one, and you'll find the direct torrent link on the description box.

[yeahwotevaman]

I'm loving your videos on Objectivism. I agree that many (not all) Objectivists seem to have this bad attitude. Maybe it comes from the imperitive the have to crudely moralise, so disagreement with them is 'evil' and those that propose ideas that run contrary to their political agenda must have malicious motives.

[dakshinamurti]

Thanks for your encouragement :)