I know I can read the title of this clip, but after that it's a dark with faint stars to another dimension, so that's what is real to me and that's my truth so it must be real and I can't be an objectivist like I thought I was.
givvvveeee morrrrrrre The argument about the male praying mantis is also flawed. This behavior is debated in the scientific community. Moreover, black widow spiders demonstrate similar behaviors. Recent research on black widows suggests that the males attempt to avoid mating with females that appear to be hungry and lacking food. The male black widow, given the choice, will usually to chose to mate with a well fed female, minimizing the chances of cannibalism. Just Great
in short to my serious critique of your lesson here is that being objective and adopting ayn rands philosophy is not synonymous, if it were then she would be synonymous with Plato. objectivty is an epistemology not a philosophy. even the brightest man will be wrong from time to time, this includes Einstein, Aristotle, Heidegger, or Rand. The point is simply this being objective means acknowledging the universe is bigger then just your point of view
as a person whom has gone through a troubled child hood of psychiatry and medication many years ago this I can tell you is a lie about Mr. Ellis a person who seeks the opinion of others is not an individual but a relativist. relativity is based on subjectivity because you only know one perspective or a few in this case the world of doctors you are "subject" to. this is not an objectivist reality
in regards to tara smith I do not know her but based on your statement here I will say this as an objectivist, I agree that she is wrong. because obviously children in there innocence are not amoral but assume good this is based on trust, and at what point is that broken? this is where we define the loss of innocence. as a child you do not know much of the world you are totally subjective. to a child her parents are the universe they are god. at some point you must chose your own identity
here in ethics you speak about your "personal" experience, doesn't that make your point of view subjective? are you certain you have ALL the facts? Animals do exist to survive as they know it, not to survive for themselves but for there genetic lineage. and through that process we evolve through strength. this is a natural law, but we have free will so we can judge who we want to live and how they live, this is where we must be moral. without free will this conversation would not exist
Aristotle suggested the potential of things. what came first the chicken or the egg? it would be the egg, the potential is the chicken, it could easily become breakfast, perhaps its evolutionary time has come and it becomes something not chicken but "like" chicken, but this is not free will, but determination to survive. but humans are different, you and i are made of the same "stuff" (matter) and yet I am not you in anyway. other then we have free will. there is an assumption of objectivism
our sense can deceive us, if our entire knowledge of the known world was dampened by external sources or internal logic then we approach fantasy or subjectivity. when we begin to look beyond our selves and compare our experiences with other experiences and other people, we expand our view. this is key to objectivity (see descartes) in Free will is another concept that you either believe you have or you dont. any action based on reason is a product of free will. I should sleep but I choose not
ok in 1.1 here about existence, the loop theory is an axiom but not a truth, the point of being objective is changing your perception to test this axiom. the looping logic is the cop-out the ability to deny existence is based on assumptions about its axiom such as I can say UFOs dont exist. or I can say aliens dont exist, they are not synonymous for a ufo can be a plane but no one can prove that ufos are alien. experience is based on your subjective analysis, whether it is reality or not ...
In Ethics, I think you take the specific instead of the general. You say animals exist to reproduce, not survive, but isn't reproduction a means to survival by allowing species to adapt to its environment through evolution?
A) "Existence Exists" means that even if you deny reality, the world keeps turning round. You can say the sky is purple, but it WILL still be blue.
B) Man acts by his nature, which is to survive, Free will is a tool of survival. All living things follow their nature, but man can deny his nature in the pursuit of his life or happiness.
I see there are some errors in Objectivism. But is there anything wrong with the idea that you work for YOUR happiness and not everyone else's?
Your analysis of Darwin is wrong. I am a biologist. To say that animals exist to reproduce is not wholly correct. Animals must survive to reproduce, and then, if necessary, survive to raise their offspring. It is this necessity for survival in order to have and raise offspring that was the backbone of Darwin's theory. Species adapt in order to survive. Darwin's theory is not contingent on reproduction, but the survival needed to reproduce.
The argument about the male praying mantis is also flawed. This behavior is debated in the scientific community. Moreover, black widow spiders demonstrate similar behaviors. Recent research on black widows suggests that the males attempt to avoid mating with females that appear to be hungry and lacking food. The male black widow, given the choice, will usually to chose to mate with a well fed female, minimizing the chances of cannibalism.
*The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?
God damn you fucks talk so much shit. What a waste of fucking time. I guess that's bc that's all you have is your talk. Philosophers: Useless dweebs in real life, in most cases totally mental.
@fab006 Well, maybe if one started with the question of what existence means beyond the circular statement that it exists one could lay the foundation of a reasonable discussion.
I think that the initial axiom, while badly phrased (perhaps it might have better been phrased simply as "Something exists") is nevertheless, like the logical absolutes, not capable of being refuted -- since a "refutation" and an entity capable of refuting are both existent things. Even if "Experience" or the "I am" that only consists of thinking (of Cartesian fame) is all that is -- it's still an existent thing.
@prodprod If Rand had even acknowledged these questions and cared enough about defining existence without switching back and forth between them, I wouldn't raise the problem now. :-)
Does existence mean existence-as-a-thing or existence-as-a-process? What is the fundamental nature of such existence? That's what I mean when I say that she did a disservice to the questions of metaphysics when she boiled it all down to existence exists, which means nothing.
@koenichfuerst Well, I'm certainly not in the business of defending Rand or, heaven knows, Objectivism. But I think one might make a case, if one defined it sensibly, for the proposition, "Existence is fundamental."
Certainly, that says nothing about the nature or content of existence -- do we mean mere process, or attribute, or potential, or conceptual state or logical absolute? Who knows? But surely if any of these "things" are in any sense present *existence" cannot be absent.
@prodprod It's mostly the complete lack of nuance that I find wrong with Rand's approach to metaphysics, which is basically a denial of all the basic questions that arise there. That "something is there in some sense" is much more defendable than the Cartesian "I am because I think". And "something is there in some sense" doesn't really give you much in terms of a usable basis, so even if that was granted as undeniable, where do you go from there without a truckload of hidden assumptions?
@koenichfuerst Personally, I've always found much of Decartes' conclusions to be highly questionable -- even the "I" in I think, therefore I am" begs a tremendous number of questions if one is really interested in heading down that reductionist path. But to what purpose? Do you really need to know that that truck barreling toward you is really, *really* real, as opposed to something the existence of which is somewhat less completely justified before jumping out of its path?
(cont'd) (2) In any case, even granting that existence is fundamental, that, in itself, tells us essentially nothing about the particular nature of existence.
Personally, I think objectivism falls down because it starts off presenting itself as being purely descriptive - this is how the universe is, and then suddenly segues into a *prescriptive* mode - this is how people *ought* to behave.
But if it is descriptive in character, it should describe how people *do* behave, not how they should.
@prodprod Sure, for all practical purposes, wondering whether the tiger is real will get you eaten. I suppose that's why we rather get out of the way before pondering deep philosophy. The real philosophers were all eaten before they could ever reproduce. :-)
These practical concerns still leave the deep questions open I think. They dont invalidate the questions themselves. In moving from descriptive to prescriptive there are a lot of gaps. I like the principle-based approach to morality though.
It is plain lunacy to believe that you can experience anything without it existing or better without a person to experience existing.i call it common sense and i think thats all thats needed to disprove all your arguments.
@ajsomred Well, what you call common sense here is simply an inbuilt limitation of the English language in which you formulate your thoughts and do not question. The cartesian idea of "I think, therefore I am." only makes sense in certain languages where it is necessary to have a subject in every sentence. There is no real "it" in "It is raining". "It" is not short for the sky or the clouds, nobody says the sky is raining or the clouds are raining.
@koenichfuerst In languages like Japanese it is possible to say a grammatically correct sentence without a subject, so something like "Raining" is a well-formed sentence. This makes it common sense in Japanese that raining can happen without some imaginary construct necessitated by nothing but grammar that "does the raining". So Zen Buddhists essentially do the same doubt-exercise Descartes did and being Japanese arrive at the position that there is no "I" needed for the existence of "thinking".
@koenichfuerst Which is just one example of how the language you speak determines what you can think (easily) and how it leads you to philosophical conclusions based on nothing but arbitrary grammar rules. Using "exists" as a verb to show what existence "does" is similarly funny because it's the same error once again.
In response to your 1:1 Existence Exists, Your desire to believe that you personally, and individually, may be in another existence than you are in now, in THIS current conscious state, (unless irrefutable evidence can be presented) is an excuse to not live with and by your virtues and values; therefore devaluing yourself and your reality... as it exists now. When you look down, do you see your human body as you perceive it through your eyes? Do you do this daily? Then you exist now. Live.
@spicymchaggis229 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I first learned about spindle cells from Dr. Matha Stroud in her book, "The Sociopath Next Door." She described them as connecting between the amydale (the most primal part of the brain) to the frontal cortex (the most advanced part of the brain). Interestingly, all sociopaths are egoists, so I am disinclined to glorify egoism. By the way have you read Michael Prescotts article regarding Ayn Rand? I thought it was rather elightening.
@shamgar001 If "the reason we live in groups is for the benefit of the individual," then why do you have spindle cells between your pre-frontal cortex and your amygdale? Human beings are biologically predisposed for cooperative behavior. All of this philosiphising about egoism is B.S., sophistry.
@MrSteveSpears That area of the brain is more primal than the frontal lobe. The more evolved apes have it as well. We are pre-disposed for cooperative behavior yes, this is an undeniable fact and is supported by the evidence of the most basic humans forming communities, ie. hunter-gatherer societies. What matters is that logical abstraction and deduction comes after, and is more "human" than this cooperative behavior. If logic leads to egoism, then the primal instinct shouldn't be glorified.
I agree with timbopper in that existence exists and other forms of circular reasoning in Objectivism are used far too loosely as justifications. But in 1.1, if you admit that "existence exists" is tautological, how can you then assert existence can be denied? This falls to the law of non-contradiction (Objectivists use this alot but not merely in dialectics). That's like saying ice is not frozen water isn't it?
@TheSuigeneris1986 how do you form the concept "existence?" It is derived from abstraction of experiences. Objectivism requires this be a synthetic proposition. But in your position of denying these axioms the following is the case: It, as well as experience requiring experience of something, are both 'analytic' propositions and are guaranteed truth at this axiomatic level. If we are in fact in the matrix, then the noun existence, and the verb exist, just relate to our "matrix reality."
Not very well written, but the main fallacy of "Objectivism," that of circular reasoning, is brought forth. Most of us who formally studied philosophy have never regarded Ayn Rand's thoughts as forming a consistent, coherent, or logical system. But it is a testament to our society that everyone's ideas can be heard and considered.
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
'You can't reproduce as an animal if you aren't alive.'
One can't be alive without reproduction.
I'm not sure why Rand seemed to downplay reproduction. Maybe her view was more phenomenological in the sense that by the time she found herself, she already was already here and unconcerned about her origin. Also, she didn't seem especially sentimental towards family, so maybe this played into the fact that she more or less ignored the thing which lead to her existence existing.
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, " . . .and that's what I reject"?
@notbestfriends I dont see where the author of this video mentions the use of force (either to justify or deny); an opposition to freedom or individual rights and self-responsibility; a support of self-indulgence or a live-and-let-live society; or even a treatment of the individual as a means. In fact, any discussion about the collectivist-individualist dichotomy was left out.
It was only a critique to some of the basics of Randian metaphysics and ethics, not what (apparently) derives from them
In Virtue Of Selfishness she states that he foundation of ethics is the happiness and survival of the individual. This premise is incomplete, because individuals almost never survive as individuals. Homo sapiens have always survived in groups. Even in modern cities there is undeniable evidence of our interconnectedness. We can argue about where to draw the line between the individual and society, but individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy. They are never mutually exclusive.
@MrSteveSpears Yes, individuals best survive in groups, but the reason we live in groups is for the benefit of the individual. I live in a city so that other people can supply me with food while I do more productive things; that doesn't mean I'm here for the common good. Society is simply a means to the end of individual success.
Your argument in 2 Ethics about Darwin does not make sense. It is true that animals exist to survive, and how do you think that those animals perpetuate their existence? By reproduction.
First, your experience is included in "existence exists." So you are asking "is there experience apart from my experience..." "Existence exists" just states that there is something rather than nothing which cannot be denied. To give the Matrix idea plausibility introduces the ARBITRARY. Do you think that the arbitrary (that which has no evidence) should be considered?
reality is meaningless, however. this is the one thing it cannot do for you. you must do this yourself, and you do it by relating to it instead of denying it. thus, only you can answer camus' question he stole from hamlet: "to be or not to be?" only when you feel powerless, that your life isn't yours, and are filled with dread do you turn to death. thus, we have a combination of objectivism and nietzsche's will to power. a sense of meaning and purpose is that power. "it is purpose that binds us"
no memory, you can't manipulate past images to create new paintings. no word retention - reading is impossible. "the source", the reality that you are part of (my objective reality feeds my subjective experience of it - my "hardware" is different than yours) gave you the things you manipulate. poetry allows you personify everything, giving qualities to things that do not possess them. like "death enslaves us all" gives us the "tyrant" Hades.
this is how we change ourselves...by "reprogramming" our responses. like "I know kung fu." learning calculus is learning a new program. "I did this last time. it didn't work. should i try this?"
btw, your experience is an illusion, but a "faithful" reproduction of events that actually do occur, ones we all share. spend some time in a sensory deprivation chamber and see how much experience you have...you won't have "the source" feeding you your holograms.
btw. 1.1 existence exists. you're reasoning is the abstract i mentioned. truth with no function is...useless entertainment. "there is no truth" probably keeps you tied to paradoxes.
no will is free of determinism. but you can drive a car and only half pay attention to where you are going, or you can notice every nuance of your control. you're free to question your own past, yourself. "fate" is the execution of your choices, and in the off-time, you can question the results.
philosophy, then, as rand might see it, is simply reason as a guide for functioning in the world, achieving objectives, accomplishing dreams, etc. there is reality. the senses are our link to it, and reason is the guide to happiness based on real accomplishments.
the other side of the coin: we can close our eyes, deny reality and life, believing them merely to be transcended, and live in our dreams alone, where we cannot share them with anyone.
poetry is great for self-expression. i am a poet. but poetic devises only obscure philosophy and help detach it from reality. we end up in the dreamland of idealism. everyone is part idealist, in that, in capitalism, they build their own ideal reality by pursuing their dreams. but there's a difference between dreaming and acting. objectivism seeks to manifest those dreams in reality. idealists, as we know them, are wishful thinkers.
the rock itself is more important than the word "rock".
objectivism is more a return to linking reason to the reality that our perspectives are based on - the reality we all share - as opposed to the abstract philosophy albert camus says is not far from religion. many philosophers are lost in the world of plato's shadows, and try to prove a concept with another one, disregarding the reality they originated from. this results in philosophy without end, because every concept must be proven by another.
Are you mentally deficient? I would like to explain to you all your flaws, but there would be little point because you are already set in your beliefs.
I agree with most of what you wrote except for some assumptions that i don't feel are quite right. one being objectivism does not allow one to believe mind over matter....? what do you mean?
@shandcunt I think Ayn Rand has said this explicitly, that consciousness is only for being conscious of reality, not for directly manipulating it. You only do that through actions. This is linked to her dismissal of idealism.
@koenichfuerst Ohhh oaky, then i guess i agree with her, thinking thoughts through meditation or prayer does not affect the outside world, it may affect your internal perception of reality but reality remains the same. only through actually getting up and doing something does reality change with you.
throughout the ages no one has ever proven that meditation or prayer affect the physical world. James Randi has a millions dollars for u if you can prove it works
@koenichfuerst This concerns 2. Ethics. You're focussing too much on Darwinism and the animal kingdom. Yes, humans are animals, yet animals are not always humans, your analogy is not only absurd, it's irrelevant (Correlation between humans and praying mantis?). We are talking Ethics, as result of cognitive process. Furthermore, your summary of the theory of evolution does not contradict the NOTION of life being the >ultimate value<, so what you're saying is that not only you can define the
@koenichfuerst meaning of life as an absolute truth, you're also able to dismiss other NOTIONS through the theory of evolution. Clearly Rand is referring to what should be the ultimate value to a human being. "Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." (Wikipedia) You determine your purpose (Since there is none). The rest you wrote about ethics are result of false premises.
As a person who tends to think of himself as an objectivist but finds some severe problems with some of Ayn Rand's ideas I wonder if you have taken something into account in your refutation of the idea that existence exists. I suggest that the world does exist whether someone is there to perceive it's existence or not. My knowledge of the nature of sound tells me that a tree that falls in a forest does make a sound even if no one is around to hear it.
The "real question" in 1.1, despite being placed in the context of metaphysics, can be answered by epistemology. It begs the question: what objective evidence have you encountered of an existence apart from your experience? Because the only evidence of existence is that of sense perception, i.e., from experience, this arbitrary claim can be related to a positive cognitive context, and thus to reality. In this case, in the form of a falsehood. Review the law of identity.
What nonsense. Are you arguing against existence? Objectivism states that there is one rational reality that we all share. And that is truth. Do rocks fall upwards in your reality? No. How is the existence of one reality contradict free will? Arguing against it is a fallacy. You choose to argue against objectivism don't you? It is my free will to write this reply to your nonsense. The third thing.Ethics.How does ethics apply to animals again? Free willed praying mantis? Please...
I like to think that Objectivism (as well as most other philosophies) are based on conscious denial of a few basic facts and / or logical principles, but I think that's enough justification for their existence. I found quite a few logical problems while reading Atlas Shrugged. I don't entirely agree with Objectivism, if only because I'm very compulsive about glaring logical failures, but I still *like* the philosophy, and I love the book.
@Vanslashington. obviously not if those logical failures are glaring you into your white eyes in such a manner that even the dumbest fcuks understand you're a fraud.
This can easily be deducted from the fact that you're barefaced enough to claim there is a logical failure without even feel obligated to tell us on what subject, much less showing any evidence to support you.
Shut tha fcuk up, dumb fcuk, you're too dishonest to be entitled to an opinion.
@Vocalallusive Lol, do you really need to be that way about my comment?
You say, "obviously not..." but I'm not sure what part of my comment you're referring to.
And do you feel that Objectivism is perfect? There are many examples of imperfections in the philosophy, a few of them in this video. I see no reason to point them out, if we both realize that there ARE flaws.
As for my being "too dishonest to be entitled to an opinion," I disagree but I'll let it slide.
@Vanslashington, no, I don't believe objectivism is perfect. I know nothing can be perfect. Nothing can be both complete and consistent at the same time. My critic was solely about your argumentation manners, or more precisely lack of the same.
Ayn R in early years believed in Nietzche, as all her made up philosphy she changed that theory too, over the course of her years. She never stuck to the same reasoning, she always changed her mind. The only thing constant about her philosphies was Changing Them.
in the more than forty years she lived after writing We the Living, Ayn Rands views about the ability of the individual and the evil of statism never changed. Her philosophy only strengthened into a more complete definition of the role of the government and championing of the rights of the individual and his/her ability to reason as her life went on. Learn 2 history.
Gwad forget the arguments look at the facts. This women is a free thinker, irrespective of belief systems. I don't agree with everything she says but I defend her right say it!!!
@billigvin uh yeah therefore reproduction is the goal and survival is the means. What's your point? Clearly our emotions, feelings, instincts, and moral convictions (our essence) are derived from the goal of successful reproduction, not from a goal of individual survival.
Existence exists;-) That's really funny. mushin is mushin. Cegradun is cegradun.
Well, she should have read descarte: Cogito ergo sum. That': s for shure. But, the tough question is: Does a world exist other than you? Is this external world the same as our experience?
Deriving ethics from the theory of evolution is shear nonsense. This is the is-ought fallacy..Hitler did that.
Objecivism is a philosophy for humans living on earth. In order to understand an entire philosophy it requires a great deal of induction. In an online debate only deduction is applied. Nihilism is the only fruit of this one sided rationalist thought process.
@Bfisher14 "In order to understand [objectivism] it requires a great deal of introduction." No, it doesn't, Nietzsche is a 100 level college course. 'Objectivism' is simply Nietzsche made mind numbingly boring by a talentless, immoral, adulterous author, whom died alone, and miserable.
Fact is that on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics they had completely different ideas. I would imagine that they'd have disagreed substantially on aesthetics also but I don't know what was Nietzsche's view on that subject.
@festdir I had a go at finding that quote and the only source i was able to find was a website called 'opensewer' - which itself gave no reference for her comment. If you can't provide an authoritative reference I can only assume that it is a libelous slander.
@festdir that's the exact same passage as I found on the opensewer website... again it is not referenced. The NY Times provides no source for Ayn Rand saying what it purports her to have said and the excerpt itself is suspiciously short. I incline to the position that the author of the article was so desperate to make a point that he could not back up with facts that he mined half a sentence for a a quote which he presents to the reader completely out of context.
@dannidandannikins "again it is not referenced." Well, gee detective, are you referencing the FUCKING BOOK REVIEW of 'AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE' By Anne C. Heller? I assume Adam Kirsch figured that any blathering retard could figure out the reference (Hint: It's in the book he was reviewing, smart-guy).
Let me know if you need anything else dumbed down for you, I am always glad to help!!
@festdir I'm not going to accept a quote which isn't referenced and the context of which is completely excluded by a reviewer with a declared bias against Ayn Rand, and nor should you.
I tell you what, why don't you try naming a handful of issues on which Rand and Neitzsche hold the same position, since you hold that she just copied everything from him it should be very easy for you to do this, I look forward to seeing whatever you have to say on this subject.
@dannidandannikins "I'm not going to accept a quote which isn't referenced by a reviewer with a declared bias against Ayn Rand"
1) What declared bias?
2) The NY Times AND a biographer of Ayn Rands life vs. 'dannidandannikins' on youtube comments.....Which is more credible? Truly a battle of Giants!!!!
tool.
There is a direct philosophical line leading from Nietzsche to Rand to Anton LeVay (Church of Satan founder) "[Satanism is] just Ann Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added"
In the opening paragraphs of the NY TImes article, Rand and her ideas are referred to as: 'revenge-fantasy', 'vulgar and unbelievable' and 'middling' while Objectivism is labelled 'a kind of sect'.
Heller herself describes Rand as 'the greatest explainer of conservative ideas' (which is a vicious misrepresentation since Rand despised conservatives) and describes Rand as 'a horribly damaged woman'.
Besides, both Heller and the NY times are 'liberals'.
"2) The NY Times AND a biographer of Ayn Rands life vs. 'dannidandannikins' on youtube comments.....Which is more credible? Truly a battle of Giants!!!!"
I'm not interested in arguments from authority. I think it is objectively demonstrable that I do know more about Objectivism than either Heller or the editors of the NY Times, but I don't expect you to take my word for it so it's a complete waste of time to discuss anything in those terms...
You said that all Rand had to say was Neitzsche made dull... I've invited you to give an example of where her ideas are the same as Neitzsche's and all you have done is cite a half sentence quote from hostile reviewers taken with no context whatsoever. If you have an argument then I'd love to hear it, but so far all you have given is arbitrary assertion.
Oh, and I won't even bother to argue about Satanism since it's a completely ridiculous connection.
@dannidandannikins I gave you a quote from Ayn Rand, from a published Ayn Rand biographer.
You gave me your feelings, opinions & A Conspiracy Theory.
Speaking of-- this...."Satanism since it's a completely ridiculous connection" is an OPINION.
Whereas--this....."[Satanism is] just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ritual and ceremony added" is a quote by the founder of the Church of Satanism, Anton LeVay, & a FACT.
I'm sorry that 'facts' & 'reality' is simply too much for you or your 'argument'.
1) you should stop signing your messages with 'tool', unless it is your name.
2) I pointed out the fact that the quote is completely out of context and invited you to show where Nietzsche and Rand are similar, but so far you refuse to even try.
3) Your talking about Satanism is a transparent attempt to change the subject and is completely meaningless - if some crazy lunatic claims to be motivated by Kant or Nietzsche or Jesus you don't blame the philosopher, because the guy is crazy.
4) all of your argumentation so far comes down to arguments from authority - the opposite of arguments from reality! You cite Le Vay's opinion without any philosophical argument, you say Heller and the NY Times must be right because everyone's heard of them but no-one's heard of me...
I look forward to an actual argument but I anticipate being disappointed again, because - let's face it - you don't have the brain power or honesty to put up a real argument.
"completely out of context" Either put it in context, or simply admit that you are a liar or a retard. "Crazy" Anton LeVay is rational (as rational as any admirer of Rand can be) It is one of the few concrete legacies of Rand.
"cite LeVay's opinion" Actually 'LeVay's basis for CoS'.
"actual argument" You mean other than citing an Ayn Rand biographer?
Gosh...if only I had just claimed IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!
You're still signing your comments as 'tool' so I will assume that that is your name.
You're an imbecile. You cited a completely out of context quote and now it's my job to put it in context? Twat.
Anton Le Vay can say whatever he likes but Objectivism is a system of philosophy endorsing RATIONAL selfishness, i.e. neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself... since Satanism endorses sacrificing others to oneself it is clearly not the same...
@festdir Jesus H Fucking Christ, you really are one dumb, anti-thought zombie aren't you.
By 'sacrificing others' I mean that Satanism advocates using other people to your own ends without trading anything in return: it is a philosophy for power-lusters. If you knew anything of Objectivism - which you manifestly don't - then you'd know that this point alone makes Satanism utterly distinct from Objectivism. And then there's the fact that the rituals are obviously a form of whim worship... etc
@dannidandannikins "Satanism advocates using other ppl to your own ends" How so? They do have a list of Beliefs (including "Lack of Aesthetics", sound familiar? as being one of their nine sins), Which one of their professed beliefs, is 'sacrificing others'?
"This point alone makes CoS distinct from Rand" The guy who, ya know, ACTUALLY MADE the Church of Satan, disagrees with you "Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony & ritual added"
But thanks for your fucking 'feelings' on the matter, Nancy.
@festdir Is your name Nancy now? You are a fucking clown.
I tell you what, I'll make a new thing, called the Church of Twatdom and say the following words: 'The Church of Twatdom is just Kantianism with rituals'
Does the fact that I say it actually mean anything? Of course not you dickhead, the only thing that would make it true is if the philosophy was demonstrably the same. But surely you didn't need me to explain that to you, did you?
@festdir I'm not the one evading reality here. See how in my above comment I gave a logical response to your comment and you reply was, not a refutation but a series of personal insults - which is your only means of argumentation. Maybe you find me funny, whatever - couldn't care less. I find you utterly pitiable.
@dannidandannikins "...a series of personal insults-which is your only means of argumentation."......And now lets see your examples of TOTALLY NOT personal insults!
"Fuck me, you are really one dumb cunt" "You are a fucking clown" "you dickhead" "Jesus H. Fucking Christ you really are one dumb anti-thought zombie" "brain dead little twerp"
Irony? Hypocrisy? Idiocy? HILARITY!!
Congratulations, smart guy....you just managed to lose a debate--to YOURSELF!
@festdir Yes Tool, I have insulted you because you deserve it - you can't complain about me insulting you back when you've been insulting me from the very start. It doesn't make me a hypocrite since a) my insults were responses to your insults and b) I was still making legitimate arguments.
@dannidandannikins "I have insulted you b/c you deserve it" And I have insulted you b/c you deserve it.
"you can't complain" I'm not, in fact, I am LOVING it, being able to utterly destroy another 'argument' in only 500 letters is difficult, but you had the good manners to do it yourself. Thanks!
"doesn't make me a hypocrite since [YOU STARTED IT!! WAHHH!!!]" This is the argument a 6 yr old would make.....
I see you are really starting to intellectually challenge yourself!
@festdir This is a waste of time. If someone insults me - as you did from the start - then it is perfectly legitimate for me to insult them back, just as it is legitimate to punch someone who has already attacked you. A response is not equivalent to an initiation... and if a 6yr old said that he would be right. Besides, you still haven't made any actual argument... you aren't even interested in philosophy at all, are you?
@dannidandannikins "then it is perfectly legitimate for me to insult them back"
Yes it is, & I haven't suggested otherwise.
However, I have simply pointed out that for you to whine & cry about "not having a refutation, only personal insults" After saying "dumb cunt" "fucking clown" "Twat" "dumb cunt", makes you....
a) a hypocrite
b) a crybaby
c) a retard.........AND.........
d) a complete fucking tool.
Goddamn...you are both a perfect example of an objectivity, and my FAVORITE POSER EVER!!!
@festdir Still no actual argument festdir... after 15 posts you are still only throwing insults at me. You have had so much opportunity to provide an actual reasoned argument but are clearly not interested, so I'm just going to ignore you now.
"Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony & ritual added"
There is no room for ceremony and ritual to be added onto Objectivism - since it condemns purposeless activity. So just because Le Vay thinks that he understood Objectivism and added some rituals doesn't make it true. Fuck me, you really are one dumb cunt if you can't work that out for yourself.
[cont]When asking for an actual argument I mean can you show a point of Objectivism - say its metaphysics or epistemology maybe - where Neitzsche said the same thing? I don't think you can.
I also think that you are bringing up things like satanism as a pretty transparent camouflage for the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. But hey, prove me wrong Tool.
@dannidandannikins "Completely out of context quote" If it is 'out of context', then explain how. "[Nietzsche] beat me to all my ideas" is called a 'stand alone statement', its context is clear to all but the most willfully ignorant (i.e. 'you').
"Anton LeVay can say whatever" You mean like saying; Satanism is simply "Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added"?
"you don't know what you're talking about" You mean 'Actual quotes' vs. 'ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!'?
Tool, you have persistently refused to venture forth a single philosophical point on which Objectivism and Neitzsche are in agreement; which demonstrates that you're not interested in a philosophical argument, only in shallow quote mining.
We could literally argue back and forth like this forever but you've made it abundantly clear that philosophical arguments are not something that interests you so either say something worth refuting or just piss off, you brain dead little twerp.
@wvguy8258 Fair enough, but it doesn't matter whether its imagined or real if the laws of physics remain consistant. Your decisions should be based on the rationale of the observable, it's actual existence is irrelevant. Logic is more useful than emotion in approaching problems whether they really exist or not. The argument that we don't know for sure that we exist is an obtuse digression.
Logical rules apply to material situations. We can say that one plus one is two, but what that really means is that if I have one of any material object and I another of the same object, then I have two of that object. This video begins by refuting the statement that "existence exists" by confusing this self-evident definitional argument with a fallacy of circular reasoning, then continues with similar examples of distorted logic.
Just finished Atlas Shrugged .... all I can say is WOW! Kind of hoping to find an internet discussion forum based on the subject of the book where I might find the answers to some questions. If you know of such a website please message me.
@TugOwar I would recommend a self-help forum if you are actually taking that objectivist "philosophy" seriously, or I would recommend philosophyforums.comm if you want to discuss real philosophy.
I'll admit it. None of your arguments can be refuted. This is because you have simply chosen to reject any standard of objective truth. However, this also means that none of your claims can be justified either. Metaphysics is contradictory in its nature, because it attempts to argue in favor of a rejection of objective reality using rules derived from object reality.
@Pericles461 Um no those rules are not derived from "objective reality." You cannot derive any rule from mind-independent reality because you have no connection to it through which you can observe those rules. In our own mind-dependent realities (the phenomenal world) we observe that certain rules exist that cannot be broken without undermining our entire conception of this world itself.
one more, writing as watching video, objectivism is rigid and a hard philosophy to accept, this does not make it wrong...climbing K2 is deadly but it was conqured...not all men are equal in ability and prevalent culture dictates antiobjectivist philosophy, rain drops follow the path of least resistance down a sheet of glass...beleiving in an afterlife makes misery more bearable but this does not make it true...hard truths are hard, democratic herd mentalities are a check and do not make the real
@slybuster Life is about belief, not about truth. Because knowledge of anything is extremely hard to come by, and impossible if you want to know anything about the world outside your own experiences. And there is no better or worse way of forming beliefs. But which beliefs we decide to adopt should be based on what will make individual life and society better. Believing in God, and in good and evil, afterlife and justice do this. So it is extremely foolish to say these beliefs are untrue.
important, then ill stop for now, man is the rational animal...i had a problem with her application of darwinian logic vis a vis 'selfish gene' theory, rational implies ability to live for own sake, master life and gain fulfillment beyond reproduction (let alone sex), a life of exploration for its own sake...a recognition of mortality (other animals do not have) fits in and even if mental death is to be overcome (transhumisim) this is not discredited. rand's philosophy is beautiful.
1.1 The weaknesses of Objectivisim are not rooted in the basic axioms of the philosophy...existence exists because it is outside of yourself...the tangible is tangible to others, when you close your eyes the world does not stop...human error exists but this is error regarding interpritation of real data, of a reality that is independant of a human mind.
1.2 Discrediting the senses does not discredit the fact my existance is independant of yours (we exist in the same fundamental reality)
@slybuster i missed an important semicolon in the above 1.1 and misspoke slightly; my own interpritations of reality may be independant of yours but they can never be independant of what actually is...to state otherwise is absurd and is in fact 'begging the question'
Free Will...
a little more tricky to defend but very important...reason in and of itself calls for free will, the power to think and question does not separate one from the flow of events around them but the human mind can questio
@slybuster If we exist in the same reality how is our existence independent of each other? The mind-independent world does not distinguish between things . Only the mind's processing can do this by applying properties to different pieces of matter. So it is in fact that we individual mind-dependent realities that makes us individual. Whether there is a universal source for all our realities we can never know and is not important.
before you can reproduce or do anything else, you have to survive as a prerequisite. If animals' primary function wasn't survival they wouldn't live to reproduce.
Yeah! What moron assumes anything exists. You have to exist in order to deny existence, but I'll humor you. Whether conjured in your mind or actually real the laws of physics still work. If you drop an egg off of a building over and over, you'll experience it breaking everytime. The difference between you and Rand is that she used observation of the facts as a base and you use your imagination. Your ideas can't be supported by examples because they're abstract and not based in reality.
I never ONCE heard Rand compare human beings to animals, in fact, that is largely her argument, that we ARE NOT animals, that we can live outside of instincts. And as far as your argument about depression goes, whilst there might be some people who become largely angry because of what is going on, they are totally missing the point of objectivism, that holds that your highest goal should be the PURSUIT OF YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. Those people missed the entire point. You must give life meaning.
lastly, the point about darwin....you cannot separate survival and reproducing...the latter depends on the former. Rand's point is that if you treat your life as a value, you want the best for it like you would for anything that you value....this means you want to achieve happiness.. producing offspring is definately a way of achieving happiness but the wider point is that we should lead the proper life for man, there is one despite what Satre says...it is not proper for man to live on instinct
for instance, objectivists wouldn't claim that dreams are not real...of course they are, when we see an apple in a dream (a boring dream i grant you) we are aware of something real...the easy way to put it is that we are aware of sense data, and sense data is as real as an apple is.
@Dannycru If you see an apple in a dream, your aware of an image. If you only ate the apples that exist in your dreams, you'd starve to death. The sense data is not as real as the actual apple.
@BelieversinThings It is every bit as real. Whether or not the dream apple gives us any nutritional value is besides the point. You cant separate sense data and the actual apple, the actual apple gives us sense data as much as the dream apple does it's just the former is the result of an actual object before us and the other is a result of a dream, they're both just as real.
@Dannycru It's not beside the point. Real things effect the other real things around them. An object that is only percieved cannot effect it's environment in anyway, even just to displace air, and does not exist in the same sytem as the rest of reality. A philosophy that has no bases in reality is useless. You might as well tell me that saying my house will collapse if I fart is just as valid as saying if I drink cyanide I'll die. Just because you concieved an idea doesn't make it true.
@BelieversinThings What do you mean by objects that are only perceived? Apples we experience when we are awake can only be percieved...all we have are the 5 senses. My point is that you cant say 'real' when talking about being awake and 'not real' when talking about a dream. Dream apples can effect thier enviroment, the fact that i possess an intentional state when thinking of the apple means it has effected my reality. Dreams are a part of the same system as waking states because we can...
@Dannycru A real apple can be more than just percieved. It can be eaten, digested and used to help sustain life. There is no "your" reality. If in your dream I die, but out here in the actual reality we all share and can recognize independently of one another I'm still alive, your reality has obviously not actually occured by any observation but your own; and that would be contradicted when you see that I'm actually still alive in reality.
I take your point that metaphyics asks us questions like, where do our sensory experiences come from but what you seem to be doing is separating our dreams illusions and hallucination from veridical experiences as if they are other worldy. The nature of dreams is very complex but the easy point to note is that being aware of dreams does not mean we are not aware of reality, i don't infact know how it is we dream or the reasons for it but dreams are part of our reality...
here is my personal response to your video: Firstly I think i'm right in saying that objectivists dont comitt a tautology when they talk of existence. It's true that 'existence exists' is a tautology but you are ignoring the point they make that one's reality comes from existence and consciousness working together. To say existence is consciousness is not a tautology, in fact its pretty obvious to anyone that without consciousness there is no reality but this doesnt mean reality is not there
Whereas I do not agree with what you've said in this video, i still think its important that we discuss complex ideas such as these in a calm and mature manner which means no one claiming to be right just because they feel more intelligent than you...don't be put off your philosophical investigations by people putting you down, the whole point of a discussion is that two people who don't know everything are trying to establish a point together and that involves dissagreement
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
Thank you for acknowledging existence in your discussion of it. Now Objectivism has yet another example of an attacker lacking intellectual integrity. Let me ask, do you exist? Did something create you? Did existence, a thing existing and highlighting itself as the axiom does, allow your perceptual faculty a free-ride into intellectual corrosion? Your inherent free will allowed the creation of a pathetic attempt of argument and reasoning on slide 1.2. This entire video proves your antithesis.
Existence doesn't exist? Why, for fucks sake, can you make such a ridiculous remark?? Have you EVER read Darwin and the survival of the fittest? We only exist to fuck? Cool, if we fuck then we survive, we don't have to build houses or make a fire in winter to warm, nor work or hunt for food psss... You, sir, are an ignorant.
I think, therefore, I exist. Thinking, and being aware of your thinking is prove enough for your existence. In order to think, you need to be something (there is no thinking without, at least, an organ or entity that allows you to do so), be it a "brain in a vat" or human being. The question would no rely on WHETHER you are or aren't, but more on WHAT we are.
I know I can read the title of this clip, but after that it's a dark with faint stars to another dimension, so that's what is real to me and that's my truth so it must be real and I can't be an objectivist like I thought I was.
Avidcomp 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
givvvveeee morrrrrrre The argument about the male praying mantis is also flawed. This behavior is debated in the scientific community. Moreover, black widow spiders demonstrate similar behaviors. Recent research on black widows suggests that the males attempt to avoid mating with females that appear to be hungry and lacking food. The male black widow, given the choice, will usually to chose to mate with a well fed female, minimizing the chances of cannibalism. Just Great
TonyHujek 2 months ago
in short to my serious critique of your lesson here is that being objective and adopting ayn rands philosophy is not synonymous, if it were then she would be synonymous with Plato. objectivty is an epistemology not a philosophy. even the brightest man will be wrong from time to time, this includes Einstein, Aristotle, Heidegger, or Rand. The point is simply this being objective means acknowledging the universe is bigger then just your point of view
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
as a person whom has gone through a troubled child hood of psychiatry and medication many years ago this I can tell you is a lie about Mr. Ellis a person who seeks the opinion of others is not an individual but a relativist. relativity is based on subjectivity because you only know one perspective or a few in this case the world of doctors you are "subject" to. this is not an objectivist reality
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
in regards to tara smith I do not know her but based on your statement here I will say this as an objectivist, I agree that she is wrong. because obviously children in there innocence are not amoral but assume good this is based on trust, and at what point is that broken? this is where we define the loss of innocence. as a child you do not know much of the world you are totally subjective. to a child her parents are the universe they are god. at some point you must chose your own identity
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
here in ethics you speak about your "personal" experience, doesn't that make your point of view subjective? are you certain you have ALL the facts? Animals do exist to survive as they know it, not to survive for themselves but for there genetic lineage. and through that process we evolve through strength. this is a natural law, but we have free will so we can judge who we want to live and how they live, this is where we must be moral. without free will this conversation would not exist
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
Aristotle suggested the potential of things. what came first the chicken or the egg? it would be the egg, the potential is the chicken, it could easily become breakfast, perhaps its evolutionary time has come and it becomes something not chicken but "like" chicken, but this is not free will, but determination to survive. but humans are different, you and i are made of the same "stuff" (matter) and yet I am not you in anyway. other then we have free will. there is an assumption of objectivism
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
our sense can deceive us, if our entire knowledge of the known world was dampened by external sources or internal logic then we approach fantasy or subjectivity. when we begin to look beyond our selves and compare our experiences with other experiences and other people, we expand our view. this is key to objectivity (see descartes) in Free will is another concept that you either believe you have or you dont. any action based on reason is a product of free will. I should sleep but I choose not
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
ok in 1.1 here about existence, the loop theory is an axiom but not a truth, the point of being objective is changing your perception to test this axiom. the looping logic is the cop-out the ability to deny existence is based on assumptions about its axiom such as I can say UFOs dont exist. or I can say aliens dont exist, they are not synonymous for a ufo can be a plane but no one can prove that ufos are alien. experience is based on your subjective analysis, whether it is reality or not ...
MrNormlguy 6 months ago
In Ethics, I think you take the specific instead of the general. You say animals exist to reproduce, not survive, but isn't reproduction a means to survival by allowing species to adapt to its environment through evolution?
notadirector 6 months ago
A) "Existence Exists" means that even if you deny reality, the world keeps turning round. You can say the sky is purple, but it WILL still be blue.
B) Man acts by his nature, which is to survive, Free will is a tool of survival. All living things follow their nature, but man can deny his nature in the pursuit of his life or happiness.
I see there are some errors in Objectivism. But is there anything wrong with the idea that you work for YOUR happiness and not everyone else's?
Objectivist1994 7 months ago
Your analysis of Darwin is wrong. I am a biologist. To say that animals exist to reproduce is not wholly correct. Animals must survive to reproduce, and then, if necessary, survive to raise their offspring. It is this necessity for survival in order to have and raise offspring that was the backbone of Darwin's theory. Species adapt in order to survive. Darwin's theory is not contingent on reproduction, but the survival needed to reproduce.
nygel02 7 months ago
The argument about the male praying mantis is also flawed. This behavior is debated in the scientific community. Moreover, black widow spiders demonstrate similar behaviors. Recent research on black widows suggests that the males attempt to avoid mating with females that appear to be hungry and lacking food. The male black widow, given the choice, will usually to chose to mate with a well fed female, minimizing the chances of cannibalism.
nygel02 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?
backlighting 7 months ago
God damn you fucks talk so much shit. What a waste of fucking time. I guess that's bc that's all you have is your talk. Philosophers: Useless dweebs in real life, in most cases totally mental.
iiwatcher 7 months ago
Lol, you really do not know what an axiom is. If you think you can doubt that existence exist, please do tell me how.
fab006 8 months ago
@fab006 Well, maybe if one started with the question of what existence means beyond the circular statement that it exists one could lay the foundation of a reasonable discussion.
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
@koenichfuerst Well, existence as an axiom simply means the fact that there is something, that there is not nothing.
fab006 8 months ago
Rand already discussed these "issues". Just read her publications.
Thuggishsplicer1 8 months ago
I think that the initial axiom, while badly phrased (perhaps it might have better been phrased simply as "Something exists") is nevertheless, like the logical absolutes, not capable of being refuted -- since a "refutation" and an entity capable of refuting are both existent things. Even if "Experience" or the "I am" that only consists of thinking (of Cartesian fame) is all that is -- it's still an existent thing.
prodprod 8 months ago
@prodprod If Rand had even acknowledged these questions and cared enough about defining existence without switching back and forth between them, I wouldn't raise the problem now. :-)
Does existence mean existence-as-a-thing or existence-as-a-process? What is the fundamental nature of such existence? That's what I mean when I say that she did a disservice to the questions of metaphysics when she boiled it all down to existence exists, which means nothing.
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
@koenichfuerst Well, I'm certainly not in the business of defending Rand or, heaven knows, Objectivism. But I think one might make a case, if one defined it sensibly, for the proposition, "Existence is fundamental."
Certainly, that says nothing about the nature or content of existence -- do we mean mere process, or attribute, or potential, or conceptual state or logical absolute? Who knows? But surely if any of these "things" are in any sense present *existence" cannot be absent.
prodprod 8 months ago
@prodprod It's mostly the complete lack of nuance that I find wrong with Rand's approach to metaphysics, which is basically a denial of all the basic questions that arise there. That "something is there in some sense" is much more defendable than the Cartesian "I am because I think". And "something is there in some sense" doesn't really give you much in terms of a usable basis, so even if that was granted as undeniable, where do you go from there without a truckload of hidden assumptions?
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
@koenichfuerst Personally, I've always found much of Decartes' conclusions to be highly questionable -- even the "I" in I think, therefore I am" begs a tremendous number of questions if one is really interested in heading down that reductionist path. But to what purpose? Do you really need to know that that truck barreling toward you is really, *really* real, as opposed to something the existence of which is somewhat less completely justified before jumping out of its path?
prodprod 8 months ago
(cont'd) (2) In any case, even granting that existence is fundamental, that, in itself, tells us essentially nothing about the particular nature of existence.
Personally, I think objectivism falls down because it starts off presenting itself as being purely descriptive - this is how the universe is, and then suddenly segues into a *prescriptive* mode - this is how people *ought* to behave.
But if it is descriptive in character, it should describe how people *do* behave, not how they should.
prodprod 8 months ago
@prodprod Sure, for all practical purposes, wondering whether the tiger is real will get you eaten. I suppose that's why we rather get out of the way before pondering deep philosophy. The real philosophers were all eaten before they could ever reproduce. :-)
These practical concerns still leave the deep questions open I think. They dont invalidate the questions themselves. In moving from descriptive to prescriptive there are a lot of gaps. I like the principle-based approach to morality though.
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
It is plain lunacy to believe that you can experience anything without it existing or better without a person to experience existing.i call it common sense and i think thats all thats needed to disprove all your arguments.
ajsomred 9 months ago
@ajsomred Well, what you call common sense here is simply an inbuilt limitation of the English language in which you formulate your thoughts and do not question. The cartesian idea of "I think, therefore I am." only makes sense in certain languages where it is necessary to have a subject in every sentence. There is no real "it" in "It is raining". "It" is not short for the sky or the clouds, nobody says the sky is raining or the clouds are raining.
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
@koenichfuerst In languages like Japanese it is possible to say a grammatically correct sentence without a subject, so something like "Raining" is a well-formed sentence. This makes it common sense in Japanese that raining can happen without some imaginary construct necessitated by nothing but grammar that "does the raining". So Zen Buddhists essentially do the same doubt-exercise Descartes did and being Japanese arrive at the position that there is no "I" needed for the existence of "thinking".
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
@koenichfuerst Which is just one example of how the language you speak determines what you can think (easily) and how it leads you to philosophical conclusions based on nothing but arbitrary grammar rules. Using "exists" as a verb to show what existence "does" is similarly funny because it's the same error once again.
koenichfuerst 8 months ago
In response to your 1:1 Existence Exists, Your desire to believe that you personally, and individually, may be in another existence than you are in now, in THIS current conscious state, (unless irrefutable evidence can be presented) is an excuse to not live with and by your virtues and values; therefore devaluing yourself and your reality... as it exists now. When you look down, do you see your human body as you perceive it through your eyes? Do you do this daily? Then you exist now. Live.
jizamie 9 months ago
@spicymchaggis229 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I first learned about spindle cells from Dr. Matha Stroud in her book, "The Sociopath Next Door." She described them as connecting between the amydale (the most primal part of the brain) to the frontal cortex (the most advanced part of the brain). Interestingly, all sociopaths are egoists, so I am disinclined to glorify egoism. By the way have you read Michael Prescotts article regarding Ayn Rand? I thought it was rather elightening.
MrSteveSpears 9 months ago
@shamgar001 If "the reason we live in groups is for the benefit of the individual," then why do you have spindle cells between your pre-frontal cortex and your amygdale? Human beings are biologically predisposed for cooperative behavior. All of this philosiphising about egoism is B.S., sophistry.
MrSteveSpears 10 months ago
@MrSteveSpears That area of the brain is more primal than the frontal lobe. The more evolved apes have it as well. We are pre-disposed for cooperative behavior yes, this is an undeniable fact and is supported by the evidence of the most basic humans forming communities, ie. hunter-gatherer societies. What matters is that logical abstraction and deduction comes after, and is more "human" than this cooperative behavior. If logic leads to egoism, then the primal instinct shouldn't be glorified.
spicymchaggis229 9 months ago
I agree with timbopper in that existence exists and other forms of circular reasoning in Objectivism are used far too loosely as justifications. But in 1.1, if you admit that "existence exists" is tautological, how can you then assert existence can be denied? This falls to the law of non-contradiction (Objectivists use this alot but not merely in dialectics). That's like saying ice is not frozen water isn't it?
TheSuigeneris1986 10 months ago
@TheSuigeneris1986 how do you form the concept "existence?" It is derived from abstraction of experiences. Objectivism requires this be a synthetic proposition. But in your position of denying these axioms the following is the case: It, as well as experience requiring experience of something, are both 'analytic' propositions and are guaranteed truth at this axiomatic level. If we are in fact in the matrix, then the noun existence, and the verb exist, just relate to our "matrix reality."
spicymchaggis229 9 months ago
Ayn Rand was nothing more than a economic anarchist, no wonder the far right would embrace her ideals. :)
Jonesyntube 10 months ago
Not very well written, but the main fallacy of "Objectivism," that of circular reasoning, is brought forth. Most of us who formally studied philosophy have never regarded Ayn Rand's thoughts as forming a consistent, coherent, or logical system. But it is a testament to our society that everyone's ideas can be heard and considered.
timbopper 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
**The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say "..and that's what I reject?"
notbestfriends 10 months ago
uhh, not watching this video because your english skills are obviously lacking. but i applaud your effort?
00MrGreatness00 10 months ago
objectivists never claim that "existence exists" is not a circular argument. They are called axioms because there is no attempt made to prove them.
denleythegreat 11 months ago
@denleythegreat It is also not a circular argument because it is true by definition. If it didn't exist it wouldn't be existence.
JDThinking 11 months ago
Don't animals have to survive to reproducve son? You can't reproduce as an animal if you aren't alive.
foxrobe2 11 months ago
@foxrobe2
'You can't reproduce as an animal if you aren't alive.'
One can't be alive without reproduction.
I'm not sure why Rand seemed to downplay reproduction. Maybe her view was more phenomenological in the sense that by the time she found herself, she already was already here and unconcerned about her origin. Also, she didn't seem especially sentimental towards family, so maybe this played into the fact that she more or less ignored the thing which lead to her existence existing.
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
well that sucked, your such a waste of time
dawgg981 11 months ago
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, " . . .and that's what I reject"?
notbestfriends 1 year ago
@notbestfriends I dont see where the author of this video mentions the use of force (either to justify or deny); an opposition to freedom or individual rights and self-responsibility; a support of self-indulgence or a live-and-let-live society; or even a treatment of the individual as a means. In fact, any discussion about the collectivist-individualist dichotomy was left out.
It was only a critique to some of the basics of Randian metaphysics and ethics, not what (apparently) derives from them
CoonAndFriends2 11 months ago
In Virtue Of Selfishness she states that he foundation of ethics is the happiness and survival of the individual. This premise is incomplete, because individuals almost never survive as individuals. Homo sapiens have always survived in groups. Even in modern cities there is undeniable evidence of our interconnectedness. We can argue about where to draw the line between the individual and society, but individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy. They are never mutually exclusive.
MrSteveSpears 1 year ago
@MrSteveSpears Yes, individuals best survive in groups, but the reason we live in groups is for the benefit of the individual. I live in a city so that other people can supply me with food while I do more productive things; that doesn't mean I'm here for the common good. Society is simply a means to the end of individual success.
shamgar001 10 months ago
Comment removed
eehbygum 1 year ago
Your argument in 2 Ethics about Darwin does not make sense. It is true that animals exist to survive, and how do you think that those animals perpetuate their existence? By reproduction.
oreosphat 1 year ago
objectivism has infected the libertarian/anti-statist movement!
rebelq1 1 year ago
First, your experience is included in "existence exists." So you are asking "is there experience apart from my experience..." "Existence exists" just states that there is something rather than nothing which cannot be denied. To give the Matrix idea plausibility introduces the ARBITRARY. Do you think that the arbitrary (that which has no evidence) should be considered?
db11289 1 year ago
reality is meaningless, however. this is the one thing it cannot do for you. you must do this yourself, and you do it by relating to it instead of denying it. thus, only you can answer camus' question he stole from hamlet: "to be or not to be?" only when you feel powerless, that your life isn't yours, and are filled with dread do you turn to death. thus, we have a combination of objectivism and nietzsche's will to power. a sense of meaning and purpose is that power. "it is purpose that binds us"
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
no memory, you can't manipulate past images to create new paintings. no word retention - reading is impossible. "the source", the reality that you are part of (my objective reality feeds my subjective experience of it - my "hardware" is different than yours) gave you the things you manipulate. poetry allows you personify everything, giving qualities to things that do not possess them. like "death enslaves us all" gives us the "tyrant" Hades.
"down here, i'm god." master of my own mind.
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
this is how we change ourselves...by "reprogramming" our responses. like "I know kung fu." learning calculus is learning a new program. "I did this last time. it didn't work. should i try this?"
btw, your experience is an illusion, but a "faithful" reproduction of events that actually do occur, ones we all share. spend some time in a sensory deprivation chamber and see how much experience you have...you won't have "the source" feeding you your holograms.
no memory = no nurture to alter nature.
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
btw. 1.1 existence exists. you're reasoning is the abstract i mentioned. truth with no function is...useless entertainment. "there is no truth" probably keeps you tied to paradoxes.
no will is free of determinism. but you can drive a car and only half pay attention to where you are going, or you can notice every nuance of your control. you're free to question your own past, yourself. "fate" is the execution of your choices, and in the off-time, you can question the results.
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
philosophy, then, as rand might see it, is simply reason as a guide for functioning in the world, achieving objectives, accomplishing dreams, etc. there is reality. the senses are our link to it, and reason is the guide to happiness based on real accomplishments.
the other side of the coin: we can close our eyes, deny reality and life, believing them merely to be transcended, and live in our dreams alone, where we cannot share them with anyone.
success allows us to create an economy for all.
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
poetry is great for self-expression. i am a poet. but poetic devises only obscure philosophy and help detach it from reality. we end up in the dreamland of idealism. everyone is part idealist, in that, in capitalism, they build their own ideal reality by pursuing their dreams. but there's a difference between dreaming and acting. objectivism seeks to manifest those dreams in reality. idealists, as we know them, are wishful thinkers.
the rock itself is more important than the word "rock".
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
objectivism is more a return to linking reason to the reality that our perspectives are based on - the reality we all share - as opposed to the abstract philosophy albert camus says is not far from religion. many philosophers are lost in the world of plato's shadows, and try to prove a concept with another one, disregarding the reality they originated from. this results in philosophy without end, because every concept must be proven by another.
premises should tell conclusions. not vice versa.
jeromyrutter 1 year ago
Are you mentally deficient? I would like to explain to you all your flaws, but there would be little point because you are already set in your beliefs.
IsaacRTeach 1 year ago
I agree with most of what you wrote except for some assumptions that i don't feel are quite right. one being objectivism does not allow one to believe mind over matter....? what do you mean?
shandcunt 1 year ago
@shandcunt I think Ayn Rand has said this explicitly, that consciousness is only for being conscious of reality, not for directly manipulating it. You only do that through actions. This is linked to her dismissal of idealism.
koenichfuerst 1 year ago
@koenichfuerst Ohhh oaky, then i guess i agree with her, thinking thoughts through meditation or prayer does not affect the outside world, it may affect your internal perception of reality but reality remains the same. only through actually getting up and doing something does reality change with you.
throughout the ages no one has ever proven that meditation or prayer affect the physical world. James Randi has a millions dollars for u if you can prove it works
shandcunt 1 year ago
@koenichfuerst This concerns 2. Ethics. You're focussing too much on Darwinism and the animal kingdom. Yes, humans are animals, yet animals are not always humans, your analogy is not only absurd, it's irrelevant (Correlation between humans and praying mantis?). We are talking Ethics, as result of cognitive process. Furthermore, your summary of the theory of evolution does not contradict the NOTION of life being the >ultimate value<, so what you're saying is that not only you can define the
DitKanIkNietVergeten 1 year ago
@koenichfuerst meaning of life as an absolute truth, you're also able to dismiss other NOTIONS through the theory of evolution. Clearly Rand is referring to what should be the ultimate value to a human being. "Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." (Wikipedia) You determine your purpose (Since there is none). The rest you wrote about ethics are result of false premises.
DitKanIkNietVergeten 1 year ago
As a person who tends to think of himself as an objectivist but finds some severe problems with some of Ayn Rand's ideas I wonder if you have taken something into account in your refutation of the idea that existence exists. I suggest that the world does exist whether someone is there to perceive it's existence or not. My knowledge of the nature of sound tells me that a tree that falls in a forest does make a sound even if no one is around to hear it.
spikeslawson 1 year ago
It is not the job of philosophy to identify "how free will is" any more than it is its task to identify "how the universe came to exist."
henry770 1 year ago
The "real question" in 1.1, despite being placed in the context of metaphysics, can be answered by epistemology. It begs the question: what objective evidence have you encountered of an existence apart from your experience? Because the only evidence of existence is that of sense perception, i.e., from experience, this arbitrary claim can be related to a positive cognitive context, and thus to reality. In this case, in the form of a falsehood. Review the law of identity.
henry770 1 year ago
What nonsense. Are you arguing against existence? Objectivism states that there is one rational reality that we all share. And that is truth. Do rocks fall upwards in your reality? No. How is the existence of one reality contradict free will? Arguing against it is a fallacy. You choose to argue against objectivism don't you? It is my free will to write this reply to your nonsense. The third thing.Ethics.How does ethics apply to animals again? Free willed praying mantis? Please...
dzikv01 1 year ago
I like to think that Objectivism (as well as most other philosophies) are based on conscious denial of a few basic facts and / or logical principles, but I think that's enough justification for their existence. I found quite a few logical problems while reading Atlas Shrugged. I don't entirely agree with Objectivism, if only because I'm very compulsive about glaring logical failures, but I still *like* the philosophy, and I love the book.
Vanslashington 1 year ago
@Vanslashington. obviously not if those logical failures are glaring you into your white eyes in such a manner that even the dumbest fcuks understand you're a fraud.
This can easily be deducted from the fact that you're barefaced enough to claim there is a logical failure without even feel obligated to tell us on what subject, much less showing any evidence to support you.
Shut tha fcuk up, dumb fcuk, you're too dishonest to be entitled to an opinion.
Vocalallusive 1 year ago
@Vocalallusive Lol, do you really need to be that way about my comment?
You say, "obviously not..." but I'm not sure what part of my comment you're referring to.
And do you feel that Objectivism is perfect? There are many examples of imperfections in the philosophy, a few of them in this video. I see no reason to point them out, if we both realize that there ARE flaws.
As for my being "too dishonest to be entitled to an opinion," I disagree but I'll let it slide.
Vanslashington 1 year ago
@Vanslashington, no, I don't believe objectivism is perfect. I know nothing can be perfect. Nothing can be both complete and consistent at the same time. My critic was solely about your argumentation manners, or more precisely lack of the same.
Vocalallusive 1 year ago
Ayn R in early years believed in Nietzche, as all her made up philosphy she changed that theory too, over the course of her years. She never stuck to the same reasoning, she always changed her mind. The only thing constant about her philosphies was Changing Them.
1divahead 1 year ago
in the more than forty years she lived after writing We the Living, Ayn Rands views about the ability of the individual and the evil of statism never changed. Her philosophy only strengthened into a more complete definition of the role of the government and championing of the rights of the individual and his/her ability to reason as her life went on. Learn 2 history.
vetinari34 1 year ago
She misunderstood Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Darwin. Why anyone would take such an idiot seriously is beyond me.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
Gwad forget the arguments look at the facts. This women is a free thinker, irrespective of belief systems. I don't agree with everything she says but I defend her right say it!!!
jamiemakk78 1 year ago 2
what the hell is your point exactly? you must be some sort of a nut to be publishing garbage that doesn't make sense
drusha1 1 year ago
You can´t reproduce, if you cannot survive
billigvin 1 year ago
@billigvin uh yeah therefore reproduction is the goal and survival is the means. What's your point? Clearly our emotions, feelings, instincts, and moral convictions (our essence) are derived from the goal of successful reproduction, not from a goal of individual survival.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
Descartes would be proud.
Jollyprez 1 year ago
Anyone opposed to Objectivism is opposed to freedom
yamr1tec 1 year ago
Existence exists;-) That's really funny. mushin is mushin. Cegradun is cegradun.
Well, she should have read descarte: Cogito ergo sum. That': s for shure. But, the tough question is: Does a world exist other than you? Is this external world the same as our experience?
Deriving ethics from the theory of evolution is shear nonsense. This is the is-ought fallacy..Hitler did that.
bhigr 1 year ago
Objecivism is a philosophy for humans living on earth. In order to understand an entire philosophy it requires a great deal of induction. In an online debate only deduction is applied. Nihilism is the only fruit of this one sided rationalist thought process.
Bfisher14 1 year ago
@Bfisher14 "In order to understand [objectivism] it requires a great deal of introduction." No, it doesn't, Nietzsche is a 100 level college course. 'Objectivism' is simply Nietzsche made mind numbingly boring by a talentless, immoral, adulterous author, whom died alone, and miserable.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir if you think Nietzsche and Rand are the same - or even very similar - then you don't understand either.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Do you think Ayn Rand understood Ayn Rand? "[Nietzsche] beat me to all my ideas"-Ayn Rand
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir from whence is that reference?
Fact is that on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics they had completely different ideas. I would imagine that they'd have disagreed substantially on aesthetics also but I don't know what was Nietzsche's view on that subject.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@festdir I had a go at finding that quote and the only source i was able to find was a website called 'opensewer' - which itself gave no reference for her comment. If you can't provide an authoritative reference I can only assume that it is a libelous slander.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins Online: NY Times 'Ayn Rand's Revenge' Book Review by Adam Kirsch 10-29-09.
Finding that source online took me all of 2 minutes, seeing you couldn't find it, I can only assume you are a babbling retard.
But thanks for taking the time to prove it in writing!!
tool
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir that's the exact same passage as I found on the opensewer website... again it is not referenced. The NY Times provides no source for Ayn Rand saying what it purports her to have said and the excerpt itself is suspiciously short. I incline to the position that the author of the article was so desperate to make a point that he could not back up with facts that he mined half a sentence for a a quote which he presents to the reader completely out of context.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "again it is not referenced." Well, gee detective, are you referencing the FUCKING BOOK REVIEW of 'AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE' By Anne C. Heller? I assume Adam Kirsch figured that any blathering retard could figure out the reference (Hint: It's in the book he was reviewing, smart-guy).
Let me know if you need anything else dumbed down for you, I am always glad to help!!
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "I incline to the position that the author of the article was so desperate to make a point"
I see, ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!
Convincing, really.
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir I'm not going to accept a quote which isn't referenced and the context of which is completely excluded by a reviewer with a declared bias against Ayn Rand, and nor should you.
I tell you what, why don't you try naming a handful of issues on which Rand and Neitzsche hold the same position, since you hold that she just copied everything from him it should be very easy for you to do this, I look forward to seeing whatever you have to say on this subject.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "I'm not going to accept a quote which isn't referenced by a reviewer with a declared bias against Ayn Rand"
1) What declared bias?
2) The NY Times AND a biographer of Ayn Rands life vs. 'dannidandannikins' on youtube comments.....Which is more credible? Truly a battle of Giants!!!!
tool.
There is a direct philosophical line leading from Nietzsche to Rand to Anton LeVay (Church of Satan founder) "[Satanism is] just Ann Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added"
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir
"1) What declared bias?"
In the opening paragraphs of the NY TImes article, Rand and her ideas are referred to as: 'revenge-fantasy', 'vulgar and unbelievable' and 'middling' while Objectivism is labelled 'a kind of sect'.
Heller herself describes Rand as 'the greatest explainer of conservative ideas' (which is a vicious misrepresentation since Rand despised conservatives) and describes Rand as 'a horribly damaged woman'.
Besides, both Heller and the NY times are 'liberals'.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@festdir
"2) The NY Times AND a biographer of Ayn Rands life vs. 'dannidandannikins' on youtube comments.....Which is more credible? Truly a battle of Giants!!!!"
I'm not interested in arguments from authority. I think it is objectively demonstrable that I do know more about Objectivism than either Heller or the editors of the NY Times, but I don't expect you to take my word for it so it's a complete waste of time to discuss anything in those terms...
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@festdir
You said that all Rand had to say was Neitzsche made dull... I've invited you to give an example of where her ideas are the same as Neitzsche's and all you have done is cite a half sentence quote from hostile reviewers taken with no context whatsoever. If you have an argument then I'd love to hear it, but so far all you have given is arbitrary assertion.
Oh, and I won't even bother to argue about Satanism since it's a completely ridiculous connection.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins I gave you a quote from Ayn Rand, from a published Ayn Rand biographer.
You gave me your feelings, opinions & A Conspiracy Theory.
Speaking of-- this...."Satanism since it's a completely ridiculous connection" is an OPINION.
Whereas--this....."[Satanism is] just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ritual and ceremony added" is a quote by the founder of the Church of Satanism, Anton LeVay, & a FACT.
I'm sorry that 'facts' & 'reality' is simply too much for you or your 'argument'.
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir
1) you should stop signing your messages with 'tool', unless it is your name.
2) I pointed out the fact that the quote is completely out of context and invited you to show where Nietzsche and Rand are similar, but so far you refuse to even try.
3) Your talking about Satanism is a transparent attempt to change the subject and is completely meaningless - if some crazy lunatic claims to be motivated by Kant or Nietzsche or Jesus you don't blame the philosopher, because the guy is crazy.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@festdir
4) all of your argumentation so far comes down to arguments from authority - the opposite of arguments from reality! You cite Le Vay's opinion without any philosophical argument, you say Heller and the NY Times must be right because everyone's heard of them but no-one's heard of me...
I look forward to an actual argument but I anticipate being disappointed again, because - let's face it - you don't have the brain power or honesty to put up a real argument.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins
"completely out of context" Either put it in context, or simply admit that you are a liar or a retard. "Crazy" Anton LeVay is rational (as rational as any admirer of Rand can be) It is one of the few concrete legacies of Rand.
"cite LeVay's opinion" Actually 'LeVay's basis for CoS'.
"actual argument" You mean other than citing an Ayn Rand biographer?
Gosh...if only I had just claimed IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!
Now THAT is a 'real argument'
Great Point, really.
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir
You're still signing your comments as 'tool' so I will assume that that is your name.
You're an imbecile. You cited a completely out of context quote and now it's my job to put it in context? Twat.
Anton Le Vay can say whatever he likes but Objectivism is a system of philosophy endorsing RATIONAL selfishness, i.e. neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself... since Satanism endorses sacrificing others to oneself it is clearly not the same...
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "since Satanism endorses sacrificing others" WTF? Are you basing that off of a 'scary' movie?
For fuck's sake...instead of deciding to provide written evidence that you are a goddamn retard, why don't you just use Google?
Apparently spouting off on things you know abso-fucking-lutly nothing about, is just kind of 'your thing'.
Ayn would be so proud of you!!!
I, however, am simply amused........
Do NOT change a thing, you magnificent retard!!
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir Jesus H Fucking Christ, you really are one dumb, anti-thought zombie aren't you.
By 'sacrificing others' I mean that Satanism advocates using other people to your own ends without trading anything in return: it is a philosophy for power-lusters. If you knew anything of Objectivism - which you manifestly don't - then you'd know that this point alone makes Satanism utterly distinct from Objectivism. And then there's the fact that the rituals are obviously a form of whim worship... etc
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "Satanism advocates using other ppl to your own ends" How so? They do have a list of Beliefs (including "Lack of Aesthetics", sound familiar? as being one of their nine sins), Which one of their professed beliefs, is 'sacrificing others'?
"This point alone makes CoS distinct from Rand" The guy who, ya know, ACTUALLY MADE the Church of Satan, disagrees with you "Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony & ritual added"
But thanks for your fucking 'feelings' on the matter, Nancy.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir Is your name Nancy now? You are a fucking clown.
I tell you what, I'll make a new thing, called the Church of Twatdom and say the following words: 'The Church of Twatdom is just Kantianism with rituals'
Does the fact that I say it actually mean anything? Of course not you dickhead, the only thing that would make it true is if the philosophy was demonstrably the same. But surely you didn't need me to explain that to you, did you?
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "I'll make a new thing called the Church of Twatdom" That would fit you.
I realize that when reality doesn't agree with your little feelings, you think that reality should change, just. for. you.
I'm not your mother, neither I, nor the rest of the world is going to overlook facts, just to make you feel better.
You are a poster boy for objectivisim...and I love it!!
'Facts'--hurting your feelings.
I find your temper-tantrums amusing, and your tears delicious!
Thanks!!
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir I'm not the one evading reality here. See how in my above comment I gave a logical response to your comment and you reply was, not a refutation but a series of personal insults - which is your only means of argumentation. Maybe you find me funny, whatever - couldn't care less. I find you utterly pitiable.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "...a series of personal insults-which is your only means of argumentation."......And now lets see your examples of TOTALLY NOT personal insults!
"Fuck me, you are really one dumb cunt" "You are a fucking clown" "you dickhead" "Jesus H. Fucking Christ you really are one dumb anti-thought zombie" "brain dead little twerp"
Irony? Hypocrisy? Idiocy? HILARITY!!
Congratulations, smart guy....you just managed to lose a debate--to YOURSELF!
Thank you for this, really.
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir Yes Tool, I have insulted you because you deserve it - you can't complain about me insulting you back when you've been insulting me from the very start. It doesn't make me a hypocrite since a) my insults were responses to your insults and b) I was still making legitimate arguments.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "I have insulted you b/c you deserve it" And I have insulted you b/c you deserve it.
"you can't complain" I'm not, in fact, I am LOVING it, being able to utterly destroy another 'argument' in only 500 letters is difficult, but you had the good manners to do it yourself. Thanks!
"doesn't make me a hypocrite since [YOU STARTED IT!! WAHHH!!!]" This is the argument a 6 yr old would make.....
I see you are really starting to intellectually challenge yourself!
I am so proud of you!!
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir This is a waste of time. If someone insults me - as you did from the start - then it is perfectly legitimate for me to insult them back, just as it is legitimate to punch someone who has already attacked you. A response is not equivalent to an initiation... and if a 6yr old said that he would be right. Besides, you still haven't made any actual argument... you aren't even interested in philosophy at all, are you?
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "then it is perfectly legitimate for me to insult them back"
Yes it is, & I haven't suggested otherwise.
However, I have simply pointed out that for you to whine & cry about "not having a refutation, only personal insults" After saying "dumb cunt" "fucking clown" "Twat" "dumb cunt", makes you....
a) a hypocrite
b) a crybaby
c) a retard.........AND.........
d) a complete fucking tool.
Goddamn...you are both a perfect example of an objectivity, and my FAVORITE POSER EVER!!!
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir Still no actual argument festdir... after 15 posts you are still only throwing insults at me. You have had so much opportunity to provide an actual reasoned argument but are clearly not interested, so I'm just going to ignore you now.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "No actual argument"
You mean other than an Ayn Rand quote, and a quote from Anton LeVay?
Gosh, if only I had simply said "ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!" and shared my fucking feelings.
I guess I just underestimated the power of 'dannidandannikins' opinions.
Keep spouting off about your goddamned 'feelings'...maybe, eventually, someone will give a flying fuck.
tool.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir
Wow Festdir, you seem to be always having fights with people! hahaha!
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins
Yeah, Festdir appears to be very belligerent very often. And that's being kind to Festdir.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
"Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony & ritual added"
There is no room for ceremony and ritual to be added onto Objectivism - since it condemns purposeless activity. So just because Le Vay thinks that he understood Objectivism and added some rituals doesn't make it true. Fuck me, you really are one dumb cunt if you can't work that out for yourself.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@festdir
[cont]When asking for an actual argument I mean can you show a point of Objectivism - say its metaphysics or epistemology maybe - where Neitzsche said the same thing? I don't think you can.
I also think that you are bringing up things like satanism as a pretty transparent camouflage for the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. But hey, prove me wrong Tool.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins "Completely out of context quote" If it is 'out of context', then explain how. "[Nietzsche] beat me to all my ideas" is called a 'stand alone statement', its context is clear to all but the most willfully ignorant (i.e. 'you').
"Anton LeVay can say whatever" You mean like saying; Satanism is simply "Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added"?
"you don't know what you're talking about" You mean 'Actual quotes' vs. 'ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!'?
Touche, worthy adversary.
festdir 1 year ago
@festdir
Tool, you have persistently refused to venture forth a single philosophical point on which Objectivism and Neitzsche are in agreement; which demonstrates that you're not interested in a philosophical argument, only in shallow quote mining.
We could literally argue back and forth like this forever but you've made it abundantly clear that philosophical arguments are not something that interests you so either say something worth refuting or just piss off, you brain dead little twerp.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@wvguy8258 Fair enough, but it doesn't matter whether its imagined or real if the laws of physics remain consistant. Your decisions should be based on the rationale of the observable, it's actual existence is irrelevant. Logic is more useful than emotion in approaching problems whether they really exist or not. The argument that we don't know for sure that we exist is an obtuse digression.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
Logical rules apply to material situations. We can say that one plus one is two, but what that really means is that if I have one of any material object and I another of the same object, then I have two of that object. This video begins by refuting the statement that "existence exists" by confusing this self-evident definitional argument with a fallacy of circular reasoning, then continues with similar examples of distorted logic.
Pericles461 1 year ago
Just finished Atlas Shrugged .... all I can say is WOW! Kind of hoping to find an internet discussion forum based on the subject of the book where I might find the answers to some questions. If you know of such a website please message me.
Thanks
TugOwar 1 year ago
@TugOwar I would recommend a self-help forum if you are actually taking that objectivist "philosophy" seriously, or I would recommend philosophyforums.comm if you want to discuss real philosophy.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
@dbmcmillan thanks for the reply.
TugOwar 1 year ago
I'll admit it. None of your arguments can be refuted. This is because you have simply chosen to reject any standard of objective truth. However, this also means that none of your claims can be justified either. Metaphysics is contradictory in its nature, because it attempts to argue in favor of a rejection of objective reality using rules derived from object reality.
Pericles461 1 year ago
@Pericles461 Um no those rules are not derived from "objective reality." You cannot derive any rule from mind-independent reality because you have no connection to it through which you can observe those rules. In our own mind-dependent realities (the phenomenal world) we observe that certain rules exist that cannot be broken without undermining our entire conception of this world itself.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
one more, writing as watching video, objectivism is rigid and a hard philosophy to accept, this does not make it wrong...climbing K2 is deadly but it was conqured...not all men are equal in ability and prevalent culture dictates antiobjectivist philosophy, rain drops follow the path of least resistance down a sheet of glass...beleiving in an afterlife makes misery more bearable but this does not make it true...hard truths are hard, democratic herd mentalities are a check and do not make the real
slybuster 1 year ago
@slybuster Life is about belief, not about truth. Because knowledge of anything is extremely hard to come by, and impossible if you want to know anything about the world outside your own experiences. And there is no better or worse way of forming beliefs. But which beliefs we decide to adopt should be based on what will make individual life and society better. Believing in God, and in good and evil, afterlife and justice do this. So it is extremely foolish to say these beliefs are untrue.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
important, then ill stop for now, man is the rational animal...i had a problem with her application of darwinian logic vis a vis 'selfish gene' theory, rational implies ability to live for own sake, master life and gain fulfillment beyond reproduction (let alone sex), a life of exploration for its own sake...a recognition of mortality (other animals do not have) fits in and even if mental death is to be overcome (transhumisim) this is not discredited. rand's philosophy is beautiful.
slybuster 1 year ago
1.1 The weaknesses of Objectivisim are not rooted in the basic axioms of the philosophy...existence exists because it is outside of yourself...the tangible is tangible to others, when you close your eyes the world does not stop...human error exists but this is error regarding interpritation of real data, of a reality that is independant of a human mind.
1.2 Discrediting the senses does not discredit the fact my existance is independant of yours (we exist in the same fundamental reality)
slybuster 1 year ago
@slybuster i missed an important semicolon in the above 1.1 and misspoke slightly; my own interpritations of reality may be independant of yours but they can never be independant of what actually is...to state otherwise is absurd and is in fact 'begging the question'
Free Will...
a little more tricky to defend but very important...reason in and of itself calls for free will, the power to think and question does not separate one from the flow of events around them but the human mind can questio
slybuster 1 year ago
@slybuster not enough space and separating comments is frustrating, more later...
slybuster 1 year ago
@slybuster If we exist in the same reality how is our existence independent of each other? The mind-independent world does not distinguish between things . Only the mind's processing can do this by applying properties to different pieces of matter. So it is in fact that we individual mind-dependent realities that makes us individual. Whether there is a universal source for all our realities we can never know and is not important.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
before you can reproduce or do anything else, you have to survive as a prerequisite. If animals' primary function wasn't survival they wouldn't live to reproduce.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
Yeah! What moron assumes anything exists. You have to exist in order to deny existence, but I'll humor you. Whether conjured in your mind or actually real the laws of physics still work. If you drop an egg off of a building over and over, you'll experience it breaking everytime. The difference between you and Rand is that she used observation of the facts as a base and you use your imagination. Your ideas can't be supported by examples because they're abstract and not based in reality.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
I never ONCE heard Rand compare human beings to animals, in fact, that is largely her argument, that we ARE NOT animals, that we can live outside of instincts. And as far as your argument about depression goes, whilst there might be some people who become largely angry because of what is going on, they are totally missing the point of objectivism, that holds that your highest goal should be the PURSUIT OF YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. Those people missed the entire point. You must give life meaning.
ninjaguy23 1 year ago
Your brain has to exist in order for you to be conscious and deny its existence. Something always has to exist.
SculptedThoughts 1 year ago
lastly, the point about darwin....you cannot separate survival and reproducing...the latter depends on the former. Rand's point is that if you treat your life as a value, you want the best for it like you would for anything that you value....this means you want to achieve happiness.. producing offspring is definately a way of achieving happiness but the wider point is that we should lead the proper life for man, there is one despite what Satre says...it is not proper for man to live on instinct
Dannycru 1 year ago 2
@Dannycru Agreed.
MiaoPurrington 1 year ago
for instance, objectivists wouldn't claim that dreams are not real...of course they are, when we see an apple in a dream (a boring dream i grant you) we are aware of something real...the easy way to put it is that we are aware of sense data, and sense data is as real as an apple is.
Dannycru 1 year ago
@Dannycru If you see an apple in a dream, your aware of an image. If you only ate the apples that exist in your dreams, you'd starve to death. The sense data is not as real as the actual apple.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings It is every bit as real. Whether or not the dream apple gives us any nutritional value is besides the point. You cant separate sense data and the actual apple, the actual apple gives us sense data as much as the dream apple does it's just the former is the result of an actual object before us and the other is a result of a dream, they're both just as real.
Dannycru 1 year ago
Comment removed
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@Dannycru It's not beside the point. Real things effect the other real things around them. An object that is only percieved cannot effect it's environment in anyway, even just to displace air, and does not exist in the same sytem as the rest of reality. A philosophy that has no bases in reality is useless. You might as well tell me that saying my house will collapse if I fart is just as valid as saying if I drink cyanide I'll die. Just because you concieved an idea doesn't make it true.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings What do you mean by objects that are only perceived? Apples we experience when we are awake can only be percieved...all we have are the 5 senses. My point is that you cant say 'real' when talking about being awake and 'not real' when talking about a dream. Dream apples can effect thier enviroment, the fact that i possess an intentional state when thinking of the apple means it has effected my reality. Dreams are a part of the same system as waking states because we can...
Dannycru 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings ...perceive them. God trying to do philosophy on youtube is a pain....i bet Aristotle never had to limit his word count lol
Dannycru 1 year ago
@Dannycru A real apple can be more than just percieved. It can be eaten, digested and used to help sustain life. There is no "your" reality. If in your dream I die, but out here in the actual reality we all share and can recognize independently of one another I'm still alive, your reality has obviously not actually occured by any observation but your own; and that would be contradicted when you see that I'm actually still alive in reality.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
I take your point that metaphyics asks us questions like, where do our sensory experiences come from but what you seem to be doing is separating our dreams illusions and hallucination from veridical experiences as if they are other worldy. The nature of dreams is very complex but the easy point to note is that being aware of dreams does not mean we are not aware of reality, i don't infact know how it is we dream or the reasons for it but dreams are part of our reality...
Dannycru 1 year ago
here is my personal response to your video: Firstly I think i'm right in saying that objectivists dont comitt a tautology when they talk of existence. It's true that 'existence exists' is a tautology but you are ignoring the point they make that one's reality comes from existence and consciousness working together. To say existence is consciousness is not a tautology, in fact its pretty obvious to anyone that without consciousness there is no reality but this doesnt mean reality is not there
Dannycru 1 year ago
Whereas I do not agree with what you've said in this video, i still think its important that we discuss complex ideas such as these in a calm and mature manner which means no one claiming to be right just because they feel more intelligent than you...don't be put off your philosophical investigations by people putting you down, the whole point of a discussion is that two people who don't know everything are trying to establish a point together and that involves dissagreement
Dannycru 1 year ago
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
carol33189 1 year ago
Is this really the best objections you can give? I truly think almost all objectivists could come up with better objections to their own philosophy.
Keeban3 1 year ago
Thank you for acknowledging existence in your discussion of it. Now Objectivism has yet another example of an attacker lacking intellectual integrity. Let me ask, do you exist? Did something create you? Did existence, a thing existing and highlighting itself as the axiom does, allow your perceptual faculty a free-ride into intellectual corrosion? Your inherent free will allowed the creation of a pathetic attempt of argument and reasoning on slide 1.2. This entire video proves your antithesis.
sapidpersona 1 year ago
Existence doesn't exist? Why, for fucks sake, can you make such a ridiculous remark?? Have you EVER read Darwin and the survival of the fittest? We only exist to fuck? Cool, if we fuck then we survive, we don't have to build houses or make a fire in winter to warm, nor work or hunt for food psss... You, sir, are an ignorant.
soyyoeh 1 year ago
I think, therefore, I exist. Thinking, and being aware of your thinking is prove enough for your existence. In order to think, you need to be something (there is no thinking without, at least, an organ or entity that allows you to do so), be it a "brain in a vat" or human being. The question would no rely on WHETHER you are or aren't, but more on WHAT we are.
Castiiita 1 year ago