Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Aristotle was mistaken in physics. Do you consider his first law to be the Ultimate Truth?

You said you aren't arguing against the law of identity, while arguing against the law of identity. An ironic contradiction! It's not an "ultimate truth", it's just required to attain knowledge, by identifying what it is you are conceptualizing. It's not a matter of permanency, but context. The only examples thus far of cases when the law of identity doesn't apply are really just examples of referring to different characteristics and contexts. Don't complicate what the law of identity is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humankind would have been nothing without those men who tried.

 

 My problem is that I am gullible, so I cannot tell if someone is lying. I do not understand why anyone would invent elaborate intentional lies if I'm not paying for them.

Aristotle was mistaken in physics. Do you consider his first law to be the Ultimate Truth?

1) Men such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Doctor Josef Mengele,  and Adolph Hitler were all convinced of their obligation to right the wrongs of the world. Our more enlightened world would be much better off without them.

2) You are trying to sell us a no-down-payment philosophy, chock full of bull. Why are you doing that?

3) You are no Aristotle, let alone Ayn Rand.

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Objectivists, I challenge you to find a way to integrate your ideology with that of Marxism. Otherwise, please provide your reasons for avoiding any sort of integration/synthesis. 

 

 

Hi there,

 

On a practical level, I think that a form of Marxism, or almost any other political ideology, could coexist within an Objectivist society. Communes or pockets of individuals could voluntarily put into practice any miniature form of government they would wish. The only caveat would be that they wouldn't have the power to initiate force to compel those within the commune to comply. I've actually used this in an argument where someone explains that they would be happy to pay into a system that does what the U.S. government does. I suggested that, if they so chose, a company could take it upon itself to issue licences, build roads, collect voluntary taxes, provide insurance, etc. 

 

It's even possible that communist-like governmental entity is more efficient than the free market (though I doubt it) if this were the case, as long as no rights are violated, most people might even sign up and join their communes. As Penn Jillette says, "Freedom is the freedom to be stupid." If someone wished to practice Marxist ideals while living in a free society, then they should be free to do so. I'd call this a kind of integration, though not a very philosophically interesting one.

 

Another kind of integration/compromise is simply socialism.

 

A third way would be to attempt to use dialectical analysis (or Marx's methods) to explain events using an Objectivist bias. I have no idea how this could be done, but since Marxism is, in part, a method of economic/historical analysis, I guess an Objectivist might be able to explain something with it.

 

I'll admit that I haven't read the entire 8 pages of this discussion, so my response might have already been covered. If so, I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back, Mushroom:

Here is a curiosity: Socialism originated in a place called New Harmony, Indiana, in 1826. The creator was a Welsh industrialist, named, Robert Owen. The experiment was a severe disappointment, to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uCqAHW0bw

You may consider checking out this documentary, which traces the history from this Early American oddity, to the development of a global ideology.

 

I mention this because it is the isolated communal experiment within a capitalist system, as Mushroom described.

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said you aren't arguing against the law of identity, while arguing against the law of identity. An ironic contradiction! It's not an "ultimate truth", it's just required to attain knowledge, by identifying what it is you are conceptualizing. It's not a matter of permanency, but context. The only examples thus far of cases when the law of identity doesn't apply are really just examples of referring to different characteristics and contexts. Don't complicate what the law of identity is about.

I consider it to be the truth that all truths depend on.

We must have the law of identity, but it is imcomplete, just as Western thinking is incomplete without Eastern (contextual) thinking, humankind is incomplete without people from both hemispheres. Objectivist oligarchy works with ideal people, who are very few and far between. Russian oligarchy today is not the best place. There needs to be a democracy. Globalization is about accepting all people, even those who are unable to work and create value. All people can be used in a society, either as producers or users, supporters or managers.

 

Welcome back, Mushroom:

Here is a curiosity: Socialism originated in a place called New Harmony, Indiana, in 1826. The creator was a Welsh industrialist, named, Robert Owen. The experiment was a severe disappointment, to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uCqAHW0bw

You may consider checking out this documentary, which traces the history from this Early American oddity, to the development of a global ideology.

 

I mention this because it is the isolated communal experiment within a capitalist system, as Mushroom described.

Some interesting quotes:

Tony Blair: "We are the party of the individual because we are the party of community. It is Social-ism."

Tony Wright: "It is a socialist party in a sense that it stands for a conception of society and community and people owing obligations to each other and stands for [...] that core belief about giving everybody in society access to things that society can offer. This is the core idea." This is not doubletalking; it's dialectics. This is as much contradiction as there can be between an individual and society, individualism and collectivism.

"Socialism will not die, but it will surely change into something else."

"The impulse that drives people towards left--the desire to control, meddle and interfere--" is also a freedom. It just needs moderation.

"Socialism is an economic democracy."

Ok, so the movie proved that socialism is not the answer, but what is a global society going to be? It's supposed to be some lingering form of society. What we should do is support movements that have been called "anti-globalization" or "globalization from below," and care for, as Chomsky stated, "the rights of people, not private power systems" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalism).

Eduard Bernstein and Samuel Gompers were right, but Marxism was their soil. Also, society is not the ultimate goal. Here is the complete model with important missing elements (that socialistic countries ignored) where my imagination leads:

Particle--Void

Atom--Field

Molecule--Lattice

Cell--State

Tissue--Pulse

Organ--Aura

Body--Environment

Society--Nature

Race--World

Sphere--System

Star--Nebula

Hole--Cosmos

Source--Vacuum

Multiverse--Ratium

Omniverse--Limits

APEIRON

Sphere is a communication network reaching beyond worlds.

Ratium is virtual space (not cybernetic).

Limits is absolutely filled space, or space without time.

APEIRON is the whole model, that is - indifferent awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't see how [donating to charity and creating vaccines] would be neither selfish nor not-selfish." <-- me

"Ok, it's in the same way as what I am doing. How is my philosophy beneficial to my life right now? It's not, since it does not earn me any money, which I am supposed to be earning, right? Well, but it is beneficial for the future of humankind whether I will live then or not. And besides, I love it, and these philosophies make me happy. So, look at it this way: it's both selfish and not selfish." <-- you

Money isn't the be-all, end-all of what is beneficial to one's life and thus not the be-all, end-all of what is selfish or not. :P I was going to link you to something in the lexicon that explained why I'd say that you intend to do something in these cases for selfish reasons . . . but, more spoilers for Atlas Shrugged on that page.

 

"space is inherent to a thing and inseparable from it." <-- you

If that was so, nothing would be able to move from one place to another.

 

"Second, look at an atom of hydrogen, for example. What it consists of is mostly empty space that we consider to be a part of the atom."

Maybe you do, but I don't.

 

"Besides, what's nothing, vacuum, void? We do not know. You may be right that vacuum is actually made of 'stuff' that we haven't found materialized in our reality yet."

A is A, a thing is itself, nothing is nothing. We know what nothing is -- or, really, what it isn't, which is everything and anything at all. If we found stuff in vacuums, then that would simply disqualify a vacuum from being said to contain nothing.

 

"Do you want me to show your my whole model, so maybe you will see [the third alleged option] clearer?" <-- you

Hmm. I think I'll put that one on hold for now until the other stuff in this thread is done with.

 

"Let me give you an example from my life. . . ."

XD I used to know a couple people who claimed almost the exact same thing, but I think their explanation was not that time was manipulated, but that not all of the space between point A and point B was traveled through. In fact, they claimed this happened several times when I was in the car with them the whole way even. There's a lot of factors involved in these cases though that I don't have records to pull up to explain exactly what did happen, but there are definitely other mundane explanations possible. Estimates on how many miles are involved getting from point A to point B, estimates on when you left and when you arrived, traffic differences, how many red or green lights you get and more can impact differences in travel time.

 

"The Sense of Being Stared At"

I think I *might* have heard of an experiment that had to do with this before. Also, my sister's dog often knows when people are going to come home because people have schedules. :P

 

An aside, I didn't mention it earlier, but I think it may be worth doing so still: if one was to use two strangers who did believe in telepathy for an experiment like that it would bias the experiment some. Using one person who believes in telepathy trying to figure out the favorite movies and such of another unseen, unheard stranger who may or may not themselves believe in telepathy would take care of that issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear it claimed that *both* parties have to believe for it to work.

 

This wasn't part of the post written to me, but I'd like to suggest that before one seeks to gain expertise in the esoteric one should gain expertise (or at least pretty darn comprehensive knowledge) of the exoteric. Though being mainstream doesn't guarantee something is correct, it probably did have to clear some substantial hurtles to gain such acceptance. The stuff is worth checking out and seeing how/why it got there. In the process of that, you may perhaps see how/why some other idea did not get into that mainstream acceptance instead. Or, you could end up finding more evidence that strengthens your case and would help with persuading others on your position. Good possibilities if you get to know the exoteric first. However, if you get to the esoteric alone well, you could easily fall for some mistakes that have been extremely well known for ages.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bluecherry:

If that was so, nothing would be able to move from one place to another.

Think of space as flowing through you. Since it will always flow like that, it is inherent to you. You are inseparable from context as well. The location is not bound, if that's what you meant.
 

Maybe you do, but I don't.

Imagine that a proton is a football ball in the center of a football stadium. An electron in the atom is as far from the proton as the first row in that stadium. Don't forget that everything consists of atoms, and thus it's mostly, and paradoxically, empty space.
 

If we found stuff in vacuums, then that would simply disqualify a vacuum from being said to contain nothing.

Material particles come into existence from quantum fluctuations of energy in vacuum. Vacuum is physical by the quantum model of physics.
 

Hmm. I think I'll put that one on hold for now until the other stuff in this thread is done with.

Sorry, I posted it previously before I read your post. If it bothers you, just ignore the top portion. Society is currently our goal, but it's not the only goal.
 

but there are definitely other mundane explanations possible

You remind me of Dana Scully :)
 

dog often knows when people are going to come home because people have schedules

Dr. Sheldrake took this into account and his experiments have been checked by other scientists to be conclusive that there is scientifically unknown behavior of dogs a priory expecting their owners when those arrive at randomly selected times.
 

I wouldn't be surprised to hear it claimed that *both* parties have to believe for it to work

What's more interesting is that Dr. Sheldrake believes that scientists may themselves psychically influence results of their experiments without even believing in psychic abilities. He talks about it in The Science Delusion.
 

I'd like to suggest that before one seeks to gain expertise in the esoteric one should gain expertise (or at least pretty darn comprehensive knowledge) of the exoteric

I have been doing just that. I do not censure any knowledge. It's just I am more interested in esoteric one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Startsev said:

Dr. Sheldrake took this into account and his experiments have been checked by other scientists to be conclusive that there is scientifically unknown behavior of dogs a priory expecting their owners when those arrive at randomly selected times.

Ah yes, Sheldrake the medieval revivalist who declares that he's free to assert that the sun thinks because "you cant disprove it"...... Do I know you from a different forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, Sheldrake the medieval revivalist who declares that he's free to assert that the sun thinks because "you cant disprove it"...... Do I know you from a different forum?

This is the only forum I am on.

Sheldrake, just as myself, would rather fill gaps and holes in his knowledge with imagination than keep ideas disconnected and fragmented. It's pointless to prove or disprove something like what you said, since there is no evidence for it either way you look and it also would not affect our lives here, on Earth. What's important not to ignore is his experiments on dogs and people and ideas that are more earthy that we can use in understanding the reality in which we live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Ilya! If you want to impress internet chat rooms with your knowledge of science, 1) you should not be writing under an article heading clearly identified as a discussion about political philosophy, 2) you have already proved you have taken some science classes, but you've gorged yourself on pseudo-scientific pablum, and expect the rest of us to chew it with the same gusto. If you wish to discuss the merits of socialism versus capitalism, try to control your scatological tendencies.

 

We must have the law of identity, but it is imcomplete, just as Western thinking is incomplete without Eastern (contextual) thinking, humankind is incomplete without people from both hemispheres. Objectivist oligarchy works with ideal people, who are very few and far between. Russian oligarchy today is not the best place. There needs to be a democracy. Globalization is about accepting all people, even those who are unable to work and create value. All people can be used in a society, either as producers or users, supporters or managers.

 

Some interesting quotes:
"Socialism is an economic democracy."

Ok, so the movie proved that socialism is not the answer, but what is a global society going to be?

Allow me to address these selected quotes in reverse:

The video was not intended to "prove" anything, rather it was a well-researched historical view of the follies of all past attempts to establish socialist societies.

How's this for a quote (paraphrased): Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others tried before."-Winston Churchill

Your prolific use of broad generalizations never ceases to obscure your intended thought. I gather you are still trying to figure it all out, but post your statements too fast. This is a common problem for people whose mouth works faster than their brain. Socialism, as a form of government, transfers wealth from the rightful owner, and distributes the wealth to whomever the government chooses, be it corporate cronies, useless moochers, needy widows, phony science projects, disabled veterans, or simply to the family and friends of those in the government. Of the many definitions of the word, "government," the most suitable is "government is force." Socialism definitely has not disappeared; the current president of the United States is ideologically a socialist. The USA has been adapting socialism into its federal policies for the past 100 years. This is one of the primary explanations for our current malaise. Democracy is merely the method of selecting our policy-makers. By definition, The US is a constitutional republic. When candidates promise "free stuff," the majority of voters often believe the rich will pay for the "free stuff." Foolish as they are, they wonder why the benefit of the "free stuff" could not be sustained for more than a generation or two. Democracy, (demos: the common citizen; cracos: power) is a popular word for majority, or mob, rule. That is the reason Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders warned of the corrupting influence of democracy, while trying to adopt democratic principles to our Constitution. That is the reason for the Bill of Rights, to ensure that oppressive majorities don't crush less-represented minorities, thus the protection of individual's rights.  If the mob had their way, they'd loot the wealthiest minority, just as your heroes of the Bolshevik Revolution did, and every other plunderer of wealth throughout history. Property rights are human rights. My property is mine; your possessions are yours.

Maybe you will be an outstanding scientist one day. We could use some. You may want to copyright your discovery. Maybe you will discover the "faster-than-light-neutrino," or the "cold-fusion reactor"; I hope you do. You may win one those Nobel Prizes, or something. Maybe you can determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but on this thread, the topic is Marxism and Objectivism. Someone actually attempted to inject some substance into the discussion, (post #178), and you returned to your pseudo-scientific Tinker Toys.

Argue this point: Marxism is a rationalization for theft; capitalism is the only moral form of interaction between persons or parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argue this point: Marxism is a rationalization for theft; capitalism is the only moral form of interaction between persons or parties.

Forget about Marxism. That integration will not work. What I am trying to integrate Objectivism with is Society. So far, I have no idea what the future global and unified society will be called. Let's just call it Society then with a capital letter. Socialism and Communism do not work and did not match Marxist theory of history. History worked out differently once we got to capitalism. What's next after capitalism - that's the new question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think of space as flowing through you."
Flowing through me still would not mean it was part of me anymore than I am part of the house I go in and out of.

"You are inseparable from context as well"
I'm in *A* context, but not always the exact same context, unless we're talking about reality in general. Still though, being in a context does not make me part of the other stuff in the context.

I'm very much aware of the atom being a center with other bits that are relatively far flung from it and that all bigger stuff is made of atoms. I don't see cause to change what I said because of this.

"Material particles come into existence from quantum fluctuations of energy in vacuum. Vacuum is physical by the quantum model of physics."
There are multiple interpretations of quantum physics and various results from experiments in quantum physics floating around out there. Also, all is definitely not clear yet with quantumn physics with the whole reconciliation with gravity issue. Also, energy =/= nothing. If there is energy in the vacuum then it didn't have nothing in it.

"Sorry, I posted it previously before I read your post. If it bothers you, just ignore the top portion."
Hmm? Eh, in any case, I'll get to that stuff later.

"You remind me of Dana Scully :)"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Dr. Sheldrake took this into account and his experiments have been checked by other scientists to be conclusive that there is scientifically unknown behavior of dogs a priory expecting their owners when those arrive at randomly selected times."

Were the people perhaps in smell or hearing range when they started reacting? And how did they determine when the dog was expecting the owner? How close did the dog have to be with when they started reacting to be counted as correct? Has it been replicated? What was the sample size? This one particular experiment though isn't really especially crucial to this conversation though. Other stuff needs to be taken care of still. I don't want to get too far off into what would, at this
point, be a tangent.

"What's more interesting is that Dr. Sheldrake believes that scientists may themselves psychically influence results of their experiments without even believing in psychic abilities."
Not the first time I've heard a convenient explanation like that. So get the scientists to have people who do believe in the stuff do the test administering while they themselves are not present. I'd like to say "record the whole thing" too, but I'm betting that would be argued as an interfearance somehow too. This wouldn't be a perfect experiment, but it would at least make a decent first hurdle to subject the claims to.

"I have been doing just that."
Good to hear. I take it that you are still in the process with that though, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless this gibberish about "the force flowing through you" and other science fiction dialog will transform lead into gold, I don't see how it can apply to a discussion about political philosophy.

Incidentally, I enjoy science fiction, but only when it's entertaining, not when it's silly.

But then again, I enjoyed The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Mars Attacks was pretty good, too. But for real bizarre, check out, Fiend Without a Face, or Brainiac.

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Startsev said:

"Forget about Marxism. That integration will not work. What I am trying to integrate Objectivism with is Society. So far, I have no idea what the future global and unified society will be called. Let's just call it Society then with a capital letter. Socialism and Communism do not work and did not match Marxist theory of history. History worked out differently once we got to capitalism. What's next after capitalism - that's the new question."

Ok so we are abandoning the topic of this thread for a new one. Any late comer to this thread should take note then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget about Marxism. That integration will not work. What I am trying to integrate Objectivism with is Society. So far, I have no idea what the future global and unified society will be called. Let's just call it Society then with a capital letter. Socialism and Communism do not work and did not match Marxist theory of history. History worked out differently once we got to capitalism. What's next after capitalism - that's the new question.

Progress of sorts... Unfortunately we have not yet gotten to capitalism. It would be a great candidate for what is next, though the probability still seems low.  Ilya, may I assume you have not ever read Marx's 1894 manuscript? This thread is frustrating to read. It sounds like a conversation between the architects of the Tower of Babel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think of space as flowing through you."

Flowing through me still would not mean it was part of me anymore than I am part of the house I go in and out of.

"You are inseparable from context as well"

I'm in *A* context, but not always the exact same context, unless we're talking about reality in general. Still though, being in a context does not make me part of the other stuff in the context.

I'm very much aware of the atom being a center with other bits that are relatively far flung from it and that all bigger stuff is made of atoms. I don't see cause to change what I said because of this.

"Material particles come into existence from quantum fluctuations of energy in vacuum. Vacuum is physical by the quantum model of physics."

There are multiple interpretations of quantum physics and various results from experiments in quantum physics floating around out there. Also, all is definitely not clear yet with quantumn physics with the whole reconciliation with gravity issue. Also, energy =/= nothing. If there is energy in the vacuum then it didn't have nothing in it.

"Sorry, I posted it previously before I read your post. If it bothers you, just ignore the top portion."

Hmm? Eh, in any case, I'll get to that stuff later.

"You remind me of Dana Scully :)"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Dr. Sheldrake took this into account and his experiments have been checked by other scientists to be conclusive that there is scientifically unknown behavior of dogs a priory expecting their owners when those arrive at randomly selected times."

Were the people perhaps in smell or hearing range when they started reacting? And how did they determine when the dog was expecting the owner? How close did the dog have to be with when they started reacting to be counted as correct? Has it been replicated? What was the sample size? This one particular experiment though isn't really especially crucial to this conversation though. Other stuff needs to be taken care of still. I don't want to get too far off into what would, at this

point, be a tangent.

"What's more interesting is that Dr. Sheldrake believes that scientists may themselves psychically influence results of their experiments without even believing in psychic abilities."

Not the first time I've heard a convenient explanation like that. So get the scientists to have people who do believe in the stuff do the test administering while they themselves are not present. I'd like to say "record the whole thing" too, but I'm betting that would be argued as an interfearance somehow too. This wouldn't be a perfect experiment, but it would at least make a decent first hurdle to subject the claims to.

"I have been doing just that."

Good to hear. I take it that you are still in the process with that though, yes?

Your house is your environment, and you share its space when you are in it. You are the inner part of the outer context. Environment is basically all you can perceive with your five senses at one time.

 

By Shipov's Theory of Physical Vacuum, vacuum consists of phytons, which is a type of paradoxical matter (particle and anti-particle in a neutral state of harmony with each other). Quantum physics repeats the idea of physical vacuum because energy does fluctuate that background of particles and anti-particles that we cannot see with our naked eyes.

 

What's extraordinary to you sometimes is quite ordinary to me. The type of extraordinary ideas that I am working with would really blow you away.

 

The dogs changed behavior and expectantly waited by the door/window about 10 minutes before the owner arrived. The following conventional explanations were understood by the experimenters: 1) the dog could be hearing or smelling its owner approaching. 2) the dog could be reacting to routine times of return. 3) it could be responding to subtle cues from people at home who know when the absent person is returning. 4) the animal may go to the place at which it waits for its owner when the person is not on the way home; the people at home may remember its apparent anticipation only when the person returns shortly afterwards, forgetting the other occasions. Thus the phenomenon could simply be an artifact of selective memory. Here is an experiment with statistical analysis, graphs, and references: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/animals/dog_video.html.

 

All of these discussions are extremely important because they show that our views should be integrated in the following manner: white, grey, and black. In other words, we need the law of identity, but I am against the law of excluded middle. Life is more than just white and black. For example, imagine what would be, if we only had two-color street lights.

 

Scientists, with the help of explosive energy, creating new particles and bosons out of void, such as Higgs boson, may be experiencing just the kind of evidence of their collective psychic abilities, but they take it too seriously materialistically rather than idealistically or mystically.

 

My life is devoted to learning.

 

Unless this gibberish about "the force flowing through you" and other science fiction dialog will transform lead into gold, I don't see how it can apply to a discussion about political philosophy.

Incidentally, I enjoy science fiction, but only when it's entertaining, not when it's silly.

But then again, I enjoyed The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Mars Attacks was pretty good, too. But for real bizarre, check out, Fiend Without a Face, or Brainiac.

Out of all science-fiction movies that I have seen I love The Matrix. My own stories are very serious fiction directly connected to the reality, though.

 

Startsev said:

"Forget about Marxism. That integration will not work. What I am trying to integrate Objectivism with is Society. So far, I have no idea what the future global and unified society will be called. Let's just call it Society then with a capital letter. Socialism and Communism do not work and did not match Marxist theory of history. History worked out differently once we got to capitalism. What's next after capitalism - that's the new question."

Ok so we are abandoning the topic of this thread for a new one. Any late comer to this thread should take note then.

No, we are not, but it would greatly help if the moderator would change the topic's title to "Integrating Objectivism and Society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative to being poor is greed. The problem with socialistic countries is that they do not allow the freedom of greed for the general populace. Capitalistic countries allow such freedom. To me, greed is a childish freedom. So, when will the greedy grow up to a global society? An even more interesting question is: how will they grow up?

 

A recurring argument against socialism is wealth. Capitalism is the optimal way to acquire wealth. But what is wealth? Aren’t the two components of wealth greed and quality? Greed is a potential result of quality, but quality does not depend on greed. When you look at the socialistic countries, you find them relatively unwealthy. But when you look at the capitalistic countries, you find people there relatively unhealthy, and thus unhappy. So, the two components of health are wellbeing and happiness. Does health depend on quality? Yes, but it does not depend on greed. So, we have to come up with a new form of society that will allow quality and health. Quality comes from incentives. Must incentives be monetary? No, but they must depend on what people value in a society. Money allows people the freedom of greed, but what would only allow the freedom of quality? The idea is to transmute greed into thinking about Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Startsev said:

No, we are not, but it would greatly help if the moderator would change the topic's title to "Integrating Objectivism and Society."

The topic title you entered was specific to Marxist ideas of society and now you have changed to "society" in general. That is exactly what I was referring to. If the topic title changed then the sections until now would make no sense.... Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic title you entered was specific to Marxist ideas of society and now you have changed to "society" in general. That is exactly what I was referring to. If the topic title changed then the sections until now would make no sense....

To be frank, there weren't many Marxist ideas in this forum, just the word Marxist is often recurring. I stated clearly in the beginning of this thread that I am not an expert on Marx, and now I have been proven wrong about accepting his ideology completely in the first place. The only idea that I would like to keep is Society in general, which seems to be lacking in Objectivism (unless I am again wrong) but prevalent in Marxism. This thread is mostly composed of my own ideas, whence I am trying to reach any kind of comprehensible ground between Objectivism and the concept of Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally called this thread "A challenge." Maybe revert back to that? Do I have all your votes on this? ;) I simply do not want to restate many ideas that were already mentioned in this thread and would like to continue this conversation with the hardened opponents of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all science-fiction movies that I have seen I love The Matrix. My own stories are very serious fiction directly connected to the reality, though.

 

Indeed, I'm not surprised. The Matrix is a retelling of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. People are denied knowledge of reality. Which version of reality do you choose?

L Ron Hubbard wrote science fiction stories, and established a school of philosophy. Ever hear of him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Your house is your environment, and you share its space when you are in it. You are the inner part of the outer context. Environment is basically all you can perceive with your five senses at one time."

It's my environment, yes. I'm inside it, yes. I am not overlapping with the house itself though. It's just around me.

 

"Quantum physics repeats the idea of physical vacuum because energy does fluctuate that background of particles and anti-particles that we cannot see with our naked eyes."

So then that still would mean the vacuum was not "nothing".

 

"What's extraordinary to you sometimes is quite ordinary to me."

By extraordinary I here mean things which go beyond the well established, beyond the soundly proven. You've said numerous times here that you do not have such solid proof for lots of your ideas, in fact even that you have none at all in some cases. What is well established to be the case or at least be possible has already gotten the majority of the burden of proof taken care of, so a relatively small amount of proof is needed for any specific case where the possible thing is claimed to be or have happened. Meanwhile, if something isn't even a very well established possibility, then you have to go through getting it to become a well established possibility before you can get into dealing with a specific case. So, yeah, I'm not talking about things that are a matter of opinion or something like that.

 

"Meanwhile, if something isn't even a very well established possibility, then you have to go through getting it to become a well established possibility before you can get into dealing with a specific case." <-- This is also why I'm putting things like psychic dogs and such on the back burner for now. Those are specific cases. First I'm looking into if a possibility can even be strongly established.

 

". . . we need the law of identity, but I am against the law of excluded middle."

I've noticed this to be your position. I have not found anything here yet which goes against the law of excluded middle though. As for street lights, Green = one may go, red = one may not go. Yellow = one may go, but be warned that soon that will change. At no point is it neither "one may go" nor "one may not go". Lack of yellow light would just mean a lot more accidents when people were caught by surprise when who may go and who may not changed.

 

The alternative to being poor is greed.

 

Whaaaaaat? Where are you getting this from? First off, it's possible to be poor and greedy and it is possible to be wealthy and not greedy. You listed wealth as having two components, greed and quality, but then said quality can be had without greed. I contend that quality already is the only component of wealth, or maybe just quantity instead, but quality is generally a better choice. Could you now define what you mean by greed exactly, or if you've already done so and I missed it because it was in a post to somebody else, could you point me to the post where you already did so? Until I'm sure exactly what you mean, I don't want to start getting into pro- or anti- greed, just note that wealth is very much separable from it.

 

Are you operating on the premise that wealth is a fixed quantity, that for one person to gain something another has to lose something? If so, we do not operate on that premise. We hold that wealth can be created and increase, thus one person can gain without somebody else losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That experiment with the dog (literally one dog) wasn't replicated. Not that I deny the results, but the interpretation has no reason to propose telepathy. Dogs have incredible sense of smell, and the way the data is split, it makes sense to say it's more about a dog's sense of smell. And even if I jump down the rabbit hole, it doesn't demonstrate that one, humans can do this, or two, that there is a collective consciousness.

Just to clarify and to not go so far off course of where I was originally, when I spoke of intentionality, I meant this definition:  "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs". This is very important to consciousness. One thing to ask first is what you need to have intentionality. Again, this is not intention, it's intentionality, a different concept. If you grant this as important, you need more than your idea that there is a middle truth or some sort of Hegelian antithesis. What is it that allows an atom to have intentionality, if everything is conscious? Perhaps you'll say they're too primitive for that, so are "dimly aware". At which point... there is nothing that differentiate rocks from people for having consciousness, and anything else. Still, awareness needs some kind of interpretation of information, anything less is talking about mere physics.

 

So it doesn't surprise me that you speak about consciousness in terms of physics than information theory. As far as I see, your theory of consciousness is more like a theory of physics, i.e. how entities form relations. There is no explanation or use of information anywhere. Then I go full circle and find this implies denying intentionality, which is about information in some way or another.

Elsewhere in this thread though, you offer a fine view of consciousness: "That is why I mentioned in the beginning that consciousness is like an engine. We move by our sheer will, which comes from our consciousness, which is within our mind, which is in our brain, the neuron network and neurological impulses." But it doesn't translate to "Society is conscious" at all. You spoke of neurons, and of course - they connect the mind. Society has no such connections, so... it can't be conscious. There is no means for it to be its own engine. Now, it's plausible to literally connect people someday in the future, but you're talking about telepathy even... Ugh, this would make more sense if you were trying to describe the plot of Serial Experiments Lain. Good anime, but... weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...