Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

<snip> 

And realize the full meaning of "I want to understand how you understand it".

Then look at the difference between "I want to understand how you understand it." and "I want to understand how I understand it."

 

The first statement could easily flow from Dale Carnegie's book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in his adage of "Seek first to understand . . ."

 

The two primary questions that mark one of the entrances into the great hall of epistemology are "What do I know?" and "How do I know it?" is all about understanding how one understands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

 

Ilya Startsev is not a diabolical mastermind like Immanuel Kant or Ellsworth Toohey.  He only intends to be one, once he gets the hang of it.

 

[...]

 

I agree with the facts but not the estimate of this criticism. And it is a very harsh and serious accusation, Harrison. So I will ask a fair and objective judgement of myself and my work. All of you are my judges.

This thread is the culmination of all ideas discussed and my personal view that resulted from the previous discussions. Whatever I may say about myself is not going to be sufficient to persuade you, so let us concentrate on what I have said in the theory, for that remains my only truth.

In Part III.4, I wrote: "the emotional currency can only be genuine and everyone will start equally (with zero reputation)" and I am under the same obligation to start equally with everyone else. Just because I am one of creators of this new economy does not mean that I would even become very wealthy and/or get into the government.

And in Part III.2: "There will be more freedom than we have right now and less regulations and infringement in personal lives because E is a self-regulating economy." This means that the government will not be a tyranny or some totalitarian regime like in Brave New World. All that the government will be is (ibid.): "financial and judicial political institution and authority." Only courts and the bank will be governed, not people's lives. The government will be "employed by the citizens" (ibid.) and thus create value for its citizens. It will motivate happiness but not force it.

 

The word "love" that I used previously is not just a word and not made to control people externally. It will be a quantitatively measured emotional response that will reflect economically and create wealth. It is for the benefit of the society as well as all of the individual citizens. I have spoken with the chair of the Department of Economics at NIU, Professor Virginia Wilcox-Gok, and she has told me that not only there is no alternative economic model such as this one, but also that it is a rational as well as an emotional economy. This balance is what I would like to uphold. It is for my selfish benefit only as far as the society in which I will live will be enjoyable for me and my relationships with others. I do not want to control people; I simply want to provide the tools for people to control themselves.

 

Relationships and people are not the same things and there is no basis in reality to claim that this is true.

 

Any conclusion based on such a false premise would also be false.

 

The reality in America is that you do not care about relationships as much as people from other cultures do. You think that it has no basis in reality, where only existence exists and unilaterally causes us, as if we were some blind robots who cannot affect existence. I have already mentioned that the research by the Institute of HeartMath has shown that our emotions affect our minds, and this cannot be escaped. Here is the direct quote from their book, Science of the Heart, page 20: "communication between the heart and brain is actually a dynamic, ongoing, two-way dialogue, with each organ continuously influencing the other's function." This is also true in relationships. We affect them and they reciprocally affect us. That is reality as proven by science. As for metaphysics, the arguments can be never ending. What can you say that you feel about your relationships? Do they affect you as well? Or are they just something you are forced to do, something replaceable and ultimately meaningless, like wearing a pair of gloves in the winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forces between the Earth and the Moon affect the Earth and the Moon.

 

Neither the Earth nor the Moon "are" the forces that they exchange and interact with.  The forces and the bodies simply are not the same thing.  It would be irrational to claim either or both of the Earth or the Moon is one in the same as the gravity between them.

 

The same is true for relationships between people.  People are affected by the relationships they have, but it is irrational to claim that the people ARE the relationships between them.

 

 

This distinction is very simple to observe and has nothing to do with any assessment (correct or incorrect) about "America" or "determinism" or "emotions" as you evidently are trying to argue.

 

There are entities and there are relationships between them and these are different things we can identify .. if we are sane and rational.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are affected by the relationships they have, but it is irrational to claim that the people ARE the relationships between them.

Any inference, about someone else's mind, is based on an introspective analogy.  We observe the behavior of others and draw parallels to our own behavior, as well as the reasoning behind it.  Since each person has direct access to only one mind, sometimes such generalizations can suffer from a sort of selection bias.

 

When he declared that all men are nothing more than their relationships, he was telling the truth. 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Rand did argue to show that living for others is incompatible with living for yourself. She did go on to argue that living for others is exclusively ~A, i.e. a contradiction.

[...]

"Living for others" and "Living for oneself" are contrary, not contradictory.

 

Forces between the Earth and the Moon affect the Earth and the Moon.

 

Neither the Earth nor the Moon "are" the forces that they exchange and interact with.  The forces and the bodies simply are not the same thing.  It would be irrational to claim either or both of the Earth or the Moon is one in the same as the gravity between them.

 

The same is true for relationships between people.  People are affected by the relationships they have, but it is irrational to claim that the people ARE the relationships between them.

 

 

This distinction is very simple to observe and has nothing to do with any assessment (correct or incorrect) about "America" or "determinism" or "emotions" as you evidently are trying to argue.

 

There are entities and there are relationships between them and these are different things we can identify .. if we are sane and rational.

It's the wrong analogy because planets do not have human minds.

 

[...]Since each person has direct access to only one mind, sometimes such generalizations can suffer from a sort of selection bias.

[...]

There is not only you in your mind, but also others. And others of your relationship have themselves and you in their minds. This perception of others in your mind and the perception of yourself in others' minds is what connects those minds. Such perception can be mental (i.e., through words, facial expressions, etc.) or emotional (i.e., through how the person makes you feel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He lost me at "reality is the market" [...]

I was wrong to state that in the name of Objectivism. Market is a reality in my model, not Objectivist model. I should have written it so: "By the definition of the current Objectivist model, we live in the market, which consists of others, that is, the sum of individual minds, and life, for the purposes of this discussion, shall be considered inseparable from the market where all items traded are caused and co-created by the minds."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I live in a house, located on some property inside a city which is part of a county in a state within a country on a planet . . . ultimately reality, of which the economic usage of "market" exists within. But I did go to the grocery store today. While I was in the market, I picked up some groceries.

 

Ilya, I find your means of trying to express yourself quite convoluted. Did you express yourself in this manner prior to Northern Illinois University?

 

Edited: Added quotes around "market'.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I live in a house, located on some property inside a city which is part of a county in a state within a country on a planet . . . ultimately reality, of which the economic usage of "market" exists within. But I did go to the grocery store today. While I was in the market, I picked up some groceries.

 

Ilya, I find your means of trying to express yourself quite convoluted. Did you express yourself in this manner prior to Northern Illinois University?

 

Edited: Added quotes around "market'.

Since the question refers to my model, I show the appropriate realities from it here:

 

Body--Environment

Society--Nature

Race--World

 

All three are different realities. To know which one you are in is to know what you are conscious of (what you perceive and feel directly). Since you are conscious of your body and can only directly perceive your surroundings, which is basically the market, you are living in the first reality. You are not conscious of society or nature (even with the help of the Internet, since you can ever be aware of only one thing happening there at any one time), and you are very far from being conscious of the entire world (i.e., planet). Even astronauts are not conscious of the planet and can never directly perceive it completely, since it's round and in three dimensions. Seeing an object is not the same as being completely conscious of it, which happens only through subjectification. I hope that this is not so hard to understand. I see an issue in believing (or worse: being convinced) by pictures or videos (or experiences) of others and take them not merely as evidence, but as the only objective reality in itself. This mixing up and jumping realities through faulty analogies that lead to contradictions is the problem. Your reality is where you are, not where others are without yourself. The latter can be called a virtual reality, though - I have no problem with that.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A is A

True only for the metaphysics of the mind. But the way mind's consciousness directly perceives it is in the firings of neurons and pulsations of the nervous tissues - quite different from how we interpret it.

 

P.S. For further discussion on the topic, please refer to this thread.

P.P.S. Also, emotional connections in human relationships do not fit "A is A." They are subjective and hence require a higher order logic to control them. Many-valued logic is one such logic that can handle reality most accurately. Both Christian and Objectivist moral codes use two-valued logic (good versus evil, and both praised Aristotle). For example, what is better "to be wronged or to wrong"? To be wronged is better for a Christian (Aristotle also leaned toward this as did Plato), but to wrong is better for an Objectivist. However, here is how many-valued logic would work in Neo-Objectivism: to wrong or be wronged equally. In other words, both become patients and actors at the same time. This is truly beyond good and evil as Nietzsche predicted.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the question refers to my model, I show the appropriate realities from it here:

 

Body--Environment

Society--Nature

Race--World

 

All three are different realities. To know which one you are in is to know what you are conscious of (what you perceive and feel directly). Since you are conscious of your body and can only directly perceive your surroundings, which is basically the market, you are living in the first reality. You are not conscious of society or nature (even with the help of the Internet, since you can ever be aware of only one thing happening there at any one time), and you are very far from being conscious of the entire world (i.e., planet). Even astronauts are not conscious of the planet and can never directly perceive it completely, since it's round and in three dimensions. Seeing an object is not the same as being completely conscious of it, which happens only through subjectification. I hope that this is not so hard to understand. I see an issue in believing (or worse: being convinced) by pictures or videos (or experiences) of others and take them not merely as evidence, but as the only objective reality in itself. This mixing up and jumping realities through faulty analogies that lead to contradictions is the problem. Your reality is where you are, not where others are without yourself. The latter can be called a virtual reality, though - I have no problem with that.

I'm not really sure where to go with this. The three examples you provide might be considered relationships, but as to three different realities - only having resided in the one reality I know to exist, makes about as much sense to me a multiple universes.  

 

Your use of "conscious", as in "Even the astronauts are not conscious of the planet and can never directly perceive it completely, since it's round and in three dimensions." side-steps how it was ascertained to be round and three-dimensional. The fact that all of man's sensory apparatus are finite and limited in their scope and range, only means that the astronaut is conscious of the planet as it can be perceived by him from the vantage point of where they are at.

 

Incidentally, the Greeks had estimated the size and shape of the planet well before space travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stopped reading the thread at post #11.  Ilya seems to be a better satirical humorist than philosopher.  Sadly this can only be true if he admits trying to make us laugh. Oh well, thanks for the chuckles anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Living for others" and "Living for oneself" are contrary, not contradictory.

Well yeah, so she went on to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive.

 

"but to wrong is better for an Objectivist."

uh, how do you conclude this? What you've tried to say is "neo" Objectivism is just regular Objectivism. "Many valued logic" is fine, in the sense there are many variables. A thing cannot be anything other than the thing it is at that moment in time. Only "true and false" is two valued, depending on the characteristic in question. Generally, the least you can say is a 5 pound weight cannot also be ~(5 pound weight) at the same time and in the same sense. The difficulty of reason is to determine what is in fact mutually exclusive. Can light be a particle and wave, simultaneously? I don't know. But light wouldn't be a particle and not a particle *at the same time*, while a wave might be related to a particle if they are both conceptually related. It's not so simple as saying "particles can't also be waves!" Simple as "A is A" sounds, it doesn't mean reason is simple as declaring a definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure where to go with this. The three examples you provide might be considered relationships, but as to three different realities - only having resided in the one reality I know to exist, makes about as much sense to me a multiple universes.  

 

Your use of "conscious", as in "Even the astronauts are not conscious of the planet and can never directly perceive it completely, since it's round and in three dimensions." side-steps how it was ascertained to be round and three-dimensional. The fact that all of man's sensory apparatus are finite and limited in their scope and range, only means that the astronaut is conscious of the planet as it can be perceived by him from the vantage point of where they are at.

 

Incidentally, the Greeks had estimated the size and shape of the planet well before space travel.

You are confusing "consciousness" as self-awareness with "mentality" as perception. It's true that they are inseparable, but they are also distinct. I also want to point out that perception can be emotional, as elaborated in the book Science of the Heart. Hence consciousness can be considered to be composed of mental and emotional perceptions, or perceptions through mind and soul (corresponding to brain and heart and their systems).

 

Stopped reading the thread at post #11.  Ilya seems to be a better satirical humorist than philosopher.  Sadly this can only be true if he admits trying to make us laugh. Oh well, thanks for the chuckles anyway.

The point of the entire thread is post #11. Hence you missed the point.

 

Well yeah, so she went on to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive.

 

"but to wrong is better for an Objectivist."

uh, how do you conclude this? What you've tried to say is "neo" Objectivism is just regular Objectivism. "Many valued logic" is fine, in the sense there are many variables. A thing cannot be anything other than the thing it is at that moment in time. Only "true and false" is two valued, depending on the characteristic in question. Generally, the least you can say is a 5 pound weight cannot also be ~(5 pound weight) at the same time and in the same sense. The difficulty of reason is to determine what is in fact mutually exclusive. Can light be a particle and wave, simultaneously? I don't know. But light wouldn't be a particle and not a particle *at the same time*, while a wave might be related to a particle if they are both conceptually related. It's not so simple as saying "particles can't also be waves!" Simple as "A is A" sounds, it doesn't mean reason is simple as declaring a definition.

"I live for myself" and "I live for others" are only mutually exclusive in two valued logic with excluded middle. In many valued logic, they can occur at the same time (i.e., myself and others are conceptually related). For example, I live for my relationships with others. Just as light is a particle and a wave at the same time because "particle" and "wave" are contrary (opposite), not contradictory (conflicting).

 

Objectivists would wrong first on the assumption that they would be wronged (attack is better than defense). An example is the nuclear attack on Japan in WWII. If I understand Objectivism correctly, you support that act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I live for myself" and "I live for others" are only mutually exclusive in two valued logic with excluded middle. In many valued logic, they can occur at the same time (i.e., myself and others are conceptually related). For example, I live for my relationships with others. Just as light is a particle and a wave at the same time because "particle" and "wave" are contrary (opposite), not contradictory (conflicting).

 

Objectivists would wrong first on the assumption that they would be wronged (attack is better than defense). An example is the nuclear attack on Japan in WWII. If I understand Objectivism correctly, you support that act.

No, they also need to be proven as unrelated. I mean, you aren't wrong, it's just wrong to characterize Objectivism as saying that the law of excluded middle means A and B are contradictions. It just means A and ~A is a contradiction. There is no 3rd option for A, except possibly "90% A", which would mean that A actually consists of 90% X and 10% Y of some assortment of characteristics... And so on!

 

"Objectivists would wrong first on the assumption that they would be wronged (attack is better than defense)."

Err, being wronged is just as "bad" as doing wrong. Retaliation isn't wrong, so you can't characterize it as "doing wrong is better than being wronged". It's 100% right. At the same time, I think there are many valid questions to ask about if it really was retaliation or justifiable to nuke, but insofar it is retaliation, it is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they also need to be proven as unrelated. I mean, you aren't wrong, it's just wrong to characterize Objectivism as saying that the law of excluded middle means A and B are contradictions. It just means A and ~A is a contradiction. There is no 3rd option for A, except possibly "90% A", which would mean that A actually consists of 90% X and 10% Y of some assortment of characteristics... And so on!

 

"Objectivists would wrong first on the assumption that they would be wronged (attack is better than defense)."

Err, being wronged is just as "bad" as doing wrong. Retaliation isn't wrong, so you can't characterize it as "doing wrong is better than being wronged". It's 100% right. At the same time, I think there are many valid questions to ask about if it really was retaliation or justifiable to nuke, but insofar it is retaliation, it is right.

I think I agree with you, but I also think that we are going in circles. What do you think about post #11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing "consciousness" as self-awareness with "mentality" as perception. It's true that they are inseparable, but they are also distinct. I also want to point out that perception can be emotional, as elaborated in the book Science of the Heart. Hence consciousness can be considered to be composed of mental and emotional perceptions, or perceptions through mind and soul (corresponding to brain and heart and their systems).

I wasn't considering aspect of self-awareness at all with regard to consciousness in my reference.  

 

While perception can evoke an emotional response, and one can, via self-awareness , perceive one's emotional state - consciousness, as a state of awareness, boils down to the two essentials Miss Rand identified in ITOE of differentiation and integration. Awareness of the external world proceeds the awareness of mental content and emotional identifications. In this sense, I would not consider perception qua perception,  to be emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they also need to be proven as unrelated. I mean, you aren't wrong, it's just wrong to characterize Objectivism as saying that the law of excluded middle means A and B are contradictions. It just means A and ~A is a contradiction. There is no 3rd option for A, except possibly "90% A", which would mean that A actually consists of 90% X and 10% Y of some assortment of characteristics... And so on!

[...]

Just to be clear, here are my terms:

A is “to live for myself”

B is “to live for others”

~A is “not to live for myself”

~B is “not to live for others”

 

I wasn't considering aspect of self-awareness at all with regard to consciousness in my reference.  

 

While perception can evoke an emotional response, and one can, via self-awareness , perceive one's emotional state - consciousness, as a state of awareness, boils down to the two essentials Miss Rand identified in ITOE of differentiation and integration. Awareness of the external world proceeds the awareness of mental content and emotional identifications. In this sense, I would not consider perception qua perception,  to be emotional.

To differentiation and integration I would add fragmentation that comes from alienation and isolation. And did you mean that “[a]wareness of the external world [precedes] the awareness of mental content and emotional identifications”? If so, then we are in complete agreement, for indeed our consciousness in Body--Environment is more direct than the consciousness in Organ--Aura.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[P]recedes is correct. Proceed was definitely a misnomer on my behalf. That being said, you clearly have more than a rudimentary grasp of the English language. Why you choose to couch your arguments in such a circumlocutious [in a manner based on circumlocution] way eludes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[P]recedes is correct. Proceed was definitely a misnomer on my behalf. That being said, you clearly have more than a rudimentary grasp of the English language. Why you choose to couch your arguments in such a circumlocutious [in a manner based on circumlocution] way eludes me.

Brevity is a virtue [more of which] I wish I had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Eiuol, with those terms [A is “to live for myself,” B is “to live for others,” ~A is “not to live for myself,” ~B is “not to live for others”], the Objectivist oath given by John Galt becomes: "I will ~B, and others will ~A." The Neo-Objectivist oath is: "I will A." I think the latter is more elegant and allows more freedom, such as "I will A [and B]" or "I will A [and ~B]."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

He did not call this non-love evil or destructive.  He called it perfect [machines].

[...]

Harrison, thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of post #11. There are indeed errors on my part. I need to analyze the reason for the failure of the rhetorical fear-tactic that I used. I was thinking that Objectivism cannot remain a minority philosophy and survive without allying with others, such as transhumanists (i.e., robots, machines). I thought so, in error, because I saw many similarities between the two philosophies. I have spoken with several transhumanists, read their rationales, and found that they believe in the primacy of mind, associate themselves with mind, and think that bodies are machines, viz., merely sums of individual particles, atoms, and molecules. They want to find a way to create a synthetic brain, download their minds or consciousness into it (they also confuse mind and consciousness, besides confusing organics and inorganics), and live in perfect artifical bodies (i.e., avatars, surrogates). I believed that the integration of Objectivism and transhumanism without contradictions would be a simple matter. The addition of Objectivist code of ethics to their philosophy would complete it, and transhumanism will add an evolutionary (albeit artificial) and technologically progressive edge to Objectivism. Then the Objectivist conflict with society would degenerate (i.e., fall or fragment as through my model) into the transhumanist conflict with all organic life. However, Objectivism is concerned with the primacy of reality, and it is a self-sustaining philosophy and lifestyle. I predict a long and prosperous future for you for at least two thousand years. Nonetheless, Objectivist intransigence would then equal the selflessly ignorant perseverance of Christianity unless you find new and influencial ideas (that are acceptable by the majority of others) to finally build your dream - Capitalism.

 

Go ahead and ignore (in post #11) all instances of where I try to connect Objectivism with transhumanism through machines. The main idea that I tried to express in post #11 is that money can be substituted with a different, yet rational (as well as emotional) currency. I tried to argue against sNerd's counterargument #7 in Integrating Wealth and Health and prove that "all incentives do not have to be monetary." More than that, I have shown that such different incentives can be inherently tax-free and provide a method and motivation for comfortable living. The reintegration of this economic idea into Objectivism led to the creation of the neo-Objectivist philosophy with the new and more efficient oath and where help from others can be easily acceptable for the sole reason that emotional payments can be limitless. The individual emotional reputation retains the selfish element and the incentive to still keep increasing one's competence and the standard of living. Hence, my claim that Capitalism can be integrated with Communism, the market with the society, the self with the others, the beginning with the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by primacy of mind there, Ilya? You seem to treat it as considering the mind of primary importance. Rand meant it as treating the mind as what dictates the nature of reality. In your sense, Objectivism could be primacy of mind, to the extent its epistemological theory is based on the relation between mind and reality, and individual means of apprehending reality. That is, the mind is a method of understanding reality at all, where the mind is of primary importance to life and knowledge. However, it doesn't dictate reality.

 

"I think the latter is more elegant and allows more freedom, such as "I will A [and B]" or "I will A [and ~B]." "

That's fair to say, mostly I prefer statements of a positive than negative phrasing as well. It's not anything that indicates the black and white dichotomy you claimed Objectivism holds. Indeed, Objectivism is whatever Rand said it is, errors and all, though I think throughout all her works it's easy to see that other people matter, that you can only evaluate the relations you hold with others is the selfish value that they provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by primacy of mind there, Ilya? You seem to treat it as considering the mind of primary importance. Rand meant it as treating the mind as what dictates the nature of reality. In your sense, Objectivism could be primacy of mind, to the extent its epistemological theory is based on the relation between mind and reality, and individual means of apprehending reality. That is, the mind is a method of understanding reality at all, where the mind is of primary importance to life and knowledge. However, it doesn't dictate reality.

 

"I think the latter is more elegant and allows more freedom, such as "I will A [and B]" or "I will A [and ~B]." "

That's fair to say, mostly I prefer statements of a positive than negative phrasing as well. It's not anything that indicates the black and white dichotomy you claimed Objectivism holds. Indeed, Objectivism is whatever Rand said it is, errors and all, though I think throughout all her works it's easy to see that other people matter, that you can only evaluate the relations you hold with others is the selfish value that they provide.

The mind for transhumanists is in binary logic, A is A, and thus easily convertible to an electronic brain. It is removed and independent from natural reality (our environment) and thus in line with their vision to be immortal ("perfect" in body and hence with the potential to be perfectly competent).

 

My mind and intuition are in conflict about Objectivism - that's the problem in my trying to understand it. The mind tells me that your philosophy does not contradict itself. My heart tells me that there is something missing and thus something wrong with it. What's missing, I presume, is others (in the relationship sense). Otherwise, what else? The heart? Your replies are very agreeable, Eiuol, in contrast to many comments by others, such as StrinctlyLogical (e.g., this). Since I am not able to agree with all Objectivists, I am at an impasse at who is a true Objectivist. What I mean is that all of you are trying to be objective, but some of you are missing or not showing the "others, heart, etc." part and some have it and use it to defend Objectivism (although this also comes up in the most unusual ways, such as the popular post by StrictlyLogical, where he speaks of values that, to me, necessarily are, in order to connect with others, love, soul, heart, intuition, etc.). Do you see my problem in trying to "understand you?" The emotional parts are inseparable from you, but you try to ignore or misrepresent them in your philosophy. Yet, your philosophy is your lifestyle and the major part of your lives. This contradiction is what my intuition cannot accept. It is not a logical but a pathetic contradiction that, nonetheless, should not be ignored by any of you.

 

I have been jabbed by Spiral Architect in this post, where, he suggests me to do the following:

 

"You find some like minded people and buy some land legally and establish your collectivist village that allows people to enter it voluntary.  It has to be voluntary otherwise you've obliterated our stance, but within it you can organize all you want.  It's your land so under our system of Government you can dispose your property as you desire. [...] We both then win.  We have a free society so we can live and you have your collectivist center that can live without violating the rights of others.  You can live your life that way for as long as you can."

 

Ironically, I have found that an Objectivist (or someone who supports objective values) is trying to create a country based on your principles. It is called New Utopia and is a possible historical precedent for Objectivist Capitalism. Have you ever heard of it? It may be fake and a waste of money, but this makes my point clearer, I hope: who are Objectivists? Do you want Capitalism or not? It seems that digressing from Objectivist philosophy is as easy and common as the failures of its opponents (i.e., socialists).

 

I understand the issue of trusting me with my ideas and theory. The issue is that I am still alive. Maybe posthumously someone else would stumble upon my post #11 and decide to invest into the National Emotion Bank and the technologies mentioned and finally make your Capitalism a reality. That will be a worthwhile investment.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mind and intuition are in conflict about Objectivism - that's the problem in my trying to understand it. The mind tells me that your philosophy does not contradict itself. My heart tells me that there is something missing and thus something wrong with it. What's missing, I presume, is others (in the relationship sense). Otherwise, what else? The heart?

Can you give an example of how Objectivism is missing others in terms of relationships, or an example of what you think is valuable/important about people that Objectivism misses? My concern isn't with what is "true" Objectivism, just what is entailed by Rand's philosophical positions. You say a lot of emotion, but perhaps the apparent lack of emotional consideration is a bias due to your sample of an online forum, where probably you won't see the depth of emotion there is.

 

By the way, your "National Emotion Bank" is great potential for dystopian fiction... I'd say money already serves that purpose, and many non-monetary transactions use a sort of implicit social capital. Same with "likes", views, post count, etc. The program you propose is inflated in terms of implementation. Not only that, it addresses a problem that isn't really there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×