Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Can you with 100 percent certainty tell me that the plan will result in a loss of survival in an amount worth more to me than the gain in pleasure and happiness is worth to me?

Quote

You missed my final question...

My last post told you multiple times that I don't consider survival relevant to it in the first place. I even alluded to my reasons why.

 

I don't have the time to try doing your thinking for you. Is that all you had to say?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
Quote

 

My last post told you multiple times that I don't consider survival relevant to it in the first place. I even alluded to my reasons why.

 

I don't have the time to try doing your thinking for you. Is that all you had to say?

Survival plays at least some part in them standard of value does it not?  As such it cannot be irrelevant ... the whole point in evaluating the plan and whether it is is moral requires an analysis against the standard of value.  Each of its components or aspects (if more than merely survival). I think it would be incredibly unobjective to hold a standard of value with absolutely no consideration for survival at all.

I see you've decided to bow out.  I'm disappointed but I respect it on some level.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most significant issue about this thread to me is that it seems to prove that genuine bonding between people can happen using this medium of communication (this forum). People including myself were genuinely worried about you. Are you somehow evading knowing that fact? If so how does that help your survival?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The most significant issue about this thread to me is that it seems to prove that genuine bonding between people can happen using this medium of communication (this forum). People including myself were genuinely worried about you. Are you somehow evading knowing that fact? If so how does that help your survival?

What if I genuinely "feel" that way from the OP but know it's wrong?  

Does the fact that I think it is possibly an immoral plan cancel with my wish?  

If I am struggling against the lure of mysticism to help with my feelings is it any wonder I want someone to use logic to convince me otherwise?  Can I not find that lure to be repulsive?

What if the logical exercise is the only way to convince me that actually the plan would not be a good idea?  What if people need to be more precise and rigorous to prove why it is wrong and explicitly state it because even though I know the plan would be wrong I feel it could be right?  What if I already think I know the answer but all I need is a brilliant explicit rigorous statement of it from someone else?

Would I be wrong to yell and demand while asking you to pull the arrow from my chest?. ... perhaps so. Would that offend you so much that you would refuse me?  I cannot know.

Is using rigorous logical argument equivalent to yelling?  If people here cannot engage in civil rigorous nonevasive logic, then they should leave the potential victim to a braver hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

People including myself were genuinely worried about you.

I found it touching that Easy Truth was worried about you. If Easy Truth is no longer worried, then does that mean there is confidence that the grounds for his concern has passed, or perhaps more ominously, a covert admission of apathy with regard to any potential outcome?

The Objectivist Deism Plan, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

I found it touching that Easy Truth was worried about you. If Easy Truth is no longer worried, then does that mean there is confidence that the grounds for his concern has passed, or perhaps more ominously, a covert admission of apathy with regard to any potential outcome?

The Objectivist Deism Plan, indeed.

I cannot speculate as to another's emotions or motivations.  To extent I shared anything real about myself I have done so in a manner than only I truly know what in particular about me personally is out there.

I think given the person in the OP, the plan in the OP is a real threat.  I think it is a real threat to potentially anyone, that personally, is not easily dismissed.  No one here has bothered to rigorously put this idea finally out of its misery.  My sincere hope is that someone will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

I could hide or delete the thread. B)

Aha.  Then only those few people who have seen the plan (including myself) would be its potential victims.  

Perhaps, only once it is established that one cannot fight with reason, should one conclude that, as a last resort, censorship is the only answer to contain the potential damage of such an immoral idea. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Opening Pandora's Box to close Pandora's Box should only be done in the next life. B)

Speaking of the "next life" and opening Pandora's Box, I've heard it essentially said even here on this very forum that suicide can be moral (not only "justified" in a weaker sense) i.e. that one should do it, if and when life becomes sufficiently unbearable or impossible (whatever that could mean).

In a sense the plan of the OP is like a form of mini-suicide, an intellectual one... if actual suicide of an entire life and organism can be moral when life is unbearable, which IS the most extreme of cases, is it not is it much easier to accept also that when intellectually something in life is unbearable, a kind of intellectual suicide is moral?

Honestly, I am not completely safe from the OP even though I strongly think the plan is immoral.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm combining two thoughts that are intentionally disparate, but if one recognizes that one cannot fight with reason, why would intellectual suicide be considered? Why not explore what can be done with reason instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Perhaps I'm combining two thoughts that are intentionally disparate, but if one recognizes that one cannot fight with reason, why would intellectual suicide be considered? Why not explore what can be done with reason instead?

This states the temptation as well as the hope.  

Indeed why not explore? This why I am still here participating in thread and not simply going ahead with the mini suicide. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I think it would be incredibly unobjective to hold a standard of value with absolutely no consideration for survival at all.

Nearly every moralist considers survival, but not their personal, earthly survival. They act instead for the survival of the tribe or the group, or the survival of their eternal soul in the afterlife. Survival is continued existence. If people don't have an objective grasp of existence, then they won't pick an objective standard of value. They'll think of the tribe or the eternal soul as an existent that survives forever and is thus most worthy of being the standard of value.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Survival plays at least some part in them standard of value does it not?  As such it cannot be irrelevant ... 

No, it's not irrelevant to the standard of value as such, but what we're discussing is one specific application of it. It might be pivotal to a different application (such as Cypher's plan or the evasion of the difference between food and poison) but not here.

The reason is that believing in an afterlife doesn't necessarily impact one's ability to survive, one way or the other (as countless conservatives are living proof of).

Any of the derivative evasions required to maintain it might do so, but I couldn't say exactly how; there's a wide variety of knowledge required to survive. I couldn't count the mental steps leading up to it nor hazard a guess as to how long you'd take on any given step (since such integration would be driven exclusively by habituation and whatever random ideas you might stumble upon). 

Since I couldn't even guarantee that you'd actually screw up your survival skills before you aged to death, I won't include it as one of the essential factors. That would be dishonest.

 

The possibility which matters much more than that you might become incapable of surviving is that you might stop trying to survive (or try only halfheartedly).

However, since you might keep trying anyway (like any Christian who believes in the immorality of suicide) and since there are situations where Rand clearly showed Egoism to contradict survival as such (survival "on a subhuman level"), even that isn't the real essential; the crux of the matter is why you might not want to live that way.

You can say that it contradicts your requirements "qua man" (as Rand did) or you can emphasize its effects on your psychological health (as I have); I don't see any functional distinction between these descriptions. I simply prefer the latter for its clarity to laymen.

 

That is why, in this particular application of our standard of value, I've included its requirements for the quality of your life and excluded those for its quantity.

 

17 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I see you've decided to bow out.  I'm disappointed but I respect it on some level.  

Maybe. I've changed my mind, for now, but I really don't have the time to repeat myself ad nauseum.

4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I cannot speculate as to another's emotions or motivations.

Really?

Firstly, what about everyone's being "too kind"? Kindness means that we had better and harsher arguments we could've used but didn't (or else it could've been ignorance but could not have been kindness).

Secondly, if someone tells you about their emotions point-blank then -unless it'd contradict something else you know- you sure as Hell can draw such a conclusion. In that situation it's not speculation but a valid inference which reason demands us to make - and to fail to do so would constitute the same refusal of integration that Christians mistakenly believe will keep their religious and secular beliefs separate.

Thirdly, if you'd made such a cognitive failure with regard to some abstract issue (such as the relevance of someone's responses) that'd be understandable, if still slightly annoying. Making it about @Easy Truth's post is the kind of shit I'd expect from Leonard Peikoff.

 

5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

No one here has bothered to rigorously put this idea finally out of its misery.

If I'm going to stay in this thing then I would appreciate your feedback on all of the points I have already made.

I have now explained exactly why I don't consider "survival" relevant. Feel free to dispute any of that (I'm sure you will) but if you don't consider my argument at the very least a valid alternative to yours then please explain why.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

If Easy Truth is no longer worried, then does that mean there is confidence that the grounds for his concern has passed, or perhaps more ominously, a covert admission of apathy with regard to any potential outcome?

 

So many dramatic phrases "intellectual suicide", "going insane", and the bizarre idea of "choosing insanity". There is no imminent threat of suicide, there is no dire situation, Unless believing in an eternal life implies wanting to end it now.There is no indication of such a plan, therefore, the OP is not creating a threat to his survival, (no matter how you define it, survival qua man, happiness, flourishing, etc).

Now, if someone told me "I want to kill myself, help me change my mind" I would find the suicide prevention hotline and get them involved as they are more adept at dealing with it. If the gist of this thread had been to convince us that one can change the mind of a suicidal person simply with logic, it would have been seriously misguided and might have gotten some people killed.

Other than the suicide area, if someone said "What I think is wrong, convince me of the truth" all I have to do is help the person lay it out, clarify it and they will end up seeing what does not make sense. They already know the truth and want it to have a more prominent place in their consciousness. But ultimately, it is their life, they own their life and at some point, I have to respect whatever they want to do. In that case, StrictlyLogical might find his Seppuku knife and do the honorable thing. Then we would have to go through the painful task of finding out how to show that we bowed when we heard the news. I haven't seen an emoji for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

In that case, StrictlyLogical might find his Seppuku knife and do the honorable thing.

I am of the mind that StrictlyLogical knows precisely where his Seppuku knife is. As to "the honorable thing", I take some issue with the Code of the Bushido.

With regard to Setsuninto--Katsujinken, O'Sensei Frost relayed the story of the master/pupil coming across a group of ruffians. The ruffians badgered the master/pupil as they passed. Afterword, the pupil inquired of the master why he did not use his art upon the ruffians. The master replied, "I did. I allowed them to live."

Far from the ideology of aikido devotees, Koei-Kan—The House of Happiness and Prosperity—was the "Way of the Fist". Kancho Onishi Eizo was it's founder while O'Sensei Frost was a strong advocate. It was with Giri which I wrestled with for some time. Ultimately it was Katsujinken, or the sword that gives life, with which I empathized.

Hara Kiri, while romanticized throughout the art and culture, blurs the distinction between self-esteem and sacrifice, promoting sacrifice under the guise of self-esteem. If honor is self-esteem made visible in action, I find it difficult to correlate Seppuko with either honor or self-esteem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

In that case, StrictlyLogical might find his Seppuku knife and do the honorable thing.

While I enjoy some irreverence as much as (probably a good deal more than) the next guy, this is a very serious matter. If you've read the Fountainhead then you'll know in what sense SL is talking about amputating a chunk of his self (his "him") and what that means.

I don't know to what extent he's actually serious about it (since he's indicated partial but not full sincerity); meaning that I don't know whether he actually intends to do it or not. The proposal itself, though, is nothing to sneeze at.

 

Quote

Then we would have to go through the painful task of finding out how to show that we bowed when we heard the news. I haven't seen an emoji for that.

You can. If he were to kill some part of his self he'd be both the victim and the murderer and, personally speaking, I'd find it very difficult to see past the latter.

 

We do need a Seppuku emoji, though. For Peikoff. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

this is a very serious matter. If you've read the Fountainhead then you'll know in what sense SL is talking about amputating a chunk of his self (his "him") and what that means.

I don't know to what extent he's actually serious about it (since he's indicated partial but not full sincerity); meaning that I don't know whether he actually intends to do it or not. The proposal itself, though, is nothing to sneeze at.

 

I may or may not understand the Fountainhead example you refer to. Elaborate if you can. My understanding is that this thread was, in fact, an intellectual exercise. As such, with the logic mind that SL has, his problem would not have been believing in unreality but investing tremendous energy in preventing reality from getting through. He, in particular, will not be successful at pushing reality away. He has a passion for both reality and logic, you can see it all over the place in this forum.

Now if this was genuine desire to shut out an aspect of reality (not a thought exercise), it would be based on overwhelming emotion. In this case fear. If we were to support a fearful person, it would start by "accepting" who he is and holding him and his environment as "safe", not labeling certain thoughts as reprehensible or immoral. One has to accept oneself to be able to move an improved state. If you attack someone's self-esteem, they will not budge. This also holds true if you attack your own self-worth.

There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion that you and I have. You think that a person who is not stupid can (willfully, in his right mind) choose to do something stupid while I don't see it as possible. It seems contradictory as if you are saying that a person can have a mind and not have a mind at the same time. It is like saying that someone who is driving at 70 miles on the freeway full of traffic, in his right mind, can choose to close his eyes to reach his destination. I don't believe his mind will allow him to do that. Other than being in error or being tricked, the only reason to do something like that is when one has lost their mind ... when one is not in their right mind. I assume you are looking at it in a different way than I am (context), I can't figure out what that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

My understanding is that this thread was, in fact, an intellectual exercise.

That implies a contradiction to this:

On 11/11/2017 at 7:56 PM, Easy Truth said:

People including myself were genuinely worried about you.

I'm not saying you were wrong to be worried (I am, too). But this intellectual exercise either has existential consequences to worry about or it doesn't; you can't have it both ways.

 

Quote

I may or may not understand the Fountainhead example you refer to. Elaborate if you can.

So you haven't read it. Alright. I can work with that.

Please read the thread I linked to for elaboration.

 

Quote

As such, with the logic mind that SL has, his problem would not have been believing in unreality but investing tremendous energy in preventing reality from getting through. He, in particular, will not be successful at pushing reality away.

I disagree. The minds that are best equipped for rationality are also best equipped for evasion (as opposed to drift, as in any mind of social ballast). If a Roark were to turn to "the dark side" they would not be able to become a Keating, but a Toohey.

Quote

He has a passion for both reality and logic, you can see it all over the place in this forum.

So much the worse if he destroys it. That's precisely what would make it difficult for me to empathize with the "victim" aspect: because of what the "murderer" aspect would've destroyed.

Don't say he couldn't do it if he wanted to.

Quote

If we were to support a fearful person, it would start by "accepting" who he is and holding him and his environment as "safe", not labeling certain thoughts as reprehensible or immoral. One has to accept oneself to be able to move an improved state.

What part of oneself?

I'd throw myself into sulfuric acid to defend certain parts of a person, but fear? I don't know about that.

"The enemy is fear. We believe it is hate, but it is not; it is fear."

-Mahatma Gandhi

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If you attack someone's self-esteem, they will not budge.

In my experience (from both sides of it) that doesn't make much of a difference.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If a Roark were to turn to "the dark side" they would not be able to become a Keating, but a Toohey.

That is an intriguing thought I had not hitherto entertained.

Toohey, in his self-portrait to Keating (4-14) confessed his power-lust. If Roark could not have accepted his path, his alternative would have been to look at 'the proof that another kind of men existed' as 'tombstones, slender obelisks soaring in memory of the men who had been destroyed for having created them'. (Atlas Shrugged, Part Three, Chapter IV) — or so it seems to me.

 

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.

×