Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
StrictlyLogical

"Tree's life" OR "your tree's life"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I am still eager for someone to make an HONEST attempt to write a convincing version of what this friend said about the actual differences between the two codes

I think they are both wrong. Do you mind if I respond by speaking from the view of a third character?

Share this post


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

, please, out of politeness ...

Do you believe it's politeness to begin a topic which obviously refers to my topic, almost quoting me verbatim?

Mimicking my subject title, in the process?

In my book, that's rudeness.

Share this post


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

 

It is of course the same subject. Standard of value: man's life or your own life?

A tall tree in the forest sees how tall is he is, looking down upon those other puny trees - and declares to the forest:

"My height is the standard of height, by which all trees are to be measured".

Still don't get it? Subjectivism and relativism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think they are both wrong. Do you mind if I respond by speaking from the view of a third character?

Hey Eiuol.

Looking through All Activity, I can't find the thread I started, "Man's life or your life?"

?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think they are both wrong. Do you mind if I respond by speaking from the view of a third character?

Please read the OP carefully and be intellectually honest and true to the botanist’s goal, the tree, and plan, to write a code for the gardener.  I’ve about had it with straw men, double standards, evasion, ulterior motives, unoriginal thought, and twisting of words from others in the past, so please bring an open honest rational mind to this and we can have an interesting discussion.  

Perhaps your character can be a biologist sitting at the next table?  I’ll give back any responses from the botanist and the friend.  Sound good?

 

A biologist at the next table overhears the conversation and decides to interject...

 

 

Share this post


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

It is of course the same subject. Standard of value: man's life or your own life?

A tall tree in the forest sees how tall is he is, looking down upon those other puny trees - and declares to the forest:

"My height is the standard of height, by which all trees are to be measured".

Still don't get it? Subjectivism and relativism? 

I’ll discuss this with you.  Start a new thread and we can discuss your hypothetical.  That’s my offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Objectivist overhears the conversation and decides to interject...

An analogy about gardening, bee-keeping, playing sport ...whatever-  is simply that - analogous; illustrating one's point - not an argument. A respondent is not duty bound to reply in kind, or to continue in imprecise metaphors which must eventually conceal rather than enlighten, and is entitled to transpose that into terms of what the analogy *means* in actuality and reason, its premises and consequences.

Yup, me too. "I've  about had it" with the misrepresentation going on of Objectivist ethics: of what Rand actually meant and concisely, constantly and repeatedly wrote. But further, beyond her thinking, what any O'ist conceptualist should indenpendently recognize as true to reality, man and existence, derived from his thinking and experience.

If anyone is looking for a nicely simplified, 'logical syllogism' to condense Objectivist ethics -- look deeper . Rand's explication is comprehensive and needs to be - resting on metaphysical reality and abstracted, "conceptual logic".

Fact -> value;

Reality is the standard of reason. Man's life is the standard of value.

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Hey Eiuol.

Looking through All Activity, I can't find the thread I started, "Man's life or your life?"

?

I still see it, dunno why you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A farmer overhears the discussion. Normally he would stay out of discussions, especially at a bar. In this case though, he is intrigued by the business opportunity. At the same time, he has an interest in philosophy. Probably because of his professional interest in business, he had insight to offer. He noticed that they were focusing on the wrong ideas.

"Yeah, I know I'm interrupting, and I normally wouldn't do this, but I think both of you are looking at it the wrong way.

"Sure, we can talk about the nature of trees. How they work without intervention, the range and form of their actions, the end in which trees grow towards. The trees don't need standards! I'm a farmer, so I think about these things everyday."

The two friends both say something about how the farmer was missing the point of the exercise. They wanted a different way to think about an approach to defining what makes actions good or bad for an entity.

"No, I don't think I was clear enough, sorry. I don't grow my fruit trees with the flourishing in mind necessarily. I don't have the time or ability to go through each and every tree and check each genetic difference and make a change for each and every tree. So what I do is maximize fruit production and flavor. That's my standard. Since I grow peaches, fruit production and flavor is in comparison to other peaches. To accomplish this, I actually acted against the flourishing of the tree - I have to prune it, I have to encourage it to put more energy towards growing fruits instead of leaves and branches."

One friend mentions that he is only worrying right now about the one tree. He wants some code to take care of his tree, since only one exists in the world right now.

"That's really interesting actually. But if I found out all the nuances of your tree, as a farmer, I'll be wondering how to grow more than one. If you want a forest, or if you want to farm, these are different things. I need something to guide my ideas. I need some idea to apply to all the trees. If I only cared about one tree, I wouldn't need an abstract code. Any rule I create wouldn't apply to other trees."

The other friend mentions that the farmer is still talking about trees in general and their life.

"It's not the same. You see, you aren't using standards correctly! You're all focused on the flourishing of a tree, but the whole reason to even talk about this is that we are growing trees. The code isn't about a tree, it's about a standard across trees, to attain the ultimate goal of growing fruit. My would I bother with the standards you want?"

Share this post


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

A farmer overhears the discussion. Normally he would stay out of discussions, especially at a bar. In this case though, he is intrigued by the business opportunity. At the same time, he has an interest in philosophy. Probably because of his professional interest in business, he had insight to offer. He noticed that they were focusing on the wrong ideas.

"Yeah, I know I'm interrupting, and I normally wouldn't do this, but I think both of you are looking at it the wrong way.

"Sure, we can talk about the nature of trees. How they work without intervention, the range and form of their actions, the end in which trees grow towards. The trees don't need standards! I'm a farmer, so I think about these things everyday."

The two friends both say something about how the farmer was missing the point of the exercise. They wanted a different way to think about an approach to defining what makes actions good or bad for an entity.

"No, I don't think I was clear enough, sorry. I don't grow my fruit trees with the flourishing in mind necessarily. I don't have the time or ability to go through each and every tree and check each genetic difference and make a change for each and every tree. So what I do is maximize fruit production and flavor. That's my standard. Since I grow peaches, fruit production and flavor is in comparison to other peaches. To accomplish this, I actually acted against the flourishing of the tree - I have to prune it, I have to encourage it to put more energy towards growing fruits instead of leaves and branches."

One friend mentions that he is only worrying right now about the one tree. He wants some code to take care of his tree, since only one exists in the world right now.

"That's really interesting actually. But if I found out all the nuances of your tree, as a farmer, I'll be wondering how to grow more than one. If you want a forest, or if you want to farm, these are different things. I need something to guide my ideas. I need some idea to apply to all the trees. If I only cared about one tree, I wouldn't need an abstract code. Any rule I create wouldn't apply to other trees."

The other friend mentions that the farmer is still talking about trees in general and their life.

"It's not the same. You see, you aren't using standards correctly! You're all focused on the flourishing of a tree, but the whole reason to even talk about this is that we are growing trees. The code isn't about a tree, it's about a standard across trees, to attain the ultimate goal of growing fruit. My would I bother with the standards you want?"

No.  

You’ve taken over my characters and made them say what they would not say.

This is not an honest discussion.  It is a twisting of the position of my characters not a presentation of an alternative to both.

You can’t say you disagree with both positions and then try to argue your case primarily by mischaracterizing those positions.

 

Share this post


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

You can’t say you disagree with both positions and then try to argue your case primarily by mischaracterizing those positions.

If I mischaracterized them, then it is because you did a poor job writing it for what you were going for. I really was trying. I didn't write any dialogue for them. What I wrote is what I understood. If it's wrong, you can fix it. I'm not out to get you. We can talk about it. My bad that I somehow missed that you wanted to write the responses for the other characters. It's not that big a deal though because I didn't actually write any dialogue for them, and I tried to only include the information you already put (and notice that all I did is clarify their position, which is another way of saying what I understood their position to be). 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 7:21 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

I’ve about had it with straw men, double standards, evasion, ulterior motives, unoriginal thought, and twisting of words from others in the past, so please bring an open honest rational mind to this and we can have an interesting discussion.  

I thought I would point this out. These are often used as buzzwords or trigger words, and don't refer to anything in actuality. Dishonest about what? Evading what? What's unoriginal? What is strawmanned about the argument? Why would someone have an ulterior motive against you anyway? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 10:27 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

SoftwareNerd

...

If any of you would like to have a 1on 1 or 4 way discussion on this topic, please PM me.

 

To be honest, I do not understand the question/hypothesis/proposition... that's why I figured I could not post anything else that would be coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...