Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    Neuromarketing and choice

    gio
    By gio,
    I had an argument with some people about the "power" of advertising. One of the guy argued that advertising could impose choices against our will, and force us to do things we did not want. He supported his point by the neuromarketing and the research on the stimulus and the brain. He emphasized my (real) ignorance on the subject. I failed explaining to him that these experiments and research could not prove that man was not free to make his own choices and that he can not be forced to do something he doesn't want to do. I really failed. I was merely an "ignorant" vs. a "scientist" who was constantly telling me to go to learn about the subject. Annoying. At the end he explained that the fact that there is physical laws, commercial monopolies, the size of my bank account, major depressive disorder, and many others factors ... showed that there was no choice in some cases. I failed to explain to him that it was a confusion between two different things, that you can't take the removal of reality as the standard of "choice"... he definitevely shone as "scientist" and me as "metaphysics" who confuses everything .... The misunderstaning I faced was hopeless and very frustrating. I'm not complaining about the disagreement, but the deep misunderstanding. I tried to explain that It's one thing to be attracted, it's another thing to lose the ability to say no ; but all I get as answer was that I don't know enough neuroscience and stuff like that. I don't have the scientific knowledge. What I said was automatically discredit because it's not "scientific", as oppose to neuroscience... Science (pretty bad interpreted I guess) is seen here as an authority, and everyone is "on the side of the science" of course. He didn't ask me to believe science on the basis of faith, he told me to go search and get information to learn about this topic where I am ignorant. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion, he never explicitly referred to cognitive science and neuromarketing, just vaguely to the relationship between science and advertising. I asked repeatedly if he could provide me with references that he considered probative to have a basis for discussion. And the only answer was that if I didn't see what he was talking about, it showed that I didn't know anything about the topic (I dont have "the level"), that I was lazy because I didn't want to do the research on my own, that I wanted him to did the work for me, so I didn't have the required level ... I ended up guessing (after a long time) that he was talking about neuromarketing, but when I showed him links and asked him if he evaluate this particular reference as probative, he just asked me: "In your opinion?" or "You should know for yourself.", "I'm not your teacher, you have to do the job." Etc. I found this particulary dishonest, but apparently I was the only one. Anyway, How to explain, in understable way, that neuromarketing and neuroscience in communication can't force us to act a way we don't want to act?

    Reblogged:Friday Hodgepodge

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Notable Commentary

    "... I am ... deeply disturbed by any prospect of psychiatric diagnoses being used (or misused) for political purposes." -- Paul Hsieh, in "You Might Not Like the President, but That Doesn't Mean He's Crazy " at Forbes.

    "If [Susan Stamper] Brown sincerely wants conditions in Haiti to improve she should speak against their government." -- Bob Stubblefield, in "Letter: Haiti, America Should Have More Respect for Rights" at The Aiken Standard.

    "In the quest to protect misguided notions of freedom, ... it is freedom that will suffer." -- Tara Smith, in "The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech" at The Texas Review of Law and Politics, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 57-92. (2018, PDF, blogged here).

    "The advocates of the restrictions frame every new way to speak about politics as a 'loophole' that must be sealed up." -- Talbot Manvel, in "We Don't Need More Campaign Finance Laws" at The Capitol Gazette.

    "If one values romantic love, the idea of multiple sexual partners is repugnant, as it is and should be, for the civilized man -- the man who values himself as an individual." -- Charlotte Cushman, in "Monogamy is Moral, Promiscuity is Not" at The American Thinker.

    From the Blogs

    The latest post at You Can and Did Build It, about the beginning of the philosophical discussion of free will, closes with an interesting observation:
    Incidentally, you may be interested to learn of The Internet Classics Archive, which has brought "the wisdom of the classics to the Internet since 1994." I had either forgotten about or did not know of this resource until I followed a link from that post to the Nichomachean Ethics.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Avoiding the pitfalls in learning philosophy

    Capitalist Chris
    By Capitalist Chris,
    I've read a lot of Rand's work, that I've enjoyed, though I have some more books of hers to get through. The more I read, the more interested I've become in philosophy and have started to consume it independently on my own. I checked out some syllabuses at some University to see what the intro epistemology courses use as a text and I picked up a copy. I'm currently working my way through "Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge" by Audi. This book in general doesn't really talk about the philosophers behind the ideas. Instead of saying Hume said this... or Kant said this... I'm left with the labels of the views like 'naive realism', 'sense datum theory', etc. It's all very interesting. The author has name dropped a little bit, especially when I made it the chapter on Reason. Kant in particular, who I know Rand viewed as somewhat as her anti. I don't know much about Kant, other than his duty based ethics. When most philosophy degrees are pumping out pretty much the same types of people, I'm concerned with falling into pitfalls and issues. I want to learn. I do think I'm doing myself a disservice if I don't get a perspective of ideas. Thoughts?

    My Verses

    Boydstun
    By Boydstun,
    . These Words These words we read from some desire . . that someone live . . the this entire. Read is our reach, . . our grasp, our be . . life that is know . . wings that are free.   Copyright Stephen C. Boydstun 2016    

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×