EC

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge — that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers — and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically — one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second. The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide — it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality." “WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN ETHICS?” The Objectivist Newsletter/, Feb. 1965, 7

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to seeking "sympathy" with anyone. I showed you the correct answers and won't have any further discussion with an irrational person that shouldn't even be allowed to post this type of complete irrational nonsense here as it's a violation of Forum rules and the site's purpose. Don't respond to me again nor send me any private messages trying to get around Euiol.

I thumbed this up even though all of it isn't true although somewhat better than what the other guy spewed. It does not result from consciousness quite the opposite. From the Lexicon: The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists — and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness — the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. “THE METAPHYSICAL VERSUS THE MAN-MADE” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24 SHARE

Not true.

Exactly, he both ignored than completely flipped the meaning of my statement. Reality is the final arbiter of truth, and one's mind and grasp of reality is the final authority of all knowledge. (and as I'm writing this the word "God" *which is the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus keeps popping up because the evil hacking part of the campaign against myself is a mixture of different types of altruists/collectivists/authoritarian that want me to accept every form of tyranny ever created, which of course will never happen and they are blatantly evil in every manner by doing these crimes). They also (and the guy above we are talking about is likely one of them and not simply a random "troll" equate falsely the man made with the metaphysical or reality as such in their deluded minds.

So are we to accept the "authority" of non-reality instead? At least, implicit in all of this is your true goal.

Most of the "disagreements" O_V boil down to non-integration of ideas and concepts that he has claimed to have read. Both Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff wrote in plain language, provided examples of every concept and explicitly defined all terms used at every point in every discussion. Someone that claims to have read the entire corpus but needs some sort of reinterpretation of every idea, principle, and explicitly defined term is most likely being dishonest whether intellectually or in their true purpose. The Objectivist corpus isn't written in run-on paragraphs and other means of obscuring meaning like someone like Kant's is. It is very explicit and to the point in common language with explicit objective definitions provided at all times when needed. That doesn't mean that there are subtleties and specific applications of knowledge that are beyond rational discussion, but it does mean that after reading and integrating all of the basics one should be at a different level of discussion than what seems to be presented here. Also as an aside, note that this side discussion buries Gus’s theme.

Self-sacrifice is the antesis of rational/good always. Remember in any compromise between food and poison it's only good that is killed. Also, even though I’m an Objectivist, I am one because the ideas are true in reality which is what should be pu front and center, or else an individual just comes across as a proponent of some philosophy, instead of the facts of reality as such where facts and open to random opinions of others instead.

I agree, not that I would ever feel "pressure" myself. Social pressure, especially from evil philosophy such as altruism would only be "felt" by secondhanders.

No such thing, as the two words are a contradiction in terms.

Ever accidentally hit yes to one of those popups when paying for something at a gas station with a card and essentially have had an extra dollar stolen from you with essentially no way to get it back? Private charity is fine in the appropriate circumstances and a person can afford it with no sacrifice on their purpose and it is for a purpose, person, or group that is a personal value to themselves, but it's definitely not good/moral when done by an "oops".

What if it is only *assumed* that they held Objectivist facts of reality as dogma (which is what happens in the vast majority of cases) instead of following each argument Miss Rand carefully in all the non-fiction, applying reason to integrate the knowledge that agrees with one's sense of life that they always possessed?

And bam, mob posting by unmoderated new anti-Objectivists to bury this as the street squad drives around loudly racing their engines in the general harassment part of the campaign (and loudly revs it just as I typed that and a second time as I type the in quotation part) as I sit outside smoking a normal cigar. They do this as some sort of "intimidation" even if they know with certainty that I wouldn't be "intimidated" by any of them even if they all came at me in non-cowardly ways while they are fully armed all at once. It just sucks being annoyed to death by some huge group of extreme cowards that have somehow populated a vast region and for whatever think its their life calling to randomly annoy, sabotage, and destroy individuals for no reasons. ( with that emoji thrown in as a response from the hacking unit 😑) Its like when is enough enough when it comes to this never-ending nonsense that even the people that I know have been blackmailed or threatened some how to participate in? It would be nice if one of the Federal agencies like the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security would do their job and end this and the group behind it, or even if the national press that I have contacted would investigate those behind all of this. But instead all I get is silence, continuation of a nightmare, and random smears when I report this like what happened here. One thing I never knew before this is there is a huge mass of immoral people that will constantly engage in extremely immoral and illegal activities at all times populating the Midwest that blackmail, coerce, and intimidate people from seemingly all walks of life, again including family members, what I thought were "friends", and aquatiences to also constantly engage in this extremely immoral/illegal activity in a seemingly neverending manner.

Nope, nor do I understand why any "enemies" exist in the first place. But notice the context burying on the site by new anti-Objectivists breaking the forums rules while I can no longer moderate them and nobody else does regardless of reporting. While it's still on my mind here's a relatively minor example of how widespread this strange evil campaign is, and I already alluded to hacking aspects: While playing online poker I use an online random number generator to control and randomize tendencies and it constantly overgenerates especially low and sometimes high numbers in an inverted and skewed manner that statistically violates what should be an inverted Bell curve centered on 50 with 40 to 60 then then 33 to 66 obviously being generated at much higher frequency than sub-20, etc on a 1 to 100 range. This isn't some odd random occurance but happens over a mass sample size of tens of thousands of rolls. Just a piece of evidence of the scope and how wide this group operates at all times, in all places digital and real life.

It's an axiom that one uses in "denying" its very existence by choosing to type out that question. Read Peikoff's OPAR to understand the answers to your questions.