Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jonny Glat

Regulars
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jonny Glat

  1. Proof of the contradictions that exist within the concept of "god"

    A is A.

    Which means a "thing" is.

    Which means a "thing" is something.

    Which means a "thing" has an essence - a nature unique to its identity.

    Man is Man.

    Which means Man is.

    Which means Man is (exists) something (Man)

    Which means Man has an essence - a nature unique to his identity

    I am. (I exist)

    I am myself (I have a unique identity)

    I am myself- and I know it (I possess consciousness)

    Every "thing" I know exists according to its nature, whether I know that nature or not.

    Every "thing" has a unique identity. An apple is an apple. It cannot be an orange at the same time that it is an apple.

    Every "thing" is an existent- it exists in accordance to the Law of Identity (A is A).

    Identity is defined by the nature of the existent. (What it is is what it is)

    Every existent has limitations. (An apple cannot be an orange simultaneously)

    Every existent's limitations or- every existent's definition or- every existent- exists within reality (is metaphysical)

    Reality constitutes everything that exists. If something is it is within a context.

    Every existent has an identity- which means has limitations.

    Every limitation is dictated by reality, the context in which it exists.

    Every existent is of a certain quantity (matter)

    All apples weigh something according to a quantitative measurement (a standard; ie. ounces)

    All trees can be measured based on the three dimensions: height, width, depth.

    Because all existents are made up of a certain quantity, all existents are finite.

    Apples cannot be 6 ounces AND 100 ounces. Either-Or. Never a contradiction.

    Apples with regards to any descriptive measurement (height, weight, color, texture, taste) are finite- meaning they have a specific identity.

    All Existents are finite by definition.

    No Existents can be infinite.

    Infinity does not exist within reality- within existence

    Existence, the context for all existents is finite.

    Infinity = non existent- non metaphysical- or literally not within reality

    Infinite = impossible to exist within a finite (the universe)

    An infinite being- god- cannot exist.

    An infinite being breaks the law of identity.

    God cannot be infinite and yet be some thing.

    Any thing has an identity- which means limitations- which means is finite.

    If he is only 6' tall he is not infinite (in a metaphysical sense)

    If he is only 3' wide he is not infinite (in a metaphysical sense)

    God is infinite = God is (not within reality) = God does not exist.

    God does not exist metaphysically- which means he does not exist within reality.

    Any attempt to prove God requires one to discard reality and to presume a supernatural realm.

    Supernatural realm = "above nature" = outside of reality = outside of knowledge = outside of existence = non existence.

    A God cannot create existence.

    A consciousness cannot exist without a context- without reality- without existence.

    God cannot exist within nothing.

    A consciousness cannot create except through a finite identity (ie: a body - that exists within a reality) by obeying reality (natural laws; ie: gravity)

    A consciousness cannot create anything except through reshaping the pre-existing existents (matter)

    A consciousness cannot know unless there is some thing (an existent within reality) to know

    A consciousness cannot exist outside of context.

    God cannot be the source of existence- he cannot be the source of the universe.

    Therefore god cannot be omnipotent. God cannot choose to create a boulder that he himself cannot lift. Therefore god is limited. contradiction.

    An existent without limitations to its identity does not exist.

  2. Atlas,

    I also love Bioshock (only played the first) however I do not think that it was Levine's intention to present Objectivism/ Ayn Rand/ or even Capitalism in a positive light. It certainly is fair to cite Fontaine as a parasite which led to Rapture's destruction however I think Levine tried to show that free market capitalism is inherently evil. He package deals selfishness (Objectivism's definition of the concept) with cut throat force. Capitalism IS exploitative by nature according to Levine.

    Although I do not agree that Levine succeeded in damning capitalism or Rand, he definitely tried to. If I had to guess Irrational Games philosophic/intellectual convictions, they probably would involve relatvism, moral greyness, nonabsolutism, and mixed economy, altruist-tainted ethics. A balance between freedom and force.

  3. A simple reply to your determinist friend:

    If we are all just puppets on strings, manipulated by physics, by genes, subatomic particles, environmental stimuli, fate, god, chemicals, what have you. If our minds are an illusion, how can you know anything? How can you know that we're determined with certainty and not that you're just being manipulated to think that.

    All determinists, including your friend, nullify his own mind to know anything. In essence, what they contend is: "We are determined by genes and environment and chemicals. My mind doesn't exist. But how do I know this? My mind.

    Determinism cuts the legs out from under its own argument. If you do not accept that a volitional consciousness exists, you have to use your consciousness to utter the words. If you think that the brain is just "matter" forcing you to 'think' certain things then how can you know that you aren't just being forced to think the wrong things?

    Determinism is a vacuum of contradictory 'premises' that nullify the source of knowledge: volitional consciousness

  4. This is a hypothetical situation that I've been debating with a friend concerning whether initiating force is 'ever' viable. My friend gives the situation in which a college student who doesn't receive help from his parents financially learns that he has cancer. He doesn't have insurance and can't pay for the operations, chemo, and other services. He will die in several months unless he receives treatment.

    The question: Is it viable in the long run to steal $50,000 from someone he doesn't know to pay for all the treatments that will 'most likely' allow him to survive for many years afterwards?

    I have my reasons as to why its not viable in the long run but I'd like to get some feedback and quotes from Rand on why initiating force is irrational/not viable in this situation. Or is it?

  5. "Society creates rights" is NOT the same as saying "Society has the right to create rights".

    Society creates rights may be true or untrue, depending on the society. (IE: North Korean society doesn't create rights. The dictator defines "rights" - which is unfortunately the same problem with democracy. Majority vote does not imply that the rights supports for its citizens are rational, objective "rights".

    "Society creates rights" is a factual statement. It could be right or wrong depending on the context.

    "Society has the right to create rights" is also a factual statement but it is WRONG. Rand demonstrates "why"

    society/democracy/tyrants/kings/committees do not have the "right" to redefine what a right is.

    Consider: "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave." - Rand

  6. "Society is a large number of men who live together in the same country, and who deal with one another." - Rand.

    Society how I believe you are defining it, is majority whim. Rights are not objective because the majority votes it into existence or because the majority of a group agree that it should be a right. Rights are objective "moral principles" derived from reason- which is man's only source of knowledge. Democratic votes do not change reality- man's identity is a volitional conscious being who must think to survive.

    Rights are corollaries of Man's metaphysical identity. If you begin to define "objectivity" based upon majority consensus a society will step close to the bottomless pit of collectivism (ie: America's past 70 years explicitly) Consider: Right to universal healthcare as moral and objective. This is a perversion of the concept "rights" because it takes (money- property- life)away rights from doctors, nurses, tax payers and redistributes it to the needy- everyone and anyone who breathes. Rights are meant to protect individuals from force - not to grant the use of force over others.

  7. "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living."

    Reason: I know that healthy dieting and exercise will increase my health in the moment, my life's longevity, and my physique. These are metaphysical facts. Chocolate in excess makes you fat. Being a couch potato in excess makes you fat. I choose to increase my quality of life by working hard at the gym, and choosing healthy "fuel" for my body.

    Purpose: I want to live life to the fullest, looking my best, feeling my best, so that I may achieve my career goals, pursue my love interests and attain happiness on earth.

    Self-Esteem: I love myself. I love living. I love doing. I know that my life has value and that I am competent and worthy of living. If that is considered narcissistic than it is a virtue.

  8. John Fowles is one of my favorite authors and "The Magus" is in my top 5 favorite novels of all time. I first read it when I was in high school (about 16 years young) and have reread it three times since then. I love Fowles' writing style which so expressive, honest, and descriptive. I love his ability to construct an original plot that is such a beautiful blend of philosophical inquiry, suspense, romantic exploration, and internal conflict.

    Particularly regarding "The Magus", I fell in love with Nicholas Urfe, the protagonist, who is such an irrational, contradiction-riddled character that I couldn't help but see shades of myself and others around me in him. His ethical system that guides his life seems to be at timse Objectivist, at times Nitzchean, and other times a a Don Juan sort of subjectivist who is unknowingly in self-destruct mode.

    His constant love for freedom is to be admired, however his dishonesty about his feelings with the two love interests in the novel are dreadful, manipulative, and evil. His commitment to his selfish interest and rejection of his parents' lessons of DUTY to God and Country are praiseworthy but his poetic cynicism, and masquerade of pathological victimization is juvenile, spoiled, and evasive.

    I don't love this book because Nicholas is an ideal Man, like Roark or Galt, but rather because of Fowles fierce and deep portrayal of a flawed man who in the end learns a lesson about himself, abour freedom, and about love.

  9. John Fowles is one of my favorite authors and "The Magus" is in my top 5 favorite novels of all time. I first read it when I was in high school (about 16 years young) and have reread it three times since then. I love Fowles' writing style which so expressive, honest, and descriptive. I love his ability to construct an original plot that is such a beautiful blend of philosophical inquiry, suspense, romantic exploration, and internal conflict.

    Particularly regarding "The Magus", I fell in love with Nicholas Urfe, the protagonist, who is such an irrational, contradiction-riddled character that I couldn't help but see shades of myself and others around me in him. His ethical system that guides his life seems to be at timse Objectivist, at times Nitzchean, and other times a a Don Juan sort of subjectivist who is unknowingly in self-destruct mode.

    His constant love for freedom is to be admired, however his dishonesty about his feelings with the two love interests in the novel are dreadful, manipulative, and evil. His commitment to his selfish interest and rejection of his parents' lessons of DUTY to God and Country are praiseworthy but his poetic cynicism, and masquerade of pathological victimization is juvenile, spoiled, and evasive.

    I don't love this book because Nicholas is an ideal Man, like Roark or Galt, but rather because of Fowles fierce and deep portrayal of a flawed man who in the end learns a lesson about himself, abour freedom, and about love.

    If anyone has any comments on Fowles or The Magus I would love to get a discussion started. I've also read The Ebony Tower, The Collector, and The French Lieutenant's Woman FYI...

  10. I like the vocalists singing style, but the band's lyrics have a tendency to be vague. Many of songs are very straightforward, but some are lyricized in the manner of someone trying to conceal a hidden moral or commentary through verbosity. Their beats I'm quite fond of. They are as you said, happy and upbeat, but I moreso enjoy the fact that they are focused, melodious and expressive, rather than the mindless, hysteric scrambles of sounds of some of their companions in genre.

    Which songs in particular do you contend "conceal a hidden moral or commentary through verbosity" ??

    And I agree with the fact that they are "focused, melodious and expressive"

  11. The City of Ember is a good "young adult" dystopian novel that is concise and an easy read but not too original. I do enjoy its parable-like simplicity though about individual will power, fear, and bureaucratic cronyism.

    Also I highly recommend reading "The House of the Scorpion" which is another "young adult" dystopia but is definitely more adult than "City of Ember". The author, Nancy Farmer, is an excellent storyteller particularly when handling child characters. The book takes place in a futuristic Mexico which is run by an Oligarchy of Opium mob families that use clones as slaves. Very enjoyable read - I've revisited it several times over the years.

  12. I'm a huge fan of Vampire Weekend and was wondering if anyone else was...

    In general what I love about VW is their positivity, their upbeat tempos, Ezra's talented vocals and their creative punchy, afro-pop-meets-beach boys style. Upon doing more research on the band, I learned that they met while studying at Columbia and all come from families of means. This last bit doesn't really matter to me but I love how they made something of myself, worked, and created beautiful, original music when they didn't have to in order to pay the bills.

    Also as far as Objectivism goes, there are certainly some lines that Rand would agree with, although I've never heard any of the band members cite Rand in any interviews/inspirations/etc...

    "Walcott" off their debut album has a poignant line - "evil feasts on human lives. The Holy Roman Empire moves for you." --> personally I love the first part because I'm reminded of Atlas' "The Sanction of the Victims" and the second part because of the hierarchy involved. "you" being a girl of the protagonist's affections is presented here as incredibly powerful and history/a nation below her, acting for her.

    if anyone has other lyrical lines or comments on VW I'd love to get a discussion going.

  13. Socialism is a flavor of collectivism, or a political system based on slavery and mysticism, or in a more abstract concept: it is a system based on force. Advocates of any collectivist system usually evade their fundamental contradictions which are specifically Existence = Identity. Consciousness = Identification. Therefore advocates reject the notion that Man has free will and is merely a collection of atoms, programmed by fate, god, or genes. Man doesn't have a mind, they contend, therefore Man cannot be held accountable for any of his behaviors. This means that Socialism's efforts to redistribute wealth equally, or to a degree more equally, is morally right because its not Johnny's fault that he isn't smart enough to be an astronaut and just as importantly, Maria the physicist, the one who works to understand and solve and create and produce did so automatically just like her genes/god/fate designed her to do, therefore she has no right to a larger paycheck than Johnny. Socialism is the political system of determinism, subjectivism, and anti-reason because it denies the Individual and claims his life, his ability, and his productive output belongs to everyone and anyone in society. Socialists deny Free Will, they deny the right to property, and they deny the right to life.

    It is absolutely, objectively irrational to contend that socialism is viable, that socialism is moral, and/or that socialism is rational.

  14. I've been thinking of getting a tattoo on my inner forearm: "Howard Roark laughed." or possibly: "Howard Roark, Architect" ... I do want to include some sort of image besides the font but I haven't decided. With regards to other people seeing it: I simply don't care. The last thing on a rational man's mind is seeking approval of strangers and how he *may* be perceived... I'm proud to be an Objectivist and if I choose to declare it on my skin then I am ethical to pursue what I want for myself.

  15. Jimmy contends that if she were to abandon the child, she would be completely moral to do so, if she valued her freedom over her responsibilities to her child. So therefore if the child starved to death, it wouldn't be her fault.

    i should clarify here that this is what he thinks Rand would say. He argues that this is immoral and therefore that Duty is an essential part of morality.

  16. My friend Jimmy is a philosophy major and loves to attack Rand, mostly becuase I am an Objectivist and an outspoken individual, but sometimes he does offer some thoughtful scrutiny in applying Rand's ethics to reality.

    As of yesterday, Jimmy proposed me with a situation that I'll now try to illustrate again:

    Suppose that Amanda lives in a Laissez Faire Free market, Objectivist government-run society (army, cops, courts), with complete separation of Church and State and also of Economics and State. That means that there are privately run Abortion clinics (not funded by taxes). Suppose Amanda gets pregnant and decides she wants to be a mother. She has a healthy baby boy and begins raising it by herself. Amanda then decides that it's too much hard work and she wants to be free again. Jimmy contends that if she were to abandon the child, she would be completely moral to do so, if she valued her freedom over her responsibilities to her child. So therefore if the child starved to death, it wouldn't be her fault.

    I explained to Jimmy that he doesn't understand the concept of Duty. I told him that if Amanda chose to keep the baby for 9 months and then chose to have it delivered and not aborted, she is choosing to honor a contract with the child to support it. It's her responsibility which she chose to keep, by her own free will, therefore to break the contract and desert the baby before it is mature enough to fend for itself, is forcing the child to experience a slow drawn out suicide of starvation and dehydration. Important to note I said though was that Amanda's choice to take on the responsibilities of parenting holds her accountable for the child's life. Furthermore, I said that it would be suffiecient for Amanda to ask her neighbors to adopt the child if that's what they wanted to do in their self interest. Basically, that choosing to have a child means not just choosing to birth the child but to sustain its life to the best of your ability until the child is able to be independent.

    Was my defense objective? Was I omitting anything? Thanks in advance...

  17. This is a misconception of two interrelated aspects of Rand's ethics here: agent-relativity and contextuality. What does this mean?

    The approach of traditional morality is that values are either intrinsic or subjective. Either it is good to do one particular thing because it is good in itself ("good" as an absolute attribute of some thing or action or choice), or else there is no absolute good, everything is just subjective. If Rand says lying is immoral, then it must be intrinsically wrong to do, wrong it itself, apart from its effects on the actors involved. But the agent-relative approach Rand takes is that rightness or wrongness is an aspect of reality in relation to man. The goal of values are to advance our lives, so a value considered apart from its relation to the moral agent fails to fulfill that function. We can't evaluate something as being good or bad apart from its full impact on all facets of that person’s long-range well-being.

    So this brings up the aspect of context. Nothing is right or wrong in a vacuum, because there is no such thing as reality in a vacuum. There is always context, meaning the particulars of a specific situation, a background. Things are interrelated with this background, and so the background conditions our understanding of the facts involved. So to ask "is X right or wrong" is to ask "in the context of this particular situation, is it good or bad for me to do X?" The reference to the surroundings of the situation is necessary to preserve context, and the "for me" is necessary to preserve its effects on the acting moral agent. In this way, what the good is dependent upon its effects on you (agent-relative), can differ from person to person, situation to situation (contextual), and within those constraints can still be absolute and mind-independent (objective.)

    So when we read the section in Atlas Shrugged or The Virtue of Selfishness where Rand is talking about honesty and considering it as a virtue, she is in other words considering it as a general strategy for long-term success in life, not as some kind of out of context dictum or commandment. The specific application of each of the generalized goods and virtues is unique to each person, and thus it's up to each individual to make decisions based on the unique context of knowledge he has in the varied particular circumstances and situations oh his life. Fooling some person in that instance can save your life, so would definitely be moral. The demands of honesty are for practical, selfish reasons, they don't apply in absolutely all imaginable circumstances regardless of their consequences. So in emergencies, we have different context. The point is that in general, faking reality and trying to deceive people is not a good strategy. There is the above section of Peikoff's OPAR where this is explained. There is also Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics chapter 4, a section on "Special Cases" and a subsection on "Responding to Force" p. 94.

    So you're right in suspecting that Rand would say that it wouldn't make sense to be morally required to tell the truth to person threatening you with physical force, and actually has written on that topic. I know there was some incident with some American POWs who were punished by the Army after being forced to denounce the US for some North Korean propaganda films, which Rand wrote about (I'm just too lazy to look anything up atm.)

    Thanks for the in depth response especially about the discussion on intrinsic ethics vs. contextual/ Man-centered

    ethics. It helped me a great deal.

  18. I understand that Rand holds that lying is a lack of integrity and honesty and in the end only handicaps yourself. She argues that lying is an attempt to cheat reality by manipulating others and actually raises the individuals you lied to above yourself. In essence, you lie to someone which makes you their slave, until and unless you choose to admit your lie.

    I completely understand that lying is not viable, however I'm perplexed as to whether this is true for enemies.

    for example:

    A robber breaks the lock on your front door. You grab your pistol from a safe in your closet, which you bought with your own money and have a valid license for, and point it at the robber as he pushes into the bedroom.

    The robber says, "that isn't even loaded". Let's assume he's right. That you didn't have time to scramble through your desk in another room for the bullets. You step closer, tighten your grip, and cock the pistol hammer back, then say, "yes it is loaded. Get out of I'll kill you."

    By Rand's ethics, you would be immoral to lie to the robber, even though in this situation I maintain that it seems 100% plausible and viable to lie on account of your self defense. The robber may back off and leave, believing your lie.

    Thoughts?

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that Rand would reply that if a Man is going to abdicate himself from reality and use force against me, I'm permitted to lie (a form of fraud/force)

×
×
  • Create New...