Spiral Architect

*** Post copied from previous version of forum. - sN *** To the OP: Virtues are practiced for your benefit and to further your life. The primary virtues are used to determine a course of action when presented with a choice. This does not change based on the society you live in unless it is complete devoid of choices (i.e. totalitarian state). The issue with a corrupt society is the choices it does present you not always good but as long as you recognize this it is navigable. I think the bigger issue is just trying to retain a good sense of life and outlook under such circumstances.

*** Post copied from previous version of forum software. - sN *** Outside of Reidy's excellent response I will add that this is about Certainty and that it is always contextual. Something cane be true but you also recognize that you may learn more later to update what you know to be true. For example - Water boils at 212 degrees. Later I learn that it does not boil at the temperature on a mountain. It does not change what I know to be true but I do learn how boiling temp changes based on position to sea level and have added additional information that expands what I know to be true.

Free will is what allows us to build advance concepts. This becomes clearer when you consider abstractions. Animals can differentiate between facts presented to them but humans can integrate those facts which allows them to build more complex knowledge. My can knows that the wife and I are different from him, and that my wife and I are different from each other, or who is likely to feed him. He cannot learn that we are both mammals, and that with the birds he watches we are all animals, and when combined with the catnip plant that we are living organisms.

Values do not come from the facts of reality? Fascinating. This is the crux of the issue.

That's because the 30's had the beginning of a welfare government but a generation of still ethically fairly independent actors who took responsibility for their lives. Today we have an entrenched welfare state with the socialist/fascist directions questionably looming large while an entrenched generation who are eschew moral thinking while being dependent on others. This is a generalization of course but still trending.

It's a five minute video guys, not a treatise. He simply asks that we go back to the days when we had standards and built upon what came before. This video was not for us, it was for the 99% of the population that does not chew on these subjects.

You need more to determine rationality but little to determine if it is of interest to you. As for the argument, I have had this and simply tell them it is moral to refuse to be robbed no mater what the outcome of the thief. You would not support a thief breaking into your house and call it morally justified nor claim later it somehow helped him get a good job, which is absurd. Although I supposed if he defends the thief then you have your answer on rationality.

I cannot improve on Nicky and sNerd so I'll just make it concise: The man demonstrably murdered another human being and injured many more by initiating force. Trying to claim self defense is absurd. If he had lived he would have deserved the death penalty due to murdering another human being and doing so beyond a reasonable doubt.

The solution is in Objectivism qua life, not life qua Objectivism. It is a philosophy to live. Wanting to make the word better is a nice goal, and trust me I understand as someways I want to put my foot through the TV, but it is not the purpose of Objectivism and therefore does not disqualify an Objectivist from pursuing values. Plus I think you over estimate the nature of the ruling class and the intellectuals that feed them non-ideas. They do not represent the rest of society and most people know it.

That was a welcome breath of fresh air

The reason is that Atheism is really secondary to the epistemology of the parties involved at best or frankly just an add-on. Liberals and conservatives are brothers by a different mother and while they argue over who had the better mother there is always the father they have in common. In this case they agree on a super a priori that we are derivatives. Conservatives generally see it is a God while modern Liberals see it as society. We are either children of God or cells of a collective. Yes, one is a omniscient consciousness while the other is an incompetent unconsciousness but they do have personalities (Gospel or Multiculturalism) and are the source for ethical questions. Politically, both are the justification for right and wrong. Each side rejects the other sides a priori in specifics but agree in abstract principle. Conservatives claim to hate big government and collectivism but happy enforce their standard of good through increased government and create laws against specific groups (Marriage Laws). The liberals generally accept separation of State and Religion and detest having someone's ethics imposed on them (don't tell me who I can get married to!) but will turbo protest anyone who says the politically incorrect thing or demand a baker be forced to bake them a cake. Neither side can see they are doing the same thing in principle, just opposite sides in detail. From there it is easy to see that if a liberal rejects religion and God due to a lack of data the philosophy is still there to support his acceptance of a new "greater good". After all, God and good are separated only by one vowel and interchangeable to the mystic. In fact without reason or an understanding of the virtue of independence it is highly likely that a liberal will simply fill the vacuum where their "I" should have been with a new singular entity where he can once again be a unit of a great Go(o)d that tells him what to value. In the same vain I would see the growing progressive movements in the world take on a religious tint for the same reason. And this is simply an epistomological look. I'm sure someone can do the same thing by just reviewing both sides from the altruistic ethic system as well.

With all respect, and I mean that since I don't think I've ever disagreed with you, but I think you're missing the big picture. The author could have written the article about anything and anyway he wanted. This is the argument and approach he chose. In this case the article frames and discusses the issue in a way of ultimately sanctioning the fundamentals of egalitarianism. The title does this alone. The altruistic premise throughout the peace is left unquestioned. The "family unit" is not some member of the non-entity "society" that is a viable discussion of ethical purpose, "goods", or political outputs. As far as ethics, goods, and politics the family or society do not exist. Individuals do and individual choices are not subject to collective group debate or worse - justification. Yes, he disagrees with some conclusions but the author intentionally put them in there in the first place to discuss then white washes the issue with compromised agreement on the collectivist ethical concern but not the concrete solution he held up. The ethical duty that an individual should be concerned with the welfare of others is not questioned and all the article does is say at best: this will not produce the right results. From here the compromise is between and one step closer. The author endorsed the ethics, put out policy ideas that are extreme egalitarianism, then backed off the extreme in but left the middle ground for us to lurch towards while handing them the rhetoric high ground. This is how we have slid from Capitalism to a mixed economy to the Welfare State and it is how we will continue to the endgame. My reaction was knee jerk enough my man!

The long road to Egalitarianism is still churning down it's path. And yet I'm still surprised to see such an evil thing jump off the page at me. At least they so called intellectuals are no longer pretending to be doing this out of "caring". The truth is they want to smash and as they run out of excuses or people willing to lift harder they will turn to such viciousness.

The Fountaindead is a great place to go. I would recommend "Understanding Objectivism". I have not read the book but the lecture series in stellar and discounted. While it does get to politics since it is the whole philosophy the first half is focused on the individual. By the time you get to Rights and Politics it is just applying individual ethics socially and I bet would still fit what your looking for.

I'm late to this conversation but I'll share something I learned late which is important to O'ism: Your philosophy serves your life, not your life serves your philosophy.

Political definitions have been slowly eroded for years in the same way concepts are eroded as a whole. People have thrown around the terms Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Capitalism without even realizing what they were talking about to the point they all seem to be treated as different aspects of some fuzzy landscape people wave off as politics. It's very frustrating so I understand why the OP is frustrated. Communism: Government owns all property and the right to dispose it. Society is the purpose of Government so people do not have rights. Under communism people are defined by which group they belong to along class definitions. Socialism: Government owns the means of production. The "Public GoodTM" is the purpose of Government so people only have rights they are allocated. Because "means of production" and individual property is not defined this is vague, along with who the "public is", ultimately it is a diet version of Communism and less honest about it's intentions. Fascism: People retain ownership of their property but the Government controls disposal. The purpose of Government is society but more specific with the classic being Race or Nation. There are not rights since the Government is honest about power being centralized for the "common good". Since the Government can dispose of property, ownership is a facade meaning Fascism is simply an honest form of Communism with a different definition of who the public is. Capitalism: Individual ownership, including disposal rights, of property and a Government whose purpose is the protection of individual rights. Since there is a complete separation of State and Economics in the same we we have a separation of State and Religion there is no crossing over with the above definitions.

I understand about not being stereotypical, but when dealing with methodology you work in that zone, not how people merge such things into their own methods. Most people are an amalgam of styles. Pleasure is a part of happiness and happiness is the purpose of ethics. No issue there. In OPAR sex is actually discussed in the part on happiness as being the purpose of ethics. But it still needs to be real and not faked. Evasion is not a virtue since you avoid reality which will hurt you in the long run. The point of principles is to predict the outcome of decisions to advance your life, after all. Let's take an extreme example. Would you say it's OK for a man to sit at home watching porn until he loses his job? Of course not, his ability to experience long lasting intense pleasure would be short ranged as soon he would be starving and would never experience pleasure again. He will either be dead or desperately working overtime to get back to a point where he could sit at home doing what ever he wanted with his evenings. You cannot fake a harvest. The goal is happiness but you have to obey reality to achieve values in order to be happy. Then you have to obey reality to find ways to keep values so you can continue to be happy. Ignoring realty will fake the harvest and when winter comes you will be out in the cold. How this applies to your matrix example goes back to my original example. It is context based like all decision. All things normal a person would want to live and get out and find real people that really love him. Not fake people with fake values. Extreme cases like I listed, I can see someone doing it without being immoral but this is just playing with the ethics of emergencies at this point.

Well, that is why I said using a fantasy example is a straw horse But to take this one step further since I went there, if you think in the example of the Matrix for a moment: Let's say you find out your real self is crippled to the point of being an invalid so any survival outside of being plugged into the machine that supports you and feeds you would be terrible. The machine has you plugged in so your matrix self is fine but in real life movement and work would be terrible and everything from physical love to eating a chore or painful. At that point the matrix may very well look like a more reasonable answer. Hey - Would I do it? I would think not but the real purpose here is not what would I do, but that for Objectivists principles are contexted based.

I made the mistake of returning to college to round out a degree and ended up in a God awful multicultural course that took this on. Long story short - You have advantages because you never started out disadvantaged. Those have not been subjugated as a culture are privileged. It's the same reason the book actually said that reverse racism is not possible. Whites cannot be discriminated against since they have not been subjugated as a culture and are already ahead in life. Not making that shit up.

To answer the OP: Two reasons: 1. It's a tough issue to openly discuss since public discussions usually revolve around the media piling on someone for saying something "not correct", and more importantly: 2. Guilt. Original Sin is alive and well and the collectivists have made this the secular version of it.

I could simply say that it is a straw horse since he is constructing a fantasy scenario then asking you to argue against it, but there is still a practical answer: The difference between the Objectivist and the Hedonist is like any other two philosophic styles making the choice - The difference between the two is not in WHAT they decide to do but in HOW they decide to do it. The Hedonist will choose between the real world and the fantasy world based on range of the moment whim worship and short range emotional feelings. For example he might choose either not based on his long term choices or happiness or goals but simply where he sees the better looking women, or wants to look like Morpheus, and then jumps in. The Objectivist will choose based by using reason to advance his life and his happiness. For example if he is in poor health he might choose the fantasy world where he can experience a higher quality of life even if shorter. Or if he is young and good health he may decide to get out and live a real life even if harder since it will be on his terms. Objectivists use philosophy to make good decisions to live, not live to make decisions for their philosophy (Imperisits) or just make decisions without thought of the consequences to our lives (hedonism).

Someone can be an empiricists obviously, I was just saying they cannot practice it 100% without sever consequences. It's like denying reason - Obviously you can do that but you have to use some reason to live or you would cease to be.

the issue is that it's not an either/or scenario as no one can practice empericism or subjectivism 100%. Empiricists might based things on concretes but if they totally abandoned abstractions they would function on the level of an animal. If subjectivists didn't embrace facts or certainty then they couldn't even form a coherent argument or thoug

Random facts of skin color that we have no control over is character? Honesty or individuality is character since it is something you have a choice over. Random facts of birth you have no control over is an attribute. This is why I participated in thee discussions because I think you have unlocked the critical error here in society. To many people actually think character (i.e. mental attributes we choose) are related to random facts of appearance or zip code of birth (things we do not have control over). If such critical thinking has gone that far down the rabbit whole were are cooked as a society. Tribalism indeed.

1+1=2 no matter if you use Elvish or another made up language. It is incidental to the fact of reality that 1+1=2 no matter who says it. Or to put in another way: It is the fact being ignored in favor of non-essentials that have nothing to do with anything. Like being Chinese somehow makes 1+1=3. No - the were in the reports and WITNESS TESTOMNY given to the grand jury and they agreed with them despite all of the media focus on things outside of the facts. Charged means the man ran at the target with his head down like a linebacker playing football PER WITNESS TESTIMONY. But I have already pointed that out. And since skin color somehow determines if 1+1=2 I will also point out several of those witnesses were black.