Ilya Startsev

Here is Nietzsche's critique of ethics and morality, ibid., 97-8, original italics: "the real problems of morality [...] emerge only when we compare many moralities. In all "science of morals" so far one thing was lacking, strange as it may sound: the problem of morality itself [...] What the philosophers called "a rational foundation for morality" and tried to supply was, seen in the right light, merely a scholarly variation of the common faith in the prevalent morality; a new means of expression for this faith; and thus just another fact within a particular morality; indeed, in the last analysis a kind of denial that this morality might ever be considered problematic--certainly the very opposite of an examination, analysis, questioning, and vivisection of this very faith" and, ibid., 100, original italics: "Every morality is, as opposed to laisser aller [letting go], a bit of tyranny against "nature"; also against "reason"; but this in itself is no objection, as long as we do not have some other morality which permits us to decree that every kind of tyranny and unreason is impermissible. [etc]"

Do you think there should be created a thread on Integrating Objectivism with (Nietzschean) Subjectivism?

An interesting Subjectivist idea particularly relevant to morals, ibid. 90-1: "What a time experiences as evil is usually an untimely echo of what was formerly experienced as good--the atavism of a more ancient ideal. [...] Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil. [...] Jesus said to his Jews: "The law was for servants--love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!" "

Since I am reading Nietzsche right now, might as well quote him. From Beyond Good and Evil (Kaufmann 1966:39, original italics):

This is a pertinent issue. I quote from The Divine Right of Stagnation by Nathaniel Branden (Rand, Ayn, Nathaniel Branden. The Virtue of Selfishness. 1964: 117f, original italics): Capitalism's tempo (likened to the hectic Nietzsche's tempo, for me) is greater than that of Socialism. Some people just want to be lazy and invincibly ignorant. Others want to evolve.

As a note of warning: I try to fit, if I can, all and any metaphors into my model literally. That is, I show how a rhetorical trope can be expressed as a conviction rather than a belief. The criticism of this being "anti-concept" or "context-dropping" is only adequate if my concepts polemically polarize us or confuse contexts. I argue that we agree on the terms and relations of the contexts, and thus what I have shown are neither "anti-concept" nor "context-dropping." If I am still not clear, please ask questions and criticize my thoughts, so I explain myself more thoroughly and help interpret my thinking into yours. As a side note and an interesting observation, sleep is a state when subconsciousness becomes consciousness, viz., we become our minds in lucid dreaming.

Some more thoughts on existence. How can that which is not conscious cause its own part which is conscious? (Existence causes conscious beings.) Because it causes consciousness (of our reality) so much beneath its own reality (the universe) that it can be considered (not known) an unconscious process. I am still not clear on whether Objectivists think of existence as everything or as the objective reality (nature) or as the universe. This clarification is very important because consciousness is reflected differently through the model. We are subconscious to Nature but are so subconscious to the Universe that can be considered to be caused unconsciously by it (the unconscious cause but a conscious effect). It is very important for me to differentiate subconscious, conscious, and superconscious. Our brains or minds are subconscious because we do not experience them directly in our consciousness (see P.P.S. below). Our consciousness is our bodies and the life that we live in the market (with others). Our superconsciousness is our industries and objective reality that spans the Earth. A great example of superconsciousness is when Dagny thinks of herself as the railroad industry. From Atlas Shrugged (digital): "We are the soul, of which railroads, copper mines, steel mills and oil wells are the body -- and they are living entities that beat day and night, like our hearts, in the sacred function of supporting human life, but only so long as they remain our body, only so long as they remain the expression, the reward and the property of achievement." So, again, returning to the question of unconscious existence: it is not that existence is unconscious, it is simply unconscious of us, like we are unconscious of our particular atoms and subatomic particles from which our bodies are composed. P.S. I am not against Capitalism. It just seems to me that Republicans today are not a great cause of it or as great of its leaders. I would rather support Capitalism by pure Objectivists. P.P.S. Our minds are subconscious. From Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche (Kaufmann 1966:24, original italics): "a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks; but that this "it" is precisely the famous old "ego" is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "it thinks"--even the "it" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: "Thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently--" " In other words, "thinking" is what we call whatever the mind does, and it's what the mind does itself, not necessarily what we do. What we do is interpret into consciousness what our minds do.

One complete society is made up of incomplete races. An exception can be the Amerindian race, though. In this case, if the Amerindian race is viewed as a part of the Polynesian race (the red race), the conflict is resolved. The issue here is that a race can always be greater than a society, unless one views race bounded by society. These social boundaries, I argue, are artificial domestic borders. Such borders ultimately do not and should not exist. In the case when robots would rule the world and there are no more races left - you will be correct. Yes, one can create humans by cloning or avatars, but can those be considered as true humans? What makes a human, in your opinion? In my opinion, natural reproduction is a primary factor. Emotions also help make us human. I am arguing that there is. A global society is bounded by the surface of our planet. There is no such thing as a global race (in contrast to society). We can be considered a space race. The orbital station is not merely a part of some socities but it's own, independent society, not some colony. For the independence of space societies (ha-ha)! Theoretically, it's possible, you are right. But I have yet to see this rare phenomenon happening historically. Usually, whenever a race is made, a society is already a part of it, and then it just grows. Branches of the race separate and form new societies. Yet, the race is the same. Europeans have many societies, even though now you could consider Europiean Union as one society. Americans broke off the European societies. Through historical roots, Americans belong to the European race (or a mix of races). Realistically, though, Americans can be considered their own race (or a mix of races). That's fine. But the issue is still that races lead to the creation of new societies, whereas new societies can only create races artificially (or as subsets of greater spanning races). This is the "social" thinking at work. It's the same conflict as individualism and collectivism (what's first?), except now it's between different collectivisms. Collectivisms not in a pure sense, please note that -- there are always individual elements in everything. There are free particles in compound structures or free cells in tissues and organs, or genes inside and at the same time outside of a society.

That's exactly right. We have to reinterpret the government in a different light rather than simply say what its domain ought to be. The more semantic question should be: what is the government?

Yes, integrate it into their knowledge. The question is the extent of rationality and integration. Ask any physics professor and he or she will tell you that quantum mechanics is not any arbitrary proposition but in fact a very accurate science. The accuracy is not in whether, for example, an electron is a particle, but in the probability of the electron's position or velocity. However, the extent of Objectivist rationality is limited. Hence I propose to make Objectivism unlimited. This new Objectivism can be called, for example, Neo-Objectivism.

Here is a "realistic" situation: say, republicans win both congress and the presidency. They get rid of taxes and take control of only their beloved military, courts, and the police. We will live in Capitalism, right? Ok, then we remember about Ukraine. The Ukrainians ask to buy the high-grade nuclear missles from the U.S. They want to sign a contract that they will not use the missles against the U.S., and, by the time Ukrainians wipe out Russia with such missles (their current goal and dream), they will join the world-wide Capitalism spread by the U.S. The republicans being very interested in helping generate the economy of the southern states, where most of the weapon manifacturers are, decide to sign the contract with the Ukrainians. It's best for both sides, right? Evil Communist Russians will be killed off - that means no more altruism in the world. Economy will do great with the weapon manufacturing and the Ukrainians joining the trade. What could be better, right?

The first thing you said is a tautology. The second basically asks to wait. Ok, let's wait.

The level of toxicity is the level of toxicity. However, as you correctly noticed, the specific level needed to cause death to an individual varies. In other words, the effects of poison (or of any other cause) vary among individuals. Now, if you want all people to follow Objectivism, since you want to build capitalism for all, you need to have a philosophy that all people can accept. I realize that the premise of Objectivism is that, if the law of identity is the base of all Reason, all people should accept it, right? Not really. It's circular reasoning. The issue here is that some people have built upon the law of identity new laws. The problem with "mystics" is that they abandoned the law of identity in favor of these new laws. It's their major flaw, I agree. However, the "mystics" can change and reintegrate the law of identity back into their "mystic" thinking, just as the Objectivists should be able to do with the new laws. But Objectivists do not want to change! Your entire philosophy is against change. That's the major flaw of Objectivism, in my humble opinion. The one path of a noncontradictory evolution is such: two-valued logic (the law of identity -> Newtonian mechanics -> Objectivism -> digital computing) -> many-valued logic (quantum mechanics -> quantum computing -> Neo-Objectivism). This path has not been completed for all human living yet. The advantage and potential of Objectivism is that it's the first philosophy for human life with a goal to be complete and on the right track toward its completion. But, let's be realistic, it does not include everyone right now because the majority of people are going toward the many-valued logic side (even subconsciously). The many-valued logic side is not irrational, but it is open-minded, since it rationally allows more freedom of emotions (directed at new opportunities in life with the many-valued logic). The way to look at the many-valued logic and the potential life philosophy based on it (Neo-Objectivism) is the noncontradictory integration of rational and irrational within open-mindedness.

What you are saying makes perfect sense to me. Proving or disproving the law of identity has equal results: the law of identity is there, and one cannot escape it. The differences that you pose, however, are essential in a semantic sense. To use Kenneth Burke's term: these concepts are substantial, viz., they are what they are and at the same time are standing underneath themselves. This is an infinite regression. What I argued for is that the law of identity can be criticized in its sole applicability to everything (or existence). I mentioned many-valued logic and quantum mechanics as some of alternatives. To us, they are viable. How viable? That's for us to decide. They do not conflict with the law of identity, and they exist in addition to it. But if not be in conflict with the law of identity is merely to be also in existence based on this law, wouldn't the philosophical substantiality of the Reason (in relation to its cause) have to be reintegrated into a greater infinity? Remember that there are also sets of different infinities (also known as cardinalities). Just as the set of integers is included in the set of real numbers, the law of identity and its logic (2 elements) is included in the many-valued logic (3+ elements).

Frank, I understand that. I would appreciate some constructive discussion, though. I posted the original message two days ago, and there is no discussion about these topics, as if I killed the thread. Do I have such a bad influence? I realize now that it's very important for me to understand this metaphysics before I go on to argue on anything else. It's crucial. This is a collective effort to expand our thinking. So, as a catalyst and a stimulus dosage, I offer to share a controversy with you. I am "sacrificing myself" for the sake of Reason. And Reason hates this, as you know. I am going to do something I know I am going to regret: I am going to do something useless and pointless. Even though I agree and do not question the premise of Reason, the main law of logic, A is A, I am going to go against Reason itself for just a sake of any or some sort of collaborative discussion, if any is possible. My premise: do anything to stimulate Reason. Shock it, tickle it - anything. Just not to kill it (hopefully). Hey, if John Galt was tortured without any damage to his body, why can't we do the same thing here? It may have been good for Galt, it may be good for us as well, no? This is especially directed at Harrison: what I am going to do is purely for emotional excitement of the Reason. Yes, it is trivial. Yes, it is stupid and self-contradictory. But why not, if it's fun, right? Ok then, here goes the volcano: Once an axiom is questioned, it no longer serves as an axiom for everyone. And if an axiom is not for everyone, it no longer is an axiom. For example, consider this question more fully: if one can prove that "A is A" can be rationally questioned, would it imply that it is not necessary for it to be an axiom for everyone? Read the following only if you are interested in exploring this question. Otherwise, ignore it. A is A? Semantically speaking, A is A. It is true on paper, true in inorganic sciences, true for a robot. That is, it is formally or objectively true. It is ultimately the axiom to justify the virtue of selfishness and the whole philosophy of Objectivism, but I am going to show that this axiom is actually not adequate to justify your philosophy. However, A is not A in the physical reality of an organic body. No two persons or organic entities are alike in all respects. There will always be differences, however small and seemingly trivial. The way to show it is to apply our reality, in which we live--not merely the man-made that we experience, but a true natural reality--to the statement "A is A." First differentiation that comes to mind is that the left A is different by position from the right A. The second is that the first A is different from the second A by the exact time interval when they were each typed and applied. Third, the perception of A applies only to an A, not necessarily to a B or something else, because of linguistic constrains. A “savage” would view it differently. And fourth, physical make up of letters, depending on media constraints (electronic or otherwise) has different constituent types (yes, electrons are different from each other too). I realize that these locational, temporal, perceptual, and physical restrictions may be considered trivialities, but there is enough evidence to suggest that we do not understand reality completely as we learn new and surprising things about it all the time. For example, a westerner would accept that statement, but some tribe of people from Africa (I think one of the Bantu family) has a different linguistic and cultural background and understands nouns eventially (as force or be-ing) rather than discreetly (as a concrete entity), so even when translated correctly and read, they will still understand it differently. It's the basic conflict between the West and the East, and neither the former culture nor the latter are superior. “Savages,” as Objectivists call them, are people and some are realists also. Humans are various and neither is better than another in all respects. If someone is smarter than a “savage,” it does not mean that the “savage” is not a human being. So, what I am basically arguing for is that the statement "A is A" is true for some instances/individuals but incomplete for others. It is the conflict between the exclusive and the inclusive, the partial and the general, the two-valued and the many-valued logics. In Rhetoric, Aristotle said: "all our actions have a contingent character; hardly any of them are determined by necessity" (Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. New York: Bedford, 2001, p. 183). Hence you cannot say that all your actions are determined by your logic, as A is not necessarily A in real life, in actuality. Your competence does not necessarily equal your performance - the two are different. Ideas and matter are not the same, even though inseparable. Also compare Aristotle’s "[a]nd to change is also pleasant: change means an approach to nature, whereas invariable repetition of anything causes the excessive prolongation of a settled condition: therefore, says the poet, 'Change is in all things sweet.' " (ibid. 204) to Rand's view on change from The Fountainhead: "I've always thought that a feeling which changes never existed in the first place." However, on a second look, “A is A” does not reflect reality in neither general nor partial manner, and since reality can be considered to be about the details, “A is A” can be shown not to apply. Even though Aristotle was wrong in some things and right in his logic, there are a lot of additions that had been made to his laws of logic. Let's consider many-valued logic, in which we can have 3 (e.g., "true", "false", and "unknown") or more values ad infinitum. It was discovered in 1920 while Ayn Rand was still developing her two-valued philosophy. Does it conflict with the law of identity? No, but the law of identity with an excluded middle conflicts with it. The many-valued logic has shown three nuances or details from our reality to be reflected in logic: possibility, necessity, and probability. In other words, over the period of over two thousand years of progress in thoughts since Aristotle, “A is A” can be additionally differentiated into “A is possibly A,” “A is necessarily A,” or “A is probably A.” For example, let’s consider A to be one of two people, John and Bill. They are both human beings, so they could fit into the category or a logical form of A for a human being, right? However, we know that “A is not A” because John is not Bill. By applying many-valued logic and looking at the composition of John and Bill, we can say that some of John’s composition is possibly Bill’s composition, or it’s probably or necessary in some respects. Even this logic won’t apply to the actuality, though, since we are applying it to subrealities of organs, cells, molecules, etc. Logic does not reflect reality perfectly. It is only in the mind, where it is complete, not outside of it. What you consider good, such as food, and evil, such as poison, is another example of “black-or-white” logical fallacy. How do you battle poison when it’s already in your blood flow, such as after a venomous snake’s bite? You combat it with poison. Poison can be an anti-venom when applied properly and in small doses. This is called a homeopathic medicine, and it has saved lives. “Poison has allowed much progress in branches [sic], toxicology, and technology, among other sciences” and “Poisons are most often applied in industry, agriculture and other uses for other reasons than their toxicity” (from two Wikipedia articles). And do you really think that eating a lot of food would prolong your life? Not really. For example, read about Paul Bragg and his book The Miracle of Fasting: Proven Through History for Physical, Mental, and Spiritual Rejuvenation. Diets also save lives and change people for the better. The question should not be what, but how much. The same applies to “A is A,” that is, “how much of A is A”? Also, in quantum computing, qubits enter a noisy channel and exit it while being entangled. The logic for a qubit is "0" or "1," when polarized, but both at the same time when non-localized in the channel. How does the law of identity explain that? How does it explain that electrons can be particles or waves? Yes, “A is A” applies in some instances in physics, such as an electron is an electron, but does not apply when we speak about the nature of something, whether reality or electrons. “A is A” is a merely definitional axiom - it is true in some instances and false in others, just as everything else and every other meaning. Some critics say that Objectivists confuse a notion of "is" versus a romantic "ought." Aristotle also kept saying that an end is better than the beginning, and if you look at how you consider Life to be an end in itself and Reason as its beginning, then you may know (faultily like Aristotle) that Life is better than Reason. But Reason =/= Life (in the market); Reason -> (causes) Life (in the market). Aristotle admitted that his laws did not apply to future events. How, with only the law of identity, can there be an "ought" then? How can there be both "is" and "ought" at the same time? Another appropriate Aristotle's quote: "What aims at reality is better than what aims at appearance" (Bizzell 196). So here I see the same confusion as with Chomskyan grammar, which is binary and thus made for robots. Chomsky says that there is a digital (mathematical) infinity in our reality, but there isn’t one - it’s only in our minds. The same thing for “A is A” - the statement can only be true in our minds, but it is not necessary for it to correspond to the actual reality. It is exclusive to Western philosophy, but it is not inclusive or general of the whole humankind. There may be a different way to justify selfishness, one’s mind, and soul, and a new way does not need to depend only on this axiom.

To clarify some symbols, here is a legend: -- is a link of inseparableness == is a comparison of associations -> is an arrow of causation

Ok, in order to analyze the details, I selected only those elements that correspond (in my view) to the "something" of Objectivism. Organ--Aura == Brain--Mind (Reason) Body--Environment == Body--Market (Life) Society--Nature == Industry--(objective) Reality In other words, one can look at it that Reality caused Reason caused Life. But there is more than one way one can look using my model.

Honestly, I have no problem with Objectivism, but I am just not an Objectivist. I want to understand your definitions, and I want to sufficiently explain to you mine. Here is what I (think I) understand: You believe to know that unconscious matter creates its own conscious operator. You believe to know that in the beginning there was existence/everything (still need your clarifications here). I believe that in the beginning there was nothing. Here is an illustration of our thinking: My belief: 0 -> 1 -> 2 nothing -> existence/everything -> something (elements of the model) Your knowledge (?): 0 -> 1 existence/everything -> something (Reason -> Life) The metaphysical/general difference is where we place the starting point. Since I place the starting point earlier than the starting point of Objectivists, Objectivist thinking can be a part of my own. However, my own thinking cannot be a part of Objectivism. Although both everything and nothing were in the beginning, the illustration can be traced with only one, so only one can be chosen. Concerning the details of "something," more still needs to be understood and figured out. I will post when I get more ideas.

*** Mod's note: Split from an earlier thread. -sN *** This is an interesting thread. Having never read most of the thinkers mentioned, I feel pretty stupid here. Would you help me integrate the Oist statement existence exists into my system of thinking? In my logical model, there is everything and nothing. To keep this short, starting with subatomic particles and ending with Omniverse is everything. Would it be valid for me to equate my term everything to existence? If so, it would become: everything exists. Our relations to everything are built through perceptually identifying some things. Hence our body is our body and our environment is our environment. Something that exists is a part of everything that exists. Are there any fallacies in my thinking? Does existence have to be material or can it also include what is caused by matter (e.g., consciousness)? If a metaphysical concept can be identified with a spatiotemporal dimension, it can be included somewhere between particles and Omniverse. Does such existence have to be perceived deductively or inductively? Either way it's perceived, though, I deem it fits my model.

I see an issue in a rationale that does not correspond to (a) reality. Such a rationale thus becomes exclusive and not inclusive, partial and not general or complete.

I considered myself a Marxist before I stumbled upon Ayn Rand's philosophy. That argument is obsolete. Marx was wrong when he said that Capitalism necessarily leads to Socialism. It is not true because of the influence of Rand's ideology, which mutated Marx's original idea even while Rand was under his influence. After all, Rand studied Marxism at a university in the U.S.S.R.

This may sound strange to those of you who are familiar with my arguments about Marxism, but here is what I have learned from Atlas Shrugged: socialism can never work in America. Having this premise as the base for later discussion, we can argue on how to make an individualistic system of economy that everyone (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) can agree to support.

1) Ok, I see my mistake. I was not clear and should have used the definitions from the dictionary right away. What I meant to say by "races are genetic cultures" is that there is genetic evidence for a race, but race and genes are not the same thing, even though culture is inherited similarly (through being passed onto you from your ancestors). There is inheritance on the biological level, but one can still select a different race/culture through conscious volition (identification). Culture would be more like a face of a race, metaphorically speaking. Another way to look at it is a business logo of a race as a business. Businesses with their own culture succeed, right? It's the same with identifying yourself with a race and thus a culture. Race is not merely an ethnic group. It is a lot more than that. 2) Nature is basically the biosphere. Yes, exactly "the actions that happen are the part of nature subsumed under "world"." What can I say, I love categorizing and taxonomizing. In order to understand why I put race above society and thus world above nature (their contexts), here is my argumentation: The smallest possible society is two (2) friends or spouses to create a business or a family. This is how industry is born. The smallest possible race is a family of three (3): parents and a child. This is how culture is born. The biggest possible society is a global society that covers the surface of a planet. The biggest possible race is a unified sentient race that explores space even beyond the planet. (If all the planets are coordinated, this coalition becomes neither society nor race, but a "sphere" that includes all.) A race includes more than one complete society (3 > 2), but a society cannot include more than one complete race (2 < 3). Therefore, race is greater than society. 3) This differentiation is the same as making different categories through analysis, and even though analysis etymologically is considered separation, my goal is to ultimately unite everything and nothing. Thus it is categorization for integration with which I am concerned -- not a mere separation for its own sake. The contribution to the unification is more dubious for you, I agree. All I can say now is that if I create a model of everything and nothing without a contradiction (sounds crazy, I know), then it is reasonable to follow it and thus unite through it. Here is a quote from (digital) Atlas Shrugged: "No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge." Yes. And aren't we all? However, I am also serious about having my ideas accepted as well as my understanding of Objectivism, where the latter is more important in our case.

Ok, let's get all of this straight, so please bear with me. I don't want to be confused anymore. I really want to understand this. The mind is the cause of markets (capitalism and money included). Once the markets are created, the mind becomes inseparable from them because there is no rational sense in going back to the blank slate. I can similarly see how matter caused consciousness, and they became inseparable, even though matter and consciousness are not the same thing. Here, Rand uses a modern dialectic idea of inseparable distinctions (put forward by Dr. Michael Kosok in The Singularity of Awareness). What else is inseparable from the mind? Well, matter formed brain and body - mind is that which connects consciousness and brain, but mind is not the same thing as consciousness. Because consciousness and mind are connected, we are tricked to believe that consciousness is inside our mind and brain. We do not know exactly what consciousness is except for its self-motion, revolving at around 7 hertz and providing this operating frequency to our minds. It is not required for consciousness to be inside anywhere, since we see with our eyes (brains) and perceive with our minds (interpret the evidence). Existence is inseparable from perception and identification and, thus, consciousness. In other words, we identify with how we perceive. Mind is a bioelectromagnetic field generated by our brain, and it is inside and around our brain. Human consciousness is not a field. In fact, what makes consciousness human is body, for we cannot physically sense our brains or minds even when we rely on reports of others who showed the evidence of other brains. Looking at our bodies in the similar manner based on other evidence, brains are only organs, which cannot exist without other organs, especially hearts. According to research by Institute of Heart Math (www.heartmath.org), hearts start beating before brains fully develop. This also means that brain cannot properly function without blood and is incomplete without a circulatory system (or heart), and thus brain is inseparable from heart. From similar evidence, we know that an organic brain cannot exist without a body, since it is an inseparable part of it. Through first hand experience we identify with our bodies and our consciousness "exists" through an experience of our bodies. Yes, there is brain, mind, heart, soul, market, economy, and everything else, but all of them are important because the whole of our very complex existence is not possible without them all together, in harmony and without conflict.

So, an Objectivist can survive without money while simply being dependent on his or her brain? And no capitalism or markets are necessary? Would you go back to the "savage" time when there was no industry? I always thought that an Objectivist's existence was inseparable from a market.