Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

intrinsicist

Regulars
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

intrinsicist last won the day on March 4

intrinsicist had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About intrinsicist

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

849 profile views
  1. I wanted to bump this thread with some quotes on suicide: epistemologue: splitprimary: Kant: Tom K: Matt Walsh: Gotthelf: Spinoza: secondhander:
  2. I don't think that's entirely fair. Citizenship is voluntary, and its terms are written down in law. There is something of a legitimate social contract for that reason. Should it require a signed document, with informed consent? Yes, of course I agree. In fact, it should require much more than that (see my essay on Criteria for Citizenship). But that doesn't mean the social contract justification is entirely baseless in the United States and similar countries. You do have to take some responsibility for your choice to remain a citizen and participate in the system according to its laws. You are after all free to renounce your citizenship and leave. And yes I do give precisely the same justification for taxation. I don't agree with welfare for a different reason: that is not the proper role of government.
  3. You're right to call me on it; I need to flesh out a more comprehensive theory of positive ethics to justify this claim. I would still argue that my position here is largely correct. In the sense of having a so-called "central purpose in life", this is what I think it should be. There's more to positive ethics than this sense of a "central purpose in life", but it's still an important one, and I think it's properly related to life extension and the pursuit of physical immortality. I'll have to come back to this point.
  4. See above "Positive values are possible despite suffering" and related sections.
  5. But that's precisely what Ayn Rand defined morality to be in The Objectivist Ethics: is implies ought. Morality comes from your metaphysically-given nature, and moral significance comes precisely from your following that. To go against your nature is to violate exactly this fundamental principle, that is implies ought. This is why life is the ultimate standard of value in Objectivism.
  6. But isn't this exactly true? Where do you think desires come from if not human nature?
  7. I'm simply saying that making any choice, taking any action, logically implies a commitment to life, and that's whether you intend it or not, whether you are conscious of the logical implications or not. It is possible to proceed in a self-contradictory way without explicitly acknowledging it (see, "On moral condemnation" above), but there is still something inherently immoral in evading the responsibility of justifying your actions, if you are going to act at all.
  8. Yes, I've come to agree with you. I am an intrinsicist, hence the name. However, I do disagree on the point about objectivity. I think only intrinsicism can be objective. Objectivism, whenever it consists in denying intrinsicist metaphysics, is not objective. Hence I go back and forth on whether my philosophy of intrinsicism is a fundamentally different philosophy, or merely a correction to what is in essence exactly the philosophy of Objectivism originally discovered by Ayn Rand.
  9. The "manness" in man, or the "roseness" in rose", as in, Why would my ability or inability to present a perfect definition of something undermine my position? The reality of universals and our knowledge of them are two different issues, and as I've argued, the fact that universals are real does not imply that we have perfect, automatic knowledge of them. Why would it? I am wondering if the issue you are really asking about is around this idea of "no borderline cases", but you will need to clarify what you are getting at.
  10. I notice this post is highly rated, and yet does not engage with the argument presented whatsoever. You are simply asserting the opposite position. Well, how do you address his argument in the OP?
  11. Why do you think that? I don't see why immortality implies a lack of ability to kill yourself. It certainly isn't necessary to the point of this thread - one could imagine such a strong power of resilience that involuntary death is a solved problem, while voluntary death is still entirely possible. Secondly, why should one wish such a thing? Why should one ever be bored? Does a rose not smell sweet having smelled one before? Is a kiss not enjoyable because you've kissed before? I enjoy the sunrise despite having seen a thousand of them. It holds intrinsic beauty and pleasure. I enjoy art for art's sake; it's an end in itself. I'm intrinsically happy in my own person. I'm happy just to be able to see a sunrise. I'm happy just to be alive; just to be conscious is inherently enjoyable and meaningful. There are an endless number of things I wish I had the time to do. I want to play every game, I want to learn every language and every musical instrument, I want to see every part of the world, I want to learn all of history, I want to meet every person alive, I want to have great-great-great...-grandchildren. I want to explore and prove all of mathematics. I could give you more than a hundred thousand years of things I want to do right now. I love myself and I love my life. This is a permanent, undying, and insatiable love. What I'm describing is what being a human is like. All of the things I've mentioned aren't unique to me, they are intrinsic in human nature. It's death that is anti-human.
  12. You are making a circular argument. For a universal to be real does not imply that it's a concrete. That's only true under the premises of a non-realist metaphysics. You are assuming a metaphysics in which only concretes are real, and then telling me abstractions therefore cannot be real because only concretes are real. But it's your premise that I'm disagreeing with in the first place. The distinction between "abstract" and "concrete" is whether some thing is universal or specific - not whether the thing exists or not. The question of the reality of universals is a question of whether there are metaphysical natures, whether there are such abstract "kinds" in reality, or whether everything in reality is purely a specific and concrete, not of any real class or kind (other than those subjectively invented and justified). (side note, when someone uses the phrase "existed metaphysically", what they really mean is "existed physically" - they don't really understand the term "metaphysical". The "metaphysical" is not another realm of existence out there in the heavens above the physical. There is one realm of existence: the universe. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of things, and whether things have such a "nature". If a given thing has a metaphysical nature that means it is of a kind (a "kind" meaning a type or class of things). The thing itself is the concrete: it is entirely a specific particular. The type or the kind of which the concrete is an instance or examplar is the abstract: it is a universal, and stands for an unlimited number and variety of possible instances or examplars. The only question of what "exists metaphysically", are exactly these universals, that's what metaphysics is. Hence such arguments from materialists and positivists and nihilists, et al., that "metaphysics" is a dead subject.)
  13. Sorry, but this won't help you. If the theory is non-realist, then you have to own up to the fact that there are no universals in reality, and therefore "concepts" claiming universality (as in man referring to all men at all times, past present or future), are false and misleading.
  14. This Limited Liability Partnership isn't "our company"; companies are not owned by a collective. The flaw in your argument is that you're missing out on the concept of a contract. Citizenship is a contract, which is the whole argument of my article you didn't read. I even specifically addressed this point:
  15. There is no such resource. Objectivism only touches tangentially on the issue; most issues of metaphysics are not addressed in a philosophically serious way. You will find a wide variety of answers from "Objectivists" on issues such as free will and the metaphysics of consciousness, ranging from reductionist materialism to outright dualism, and various things in between, but there is no "official" answer and nothing definitive written by Rand. I would personally argue for a strong libertarian free will stance, arguing along the lines that the contrary is absurd, incoherent, and impossible.
×
×
  • Create New...