heizeus

I apologize that I am coming off as combative. My frustration at the communication gap is probably showing. I do think it's funny, however, that you all find this boring, and yet are motivated to keep responding to me. But this thread feels like it has reached the end, so I will say this final thing and then be done with it. So it seems to me that morality is a human idea that was created to keep society running smoothly. Guidelines to keep mankind from exterminating himself. I don't bestow it upon some supernatural deity or anything like that. And that seems to agree with Objectivism. Now, what I don't understand is how saying that man needs to consider his own survival necessarily means acting only in his own immediate self-interest. To me, there are two extremes: individualism and collectivism. When I use the terms in this context, I'm referring to one at the exclusion of the other. So "individualism" at the extreme is me, by myself, against the world. "Collectivism" at the other extreme is a hive mind. Neither seems positive to me. It makes more sense to find a balance between the two. We evolved into social animals because there was an increase in the survival rate when people stuck together. The more we "progress", the bigger the gap between people. Objectivism seems to believe that if everyone just acts in his own self-interest, it will all work out. What is the evidence that this is true? My intentions aren't as hostile as you think. I don't see it as a threat but as an intellectual challenge to figure out where you and I diverge in opinion and point of view. My basic disagreement is the either-or, us-vs.-them mentality I'm seeing. You are either extremely selfish, or a complete altruist who sacrifices his life for a complete stranger. If something causes you little or no harm, but would help someone else, then why not do it? I'm not advocating that you should be obligated to do it, but why wouldn't you want to? Then there's all this confusion or anger or something when I'm just trying to say that leaving the door open to the possibility that you may be wrong in your decisions, can be helpful. In my experience, when the door is closed, you can miss evidence that you are wrong because you won't see it. Scientists aren't 100% certain that evolution is true, but it's the best explanation they've found. And they are fine with that. Why not leave the door open to learn new stuff when it comes to philosophy and politics too? As for what my interest with Objectivism is: I'm of the opinion that an element of truth (in the context of my own life, therefore it is subjective from one person to the other) is in just about every philosophy and religion. I have seen people take Christianity to the extreme of wanting to be like Jesus and sacrifice themselves for the good of others, and therefore ending up miserable. Objectivism gives the counterbalance that it is important to watch out for number one. There was a time in my life when that was a revelation, and it did help me. But I moved past it, but kept the chunks of truth that applied to my life. It seems that many here on the message board don't believe you can take segments of a philosophy piecemeal, but that's what I'm doing. I'm creating my own personal philosophy by recycling the rest. That's what Ayn did as well. I can't see how morals can be anything but subjective, since we don't absolutely know what exact path or guidelines will have the best result for mankind. So I've said my piece and am done with this thread. Pick it apart, guys!

Yes, the context of philosophy is much broader, and therefore has more variables and unknowns. Here you are pointing out that "man" survives by using his mind. "Man" meaning "mankind" or the collective sum total of men. But you are also pointing out that the individual can survive by not thinking. So the what's good for the individual is not necessarily good for society in general? I agree. The Bush Administration initiated force against the civilians of Iraq to force them to have a different political system because they did not do it voluntarily (and lacked the tools to do so.) Correlation does not mean causation, although I agree with your conclusion. But just pointing out how this is sort of subjective. But there seem to be enough facts that support it. A man can survive by destruction. Mankind cannot, but an individual could (and many do). So saying that the world would run better if everyone acted selfishly might not solve the problem. So we need to make sure that no one can initiate force, since many people do so in their own self-interest. But then, someone comes along and defines a "yo momma" joke as an initiation of force. Then I can shoot that guy talking shit about my "momma." For the vast majority of man's existence, he's existed as a social animal. He's balanced the needs for his own survival with the survival of his "tribe." Altruism (in the form of caring about people because they are people, not in the extreme of sacrificing yourself for those around you) came about from social evolution. Those who gave a shit about people around them lived longer because it was reciprocated. I don't know of any time that Objectivist principles have ever been the foundation of a society, so there's really no proof that it would work. (If you know of such a time, I'd love to hear it).

Alright. *cracks knuckles* Let's give this a try: Yes, this is true. But the same could be said for any political system. It may explain some situations, but not all. A perfect system has not yet been invented, or at least not implemented, since I haven't heard of a real Utopia. Could it exist? Ok, I'll grant you that, but within the context of "reality" which is what you said Objectivism is applicable, the realm is so wide (as wide as we are aware), theories cannot be accepted as 100% accurate. Newton was wrong in the enormous context of reality, and Einstein probably will be too. In their smaller contexts, they are accurate. The acquisition of new facts can cancel prior theories, which happens all the time, as in the above example. There were 2 theories that explained the same phenomena, but one of them does it better. It is more correct. Interesting anecdote. But if I were to believe now that malaria is caused by "bad air," I would be irrational. Right? There were several variables involved, and people were looking at the wrong one, but it just so happened that the real one was proportional to the "red herring." Before Einstein, Newtonian physics didn't explain current observations. So you are contradicting yourself here. In addition, the vast majority of scientists are in the global warming camp. I seriously doubt that's a matter of politics. More likely, the industry-funded scientists are trying are working backwards so that they can prove the theories they want to prove, as the "Creation Scientists" do.

I don't know what you guys are afraid of. I'm giving counter-arguments that you should be able to easily refute, since I'm a novice debater, at best. How can you be expected to hold your ground in the political and philosophical battleground of America if you can't hold down your own fortress against any desenting opinions? Why even have a forum for discussion if you don't want people to bring different ideas? There's nothing more boring than a room full of people who all agree everything. I am honestly interested in Objectivism, or I wouldn't be wasting so much time here discussing with you. I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from by poking at what I see as holes in your arguments. I was expecting you to show me how I'm looking at it wrong, and for the most part, that's true. But if you feel threatened by my very presence here, then I'm starting to wonder if you guys don't see the holes too. I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged (working on it for the 2nd time now), The Virtue of Selfishness (half of it), Anthem, We the Living, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and For the New Intellectual. So it's not like I'm just some guy who's popping in for an argument. I haven't read Peikoff's book, and intend to do so, but sometimes the best way to learn something is through debate.

When the measure of morality is based on self-interest, then the morally right system is the one that works best for you individually. Besides, my argument about politics could easily be used for morality, in that you can keep asking why and how forever. At some point, you have to make a subjective decision. It may seem objectively true to you, but with more information, you might change your mind. (This is the general 'you'. I'm not putting you personally in the spotlight here.) I suppose that's what I've been doing, trying to understand it more thoroughly. I know there is something I'm missing.

I was racking my brain, trying to come up with a good example to illustrate my point. Then this one comes falling into my lap. Thank you. Ok, first off. Remember in elementary school where they gave us a list of statements and we had to label them either 'fact' or 'opinion'? The above statement would be labeled opinion. Opinions by definition are subjective. "What makes it subjective?" I hear you ask. Well, first we have to define 'correct' which requires some objective standards of what a correct political system is. So there would be measures of income and productivity, of course. Then maybe mental health would be an important measure, since a society of depressed people doesn't seem to have the correct system in place. Now you may consider the first one more important, and I would probably go with the latter. But we're still not done, since we have to decide on criteria to objectively measure income, productivity, and mental health. So, does the correct system have everyone with enough money to survive? I doubt you think so. But I do, because I think many social problems are solved by an equitable system. Subjectivity. But let's say that we can agree that the correct system has people getting the amount of pay they deserve for the work they do. Then we have to decide what jobs deserve what pay, I guess by rating their importance. More subjectivity. As for mental health, how do you measure whether someone is happy? There are various tests that claim to measure mental health, but which one is correct? Can we absolutely verify that? Every one of these questions can be boiled down to more 'why's and 'how's ad infinitum. In addition to that, there is the possibility that there is some variation of an existing political system that might work, or one that hasn't been thought up yet, that would work better than capitalism. Who knows? We know there are major flaws in dictatorships and they haven't work in the past. But both communism and anarchism have worked on a small scale in native tribes. But then, it depends on how you subjectively define "worked." I seriously doubt either one can work on a major scale, as has been shown over and over, but maybe it's more dependent on how many people there are and whether it's a democracy vs. a dictatorship. All the communist countries so far have been dictatorships, so it's sort of hard to separate the 2 variables. If I had to put my money down on one system, I'd go with small-scale capitalism. I think the big flaw is trying to run these huge governmental (and corporate) institutions. There's a reason why so few animals are as big as a whale. Too many people, too many variables. But that's just a subjective theory built upon the objective facts I know. So, in conclusion, I ask, how can you be certain that your statement is correct? You can have a good idea, but certainty doesn't seem possible to me without omniscience. How am I wrong? Iakeo: Word games is all we've been playing this whole time. Dogma is "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." A dogma that says that doesn't claim to be absolutely true is impossible. It's not dogma. That's like saying that a scientific theory is dogma.

Since "reality" is a fairly all-encompassing context, that is practically contextless. Most everything is assumed to be "within reality." And this has been my point all along about knowledge in general. For more individual theories like politics, the preamble is "Based on everything I know at present..." As for all the other stuff about a paradigm shift making the initiation of force right, I agree with you. I'm not advocating the initiation of force being right, and in fact, this whole conversation was started because I was saying that the initiation of force is flat wrong, even when you can use a logical slight of hand to say that a possible threat is equivalent to the initation of force.

No, because it isn't dogma. It's a theory. A hypothesis that hasn't been proven wrong. But there are situations where absolutely certainty wouldn't be possible without absolute accuracy. Politics, in particular. I'm curious what you mean by this "phase."

AisA: It's getting tedious to quote and respond. So let me take a step back for a second. First of all, I agree with the Objectivist assertion that reality exists independent of our perceptions. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. This is a conclusion that I've come to by compiling many facts together and finding a common thread. This is the way it always happens. You observe data, see how it fits together, and draw conclusions. I have no reason to doubt the data and won't until someone shows me sufficient evidence that I should. The fitting together of the pieces and drawing conclusions are the more creative, interpretive steps of the process. How much data I have, and what data it is, will change how I interpret it. This is how scientists always do it. Suppose I'm in the school of Newtonian physics, and then Einstein comes along with his crazy theories. Suddenly, a new conclusion has been drawn that explains parts that weren't understood before. I would be irrational to refuse to accept the new theory. It would also have been false to say that Newton had found the objective truth. He had drawn a conclusion with the data he had and it made sense at the time. Then when conflicting data came about, the theory had to be re-evaluated (because contradictions don't exist, right?) Now, the conclusion I am drawing is that this is a trend that will continue with the progress of technology. I see no evidence that we will eventually know everything as a race. If someone can prove it to me within a decent margin of error, I'll change my mind. You seem to think that without being certain of my conclusions, I am paralyzed in life. But not at all. I am more flexible because I keep an open mind, and don't get stuck in dogma shit. All that said, there are different levels of certainty, based on how much evidence there is. The theories of gravity and evolution, for instance, are much more solid than sociology, psychology, and politics. If I believe that I will survive without food, based on little or no evidence, then I am acting irrationally. But political, economic, and sociological theories are much less developed. To say that one path is the objectively correct one is essentially saying that you know this to be true now and forever. I can't see how that is possible, given that paradigm shifts occur regularly in history. I don't see how my conclusions are self-contradictory, since I'm not stating that they are objectively true. I have no problem accepting that I may be wrong about a great many things. I don't even expect to change your opinions on anything. But I'm just letting you know that it is possible to live a happy life without being objectively certain. Live and learn. On the otherhand, if I did manage to change your mind, that would be AWESOME! But I'm not holding my breath.

I see what you mean, but I didn't mean it that way. It's just the manner that I know that I am conscious. If I weren't, then I wouldn't be able to think about whether I'm conscious or not. I'm not advocating that we create reality with our perceptions. They exist, but they lack the mental capacities (as far as we know) to think about that existence. But of course, they exist. But you wouldn't know it. You would just do whatever instinctive things animals do and some basic thinking. Although I can't be sure, I doubt dogs sit around and think about existence. The idea I've been arguing against that to conclude that since obtaining knowledge is possible, that implies that omniscience is possible. Although it's never been said that way by anyone, that is what is being stated in other words. Absolute accuracy requires absolute knowledge. Yeah, I accept reality is real. Just as I accept evolution is real. All the evidence I've seen points in those directions. If, however, I wake up tomorrow with a VR helmet on, I'll have to re-evaluate. I'm not making those conclusions now because there's no reason to, but my mind is open to possibilities. Oh, and I've read a book that has a scientific theory that we actually live in a "multi-verse" which would really still be the universe, just a different point of view for it. Interesting stuff. I don't see the connection between thinking that it's only a possibility, and it causing anxiety. It's just a fun mental exercise. I'm not betting on these possibilities, but there's no harm in curiousity, is there? Objectivists just don't want to take on that particular anxiety ridden irrational assumption. And once again, I'm not saying that. You guys are the ones saying that my ideas lead to the silly conclusion that reality isn't real. No matter what wacky theories I've thrown around, I still think existence exists. It just makes sense that we don't have all the facts yet.

The intel is used so that other soldiers are better able to fight the enemy, which means kill them. Morale is to make happier soldiers so they can be better soldiers when it comes to war. War is about killing the other side. I don't see what is so contraversial about what I'm saying. If there were no wars, we would have little need for the military. Not every soldier is directly responsible for killing people, but the organization as a whole exists for that purpose, and every soldier serves different purposes towards that end. I think this has been shown historically to not be as effective, so soldier have a lot more information than in a Soviet military. I'm not saying that the soldiers are mindless zombies. I think the various connotations of the term "brainwashing" is the hangup here. I'm not talking "The Manchurian Candidate" here. I'm saying that it's a hierarchical-structured system where obedience to those above is required. That's "conditioned" into the soldiers via the haircuts, mantras, uniform, etc. to get rid of as much individuality as possible. No talking back. Do what you're told. All that stuff. Now I don't know what it's like after boot camp, but I expect that there's more freedom after that. I've even seen quotes from drill sergeants that say stuff like "We break them down so we can build them back up." That's conditioning, which is the soft term for brainwashing. I don't know. It seems to me that it wouldn't do anything to avoid racism or stereotypes, since haircuts and clothes don't do much to hide those kinds of clues. Besides, don't the drill sergeants insult the individuals in various ways? Or is just something in the movies? I'm sure when coming up with insults, he would steer away from race and stereotypes when doing so, right? Somehow I doubt that. Treating people like crap breaks down their self-esteem as an individual so that it can be built back up as part of the team.

I am, therefore I think? But you wouldn't know that you "are" unless you could think. You exist as a baby, but probably don't have much knowledge of that existence. "I think, therefore I am" if I remember correctly, is an answer to the question of "how do you know you exist?" Yes. No, not at all. That's the kind of "all or nothing" thinking I'm trying to argue against. I'm saying that we need to accept that there are margins of error and to take those into consideration. As do I. That's my point. If I come to a conclusion based on the facts I have on hand, and my personal experiences in life, I need to know that they may not be objectively true. I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but it's a possibility.

I actually thought that was a pretty good answer. I think it sums it up pretty well. If I am experiencing and thinking, then I have to start with that premise or nothing else makes any sense. The nature of that existence is a little less solid. From everything I've seen, learned, and experienced, I have an idea of what existence is like. But if I "woke up" from it like Neo and realized I've been living in the Matrix, I'd have to re-evaluate. Not that I expect that to happen, but 100% accuracy doesn't seem possible. Yes, and I can't be 100% certain of this conclusion but it's the best I've found so far. If I see facts that contradict it, then I'll rethink my premises. Yes, that is correct. I don't see why there's a problem with that. It's like knowing there is a margin of error in my conclusions of + or - some value. I just have to keep an open mind and re-assess my point of view regularly. They are only contradictions if you can't accept that you conclusions may be wrong. There's a lot of evidence to support that conclusion, and I'd have to say you are right. Unless of course, you have some previously unknown genetic mutation that allows you to survive off of static electricity in the air. You'd never know it was possible unless you tried. Not that I think that's likely, but there will always be facts that are unknown. Anyway, the discussion that we were branching this off from is that of politics and morality, both of which are so vast and full of data that it's hard to come up with solid, fool-proof conclusions and theories. We don't know whether the domino theory was correct or not, but we could pull up facts that both support or oppose it, and then decide which seems stronger by dismissing or supporting some facts over others. That requires personal interpretation (and extrapolation) from our personal experiences and knowledge bases to make these conclusions.

But it was also justified from those above that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply in this situation (and I've heard at least one person on these forums who agrees with that assessment). Then it comes down to a soldier possibly being reassurred that what he's doing falls within the boundaries of legal conduct when it actually is not. I'm not saying they aren't responsible, but they weren't exactly the only ones who should be held accountable. To use the Nuremberg trials example, who should get the bigger punishment: Hitler (I know, not alive for trial, but such a dramatic example) or a foot soldier? Hitler didn't actually kill anyone, he just gave the orders.

I think, therefore I am. Everything I say (or anyone else says, for that matter), could be prefaced with "I think..." or "In my opinion..." From what I've seen, life and morality are much too complicated to be painted in black and white. If I get some piece of information that contradicts that theory, I'll adjust it and will then throw away all the colored paints. I'm not doubting that the world exists objectively independent of my senses or that reason is the best tool for analyzing it. I'm doubting the accuracy of theories or conclusions. It's like when you measure something to be 1.253355654 meters long. You have to cut it off at some number of decimal places based on the precision of your instruments. Binary code is true or false, but if you use only 2 bits, your precision is almost non-existent. No matter how many bits you use, you could always have 1 more, like with decimal places. So based on limitations in human brainsize and perception (we can't see all frequencies of the light spectrum, for instance) we must be missing some information at all times. In addition, we all have different experiences and knowledge, so the conclusions we come to will be different because of these different snapshots. Why does the idea that man can possess knowledge require the knowledge to be with 100% certainty? In response to your claim that I left no room for doubt in my statements, I always leave room for doubt and search to expand my knowledge by disproving previous misconceptions and forming new theories to fix them. That's part of the reason why I'm here, trying to discuss this and see things from your point of view. Scientists accept that their measurements aren't 100% correct, and that they never can be, without hugging their knees in the corner and whimpering.