Jimbean
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jimbean
-
-
I saw a quote from Ayn Rand that went something like the following;
When a criminal can gain a value by brazenly breaking the law, and everyone can see it, and he gets away with it, civilization is finished.
I don't want to put that in quotes because I don't know exactly what she said, or where and when she said it. Can anyone retrieve her exact quote and where I can find it in an interview. Thanks
-
31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
Neither one of you seem to understand that such religious beliefs are not true or false. They are arbitrary. When someone says they believe in life after death, they aren't talking about something that can be proven correct or incorrect. They're talking about the supernatural, which is arbitrarily asserted and taken on faith.
In which case the method of cognition is false. This goes back to my premise 7; faith is an emotion, emotions are automatic and are not fit for the formation of principles because reality is abstract by definition.
-
I could say that a drug addict would be as happy when he has his drugs as a mystic when his false premises are reinforced. That's not an argument, but it is a metaphor to guide in the understanding of epistemology. Rand would have put it more eloquently than that.
-
I need more practice. If anyone can critique my reasoning I would appreciate it.
Me: It is never in the interest of any conscious being to hold untrue beliefs. It brings one into conflict with reality and in conflict with one's own life.
Him: That premise isn't obviously true. It depends how you specify 'in the interest of'. For instance studies show that religiousity, a set of false beliefs, correlates with greater wellbeing (happiness contentment etc).
Me: correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps in those religious beliefs there are habits that are healthy and are moral to practice. So those religious people would be right for the wrong reasons, and they would be even happier if the continued to practice healthy habits, as well as discarding their mystical beliefs.
Him: "and they would be even happier if the continued to practice healthy habits, as well as discarding their mystical beliefs." Those mystical beliefs are comforting to many (life after death), so again this isn't obviously true. Your claim "It is never in the interest of any conscious being to hold untrue beliefs." sounds like unfalsifiable dogma.
Me:
Premise 1: A living thing requires values to sustain its own life.
Premise 2: Existence exists and there is only one reality.
Premise 3: A value is something that a living organism seeks to gain and keep.
Premise 4: All values exist in reality.
Premise 5: Conscious beings can hold untrue beliefs.
Premise 6: Conscious beings can attempt to attain perceived values that do not exist in realty.
Premise 7: Unlike reason, emotions are automatic reactions and are not abstract enough to perceive the abstractions that are inherent in reality.
Premise 8: A living thing must expend resources (value) to gain a value.
Premise 9: Conscious beings can expend values to seek to gain a non-value.
Conclusion: The automatic emotional response of happiness can be subject to a non-value; and therefore, one’s gainful condition metaphysically contradict reality.
Him: P7 isn't clear to me, the 2nd clause. The conclusion isn't clear to me either. Can't follow that wording.
-
2 hours ago, William O said:
The level of understanding of Objectivism required for one person will differ from that of another, depending on their other goals. A full understanding of Objectivism requires about ten years of serious study, according to what I've heard from Objectivist intellectuals. That likely won't be worth doing for most people who aren't professional philosophers.
If you don't want to be a professional intellectual, I'd suggest aiming for whatever level of understanding will enable you to know what you are doing in life. Get a basic grasp of the principles, then return to philosophy when you sense that you're not clear about their application to something that you are doing.
You write that the goal may be "to integrate from the axiom of existence exists to capitalism in such a way that is both local, abstract, clearly understood by other people, and entertaining enough for people to want to comprehend." That sounds like you're aiming at becoming a professional Objectivist intellectual or a popularizer of the philosophy. Is that correct?
I am starting a podcast in a week and a half from now and debating is one of my strengths. I studied Objectivism a long time ago when I was introduced to it by something called Neo-Tech back in 2003 (one of those offshoots of Objectivism). My goal is to get a proper grounding to reality so that I can effectively defend capitalism, individualism, and ethics.
What I really would like to do is debate high profile individuals on social media. So it is not just Objectivism I need to re-learn, but also public speaking and presentation. In my opinion, I have the intelligence and work ethic, but I need proper training.
-
In terms of learning objectivism, I thought the fundamental goal for personal understanding objectivism might be to make the widest integrations like Ayn Rand herself were able to do. To integrate from the axiom of existence exists to capitalism in such a way that is both local, abstract, clearly understood by other people, and entertaining enough for people to want to comprehend, for example.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree?
-
4 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
No, does it offer a similar theory on free will? Since writing my first two articles, I've discovered Bernhard Hommel, whose theory on "human action control" contains some similarities.
I think it also give some clues about what free will is.
-
Free will is a corollary of consciousness. Julian Jaynes proposes a very interesting theory of consciousness that runs parallel with Objectivism.
-
On 4/12/2019 at 10:09 PM, MisterSwig said:
I created a blog to introduce my theory on free will:
https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/2019/04/free-will-is-learned-skill.html?m=1
My goal is to identify the necessary steps in the development of free will, starting from birth. I briefly discuss reflexes, feelings, and purpose, and how they relate to gaining control over one's body and mind.
I appreciate any comments or criticism, placed here or on the blog.
Have you ever read "On The Origin of Consciousness, The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes?
-
1 minute ago, Jimbean said:
"...acts to gain..." I missed that "acts to" part, so by definition it is possible to integrate with reality while acting to gain the ability to reverse the aging process if one is qualified to do that kind of work in bio-medical engineering, or whatever related field of study.
Or if I were a multi-billionaire donating money to that kind of research.
-
1 minute ago, Grames said:
Actually its even simpler than that. A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. There is no presumption of ultimate success, merely the action for the sake of some end. So objectively, it is possible to act to achieve all kinds of things even things which are impossible or things which are harmful and in a real sense those are values. Whether the impossible or the harmful should be something to strive for is a different question.
"...acts to gain..." I missed that "acts to" part, so by definition it is possible to integrate with reality while acting to gain the ability to reverse the aging process if one is qualified to do that kind of work in bio-medical engineering, or whatever related field of study.
Thanks for the observation. In a debate with someone like stefan molyneux, that would make the difference haha)
-
4 minutes ago, Grames said:
In the long run we are all dead despite all of our efforts, so can one really value life?
There seems to be something wrong with that sentence I just composed.
I have been submersed into irrational society that my psycho-epistemology is cluttered with subjectivity; I'm still at the metaphysics and epistemology stage of re-learning Objectivism.
Life presupposes the act of valuing. Your own life is the basis of all other values you have. Your efforts are at least an attempt to sustain your life, so for example, if you can act in such a way that would reverse the aging process (i.e. extending your telomeres, or boosting HGH long term), then you would do that since it would sustain your life, similarly in the way you sustain your life by eating.
-
I thought about this a little more. I should specify that it is not a disintegration from reality if someone works to gain the attributes of youth, but to work to gain youth as a whole is a disintegration.
-
Excuse me if this is a stupid question. If there is any materiel that comes to mind to anyone reading this, please refer it to me as I am in the process of re-learning objectivism.
Values are defined as what an organism gains and keeps for survival. Aging is a process that occurs regardless if the person wants it to happen or not; aging can be slowed down, but it cannot be stopped with current medical technology.
Is it appropriate to value youth, or anti-aging? To value something that cannot be gained or kept?
People buy into "anti-aging" products, but this only gives the characterization of youth. One can make changes to one's habits, or engage in certain exercises to gain youthful characteristics, but that does not actually stop, or reverse the aging process.
-
And for the sake of informing, here is a good little article on some real conspiracies:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-ins...y-happened.html
-
This might have be be moved, I am putting this here because I am not sure where I should post it.
I am a lurker to this forum, I don't post much, but I have a question and then a set of questions:
Why is it that Objectivists do not argue with someone who subscribes to conspiracy theory. One explanation that I came across is that by arguing with someone who subscribes to conspiracy theory, some credibility is given to them, therefore Objectivists do not argue with them. What other reasons are there, if any, that an Objectivist does not argue against conspiracy if they do not believe it?
My second question is more controversial, I do not wish to stir anything up here, so I apologize if I do, but here it is:
Conspiracy theory by itself without evidence is an invalid method of thinking because then the theory is taken on faith. If there is any evidence of a conspiracy, it is approached inductively and gets shown to be false. But what about the conspiracies that are shown to be true? Was it natural to be wrong in that case? Or by being wrong means one had slipped into an inductive fallacy?
-
For the information of this forum regarding Myers and Briggs typology, there is an alternative personality theory that is also based on Carl Jung's work. In my opinion, it is much better. It is called socionics, and here is a forum you can visit to learn more about it:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/
Most other sites are in Russian
-
The political trend might just go the same way of global cooling did. Hopefully by then we will still be alive from all of the other problems that we are having
Otherwise I assume that the climate change, as long as it is not to the extreme (such as an ice age), will turn out to be good for the human population as it usually is, I think.
-
Since this topic is nowhere to be found on this forum, I assume that most of the members are not aware of this possibility.
There is a segment, (which I assume is small) who thinks that 9/11 was actually done by so called black operations within the CIA/corporation/ political think-tank/military industrial complex.
There is also a debate going on about everything that has been found by either “debunkers” or “truthers.”
If this is true, imagine the repercussions it would have on foreign policy as well as the credibility of the establishment as a whole. At the same time, what if this is not true, imagine the repercussions of a small, but growing segment of the population that wants to reverse US foreign policy when it actually will lead to defeat.
I know that this is a rather sensitive topic, so I would not be surprised if this thread ends up having some emotional responses.
-
JimBeam,
Why don't you tell us what the concept is, instead of repeatedly alluding to it but not naming it?
Alright, I wanted to draw out people's thinking on this forum in such a way that I could learn from.
I will first give you this quote:
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
-Hermann Goering-the man who, most likely, set fire to the Reichstag
My point is that dishonest politicians use and need disasters in order to survive. The planned disasters are even better for them, but any disaster will do for the dishonest politician, bureaucrat, media personality (aka talking heads), etc.
This sounds pretty evil doesn't it?
Watch out, because where I am going with this will get controversial, some of you may know where I am going with this, but if you don't, that is okay for now. I want to discuss the possiblities and implications of subjects that I will use, using different points of view.
-
Okay, I will make this clear:
This does not have to do with Nazism. I am talking about the Reichstag fire as an example to help illustrate a concept.
-
Not really, no. Nazism was caused by the prevailing philosophies of the country which had been calling for a Nazi-style system as early as the mid-nineteenth century. It had been advocated by every single cultural force in the nation for nearly one hundred years (including factions at odds with each other). In no way was any minor incident "responsible" for it.
Forget the philosophy of nazism. What did the Reichstag fire help do, what can we learn from it.
-
For a very detailed analysis of how the Nazis rose to power, see The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. It was NOT due to some, one, isolated incident like the Reichstag fire.
But the Reichstag fire was an important part, as well as the concept behind it. I am mostly after the concept here.
-
The Reichstag fire was the one event that greatly empowered the Nazis and allowed for the nightmare of Nazi Germany. Taken this same concept, wouldn't the effect be magnified if the attack was a religious target on a day like Christmas? And what are some of the fundamental differences between *conspiracy theorists* and objectivists (if you chose to give out names)?
A quote from Ayn Rand
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
That's exactly it! Thank you