Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

mattieabs

Regulars
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mattieabs

  • Birthday 04/01/1982

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Freestyle snow skiing, philosophy, politics, tennis, etc.
  • Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    mattieabs

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Matt

mattieabs's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. So that I joined the forum yesterday and made a couple of posts gives rise to suspicion? Of what do you suspect me? Believe me friend, I have a fetish for EVERY issue, which you will see in time. If you are able to refute my comments, just do so...you've yet to prove anything to anyone.
  2. This is the best you've come up with? Objectivism must be in a worse state than I had imagined. Your entire defense of Rand's unjust is/ought jump, hinges on your assumption that I COULD be lying about being happy? You do not even claim to know, objectively, that I am lying - only that I COULD be and from that you are able to determine that I'm a complete moron whose non-objectivist opinions are invalid. Secondarily, you wouldn't consider what I SAID even if I WERE telling the truth. YOUR determination of my happiness does not stem from what I say...after all, I could merely be disassociating positive feelings from their properly virtuous derivations or misinterpreting feelings of, "satisfaction," and, "joy," because of the inversion of my moral code created when I lied the very first time - the very first time I gained a value from vice. YOUR determination of happiness is entirely irrelevant to how I feel or what I say, but is measured against an arbitrary standard YOU have pre-determined. The only way one could determine that another person is telling the truth in a given situation, is to have objective evidence that he/she has NEVER lied, which of course is impossible. So I will ask you the same question, why should we take anything you say seriously? Why should we take anything ANYONE says seriously, since we have no objective proof that they never lied?
  3. (Paragraph 1) Here in lies your biggest clue: "This cannot be true IF the Objectivist view of what happiness is is true." (Paragraph 2) So Rand and her minions ACTUALLY claim that they can make an OBJECTIVE determination of one's PERMANENT state of psychological well-being based upon whether or not they ever told even a single lie? What a goddam joke. If I steal a slice of bread from my neighbor tomorrow, would you, Ayn, and Lenny suggest that my happiness has from there forward been removed from the realm of the possible? I fully understand the distinction between being momentarily pleased and an integrated concept of, "happiness." Friedman understood it as well. However, he does not hold, as you do, that one instance of, "evasion," whether it be lying, cheating, stealing, what have you, constitutes the complete inversion of his/her moral/ethical code from that point forward. How was this determination made? If such is the case, we are all whim-worshiping evaders and happiness is possible to none of us, as all of us have certainly, "evaded," at one time or another. You can keep your definition of happiness, but realize that by the Objectivist standard, happiness has yet to be achieved by a human being. Galt (a fictional character) would be close, but even he would be deigned miserable by Rand and the lot. I can absolutely, 100%, without a doubt in my mind, say that every human being (save babies or the mentally impaired) has been guilty of evasion (as defined by Objectivism) at one point or another. Because this is so, our pursuit of happiness, by your standards is a complete exercise in futility: we can never achieve it. If this is so, by working toward a happiness which we don't deserve, are we not all subconsciously working toward our own destruction? What does Objectivism suggest we do about this? Does Objectivism flat out say, "Good, you deserve to self-destruct. You are sub-human, you hate life, and you deserve it?" Is there an appropriate way for an evader to live, since, "happiness," is no longer his objective? It doesn't matter now whether we lead a life of vice or virtue...either will lead to the same place: unhappiness. With the possibility of happiness removed, what justifies a person's decision to act virtuous or in vice? (Paragraphs 3 & 4) I do not adhere to your subjective definitions of the concepts of value and achievement. More accurately, I agree with THOSE definitions in principle, but disagree with your concept of happiness - most specifically that ONE evasion constitutes a completely inversion of one's morality. If you or Miss Rand choose to make up a definition for value, and in your definition stipulate that a thing acquired by vice cannot be a value, without having presented any pertinent psychological or other objective facts, all you have done is state your opinion. Hence is from ought. That Ayn Rand uttered the words, does not make them an objective standard. The problem here is that, per a typical Randian, you have substituted, "value," for, "what Ayn Rand deigns to be valuable." Perhaps Ayn would fail to sleep a wink with the robbery weighing on her conscience, but you have failed to provide a single shred of Objective proof that humans are incapable of being happy once they have acquired a single, "value," through vice. You all keep saying, "Objectivism holds..." then restating your position. Such is the range of your argument thus far. Friedman suggests that happiness is possible to those who do not subscribe to Randian ethics and asks what EVIDENCE (not just what Ayn says) do you have that this is true? It is important to point out that I do not think Ayn, or you, are far from the mark in this regard...but it's absolutely imperative to curtail this tendency to assume is from ought, as it can be extremely damaging in other facets. I do believe in order composed in the presence of objective facts, but it's extremely important to be careful when assigning objectivity. (Paragraph 5) Again, linguistics are drawing your conclusions for you: "Putting all of this together it is impossible for a criminal/parasite to be happy IN THE OBJECTIVIST SENSE OF THAT TERM." Arguing by definition is about as accurate an assessment as could have been made. If this is all you wish to say, you will probably find very little opposition. If Objectivists want to come up with a whole different set of definitions for words, then say anything which does not fit this definition is not the thing, by all means feel free to wallow in your futility. Please indulge me in clarifying the Objectivist position: From what I can gather you seem to be saying that a singular instance of dishonesty or, "evasion," committed knowingly, regardless to the degree of its severity (except in the case of, "emergencies," which I realize Miss Rand held in special regard and is another point with which I do not agree) or any other mitigating circumstances, from there forward completely restricts that individiual's ability to be happy. Any positive emotion that they experience from there on will merely be shadow figure emotion derived from the inverted code of morality they created for themselves at the instance of evasion. If you lie to your wife about which television program you watched last night, curing Cancer, AIDS, and Leukemia combined could not make you a happy person. If you have a, "good time," at the baseball game 10 years from now, somewhere, gnawing at the back of your mind and forever preventing your true happiness, the lie you told your wife remains. Is this something one consciously identifies? "You know what, I'm having a GREAT time right now. I'm with the wife and kids, at the ball game drinking a beer, eating a hot dog. I feel completely satisfied. What could be better? Wait...wait...what's this? I feel something creeping up on my enjoyment of the game...goddamit, that's right...I lied to my wife about watching, "Lord of the G-Strings," all those years ago...who am I kidding, I don't deserve to be happy. Oh well - I'm sure having a great time! (takes a big drink of beer which proceeds to run down his chin and onto his shirt) Go Rangers!" As Mr. Mathis suggests, of what relevance is the discussion of one's happiness if your definition is some abstract permanent status? I think you will find that many people will simply say, "If this is happiness, you can keep it. As long as I may continue to experience satisfaction, pleasure, etc. your arbitrary designation of my unhappiness means absolutely nothing to me." You provide no incentive for someone to be happy (in the Objectivist sense) which would not already have been produced by the nature of their actions. Again, your is from ought EVASION implies omniscience. One's psychological well-being cannot be objectively categorized by another person. You speak of, "the facts of happiness," around whose objective nature you were able to amass your conclusions. Which facts? Name them. All you are doing is saying that YOUR subjective opinion, by nature of Objectivism, is objective. The most obvious flaw in your theory is that you have no OBJECTIVE device by which to determine that a person is happy or unhappy. I can tell you right now that I am a very happy person AND I have lied before - what will you do about it? You can scream at me until you are blue in the face, "No! No goddamit it can't be! You're lying! You're evading! Ayn said it's not possible! You merely THINK you're happy because you're an evader who has created an inverted sense of virtue! If I discover a chink in her armor I will be forced to go out and draw my own conclusions! Say it ain't so! You're nothing but a whim-worshiper...yeah,yeah, that's it...a whim-worshiper and you know what else....you're a social metaphysician! You are NOT an Objectivist and you are here by excommunicated!" (Paragraph 6) If you are accurately conveying the Objectivist concept of happiness, yes, I absolutely reject it whole-heartedly. If this implies (which it does not) that I completely reject any conclusion ever drawn by Rand, then I reject it. Typically trite Randian argument: "If you don't agree with EVERYTHING Rand says, you automatically agree with NOTHING Rand says." Give me a break, friend. I have great respect for Rand, but if such is her argument in this regard, I have no problem saying that I reject Objectivism - that does not send my universe spiraling into chaos as it may yours. I do not need to read a lengthy treatise - can you not explain it just as easily? I would assume that you could, given your complete objective understanding of the matter. Furthermore, it will allow Objectivism to represent itself dynamically in the context of live opposition.
  4. Please follow my previous formatting (referencing paragraphs numerically): (Paragraph 1) Rex Little was exactly right - the con is not elevating opinions above reality. The con is taking advantage of the reality of his victims stupidity, vulnerability, etc. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, parasites regard their environment as a personal possession which can and should be arranged for their benefit. You and Rand have suggest that happiness is impossible to a criminal/parasite and Mr. Friedman suggests that you have unjustly married the two. He asserts that merely being dishonest in a given situation does not there by completely restrict the individuals ability to obtain self-esteem and thus become happy. I will again employ a simple example: If you tell your child that he or she must go to bed on Christmas Eve so that Santa Claus can come down the chimney to deliver gifts, are you from there forward incapable of being happy? Is every feeling of, "pleasure," and, "satisfaction," that you experience from there on merely a false impulse based upon the inverted code of morality you created for yourself when you lied to your child? By saying, "I don't know and neither do you," Rex Little was simply giving an accurate depiction of reality - that subjective values cannot be objectively determined - not by you, Miss Rand, or anyone else. (Paragraph 3) Friedman asserts the possibility and until you are able to disprove his conclusion, the possibility remains. Again, you have a closed, restrictive definition of self-esteem. If a certain action does not meet this definition, it is YOURS to prove why it does not meet what YOU have defined. This should be very easy to do, if you actually have an objective definition of self-esteem. You have a definition - now tell us why the example given by Friedman does not fit your definition for one reason or another. It is YOU that asserts that a criminal/parasite is incapable of being happy - by what were you able to make this determination? Are there not a series of criterion which must be met for a given item to meet your definition? Name them. When you do, I believe you will discover that your criterion are subjective, and thus irrelevant to this purpose. If man is not capable of self-esteem, and thus not capable of happiness because he has been dishonest, you must prove WHY - not simply make a subjective statement and expect everyone to adhere to it as objective fact. (Paragraphs 4 & 5) No more does your assertion of the possibility that the con-man cannot be happy. What you and Miss Rand (to a much lesser degree and whom I believe you have probably misinterpreted or taken out of context in many cases) do is nothing more than stating what you believe to be true, then saying, "I am right unless you can prove me wrong." Then, when you come up AGAINST a similar argument you admit that I could not have proved you wrong if I had wanted to, and it would not have provided a contradiction to your statement even if I could. Do you realize the presence of omniscience that statement implies? Your citation of Peikoff's example has to be a joke. Which part of, "Indeed, I can not prove it," do you fail to understand? If you CAN NOT prove something, you forfeit your ability to assert the realm of possibility in such. Are you not supposed to be an OBJECTIVIST? Are you in the habit of taking for objective fact that which you are unsure of? If you cannot honestly say whether there are gremlins studying Hegel on Mars, how can you HONESTLY say that it is impossible for them to be there? From what do you derive this assertion? Please explain. (Paragraphs 5 & 6) In the absence of supporting evidence, Ayn Rand and AisA's assertion that a happy con-man is impossible is arbitrary and may be dismissed. If you do not entertain the notion that man may one day flap his wings and fly, you are guilty of evasion. You are guilty of evasion of a possibility which you have have no reason to believe to be impossible. You assume something is false before having relevant objective information on which to make base your assumption. If someone suggested to me that man will one day use his arms as bird wings to fly, I would ask them for the evidence which lead them to their conclusion and may very well determine that their conclusion is improbably or highly unlikely, based upon the known physical limitations of human beings. I would not, and could not honestly tell them that their conclusion is patently false or impossible. You have me interested: Which objective facts regarding men, the earth, etc, in your opinion completely restrict the possibility of man taking flight to the point at which you feel it is an objective fact to assert that such is never possible? What evidence, other than Miss Rand's assertion (subjective), Peikoff's (a poor man's Rand and also subjective) examples, or your introspection and observation (DEFINITELY subjective) do you have to support your claim against Mr. Friedman? If Ayn and AisA want to attack Friedman's case, they must do more than merely assert that it might not be true.
  5. This is incorrect. The nature of a parasite is that it draws sustenance from its victims without making a contribution to the victims well-being. This does not imply that they are "incapable," of doing so. Obviously in the case of human beings, their parasitical nature is VOLITIONAL. While it is appropriate to suggest that SOME parasites may be incapable of surviving on their own, asserting that ALL parasites are incapable because they have employed alternative means by which to sustain their lives, is nothing more than a guess. I would guess that many who are now considered, "parasites," in our mixed system would become independent when/if the prime movers withdrew their permission to leech on. One can debate the moral/ethical implications of the decision by the prime movers to keep themselves available and by the parasite who has taken advantage of such, but one cannot say with any objective accuracy that all the, "parasites," would fail to remain alive.
  6. Due to the difficulty in replying in the middle of posted quotes, I have listed prior to my refutations the number of the paragraph to which I was responding. I apologize for this incoherence - today is the first day I have used this board and perhaps I will eventually discover how to do it appropriately. Never the less, I hope that you are able to follow: (Paragraph 1) Absolutely incorrect. You have established a restrictive definition. You have defined what a man is and what constitues life. You are thus able to say, item A meets my definition and there for IS, and item B does not meet my defintion and there for IS NOT. You list your definition then ignore any conclusions which contradict your definitions. Mr. Friedman is blatantly challenging the validity of your definition and provides evidence to that end - it is now yours to explain why the example Mr. Friedman has given does not fit your definitions of, "man," "life," or both. As I said, this should be very easy to do - since your definition is restrictive. (Paragraph 3) No, this is not Mr. Friedman's premise. YOUR premise is that happiness is impossible in the presence of dishonesty. Mr. Friedman correctly asserts that your association is not a foregone conclusion. One is not directly dependent on the other. The argument that self-esteem is necessary for the achievement of happiness is appropriate, however what you fail to acknowledge is that there are varying degrees of self-esteem and thus varying degrees of happiness. What you imply is that any knowing evasion of honesty, no matter to which degree, will there by prevent the person who commited the evasion from ever being happy. Again, this is all irrelevant since, "happy," is a SUBJECTIVE EMOTION which varies in degree, and is impossible to objectively define. (Paragraph 4) Yes, he has provided evidence for his assertion. He says, "Look, here is at least one example of a being who is able to remain alive without subscibing to Rand's ethics." He has provided an example and the burden is now yours to show why the example he gave does not meet your definitions of, "man," "life," or both. You now appear to have given up on the idea that man is not man and life is not life unless it meets Rand's standards - but these same criterion apply to your restrictive defnition of self-esteem. YOUR ASSERTION is that self-esteem is impossible in the presence of dishonesty, it is YOUR obligation to then disprove any examples which do not meet your criterion. As I have said, this should be very simple for you to do...having an objective definition and all. (Paragraphs 4) Mr. Friedman does not wish to establish that self-esteem is completely unaffected by dishonesty, but that self-esteem is possible to those who have been dishonest. YOUR CLAIM is that self-esteem is not possible in the presence of dishonesty and that happiness is possible only in the presence of self-esteem. Mr. Friedman is criticizing Objectivism based upon those conclusions. If I lie to my girlfriend about which television program I watched last night (nevermind WHY I would do so) am I from there forward incapable of having self-esteem? (Paragrpah 5) By what do you define happiness? Again, happiness is an emotion. Happiness is subjective and cannot be categorically defined. You seem to speak of happiness as some kind of permanent subconscious integratation of one's, "pleasures and satisfactions," and can be measured at any time relative to, "reality." Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the distinctions between pleasure, satisfaction, and happiness and also how you are able to divorce the latter from the context of the two former. Give an example of how one may be pleased and satisfied, but not happy - and then tell us all how you were able to determine that the person was pleased or satisfied in the first place. Couldn't one simply employ the argument that the person was never pleased or satisfied because of the action in the first place, but was instead merely disassociating any positive feelings from their appropriate positive catalysts? (Paragraph 7) Equally happy? That phrase alone speaks volumes. How can one be, "equally happy?" Are you openly acknowledging that there are varying degrees of happiness, which are determined subjectively and may not be objectively defined by you, Miss Rand, or anyone else? Claiming to an Objectivist does not allow you to ignore subjective context. Would the con man and Roark be equally happy? It would depend on many things and it is impossible to answer given what we know. Is the con man capable of being happy even though he has been dishonest? Yes. Is it likely that Roark, given that he lives his life in a way which you determine to be moral and honest, will be more psychologically well-off? Probably so.
  7. To member AisA regarding post # 9 in this thread: I went to lunch and due to another post on the thread was unable to edit my previous post as I had intended. Please disregard the previous post. Though I have not changed much, if any, of the previous content, I have added several things which I hope will illustrate my position more accurately: Actually, it does. The realization of a society whose basis is derived from Objectivism would not permit the parasitical practices which are prevalent in todays, "mixed," society. If you truly subscribe to Objectivist ethics you and the rest will withdraw your permission. If the thinkers and prime movers of the world were to withdraw their permission, those who will not act to preserve their own lives would meet a very rapid destruction indeed. Very technically speaking, full subscription to Objectivist ethics is impossible in any environment which is not entirely free. Peikoff and the gang should grant themselves, "Students of Objectivism," at best. Earlier in the post you mention that parasites survive only by the grace of their victims. Ignoring that you contradict yourself in the final paragraph, I agree with this conclusion. However, I believe that the statement as such is an over-simplification. Parasites (in this case) survive because they are able to employ the tools of their cognition to assess the environment in which they live and take necessary action to use that environment to the end of perpetuating their lives. This is one of the, “unlimited embodiments,” to which you make reference. Which actions would you take or not take based upon your assertion that someone is not a, “man,” but a parasite, and not, “living,” but merely using others to perpetuate their existence? What does this distinction change? Do you suggest that the unalienable rights of man do not apply to this sub-human being? You correctly state that man must take a specific course of action to remain alive. What you seemingly ignore is that a parasite DOES select a specific course of action. Granted that the course may involve instances of moral/ethical violations, it is a course none the less. The disagreement here stems from your presumed assertion that the biological existence of a human parasite is not equivalent to the life of a man. What ARE your definitions of man and life? Perhaps you should work to redefine one or the other. As it stands, a parasite meets your, and Miss Rand's definitions of both, man (a being of volitional consciousness) and remaining alive. This is when the poster to whom you are replying correctly asserts that you have substituted, "life," for, "an appropriately moral life per Ayn Rand." Unfortunately, such is not in the jurisdiction of you, or Rand. As Mr. Mathis correctly points out, your claim that life is not life unless it is life per Rand is an example of pseudo-omniscient social-engineering at its best – the very thing against with which you claim to be embattled. You cannot, from what you know, conclude that parasites are INCAPABLE of surviving on their own. Parasites simply use what has been made available to them in order to survive or otherwise further their selfish objectives. If the permission of the prime movers were withdrawn they may discover that they are able survive on their own and even that they ENJOY doing so. If they could or did not want to comply at that point, I would then bestow the, "sub-human," label you now liberally apply. Criminals and parasites (for various more deeply-seeded psychological reasons, which is another discussion entirely) regard their environment as personal property. Thus when making decisions, they consider manipulation of their environment an appropriate means by which to consider solving a given problem. The violation occurs at a much deeper level than, "legal vs. illegal." You are correct when you say that a life of crime does not stem from an individual's determination that it is unlikely that they would be caught. However, I do not agree with your assertion that being a criminal or parasite necessarily constitutes abandoning one's tools of survival...and if I did, I would not take for granted, as you do, that such would be an act of self-imposed humiliation. What exactly do you mean by this? I would not say that the person has abandoned their tools but instead that they have simply chosen to keep their tools in their chest and make use of those which other men have made readily available and whose use will have no (or at least what they determine to be less) effect on the depreciation of their own tools. This is not to say that they do not possess the tools or that they would be incapable of using them if the others were not available. Rather than self-humiliating, "abandonment," of one's own tools in favor of criminal/parasitical acts, in this case may actually serve as a source of pride. The identification of WHEN, WHERE, and WHY the impropriety occurs is necessary for the parasite to make a conscious connection between their parasitical actions and any, "unhappiness," they may experience. A criminal may well experience very real feelings of happiness and self-worth in committing a criminal act which utilizes their ingenuity, creativity, discipline, etc. My point being, that one commits criminal or parasitical acts does not provide sufficient means by which to determine their psychological well-being. An appropriate argument, if there is one, would lie in one's estimation that any positive feeling derived from a criminal action has been disassociated with its proper moral derivative and thus provides the criminal with an inaccurate account of his psychological well-being (More evidence of why feelings must not be considered cognitive tools.) While one may assert that criminals, on the whole, are not, "happy," it would be foolish to suggest that criminal or parasitical actions cannot make their executor's happy - or its derivation; that they will make him UNHAPPY. The criminal obviously derives some form of value from his/her action and the only real dispute is the degree or range to which this occurs vs. the implicit negative, "feelings." What you seem to suggest, is that there is never a situation in which the benefits of a criminal/parasitical action are not trumped by its consequences (That is that the person will be psychologically WORSE off than they were before they committed the act.) What we require, is evidence to this regard. You have created a closed, restrictive system. If you were able to define what IS, you had better be able to define what IS NOT and why it is not. If you fail in doing so, your definition is completely subjective and invalid in any social context. Furthermore, it is stupid to speculate as to whether one is either, "happy," or, "unhappy." Again, this is why it is especially important not to consider the, "feelings," of individuals when making decisions for a collective group. If your question is whether or not, by the nature of their parasitical actions, a parasite can be happy, the answer is yes. Is, "happiness," a permanent feeling which is dependent upon only ONE identifiable catalyst at a given time? No.
  8. Actually, it does. A realization of a society whose basis is derived from Objectivism would not permit the parasitical practices which are prevalent in today's, "mixed," society. If you truly subscribe to Objectivist ethics you and the rest will withdraw your permission. If the thinkers and prime movers of the world were to withdraw their permission, those who will not act to preserve their own lives will meet a very rapid destruction indeed. Very technically speaking, full subscription to Objectivist ethics is impossible in any environment which is not entirely free. Peikoff and the gang should grant themselves, "Students of Objectivism," at best. Earlier in the post you mention that parasites survive only by the grace of their victims. Ignoring that you contradict yourself in the final paragraph, I agree with this conclusion. However, I believe that the statement as such is an over-simplification. Parasites (in this case) survive because they are able to employ the tools of their cognition to assess the environment in which they live and take necessary action to use that environment to the end of perpetuating their lives. You cannot from there conclude that parasites are INCAPABLE of surviving on their own. Parasites simply use what has been made available to them in order to survive or otherwise further their selfish objectives. If the permission of the prime movers were withdrawn they may discover (perhaps they would be FORCED to discover) that they are able survive on their own. The (moral/ethical) problem with criminals and parasites is that they regard their environment as personal property. Thus when making decisions, they consider manipulation of their environment an appropriate means by which to consider solving a given problem. The identification of WHEN, WHERE, and WHY the impropriety occurs is necessary for the parasite to make a conscious connection between their parasitical actions and any, "unhappiness," they make experience. A criminal may well experience very real feelings of happiness and self-worth in committing a criminal act which utilizes their ingenuity, creativity, discipline, etc. My point being, criminal or parasitical action is not the direct catalyst of a person's unhappiness, but merely evidence of more serious moral/ethical violations on the surface. While one may assert that criminals on the whole are not, "happy," it would be foolish to suggest that criminal or parasitical actions cannot make their executor's happy. The criminal obviously derives some form of value from their action and the only real dispute is the degree or range to which this occurs. Furthermore, it is stupid to speculate as to whether one is either, "happy," or, "unhappy." This is impossible to objectively define. If your question is whether or not, by the nature of their parasitical actions, a parasite can be happy, the answer is yes. Is, "happiness," a permanent feeling which is dependent upon only ONE catalyst at a given time? No.
×
×
  • Create New...