Ciscokid

this is the correct link... https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/sky...?id_talk=905168

The debate is being held by Stefan Molyneux. https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/sky...?id_talk=893702 Join in, id be interested in objectivist view points.

I highly disagree with the view point of the persons post I forwarded here. It is not my opinion at all. And i dont think Ive expressed my viewpoint here yet.

I understand. I posted it for better understanding and for it to be talked over with objective people. I suppose i could of been more clear on that!

I didnt reply to his question of 'why this topic is important' because I dont believe it was sincere or relevant. If it wasnt an important topic, Id imagine a discussion wouldnt of taken place, or that he'd return. But thanks for hashing over it. aleph_0's posts were really helpful. Thanks!

i understand that, but does it really disprove / prove anything>? So what exactly is his point in saying anything.

thats why I brought this up in the first place. I didnt understand where he was coming from. Whenever I have questions or need help understanding something, I come here, for the objectivity. Thats why this was important. To me anyway. Thanks for the clarification cogito and kendall

he says that a counter-example is true by default... then technically he didnt give a counter-example since what he said requires further proof?

If its not important to you ignore it.

pfft. Dont ask me...

On another forum a member posted this... there is a on-going debate on this issue. DISCUSSION HERE Hiring a prostitute does not imply low self esteem. The Logical Proof P = Prositute A = Someone J = John LSS = LowSelfEsteem CGS = CanGetSex Claim: (CGS(A) & Hires(A,P)) -> LSS(A) But: CGS(J) TRUE Hires(J,P) TRUE LSS(J) FALSE Thus: A = J -> ((CGS(A) & Hires(A,P)) -> ~LSS(A)) Therefore: ~((CGS(A) & Hires(A,P)) -> LSS(A)) The claim is made that hiring a prostitute when you can get sex implies implies that the person has low self esteem. John can get sex. John hires a prostitute. John does not have low self esteem. Thus, hiring a prostitute when you can get sex does not imply low self esteem. Therefore, the claim that hiring a prostitute when you can get sex implies low self esteem is false. The Truth Table X = CGS(A) Y = Hires(A,P) Z = LSS(A) X Y Z | (X & Y) -> Z T T T T T T T F T F T F T F T T F F F T F T T F T F T F F T F F T F T F F F F T A logical statement is valid if and only if there exists no counter example. The bolded line proves the claim is moot.

Sam and MAX!!! heck yes!

I use to be a DBZ junkie too. I still have all the episodes on DVD!!!! I stopped watching when I realized they kept reworking the same plot over and over and over. Everythings peaceful, then a bad guy comes, they fight and they start winning, and then he turns into a super bad guy and then woops them all, then they turn into super duper sayans and then he turns into super duper bad guy, then they become super duper sayans and then everyone dies and they have to get the dragonballs to ressurect everyone... =(

Dude your only 15 you have no idea what your talking about. Go watch ninja turtles.... Im just kidding Rommel =) I got into Objectivism at a young age too. I wouldnt worry about it too much- your more then welcome here. And btw, ninja turtles is awesome.

Heh, on a lighter side to this topic- after I read this I realized that your name is I-fat... Just a funny coincidence. Certainly you would be if eating is your ultimate goal. Back on topic.... this is an excerpt from one of our email conversations HIM(dyske) ....(one of his reasons for emotions being the root) Say, I feel guilty about something that I did, but I can?t find any reason why I should feel guilty about it. So, I spend days thinking about why I?m feeling guilty, and finally I discover the reason. In this case, my emotion was the one which told me something about reality. My thoughts/reason only came after. If it wasn?t for my emotion being in touch with reality, I would have missed it entirely. Emotions can tell you a lot about reality that our thoughts are not capable of grasping. ME - I had fun thinking about this. If emotions rule, then guilt is an impossible emotion. Guilt implies a contridiction in your actions agaisnt beliefs or "knowing better". The guilt you felt didnt tell you anything about reality, it told you about some subconcious premise you held. If emotions rule, then anything we do cannot bring about guilt. If your emotions lead you to cheating on your wife, then that is all the justification you need for doing it. If she gets upset, she is equally justified and both of you are right. Subjectivity sucks doesnt it. HIM(dyske) - Here, you simply assume that "guilt implies a contradiction in your action against beliefs or knowing better." You don't question the legitimacy of this assumption and you based everything else on this as the indisputable truth. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" deals with this issue directly. It is a story of Raskolnikov who thought he understood himself and the world correctly. He kills a lady thinking that he was doing something good, because he considered her as evil. He thought he had the perfect plan and the reasons for killing her. The only thing he was unable to foresee was his sense of guilt. Dostoevsky shows that our conscience is beyond our thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge. He shows that, no matter how smart we think we are, ultimately our own conscience will determine what is right and wrong, and that we cannot escape it. In other words, guilt is not a contradiction between your action and your knowledge. It is a contradiction between your action and your conscience, which is in fact something beyond/separate from you. Conscience is not something we acquire through culture. More knowledge or education does not make your conscience stronger. Raskolnikov "believed" that killing the lady was good, and he was certain that he "knew better", yet his feelings of guilt contradicted him. Now, you could argue that my assertion about guilt is false. True. You could. There is no way to prove this logically or scientifically. All that I'm trying to show you is that your argument is based on a mere assumption; it is not a proven concept. You say, "If emotions rule, then anything we do cannot bring about guilt." Emotions are not products of logic as you seem to assume. Emotions don't necessarily make sense. Every day, we face all sorts of conflicting emotions. It's not like emotions come out of a single entity which is making sure that all of them have consistent reasons. So, it's the opposite of what you state above. Emotions could rule us and bring about all sorts of guilt. As for the concept of existence: since you are referring me to Ayn Rand, I will refer you to Ludwig Wittgenstein who had very similar ideas in his first book, Tractatus, but later changed his mind and explained why he was wrong (particularly in "Philosophical Investigations"). This is the reason why I was never interested in Rand. Wittgenstein clearly shows why that type of thinking is misguided. "Ontologically it says, essential to every valid concept is the fact of existence." The first few pages of Tractatus explains this concept. The problem here is that it assumes that we all agree about what a "valid concept" is. She is assuming that "concepts" function like mathematics. No concept, especially philosophical concepts, could be proven to be "valid" in that way. I say, "This is a chair." It sounds perfectly "valid", but as soon as someone like you come along and say, "No, it's not," the validity is in question. What I considered as a valid concept of "philosophy" is on a shaky ground with your assertion that my 18 month old daughter has a "philosophy". There is no accounting for validity. As I explained before, there is no need to prove this validity in order for us to function every day. Without this "validity" we use our language and get things done fine. The assumption of the philosophers before Wittgenstein was that if there was no objectively verifiable validity, we would not be able to function. This is shown in his books to be false. Best, -D

Thanks for your insights, you guys are great. I have to work another double tonight so I will comment in the morning. This is his website http://www.dyske.com/ I questioned him on his essay about philosophy. He said that every thought and decision is caused by emotion, that it is the root cause of thought and action- the ONLY cause. Hes quite inconsistant in all his views, any essay you pick by him you will find absurd. I have to go to sleep now, talk to you all later. Thanks again.

[Mod's note: I have split some posts from here into a separate "Life and an Ultimate End" thread, as they were less about how to respond to this subjectivist. - sN] Me and a subjectivist are having email conversations about objectivism. Does his reply make any sense to you? I used the term "living life as an end in itself." He asserts that there is no logical point in living. Is this because he doesnt understand that the choice to live (exist) is what constitutes all that follows (values... ect) This is his response: This “an end in itself” is a very convenient expression which allows you to fix meanings of everything else. “An end in itself” means that the purpose of X is X. In an ordinary situation, it would be: Y is the purpose of X. Put it in a form of function Y = purpose(X); “An end in itself” is: X = purpose(X); IF the equation above is valid, the “purpose” would have no meaning. It would simply be: X = X; Certain mathematical functions could actually return this result. If the function was: function purpose(X) { Y = X * X; return Y; } you can then enter “1” as an argument, and the answer will be “1”, whereas “2” would return “4”. The problem however with your use of the expression “an end in itself” is that you assume that you know when X = purpose(X) can happen and when it cannot. You say, in the case of “life”, it can be an end in itself, but in other cases it cannot. If I’m free to choose what can be an end in itself, any sort of argument can arbitrarily be settled by my choice. I could just as easily say, “Money is the meaning of life.” You ask, “But what is the point of money?” I then reply, “Money is an end in itself.” You can disagree and argue why money is not an end in itself, but I could also argue why life isn’t an end in itself. o, “life as an end in itself” is not logical at all. I don’t see how this statement could logically satisfy the answer to the meaning of life. The same goes for your use of the term “self-evident”. That’s a convenient word too. Whatever is “self-evident” is exempted from your logical investigation. My position isn’t to assert that things don’t exist outside of our consciousness. My position is that no such proposition can be proven, and any attempt to prove it will necessarily lead to nonsense. You see my position to be “subjectivism” but I have no way of proving that either. The fact that you understand what I mean by “apple” does not prove “objectivism” nor “subjectivism”. For the sake of being practical, I could agree to accept your axioms and go on to discuss your model of the world, but at the same time, I could agree to accept the axioms set by the subjectivists and go on to discuss their model of the world too. If you want to be ruled by logic, explain to me logically without using convenient expressions like “an end in itself” or “self-evident” to excuse yourself from having to explain something logically.

It is usually much more strict in the sense JW parents believe they have much more to protect there children from than non JW's. Since they do not celebrate any holidays, associate with non-JW's (for the most part) or participate in ANY politics, they tend to shelter there kids as much as they can... while they can. I grew up abit different. My mom was only a JW and my dad was not. It was a broken house hold for much of my life. I am also the youngest, my parents "better" days and come and gone. So even though I did not experience the strictness... or anything for that matter from them, I still went to the Kingdom Hall (CHURCH) on my own, and learned on my own. It is... trust me. Especially when all of your friends... family are involved. If you decide agianst the religion... you are outcasted. Not as much by family, but most certainly by friends. Ashley, Thank you for your concern and understanding. The JW religion is indeed, very life consuming. Your advice concerning telling your parents or family is good. They would have a breakdown... that is no lie. I do not attend any of there services, or go Door to door witnessing ... that would be... insincere and fake on my part if I did. The thing is its hard to wash away beliefs that have been ingrained into you since you can remember anything. So I have my struggles, but its enlightening and I enjoy the process, I just thought it would be comforting to find others... that have took a ride in the same boat, I am in now.

Hi, I am new to the forum. I've read all of Ayn Rands books in the past 2 years and have been learning as much as I can about objectivism and its application. I have been learning simply... how to think. I am 19 years and was raised a JW by my mom. I wanted to know if there were any Objectivists here that were raised or were once JW's. Id love to talk to you about some questions I have, among other things. Thankyou all! You can either respond in the thread or PM me. Take care. (Moderator's note: Edited at request of poster, to remove full name)