Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RSalar

Regulars
  • Posts

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RSalar

  1. What difference would it make if I could or could not? If there are none then it would be difficult (or impossible) for me to know if I agree with the entire core of their philosophies. If there are some then it would be possible but how would that make a difference here?
  2. Let's look at Post #14: "The most common mistake I see with this statement is an equivocation of the word "subjective", or at least a variation in the way it is used by Objectivists. When an Objectivist uses the word "subjective", they typically mean "without reason, based on whim." The word subjective in your statement refers to its meaning "personal, or unique to an individual." There is no reason why personal values cannot be derived from objective facts contextual to each individual's life. I enjoy riding motorcycles for several valid reasons, but you may not." I see no difference between the Objectivist definition and the dictionary definition. When you say I ride motorcycles because of reasons 1-8 I could use basically the same reasons for why I do something ridiculously dangerous. (As I have repeatedly pointed out.) If you say that your choice is not subjective simply because you can list several reasons why you choose to ride you are missing the point that these reasons may not be objective so in fact they could be biased and based on the feeling you get from riding (with or without your wife). Just because I can list several reasons why I smoke cigarettes it does not mean that my decision to do so is objectively in my self-interest. I might reason that I smoke cigarettes because: 1) It keeps unwanted bugs from biting me, 2) it is a common interest that I share with my friends, 3) I have learned a lot about tobacco and farming and how cigarettes affect my health—this knowledge provides material for me to write about and make additional money, 4) smoking helps me reduce the stress in my life, 5) smoking helps keep me awake while driving at night, 6) smoking helps me keep my weight under control so I feel better about myself, 7) smoking has led me to find new friends because we meet in designated smoking areas, and 8) I really enjoy the feeling of the smoke entering my lungs. So by your way of thinking these “reasons” turn a subjective decision into an objective one. And fussing over the definition of "subjective" does nothing to change this. When you said: “It would appear that I lack the ability to explain to you that "personal" and "objective" are not mutually exclusive concepts as you believe they are,” I think the reason you are finding it difficult to explain, is because there are in fact areas of our lives that we make decisions that are not based on objective reasons—and they can’t be because they are simply a matter of personal preference. These concepts (subjectivity and objectivity) are sometimes mutually exclusive, but not always.
  3. What about two warring groups that have been fighting since before recorded history? No one knows who was the original initiator of force—the only thing anyone remembers is the last bomb blast and the dead bodies. Each side continually and openly threatens to wipe out the other. It seems to me that this kind of reasoning (defensive retaliation and/or preemption is morally justifiable) can lead to a never-ending cycle of hatred and justifiable retaliation from both sides and 2000 years of war can be justified by one side pointing to of a single threatening (or actual violent) act perpetrated by the other side. The end or war and the winner is finally determined by the principle: might is right.
  4. Does the source of sexual arousal differ for men and women? If so, how does this quote from Atlas Shrugged apply differently to men and woman: “Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life”? (edit typo)
  5. If Rand did not expressly list and explain them, how is one to agree "with the entire core of Objectivist philosophy?"
  6. I have been using the dictionary definition from the beginning and I provided it in post #23. If you would prefer to use a different definition I am happy to use yours. If your definition is different from the one I have supplied and you are unwilling to use mine for this discussion I may be able to find another word that will fit what I am trying to express. Do you disagree with the basic premise that things like personal tastes are entirely subjective? In other words there is no objective standard for me to apply to the choice of what I should like about the taste of Pepsi over Coke --- Or why I like blonds over redheads --- or why I like to walk in the woods and do not especially enjoy big cities, etc etc etc. Each of us as individual human beings enjoy certain things for personal (subjective) reasons--the way we choose these things is not based necessarily on some factual data, instead it’s based on the way we were brought up, or based on the emotions that the experience produces (for reasons unknown), or perhaps for some other physiological reason that is not based on logical reasoning. You listed a bunch of reasons why you ride bikes but if you read each one I’m sure you can see that other activities would also apply to the reason provided. 1) There are many other transportation options, 2) other activities also provide an opportunity for you to increase your skills, 3) you already addressed the fuel efficiency or cost to operate reason not being valid, 4) there are other ways to give yourself additional career choices, 5) the fact that you find stress relief in riding is entirely personal (I could use subjective) – someone else would find the experience stress generating. And you could probably find other stress relievers. 6) You could learn how to be more observant in a car if you were willing to put in the effort. 7) There are drugs that will keep you awake that may be safer than riding. 8) You and your wife choose riding as your shared interest—another couple might choose downhill skiing, another sky-diving, mountain climbing, base-jumping, drinking in bars, etc. Again where is the objectivity in this subjectively chosen activity? I can't find it. For the record I am not suggesting that you should not ride! As I have said I enjoy flying my own single-engine airplane (for no objective reason)—it just feels good. I am looking for the line between objectivity in our choices and why we enjoy certain activities over others. I think you would agree that certain activities are so risky that even if a person finds fulfillment in the activity and they think that this activity “makes life worth living,” it would still be irrational for them to pursue it. Where is this line and how is it determined using objective facts? You mentioned, “thrill seeking” – can you define it and state whether it is a good thing or a bad thing and why? Perhaps we will find a clue here ...
  7. In post #14 you said, "So doing things that give fulfillment to our lives (or perhaps add value to our lives) quite often means that sometimes we choose to do things which may shorten our physical life span to some degree (as well as having an impact on some or all of our other values), but they increase the quality of the time we have here. The difficulty occurs in deciding how much of the length of your life you wish to sacrifice for the other value you wish to pursue." When you say that an activity may shorten our physical life span but it increases the quality of time we have here, my question is: by what objective standard do you measure the quality of time we have here? And when you say, "... life does not consist of doing only those things necessary to "avoid the morgue". Rather, to a large degree what you also have to consider is what things make our lives worth living to begin with," (post #14) by what objective standard to you determine what makes life worth living? I say these things must objectively make your life better and worth living and cannot be subjectively chosen, because if it is just a matter of taste (like choosing Pepsi over Coke) then what’s to stop me from choosing smoking cigarettes over living a longer life? Then it becomes, “smoking cigarettes, drinking whisky, and chasing women adds fulfillment and makes life worth living.” Etc. Having objective values means that the things we choose to do (eat fatty foods, ride motor cycles, jump from airplanes, smoke cigarettes, avoid physical exercise, etc.) must actually be good for us—they can’t just be perceived to “make life worth living.” Objective values are just that--real values. They must really make life better. If we have objective values then we enjoy doing only those activities that really do make our lives worth living. How did you decide that riding motor cycles makes your life better? Couldn't you have just as much fun doing something safer?
  8. As I see it, there are several issues here: 1) What is objectively good for me as an individual in my unique circumstances, 2) what is objectively good for me as a human being according to the nature of human beings in general, 3) where is the line that divides subjective personal tastes from objective facts that affect me in a positive or negative way, and 4) when is it in my self-interest to choose a negative physical effect to achieve a perceived psychological gain? Perhaps I feel emotionally good while doing something that is physically harming me. Am I rationally choosing to do physical harm to myself in order to achieve a perceived emotional gain when in fact the emotional gain is due to false premises (that I do not even know I hold—and may not have the ability to discover)? It’s this last issue that is the focus of my concern. This is where I think it would be too easy to subjectively choose one’s values and then think that because no higher value was sacrificed for a lower one all is well. All is not well because unless one’s values are objectively chosen and prioritized it doesn’t matter that no higher value is sacrificed for a lower one. You can be acting towards your own self-destruction while thinking you are being motivated by the principle of choosing values that “make life worth living.” IMO -- Values must be chosen objectively.
  9. Context: The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. You could view things objectively or subjectively within a particular context. An objective view is factual -- whereas a subjective view imparts a personal preference or bias.
  10. My problem is with the principle as it applies to all choices. Why would we use an objective standard to guide us with big issues and a subjective standard when the decision is about a smaller issue? Objectivity in this context means to me that there should be a factual right and wrong—and a person’s opinion should make no difference. Is Coke better for you than Pepsi? There should be a factual answer to that question. Should a 30-year-old man with a wife, two kids, and a mortgage go to work each day versus playing video games all day? There should be a factual answer to that question. But if we say that this guy can decide for himself (subjectively) that playing video games is a higher value to him than supporting his family, then there is no factual answer to the question. Objectivity requires the absence of personal bias. I can’t say I value smoking cigarettes more than living a long time if I want to be objective. Objectivity requires that value living longer over smoking cigarettes because life and living is the objective standard of value. The same goes for the food we eat, the amount of exercise we get, and the types of sports we participate in.
  11. Where are these core principles listed (identified as such) and explained in Rand's own words?
  12. First the definitions: Subjective: Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience. Objective: Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. ”Second, do you have any issues with the premise that a man's life is his standard of value, his top value, and all other values necessarily exist to further that top value?” Maybe this is the issue I am having trouble understanding. How do you define “a man’s life?” I assume it means, in my case, MY life. In your case it would mean, YOUR life. All men are created differently—different abilities, different appearance, different intellectual capacity, etc. What is good for me may not be good for you. But all men are created equal—man is man in the same way that A is A. Applying the definitions to this second issue, I come up with the subjective as being those things that are different about us that cause us to make different choices and the objective as being those attributes that make us the same—we are both human--and we share the same biological needs and requirements. “Third, I think we see eye to eye on the meaning of the term "life", but if you have any doubt, let's resolve that as well.” There is and should be a distinction between the terms “life” and “man’s life.” I know the difference between animate and inanimate and how that difference applies here—animate things need to act in a specific manner in order to remain animate. Inanimate things do not have to do anything in order to stay inanimate. Are we on the same track here?
  13. I guess the difficulty I am having in grasping this concept is how what you are saying here is different when one reasons objectively rather than subjectively. I am assuming that Objectivism rejects subjectivity in this matter. In other words Objectivism should be able to tell you with certainty what is in a man's best interest and what is not. If a person is able to subjectively decide what he values there is nothing stopping him from deciding that he values smoking cigarettes. He says, "I love smoking so much that even though my life will be shorter I would rather live a short life with cigarettes than a long one without them.” How can anyone argue with him if he has reasoned this out and made a conscious decision with full knowledge of the facts? We objectively know that certain activities are not good for human health. You mentioned certain unhealthy eating habits—that’s a good example that we all can relate to. Physical fitness requires a certain amount of “sacrifice” in that we have to sacrifice a short-term desire for a long-term effect. Proper exercise and diet do in fact increase our chances of living longer. But on a subjective basis one could decide that the restrictions in a healthy diet make eating so much less desirable than eating great tasting fatty and sweat foods that life is not worth living that way. One might subjectively reason that exercising regularly and restricting one's diet is not worth the extra time on earth. That same subjective principle can be applied to justify almost any activity. Where is the objectivity in this principle? Where does objectivity come into play when one prioritizes his values? Or is this process, by its nature, always subjective?
  14. I agree with most of your post--and I ordered the book that you suggested. But the above quote seems like a potential "slippery slope." It would be easy to rationalize why some activities “make life worth living.” Especially when we define subjective as “without reason.” Some of us can be pretty good at coming up with good reasons why certain things we really enjoy doing (although harmful to our physical existence) make life worth living. It makes sense that we need to weigh the risk and the reward and come up with a proper balance in our lives—but sometimes we think we really couldn’t enjoy life without X activity but in fact we could substitute (if we learned how) a less harmful activity Y. You ride motorcycles—I fly airplanes—someone else drives racecars—then another enjoys base-jumping—you can see where this is going … and where it could lead. When do the risks involved become OBJECTIVELY too great for the amount of enjoyment we SUBJECTIVELY reasoned, “makes our life worth living”?
  15. Do you think it is okay to decide to eat food that you enjoy but may not be the best for you? What if you decide that enjoying the food is worth the health risks involved? This is what I mean by subjective values. Why can't we each choose what we value? Objectivity to me would mean that we would all be like robots --- exercise the exact right amount every day, eat only the healthiest foods, never drink a few beers with friends (not rational while under the influence), etc etc etc. Maybe we should all wear crash helmets while driving our cars – that would be safer than not wearing one (it would be in our rational self-interest). Life is more than just staying alive – it is experiencing all there is – having fun --- going for the gusto --- sometimes maybe we need to let go of all the rational self-interest restrictions we put on ourselves and live life to the fullest (based on what we want out of life).
  16. Very interesting --- I can see that these issues do crop up ... and how I have dealt with them: Objectivism versus oneself: Using reason I came up with a list of my own values -- But then I ask myself, "Am I being too subjective?" -- should my values be subjective or objective -- can they be both? Objectivism versus the world: I noticed myself getting very negative when my eyes first opened -- but now I think about Howard Roark when he asked the dean: "Who will stop me?" I now see that the world is what it is -- my job is to deal with it. Much easier to fix me than the rest of the world. Objectivism versus life: I am now working through the "problem" of determining if 1) A central productive purpose would make me happier, and 2) if so, should I focus on my present career or look for something else. All in all I think I am happier now than I was before I understood Objectivism --- but it sure seems like some people are angry at the world. Maybe I am just more aware of Objectivists but I would think the philospohy would make them happier too.
  17. Thank-you for the suggestion. I did a Google search and think the course sounds interesting. I guess my question boils down to: Is the (perceived) standard of conduct required by Objectivism too demanding? I mean too demanding in the sense that it actually makes people unhappy because they can’t live up to what they perceive this standard to be and feel guilty about it. Sometimes I get the impression that some "Objectivists" enjoy expressing their moral judgment on others, actually getting-off on playing the authority figure and lecturing people. There is almost a tone of anger that may be caused by trying to live up to an impossibly high moral standard. We have all met people who need to prove that they are right in order that they can feel good about themselves. One case in point came up when I did the Google search for the course you recommended. One link found was called, “Understanding Peikoff,” which brings up more of the whole division in the Objectivist movement—with its accompanying finger pointing and name-calling. Don’t these people see the second-handedness in their need to prove (to others) that they are right?
  18. I have heard, in various places, that certain people have “dropped out” of Objectivism because it is too difficult for them to implement its principles in their lives. Has anyone experienced this firsthand and/or have a theory of why this may be? (Or why this is wrong) It seems contradictory that an ethical system that is supposedly in one’s self-interest could possibly be too difficult to practice. Any thoughts?
  19. Just as it is improper to take one sentence out of a paragraph and say: "See what you said! You said X so you must have meant X," it is also improper to take one post out of a thread (when it is a continuation of a position and/or a rebuttal to another's). By taking my post out of context you were in fact misrepresenting what I was saying. I have not defined what an Objectivist is because at this point I believe the word represents an improper concept. As you have said it means different things to different people—is it possible for an Objectivist to hold a subjective view of concepts? Have you taken the time to reduce the concept to its essential concretes? If so perhaps it would be helpful if you would share your results here. If not, then it would be wise to do so, before continuing this discussion. Since I believe that the concept "Objectivist" is an improper concept it would follow that there can't be one alive.
  20. I already stated that I was commenting on a post by JMeganSnow who said: "The authoritative version of the description Objectivist is someone that agrees with the entire core of Objectivist philosophy, as laid down by Ayn Rand." You are misrepresenting what I said again. I was simply adding that understanding and agreeing couldn’t be enough—because if you did understand it fully (and I do not think anyone alive does) you would have to apply it. If there is such a thing as an Objectivist, the application in real life is definitely an essential ingredient. I have not read the other articles on what other people think it means to be an Objectivist but I do know that it took Peikoff 30 years (Reminisces) before he was starting to feel comfortable (and he had Ayn Rand to ask questions to). I also know (and I will find the quote if you need it) that Ayn Rand said that she alone was the one and one final authority on Objectivism. So if you call yourself an Objectivist today and you don’t understand some part of her theory, whom do you go to for clarification? And how do you know that the answer you get is correct?
  21. Thanks for the recommendation. I learned that a logical fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. So when you said: “Aside from that, you are attempting to pit Rand against her philosophy as if her taking a given action invalidates the aspect of her philosophy under discussion. This is like some strange variation of argument from authority or intimidation; use Rand's as the example so she's either a hypocrite or her theory is wrong.” I am assuming that is the fallacy you are freeing to. But you explicitly say that I am using “Rand's [affair] as the example so she's either a hypocrite or her theory is wrong.” No – as I have said those are only two of the possibilities. The third and the one I thought was the most obvious was that it is possible to have an affair and be moral. So if your conclusion about my argument does not logically follow from the premise wouldn’t that be a logical fallacy? That was the only logical fallacy that I was able to find. If you can provide evidence that I used a logical fallacy (by showing the conclusion that I drew and why the premise does not support it) it would be helpful.
  22. First to the cheap name-calling: When I asked what purpose it serves, you said: "It serves the purpose of justice." You go find the quotes. You say there are ONLY TWO interpretations of the question I asked. Here is a third assumption: You are not capable of judging the morality of a relationship agreement based on the sketchy information provided. I listed earlier several situations where it would be totally moral to go to a strip club (without dishonesty and within the confines of a relationship). You then said the only good one that I listed (another dogmatic response) was writing a novel. You need to start applying the concept of justice to yourself, and when you are wrong you should admit it rather than digging yourself in deeper. You had no idea why the guy went to the strip club in the first place and you didn’t know what his agreement with his partner was, and yet you declared the act immoral “plain and simple.” If you claim to be an Objectivist you should know better and now you should show some courage.
  23. You said that I openly stated that my position is "that no action between consenting adults can be immoral." I never said that and you know it. By your admission I asked 3 questions: "Shouldn't the partners involved in the relationship decide for themselves what is and what is not acceptable behavior? If consenting adults decide that it is OK for their partner to go to strip clubs, have affairs, and do whatever -- then who are we to say that X behavior is wrong for them? If you don't like the way your partner behaves, why not dump him/her and find someone who shares your values?" You say you have to call me names in the name of justice, but when asked to back up your accusations you misrepresent the facts. Do you call that justice? I call it dishonesty.
  24. I have been asked to provide evidence that Ayn Rand had an affair with Nathaniel Brandon. The fact that Nathaniel Brandon admits to it, I have been told, is not good enough. I have also been told that Dr. Peikoff’s referring to it is not adequate. So what it left? How about Ayn Rand mentioning it in her private journals (The private journals of Ayn Rand are reproduced in Valliant's book with the permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand)? I refer anyone who is interested to James S. Valliant’s book entitled, “The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics.” He does, what in my opinion amounts to a pretty good job, of analyzing this subject as part of the entire Rand/Brandon split. Although he does draw many conclusions from various sources it is heavily footnoted so the reader can check for himself and come to his own conclusions. On Page 259 he quotes from “her notes on January 25, as follows: “I want to add one more very important point: when he said yesterday, that he is perfectly happy to see me there, but the feeling vanishes when we talk about sex (or, I’m not sure which, when we talk about any possibility of a “triangle”)—I shuddered, because the parallel to his attitude toward [barbara Brandon] and talking to her—until the conversation touches on their personal relationship; then his enjoyment vanishes. “In my case, this is an indication of what his subconscious is planning for the future: an impersonal, intellectual friendship with me—when “Miss X” comes along—a friendship in which the fact that I love him will simply vanish, by gradual suppression or attrition, and will become my problem, not his, and will not matter to him, just as the fact that Barbara loves him does not matter to him. This, if true, is unspeakable.” Although I could not find a quote that would constitute a direct admission that she was having sexual relations with him, there are plenty of implications of sex and she explicitly states that she loved him more than once. You need to this read the book for yourself and examine all the evidence because I do not choose to make it my job to prove to anyone that they did or did not have a sexual relationship. From the evidence I have seen and heard I believe they did. This does not mean that I think she was a hypocrite. Instead, I believe that it is possible to have a moral love relationship where one partner is allowed to explore other relationships (and/or go to strip clubs). I will now stop using her alleged affair to support my position that two people can have a moral love relationship that appears immoral to those who hold a more traditional outlook of morality.
  25. I am not an expert on the laws of logic and do not know what a logical fallacy is. But let me be clear that I never attempt to deceive by using "tricks" or unsound logical connections. I may be wrong and not know it -- but all you need to do is point out why and how my logic is flawed. No one can prove or provide evidence that my intent is to deceive--because that is not what I am doing.
×
×
  • Create New...