RationalEgoistSG

The Law of Identity: A is A. Objectivism is Objectivism,. For those of us who take our ideas very seriously, we get a bit annoyed when some idiot calls themselves an Objectivist but explicitly contradicts all or some of the fundamentals of the philosophy. A person can call themselves whatever the hell they want, but they are not free to violate the Law of Identity with impunity. It is an insult to everything I believe in for a person to label themselves as an Objectivist and simultaneously agree with Freudian theory, or anarchism, or "tolerance," and many other such things which clearly violate the fundamentals of the philosophy. Rational discourse and disagreement is very important, and no one is claiming that anyone should dogmatically follow the principles of Objectivism. However, what I, and many others (including Rand and Peikoff themselves) say is that the title of Objectivist should not just be thrown around. For those of us who honestly care about the spread of rational ideas, (in this context, under the title of Objectivism), it is a clear insult to us when people who have irrational and incorrect ideas label themselves as Objectivists. Those of us who take ideas seriously ask that you please not violate the law of identity by calling yourself an Objectivist when you are clearly not. P.S. Welcome to the blog, I'd like to discuss your views on the nature of women and homosexuality (perhaps you'd like to start a thread on it?)

Thanks, I am aware of that. I have been studying philosophy intensely for the past year, and Objectivism for the past two years. At least in the field of philosophy there is Objectivism. In psychology, there is nothing even close. Also, being disgusted about the schools of thought in psychology was not the primary reason for switching to philosophy. As I said, the primary reason why I was so interested in psychology was because I believed that it provided an answer to why people act they way that they do (and why societies as well). When I found out that philosophy is the primary field which does so, my interest drastically spread to the field of philosophy and political science and gradually left psychology. So, I am now a double major in philosophy and political science, as opposed to philosophy and psychology.

For anyone who has read this introduction of mine, I'd like to provide an update. I am now 19, and my career plans for the future have changed. After learning a bit more about psychology I am thoroughly disgusted with the dominant schools of psychology. I have lost a lot of interest in the field of psychology and gained A LOT of interest in philosophy. This being said, I want to go to grad school, and eventually become a professor of philosophy, with some writing along the way. When I first became interested in psychology, my primary reason for being so interested was that I wanted to understand why people behave the way that they do. Essentially, I wanted to understand the prime mover of the actions of human beings. At the time, prior to my knowledge of philosophy, I believed that psychology was the field of knowledge which did just that. When I discovered (as a result of my discovering Objectivism), that it is philosophy which fulfills this role, my interest drastically shifted to the study of philosophy. Also, you can find me on AIM at RationalEgoistSG.

Agreed.

I do understand that you are playing devil's advocate. The key principle to remember here is that an individual's rights exist not because the individual recognizes them, but rather, becuase that individual exists as a human being. If individual rights were something that can be given away, they would not be objectively validated rights but rather arbitrary/social constructs which are the result of someone's permission (whether that be the permission of the individual, a group, the majority, or a dictator, they all mean the same thing).

Ash, I was suggesting that such a feature be moved from the main site onto this forum. I agree that it would be redudant to have that feature on the forum and the main site.. Daniel, if a T4 is made, I certainly won't be seeing it.

Based on your statements, I believe that your problem may have to do with an incorrect understanding of the concept of rights. According to the objective (also referred to as natural) theory of rights, an individual has rights according to their very nature as a human being. Thus, nothing can remove the rights of an individual. This is the point that I believe you do not understand. An individual does not derive their own rights by their whim, but rather by their very existence as a human being. An individual's right to life can not be taken away by ANYONE. It can not be taken away by a majority, another individual, or by my own choice. My right to life can be violated, but it can not be erased. According to your statements, one has the right to their own life only if they recognize that they do, since one can easily deny that they have the right to their own life by giving it away to someone else. This is an incorrect view of the concept of a right. The right to life exists independently of your whim, or the whim of any group or majority.

I was referring to a section on this actual forum.

I was kind of entertained by the movie, and a bit excited at the prospect of human beings using their minds to save the world. But then, as the movie developed, and when I saw the ending, I was blind with rage. I can easily say that T3 was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life. I haven't felt so angry at the end of a movie, well, ever. This thread has given me an idea. Perhaps an interesting section on this forum could be a place to post movie, music, and book reviews and such. What do you think?

Daniel, I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, when people "choose" a dictator in some third world country, usually, there is a threat of force involved if the person does not choose that dictator (such as Saddam Hussein being "elected" in Iraq). Secondly, NO INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, whether it be by force or by voluntary consent. You have the right to your own life, even if you do not recognize that you do (and even if the government you live under does not recognize that you do). The only way to give up your life is to commit suicide. Just as you can give away all of your property and still have the right to property, so you can give away your life to another individual and still have the right to your own life. Also, as others have commented, a proper government COULD NOT recognize such a contract as an agreement of one person to be enslaved by another. The purpose of a proper government is to recognize that every individual has the right to their own life (and all of its consequences and corollaries) and protect that right to life. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, in which the government recognizes that ALL of those parties have the right to their own life (and thus, the right to voluntarily trade with whomever they want). The government can not recognize a contract in which you give up your right to life. They can recognize that you are giving your services for nothing in return, but only as long as you choose to continue to do so. I think this is a rather ridiculous point. I can see someone agreeing to give their services in exchange for some emergency medical procedure, or some other emergency situation, but who in their right mind would want to just give away their right to life? A person who wants to die. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with that. If a person wants to die, they can put a gun to their head or go to the private sector and have it done for them.

Thank God! (speaking metaphorically of course) T3 was so absolutely horrible!

That sounds very interesting. Did you enjoy T3? I thoroughly hated it. I thought it was one of the worst movies I have seen in a very long time, hehe. I'm curious, what did you like about T3 (if you did like it)?

No one has the right to initiate force against ANYONE. Thus, no one has the right to enter an agreement in which one individual will initiate force against the other. One CAN enter a contract by which one individual is giving his services for nothing in return, but in such an agreement, there is no initiation of force on anyone's part but rather it is a voluntary agreement.

I believe that David posted the correct answer to your question. I believe your confusion comes as the result of not understanding the terms contract and slavery correctly. A slave, by definition, is physically forced to work for another individual against his own will. Thus, agreeing to be a slave does not make any sense, it is a contradiction in terms. One can not agree to be a slave while being physically forced to work for another individual against their own will. A contract, by definition, is a legally protected agreement between two or more individuals in which all of the participants voluntarily choose to enter in said agreement. As I already stated, a slave is a person who is physical forced to work for another individual, against their own will. As such, it is a contradiction to say that an individual can "agree to be a slave." You can agree to provide certain services to another individual, without payment on their part, but such an agreement can not be referred to as "agreeing to be a slave," but rather it is a contractual agreement. An individual has the right to engage in such a contractual agreement, but the individual at the end of that agreement DOES NOT have the right to turn such an agreement into slavery, which is, by definition, forcing one individual to work for another against their own will. I believe that this is what Mr. Binswanger meant when he said that no one has the right to be a slave (such a concept makes absolutely no sense since it is a contradiction). If you could provide us with an actual transcript of the quote in which he stated this, or at least some of the context behind this statement, perhaps we would be better able to answer your question.

Matt, I agree with what you said. My second objection merely came about because you didn't really specify how or why people in a rational society would have a good knowledge of philosophy, but it was a small and unimportant point. I think the disagreement here revolves around what we are thinking of when we think of a "rational society." When David is referring to a rational society, he seems to mean a free society with a small amount of intellectuals who are behind the rationality, who differ from the general population. When you refer to a rational society, it seems that you are referring to a society in which the majority of people, all people, are rational. The precondition of a "rational," i.e. free, society in my opinion is not that the majority of the public are rational but rather that a number of intellectuals are. Thus, it would be possible for a breach between the intellectuals and the general public (as there is now) and thus, the need for such an institution that David is referring to. If we lived in a society in which the majority of people are rational, I agree with you, there would be very little or no need for such an institution. If however, we lived in a society in which there was a breach between the intellectuals and the general public, I would see the need and usefulness for such an institution.

AshRyan, you said that such informal social gatherings have value. I do not think that David's idea of a "church" would be anything like the dogmatic churches of today, neither in principle or method. I would be opposed as well to an institution which had a "church-like" format. What I support is an institution which organizes those informal social gatherings that you speak of. Having an organized institution charged with that task can be very beneficial to those people who are looking for such informal social gatherings with the purpose of re-affirming their values and enjoying life but do not know where to find it. I also shudder at the term church, and I do not believe that any such organization, if it existed, should be referred to anything resembling a "church."

I believe this is a straw man. I do not believe that anyone made the claim that ONLY such a "church" (I hate the word too) would be able to provide applcation, integration, and inspiration. The argument being made is that it would do a good job of these things (in addition to other things such as providing a social outlet, etc.), and would provide one of many avenues for intellectual cultivation. In a rational society education would be private and thus determined by the owners of the institutions. If these institutions believe that philosophy is important, then it will be taught at these institutions.

Danielshrugged, I understand your apprehension about such an institution, (especially if you were raised as anything along the lines of Roman Catholic like I was). When I think of "church" I think of dogmatism, faith, irrationality, indoctrination, etc. But such things would have absolutely no place in an Objectivist institution such as this. The purpose of such an institution would obviously not be to indoctrinate and maintain power or any such thing, but rather offer to people, who have a limited understanding of abstract philosophy, a means to enjoy their life and live their life well. But of course there would be many competing institutions with different messages (as they are today) and people would absolutely be free to attend such an institution or choose not to. David, I have to disagree with your conclusions about education in the future. Assuming that we would live in a society in which the education system was completely private, I believe that the average person's education would be GREATLY increased. Also, being so passionate about the development of my mind, I am primarily going to college to increase my knowledge and cultivate my mind, NOT to train for a future occupation. Whatever occupation I choose will be the result of how well I have cultivated my mind in my years of education. I believe that such an attitude would be much more prevalent amongst the population of a more rational society. Also, I think that most people would choose to continue their education through the college level not only to cultivate their mind but also to have better qualifications for receiving a higher-paid job, more exciting job, etc. Why shouldn't people strive to cultivate their minds to the highest ability possible? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I believe that most people would choose to do so in a rational society. As DanielShrugged said, I do not think that you are giving the "average person" enough credit. That all being said, I believe that the kind of institution which you propose would be beneficial to BOTH your "average person" and people like us who spend much more time diving into abstract philosophy. I don't think that you would need to justify such an institution on the grounds that it would be beneficial for the "average person" but rather that it would be beneficial for ANY rational individual. As I stated in my previous post, art provides an amazing tool for man's consciousness in that it allows him to integrate all of his actions according to the guidance of a perceptual concrete (a work of art). Such a "church" would not do exactly the same thing, however, I believe that it would be a great institution for re-affirming the values and ideals we hold. This institution SHOULD NOT serve the purposes of teaching but rather integrating, or re-affirming.

I believe that such an organization would be quite beneficial, not only to those people who do not engage in intellectual stimulation on a regular basis, but also to those of us who spend quite amount of time dealing with very abstract and complex philosophical subjects. This argument for such an organization reminds me of the critical need of art in man's life. Art provides an amazing function for man’s consciousness, in that it allows him to guide his subconscious and everyday decisions by the perceptual concrete of a work of art. If one tried to philosophically examine every single action of one’s life, one would not be able to function properly. One would not be able to sit down and examine every subconscious action to philosophical clarity. Also, the average person does not have the time (nor the ability) to analyze their philosophy extensively. Art however, allows a human being’s consciousness to retain a perceptual concrete of what the proper course of action is, what is important in man’s existence, what is the good, what is the evil, etc. Art, therefore, serves as an amazing tool of man’s consciousness, and consequently, an excellent tool of survival. I believe that the same applies to such an organization, referred to as a "church" or whatever. Such an organization would aso be beneficial for Objectivists to interact with others, share ideas, engage in social actions etc. I would love to have such an institution to go to every week! But, having been raised a Roman Catholic and having attended Sunday school for 11 years, the word church still makes me ill!

From my own personal experiences, I would recommend going to a medium-sized to larger sized school. I currently attend Drew University in New Jersey which has an undergraduate population of roughly 1,500 people. At most universities today, there isn't all that much interest in intellectual subjects, but that problem can be the worst at small colleges. At most colleges there is a very small percentage of peope who are interested in Objectivism, and there is especially a smaller chance of finding people like that at smaller colleges like Drew. So if you're looking for an intellectual atmosphere, I'd think that you have the best chance of finding one at a medium sized or large sized college. Welcome to the forum. ----------------------- The Rational Egoist

The statement the mind is born tabula rasa does not mean that the mind just magically appears from nothing and has no physical component to it as well. An infant is born with a limited amount of physical instincts, but a human being is not born with any innate ideas, meaning, the infant can not conceptually identify that the behavior they are doing is SOMETHING. This has nothing to do with the content of a human being's mind. The fact that a human being is born with certain physical characteristics does not mean that the human being's mind is not tabula rasa. The physical characteristics of one's body DO eventually "shape" the content of a human being's mind, as does the rest of physical reality. Tabula rasa does NOT mean that one's physical body is devoid of any characteristics. It does mean that in the human being's mind, there are no innate concepts/ideas. Another straw man. The human mind is NOT a floating consciousness which has no relation to physical reality, but rather the human being is an integration of mind and body (I do not think you understandstand what this means). This means that if something irregular happens to the body, such as "incorrect wiring" in the case of hereditary mental illness or in something like PTSS, the mind will aversely be affected (because the mind and the body are integrated). Disagreement is not an argument. Provide reasons why Peikoff's understanding of Freud's theories is incorrect, or else that statement of yours will remain utter nonsense. You can state whatever the hell you want but it doesn't change the fact that you set up straw man after straw man. Secondly, what proof do you have for the existence of an Id? The methods by which Freud's id, ego, superego, and all of his other terms, were developed, are one of the most absurdly illogical and contradictory nonsense which I have ever learned in my life. Demonstrate to me the proof that a human being is a depraved being of inner conflict between the id, the ego, and the superego. Otherwise, it is NONSENSE. This is the most ridiculous thing yet!!! Nihilism is the philosophy in which destruction is sought for the sake of desruction. Objectivism attempts to create the philosophy which accurately identifies and integrates reality, which means, the destruction of other philosophies which are nonsense (those which are based on pure irrationality, mysticism, etc.) The destruction of these philosophies IS NOT DONE FOR THE SAKE OF DESTRUCTION ITSELF, but rather because if one is attempting to determine the correct identification of reality, it is right to reject those philosophies which explicity reject reality! Finally, your excerpt (or was it the whole thing?) of Nathaniel Branden's essay carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. In that excerpt, he simply states, Ayn Rand is wrong, I am right, without providing a shred of logical proof to demonstrate why this is so. As to the notion that Objectivism is lacking in psychology, I will agree. I agree not because of any flaw of Objectvism, but rather because determining the physical composition of the human mind is NOT the task of philosophy, but rather, psychology, neuroscience, and physics. Psychology is a specialized science which (when originally established) was meant to focus on the human mind. In modern times however, most of modern psychology has completely forgotten the concept of a human mind or consciousness and has instead turned to an explicit rejection of consciousness (see Behavioralism). I can not possibly attempt to rid you of all of the many, many contradictions you hold and straw men you present, however, there is one phrase I would like for you to remember: Consciousness IS Volitional. Finally, as a personal favor, NEVER refer to yourself as an Objectivist or a student of Objectivism, because you are FAR from it.

theDude, have you heard anything from the OAC since hearing about your accpetance?

RadCap, when I stated that one's emotions are based on one's chosen value judgments I used the word choice to denote the choice to focus one's mind towards determining values as well as choosing to evade. Perhaps I was not as clear about that as I should have been, so thank you for the clarification.

First, I would like to correct your view on man's emotions. The following is a quote from Nathaniel Branden, written in the Virtue of Selfishness I believe: "...man is a being of volitional consciousness, he has no innate ideas, no automatic or infallible knowldege of what his survival depends on. He must choose the values that are to guide his actions and set his goals. His emotional mechanism will work according to the kind of values he chooses. It is his values that determine what a man feels to be for him or against him; it is his values that determine what a man seeks for pleasure. If a man makes an error in his choice of values, his emotional mechanism will not correct him: it has no will of its own. If a man's values are such that he desires things which, in fact and in reality, lead to his destruction, his emotional mechanism will not save him, but will, instead, urge him on toward destruction: he will have set it in reverse, against himself and against the facts of reality, against his own life. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer: man has the power to program it, but no power to change its nature- so that if it sets the wrong programming, he will not be able to escape the fact that the most self-destructive desires will have, for him, the emotional intensity and urgency of livesaving actions. He has, of course, the power to change the programming-but only by changing his values. Emotions are NOT the same as direct perceptions of reality, they do not receive primacy in anyway. Emotions are automated responses, but they are derived from our CHOSEN value judgments. This issue with emotions demonstrates your flawed view of man's mind. According to Objectivism, a human mind is born tabula rasa (blank slate). He is not born with any innate emotional responses. You however, seem to imply that a human being is either born with certain emotional responses/ or is determined to develop such emotional responses based on their environment. Your error in this regard is the failure to recognize the fact that emotions are not metaphysical primaries, but rather the result of one's own value judgments. I believe that your attack on Objectivism's view on changing one's emotions is a straw man. According to your straw man, since a person can not alter their emotions at WHIM, one's emotions are "somewhat" outside the ability for reason to alter. I do not believe that you have a proper understanding of what reason is. Reason is the process by which reality is identified, NOT merely thinking something inside your head such as: I want my emotional response to be happiness. This is correct, merely thinking about one's emotional responses will not change them. This I call a primacy of consciousness straw man. Man's consciousness is unable to do what it wants at whim, therefore, a human being is "somewhat" impotent to alter his own emotional responses. Objectivism does not claim that one can alter any physical existent by whim. However, Objectivism DOES claim that one can alter a physical existent by altering the causes of that physical existent which ARE within the control of man's consciousness (his value judgments). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that the vast majority of the errors which you are making are the result of a terrible understanding of the nature of man's mind. First, I would like to give a quote from The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff about the psychology of Sigmund Freud. If you do not understand how ridiculously incompatible Freud's theory of the mind and human nature is with Objectivism, you really have no clue what Objectivism is all about. Gabriel, you need to do some SERIOUS study regarding the nature of man's mind. Man's mind is born tabula rasa, without any innate depravities, and it is not "conditioned" by one's physical environment, meaning, that one is not a victim to fate, DNA, one's social environment, upbringing, etc. Your theory of man's mind however, is FILLED with innate depravities and environmental conditioning. Please check your premises.

I agree with what you said danielshrugged, my comment in that regard was not meant as an argument for gender roles, but rather a starting point from which Gabriel could examine the point further.