mb121

It doesn't change the fact that the matrix could be there. There is no evidence that I can perceive it, but it "could still exist". Is this not true, yes or no? And if it is, is this not having faith, then, that what I percieve and reason with is reality?. IS IT TRUE THAT: objectivism would tell us to ignore that possibility - because there are an infinite amount of "possibilities" in this regard (the matrix, existence of dieties, etc, with literall no way to distinguish what is true or not). Objectivism would tell us to live with what we perceive (reality) and reason with it. Even though the matrix might exist - it is still a reality we would have to deal with (the reality of thoghts being put into our head by something else that we aren't aware of). Again, I'm not saying that the matrix is created in my head, someone is putting it into my head. Primacy of existance is still there, it's just that this part of existance is something I can't grasp with my perception and reason.

What? So you answer them with 'if you want to get anything done, you have to accept this philosophy"? What's funny is that they implicitly accept this philosophy by continuing to cross the street when the light is red. What they'll then say is "well, if you accept faith here (the red-light scenario where you cross the street on faith that your perceptions are right), why not have faith in God?"

OK so my friends "accept" the 3 axioms: 1) Existance exists 2) Concsiousness exists 3) Law of Identity But then say we can't deduce from those that we don't live in the matrix - or to be more direct that "I'm taking an act of faith by trusting my perception." A classic example is when I cross the street because the light is red, I'm acting on faith that my perception and reason were correct that the line was red and no cars would come. They also say there are "other" forms of obtaining knowledge (revalation, the bible), and that just because those 3 axioms are true, it doesn't mean there is knowledge out there that I am incapable of perceiving or reasoning (ie, the existance of God). Thus, let's say that no matter what I will never be able to perceive the existance of God (or deduce him rationally), but he DOES exist. Or, I live in the matrix, but I am incapable of perceiving the matrix or deducing from reason that I am in the matrix, but it DOES exist. What would objectivism have to say about these assertions?

Had debate with student today. i was accused of using circular reasoning by presenting objectivism like this: "Man isn't like any other animal. A dog doesn't choose to be a dog. It is a dog and it will live like a dog automatically. A man is born human but has to choose in order to live like a human. - response: but how do you know what's human? 1) Let's start by saying a man's life is his highest value - response: who says so? why? 2) Because if man chooses to value anything other than his own life, man will, in general, eventually die. This is because he must prioritize his life first in order to do things that advance it - ie, productive work. - response: ok, but man doesn't have to choose HIS life as his own value. He could choose others lives as his own value, and do productive work for each other. 3) No because that's not what we observe is man's nature. When I breathe, I breathe into my own lungs, no one elses. WHen I eat, I consume into my own stomach, and etc. In other words, we are obviously designed to serve our selves. - response: that doens't prove it's truly our nature to be selfish 4) Well, consider that in nature when we do things that advance our life, we recieve the psychological response of happiness. In fact, productive work which advances our life is the only time we ever receive this feeling (not short-term pleasure, that's a different feeling). - response: flat out denial. Also, it was said that one could be happy by injecting drugs into his system. Some people become happy by different things, so we can't use this to observe our nature. - overall response: I'm just using circular logic by assuming that man's life is his own highest value and then using subjective claims in nature as "proof" for my pre-conceived claim. Where did I go wrong?

I'm sorry, I have to ask again: if physical life is the ultimate value, then if I'm born a millionaire why is living productive relevant to me? OK, so I accept I cannot be happy unless I choose values that would advance my life were I NOT a worthless billionaire, but still, I'm here...I'm rich...I'm gonna live...so what's next? I have life, am always going to have life, so what next? Is the incentive to live "rationally" when I've got 1,000,000,000 dollars mere happiness (in the non-hedonistic sense)? My friend will not accept my argument if I merely say "life is the ultimate value" and then "but oh, even a billionaire MUST live productively in order to advance life". He will respond by saying "No, life is an absolute for him no matter how he lives". So objectivism doesn't seem to apply to someone unless he is in a binding situation like the rest of us." In other words, I'm a billionaire, and I'm diong minimal things to survive (managing money, eating, and sleeping - these are objectivist activities). For the other 15 hours in the day what does objectivism have to say about "life"? Nothing, since I've acheived it? It seems to me that at this point objectivism says "well,if you want to live happilly, you must live like this." - but what happened to life as the highest value? Has it not become happiness?

Could someone point me in the right direction on this one: When Rand says man's highest value is his "life", she doesn't mean merely the physical process of "living". What EXACTLY does she mean? I know one answer is "living life as a human," but why should this be man's highest value? (This is relavent to my original questions).

But you are ignoring (2). What if I valued mooching? Happiness is the product of achieving my values, so would I not go my entire life being happy living off of my billion dollar fortune? You can't say nature will eventually punish my irrational values - because it is a reality I have a billion dollars and will thus never need to produce a dime. So we are left at square one. I'm happy, I'm living, and in the background objectivism's faint screams of "moral practicality" are simply not true. WHAT IM GETTING AT: There has to be a flaw in (2). Does objectivism acknowledge that my nature SIMPLY WONT LET ME be happy mooching? In other words, happiness isn't merely "the product of achieving my values," but it must be the "product of achieving the values nature has handed me".

After having a classical liberal vs. traditionalist conservative debate with a fellow student, I was asked these questions about objectivism: 1) Paraphrased: So what if I'm born a billionaire? I can live my entire life without producing any value. Although man "in general" needs to produce value to live, if I'm born a billionaire I don't need to ever and what if I had a different philosophy? 2) ON HAPPINESS: If happiness is the achievement of one's values, what if I valued stealing and looting? Would I be happy? MY ANSWER: Your nature requires you to choose values that sustain your own life. Therefore, if you chose to be happy by achieving values of stealing and looting, nature will eventually punish you because you would run out of stuff to loot. He then hit me with (1), saying that my insistance of phrasing objectivism as required for "man in general" is not practical to the real world. MY QUESTION: Was my answer adequate? Furthermore, is it in our nature to be happy by achieving what WE value or what nature REQUIRES us to value? In other words, if I brainwashed myself to value stabbing myself in the gut, would I be happy doinog so?