RadCap

Gabriel's falsehoods and mischaracterizations of Objectivism have been addressed and refuted. These refutations are ignored. The falsehoods and mischaracterizations are repeated. Once again, they are refuted. The cycle continues ad nauseum. This form of debate is not rational. As such, why is it continuing?

Sounds like a plan to me.

GC I noted in your post on the OC that you attended Richard Salsman's lecture: “The Cause and Consequence of the Great Depression" and disagreed with it. I did not attend the conference (how does one swing a position as "working scholar" anyway?) so I do not know what Salsman attributed as the cause of the GD, nor the consequences he identified. What were they, and what is your disagreement with them?

Daniel Neither were rationalism, the latter was the reason for the former. And Ash makes clear the point I was making in the latter.

If a man is forced to be a slave, then force is being initiated against him. THAT is the argument FOR the claim. -- BTW - daniel said: "I have the right to do with my own body and life what I want..." Actually, man's nature is metaphysically given. As such, it is not subject to your whim ("I want"). Since rights are derived from the nature of man, while it is true you may have the ABILITY to act in opposition to the nature of man, you do not have the RIGHT to act in opposition to that nature. Such a claim is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, a slave has no legally recognized rights. If someone therefore attempted to sell himself into slavery, he would be declaring he has no rights - including the right to change his mind about being a slave. Since man has a specific nature, no matter what one declares, that does not change the fact that rights are inherent because of that nature. The ONLY way one can eliminate those rights is by eliminating the life from which they are derived - which is one of the reasons suicide can be moral whereas slavery never can be. Another reason is that suicide is you disposing of your body. Slavery is someone else disposing of your body. The difference is ownership. You own your body in the former. Someone else owns it in the latter. And because man is an entity of unified body and mind, such ownership of the body cannot validly be separated from the consciousness which inhabits the body. Again, it stands in opposition to the nature of man.

NP. In the context, saying "chosen value judgments" did indicate a consciously accepted judgment as opposed to one which might simply have been accepted without any thought at all. I didn't want Gabriel to try to seize on that as an opening for argument - so I just made sure it was closed.

While not answering me directly, Gabriel did provide somewhat of a summary of his view of emotions. Previously he said: "I regard emotions as being under partial conscious control" Now he states: "I do not agree with the Objectivist view that they are value judgement. They are that too, but not mainly that. They are simple associations between previous experience and a stimuli. They are not result of abstract thinking, but of experience." First off, as RE notes, Objectivism does not regard emotions as value judgements. This is an error on your part and demonstrates a lack of knowledge about FUNDAMENTAL Objectivist principles related to this topic. As such, your claim your claim to understand and rationally reject the Objectivist view cannot be considered valid. Now, I will make one correction to what RE stated. He said emotions are "derived from our CHOSEN value judgments." This is not a complete statement of the Objectivist view. When it comes to the mind, its cognitive functioning is not automatic. A man's "values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking OR his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought - or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone's authority, by some form of social osmosis, or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly." In other words, the Objectivist view is that emotions are *derived* from our value judgements, no matter how those judgements are made (be they accepted explicitly or implicitly). All Gabriel has done is raised blind acceptance of random value judgements ("simple associations" as he calls them) to the level of the metaphysically given. He feels something and assigns that feeling primacy - it is a metaphysical "fact" not to be challenged or changed. As I have said multiple times now, that is mere subjectivism. All the rest of his arguments about sex, psychology etc stood upon this false foundation. With it gone, those arguments are merely floating abstractions and may be dismissed, with no further debate, as invalid.

"I regard emotions as being under partial conscious control" According to this sentence, you believe there is either some metaphysical difference between certain emotions - OR - that each emotion is a compound of something that is volitional and something that is not. So: What emotions do you believe are volitional and what emotions do you believe are not? Or What does this compound consist of and why is one part volitional while the other is not? (As a side note, if an emotion is NOT controlable - NOT volitional - then it is deterministic - which is exactly the concept Ash was referencing: Original Sin. It is simply an example of the old mind/body dichotomy: man's mind in metaphysical conflict with the rest of reality. In other words, more rejection of the Law of Identity as well as logic.)

I will only address the primary principle you present, because without it, the rest of your objections have no foundation. They simply fall apart. "[sensations] ARE reality" This is essentially correct (though I would have likely worded the idea differently). They are man's data about reality. "Sensations are NOT man-made, because they are automatic responses, just like emotions." A sensation is indeed not man-made. No one claimed otherwise. A sight...a sound...a touch...a taste...a scent - these are all metaphysical givens. However, HOW a man RESPONDS to any of these metaphysical givens is NOT a metaphysical given itself - ie it IS open to change. That makes THOSE responses man-made. And such responses include one's EMOTIONAL responses. Emotions are the automatized summary of all of man's consciously and subconsciously accepted premises about all of reality. In other words, emotions are the automatic responses man has programmed into himself. Now, if a man's premises are valid, then his emotional responses will be valid as well. One can properly say those emotional responses are objective. On the other hand, if a man's premises are invalid, then his emotional responses will be invalid also. This means those emotional responses are NOT objective. You present BOTH agreement and disagreement with this principle. In other words, you present a contradiction. First you smear Ayn Rand for claiming emotions may be changed by focusing one's mind. You state such a claim demonstrates a poor grasp of psychology and a failure to integrate "advances" in the field. Then you turn around and explicitly state that emotions can indeed be changed by focusing one's mind. So either your smear is wrong, or you ALSO do not grasp psychology and fail to integrate "advances" in the field. Additionally, you say: "It is true that conscious examination of emotions are reality can have SOME effects on your emotional functioning, but saying that emotions can be changed by simply re-examining your stance is like claiming that you can order your intestine to stop working if you think about it." This claim is nonsense - because it is ALSO a contradiction. In one breath you claim that emotions CAN be changed by thinking about them, but that they can't be changed by thinking about it. In other words, you seem to have a problem grasping the identity of emotions because you express a contradiction when describing them. Now, you indicate emotions may indeed be changed. That means the only question open to you is HOW. Either emotions are changed through a process of thought or through some other means. You provide no other means BUT thought. If you believe they may be changed by some other means - NAME it. As it stands, your argument IS that one can change the emotions. You say: "Emotional change is achievable, mainly thru different forms of therapy. Most therapies ARE reason-based, and the therapist's role is to challenge the patient's irrationalities." While I would disagree that emotional change requires therapy, such therapy is simply a form of introspection (guided introspection). In other words, it is an assisted seach for and an examination of the premises you have consciously or subconsciously accepted. The rest of your argument is one which was already REFUTED in the previous thread. You are essentially saying that change isn't easy. That correcting one's errors can take a lot of time and effort. That is completely correct. What of it? NO ONE claimed change was easy. Only that change is necessary if one wants to live in ACCORD with reality. Of course that is PRECISELY what you seek to AVOID. Instead, you seek to JUSTIFY living in accord with WHATEVER premises your mind has accepted and automatized. As we have all indicated previously, that is PURE subjectivism. It is a REJECTION of reality - of existence, of identity, of reason, and of logic - in favor of random WHIM. In other words, it is the deification of your mind OVER existence. And THAT, as I have already stated, is CLASSIC Primacy of Consciousness. THAT is the premise YOU need to check.

Well, you talked me into it then.

There is too much here to reply to without making another book (or at least another chapter to the chapter you have produced). I will therefore focus upon one of your more fundamental principles. You say: "What we're not told is that effort is required, and that this effort depends on one's particular nature. I think we should also consider the posiblity that the effort required by this change might be grater than the gains." Let's break this down: (I am ignoring the part where you claim we are not told effort is required to make a change. That is simply a false statement.) First - You are establishing that one's "particular nature" (ie the sum of their experiences etc - which therefore is NOT rightly called one's "nature") can stand in opposition to the nature of man. This is quite true. Man can explicitly or implicitly lead a life that is not in accord with his nature - ie with reality. This conflict is between the metaphysical and the man-made. Second - You establish that changing one's philosophy and sense of life (what you call the "particular nature") is not something one can do either automatically nor instantaneously. Again this is true. Changing what one's subconscious has automatized (emotional responses, habits, etc) does indeed require a focus of mind over an extended period of time. In other words, correcting one's cognitive errors - adjusting the man-made - is not a simple thing to do. Thirdly - You posit that bringing one's errant emotions, etc into line with one's nature (with reality) may not be worth it. You suggest that the man-made should not be changed. You even imply that the man-made is NOT changable (thereby contriving to portray it AS metaphysical). Here we have a problem. By what standard do you suggest man live if not by reality? And what exactly does man "gain" by rejecting reality? Since nothing exists BUT reality, such a suggestion asks man to give up everything for nothingness. That is certainly NOT rational. But then again, whim-worshipping never is - and that is precicely what your premise rests upon: the fulfilment of whim (the man-made) in place of recognition and adherence to reality (the metaphysical). In other words, your premise is indeed counter to Objectivism. It is pure subjectivism. In fact, it is a blatantly Primacy of Consciousness principle. As such, you will not find any takers here for it.

I don't know you, but I was amused by the title of your thread. It reminded me of the old American Express commercials.