IRn101

That's the thing, he doesn't. It's like to him, every ideas/philosophical system is the "same", and regard them on equal grounds, where's there's no right and wrong. He would bring up all sorts of views for the sake of just bringing them up, and regards Objectivism just one among the many sheeps that should be flexible enough to be "synthesized" with other systems. Upon further study on the dialectic thing. Apparently the system seems to give no distinction between the metaphysically given and the man made. To this system of reasoning, every idea is somehow a metaphysically given, and there's no right and wrong to it, it regard ideas just is. And if you trace this reasoning back, the system becomes true to it's materialistic root and does not recognize human consciousness (volition..etc.), that's the very reason it regards all ideas as metaphysically given and the human mind some sort of factory that produces them mechanically. So with this foundation, Hegel goes to say that every ideas has it's metaphysically opposite, the anti-thesis (yin-yang..etc.), but if you logically scrutinize both opposite ideas enough, you can somehow bridge them together to arrive at an new idea that transcends the 2 previous ones. And if you keep doing this with all ideas, you will keep getting closer and closer to the one "ultimate truth". So yeah, so far the fundamental flaw of this dialectic thing from what I've researched is that: Rejects human conciousness/volition ---> regards all ideas streamed from human mind as metaphysically given with no right or wrong. I made this thread to double check my concepts and conclusions. Didn't expect only so few here dug into this Dialectic thing before, considering it was the reasoning method, and only philosophically system taught to the whole 60-70's generation in Asia.

The thing is, a friend of mine was apparently taught this dialectics thing as his reasoning method for philosophy. Whenever we start talking about philosophy, it's like our language totally differ. He has this annoying habit of keep agreeing to things then started to argue against them right after, which I attribute it to this dialectics. But the point is, I want to grasp the concept of dialectics to point out its flaws. So far I'm getting the understanding this system of reasoning believes every idea/point-of-view/philosophy-system has an extreme opposite, and the goal is to find that opposite idea and then somehow synthesis the both of them. And the idea is that the end product is somehow better, or "transcends" it's two progenitors. So far from my limited understanding of this thing, I think the flaw "Garbage in Garbage out" applies. I'm hoping others here who knows better might want to elaborate on the topic.

What's the deal with this from an Objectivism view? I'm trying to grasp the concept of this dialectics thing so I can form an view on it, but the phrase "wtf" is the only thing that comes up after every try.

Why, is that an argument for approving government regulation on drug transactions? If the "someone" here was exercising his right not to buy, he wouldn't be addicted to begin with. If he brought and used harmful drugs in the first place without physical threat of force from the dealers, then he only has himself to blame when he gets addicted.

Government have no right regulating drug sells, or any other personal property for that matter. But just because people can sell whatever drug they want doesn't automatically mean you should buy and use whatever drug you feel like. Drug dealers have their right to sell their property, and you have your right to not buy any.

Seems like I screwed up on the candy example. You guys are right, it's a violation of right, got nothing to do with morality anymore. Alright, thanks very much for posting this video, finally answered that question why a value is not a value when attained through fraud/deception. The reason was not because you ran the risk of losing what you gain because your own worth will catch up (although that's part of it), it's because what you gained through fraud/deception will always have a greater net cost than net gain in the long run. It's not a value anymore, it's a liability.

Hmmm. Still, exactly why is a value not been a value unless you earned it? The two reasons you give - "By getting money or love which you do not deserve you once again put yourself above your ability and attempt to refute reality." and "Eventually you will lose these rewards unless you are fit to receive them." doesn't exactly answer it for me. For the 1st one, the value you fraud on doesn't necessarily have to be something above your ability, it could be a value you could easily achieve but instead chose not to for the sake of maximization (eg stealing a piece of candy you could easily afford). And for the 2nd reason you gave, you do run the risk of losing values you achieve through fraud, but exactly what does this have to do with a value not been a vlue unless you earned it? And for the other part concerning deception and how it can undermine not only the other's, but your ability to perceive and reason, how so exactly? You know the truth, but they don't. And for the ability itself [deception], it's utilized through out warfare and games, and only a person of great ability in perception and reasoning can achieve success in itself usage. How exactly then does usage of deception on others undermines one's own ability to perceive and reason? It'd be great if some examples can be provided with reasoning.

Actually, few other questions The part where it says "that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud". Exactly why is that? And also, philosophically speaking, it's true that the concept of dishonesty can leads down a path where lies begets lies (when the lied-to started inquiring about the initial lie, you have to make up more lies to cover it..etc.), but in reality, apathy and ignorance can easily cut this chain off (The lied-to never took notice of the lie or didn't really care even as he become suspicious. Or the lying person instead of making up more lies feign ignorance upon inquiry), how does this fit into the picture? Or is it irrelevant within this moral context.

That makes sense, thanks.

So, during my reading I stumpled upon this part, the virtue of honesty. Among all the cardinal virtues - rationality, independence, honesty, integrity, productiveness, justice, and pride, I can grasp all the others pretty well, and can trace them back to the value of life. Except for this one. Specifically, I'd appreciate some explanation concerning the bold parts. What exactly is meant and how exactly is dishonesty "an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality? And for the second bold part, how exactly does deluding the consciousness of others sacrifices the reality of one's own existence? and exactly what does "one's own existence" mean in this context?

Here's the question. Apparently all the explanations concerning volition/freewill ends at "you". What exactly is this "you"? And just like you said, freewill is not some sort of foreign substance that somehow gets implanted in a human body shortly after birth, nor anything supernatural. This faculty of human consciousness like all other faculty of human consciousness is built out of solid physical matter. When faced with a choice, a man can either chose or evade, focus or unfocus..etc. So the question is, what makes him chose or evade, focus or unfocus? All the answers I've seen ends at "you". And correct me if I'm wrong here, but for a chain of events, it can either to causal, or random, nothing else. Since nothing can be random/by chance, everything is casual, and voliation, the "you" is not a metaphysical first cause, then what causes IT? My introspection tells me the exact same thing as most of you, that I am the chooser of my begin, that I can act without any reason at all, that I can act just because I wills it. And I want to believe that. However, the present amount of knowledge I have about the physical universe tells my logical mind otherwise, and I can't ignore my reason. edit: wait a min, you are saying it's not a First Cause in the sense that previous something made our mind/consciousness what it is. But once it's made, it then upon it's completion possess the ability to be a first cause. If that's the case, then it starts to make sense.

Hmm interesting. I've been reading a few past threads about this topic. Apparently volition is a First Cause.

I think the question here is "If Free Will can be predicated, is it still Free Will?". If yes, then there's no problem. If not, then consider the following case: For example, the man stealing apple case. Let's say there's an advanced aliens species out there with a super computer that can scan every particle and their motion/reaction on earth and is capable of using that semi-omnipotent information to predicate what's going to happen two days ahead. Then would not such a machine have a 99.999% (since it's only earth, sunlight change..etc. is not calculated, so there might be room for error) accuracy in predicating that the man will be stealing that apple within 2 days? Free Will is a capacity man possess, it allow man to choose as he wishes when facing a choice. But would not the outcome of his choice be like everything else? If one was to know all the inputs and processes, one can accurately predicate the output. If a man with a certain physiology/biology/psychology..etc. state facing a certain choice in a certain environment, he will make a certain decision. If hypothetically you run that same scenario over a thousand times, would he not make the same decision each time? He has Free Will, he can decide differently, but he won't.

That's my question from the very beginning, why does man have a Right to Life in the first place? and where does this right come from. Whether a society recognize it or not is irrelevant. Since it has nothing to do with metaphysical givens, the only answer I can arrive at for now is retaliation equilibrium. I just tried check out this Prudent Predator error and Objectivist Ethics. Nothing relevant turned up for the first one on Google, and the only thing I can find for the second one is the wiki article. If you have any specific links in mind, I'd appreciate them greatly.

Interesting, I had the hunch that it might have nothing to do with Metaphysics and absolutes. If that's the case, then it's true what they say, Rights are not given or granted for, but must be fought and protected. The only reason a person have the Right to Life is because if another individual tries to violate it, that individual faces serious retaliation from the said person. Rights then are a by-product of equilibrium resulted from retaliation forces. The only reason then why someone shouldn't violate another's right for his own gain is the would be retaliation. Following that, if a person does not actively protect his Rights, he then has none.