Bold Standard
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bold Standard
-
-
I'm not a psychologist, but speaking from personal experience, I think it's worth pointing out how much control you are allowing other people to have over your emotions. Under normal circumstances, for example, a person with healthy self-esteem should be able to handle criticism- true or false, without feeling an urge to respond with violence- a reaction that seems to suggest that he perceives his inner sense of self to be in jeopardy.
I mention this because, at the end, you claim not to care whether any "subhumans" agree with you. Yet if you don't care, why the emotional reaction when someone acts on their opposing belief? Is an eighteen-year-old who acts like a child a direct threat to you? If you don't care whether someone agrees with your rejection of racism, why would it anger you that they make jokes revealing their acceptance of racism?
I consider it brave to attempt not to let the actions and oppinions of others bother you.. but if they *do* bother you, that's not a sign of weakness, either. When other people bother you the brave thing to do is to accept your emotions, and not bury and repress them, which, as you might have discovered, makes introspection almost impossible.
You might consider speaking to a professional psychologist about it- even a bad one might give you good ideas on how to solve your anger "problems" (if they're a problem for you, which you seem to think they are).
That being said, my opinion of other people- and the potentiality of meeting people like me-- specifically, honest, rational, happy people, increased exponentially when I attended my first Objectivist lecture and met other people interested in Objectivism.
-
A prerequisite of engaging in a rational discussion is *not* a comprehensive definition of all terms to be used in the discussion- assuming those terms are used consistently and objective definitions are *available* to the conversants. If it were so, every new discussion would be as two infants meeting each other for the first time, each holding the other responsible for the authoring of a complete dictionary before any discourse can begin.
This practice does not belong in civilized communications but should have vanished with the myth of the Tower of Babel.. and the philosophical system under scrutiny would not be Objectivism but that which should have vanished with the myth of Linguistic Analysis (though it's quite an overstatement to call that a "system").
That is what I assume AisA means when he says he is not speaking in a vacuum. Given this is an Objectivist forum, it should be assumed that words are used the way they are used by Ayn Rand and other Objectivists. There is scarcely an article by Ayn Rand in which her definition of "freedom" is not given, and it can be gathered from context that AisA means this definition, so I will give it (since he is evidently uninterested in doing so): "Freedom" means, in this context, *political* freedom, ie, freedom from force. That means- a political system based on rights (the rights of individuals- life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness), in which the initiation of force is banished from human relationships and the government holds a monopoly on the retaliative use of force- in other words, "laissez-faire capitalism."
Defenders of freedom are, therefore, those who are working and fighting for the establishment of a system of laissez-faire capitalism. The term "conservative" can also be assumed to be of the same meaning Ayn Rand attached to the term. You will find many interesting entries in the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the word "conservative". But, for practical purposes, let it be assumed that AisA means "conservative" as it is defined in popular usage. Nothing he said contradicts this, and he has provided a list of goals of many contemporary self-proclaimed conservatives. If you are unaware of the meaning of the term in popular usage, then he has given you an alternative definition right there! "Conservatives" means the people who advocate the things he posted- which do not promote capitalism, but a mixed economy/theocracy and ultimately a statist dictatorship (if taken to their logical ends, rather than existing in some "middle of the road" which isn't possible for long).
And that's my point. The inability of, or disinterest in, bringing fuzzyheadedness
like making blanket statements about "imagined" groups of people is the passtime
of those who are simply interested in bashing people (for emotional reasons) that
they (emotionally) disagree with.
You appear to have a gripe of some sort with "conservatives". That's cool. But if
you can be as irrational as assume that everyone "just knows" what your talking
about when you say things like "defenders of freedom", then my pointing out that
that IS irrational should be of no surprise to you.
-Iakeo
(edited to include "based on rights" in the definition of "capitalism")
-
Read "The Man Who Laughs"! That was Ayn Rand's favorite by Hugo, and it's the one I'm reading now, too. I haven't read Les Miserables yet, but from the title I suspect I might have some trouble getting into it initially as well. But I agree with Amerigo and everyone about TMWL, so far it's very exciting and interesting. I'm reading it in English, but I do suspect it's better in French. It's very "French" in tone and tempo.
-
When you say "naturally gifted," are you suggesting that you believe some people are *born* with inate talents or abilities, while others are destined to mediocrity? Ayn Rand never advocated that, and to me.. if any premises are likely to lead to elitism, it would be those. But Ayn Rand went to great lenghts to show that great men are self made, and arive at greatness through their choices and actions.
-
Nietzsche felt that existing moralities (which are all he uses the word "morality" to refer to) were failures that were really an expression of WTP in its worst sense.
"Worst" according to which morality?
The "morality" of the Overman is then the morality constructed from this new valuation of things. Nietzsche never talks about this explicitly, but the new values were to be the values of the Overman.I know Neitche's style is different, but am I wrong for having some difficulty in ascribing a philosopher's entire conception of morality to something he "never talks about ... explicitly"?
-
As a rule of thumb, I've found that in general, books published before 1940 or so are a lot more clearly written and logical than newer books, in subjects like math and science. I've had good luck going to used bookstores, and getting the oldest copies they have of plane geometry, engineering, mechanics, or whatever. I've always learned a lot more in the first few pages than I learned from entire courses on supposedly more advanced topics in school.
And the older books almost never include distracting analogies to things like football and shopping in their explanations of principles.
-
For me, theism was the last major irrationalistic concept that I rejected before becoming an Objectivist. The first book I read by Ayn Rand was ITOE, and before I even got to the arguments against theism, I saw where she was going and started seriously "chewing" on her arguments.
What slowed me down was the immense, profound package dealing that was my concept of "God." I hadn't adequately defined a concept of "nature", or of morality, epistemology, metaphysics, etc, so there was an overwhelming sensation of fear married to any movement I made in the direction of atheism- because bits and pieces of all of those vital concepts were grotesquely heaped together into my "God" concept (along with all the mythology and dogma and pre-set emotions I accepted).. and how could I live without them?
But I remember the night of my "conversion" vividly. Atlas Shrugged did it for me. I began Galt's Speech a (neurotic) theist, and finished it an atheist. Specifically when I read Ayn Rand's critique of the Garden of Eden, in context with her indictment of Original Sin and the rest of the speech and the novel, the remnants of my religious sentiments were destroyed.
But what took me completely off guard was the psychological phenomenon that occured next. To my complete surprise (since I hadn't fully acknowledged it was there), all the fear and shame and everything else that was wrapped up in my anti-concept of God- vanished as I began to fully grasp and integrate the fact that now I was an atheist... Like the Burden of Sin lifted from my shoulders-- but it was the Burden of God!
After that I experienced a sensation of clarity-- and direct connection to *my* experience.. *my* life, choices, and beliefs.. divorced from all superstition and pain and fear and guilt-- unlike anything I'd known before. I would say, in a certain sense, becoming an atheist was the most "religious experience" I ever had.
-
GWDS,
I would like to recommend _The Ominous Parallells_ by Leonard Peikoff. It thoroughly examins the philosophies of the Nazis, and the philosophers that enabled their organization to seize controll of a nation-- from an Objectivist perspective. It is a fascinating book, especially if you're interested in that phenomenon, how it would be veiwed from a standpoint of Objectivism, and how it relates to cultural trends in America in modern times.
A quick answer to your indictment of Rand as an idealist is this: Objectivism rejects the concept of a dichotomy between the "ideal" and the "actual".. or the "theoretical" and the "practical", "neuminal" and "phenominal", or however you want to state it.
She did believe that her ideal man could exist in actual reality.. and that such men have existed, do exist.. and must exist, if mankind is to survive. (Whether you regard her arguments as convincing or not is up to you, of course, but that was her position.) She rejected the idea of original sin. She did not acknowledge any inate flaw in human nature that would prevent a man from achieving his full potential.. this choice, or struggle, she regarded as fully within the realm of volition. Hitler and Rand were philosophical opposites, to the extent to which Hitler could be called "philosophical."
Inspector - Are you saying that my post was meant to say Ayn Rand was a nazi? I really have no idea what you're talking about.Look at the styles of mythology in the Third Reich. It emphasised heroism as an Ideal which is used to bring us above our base nature into the realm of the 'New Man'. Both Hitler and Rand use the same sort of language, but, as I previously said, so did the Great Men of the Rennaiscance, Roman Empire, and so on.
Further, I said that while Rand and these other figures used the same styles of language, they arrived at very different things. Rand wants, to my knowledge, heroism to result in a rational, non violent sort of being. Hitler wanted crazed murdering psychos.
-
I think I might see what you're getting at with this, but it seems at best a little misleading in that "to save morality" was certainly not Nietche's *explicit* goal. You can hardly read any given two passages in _Beyond Good and Evil_ without finding a renunciation of the whole concept of morality as such- ie, ANY system of morality.
Nietche was "against" philisophical "system building", and therefore against morality. And on top of that he found all existing systems of morality to be superficial.
Now, as to his "amoralism".. was that a moral system in itself? Perhaps a "higher" moral system for a higher type of man? That's possibly up for speculation, but I'd be hard pressed to find a verse in Nietche that would offer an unequivocal answer.. (to any question regarding the specific philosophy of Nietche).
His goal is to save morality against increasing decadence (which he identified with precursors of what was to become National Socialism in Germany). In this vein the Overman is really the first genuinely moral person. -
There's something still confusing me about the terminology in this discussion. In speaking of "material consciousness", you seem to be setting up a dichotomy between the material and the supernatural.
But if "consciousness" were really "material", wouldn't that mean that if I imagined a green vampire with six eyes, there would then exist in physical reality a green vampire with six eyes? Isn't there such a thing as the non-material, non-supernatural realm of cognition?
To say that such a realm exists, and that it *is* human consciousness.. one needn't contradict the fact that this realm arises from physical matter- the brain. And one needn't contradict the fact that consciousness is still an existential phenomenon that is causal and has identity. It's just to say that human consciounsess is non-material, ie- mental. But not supernatural. Therefore, the functions of the human mind- being non-material, need not conform to the laws of physical determinism, but must conform to the laws of causality.. which, occuring in the human mind, which is by it's identity and nature governed by free will- "the fundamental choice to think or not to think", a principle that could not govern inanimate non-conscious matter, but that *must* govern human cognition.
Have I misunderstood something here?
-
I bet she's a one-hand-typer.
Hello, Mia.Hi MiaWhy do you do that? Do you have a problem with using proper English grammar?
-
Trendy Cynic,
I've read only your first post very carefully, and skimmed over the rest, so I'm sorry if i repeat things that have been said. But I think I can help on a couple of points.
1) The concept which you call "materialistic determinism" is referred to in psychology as "Behaviourism". This theory was developed almost exactly as you described by the 20th century psychologist B F Skinner. Rand and Peikoff both have commented extensively on Skinner and his particular kind of psychological "determinism", and their arguments against him might help to clarify your confusion more than their arguments against determinism in general (as there are many variants of determinism, not all of which match the type you've described").
2) There seems to be some obscurity in your exact meaning of the word "choice". "Choice," "Freedom," "Free-will," etc were used often by Kant to describe a state of consciousness which was apart from and impervious to the law of causality and the "physical" laws of nature. But this is not the meaning that Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have for these words. Peikoff and Rand both state explicitly that "choice" IS subordinate to the law of causality, and the law of identity. Choice, in the Objectivist sense of the word, is NOT a supernatural phenomenon, *even though it might be so in the popular meaning of the word*.
That means that just because there are reasons for the things you choose, doesn't mean that choice doesn't exist. Just because existential ("physical") phenomena can effect consciousness- mdma, sensory deprivation, getting enough rest etc... doesn't mean that the mind doesn't exist and that intellectual (ie logical, rational) processes do not also "determine" ("predict," "precipitate".. in short, "choose") behaviour.
What you might not realize is that this last step is exactly the step that the behaviourists and determinists actually do fail to make. They say that the soul, mind, spirit, etc, do not exist- ONLY your body. Only cells, chemical reactions. The content of your mind is nothing. Just a pragmatic means to an end at most. That's the point Rand and Peikoff are most against.
The critical thing in this discussion is to carefully define your "terms".. ie- concepts.
-
I am mostly curious at to how Existenialism comes to these metaphysical conclusions about the universe being hostile or indifferent. Out of the conversation I have had with my friend, he has just suggested a couple of books on it and stated that it really changed his life. He doesnt consider himself an existentialist, but says that he incorporates much of the philosophy into his life. By good sources I meant information on the subject. Prefferably not a large book (I am pretty damn busy right now)
I am not an expert on Existentialism, but I think it's worth noting that the term is rather vague, and sometimes intentionally so, in being the description of one particular philisophical position. It's kind of like the word "Feminism" in that respect. For example, there are theistic and atheistic Existentialists. There are self-proclaimed individualists and self-proclaimed collectivists among the (self-proclaimed) Existentialists.
To make a foggy story clear: Existentialism is a post-Kantian phenomenon. Inasmuch as it is not an Objectivist position, there is a significant amount of (self-conscious, non-apollogetic) irrationalism built into any particular Existentialist system.
If the idea of a malevolent universe is unthinkable to you, and it is something you wish to think of, put yourself in the shoes of a man who has accepted Kant's metaphysics. The prevolent emotion in such a consciousness will inevitably be fear, and its correllaries ("nausea" etc).
But the malevolent universe is just one option provided by your dictionary for the Existentialist to accept. It also says that the universe can be indifferent. That's what I'd call a clever symantic trick. The argument would be (I guess).. since it's irrational to ascribe a teleology or a positive cosmology to the universe as a whole or to inanimate matter, the universe is then "indifferent" (to human values, interests, or considerations). It doesn't care about you. It's "beyond" caring.. beyond petty human emotions, beyond emotions in general.
Hm, but wouldn't it also be, then.. beyond being indifferent? I don't think the universe is the type of entity to be different or indifferent. Indifference is an atribute of a conscious being, not a universe.
The big thing in Existentialism, also, is the "reification of the zero" (Rand's term). That's your ultimate A is non-A. It's the treatment of Nothingness as such.. as an entity in itself. An *existential* entity. And that entity is the secret uknowable magic wand that proves God.. or Socialism or whatever the Existentialist wants it to prove.
Anyway, that's pretty much the sum of the knowledge my experience with Existentialism has left me with about Existentialism. Good luck wallowing through the philosophy at your own pace. My understanding is that Existentialism and Linguistic Analysis were the two primary vehicles of the irrational in the 20th century, in American schools and universities. But again, I am a student putting things the way they seem to me.. I'm interested in criticism and comments on my statements.
-
Hello, welcome to the board. I'm from Houston also. I'm afraid there's no escape from 2 hour commutes in this city. : (
-David Marsilia
-
Try _Existentialism from Sartre to Kierkegaard_ I think it's by Walter Kauffman (I'm not sure about that spelling though) Peikoff references that book a lot in his _Ominous Parallels_. Kauffman, if that's who wrote it, is a noted expert in the writings and philosophy of Neitche.
-
I don't have the text at hand, but I remember there is a passage in _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_ where she discusses Existentialism. She identifies the fundamental flaw of that philosophy as being dependent on what she calls "Reification of the Zero." In other words, treating nothingness as though it were a something, with specific attributes. The supposed attributes of Nothingness are then used by the Existentialist to try and prove God, or whatever dogma they are trying to push at the time.
There is another passage, I believe in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_, in which she acredits Existentialism with the destruction of modern philosophy in the schools and in popular understanding. For the exact references, and further information, I suggest looking up "Existentialism" in _The Ayn Rand Lexicon_. That's just the sort of thing that book is most usefull for.
My personal opinion of Existentialism is that it's frustrating and diffucult to pin down to one view point, kind of like Post Modernism or Feminism. I've even heard Ayn Rand refered to as an Existentialist philosopher before, on the grounds that her philosophy dealt with reality ie "existence". But in the traditional meaning of the term, as being applied to Kierkegaard, Sartre, etc, I've found Ayn Rands insights very helpfull and enlightening and, as usual, right on the money.
Leonard Peikoff discusses it a little in _The Ominous Parallels_ too, I think. At least, he discusses Neitche and Kant as they relate to the developement of German philosophy. I don't know how relevent that is, but it's such a good book, it's hard to turn down a chance to recommend it to someone.
-
Very nice, Elle. I didn't know there were other musicians on this site besides me. Maybe we can put on a concert together one day. I'd like to hear what a string arangement would sound like with your composition... Ah, now I need to figure out how to put some of my recordings on mp3. I've been meaning to for ever.
-
When I first became interested in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, a friend of mine began calling me an "Objectionist" because my views were so contradictory to his own, and I was always raising objections. In his view, truth exists only as a social precedent between two or more people, so disagreeing with another person's point of view is usually seen by him as a self-sacrificial surrender of controll.
There is justice, however. My friend's life is in shambles now, after years of acting on irrational philisophical premises, and there have been several times in the past month that he's come to me in tears, telling me that he thinks I've been right about a lot of things. Not that I'm expecting him to change, but I feel somewhat vindicated for "persecution" I've suffered in the past from him.
The moral of the story, is I think it gets easier over time.. having a controversial point of view (for me it's been only about 2 years as an Objectivist). Especially as you gradually meet more like-minded people. The people who disagree will either grow to respect your views or grow bored talking to you about them.
-
For the record, music can be about death without having lyrics. In classical music, this would be called a "requiem". Music can also evoke images of violence and destruction without lyrics. As far as the difference between music and lyrics, I agree completely with Mr. Speicher's insights.
Those who are still confused might benefit from listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's prelimenary lectures on his new DIM hypothesis. Some people seem to be disintegrating the difference between music and lyrics because the two are interrelated. But concepts can be interrelated and still maintain autonomy.
-
From my experience, it is almost impossible to convert your mother to Objectivism.
Ha! I love that. Mind if I quote you? I'm asuming you mean "one's mother", in general, not coircefox's mother specifically. It seems to be a trustworthy proverb.
-
I was a Christian when I first discovered Objectivism. I was an admirer of CS Lewis as well, his fiction especially. The first thing I read by Rand was Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I was really interested in her ideas, and agreed with most of them, but I didn't immediately become an atheist and Objectivist. My position at the time was that the issue of God didn't really belong in philosophy.. that it was a personal issue that couldn't be adequately defined and would be therefore almost certainly abused and distorted in an attempt to form it into a science. This emotionalistic, subjective type of argument seems consistent with many popular Christian thinkers including CS Lewis, judging by his description of his conversion to Christianity given in _Surprized by Joy_.
A year and volumes of thought later, I finally became an atheist after first reading Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. For me that totally annihilated all remnants of emotionalism in my ideology. My best remaining arguments for God were refuted in that. The analysis of the myth of original sin and the Garden of Eden really did it for me.
But even when I was a Christian I thought selfishness was good. I remember being five years old and accused of being selfish by my mother, and I replied, "But of course, why would I want to do something if I didn't think I would eventually benefit." And was met with, "See! That just proves you're selfish! Go to your room." Hm. For years I thought I just didn't understand what people meant when they said the word "selfish". When I read Ayn Rand I found out I was right all along. I guess I wasn't a "good Christian."
-
Hey Joe,
Welcome to the forum. I'm an ex-"club kid" too.
-David Marsilia
-
If you click on a member's name, a page will come up that lets you look at all their posts.
-
Here's a question. Why didn't Rand call her philosophy "Existentialism"? Symantically, it would fit great with her philosophy. But the name was taken, by people who put forth ideas she disagreed with. She might have agreed with some things Neitche said, and other Existentialists, but she diverged on major points [edit: for the integrity of a philosophy, I would argue, any *point* is major]. What would have been the motivation for her to try to call herself an Existentialist anyway and simply try to steer the name towards the direction of her ideas, the way people do with Objectivism? Maybe she would do this if she was uncertain in her convictions, or if she wanted to ride on the coattails of other famous philosophers before her, the way the Branden's or David Kelly's of the world do with her philosophy.
"Objectivism," like "Existentialism," is a great name for a philosophy. Maybe you want to base your ideas on objective reality.. objective existential reality, even, but you disagree with the way Ayn Rand did it. But if you're brilliant enough to top Ayn Rand, you should certainly be brilliant enough to come up with a name for your philosophy. Otherwise you're just a stowaway trying to profit off of Rand's enduring popularity.
Objectivist perspective on LaVey Satanism?
in Ethics
Posted · Edited by Bold Standard
I think the best explanation and refutation of that "distinction" is Leonard Peikoff's essay "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy" published in _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_. It's very clearly written and accessible to those without an academic background in philosophy. (And it will explain a LOT of goofy philosophies of similar nature).