Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    113

whYNOT last won the day on April 9

whYNOT had the most liked content!

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa; "Where liberty dwells, there is my country
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    SouthAfrica
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Real Name
    tony
  • Occupation
    photography,reading,writing

Recent Profile Visitors

13551 profile views

whYNOT's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

352

Reputation

  1. Either way, she's remarkable. From scratch, (and even from her earlier, admitted, prejudice), to conceptualize and evaluate the crucial facts so efficiently.
  2. There are some non-Objectivists out there who exemplify reason, rationality and free will, with "a moral compass" - like the above, outstanding young woman - and apparently a few Objectivists who do not.
  3. "Man", one would think, is entirely the rational animal, which constitutes both his biological and volitional cognitive nature. I.e., there cannot be any contradiction and split between "human nature" and "man's nature", unless one is allowed. Indeed, ""man--every man--is an end in himself..."" according to AR. And all life as well. Therefore, the identical, shared, "end in itself" which she observed every life form to possess in common, whether insentient or sentient. "End", to mean an independent 'closed system', I suggest; the self-generating *life force* which self-perpetuates and self-maintains an organism's survival mode. Except - for man in particular, biological survival isn't a sufficient purpose, and his 'mode' is non-automatic. I feel that "end-in-itself" is the metaphysical recognition, preceding epistemology and ethics. O'ist ethics rests upon it. I will be interested in more, Stephen. On how "the power of human rationality functions to preserve one's fellows and indeed the human species for the sake of the species"? How can this be achieved by a person? I don't believe you mean it as one's selfless duty to others, but it seems to me you say this preservation of others/the species might be primary, rather than being the valuable effects of one's self-serving actions which are often/sometimes of benefit to some others--also. They are the same species as one, with their life values, and ends in themselves as well. Pleasure - too - would be derived from seeing such beneficial outcomes to lives of others. Partaking in joint enterprises to the mutual advantage of all, as one example. Intellectual expounding, creating artworks, a few more. Here too, I don't find a contradiction and/or conflict with rational egoism.
  4. No comment https://www.jns.org/biden-ends-the-us-israel-alliance-at-a-fortuitous-moment/
  5. Yup, the final section where Sam reverts to his basic Leftist-altruist convictions is not his best. Limited to Israel and antisemitic protests in "solidarity" with Jihadists, he's knowledgeable, very good and right, and although an atheist, a long-time moral/intellectual backer of Israel, as I am. No one speaker, anyone, anywhere on the net, has it all correct. Take away the best leave the rest.
  6. Just caught sight of this. Reminds us of the virtue of justice. To think in principles. Over and above, one (not) being Jewish or Muslim which is immaterial, are the moral evaluations one needs to make about the collectivism/tribalism which has consistently and historically turned on only one, single "collective", whenever (Western) societies have suffered discord and fractures. And it is hardly the Muslims. Simply: "blame the Jews". For anything. To the point of violence. They are the smallest and most passivist group so it's safe for the racist bullies, now mostly on the hard Left, to do so. Zionism and its validity. No one can look at the modern landscape and its wholesale and far-reaching mass vilification of all Jews in once safe countries today, and not be aware of the fact that there will always be revivals of such racist feelings. Worse and greater now than '30's Europe and Germany, because of the internet. . So much so, that many Jews are considering leaving those previous havens and going - of all insecure places - to Israel. (If we can't make it there, we can't make it anywhere) The retrospective validation for Zionism again today is on every second headline. If there were not already a "safe" place in the world, it could well be necessary now to make one. Grames, you are wrong: overall it was not "Jewish supremacism" to mark for Israel's creation, it was imposed Jewish inferiority-by-race. I use your argument: if Zionism was and is valid (self-interested!) to found a safe place for world Jewry, agnostic, secular or practicing, then everything which is a consequence of Zionism is valid.
  7. "Is" comes first, and irreducible. The sequence: metaphysics and epistemology, then the ethics logically following (by necessity), was the unique feat AR performed in her essay. Often - the metaphysics, the general nature of life and specifically man's life and nature, gets left behind or taken for granted. I believe the full justification of rational egoism is weakened. Tad, I thank you for your response. But could you quote my post to alert me? In this forum, by some mutual consent or orders from high, it seems I have been excluded ("canceled"?) from debate.
  8. The objective Sam Harris. Betters any analysis and moral evaluation I've heard elsewhere.
  9. The 'figures' match, Jerusalem and Washington agree. Caution. From RT: "Israel’s airstrikes and ground offensive in Gaza have left more Palestinian civilians dead than Hamas fighters, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has acknowledged. During his appearance on the CBS TV news program Face the Nation on Sunday, Blinken was asked if Washington agreed with the recent claim by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the attacks on Gaza have so far resulted in the death of 14,000 “terrorists” and 16,000 civilians. "Yes, we do,” the Secretary of State replied. “Israel has processes, procedures, rules and regulations to try to minimize civilian harm,” but they “have not been applied consistently and effectively. There’s a gap between the stated intent and some of the results we've seen,” he explained. Blinken stressed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are fighting “an enemy that hides in civilian infrastructure, hides behind civilians,” which makes it problematic to determine what actually happened in each of the individual incidents..." -- At almost 1 : 1 the IDF is setting records for lowest casualty ratio in urban warfare. Leave alone, an enemy which exposes its citizen-martyrs. The "genocide" criers should be shamed, but won't be. Plainly on their part, it was always about saving Hamas terrorists' lives and exploiting civilian deaths.
  10. If it's in man's nature, does it not exist 'inside' of nature? "Is" supplies the "ought". To turn against our nature, there's "the evil".
  11. The realization that the life of a common cockroach is also "an end in itself", may be disconcerting at first. Rand's "organism" relates to all living things - "man", included. "On the *physical* level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex...- are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life"
  12. When you take good and evil to stand for life and death, for all organisms/animals. "An organism's life is its ~standard of value~; that which furthers its life is the *good*, that which threatens it is the *evil*." ... "It is only an ultimate goal, an ~end in itself~, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically *life* is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself; a value gained and kept by a constant process of action..." p17 --- A critical footnote to allay concerns that these organisms, animals, etc, evidently do NOT have consciousness of life/death, good/evil, values, morality, goal-directed purpose, and so on (apart from sensations, pain/pleasure, for many forms) - on p16: AR: "When applied to physical phenomena, such as the automatic functions of an organism, the term “goal-directed” is not to be taken to mean “purposive” (a concept applicable only to the actions of a consciousness) and is not to imply the existence of any teleological principle operating in insentient nature. I use the term “goal-directed,” in this context, to designate the fact that the automatic functions of living organisms are actions whose nature is such that they result in the preservation of an organism’s life". “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 16
  13. Most certainly underscoring "man". VoS: “That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own". "Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life". AR All life, down to every living organism, is "an end in itself": Self-generating, self-directing. When it comes to "value", inseparable from "life", each organism->animal's own physical life(/death) is its own "standard" of value, the good(/evil). By Rand, man has, I'd put it, an 'elevated' standard of value to achieve and sustain, one proper to man, beyond the reach of animal - etc.. etc. "Survival" qua man then, is on a greatly extended range, inclusive of his (biological) life, of course. I'd not fault anyone's uncertainty and confusion, there is a huge amount to unpack and flesh out above from Rand, "an abstract principle" leading back to each individual's life.
×
×
  • Create New...