Rudmer

To increase there status with others who have also accepted the wrong morality based on the wrong premises.

The man is convinced that people are evil, including himself.

Christianity doesn't make people good at being selfless, it just makes people bad at being selfish.

Carl Sagan's gonna smack a cripple

So I just finished "Humor in The Fountainhead," from Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, and its caused me to think some more about humor, a subject I hadn't given too much serious thought to. My purpose here is just to share some thoughts and hopefully hear others' thoughts on the subject.

In the essay, Rand is quoted as making the following two statements:





Upon first reading these, I found myself disagreeing strongly with both of them. My opinion is and has been that the ability to laugh at oneself demonstrates health and good-naturedness. In thinking about it, and reading through the essay and a few more of Rand's statements on humor, I find that these views are actually very easily reconcilable with my own. Consider this statement by Rand:



In the essay, Robert Mayhew distinguishes between benevolent and malicious humor. Benevolent humor is basically humor aimed at objects which deserve scorn and ridicule, while malicious humor is aimed at objects which deserve respect and reverence. Thus, benevolent humor belittles the metaphysical importance of bad things, while malevolent humor belittles the importance of good things. Now, humor which is aimed at one's own achievements, or more generally one's own positive values, is obviously malicious humor. Laughing at oneself in the sense of laughing at these things is indeed bad. However, in thinking about it, that is not at all what I picture when I think of 'the ability to laugh at oneself.'

Consider someone who slips and falls, or misspeaks in some absurd way, or makes an obvious error in a presentation. In all of these situations, I am inclined to think of the person who can 'laugh it off' as good-natured. I would contrast this with the image of the person who, when something like this happens, blusters and attempts to 'save face.' Obviously, this second person is primarily concerned with others' impressions of him rather than the actual error or accident. Such second-handedness is clearly not an appropriate attitude.

But what is the first individual doing? First of all, he is acknowledging the reality of the accident or mistake. Furthermore, he is (in Rand's characterization) belittling its importance by laughing at it. Self-deprecating humor, in this case, is not aimed at ones values, but rather at one's mistakes. This form of humor is indicative of genuine self-esteem; the person in question is acknowledging the reality of his own thoughts and actions (an essential first step for genuine self-esteem) and is able to casually dismiss errors with a laugh. There is no attempt to pretend for the sake of others' opinions that the error was not made; rather, it is acknowledged and then moved on from.

In my experience, the majority of instances of self-deprecating humor fall into this latter category of laughing off a mistake. Thus, while it is true that actually cutting oneself down with humor also undoubtedly occurs, the everyday understanding of 'laughing at oneself,' (at least what I think is the prevalent understanding of it) is a healthy practice, one which should be celebrated.

We certainly are governed strictly by the laws of cause and effect, and there are no loopholes in causality. However, accepting this view does not immediately lead to the acceptance of determinism, as is often supposed. The non sequitur is often accepted because many people have an incorrect conception of causality. For many people, determinism is part of the definition of causality; this viewpoint might be termed 'billiard-ball' causality, where all instances of causality are assumed to be instances of objects interacting deterministically like billiard balls. However, Objectivism supports a more general conceptualization of causality, which does not smuggle in determinism. Causality, properly conceptualized, is simply the statement that, "A thing acts in accordance with its nature." This formulation leaves open the question of whether or not that nature is deterministic or (as in the case of human consciousness) some ability of self-determination is part of that nature.

Now, I would not dispute the fact that the particles which make up the human brain and form the physical basis for human consciousness act deterministically, but it does not follow from this that the system as a whole acts that way (see fallacy of composition). In fact, to claim that determinism is true is to engage in a contradiction. The existence of knowledge itself presupposes that volition exists; knowledge depends on our ability to volitionally weigh evidence and separate truth from falsehoods. To claim something as true which undercuts the basis for truth is clearly contradictory. For some further threads on determinism, see 1 2 3 4.

The rest of your point, however, is well taken (replacing 'acting deterministically' with 'acting causally'). If we pretend that our free will can do more than it actually can, then we will be helpless to face many personal issues. Our minds have a certain, definite nature, and our will is limited in scope. We need to understand this nature and these limits in order to act effectively (this is just another example of "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"). The example of kicking an addiction is a good one, where understanding how the human mind works will contribute greatly to one's success. Psychological issues in general depend on a good understanding of the nature of human consciousness. This thread on procrastination and how to beat it using an understanding of human consciousness also comes to mind.

The point of free will is readily addressed via the search function, there are a bazillion threads on it in the Questions, Metaphysics/Epistemology, and Ethics sections (and probably a few dotted around other places too). So I won't be getting into that.

You asked "Can the superiority of logic to a specific worldview be logically proven? In other words, it seems like you start with the assumption that logic is the best criterion for a good worldview. Why? You have no logical basis for doing this, it is essentially an act of faith, isn't it?"

You are asking for a logical argument for why one should listen to logical arguments. This means that you already believe that one should listen to/adhere to logic and reason. Therefore no such demonstration is necessary. The very act of asking for a "reason" means you accept Reason as the criterion for judgment. It is implicit in the very act. No arguments can be posed which do not implicitly assume the adherence of all those engaged to the dictum "Be rational." So asking "why be rational/logical?" is pointless, as one cannot form an argument against logic/reason, nor can any argument have any force for one who renounces logic/reason.

Objectivism's metaphysical axioms are "axiomatic" in this sense: No argument may be formulated which does not assume them implicitly, and so any argument purporting to disprove them will necessarily suffer from self-contradiction. And by asking "why do you believe what you believe?" one has already conceded that one needs reasons, i.e. needs to form arguments for one's beliefs, and so must reject any notion which is self-refuting/self-contradictory.

Basic breakdown:
A is A: Reject this claim- "A can be not A." Then this means that under certain conditions the statement "A is not A" is true. But this requires, to be true or conversely that the statement "A is A" is false under certain conditions. But this means that the statements "A is not A" and "A is A" cannot both be true at the same time, therefore A and not A can never be equivalent, so A is not not A and so A is A. Also, if you reject the law of non-contradiction/law of identity, then one can form no arguments as one can reach any conclusion one desires.

Existence exists: Reject this claim- "Existence does not exist." Reply-"At the very least, the statement "existence does not exist" then exists, and in order for anything to exist, existence must exist. QED". Or if you feel snarky, just reply "Who said that?"

Axiom of Consciousness: To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If I am not aware of anything except myself, I have nothing to compare to, so I cannot even be aware of myself. Therefore if I am not aware of an outside world, I am aware of nothing, and so am not conscious. Therefore I am conscious of an external world.

That's basically it. Hope that helps, and hope you get over that nasty religion thing that's been going around these last few millenia, it gives people tummy aches.

Also, welcome to OO.net!

Well, in many ways there is. But not for the reasons she thinks.

I find it deeply offensive to my very core that Obama would dare talk about what is constitutional and what isn't given his utter disregard for it on all other occassions when the Constitution presents an inconvenience to his collectivist, regressive agenda.

As someone who happens to be gay I find deeply and personally offensive his disingenuous about-face pandering. He has always waffled on the issue but usually come down on the side against gay marriage. This turn about comes at a time when the Democrats can no longer take the gay vote for granted.

There is no "victory" here whatsoever for "gay rights" or individual rights. All there is is a lying opportunistic politician whoring himself to a demographic he was starting to lose.

I have to say, I think that there's a small but not inconsequential false dichotomy here. Taking the bullet or not are not, realistically, my only options.

Would I take a bullet for the one I love? Absolutely. Would I do anything I could to make sure it wouldn't come to that, up to and including killing the other dude first? Even more absolutely. Anyone doing the former but not the latter has, by their actions, shown that they do not value their loved one as much as they claim to, which makes the act of taking the bullet self-sacrificial.

Atheism is not a premise of Objectivism.

The fundamental premises of Objectivism are the three axioms:
1) Existence exists
2) A is A
3) Consciousness exists

Once one understands the full meaning of A is A, one CANNOT accept as evidence that which has no actual basis in reality - either via direct evidence or derived from the same.

In other words, for that which exists no conclusive proof, no proof may be considered to have been given.

One need never consider Atheism at all as an Objectivist - except that we keep getting asked about it by all the Theists out there who believe in that for which no evidence exists...

Consider, though - what is the first requirement of Religion? Believe. What if you doubt? HAVE FAITH. Ignore the evidence - BELIEVE. Don't question - TRUST.

But what is the first requirement of Objectivism? Simple - it's "Prove it".

Religion begins with the denial of reality. Objectivism begins with the denial of everything but.

Weird. The question is usually asked in the from "Given that man's nature is entirely physical, is it possible that he has volition?". It does not matter, for both questions the answer is the same.

It is not a matter for debate. It is a fact that man's nature is entirely physical. And it is a fact the man has volition. Volition refers to the power to think and to act in a self-directed manner. Where there is self-direction there is an absence of forms of external causation such as mind altering drugs or physical force. The 'free' in 'free will' is the freedom from external control. Expecting also freedom from 'internal control', freedom from all the actions of every cell and atom, is invalid because a part that has no relation to the whole is not a part. A whole is its parts. Man's volition is not something apart from his cells and atoms, it is a description of those same cells and atoms acting together as a whole.

The answer is yes, but only in your dream and for the duration of your dream and then further as a memory. It does not prove that there is an actual person outside of your head.

Actually to split hairs it is the process of differentiating that comes first, not integrating. Differentiating is just noticing differences. In the case you want to examine, a consciousness with nothing to differentiate itself from could not be self aware and since it is stipulated that there is nothing else to be aware of then it could not be aware at all. Continuing to even use the word consciousness as a noun is misleading, it is like saying red-ness actually exists when there is nothing that is red. The root word in the noun 'consciousness' is the verb 'conscious', and changing parts of speech makes it even more misleading than the case of 'red vs. redness'.

The solution to the "Mad Scientist Argument" and "The Matrix" is to understand that even this case still conforms to 'subject is aware of object', awareness is a verb and inherently relational, or in another word relative. So long as what you see comes from outside your own consciousness, then even if it is simulated it is real and the deeper reality is the memory states of some supercomputer. The expectation that things must really be just as we perceive them is unjustified, and has the name "naive realism." Here is a presentation and refutation of this and several other arguments against realism: Pierre Le Morvan, "Arguments Against Direct Realism and How to Counter Them", American Philosophical Quarterly 41, no. 3 (2004): 221-234. (pdf) Further information on the topic of "can I really believe my lying eyes?" see the book "The Evidence of the Senses" by David Kelley and my notes on that book here, (see esp. post #15 on chapter 4).

Absolutley, I think he's one of those guys who make it look like and actual sport and not WWE wrestling. He seems to always be respectful and gracious. It's like...

Outside the ring:


And inside the ring: