Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

izopyn

Regulars
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • Country
    CostaRica
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Jared
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    Objective Altruism --------------------- 1. There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. ”Relative right” is understanding “half truths” as they are; “relative wrong” is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right. 2. Without exception, act always to serve others and never to please them; these are almost always diametrically opposed paths. Be aggressively passive and be resented more than appreciated, and you will better both yourself and others. 3. There is inclination and there is duty; this is a dichotomy. If duty is endeavoured out of inclination, it is false. If duty is endeavoured solemnly, it is service. Indulging inclination is the path of relative wrong, service is the path of relative right. 4. Emotion is the forbearer of inclination. It belongs exclusively in private life. Reason is the forbearer of service. It should reign in public life. 5. Believing or disbelieving without adequate evidence is indulgence in inclination. It is relative wrong. Instead be always questioning and critical, this is service. 6. In all things, act and speak as though the world was as it should be, not as it is, and in doing so you will help to make it so. You will be perceived as a fool: a meager sacrifice.
  • School or University
    The University for Peace
  • Occupation
    Journalist, Internationalist, Conflict Transformer

izopyn's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. My mistake. Is it capital O Online as well? Just kidding. Perhaps I slipped a little into hypocrisy and based my understanding of this forum partly on my inclination to discuss the merits, challenges, practicality and possibility of objectivism with like-minded people online; Rand isn't a very big deal outside of the United States, at least not in my experience, and it didn't immediately occur to me that there could be this many people this intensely dedicated to her ideas, which to me seemed self-evidently flawed in too many ways to be useful as a singular philosophical or theoretical framework. See: Principle #2. I feel rather embarrassed actually. Cheerio.
  2. So you won't be reading this, or you won't be responding to it? Thank you for clarifying. I thought you might have been referring to my having a "high command of language", and pointing out that you did as well. Since you will not be reading or responding to this, I'll only spend a moment. You profoundly misunderstood me. Please refer to principle #2, which I believe will elucidate you completely.
  3. If we semantically understand the word "uncertain" to mean "not certain", as I think we should, then yes. There are a number of "far fetched" explanations within the realm of possibility for how I didn't actually write it. Perhaps our idea of what constitutes writing is flawed, or what if this is all a collectively hysterical hallucination, or maybe a different person wrote that from who is answering you now. But okay, it's highly, highly probable that I just wrote the above statement. Evidence is always insufficient, there are no certainties. I'm going to recapitulate the second question for the sake of brevity. "The only certainty is uncertainty". Which is basically the same as the first principle. Again, these are contradictions of terms, not a contradiction of ideas. We have no way of understanding every side, every angle, every dimension and aspect of anything. We draw conclusions and take actions based on what we have to work with, and with tremendous humility hope that we don't fuck up. Because there's no other option. For me, this has always been a priori. So again, because it seems that some people are still having trouble. "There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. ”Relative right” is understanding “half truths” as they are; “relative wrong” is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right." This is phrased to be rhetorically pleasing, easy to remember, and easy to understand. The idea is what is important, not the words. It means that we can't ever know what is right or what is true, because our perceptions are flawed and there are unknowable, uncountable circumstances to any situation you can imagine, if you were to have an eternity to ask enough questions. However. By -realizing- this, we can begin to operate objectively. By understanding that we will always lack the resources and ability to fathom anything with certainty, we obviously will never assume certainty falsely. How could cain have killed abel without believing himself to be of greater worth, despite a lack of evidence or even a barometer by which to gauge worth? how could napoleon have razed europe without believing that france was a superior nation, despite any way of knowing what rights a nation should have, whether they should even exist, or what he was entitled to do with any former conclusion? how could hitler have undertaken his final solution, or stalin the purges, or radio colina the rwandan genocide, or the israeli and palestinian governments their wars, without believing based upon inclination instead of evidence, without understanding half-truths to be truths?
  4. I read the rules before posting. The only problem I could interpret would be in the first rule, if there was an asterisk after the word "objectivism", leading to an elaboration that all ideas about what objectivity is must be confined to the Randian "modification", and/or if the word "contrary" was replaced by the word "critical". If these amendments are in the spirit of your operation here, I'll leave now.
  5. i think it's as true and as useful a grasp on our reality as one can realistically hope. which is just a simplification of what i already said. these principles are not objective truths, they are a philosophical formulation for the ability to perceive as objectively as possible, and therefore as truly as possible. they are foundations which i think are necessary to be truly objective and altruistic. a compass is not a direction, but it helps you to find them. the truth is that there is no truth is only a semantic contradiction, for want of greater sophistication to be easily understandable*. does that resolve your dilemma? if not... *if this is still not clear, i will elaborate as fully as possible. but it might be a little convoluted. i'm really not sure how i can help you? you either sincerely misinterpret this or are deliberately manipulating it.
  6. objectivism as i think it is understood by most on this site, is based upon the definition of ayn rand. but rand borrowed the term from gottlob frege, and i think one can only assume that she intended her ideological modification of it to be in the same spirit of frege's, or she a) would have coined a new term or not agreed with 90% of frege's philosophy. i would make this comparison for you... objectivism as i understand it is to objectivismonline, is as communism was as marx understood it to soviet russia. (appropriate choice of analog, no?) but as always, i could be wrong. i go off of what evidence is available, and just as "truth" is always uncertain, so is evidence always insufficient.
  7. it was not an ad hominem assumption, it was a logical assertion based on evidence that i briefly alluded to when i argued that an idea of objectivism based in selfishness is necessarily subjective (ipso facto not objective). further, the hypermaterialist ideology espoused throughout this forum is based on absolutist moral premises constructed in western society, the origins and impetuses of which are quite visible. believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary, without counter evidence, is irrational. my expectation of negative responses to what i posted here come primarily from two sources. a) my experience with and study of general human behaviour on the internet, through the facilitation of anonymity and probably motivated by personal insecurities, for which evidence is abundant to put it conservatively. the intense certainty of position and ideology, specifically libertarianism/neoliberalism/materialism/hyperconsumerism/"randism" which i encountered throughout this site with no reprieve of seeing someone posting with an open mind or with actual objectivity. the laws of probability suggests that such posts exist, but i didn't see them. You have no reason to believe me, but while direct and blunt my introductory post was meant to offer an alternative perspective, with the aim that perhaps someone would consider alternative ways of thinking, assuming that some people here actually want to be objective. and even if all that failed, it was something to do. i assure you, though again you have no reason to believe me, that "chaos" was not my intention even if i realized its likeliness. it's extremely probable that martin luther understood that his 95 theses would very likely raise the ire of the catholic church, but it probably wasn't his intention or motivation for writing them (religious analogy intentional). i can neither deny nor confirm this without some kind of definition of "it".
  8. izopyn

    Animal rights

    I had a brief vegetarian crisis late last year. It went as follows. "If I'm categorically against the initiation of violence, and I don't ethically distinguish between human beings and other animals, then how can i justify eating meat which causes violence to be initiated against animals". This was my conclusion. "For my work and study, I use two laptops, an audio recorder, an e-book reader, an mp3 player and a cell phone. All of these devices use coltan, a black metallic ore necessary for modern electronics, which is one of the leading causes of resource war in sub-Saharan African. My vocation, which will and already has begun to ameliorate imposed fear and suppression, increase awareness and save lives, which could realistically one day help to end this resource war situation, requires the use of these devices. My clothes, shoes, and non-meat food have tremendously negative socioeconomic impacts all around the world as well, and indeed I could follow this line of logic until I'm crouching naked in the bushes, wasting all the talent, experience, development and work that I have actively dedicated toward ends which seem to be ethical and principled. If I am by necessity going to permit myself this passive hindrance (what could be considered a moral compromise) in order to give active service, in terms of causing human beings to die, then it is cognitively balanced to continue eating animal flesh which sustains my health".
  9. i was just thinking that the content of this thread should make me optimistic for this web forum. your assertion that philosophical dilemmas of the existence of truth or morality are simple erodes that optimism. could you have not instead written "tl;dr"?
  10. well there is no right, in anything even resembling an absolute sense. if you are asking if it is "relative right", then yes it is, by very definition. as to whether it's a truth, i think that's probably an infinite paradox, wouldn't you? such as "this is a lie", which has been used in film to destroy complex artificial intelligences. i don't know if disputing whether the idea that "there can be no whole truth" is a whole truth is a useful argument, apart from a deconstruction of the fallacies of english semantics, but i won't close myself off to further propositions. it's my clearest perception, which in my hopeful understanding i have based entirely in evidence, logical reflection, and experience from which all bias has been filtered. it's what i prescribe for no one but myself, but what i argue is the most effective attitude for positive peace and for objectivity. i don't believe that arrogance, greed or initiated violence can possibly manifest in anyone who meaningfully understands this principle, and i would be happy to explain this if anyone would like. my primary inspiration for the articulation of the first principle were the words of alfred north whitehead, but it's something i've understood to be "true" for over a decade.
  11. winslett's character was the polar opposite of rand's ideology. she didn't seek personal enrichment, or achievement, or success, invention, innovation, or the advancement of her body, mind or spirit. she was motivated by her profound discontent and disenchantment with materialist/consumerist/nuclear familial life, and her drive for new experiences. i mean jesus, she was basically setting out to be a penniless, acclaimless vagabond. decaprio's character essentially had similar motivations, but was too weighed down by shackles of fear and social indoctrination to follow them. people often see what they want to see.
  12. hello. i'm izopyn. most, if not all of you, are going to hate me. there may be a few of you that will love to hate me but i think the majority will just hate me. because what i am, or what this is, and by "i" and "me" and "am" and "this", i mean this virtual construction of my ideas and perceptions, is the ardent light of reason and rationality. i understand that you have conflated these terms with hypermaterialism, or the justification of hypermaterialism, but i think you are profoundly confused. just to lay some things out: - i saw this site on a google hit, and followed it thinking that it was about real/actual/"most true" objectivism. - after reading through it a little and finding that it was not about objectivism, but rather a collective commitment to (dare i say delusional?) justifications of self-interest, i signed up anyway because i am a procrastinating whore, and don't want to write my paper. - my paper, by the way, is an argument that the Bretton Woods Trio (the world bank, the imf and the gatt/wto) and their collaborators (transnational corporations, most of "the west", neoliberal think tanks, some ngos, etc), are genocidaires (a fancy term for someone who has, by the definitions of international law, committed genocide). - i am uncomfortable with the ideas and ideology of rand for many reasons, but most relevantly is how profoundly flawed her theory of objectivism is. to be succinct, if you put yourself before others you cannot possibly be objective because it requires you to favour yourself, necessarily being "autosubjective", the most basic form of bias. - i am, as far as evidence and logic have led me to understand, a true objectivist, and a true altruist. evidence and logic have also led me to understand that true objectivism and true altruism are mutually interdependent. - i may post here for a while, but my expectation is that "i" (this virtual construction of my ideas and perceptions) will encounter fallacious and indefensible platitudes, rationalizations and ad hominem attacks, instead of actual arguments. dare you to prove me wrong. now that those things are out on the table, i'd like to introduce "myself" more cordially by telling you a little about something i believe in, that is objectivity and objectivism. very, very simply, objectivity means constantly examining, evaluating and analyzing any and all socially or politically-constructed or learned ideas or values which may inform one's perception, and then putting those ideas or values into little jars which one stores in the attic of one's mind. the essence of objectivity is being able to generally reject any integration of them into one's perception, and therefore being able to perceive and understand as much as possible with as little bias as possible. this is something i have understood, more or less as articulately, since the age of 11 or 12, (when i still wanted to be a "philosopher" when i grew up) and something i have practiced diligently, if not obsessively, since then. i turned 24 last september. i don't know if i'm a psychopath or just extremely good at compartmentalizing, but i know that i have never felt any "moral" imperatives or compulsions in my life. i have many friends and feel emotions very deeply, but can't fathom the concept of any special value for human life, or what religious people sometimes call a "conscience". what i do have, are six principles that i feel i would die before compromising, which constitute a philosophy i call "objective altruism". they are things i have always followed, but only recently formulated into a "code" due to the need for a rigid and tangible defense for the possibility, practicality, and justification for objectivity. they are a good guide for me, though i don't prescribe them for others. they are as follows. 1. There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. ”Relative right” is understanding “half truths” as they are; “relative wrong” is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right. 2. Act always to serve others and never to please them; these are almost always diametrically opposed paths. Be aggressively passive and be resented more than appreciated, and you will better both yourself and others. 3. There is inclination and there is duty; this is a dichotomy. If duty is endeavoured out of inclination, it is false. If duty is endeavoured solemnly, it is service. Indulging inclination is the path of relative wrong, service is the path of relative right. 4. Emotion is the forbearer of inclination. It belongs exclusively in private life. Reason is the forbearer of service. It should reign in public life. 5. Believing or disbelieving without adequate evidence is indulgence in inclination. It is relative wrong. Instead be always questioning and critical, this is service. 6. In all things, act and speak as though the world was as it should be, not as it is, and in doing so you will help to make it so. You will be perceived as a fool, a meager sacrifice. That's all I have to say for right now. I have a rarely updated blog here.
×
×
  • Create New...