Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

[AisA]

AisA: It's getting tedious to quote and respond.

So let me take a step back for a second.  First of all, I agree with the Objectivist assertion that reality exists independent of our perceptions.  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound.  This is a conclusion that I've come to by compiling many facts together and finding a common thread.  This is the way it always happens.  You observe data, see how it fits together, and draw conclusions.  I have no reason to doubt the data and won't until someone shows me sufficient evidence that I should.  The fitting together of the pieces and drawing conclusions are the more creative, interpretive steps of the process.  How much data I have, and what data it is, will change how I interpret it. 

This is how scientists always do it.  Suppose I'm in the school of Newtonian physics, and then Einstein comes along with his crazy theories.  Suddenly, a new conclusion has been drawn that explains parts that weren't understood before.  I would be irrational to refuse to accept the new theory.  It would also have been false to say that Newton had found the objective truth. 

What do you mean by "objective truth"? If you mean a statement that applies independent of any context, Objectivism holds that there is no such thing. All knowledge is contextual, in the sense that, except for the perceptually self-evident, all knowledge depends on other knowledge; and any new knowledge must be verified by integration with what is already known to be true.

Even the three basic axioms of Objectivism have a context: reality.

Every valid scientific theory, in effect, comes with a preamble: "Based on everything known at present, the following theory explains all the known observations."

New, additional observations may require an additional theory or a refinement of the theory. However, it is important to note that Einstein did not refute Newton; he augmented Newton.

All of the technology and machinery built around Newtonian physics did not suddenly cease to function once Einstein was published. Watt’s steam engines continued to power machines. The Wright Brothers airplane continued to fly. Edison’s light bulbs continued to burn. Apples still fell to the ground. All of Newton's physics still apply in a certain context, which means, within a certain realm of observations. As phenomena were observed outside the realm that Newton dealt with, it was discovered that Newton's physics did not explain these new observations and additional theories had to be developed.

The important thing to remember is that this does not mean Newton was wrong. Nor does it necessarily mean that all theories must be accepted as less than 100% accurate. It means they must be accepted as applicable to the context in which they were derived. The fact that additional observations may require a new theory does not change the truth of the old theory within its realm.

He had drawn a conclusion with the data he had and it made sense at the time.  Then when conflicting data came about, the theory had to be re-evaluated (because contradictions don't exist, right?) 

Now, the conclusion I am drawing is that this is a trend that will continue with the progress of technology.  I see no evidence that we will eventually know everything as a race.  If someone can prove it to me within a decent margin of error, I'll change my mind.

Things may be discovered that your current theories cannot explain, but that will not change the fact that your current theories (provided they are true) do explain your current observations. The acquisition of new knowledge does not cancel prior knowledge.

Consider, by way of illustration, the evolution of one disease theory. A long time ago, a certain disease seemed to afflict those who slept with their windows open far more often than those who did not. So it was theorized that the disease was somehow associated with the air, and it was named Malaria, which means, literally bad air.

People began to sleep with their windows shut, which did in fact cut down on the incidence of the disease.

Later, it was discovered that the disease was caused by a parasite transmitted by mosquito bite. This knowledge led to a far more effective means of fighting the disease: mosquito eradication.

Now, observe that the original "bad air" theory has been refined, not refuted. It is still true that the disease is associated with the air, inasmuch as mosquitoes fly through the air; it is still true that sleeping with the windows open increases the chances of contracting the disease and it is still true that closing the windows helps prevent the disease. None of our observations about reality were wrong. Our grasp of the cause has simply been refined.

Note that we may eventually discover that the parasite is not the ultimate cause of the disease. We may find that it releases some other agent that makes us sick. If so, this will refine, not refute our current theory; mosquito eradication will not suddenly cease to work for preventing the disease. However, our new information may suggest still better ways of preventing the disease.

Now, there are indeed some false theories floating around. There are two ways to identify them.

First, any theory that projects or accepts contradictions or violations of the law of identity may be dismissed. The alleged wierdness of quantum mechanics, for example, that purports to prove that things can simultaneously exist and not exist is obviously false. Even if at present we do not have an explanation for the behavior of sub-atomic particles, we do not accept irrational theories; instead, we keep working to find a rational one. (Which has largely been accomplished for quantum mechanics, in case you are interested. )

Second, any theory or model that does not adequately explain the current observations must be viewed with suspicion. For instance, the global warming models cannot accurately account for current temperature levels – much less predict future temperatures. In all probability future observations will refute this theory, not refine it.

You seem to think that without being certain of my conclusions, I am paralyzed in life.  But not at all.  I am more flexible because I keep an open mind, and don't get stuck in dogma shit. 

All that said, there are different levels of certainty, based on how much evidence there is.  The theories of gravity and evolution, for instance, are much more solid than sociology, psychology, and politics.  If I believe that I will survive without food, based on little or no evidence, then I am acting irrationally.  But political, economic, and sociological theories are much less developed.  To say that one path is the objectively correct one is essentially saying that you know this to be true now and forever.  I can't see how that is possible, given that paradigm shifts occur regularly in history.

Science and philosophy are not the same thing. Science deals with far more specialized subject matter, while philosophy deals with broad, universal principles.

Regarding "paradigm shifts", let us consider one set of facts about man.

Man survives by using his mind. From the simplest needs for food, shelter and clothing to the most advanced life-saving medicine, man must use a process of thought to discover how to produce the things he needs to survive. To remain alive, he must think.

Granted, some men may survive without thinking, by repeating a work procedure invented by others or by stealing what others produce, but this does not change the fact that unless someone thinks, no one will survive.

However, to think, to act and to produce requires one basic precondition: one must be free from the initiation of physical force by others. The mind does not work under compulsion.

Man lives by his mind, but those who initiate force seek to negate the mind; they seek to interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man’s mind and reality. A thief initiates the use of force to take your property because your mind will not give it to him voluntarily. A dictator initiates force to rule you because your mind will not obey him voluntarily. A murderer initiates force to take your life because your mind will not surrender it voluntarily.

In every case, force is initiated to negate the mind, to negate the tool that makes human survival possible. This is why Objectivism holds that the initiation of force is an evil that can never be tolerated or sanctioned. Whoever initiates force, to the extent that he does so, abdicates his status as a human being, surrendering his own rights in the process.

The moral principle of non-initiation of force is also the only practical principle for organizing a society. This is why totalitarian states like the old Soviet Union result in mass death and misery. This is why a (relative) paradise of freedom like the United States creates the greatest technological and economic achievements in history.

This is why a country like East Germany had to build walls to keep its citizens in, and why a country like the U.S. has to build walls to keep aliens out.

This bare-bones description of the nature of man is the root of Objectivist ethics and politics. Objectivism has far more to say on these subjects, but we will stop here for now.

Now, what sort of “paradigm shift” can change the nature of man?

What sort of “paradigm shift” can make the initiation of force to steal a man’s property good, and the act of production evil?

What sort of “paradigm shift” can make dictatorship and slavery the right way for men to live, and constitutionally limited government and freedom the wrong way for men to live?

The answer is: none. The nature of man, like the nature of reality, is immutable. You will never wake up to discover that man can live without thinking; it will never become true that man can survive by destruction instead of production.

We can, therefore, apply certain moral and political principles without fear of them being invalidated by paradigm shifts.

This is not inconsistent with the notion that all knowledge is contextual. The context for the statements about the nature of man is: everything we have learned about man and how he survives, under normal conditions, on planet earth. The moral and political principles we derive from these observations about the nature of man, such as the non-initiation of force principle, apply to that context and no other.

There is obviously a great deal more to say here, but I will stop for your reaction.

[Iakeo]

AisA is a great person.

An excellent explanation.

Keep that ratchet of truth going..!!

-Iakeo

[heizeus]

The one "dogma" we are allowed is "there should be no dogma".

No, because it isn't dogma. It's a theory. A hypothesis that hasn't been proven wrong.

I say there is no way to be absolutely accurate, but it is possible to be absolutely

certain. I am absolutely certain that existence exists, and that the more I find out

about it, the better able I'll be to provide for my own happiness.

But there are situations where absolutely certainty wouldn't be possible without absolute accuracy. Politics, in particular.

No. "I" won't last long enough, and I don't think this particular "phase" of the

universe will last long enough either.

I'm curious what you mean by this "phase."

[EC]

But there are situations where absolutely certainty wouldn't be possible without absolute accuracy.  Politics, in particular.

Nonsense. You can be absolutely certain that only capitalism and all ideas leading from it are the only correct ones in politics with no uncertainty whatsoever.

[Iakeo]

No, because it isn't dogma.  It's a theory.  A hypothesis that hasn't been proven wrong.

Word games. Thanks for playing.

I'm curious what you mean by this "phase."

Not much. It's just an equivocation to account for the fact that I don't know what

happens, over all of time, to the physical aspects of reality, on which my ability

to "know everything" depends.

Reality, though, remains reality.

-Iakeo

[heizeus]

What do you mean by "objective truth"?  Even the three basic axioms of Objectivism have a context: reality.

Since "reality" is a fairly all-encompassing context, that is practically contextless. Most everything is assumed to be "within reality."

Every valid scientific theory, in effect, comes with a preamble: "Based on everything known at present, the following theory explains all the known observations."

And this has been my point all along about knowledge in general. For more individual theories like politics, the preamble is "Based on everything I know at present..."

As for all the other stuff about a paradigm shift making the initiation of force right, I agree with you. I'm not advocating the initiation of force being right, and in fact, this whole conversation was started because I was saying that the initiation of force is flat wrong, even when you can use a logical slight of hand to say that a possible threat is equivalent to the initation of force.

[heizeus]

I was racking my brain, trying to come up with a good example to illustrate my point. Then this one comes falling into my lap. Thank you.

Nonsense. You can be absolutely certain that only capitalism and all ideas leading from it are the only correct ones in politics with no uncertainty whatsoever.

Ok, first off. Remember in elementary school where they gave us a list of statements and we had to label them either 'fact' or 'opinion'? The above statement would be labeled opinion. Opinions by definition are subjective.

"What makes it subjective?" I hear you ask. Well, first we have to define 'correct' which requires some objective standards of what a correct political system is. So there would be measures of income and productivity, of course. Then maybe mental health would be an important measure, since a society of depressed people doesn't seem to have the correct system in place. Now you may consider the first one more important, and I would probably go with the latter. But we're still not done, since we have to decide on criteria to objectively measure income, productivity, and mental health. So, does the correct system have everyone with enough money to survive? I doubt you think so. But I do, because I think many social problems are solved by an equitable system. Subjectivity. But let's say that we can agree that the correct system has people getting the amount of pay they deserve for the work they do. Then we have to decide what jobs deserve what pay, I guess by rating their importance. More subjectivity. As for mental health, how do you measure whether someone is happy? There are various tests that claim to measure mental health, but which one is correct? Can we absolutely verify that? Every one of these questions can be boiled down to more 'why's and 'how's ad infinitum.

In addition to that, there is the possibility that there is some variation of an existing political system that might work, or one that hasn't been thought up yet, that would work better than capitalism. Who knows? We know there are major flaws in dictatorships and they haven't work in the past. But both communism and anarchism have worked on a small scale in native tribes. But then, it depends on how you subjectively define "worked." I seriously doubt either one can work on a major scale, as has been shown over and over, but maybe it's more dependent on how many people there are and whether it's a democracy vs. a dictatorship. All the communist countries so far have been dictatorships, so it's sort of hard to separate the 2 variables. If I had to put my money down on one system, I'd go with small-scale capitalism. I think the big flaw is trying to run these huge governmental (and corporate) institutions. There's a reason why so few animals are as big as a whale. Too many people, too many variables. But that's just a subjective theory built upon the objective facts I know.

So, in conclusion, I ask, how can you be certain that your statement is correct? You can have a good idea, but certainty doesn't seem possible to me without omniscience. How am I wrong?

Iakeo:

Word games is all we've been playing this whole time. Dogma is "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." A dogma that says that doesn't claim to be absolutely true is impossible. It's not dogma. That's like saying that a scientific theory is dogma.

[AisA]

As for all the other stuff about a paradigm shift making the initiation of force right, I agree with you.  I'm not advocating the initiation of force being right, and in fact, this whole conversation was started because I was saying that the initiation of force is flat wrong, even when you can use a logical slight of hand to say that a possible threat is equivalent to the initation of force.

I covered a lot of ground in my last post. You have commented on only a small part of it, which you appear to agree with. This leaves me wondering about your position on the rest.

However, if you are willing to state that the initiation of force is "flat wrong", and that no paradigm shift or newly discovered knowledge is going to change that, then we have something on which we can agree.

What "logical sleight of hand" are you referring to?

[plaintext]

...first we have to define 'correct' which requires some objective standards of what a correct political system is.  So there would be measures of income and productivity, of course.  Then maybe mental health would be an important measure, since a society of depressed people doesn't seem to have the correct system in place.

Objectivism rejects this line of reasoning. Economics might tell you that capitalism is "better" because it produces more, etc.. Objectivism does not take this tack. To Objectivism, the only justification of capitalism is that it is the morally right system. That is what makes it correct.

To argue that it is not correct, you have to take a step back and argue with Objectivism's Ethics.

[heizeus]

Objectivism rejects this line of reasoning. Economics might tell you that capitalism is "better" because it produces more, etc.. Objectivism does not take this tack. To Objectivism, the only justification of capitalism is that it is the morally right system. That is what makes it correct.

When the measure of morality is based on self-interest, then the morally right system is the one that works best for you individually. Besides, my argument about politics could easily be used for morality, in that you can keep asking why and how forever. At some point, you have to make a subjective decision. It may seem objectively true to you, but with more information, you might change your mind. (This is the general 'you'. I'm not putting you personally in the spotlight here.)

To argue that it is not correct, you have to take a step back and argue with Objectivism's Ethics.

I suppose that's what I've been doing, trying to understand it more thoroughly. I know there is something I'm missing.

[Capitalism Forever]

heizeus, if you are honestly interested in Objectivism, please read Dr. Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand so you have a basis on which to discuss the philosophy with us.

If you are not, please quit posting here. The rules of the forum do not allow using it to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism and if you continue doing so, you will be banned.

[softwareNerd]

When the measure of morality is based on self-interest, then the morally right system is the one that works best for you individually.

Not how I would formulate it; but, let me grant you this for now.

my argument about politics could easily be used for morality, in that you can keep asking why and how forever.  At some point, you have to make a subjective decision.

Just because one has to make a decision, based on "works best for you individually" does not make the decision subjective. One can make whimsical and irrational decisions. Or, one can make rational and objective ones.

This ofcourse takes the subject "one layer deeper". We now move from Ethics to Epistemology. We begin to ask: is objectivity possible? is rationality possible?

Dr. Peikoff's book, mentioned in the previous post is an excellent exposition.

If you want to focus on the epistemoligical issue of objectivity, "is-versus-ought", Analyctic-Synthetic dichotomy, then read Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

[heizeus]

heizeus, if you are honestly interested in Objectivism, please read Dr. Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand so you have a basis on which to discuss the philosophy with us.

If you are not, please quit posting here. The rules of the forum do not allow using it to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism and if you continue doing so, you will be banned.

I don't know what you guys are afraid of. I'm giving counter-arguments that you should be able to easily refute, since I'm a novice debater, at best. How can you be expected to hold your ground in the political and philosophical battleground of America if you can't hold down your own fortress against any desenting opinions? Why even have a forum for discussion if you don't want people to bring different ideas? There's nothing more boring than a room full of people who all agree everything.

I am honestly interested in Objectivism, or I wouldn't be wasting so much time here discussing with you. I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from by poking at what I see as holes in your arguments. I was expecting you to show me how I'm looking at it wrong, and for the most part, that's true. But if you feel threatened by my very presence here, then I'm starting to wonder if you guys don't see the holes too. I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged (working on it for the 2nd time now), The Virtue of Selfishness (half of it), Anthem, We the Living, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and For the New Intellectual. So it's not like I'm just some guy who's popping in for an argument. I haven't read Peikoff's book, and intend to do so, but sometimes the best way to learn something is through debate.

[heizeus]

Alright. *cracks knuckles* Let's give this a try:

New, additional observations may require an additional theory or a refinement of the theory.  However, it is important to note that Einstein did not refute Newton; he augmented Newton.

Yes, this is true. But the same could be said for any political system. It may explain some situations, but not all. A perfect system has not yet been invented, or at least not implemented, since I haven't heard of a real Utopia. Could it exist?

The important thing to remember is that this does not mean Newton was wrong.  Nor does it necessarily mean that all theories must be accepted as less than 100% accurate.  It means they must be accepted as applicable to the context in which they were derived.  The fact that additional observations may require a new theory does not change the truth of the old theory within its realm.

Ok, I'll grant you that, but within the context of "reality" which is what you said Objectivism is applicable, the realm is so wide (as wide as we are aware), theories cannot be accepted as 100% accurate. Newton was wrong in the enormous context of reality, and Einstein probably will be too. In their smaller contexts, they are accurate.

Things may be discovered that your current theories cannot explain, but that will not change the fact that your current theories (provided they are true) do explain your current observations.  The acquisition of new knowledge does not cancel prior knowledge.

The acquisition of new facts can cancel prior theories, which happens all the time, as in the above example. There were 2 theories that explained the same phenomena, but one of them does it better. It is more correct.

Now, observe that the original "bad air" theory has been refined, not refuted.  It is still true that the disease is associated with the air, inasmuch as mosquitoes fly through the air; it is still true that sleeping with the windows open increases the chances of contracting the disease and it is still true that closing the windows helps prevent the disease.  None of our observations about reality were wrong.  Our grasp of the cause has simply been refined.

Interesting anecdote. But if I were to believe now that malaria is caused by "bad air," I would be irrational. Right? There were several variables involved, and people were looking at the wrong one, but it just so happened that the real one was proportional to the "red herring."

Second, any theory or model that does not adequately explain the current observations must be viewed with suspicion.  For instance, the global warming models cannot accurately account for current temperature levels – much less predict future temperatures.  In all probability future observations will refute this theory, not refine it.

Before Einstein, Newtonian physics didn't explain current observations. So you are contradicting yourself here. In addition, the vast majority of scientists are in the global warming camp. I seriously doubt that's a matter of politics. More likely, the industry-funded scientists are trying are working backwards so that they can prove the theories they want to prove, as the "Creation Scientists" do.

[heizeus]

Science and philosophy are not the same thing.  Science deals with far more specialized subject matter, while philosophy deals with broad, universal principles.

Yes, the context of philosophy is much broader, and therefore has more variables and unknowns.

Man survives by using his mind.  From the simplest needs for food, shelter and clothing to the most advanced life-saving medicine, man must use a process of thought to discover how to produce the things he needs to survive. To remain alive, he must think. Granted, some men may survive without thinking, by repeating a work procedure invented by others or by stealing what others produce, but this does not change the fact that unless someone thinks, no one will survive.

Here you are pointing out that "man" survives by using his mind. "Man" meaning "mankind" or the collective sum total of men. But you are also pointing out that the individual can survive by not thinking. So the what's good for the individual is not necessarily good for society in general? I agree.

Man lives by his mind, but those who initiate force seek to negate the mind; they seek to interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man’s mind and reality.  A thief initiates the use of force to take your property because your mind will not give it to him voluntarily.  A dictator initiates force to rule you because your mind will not obey him voluntarily.  A murderer initiates force to take your life because your mind will not surrender it voluntarily. 

The Bush Administration initiated force against the civilians of Iraq to force them to have a different political system because they did not do it voluntarily (and lacked the tools to do so.)

The moral principle of non-initiation of force is also the only practical principle for organizing a society.  This is why totalitarian states like the old Soviet Union result in mass death and misery.  This is why a (relative) paradise of freedom like the United States creates the greatest technological and economic achievements in history.

Correlation does not mean causation, although I agree with your conclusion. But just pointing out how this is sort of subjective. But there seem to be enough facts that support it.

The answer is: none.  The nature of man, like the nature of reality, is immutable.  You will never wake up to discover that man can live without thinking; it will never become true that man can survive by destruction instead of production.

A man can survive by destruction. Mankind cannot, but an individual could (and many do). So saying that the world would run better if everyone acted selfishly might not solve the problem. So we need to make sure that no one can initiate force, since many people do so in their own self-interest. But then, someone comes along and defines a "yo momma" joke as an initiation of force. Then I can shoot that guy talking shit about my "momma."

The context for the statements about the nature of man is: everything we have learned about man and how he survives, under normal conditions, on planet earth.  The moral and political principles we derive from these observations about the nature of man, such as the non-initiation of force principle, apply to that context and no other.

For the vast majority of man's existence, he's existed as a social animal. He's balanced the needs for his own survival with the survival of his "tribe." Altruism (in the form of caring about people because they are people, not in the extreme of sacrificing yourself for those around you) came about from social evolution. Those who gave a shit about people around them lived longer because it was reciprocated. I don't know of any time that Objectivist principles have ever been the foundation of a society, so there's really no proof that it would work. (If you know of such a time, I'd love to hear it).

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't know what you guys are afraid of.  I'm giving counter-arguments that you should be able to easily refute, since I'm a novice debater, at best.

We are not afraid but bored. Bored of "novice debaters" like you to whom we have to explain Objectivism from the scratch.

Why even have a forum for discussion if you don't want people to bring different ideas?

We want people to bring informed ideas. We have little use for "different ideas" that are all over the mainstream media and are based on fallacies refuted by Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. What we want is new AND CORRECT ideas.

There's nothing more boring than a room full of people who all agree everything. 

If you read some of the other threads, you'll find that Objectivists disagree often, and sometimes quite vehemently. There is no danger of us all agreeing on everything.

Besides, our goal is not disagreement. Our goal is to find the correct ideas, get enough people to agree on them, and then act on them. A room full of people who know the truth and agree on it is not something boring--it is something very exciting, because the next thing that is going to happen is that these people will DO SOMETHING inspired by the truth they just found.

In the early 1770s, American colonists began to agree that they should stand up for their independence. This certainly didn't make the America of the 1770s a boring place to live in, did it?

I am honestly interested in Objectivism, or I wouldn't be wasting so much time here discussing with you.  I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from by poking at what I see as holes in your arguments.  I was expecting you to show me how I'm looking at it wrong, and for the most part, that's true.  But if you feel threatened by my very presence here, then I'm starting to wonder if you guys don't see the holes too.

As I said, we do not feel threatened by your ideas; your ideas are clearly refuted in OPAR and other Objectivist literature. We just don't want to waste our time on duplicating the refutations.

[AisA]

Ok, I'll grant you that, but within the context of "reality" which is what you said Objectivism is applicable, the realm is so wide (as wide as we are aware), theories cannot be accepted as 100% accurate.

What about the theory that it is "flat out" wrong to initiate the use of force? Are you backing off your earlier agreement that initiating force is now, and always will be, 100% wrong?

This is why I, like CF, have rapidly become bored with discussing this with you. Since, to you, a contradiction in one's position is perfectly acceptable, there is no way to settle anything.

As long as you persist in reciting the self-contradictory assertion that one cannot know anything for certain, then you are beyond the realm of reason and persuasion.

[AisA]

The Bush Administration initiated force against the civilians of Iraq to force them to have a different political system because they did not do it voluntarily (and lacked the tools to do so.)

Are you 100% sure of this theory?

[AisA]

  I am honestly interested in Objectivism, or I wouldn't be wasting so much time here discussing with you. 

Why are you interested in Objectivism.? If no theory can be accepted as 100% accurate, what makes you think there is any validity to Objectivism? Surely it is merely another flawed theory that tomorrow's discoveries will refute.

I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from by poking at what I see as holes in your arguments.

Since no theory can be 100% accurate, every argument -- including yours -- must have holes in it. So what is the point in asking us to defend them? You will merely fall back on the position, "Nah, that cannot be true because nothing can be accepted as 100% accurate."

I was expecting you to show me how I'm looking at it wrong, and for the most part, that's true.

You have been shown. But since you start from the premise that no one can be certain of anything, you will always continue to question everything. After all, you might wake up tomorrow and find that 2+2=5.

But if you feel threatened by my very presence here, then I'm starting to wonder if you guys don't see the holes too.

Your presence is not threatening, merely futile.

A quest for knowledge that begins by asserting that we can't be sure of anything is like a journey that begins with the statement that we will never know when we have reached our destination. Both are a waste of time.

I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged (working on it for the 2nd time now), The Virtue of Selfishness (half of it), Anthem, We the Living, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and For the New Intellectual.    So it's not like I'm just some guy who's popping in for an argument.

Why are you bothering with all that reading? It cannot be 100% accurate, and besides, eventfully, future discoveries are going to refute it all, so what is the point?

I haven't read Peikoff's book, and intend to do so, but sometimes the best way to learn something is through debate.

But to learn something from a debate implies that you reach some conclusion about it -- and you have already stated many times that we cannot trust our conclusions.

[Iakeo]

...How can you be expected to hold your ground in the political and philosophical battleground of America if you can't hold down your own fortress against any desenting opinions?...

You're obviously not interested in clarifying what objectivism is about. You're only

interested in being argumentative.

If you have a question for which an objectivist viewpoint would help you

understand objectivism, then ask that question.

I, personally, don't mind that your opinion dissents from objectivism, but you're

dissent is combative protest, when I'm only interested in your interest in clarifying

your understanding of objectivism.

And since this forum is "someone else's territory", you WILL be tossed across the

border for being combative.

...I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from by poking at what I see as holes in your arguments.  ...I've read The ...  ew Intellectual.    So it's not like I'm just some guy who's popping in for an argument.   ...but sometimes the best way to learn something is through debate.

You're not doing debate. Your doing "attack".

And when we answer your "hole poking", you don't take it as an answer, but a

threat, and respond with an attack.

We're tired of your (to us) senseless combative attacking.

If you've read what you say you've read, and you don't see where we're coming

from, then your only possible intent is to attack objectivism based on a

fundamental disagreement you have with it's basic premises.

What is your basic disagreement? The fundamental one?

It seems to be that you simply must have it that ALL things ultimately are opinion

and subjective, therefore ANY judgement is subjective and arbitrarily chosen.

If that is your position, then have fun with that...!

-Iakeo

Edited March 23, 2005 by Iakeo

[heizeus]

I apologize that I am coming off as combative. My frustration at the communication gap is probably showing. I do think it's funny, however, that you all find this boring, and yet are motivated to keep responding to me. But this thread feels like it has reached the end, so I will say this final thing and then be done with it.

If you have a question for which an objectivist viewpoint would help you

understand objectivism, then ask that question.

So it seems to me that morality is a human idea that was created to keep society running smoothly. Guidelines to keep mankind from exterminating himself. I don't bestow it upon some supernatural deity or anything like that. And that seems to agree with Objectivism. Now, what I don't understand is how saying that man needs to consider his own survival necessarily means acting only in his own immediate self-interest. To me, there are two extremes: individualism and collectivism. When I use the terms in this context, I'm referring to one at the exclusion of the other. So "individualism" at the extreme is me, by myself, against the world. "Collectivism" at the other extreme is a hive mind. Neither seems positive to me. It makes more sense to find a balance between the two. We evolved into social animals because there was an increase in the survival rate when people stuck together. The more we "progress", the bigger the gap between people. Objectivism seems to believe that if everyone just acts in his own self-interest, it will all work out. What is the evidence that this is true?

And when we answer your "hole poking", you don't take it as an answer, but a

threat, and respond with an attack.

My intentions aren't as hostile as you think. I don't see it as a threat but as an intellectual challenge to figure out where you and I diverge in opinion and point of view.

What is your basic disagreement? The fundamental one?

My basic disagreement is the either-or, us-vs.-them mentality I'm seeing. You are either extremely selfish, or a complete altruist who sacrifices his life for a complete stranger. If something causes you little or no harm, but would help someone else, then why not do it? I'm not advocating that you should be obligated to do it, but why wouldn't you want to? Then there's all this confusion or anger or something when I'm just trying to say that leaving the door open to the possibility that you may be wrong in your decisions, can be helpful. In my experience, when the door is closed, you can miss evidence that you are wrong because you won't see it. Scientists aren't 100% certain that evolution is true, but it's the best explanation they've found. And they are fine with that. Why not leave the door open to learn new stuff when it comes to philosophy and politics too?

As for what my interest with Objectivism is: I'm of the opinion that an element of truth (in the context of my own life, therefore it is subjective from one person to the other) is in just about every philosophy and religion. I have seen people take Christianity to the extreme of wanting to be like Jesus and sacrifice themselves for the good of others, and therefore ending up miserable. Objectivism gives the counterbalance that it is important to watch out for number one. There was a time in my life when that was a revelation, and it did help me. But I moved past it, but kept the chunks of truth that applied to my life. It seems that many here on the message board don't believe you can take segments of a philosophy piecemeal, but that's what I'm doing. I'm creating my own personal philosophy by recycling the rest. That's what Ayn did as well. I can't see how morals can be anything but subjective, since we don't absolutely know what exact path or guidelines will have the best result for mankind.

So I've said my piece and am done with this thread. Pick it apart, guys!