Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[Repairman]

Not that I've seen it, but it's a damned Disney movie; what did you expect!?

 

Also, I would like to discuss with you Disney's cartoon Pocahontas. It is dreamy, but it has interesting qualities of individualist and collectivist integration on the grounds of unconditional love.

You really ought to start over.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Repairman

[Repairman]

I most certainly hope you are not the sole advocate of Objectivism at Chicago Northwestern.

It is a strange thread, indeed, but, as I said before, it's a challenge. If you would rather prefer nonchallenging content--well, I cannot help here. You also need to realize how challenging Ayn Rand's works are. I am still in search for an adviser for my thesis, since seemingly everyone at my university is opposed to her challenge.

 

Believe me, Ilya you are anything but a challenge. You are a source of amusement. But you really ought to read the non-fiction works of Ayn Rand, and perhaps Leonard Piekoff as well, before you begin making claims of knowledge about them. It would be to your benefit. Especially if you intend to write a thesis on it.

[Ilya Startsev]

Eiuol, I realize you have humored Ilya on many postings. I am not attempting to analyze you. But do you honestly think self-identified Objectivists and other rational people should be prevented from making opposition and criticism, when, 1) this is a forum for Objectivists, 2) Ilya clearly has not made much more than a superficial study of Rand and Marx, when that should have been his first priority?

Granted, my earlier comments were a bit harsh, and I can't promise you a less acerbic approach in the future, but if you look even earlier in this thread, my comments were quite respectful and constructive.

Both points are correct. However, I accept Objectivism (as should be obvious from my "haunting" and continuous returning to your forums). I will eventually read all of Rand and probably some of Marx not just to make you happy, but because I would like to learn more. I apologize if I joined these forums prematurely, as I was afraid of doing before, even though bluecherry mentioned that there is nothing here to be afraid of and that none of you "bite." If you want to talk about the metanarrative of this thread, then consider Spiral Architect's words from my other thread: "I have gotten into some pretty drawn out conversations here too (it can be quite fun and self clarifying which is cool)" (my italics). If your discussions with me help clarify your own ideas, then be my guest and let's continue our discussions in peaceful and gracious manners.

 

I am neither an expert on Scientology nor Faith-Logic, neither would I wish to be. Both are reject objective reality.

 

But the very idea of considering either intellectual would comparable to accepting an invitation to have tea with the Mad Hatter.

 

I accept your gracious compliment for my writing, however, I will continue my attempts to thwart you until you provide a clear and comprehensive argument. So far, this has proved to be farce on an infinite scale. If in fact you understand my view, you find I have no conflict. Only conflict with you. My argument is merely commentary on what I view as unmitigated fraud. When one has a conflicted argument, when one uses subjectivity as argument, when one faces a conundrum, one's premises are in error. Check your premises.

 

Indeed, the "Mad Russian" comment was a bit over-the-top. I will try to refrain myself in the future. But you do seem to boast quite a bit about the achievements of the Soviet Union, and Russians in general, as if you had something to do with their accomplishments by virtue of "being Russian." No one will blame you personally for atrocities committed by Russians, as long as you likewise don't try to take credit for their achievements.

 

So, integrate what ever you can. Don't let me stop you. But remember: you can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

My premises, which you should already well know, are: extreme, opposite, critical point. Are they wrong? You only seem to deny the critical point (grey), which is subjective.

Oh, but please call me Russian. I associate myself with the Slavic race and the Russian traditions and culture. They are inherent to and inseparable from my being. And I am proud of achievements of Russians and Soviets. I do not think that you should group Hitler's Germans with Stalin's Russians, though. Sure, Stalin killed many soldiers and generals in order to prevent a retreat, but if he hadn't done that, Russia would had fallen.

Please, tell me where I ignore reality. I do not ignore any realities out there. Instead, I allow space for all possible realities, including our own. Please, keep in mind that there are more realities than your own.

[bluecherry]

"The space inside the house is a part of the house . . ."

This is basically where we started with this branch of the conversation. You claim space inside stuff is part of the stuff and I claim that this is not necessarily so. Insides of an apple? Yep, part of the apple. The apple is not hollow. Me in the house? Not part of the house. The house is hollow. Suppose I put some gum in a rat's mouth. The gum is immediately now part of the rat? Now suppose I take the gum out of the rat's mouth and wrap the rat in it. Is the rat now part of the gum? I really want to say that location should not determine the identity of something, that it should be the same thing even if you move it around. However, you started off claiming location to be part of the thing/part of it's identity, so I expect you'll just say that the location does determine the identity. Whatever is on the outside at any given moment is the main object and everything and anything inside is part if that main, outer object is what I'm getting from what you've been saying. If this is what you believe, then I think this branch of the conversation has hit a dead end. There's nothing else I can really say to the whole "inside something = part of something, location changes/determines identity" thing except, "Nope, false."

 

Your very concept of identity seems to be flawed. Correcting a flawed concept of identity is something very difficult. I'm not sure I personally would know where and how to start since "identity" is on of the things in Objectivism known as an "axiomatic concept." An axiomatic concept means you can't keep breaking it down into further concepts it is composed of because this concept is one of the very bottom ones, it's part of the base upon which all other concepts are built, there is no further down to go. The only way to learn axiomatic concepts is through observation of things in reality and undergoing the process of concept formation working from those observed things in reality instead of just working off of other concepts.

 

These two pages talk a bit more about axiomatic concepts and concept formation. They only contain some passages from Rand's non-fiction writing, so no spoilers. I was going to link to the page for "identity" too, but that one does have spoilers.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concept-formation.html

 

"So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up?"

Actually, if I'm already in the intersection when it turns yellow, stopping is a terrible idea and I would indeed want to speed up to clear out of there asap. Also, I said to begin with "one may go" and "one may not", not "stop." Green also doesn't mean "go fast" specifically either, just that one may go, period. It doesn't dictate what speed you go at. Speed limits dictate that. Yellow is still just a form of "one may go", it isn't saying one may not go right now.

 

"You missed a part of my reply."

Oh! Sorry about that. I really thought I had looked it all over. Anyway, could you please elaborate a little by specifying what is the standard by which "excessive" is determined?

 

When I looked up a definition for "rapacious", just to be thorough since you said excessive or rapacious, I got this:

adj. Taking by force; plundering.

adj. Greedy; ravenous. See Synonyms at voracious.

adj. Subsisting on live prey.

 

Taking things from others by force is already something Objectivism does not support. Also, such taking by force isn't inherent in wealth nor is a desire to take by force inherent in wealth. The second definition is a synonym, so, useless. The third definition is clearly not relevant here.

Edited February 15, 2014 by bluecherry

[Eiuol]

"Appearance"?

As in from Ilya's perspective, he'd agree that it looks bizarre. I'm not implying I think he's right, just that how it looks doesn't matter. What matters is where the error is.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Ilya, you replied to my previous post with:

 

"I do not differentiate between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' (they are a dynamic) but what I take from Marxism is a belief in society.  Let Society be undefined until we find what suits both individualists and collectivists.  This is the new direction of the thread."

 

So you define your terms according to popularity- and would like me to do the same?

Your prophecy is accurate and I would like to thank you for that prompt; that is the direction I intend to take this.  You continued:

 

"What an individual strives for is wealth.  What a collectivist strives for is a healthy society.  The unresolved conflict is between wealth and health."

 

That much is true, in a sense; the psycho-epistemological conflict which underlies and frames all human choices is between cost and benefit or, more directly, fear and greed.  So you are actually correct there, in that one aspect; the rest does not merit comment.

Speaking of greed, I took the liberty of perusing this thread in greater depth, and found some other things you've said:

 

"The problem with socialistic countries is that they do not allow the freedom of greed for the general populace.  Capitalistic countries allow such freedom.  To me, greed is a childish freedom. . .

The idea is to transmute greed into thinking about society."

 

Which is one Hell of a confession.  And there it is again; that undefined 'society' thing which is clearly the conceptual fulcrum of this endeavor.

So what have you said about 'society'?

 

"Society. . . is global communism, to me. . .  A society, for example, is Objectivism.  Softwarenerd, in this respect, being the organizer (and more) is similar to a speaker of state of a global communism. . .

He is allowing us our freedom to exist within the context of this community."

"Equate economics with a society's soul, its materializations as its circulatory system, and government equate with society's mind, its materializations with a nervous system. . .  I am simply asking our egos to expand beyond our bodies. . ."

"If an ideological interface of a society is broken. . . individuals will fall apart and nothing will help to restore a society back to norm."

 

Now, in the above we can see you denying the existence of your own consciousness over and over again.  But why?  Why would you attribute your own thoughts and ideas to the presence of other people?

You admitted that thusly:

 

". . . I like to experience a spectrum of emotions and derive equal pleasure from love and hate, joy and grief, happiness and depression, etc."

"A problem with Objectivism, you ask? . . .  Do you think that happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient?  A mental picture of happiness is but not the experience itself because, to experience an emotion, one needs to express that emotion. . .  I always thought that people enjoy emotions with others.  That's how we connect, isn't it?"

 

So let me get this straight.

You've come here to aid your own thesis paper, on integrating Objectivism with Marxism.  To that end, rather than thinking about it, your first impulse is to talk about it (and without even a minimal amount of research in advance).

You believe they can be integrated because, after all, they're only ideas.

But you don't actually want to "integrate" anything, do you?  You want to disguise your own philosophy (which I doubt you can explicitly grasp)  beneath a bunch of Ayn Rand's ideas, because you believe that such could endow some semblance of truth to your own panderings.

 

Do you sincerely believe that by amputating selfishness and greed from Objectivism, you could leave its logical structure intact?

 

Repairman:  Thank you for the observation; I'm glad I took a step back before actually plunging into this mess.

 

Ilya:  There are no other "realities" than my own, which is also yours.  Your request to "remember that there are other realities than your own" strips the root of this issue naked and, if you actually care about the truth or falsehood of a single damn thing, you'll analyze that on your own time.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Objectivism and Marxism cannot be integrated because they are logical contradictions.  Ilya wants our help in integrating a contradiction because of a fundamental, intellectual 'flexibility' (which Rand had other words for).

To continue this discussion is to try to prove that black is not white to someone who wants implicit permission to believe otherwise.

 

Live long and prosper! 

[Ilya Startsev]

 

"The space inside the house is a part of the house . . ."

This is basically where we started with this branch of the conversation. You claim space inside stuff is part of the stuff and I claim that this is not necessarily so. Insides of an apple? Yep, part of the apple. The apple is not hollow. Me in the house? Not part of the house. The house is hollow. Suppose I put some gum in a rat's mouth. The gum is immediately now part of the rat? Now suppose I take the gum out of the rat's mouth and wrap the rat in it. Is the rat now part of the gum? I really want to say that location should not determine the identity of something, that it should be the same thing even if you move it around. However, you started off claiming location to be part of the thing/part of it's identity, so I expect you'll just say that the location does determine the identity. Whatever is on the outside at any given moment is the main object and everything and anything inside is part if that main, outer object is what I'm getting from what you've been saying. If this is what you believe, then I think this branch of the conversation has hit a dead end. There's nothing else I can really say to the whole "inside something = part of something, location changes/determines identity" thing except, "Nope, false."

 

Your very concept of identity seems to be flawed. Correcting a flawed concept of identity is something very difficult. I'm not sure I personally would know where and how to start since "identity" is on of the things in Objectivism known as an "axiomatic concept." An axiomatic concept means you can't keep breaking it down into further concepts it is composed of because this concept is one of the very bottom ones, it's part of the base upon which all other concepts are built, there is no further down to go. The only way to learn axiomatic concepts is through observation of things in reality and undergoing the process of concept formation working from those observed things in reality instead of just working off of other concepts.

 

These two pages talk a bit more about axiomatic concepts and concept formation. They only contain some passages from Rand's non-fiction writing, so no spoilers. I was going to link to the page for "identity" too, but that one does have spoilers.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concept-formation.html

 

"So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up?"

Actually, if I'm already in the intersection when it turns yellow, stopping is a terrible idea and I would indeed want to speed up to clear out of there asap. Also, I said to begin with "one may go" and "one may not", not "stop." Green also doesn't mean "go fast" specifically either, just that one may go, period. It doesn't dictate what speed you go at. Speed limits dictate that. Yellow is still just a form of "one may go", it isn't saying one may not go right now.

 

"You missed a part of my reply."

Oh! Sorry about that. I really thought I had looked it all over. Anyway, could you please elaborate a little by specifying what is the standard by which "excessive" is determined?

 

When I looked up a definition for "rapacious", just to be thorough since you said excessive or rapacious, I got this:

adj. Taking by force; plundering.

adj. Greedy; ravenous. See Synonyms at voracious.

adj. Subsisting on live prey.

 

Taking things from others by force is already something Objectivism does not support. Also, such taking by force isn't inherent in wealth nor is a desire to take by force inherent in wealth. The second definition is a synonym, so, useless. The third definition is clearly not relevant here.

The inner gum is immediately a part of the rat's space, but considering that a rat does not constitute only space, it is not a complete part of the rat (in other words, there is little interaction between the two). Think this way: All the levels of the model have their own spaces. Hence, starting from particles and ending with auras, all of those entities become a part of you at least on the characteristic of space. Now, what you suggested as wrapping the rat in the gum (on a permanent basis) is the same as wrapping anything organic into anything inorganic. It's like you are wrapped by the house without ever leaving it. Do you see a problem with this? You keep viewing space as bound locations, but space is a lot more than that. Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum. Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way. In other words, space is not only a location but a distance traveled. Seemingly, Rand never integrated Einsteinian relativism into Objectivism. This is something that needs to be dealt with.

I am not breaking down the concept of identity. I am breaking down the concept of human identity (i.e., what makes us human) and an identity of anything already identified. The form remains.

I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light. I don't understand what speed has to do with traffic lights. Under yellow light you can do whatever you want, just as under any other color. Following "social contract" of road rules is not like being subjugated to a dictatorship. But notice the problems that result from always driving through the yellow light, as you pointed out earlier.

Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth, just as greed as inherent in wealth. Look at how early magnates, such as Carnagie and the Rockfellers started. Look at Russian oligarchs. Force does not have to be direct; it's simply intended to take something from others. Remember that greed affects all people, not just Objectivists, and even though Objectivist perception of wealth may not involve greed (although still arguable), Objectivists are not ruling the world and not seeing how greed affects capitalists. What's a point of spreading Objectivism if your definition does not include people who are already existing?

Also, I created a new thread on this discussion in Political forum, so please refer to it. It's called "Integrating Wealth and Health."

[Ilya Startsev]

<sigh> Since you, Harrison Danneskjold, among potential newcomers to the thread, misunderstand me so much and do not see the dynamics that I see nor separate your Environment (which you see with your own eyes) from other Environments (seen by others) from Nature (seen by the collective of humankind) and for many other reasons that would hopefully lead to a peaceful integration with the black&white Objectivism, I created a new thread in the Political forum under the name of "Integrating Wealth and Health." This thread, as pertains to the political integration of a specific individualism, viz. Objectivism, with a specific collectivism, viz. Marxism, I deem closed.

[Repairman]

 This thread, ... I deem closed.

I deem this thread absurdum ad nauseum!

[bluecherry]

"You keep viewing space as bound locations . . ."

because isn't that what it is? :/ If that is not what you are talking about, then we aren't talking about the same thing when we say "space".

 

"but space is a lot more than that."

Go for it, what is the additional or other stuff you refer to when you say "space"?

 

"Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum."

Pretty sure that the claim is he discovered that they were already integrated, not that he integrated them.

 

"Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way."

Could you give me an example or two of what you would consider to be "restricting you" and what this "dynamic relationship" would be like?

 

"space is not only a location but a distance traveled"

Wouldn't that distance traveled still just be made of a bunch of locations?

 

"I am not breaking down the concept of identity."

I didn't say you were. In fact, I was saying it can't be done. That it can't be done makes it harder for me to try to deal with any misunderstandings of the concept of "identity" than dealing with misunderstanding of other concepts which can be broken down further into other concepts they are composed of.

 

"I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light."

Just to be clear, I started off mentioning a case where stopping would be more dangerous than speeding up when the yellow light came on. I wasn't suggesting recklessness.

 

"I don't understand what speed has to do with traffic lights."

I thought you were interpreting "going slow" as the third option that the yellow light represented between green and red. Otherwise, I have no clue how you think yellow lights are neither/both "one may go" and "one may not go". All the yellow light is is "one may go" with some additional information about when it will become "one may not go" in the future. That additional information about not going is not making the light somehow be "A" and "Not A" at the same time and in the same sense nor is it making it neither "A" nor "Not A". Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to consider anything given in addition to "A" to become a new thing which is neither "A" nor "Not A" (or maybe both?), like if I had a teddy bear and a rubber ducky and a teddy bear with a blow torch in its hand I would have "A Teddy bear", "Not A Teddy Bear", and then something that is neither a Teddy Bear nor not a Teddy Bear/both a Teddy Bear and not a Teddy bear.

 

The definition of "greed" has still not been sufficiently clarified for me. I still need to know what standard something is being judged as "excessive" to. In excess of what?

 

"Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth,"

Oh really? So if I can come up with even one wealthy person that isn't a thief or aspiring thief you would admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that you believe they secretly really wanted to be thieves in spite of having no evidence?

 

"Force does not have to be direct; it's simply intended to take something from others."

I'm already counting lying to trick somebody into buying something they otherwise would not have bought and making threats of coming along and violating a person's rights if they don't buy something under the things Objectivism does not support and which are not inherent to wealth and/or free trade. Now, if you mean something else, like calling anything at all that results in one or more people handing something over to another one or more people no matter what the reason they handed it over "force", then we've got a problem. Your use of the term would include both things we already do not support (theft, fraud) and things we are not opposed to. We know why we oppose theft and fraud already, but you'd need to explain why you believe all those other things are bad too.

 

Yup, I'll check that other thread out. This thread is still for discussing all the other stuff that has come up, right?

[Ilya Startsev]

"You keep viewing space as bound locations . . ."

because isn't that what it is? :/ If that is not what you are talking about, then we aren't talking about the same thing when we say "space".

 

"but space is a lot more than that."

Go for it, what is the additional or other stuff you refer to when you say "space"?

 

"Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum."

Pretty sure that the claim is he discovered that they were already integrated, not that he integrated them.

 

"Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way."

Could you give me an example or two of what you would consider to be "restricting you" and what this "dynamic relationship" would be like?

 

"space is not only a location but a distance traveled"

Wouldn't that distance traveled still just be made of a bunch of locations?

 

"I am not breaking down the concept of identity."

I didn't say you were. In fact, I was saying it can't be done. That it can't be done makes it harder for me to try to deal with any misunderstandings of the concept of "identity" than dealing with misunderstanding of other concepts which can be broken down further into other concepts they are composed of.

 

"I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light."

Just to be clear, I started off mentioning a case where stopping would be more dangerous than speeding up when the yellow light came on. I wasn't suggesting recklessness.

 

"I don't understand what speed has to do with traffic lights."

I thought you were interpreting "going slow" as the third option that the yellow light represented between green and red. Otherwise, I have no clue how you think yellow lights are neither/both "one may go" and "one may not go". All the yellow light is is "one may go" with some additional information about when it will become "one may not go" in the future. That additional information about not going is not making the light somehow be "A" and "Not A" at the same time and in the same sense nor is it making it neither "A" nor "Not A". Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to consider anything given in addition to "A" to become a new thing which is neither "A" nor "Not A" (or maybe both?), like if I had a teddy bear and a rubber ducky and a teddy bear with a blow torch in its hand I would have "A Teddy bear", "Not A Teddy Bear", and then something that is neither a Teddy Bear nor not a Teddy Bear/both a Teddy Bear and not a Teddy bear.

 

The definition of "greed" has still not been sufficiently clarified for me. I still need to know what standard something is being judged as "excessive" to. In excess of what?

 

"Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth,"

Oh really? So if I can come up with even one wealthy person that isn't a thief or aspiring thief you would admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that you believe they secretly really wanted to be thieves in spite of having no evidence?

 

"Force does not have to be direct; it's simply intended to take something from others."

I'm already counting lying to trick somebody into buying something they otherwise would not have bought and making threats of coming along and violating a person's rights if they don't buy something under the things Objectivism does not support and which are not inherent to wealth and/or free trade. Now, if you mean something else, like calling anything at all that results in one or more people handing something over to another one or more people no matter what the reason they handed it over "force", then we've got a problem. Your use of the term would include both things we already do not support (theft, fraud) and things we are not opposed to. We know why we oppose theft and fraud already, but you'd need to explain why you believe all those other things are bad too.

 

Yup, I'll check that other thread out. This thread is still for discussing all the other stuff that has come up, right?

Here is a definition of space in Mathematics: "a system of objects with relations between the objects defined" (dictionary.com). In other words, space is not a point but at least a segment that consists of two points. Einstein discovered but also integrated spacetime in our minds. Besides, he discovered it by a thought experiment and was later proven correct by physical evidence. An immovable particle (think of a point) has a location but does not have space. Once there is a distance traveled we have space, and imagine how much of it is in our bodies.

Concerning dynamic relationships, Body takes in many things from its Environment. We consume liquids and solid food (whether minerals, nutrients, carbonaceous or some other organic compounds, etc), we breathe in air (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, etc.), we absorb reflected light (photons), and we share in electromagnetic fields and spacetime (including gravity). These are the types of interactions we have with our natural environments. Artificial environments restrict us because we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments. Hence the restrictions of civilization that ultimately will transform humankind into artificial transhumans.

The reason I say that yellow light is neither "go" nor "not go" is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is "go," and my grandpa said that it is "not go." Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both. You are correct in considering that anything in addition to "A," if it's inseparable from it, is also "not A." But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. Although the teddy bear example is taken to an extreme, let's still try to solve it. I use identity associations. Here is how I look at it: you have a teddy bear, a rubber ducky, and another teddy bear with a blow torch, and they are all toys, but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time. There is no continuum here like in a color spectrum example, so there is nothing to integrate, just to see how things are the same and/or different at the same time. However, if the second teddy bear held a smaller rubber ducky, which we would give an equal importance as the other rubber ducky, we could then say that that teddy bear is both "A" and "not A," but I don't see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane.

 

Wealth divides people and thus divides the whole world. You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing. There is always someone who suffers for it because of your taking. The perpetuation of wealth (greed) only leads to more energetic imbalance worldwide. America is #1 not just because it is the best, but because it is the best at taking energy and resources (including humans) from other countries. It is a form of vampirism. The new thread on this topic is posted in Debate Forums: Integrating Wealth and Health. You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums, and although you don't get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside, so that I try sometimes to avoid your forums and wish that you would not reply, so I don't have to. You see, I am as if cursed with all my opinions and beliefs because I know that people hate them, but I cannot let them go because that's how I feel - I feel that they are right, and if I lose the feeling, I would be very unhappy.

[Repairman]

It's alive, it's alive, it's alive!!

 

 

Wealth divides people and thus divides the whole world. You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing. There is always someone who suffers for it because of your taking. The perpetuation of wealth (greed) only leads to more energetic imbalance worldwide. America is #1 not just because it is the best, but because it is the best at taking energy and resources (including humans) from other countries. It is a form of vampirism.

Ranking America as "#1"? By what standard?

 

Indeed, the United States of America draws resources and talented individuals from around the world for many reasons. Drawing the life out of other nations is not one of those reasons, as believed by the "Blame America First Committee." There is a saying: People vote with their feet. Literal translation: When free people have reason to move, they move. The creator and primary contributor to this thread has willfully admitted that his origins and place of birth are the (late) great people's Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Furthermore, he seems to believe that some of the scientific and technical achievements of the Soviet-era are justification for hundreds of millions of deaths to his fellow Russians, less-than fellow Ukrainians, as well as non-Slavic ethnic minorities within the reach of Soviet-era authorities. And heroes of the USSR? Let us not forget one the most revered and brilliant Soviet scientists: Andrei Sakorov. His reward for developing his nation's hydrogen-fusion weapon, as well as numerous other scientific advances, was to be shut-up and treated as a threat to state authority. His crime was attempting to speak the truth.

 

When a state controls science, science will be subject to the wishes of men with war on their minds. Granted, the Soviet Union had every reason to wish to protect its borders, as do all nations. Within those borders, horrors no less horrifying as those of the Third Reich were pursued as only Soviet-statist monsters could perpetrate. A brilliant scientist, or even a humble small-arms designer, such as Mikhail Kaloshnikov, uses the creative power endowed by his gifted mind, and produces for the state. Then, he wonders: What have I done? The recent passing of Kaloshnikov (sic) allowed a cleric in whom he trusted to reveal a letter he wrote, expressing the regrets he had for all of the destruction resulting from his creation. I personally believe he was guilty of nothing other than his own personal behavior. But the total control of people through the state is the greatest danger confronting us now, just as it was in the Cold War.

 

America: #1? By what standard? Certainly my nation has committed crimes of immorality, not least of which was enslavement of peoples abducted from slave-ships and their homelands in Africa. Many were worked to their deaths, and no apologies can undo the damage. The sins of our past are only one part of our conundrum of the present. In time, this too shall pass. And all Americans will understand the freedom to build a better future through capitalism. It is our principles that make this possible. Among those principles is the right of every man and woman to raise themselves to what ever levels of success their talents and tenacity permit them. The state be damned.

 

You talk of absorbing the resources of other peoples, as vampires? Those other peoples are compensated with mutual consent. If their nations' leaders are controlling their resources, rather than private companies, blame their socialist leaders, not America. Better yet, go to those nations and demand better treatment of their common people. Right-like that's gonna happen! If you went to Putin's Russia, you'd be dead on arrival.

 

You are alive; you have consciousness. In America, you may use it anyway that doesn't violate the law. When the day comes that we have a fully-functional capitalist society, all individuals will pursue their dreams, hindered only by market forces. But for those who decry America as a heartless engine of destruction, merely for engaging in commerce, I take great pleasure in driving the proverbial stake through your argument.

 

(apologies for any misspelled Russian names)

[Ilya Startsev]

There will be no total control of people. We are past that. It's history. Just let it go.

America is #1 in the size of the economy, Communists are #1 in the growth of their economy, if I remember correctly.

Vampires do not hurt people, they simply create an imbalance of life forces. Big fish eat small fish. No one fish is wrong, only the actions are. In free market capitalism that vampirism will be mutual. Let's live and see how it would work out for everyone, not just for you and me.

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?

[Repairman]

All too true: vampires do not hurt people; they are mythical. Communists kill, and they are quite real.

 

There will be no total control of people. We are past that. It's history. Just let it go.

America is #1 in the size of the economy, Communists are #1 in the growth of their economy, if I remember correctly.

Vampires do not hurt people, they simply create an imbalance of life forces. Big fish eat small fish. No one fish is wrong, only the actions are. In free market capitalism that vampirism will be mutual. Let's live and see how it would work out for everyone, not just for you and me.

We are hardly past the the point of history, where we can ignore the progressive nature of statism. Statism may take the form of governments self-identifying as communist, socialist, or even liberal democracies. or possibly even the Self-Dictatorship of Faith-Logic. It all begins with the primacy of consciousness, a denial of reality on a metaphysical level. It is the first step in denial of man's true nature. This opens the way to such absurd notions as: man lives for his country. Such mushy philosophy has made a sacrificial animal of man throughout history. Maybe parasitic dictatorships and vampires are OK by you, but in a free-market capitalist society, they may find that the price of blood they had once had for little or no cost is much higher than in the past.

And they'd have to pay for the fish, too, if they want to eat'em.

[bluecherry]

"a system of objects with relations between the objects defined"

Yup, we're not talking about the same thing as each other when we've been saying "space." Sans perhaps whatever the absolutely most basic, smallest forms of stuff that everything else is composed of (which are not points, points as defined in math are purely a conceptual thing, just a way to refer to a single aspect of locations even though that one aspect cannot ever be had on its own in reality), everything contains some kind of system of objects. You could say that the systems are part of the things, sure. That's got nothing to do with the location of that thing compared to other things outside the object though, not unless maybe we start referring to another, bigger object, like going from referring to one single atom to talking about a whole bar of gold. The identity of that one single atom would be the same still if you moved it some place else outside the bar of gold.

 

" . . . we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments . . ."

How is this restricting? And if it is restricting, what makes the restriction bad? Additionally, technically, no matter what we do it would still be a natural environment. Everything that can exist is natural. This point about "natural" may not be all that important though to the current topic.

 

"The reason I say that yellow light is neither 'go' nor 'not go' is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is 'go,'and my grandpa said that it is 'not go.' Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both."

Nope, I'm right, he's wrong. Here's a simple proof that yellow is a form of "one may go": You cannot be ticketed for driving when the light is yellow, only when it is red. If you got through the intersection just by the skin of your teeth before the light turned red, still no ticket. The instant the light turns red though, you can get ticketed if you go through that intersection. So, you MAY keep going when the light is yellow, but depending upon circumstances, it may not be a good idea to keep going just because you still may. "May do so" doesn't necessarily mean you must do so. Yellow light says you may go, not if you should or should not. Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow.

 

"You are correct in considering that anything in addition to 'A,' if it's inseparable from it, is also 'not A.'"

Do you mean that an "A" with anything else added to it is now also a "Not A"? I want to make sure I'm clear on what you were saying here.

 

"But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. . . . but I don't see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane."

Or maybe, the problem isn't the black and white identity mechanic but that you're just wrong. ;D

 

" . . . but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time."

Sounds like you've already declared them both to be "A"s, not some third option. I'd say both of them are Teddy bears too. With and without blowtorch could just be considered two sub-types of Teddy bears, like how there are brown eggs and white eggs, but both are still eggs. As for the bear with a rubber ducky, supposing we do not treat the ducky as part of the bear, then I'd say we have a group of things - a Teddy bear and a rubber ducky - not just one thing which is both/neither Teddy bear and/or rubber ducky. If we wanted to refer to the group as a whole with the ducky still being treated like it isn't part of the bear, we'd need to come up with something else to call said group rather than just calling it "a Teddy bear" or "a rubber ducky".

 

"You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing."

I mentioned earlier on in the thread that I thought it sounded like you may be of the belief that wealth (or maybe I said value or something else like that, but not important yet) is a fixed quantity and I see I was right. I also said though that Objectivism does not hold wealth to be a fixed quantity and instead holds that it can be created. Do you believe that every person on earth sum total on average has the same standard of living (or less maybe? just want to be thorough again)  now as they did way back tens of thousands of years ago or more? I don't. I think we've got wildly higher standards on the whole. We didn't poof energy or matter into existence though (maybe converted some of them back and forth, but not poofed them up out of nowhere). What we did was come up with ways to use what exists that give us more benefit. For example, if you had a stick you could use it to poke food to eat with. However, this wouldn't work for hard or crumbly food. If you broke the stick in half and used the pieces like chopsticks though, then you could pick up all the same food you could before AND the hard/crumbly stuff. Same amount of stuff, increased value though due to a change in how we used the stuff. No other person suffered any loss in order for this increase in value to come to the person with the stick.

 

Kind of aside here: "You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums" Huh? That's not true. There's nothing against discussing things with you as such. The forum does have some rules for discussion (namely that the purpose of the forum is discussing Objectivism primarily, so something like somebody coming along for the sole purpose of trying to get us to vote for so and so on American Idol or convert us to Christianity would be unwelcome), but I'd say Objectivism is still definitely part of the topic. I'm not being asked to answer you from whatever perspective a Platonist might take for example. This is far from the only time we have discussed things about Objectivism on this forum with people who were not themselves supporters of the philosophy. We've had plenty of long discussions with some such people. I do think it was a good idea to move the "society" political issue to the debate forum though. That's generally the section of the forums most suited for discussion with non-Objectivists who aren't just asking us what we believe but also attempting to counter what we tell them we believe.

 

"although you don't get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside"

It happens to everybody at some point - or more likely, at multiple points. You've got to not worry about what others think is true and focus on what is true. If you really, truly believe you are correct, then there's no reason to feel bad just because somebody else doesn't agree, doesn't like it, may not be nice about it. Believe me, I may be in the majority on this forum, but in the rest of life I'm definitely in a minority and encounter plenty of hating on my own convictions. Claims like having me as a supporter of Objectivism having no feelings, being willing to sell out a friend for a dollar, being responsible for the suffering of other innocent people and so on - things like you've had to say in this thread and your other one already - are very common. I'm certain they are wrong about all of that though, so I'm not ashamed. If other people are wrong about Objectivism and the world and me, that's their problem, not mine, just as long as they don't try to use physical force against me because of it. Rest assured we don't intend to try to use physical force against you, we're not a threat. As abrasive as much of this discussion may be, it's worth noting that we believe Objectivism can be a huge benefit to you. We don't wish you ill, we wish you well. In general, we wish everybody well. It's kind of a "tough love" sort of situation here though in a way because, while in the short term being told things like that you are wrong about strong, cherished views of the world (and coming to realize yourself that they are wrong, if you ever do get there) can be very unpleasant, overall in the long run we contend that there's more to help you be happy in the rest of your lifetime in what we have to say than how much potential there is for bad feelings encountered right away while in the discussion.

 

(Not that I think ALL harsh things in this thread have been necessary and merited though.)

 

"bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?"

Assuming you don't mean the debate forum (I expect that should be easy enough to find that you've found it already), could you please refer me to which specific post number of mine in this thread you are talking about?

[Repairman]

"They are children of the night; what beautiful music they make!"-Count Dracula

 

Both points are correct. However, I accept Objectivism (as should be obvious from my "haunting" and continuous returning to your forums). I will eventually read all of Rand and probably some of Marx not just to make you happy, but because I would like to learn more. I apologize if I joined these forums prematurely, as I was afraid of doing before, even though bluecherry mentioned that there is nothing here to be afraid of and that none of you "bite." ... If your discussions with me help clarify your own ideas, then be my guest and let's continue our discussions in peaceful and gracious manners.

 

My premises, which you should already well know, are: extreme, opposite, critical point. Are they wrong? You only seem to deny the critical point (grey), which is subjective.


Please, tell me where I ignore reality. I do not ignore any realities out there. Instead, I allow space for all possible realities, including our own. Please, keep in mind that there are more realities than your own.

While this almost appears as a declaration of surrender, it hardly passes as sincere. You claim you accept Objectivism, yet you have only the most superficial understanding of it, that is, you've read some of the fiction and none of the non-fiction, other than Objectivist Lexicon. Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy with no conflicting or contradicting areas. Yet, you persist with your desire to create "Society," as a form of global Marxism on yet another thread of your creation. As for you premises of extremes, they expose your lack of definition; they are merely words listed in a sequence that has esoteric meaning to you alone, or perhaps some of the others, but I doubt they could make anything meaningful out your "models." In order to even grasp the fundamentals of Objectivism, one must accept reality, and the fact that reality exists as an absolute with you or without you. Your premise seems to imply that through your conscious effort, reality can be what ever you wish it to be. It may not be the sort of philosophy that molds itself to your desires, but it is infallible in dialectic. As I have suggested from my first entry on your thread, read the non-fiction Ayn Rand, not for me or anyone else. Do it for yourself.

 

Obectivists aren't out for blood, but we will bite in defense of the truth.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The "Grey area" seems to refer to the 'value of compromise'.

Metaphysically, there are grey areas in specific relation to our own concepts; borderline cases like the optical illusion of the vase faces.

Beyond borderline cases a bear is a bear and a duck is a duck. Else our concepts could not refer to much of anything, in which case all science and innovation would not be possible.

The grey areas in Objectivism are few and far between. There's some dispute over a few of the more obscure details.

For example, there have been some debates over whether the concept of "intellectual property" is consistent with Capitalism. However, considering how such contentions relate to the philosophy as a whole, it's a fairly straightforward framework.

If your goal is truly comprehension then detailed metaphysics is slightly premature. The knowledge of your own method of gaining knowledge, and its subsequent relation to your own well-being, is prerequisite.

Of what value is a belief in gravity?

Consequently, what is the purpose of knowledge?

Edited February 17, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Because IF the purpose of knowledge is to anticipate the consequences of, and thusly enhance the effectiveness of your own actions, THEN your absolutely FIRST priority should be to acquire relevant [to you] knowledge which is externally accurate and internally coherent, in order to fulfill that purpose.

And Bluecherry's right, by the way, about tough love. I know what it's like to have your pet theories smashed apart here by the cold, hard truth.

But if the purpose of knowledge is not the guidance of action, but the maintenance of one's sense of intellectual worth, then there is no reason to believe in anything in particular.

In which case no meaningful discussion is necessary or possible. And, on a more personal level, neither is cognition.

So that absolutely must come before metaphysics and epistemology, in this context. If you're sincere then it'll give you the tools you'll need to understand.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

One final thing. Most people here consider an "Objectivist" to be someone who has read, understood and agreed with everything Ayn Rand ever wrote. So if you're expressing anything that Rand didn't also express, you might catch less flack if you explicitly claim some form of de facto non-objectivist status.

It's stupid. But tolerating it can greatly assist with the discourse of truly beneficial ideas.

[Ilya Startsev]

And they'd have to pay for the fish, too, if they want to eat'em.

You can buy a lot in today's world. But do the means justify the ends?

 

"a system of objects with relations between the objects defined"

Yup, we're not talking about the same thing as each other when we've been saying "space." Sans perhaps whatever the absolutely most basic, smallest forms of stuff that everything else is composed of (which are not points, points as defined in math are purely a conceptual thing, just a way to refer to a single aspect of locations even though that one aspect cannot ever be had on its own in reality), everything contains some kind of system of objects. You could say that the systems are part of the things, sure. That's got nothing to do with the location of that thing compared to other things outside the object though, not unless maybe we start referring to another, bigger object, like going from referring to one single atom to talking about a whole bar of gold. The identity of that one single atom would be the same still if you moved it some place else outside the bar of gold.

 

" . . . we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments . . ."

How is this restricting? And if it is restricting, what makes the restriction bad? Additionally, technically, no matter what we do it would still be a natural environment. Everything that can exist is natural. This point about "natural" may not be all that important though to the current topic.

 

"The reason I say that yellow light is neither 'go' nor 'not go' is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is 'go,'and my grandpa said that it is 'not go.' Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both."

Nope, I'm right, he's wrong. Here's a simple proof that yellow is a form of "one may go": You cannot be ticketed for driving when the light is yellow, only when it is red. If you got through the intersection just by the skin of your teeth before the light turned red, still no ticket. The instant the light turns red though, you can get ticketed if you go through that intersection. So, you MAY keep going when the light is yellow, but depending upon circumstances, it may not be a good idea to keep going just because you still may. "May do so" doesn't necessarily mean you must do so. Yellow light says you may go, not if you should or should not. Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow.

 

"You are correct in considering that anything in addition to 'A,' if it's inseparable from it, is also 'not A.'"

Do you mean that an "A" with anything else added to it is now also a "Not A"? I want to make sure I'm clear on what you were saying here.

 

"But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. . . . but I don't see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane."

Or maybe, the problem isn't the black and white identity mechanic but that you're just wrong. ;D

 

" . . . but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time."

Sounds like you've already declared them both to be "A"s, not some third option. I'd say both of them are Teddy bears too. With and without blowtorch could just be considered two sub-types of Teddy bears, like how there are brown eggs and white eggs, but both are still eggs. As for the bear with a rubber ducky, supposing we do not treat the ducky as part of the bear, then I'd say we have a group of things - a Teddy bear and a rubber ducky - not just one thing which is both/neither Teddy bear and/or rubber ducky. If we wanted to refer to the group as a whole with the ducky still being treated like it isn't part of the bear, we'd need to come up with something else to call said group rather than just calling it "a Teddy bear" or "a rubber ducky".

 

"You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing."

I mentioned earlier on in the thread that I thought it sounded like you may be of the belief that wealth (or maybe I said value or something else like that, but not important yet) is a fixed quantity and I see I was right. I also said though that Objectivism does not hold wealth to be a fixed quantity and instead holds that it can be created. Do you believe that every person on earth sum total on average has the same standard of living (or less maybe? just want to be thorough again)  now as they did way back tens of thousands of years ago or more? I don't. I think we've got wildly higher standards on the whole. We didn't poof energy or matter into existence though (maybe converted some of them back and forth, but not poofed them up out of nowhere). What we did was come up with ways to use what exists that give us more benefit. For example, if you had a stick you could use it to poke food to eat with. However, this wouldn't work for hard or crumbly food. If you broke the stick in half and used the pieces like chopsticks though, then you could pick up all the same food you could before AND the hard/crumbly stuff. Same amount of stuff, increased value though due to a change in how we used the stuff. No other person suffered any loss in order for this increase in value to come to the person with the stick.

 

Kind of aside here: "You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums" Huh? That's not true. There's nothing against discussing things with you as such. The forum does have some rules for discussion (namely that the purpose of the forum is discussing Objectivism primarily, so something like somebody coming along for the sole purpose of trying to get us to vote for so and so on American Idol or convert us to Christianity would be unwelcome), but I'd say Objectivism is still definitely part of the topic. I'm not being asked to answer you from whatever perspective a Platonist might take for example. This is far from the only time we have discussed things about Objectivism on this forum with people who were not themselves supporters of the philosophy. We've had plenty of long discussions with some such people. I do think it was a good idea to move the "society" political issue to the debate forum though. That's generally the section of the forums most suited for discussion with non-Objectivists who aren't just asking us what we believe but also attempting to counter what we tell them we believe.

 

"although you don't get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside"

It happens to everybody at some point - or more likely, at multiple points. You've got to not worry about what others think is true and focus on what is true. If you really, truly believe you are correct, then there's no reason to feel bad just because somebody else doesn't agree, doesn't like it, may not be nice about it. Believe me, I may be in the majority on this forum, but in the rest of life I'm definitely in a minority and encounter plenty of hating on my own convictions. Claims like having me as a supporter of Objectivism having no feelings, being willing to sell out a friend for a dollar, being responsible for the suffering of other innocent people and so on - things like you've had to say in this thread and your other one already - are very common. I'm certain they are wrong about all of that though, so I'm not ashamed. If other people are wrong about Objectivism and the world and me, that's their problem, not mine, just as long as they don't try to use physical force against me because of it. Rest assured we don't intend to try to use physical force against you, we're not a threat. As abrasive as much of this discussion may be, it's worth noting that we believe Objectivism can be a huge benefit to you. We don't wish you ill, we wish you well. In general, we wish everybody well. It's kind of a "tough love" sort of situation here though in a way because, while in the short term being told things like that you are wrong about strong, cherished views of the world (and coming to realize yourself that they are wrong, if you ever do get there) can be very unpleasant, overall in the long run we contend that there's more to help you be happy in the rest of your lifetime in what we have to say than how much potential there is for bad feelings encountered right away while in the discussion.

 

(Not that I think ALL harsh things in this thread have been necessary and merited though.)

 

"bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?"

Assuming you don't mean the debate forum (I expect that should be easy enough to find that you've found it already), could you please refer me to which specific post number of mine in this thread you are talking about?

Yes, it has nothing to do with location, but it has to do with a spacial relation of inner and outer. The identity of anything stays the same unless it changes in relation to the spacial relationship. The identity stay always the same if it is a free radical (like in the example when you move an object outside of its context - a no-no for me; besides, free radicals are bad like cancer, which undermines the system/whole.) This may sound way too complicated. Just look at the model. All examples are accounted for there.

Concerning restrictions, imagine if you only live in a house and never go outside for 10 years. Now, imagine that you all of a sudden go to a natural location (like an island) and feel the difference. You will feel less restricted, the air will be cleaner, the food more fresh, and the environment much better. So, the idea of restriction here applies to restricting oneself to something bad (i.e., constantly artificial and thus unhealthy).

Ok, concerning yellow light, we not only disagree on the basic logic, but we are even driving differently! You completely ignore the rules of the road that I quoted earlier. And who says that we live in the same perceived reality? Our realities are way different, like two different worlds. So, you go through an intersection and the other guy goes through as well (both on the yellow light). You don't get tickets, but both of you have a high chance to get into an accident. Your statement: "Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow" basically adds the part "but think carefully and watch out before you do" to "you may go." Hence you have "A" (may go) and "not A" (some condition of not going).

So, yes, in this respect, an "A" is also "not A" when there is something added to it. It's the same argument that Objectivists use about capitalism. Capitalism is "A," but whenever you have economic regulation then it's not capitalism, thus it's "not A." We can go on forever through a continuum of things that can be capitalism or socialism and that they are not. What's the point of the argument, if neither A nor not A but both is a meaningless state? Hence the argument is meaningless. I reiterate my premises: A, not A, and meaninglessness. The question then is whether you accept that there is something meaningless in our reality or not. If you accept, we agree completely. If you do not, then we only disagree on the meaninglessness part.

You seem to think that teddy bear and rubber ducky example is the same as the traffic lights example. Let me show you the difference: green + red = yellow (look at a color spectrum picture); teddy bear + rubber ducky = toys (but questionable to take it further).

Our standards of living are higher only because of scientific progress (quality) and hygiene, which is the basis of wealth but not the same thing. The generation of wealth does not equal a higher standard of living. An example is a scrooge or someone who only invests but spends little. Do you agree with me that there are such people in the world and that we should let them be? Hm, but you may ignore a part of objective reality which they inhabit. Either way, to ignore corrupt individuals with their corrupt ideas is to ignore a part of reality in which we all live (to follow Objectivist thinking about a single and indivisible objective reality that is shared by all people in societies).

I will check out the forums if I get time away from this discussion But I was referring to something you said somewhere and cannot find where.

 

Consequently, what is the purpose of knowledge?

I agree on: grey area is compromise; knowledge of your own method is the prerequisite. The open-minded definition is that the purpose of knowledge is to gain more knowledge. However, this can become an infinite regression into transhumanism and humans becoming mere robots. If you want anything natural and organic in the world, then you should realize the binding glue and the roots of innovation and new ideas in science coming from imagination (fiction) and beliefs (religions and philosophies).

 

One final thing. Most people here consider an "Objectivist" to be someone who has read, understood and agreed with everything Ayn Rand ever wrote. So if you're expressing anything that Rand didn't also express, you might catch less flack if you explicitly claim some form of de facto non-objectivist status.

It's stupid. But tolerating it can greatly assist with the discourse of truly beneficial ideas.

Ok, yes, when I said that I accept Objectivism I did not mean that I am an Objectivist. I am a non-Objectivist.

[Ilya Startsev]

It may not be the sort of philosophy that molds itself to your desires, but it is infallible in dialectic. As I have suggested from my first entry on your thread, read the non-fiction Ayn Rand, not for me or anyone else. Do it for yourself.

 

Obectivists aren't out for blood, but we will bite in defense of the truth.

I will read all of Objectivist non-fiction, Repairman, I promise, but I just cannot do it right now, and I really do not want to abandon this discussion. Honestly, I am swamped with homework as I am a full time graduate student and also work part time. By the way, I am reading Aristotle's Rhetoric right now.

 

What you said about Objectivist dialectic is inconsistent in my view. Ok, imagine for a second, that there is no such thing as dialectics. Then Objectivist White is consistent in separating itself from its Black and in its self-definitions. However, dialectics is natural to every person. I can account for that since I basically reinvented dialectics before I ever knew about it or read any dialecticians. The dialectics that I naturally invented in 2006 I called ultralogy. I abandoned this name once I learned about dialectics from Dr. Michael Kosok's work and was deeply impressed with the similarities. However, I still call thesis an extreme, antithesis an opposite, and synthesis a critical point because I want to show you how I came up with it when I was 19 years old to make it maybe a little easier to grasp than the general dialectics. So, by adding the dialectical third dimension to Objectivism one not only finds that Objectivism is incomplete without it but also that it is inconsistent because it separates/disconnects itself from everything, including reality, which has quite a lot of greyness.

[bluecherry]

"Concerning restrictions, imagine if you only live in a house and never go outside for 10 years. Now, imagine that you all of a sudden go to a natural location (like an island) and feel the difference. You will feel less restricted, the air will be cleaner, the food more fresh, and the environment much better. So, the idea of restriction here applies to restricting oneself to something bad (i.e., constantly artificial and thus unhealthy)."

Pretty sure the problem with staying in one house all the time for 10 years is that you are always in this one relatively small area and unable to go do a lot of activities or meet up in person with a lot of people. That and monotony. So, going from the house for 10 years to the island would feel like a relief, but not because the island is natural - just because it is somewhere else at all. Another building would have worked just as well. An island doesn't guarantee cleaner air or fresher food. As for the environment being "better" - how is it better? If you just mean you like it more, then there's an opinion there, your personal preference, not a fact that applies to humans in general.

 

"And who says that we live in the same perceived reality?"

Me (basing my say so on all evidence I've ever had, not just making an unfounded assertion). Everybody else here. The vast majority of the rest of humanity. Ditto for scientists and philosophers being generally in support of the two of us both existing in THE reality, not like one of us lives in the Star Wars world while another of us inhabits middle earth.

 

"So, you go through an intersection and the other guy goes through as well (both on the yellow light)."

Well, I can't speak for the hypothetical other guy, but if I'm going through an intersection when the light is yellow, then the light must have just turned yellow and I've got enough time to cross the intersection before it turns red and it is a bit too late for me to try to stop before I get into the intersection. I'm not a reckless driver. If anything, I'm overly cautious. So, unless something really abnormal happens, like somebody else is actually driving straight through a light that is still red and not paying any attention to me being there in the intersection, I'm not about to get into an accident.

 

"One may go" with some extra info that people may (wisely) interpret as a cause not to keep going in some (or many) circumstances is still a form of "one may go". It's just a subtype, like how "Teddy bear with a blowtorch" is still a Teddy bear. "One may go + soon one may not go" is all the yellow light means, period. From there on out it is up to the people driving to determine what the significance of "One may go + soon one may not go" is and what would be the best way to respond to it in their current situation, if they should stop, keep going just like they are, speed up, maybe even turn onto another road or something.

 

"So, yes, in this respect, an 'A' is also 'not A' when there is something added to it. It's the same argument that Objectivists use about capitalism. Capitalism is 'A,' but whenever you have economic regulation then it's not capitalism, thus it's 'not A.' We can go on forever through a continuum of things that can be capitalism or socialism and that they are not."

Actually, we're just not in a capitalist system, period. We are "Not A" if capitalism = "A". We aren't socialist either though. This isn't a contradiction because "Not A" comes in more forms than just flat out socialism. All socialist societies would not be capitalist, but not all not-capitalist societies are socialist. What we DO have is a "mixed economy" -- another kind of economic system that itself comes in many different varieties. Mixed economy = "Not A". Our mixed economy contains some policies which would exist in a capitalist economy too, but also some policies which could exist in a socialist one rather than a capitalist one. Then there's other policies that neither capitalism nor socialism would support in our mixed economy too. It's kind of like rather than a Teddy bear or a rubber ducky we have the head of a Teddy bear mashed onto the body of a rubber ducky along with some other lump of rubber that seems to have melted and fused onto the monstrosity. Such a monstrosity is Not A Teddy Bear if the question is if it is a Teddy bear or not.

 

"I reiterate my premises: A, not A, and meaninglessness."

Wait, wait. That isn't what I had gathered were your premises before. This is the first time I recall you stating that something being "both A and Not A"/"neither A nor Not A" was meaningless. I would actually agree with that. Something being both/neither A and Not A is a meaningless statement because it does not refer to anything in reality; it's just a bunch of words strung together.

 

"green + red = yellow (look at a color spectrum picture); teddy bear + rubber ducky = toys (but questionable to take it further)."

Actually, mixing red and green would make brown. In between red and green on a color spectrum has both yellow and orange. I think the reason those three colors were chosen is because they are easily distinguishable from each other as long as one is not colorblind. Not that important an issue though. I agree on calling the Teddy Bear + rubber ducky "toys". This is like how I mentioned earlier a group of objects would be called by a different name than any one of the names of specific objects in the group.

 

"Our standards of living are higher only because of scientific progress (quality) and hygiene, which is the basis of wealth but not the same thing."

Scientific progress (hygiene is the result of scientific progress learning about germs and such) indeed is a huge part of the increased standard of living. That still means though that one can utilize things they think of to increase the value of things that already exist, not lessening somebody else's value they posses, which was my point. A lot of scientific progress is made in the pursuit of earning money. Our standard of living increases when we take new things we've figured out and apply them to reality. That's the basis of increasing value, of earning money: take the stuff that is there and increase the value by adding the products of thought to it.

 

Places where the standard of living is significantly poorer still are the result of less products of thought being added to what they already have from the environment. Maybe the majority of people in that area have chosen to keep on living the same way people did thousands of years ago despite the fact that we know about things now like how some of those things often spread disease. Maybe the government has made laws that make applying various products of thought to things from the environment much harder or even not allowed at all, often even in the name of improving economic conditions. Or some combination of both.

 

"An example is a scrooge or someone who only invests but spends little."

Isn't investing a type of spending? When people invest in something, they're funding some project or product that they believe will be a hit, but which the makers do not yet have enough money on their own to do. Investment enables the creation of all kinds of things which would otherwise not be able to be done, things which are then used by other people to make their own lives better. While helping other people is not the sole or primary purpose of people producing things and making money, investing is not bad for people in general. It's a hell of a lot harder to make stuff and money if you aren't doing/making things that other people consider to be a positive thing for their own lives. Can't get money without customers, y'know? 

 

Edit: "However, dialectics is natural to every person."

What, are we all chopped liver here?

Edited February 17, 2014 by bluecherry

[Eiuol]

I will check out the forums if I get time away from this discussion But I was referring to something you said somewhere and cannot find where.

I think it was about other lengthy discussions with people arguing against Objectivism. Curi was the last user I remember to do that in several threads in the epistemology subforum.