Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[Ilya Startsev]

Eiuol:

I don't follow. [...] notable positive change takes time

And I want to give it time. I am a theorist and only apply my theory in my own life. In only that regard can you count me as a revolutionary. But then, so will be you.

Repairman:

Faith is mysticism.

Yes.

Any sort of faith puts one in a very insecure place. [...] Mystics are a threat to themselves, and the people who rely on them.

No. This is funny because faith is about the ultimate goal and the way to deal with it. It is actually the opposite of what you wrote here.

If your belief is based on faith, you cannot be taken seriously.

Then ignore everything I say.

[Repairman]

Ilya, you have no verifiable facts to support your claims. By all admission, you are a collectivist-mystic-altruist. Among other things, this forum allows Objectivists to challenge assertions made by collectivist-mystic-altruists. Repeatedly, you have made nonsensical statements as if they were tried-and-true axioms. You have changed the definition of words to fit your whimsical purpose. You have offered such incredulous organizations as The Global Consciousness Project as "proof" that someone else agrees with you. You are looking for others to agree with you, and when they don't, you make feeble attempts to silence your critics with,"then just ignore me." You have not been seeking constructive engagement; rather, you seem to be seeking approval for your sloppy ideas.

Are you some sort of wannabe cult-leader? Or do you simply enjoy looking ridiculous?

[theestevearnold]

theestevearnold:

What if they don't show or do it? Does it mean that they did not like it?

Of course not. It means that I would be unable to perceive their emotional responses.

According to your brand of social subjectivism: If I had a private booth for a symphony, would the members of the audience be able to sense my feelings without seeing me?

And should privacy be banned?

Edited February 17, 2014 by JASKN
quote fix

[Ilya Startsev]

Repairman:

You have changed the definition of words to fit your whimsical purpose.

Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure dictionary.com agrees with my definitions. If not, show proofs for your statement. I also don't want you to ignore that Rand herself did exactly what you wrote up there. In fact, she created a lexicon all of her own. Thank goodness, I have not gone that far.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

theestevearnold:

It means that I would be unable to perceive their emotional responses.

To me, this is just sad.
 

If I had a private booth for a symphony, would the members of the audience be able to sense my feelings without seeing me?

I wish they would, but with so many atheists, materialists, capitalists, transhumanists, and Objectivists in this world, it seems close to impossible.
 

And should privacy be banned?

No. Should compassion be banned also?

[bluecherry]

"I call it faith-logic."

Oh dear . . .

By "faith" we generally assume one means a belief in the absence of logical cause to do so, basically meaning the two are exact opposites. Do you mean something else when you say "faith"? If so, please state what you do mean. Otherwise, there's just no way to make these two things go together. The most you could do would be to use faith and sometimes, when logic just so happened to agree with what you take on faith or at least seemed to initially, provide logic as a secondary justification.

 

(Although I do agree that words shouldn't just be used to mean whatever one chooses, largely due to the communication problems it causes, I'm trying not to get into argument over the correct meaning of words too much because I think that would just be getting away and distracting from the original thread topic. Word meanings can be taken care of later or in another thread probably.)

 

EDIT: Ahahahaha! Check out who just hit post #1000 and got the "senior member" title.

Edited February 2, 2014 by bluecherry

[Nicky]

Repairman:

Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure dictionary.com agrees with my definitions. If not, show proofs for your statement. I also don't want you to ignore that Rand herself did exactly what you wrote up there. In fact, she created a lexicon all of her own. 

No, she didn't.

[Repairman]

Define the following: 1) calcified. 2) self-dictatorship.

 

These are just a few of the blatantly corrupted words you have invented and distorted. You do not obey the laws of identity, and you have ask me to prove it. Well, here it is. Now will you please address my other accusations, and stop asking people to accept falsehood as truisms.

Nature is conscious. There is no evidence for this yet, even though there is a reason for my concern to try to convince you.

[Eiuol]

Define the following: 1) calcified. 2) self-dictatorship.

 

These are just a few of the blatantly corrupted words you have invented and distorted. You do not obey the laws of identity, and you have ask me to prove it. Well, here it is. Now will you please address my other accusations, and stop asking people to accept falsehood as truisms.

To be fair, Ilya defined both, and the usage was mostly a way to convey an idea, not be literal. They are a bit vague, but it's pretty normal to ask for further explanation of terms. Both words convey being "stuck" in your old ways due to strict rules, forcing yourself to ignore your emotions, demanding yourself to conform to preconceived ideas. That's Ilya's misunderstanding, hence the discussion about emotion after that. Ilya hasn't asked us to accept his beliefs, mostly he's giving his current knowledge. Marxism is quite against Objectivism and vice versa, but since he appears genuine in wanting to understand Objectivist philosophy, I'm glad to explain and discuss.

[Repairman]

Ilya's use of the word "calcified" was the adjective to the noun "reason", "calcified reason." If reason is not reason, then call it something else.

I am trying my best to be fair to Ilya. He has the means to study Objectivism; he should do it. But random arguments, coupled with subjective assertions is hardly a serious study practice. Add to that, Ilya seems to claim to identify flaws in Objectivism based on perceived behavioral flaws of Ayn Rand. And when a critic calls him to answer the accusation, he changes to something else, evading the question. If Ilya is genuinely interested in Objectivism, I can't stop him. In fact, I would encourage him. But if he insists on making absurd claims, he needs to back them up with a well-reasoned argument. 

There is no "self-dictatorship" in any dictionary.

If need be, I could present more of Ilya's fantasy-facts.

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry:

By "faith" we generally assume one means a belief in the absence of logical cause to do so, basically meaning the two are exact opposites. Do you mean something else when you say "faith"? If so, please state what you do mean.

The faith-logic is basically that state of indifferent awareness that is in the center of all levels of the model. It is the critical point of synthesis of an extreme and its opposite. It is impossible by Aristotelian laws of logic, so I call it faith-logic. Because of it, there is a transformational development connecting all levels. It has to be because without it we won't exist. However, there is no way to explain it.
 

EDIT: Ahahahaha! Check out who just hit post #1000 and got the "senior member" title.

Congrats!

Nicky:

No, she didn't.

Most of the entries come from Ayn Rand: http://aynrandlexicon.com. Why create a lexicon if one uses conventional definitions of words?

Repairman:

Define the following: 1) calcified [reason]. 2) self-dictatorship.

1) "to make or become rigid or intransigent" (dictionary.com). In other words, logic that does not develop further (e.g., linear versus nonlinear).
2) Self+"absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control" (ibid.) Eiuol was right - it happens at the expense of one's emotions.
 

If need be, I could present more of Ilya's fantasy-facts.

Be my guest, I always love criticisms.

[bluecherry]

"It has to be because without it we won't exist."

What makes you say this?

 

Also, Rand didn't make the lexicon book/site or set out to do so. It was made by others after had already written stuff for other purposes. Some people compiled bits and pieces of commentary and statements of position on various things by Ayn Rand (or, once in a while, things other people she knew said/wrote which she made known she agreed with), sorted them by topic, then arranged the topics alphabetically. The purpose was primarily easy reference for sourced information on various conclusions in Objectivism so that, if nothing else, there was a quick way to counter many inaccurate claims about what Rand said/what Objectivism says.

[Ilya Startsev]

What makes you say this?

Biological evolution. DNA is not the answer since it only controls the production of proteins.

[softwareNerd]

EDIT: Ahahahaha! Check out who just hit post #1000 and got the "senior member" title.

FYI: The way the software is set up today, anyone reaching 1000 can go to "My Settings" and change to a custom title, like "Proud Father", "Dragon Lady", "Web God" etc.

[bluecherry]

Biological evolution. DNA is not the answer since it only controls the production of proteins.

Not sure where you're going with this. Elaborate a little, please? What exactly aside from proteins do you have in mind?

 

SoftwareNerd: Hehehe, good to know. X3

[Repairman]

Biological evolution. DNA is not the answer since it only controls the production of proteins.

Indeed, what is your point?

[Ilya Startsev]

Never mind. I will read the books that 2046 recommended and will post my reports here. (Once I complete Atlas Shrugged, that is.)

[Nicky]

Nicky:

Most of the entries come from Ayn Rand: http://aynrandlexicon.com. Why create a lexicon if one uses conventional definitions of words?

Ayn Rand didn't create that site, and if you had bothered to read it before talking about it, you'd know that it's obviously not a lexicon in the sense you're using the word. 

 

It's not definitions of words, it's a brief presentation of her views on various subjects, organized by topic.

[Ilya Startsev]

You might be interested in the work of the philosopher Chris Sciabarra, who has done work on Rand and Marx, as well as Hayek and general Objectivist topics with dialectics as a focus. He places Rand in a dialectical light and compares her similarities with Marx. You may also be interested in the Austrian economist Hans Hoppe's paper comparing Marxist theory to libertarian theory, he concludes the core structure of Marxist theory is "essentially correct" and you'll find it quite similar to Rand's line of thought.

The idea here is that both Objectivist and Marxist "essence" is correct and I love it, but only as long as other developments of this "essence," i.e., other ideas, do not lead them into a regression into extremes. Neither individualism nor collectivism are correct on their own extreme grounds, since they are inseparable and not independent from each other, and this "essence" is what unites them, and we should never ignore that.

[Ilya Startsev]

I am convinced that the meaning of this shared "essence" is that Environment is developed into Society not by anybody indifferent to Society, but by people who share their values about Society. In other words, Rand was right about selfishly not caring about others and bonding only with those who reflect one's values, but Marx was right that those values should be of Global Communism, true Society.

[Ilya Startsev]

I would also like to present a quote from "The Fountainhead" of the right relationship of humans toward their Environment. This balanced relationship is exemplified by Howard Roark's Monadnock Valley excerpts: "man's work should be a higher step, an improvement on nature, not a degradation." "the goal was these buildings, part of the hills, shaped by the hills, yet ruling them by giving them meaning."

[Ilya Startsev]

I am not saying that everyone should go out and start interacting with his/her natural environment like the architect Howard Roark did. What I am saying is that we should match this type of interaction with our own environments. For example, I am trying to attain a balanced relationship with my (mental) ideological environment. As long as everyone's interactions with environments are so, and these environments are in harmony with each other because they are being shaped for the same purpose and future goals, we would have satisfied the "essence" of these two ideologies.

[Ilya Startsev]

Hence my main dislike of transhumanists, especially the 2045 Initiative started by Russia. They want to become independent from their environments. Cutting one's natural and emotional environments off is not the right way to go. We can send them away from Earth to explore other systems, though, if their project would even work in the first place. However, I would rather not think about space exploration and colonization until humankind reaches the level of Global and unified Society. Otherwise, we would be jumping over a level, which can lead to unfavorable consequences. A similar jump was performed by Lenin when he forced Russians to change from feudalism (with some rudiments of capitalism) to so-called socialism.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[theestevearnold]

theestevearnold:

Should compassion be banned also?

Of course not. I, an Objectivist Man, have felt intense compassion for the ones I love, and I've felt compassion (though not as intense) for the ones I like, and a less intense compassion for the ones I don't know, and no compassion for the ones I despise.

With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?

[Eiuol]

Neither individualism nor collectivism are correct on their own extreme grounds, since they are inseparable and not independent from each other, and this "essence" is what unites them, and we should never ignore that.

 

Being extreme or not isn't really anything that matters. You could say a philosophy or belief goes beyond any reasonable grounds, but extremeness in terms of beyond a middle ground is not a problem, as long as it does not contradict reality. From your reading so far, I imagine you understand that Objectivism does not advocated utter disregard for people, so it's wrong for you to say "selfishly not caring about others" right next to "bonding only with those who reflect one's values". You said the values should be "Global Communism", but how did you get from one's values to a global society?

I'm guessing that stems from your idea that even if your actions incidentally help others, you therefore acted for others. You're right of course that a person got benefit, but people can't act for any end if they never had a drop of awareness about what they "really" acted for. In several of your posts, I haven't seen any sense that you believe consciousness is any "aboutness" to it, namely that it can't be about wanting or working towards an end or value. Instead, what I get is a sense that by being part of reality, you naturally act according to your own identity. Since reality is causal, I necessarily act toward a specific end as determined by reality which is presumably conscious without "aboutness". That reality is ultimately what everything acts towards, so we then say everything is conscious we mean nothing is seperable from reality. So... I bring this up again because the sharing you suppose doesn't seem to even exist.

 

I would also like to present a quote from "The Fountainhead" of the right relationship of humans toward their Environment.

 

Yeah, Rand liked the Francis Bacon quote "nature to be commanded must be obeyed", so your environment does matter. I even follow your next post, until this sentence:

 

As long as everyone's interactions with environments are so, and these environments are in harmony with each other because they are being shaped for the same purpose and future goals,

 

Harmony is fine, but why is the harmony due to same purpose and future goals? Harmony does not depend upon shared values. In fact, research into game theory and social norms show ways harmony arises with little to no agreement on values. We can also have harmony if we have an identical goal such as happiness, that may be a way that harmony needs agreement, but we don't need a "grand" goal like "Global Unified Society".

Edited February 4, 2014 by Eiuol