Existence exists subsidiary thread

[Ilya Startsev]

An interesting Subjectivist idea particularly relevant to morals, ibid. 90-1: "What a time experiences as evil is usually an untimely echo of what was formerly experienced as good--the atavism of a more ancient ideal. [...] Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil. [...] Jesus said to his Jews: "The law was for servants--love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!" "

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Do you think there should be created a thread on Integrating Objectivism with (Nietzschean) Subjectivism?

[Ilya Startsev]

Here is Nietzsche's critique of ethics and morality, ibid., 97-8, original italics: "the real problems of morality [...] emerge only when we compare many moralities. In all "science of morals" so far one thing was lacking, strange as it may sound: the problem of morality itself [...] What the philosophers called "a rational foundation for morality" and tried to supply was, seen in the right light, merely a scholarly variation of the common faith in the prevalent morality; a new means of expression for this faith; and thus just another fact within a particular morality; indeed, in the last analysis a kind of denial that this morality might ever be considered problematic--certainly the very opposite of an examination, analysis, questioning, and vivisection of this very faith" and, ibid., 100, original italics: "Every morality is, as opposed to laisser aller [letting go], a bit of tyranny against "nature"; also against "reason"; but this in itself is no objection, as long as we do not have some other morality which permits us to decree that every kind of tyranny and unreason is impermissible. [etc]"

[Ilya Startsev]

The idea here is that, the way I interpret it, without using one's soul (see P.S.), one could lose it, ibid., 20, original italics: "declare war, relentless war unto death, against the atomistic need" which still leads a dangerous afterlife in places where no one suspects it, just like the more celebrated "metaphysical need": one must also, first of all, give the finishing stroke to that other and more calamitous atomism which Christianity has taught best and longest, the soul atomism. Let it be permitted to designate by this expression the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible,
as a monad, as an atomon: this belief ought to be expelled from science! Between ourselves, it is not at all necessary to get rid of "the soul" at the same time, and thus to renounce one of the most ancient and venerable hypotheses-as happens frequently to clumsy naturalists who can hardly touch on "the soul" without immediately losing it. But the way is open for new versions and refinements of the soul-hypothesis; and such conceptions as "mortal soul" "

 

P.S. To differentiate mind from soul, one needs to see what organs these fields correlate to: brain and heart, respectively. Although I originally stated (but deleted) that they contrast, now I am of a mind to say that the mind and the soul are very similar, yet distinct. Their similarity is exactly in that they could be lost if not used. If one stops being rational (e.g., being an Objectivist), one could lose one's mind (literally, not necessarily figuratively). Whereas, if one stops feeling emotions, one could lose one's soul.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

This is a pertinent issue. I quote from The Divine Right of Stagnation by Nathaniel Branden (Rand, Ayn, Nathaniel Branden. The Virtue of Selfishness. 1964: 117f, original italics):

 

Capitalism's tempo (likened to the hectic Nietzsche's tempo, for me) is greater than that of Socialism. Some people just want to be lazy and invincibly ignorant. Others want to evolve.

It's not a laziness vs evolution issue. Rather, the advance of techology serves and hurts whom? If Luddites qua metaphor stand for 'any tech innovation is bad', then it's equally wrong to assume any tech's goodness.

[Ilya Startsev]

It's not a laziness vs evolution issue. Rather, the advance of techology serves and hurts whom? If Luddites qua metaphor stand for 'any tech innovation is bad', then it's equally wrong to assume any tech's goodness.

Technological goodness by itself is bad. Just as anything by itself is bad. (I am arguing the same about Objectivism.) Technological progress must be coupled with spiritual evolution, viz., the evolution of consciousness.

 

A pertinent quote from Beyond Good and Evil, 88: "Pharisaism is not a degeneration in a good man: a good deal of it is rather the condition of all being good." Such Pharisaism can be either technological or spiritual. Either one is the right of stagnation.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

Technological goodness by itself is bad. Just as anything by itself is bad. (I am arguing the same about Objectivism.) Technological progress must be coupled with spiritual evolution, viz., the evolution of consciousness.

 

A pertinent quote from Beyond Good and Evil, 88: "Pharisaism is not a degeneration in a good man: a good deal of it is rather the condition of all being good." Such Pharisaism can be either technological or spiritual. Either one is the right of stagnation.

I think you'll have far more success in ridding yourself of spiritual mumbo-jumbo and getting down to the basic question: a particular technology for whom?

[Ilya Startsev]

I think you'll have far more success in ridding yourself of spiritual mumbo-jumbo and getting down to the basic question: a particular technology for whom?

What's the big deal? Just say what you think about technologies. Aren't they robotizing humankind? Or humankind wants to be robotized?

[frank harley]

What's the big deal? Just say what you think about technologies. Aren't they robotizing humankind? Or humankind wants to be robotized?

No. 'Robotizing' is a value-judgment. Tech also makes life easier.

[Ilya Startsev]

No. 'Robotizing' is a value-judgment. Tech also makes life easier.

It does make life easier, and comfort is indispensable. How much of this comfort is too much though? Is comfort more important than being human? Do you realize that they are making bionic humans nowadays? And making military men into people without hearts and emotions. Perfect killing machines. Similarly, people give up their lives for technology. Here is a video you should watch, if you haven't see it.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[softwareNerd]

Do you realize that they are... And making military men into people without hearts and emotions. Perfect killing machines.

Unlike the caring Romans, Normans, Vandals, Huns, Mongols and Spartans?

[Ilya Startsev]

Unlike the caring Romans, Normans, Vandals, Huns, Mongols and Spartans?

Do you want to go back? Only it's worse now. Those people at least had families, wives, children. Nowadays being single is the standard. And I think Vandals were Slavs, pissed off at how Romans treated slaves. Mongols were Slavs as well. Only they set Europe into the Dark Age. Besides, I thought history was not important for Objectivists. Either you look at the historical context or you don't. I am following you here.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[softwareNerd]

Besides, I thought history was not important for Objectivists.

Why do you get stuff like this?!

 

Either you look at the historical context or you don't. I am following you here.

History is critical. You cannot have philosophy and political theories without having a deep grasp of history. History comes first and foremost. Empirical data is the only basis on which to build any knowledge.

[Ilya Startsev]

Why do you get stuff like this?!

 

History is critical. You cannot have philosophy and political theories without having a deep grasp of history. History comes first and foremost. Empirical data is the only basis on which to build any knowledge.

Hm, then I have misunderstood you. I thought that the "theory of history" of Rand was that individuals are better off without strict government regulations. Has there ever been a society like so? No, never. And the only example you are going for is America, which is mixed economy. Please correct me, if there had ever been anything close to free-market capitalism historically.

[JASKN]

Hm, then I have misunderstood you. I thought that the "theory of history" of Rand was that individuals are better off without strict government regulations. Has there ever been a society like so? No, never. And the only example you are going for is America, which is mixed economy. Please correct me, if there had ever been anything close to free-market capitalism historically.

So, your reasoning goes as follows:

A mixed economy is the closest we have come to a free economy, but we have never been totally free. Thus, Objectivism is wrong about its theory of history, which says that people are better off without government regulation. Then, because the theory of history is wrong, Objectivism doesn't consider history to be important.

If this reflects your thinking, it is total nonsense.

[Ilya Startsev]

So, your reasoning goes as follows:

A mixed economy is the closest we have come to a free economy, but we have never been totally free. Thus, Objectivism is wrong about its theory of history, which says that people are better off without government regulation. Then, because the theory of history is wrong, Objectivism doesn't consider history to be important.

If this reflects your thinking, it is total nonsense.

Your reasoning goes as follows: we have never seen a free economy and want to try it.

 

There is no historical or empirical basis for this. It is a faith, not a conviction. How do you know that it will work? One financial crisis was not enough? Everyone cannot be an Objectivist. Look around yourself. How does Objectivism stand against other philosophies? Or wait, yes, of course, nobody understands Objectivism unless you are an Objectivist. Makes no sense like any circular reasoning. What makes sense is what is going to happen with a minority like Objectivists against the whole world. I know what will happen. To illustrate it bluntly: imagine yourself on an island filled with hungry rats. If you won't find a way to feed them, you won't last long.

[JASKN]

What are you talking about? I don't even know where to begin untangling that.

First, Rand and Objectivists stress individualism, individual understanding, individual reasoning. No Objectivist would claim to be the only one who can understand Rand's ideas. No Objectivist would argue from authority.

The recent financial crisis didn't disprove a free market. A free market isn't impossible just because it hasn't yet existed. There is PLENTY of evidence to support individual freedom and a totally free market. What's wrong with trying what hasn't existed yet? Are you kidding with that? How *does* Objectivism stand against other philosophies, you tell me? Etc. etc.

[Ilya Startsev]

What are you talking about? I don't even know where to begin untangling that.

First, Rand and Objectivists stress individualism, individual understanding, individual reasoning. No Objectivist would claim to be the only one who can understand Rand's ideas. No Objectivist would argue from authority.

The recent financial crisis didn't disprove a free market. A free market isn't impossible just because it hasn't yet existed. There is PLENTY of evidence to support individual freedom and a totally free market. What's wrong with trying what hasn't existed yet? Are you kidding with that? How *does* Objectivism stand against other philosophies, you tell me? Etc. etc.

Please name me a non-Objectivist who completely and honestly understands Objectivism, and I will with pleasure plunge into studying his or her works.

 

A free market is possible, yes. What will happen though, once it arrives? I need evidence. No evidence = no predictive power. (However, if it is an acceptable-by-majority philosophy, like Neo-Objectivism strives to be, then there is nothing wrong with trying what hasn't existed yet.) And even though Rand argued in an interview that she can foresee events (like a prophet would), I suggest not completely trusting everything she said or wrote. After all, she had no complete formal education. She was still a great philosopher, though.

[JASKN]

Rand didn't argue that she could foresee things like a prophet.

So now a free market is possible? Well, when it arrives, I imagine it will be like it's called: a market of free trade.

So, what hasn't been done is possible to do, now? But, I see, only when it's your idea.

[tadmjones]

Read Bastiat, Hazlitt, Von Mises, Hayek , Friedman ect see what they say about human interaction and economics.

My pet theory is that capitalism is basically metaphysic, its the recognition of rights and the creation of wealth and we humans operate on it , unless some entity(the state) interferes, actually wealth creation has to exist before it can be curtailed or exploited.

The free market is everywhere the kid's lemonade stand to the corner merchant. He sells his wares at a profit , not for the sake of you to have the wares you need, you purchase wares a at fair price not for the sake of the merchant, yet both benefit. It's not so much creating a free market as removing those things that make it unfree.

[Ilya Startsev]

The free market is everywhere the kid's lemonade stand to the corner merchant. He sells his wares at a profit , not for the sake of you to have the wares you need, you purchase wares a at fair price not for the sake of the merchant, yet both benefit. It's not so much creating a free market as removing those things that make it unfree.

That kid would not be selling his lemonade if he had no customers in mind. To sell is to persuade to sell, and persuasion is a social phenomenon. In other words, the kid was aware that he would sell this lemonade to others to benefit them. If he would sell bad lemonade, now, that's a different question. Then the kid would be selfish and not rational, wouldn't he? So, there are two things that do not connect in your statement: 1) selling for the benefit of oneself; 2) selling rationally and justly.

[tadmjones]

Nah he was just using my thirst against me, he didnt care whether or not the ade was good, as long as I assumed it was and would make tht same assumption in the future, if mom let him use the pitcher that is.

[Ilya Startsev]

Nah he was just using my thirst against me, he didnt care whether or not the ade was good, as long as I assumed it was and would make tht same assumption in the future, if mom let him use the pitcher that is.

I see that that's the way you like to think. Would you like all sellers to act in the same manner as the little kid, so we have a society full of irresponsible children trying to sell as much as they can?

[dream_weaver]

I see that that's the way you like to think. Would you like all sellers to act in the same manner as the little kid, so we have a society full of irresponsible children trying to sell as much as they can?

That's funny. You just managed to capture the essence of how much of government seems to operate with regard to 'selling' the citizens more government programs. 

[Ilya Startsev]

That's funny. You just managed to capture the essence of how much of government seems to operate with regard to 'selling' the citizens more government programs. 

You are right. I want to be clear: I am against those programs as well. Now, we are dealing with the government, so we have to use rhetorical tools to "trick" (i.e., persuade by any possible means) them to side with us: both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Objectivism, but if we can prove to them that Neo-Objectivism is not the same thing, they could side with us and then we can change their thinking, so they will stop this governmental madness.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Ilya Startsev