Existence exists subsidiary thread

[dream_weaver]

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.

 

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would suggest using "trickery" in order to persuade someone that something is not what it is, or is what it is not.

 

Democrats seem to hate many things that elude their mental grasp. So what? If you want to "trick" yourself along these lines, don't forget to "treat" yourself come Halloween.

 

Edited: Added referenced post.

Edited May 21, 2014 by dream_weaver

[softwareNerd]

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.

Please google "theories of history" instead of making up your own meanings for standard term. This type of thing is not a "theory of history", it is a political philosophy.

 

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.

Essentially, what you are saying is that one cannot propose any form of government that has not already existed exactly or close to the proposal.

Also, nobody would say that America is the single historical example to use in support of capitalism. Your problem is that you do not know what capitalism is: it is about individual rights. Examples are abundant... take almost any country in the world, from Japan and China, to India and Argentina and Britain. Also, go back to Venice. Or, further back to the Romans, the Kushans, the muslim traders, etc. Think analytically.

Edited May 21, 2014 by softwareNerd

[tadmjones]

Or the Sumerians one of the earliest cultures to use money.

[softwareNerd]

Or the Sumerians one of the earliest cultures to use money.

Yeah, there are so many examples that beg to be analysed.

In fact, for a commie-leaning person, one place would be the Soviet Union: Lenin and Trotsky disagreed about the best way to tackle economic stagnation. Lenin pushed the N.E.P. Ilya could study that episode analytically... i.e. asking "why did this bring improvements?" "how does distributed decision-making work?" "what is the relationship between good decisions and motivation?" "why does a small street vendor approach his customers so differently from a shop-assistant?" etc. etc.

[tadmjones]

Well the Soviets did figure out how to get the crops to the industrial centers, not sure if it qualifies for a study of economic activity,but that is probably just a cultural bias I can't seem to shake.

[dream_weaver]

They also had a uncanny way of determining what crops ought be planted where and when. The resultant starvation due to crop failures was simply because their comrades just did not give communism a fair shake.

 

Of course, if you are Democratic Florida representative Joe Garcia, you can say that "Communism works." on camera and say, “This is an absurdity, accusing the son of Cuban immigrants of believing in Communism is just ridiculous,” to your local newspaper and hope it doesn't show up on the Drudge Report as the headline banner: DEM: 'WE'VE PROVED COMMUNISM WORKS'.
 

Edited: Added

Edited May 22, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would suggest using "trickery" in order to persuade someone that something is not what it is, or is what it is not.

 

Democrats seem to hate many things that elude their mental grasp. So what? If you want to "trick" yourself along these lines, don't forget to "treat" yourself come Halloween.

 

Edited: Added referenced post.

Do you agree that there is a national conflict in America? If so, would you not want to help resolve it? Ignoring conflicts leads to strife. And I am not trying to spread fear here. I see what's happening in real life. Maybe generating conflicts is what you like doing though. If so, then don't pretend that Objectivism is a positive philosophy.

 

Yeah, there are so many examples that beg to be analysed.

In fact, for a commie-leaning person, one place would be the Soviet Union: Lenin and Trotsky disagreed about the best way to tackle economic stagnation. Lenin pushed the N.E.P. Ilya could study that episode analytically... i.e. asking "why did this bring improvements?" "how does distributed decision-making work?" "what is the relationship between good decisions and motivation?" "why does a small street vendor approach his customers so differently from a shop-assistant?" etc. etc.

Good argument, thanks. I will look into it.

[dream_weaver]

Do you agree that there is a national conflict in America? If so, would you not want to help resolve it? Ignoring conflicts leads to strife. And I am not trying to spread fear here. I see what's happening in real life. Maybe generating conflicts is what you like doing though. If so, then don't pretend that Objectivism is a positive philosophy.

 

A national conflict? As in one?  What is the price of helping resolve it?

[Ilya Startsev]

A national conflict? As in one?  What is the price of helping resolve it?

Yes, believe it or not, a national conflict in the United States of America. The price of helping to resolve it is mutual agreement and collaboration to build a better nation. The result: peace and prosperity. Is it possible, you ask? Yes, it is.

[softwareNerd]

Yes, believe it or not, a national conflict in the United States of America. The price of helping to resolve it is mutual agreement and collaboration to build a better nation.

If indeed there is a national conflict, it does not make sense to say: "Okay, you keep violating my rights, and I will keep violating yours". Everyone remains unhappy that way. So, the way to go is to say: "if you agree to rollback your violation of my rights, I will roll back the violation of yours".

So, for instance, the religious wing can say "we will vote to decriminalize most marijuana sale nationwide, if you (green left) will reduce the EPA's powers" Or, the the left could say "we will vote to reduce welfare by a small percentage, if you will raise the annual limit on legal immigration"

As long as both sides can back away in little coordinated steps like that, giving back rights on either side... the more power to them.

However, if the compromise is going to be the left saying "we will vote to double down on the war on drugs, if you will vote for a nationwide carbon tax", or if it is the right saying "we will vote to increase welfare slightly, if you will vote to cut immigration further"... then we're in a death spiral.

So, give and take is probably not the right way to think of it. Rather: "give and give" is a good thing from rights-violators; but, "take and take" is bad.

[Ilya Startsev]

If indeed there is a national conflict, it does not make sense to say: "Okay, you keep violating my rights, and I will keep violating yours". Everyone remains unhappy that way. So, the way to go is to say: "if you agree to rollback your violation of my rights, I will roll back the violation of yours".

So, for instance, the religious wing can say "we will vote to decriminalize most marijuana sale nationwide, if you (green left) will reduce the EPA's powers" Or, the the left could say "we will vote to reduce welfare by a small percentage, if you will raise the annual limit on legal immigration"

As long as both sides can back away in little coordinated steps like that, giving back rights on either side... the more power to them.

However, if the compromise is going to be the left saying "we will vote to double down on the war on drugs, if you will vote for a nationwide carbon tax", or if it is the right saying "we will vote to increase welfare slightly, if you will vote to cut immigration further"... then we're in a death spiral.

So, give and take is probably not the right way to think of it. Rather: "give and give" is a good thing from rights-violators; but, "take and take" is bad.

I like your practical edge. Well said and could not agree more. I got to think more on this, though. It's a great idea.

 

P.S. I wonder how the government officials need to think, though. They need to think like Objectivists and yet think about what the other party wants (or should want) as well.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[softwareNerd]

P.S. I wonder how the government officials need to think, though.

It's not primarily about government officials. it's about voters.

They need to think like Objectivists and yet think about what the other party wants (or should want) as well.

They don't need to think like Objectivists. Instead, they need to reconcile themselves to the idea that they will back-off from other people as the price of having other people back off from them.

What does this mean? It means they have to classify their political objectives into things they want to get others to do, and things they want to get others to stop forcing them to do. A religious conservative might want to stop abortion (restricting the behavior of others), and prevent gays from being married (restricting the behavior of others), and not be forced into Obamacare (stopping others from forcing them to do stuff), and paying less taxes toward welfare (stopping others from forcing them to do stuff). The left can do something similar.

[frank harley]

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

cute reply!

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The apocalypse discussion is another game.  Although much of the world is truly sick, the implicit premise is that this is both your problem and mine; that if we don't save the world then we will personally die with it.

I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.

 

The cosmic irony is that all of the evil men in the world are sheep in wolves' clothing- and they aren't even healthy sheep.

[Ilya Startsev]

Going back to the question of existence, here are some definitions of objective reality that I found:
1) Objective reality is how things really are (A.H. Almaas).
2) Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not (Lawrence D’Oliveiro).
3) Objective reality is that which does not require our participation for its existence (Montague?).

In other words, objective reality is a description (of reality, things) that is without the self. It is not a reality in which I exist but a reality that exists independently from me. It exists where I am and where I am not. For example, vacuum around the Andromeda galaxy is an objective reality. Or some pulsar far in outer space is an objective reality. But anything that involves people is not necessarily an objective reality. For example, my family or the market of some community in America is not an objective reality because it cannot be measured independently from the people who constitute it. An objective reality thus excludes the scientist who measures it. Objective reality is thus considered a conviction, not a faith. A conviction by whom, might I ask? A conviction by some individuals who do not believe to be an inseparable part of objective reality. In other words, they are convinced that they are not (important). It is a self-deprecating conviction, is it not? Then you say: "A is A," and thus think that you put the mind back into the picture without realizing that you have put only the rational descriptions of reality and might have made yourself believe in being independent from everything and everyone else. Like a savage in the wild woods, or like a mind that is floating in vacuum, completely independent from any relationships to it. So, to conclude, I would ask: is the "conviction" of objective reality worthy for a human? It is probably worthy for being a subhuman, like an objectively existing inorganic molecule in its crystal prison. I don't know about you, but I exist in a market, and I call this market (environment) my (actual) reality. My environment is not merely a house, a nearby road, or an orange that's in my kitchen or in a nearby store, or all of Earth completely. My environment includes those like me.

Nonetheless, I would accept any definition of objective reality that would state that objective reality is not what humans think of it. But that would mean that the objective reality would not only exist independently from humans but also would be independent from human descriptions thereof. Then it would constitue a vague, ambiguous concept of faith, not a conviction. The meaning of objective reality would be changed to be too unspecific, and hence it may not constitute the same thing.

[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.

Branden is wrong in confusing a desire for a pastoral life with cause and effect analysis. Or rather, he's using a cheep dime-store psychologism to infer that those who do cost-benefit are closet pastoralists after all.

 

As far as conversations on planes go, he's using anecdote to replace thought. So middle brow amerikan at that.

 

For change to be 'evolutionary', it must prove to be beneficial to the majority of it's members. It's therefore incumbent on said members to actively qiestion automation's true benefits. Failure to do so is the real laziness.

[aleph_1]

For change to be 'evolutionary', it must prove to be beneficial to the majority of it's members.

 

Phrased like a true collectivist. What part of the evolution of men was beneficial to the majority of apes? (In the first several millennia, there were far more apes than men.) Your phrase is so convoluted as to have no meaning. What do you mean by "prove"? How about "beneficial". Can't inferiors drive out their superiors? For those who have studied evolutionary ecologies, it is well-known that outcomes may be determined by initial conditions, and not anything "beneficial". (This was true of Beta vs. VHS. I'm not sure you even meant to say, "evolutionary". Perhaps you are trying to use middle brow Amerikan lingo.

[frank harley]

Phrased like a true collectivist. What part of the evolution of men was beneficial to the majority of apes? (In the first several millennia, there were far more apes than men.) Your phrase is so convoluted as to have no meaning. What do you mean by "prove"? How about "beneficial". Can't inferiors drive out their superiors? For those who have studied evolutionary ecologies, it is well-known that outcomes may be determined by initial conditions, and not anything "beneficial". (This was true of Beta vs. VHS. I'm not sure you even meant to say, "evolutionary". Perhaps you are trying to use middle brow Amerikan lingo.

If you bother to look back thru the thread, in particular at Illya's last post, you'll see that we're not talking about biological evolution. Hence the scare quotes.

 

He's the one saying that all innovations that hasten automation are 'evolutionary' In so many words, i'm saying that that's nonsense.

 

For the sake of argument, however, I would concede that 'evolutionary' might be applied (as pretentiously awkward as it might be) if and only if the automation was shown to serve the needs of a large majority.

 

It moreover is, indeed, 'collectivist' in that the collective would not willfully endanger the majority of its members for the sake of one individual.

 

Thisis not to infer that automation, by causing jobs to dissappear in the automated field, is necessarily bad. Rather, in times and places of labor shortage, it provides the opportunity for labor to move in to more needy sectors,

[Ilya Startsev]

He's the one saying that all innovations that hasten automation are 'evolutionary' In so many words, i'm saying that that's nonsense.

 

For the sake of argument, however, I would concede that 'evolutionary' might be applied (as pretentiously awkward as it might be) if and only if the automation was shown to serve the needs of a large majority.

 

It moreover is, indeed, 'collectivist' in that the collective would not willfully endanger the majority of its members for the sake of one individual.

From Wikipedia: "Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution [viz, "a proactive approach to human evolution"]. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change."

 

Please explain where you see collectivism here.

 

in times and places of labor shortage, it provides the opportunity for labor to move in to more needy sectors

I don't have a problem with this.

[CriticalThinker2000]

Going back to the question of existence, here are some definitions of objective reality that I found:

1) Objective reality is how things really are (A.H. Almaas).

2) Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not (Lawrence D’Oliveiro).

3) Objective reality is that which does not require our participation for its existence (Montague?).

In other words, objective reality is a description (of reality, things) that is without the self. It is not a reality in which I exist but a reality that exists independently from me.

 

No, objective reality is recognition that reality exists independent of consciousness. It is not 'without the self'. It is independent of your consciousness. Meaning it exists independent of your perception of it. Of course your consciousness is part of objective reality.

 

 

But anything that involves people is not necessarily an objective reality.

 

No, you've completely confused what metaphysical objectivity is.

 

 

For example, my family or the market of some community in America is not an objective reality because it cannot be measured independently from the people who constitute it.

 

No no no. Your family exists independent of your consciousness. That's what 'objective reality' means- it exists independent of your perception of it.

 

 

An objective reality thus excludes the scientist who measures it.

 

Objective reality does not exclude the scientist. The scientist is part of objective reality by virtue of his existence. His consciousness exists in reality, as does his body. Objectivity is an essential concept that was created in recognition of that fact that the scientist's conscioussness does not create the facts external to it. It perceives them according to the nature of consciousness (Rand called the recognition that consciousness has a nature epistemological objectivity).

 

 

Objective reality is thus considered a conviction, not a faith. A conviction by whom, might I ask? A conviction by some individuals who do not believe to be an inseparable part of objective reality. In other words, they are convinced that they are not (important). It is a self-deprecating conviction, is it not? Then you say: "A is A," and thus think that you put the mind back into the picture without realizing that you have put only the rational descriptions of reality and might have made yourself believe in being independent from everything and everyone else. Like a savage in the wild woods, or like a mind that is floating in vacuum, completely independent from any relationships to it. So, to conclude, I would ask: is the "conviction" of objective reality worthy for a human? It is probably worthy for being a subhuman, like an objectively existing inorganic molecule in its crystal prison. I don't know about you, but I exist in a market, and I call this market (environment) my (actual) reality. My environment is not merely a house, a nearby road, or an orange that's in my kitchen or in a nearby store, or all of Earth completely. My environment includes those like me.

 

Your misunderstanding of what objective reality means causes contradictions and musings like this.

 

 

Nonetheless, I would accept any definition of objective reality that would state that objective reality is not what humans think of it. But that would mean that the objective reality would not only exist independently from humans but also would be independent from human descriptions thereof.

 

I don't think Rand was unclear about her epistemology here. Objective reality exists independent of consciousness and we perceive reality in accordance with the nature of consciousness. This is a distinction made between the object of perception (metaphysical objectivity) and the form of perception (epistemological objectivity) yet you're conflating the two. The error of conflating the object of perception and the form of perception leads you directly to the contradiction you observe: that objective reality necessitates a break between 'human descriptions' (concepts) and reality. But this is not the case and Rand's epistemology solves the problems you bring up.

 

Edit: This could help clear it up for you: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

Edited June 13, 2014 by CriticalThinker2000

[frank harley]

From Wikipedia: "Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution [viz, "a proactive approach to human evolution"]. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change."

 

Please explain where you see collectivism here.

 

I don't have a problem with this.

Even if i were to agree with 'tranhumanism' (which would require my reading of the material) i stll would say that 'evolution' begs the question of meaning.

 

For example, we already do control natural selection by the social means of racial prejudice and assessment of others by skin color. So are the authors nothing but total airheads to think that this 'phase' is somewhere in the future?

 

Intended change in this respect could either be the willfull rejection of racial discrimination or its willfull augmentation as a hitleresque policy, ostensibly giving opposite outcomes.

[Ilya Startsev]

CriticalThinker2000:

No, objective reality is recognition that reality exists independent of consciousness. It is not 'without the self'. It is independent of your consciousness. Meaning it exists independent of your perception of it. Of course your consciousness is part of objective reality.

It is a part yet has no relationship to objective reality. You are saying that parts of whole are not related. If this is the case, it is complete fragmentation and hence there can never be any whole, and thus objective reality, from what you say, cannot exist.

 

metaphysical objectivity

This changes the question. Objective reality then becomes a domain of metaphysics and hence of the same nature as consciousness. Bodies are material vehicles of our consciousness, and the market environment is the material vehicle of our reality. Am I understanding this wrong?
 

No no no. Your family exists independent of your consciousness. That's what 'objective reality' means- it exists independent of your perception of it.

So, you believe that you exist without relationships to anyone or anything? Consciousness or self cannot exist like this. It is a self-delusion, and sooner or later something from the human starts missing. That something may just be the human's soul. Only robots exist independently from their reality, but robots do not have consciousness.
 

This is a distinction made between the object of perception (metaphysical objectivity) and the form of perception (epistemological objectivity) yet you're conflating the two.

Indeed, I do not differentiate between self and consciousness. Self can only be self-consciousness. Hence if reality is without consciousness, it is without self. But if my consciousness is a part of objective reality, then it is a subjective reality, since consciousness is subjective. (Edit: I still misunderstand how you consider consciousness objective and at the same time alive and dynamic.) To remind you, consciousness is not a study of physics or any material science. Consciousness is not material but metaphysical. I am conflating self and consciousness but neither is an object of perception although both are forms of perception, or, I should say, sources of perception.
 

Objective reality exists independent of consciousness and we perceive reality in accordance with the nature of consciousness.

So, consciousness is a part of objective reality but exists independent from objective reality. Hmm. How can you perceive reality objectively unless objectivity is a part of your consciousness? And if objectivity, as you believe, is greater than your subjectivity, you call that reality objective. To me this sounds more like a belief than conviction. Although the belief is very strong, as it's supported by science, and hence becomes entrenched into a conviction. It is an absolute defence mechanism like in psychology in order to protect oneself from one's social environment. In fact, it substitutes social reality. However, you can also ask psychologists whether such mechanisms work to the benefit of the individual. More than that, they are like a consciouness that was killed inside of you and thus becomes unconscious.
 

[From ARL:] Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness.

Thank you. It is an important idea I think I was missing from my comprehension of Objectivism. The contradiction to me is that both consciousness and reality are metaphysical, yet there is no relationship between the two. So, objective relationship to reality is that there is no relationship?

frank harvey:

For example, we already do control natural selection by the social means of racial prejudice and assessment of others by skin color. So are the authors nothing but total airheads to think that this 'phase' is somewhere in the future?

Intended change in this respect could either be the willfull rejection of racial discrimination or its willfull augmentation as a hitleresque policy, ostensibly giving opposite outcomes.

I knew you were going to bring up social conditioning like from Brave New World and pick specifically the bad parts. Conditioning like this is evil. However, language and industry are also socially conditioned, and both evolve. So, is language and industry bad? No. We need to concentrate on the good in evolution, not the bad. Besides, the bad does not really evolve. It just gets worse and harder to kill.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Here is a little schema:

 

You know:

Consciousness <-> Perception -> Reality

(objective) <-> (objective) -> (objective)

 

-> means metaphysical causation

<-> means integration

 

I believe:

Consciousness <-> Perception <-> Reality

(objective/subjective) <-> (objective/subjective) <-> (objective/subjective)

 

<-> mean integration and relationships

 

The act/agency of perception in life (not necessarily in a scientific observation unless you live like this) involves a subjective dimension. I was wrong previously to state that perception is completely subjective. I need to stress that all metaphysical concepts are objective and subjective simultaneously. I only have problems with the following: 1) objectivity without subjectivity (or reason without emotion, self without others); 2) subjectivity without objectivity (or emotion without reason, others without self); 3) neither subjectivity nor objectivity (complete nihilism or irrationalism).

Edited June 13, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[CriticalThinker2000]

It is a part yet has no relationship to objective reality.

 

No, your consciousness is part of objective reality just as everything that exists is. And it has a relationship to reality, it perceives it. The form of perception is dependent upon the object of perception but the object is not dependent upon the form. To concretize the distinction I'm making, take your sight as a form of perception. The object you see exists independent of whether you see it or not. The object is independent of the form. However, your sight still has a relationship to the object it perceives in that it gathers reflections of light. It's simply that the object of perception is not dependent upon (ie is independent of) your sight. If you do not make this distinction you collapse into contradiction.

 

 

So, you believe that you exist without relationships to anyone or anything?

 

If you make the distinction between object and form as Rand makes, why does saying that object is independent of form imply that you have no relationships to anyone?? That doesn't follow and it's why you need to make the distinction.

 

 

if reality is without consciousness, it is without self.

 

OK, but consciousness is part of reality. It's only that reality is not dependent upon your perception of reality.

 

 

So, consciousness is a part of objective reality but exists independent from objective reality.

 

When an Objectivist says that reality exists independent of consciousness they do not mean that there is a consciousness and there is reality and they exist in two different dimensions or something. It simply means, as I've explained in the post already, that the object of which you are aware is not dependent upon your perception of it- reality is independent of your consciousness.

 

 

The contradiction to me is that both consciousness and reality are metaphysical, yet there is no relationship between the two. So, objective relationship to reality is that there is no relationship?

 

They are both metaphysical, meaning that they both exist. There is a relationship between the two. Consciousness perceives objective reality but objective reality is not dependent upon your consciousness's perception of it- hence it is independent.

[Ilya Startsev]

object is independent of form

Let me reiterate some things, so I may be clearer on my own understanding. Correct me if I am wrong. Objects indeed have forms, but these forms do not constitute objects. Yet, objects are formed by nature or people, but forms do not form objects. So, reality and consciousness are not interdependent or mutually exclusive; consciousness simply depends on reality. You are saying that consciousness is dependent on metaphysical reality, but the reality is independent from consciousness. What about physical reality? Metaphysical reality is a concept of existence based on perception of physical reality. It originated from our consciousness.

 

The form of perception is dependent upon the object of perception but the object is not dependent upon the form. [...] reality is not dependent upon your perception of reality.

Therefore, reality cannot be changed by conscious will alone. However, our consciousness is inseparable from our bodies, which are objective. We can change reality with our bodies, and those bodies are controlled by conscious will. Can I say that consciousness can indirectly change objective reality then?

 

P.S. It's interesting that we are dependent on reality and can change it, but reality is independent from us and cannot change us. But reality can influence us, no?

Edited June 14, 2014 by Ilya Startsev