Visiting Leftists

[EC]

ROC, with all due respect, the instinct issue will make this thread unmanageable with all that Filipe brought up, maybe start a new thread and we'll debate it, or just let it go for now I guess.

I don't need to start a new thread, it's not debatable, it's a verifiable fact of volition, humans do NOT possess instincts.

[GWDS]

RO - tell me which part went over your head and I'll explain it to you.

[EC]

RO - tell me which part went over your head and I'll explain it to you.

I don't think that would be possible.

[realitycheck44]

Okay, I've been looking in on this thread a while, and you (GWDS) really need to read the first essay in The Virtue Of Selfishness. It's called "The Objectivist Ethics". It explains it better than any of us (no offense guys ) can. I belive someone earlier recommended it too. Please take this advice. I thought I understood ethics after Atlas Shrugged, but this essay takes it to a whole new level. Honestly, I cannot stress how important and incredible this essay is. It is like taking off a pair of un-needed glasses (or putting them on, if you have bad eyesight). It deals with the excellent questions that Felipe asked, which by the way, you evaded.

On a side note: have you given any thought to metaphysics? Are there absolutes in reality, but just not in morals?

Zak

[edit to clarify who "you" was]

Edited March 10, 2005 by realitycheck44

[GWDS]

Reality Check -

I don't think I really evaded so much as laid out my diefinition of morality. If I was to answer every comment made I'd be here all night.

Aswell, I'm quite confident in the skills of the forum members to successfully argue Objectivism.

Currently I don't think metaphysics has any validity, its just a delusion of the mind, but that's a whole other topic.

edit for the metaphysics question.

Edited March 10, 2005 by GWDS

[HaloNoble6]

The foundations of morality, and GWDS's opinions on the matter, are being discussed in this thread; please continue this discussion there.

I am hesitant to merge the topics, as this may cause confusion. If you wish to respond to posts in this thread, which is now closed, you may do so by copy-pasting and using the quote tag (just make sure you mention the quote was from this thread).

Edit: I've reopened the thread due to someone's mention of a particular comment that deserved to be discussed further which was not being discussed in the thread linked above. My apologies for any confusion.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Felipe

[HaloNoble6]

As I expected, cryptic; at least you answered one question, though I suspect it was not intentional on your part. I am trying to keep the discourse in terms of essentials, and so what I'll do is pick out your fundamental error and discard all the strange stuff you pilled upon it.

I use words like 'beleive', 'general rule' etc because I don't see how morality has an objective meaning.

Based on this, I have no choice but to conclude that you are a moral relativist, as this is the very definition: the non-objectivity of morality.

Now, I ask that you answer the following, and only the following:

Is reality knowable? If so, do you agree that existence consists of inanimate entities (things which exist) and living entities? Do you agree that, if left alone, the continued existence of living entities is contingent on whether or not they engage in specific life-preserving actions, while the existence of inanimate entities is not? Do you see then, specifically, that the existence of man is contingent on him engaging in specific life-preserving actions?

Then, by man's nature, how is it that he acts? By volition. If so, do you see that he must learn what actions are life-preserving and which are not?

This, GWDS, is the objective basis of morality which you are too quick to discard. To say that morality is meaningless is to say that the conditions and actions man must seek for his survival are arbitrary and meaningless; it is to say that man is an inanimate entity, since his continued existence isn't contingent on his actions.

[EC]

Currently I don't think metaphysics has any validity, its just a delusion of the mind, but that's a whole other topic.

I just wanted to state that this is a negation of physical reality, of existence itself, as such. It is also primacy of conciousness at its worst. I don't know if I have anything more to say to someone who explicitly denies existence.

[HaloNoble6]

I think you need to express your views on reality before discussing anything else; before discussing art, movies, ethics, concepts... anything. Does reality exist apart from our awareness of it? Just answer that. No esoteric talk about "moral technology," etc.; just answer this one question directly.

[Capitalism Forever]

GWDS, if you are seriously interested in understanding Objectivism, then what you ought to read first is Chapter 1 of OPAR, which explains the Objectivist metaphysics. Contrary to the metaphysics of other philosophies, this is not just a delusion, but a statement of common sense. So much so that it may seem like a superfluous self-evidency, but it needs to be stated in order to recognize and refute the errors in other philosophies.

After this, read the next few chapters of OPAR, which deal with epistemology, and explain the difference between the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. In one of your posts above, you said that you didn't see how an objective morality was possible, and went on to base your statement on the fact that there are no intrinsic values. You are correct that there are no intrinsic values, but this means that no intrinsic morality is possible. In order to understand what an objective value is and how it makes an objective morality possible, you need to know the difference between intrinsic and objective.

Objectivist ethics is very much based on Objectivist epistemology, which in turn is based on Objectivist metaphysics. (And objectivist metaphyisics, as I said, is plain common sense.) So you need to get a basic familiarity with our metaphysics and epistemology in order to be able to discuss ethics with us, and OPAR is just the place to get this basic familiarity from. (If it helps emotionally, think of us as an oppressed minority whom nobody understands because people don't speak our language. In order to overcome the stereotypes, you need to reach out and study our culture so you get a better understanding of why we think the way we do so you can live in peace and harmony with us.)

[Inspector]

GWDS,

It appears you have us mistaken for intrincisists (as in the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy), which we emphatically are NOT. Also, you have us mistaken for Idealists (as in, the Materialist/Idealist dichotomy), which we also are NOT. Objectivism rejects both dichotomies as false.

I think if you read OPAR or The Virtue of Selfishness, you'll find that we're actually something else. Something you've NEVER seen before but have probably given up on ever finding. Something you convinced yourself at some point wasn't possible, but secretly hoped was.

Put down Atlas Shrugged. It's a fiction book and a work of art, not a means of learning the philosophy of Objectivism. Pick up either of the two (much, much shorter) titles I mentioned. Then, later, go read Atlas because it's a darn good read!

But in order to continue here, you should probably cease all discussions of ethics until you have an understanding of Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology. (Don't worry, unlike the twisted garbage you're used to seeing associated with the word "Metaphysics," the Objectivist Metaphysics is nothing less than plain, common sense)

Start a thread in the proper section; I'm sure some of us will be happy to explain.

Also, as a side note, your concearn about "heartlessness" is hard for us to explain to you. Objectivism concludes that emotions are not causeless or instinctual, but rather are reflections of the conscious value-choices that a person has already made. They are not primaries, or starting points, but rather the endpoint of one's conscious thought. If one has an irrational idea, then one will have an irrational emotion, and so on.

Hope that helps you understand a little better.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Inspector

[redfarmer]

On #4, anybody who believes Miss Rand was a rascist is just flat out wrong. She discusses this issue in The Voice of Reason. Racism is a subtle form of collectivism.

Zak, I think you meant the racism article in The Virtue of Selfishness. I believe the same article is also reprinted in Return of the Primitive.

[Inspector]

An addendum to my last post:

GWDS, you have expressed that nobody has been able to show you a moral imperative without reference to a nonexistant supernatural entity or "just because" duty. Welcome to the world of modern philosophy.

It appears that you have (reluctantly, I hope) concluded that therefore there are no absolutes, and morality is just relative, or maybe a function of our chemicals. This is the OTHER side of the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy, and you are playing right into their hands. Objectivism rejects both of these false alternatives and submits that both sides are more alike than differant, as they both ultimately stem from and result in irrationalism. Objectivism presents a third choice: rational egoism, a previously unknown path that is easily misunderstood if all you've ever seen before is IRrational egoism.

The Objectivist ethics make no references to BooGie or "categorical imperatives." We know that stuff is nonsense. The Objectivist ethics are based on the scientific nature of man as a living being, and the scientific requirements to sustain that life. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

[GWDS]

Felipe you first asked me to answer only the question on biological life, then you asked me to state my veiw of reality. I'm going with the latter, doing so will frame the conversation better, would you not agree?

I think you need to express your views on reality before discussing anything else

You guys have asked alot of questions, so I think some autobiograghy is in order, and I'll try to keep the 'weird stuff' out of it, but if you ask for my beleifs, you're going to get my beleifs.

1. Over the past several years I've seen metaphysicians argue that the world is some kind of shadow of the 'Forms', that an evil demon is controlling all we percieve, that a set of rules guide History the class revolution, that all we are is material, etc. I tried to argue these system's validity in my mind, to no avail. The systems all seemed based on untouchable absurdities - that only thought eists and the like. Then I read Heidegger who simply said "The great scandal of philosophy is not that we have countered solipsism, but that the question has even been raised at all." I thought that was so true, how do you argue these sorts of things? Why even bother?

I stopped trying to think of whether or not Plato or others had it right and began to ask what sort of arguements were valid to me if metaphysical ones were not. I kind of defaulted into the position of men like AJ Ayer in stressing sensory evidence for the world around me as the only reliable guide. I had seen what happens when people try to go 'beyond' the senses, not liking it I began to think simply - rocks fall, water boils at a certain temperature, and 2+2=4. Nothing from the mind is ever going to change these facts.

I back this beleif up by arguing that while metaphysics can only fall back on 'reason' (as they defined it, I'm not saying Rand fell into this aswell, yet). Science, however, can back itself up because it has a definate power to change the world. The Lunar Landing proves the valisity of its laws so to speak.

To summarise in case I went 'Out There' again. Relaising that when philosophers go beyond the senses they always say stupid things, I put my faith in science as it has the best track record for finding the truth.

2. Again, Heidegger made the point that we exist in the world, we ask things, pick up things etc. This was a dose of common sense I needed at the time. It reinforced my beleif that metaphysics is not worth studying and that we should focus on the life we live instead. Who cares whether the mind has 9 categories or 12, that is a dubious question for philosophers and has no real bearing on our lives at all.

3. What I found refreshing about Objectivism, from the ARI Intro, was its basic common sense thinking. "Existence Exists", the mere fact that such a thing needs to be addressed at all is a sad statement, but I like where she's going. It's just absurd that the opposite can be true. The fact that we are having this conversation proves it.Now, most philosophies would bring up the 'Substance' issue which was why I through metaphysics out the window to begin with, but, apparently it won't be that bad.

I guess that's a good answer to your question on my views?

Okay, onto Inspector -

I picked up Atlas Shrugged becuase it was #2 on the ARI reading list, so I'll go back to the library and get a straight Objectivist book

It appears that you have (reluctantly, I hope) concluded that therefore there are no absolutes, and morality is just relative, or maybe a function of our chemicals. This is the OTHER side of the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy, and you are playing right into their hands

I don't quite see what chemicals have to do with anything, but I look forward to reading Rand's arguement.

And I'm off to the library to see what I can dig up, thanks for posting everyone.

[Inspector]

Rand explicitly addresses the pitfalls and nonsense that you speak of. I think you're going to like what you find.

[Iakeo]

1. Over the past several years I've seen metaphysicians argue that the world is some kind of shadow of the 'Forms', that an evil demon is controlling all we percieve, that a set of rules guide History the class revolution, that all we are is material, etc. I tried to argue these system's validity in my mind, to no avail. The systems all seemed based on untouchable absurdities - that only thought eists and the like. Then I read Heidegger who simply said "The great scandal of philosophy is not that we have countered solipsism, but that the question has even been raised at all." I thought that was so true, how do you argue these sorts of things? Why even bother?

It should be obvious to you (GWDS) that your definition of "metaphysics" and

theirs are at odds. I suspect your meaning is closer to "mind over matter", or

the "primacy of the mind", while theirs not that. The exact opposite of that,

actually, from my reading of their words.

I stopped trying to think of whether or not Plato or others had it right and began to ask what sort of arguements were valid to me if metaphysical ones were not. I kind of defaulted into the position of men like AJ Ayer in stressing sensory evidence for the world around me as the only reliable guide. I had seen what happens when people try to go 'beyond' the senses, not liking it I began to think simply - rocks fall, water boils at a certain temperature, and 2+2=4. Nothing from the mind is ever going to change these facts.

I back this beleif up by arguing that while metaphysics can only fall back on 'reason' (as they defined it, I'm not saying Rand fell into this aswell, yet). Science, however, can back itself up because it has a definate power to change the world. The Lunar Landing proves the valisity of its laws so to speak.

Science is merely knowing things. How one uses science is the same as how one

uses any kind of knowing. Science does not have laws. Science seeks to find the

laws,.. of reality.

And you'll find when you see the overall concepts of objectivism, what you mean

by "the things you don't like happen when people go 'beyond the senses'", are

precisely the same things that any objectivist finds objectionable.

To summarise in case I went 'Out There' again. Relaising that when philosophers go beyond the senses they always say stupid things, I put my faith in science as it has the best track record for finding the truth.

"Philosopher" does not equal "Wizard".

"Beyond the senses" equals "not sensible" (can not be sensed).

"Science" does not equal "All knowing agent of truth, justice and the American Way".

2. Again, Heidegger made the point that we exist in the world, we ask things, pick up things etc. This was a dose of common sense I needed at the time. It reinforced my beleif that metaphysics is not worth studying and that we should focus on the life we live instead. Who cares whether the mind has 9 categories or 12, that is a dubious question for philosophers and has no real bearing on our lives at all.

Once again, see the objectivist definition of Metaphysics. It radically differs from

yours.

3. What I found refreshing about Objectivism, from the ARI Intro, was its basic common sense thinking. "Existence Exists", the mere fact that such a thing needs to be addressed at all is a sad statement, but I like where she's going. It's just absurd that the opposite can be true. The fact that we are having this conversation proves it.Now, most philosophies would bring up the 'Substance' issue which was why I through metaphysics out the window to begin with, but, apparently it won't be that bad.

Take heart. Saying "existence exists", far from being sad, is the equivalent of a

child or an wise old man picking up a pretty stone. It's a basic test of reality, that

neither the innocent nor the wise ever "outgrow".

-Iakeo

[Bryan]

Put down Atlas Shrugged. It's a fiction book and a work of art, not a means of learning the philosophy of Objectivism. Pick up either of the two (much, much shorter) titles I mentioned. Then, later, go read Atlas because it's a darn good read!

I disagree with this advice. I still hold that The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are the best introduction to Objectivism. They provide a perspective of the philosophy in action. Anyone exposed to Objectivism after being exposed to (and possibly agreeing with) some of the other god-awful ideas that masquerade as a valid philosophy needs a sort of "delousing" to clean their slate. This is exactly what TFH and AS provides.

When first learning about Objectivism, if I had started with OPAR before reading the fictional works, I doubt I would have gotten through it.

[Iakeo]

I disagree with this advice.  I still hold that The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are the best introduction to Objectivism.  They provide a perspective of the philosophy in action.  Anyone exposed to Objectivism after being exposed to (and possibly agreeing with) some of the other god-awful ideas that masquerade as a valid philosophy needs a sort of "delousing" to clean their slate.  This is exactly what TFH and AS provides.

When first learning about Objectivism, if I had started with OPAR before reading the fictional works, I doubt I would have gotten through it.

Yup...

It prepares the soil, as it were.

Not that I don't LIKE pondering through highly intense rational discourse, I agree

that doing so without the conditioning (think "motivational framework", or "pre-

prizefight sparring match") would have been truly exhausting.

As it is, it's a good workout. Lovin' the burn. Sweat is good..!

-Iakeo

Edited March 10, 2005 by Iakeo

[Inspector]

He went into reading Atlas Shrugged expecting a philosophical treatise that puts everything out on the table at once and explains everything in explicit terms. That it does not do, at least not right away.

For you, no doubt reading Atlas first worked wonders. Once he has a chapter or two of OPAR in him, he should definitely read Atlas. Or both at once. But unless he is a speed reader, Atlas isn't going to give him any fast answers to his burning questions.

I read Atlas only after several of the nonfiction works. It worked well for me. Your mileage may vary. So long as he reads BOTH (and understands it all), he'll be fine no matter what order he does it in.

[Styles2112]

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM? I really don't know of anyone, who TRULY puts others before themselves. Take most religions, for example. Most say, in loose terms, to give to charity, help everyone you can, blah, blah, blah, but really, people do that so that THEY can get to heaven. I suppose, in my observation, Altruism, then is not the idea of putting others before oneself, but the use of Man's self-interest to accomplish a goal. And if there were/are REAL Altruists, chances are they've already sacrificed themselves for somebody, and natural selection has occurred.

OH, and isn't the Not having a philosphy a philosphy a contradiction?

or does that fall under the "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" idea?

Sounds kind of funny to me. "My philosophy is, not to have a philosophy."

[Inspector]

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM?

Pretty much. Pure altruism is total nihilism, which is impracticable.

And yes to the rest, with the addendum that to not have an explicit philosophy is to let your implicit premises determine your mode of thinking and living. Who sets those implicit premises if a person is not introspective and never examines them?

Why, ANYONE.

Anyone and everyone. Such a person surrenders their mind to any random slogan, unexamined suggestion, or sinister plot. Not something to be proud of.

[Iakeo]

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM?  I really don't know of anyone, who TRULY puts others before themselves.  Take most religions, for example.  Most say, in loose terms, to give to charity, help everyone you can, blah, blah, blah, but really, people do that so that THEY can get to heaven.  I suppose, in my observation, Altruism, then is not the idea of putting others before oneself, but the use of Man's self-interest to accomplish a goal.  And if there were/are REAL Altruists, chances are they've already sacrificed themselves for somebody, and natural selection has occurred. 

Altruists "sacrifice" for the sake of others, not themselves,.. as Altruism is defined

by objectivism.

The objectivist definition of sacrifice is basically giving up something of high value

(to you) for something you value less.

Under these definitions, any "gain" to an altruist is evil, as it doesn't involve a

sacrifice.

This means the world contains very few actual altruists, but MANY many quasi-

altruists who delude themselves into thinking of themselves as altruists

because "the collective" tells them that non-sacrifice (not giving enough to mean

real sacrifice) is sacrifice.

Real sacrifice is, on the face of it, silly,.. and only a pathological mentality would

do it.

But,.. this fake non-sacrifice is palatable if everyone "knows" that they're getting

something out of it, covertly. The altruist gets into heaven. The beggar gets wealth

for nothing. The middleman makes the most of the lot...! Both at once..!

Real altruists are like the animal that neither eats nor craps. It takes not from the

more worthy and fouls not the pristine environment.

A noble (and VERY hard to find) beast.

OH, and isn't the Not having a philosphy a philosphy a contradiction? 

or does that fall under the "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" idea?

Sounds kind of funny to me.  "My philosophy is, not to have a philosophy."

We all have a not-philosophy. It's what we not-think.

Most of us try to keep our not-philosophy to a minimum.

Those who proudly profess their not-philosophy are an odd sort of folk. To me.

-Iakeo

Edited March 10, 2005 by Iakeo

[Bryan]

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM?  I really don't know of anyone, who TRULY puts others before themselves.  Take most religions, for example.  Most say, in loose terms, to give to charity, help everyone you can, blah, blah, blah, but really, people do that so that THEY can get to heaven.  I suppose, in my observation, Altruism, then is not the idea of putting others before oneself, but the use of Man's self-interest to accomplish a goal.  And if there were/are REAL Altruists, chances are they've already sacrificed themselves for somebody, and natural selection has occurred. 

Exactly, there is no such thing as true altruism. It would be impossible to be 100% moral under an alturistic code of morality. Yet this is the code that people attempt to follow. And then they think they are being immoral if they do something SELFISH

[Capitalism Forever]

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM?  I really don't know of anyone, who TRULY puts others before themselves.

Well, there are those people who preach altruism because they want others to serve them. Since an altruistic action is always asymetrical--there is a person being sacrificed and there is a person receiving the sacrifice--they "adopt" an altruistic ethics hoping to be at the receiving end. By "adopting," I mean that they advocate the rules demanding that others play by them but not intending to do so themselves.

And there are also the useful idiots who, believe it or not, BUY that nonsense! I know these people exist because I have one of them among my relatives. They accept those rules unthinkingly and play by them, with the unwavering dedication of lemmings swimming to their deaths. They keep voicing their disapproval for people who don't play by their rules (which makes them the peskiest people on Earth) but at the same time they continue to sacrifice themselves to them (which makes them even peskier--unsolicited "help" can be pretty annoying at times!). And the relative I am talking about is a hardcore atheist, so she hasn't even got the expectation of Heaven as a mitigating circumstance!

[Eddie]

It seems that we have several new members that have ideas that are quite left-of-center. They seem to be here to ask questions and study us(Objectivists). Which is fine. But, I'd like to flip it around a bit. What do you guys think of us? It must be a bit baffling to you that we are both godless and rabid Capitalists at the same time, huh? Do you find it strange that most Objectivists are extreme moralists?  Do you understand our morality? Do you understand why we know that self-sacrifice and altruism is evil? Do you understand why we claim that not only is knowledge possible, but we can verify it?

This is an interesting perspective. Where I come from, official religion is very much of a minority sport as it were, so godlessness and rabid capitalism are reasonably comfortable bedfellows.

What do I think of Objectivists? I think they are in the main intelligent people, who take an interest in the “big” questions of life, which I think is commendable. That said, I tend to take their knowledge claims with a pinch of salt until I see the evidence.

So there’s a challenge. You say you can verify your knowledge, presumably by using the method that Ayn Rand spelled out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. So why not demonstrate that claim, say by verifying the formation of the concept of, well, “godless” will do. Specifically, what measurements would we omit when we form this concept?

Eddie