Contrary to what many objectivists might think (unless they studied many other philosophical and metaphysical approaches of the universe), Ayn Rand hasn’t invented the wheel with her 3 axioms of existence, conciousness and identity. The realisation of existence, consciousness and identity serve as the basis of many metaphysical system, now it all depends what do you want to cook with those ingredients and then fair enough objectivism has its own recipe, I personally don’t find it very tasty but that is another debate.
Didn’t Ayn Rand know that she’s supposed to use tarragon in her recipes?
But seriously, I don’t think anyone is saying that Ayn Rand was particularly innovative with the branches of her philosophy.
Ayn Rand wasn’t the first person to innovate Rational Egoism, nor was she the first person to come up with the idea that Egoism and Capitalism are harmonic. She acknowledged intellectual debt from many people.
Contrary to what many objectivists might think (unless they studied many other philosophical and metaphysical approaches of the universe), Ayn Rand hasn’t invented the wheel with her 3 axioms of existence, conciousness and identity. The realisation of existence, consciousness and identity serve as the basis of many metaphysical system, now it all depends what do you want to cook with those ingredients and then fair enough objectivism has its own recipe, I personally don’t find it very tasty but that is another debate.
Debate your personal tastes? What for?
Do you have a question?
Didn’t Ayn Rand know that she’s supposed to use tarragon in her recipes?
But seriously, I don’t think anyone is saying that Ayn Rand was particularly innovative with the branches of her philosophy.
Ayn Rand wasn’t the first person to innovate Rational Egoism, nor was she the first person to come up with the idea that Egoism and Capitalism are harmonic. She acknowledged intellectual debt from many people.
I haven’t been very far in objectivism and I am no way an expert in that particular approach, I just bumped in the 3 fundamental axioms really. On a more general tone I have always wondered how can parts of the existence (conscious beings) were actually really able to conceive and and envisage existence. To put that in other words I am a bit unsure that something which exists in existence can actually give a proper definition of what existence is, in programming language it sounds a bit like a recursive function stucked in an infinite loop with no possibility to ever understand the superclass.
I haven’t been very far in objectivism and I am no way an expert in that particular approach, I just bumped in the 3 fundamental axioms really. On a more general tone I have always wondered how can parts of the existence (conscious beings) were actually really able to conceive and and envisage existence. To put that in other words I am a bit unsure that something which exists in existence can actually give a proper definition of what existence is, in programming language it sounds a bit like a recursive function stucked in an infinite loop with no possibility to ever understand the superclass.
Its gonna take more than an internet forum to convince you that your sense evidence is valid. However, if you’d elaborate, I’m sure someone will give it a shot.
j..
Great. So what did you want?
Great. So what did you want?
Will becoming an objectivist be of any assistance to improve my daily existence and bring more peace and harmony to my life? It is a genuine question, I would really appreciate some genuine answers.
Will becoming an objectivist be of any assistance to improve my daily existence and bring more peace and harmony to my life?
I don’t think there’s any way for us to judge right now. We would have to know how irrational and disharmonious your current life is. The forum isn’t really a psychological-help chat room and frankly I don’t encourage people to publicly spill their guts, but if you can clarify the nature of those conflicts, our responses might be more meaningful.
On the other hand, if your interest is really about the philosophy itself, especially the status of the three axioms, the conversation would be rather different. I assume you’re familiar with their exposition in Galt’s speech; are you suggesting that some other (prior) philosopher has arranged those axioms in the same way to form the basis for an integrated philosophy? (If so, who is that philosopher?)
I don’t think there’s any way for us to judge right now. We would have to know how irrational and disharmonious your current life is. The forum isn’t really a psychological-help chat room and frankly I don’t encourage people to publicly spill their guts, but if you can clarify the nature of those conflicts, our responses might be more meaningful.
On the other hand, if your interest is really about the philosophy itself, especially the status of the three axioms, the conversation would be rather different. I assume you’re familiar with their exposition in Galt’s speech; are you suggesting that some other (prior) philosopher has arranged those axioms in the same way to form the basis for an integrated philosophy? (If so, who is that philosopher?)
Is an irrational feeling or concept that bring inner peace and a general sense of harmony wrong per se ? Shall I say is the tool worth focusing on as long as it does the job?
Will becoming an objectivist be of any assistance to improve my daily existence and bring more peace and harmony to my life? It is a genuine question, I would really appreciate some genuine answers.
Becoming an objectivist? Is that like ‘becoming a christian’?
To ‘become an objectivist’ is dependent on choices, - the primary irreducible choice, to ‘focus’ - and a further choice in the realm of thought is to maintain the tie between one’s mind and reality (existence).
The ‘peace and harmony’ comes from resolving an internal civil war between one’s ‘whims or wishes’ and the external reality in which one exists. The axioms, you identified earlier, have a specific heirarchy.
Ayn Rand is the first one to consistantly apply the ‘primacy of existence’ throughout her entire philosophy. When you grasp the ‘primacy of existence’, which is done conceptually, the ‘recursive function stuck in an infinite loop’ can be replaced with eternal. As to what existence is, (matter) - Objectivism does not pretend to offer a definition for, rather identifies that that falls in the provence of Physics.
Is an irrational feeling or concept that bring inner peace and a general sense of harmony wrong per se ?
Yes, it is. Irrationality cannot bring long-term inner peace. Anyhow, why do you want inner peace and a general sense of harmony?
…why do you want inner peace and a general sense of harmony?
If you prefer to sleep on a bed of nails it is up to you personally I like comfort.
If you prefer to sleep on a bed of nails it is up to you personally I like comfort.
If youre asserting that ignorance is bliss, then Objectivism isnt for you, at least not yet.
Dream_Weaver said this, I agree…
“The ‘peace and harmony’ comes from resolving an internal civil war between one’s ‘whims or wishes’ and the external reality in which one exists.”
good stuff.
j..
Is an irrational feeling or concept that bring inner peace and a general sense of harmony wrong per se ? Shall I say is the tool worth focusing on as long as it does the job?
This is pragmatism, not Objectivism. You cant win a war against reality in the long term. The tool to focus on is reason, and reason alone.
j..
This is pragmatism, not Objectivism. You cant win a war against reality in the long term. The tool to focus on is reason, and reason alone.
j..
So I understand that the tool is more important than the job is it ?
So I understand that the tool is more important than the job is it ?
Reason is the only tool. The ‘job’ is thinking. Anything else is irrationality.
The choice is yours.
The consequences (effects) are based on your choice (cause).
Dream_weaver is right
Reason is the only tool. Anything else is irrationality.
The choice is yours.
The consequences (effects) are based on your choice (cause).
Reason’s purpose, its job, is identification of what is.
If someone imagines they are achieving “harmony” or “peace” by choosing irrationality, their pupose, admited or not, is to protect some piece of blindness they have internalized.
Will that cause harm?
Will closing their eyes for a moment or so while driving their car cause harm?
So I understand that the tool is more important than the job is it ?
If the job is a flourishing life as a man, rational thought is the tool. If the job is a temporary whimsical escape from the burden of resposnibility of life as a man, try religion, or drugs.
j..
…If someone imagines they are achieving “harmony” or “peace”
j..
I fundamentally don’t disagree with you that the tool is reason, I just plainly disagree with the fact that objectivism makes it a constant and not a variable. Objectivism does not leave any room for subjective intuition (yet incomprehensible abstractions). Intuition cannot be quantified or measured but without it I suspect many scientists and inventors would not have discovered what they did. Also many apparently irrational processes are involved in many creative arts and often for the best. What might appear irrational today might become very rational tomorrow as consciousness expands, I never thought I would reach a final destination and never will.