133 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Objectivity rules existence. All things and notions simply are or are not. The existence of subjectivity in concepts is limited almost entirely to "like" or "dislike" and their variants.

The confusion in the ideas arise from the fact that in most occurrences it is impossible to identify all of the objective facts involved, and therefore different people are aware of different facts and non-facts and so reach different conclusions. The inability to properly separate facts from non-facts or to identify every actual fact leads to the incorrect conclusion that the different views are the result of subjectivity and that there is no actual correct view when there is.

[the_one_54321]

The title says philosophical objectivism.

[the_one_54321]

Ayn Rand is not objective. Ayn Rand is fallacy.

And what I'm talking about and what Ayn Rand is claiming to be are the same things. It's just that she's a monster and her conclusions are corrupted by that.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 août 2011 - 05:29 .

[blothulfur]

There is only the Qun, all else is the obfuscation of liars and simpletons.

[KenKenpachi]

blothulfur wrote...

There is only the Qun, all else is the obfuscation of liars and simpletons.

Indeed only with the Teachings of the Qun will you find Peace. Atlas may shrug, but the Qun brings enlightenment. Atlas only offers the chiropractor. And the lies of endless Wealth. Convert now, and know contentment and purpose.

Or Fall as Atlas Shrugs. For he unlike the fallowers of the Qun looks out only for himself.

[the_one_54321]

blothulfur wrote...
There is only the Qun, all else is the obfuscation of liars and simpletons.

That's the problem with professional writers. What they produce is often very clever and has the appearance of profundity, when it's actually obfuscation itself. The Qun and its application by the Qunari is an excellent example of this. While it makes for excellent story telling, it creates the same misinterpretation that Ayn Rand did. Its, and her, approach to humanism is thoroughly broken and full of incorrect claims of logic and objectivity.

[Ulous]

Montezuma IV wrote...

The world now rejects Objectivism fiercely....and look how "well" it's doing :

In what way?

[the_one_54321]

Ulous wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...
The world now rejects Objectivism fiercely....and look how "well" it's doing :

In what way?

Currently, the notion that "all view points and claims are subjective" is very popular. Almost as popular is the more extreme notion that there is no right or wrong, but rather only position on one side or the other.

[Ulous]

Montezuma IV wrote...

Ulous wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...

The world now rejects Objectivism fiercely....and look how "well" it's doing :

In what way?

Which part lol, the rejection or the status of the world?

In what way does the world object it? And in what way is rejecting it adding to today's problems?

[the_one_54321]

Ulous wrote...
And in what way is rejecting it adding to today's problems?

People today often feel fully justified in entirely selfish choices due to the notion that they are not doing anything wrong by choosing to be "on their own side."

In the past, a selfish choice was standard because there was no practical way to be anything except selfish. Today, it is quite possible to almost never be selfish and still live quite comfortably. However, rather than doing this (which would solve any number of problems in the world) most people simply search for excuses and false logic to justify their selfish behavior. Which leads to the majority of the problems in the world today.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 août 2011 - 05:46 .

[Ulous]

the_one_54321 wrote...


Today, it is quite possible to almost never be selfish and still live quite comfortably. However, rather than doing this (which would solve any number of problems in the world) most people simply search for excuses and false logic to justify their selfish behavior. Which leads to the majority of the problems in the world today.

But surely this can come down to ones idea of what selfishness is? For example we can do something selfish without noticing it and/or being ignorant of it, take for example myself and five other people apply for a job and i'm succesful, this was/is potentially a selfish act on my behalf which has resulted in me getting by at the expense and demoralization of someone else.

Also with the way our global monetary system works the world would be in ruin if people refused to perform selfish acts be it knowingly or not.

So what it all boils down to as far as i'm concerned is environment, all these philosophies fail to take this into consideration, hence why I believe scientific and technological thinking is and should be above that of philosophical thinking, as only science and technology can create the environments for a more sane society.

Modifié par Ulous, 31 août 2011 - 05:56 .

[the_one_54321]

You've lost me. Could you rephrase?

[N7M]

Isn't 'selfishness', in one sense, a poetic term which Rand uses to convey the message of eliminating false ego satiation? I don't recall a prohibition to being unselfish; if it truly was part of an individual's productive nature.

[blothulfur]

Halt the blathering of philosophy and act, only when your actions benefit the greater good is the Qun being followed.

[N7M]

Do What Thou Wilt.

[Darthnemesis2]

[this post now blank]

Modifié par Darthnemesis2, 31 août 2011 - 06:14 .