133 réponses à ce sujet

[blothulfur]

Alistair Crowley?

[N7M]

Rabelais.

[blothulfur]

Ah wondered where he got that from, cheers.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Even Ethics is Objective and spreadable to any society as it has had. Some say relativism is true, but their fault is that they cannot think enough about every action or purpose in general and with true perception.

[lobi]

Ayn Rand, Farenheit 451, just sayin. Not that I would condone it, but the notion does hold a certain perverse appeal.

[lobi]

Montezuma IV wrote...

lobi wrote...

Ayn Rand, Farenheit 451, just sayin. Not that I would condone it, but the notion does hold a certain perverse appeal.

What do you mean?

It's pretty clear. I would like 1+1=3, but my heart + mind tells me it is only two.

Modifié par lobi, 31 août 2011 - 07:02 .

[KenKenpachi]

Montezuma IV wrote...

Anyone played Bioshock? The underground city was based solely on Andrew Ryan's view as an Objectivist.

So ****ing crazy, and needed to be put down like the wild animal he was?

[Ulous]

Montezuma IV wrote...


Interesting. I would fully agree with you....were it not for the fact that such a belief is as unrealistic as the philosphies you dispose.  Would you really want to live in a world left to the morality of science? I'm all for advancements in technology such as stem cells and whatnot....but I shudder to think of a world run by a strict scientifical thinker.

Imagine. Baby factories to harvest stem-cells.....

Okay putting the science/technology thing to one side for the moment. The point is that you still need a sane environment, philosophies like Obectivism (amongst others) seem to focus on how the individuals should behave, but it is never that simple when the individual is trapped within an environment that dictates much of what we/they do, you can not engineer an entire environment based on philosophical thinking alone.

Moving back to science/technology I honestly don't see why it should be assumed to be inherently immoral in the way it acts, science & technology would follow intelectual design as opposed to opinion based design.

Look at the people who dictate how the world works now? Politicians! these people are ill qualified to deal with the ills of society or even create a decent society, they (mostly) come from law & financial backgrounds which limits them to how they think, i.e. if they come across a problem they make it illegal or tax/fine it, this is a moronic way to deal with problems and this is in the best case scenario, a lot of politicians just got to where they are because they knew the right people and have no real educational backgrounds at all, then to prove one is better than the other they all gather in one place and grunt at each other followed by a voting system carried out by the same ill-educated fools. Throw on top of all this corruption and corporate influence it makes for a much more immoral society than a well thought out technocratic style system.

Modifié par Ulous, 31 août 2011 - 07:51 .

[KenKenpachi]

Ulous wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...


Interesting. I would fully agree with you....were it not for the fact that such a belief is as unrealistic as the philosphies you dispose.  Would you really want to live in a world left to the morality of science? I'm all for advancements in technology such as stem cells and whatnot....but I shudder to think of a world run by a strict scientifical thinker.

Imagine. Baby factories to harvest stem-cells.....

Okay putting the science/technology thing to one side for the moment. The point is that you still need a sane environment, philosophies like Obectivism (amongst others) seem to focus on how the individuals should behave, but it is never that simple when the individual is trapped within an environment that dictates much of what we/they do, you can not engineer an entire environment based on philosophical thinking alone.

Moving back to science/technology I honestly don't see why it should be assumed to be inherently immoral in the way it acts, science & technology would follow intelectual design as opposed to opinion based design.

Look at the people who dictate how the world works now? Politicians! these people are ill qualified to deal with the ills of society or even create a decent society, they (mostly) come from law & financial backgrounds which limits them to how they think, i.e. if they come across a problem they make it illegal or tax/fine it, this is a moronic way to deal with problems and this is in the best case scenario, a lot of politicians just got to where they are because they knew the right people and have no real educational backgrounds at all, then to prove one is better than the other they all gather in one place and grunt at each other followed by a voting system carried out by the same ill-educated fools. Throw on top of all this corruption and corporate influence it makes for a much more immoral society than a well thought out technocratic style system.

Blah Technocratic. Just wait till a global Military Coup happens, then everything will be fine. We'll call it the Federation.

Would you like to know more?

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.  

That's not true. There are serious problems with supposedly objectiv standards we have, like a fact. 

The issue is that you can't apprehend things like "facts" in such a way that we can agree to a universal definition of that "fact". We have to hedge it into a category, but the category is fuzzy. 

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

That's silly. The real issue is there is a cut-off of indeterminacy in data, and we have to acknowledge that. Because there's a danger of rigidity, e.g. in science. 

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.  

That's not true. There are serious problems with supposedly objectiv standards we have, like a fact. 

The issue is that you can't apprehend things like "facts" in such a way that we can agree to a universal definition of that "fact". We have to hedge it into a category, but the category is fuzzy.

Incorrect. People simply refuse to accept that which they find inconvenient to whatever has been their usual belief system. And by "belief system" I do not mean religion or morals, but rather their espoused notion of interaction between individuals, individuals being any two (or more) seperate things that are alive.

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

That's silly. The real issue is there is a cut-off of indeterminacy in data, and we have to acknowledge that.

That's exactly what I said earlier. The issue of a lack of verification causes people to assume subjectivity and that assumption is false. Even if you accept that inability to verify, that does not lead to variability.

1+X=Y
If you know that X is a single number, but do not know what that number is, then Y is not variable. You simply cannot determine what it is.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 août 2011 - 10:14 .

[Gnaeus Trebonius]

lobi wrote...

Ayn Rand, Farenheit 451, just sayin. Not that I would condone it, but the notion does hold a certain perverse appeal.

 That made my day, thank you.

[cJohnOne]

Oh, I use to be an Objectivist. What do you think of Ayn Rand's view of Art? I assume it has something to do with Romanticism. Should everything be Romantic, ha, ha.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 01 septembre 2011 - 02:43 .

[Homebound]

i dont get objectivism.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Incorrect. People simply refuse to accept that which they find inconvenient to whatever has been their usual belief system. And by "belief system" I do not mean religion or morals, but rather their espoused notion of interaction between individuals, individuals being any two (or more) seperate things that are alive.  

You don't need to restrict it to individuals. You can look at it purely as an epistemological issue and reduce it to interaction between particles. 

We need frameworks for knowledge to make sense of data. It's a basic problem of combinatorics: the actual available in the information is impossible to process. We need to filter and segment it. And once we do that, we have to select relevant information. And when it comes to defining relevant we run into a problem of indeterminacy (which is not the same as subjectivity but it does undermine objectivity).

That's exactly what I said earlier. The issue of a lack of verification causes people to assume subjectivity and that assumption is false. Even if you accept that inability to verify, that does not lead to variability.

That's looking at it too narrowly. The inability to verify does lead to a problem like subjectivity in the broader sense. I'll illustrate using your example.

1+X=Y
If you know that X is a single number, but do not know what that number is, then Y is not variable. You simply cannot determine what it is.

But if you have 1+Z = Y and 1+X =Y as competing interpretations, and you know Z != X (because Z/X are the theories, and Y is the real world phenomena) then you suddenly run into the indeterminacy problem.

What is the actual state of affairs? You can't know it. But you have competing demands, and you need to operate under some theory. That's what people tend to really get at when they talk about subjectivity. 

[the_one_54321]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
We need frameworks for knowledge to make sense of data. It's a basic problem of combinatorics: the actual available in the information is impossible to process. We need to filter and segment it. And once we do that, we have to select relevant information. And when it comes to defining relevant we run into a problem of indeterminacy (which is not the same as subjectivity but it does undermine objectivity).[/quote]
This has no effect on what is and what is not. It only affects practical application.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
That's looking at it too narrowly. The inability to verify does lead to a problem like subjectivity in the broader sense. I'll illustrate using your example.
[quote]1+X=Y
If you know that X is a single number, but do not know what that number is, then Y is not variable. You simply cannot determine what it is. [/quote]
But if you have 1+Z = Y and 1+X =Y as competing interpretations, and you know Z != X (because Z/X are the theories, and Y is the real world phenomena) then you suddenly run into the indeterminacy problem.

What is the actual state of affairs? You can't know it. But you have competing demands, and you need to operate under some theory. That's what people tend to really get at when they talk about subjectivity.[/quote]
If 1+Z=Y then 1+X!=Y. Or vice versa. By definition of the terms. Simply put, if you have two "competing interpretations" then one or both of them is wrong. The fact that we can't know the actual state of affairs is irrelevant. There is an actual state of affairs, and it is non-interpratable.

[/quote]

[Turnip Root]

There is no such thing as objectivism. Ayn Rand is a free market capitalist, and what she espouses and promotes is free market capitalism.

She did not invent the concept of free market capitalism, she simply promoted it and gave it her own pretentious name, "objectivism" as if she were the founded of the philosophy.

There is not a single original concept it any of those 1000 plus page bricks that she wrote.

In short, Ayn Rand is a plagiarist and for someone who likes to brag about how great she is and how everyone should be selfish, she sure is hypocritical taking other people's ideas and promoting them as her own.

It's just that at first glance Ayn Rand seems like a smart person and it makes promoters of capitalism feel better when they have smart sounding people promoting their ideology.  It's helpful when the majority of people who follow your philosophy are impotent nascar dads, teabaggers and klansmen.
The majority of so called "objectivist" have never actually read anything from Ayn Rand.  They just like to think "see!  There is this smart famous person who agrees with me so I must be smart too!"

Modifié par Turnip Root, 01 septembre 2011 - 04:36 .

[jamesp81]

nvm

Modifié par jamesp81, 01 septembre 2011 - 11:26 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
This has no effect on what is and what is not. It only affects practical application.

It absolutely does. Because our way of even coming to an answer of what is and what isn't is a) a huge theoretical endeavour (unless you can see molecular, atomic and subatomic particles with the naked eye) and involves a serious choice between competing theories that rely crucially on indeterminate data and technology.

If 1+Z=Y then 1+X!=Y. Or vice versa. By definition of the terms. Simply put, if you have two "competing interpretations" then one or both of them is wrong. The fact that we can't know the actual state of affairs is irrelevant. There is an actual state of affairs, and it is non-interpratable.

I don't think you understand subjectivity as a concept. Because no one argues against that, unless there idiot undergraduates that just heard of the idea or something. 

Objectivity would say that, beyond there actually being a state of affairs, it's knowable. 

Unless you talk about nebulous stuff like morality. But those are all really concepts, and it doesn't make sense to talk about a moral reality at all.