Objectivism is, in its most basic element, the fact that we are bound to reality through consciousness and existence, and because our consciousness is individually unique, everybody's perception of reality is different.
Matter and consciousness.
As far as other facets, such as capitalism....that breeches the rules of this forum. I simply say that I do not care or submit to the ethical lectures I receive from other individuals on what I should do....this or that. Interfere with me, prohibit me or dictate to me, and you will get a harsh and nasty response for obstructing my freedom.
The Official Philosophy Thread (Previously a thread on the discussion of Objectivism)
Débuté par
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
, août 31 2011 05:14
Retour en haut
#102
Posté 04 septembre 2011 - 08:12
grregg
-
- Members
- 401 messages
Ulous wrote...
In fairness I also believe Utopia is for the best part unachievable, it's just that I believe a system as I mentioned would be a hell of a lot better than it is now.
Moving on to the human nature thing as you said it is very difficult to differentiate human nature from environment, this mainly because it is impossible to study behaviour outside of environment, but what sets us apart from other species on this planet is that we can create environment, the problem is that the environment we have created for us now was created by the few to please the few, but back when it was all instigated it was seen as the best option as we were lacking the technology to implement anything else, I presume they thought "well it's better to have some living in luxury than everyone having next to nothing", the communist manifesto was at the time an alternative to this which I believe fell flat on it's face because it did not take technology into account and/or at the time lacked the technology to put into place properly, not that any country has actually implemented it as it was wrote anyway.
I can't really comment on the studies you mentioned with regard to murder rates (without research) but I would put anything like that again down to scarcity once again, i'm not sure how far you are going back but if you head back to tribal and earlier times then scarcity was a serious threat and although a majority of the deaths probably were not from animal attacks we still had to compete with animals for food, I would also presume that even in times of abundance we would have murdered from fear of scarcity, we even used to kill new borns because of this and again this was not because we are evil, nasty or bad by nature, it was simply survival. With this in mind today we can eliminate both scarcity and paranoia of scarcity, as technology is advanced and far reaching.
With regards to competition again it is a tricky subject, how much of it is human nature and how much of it is actually good or bad? Either way the system we are saddled with now forces us to be competitive and we are left with no choice but to partake, what makes this worse is that people actually fail to see that the forced competition is actually immoral, nobody see's their succesful job application as being immoral and why would they? Because it is both taught to us as being okay and legal. While mentioning our legal systems this is also another way the population is dumbed down, we are consumed with thinking things are only wrong if the government says they are, we will curse and spit at the scum bag that steals our car but we will not think twice about what resources were stolen to build our cars, infact how many people even know that what they buy is made with stolen resources or made with slave labour?
Staying on the subject of legal/law systems again these can be dealt with by science and technology, let's take an example of road safety violation and let's use speeding to be exact, a politician deals with the problem by giving us a fine if we break the speed limit, but everytime someone gets a fine that statute has failed, science would say "why can the car even go those speeds in the first place?", but then we go back to the immoral profit making system again, that super fast BMW is going to make someone a lot of money, why should they care if someone drives it at 160mph on a 70mph road?
But with all this said it is good that we see at least somewhat eye to eye, but if you are like me you will know that sooner or later (sooner i think) the global monetary system is more than likely going to collapse, then what happens? We can only hope that our poor thinking politicians can save us, but i'm not convinced.
I think you're committing a fallacy of comparing an imagined scenario with reality. In such comparison, the reality always, always comes second, because the imagination is free to ignore the nitty gritty details that real systems have to deal with.
On a side note, I'd recommend reading Voyage from Yesteryear by James P. Hogan. It is the best description of a technological utopia that I've ever read.
To address your various points together. Yes, there are solutions to many of the problems we currently struggle with. The real issue is usually not how to solve the problem, but how to convince people that your idea is good. Especially given that you will face opposition both from people that have competing ideas and from people that do not want the problem to be solved at all.
But, and that's the important part, you have to convince people first. Otherwise you will fall squarely into "telling other people what to think" territory and that's a wrong place to be. I know that it is frustrating when you realize that you know how to solve a problem, but people refuse to listen, but they have a right to not listen to you.
To use a simple example, it is frustrating to see people ruin their health via bad diet and lack of exercise, but it does not give anyone a right to control what a person eats or to force them to exercise.
#103
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 12:12
wrexingcrew
-
- Members
- 366 messages
In Exile wrote...
Absolutely not. This is ridiculous. You've just compounded ignorance of economics with ignorance of jurisprudence.It is actually not necessary to devote an entire legal code to "negative externalities" (nor is regulation necessary or advisable as a corrective measure) because anyone with a legitimate complaint already has recourse to the courts for restitution.
The court system cannot handle all possible litigiuous complaints. For one, the legal system would simply collapse under it's own weight. For another,the common law would establish precedent that works in principle just like regulation to reduce cost and create a manageable caseload.
These are both fundamental consequences of how the legal system works.
This ignores the many, many problems with this: 1) the "restitution" that a court offers may in no way be equivalent (how do you value the life of a father who died at 35 because of asbestos poisoning)2) proving cause may be impossible (abestos is toxic in small quanities in the long run, and to prove cause you have to show the ailment was caused ; the company could easily get away with paying much lower costs and only in the long-run, and then only if they get found out at all); 3) this ignores the balance of power in legal representation that different individuals can afford.
If you believe what you've posted here, then I suggest picking up a book on Law & Economics. There is a tremendous amount of literature on this.
In Exile: thank you. You've spared me the trouble of typing out a smiliar response. That assertion about negative externalities was one of the most remarkable I've seen on this board.
#104
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 12:16
Homebound
-
- Members
- 11 891 messages
this is a philosophy thread.
not a politics thread.
leave all your baggage at the frontdoor.
not a politics thread.
leave all your baggage at the frontdoor.
#105
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 01:12
sympathy4saren2
-
- Members
- 57 messages
Philosophically, Objectivism is founded upon the axiom that 'existence exists' and that we ourselves exist. The way we comprehend and experience existence is through our own individual consciousness...our minds.
#106
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 04:59
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 286 messages
Human Mind is the greatest product of the universe. Evolved to reach Its peek as logical (rational) and moral being. Ethical Objectivism is what I approve. On the other side Ethical Subjectivism is what people may choose to escape their moral duties towards humanity and their own self. Our minds is greater than a conscious machine, we can consider history, logic, natural sciences and daily matters and then conclude something extraordinary ...
I suggest reading some topics about Hinduism and Buddhism, It is going to open your mind to the universe.
Existence is important, but It's not everything. You may explain most of the things with matter, but there is something which is called Energy, Karma or Soul which is beyond scientific explanations.
I suggest reading some topics about Hinduism and Buddhism, It is going to open your mind to the universe.
Existence is important, but It's not everything. You may explain most of the things with matter, but there is something which is called Energy, Karma or Soul which is beyond scientific explanations.
#107
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 05:25
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
-
- Guests
PsychoBlonde wrote...
Montezuma IV wrote...
Anyone played Bioshock? The underground city was based solely on Andrew Ryan's view as an Objectivist.
No it was not. It was loosely based on some interpretations of political libertarianism, which is NOT Objectivism. The aspect of Bioshock that was based on Ayn Rand's writing was the idea of a libertarian-ish figure (Andrew Ryan) trying to abandon society and set up a Utopia of sorts, which is a theme that plays a major role in Atlas Shrugged. The game then goes on to explore the dystopia that necessarily arises from mistaken utopian views. All well and good. It is based on Objectivism in about the same degree that the Qunari are based on the Byzantine empire.
As for what I think of Objectivism--I'm an Objectivist, and have been for over half my life now. Why? Because it's the only philosophical system I've ever encountered that does what philosophy is supposed to do: give men a framework for living. How does it accomplish this? By giving systematic validation and proof for every conclusion.
People focus on the Objectivist ethics as if that were the whole of the philosophy, but by doing so they are starting near the end of a long chain of complex reasoning. (This is also why a great many people are unable to distinguish Objectivism from Nietzsche, and wind up equating the two.) The place to start is with metaphysics--however much of the Objectivist metaphysics is actually straight out of Aristotle, with the addition of a few specific *formulations* such as the Primacy of Existence.
The major important point of Objectivism, and where it differs fundamentally from any other philosophy lies in Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, or in philosophical circles, her solution to the "Problem of Universals". The ethical and political aspects all depend on this epistemological point--you cannot grasp them without first understanding this root. Hence why Objectivism is plagued with misrepresentations, confusions, and outright falsehoods. Most people do not have the habit of examining the roots of ideas. They prefer to jump in mid-stream and start arguing about some minor sideline as if it were the entire picture.
As for Atlas Shrugged: it is a work of art. It is not an academic treatise and not a didactic manual. The critical backlash against the movie was largely the result of the fact that it was a BAD MOVIE. (Which it was--a fact that was pretty much inevitable considering how it was made.) In any case, if you're reading it, read it as a romance/mystery/science-fiction/adventure story, which is what it is. It will be much easier to understand.
If the story resonates with you--i.e. it matches up with many of your observations of real life--you may find yourself reading a newspaper article and noticing that this businessman sounds just like Orren Boyle. Or that politician sounds just like Wesley Mouch. (You are unlikely to find people who sound like the heroes and heroines of the story, unfortunately.) This is your cue to dig deeper. To look at what these people do and the consequences of their actions. Read Ayn Rand's nonfiction, if you are interested.
I could now make a bunch of recommendations on things for you to consider and people you shouldn't listen to, but that's not the point. The point is that you think for *yourself*.
Notice that "self" there? That is the root of selfishness. Not that you do whatever you feel like doing. But that you do your own *thinking*--because there's nobody else to do it for you. Your success, happiness, and ultimately survival depend upon your willingness to think, your rigor in ensuring that you think well, and your ability to carry out the results of your thinking. Oh, you can go around picking up unexamined whatever happens to come out of other people's mouths and hope it works out. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but hey, it'll spare you the effort. If you wind up in jail or dead or in a concentration camp as a result, well, these things just happen, right?
I read somewhere. I think the wiki for bioshock that it was....so yes trick. It was.
#108
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 05:49
Ulous
-
- Members
- 854 messages
Hellbound555 wrote...
this is a philosophy thread.
not a politics thread.
leave all your baggage at the frontdoor.
It's a thread about Objectivism, you can not discuss philosophies like this without discussing environment, and you can't discuss environemnt without discussing the political institutions that have created and shaped our environment.
#109
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 09:03
cJohnOne
-
- Members
- 2 415 messages
What do you think of Aristotle's immovable mover?
#110
Posté 05 septembre 2011 - 09:29
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 286 messages
OK at least learn something interesting. some saying from Heraclitus:
- Good character is not formed in a week or a month. It is created little by little, day by day. Protracted and patient effort is needed to develop good character.
- A man's character is his fate.
- God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger.
- Hide our ignorance as we will, an evening of wine soon reveals it.
- No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
- Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony
- Good character is not formed in a week or a month. It is created little by little, day by day. Protracted and patient effort is needed to develop good character.
- A man's character is his fate.
- God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger.
- Hide our ignorance as we will, an evening of wine soon reveals it.
- No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
- Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony
#111
Posté 07 septembre 2011 - 09:02
cJohnOne
-
- Members
- 2 415 messages
Pokes thread - Know any philosophic puzzles?
#112
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Posté 08 septembre 2011 - 05:11
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
-
- Guests
What's that?
Edit: I think I'll turn this into a Philosophy Thread!
Edit: I think I'll turn this into a Philosophy Thread!
Modifié par Montezuma IV, 08 septembre 2011 - 05:12 .
#113
Posté 08 septembre 2011 - 05:46
OBakaSama
-
- Members
- 3 113 messages
Goodman's Paradox (the problem of grue) for example you mean, cJohn?
#114
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Posté 08 septembre 2011 - 06:10
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
-
- Guests
Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.
#115
Posté 08 septembre 2011 - 07:57
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Objectivism - Yes, the sound exists independently of our perception of it.
Subjectivism - No, the concept of "sound" can only exist if someone is there to hear it.
Objectivism - Yes, the sound exists independently of our perception of it.
Subjectivism - No, the concept of "sound" can only exist if someone is there to hear it.
#116
Posté 08 septembre 2011 - 09:01
cJohnOne
-
- Members
- 2 415 messages
If Ayn Rand was the Antichrist did she do a good job?
#118
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Posté 08 septembre 2011 - 09:51
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
-
- Guests
sp0ck 06 wrote...
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Objectivism - Yes, the sound exists independently of our perception of it.
Subjectivism - No, the concept of "sound" can only exist if someone is there to hear it.
Acutally, Subjectivism would say...if the individual did not hear the sound, it conclusivly did not exist. You said almost the same thing but when it comes to Subjectivism details are always important.
cJohnOne wrote...
What's Subjectivism?
The world can only exist in the way the individual precieves it.
Modifié par Montezuma IV, 08 septembre 2011 - 09:55 .
#121
Posté 09 septembre 2011 - 09:18
Rockworm503
-
- Members
- 7 519 messages
I think therefore I am.
If you read my mind that means you are me!
a cookie to whoever gets my reference.
If you read my mind that means you are me!
a cookie to whoever gets my reference.
#123
Posté 10 septembre 2011 - 06:24
cJohnOne
-
- Members
- 2 415 messages
If you were made of pure intellect, what would it be like?
#124
Posté 11 septembre 2011 - 06:16
cJohnOne
-
- Members
- 2 415 messages
Proposition: Just because I believe it doesn't mean it's true.
#125
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Posté 12 septembre 2011 - 04:41
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
Guest_Montezuma IV_*
-
- Guests
cJohnOne wrote...
If you were made of pure intellect, what would it be like?
Complete and utter suicide. You'd reliaze how insignificant any thing really matters.
