Maybe its time for objectivism.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Maybe its time for objectivism.[/quote]
Her ideas will save the world in the future. The 2100s will be great.
The world is not quite ready yet for her ideas.
First: Humans have to accept that initiating violence of any sort against another, for any reason, is wrong. This eliminates taxation and regulation, since they are backed up by violence.
Second: Humans have to accept that religion without personal experience of God is just plain wrong. Taking someone else’s opinion ‘on faith’ is to shut down your brain. Only subjective knowledge of God is acceptable.
Third: Humans have to accept reality. No scapegoatting, no lies, no trying to dodge the truth.
None of the above is likely anytime soon. This sytem is pretty close to utter collapse now. The Rule of the Bankers is coming to an end. The Rule of the Military is at hand. We will have an Absolute State with continuous and Absolute Surveillance.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Second: Humans have to accept that religion without personal experience of God is just plain wrong. Taking someone else’s opinion ‘on faith’ is to shut down your brain. Only subjective knowledge of God is acceptable.
[/quote]
What do you think Ayn Rand would say to that?
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Second: Humans have to accept that religion without personal experience of God is just plain wrong. Taking someone else’s opinion ‘on faith’ is to shut down your brain. Only subjective knowledge of God is acceptable.
[/quote]
What do you think Ayn Rand would say to that?[/quote]
She would have said that any concept not rooted in perceptions that another person can verify are empty concepts. Yet we use subjective concepts all the time. Think of how your concepts are effected by your past. This will affect how you integrate a concept. That in itself is subjective.
Thanks for posting this John.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Second: Humans have to accept that religion without personal experience of God is just plain wrong. Taking someone else’s opinion ‘on faith’ is to shut down your brain. Only subjective knowledge of God is acceptable.
[/quote]
What do you think Ayn Rand would say to that?[/quote]
She would have said that any concept not rooted in perceptions that another person can verify are empty concepts. Yet we use subjective concepts all the time. Think of how your concepts are effected by your past. This will affect how you integrate a concept. That in itself is subjective.
[/quote]
No she would have said you’re substituting feeling for reason.
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Second: Humans have to accept that religion without personal experience of God is just plain wrong. Taking someone else’s opinion ‘on faith’ is to shut down your brain. Only subjective knowledge of God is acceptable.
[/quote]
What do you think Ayn Rand would say to that?[/quote]
One essentially misses the point if he ascribes to a “religious Objectivism.”
Plato/Socrates pwns Rand on this issue. Perceptions, all obtained by way of the senses, are inherently subjective by virtue of the fact that our senses are imperfect. See The Phaedo or the Allegory of the Cave. Nothing we perceive (in life) is ever objective.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Plato/Socrates pwns Rand on this issue. Perceptions, all obtained by way of the senses, are inherently subjective by virtue of the fact that our senses are imperfect. See The Phaedo or the Allegory of the Cave. Nothing we perceive (in life) is ever objective. [/quote]
Are you reading the words on the screen right now? Are the yellow photons striking your retinas? If not, how do you even know you’re posting in a thread about Ayn Rand? How could you read the original post and respond to it if your senses are deluding you about what is written on the screen? You had to acknowledge that your senses are objective in order to attempt to deny their validity.
Thefedearlist is a troll. Every post I have seen by him tries to initiate some sort of argument.
Can we know absolute reality? How? HOW? How can we know anything for certain?
How can we know for certain that we are not living in a matrix world or that the universe is only 5 min old and we all have implanted memories?
There are several people with hallucinations of vision and hearing, and they often get problems because they lack the ability to know what is “real” and what is a product of a sick mind. It is both fascinating and sad to treat them.
Sometimes I have to ask them “Is there anyone else but me standing in this room right now?” and sometimes they cock their head to listen for what the voices tell them so say or do. Think Fight Club.
[quote]elano wrote:
Thefedearlist is a troll. Every post I have seen by him tries to initiate some sort of argument.[/quote]
His major fault is not that he argues, but that he argues incorrectly.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Can we know absolute reality? How? HOW? How can we know anything for certain?
How can we know for certain that we are not living in a matrix world or that the universe is only 5 min old and we all have implanted memories?
[/quote]
Ms. Rand would say that the only way to prove such a thing would be to rely upon the validity of your senses.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Nothing we perceive (in life) is ever objective. [/quote]
Then what are we arguing over?
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
Are you reading the words on the screen right now? [/quote]
Win.
Ayn Rand aside, it pisses me off that people actually smoke this fucking crack about reality being subjective and the senses being subjective. It’s just an excuse to avoid acknowledging the facts staring you in the face.
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
Ayn Rand aside, it pisses me off that people actually smoke this fucking crack about reality being subjective and the senses being subjective. It’s just an excuse to avoid acknowledging the facts staring you in the face.[/quote]
Reality must be both subjective and objective. The key is understanding how to distinguish between these two notions.
A “subject” in language refers to a doer of action and insofar that we can say that it is his values which predicate his actions those values therefore must be considered subjective.
As proof of this claim, if values were not subjective all men would see fit to behave in the same manner.
Since actions are real and have consequences we must take subjective values as an inherent part of reality in relation to their objective consequence.
In fact we can take the term objective to mean the end at which the subject directs his action. For example, a measurement is an end and any measurment is verifiable once it is understood both the quality which is being measured and the method to do so. Whether two distinct subjects agree upon this measurement is whether or not it is considered objective and hence objective knowledge requires two or more subjects to be in agreement.
Reality, in fact cannot be complete without both subjective and objective terms. We cannot even form complete ideas through the use of language without both subjects and objects.
Now, if you think I am just arguing semantics, I beg to differ.