[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[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]
You honestly trust your senses? They can be fooled fairly easily.
A more appropriate term for this philosophy is selfish prickism or sociopathism. Without altruism the world would be rotten and shitty place. This is a philosophy which caters to simple minded egotistical people who doesn’t wan’t to feel bad about being selfish assholes. At least Greenspan had the guts to say that his life philosophy and lifes work basically was shit.
[quote]molnes wrote:
A more appropriate term for this philosophy is selfish prickism or sociopathism. Without altruism the world would be rotten and shitty place. This is a philosophy which caters to simple minded egotistical people who doesn’t wan’t to feel bad about being selfish assholes. At least Greenspan had the guts to say that his life philosophy and lifes work basically was shit.[/quote]
I think post like yours are an attempt to feel good about yourself without studying altruim and what its goals were for one milli second.
It (your post) is morally cheap, intellectually lazy and yet condescending at the same time.
Now we could discuss this, for example the problem of supererogation in quasi collectivist consequentialist ethical theories, or whether what constitutes a moral duty for a person must also be a moral duty for a government but I feel that I could not possibly debate this with a moral philosopher of your caliber.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
A more appropriate term for this philosophy is selfish prickism or sociopathism. Without altruism the world would be rotten and shitty place. This is a philosophy which caters to simple minded egotistical people who doesn’t wan’t to feel bad about being selfish assholes. At least Greenspan had the guts to say that his life philosophy and lifes work basically was shit.[/quote]
I think post like yours are an attempt to feel good about yourself without studying altruim and what its goals were for one milli second.
It (your post) is morally cheap, intellectually lazy and yet condescending at the same time.
Now we could discuss this, for example the problem of supererogation in quasi collectivist consequentialist ethical theories, or whether what constitutes a moral duty for a person must also be a moral duty for a government but I feel that I could not possibly debate this with a moral philosopher of your caliber.
[/quote]
Good beatdown.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
A more appropriate term for this philosophy is selfish prickism or sociopathism. Without altruism the world would be rotten and shitty place. This is a philosophy which caters to simple minded egotistical people who doesn’t wan’t to feel bad about being selfish assholes. At least Greenspan had the guts to say that his life philosophy and lifes work basically was shit.[/quote]
I think post like yours are an attempt to feel good about yourself without studying altruim and what its goals were for one milli second.
It (your post) is morally cheap, intellectually lazy and yet condescending at the same time.[/quote]
Morally cheap? No, just to the point. Ever heard of Occams razor?
Lazy? Yes.
Condescending? Yes. One could definitively say the same things about your post though.
[quote]orion wrote:
Now we could discuss this, for example the problem of supererogation in quasi collectivist consequentialist ethical theories, or whether what constitutes a moral duty for a person must also be a moral duty for a government but I feel that I could not possibly debate this with a moral philosopher of your caliber.
[/quote]
You are complaining about ME being condescending? Google “double standard”, maybe you will learn something new today.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
A more appropriate term for this philosophy is selfish prickism or sociopathism. Without altruism the world would be rotten and shitty place. This is a philosophy which caters to simple minded egotistical people who doesn’t wan’t to feel bad about being selfish assholes. At least Greenspan had the guts to say that his life philosophy and lifes work basically was shit.[/quote]
I think post like yours are an attempt to feel good about yourself without studying altruim and what its goals were for one milli second.
It (your post) is morally cheap, intellectually lazy and yet condescending at the same time.[/quote]
Morally cheap? No, just to the point. Ever heard of Occams razor?
Lazy? Yes.
Condescending? Yes. One could definitively say the same things about your post though.
[quote]orion wrote:
Now we could discuss this, for example the problem of supererogation in quasi collectivist consequentialist ethical theories, or whether what constitutes a moral duty for a person must also be a moral duty for a government but I feel that I could not possibly debate this with a moral philosopher of your caliber.
[/quote]
You are complaining about ME being condescending? Google “double standard”, maybe you will learn something new today. [/quote]
Yeah well I am condescending but I know what I am talking about whereas you have no idea and are condescending anyway.
And Occams racor is not an excuse to never open a book you lazy fuck :-).
Maybe you should google Auguste Comte and altruism to find out what that guy really wanted.
Than you might want to fiund out what could constitute an ethical duty and what supererogatory acts are, but I must warn you that most stuff you will find is from the Catholic Church.
Then you might want to consider how an ethical system based on an idea like altruism can be a governments guiding principle when that government is supposed to be and remain limited.
If you get into it that should only take you a week or so.
Hint: Stanford has an excellent online library.
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant. I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Can we know absolute reality? How? HOW? How can we know anything for certain?[/quote]
Well, we know that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, as for any given prime number that might be hypothesized to be the largest, we can add one to the product of it and all prime numbers smaller than it, thus yielding a number that is indivisible by any of these primes, as there will be a remainder of 1.
Which therefore means that there is always a yet-larger prime number. (Perhaps the number just calculated, or perhaps a prime factor to that number which is larger than the hypothetical largest prime.)
Of course, that we know this for sure has been known a long time, since Euclid. But it is illustrative that certain knowledge does exist in some cases.
Will all those criticizing Objectivism first go and listen to the interviews with Ayn Rand?
If I hit you in the head with a rock - it’s not subjective - you WILL feel pain, no matter how much you deny it, reality is an absolute so just go listen to the greatest mind ever and learn something.
Before I got turned on to Objectivism, I had been brainwashed by religion, from going to Catholic schools, etc, I had no philosophy and thought altruism was good.
What she’s saying is that there’s a reality and you must lead yor life according to reality or you will fuck up.
question for theFederalist - Do you know that if you stick your hand in boiling water, it will hurt?
Hello the Federalist - hello?
[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]
Hey - it’s the Federalist again! Yay!
Dude, how the fuck do you know you’re really not a cyborg from the planet Dickulon?
What, by the way do you rely on to get you thru your life? You just roll the dice, huh? Do you balance your checkbook? Do you have electricity in your cave? Do you believe calculators work? Do you use telepathy to type your stupid musings on this website?
Can’t believe I’m wasting the time even posting something in response to you.
[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]
Is this really a serious question? If you don’t know HOW you can know anything then go and read some Ayn Rand and get schooled. Start by watching those videos several times.
Do you really even consider that you’re part of the matrix world and that you have superpowers? How do you know that a bullet really won’t go thru you? Why don’t you jump off a building? How do you know you’re really not TheFederalist and that he is not your grandfather?
Just do yourself a favor and brush up on Objectivism.
[quote]molnes wrote:
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant. I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.[/quote]
I would suggest, like Saveski has, to actually watch the videos posted.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have not even scratched the surface of Rand’s philosophy. If you had, you would understand what Ms. Rand means by “selfishness”.
[quote]saveski wrote:
Hey - it’s the Federalist again! Yay!
Dude, how the fuck do you know you’re really not a cyborg from the planet Dickulon?
[/quote]
FTW!!
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Plato/Socrates owns 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]
Most people over the age of twenty who’ve gotten over their teenage angst, and figure out how to function in the world own Rand on this issue.
Two months ago a patient was sure I was Jesus. Luckily she got better.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Plato/Socrates owns 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]
Most people over the age of twenty who’ve gotten over their teenage angst, and figure out how to function in the world own Rand on this issue.[/quote]
Sorry, no one OWNS Ayn Rand on anything. Twenty year olds nowadays can barely compose a complete sentence in proper English, let alone even discuss philosophy.
I personally didn’t start knowing shit till my late twenties, having been brainwashed by religion and “faith.”
And if you believe you “can’t objectively know anything” why do you work out? How do you know that if you lift weights you’ll get bigger? Fuck Plato and Kant and all those other pricks who state you can’t REALLY know anything. My fucking 3 year-old knows that THE OVEN IS HOT, and therefore, OWNS all those who claim a subjective version of reality.
You remember in the Deer Hunter when DeNiro held up a bullet to Stanley and said “THIS IS THIS. THIS ISN’T ANYTHING ELSE. THIS IS THIS.”? “Knowing” begins with the Law of Identity.
How do you “know,” how do you REALLY know, that Mickey Rourke’s undescended left testicle does not emcompass a parallel universe to our own?
Read Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” and you’ll learn more than you ever need to know about knowing.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant. I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.[/quote]
I would suggest, like Saveski has, to actually watch the videos posted.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have not even scratched the surface of Rand’s philosophy. If you had, you would understand what Ms. Rand means by “selfishness”.[/quote]
I watched all the videos before posting. I DO understand, I DON’T agree.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant. I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.[/quote]
I would suggest, like Saveski has, to actually watch the videos posted.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have not even scratched the surface of Rand’s philosophy. If you had, you would understand what Ms. Rand means by “selfishness”.[/quote]
I watched all the videos before posting. I DO understand, I DON’T agree.[/quote]
Molnes - is your philosophy then, that you are required to sacrifice yourself and properrty for others? Basically, if you disagree with Objectivism, you are claiming that ANY others have the right to your life and property.
[quote]saveski wrote:
Sorry, no one OWNS Ayn Rand on anything. Twenty year olds nowadays can barely compose a complete sentence in proper English, let alone even discuss philosophy.
[/quote]
Well that’s your opinion. But I think the fact that most 20 year olds are as you say, make Rand all the more popular amongst angsty teens/twenty somethings. I apologize for not including angsty twenty-somethings.
[quote]saveski wrote:
And if you believe you “can’t objectively know anything” why do you work out? How do you know that if you lift weights you’ll get bigger? Fuck Plato and Kant and all those other pricks who state you can’t REALLY know anything. My fucking 3 year-old knows that THE OVEN IS HOT, and therefore, OWNS all those who claim a subjective version of reality.
You remember in the Deer Hunter when DeNiro held up a bullet to Stanley and said “THIS IS THIS. THIS ISN’T ANYTHING ELSE. THIS IS THIS.”? “Knowing” begins with the Law of Identity.
How do you “know,” how do you REALLY know, that Mickey Rourke’s undescended left testicle does not emcompass a parallel universe to our own?
Read Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” and you’ll learn more than you ever need to know about knowing.[/quote]
Lots of great minds have written on Epistemology, Rand was not one of them.
Rand hearkens back to a less thoughtful version of the pre-Baconian world, where people thought either by divine will, complete-commensurability of the mind and the world outside it, or an overly-robust trust in their own intuition, that the world we live in in its Noumenal existence is totally accessible and understandable by us.
The easiest argument against this idea, is history: Bacon was one of the first to really make the case for the disconnect between “reality”, or even the reality we experience (you can argue that’s still not reality), and the individual experience of that reality.
Modern science comes from our attempts to get away from the inherent human error that we get when we try to measure an account for the world. That is what the scientific method’s aim was.
Rand, and others like her, basically want to shut their eyes to the world, then pretend they can still see.
Method allows us to triangulate some interpretation or approximation of reality. I believe (and in regular conversation I’d get sloppy and say I know) that if I lift and eat well my body composition will improve.
But this is not because of my powerful intuitive capacity, or because God is whispering in my ear that it’s so, or even because humans got lucky, and the way we think just happens to mirror the way whatever the Noumenal reality is.
It’s because I’ve implicitly applied a method to assessing the world around that has allowed me to combine my experience, with the reported experiences of others, and derive a conclusion about what lifting will do to my phenomenal body, as I experience it.
If human-beings really had the capacity to gain objective knowledge from perception through just forming concepts, and inductive/deductive logic, the Aristotle would have been writing about Quantum Physics, becuase the innate power of the human-mind would have allowed him to reason from the world around him to it.
In reality, many aspects of things like quantum mechanics, are totally at odds with not just what we can intuit, but what we can really understand, and must be understood through analogy and equations. They are in fact ideas that are so incommensurable with human intuition, that without a number of highly complex tools, that kind of understanding would be totally unacceptable.
Hmmm… I should note a few things.
First, statements such as “Humans have to accept that religion without personal experience of God is just plain wrong” are blanket assaults upon personal opinion. If one person enjoys chocolate flavored protein shakes, while another person prefers the vanilla, that does not give the chocolate lover the right to look down upon the vanilla connoissuer. It is the same sort of intolerance that religion itself has been accused of. “You do not believe as I do, therefore you are wrong.”
Second, statements denigrating faith fail to understand the innate nature of faith. Faith does not require proof. It’s not about logic, it’s not about facts. When a catholic, or a methodist, or a jew, or a muslim, or a buddhist or hindu or asatru bends in prayer, they are under no obligation to defend their beliefs to anyone. But if atheists must insist on fanaticism (which most do not, but just as the Westboro church gives christianity a bad name so too are there atheists who aren’t content to live and let live), then I would point out that their burden of proof is far greater. A theist can simply point to the vast stretches of time, space, and quantum mechanics and note how much room there is for their deity to remain concealed from the “mortal realm.” An atheist is stuck proving a negative; indeed, the only way for an atheist to conclusively prove the nonexistance of a divine being would be to attain the capacity to view all times and all places simultaneously. This would be a catch 22; this would make the atheist omniscient and omnipresent. Effectively, the search to disprove G-d would cause the searcher to become G-d.
Third, Rand has been criticized for her philosophical intolerance. To sum it up briefly, she repeatedly stated that she did not want any blind followers or disciples, yet anyone who failed to agree with her on every single moral and philosophical point was rejected. If we are to encourage free thinking and independant personal judgements and beliefs amongst others, then we must accept that they will come to differant conclusions and personal judgements than we have. If someone decides that their personal happiness requires a belief in G-d, or a devotion to another, then to say “you are wrong for thinking this way” is to say “I deny you the right to pursue your own moral judgements and logical thought processes.”
Fourth, Objectivism is inherantly flawed because it insists that a person’s most important purpose is the pursuit of their own happiness. However, no selfish person can ever know true happiness. As Confuscius demonstrated with his dream of hell and then heaven, true happiness can only be found by seeking to give happiness to someone who is attempting to do the same (i.e. using those long chopsticks to feed each other). In other words, altruism is the more logical and rational path because only altruism can offer genuine happiness.