Ayn
Rand's objectivism is perhaps the most loathsome of all philosophies.
It is the perfect combination of intellectual and moral stupidity.
She
says that all knowledge comes from reason. In other words, our
senses––what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell––have no effect on our
ability to understand the world. In other words, she sees man as a
thinking machine, a computer. It's a perfectly souless, spiritless view
of humanity.
She also believes that man is an end to himself. In
other words, we have no connection with the rest of humanity or the
rest of the world, and so we should therefore have no care or concern
for the rest of humanity or the rest of the world.
She also
believes that reality is objective––facts are facts. This has been
shown to be wrong through quantum theory. There is no objective
reality, there is no reality without an observer. There is no object
without a subject. Nor is there such a thing as a subject without an
object.
The fact that there are so many people out there who
consider this woman and her philosophy to be even remotely coherent or
admirable is deeply disturbing.
Phylo out. |
|
I love the way you wave your arms in blanket, general statements. (General statement are generally wrong)
Second only to that stupidity is the disjointed idiocy of a post with no point. |
|
|
I
read "Atlas Shrugged" as an important time in my life. I was not
brainwashed by it nor was I ignorant to some of the ideas of the book
either. Today's society teaches us to feel guilty or ashamed by our
success. That the successful men and women are placed in a high tax
bracket and are expected to surrender their wealth, time, energy, and
their mind to the less fortunate. Those without the drive. Nonsense.
Now there is something very admirable about those who use their success
to help others achieve it, but it is a damnable offense in my view for
people to be giving hand outs to people so they expect more hand outs!
The only hand out they should get is "Atlas Shrugged", assuming they
would read it. |
|
You are a perfect example of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Try
going back and reading and UNDERSTANDING all of Rands writings,
including all of her periodicals and non-fiction work and then repeat
that idiotic assessment of objectivism.
You also apparantly know but a little of quantum physics as well. |
|
Most
Republicans I've met have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that smacks
of collectivism. They immediately label it "socialism", which they've
already pre-determined is a failure, and dismiss it out of hand.
It
seems that someone needs to remind you folks of the fact that we
already have many socialized institutions. Public schools, police and
fire departments, the judicial system, roads and bridges, the military,
etc.
Please folks, just because something involves people
getting together to create an institution doesn't automatically make it
a bad institution.
The questions should always be; "What works?" "What makes the country better and stronger?"
Universal
health care is a great example. If universal health care can create a
healthier, more productive populace for less money than private health
insurance than we should do if; if not, we shouldn't.
In other
words, it shouldn't come down to a battle over socialism or capitalism.
That's simply a poor framework through which to view the situation. And
it will inevitably lead to poor decision making.
Phylo out. |
|
Instead
of just telling me I'm wrong, how about explaining how. How about
making what's called an actual "argument". Telling someone they are
wrong doesn't make it so.
Phylo out. |
|
The
Democrats have tapped in to other aspects of "human nature" - the
inability to delay gratification and the envy directed toward those who
can and the benefits they derive from it. It is easy, although morally
and ethically reprehensible, to assuage one's altruistic urges by
tapping into someone else's wallet. As Walter Williams often points out
in his columns, that is nothing other than theft.
Ayn Rand had
some inconsistencies to be sure. But we owe her a debt of gratitude for
her well-voiced stance to repel the siren song of collectivism that was
rampant in her day and gets replayed every time the Democrats campaign. |
|
Your post said it all and it is, my obtuse and ill-informed friend, dead wrong.
That
you think Ayn Rand's philosophy can be explained in a simplistic little
post such as yours proves just how wrong you are to those who have
actually read her writings.
Secondly, Quantum physics has not
proved that there is no such thing as an objective reality. It
pothisizes that at that level, the mere observation alters the outcome. |
|
So if an argument is short, it can't possibly be right?
Ever hear of E=MC2 you idiot?
And
please explain, if you can, how, if everything is made of atoms, what
is true on the quantum level is somehow not true on the everyday level.
What is the reason for the disconnect?
Phylo out. |
|
of
Chuck Colson. When ex-convict and know felon and liar like Colson
demeans a memory of long dead author based on rumors and
scandalmongering. When defeaning the living is not enough...
Maybe
Colson whould take a long hard look on his own perverted "worldview"
that demends him to defecate on graves of the deceased in name of
political advocacy and cheap propaganda shots. But then his morally
superior worldview is all about bearing false witness of others and
milking tax-payers money to his faith based scams. |
|
Phylo wrote:
"The questions should always be; "What works?" "What makes the country better and stronger?"
Well,
marriage works. Delayed gratification works. Sexual continence works.
To repeat George Will's triad, you will not be poor if 1) you get at
least a high school degree, 2) you have no child out of wedlock, 3) you
have no child before age 21. Now, millions don't adhere to those rules.
Democrats pander to them with wealth redistribution programs - but no
matter how many trillions are spent, the ranks of the dependent class
grow from the intergenerational effects of that very well-fed
dependency. Universal Health Care will depend upon SOMEBODY paying for
it. Those people who do pay for it by taxes on their productivity will
become less productive when it is perceived that they aren't getting
their money's worth. And by that time, it's going to be pretty hard to
get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Rock on, Ayn; rock on! |
|
I don't suffer fools well.
E=MC2
is but the conclusion. Explain to me in a simple post, "you idiot," how
Einstein arrived at that conclusion. THAT is what I'm trying to sink
into that thick skull of yours.
Like most liberals, you think a
childishly simple 200 word proclamation will suffice. Sorry Phylo, but
I have a working brain. I don't play dumb games with even dumber people. |
|
Here's a quote by Fritjof Capra, and actual physicist:
"The
crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not
only necessary to observe these properties [such as; position, or
velocity, or mass] of an object, but is necessary even to define these
properties. In atomic physics, we cannot talk about the properties of
an object as such. They are only meaningful in the context of the
object’s interaction with the observer."
In other words, he's saying that there is no object at all without an observer.
But it's not even necessary to get into quantum theory to explain that there is no "objective reality".
Try to imagine a subject without any objects, not even the object known as "empty space".
If
you'll notice it is impossible to think of such a thing because as soon
as you imagine a subject, you SIMULTANEOUSLY create an object. It's
impossible to give a subject any form at all, without also creating an
object.
Comprende?
Phylo out. |
|
The
number of words in an argument has ZERO bearing on the arguments
veracity. If you are too stupid to realize that, there is no point in
arguing with you.
Phylo out. |
|
What's
the matter Phylo? Can't you explain Eistein's theory of relativity in a
simple post, with all of its premises and nuances?
Yet you expect me to do that with Objectivism with its metaphysics, epistemology and volumes of philosophical thought?
Like I said, Phylo, you think like a child - simply and emotionally. |
|
Bob,
seriously, if you're going to continue to argue that the number of
words in my argument renders it untrue, than I can't continue this.
But you should know that NO ONE will buy your argument. EVERYONE sees that you're just avoiding my arguments.
My
argument against Ayn Rands philosophy is very simple. One of the
central tenets of her philosophy is that she believes in objective
reality.
I'm saying her philosophy is wrong because there is no such thing as "objective reality".
I
have offered evidence to back up my assertion in the form of two
arguments 1) the quote by Fritjof Capra and quantum theory itself. 2)
I've argued that it is no possible to have an object without a subject,
nor is it possible to have a subject without an object.
Now, if you want to offer a substantive rebuttal to either of my two arguments I'll be happy to continue. If not, so long.
Phylo out. |
|
Whatever
guys..... It is an "objective reality" that if you want LESS of
something, tax it; if you want MORE of something, subsidize it. I think
Greenspan took that essential lesson from his time spent bs'ing with
Ayn in coffeeshops and living rooms.
Phylo, are you sure you
want to use the public school system and the judicial system (by which
certain malpractice lawyers can pillage their way to North Carolina
mansions and a run at POTUS)as the crown jewels of
collectivism/socialism?
Now, if you want to talk about the
Apollo space program or the Manhattan Project or the Interstate highway
system, you have a point. But all of those are substantively different
from programs that redistribute wealth to those who do little more than
squander it. |
|
Phylo Se Fiser writes:
"The
crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not
only necessary to observe these properties [such as; position, or
velocity, or mass] of an object, but is necessary even to define these
properties.
SO....If a nuclear bomb were to be dropped on Tehran and every observer was immediately vaporized...DID IT REALLY HAPPEN?
|
|
To quote the wikipedia version:
"Objectivism
maintains that what exists does not exist because one thinks it exists;
it simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or
opinion."
In other words, existence exists. I don't think any
mumblings about quantum theory refutes that notion. Quantum mechanics
produces many counter-intuitive results. They defy notions of "reality"
and really do exist. Existence exists. |
|
Well I see Bob C has run away. Typical Republican. Honestly, this happens every time I try to engage Republicans in debate.
To your point butterbarre:
I'm
not arguing that public schools and the judicial system are perfect
institutions. I'm merely arguing that they are a better path to a
better, stronger society than if we were to have a completely private
system. A completely private system would mean that many people, whose
parents couldn't afford to send them to private school, would not have
the skills to compete which makes us weaker as a society. And a
completely private judicial system would obviously lead to enormous
injustices and no central authority.
You don't seriously disagree with that, do you?
Phylo out.
|
|
I
too read Ayn Rand in high school, Atlas Shrugged, and it changed my
life. I reread it every few years like one of the posters above to
check my reality: how am I living up to her precepts or how do I view
them now? But what is really scary is watching the world slide down the
very slippery slope that she described in Atlas Shrugged. Remember
Congress passing the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog law? Think about that next time
you read how the European Union has ordered Microsoft to share all of
its software with its competitors in order to enable them to compete
with Microsoft. Why, Ayn must be spinning in her grave. If Hilary gets
into office, Ayn will have to stage a comeback. Socialism does not work
because it does not recognize the reality of human nature. Ayn said the
worst story we all grew up with was the legend of Robin Hood, who
robbed the rich to give to the poor. Well, isn't that what our
government is doing now? Isn't that what the Democrats are arguing
about: how much they can extort via governmental power (guns) to give
to their favorite groups of sycophants?
P.S. I agree with Uncle
Alby: Reading P.G. Wodehouse is a blast. I read all of the Jeeves books
every few years and laugh out loud. I think I watch House on TV just
for the sheer cognitive dissonance of seeing Hugh Laurie, who played
Bertie Wooster perfectly, now play a curmudgeon.
PP.SS. My handle reflects my reference for Ayn. |
|
|
Ayn
relies on Aristotle's observation that "A is A". A thing is itself.
Funny, the rules of evidence require the proponent of the evidence to
prove that the thing offered as evidence is the "thing intself", i.e.
the thing actually taken into evidence. The sign popular in catalogs
says "It is what it is". These are truisms. You can pretend that
everyone can create their own reality, but they will still bark their
shins on the coffee table. |
|
No surprise that the Bible finished first. But "Atlas Shrugged" which came in second, is also a bible.
It is a bible for conservatism, especially economic conservatism.
This
book, which was written some 60-70 years ago, virtually predicted many
of the liberal policies that continue to threaten our freedom and
prosperity today. I wish I could give Rand credit for prescience, but
Rand was actually writing from her own life's experience with this very
same disastrous institutionalized liberalism.
She was born in
the Soviet Union and lived with the boot of communism on her neck until
she could escape to America. The main theme of all her books is the
necessity of the triumph of the individual over the state, economicaly,
professionally, and politically.
"Freedom lives in the minds and
hearts of men and women. When it dies there no court can save it." (Not
a Rand quote, but I'm sure she would agree.) |
|
What is existence?
And if you can't answer that, than what are you saying exists?
Phylo out.
|
|
Phylo, before I argue the existence of an objective reality, I need to understand your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You
maintain that since there is no such thing as an objective reality (i.e
that nothing exists outside of your tiny little brain) that it would
follow that you and I cannot possibly perceive the same object since no
object exists independant of the two of us. In other words, you don't
really exist outside of my brain - I'm just making you up to darken my
day.
Each of us has our own subjective world in our own brains
and that neither of us are in any way connected to a reality
independant of that which resides in our brains.
Further,
since nothing exists outside of our own subjective realities - those
realities that exists in your brain and mine - it follows that it is
impossible to be affected by anything outside of our worlds-in-a-brain
since nothing exists independant of our brains to affect us.. Am I
correct?
Perception doesn't really exist either since there is
nothing to perceive. The laws of physics aren't real since there is no
physical reality for the laws of physics to govern. There is only a
subjective reality which has no common point of reference. Is that
about it? |
|
|
It is, fundamentally, ostensive. |
|
So you're arguing that a coffee table is a coffee table?
This is called a tautology. And it works just fine for simpletons who don't inquire any further.
But it breaks down as soon as you start to ask "What is the coffee table?"
As
soon as you do that you start coming up with answers like: wood,
screws, etc,. Then you start looking into what wood and screws are, and
you come up with answers like molecules and atoms and such.
And
the upshot of all this is that you end up realizing that a coffee table
isn't JUST a coffee table, it's also wood and screws and atoms and
human thinking and all sorts of other things. If there were no wood, or
screws, or human beings, or atoms, there would be no coffee table. the
coffee table's existence is utterly depended on these other things.
So,
sorry but A is A is incomplete as a theory. Notice that I didn't say
it's wrong. it's incomplete. There is a sense in which a coffee table
is JUST a coffee table, but there is also a sense in which a coffee
table is not JUST a coffee table.
Phylo out
|
|
would it have been necessary to have invented his cutesy "ain't I hip" little sign-off -"Phylo out"?
Do
I understand it that his existence is solely dependent upon our
recognizing him? If we ignore him he won't exactly "go away", but
rather he will have never existed. Gives a whole new meaning to "Phylo
out". |
|
Even
though she deeply admired capitalists and their achievements, she was
no economist and never claimed to play one on TV. She assumed the top
captains of industry actually ran America, and if displeased with what
a growing welfare state was doing, could "go on strike" and by so
doing, bring America to ruin.
In "Atlas Shrugged," her "Atlases" were small enough in number to enjoy an intimate dinner party.
In
reality, it requires a very large number of people with very many and
differing talents and skills and levels of achievement to "run" the
Extended Order, better known as America. As a Hayekian, I can tell you
point blank that no one can comprehend a fraction of what we do as a
people, let alone run it.
I heard that Rand admired Hayek. Too bad she didn't read his work and learn from it. |
|
Neither
was Ayn Rand an evolutionary psychologist. She had no clue that
biologists had been studying acts of altruism in the animal kingdom for
generations before she began writing her books.
Altruism in the
sense of fellow feeling, of sacrificial acts freely made for the
benefit of others. Even birds engage in such acts. Why should humans be
an exception.
That these facts are never brought up, let alone
dealt with in any of her books, weakens her argument severely. The
reader is left to sputter..."But, but..." with no result.
We
know altruism is real. It is a genuine, powerful emotion that leads to
genuine, powerful acts. It permitted our distant ancestors to live
together in reasonable amounts of peacefulness in tight-knit
hunter-gatherer communities. It permitted us to survive, thrive and
flourish around the world. It was one of the main ingredients in our
rise as the dominant species on this planet.
Altruism is no vice. It is a glorious virtue. |
|
Bob
C: You maintain that since there is no such thing as an objective
reality (i.e that nothing exists outside of your tiny little brain)
that it would follow that you and I cannot possibly perceive the same
object since no object exists independant of the two of us. In other
words, you don't really exist outside of my brain - I'm just making you
up to darken my day. Each of us has our own subjective world in our own
brains and that neither of us are in any way connected to a reality
independant of that which resides in our brains.
Further,
since nothing exists outside of our own subjective realities - those
realities that exist in your brain and mine - it follows that it is
impossible to be affected by anything outside of our worlds-in-a-brain
since nothing exists independant of our brains to affect us.. Am I
correct?
Phylo: No you don't understand. You're putting me in a
camp with the subjectivists. I don't believe that reality is entirely
subjective either. My argument is that, ultimately, it's not possible
to separate subject from object.
To be continued... |
|
|
|
Bob
C: Perception doesn't really exist either since there is nothing to
perceive. The laws of physics aren't real since there is no physical
reality for the laws of physics to govern. There is only a subjective
reality which has no common point of reference. Is that about it?
Phylo:
How can you argue that perception doesn't exist. Are you not perceiving
the world at this very moment? The evidence for perception is direct
and obvious.
Yet, it doesn't necessarily follow that, because
there is perception, there is also a perceiver and a perceived. I'm
arguing that direct perception of reality actually transcends a
division between subject and object.
I would agree with you that
the laws of physics are not Real. They are conceptual. They are ideas.
And there is a distinction between what is Real and what is conceptual.
What is Real is what's going on in This Moment prior to our conceptual
interpretations of reality; meaning, prior to drawing boundaries and
defining a "subject" and an "object". What is conceptual is whatever we
conceive of. Subjects and objects are not Real, they are conceptual.
Phylo out |
|
Knight of bawaa: Existence is all that is.
Phylo: Again, this is a tautology. "Existence" and "is" are synonyms. We've learned nothing about existence from your statement.
Phylo out. |
|
Using
the word "selfishness" erroneously. Yes, I know she was doing this as a
"reader grabber," but still the misuse of a hot-button word is sure to
lead to serious misunderstandings and that's exactly what happened to
Ayn Rand and her philosophy.
Selfishness is seen as a negative
stance leading to negative actions by most people. It is seen as taken
and holding onto what one is NOT entitled to. It is seen as not sharing
when sharing would be a kindness, lead to friendship, or even save
lives.
We should not be surprised at the negative connotations
with which that word is loaded. Can you imagine selfish people
surviving and passing onto succeeding generations their selfish
philosophy in an environment that demands mandatory sharing? I mean the
hunter-gatherer environment. The only genuine property those people had
(other than personal clothing and tools) was communal hunting grounds
and the resulting communal food...something that could not be held or
used individually.
I'll deal with the positive aspects of this
philosophy in the next post, but right here I wish to underline the
serious mischief she made by using that word as a label for her
philosophy of life. |
|
Phylo:
"No you don't understand. You're putting me in a camp with the
subjectivists. I don't believe that reality is entirely subjective
either. My argument is that, ultimately, it's not possible to separate
subject from object."
I understand fully.
You can't have
it both ways, Phylo. You clearly said that there is no such thing as an
objective reality - i.e. a reality which exists independantly of our
perceptions, predudices, feelings and, in fact, each of us. A reality
that each may perceive and correctly conceptualise, or may totally fail
to understand. A reality that regardless of how we perceive it, is what
it is.
You said that it is not possible to separate subject from
object. If as you say there IS NO OBJECT, your statement is nonsensicle
since in the absence of an objective reality there can be no such thing
as an "object."
|
|
Phylo,
what I do seriously disagree with as regards public institutions is
that they extinguish private initiative. I believe that the country
would be stronger if all the money that is spent on public education
was spent on private education and that ALL the public schools be
dissolved. More than 50% of health care dollars are public. The ills of
our system that we bemoan lay at the feet of PUBLIC system, not the
PRIVATE one.
The judiciary is part of the very triad of
government and by definition cannot be "privatized". But there are
ingrained collectivist/redistribution of wealth policies that can
easily be changed within that framework that would make America
"stronger" and "more productive". Such as tort reform and "loser pays".
You seem to believe that "justice" exists as an objective reality and
that we are beholding to the illuminati such as Al Gore, John Edwards
and Hillary Clinton to deliver it to us. I don't.
I believe
Existence exists. It is an axiom. It doesn't have to be proven - one
accepts it as a given and derives conclusions from it. You apparently
don't take it as an axiom and derive a different world view from the
axioms you do hold as true. |
|
I'm
sure everyone here has heard of the blind men and the elephant. One
thinks he's experincing a rope, the other a snake, another a wall,
another a tree trunk...
This is a perfect example of how each of
us sees an object slightly differently. If all of us on this thread
were looking at an orange at the same time, no two of us would see it
in exactly the same way. Part of it is because we all see color
slightly differently. Part of it is because we all have a different
angle of sight which would give the orange slightly different shapes.
So,
color and shape are not objective qualities of the orange. There is an
element of the subject in the orange that cannot be separated out.
This is what I mean when I say that it's not ultimately possible to separate an object from the subject. |
|
Ayn
Rand’s only crime was her unwillingness to accept a heavenly reward and
instead spend her life working to create a paradise on earth.
America
was once a country filled with small business owners (farmers). Today
most people earn a living by choosing to be a servant who collects a
paycheck instead of working to make a profit. This change has created a
society of victims constantly looking for government favors while we
routinely criticize those unwilling to pay their fair share.
An
individual who takes personal responsibility for their own life and
well being is the only person that belongs in a civilized society.
|
|
Phylo,
what I do seriously disagree with as regards public institutions is
that they extinguish private initiative. I believe that the country
would be stronger if all the money that is spent on public education
was spent on private education and that ALL the public schools be
dissolved. More than 50% of health care dollars are public. The ills of
our system that we bemoan lay at the feet of PUBLIC system, not the
PRIVATE one.
The judiciary is part of the very triad of
government and by definition cannot be "privatized". But there are
ingrained collectivist/redistribution of wealth policies that can
easily be changed within that framework that would make America
"stronger" and "more productive". Such as tort reform and "loser pays".
You seem to believe that "justice" exists as an objective reality and
that we are beholding to the illuminati such as Al Gore, John Edwards
and Hillary Clinton to deliver it to us. I don't.
I believe
Existence exists. It is an axiom. It doesn't have to be proven - one
accepts it as a given and derives conclusions from it. You apparently
don't take it as an axiom and derive a different world view from the
axioms you do hold as true. |
|
.....Most
religions are big on sacrifice ...the old Testament is full of
sacrifices to God ...The Romans, the Egyptians, the Aztecs all
practiced sacrifice as a religious rite ...in Christianity Jesus was
the ultimate sacrifice ...
.....I differ from Rand in that I
believe in a Creator but I am with her when it comes to looking askance
at the benefits of organized religion ...
.....It is difficult
for me to believe that slitting the throat of a lamb and pouring its
blood on an altar would please the Creator ...
.....A good lamb roast would please me and I think Rand would agree with that .....COLOSSUS |
|
Self
interest properly understood. This is what (I believe) Ayn Rand was
really trying to get at when she used the word "selfish." Tocqueville's
phrase expresses the concept beautifully.
The concept is simple:
We humans are individuals, yet we also belong to groups. These two
sides to our nature are inseparable and cannot be transcended by ANY
religion or political philosophy. As such, the very best place to be is
in the middle of "selfishness" and "unselfishness." And, since we are
very limited creatures, since we can only access directly our own needs
and desires, it is best to build our concepts of What Must Be Done on
ourselves.
We can't know "the General Will," "the General Good,"
"the Good of the Other." We can only know ourselves and value ourselves
before we can value others. And as Adam Smith pointed out, when we make
decisions based on our own good, our resulting actions, often
inadvertently, lead directly and indirectly to the good of others.
By
being good, honest decision-makers, our honesty about our own economic
situation and about other areas of our lives, we will transmit accurate
information about ourselves to others, thus helping them. And if they,
in their own self interest, return the favor, they in turn help us. |
|
|
"I live for the sake of no man, and ask no man to live for mine." |
|
Bipsy Quee wrote:
"but I have always wondered why the majority of Objectivists I have encountered, were atheists..."
>>
If you'd research objectivism you'd find out very rapidly.
Theism
and Objectivism are mutually exclusive as a fundamental tenet of the
Objectivist philosophy is rejection of the supernatural.
|
|
Phylo Se Fiser wrote:
"In other words, he's saying that there is no object at all without an observer."
>>
So, raw oil never existed until someone observed it?
Haley's Comet didn't exist until someone observed it?
The concept is patently absurd. Observation and discovery are ~not~ creation. They do not bring anything into existence.
They simply identify and ~acknowledge~ the existence of something.
|
|
Individualism
This
concept flows naturally from the preceding post. We, each of us, have
one brain and one body. We do not engage in Vulcan mind-melding, and
our body meldings only last a few minutes each. It is a biological fact
that we are all self-contained individuals. Even identical twins
develop their own personalities as they grow up.
As a result of
this very fundamental observation, Ayn Rand (in her own words) inferred
a great deal about human nature and the necessity for individual
freedom. And IMHO, I believe she did a good job.
If your are a
human being and you desire the most fully of human lives, there are a
number of things you MUST do. Among these are: develop your talents and
build up your skills so that you may sustain your own life in a free
economy. Another is to choose close friends and lovers who mirror your
values. Another is to raise your children so that they may understand
and embrace the values of freedom.
A free society is an abstract
concept. It denotates the patterns of free associations of strong and
free individuals. And Ayn Rand got this precisely right. |
|
My definition of selfishness is: The tendency to focus on the wants and needs of the self, to the exclusion of everything else.
And
in my book selfishness is evil, not to mention ignorant. though I also
have the same disdain for "selflessness" (i.e., the complete ignorance
of the wants and needs of the self).
Liked the Adam Smith quote
Left is evil guy. It seems like he was saying that there is a place for
collectivism in society. Damn Commie!
Phylo out.
|
|
Phylo:
"I'm sure everyone here has heard of the blind men and the elephant.
One thinks he's experincing a rope, the other a snake, another a wall,
another a tree trunk..."
Phylo, I can't believe you're that
stupid. You apparently live under the delusion that perception IS
reality. It's not, as the 50,000 people who die in auto accidents every
year would attest to, were they alive.
Regarless of how the
different blind men perceived the elephant's trunk (subjective
perception and analysis) the elephant's trunk was the elephant's trunk.
(A is A).
That the blind dudes couldn't correctly perceive and
conceptualize the nature of what they were dealing with DOES NOT ALTER
THE FACT THAT THE ELEPHANT'S TRUNK WAS THE ELEPHANT'S TRUNK. The
variable was not the elephant's trunk. The variables were the men's
perceptions. THAT DOES NOT ALTER REALITY. The blind guys' percetions
were not reality. The elephant's trunk was.
The elephant's trunk was objective reality - implacable and at that moment, immute. |
|
The Bad Guys
Ayn Rand's heroes rise far above us into the celestial sphere. I really can't identify with them, though I admire them.
But her villains, oh, did she get them right.
We
know these people, either personally or by seeing them on TV and
reading about them in the paper or on the Internet. The Useful Idiot,
The Glad-Hander, The Second-Hander, The Leech... and the worst of all,
The Wannabee Tyrant who speaks with weepy voice of the poor, the
downtrodden, the left behind...the people he will use and never
actually help. Tooey, in "The Fountainhead" is a Randian villain
supreme. I see Tooey in every Democrat candidate for the Presidency and
most Democrat senators.
The villains are here among us. They
will do us in by promising what they can't deliver and have no interest
in delivering. They would trample freedom, shred human creativity,
eviscerate productivity...all for the sham ideal of egalitarianism.
Beware! Ayn Rand says beware! They are among us. And if you are not careful, you will join them. |
|
|
Existence
simply *is*. That's it. If you can't handle that--if you want some sort
of predicate that Kant took Anselm to task about--that's YOUR problem
and YOUR problem alone. Deal with it. Existence is. Nothing more.
Nothing less. Period. End of story. |
|
|
What
"works" isn't good enough. What's morally proper wrt
socialism/capitalism is. And socialism is morally improper, and
frankly, inherently unworkable in the long run due to the impossibility
of understanding profit/loss. |
|
|
It's
lovely to see the uneasy bedfellows of the twin conservative pillars --
Christianity, with it's help/love/otherness orientation, and Business,
with it's Darwinian distrust of anything unearned or un-bartered-for --
break up on the rocky shores of Rand's Objectivism. Rand was a genius,
by any standard (read her bio in Barbara Branden's magisterial account
of their lives together), a fiscal ultraconservative, but one who
utterly rejected supernaturalism and had her own code of morality
descending from enlightened self-interest. A Godless fiscal
conservative! What is one to make of such a challenge... I suppose one
has to reject her, because she doesn't buy the conservative platform
hook, line and sinker. |
|
"This
book, which was written some 60-70 years ago, virtually predicted many
of the liberal policies that continue to threaten our freedom and
prosperity today. I wish I could give Rand credit for prescience, but
Rand was actually writing from her own life's experience with this very
same disastrous institutionalized liberalism."
We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book. It was published in 1957.
Rand
had even more pointed experiences with Evil Leftism. She escaped the
Soviet Union during the rise of Bolshevism when she was a teenager.
Getting burnt is a cruel, but effective way to learn and to never
forget what you learned.
|
|
From reading all of the postings so far I self-qualify as older and more knowledgable of Rand. Sorry about that.
I
was a commited atheist when I found Rand in the early 60's and I not
only studied every single thing she wrote but I was declared to be a
"distributor" of her tape lectures, which required a personal interview
and grilling to qualify. I studied Nathaniel Brandon and traveled to
meet him after the break. I can even tell you that Ayn died on the day
John Belushi died, so there, I win.
It interests me to see
misinformation on both sides of the political spectrum in this and the
number of people who claim Colson is wrong because he hasn't read Rand.
Both sides seem to self-qualify as experts on Rand and I'm sure they
will demand debate with any who say they are better qualified.
Remember Dagny's answer to her brother, James, when he was taking her to a debate? She got out of the limo. Ha! Gotcha!
I won't debate Rand here but I feel compelled to say:
1.
After 40 years of being a "student of Objectivism" (which we were
"allowed" to call ourselves: only Brandon was allowed to call himself
an Objectivist), I am now a committed Christian.
2. After reading Colson's article I can't say whether he has read Rand or not.
3.
I don't think his conclusions are wrong or incorrect. He may be
oversimplifying Rand and Christianity for the purpose of this column
but he is still correct. |
|
I
cried the day Rand died. I still love her for what she did. I pity her
(talk about rolling over in her grave, she hated pity) because she died
so lonely and lost. She deserved better.
She could easily have
tied Objectivism to Christianity and she was the only one who could
have done so. (After all she invented one of them.)The world is a
better place because of her but it could have been even better.
Before
you dismiss this as naive &/or ignorant on my part, consider
Brandon's own words when he said she was a terrible psychologist. He
then takes off showing why, from an atheist's point of view. I am
simply saying the same thing from a Christian point of view. She missed
the psychology thing completely. Brandon also said that the number of
lives she wrecked psychologically was enormous in number. I was one of
them. I see commenters here who credit her with saving them
psychologically. I say, "Not so fast there fellow. Life ain't over yet."
As
I said, Dagny and I won't "debate" here. I hope someone can benefit
from seeing my perspective but I am not going to try and convince
anyone.
|
|
|
Wow, you're easily amused, aren't you? |
|
"Universal
health care is a great example. If universal health care can create a
healthier, more productive populace for less money than private health
insurance than we should do if; if not, we shouldn't."
First of
this is a very big "IF". That aside there is a more fundamental issue
at stake. Universal Health Care implies force. There is already a
collective solution for health care which does not require force.
People can join organizations where people contribute to a common fund
which then pays for health care services. These are voluntary
associations. It is called health insurance and it was created for the
very reason you suggest.
What you propose is to use force to
make everyone participate in order to serve what you perceive as the
"common good". This gives rise to the questions, "Who gets to use
force?" and "Who gets to decide what represents the common good?" And
what about unintended consequences? Under a universal system, what
happens to research? What happens to innovation when the profit motive
has been eliminated?
An even stickier matter is who decides who
gets health care? Health care is a scarce resource. Universal care
requires rationing of health care resources. Is this something you want
brought into the political arena? That scares the hell out of me.
I understand the allure of the promise of something for nothing, but remember, there is no such thing as free lunch. |
|
Fom
my meager understanding of the history of Randvism, it was the likes of
Nathaniel Brandon that turned Objectivism into a cult.
There's a
bumper sticker reads "Jesus, save me from Your followers" and should
also be one reads "Ayn, save me from your followers".
Half joking, of course. |
|
Thanks for the correction.
I
never cease to be amazed at how many people in this country ignore the
warnings of people like Rand who experienced communisn firsthand. |
|
Whether
it's a religion, healthcare, foreign policy, a pseudo-religion like
enviromentalism, capitalism, or socialism, people will never agree.
Groups of people have grand visions of how society should operate, and
they can almost always get half the people to agree with them,
especially if it means they get free stuff. But the other half have to
be forced into a way of life they disagree with, for the good of the
other half, which is self-defeating.
Society can't be governed
beyond a local scale, with personal freedom of choice and personal
responsibility being the keystone. Society has gone crazy because I
can't see a single leader that has the humility to say they don't have
the answers for everything. Socialism doesn't work, period. Half the
people have given in to the idea of big government caring for them,
while the half that has to pay for it is coming under increased attack
from all sides.
Would the author call the man who employs 100
people and spends every waking moment working to grow the business
selfish or greedy? I suspect so. What will this country do when we
close our businesses and fire everyone, and aren't around for the gov't
to rape anymore? When the incentive is gone to excel, there won't be
anyone to care for this nation of dependents BUT the government, and
freedom will be dead. |
|
|
By
the I had gotten through all of the above posts, especially a lengthy
on-going exchange between a small number of writers, I expected them to
start arguing about the number oa angels who can dance on the head of a
pin. |
|
|
It depends of course on the dance. Obviously a Tango takes up more room than say the Macarena. |
|
Brandon went to CA after the break and practiced psychology and wrote books on it.
He only criticized Rand from a psychological perspective as far as I know - I lost track of him after 1990 or so.
A
cult of pot smoking Objectivists was criticized by Rand but she didn't
name names and a lot of people thought it was Brandon because she said
it was located in CA. I met Brandon after her criticism and he refused
to drink wine socially because he said it made his mind dull. Thus it
twern't him.
I can think of other "names" you would recognize
that it might have been but I think they have all recanted their drug
times and some are very well respected authorities now. I know I
respect them.
Finally there is Leonard Piekoff who was her legal
heir and philosopher. Most, like Brandon and myself, thought he was
"cultist" because he worshipped her every thought and wasn't able to
think on his own. |
|
There is a huge difference between the Universe and our mental models of the universe, Reality and our concepts of reality.
Reality
does exist. But our mental models of it are flawed to varying degrees.
Phylo's use of the old metaphor of the blind men and the elephant is a
nice illustration of our many and varied mental models of reality.
Bob's point that perception is not reality acknowledges the differences
I mentioned above.
A is indeed A, BUT we might not be able to model A accurately in our minds.
"Phylo:
"I'm sure everyone here has heard of the blind men and the elephant.
One thinks he's experincing a rope, the other a snake, another a wall,
another a tree trunk..."
Phylo, I can't believe you're that
stupid. You apparently live under the delusion that perception IS
reality. It's not, as the 50,000 people who die in auto accidents every
year would attest to, were they alive.
Regarless of how the
different blind men perceived the elephant's trunk (subjective
perception and analysis) the elephant's trunk was the elephant's trunk.
(A is A)." |
|
Greed is good.
Selfishness is a virtue.
And Chuck Colson is an idiot who simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Nor does he want to know.
By
the by, Atlas is about a lot more than capitalism and socialism.
There's a life philosophy to be found for those who would pay attention.
Love is a response to the values of another person.
Sex
is simultaneously the the most selfish act and (therefore) the highest
tribute that can be paid as an expression of love. Anything less is
unacceptable.
But, just like Chuck, some people are either incapable of or blatantly and self-righteously reject understanding.
Check your premise. No suprise considering the source. |
|
In
my experience, people who experience significant injustice, either at
the hand of arbitrary man or arbitrary nature, tend to become angry,
reject any notion of God, and adopt some sort of philosophy that
embraces their self-protective independence. Not all do, but a
disproportionate number do.
Also, in my experience, people who
know they have been the source of their own destruction tend
disproportionately to become Christian.
So it hardly surprises
me that Ayn Rand, a victim of Soviet socialist repression, became an
Objectivist, and Colson, jailed for obstruction of justice in the wake
of the Ellsberg affair, became a Christian.
I don't think the
effect of life influences on religious conviction proves or disproves
the validity of religious claims; I do think it explains some of the
willingness for people to take the positions they do.
Objectivism
and Christianity actually have a lot in common. Where they part company
is in the consideration of mercy. Christianity, at its core, rests on
an unsolicited gift from God, mercy for the sinner. Objectivism, in its
rage against an unfair universe, cannot accept such a gift, and so
parts company; but aside from those things, they see more or less the
same things about man and the universe. |
|
|
and
this has probably been covered, but I view her philosophy from two
vantage points: economically, and spiritually. Spritually, Colson is
right, but economically, I think she is pretty darn close to right.
When we sacrifice productivity solely for the "greater" good, we all
suffer. |
|
As
a physicist, I would argue with much of what you say. You are
attempting to apply quantum theory to the question of whether an
objective reality exists.
First some background on which we
should be able to agree. The nondeterminism associated with quantum
theory is based on the definition of the wavefuntion as a probability.
The theory itself is quite deterministic (i.e. if you start with the
same initial conditions, the equations will spit out the same
probabilities). However, it is very much nondeterministic in the sense
that if you do an experiment with the same initial conditions, you
could end up with different outcomes in accordance with that
probability. And it does indeed state that an outcome is necessarily
tied to its observer.
Now with that background, let's examine
your argument. You are stating that because the observation of an event
necessarily has a direct impact on that event, that this must mean
there is no objective reality, only a reality subjective to the
observer. Under no circumstances is that logical. Simply because the
two are tied, doesn't mean that the event couldn't happen in an
objective reality. Here's why: If experimenter A sets up an experiment
1000 times with same initial conditions, he will observe 1000 events,
the statistical (probabilistic) outcomes of which, are predicted by
quantum theory. Now experimenter B comes along and does the same
experiments. Quantum theory says that he will observe the outcomes and
see the same *statistical* results that experimenter A has seen,
perhaps not in the same order at all. Thus the statistical outcome was
in fact deterministic and was in fact an objective reality.
Were
the the results subjective in that sense, A and B could have seen
whatever they wanted. You cannot invoke a physical theory designed
specifically to describe an objective reality in order to disprove the
existence of objective reality itself.
Physics has spoken! |
|
...the
very, very, very small. As Reality organized itself into larger and
larger units--atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, planets, stars--each
level of organization gained new emergent properties. Some of these
include stability and solidity, properties that don't exist at the
quantum level.
Thus, applying analysis of the quantum level to
our level of organization is an unwarranted mixing of levels. Each
level of Reality is equally real--including ours. |
|
|
Many
Christian Conservatives are products of Straussian thought and he was
an atheist. Notice the use of "products of" and not "in agreement
with". Actually my first two sentences practically explain why people
like Colson are against Rand. |
|
Ayn
Rand & Adam Smith showed that apart from God, self-interest leads
men to serve others by serving themselves by doing what they're best at
and trading for the rest (to each according to his ability, from each
according to his need).
Friedrich Engels & Karl Marx showed
that apart from God, altruism leads men to serve themselves to whatever
they can get from others while serving others as little as possible (to
each according to his need, from each according to his ability).
With
God, we Christians do what we're best at, thereby serving God and
others (parable of the talents), and trade for the rest (do not steal).
In the meantime, we reduce our needs by living righteously to glorify
God (love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all
your mind). Moreover, we serve our neighbors as we can because God
commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
See the
difference between the three systems of thought? We Christians look to
God's word to provide the purposes for which we act, thereby learning
and applying moral principles describing when we should be
self-interested and when we should be altruistic, but never all the one
to the exclusion of the other. As a result, our human nature is
improved beyond its godless state, becoming robust in a universe of
infinite subjective circumstances.
In contrast, atheists can
never improve, instead gravitating towards mutually exclusive extremes
that fail them just as often as not, except Rand & Smith's extreme
works far better than Engels & Marx's. For pointing this out to the
benighted masses in the darkest human century - the 20th Century - we
have Rand to thank. This is why Mr. Colson's thoughts miss the mark.
|
|
|
Expecting the ultramicro and the macro or supermacro to operate on the same organizational level is a category error. |
|
|
I fail to see how you can make that claim. Please back it. Note: you cannot presume that which you intend to prove. |
|
First off, I like your nickname - very deterministic, indeed.
What
you are talking about actually has been a somewhat debated topic in
physics. Certain famous physicists have definitely tried to interpret
quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level. It goes back to the
Schrodinger's Cat paradox, which I will not explain, to the relief of
everyone here. You can look it up on the web though. Schrodinger
himself, one of the giants on whose shoulders we stand, thought that
the idea of quantum mechanics having macroscopic meaning was absurd.
You can't describe macroscopic objects as being in quantum mechanical
'states'.
However, if Phylos interpretation of quantum theory,
that reality is subjective, were true, then even *microscopic* quantum
theory would break down. The point of physics is that its laws, if
correct, apply universally and ruthlessly, and are therefore objective.
If not - if reality is subjective (*read: 'the world is how I
want to see that it is'), then why can't I fly? Alas, if only I could
interpret reality correctly. |
|
|
|
|
I've
never read Rand (I've been meaning to for some time), but I have read
Piper, who Colson refers to here. In his book Desiring God, he makes
the point that all humans do what they do out of self interest, and
that Christians have discovered that their interests are best served by
serving God, who made them and know what's best for them. "In His
presence is fullness of joy." Consider all the times that Christ and
the apostle Paul refer to heavenly rewards as encouragements to
obedience. We don't have to go any further than the Beattitudes, but
there are scads more examples. Doing God's will, even when it means
sacrifice or great difficulty, is worth it because it yields
benefits--in the short run, closeness to our Creator and "joy
unspeakable" and in the long run, greater glory and rewards in heaven
(which is part of the reason for the great joy now: "Rejoice and be
glad because great is your reward in heaven" [Matthew 5.12]). |
|
My husband has and praised her work for the most part. I would rather read them and judge for myself.
What
I did want to say - about Christians or anyone not recognizing a friend
who comes to the same conclusion from the opposite direction - like the
atheist that believes in small government, for example - I was
uncomfortable with some conservative voices (like the
fundlementalists.) when I joined the party but my husband suggested
that I should be open minded enough to appreciate those who vote like I
do even if we are not philosophically or religiously in agreement. (Be
open minded enough to accept a really complex party with a very large
tent ...)
Those for you are not against you. |
|
I
have always found some of the rights admiration of Rand funny. This is
not because they do not agree on a lot, they clearly do. It is because
Rand was not simply an atheist, she was someone who believed that the
message of the gospels was crippling to virtue.
So Colson as a Christian is right to be put off by her philosophy even if they agree on many policy matters.
It
is also wrong to describe her as mereley a liberatrian who believes
that every one should get to make their own choices. I doubt that are
many libertarians for whom that is really the whole of their
philosophies (and it would be embarassing to any that did exist). But
the heart of Rand/'s philosophy is that some of the choices are right
life affirming ones and the rest are death affirming ones. And the
values of the Gospels are decidely relagated to the death affirming
side. |
|
baseballdoc writes:
"...Most
religions are big on sacrifice ...the old Testament is full of
sacrifices to God ...The Romans, the Egyptians, the Aztecs all
practiced sacrifice as a religious rite ...in Christianity Jesus was
the ultimate sacrifice ..."
Sacrifice is as well the primary
ethic of Socialism. I believe it was a Liberal theologian who said -
"Communism is a page torn out of the Bible." Fundamentally, if not
precisely, he is correct, which is why I agree with JJBiener's point
above that - "Like liberals, the Religious Right believes the
government is the tool to solve societal problems." |
|
the bible.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01. html
ARTICLE
12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every
able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not
work, neither shall he eat."
2 Thess 3:10
For even when
we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not
willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
|
|
The
message of the gospel is that the Creator of all the universe came to
earth as the man Christ Jesus and died for a people from every kindred,
nation, and tongue, in order to completely pay the penalty for their
sins against Himself; He accomplished this successfully, and so He
physically rose from the dead, ascended to the throneroom of the
universe, is currently alive and will return to judge the earth.
If
you accept the statements that (1) there is a Creator, and (2) that you
have sinned against Him, then the gospel that Jesus Christ has totally
paid for those sins is indeed a life-affirming message.
If you
deny either statement (1) or (2), then the gospel affirms nothing for
you. It is very difficult to rejoice in a Savior if you do not perceive
a need to be rescued.
In II Corinthians 2:15-16, the apostle
Paul writes, "For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that
are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savor of
death unto death; and to the other the savor of life unto life. And who
is sufficient for these things?"
It seems that Paul is saying
that the gospel stinks like death to the spiritually dead, but smells
like the sweetness of life to those who have been blessed with
spiritual life.
I can understand the frustration with many
religious organizations, and disappointment with their leaders and
members. But the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the accounts of His
deeds, have the aroma and freshness of spring to me. |
|
Rand
despised (rightly so) the notion of original sin--in any manner that
anyone wants to couch it. Whether born in sin or a tendency to sin or
just sin in general: it's completely antithetical to the idea of
morality in the first place.
Freshness of spring? More like the stench of rotting corpses. |
|
|
|
a set of behavioral rules/guidelines for interpersonal interaction and for that which may have an indirect interaction.
What morality is NOT is a set of commandments to be followed OR ELSE YOU GET THROWN IN A LAKE OF FIRE MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! |
|
If
there is such a thing as the human spirit then on some level we are all
connected, possibly through the being referred to as 'God'. The spirit
in that way may be the earthly manifestation or extension of that God.
Were that to be true then the manner in which we interact with one
another would be very important as what we would be dealing with,at the
core, is ourselves.
If there is no human spirit then all of this
means nothing and our existences are short, brutal and with virtually
no meaning. Some obviously are not bothered by this scenario. Others
positively embrace it. I find it creapy. |
|
|
And that, my friend, is a sin. |
|
|
Sin is part of some silly religion. Sin is NOT the same as doing something immoral. |
|
Conservative Scientist has misspoken!
CS:
You are stating that because the observation of an event necessarily
has a direct impact on that event, that this must mean there is no
objective reality, only a reality subjective to the observer.
Phylo:
No, that's not my argument. Again, I'm not saying that reality is
entirely subjective. I'm saying that it's not ULTIMATELY possible to
separate a subject from an object,
In other words, the
scientists you are talking about that are doing the 1000 experiments
are not separate from the results, as you stated earlier.
I'm
not saying that reality is entirely objective. Nor am I saying that it
is entirely subjective. Nor am I saying it's both. Nor am I saying it's
neither.
I'm saying that Reality is what's going on in This
Moment prior to drawing conceptual boundaries and dividing subjects
from objects, prior to thinking anything at all about it.
Phylo out. |
|
"See the difference between the three systems of thought?"
Yes,
individualism, of which Rand was a minor player, though a good
advertiser, is morally grounded in natural law and natural rights.
Socialism,
eschewing both human natural and tradition, is immorally grounded in
deception, for example, propagandizing the good of all while empowering
the state.
And Christianity, the way you describe it, merely
straddles the fence of dualism: Serving God and serving others as God
commands, being at times altruistic and at times self-interested, and
trying to turn negatives into positives, like do not steal into do
trade.
What exactly is there to reason, discover and learn if
you act by command alone? Who anoints whom to decide what God's
commands are? How is that possible given your human nature?
I
say it is by individualist philosophy, that natural law is discoverable
through right reason and rational inquiry (paraphrasing Rothbard), who
come closer to learning moral right and wrong, and choose to apply it
in action, and who, thereby, avoid the fatal conceit of those who
ignore their human nature. |
|
is exactly that, as I describe.
It
is a transgression. I am sure we can get into various semantics, and
you can call it silly, but that doesn't change what it is... |
|
OK,
I think most of us acknowledge that Existence exits. That there IS an
objective realiy. What Ayn Rand said was that we can PERCEIVE that
reality by the use of our senses. I think what Phylo was trying to say
- especially with the parable of the elephant's trunk -is that our
senses are not adequate to FULLY comprehend reality. Furthermore, our
act of processing that sensory input 1) is subjective and 2) changes
the object being observed. I can't really say Phylo is wrong on either
of those points.
Additionally, it is thought that we as
humans have been "hard-wired" in the deep evolutionary recesses of our
brains to get a rush out of being altruistic. My son is serving as a
Lieutenant in Afghanistan. Believe me, the "band of brothers" love
produced in such conditions is one of the strongest human bonds that
can be experienced. I think it is even stronger than the pursuit of
coitus.
Hence, I find Rand's philosophy lacking because it does
not account for the reality I have perceived with my senses. Still, I
think most of what she said is correct. We should not live and act a
certain way so as to be rewarded in heaven. But we ought to act in
essentially the same way because it is the "right" thing to do and we
dignify our existenially absurd existences by doing so. |
|
|
Sin is part of some religious nonsense. Sin is not the same as an immoral act. |
|
|
Our
senses aren't adequate to fully comprehend reality? If by that you mean
we can't, without aids, observe microwaves or infrared or the like,
then ok. But so what? If not, then you're veering off into
self-refuting territory. |
|
bb: What Ayn Rand said was that we can PERCEIVE that reality by the use of our senses.
Phylo:
Actually, she didn't say this. She says that the ONLY way we can have
any knowledege of reality is through reason. Sensory perception has no
place in her philosophy.
bb: I think what Phylo was trying to
say - especially with the parable of the elephant's trunk -is that our
senses are not adequate to FULLY comprehend reality.
Phylo: No. I'm saying that there is a difference between Perception and conception.
Perception is the direct immediate experience of This Moment.
conception is our thoughts; our ideas about reality.
According to how we think of the world, there is a difference between subject and object.
But if we dig deeper, we start to realize that the boundary separating the two is an illusion, as science has proven.
The analogy of the elephant was to demonstrate that we all experience the same thing differently.
The
better analogy is the example I gave earlier about the orange. If a
hundred people were looking at an orange, we would all see a slightly
different orange. No two people can see a particular thing in the exact
same way. We all see color in a slightly different way, for example.
In
saying this, I'm only trying to prove that there is no such thing as
objective reality. Which is not, by the way, the same thing as arguing
that reality is entirely subjective.
And to the person who said
that this is all about the number of angles on a pinhead: You're wrong.
Our mistaken philosophy is directly connected to all of our suffering
and immoral behavior.
Phylo out. |
|
|
knight
of baawa: As a physician, I encounter patients who lack one or more of
the basic senses. Some people are color-blind or cannot smell due to a
chromosomal defect. Some people are blind or deaf. Some people cannot
feel pain. Many such people, especially those born with the defect,
compensate very well. Their other senses are heightened and other
"senses" that we have no name for seem to develop. So, I have been
brought to wonder, what if there was a mutation in humans that gave
them a clairvoyant sense of the future, or the ability to communicate
telepathically or the ability to mind-meld into an alternate universe.
Such would be within the realm of possibility, and could very well
constitute "reality". But, it is a reality that I'll never know. Hence,
I conclude that our senses are not adequate to fully comprehend
"reality". But we get by. Just as Newtonian physics will "get you by"
99% of the time. But it is only an APPROXIMATION of reality that is
comprehended, not REALITY itself. |
|
I
think your skepticism about reality veers off down the same
self-refuting street as butterbarre, a dead end from which you cannot
argue. Who's arguing with whom and how do you know that?
Perception
is useless to a thinking man without conceiving what you're perceiving.
The fact that blind men see different oranges only goes to prove what
Rand argued*: "1. 'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed' or 'Wishing
won't make it so.' 2. 'You can't eat your cake and have it, too.' 3.
'Man is an end in himself.' 4. 'Give me liberty or give me death.'"
"All
rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the
individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual
acts."
--Ludwig von Mises, _Socialism_
* http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivis m_intro |
|
"As a physician, I encounter patients who lack one or more of the basic senses."
Exceptions do not the rule make.
"So, I have been brought to wonder, what if there was a mutation in humans that gave them a clairvoyant sense of the future,"
Not possible, as the future doesn't technically exist yet.
"or the ability to communicate telepathically or the ability to mind-meld into an alternate universe."
Not possible, as there's no mechanism.
" Hence, I conclude that our senses are not adequate to fully comprehend "reality"."
No, your wishes don't mean anything. |
|
lonestar:I
think your skepticism about reality veers off down the same
self-refuting street as butterbarre, a dead end from which you cannot
argue. Who's arguing with whom and how do you know that?
Phylo: I'm not skeptical about reality. I don't doubt that This Moment is reality.
If you want to say that This Moment is not Real, then we'll have an argument.
Phylo out.
|
|
Phylo,
I think you are wrong about Rand and sensory perception. Postulate a
baby born who cannot see, hear, taste, smell nor sense touch,
temperature nor limb position. Do you contend that such a baby will
EVER develop the capacity to reason?
Quoting from wikipedia:
Objectivism
holds that there is a mind-independent reality; that individual persons
are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human
beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form
valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose
of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational
self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this
morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure,
consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human
life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of
reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and
respond to with the whole of one's consciousness.
The passage above is referenced in footnote to Leonard Peikoff |
|
bb:
"So, I have been brought to wonder, what if there was a mutation in
humans that gave them a clairvoyant sense of the future,"
knight of bawa: Not possible, as the future doesn't technically exist yet.
Phylo:
The future will never exist. It is always Right Now. The future only
exists as a concept. All that is Real is This Moment. |
|
"I
notice that Mr. Colson didn't mention any of Ms. Rand's background. A
female Jew who left Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. A time when
giving up your rights and ideas for the betterment of society
(government) was considered to be the ideal. Gee, you think that
someone who was fighting against these types of ideas would be a hero
to Mr. Colson."
Some of us actually think that fighting our enemies does not mean you're perfect.
Shocking, I know, but we think it. |
|
"Having
read practically everything Ayn Rand ever published (a long time ago),
I never understood why so many people wrongly concluded things such as
"she frowned on charity." Her view (libertarian) was that "it is your
money, do with it as you please!""
Maybe it was the way she
oozed contempt for anyone who needed assistance for any reason, and
expressed her permission for other people to give to charity with scorn.
I
also note that a society can (physically) survive if the elderly and
the disabled die when they can not support themselves. However,
children can not support themselves, and no society can survive without
them. Furthermore Rand's society will not survive if people raise
children in a manner that best pleases them, only if they raise them to
be good contributors to society and so self-supporting.
"She
wrote an essay (The Virtue of Selfishness?) describing how what is
often called "sacrifice" is actually self-interest if it is done
freely. For example, a man gives up something in order to stay with his
wife or child who has recently become an invalid. He does it because he
loves her, not as a self sacrifice."
It makes him feel good, so it's in his self-interest.
Try
this thought experiment: offer him a drug that will make him feel
exactly as good as he does when he stays with his wife or child, at a
fraction of the price.
If you try to say that he would refuse
the drug because he would feel guilty, you are not answering, because
the drug would, of course, handle the guilt and conceding the argument,
because the guilt can only relate to the other person's interest. |
|
bb: Phylo, I think you are wrong about Rand and sensory perception.
Phylo: I pulled the following directly from aynrand.org:
"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason
(the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by
man's senses) is man's ONLY means of perceiving reality, his only
source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of
survival."
I emphasized "only" because she seems to be
discounting the senses as contributing to our knowledge. She seems to
be exclusive about it.
Do you think I'm reading her wrong? Or do you think she misspoke?
By the way, I would argue that BOTH our senses and our reason contribute to our understanding of reality.
|
|
"Ayn Rand is in the tradition of Aristotle"
She talked a lot about Aristotle but I see very little influence in her work.
Just
like she talked a lot about reason, but her essays are long
re-iterations of her first principles. Over and over and over again.
She never, for instance, tries to deduce Objectivism from premises that
she could plausibly expect the reader to accept.
"she admired the medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas."
She
said she did. I see very little influence again. I note that she was
very fond of quoting -- herself. Neither Aristotle nor Aquinas nor
anyone else for that matter.
Very odd when she's writing about
envy in a manner that any orthodox Christian could write about what is,
after all, one of the seven deadly sins.
She also combined a
professed admiration of Aquinas with a great readiness to parrot the
pop-history view of the benightedness of the Middle Ages. In fact, her
list of admired thinkers makes me serious wonder if she had thought
about the pop-history views that she expressed, of all sorts of eras. |
|
If
there is no future, then why are we born with assh0les? The enzymes
that are highly co-ordinated to support our life functions certainly
acknowledge a time continuum that includes a past, present and future.
At
this very moment there exists a state of all things that can yield an
equation that can give, within the limits of quantum mechanics, a high
probability of what the next state will be, and the next, and the
next..... I do not exclude the possibility that a highly evolved or
"mutated" human mind could tap into this as a "sense". The amoeba could
hardly plot a lunar trajectory; but, in time it evolved into an
organism that could. |
|
After
reading John Galt's 60-page Jeremiad near the conclusion of Atlas
Shrugged, I said to myself, "she's talented, but Ayn Rand sometimes
writes like someone who's on drugs."
Little did I know. Years
later, it came out that Rand took the diet drug Dexedrine (an
amphetamine) for several decades. She suffered from insomnia, and (to
judge some of her writing and some of her speeches) from paranoia. She
was naturally feisty and intransigent and temperamental; the Dexedrine
probably just made her more so.
All of which made her quite fascinating and entertaining.
I enjoy reading both Rand and the Bible, taking both with a healthy dose of salt. |
|
If
there is no future, then why are we born with assh0les? The enzymes
that are highly co-ordinated to support our life functions certainly
acknowledge a time continuum that includes a past, present and future.
At
this very moment there exists a state of all things that can yield an
equation that can give, within the limits of quantum mechanics, a high
probability of what the next state will be, and the next, and the
next..... I do not exclude the possibility that a highly evolved or
"mutated" human mind could tap into this as a "sense". The amoeba could
hardly plot a lunar trajectory; but, in time it evolved into an
organism that could. |
|
"Even
though she deeply admired capitalists and their achievements, she was
no economist and never claimed to play one on TV. She assumed the top
captains of industry actually ran America, and if displeased with what
a growing welfare state was doing, could "go on strike" and by so
doing, bring America to ruin."
And she greatly overestimated the
amount of innovation and leadership needed. In medieval Europe, the
water mill was greeted with great enthusiasm for it and for all the
things it could do. Its effect on society was
In ancient China
and ancient Rome, both of which knew how to build watermills, it was a
curiosity. They were out its many benefits, but it didn't exactly
destroy them. |
|
|
The
curiosity starts with George Soros. People want to know the book on
this guy. They hear six billion dollars and ask what they have bought
in their lifetimes that would constitute being a customer of a thing or
service supplied by this man. None bought anything anywhere anytime
from this guy and he makes six billion dollars and people want to how
he did it. When explained that he runs hedge funds and practiced
arbitrage trading currencies and fixed interest derivatives the public
gets sleepy fast. Joe Sixpack wants to know how he helped make George
Soros a billionaire and how he can do the same thing to get some extra
chump change. When told that what George Soros did is basically illegal
money trading preceded by insider information and the same practice
here would end you up in a federal prison really adds confusion. Throw
in that the deed was done offshore and the currencies involved the old
Russian Rubles, the British Pound versus gold reserves, oil reserves,
bills of laden on commodity cargos and Joe Sixpack needs another round
pronto. Try to explain that George Soros is a Hungarian boy genius
schooled at the London School of Economics and after going to school
some Russian government Tinkerbell gives him a pile of cash to play the
currency markets forcing down the comparative value of the British
Pound to buy more Rubles to secure more commodity reserves and Joe is
calling his broker at Schwab looking for the pamphlet. All this writer
knows is that from behind the Iron Curtain emerged George Soros to be
interviewed and introduced to the American Public by the then
considered venerable Dan (70 million dollar law suit) Rather. Soros
appearing on 60 Minutes (before multi-channel cable) to tell in sober
blah terms that he is Jewish and does not believe in God. |
|
I certainly do not mean to mischaracterize what you say. I was responding mostly to this:
Phylo:
She also believes that reality is objective––facts are facts. This has
been shown to be wrong through quantum theory. There is no objective
reality, there is no reality without an observer. There is no object
without a subject. Nor is there such a thing as a subject without an
object.
CS: First, in my defense, in that quote you did say
"There is no objective reality." I understand that what you’re saying
is more complex than simply ‘there is no objective reality,’ but I
don’t get it. I would actually like to discuss this with you a bit more
now. So first I have a few questions (not meant to be hostile at all).
1.) I assume that my arguments before don't apply since experimenter A is inseparable from experimenter B and vice versa?
2.)
Does the study of science (or philosophy for that matter) have any
worth since it can't be objective, or since the laws are not REAL?
3.)
If the laws of physics are not objective, why invoke them to prove your
point? Furthermore, you are trying to prove several points to several
people by even engaging in this discussion. Of course, if reality were
totally subjective (which is NOT what you're saying - I know), that
activity would be pointless. But even if you're not totally
subjectivist, why argue by using reason at all? An argument can only be
reasonable if both parties can agree on some premise, which can only be
guaranteed in a completely objective reality.
4.) How can you
PROVE anything to me in a reality that isn't totally objective? How can
you prove that reality isn't objective in the absence of objectivity?
Am I completely missing all of the points, here?
By
the way, as I recall, in Galt's speech, she does often invoke the use
of sensory perception as a means to receiving reality. I'd have to find
the passages though, which is not likely tonight. |
|
I think you are reading her incorrectly. I googled Ayn Rand sense perception and got this out of the Ayn Rand Society:
Rand's
epistemology rests on a distinction between the automatic,
metaphysically given knowledge of sense-perception, and the volitional,
man-made, products of reason. Perception is a form of awareness that
results inexorably from a causal interaction of the perceiver with his
environment. As such, it cannot be judged and serves as an
epistemological given on which conceptual knowledge will be built.
Epistemology for Rand is a normative discipline describing how to build
conceptual knowledge on perceptual. The basic principle of her
epistemology is that “the rules of cognition must be derived from the
nature of existence and the nature, the identity, of [man’s] cognitive
faculty.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 1990, p. 82)
I
read that as saying data input from sensory perception is the building
block upon which we reason our way to an objective conceptualization of
reality. |
|
I certainly do not mean to mischaracterize what you say. I was responding mostly to this:
Phylo:
She also believes that reality is objective––facts are facts. This has
been shown to be wrong through quantum theory. There is no objective
reality, there is no reality without an observer. There is no object
without a subject. Nor is there such a thing as a subject without an
object.
CS: First, in my defense, in that quote you did say
"There is no objective reality." I understand that what you’re saying
is more complex than simply ‘there is no objective reality,’ but I
don’t get it. I would actually like to discuss this with you a bit more
now. So first I have a few questions (not meant to be hostile at all).
1.) I assume that my arguments before don't apply since experimenter A is inseparable from experimenter B and vice versa?
2.)
Does the study of science (or philosophy for that matter) have any
worth since it can't be objective, or since the laws are not REAL?
3.)
If the laws of physics are not objective, why invoke them to prove your
point? Furthermore, you are trying to prove several points to several
people by even engaging in this discussion. Of course, if reality were
totally subjective (which is NOT what you're saying - I know), that
activity would be pointless. But even if you're not totally
subjectivist, why argue by using reason at all? An argument can only be
reasonable if both parties can agree on some premise, which can only be
guaranteed in a completely objective reality.
4.) How can you
PROVE anything to me in a reality that isn't totally objective? How can
you prove that reality isn't objective in the absence of objectivity?
Am I completely missing all of the points, here?
By
the way, as I recall, in Galt's speech, she does often invoke the use
of sensory perception as a means to receiving reality. I'd have to find
the passages though, which is not likely tonight. |
|
bb:
If there is no future, then why are we born with assh0les? The enzymes
that are highly co-ordinated to support our life functions certainly
acknowledge a time continuum that includes a past, present and future.
Phylo:
Actually, I shouldn't say that there is no such thing as past, present,
and future. I should say that this way of viewing time is only ONE
aspect of our experience, and that we should learn to recognize (as I
believe the enzymes already do) that there is also ANOTHER sense of
time (the Ultimate sense) in which there is NO separation between
events, and therefore no time, and therefore no past or future.
I can prove this logically. But I don't have the space to do it here.
By the way, I'm not the first to make this argument (that time is an illusion). I believe Einstein made the same basic argument.
|
|
I'm
anxious to continue this conversation. So fascinating! But I have to go
cook dinner now. I'll look for this thread tomorrow under Chuck
Colson's columns.
I hope some of the others will join us.
I've enjoyed this very much.
Good night.
Phylo |
|
If
our society adopted her general premises, yes, the ditch would be the
home of anyone who wasn't a narcissistic bully because the weak would
not be helped and the compassionate would be ridiculed. Take a look at
the warlords of Africa for an example of where self-interest gets you.
It's great for the strong and mean, not so great for anyone else.
But, bullies love it, which I suspect Ayn Rand was just that. Look how she treated her husband. |
|
"If our society adopted her general premises, yes, the ditch would be the home of anyone who wasn't a narcissistic bully "
Prove it.
"because the weak would not be helped"
Prove it.
"and the compassionate would be ridiculed."
Prove it.
"Take a look at the warlords of Africa for an example of where self-interest gets you."
Wrong. That's not the self-interest she's talking about. Try again. This time: ditch the strawman. |
|
Phylo,
It certainly has been a terrific discussion. I agree wholeheartedly
(wholemindedly?)with the notion that time is an illusion. Time is not
an absolute function, but a derivative one. We all know that Velocity
(v) = Distance(d)/ Time (t). That means that t = d/v. Where velocity is
zero, time ceases to exist. Actually, velocity (of light) is the
absolute, not time. Hence, before the Big Bang, when there was no
motion, no velocity, there was no time. Thus solves the problem of
"eternity".
Good night! |
|
"I'm not skeptical about reality. I don't doubt that This Moment is reality."
Could've
fooled me when you said "I'm only trying to prove that there is no such
thing as objective reality. I'm only trying to prove that there is no
such thing as objective reality. Which is not, by the way, the same
thing as arguing that reality is entirely subjective."
Sounds like pure skepticism to me.
"...she seems to be discounting the senses as contributing to our knowledge."
How does sensory perception become knowledge if not through reason?
"...I'm not the first to make this argument (that time is an illusion). I believe Einstein made the same basic argument."
Einstein,
_Relativity_, 1952: "Since there exists in this four dimensional
structure no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the
concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended,
but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of
physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as
hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."
|
|
But
time has a very important role in physics, with a concrete definition.
Einstein would have said that the concept of time is inseparable from
the concept of space.
Since you guys were speaking of the speed
of light as the most fundamental constant, I challenge you to define
the speed of light in the absence of a concrete definition of time. |
|
...may turn out to be a bad metaphor (sorry Albert Einstein).
In
our three physical dimensions, we are able to go forward and backward,
up and down, and side to side. We can't do this in time (sorry, H.G.
Wells). We can only go "forward" second by second, minute by minute,
hour by hour, etc.
There is an eternal Now, the instant we are
experiencing at any instant. We remember the past and anticipate the
future, but never actually live in either.
I don't know what a
really good, really instructive metaphor for time would actually turn
out to be, but I no longer believe in anything like the time dimension. |
|
|
CS:
How is time at all concrete? What about the astronaut who comes back to
find all his erstwhile "contemporaries" dead. Heck, time has beeen
shown to change by simply going to the top of a tall building. |
|
|
They are a must read in our society. |
|
CS:
How is time at all concrete? What about the astronaut who comes back to
find all his erstwhile "contemporaries" dead? Heck, time has been shown
to change by simply going to the top of a tall building.
I
challenge you to define time, the concrete or mushy quicksand version
without something moving around - be it Cesium atoms or the hands of a
watch or LIGHT. Time is purely a derivative function that only appears
when something is moving around from here to there |
|
"Ayn Rand on Speed. Little did I know."
I agree you know very little.
I wonder why you would admit it.
|
|
|
Actually,
we are all experiencing and, for all intents, living in the very recent
past. The synapses by which we intake sensory data and process it are
not instantaneous. Kind of like that lag you get when you turn off
annoying TV announcers to listen to your favorite radio guys. |
|
Again, you only see what you want to see:
Phylo
qotes Ayn Rand "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the
material provided by man's senses) is man's ONLY means of perceiving
reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and
his basic means of survival."
Bob_C replies:
The quote above seems to be misunderstood by you (a chronic trait).
Reason
(the faculty which identifies and integrates the MATERIAL PROVIDED BY
MAN'S SENSES (i.e. perception) is man's only means of perceiving
reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and
his basic means of survival."
You say you're not a subjectivist, yet you still deny a reality that exists outside of Phylo's noggin. Can't have it both ways.
You
don't get it do you? That's because you're basically a brainwashed
fool. Give it up. You lost the argument a long time ago. BIG TIMR.
|
|
I
cannot give you a good definition of time. But then again, I can't tell
you what mass is, or space, or charge. For each of these 'things' our
understanding of them depends on some standard, or unit by which it is
measured. Define mass, for example, without force and acceleration.
However, that doesn't mean that these things don't exist at all. These
things are real, and therefore have some concrete definition even if we
don't fully understand it yet. As one of my physics professors once
said to me, we have a very good ability to predict outcomes with
physics, but a deep understanding of the universe remains elusive.
However, I can give you a definition of the speed of light, and it is based on the fact that time exists.
Now,
you said, "How is time at all concrete? What about the astronaut who
comes back to find all his erstwhile "contemporaries" dead? Heck, time
has been shown to change by simply going to the top of a tall building."
What
you're referring to here is time dilation, simply put, the idea that
moving clocks run slower. Yes indeed, the 'speed'(if you will) of the
passage of time depends on reference frame, but that does not preclude
the existence of a definition of time. This is merely one of the
properties that a true definition of time must incorporate.
In
Special Relativity, the concept of time dilation is closely related to
the concept of length contraction. That is, moving objects appear
shorter in length. Thus the 'true' length of an object also depends on
reference frame. But this doesn't preclude the possibility of a
concrete definition of length. |
|
I'm
relatively certain that a few of us have gone way off the deep end of
discussion here - way away from the original topic of the article. I
am, however, absolutely enjoying this, and I wouldn't mind continuing
this conservation with you guys. But I doubt most of the people reading
this thread of comments give half a flip about what this discussion has
morphed into.
So I propose that the few of us arguing about
crazy physics and philosophy stuff continue elsewhere. (It is a pain to
keep looking up the comments on this Colson article, anyway.) I was
thinking I'd make a townhall blog tomorrow and we could keep going
there.
Those in favor?...Those opposed?
Anyway, good night folks. |
|
You
intentionally missed my point, as evidenced by your comments. If reason
is the only human standard, then socialism and individualism are
equally reasonable. They may not be equally efficient economically, but
only because they serve different ends.
Ends. See, nowadays we
perform our moral reasoning from the starting point of values, not
moral principles. But value is utility to purpose serving some end,
which means what's good for you may be bad for me, but so what? Your
individual values are beyond questioning, which means they are beyond
reasoned ethical reproach. Not so?
Next, trade (a positive sum
game) arises from a negative ("do not steal") because every negative
obligation inuring to an individual implies a positive right inuring to
all. That's why "do not envy" is the source of "equality under the
law". Or are you not acquainted with rights theory, even when you
describe individualism as morally grounded in natural rights?
Next,
natural law together with human reason does not promulgate a specific,
absolute set of laws, but describes how natural laws invariably result
in human laws by virtue of the human perception of natural laws in the
context of the human experience, characterized by death, scarcity
(opportunity costs) and competing ends. Hence, the point of natural law
is that people will always make laws but never consistently keep them
given the infinite variability of their circumstances, ends, purposes
and values over time and individual.
Finally, time is an effect
of the perception of the symmetry of matter/energy energy in motion.
This seems tautological because the perceiver is also matter/energy,
but symmetry cures this as described by Einstein's relativity theory
(there are always two variables in symmetry). |
|
|
is
matter, an electro/chemical device. It has its limitations. It deals
with the universe through models. At some point, "understanding" itself
becomes a model, which can be broken down into contradictions. As soon
as someone can explain and then disprove Godel's proof to me, i remain
awash in my ignorance. I don't even know what happens when i divide by
zero. All the books i've ever read say "undefined". No one knows the
exact value of pi either, however the value is known accurately enough
for all present purposes. |
|
"You intentionally missed my point, as evidenced by your comments."
Clairvoyant? Perhaps you misstated your point. Perhaps you just mean you disagree.
"If reason is the only human standard, then socialism and individualism are equally reasonable."
Did
you intentionally miss my point? I believe I clearly stated nature as a
guiding standard, which socialism and religionism reject. Tradition is
another guiding standard but that's not unique as religionists follow
that too, only socialism rejects it. So, individualism, as I see it,
employs reason, grounded in man's nature, guided by tradition, religion
follows faith, guided by tradition, but rejects man's nature, and
socialism follows reason but rejects tradition and man's nature.
"Ends. See, nowadays we perform our moral reasoning from the starting point of values, not moral principles."
Such is moral relativism. I prefer the universal moral absolutes of natural law.
"Next,
trade (a positive sum game) arises from a negative ("do not steal")
because every negative obligation inuring to an individual implies a
positive right inuring to all."
Right, my point concerned the dualism of religion, missed that--intentionally? But, tell me, how moral is it to follow commands?
"Or are you not acquainted with rights theory, even when you describe individualism as morally grounded in natural rights?"
Natural rights as derived from natural law is what I stated--Locke's contribution to natural law.
"Next, natural law together with human reason does not promulgate a specific, absolute set of laws, but describes..."
What
I posted was along lines of natural law being discoverable through
reason. This is natural law theory following the Stoics, Aquinas,
Locke, Rothbard. It is discovered, not created. It is universal,
absolute, and grounded in man's nature. You seem to be talking about
something else altogether. |
|
CS:
As I understand it, the speed of light (in a vacuum) called "c" is a
CONSTANT. The more malleable derivatives of that constant, distance "d"
and time "t" will become distorted when the situation leaves the realm
of Newtonian physics and enters the Einsteinian one so as to keep "c" a
constant.
Hence, the Biblical "Let there be light" is an
extremely good way to paraphrase the Big Bang theory (or vice versa)as
the moment of creation where all other derivative functions: mass,
distance and time came into existence. |
|
1.) I assume that my arguments before don't apply since experimenter A is inseparable from experimenter B and vice versa?
Phylo: Yes, that's right.
2.)
Does the study of science (or philosophy for that matter) have any
worth since it can't be objective, or since the laws are not REAL?
Phylo:
Sure. Thinking has value. And it's important to understand that 2+2=4
rather than five. But science and philosophy can only provide us with
relative, provisional truths. Their veracity is ALWAYS limited to their
particular context. Where we go wrong is when we expect them to be able
to capture Absolute Truth.
3.) If the laws of physics are not
objective, why invoke them to prove your point? Furthermore, you are
trying to prove several points to several people by even engaging in
this discussion. Of course, if reality were totally subjective (which
is NOT what you're saying - I know), that activity would be pointless.
But even if you're not totally subjectivist, why argue by using reason
at all? An argument can only be reasonable if both parties can agree on
some premise, which can only be guaranteed in a completely objective
reality.
Phylo: What we need to understand is that the veracity
of anything that can be spoken or written or expressed in some
conceptual way is limited to it's particular context. For example
parallel lines never meet is true as long as you confine the idea to
the context of Euclidian geometry. But if you expand the context into
other forms of geometry, it is no longer true; parallel lines DO meet.
to be continued... |
|
4.)
How can you PROVE anything to me in a reality that isn't totally
objective? How can you prove that reality isn't objective in the
absence of objectivity?
Phylo: I can't prove anything
Absolutely. No one can. The fact of the matter is, ALL concepts are
inherently contradictory and relative. There is no statement that
cannot be shown to be "wrong" or incomplete in some way.
However,
this doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
Absolute Truth is what's going on in This Moment prior to snapping it
into conceptual form. Of course, we cannot conceive of what's going on
in This Moment. As soon as we try, we are no longer thinking of This
Moment, we are speaking of a moment in the past. So we can't capture
This Moment in conceptual form. Nevertheless, we can directly
experience Absolute Truth. Indeed, we all do.
It is my
contention that we need to learn to recognize that there are actually
two kinds of truth. There is relative truth, which is conceptual truths
and their veracity is inherently limited. And there is Absolute Truth
which is directly perceivable, but not conceivable. All of our problems
begin when we confuse the two.
CS: By the way, as I recall, in
Galt's speech, she does often invoke the use of sensory perception as a
means to receiving reality. I'd have to find the passages though, which
is not likely tonight.
Phylo: You may be right. I've never read
the book. I'm only going by what it says at aynrand.org. And if you're
right then either the website has misstated her philosophy, or she is
contradicting herself. |
|
Bob
C: Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the MATERIAL
PROVIDED BY MAN'S SENSES (i.e. perception) is man's only means of
perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to
action, and his basic means of survival."
Phylo: You say I'm
misunderstanding this quote. It seems to me that she is saying that a
baby, because they cannot reason, has NO (zero, zip zilch nada) guide
to action and it's basic survival. Which is utter nonsense. A baby
KNOWS when it is hungry and what to do to survive; namely suckle. There
is no reason involved in this; only sensual perception.
Comprende?
|
|
Make a blog? Just to continue?
Yes! I didn't know you could.
I have read every comment on this with interest. I would certainly read if
butterbarre,
RCB,
lonestarblues,
contributed. I might even read some of "the-bomb-thrower-who-doesn't-exist", Phylo Se Fiser.
|
|
The discussion of time has come up. The question seems to be: Is there such a thing as time, or is there no such thing as time?
I
would argue that there are two aspects to time: a conceptual aspect and
an Absolute aspect. From the conceptual perspective there is time. From
the Absolute perspective there is no time. And I would further argue
that we need to take both of these aspects into account at the same
time. To ignore either aspect is to be confused about time.
The question could also be asked: Is time Real?
I
would argue that time is conceptual. It's a product of our thinking.
What is Real (Absolutely Real) is This Moment. And it's critically
important that we not mix up what is relative and what is Absolute.
Sorry,
it's not much of an explanation. I'm working on a book that spells this
out in more detail, but I can't reproduce the entire argument here. It
involves demonstrating that there are actually no existential
boundaries separating events in time. And if there are no existential
boundaries then there are no separate events; meaning there is no time.
Bell's
Theorem comes into play here. Bell's Theorem proves that there
ultimately no separate locations in space. And, if there are no
separate locations in space, there are no separate times since space
and time are not really separate from each other.
|
|
For example, I would like to hear these words without the jargon:
"value is utility to purpose serving some end."
from RCB.
|
|
|
Can you define "natural law"? |
|
Phylo:
"I can't prove anything Absolutely. No one can. The fact of the matter
is, ALL concepts are inherently contradictory and relative. There is no
statement that cannot be shown to be "wrong" or incomplete in some way.
However, this doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Absolute Truth."
Actually: it does. |
|
Q - is every act of altruism- the voluntary giving of goods or services to those who haven't earned them, morally wrong
A
- altruism is a term originated by the philosopher Auguste Comte, and
comes from the latin "alter" meaning "other"(other-ism). It means
existing for the sake of others. The questioner confuses altruism with
kindness, charity and generosity. Under his definition, giving someone
a christmas present is an act of altruism. But that's foolish. This
kind of package deal enables altruists to get away with the evil they
are perpetrating. If you do something for another that involves harm to
yourself, that is altruism. But voluntarily giving something to another
who hasn't earned it is not. That's morally NEUTRAL. You MAY or MAY NOT
have a good REASON for doing it. Judging what giving is proper depends
on the context of the situation-on the relationship of the two persons
involved. Moreover, the act of giving is the least important act in
life. This is not where one begins a discussion of morality or politics.
|
|
"the
questioner ignores the difference between a moral and a legal
principle. Legally under capitalism, a mans property is his own and he
may do what he pleases with it.Morality concerns the right principles
to guide a man's action, and therefore to guide the laws of society.
Before one can get to the question "What can a man do with his
property?" one must ask"what are man's rights" If under capitalism the
state does not interfere with man's property, it is precisely because
capitalism is based on the principle that his property belongs to him.
If you don't start with the morality of rational self interest, there
is no justification for the state to leave mans property alone.If a man
doesn't have the right to exist for his own sake, then others may make
claims on him, and under altuism, they do."1962 From Ayn Rand
Answers(book)
Basically you cannot get capitalism from altruism.
You can try to paste them together artificialy, but you cannot go
natually from "Its moral to serve others" to "Hey, lets have a system
where individuals have the right to ther own property"
|
|
|
BTW
Ayn Rand is not a libertatian and particularly not a supporter of
anarchism which she called "whim-worship" and compared it to the middle
ages. |
|
"Can you define 'natural law'?"
I
have. See responses to RCB. But, you see, I am a mere amatuer, a
student at this, with no formal training. So I will refer you to Murray
Rothbard's definition: "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best
for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and
best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural
law provides man with a 'science of happiness,' with the paths which
will lead to his real happiness. ...in natural-law ethics, ends are
demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here
is objective—determined by the natural law of man's being, and here
'happiness' for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual
sense."
For more, see _Eithics of Liberty_ @ http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp .
Knight would be a good source too.
But
let let me add this before closing this post. Again, Rithbard: "We have
seen from our discussion that the doctrine of natural law—the view that
an objective ethics can be established through reason—has had to face
two powerful groups of enemies in the modern world: both anxious to
denigrate the power of man’s reason to decide upon his destiny. These
are the fideists who believe that ethics can only be given to man by
supernatural revelation, and the skeptics who believe that man must
take his ethics from arbitrary whim or emotion." |
|
The
term altruism may have been coined by Compte but it of course goes way
back. Plato, for example, argued the state or collective is altruistic,
the egoist or individual selfish (self-interest)--not unlike Colson
argues.
Karl Popper, in Open Society, iirc, takes Plato to task
showing his argument is a totalitarian one based on emotional appeal.
Self-interest and altruism are attributes of people, not political or
economic systems.
I agree "you cannot get capitalism from
altruism" but you do get altruism from capitalism, the whole point of
Adam Smith's invisible hand.
I agree too Ayn Rand was not fond
of libertarianism or conservatism or any -ism other than Randianism.
But she can still be admired for attempting a moral argument for
individual self-interest. |
|
To
knight: You're quoting me selectively. You need to keep reading. I'm
saying that there is Absolute Truth, but it's not something we can
conceive of.
To lonestar: I still have no idea of what "natural law" is.
The
guy you quoted said "In a significant sense, then, natural law provides
man with a 'science of happiness,' with the paths which will lead to
his real happiness."
Phylo: What nonsense. It's ridiculous to
say that there is, or even could be, some particular coded reference
book on how to be happy. Human beings are far too complex and
unpredictable for that. We're not machines.
he continues: ...in
natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in
varying degrees; value here is objective—determined by the natural law
of man's being, and here 'happiness' for man is considered in the
commonsensical, contentual sense."
Phylo: More nonsense. Who
decides? Is wealth objectively good, for example? Is altruism
objectively good? Is religion objectively good?
Or are natural
law believers saying that you only know what is good by how happy a
person is. In other words, are they saying, in effect, that if a
wealthy man is happy, wealth must be good.
I hope that's not
what they mean. It would be horrible to think that so many people
wasted so much ink and trees and energy on such drivel.
Phylo out. |
|
"I still have no idea of what 'natural law' is."
Like I said, skepticism is a dead end street.
"What
nonsense. It's ridiculous to say that there is, or even could be, some
particular coded reference book on how to be happy. Human beings are
far too complex and unpredictable for that. We're not machines."
That
straw man is nonsense, I agree. How long'd it take you to think it up?
Rothbard did not say anything "some particular coded reference book"
but "paths which will lead to his real happiness".
I would offer
as examples, life, liberty, property as unalienable rights. The rights
do not tell you how to be happy, but without them you cannot choose and
act for your own happiness.
"More nonsense. Who decides? Is
wealth objectively good, for example? Is altruism objectively good? Is
religion objectively good?"
Again, I agree, your straw man is
nonsense. Rothbard did not say anyone decides what natural law is, he
said it is discoverable by reason.
Again, the examples of life,
liberty, property. Jefferson didn't sit down and ruminate, well, now,
what shall I write? He knew exactly what to right, it had come down to
him from centuries of man reasoning it out to that point.
"Or are natural law believers...."
One does not believe in natural law to bring it into existence anymore than one reasons to bring it into existence.
You
put together a strange argument. You begin with "I still have no idea
of what "natural law" is." and then proceed to proclaim it nonsense.
Isn't that arguing from ignorance?
Hopefully, though, my answers
will help you along a little. Remember, I'm only a student, and amateur
at this, so I can help you understand only a little. |
|