Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hugo Holbling · 01-12-2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
Its all a matter of understanding with reason, the human realm of truthness and stop making pretenses that absolute truth does not technically exist.

Please take your demonstration of this to the philosophy forum, 99, where we are currently struggling with absolute truth.

tk · 01-12-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

I would like to know where Rand opposed immigration. And how did she "cheat" on her husband when he knew and even approved of her "affair"?

I have bumped your questions over to the webmaster of villainsupply.com. In any case, I guess you have no objections to the descriptions of the other two -- errm -- imperfections?

For now, I'll show that Objectivism is 100% compatible with Al-Qaeda. You may say, "Nonsense!" but that only means you've been prejudiced against Al-Qaeda right from the start. If you are truly as open-minded as you think you are, you should listen to what I've to say, and draw your own conclusions. Your mind is endowed with reason, right? So what have you to fear?

First, let me debunk a few myths. Myth #1: Al-Qaeda is an Islamic fundamentalist organization. If you scrutinize Osama bin Laden's speeches and writings, you'll find that he's only against Christian fundamentalism, nothing more. The only people who insist that Osama is a fundamentalist are those who want him destroyed in the first place.

Myth #2: Al-Qaeda promotes altruism. In fact, people who join Al-Qaeda are doing so out of self-interest: because they want to enter Heaven. And Heaven does indeed exist: If we currently have the Law of Conservation of Matter and the Law of Conservation of Energy, doesn't it stand to reason that there should also be a Law of Conservation of Consciousness? So where do all the consciousness of deceased people go? Certainly they don't remain in the mortal realm, for that's occupied by live people. They go to entirely different dimensions, and these dimensions are precisely Heaven and Hell. Is it not a selfish rational choice for people to exchange their mortal lives for eternal bliss in Heaven?

Think about it. The more you try to disagree with what I say, the more you'll find yourself agreeing with it. There's no question about it: Al-Qaeda and Objectivism are completely compatible.

If you're an Objectivist, you should therefore seriously consider joining Al-Qaeda. By joining, you'll gain practical skills which you can use to get rid of parasitical altruists and subjectivists all over the world, and you can more quickly achieve your aim of a world free from oppression and irrationality.

The whole world is waiting for you. Act now!

RED DAVE · 01-12-2003, 02:02 AM

Found this by 99Percent in a Philosophy posting:

Quote:

It would be a matter of correctly defining "true" altruism. An act that is done purely for non selfish reasons seem to be contradictory, because the act is done by the actor itself, so there must always be a reason for acting, despite its apparent unselfishness for the outside observer, the actor is indeed making an act that is propelled by his own actions and therefore there is something compelling him to act and since that something is indeed affecting the actor to the degree of him acting then it necessarily follows that the actor is gaining something out this act, of which only he knows what it is consciously or subconsciously.

Does anyone else see the slipperiness here?

Quote:

it necessarily follows that the actor is gaining something out this act,

If I gain something from an act, 99 is defining it as egotistic per se. What is happening here is, egotism is being defined in a manner so broad as to empty it of content. Any act I benefit from is egotistic, by definition.

Two counterexamples:

Firstly children. You got kids, 99. I doubt it (prove me wrong). Ayn Rand didn't have any either, and no children appear in her novels. If you have kids then you know what it is to perform nonegotistic acts. If you slip selfishness into your childraising (and everyone does, to some extent), you fuck your kids up. Your kids are ends unto themselves. They are not produced for your ego (they better not be or when they cease to please you, you will abandon them).

Children are produced for love, something Libertarians and Objectivists know jack shit about. In love, you satisfy yourself and the other person, in a nonegotistic way. If you go into love for your own benefit, you are merely getting ready to use someone else for your own ends (which is what I believe Objectivist and Libertarian philosophies are about, anyway).

Also found this by 99, re children

Quote:

Who gives a damn about something that doesn't yet exist? Our descendants will take care of themselves

Sure, after the world's been despoiled and turned into George Bush's private war game video parlor and toxic waste dump.

Secondly, sacrifice. Sixteen months ago, we had an outstanding example of sacrifice in New York, where I live. (My wife and I live about two miles from Ground Zero. We saw the whole thing.) The firemen went up into the buildings, as other people were going down, knowing they would probably die.

What benefit did these heroes derive from sacrificing their lives for those of strangers. This is eplicitly considered to be an inferior act in the Objectivist position. Yet, we know, that these were truly heroic, humanly superior acts! Rand was always prattling about heroes and the heroic life, which never existed for her outside of her novels. Here, we are confronted with real heroism, and it explicitly contradicts Objectivist principles!

RED DAVE

RED DAVE · 01-12-2003, 02:58 AM

Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 2nd Principle (below the list):

Quote:

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A;

2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;

3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism,
any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;

5. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as
well as the nature of reality;

6. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;

7. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;

8. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;

9. That no individual � and no group � has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;

10. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;

11. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.

2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;

This is pompus and hokey. There are at least two fallacies here.

1. Reason, itself, is conditional. What is reasonable to you, which preserves your interest or world view, is not necessarily reasonable to me. Slavery was perfectly reasonable to the slave owner: it identified and integrated his experience.

2, What does it mean to "understand the facts of reality"? Does it mean to hold some abstract notion in your head that is mentally satisfying? Or, does it possibly mean to possess a set of principles, ideas and facts that are adjuncts to successful action?

The proof of any system of reason are the acts that flow from it. When the Jacobins enthroned reason after the early phases of the French Revolution (they consecrated Notre Dame as a Temple of Reason), they were elevating their own principles to eternal verities. Objectivists do the same.

RED DAVE

Gurdur · 01-12-2003, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RED DAVE

Found this by 99Percent in a Philosophy posting:
.....
Does anyone else see the slipperiness here?

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur --- talking abouit the scientific consensus being at odds with Objectivism:

So you've come out with your own definition, a definition significantly at odds with the generally and academically accepted definitions.

Originally posted by 99percent in reply:

So? Argue them with my own definitions then. I don't give a rats ass about the academic accepted definitions ....

______________________

Originally posted by 99percent:

...Its all a matter of understanding with reason, the human realm of truthness and stop making pretenses that absolute truth does not technically exist....

. . . your subjective view of the truth must somehow reconcile with mine and everyone else's. At that moment it becomes objective . . .

Originally posted by RED DAVE:

Do you really want to go there, 99? What you have just said is that objectivity, at least in the realm of human discourse, is a matter of some kind of consensus: no consensus, no conversation.
______________

Originally posted by 99percent, who finally admits adopting explicit presuppositionalism

Yet another fallacy - science can't show a negative or non-existence. Only logic can prove it, through predetermined definitions and concepts.

{ IOW, 99percent's concepts are "proven" to be true if and only if you accept them to be true first without argument ---- the perfect circular argument }

_______________________

Originally posted by 99percent:

....As I have repeatedly said, there are many Similarities between Christianity and radical environmentalism. ....

Originally posted by Dread Pirate Rasputin:

Libertarians and Christians both put faith in intangible entities that have not been proven to exist and which are almost certainly not infallible: in the case of the Christian, it is God, and in the case of the Libertarian, it is the Invisible Hand of Pure Human Reason.

We can play this game too. What is the damn point?

Originally posted by 99percent more or less in reply:

I reject comparisons with Libertarians or capitalism .......
______________________

Originally posted by 99percent:

Living in a cult environment as a child I have seen how hard it is for us to learn how wrong one was when deep rooted beliefs prove to be wrong after all. I suspect you, Gurdur, are one of these people since you are a by your own words a skeptic. Like I stated in a post sometime ago, I think we should be allowed to be absolutists in a predefined relative boundaries in order to make some coherence of our complex reality. But that is another topic.

{ note by Gurdur: the irony of it all aparently escaped him. Ah, those were the days indeed. }
______________________

Originally posted by 99percent:
....
You can't argue with success!

Originally posted by 99percent:

This is merely an appeal to authority and also an argumentum ad populum.

Ah, ironies upon ironies upon ironies.

elwoodblues · 01-12-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

1. Reason, itself, is conditional. What is reasonable to you, which preserves your interest or world view, is not necessarily reasonable to me. Slavery was perfectly reasonable to the slave owner: it identified and integrated his experience.

Oh, come on. He's not talking about reason in that sense. He means it in a much more rigorous sense. Do you mean to say that Modus Ponens is only true for some people? Or maybe partly true for others? Of course, if you're not applying these rules with full faith... Well, that's not the fault of reason in general. It's the fault of the individual in question.

Quote:

2, What does it mean to "understand the facts of reality"?

That one I have more problems with, yeah. He seems to mean that perception is equivalent to reality (or, rather, what we perceive is what there is), which I don't think is true as a rule. Just about any kind of visual illusion demonstrates that perception is NOT a one-to-one thing, that the act of perception alters the data we're getting through our senses.

This is one of the major problems I have with a strict interpretation of Rand's philosophy. Perception is a weird beast, as is consciousness. That's never addressed satisfactorily in Rand's (or Branden's) writing.

August Spies · 01-12-2003, 10:47 AM

Ouch

99Percent · 01-12-2003, 11:35 AM

Gurdur, I am flattered you take so much time to make an extensive analysis of all my posts.

Make me think I must be unto something then

99Percent · 01-12-2003, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues
That one I have more problems with, yeah. He seems to mean that perception is equivalent to reality (or, rather, what we perceive is what there is), which I don't think is true as a rule. Just about any kind of visual illusion demonstrates that perception is NOT a one-to-one thing, that the act of perception alters the data we're getting through our senses.

This is one of the major problems I have with a strict interpretation of Rand's philosophy. Perception is a weird beast, as is consciousness. That's never addressed satisfactorily in Rand's (or Branden's) writing.

No, perception does not equate to reality. It requires understanding perception itself that translates to reality and that is where reason comes into play.

I will get back to other's arguments later tonight

elwoodblues · 01-12-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

No, perception does not equate to reality. It requires understanding perception itself that translates to reality and that is where reason comes into play.

Yeah, I thought so too. Until I realized it was self-referential.

You'd be using unreliable data to try to understand the nature of your unreliable sensory system. You'd be chasing your own tail.

I believe there is an 'objective reality', I just don't think it's primarily accessible through our senses. We can come to some good rough approximations, yes, and better and better approximations would come with more rigorous analysis. But it'd never get to the point of perfection. Not with the inaccuracies built into the system.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2003, 10:47 AM	#197
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	Ouch

01-12-2003, 11:35 AM	#198
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Gurdur, I am flattered you take so much time to make an extensive analysis of all my posts. Make me think I must be unto something then

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.