The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

Postby AutSider » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:12 pm

To those who have read things I posted months ago, this will be nothing new. I will mostly be repeating myself. When I say something new, it will mostly be connecting the dots. Another thing to note is that I don't care what others before me thought of objectivism, or what their version of objectivism was. A name that is frequently associated with objectivism is Ayn Rand. I'm not interested in her, never read a word of hers, I'm not willing to defend her positions, don't give a shit. If you want to attack my positions, attack MY positions as you read them in this thread or another thread where I posted. Don't pull strawmen out of your anuses and then claim you're attacking me.

I do not claim to represent the views of anybody else but me.

These are the foundations of objectivism as I understand it. They are still in their initial stages of development (wrote all of this today) and there is plenty more to be said about it, many specifics and details to be worked out. As a general determination I'd say my objectivism is based on an empirical, scientific understanding of nature as opposed to being based on things like religious beliefs, human social constructs, etc. If somebody is so hellbent on comparing my version of objectivism with some other, you can refer to my objectivism as naturalistic objectivism, or refer to the other objectivism differently to distinguish it.

Lastly before I begin, please pardon my poor writing style and try to focus more on substance than style. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The foundations for Objectivism

-----------------------------------------------------------


a) The foundational/first objective.


First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable "oughts" that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.

When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective. For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats. In relation to this objective of acquiring a big cat, the statement "you ought to buy Maine Coons then instead of >insert smaller species of cats here<" is objectively true, meaning, in relation to my objective independently of what anybody else's preferences are. This is how objectives can dictate what is a superior and inferior course of action. However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.

But is there some objective that all humans necessarily share?

The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
1) short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.

If you choose any objective, that objective implies your survival because without survival you can not choose objectives, you can not act, and you cannot accomplish anything. You can indeed choose not to survive, but if you were truly consistent with that choice, you wouldn't be reading this, you would have killed yourself and you would be dead. Survival is necessarily the first priority (first objective) of all living organisms. Anything that doesn't consider it a first priority is a deviation from natural selection, and it will by definition be corrected because, all other factors equal, its chances of survival are lower than of an identical organism which DOES consider survival a first objective and a highest priority. All other objectives one might have can thus be judged according to how they contribute to accomplishing this first objective of survival. The only thing that survival can be sacrificed for without being filtered out by natural selection is another type of survival, and even then it only makes sense to sacrifice short-term for long-term (dying to save your kids), while sacrificing your kids to save yourself makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it by definition gets filtered out simply because people who have that kind of mindset tend to have fewer surviving offspring who would pass it on.

So, although an ought cannot be concluded from an is, and although the choosing of survival as the first objective is based on a subjective (subjective in the sense that it is a consequence of the nature of a subject in question) preference of a subject to be alive instead of dead, it IS something that is universal among all of us living beings. Since it is an universal objective (goal) for all of us living beings to survive, to continue living, it can be universally and objectively determined in relation to that objective what is the best course of action one can take to accomplish that first objective of being alive and surviving.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b) Survival and the objective world

The objective world is a filtering mechanism, and to survive means to bypass and overcome this filtering mechanism, to not get filtered out by it. This filtering mechanism we also call natural selection. Everything that is alive, as well as groups consisting of living individuals, are ultimately tested against the objective world for survival (objective world, meaning, not some imaginary world, but the world we all inhabit that exists regardless of humans). How much of the objective world an organism (or a group) can perceive, and how effectively it can act, is thus of crucial importance. And no, society/technology doesn't magically make this mechanism of natural selection go away. It is true that in societies individuals can escape the consequences of their own actions. But that only means the consequences and effects are transferred to society, they don't disappear (that will be explained later in the post). As for technologies, the natural processes of evolution didn't stop when primates learned to use the environment to their advantage, be it chimpanzees using sticks to get bananas or humans using more advanced technologies. Technologies and society are still restricted at the level of biology both, by human nature (limitations of human imagination) as well as evolution (natural selection), and at the level of physics by natural laws. Human societies and technology have to work within those confines, they don't magically transcend them.

All organisms/groups of organisms are first tested for survival by their most immediate environment, and so they receive consequences (which is feedback from the objective world) from that most immediate environment. For most individuals, that is a human society. Then this human society, which is a group of organisms/individuals is tested against the natural environment, which includes other societies, with which one can either wage war or try to ally with and cooperate. The natural environment also includes other animal species which are excluded from human society (wildlife), as well as natural processes detrimental to the well-being of human organisms (the elements).

If you get lost in nature, you are tested against the natural world directly without the society intervening to save you from the consequences of your choices. This is why it is so traumatizing for people to get lost in nature after having been adapted their whole lives to the comfortable, sheltering confines of a society. So for the sake of protecting the physical well being and psychological sanity of its inhabitants, societies often tend to insulate themselves from the natural world and purge all traces of nature from themselves - more specifically, they tend to LIE about nature or DENY it altogether, at least in words, because the very existence of society rests on at least a part of society dealing with nature to some extent. But societies (human constructed environments) are also subject to the natural environment, so if they don't recognize the natural environment and its rules, and if they don't construct the rules of the society to align with natural rules, they will have inferior results objectively. Meaning, they will be filtered out by natural selection, most likely by being conquered by another society.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c) 2 main types of environments to survive in and the 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world

So there are two possible environments an individual can find themselves in, a natural and a human constructed, social one (which exists within the natural one). This isn't an absolute distinction, in reality as with most things there are gradations and not all human constructed environments are equally artificial (detached from nature), some are more less natural, (modern environments with advanced technology), others are more natural (some tribes living in Amazon rainforest f.e.). This results in 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world.

1) Individual organism <> Nature.

A very rare occurrence, an anomaly. Usually only happens when a person gets lost in nature. Here the person immediately faces the consequences of their choices. Here the choices one makes truly matter. Here the word games and lies can't save him. Here his cries for help are lost to the howling of the wolves in the distance and the thick darkness surrounding him. Here, the difference between being strong or weak, smart or stupid, mean a difference between life and death. Kill or be killed. Destroy or be destroyed. Act efficiently to preserve yourself, or die. Nature doesn't care, it is indifferent. Only the strongest and the most fit emerge victorious, and mere survival is a grand victory when it is in a natural environment.

2) Individual organism <> Society <> Nature

Most of us humans don't exist directly in the natural environment, we exist in society, which is an environment constructed and maintained by humans and for humans. In this environment the consequences of our choices are also responded to immediately, but by the society, not nature. The rules of society, unlike the rules of nature, are constructed specifically to meet human needs and facilitate group human survival by cooperation and limited competition. This makes society a safe, forgiving, comfortable environment, compared to nature (and also opens it up for exploitation by particular kind of individuals, but we'll leave that for now). Because society consists of many other individuals, its well-being is determined by the consequences of actions of a huge collective of people. So every choice a person makes has consequences for the person, yes, but also for the society. The consequences of individual choices are in a sense redistributed to the entire society, especially in societies with socialist-leaning policies. The well-being and survival of the society thus depends on how people act collectively. If the society imposes rules that are aligned with nature, the society will be healthy and likely to survive. If it imposes rules contrary to natural ones, it is less likely to survive.

For example. The rule in nature is that only those who are prepared to have offspring get to reproduce their genes. To be prepared means to have enough resources (energy) accumulated to provide for their offspring, and that parents are around to take care of it. Having genetic offspring is a risk because infants are very need and vulnerable and require nutrition, nurture, and protection. When an organism has genetic offspring in nature and successfully raises it, it MEANS something. It means that the organism has managed to accumulate enough excess energies to feed its offspring, and that it is physically and mentally fit to protect it (deal with threats) and to nurture it. It is an indication of fitness, of being able to deal with nature. Thus the ones who reproduce their genes in nature are the most fit members of a species. Basically, making superior choices and acting in superior (effective) ways results in successful reproduction, while making inferior choices and acting in inferior (ineffective) ways results in failure and being selected out of the gene pool. The connection between choice and consequence is direct, clear, and undeniable.

This may not be so in a society. In a society, the rules can be set up so that the good, superior choices (productivity and capability) of certain members of society can benefit people who make bad, inferior choices, thus preventing them from suffering the consequences of those bad choices. For example, in a society that offers free welfare to people just for having children, a woman with a low IQ incapable/unwilling to be productive can simply get herself impregnated (usually by a low IQ man or multiple low IQ men) and receive welfare to survive. This is not aligned with the rules of nature, it is an example of a rule that is self-defeating in the long-term. Instead of rewarding productivity and competence, it rewards incompetence and non-productivity. Such a woman is parasitic because she takes away more than she gives back. And whatever traits made her be unproductive and make bad choices, will also be passed on and present in her children. Because this rule promotes parasitism it is self-defeating in the long-term, since in order to survive it is dependent upon the very kind of people (productive people) that it is exterminating by removing all incentives to be productive and providing incentives to be unproductive as well as promoting the reproduction of unproductive people. Because societies are ultimately judged by the rules of nature, introducing such anit-natural rules makes a society unfit. And once the social constructs that protect parasites are broken down because of their very parasitism, the parasites are forced to face the natural environment directly. Then natural selection would take its course and the parasites would die off.

This is why it is important not to judge things in relation to some social standard - a social standard can be pulled out of an anus, it can be anti-nature, it can be, simply, wrong because under the protection of a society and not having to directly face the natural consequences of their actions, people tend to lie and deny reality (objective world, nature). Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature. Nature is the ultimate judge. Unfit people may escape natural selection for a few generations, especially with all the modern technologies compensating for natural weaknesses, but nature catches up, eventually, and the longer you try to escape from it, the harder it will hit you. The more degeneracy accumulates in a society, the greater the eventual culling. Technologies can only protect and shelter weakness so far.

So, all subjective preferences and subjectively constructed opinions, and choices resulting from them are ultimately judged against the objective world/nature by its filtering mechanism (natural selection). Ultimately, these preferences lead people to make choices corresponding to these preferences, and these choices result in objectively superior or inferior outcomes, as determined by natural selection. If an individual exists within a society, then inidividual is tested against the society, and the society is then tested against nature, so the relationship between individual and nature still exists, though it is mediated by society and so the impact of inferior choices is lessened by society and usually redistributed to the entire society instead of reflected back almost directly to the individual who made the inferior choice.
Example: You may prefer to cut your legs off. That may be your "subjective preference", based on your "subjective opinion" and "subjective understanding" of the world, and many other subjective things, or whatever. But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war? What happens is that natural selection takes its course, and the tribe who cut their legs off suffer the consequences of their inferior choices, and they get killed, their lands conquered, their resources plundered. This is the case of whole societies being judged against nature (objective world), where some are objectively determined to be superior, and others inferior.
And do I even need to mention what happens if you get lost in nature alone, and cut your legs off? You would likely die within hours, if not from bleeding then from infections, if not from infections then from predators, and if not from predators then from starvation/dehydration as it would be near impossible for you to acquire the necessary nutrients to survive.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion: We can objectively measure and evaluate the validity of certain subjective preferences, opinions, and choices based on their natural consequences of how well they can survive natural selection. Natural selection is the ultimate filtering mechanism of the objective world, and social selection is only valid to the extent it is based on natural selection. Certain things can objectively be proven to contribute to the survival of an individual and/or a group, and certain other things can be proven to be detrimental to it. Subjectivity tests its fitness against the objective world, and based on its performance and success in reproducing itself (dealing with the objective world) its fitness can be objectively measured and evaluated. In a social context, consequences can be avoided or postponed by transferring them to others, but if a society allows that eventually natural selection catches up and hits the society hard. There is no escaping the objective world. No escaping natural selection.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Pandora » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:36 am

AutSider wrote: But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war? What happens is that natural selection takes its course, and the tribe who cut their legs off suffer the consequences of their inferior choices, and they get killed, their lands conquered, their resources plundered. This is the case of whole societies being judged against nature (objective world), where some are objectively determined to be superior, and others inferior.
And do I even need to mention what happens if you get lost in nature alone, and cut your legs off? You would likely die within hours, if not from bleeding then from infections, if not from infections then from predators, and if not from predators then from starvation/dehydration as it would be near impossible for you to acquire the necessary nutrients to survive.
And what if the amputee tribe developed technology to compensate for their defects and invented things like robotic prosthetics and technologically superior weapons? If the two go to war, the natural tribe will get wiped out. What happened to all the natives/aborigines of the world when they encountered the civilized people and their technology? This is the argument that many disgruntled natives are still making - that some day, 'the white man' will destroy himself and things will return to how they were before, and the natives will take their rightful place again. Will that happen? Honestly, I doubt it will. If natives were almost wiped out just by smallpox alone back then, do they really expect to survive the superbugs of the future with some secretly hidden ancient DNA in their blood that they acquired while living in harmony with nature? But will civilization inadvertently create that superbug that will likely kill most of its own members, as well as everyone else? That I think is possible.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby AutSider » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:33 am

Pandora wrote:And what if the amputee tribe developed technology to compensate for their defects and invented things like robotic prosthetics and technologically superior weapons?


"equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs"

Basically, all other factors equal. I mean, if I didn't put that both tribes consisted of 100 people you might as well have said 'but what if one tribe consists of a billion people, and the other only of 10?' Yeah, but then it's not the superiority of the strategy of cutting your legs off which would win the battle, but the fact that you have a billion people while the other group has 10, no?

Unless you think that for some reason there is a causal link between the two, like if cutting one's own legs off gives a person amazing technological insights, I see no reason they should have technology and the other tribe not.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Dan~ » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:39 am

To me, mind + matter = will.
Since we are willful beings in some ways, we are objects.
A body at least, qualifies as an object.
How can someone miss the obvious?
The body creates thought.
Subjects are derived from objects.
Objects came before subjects.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9760
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:49 am

AutSider wrote:The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
1) short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.
I agree with the above objectivism as defined. As for 2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring, I interpret that as "preservation and continuation of the human species."

However to avoid confusions perhaps you could differentiate it from the following generally accepted term 'objectivism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
As for Ryan's objectivism, it can be brushed off with a statement as you had done so.

One critical factor I believed is objectivity must always be reconciled with subjectivity as you have done in some ways.
My reconciliations of subjectivity is the following;
What we have in general is conventional subjectivity.
From conventional subjectivity we derived objectivity which is actually meta-subjectivity or inter-subjectivity.
Thus subjectivity and objectivity must do the tango and dance in complementarity like this,

Image


From the above I have derived absolute objective moral principles as critical to a Framework and System For Morality and System of how 'ought' must dance in complementarity with "is."
viewtopic.php?p=2633026#p2633026
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:00 am

Dan~ wrote:To me, mind + matter = will.
Since we are willful beings in some ways, we are objects.
A body at least, qualifies as an object.
How can someone miss the obvious?
The body creates thought.
Subjects are derived from objects.
Objects came before subjects.
Because subjects and objects must dance in complementarity, it is possible to view objects are derived from subjects, i.e. subject precede objects. There cannot be objects without the subject.
In fact, because the other view [objects as independent entity] is a failure, for Kant, objects from subjects is the best [not absolute] view of reality.

Note Kant's Copernican Revolution;
in [] = mine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernica ... _(metaphor)

Kant wrote:Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects.
But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our [subject's] knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary hypothesis. Failing of satisfactory progress in explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. A similar experiment can be tried in metaphysics, as regards the intuition of objects.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby AutSider » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:22 pm

I agree with you, Dan.

Prismatic,
Inter-subjectivity and objectivity are not the same. Intersubjectivity is simply subjectivity shared by multiple subjects. Objectivity goes beyond it, when something is objective it is so despite of any one or many subjects. It is completely independent of any form of subjectivity.

I agree with the above objectivism as defined. As for 2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring, I interpret that as "preservation and continuation of the human species."


Well, since you are human it is implied that if you preserve yourself you also preserve and continue the human species. But since you are not ONLY human, and there are things that further differentiate you from other humans, it does not logically follow that your own survival is equivalent to the survival of the human species in general, because that way only a very base, undifferentiated part of you would survive.

It would be as if you said, "I interpret this as preservation and continuation of mammals", sure, since you are a mammal you would preserve and continue mammals by preserving yourself, but why lower yourself to such a base category as mammals, or humans?

From the above I have derived absolute objective moral principles as critical to a Framework and System For Morality and System of how 'ought' must dance in complementarity with "is."


People develop the kind of morality that benefits them. For somebody who is physically weak, or a coward, pacifism and non-violence will be the moral standard. For somebody who is not so, violence will be permissible. Morality is how people try to justify to others advancing their own self-interest.

"Thou shalt not murder" Why? And whom am I not permitted to murder? To what category of living beings does this apply? To myself only? To my family only? To my cousins too? To my nation? To my race? To my species? To other biological categories beyond species? Am I not permitted to kill animals either? Can I kill plants? If I am attacked by an animal I am also not permitted to defend myself? Why? What if one of those carnivorous plants gets a hold of me?

Let's look at this from the perspective of my objectivism. Both X and Y want to survive. X and Y have conflicting interests. The resources and land aren't infinite. Neither of them wants to be filtered out by natural selection. It is in interest of X to permit himself to murder, but not to permit Y to murder. For X the ideal system is one which permits X to murder Y, but doesn't permit Y to murder X. The same applies for Y - for Y the ideal system is one which permits Y to murder X, but doesn't permit X to murder Y. However, if X and Y are forced to live under equal rules, then again, different sets of equal rules are preferable to X, and different ones to Y. For X the preferable set of equal rules is that both X and Y are permitted to kill each other, and to X this is preferable since X is stronger, and X would end up killing Y. For Y, the equal rule of "nobody shall kill anybody" is preferable, since Y couldn't kill X anyways, but it would risk getting killed by X if murder is permitted for both. So X will try to advocate that violence is permissible, while Y will try to advocate against violence.

My objectivism doesn't provide a "one size fits all morality". On the contrary, by its very essence it points out the conflict inherent in survival and interaction between living beings. The fact that similar organisms tend to have similar interests is PRECISELY what leads to conflict, because they all want the same thing. And there is no reason for the stronger to share with the weaker. Sharing is what the weaker will try to convince the stronger of, because they are too weak to take like the strong. Trying to shame the strong for being strong and persuading the strong into "sharing" IS the weakling's strategy of getting (taking) things they want. Cooperation already is a sign of weakness, of need, of not being able to accomplish certain things by yourself. It is a general rule in nature that the individually weak animals are more likely to cooperate. This is why animals such as bears and tigers don't live in collectives, they tend to be the top predators in their respective territories, with no threats that would force them to group up.

But anyway, I've went on a tangent. From my objectivism, it is fairly obvious what morality follows: Whatever contributes to your own survival is morally good, whatever is detrimental to it, is morally bad. Remember, all is to be judged in relation to the first, foundational objective: survival.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:37 pm

There is no value separate or independent of the valuer objectively and universally.

What is described as logic, reason, or rationality are values and also don't exist separate and independently from human beings. They are artificial constructions.

Indeed what describes itself as rational concerning the human mind is built upon various forms of irrationality concerning ego, desire, ambition, selfishness, and wishful thinking. The foundation of all human thought is not a rational one.

For the objective to exist universalism must exist and many things objectivists state as existing universally in terms of value are nothing more than subjective valuations trying to masquerade as something else or something that they are not.
Last edited by Mictlantecuhtli on Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:40 pm

Dan~ wrote:To me, mind + matter = will.
Since we are willful beings in some ways, we are objects.
A body at least, qualifies as an object.
How can someone miss the obvious?
The body creates thought.
Subjects are derived from objects.
Objects came before subjects.

Objects must be objectified, and that can only be done by a subject.

According to that one must say that subjects (or a subject or "the" subject) came before objects (or an object or "the" object).

I think the problem of the subject/object-dualism is - at last - not solvable.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:47 pm

Autsider, your entire premise fails and is discredited without evidence of objective valuations existing separate from human beings. This thread isn't about physical objectivism in terms of objectivity discussing physical objects or natural forces but instead has everything to do with what you and others describe as objective social valuations. There's a difference.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:57 pm

Conclusion: We can objectively measure and evaluate the validity of certain subjective preferences, opinions, and choices based on their natural consequences of how well they can survive natural selection. Natural selection is the ultimate filtering mechanism of the objective world, and social selection is only valid to the extent it is based on natural selection. Certain things can objectively be proven to contribute to the survival of an individual and/or a group, and certain other things can be proven to be detrimental to it. Subjectivity tests its fitness against the objective world, and based on its performance and success in reproducing itself (dealing with the objective world) its fitness can be objectively measured and evaluated. In a social context, consequences can be avoided or postponed by transferring them to others, but if a society allows that eventually natural selection catches up and hits the society hard. There is no escaping the objective world. No escaping natural selection.


Natural selection no longer exists in civilization or society where it hasn't existed for a very long time.

Natural selection requires chaotic flux for it to exist in function but all social order enthusiasts reduce natural selection to stagnation with their ideologies of total absolute social conformity or control.

Conflict is a necessary thing for natural selection but we live in a sanitized environment where conflict is only allowed if it is controlled and has a controlled outcome. There is no room left for spontaneous outcomes and much of nature or evolution is spontaneous. Social order and conformity weakens natural selection into fragility.
Last edited by Mictlantecuhtli on Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Dan~ » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:58 pm

Truth = Good.

But according to Joker,

Truth = 0

That's a dead end, mentally speeking.
Positivity is usually a fuel for the fire of mental progression.
There is no progress if truth doesn't objectively exist.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9760
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:02 pm

Dan~ wrote:Truth = Good.

But according to Joker,

Truth = 0

That's a dead end, mentally speeking.
Positivity is usually a fuel for the fire of mental progression.
There is no progress if truth doesn't objectively exist.


Objective progress as an ideal is a mythology sold to the masses as truth.

There is no ideal future final destination that must be ascertained.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Dan~ » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:08 pm

Perception is false because people make it happen?
That seems to be your method.
The fact that something requires human life discredits it as natural or objective.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9760
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby AutSider » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:09 pm

I think that the biggest weakness of my thread is that what I call the First/Foundational objective - survival - itself is subjectively chosen. To be alive and survive is better to us subjective entities, but only according to our own desire, or, perhaps more precisely, the instinct to survive and preserve ourselves.

But the reason I still consider objectivism valid despite of it is that survival as First/Foundational objective and thus the highest priority, necessarily applies to all of us living beings universally, meaning that all of us can be judged in accordance to this objective/goal by virtue of being alive. And despite it being projected based on our subjective desire for survival, that is one subjective desire that all of us who are alive share. And once something, like survival, is projected as a goal, it is possible to objectively measure and evaluate to what extent somebody is successful in reaching that goal. And since all of us share that goal, all of us can be judged in relation to it.

So HaHaHa, I do not see how my premise fails. I never claimed that valuation or any other product of subjects and their minds can exist separate from them. My point is that once that desire to survive is externalized and projected as a goal to follow, it becomes objective in the sense that it is possible to measure and evaluate to what extent somebody accomplished that goal DESPITE of subjective preferences and opinions of anybody. And since it is a goal we all share, you can't just say "I have a different subjective preference and I pursue a different goal".

EDIT: As for natural selection, you are correct, to an extent. It is impossible to completely invert natural selection, if that happened the society would pretty much immediately collapse. But it is possible to pervert it slightly. And the more you do so the more you set up the society for failure. But complete collapse that you dream of is not likely to occur. Mostly what happens is that people just drastically change their political beliefs and behavior just before the collapse in order to prevent it. For example, the welfare state may ruin a country, but when it has ruined it enough to capture public attention it is likely that a political party which is against welfare will come to power and begin fixing everything, instead of everything just going COMPLETELY to shit.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:16 pm

Dan~ wrote:Perception is false because people make it happen?
That seems to be your method.
The fact that something requires human life discredits it as natural or objective.


What are you implying with that post? I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're stating.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:18 pm

Autsider, I'll respond to your post late tonight as I have to go to work soon unfortunately.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Dan~ » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:18 pm

HaHaHa wrote:
Dan~ wrote:Perception is false because people make it happen?
That seems to be your method.
The fact that something requires human life discredits it as natural or objective.

What are you implying with that post? I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're stating.

I think you are rejecting truth itself based on the idea that humans are fallible.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9760
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:20 pm

Dan~ wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:
Dan~ wrote:Perception is false because people make it happen?
That seems to be your method.
The fact that something requires human life discredits it as natural or objective.

What are you implying with that post? I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're stating.

I think you are rejecting truth itself based on the idea that humans are fallible.


Because human beings are not infallible. That's a no brainer really.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:08 pm

Joker wrote:Natural selection no longer exists in civilization or society where it hasn't existed for a very long time.


Natural selection refers to a process whereby certain organisms reproduce (the selected ones) and other organisms don't (the removed ones) due to their interaction with their environment.

The fact that there are still people who are not reproducing means that natural selection is still operating.

You are thus wrong. The reason you are wrong, however, is because you're using the wrong words.

What you're saying is that there are no longer the kind of environments that existed in the past.

The actual difference between the two types of environments is something that you didn't explore in your post.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:34 pm

AutSider wrote:To those who have read things I posted months ago, this will be nothing new. I will mostly be repeating myself. When I say something new, it will mostly be connecting the dots. Another thing to note is that I don't care what others before me thought of objectivism, or what their version of objectivism was. A name that is frequently associated with objectivism is Ayn Rand. I'm not interested in her, never read a word of hers, I'm not willing to defend her positions, don't give a shit. If you want to attack my positions, attack MY positions as you read them in this thread or another thread where I posted. Don't pull strawmen out of your anuses and then claim you're attacking me.

I do not claim to represent the views of anybody else but me.

These are the foundations of objectivism as I understand it. They are still in their initial stages of development (wrote all of this today) and there is plenty more to be said about it, many specifics and details to be worked out. As a general determination I'd say my objectivism is based on an empirical, scientific understanding of nature as opposed to being based on things like religious beliefs, human social constructs, etc. If somebody is so hellbent on comparing my version of objectivism with some other, you can refer to my objectivism as naturalistic objectivism, or refer to the other objectivism differently to distinguish it.

Lastly before I begin, please pardon my poor writing style and try to focus more on substance than style. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The foundations for Objectivism

-----------------------------------------------------------


a) The foundational/first objective.


First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable "oughts" that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.

When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective. For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats. In relation to this objective of acquiring a big cat, the statement "you ought to buy Maine Coons then instead of >insert smaller species of cats here<" is objectively true, meaning, in relation to my objective independently of what anybody else's preferences are. This is how objectives can dictate what is a superior and inferior course of action. However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.

But is there some objective that all humans necessarily share?

The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
1) short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.

If you choose any objective, that objective implies your survival because without survival you can not choose objectives, you can not act, and you cannot accomplish anything. You can indeed choose not to survive, but if you were truly consistent with that choice, you wouldn't be reading this, you would have killed yourself and you would be dead. Survival is necessarily the first priority (first objective) of all living organisms. Anything that doesn't consider it a first priority is a deviation from natural selection, and it will by definition be corrected because, all other factors equal, its chances of survival are lower than of an identical organism which DOES consider survival a first objective and a highest priority. All other objectives one might have can thus be judged according to how they contribute to accomplishing this first objective of survival. The only thing that survival can be sacrificed for without being filtered out by natural selection is another type of survival, and even then it only makes sense to sacrifice short-term for long-term (dying to save your kids), while sacrificing your kids to save yourself makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it by definition gets filtered out simply because people who have that kind of mindset tend to have fewer surviving offspring who would pass it on.

So, although an ought cannot be concluded from an is, and although the choosing of survival as the first objective is based on a subjective (subjective in the sense that it is a consequence of the nature of a subject in question) preference of a subject to be alive instead of dead, it IS something that is universal among all of us living beings. Since it is an universal objective (goal) for all of us living beings to survive, to continue living, it can be universally and objectively determined in relation to that objective what is the best course of action one can take to accomplish that first objective of being alive and surviving.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b) Survival and the objective world

The objective world is a filtering mechanism, and to survive means to bypass and overcome this filtering mechanism, to not get filtered out by it. This filtering mechanism we also call natural selection. Everything that is alive, as well as groups consisting of living individuals, are ultimately tested against the objective world for survival (objective world, meaning, not some imaginary world, but the world we all inhabit that exists regardless of humans). How much of the objective world an organism (or a group) can perceive, and how effectively it can act, is thus of crucial importance. And no, society/technology doesn't magically make this mechanism of natural selection go away. It is true that in societies individuals can escape the consequences of their own actions. But that only means the consequences and effects are transferred to society, they don't disappear (that will be explained later in the post). As for technologies, the natural processes of evolution didn't stop when primates learned to use the environment to their advantage, be it chimpanzees using sticks to get bananas or humans using more advanced technologies. Technologies and society are still restricted at the level of biology both, by human nature (limitations of human imagination) as well as evolution (natural selection), and at the level of physics by natural laws. Human societies and technology have to work within those confines, they don't magically transcend them.

All organisms/groups of organisms are first tested for survival by their most immediate environment, and so they receive consequences (which is feedback from the objective world) from that most immediate environment. For most individuals, that is a human society. Then this human society, which is a group of organisms/individuals is tested against the natural environment, which includes other societies, with which one can either wage war or try to ally with and cooperate. The natural environment also includes other animal species which are excluded from human society (wildlife), as well as natural processes detrimental to the well-being of human organisms (the elements).

If you get lost in nature, you are tested against the natural world directly without the society intervening to save you from the consequences of your choices. This is why it is so traumatizing for people to get lost in nature after having been adapted their whole lives to the comfortable, sheltering confines of a society. So for the sake of protecting the physical well being and psychological sanity of its inhabitants, societies often tend to insulate themselves from the natural world and purge all traces of nature from themselves - more specifically, they tend to LIE about nature or DENY it altogether, at least in words, because the very existence of society rests on at least a part of society dealing with nature to some extent. But societies (human constructed environments) are also subject to the natural environment, so if they don't recognize the natural environment and its rules, and if they don't construct the rules of the society to align with natural rules, they will have inferior results objectively. Meaning, they will be filtered out by natural selection, most likely by being conquered by another society.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c) 2 main types of environments to survive in and the 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world

So there are two possible environments an individual can find themselves in, a natural and a human constructed, social one (which exists within the natural one). This isn't an absolute distinction, in reality as with most things there are gradations and not all human constructed environments are equally artificial (detached from nature), some are more less natural, (modern environments with advanced technology), others are more natural (some tribes living in Amazon rainforest f.e.). This results in 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world.

1) Individual organism <> Nature.

A very rare occurrence, an anomaly. Usually only happens when a person gets lost in nature. Here the person immediately faces the consequences of their choices. Here the choices one makes truly matter. Here the word games and lies can't save him. Here his cries for help are lost to the howling of the wolves in the distance and the thick darkness surrounding him. Here, the difference between being strong or weak, smart or stupid, mean a difference between life and death. Kill or be killed. Destroy or be destroyed. Act efficiently to preserve yourself, or die. Nature doesn't care, it is indifferent. Only the strongest and the most fit emerge victorious, and mere survival is a grand victory when it is in a natural environment.

2) Individual organism <> Society <> Nature

Most of us humans don't exist directly in the natural environment, we exist in society, which is an environment constructed and maintained by humans and for humans. In this environment the consequences of our choices are also responded to immediately, but by the society, not nature. The rules of society, unlike the rules of nature, are constructed specifically to meet human needs and facilitate group human survival by cooperation and limited competition. This makes society a safe, forgiving, comfortable environment, compared to nature (and also opens it up for exploitation by particular kind of individuals, but we'll leave that for now). Because society consists of many other individuals, its well-being is determined by the consequences of actions of a huge collective of people. So every choice a person makes has consequences for the person, yes, but also for the society. The consequences of individual choices are in a sense redistributed to the entire society, especially in societies with socialist-leaning policies. The well-being and survival of the society thus depends on how people act collectively. If the society imposes rules that are aligned with nature, the society will be healthy and likely to survive. If it imposes rules contrary to natural ones, it is less likely to survive.

For example. The rule in nature is that only those who are prepared to have offspring get to reproduce their genes. To be prepared means to have enough resources (energy) accumulated to provide for their offspring, and that parents are around to take care of it. Having genetic offspring is a risk because infants are very need and vulnerable and require nutrition, nurture, and protection. When an organism has genetic offspring in nature and successfully raises it, it MEANS something. It means that the organism has managed to accumulate enough excess energies to feed its offspring, and that it is physically and mentally fit to protect it (deal with threats) and to nurture it. It is an indication of fitness, of being able to deal with nature. Thus the ones who reproduce their genes in nature are the most fit members of a species. Basically, making superior choices and acting in superior (effective) ways results in successful reproduction, while making inferior choices and acting in inferior (ineffective) ways results in failure and being selected out of the gene pool. The connection between choice and consequence is direct, clear, and undeniable.

This may not be so in a society. In a society, the rules can be set up so that the good, superior choices (productivity and capability) of certain members of society can benefit people who make bad, inferior choices, thus preventing them from suffering the consequences of those bad choices. For example, in a society that offers free welfare to people just for having children, a woman with a low IQ incapable/unwilling to be productive can simply get herself impregnated (usually by a low IQ man or multiple low IQ men) and receive welfare to survive. This is not aligned with the rules of nature, it is an example of a rule that is self-defeating in the long-term. Instead of rewarding productivity and competence, it rewards incompetence and non-productivity. Such a woman is parasitic because she takes away more than she gives back. And whatever traits made her be unproductive and make bad choices, will also be passed on and present in her children. Because this rule promotes parasitism it is self-defeating in the long-term, since in order to survive it is dependent upon the very kind of people (productive people) that it is exterminating by removing all incentives to be productive and providing incentives to be unproductive as well as promoting the reproduction of unproductive people. Because societies are ultimately judged by the rules of nature, introducing such anit-natural rules makes a society unfit. And once the social constructs that protect parasites are broken down because of their very parasitism, the parasites are forced to face the natural environment directly. Then natural selection would take its course and the parasites would die off.

This is why it is important not to judge things in relation to some social standard - a social standard can be pulled out of an anus, it can be anti-nature, it can be, simply, wrong because under the protection of a society and not having to directly face the natural consequences of their actions, people tend to lie and deny reality (objective world, nature). Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature. Nature is the ultimate judge. Unfit people may escape natural selection for a few generations, especially with all the modern technologies compensating for natural weaknesses, but nature catches up, eventually, and the longer you try to escape from it, the harder it will hit you. The more degeneracy accumulates in a society, the greater the eventual culling. Technologies can only protect and shelter weakness so far.

So, all subjective preferences and subjectively constructed opinions, and choices resulting from them are ultimately judged against the objective world/nature by its filtering mechanism (natural selection). Ultimately, these preferences lead people to make choices corresponding to these preferences, and these choices result in objectively superior or inferior outcomes, as determined by natural selection. If an individual exists within a society, then inidividual is tested against the society, and the society is then tested against nature, so the relationship between individual and nature still exists, though it is mediated by society and so the impact of inferior choices is lessened by society and usually redistributed to the entire society instead of reflected back almost directly to the individual who made the inferior choice.
Example: You may prefer to cut your legs off. That may be your "subjective preference", based on your "subjective opinion" and "subjective understanding" of the world, and many other subjective things, or whatever. But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war? What happens is that natural selection takes its course, and the tribe who cut their legs off suffer the consequences of their inferior choices, and they get killed, their lands conquered, their resources plundered. This is the case of whole societies being judged against nature (objective world), where some are objectively determined to be superior, and others inferior.
And do I even need to mention what happens if you get lost in nature alone, and cut your legs off? You would likely die within hours, if not from bleeding then from infections, if not from infections then from predators, and if not from predators then from starvation/dehydration as it would be near impossible for you to acquire the necessary nutrients to survive.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion: We can objectively measure and evaluate the validity of certain subjective preferences, opinions, and choices based on their natural consequences of how well they can survive natural selection. Natural selection is the ultimate filtering mechanism of the objective world, and social selection is only valid to the extent it is based on natural selection. Certain things can objectively be proven to contribute to the survival of an individual and/or a group, and certain other things can be proven to be detrimental to it. Subjectivity tests its fitness against the objective world, and based on its performance and success in reproducing itself (dealing with the objective world) its fitness can be objectively measured and evaluated. In a social context, consequences can be avoided or postponed by transferring them to others, but if a society allows that eventually natural selection catches up and hits the society hard. There is no escaping the objective world. No escaping natural selection.


Is this particular "analysis" true? Or is it but one more "philosophical argument" embedded in but one more "intellectual contraption"?

One more objectivist rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational


As for myself, with respect to aesthetic, moral and political values -- and, concomitantly, conflicting value judgments -- I subscribe to a particular foundation of subjectivism. It is predicated on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. As this pertains to human behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments.

And, existentially, it has culminated in a particular dilemma:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Is this true?

Well, subjectively, here and now, it seems to be true. To "me". But I would certainly not argue that all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to think the same.

Instead, I challenge those who embrace objectivism pertaining to aesthetic, moral and political values to bring their analysis down to earth and to intertwine their words into actual contexts that most of us are familiar with.

Let's go there, AutSider.

Or any other poster who embraces an objectivist frame of mind here.

What particular "individuals" in what particular "society" in what particular context in which the values of individuals come into conflict?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21820
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:17 pm

Whenever you want to perform some action, you need to take the exact steps that are necessary to do so.

You cannot simply take any sequence of steps and hope that you will perform what you want to perform.

You need to identify the exact sequence of steps that you need to perform.

The former is objectivity because the exact sequence of steps that you need to take is independent from your desires.

The latter is subjectivity because the sequence of steps that you need to take is arbitrarily chosen.

My argument is that every kind of action can either be judged as objective (if the right sequence of steps is taken) or subjective (if the wrong sequence of steps is taken.)

If you want to walk, for example, you need to perform the exact physical movements -- both micro and macro -- in order to do so.

You cannot simply imagine yourself walking. Nor can you simply use a mechanical device that will do all the movements instead of you.

To do so would be to cheat. It would be to distract yourself from doing what you have to do by doing something else that is sufficiently similar so that your brain can confuse the fake with the real.

If you want to be a warrior, you need to take the adequate training regime. It's not enough to simply pose in your YouTube videos.

If you want to determine whether an apple is red or green, you need to look at it with your eyes. It's not enough to simply believe in whatever option comforts you.

The same applies to the question: what is the best way to live our lives?

You need to take the adequate steps.

Every rational person will agree that the best way to live is in such a way so that one is maximizing one's survival potential.

Of course, you can live any way you want. If you want, you can live your entire life by cutting your body piece by piece. There is nothing other than your own body stopping you from doing so.

But that's beside the point.

The point is that there are indeed better and worse ways to live your life.

Objectively speaking.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Dan~ » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:23 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Whenever you want to perform some action, you need to take the exact steps that are necessary to do so.

You cannot simply take any sequence of steps and hope that you will perform what you want to perform.

You need to identify the exact sequence of steps that you need to perform.

The former is objectivity because the exact sequence of steps that you need to take is independent from your desires.

The latter is subjectivity because the sequence of steps that you need to take is arbitrarily chosen.

My argument is that every kind of action can either be judged as objective (if the right sequence of steps is taken) or subjective (if the wrong sequence of steps is taken.)

If you want to walk, for example, you need to perform the exact physical movements -- both micro and macro -- in order to do so.

You cannot simply imagine yourself walking. Nor can you simply use a mechanical device that will do all the movements instead of you.

To do so would be to cheat. It would be to distract yourself from doing what you have to do by doing something else that is sufficiently similar so that your brain can confuse the fake with the real.

If you want to be a warrior, you need to take the adequate training regime. It's not enough to simply pose in your YouTube videos.

If you want to determine whether an apple is red or green, you need to look at it with your eyes. It's not enough to simply believe in whatever option comforts you.

The same applies to the question: what is the best way to live our lives?

You need to take the adequate steps.

Every rational person will agree that the best way to live is in such a way so that one is maximizing one's survival potential.

Of course, you can live any way you want. If you want, you can live your entire life by cutting your body piece by piece. There is nothing other than your own body stopping you from doing so.

But that's beside the point.

The point is that there are indeed better and worse ways to live your life.

Objectively speaking.


I agree with this post.
We have to work with every law of nature as it happens,
instead of doing what ever we want.
The world is a true object, and we are part of the world in so many ways.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9760
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:32 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Whenever you want to perform some action, you need to take the exact steps that are necessary to do so.

You cannot simply take any sequence of steps and hope that you will perform what you want to perform.

You need to identify the exact sequence of steps that you need to perform.

The former is objectivity because the exact sequence of steps that you need to take is independent from your desires.

The latter is subjectivity because the sequence of steps that you need to take is arbitrarily chosen.

My argument is that every kind of action can either be judged as objective (if the right sequence of steps is taken) or subjective (if the wrong sequence of steps is taken.)

If you want to walk, for example, you need to perform the exact physical movements -- both micro and macro -- in order to do so.

You cannot simply imagine yourself walking. Nor can you simply use a mechanical device that will do all the movements instead of you.

To do so would be to cheat. It would be to distract yourself from doing what you have to do by doing something else that is sufficiently similar so that your brain can confuse the fake with the real.

If you want to be a warrior, you need to take the adequate training regime. It's not enough to simply pose in your YouTube videos.

If you want to determine whether an apple is red or green, you need to look at it with your eyes. It's not enough to simply believe in whatever option comforts you.

The same applies to the question: what is the best way to live our lives?

You need to take the adequate steps.

Every rational person will agree that the best way to live is in such a way so that one is maximizing one's survival potential.

Of course, you can live any way you want. If you want, you can live your entire life by cutting your body piece by piece. There is nothing other than your own body stopping you from doing so.

But that's beside the point.

The point is that there are indeed better and worse ways to live your life.

Objectively speaking.


Again, note how far removed this "intellectual contraption" is from the places that I want to take it.

"Every rational person will agree that the best way to live is in such a way so that one is maximizing one's survival potential."

Okay, what might this possibly mean -- existentially -- when two individuals share this frame of mind but argue that the "best way to live" revolves around conflicting goods?

Re abortion, for example, maximizing the survival of the baby or of the pregnant woman intent on killing it?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21820
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:36 pm

The solution lies in understanding the concept of objectivity.

Objectivity means confronting one's object of perception directly.

Objectivity does not imply that objective people will perceive reality in one and the same way.

Dichromats and trichromats are both objective, and yet, they perceive reality differently.

The reason is because they are confronting different quantities of information.

Dichromats are simply confronting less than trichromats. That's why their perceptions are different.

Subjectivity, then, isn't simply confronting less. Ironically, it means confronting more than one can, which leads to perversion in perception.

Subjectivity, for example, means seeing more than one is seeing, by filling in the absent festures using one's imagination.

Or it means seeing less than one is seeing by covering the undesirable features using one's imagination.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]