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

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby AutSider » Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:46 am

I don't like where this thread has gone, but I am not surprised.

I'm sorry, but I'm not here to discuss kindergarten level shit with people. If you still deny things like the existence of objective reality, and think that reality is somehow dependent on you observing it and stuff like that, then I really have nothing to say to you. You will either grow out of such positions by yourself, or you won't at all. The ones who possess sufficient intelligence, rationality, and honesty, will do so by themselves, without the need for somebody else to have pages long discussions with them to try and talk them out of nonsense.

However, since I am in the mood, and I do think some basic things need to be said, I'll discuss some of the less nonsensical nonsense. To the posts/parts of the posts I won't reply and haven't replied yet, it is either because I disagree with it too much to consider it worth addressing (mainly Prismatic), or I mostly agree with it and the disagreements would be more a matter of working out trivial details or clearing up the different ways we use language and minor misunderstandings (Crimson Crow, Magnus Anderson). Or I simply am not interested or haven't even read them yet. Pick whatever option suits you.

Prismatic
I mentioned earlier, it is because of the above possible threats and other global, planetary, galactical threats that we humans has to co-operate at the highest possible level and this is only efficient when human switch from their evolved default of 3+ billion years concept of an independent external world to the realistic concept of an interdependent internal-external world driven by subject[s] who perceives emerging-objects. Note spontaneously emerging objects not pre-existing objects.


I am unsure what you mean by "emergent" and "pre-existing". Since reality is constant flux (change), you could say objects are constantly disappearing and emerging. However, on a more fundamental level the emerging of objects is simply atoms changing forms by rearranging themselves, and once they've done so to a sufficient degree that a human will recognize it as a different object, we will assign to it a different name, or add to it its name, if it is an object that interests us. For example, an apple, after undergoing the process of rotting, will have changed its internal structure differently enough to be called differently and recognized as different than before - so now it will be called a rotten apple. You could say that rotten apple emerged. But the rotten apple emerged as a consequence of its past interactions, on what pre-existed the rotten apple, which was an ordinary apple and an environment in which an apple rots.

Objects exist independently of subjects, yes. The external world isn't driven by subjects. Species constantly go extinct and the external world continues existing. The external world isn't dependent on being observed by humans or any other species or any particlar living organism for its existence. The ideas of objects are dependent for existence on human minds, but what the ideas refer to, objects themselves, are not, unless they are artifices - objects created and maintained by humans, but then again, they are not ONLY dependent on human perception, but also on human action to maintain those artifices. Moreover, neither objects nor ideas emerge spontaneously. There is a pattern to their emergence.

Subjectivism is a very useful tool in controlling the masses. If you manage to convince others that there is no external world independent of humans, and that reality is dependent on human minds, you can also effectively indoctrinate them into being dependent on what YOU say is the truth about objects, and since there is no external, independent standard that we all share (REALITY) according to this position, others are helpless as they have nothing to appeal to defend themselves with except their own subjectivity. However, usually those in power will try to enforce their own particular kind of subjectivity as superior, making themselves the "authority" on the matter where what they say is "officially approved fact" while what you say is "just your opinion, man", regardless of what is actually true. They have successfully convinced you you cannot access the objective world yourself, using your own mind and senses, but that you need the validation of others, most likely some authority, telling you what is or isn't true. Truth stops being based on the objectve, external world, and starts being based on the subjective thoughts about the objective world of people or groups of people, such as scientists. These statements MAY be actual truths and based on accurate observations of the objective world (if they followed the scientific method without error), or they can be lies told to be truths, either because of a mistake in reasoning, or intentional and for the sake of accomplishing social/political goals or avoiding condemnation.

For an objectivist and a realist, the objective world is the standard by which they judge whether what people say about the objective world is correct or not. For an objectivist/realist, if somebody says: "There is a unicorn in the corner of this room and the current authorities agree it is so", but an objectivist/realist doesn't see it, he will decide there is no unicorn and the authority is wrong.
For a subjectivist, what somebody else says about the objective world is the standard by which they judge what is correct or not about the objective world. If somebody says the same thing to a subjectivist, and the subjectivist doesn't perceive a unicorn, he will nevertheless decide that there is a unicorn simply because the authority (be it media, government, science...) said so and therefore it must be so.
Usually the political elites decide the areas where people are allowed to think freely, and the limitations of free thought, according to their own agendas.

The idea that objects emerge spontaneously is also part of this manipulation because it denies one of the crucial aspects of objective reality - PATTERNS. There is no randomness, only patterns. When the outcome of something requires a calculation of factors too complex for humans to process, we say that the outcome is random, so randomness doesn't mean "no patterns", it means "I couldn't find a pattern there". I often use the example of a coin toss or a dice roll to explain this. The dice doesn't behave according to magic, it is just as subject to laws of physics as anything else, wouldn't you agree? The thing is that humans simply haven't evolved the ability to calculate all possible factors (gravity, friction of the surface, air resistance) we need to know to predict the trajectory of the dice and thus its outcome. This makes it random. However, in principle it is possible that scientists design a machine which would calculate all those factors before the throw, so the machine would know exactly at which height to throw it, using what amount of force, etc. for it to land on a particular number.

Denying the existence of patterns and claiming it's all about spontaneity is also useful if you want to make people oblivious to reality for some reason and incapable to predict things by shrouding everything in mysticism, possibly to exploit that ignorance for your own ends.

And when speaking of "assuming" the existence of objects, it is only reasonable to be uncertain and assume if you aren't directly perceiving the objects and have an actual reason to doubt their existence. If a lion is biting off your hand, it is stupid to say you just "assume" it, we save the word "assume" for situations when you are less certain about things. For example, if a lion escaped the zoo and you live close to the zoo, you may "assume" that the lion is somewhere nearby because you aren't actually seeing it. This may or may not be a reasonable assumption based on how far away you live and other factors, but I think we can agree that for practical reasons it is a good assumption to make to avoid potential harm. Using the word which implies a weak level of certainty such as "assume" to speak about things which are evident to a person due to simple perception and thus merit a high level of certainty, is just another one of sneaky ways of making people detached from reality by fucking up their fundamental epistemological principles and making them more prone to being convinced in bullshit.

Sure, what is evident and in your face is just an assumption, and what the official philosophical authorities tell you, namely "what is evident and in your face is an assumption" itself is somehow not a mere assumption but, for some yet to be explained reason, carries a higher level of certainty than what your senses tell you, which are mere assumptions (low level of certainty). Our senses, which evolved to help us survive and connect us to the world, are lying to us, while those who can benefit from lying to us, and thus have a motive to do so, must be telling us truth. Hmmm.

The thing is, what is an assumption and what is more than an assumption, is determined by an objective world. We say something is an assumption when we use healthy senses to recognize patterns in the objective world. If I say "there is a car X not more than 20 meters away from me", and I know I own car X and have it in a garage within that distance, and I've just checked on it 5 seconds ago, then it is not a mere assumption, it is a statement of truth. If I'm saying that after coming back home and not seeing the car for hours, the statement is less certain borders on being an assumption, as the car might have been stolen, but the probability of that happening is low. If somebody else in my family told me there is a 50-50% chance they'll use the car, I'd say in that case the statement has crossed into the assumption territory, aka, into the probability range of what we usually think of when we say "assumptions". If I am making a claim that some random car Y is within 100 meters from me in the middle of a parking lot, that is an assumption if I don't see the car. However, not all assumptions carry equal weight. If Y is a car that is common that assumption carries more weight than if Y was a super rare sports car. And the more I know the more accurate assumptions I can make. If I know the neighborhood the parking lot is in is poor, then the probability of Y being a super rare sports car drops drastically. If there is a sports super car owner convention and I know they're using that parking lot, then the probability increases. The more factors I am aware of the more accurately I can predict whether an assumption is likely to be true or false.

The word assumption itself thus implies realism and objectivism, because without that, it is impossible to determine what is an assumption, and what isn't, and how valid an assumption is.

This is really some basic level shit though, and I'm not much willing to argue about most of it.

Magnus Anderson,

This is confusing to people because it implies that that which is not observed is not existence. Which is true. That which is not observed -- the unobserved -- is not existence. It is a hypothetical existence, that exists in the form of idea, that may or may not be educated.


No, again, whether something exists or not is NOT dependent on being observed. Rather, humans can only observe things which exist. So everything we observe exists (if we are indeed observing it instead of being mad and imagining that we are observing things), but not everything that exists is necessarily observed. Some things may exist but we may not observe them because they are not in the physical proximity of our senses, or our senses simply aren't focused upon them. Ideas exist within reality, but only within a particular segment of reality - minds. Outside of minds, ideas don't exist. And things don't exist "in forms of ideas", that is very poor wording. Instead, ideas OF some things exist, but the form of an idea of a thing, and the form of a thing itself, are different.
Image
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby AutSider » Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:26 am

Anyway, since I haven't received the kind of criticism I hoped for, I had to come up with criticisms of my own thread myself.

Mainly, I am still uncertain to what extent the dots between "is" and "ought" can really be connected. I tried to use the First Foundational objective (survival) as that which would connect the dots for all living beings, but a video by TFM made me think.

TFM says in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-HZu2jqdg) that survival in the sense of what I call long-term survival (genetic propagation) is irrelevant because we don't, really, survive to any relevant extent, as our genes become extremely diluted only after a few generations. He didn't mention the specific numbers himself, but since parents pass on approximately 50% of genes to their child, already by the 2nd generation only half of you survives. The 3rd generation, 25%. By the tenth generation, which is only about 200-300 years, the percentage of you which survives is reduced to below 1%. And ultimately none of that matters and it will be reduced to 0% because scientists predict that just as the Big Bang happened, there will be an opposite, a Big Crunch. So whereas Big Bang was an expansion of a singularity into a universe, a big crunch would be the universe contracting back into a singularity, and erasing all life. If that doesn't exterminate us humans, something like the explosion of the sun, or shortage of water and food, or pollution, or nuclear war or some other thing will.

So the question then becomes - Do you really have a reason to give a shit about reproducing your genes and caring about the evolutionary process, when the evolutionary process itself will eventually be extinguished when all life on earth goes extinct. It becomes more personal - what do you want? Is it worth it to give up a portion of your life to make and possibly care for offspring, or not?

Perhaps to somebody it is indeed worth it. Perhaps somebody so enjoys taking drugs that they consider the high pleasurable enough to risk their life for it. Of course, if their life is centered around that and so they don't propagate their genes, evolution will just filter them out, because like they don't care about evolutionary processes, evolutionary processes don't care about them. If taking drugs is truly what they wanted and truly what made them happy, then it might have been all worth it, for them. If somebody is ugly, or stupid, or has some other deficiency which prevents them from actually accomplishing things in life, they may subconsciously realize that inebriating themselves to temporarily forget their own inferiority is the only way they can be happy, even for a little while. That inebriation can also take the form of flattering ideologies which tell them they are valuable, and beautiful, and not worse than anybody else... that they are equal to all others.

A perhaps shorter and clearer version - though some action, like drinking a beverage mixed with a deadly poison, may be in direct conflict with the first objective of survival, and thus in the long-term, with itself, since drinking such a beverage once will make it impossible for you to do it ever again since you will be dead, it is still possible that to the subject, despite of all that, IT IS STILL WORTH IT in terms of cost/benefit to drink it because the taste is just so good that it is worth dying for. It doesn't mean the subject escaped the consequences of their actions, or the filtering (evolutionary) process of the objective world. It means that the subject accepted the consequences and costs.

The same logic applies to small poisons. Somebody may like cigarettes so much that they are willing to shorten their lifespan by smoking cigarettes for the pleasure of smoking, knowing that it will take away time of their life they could have used to do other things.

Ultimately the only judge of what we ought to do (how to accomplish happiness) are ourselves. So the only way to do it is to know ourselves - what we need and want in life. If we are unhappy it means we haven't accomplished something which we think would make us happy, and/or we are dissatisfied with how we have previously used our time. If we haven't done it, it is either because we couldn't recognize what it is that would make us happy due to failing to know ourselves, or we did recognize it but didn't have the ability to do it. Another option is that we might think something will make us happy, do it, then realize it doesn't make us happy after all, and that we wasted our time. This is why knowing what we truly want, and what the limits of our abilities to get it are, is crucial.
Image
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:40 am

AutSider wrote:No, again, whether something exists or not is NOT dependent on being observed. Rather, humans can only observe things which exist. So everything we observe exists (if we are indeed observing it instead of being mad and imagining that we are observing things), but not everything that exists is necessarily observed. Some things may exist but we may not observe them because they are not in the physical proximity of our senses, or our senses simply aren't focused upon them.


Did I ever say that there is no existence beyond what humans sense? No. So why are you bringing it up?

I guess I need to make it explicit. What one senses is not necessarily everything there is to sense.

Organisms have a sensory capacity. There is only so much they can sense.

Now, since I made it clear that I never said that one's field of view defines the totality of existence, it's up to you show how my words appear to imply it.

What I said was this: existence is that which is sensed.

Where does that imply that what is sensed is all there is to sense?

Nowhere.
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: 3391
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:46 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
AutSider wrote:No, again, whether something exists or not is NOT dependent on being observed. Rather, humans can only observe things which exist. So everything we observe exists (if we are indeed observing it instead of being mad and imagining that we are observing things), but not everything that exists is necessarily observed. Some things may exist but we may not observe them because they are not in the physical proximity of our senses, or our senses simply aren't focused upon them.


Did I ever say that there is no existence beyond what humans sense? No. So why are you bringing it up?

I guess I need to make it explicit. What one senses is not necessarily everything there is to sense.

Organisms have a sensory capacity. There is only so much they can sense.

Now, since I made it clear that I never said that one's field of view defines the totality of existence, it's up to you show how my words appear to imply it.

What I said was this: existence is that which is sensed.

Where does that imply that what is sensed is all there is to sense? Nowhere.

As he said, this is seems to be an issue of language use. What you said in the red, DOES say that existence is ONLY that which is sensed. Apparently you use English differently. You were correct when you said, "potential to be observed". When you leave out that word "potential", you directly imply that something must be observed in order for it to exist. That is just the way English works.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:55 am

It comes down to this question: what is our immediate contact with existence? Is it our senses or is it our intellect?

Is existence sensory experience or is it an abstraction?

Do you really think that abstractions/intuitions are more real than facts/sensations?

In Myers-Briggs typology, I am a moderate S type whereas James is clearly an N type. This is why we think differently.
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: 3391
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:06 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:It comes down to this question: what is our immediate contact with existence? Is it our senses or is it our intellect?

Is existence sensory experience or is it an abstraction?

Neither. That is the whole point. It has nothing to do with us or our thoughts, period.

Magnus Anderson wrote:This is why we think differently.

That is not at all "why". That was merely an attempt to describe differences, not reasons/causes.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:15 am

AutSider wrote:Prismatic
I mentioned earlier, it is because of the above possible threats and other global, planetary, galactical threats that we humans has to co-operate at the highest possible level and this is only efficient when human switch from their evolved default of 3+ billion years concept of an independent external world to the realistic concept of an interdependent internal-external world driven by subject[s] who perceives emerging-objects. Note spontaneously emerging objects not pre-existing objects.


I am unsure what you mean by "emergent" and "pre-existing". Since reality is constant flux (change), you could say objects are constantly disappearing and emerging. However, on a more fundamental level the emerging of objects is simply atoms changing forms by rearranging themselves, and once they've done so to a sufficient degree that a human will recognize it as a different object, we will assign to it a different name, or add to it its name, if it is an object that interests us. For example, an apple, after undergoing the process of rotting, will have changed its internal structure differently enough to be called differently and recognized as different than before - so now it will be called a rotten apple. You could say that rotten apple emerged. But the rotten apple emerged as a consequence of its past interactions, on what pre-existed the rotten apple, which was an ordinary apple and an environment in which an apple rots.
In the first place how did we arrive at the concept of 'atoms'?
The existence of atoms are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of atoms are grounded on the subjects collectively.

Do atoms really exist by themselves per-se?
No! atoms are merely clusters of sub-atomic particles some moving at great speed within a nucleus.
The existence of sub-atomic particles are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of sub-atomic particles are grounded on the subjects collectively.

There is no way you can deny the above knowledge and its logic.

Thus no matter what the ultimate matter that is to be discovered by Science, it will be grounded on the subjects collectively, i.e. the human-based Scientific Framework and System!

Therefore there is no pre-existing objects, i.e. objects that exist as absolutely independent from the conditions of humans [subjects].

Now when objects and things emerged onto the consciousness of humans, they arise in alignment with certain pre-existing algorithms within the human brain most via Nature [DNA] and nurture [RNA].
This is why you see an apple which rots subsequently.
A bacteria or fungus do not 'see' such "an apple which rots subsequently" like ALL normal humans do.
Why? because a bacteria or fungus has different pre-existing inherent algorithms in their central nervous systems.
Is there something constant or permanent that all living things will cognize as the same universally? None!
Therefore whatever the reality, it is always subject[s]-interdependent.

Your urge to reify objects out there as you/&others want them to be is due to a terrible psychology and instinct within.

You could say that rotten apple emerged. But the rotten apple emerged as a consequence of its past interactions, on what pre-existed the rotten apple, which was an ordinary apple and an environment in which an apple rots.
That is what Hume argued, i.e. the reality of cause and effect is pure psychology due to customs and habit of constant conjunction.
Hume did not understand "certain pre-existing algorithms within the human brain most via Nature [DNA] and nurture [RNA]," then.

Objects exist independently of subjects, yes. The external world isn't driven by subjects. Species constantly go extinct and the external world continues existing. The external world isn't dependent on being observed by humans or any other species or any particular living organism for its existence. The ideas of objects are dependent for existence on human minds, but what the ideas refer to, objects themselves, are not, unless they are artifices - objects created and maintained by humans, but then again, they are not ONLY dependent on human perception, but also on human action to maintain those artifices. Moreover, neither objects nor ideas emerge spontaneously. There is a pattern to their emergence.
Your thinking is too superficial and confined to conventional and one narrow perspective.
Note I mentioned emergence based on "certain pre-existing algorithms within the human brain most via Nature [DNA] and nurture [RNA]," and driven by psychology grounded on the survival instinct.

Subjectivism is a very useful tool in controlling the masses. If you manage to convince others that there is no external world independent of humans, and that reality is dependent on human minds, you can also effectively indoctrinate them into being dependent on what YOU say is the truth about objects, and since there is no external, independent standard that we all share (REALITY) according to this position, others are helpless as they have nothing to appeal to defend themselves with except their own subjectivity. However, usually those in power will try to enforce their own particular kind of subjectivity as superior, making themselves the "authority" on the matter where what they say is "officially approved fact" while what you say is "just your opinion, man", regardless of what is actually true. They have successfully convinced you you cannot access the objective world yourself, using your own mind and senses, but that you need the validation of others, most likely some authority, telling you what is or isn't true. Truth stops being based on the objective, external world, and starts being based on the subjective thoughts about the objective world of people or groups of people, such as scientists. These statements MAY be actual truths and based on accurate observations of the objective world (if they followed the scientific method without error), or they can be lies told to be truths, either because of a mistake in reasoning, or intentional and for the sake of accomplishing social/political goals or avoiding condemnation.
Apparently you have been brainwashed to fear evil ideological systems.
I am not into subjectivism nor any 'ism.'
The most realistic fact is reality is grounded on the subject[s] interdependently and collectively.
All your fears of evil ideologies and '-isms' including your own can be mitigated and modulated by a sound Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to ensure optimal well being for humanity. Many people focus too much on objects or subjects but forgot about Morality and Ethics.

Your sort of independent external objectivity is merely a shade nearer to the ontological objectivity of a God and from this view you lose contact and control of reality.

From the realistic of a collective-subjective reality which is driven by 'subjects' collectively, it open up the opportunity for subjects - in entanglement with the reality they are a part of -to control their destiny from a collective basis which is shared and gelled by Philosophy-proper. [Morality and Ethics being primary].

Philosophically the only way you can align your independent external reality is to rely on the Correspondence Theory of Truth without even knowing whether there a parallel reality on the other side.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:55 am

Prismatic567 wrote:The existence of atoms are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of atoms are grounded on the subjects collectively.

Incorrect. They are merely named by humans. They do not physically exist because humans discovered them.

Prismatic567 wrote:Do atoms really exist by themselves per-se?
No!

Incorrect.

Prismatic567 wrote:atoms are merely clusters of sub-atomic particles some moving at great speed within a nucleus.

Didn't you just say that they do not exist? Yet here you describe what they are.

Prismatic567 wrote:The existence of sub-atomic particles are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of sub-atomic particles are grounded on the subjects collectively.

Equally incorrect, for the same reasons.

Naming or observing something does not constitute causing it to exist. It would be a bit difficult to observe it if it didn't already exist.

Prismatic567 wrote:There is no way you can deny the above knowledge and its logic.

Obviously also incorrect.

Prismatic567 wrote:the subjects collectively, i.e. the human-based Scientific Framework and System!

I suspect that your catch-all phrase is lacking clear definition and meaning.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:09 am

AutSider wrote:Anyway, since I haven't received the kind of criticism I hoped for, I had to come up with criticisms of my own thread myself.

Mainly, I am still uncertain to what extent the dots between "is" and "ought" can really be connected. I tried to use the First Foundational objective (survival) as that which would connect the dots for all living beings, but a video by TFM made me think.

TFM says in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-HZu2jqdg) that survival in the sense of what I call long-term survival (genetic propagation) is irrelevant because we don't, really, survive to any relevant extent, as our genes become extremely diluted only after a few generations. He didn't mention the specific numbers himself, but since parents pass on approximately 50% of genes to their child, already by the 2nd generation only half of you survives. The 3rd generation, 25%. By the tenth generation, which is only about 200-300 years, the percentage of you which survives is reduced to below 1%. And ultimately none of that matters and it will be reduced to 0% because scientists predict that just as the Big Bang happened, there will be an opposite, a Big Crunch. So whereas Big Bang was an expansion of a singularity into a universe, a big crunch would be the universe contracting back into a singularity, and erasing all life. If that doesn't exterminate us humans, something like the explosion of the sun, or shortage of water and food, or pollution, or nuclear war or some other thing will.

So the question then becomes - Do you really have a reason to give a shit about reproducing your genes and caring about the evolutionary process, when the evolutionary process itself will eventually be extinguished when all life on earth goes extinct. It becomes more personal - what do you want? Is it worth it to give up a portion of your life to make and possibly care for offspring, or not?
I see the above views are too narrow and rigid.
It is a fact all normal humans has all the machinery and are driven to reproduce the next generations.
Thus the obvious inference is directed as preservation of the human species.
Re Hume, this inference cannot be final.
On a detailed analysis, the preservation of the species is not absolute as the human species evolved from many extinct species.

The preservation of the human species may not be true after 1 million years as human could evolve into new species after 5-10 millions year.

Nevertheless the following inferences from past reality are still useful to some degrees;
1. Within a range of 1 millions years, the purpose of normal humans is the preservation of the human specie.
2. Universally, the purpose of most living things [including human beings] is to reproduce the next generation.

For practical purposes humanity should adopt the above qualified theories to ground the various philosophical theories.
Because if we don't then the human species could be extinct within the next 100 years or sooner given the potential WMDs we have on hand the more powerful ones in the future which an be easily available.

For example there is no such indication nor moral maxim to ensure the survival and preservation of the human species in the Quran and Muslims can kill with the slightest ambiguous conditions to defend the religion.
In addition, when Muslims die they are promised eternal life and martyrs are assured of an expeditious path to Paradise with virgins. The Quran also promote a preference for the hereafter rather than the lowly life on Earth.
Now without any maxim to ensure the preservation of the human species on Earth, a percentile of evil prone Muslims will have no hesitations to exterminate the human species when they get their had on cheap powerful WMDs because no matter what they are guaranteed eternal life in heaven.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:29 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The existence of atoms are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of atoms are grounded on the subjects collectively.

Incorrect. They are merely named by humans. They do not physically exist because humans discovered them.
Note 'naming' of things is so obvious. This is an irrelevant point.

We were discussing 'emergence' out of a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.

Things emerged out of the following;

1. A pre-existing evolved algorithm embedded in the DNA.
2. An algorithm shaped by the RNA
3. The existence of atoms and sub-atomic particles emerging human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
4. The existence of things emerging from various human-based Framework and System, i.e. Scientific and non-Scientific Framework and System.
5. The existence of various selves and empirical selves emerging from various human-based Framework and System, i.e. Scientific and non-Scientific Framework and System.
6. Others

Now whatever the object that emerge out of reality as external is an emergence as a resultant of the above conditions.

The discovery and naming follows from the above emergence of the object.

Prismatic567 wrote:Do atoms really exist by themselves per-se?
No!

Incorrect.


Prismatic567 wrote:atoms are merely clusters of sub-atomic particles some moving at great speed within a nucleus.

Didn't you just say that they do not exist? Yet here you describe what they are.

What you missed is 'atoms do not exist-by-themselves-per-se.'
Atoms exist only by-their-Framework&System.
You need to understand the above two concepts which are different.
Note "exist-by-themselves" versus "exist-by-Subjective-Framework."
I don't think you will ever understand given the rigid straight-jacket you are wearing.

Prismatic567 wrote:The existence of sub-atomic particles are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of sub-atomic particles are grounded on the subjects collectively.

Equally incorrect, for the same reasons.

Naming or observing something does not constitute causing it to exist. It would be a bit difficult to observe it if it didn't already exist.
As implied above, this point is kindergarten stuff which need not be presented.
There is a deeper cognitive and reification process involved that is driven by terrible psychology as Hume alluded.

Prismatic567 wrote:There is no way you can deny the above knowledge and its logic.

Obviously also incorrect.

Prismatic567 wrote:the subjects collectively, i.e. the human-based Scientific Framework and System!

I suspect that your catch-all phrase is lacking clear definition and meaning.
If you cannot see the 500 pound gorilla because of some psychological blinkers you will never understand [not agree with] my point.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:10 am

Prismatic567 wrote:1. A pre-existing evolved algorithm embedded in the DNA.

Subatomic particles don't have DNA.
DNA has subatomic particles.

Thus from there on down, your theory is irrelevant.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby phyllo » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:01 pm

There is stuff intrinsically out there ... stuff which is separate from our thoughts. Modern science say that it's atoms but that's a model ... an approximation ... of what really exists. All thoughts and all words are approximations. Nothing that you think is real. The only reality is outside of thought.

Are atoms a reasonable model of reality? Yes.
Further exploration and discovery will produce a different model - maybe a little different or very different.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby _A_ » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:02 pm

A Unicorn in the Corner:

Unfortunately humanity arrived in an age where the vast majority participate in the "Big Lie". They claim, and believe, there is a unicorn in the corner. This is a price and cost of civilization, a grandiose lie and delusion that people "pay into", and is directly analogous to christianity and popular religions. Everybody "believes" in the unicorn although they cannot reproduce it nor provide evidence for it. To understand why and how this occurs, and so many begin "buying into" such a socially popular delusion, you first have to examine the foundation of these lies predicated on civilization. Civilization requires re-distribution of Authorities. Thus the majority of humans don't have "their own" thoughts or beliefs about existence/objectivity/reality but instead must access existence through a proxy, an Authority, a representative of a specialization. For example, when people want to solve math equations or understand chemical reactions then they go to a mathematician and physicist. People trust on science for "facts". People trust on religion for "morals". Etc.

Because authority has been institutionalized (sociology), "common sense" becomes uncommon throughout humanity and civilization (autism). An average person doesn't know anything about anything. She is ignorant and also claims innocence, blameless and stupid. In order for a person to have any respectability then that person must become "Initiated" into an established order (specialization). Like a pupil becomes a priest, a student becomes a professor, a scientist becomes an "expert", etc. Indoctrination and sophistry results in specialized thinking that focuses on particular topics at the cost and exclusion of others. Therefore to answer a seemingly simple question, you are encouraged or forced to go to the appropriate representative authority of society and humanity, and receive direction from him. For example a person seeks out a police officer to solve a crime, a doctor to diagnose a disease, an airplane pilot to fly across the world, "god" to justify moral actions and sentiments, etc. In this way "common sense" becomes uncommon in that an average person can do very little about any single, specified topic of life, and must rely on an authority's judgments and decrees.

The individual becomes helpless, mundane, boring, stupid, and completely "average". This is the definition of "humanity", completely incapable as individuals, but increasingly and exponentially collectivist and socialist.

The difference between the (subjective) ideas of the individual versus the collective society is that between mere 'opinions' and the established, indoctrinated 'facts' of representative authorities. A "scientist", talking head politician on the television, a priest, a doctor, etc. all have more authority and therefore more access to the 'facts' of life (within civilization) than the common populace.


But then you go deeper into the madness. Here is an analogy. Let's pretend for a moment that the entire human civilization is predicated on a simple proposition: There is a unicorn in the corner of this room. If this statement is true then so is human civilization, glory, and existence. And if it is false then so is humanity. So people are taught to believe in the preposition, indoctrinated over generations, not just one generation but several or dozens of hundreds. People have been believing in this lie ("truth") for centuries and millenniums. Did you think you could just "change" it? Did you think you could just point it out, and others would agree with you? You would be naive. Because if you had the gall to point it out then others would interject and deny you, argue with you, and eventually fight you.

"How dare you question the unicorn in the corner?"
"What the fuck do you mean, you can't see it? It's right there! I see it! Are you calling me a liar?!"
"Wow this person is nuts, a complete whack job, cannot even see what is right in front of him..."
"Lock this lunatic up in the asylum, whacko!"

When you begin to go against the Big Lie then prepare for endless, useless, futile battles with everybody around you. Because that is the potential of this delusion. How does it perpetuate? The answer is simple. Children believe in anything, fairies, magic, demons, imps, invisible gods, etc. It's easy to convince children of an imaginary (subjective) world in which their egos are separated and divorced from nature (hardship, reality, philosophy). And so children will most readily accept the (im)-possibility of the unicorn in the corner. "Oh yeah, I kind of see it...oh it moved! Wow I see it now, looks kind of blueish". "No, it's clearly purple." "You're right, it must be the lighting in here."

Civilization operates on the preposition of the lie. To expose it, to refute it, to denounce it, is also to undermine the shared human lies which everybody intuitively understands are "Subjective". Let's imagine for a moment that a person from "outside humanity" were brought into the confines of humanity for a moment, and into the room. The outsider says to the group, "Where is this unicorn in the room? I can't see it." The humans say, "What...are you blind? It's right there, pretty obvious..." The rest of the humans say to each other, "Yeah, haha, very obvious, it's circling and neighing, everybody can see that." The rest of the humans, "Yep, pretty obvious, lol." The outsider is miffed and bewildered, confused. "Ummm, sorry guys, I still can't see anything." The humans: "Yep, you must be blind, there's something wrong with this guy's eyes, should have them checked out by a doctor."

At this point, it maybe more worthwhile for the outsider to go along with the Big Lie than try to fight it. Because what does he have to gain, or to lose, from doing so? You may presume at this point that there is a great hierarchy and intelligence that goes into the Big Lie. There are some humans, at the top, who gain the most from the lie and perpetuate it. They know there is no unicorn, but, convince any doubter there is one there anyway. Any rebel or outlaw saying otherwise is shouted down quickly and ruthlessly. The kids intuit the whole ordeal as a game, at first. But later in life, as adults, they have given up on finding the truth of it. They don't know, and frankly, don't care whether the unicorn is there or not. But most humanity pretends and acts as if it were. And this can be dangerous.

And most obviously, this is 'Subjective'.
_A_
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Lev Muishkin » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:02 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..


So why is it not called subjectivism?

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Some Guy in History » Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:36 pm

Objectivity is itself both objective and subjective, both impartial and biased. What is objective truth of our reality is biased to our reality and subjective in its preference as well as opinions thereof, said opinions being part of a subjective objective truth which any such would in itself be subjective to the overall objective subjective objective. This is being far more brief than is fair for the actual subject and that is objective, subjective and impartial biased truth that is considered opinion.
Image

As spirits roam the neighborhoods at night, Let loose upon the Earth till it be light...

Halloween wraps fear in innocence, As though it were a slightly sour sweet. Let terror, then, be turned into a treat...
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:02 am

Arminius wrote:"Observation" is something that happens and requires a subject and an object. If a subject observes itself, then it is both the subject and the object. "Existence" refers to something that is, regardless whether it happens or not, and does not require a subject or an object, because it tells us merely about the fact whether something is or not.

One can also use the follwoing wording: Not everything that exists is observable, but everything that is observable exists.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:05 am

AutSider wrote:TFM says in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-HZu2jqdg) that survival in the sense of what I call long-term survival (genetic propagation) is irrelevant because we don't, really, survive to any relevant extent, as our genes become extremely diluted only after a few generations. He didn't mention the specific numbers himself, but since parents pass on approximately 50% of genes to their child, already by the 2nd generation only half of you survives. The 3rd generation, 25%. By the tenth generation, which is only about 200-300 years, the percentage of you which survives is reduced to below 1%. And ultimately none of that matters and it will be reduced to 0% because scientists predict that just as the Big Bang happened, there will be an opposite, a Big Crunch. So whereas Big Bang was an expansion of a singularity into a universe, a big crunch would be the universe contracting back into a singularity, and erasing all life. If that doesn't exterminate us humans, something like the explosion of the sun, or shortage of water and food, or pollution, or nuclear war or some other thing will.

So the question then becomes - Do you really have a reason to give a shit about reproducing your genes and caring about the evolutionary process, when the evolutionary process itself will eventually be extinguished when all life on earth goes extinct. It becomes more personal - what do you want? Is it worth it to give up a portion of your life to make and possibly care for offspring, or not?

Most people do not think for the long term but merely for the short term.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:07 am

_A_ wrote:A Unicorn in the Corner:

Unfortunately humanity arrived in an age where the vast majority participate in the "Big Lie". They claim, and believe, there is a unicorn in the corner. This is a price and cost of civilization, a grandiose lie and delusion that people "pay into", and is directly analogous to christianity and popular religions. Everybody "believes" in the unicorn although they cannot reproduce it nor provide evidence for it. To understand why and how this occurs, and so many begin "buying into" such a socially popular delusion, you first have to examine the foundation of these lies predicated on civilization. Civilization requires re-distribution of Authorities. Thus the majority of humans don't have "their own" thoughts or beliefs about existence/objectivity/reality but instead must access existence through a proxy, an Authority, a representative of a specialization. For example, when people want to solve math equations or understand chemical reactions then they go to a mathematician and physicist. People trust on science for "facts". People trust on religion for "morals". Etc.

Because authority has been institutionalized (sociology), "common sense" becomes uncommon throughout humanity and civilization (autism). An average person doesn't know anything about anything. She is ignorant and also claims innocence, blameless and stupid. In order for a person to have any respectability then that person must become "Initiated" into an established order (specialization). Like a pupil becomes a priest, a student becomes a professor, a scientist becomes an "expert", etc. Indoctrination and sophistry results in specialized thinking that focuses on particular topics at the cost and exclusion of others. Therefore to answer a seemingly simple question, you are encouraged or forced to go to the appropriate representative authority of society and humanity, and receive direction from him. For example a person seeks out a police officer to solve a crime, a doctor to diagnose a disease, an airplane pilot to fly across the world, "god" to justify moral actions and sentiments, etc. In this way "common sense" becomes uncommon in that an average person can do very little about any single, specified topic of life, and must rely on an authority's judgments and decrees.

The individual becomes helpless, mundane, boring, stupid, and completely "average". This is the definition of "humanity", completely incapable as individuals, but increasingly and exponentially collectivist and socialist.

The difference between the (subjective) ideas of the individual versus the collective society is that between mere 'opinions' and the established, indoctrinated 'facts' of representative authorities. A "scientist", talking head politician on the television, a priest, a doctor, etc. all have more authority and therefore more access to the 'facts' of life (within civilization) than the common populace.


But then you go deeper into the madness. Here is an analogy. Let's pretend for a moment that the entire human civilization is predicated on a simple proposition: There is a unicorn in the corner of this room. If this statement is true then so is human civilization, glory, and existence. And if it is false then so is humanity. So people are taught to believe in the preposition, indoctrinated over generations, not just one generation but several or dozens of hundreds. People have been believing in this lie ("truth") for centuries and millenniums. Did you think you could just "change" it? Did you think you could just point it out, and others would agree with you? You would be naive. Because if you had the gall to point it out then others would interject and deny you, argue with you, and eventually fight you.

"How dare you question the unicorn in the corner?"
"What the fuck do you mean, you can't see it? It's right there! I see it! Are you calling me a liar?!"
"Wow this person is nuts, a complete whack job, cannot even see what is right in front of him..."
"Lock this lunatic up in the asylum, whacko!"

When you begin to go against the Big Lie then prepare for endless, useless, futile battles with everybody around you. Because that is the potential of this delusion. How does it perpetuate? The answer is simple. Children believe in anything, fairies, magic, demons, imps, invisible gods, etc. It's easy to convince children of an imaginary (subjective) world in which their egos are separated and divorced from nature (hardship, reality, philosophy). And so children will most readily accept the (im)-possibility of the unicorn in the corner. "Oh yeah, I kind of see it...oh it moved! Wow I see it now, looks kind of blueish". "No, it's clearly purple." "You're right, it must be the lighting in here."

Civilization operates on the preposition of the lie. To expose it, to refute it, to denounce it, is also to undermine the shared human lies which everybody intuitively understands are "Subjective". Let's imagine for a moment that a person from "outside humanity" were brought into the confines of humanity for a moment, and into the room. The outsider says to the group, "Where is this unicorn in the room? I can't see it." The humans say, "What...are you blind? It's right there, pretty obvious..." The rest of the humans say to each other, "Yeah, haha, very obvious, it's circling and neighing, everybody can see that." The rest of the humans, "Yep, pretty obvious, lol." The outsider is miffed and bewildered, confused. "Ummm, sorry guys, I still can't see anything." The humans: "Yep, you must be blind, there's something wrong with this guy's eyes, should have them checked out by a doctor."

At this point, it maybe more worthwhile for the outsider to go along with the Big Lie than try to fight it. Because what does he have to gain, or to lose, from doing so? You may presume at this point that there is a great hierarchy and intelligence that goes into the Big Lie. There are some humans, at the top, who gain the most from the lie and perpetuate it. They know there is no unicorn, but, convince any doubter there is one there anyway. Any rebel or outlaw saying otherwise is shouted down quickly and ruthlessly. The kids intuit the whole ordeal as a game, at first. But later in life, as adults, they have given up on finding the truth of it. They don't know, and frankly, don't care whether the unicorn is there or not. But most humanity pretends and acts as if it were. And this can be dangerous.

And most obviously, this is 'Subjective'.

It is more probable that the said liar in your example convinces the objective one easier than the subjective one. An objective one wants to know what the subjective one denies - objectivity -, and the liar has to refer to objectivity in order to be successful and is part of objectivity to the other two, the listeners, thus also to the subjective one who denies objectivity.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:19 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:1. A pre-existing evolved algorithm embedded in the DNA.

Subatomic particles don't have DNA.
DNA has subatomic particles.

Thus from there on down, your theory is irrelevant.
Where did I state subatomic particles has DNA?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby _A_ » Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:15 am

Arminius wrote:It is more probable that the said liar in your example convinces the objective one easier than the subjective one. An objective one wants to know what the subjective one denies - objectivity -, and the liar has to refer to objectivity in order to be successful and is part of objectivity to the other two, the listeners, thus also to the subjective one who denies objectivity.

There are two objective positions in the example. The first is the outsider who is brought into human civilization, and put in front of the unicorn, and told that it is there. The outsider does not see the unicorn that everybody points to, and claims is there. The outsider is confused and put into a precarious situation. Should the outsider continue to deny the existence of the unicorn, and risk the wrath of the human mob? Or, should he agree that the unicorn is there, but he cannot see it due to some "illness" and deficiency, or that he can in fact see it, and begin to agree with the human mob? The outsider is in a dangerous position.

The other objective position is the human priest and manipulator of nihilism who knows that the unicorn is not actually there, but convinces everybody, including the outsider, that it is there. The priest knows the lie, and benefits from the lie. He knows that god doesn't exist, but that it is profitable for him, and a few others who "share" in the lie, to perpetuate it. The priestly class also convince themselves that it is in the "best interest" of humanity to perpetuate and participate in the lie.

The subjective positions vary. There are the children who don't understand the lie, but treat it as a game. Children are most susceptible to games, fantasy, make believe, imagination, and whatnot. So children gladly participate in the lie, without realizing the consequences. Smarter subjectivists will grow older, and begin to doubt the lie. It begins to not make sense. But they won't be able to rationalize the whole ruse and game. "How is it possible that everybody, my parents, my priest, my loved ones, have all lied to me???" Then there are levels of intelligence. Lower intelligent people, the stupidest ones, most rely on authorities (priest) and cannot distinguish between reality and ideals, between objectivity and subjectivity. So the stupidest ones have no real hope at all to "be objective", and so instead, merely follow. These are the ones who are both most common, and most contributing to the Big Lie. The base, the foundation of humanity. The Human.


On this forum, ilovephilosophy.com, most thinkers here are subjectivists and represent subjectivity. You are all participating in the Big Lie, many of you, without even knowing it or being aware of it. You may have a glimmer, a shudder of doubt, once in awhile. Deja vu, now and then. But you can't put your finger on it. If and when you ever feel suspicious enough, and intelligent enough to recognize patterns, then there maybe distinct and certain points in your lives when you understand that everybody is lying to each other, by different degrees. And those with potential, the more "objective" ones, will take it as a personal, moral responsibility, to begin to distinguish between the 'truth' of the world, and what is the Big Lie. Although this is rarest of all.

Also I want to note that, again, you will accuse me of subjectivity and "being another subjectivist", like yourselves. This is the most predictable form of denial. You will think that I am "just another priest" attempting to convince you, of another form of subjectivity, or a different version. But this isn't true, based on my motivations, which are independent and individual. I'm not here, really, to speak with subjectivists, but to re-direct my ideas toward any objectivists that may exist, past, present, or future. My message is general and expansive, not necessarily right here or now, but elsewhere.

If there is a person who is objective, or as objective as possible (since objectivity is itself objective, a goal, an ideal, a striving toward, a working for, a task, a challenge, an activity of learning, a risk), then I would like to speak to that person, and not the others here.
_A_
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:05 am

_A_ wrote:Also I want to note that, again, you will accuse me of subjectivity and "being another subjectivist", like yourselves. This is the most predictable form of denial. You will think that I am "just another priest" attempting to convince you, of another form of subjectivity, or a different version. But this isn't true, based on my motivations, which are independent and individual. I'm not here, really, to speak with subjectivists, but to re-direct my ideas toward any objectivists that [who] may exist, past, present, or future. My message is general and expansive, not necessarily right here or now, but elsewhere.

If there is a person who is objective, or as objective as possible (since objectivity is itself objective, a goal, an ideal, a striving toward, a working for, a task, a challenge, an activity of learning, a risk), then I would like to speak to that person, and not the others here.

Neither Arminius, nor I am "subjectivist". You might want to consider being a little less presumptuous (the seed of ALL sin).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:34 pm

@ _A_

I am not a subjectivist. I can guarantee you.

It is just true that it is easier for a liar to conivince an objectivist than a subjectivist. You have to be intelligent enough if you want to resist a lie. Children, for example, can be convinced so easily just because they want to become great objectivists - at least normally. They want to know everything about reality. And if they have a teacher who is a liar, then they believe in his lies - at least normally. A dictatorship, regardless whether it is called a "democracy" or not, works in the same way.

You have totally misunderstood me and reacted too spontaneously, too impulsively, too presumptuously, too unintelligently.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:09 pm

James S Saint wrote:
_A_ wrote:Also I want to note that, again, you will accuse me of subjectivity and "being another subjectivist", like yourselves. This is the most predictable form of denial. You will think that I am "just another priest" attempting to convince you, of another form of subjectivity, or a different version. But this isn't true, based on my motivations, which are independent and individual. I'm not here, really, to speak with subjectivists, but to re-direct my ideas toward any objectivists that [who] may exist, past, present, or future. My message is general and expansive, not necessarily right here or now, but elsewhere.

If there is a person who is objective, or as objective as possible (since objectivity is itself objective, a goal, an ideal, a striving toward, a working for, a task, a challenge, an activity of learning, a risk), then I would like to speak to that person, and not the others here.

Neither Arminius, nor I am "subjectivist". You might want to consider being a little less presumptuous (the seed of ALL sin).

Yes. If he had read only some of our posts and given up his presumptuousness, then he would or at least should have known it.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby _A_ » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:11 pm

Infantilism is a universal pathological condition. All evolved organisms, especially humans, begin life and conscious experience from the purely subjective position. The world "revolves around the infant". And so infants never believe that they revolve around the world. Infants are cared for and protected by a mother or guardian. Without this protection (Nurturing) then the infant would shortly die. Therefore all life forms arise from a consciously subjective position. Objectivity comes later, with age, and maturity. It's about receiving, versus giving. It's about consuming, versus producing. Infants receive and consume. They do not give and produce. Therefore giving and production is rarer in nature, and comes with maturity and age.

Objectivity is a function of age, pathologically. An infant can never "be mature" nor "act mature". An infant cannot comprehend existence, as preceding the emergence of its consciousness. Because cognitive development, itself, is objective. It precedes the development of consciousness. Consciousness requires a brain, a mind, a physical body.


The mind-body division, duality, represents the dichotomy created and recreated between subjectivity (mind) and objectivity (body). What the subjectivists and majority of this forum should read, absorb, learn, and accept, is that life is bodily first and mentally second. Consciousness is rarer in life forms. The most common life forms on earth are not humans, not mammals, not even insects, but instead vegetation, plants, trees, algae, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. Plantlife is not "conscious" in the way a mammal and human is. Simple life forms can be broken down and understood chemically. A tree can be completely understood, relative to a human, based on the chemical and physical processes of that tree (photosynthesis, soil composition, nature of the seed, ecology, relationships between oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, etc). Evolved animals are more complex. Intelligence and consciousness is even more so.

Objectivity is, itself, a "goal" as that is synonymous with the term "Objective". When a human becomes "objective" what is meant is that the human must choose, or be forced, to hinder his/her own subjectivity. You must let go, or destroy, those childish and infantile reflexes, to consider, think, and act as-if the infant is the center of its own cosmos and "reality". Instead the rarer position, representing human intelligence and wisdom, is one that begins to place the human as inferior to world and existence. Existence is 'greater' and 'superior' than the human. This requires humility and humiliation, that comes with age.

Death is the ultimate humiliation. Nobody can escape the humiliation of death, spilling your blood out, feeling your life leave your body, weak, stupid, foolish. How many humans give their pitiful lives up in vain or from ignorance? Didn't look both ways before crossing the street? Boom! Your car is flattened by a semi truck. Your "reality" is destroyed, instantly, by an objective world, a world beyond subjectivity. A world that an infant cannot but grasp at.

Subjectivists, due to their poor intelligence and retarded, slower evolution, are always "catching up" to the curve and apex of human potential. Those who are greater, superior, and powerful intellects, will leave other humans behind. Objectivity is itself an objective, to want to learn about the universe and existence, is the rarest of all living traits. And this is the philosophical disposition, to want to learn even when "learning" and understanding the objective world, reality, and existence, is painful. When a truth is unflattering, humiliating, and embarrassing. You were wrong. Not just once, but a thousand times, and a million times. The unicorn is not there. It was not there. It was never there. You were pretending it was there. You partook in the grand lie of society. You participated in the act, the play, the game. You were infantile, yourself, predictably as all otheres were, are, and will continue to be. You cannot escape these social contrivances as long as there are such divisions (of intelligene) in humanity, animals, and all life forms.

A primary difference between humans and nearer mammals is one of Sophistication (of subjective delusions). Humanity takes deception to a profound level, and the power of a lie doesn't only push over single lives, but multiple lifetimes and generations. A lie of not just a few seconds, or a few monthers, or years, or a lifetime, but centuries and millenniums. Humans have the ability to lie, or fall into falsehoods, for thousands of years.

You don't believe me??? How long did humanity believe in magic, and sorcery, and superstition, and that the sun revolves around the earth? How do you know any grand truths, except by accepting and trusting an authority, that you intuit is greater than yourself? How do you become your own authority? How do you discriminate and differentiate the truths from the falsehood? How do you, and humanity, navigate the Big Lie?


It's disappointing. All my words, wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, "progression", learning, and understanding in life is a complete waste of time. I speak a language, these english words, and on this forum, and with person after person after person, none of whom listen or relate with me. Am I so different from humanity, that none else feels or values as I do? Is there none others so concerned about the Objective? Do I have no allies in this lifetime? Do I have no assistance nor cooperation? And I do not. Nobody does listen, grounded in their own "realities" and subjectivity, delusions, prisons, mental cages, fantasies, utopias. It's easy to peer into the mind of an infant, a subjectivist, when and while it makes no effort whatsoever, to approach its own limits of knowledge and ignorance.

The line is black and white, and clear as ever, about what a human can know versus what you cannot know within your lifetime. And as long as humans continue sophistry and ignorance, instead of philosophy and gnosis, knowing about existence, comparing that subjectivity and objectivity, learning the difference, then it will always be easy to see through the minds of humans. It's easy when a human is stupid, ignorant, and clings to such ignorance. It's easy for an infant to cling to its solipsism and fantasy worlds. It is not easy, however, to confront reality, the world beyond humanity, and existence.

Objectivity is rare, and rarest of all. Subjectivity is common and easy. It's too easy to delude and lie to yourselves.

My mind will dance around everybody as long as nobody else takes up the challenge. And maybe nobody will. Maybe the pull of subjectivity is too strong, and it must be returned to, too often. Again it is easy to be subjective and merely opine about existence, then it is to accept the challenge of objectivity and pursue, and attain facts about life. What is science? It is a beginning to philosophy. Prove that there is a unicorn in the room. What constitutes evidence for it? Mere visions? A sighting? A testimony? Trust and faith, alone? What does it look like? Draw it out.

Define your God. Let's all see what you're hiding inside. Let's see your subjectivity, your solipsism, your delusions, your lies, in the open. As if they weren't easy to see from the beginning.
_A_
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby _A_ » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:18 pm

"Science" today is not science. Today "Science" has been stolen by the subjectivists. Instead of trusting your senses, and not thinking twice about the unicorn in the corner, instead humanity took and uses science, a stolen weapon, to "prove" the existence of the unicorn. And so science is directed inward toward the subject, instead of outward toward the object. Instead of using science to understand humanity, the room, and what (probably) exists outside the room, humanity is obsessed with the unicorn in the corner. And so today modern, liberal, and "christian" science all revolve around the unicorn.

The subjectivists here only see science as useful when it pertains to proving the existence of the unicorn, making the unicorn evident, and convincing anybody who doesn't believe in it, about the "fact" of the unicorn.


The unicorn in the corner is a fact, is it not? Yet it is, and you will agree with me. "We all know" the unicorn is there. We can see it, can we not?
_A_
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]