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 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’.
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,
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
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
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernica … _(metaphor
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
What are you implying with that post? I’m having a difficult time understanding what you’re stating.
Autsider, I’ll respond to your post late tonight as I have to go to work soon unfortunately.
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.
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.
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?
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.