The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

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.

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

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

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

Re abortion, for example, maximizing the survival of the baby or of the pregnant woman intent on killing it?

The solution lies in understanding the concept of objectivity.

Objectivity means confronting one’s object of perception directly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or it means seeing less than one is seeing by covering the undesirable features using one’s imagination.

This is true. What I am saying is far removed from the places that you want to take it to. But have you ever asked yourself why is this so?

I am fully aware that you are inclined to think that the reason what I am saying is far removed from the places that you want to take it to is because I am looking away from reality towards fantasy.

But how can you be sure this is so?

How do you know that it is me and not you who is looking away from reality?

My opinion, which is also a fact, is that it is me who is facing reality and you who are looking away from it.

You have somehow managed to convince yourself that you are standing with your feet firmly on the ground. But you aren’t.

Please, let me explain why.

Suppose that our object of perception is an apple nicely situated on a table.

We want to know what the color of this apple is.

The simplest way to do so would be to come close to it and use our eyes to perceive its color.

This would be the most direct manner to perceive its color.

The other way to find out about its color is through social interaction. You can, for example, ask others what they think is the color of that apple.

This would be an indirect manner to find out about its color.

Whereas in the former case the object of our perception is an apple, in the latter case it is a human opinion.

I hope you will agree that in the former case we are confronting reality directly whereas in the latter case we are trying to do the same but using a path that isn’t straight.

Now, if you can confront reality directly, by looking at the apple using your own eyes, there is no reason to use an indirect approach.

This is why I am not taking what I am saying to the places that you want to take to.

It’s unnecessary.

Moreover, in your case, you are not interested in reality, but in your own inability to handle disagreements.

You don’t want to perceive reality. No, you want me to explain to you why other people’s opinions are wrong.

I am sorry iambiguous, but I still have no idea what you would consider an acceptable answer that would have you actually respond to its content instead of copy pasting the same thing over and over again.

Perhaps you could help me out and give me an example of what you consider “down to earth”.

The problem with Biguous is that he cannot preserve true propositions in the face of false propositions.

He’s easily fooled into giving up on truth by opposing opinions.

He’s quite simply unable to handle disagreements.

What he’s asking is for someone to help him handle disagreements but without requiring too much of his effort.

The act of cooperating is a sign that an individual cannot achieve its goals (e.g. survive) without it.

Cooperation is merely one of the abilities organisms use in order to achieve their goals.

To say that cooperation is a sign of weakness is the same as saying that brain (or any other organ or ability) is a sign of weakness.

Very strange statement.

I insist that the ability to cooperate should be seen as a sign of strength, and that its absence, as in the case of lions, should be seen as a sign of weakness (which is why we can easily dominate lions.)

Cooperation signifies weakness in that the organism is unable to achieve its goals on its own… like you said. But yes, cooperation itself is a strength in that it is a compensation for that weakness. But because it is a compensation, it indicates that there is a weakness you are compensating for by cooperating.

And yes, even a brain, although it gives an advantage of mental strength, suggests that the organism is weak in some other way so it had to develop a brain and cooperate to compensate for that weakness.

You could also turn it around and say that tigers and bears and others solitary, powerful predators had to develop big power bodies and dangerous claws and teeth to compensate for their lack of brain and lack of an ability to cooperate.

My intent wasn’t to “shame” any particular strategy or adaptation, I just tell it like I see it and try to make sense of things.