The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

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.

There is no way you can extricate the ‘subject’ which is a part of reality from reality. That is why I ask you to deal with this

From the above, you will have to deal with this;

When your definition of Objectivity is as follows;
“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.”
you are slotting your objectivity towards the ontological realm [philosophical realism] as presented in the above.

When you fit your objectivity into an ontological realm your survival-based objectivity is a contradiction. i.e. oxymoron.
Survival is grounded on the subject, thus cannot relate to an ontological objectivity.

The only way to reconcile ‘survival’ [inevitably of a subject] with objectivity is via inter-subjectivity, i.e. objectivity [practical] is shared-subjectivity. For example, Scientific theories are objective but conditioned within shared-subjectivity within a human-agreed and human-sustained Framework and System of Science.

But since I am not Only human, my survival [humanity preservation of the species] is interdependent with other living things and non-living things. Since there is interdependence what we need to optimize within the existing constraints with empathy and compassion.

Note the concept of synergy. i.e. 1 + 1 = ‘3’.
The general rule with humans or living things is co-operation, i.e. teamwork [normal] will generate synergy.

Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts.

Yes, it was a man’s limitations that lead to technological advancement (from weapons, to microscopes, to antibiotics, to planes, etc.)

Well, since we touched on the objectivity outside of our desires as living creatures, what would you say to the theory that the function of life (in terms of energy transfer) is to expedite entropy?

Ecological Energy Pyramid:
youtube.com/watch?v=SVs7brlVOzU

Into the Cool:
youtube.com/watch?v=pqM8_avavis

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901880

Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=hJrdQt2nZwg

Prismatic,

I agree with that.

Every subject is forced to interact in the objective world (meaning, world existing independently of subjective perception, aka of being perceived by some particular subject) with other subjects and objects. And all subjects are also necessarily objects, but not all objects are subjects. The survival of a subject depends on its interaction with the objective world. To avoid confusion, a subjective world wouldn’t, exactly, be a world. A more precise wording would be that it is a subjective construction of an imaginary fantasy world, and that it is subjective means that it is based on the subject’s nature and experiences, and since the subject experiences the objective world and the subject’s nature is shaped by the objective world, the subjective construction will also necessarily resemble the objective world. The extent to which it resembles it depends on how the subject decides to combine particular elements into a whole. Thus the word “objective” before world is really redundant, but I use it to differentiate it from what most people would call a “subjective world”.

My main point is that the accuracy and validity of subjective opinions/preference/perceptions etc. are to be judged against the objective world.
This goes against the idea that what is objective should be judged by subjective human standards.

Scientific theories are valid to the extent they accurately account for the current state of affairs and have predictive power about future states of affairs. Whether a particular human ‘likes’ the scientific theory or not doesn’t affect its validity. How what the theory says relates to the world, does affect its validity.

If something is inter-subjective it just means it is shared by and dependent on multiple subjects. It still doesn’t make it objective (independent of subjects).

Yes, I agree with that, though it might sound strange and counter-intuitive or even straight up illogical. But I’ve had the same idea and it makes sense. I guess it is because the element of cooperation adds that extra something which makes the whole greater than just the sum of its parts would be. But I also think it takes away something as well, so in the end it is balanced… Let me explain what I mean.

The example I had in mind was 2 groups of 10 people. In 1st group each of the ten people would be specialized in one area of their interest and thus extremely productive in that area both qualitatively and quantitatively, and all people would cooperate and exchange whatever they have. In the 2nd group there is no cooperation and everybody becomes a jack-of-all trades but master of none. For the sake of simplicity, say it is an ancient society and the areas of interest are jobs like blacksmith, hunter, tailor, cook, etc. In the first group where everybody cooperates, that group’s hunter/blacksmith/etc. would be superior in hunting skill to all members of the other group, because the only thing he has to do and does, is hunt, whereas in the other group everybody hunts but nobody is exceptionally proficient at it. The same goes for every profession. Now say that each person has the capacity to produce 10 items they need. This would mean that in the first group, a hunter would produce 10 items of meat, a blacksmith 10 items of equipment, etc. etc. But because they are proficient at it, all of those items would be of higher quality than the items of the second group. And in the second group each person has to do a little bit of everything, so it is all poorly done, as everybody has to hunt their own meat, produce their own equipment, etc. The advantage of the first group is general higher quality of goods, so they are more prosperous. The advantage of the second group, however, would be that all the members are independent of one another, whereas in the first group all the members are highly dependent on one another. So in the case that the social order breaks apart and each member is forced to fend for themselves there is a higher possibility they might not be able to do so.

But I think that the 2nd group example is also an unrealistic one because if the members of the second group don’t cooperate, the members of the first group would conquer them easily. And if they didn’t cooperate they would possibly try to kill one another too, instead of just staying out of each other’s way.

Not true.

The “subject”, John, is alive and surviving whether he knows it, agrees with it, or denies it … objectively.

See what I mean?

What on earth does this have to do with human interactions that come into conflict over moral values?

In other words, why cannot folks on both sides of any particular political conflagration embrace this assumption?

In my view, this is another classic diversionary tactic of the objectivists. I wish to explore objectivism pertaining to human behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments, and, instead, they want the focus to be on…apples?

And, on the contrary, my argument is not that my feet are planted firmly on the ground here, but that the ground is ever shifting historically, culturally, experientially. That moral values are rooted in contingency, chance and change. In dasein. In conflicting arguments said to be reasonable given certain assumptions. In political contexts whereby what counts is not what you believe is true “in your head” but on that which you are able to enforce “out in the world” with others.

What then is this “reality” that you speak of when actual flesh and blood men and women do come to embody disagreements in their interactions?

Again, I always imagine folks like you confronting people on opposite sides of any particular political conflagration. You point out to them there what you have pointed out to me here.

Just imagine their reaction!!!

In my opinion, it is precisely the manner in which you insist that philosophy must be encompassed in these scholastic intellectual contraptions that it is seen to be less and less relevant to the world in which, existentially, we go about the business of actually living our lives.

Is it even possible to be further removed from the point that I am making?

Instead, my aim is basically to take Nietzsche’s speculation about “beyond good and evil” out into a Godless world occupied by mere mortals.

How ought one to live in such a world?

Is there a way in which – deontologically, naturally, ideally, rationally, logically, epistemologically etc. – philosophers are able to advise us?

What are the limitations of philosophy here?

Absolutely nothing. This is because this thread isn’t about you, what is of interest to you, but about whether certain choices are objective or not.

You are hijacking this thread, in the same manner that you do with every other thread, because you want to make everything about yourself, your own problems, while pretending you’re dealing with the subject.

Yet I have done this over and over and over again:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This is what I construe to be the “foundations of subjectivism”.

Why? Because it roots my subjective assessment of moral and political values in the actual existential trajectory of my lived life.

Yes, I “copy and paste” this particular example time and again. And that is because it was this precise context in which my own “foundations of objectivism” began to crumble.

Which is why I ask folks like you to explore a value judgment of your own as it evolved over the course of your life.

Only, come on, how many actual experiences have you had at, what, 20 years of age?

In my view, your whole argument is basically a “world of words”.