The ultimate ethical dilemma


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

Ex-mystical intricist? What the hell is that?

How could I refuse such an elegantly worded question? ;)

Intrinsicism is one of three fundamental schools of thought, the others being

Subjectivism and Objectivism.

AR: "The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality,

independent of man's consciousness."

"The subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality."

A commonly used example of intrinsicism is the statement "Water is good."

But 'good' for whom? In what context? If one is thirsty, water is good -

if one has lungs full of water, not so good. (Same for guns being "good"/"bad".)

The doctrine, at core, claims that the truth is revealed to one, instantly and

effortlessly. (Somehow.) Which gives rise to its mystical form, which every

religion espouses: i.e. 'Divine Revelation' from God - via an epiphany, or a Book, or a Holy Man.

With the "ex-"(mystical intrinsicist) I referred to Rand's insights in 'ItOE' that historically, men have swung between intrinsicism and skepticism ( which is basically the belief that knowledge or morality is not possible to one; it's also subjectivist, in that whatever one wishes to be so - or what the collective has consensus on - is 'right' and true) although both parties are apparently ignorant of the fact that they are one and the same animal, epistemically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just for the record, "you or anyone else" is a pretty clear grouping. And since, in English, we read from left to right, the mind naturally groups ideas in the order they are presented, especially when using conjunctions ("and," "or," "as well as," "but," etc.).

After all, the purpose of conjunctions is to join together. When you join things together, they become a grouping.

If the intent is not to group, then another way of writing the message is in order.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex-mystical intricist? What the hell is that?

How could I refuse such an elegantly worded question? ;)

Intrinsicism is one of three fundamental schools of thought, the others being Subjectivism and Objectivism.

AR: "The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality,independent of man's consciousness."

"The subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality."

A commonly used example of intrinsicism is the statement "Water is good."

But 'good' for whom? In what context? If one is thirsty, water is good -if one has lungs full of water, not so good. (Same for guns being "good"/"bad".)

The doctrine, at core, claims that the truth is revealed to one, instantly and effortlessly. (Somehow.) Which gives rise to its mystical form, which every religion espouses: i.e. 'Divine Revelation' from God - via an epiphany, or a Book, or a Holy Man.

With the "ex-"(mystical intrinsicist) I referred to Rand's insights in 'ItOE' that historically, men have swung between intrinsicism and skepticism ( which is basically the belief that knowledge or morality is not possible to one; it's also subjectivist, in that whatever one wishes to be so - or what the collective has consensus on - is 'right' and true) although both parties are apparently ignorant of the fact that they are one and the same animal, epistemically.

Sounds like a fun word to toss around. Hehe. If anything, I love to be blunt. It clears out the cobwebs and the assumption that others are in the loop. Crude? Yes. Effective? Hell yes. Fundamental schools of thought, you say? I've never heard them be put that way. Heck, I've never even considered "intrinsicism" to be an alternative to "subjectivism" and "objectivism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc.

--Brant

To expand upon that, what matters is whether it is truthful or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc.

--Brant

You don't accept the implicit philosophical premises behind politics, religion, etc. - or simply individual acts, 'good' and 'bad'?

I could not disagree more.

Those 'labels' you mention are visible to me, in various combinations, every

single day in my society, at every level.(Could be, here they are so raw and uncamouflaged, they are more blatant than where you are. Either way, I know

they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc. --Brant

You don't accept the implicit philosophical premises behind politics, religion, etc. - or simply individual acts, 'good' and 'bad'? I could not disagree more. Those 'labels' you mention are visible to me, in various combinations, every single day in my society, at every level. (Could be, here they are so raw and uncamouflaged, they are more blatant than where you are. Either way, I know they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I don't know about where you live, whYNOT, but these 'intrinsicists' or 'subjectivists' are just people who are only surface-level in this kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure they do not disbelieve the notion of a single unifying reality. Sure, they may act like it, but when push comes to shove they will drop such pretenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc.

--Brant

You don't accept the implicit philosophical premises behind politics, religion, etc. - or simply individual acts, 'good' and 'bad'?

I could not disagree more.

Those 'labels' you mention are visible to me, in various combinations, every

single day in my society, at every level.(Could be, here they are so raw and uncamouflaged, they are more blatant than where you are. Either way, I know

they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I'm talking about thinking. Labeling is legit, but consequent to thinking. It is not thinking as such.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc.

--Brant

To expand upon that, what matters is whether it is truthful or not?
Exactly, absolutely. There are many 'truths' around, which either means there exist many 'realities', or that there are a lot of untrue philosophical premises and wrongful reasoning.

(Or a large amount of dishonesty.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though is thought, reason is reason, logic is logic. That other stuff alluded to above is just labeling some consequences of identifications. There is no such thing as objective, subjective and intrinsicist thinkings. There is no such thing as mystical thinking. There is rational and irrational, logical and illogical and even leaps of faith reasoning investigations, etc.

--Brant

You don't accept the implicit philosophical premises behind politics, religion, etc. - or simply individual acts, 'good' and 'bad'?

I could not disagree more.

Those 'labels' you mention are visible to me, in various combinations, every

single day in my society, at every level.(Could be, here they are so raw and uncamouflaged, they are more blatant than where you are. Either way, I know

they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I'm talking about thinking. Labeling is legit, but consequent to thinking. It is not thinking as such.

--Brant

Got ya: "It is not thinking as such."

However, how influential is any given premise on one's thinking?

Agreed, in pure, rigorous thought, the identification follows from the observation and thinking. But it doesn't quite work that way, does it?

Not when it comes to these 'schools of thought'. I tend to think that if each young person were left to their own devices about appraisal of reality, they could probably do well.

As it is, one is born into families, cultures and societies which influence

one's early, growing convictions.

Each of those 'false schools' has a top-down, copy-cat power, I think - (which is precisely why they have endured) - conflicting with the reason and logic of that individual. (His/her cognitive confusion and often, inevitable copping out is not anything one wants to witness or experience.)

False and mixed premises stick; ongoing self-justification keeps them alive.

What came first: a philosophical premise, or the individual's independent reasoning?

Label, or product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I know they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I don't know about where you live, whYNOT, but these 'intrinsicists' or 'subjectivists' are just people who are only surface-level in this kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure they do not disbelieve the notion of a single unifying reality. Sure, they may act like it, but when push comes to shove they will drop such pretenses.
:smile: You have got to tell me where you live - I'm on my way over.

I've nothing against this premise of (pleasantly innocent) good-will to people, but I'm seeing "push come to shove" in many places in the world - and all that happens

is more pushing and shoving.

(No act, and not surface-level.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I know they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I don't know about where you live, whYNOT, but these 'intrinsicists' or 'subjectivists' are just people who are only surface-level in this kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure they do not disbelieve the notion of a single unifying reality. Sure, they may act like it, but when push comes to shove they will drop such pretenses.
:smile: You have got to tell me where you live - I'm on my way over.I've nothing against this premise of (pleasantly innocent) good-will to people, but I'm seeing "push come to shove" in many places in the world - and all that happensis more pushing and shoving.(No act, and not surface-level.)
Well, dropping pretenses might be a broader statement than I'd like it to be and you might use it differently than me, so I'll give you an example. I have a friend who fancies herself to be a nihilist. My thoughts on this are that she is full of it, especially now. As with most high schools, most of the students who expressed any care about politics are social liberals, and of course they have a cultural relatavism complex (this is moral accurate than 'moral relatavist). I can't recall any specific instances of this, but I know that when I carry scenarios out to the absurdmurder, for instancethis cultural relatavism no longer applies. I feign cynicism in what comes off as a cynical world, but at heart I am still an idealist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about thinking. Labeling is legit, but consequent to thinking. It is not thinking as such.

Brant,

This is a premise I have been checking for some time. Rand made an exception in her theory of concepts for proper names. No real reason given other than a concept needs 2 units or more and that was because she said so.

When I think of the highly-myelinated neural pathways that result from knowing a person and being able to recall countless things about that person, including what he or she has done, and this knowledge is easily accessed in memory by thinking the person's very name, it looks to me like Rand's exception--and possibly some details of her algebra-basis of concepts--needs some work.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unconscious thinking triggered by this and that and "monsters from the Id" is great stuff, that's not how you ratiocinators are trying to answer my unanswerable-because-they-are-true cogitated asseverations.

--Brant

back to my studies

that's all I'm good for before breakfast

(smokescreen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I know they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I don't know about where you live, whYNOT, but these 'intrinsicists' or 'subjectivists' are just people who are only surface-level in this kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure they do not disbelieve the notion of a single unifying reality. Sure, they may act like it, but when push comes to shove they will drop such pretenses.
:smile: You have got to tell me where you live - I'm on my way over.I've nothing against this premise of (pleasantly innocent) good-will to people, but I'm seeing "push come to shove" in many places in the world - and all that happensis more pushing and shoving.(No act, and not surface-level.)
Well, dropping pretenses might be a broader statement than I'd like it to be and you might use it differently than me, so I'll give you an example. I have a friend who fancies herself to be a nihilist. My thoughts on this are that she is full of it, especially now. As with most high schools, most of the students who expressed any care about politics are social liberals, and of course they have a cultural relatavism complex (this is moral accurate than 'moral relatavist). I can't recall any specific instances of this, but I know that when I carry scenarios out to the absurdmurder, for instancethis cultural relatavism no longer applies. I feign cynicism in what comes off as a cynical world, but at heart I am still an idealist.
Interesting, and a very credible example from real life. The permutations of individuals are

endless indeed. What it boils down to though, is: what is her deepest premise(s). (Anyone can assume a position temporarily they think is unconformist and rebellious, after all.) How committed to it is she? If it can be discarded so casually, then what will replace it?**

Objectivism has the device, sometimes too loosely applied imo, of "mixed premises".

Since nobody can exist long completely out of touch with reality, everybody is rational to

some degree, and everybody practises self-interest at some point. This allows one to hold

a principle in one area, and contradict it in another. There's plenty evidence to support mixed premises.

Time is the big leveler, I think: since the aggregate of your most consistent thoughts and acts eventually become what you are,

given time - I think. Justice in reality.

And as I'm sure you have worked out, cynicism and idealism are often different sides of the same coin.

[**Rand said that if you do not have a consciously volitional philosophy you are unknowingly living by someone else's philosophy. Or words to that effect.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I know they are precisely the same labels, here, as there.)

I don't know about where you live, whYNOT, but these 'intrinsicists' or 'subjectivists' are just people who are only surface-level in this kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure they do not disbelieve the notion of a single unifying reality. Sure, they may act like it, but when push comes to shove they will drop such pretenses.
:smile: You have got to tell me where you live - I'm on my way over.I've nothing against this premise of (pleasantly innocent) good-will to people, but I'm seeing "push come to shove" in many places in the world - and all that happensis more pushing and shoving.(No act, and not surface-level.)
Well, dropping pretenses might be a broader statement than I'd like it to be and you might use it differently than me, so I'll give you an example. I have a friend who fancies herself to be a nihilist. My thoughts on this are that she is full of it, especially now. As with most high schools, most of the students who expressed any care about politics are social liberals, and of course they have a cultural relatavism complex (this is moral accurate than 'moral relatavist). I can't recall any specific instances of this, but I know that when I carry scenarios out to the absurdmurder, for instancethis cultural relatavism no longer applies. I feign cynicism in what comes off as a cynical world, but at heart I am still an idealist.
Interesting, and a very credible example from real life. The permutations of individuals areendless indeed. What it boils down to though, is: what is her deepest premise(s). Anyone can assume a position temporarily they think is cool and rebellious, after all. How committed to it is she? If it can be discarded so casually, then what will replace it?**Objectivism has the device, sometimes too often applied imo, of "mixed premises".Since nobody can exist long completely out of touch with reality, everybody is rational tosome degree, and everybody practises self-interest at some point. This allows one to holda principle in one area, and contradict it in another. There's plenty evidence to support it.Time is the big leveler since the aggregate of your thoughts and acts eventually become what you are,given time - I think.As I think you have worked out, cynicism and idealism are often different sides of the same coin.[**Rand said that if you do not have a consciously volitional philosophy you are unknowingly living by someone else's philosophy. Or words to that effect.]

I "mix my premises" up everyday. I take what I agree with or what I think is sensible and add that to my world views. When it comes down to things, I am very serious about knowing I agree with and I don't strongly adopt many values that other people have that I am aware of. My 'surface' attitudes are a different entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... back to my studies

Brant,

Imagine "story concepts." After all, a story is an abstraction.

How about if a story could be a conceptual unit?

Each instance of a routine--like brushing your teeth (a mini-story)--could easily be a unit.

In such a case, instead of a proper name referring to a single individual (a single entity) based solely on perception and then it's done, it would refer to an individual who is known by a vast number of concepts.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are presented with two buttons. If you press the red button, someone close to you dies. If you push the blue button, a random person dies. If you press neither within a certain amount of time both die. What to do?

My reaction might be to let the timer run out, because I cannot knowingly condemn someone to death by my actions. If someone did opt to press the red button, I would not blame them, but I might not call it ethical.

This is not an ethical dilemma since it represents a quasi-choice which is not a choice at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it does not pertain to reality, it's irrational. If it's irrational, it's immoral.

Tony,

This is one of the double-speak things Rand sometimes does and it is a trap.

This kind of trap is the result of a thinking whose "either - or rigorism" does not allow for "both .. . and" scenarios.

From the premise that "rationality is man's basic virtue", it logically follows that irrationality must be man's basic vice and therefore immoral.

Equating the rational with the moral is also an example of a thinking error: personal ethical preferences are presented as if they were undisputed truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it does not pertain to reality, it's irrational. If it's irrational, it's immoral.

Tony,

This is one of the double-speak things Rand sometimes does and it is a trap.

This kind of trap is the result of a thinking whose "either - or rigorism" does not allow for "both .. . and" scenarios.

From the premise that "rationality is man's basic virtue", it logically follows that irrationality must be man's basic vice and therefore immoral.

Equating the rational with the moral is also an example of a thinking error: personal ethical preferences are presented as if they were undisputed truths.

Personal ethical preferences simply mean a subjective morality.Your objection implies that morality is a matter of opinion and there is no difference between Ayn Rand and Stalin. Both represent disputed untruths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal ethical preferences simply mean a subjective morality.Your objection implies that morality is a matter of opinion and there is no difference between Ayn Rand and Stalin. Both represent disputed untruths.

Speaking of an individual's "personal ethical preferences", was a statement of fact. It says nothing about how this person came to develop these specific values, and what kind of values they are. Nor does it sugggest that one set of values is just as good (or bad) as the other because they are just personal opinions.

The actual task would be to examine the person's arguments re the moral values he/she has chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it does not pertain to reality, it's irrational. If it's irrational, it's immoral.

Tony,

This is one of the double-speak things Rand sometimes does and it is a trap.

This kind of trap is the result of a thinking whose "either - or rigorism" does not allow for "both .. . and" scenarios.

From the premise that "rationality is man's basic virtue", it logically follows that irrationality must be man's basic vice and therefore immoral.

Equating the rational with the moral is also an example of a thinking error: personal ethical preferences are presented as if they were undisputed truths.

Uh-uh. You've got that in reverse. Rather this -" Undisputed truths (man's basic autonomy

and his volition) are presented as his morality".

Where's the "thinking error"? Or, trap?

( Xray, whether it's agreeable to you or not, are you still not getting this?)

Rational vs Irrational; moral vs immoral - sets the boundaries from which one can freely operate.

For example, that one appreciates and practises rational selfishness primarily, will free one to

choose to be truly compassionate.

Otherwise, compassion is a hard-wired instinct involving no choice (no morality iow) - and we must sacrifice our lives to it, by way of coercion or guilt. (Or, coercion by guilt.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, dropping pretenses might be a broader statement than I'd like it to be and you might use it differently than me, so I'll give you an example. I have a friend who fancies herself to be a nihilist. My thoughts on this are that she is full of it, especially now.

From a philosophical perspective, it would interest me how deep the nihilism of your friend runs. Is it a 'cosmic' nihilism that denies any sense to existence as such?

Or is it a kind of nihilism that is closer related to frustration/cynicism/sarcasm about the many horrible things that are happening in our world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now