Your morality, or my own?

[Leonid]

GS "See again, there is the link between morality and rationality"

Morality is a code of values accepted by choice. The choice could be rational, that is-based on the objective, metaphysically given standard of value or irrational, disconnected from reality, based on mystical or collectivist premises or simply on the whim. Man has free will and can make any choice. However, contrary to what you think, man cannot survive on the long run if his actions and choices guided by irrational principles. Soon or later he'll face reality check.

[Leonid]

Words are not arbitrary labels, they designate concepts which are results of non-contradictory integration of percepts. They pertain to reality.

When i say words don't have true or false meanings that does not mean they are arbitrary or do not pertain to reality. When you look up the meaning of a word it allows you to understand what it means "in reality" but the meaning cannot be TRUE or FALSE, it just IS.

[Leonid]

When you look up the meaning of a word it allows you to understand what it means "in reality" but the meaning cannot be TRUE or FALSE, it just IS.

If the meaning of the word corresponds to reality it has true-value. It's called corresponding theory of truth.

[Christopher]

phi⋅los⋅o⋅phy  /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -phies.

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

sci⋅ence  /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA

–noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

dictionary.com

GS,

Might not philosophy guide how and what we practice in science... Can science even produce useful or meaningful results without being guided by some philosophical doctrine? What do you consider is the value of philosophy?

Chris

[tjohnson]

Might not philosophy guide how and what we practice in science... Can science even produce useful or meaningful results without being guided by some philosophical doctrine?

Can you give an example?

[tjohnson]

When you look up the meaning of a word it allows you to understand what it means "in reality" but the meaning cannot be TRUE or FALSE, it just IS.

If the meaning of the word corresponds to reality it has true-value. It's called corresponding theory of truth.

OK, which of the following is the TRUE definition of 'freedom'?

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

4. political or national independence.

5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.

9. frankness of manner or speech.

10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.

12. a liberty taken.

13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.

14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).

[Selene]

GS:

Can we make this an essay test?

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

When you look up the meaning of a word it allows you to understand what it means "in reality" but the meaning cannot be TRUE or FALSE, it just IS.

If the meaning of the word corresponds to reality it has true-value. It's called corresponding theory of truth.

OK, which of the following is the TRUE definition of 'freedom'?

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

4. political or national independence.

5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.

9. frankness of manner or speech.

10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.

12. a liberty taken.

13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.

14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).

Freedom has two parts: (1) no initiation of force and (2) what you do with it.

--Brant

[anthony]

When you look up the meaning of a word it allows you to understand what it means "in reality" but the meaning cannot be TRUE or FALSE, it just IS.

If the meaning of the word corresponds to reality it has true-value. It's called corresponding theory of truth.

OK, which of the following is the TRUE definition of 'freedom'?

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

4. political or national independence.

5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.

9. frankness of manner or speech.

10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.

12. a liberty taken.

13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.

14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).

GS,

I hereby promote you to BRIGADIER-General Semantics!

My reply to the 17 versions of freedom would be "most of them". (excluding the mundane - using a friend's library!?).

These 'freedoms' are all a sub-set of one all-inclusive 'Freedom', to my mind.

Tony

(upholding those all important caps)

[tjohnson]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

[merjet]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

Then how is the degree limited? I think generally it is equal freedom for all (with exceptions for those who have violated this standard.) Person X having the "freedom" to harm the freedoms of other people is inconsistent. So the responsibility is to recognize the equal freedoms of others.

[tjohnson]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

Then how is the degree limited? I think generally it is equal freedom for all (with exceptions for those who have violated this standard.) Person X having the "freedom" to harm the freedoms of other people is inconsistent. So the responsibility is to recognize the equal freedoms of others.

Let's use some examples.

Freedom - Responsibility

to drive a car - to show you can drive a car (get a license)

to use roads - to pay for roads upkeep

to use roads - to drive responsibly

to use roads - to maintain vehicle

etc..

Edited February 11, 2010 by general semanticist

[merjet]

Let's use some examples.

Freedom - Responsibility

to drive a car - to show you can drive a car (get a license)

to use roads - to pay for roads upkeep

to use roads - to drive responsibly

to use roads - to maintain vehicle

etc..

Okay, but there are more important examples -- killing, bodily harm, theft, fraud.

[tjohnson]

Let's use some examples.

Freedom - Responsibility

to drive a car - to show you can drive a car (get a license)

to use roads - to pay for roads upkeep

to use roads - to drive responsibly

to use roads - to maintain vehicle

etc..

Okay, but there are more important examples -- killing, bodily harm, theft, fraud.

We have had laws against these things since man started civilization, what about them? We have the freedom to live amongst each other and with it comes the responsibility to not murder each other.

[anthony]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

I agree overall, GS. And one can't have (nor deserves) 'Freedom' without the highest self-reponsibility.

I don't see the contradiction of terms, however.

Another thing, even if -as it seems likely - pure,unadulterated Freedom is an impossible Nirvana, aiming for anything lesser, will get one far less. Let's at least shoot for the stars, to hit the moon.

Tony

[tjohnson]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

I agree overall, GS. And one can't have (nor deserves) 'Freedom' without the highest self-reponsibility.

I don't see the contradiction of terms, however.

Another thing, even if -as it seems likely - pure,unadulterated Freedom is an impossible Nirvana, aiming for anything lesser, will get one far less. Let's at least shoot for the stars, to hit the moon.

Tony

I only meant that complete and total freedom is impossible as you pointed out.

[Christopher]

I only meant that complete and total freedom is impossible as you pointed out.

Not for God, and he seems to be pretty responsible in keeping the universe operating.

Chris

[Xray]

GS:

I only meant that complete and total freedom is impossible as you pointed out.

Christopher: Not for God, and he seems to be pretty responsible in keeping the universe operating.

Do you believe in a god, Christopher?

As for the term "freedom", it is always "freedom from ... ", and "freedom to do ..." . Unless these things are specified in a discussion, people can associate to the term freedom whatever suits them.

Politicians know this and like to use these fudge words in empty drivel, "Freedom!" they intone and are sure to get the audience applauding.

Ba'al Chatzaf: Rand's main error in regard to her smoking, was that she viewed the act of smoking (cigarettes, but not cigars) as symbolizing Man's control of Fire, which is to say Man's control of Nature. Had she seen smoking for what it was, which is Man's inhaling and exhaling chemically loaded filth, she might not have even started to smoke. It was the Romantic view of smoking that eventually killed her.

Selene: Ba'al's insight is true metaphorically, to me. I would add, after reading the Burns' book, that the other "idea" that killed her, was the Romantic ideal of Frank.

Good point. And it may have killed Frank as well.

Imo Rand felt it necessary to do a mental makeover of Frank to justify him as her husband. Hence her presenting him as "John Galt on strike".

As with the smoking issue, Rand tried to carry over her personal fantasies (of "romantic love", with the correesponding heroes) into real life. Since those fantasies had non basis in reality, it had to end in disaster.

WhyNot: The thing is this, Xray, that while not being an Objectivist, you display the identical reaction that most of us are familiar with from youth - the hurt, confusion, and disgust that Rand was not a Saint.

All mature O'ists have got over that. There is a deeply Catholic desire for perfection involved in this, and even (especially)some atheists have not lost it.

Tony,

You are perfectly correct in pointing out the importance of separating the person form the work.

But since I never saw Rand as a saint, hurt and confusion will play a role only for those who had in fact idolized her.

You are also correct in that atheists are in no way immune from expecting perfection from non-transcendent gurus (and, if I may add, from their ideologies as well).

So while these atheists believe to have shed the idea of a god, they have not shed the 'god principle' as such, manifest in their either elevating a philosopher/ideologist on a pedestal and/or believing that the whole ideology is in itself unquestionable and therefore "infallible".

The variable with Rand is that she did not separate her person from her philosophy, but from the afterword in AS, it becomes clear that she believed that she and those close to her were the living proof that it worked. But it didn't work at all. It couldn't work. For no philosophy based on the erroneous premise of objective value is going to work.

WhyNot: So there were contradictions. She wasn't free of error, and very occasionally, of evasion, too; and she was harsh, arrogant, and dismissive in later life.

The contradiction is in the premise "objective value".

If you have doubt about an argument, always go for the premises. Search until you have found the root premise.

If the root premise of an philosophy can be exposed as false, what are the consequences for the philosophy?

Example of another fundamental error:

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between "is" and "ought."(Rand)

But there exists no "ought to" in nature for living entities. A hungry cheetah "ought not" to hunt gazelles for survival - it MUST hunt for survival. A living organism MUST intake sustaining nutrients to ensure its survival, etc.

"Ought to" is out of place in this context.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It seems Rand demonstrated the relationship between "is" and "will"--not "ought." She also illustrated the problems that can arise in polemical writing, her preferred method of exposition. If I am a dog I ought to eat? This solves the "is" "ought" "problem"? This problem is a human problem and we are talking about people. For people the problem schematically actually is "is," "ought," "if." The movie IS showing and you Ought to go see it IF you want to have an enjoyable, life-affirming experience. Or, I am starving and I ought to eat if I want to live.

--Brant

Edited February 12, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

It's almost like they were not objective values

Since those fantasies had non basis in reality, it had to end in disaster.

Adam

[Leonid]

GS on freedom's definition: the definition n.17 includes all the rest 16 of them.

[Leonid]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

I agree overall, GS. And one can't have (nor deserves) 'Freedom' without the highest self-reponsibility.

I don't see the contradiction of terms, however.

Another thing, even if -as it seems likely - pure,unadulterated Freedom is an impossible Nirvana, aiming for anything lesser, will get one far less. Let's at least shoot for the stars, to hit the moon.

Tony

I only meant that complete and total freedom is impossible as you pointed out.

[Leonid]

I don't think you can have rights or freedoms without responsibilities - so total freedom is a contradiction of terms. It's really a question of degree, as usual.

I agree overall, GS. And one can't have (nor deserves) 'Freedom' without the highest self-reponsibility.

I don't see the contradiction of terms, however.

Another thing, even if -as it seems likely - pure,unadulterated Freedom is an impossible Nirvana, aiming for anything lesser, will get one far less. Let's at least shoot for the stars, to hit the moon.

Tony

I only meant that complete and total freedom is impossible as you pointed out.

[Leonid]

GS, whyNOT

Re: freedom and responsibility: the claim that one cannot have freedom without responsibility is self-contradictory-one rejects responsibility exactly because he has freedom to do so. If by irresponsible behavior you mean that one infringes rights of other people, then it's exactly a freedom of his choice to do so gives to us a basis to punish him. That is, freedom is precondition of justice. If you accept GS definition n17 which includes all the rest of definitions, then you'd agree that freedom as intrinsic property of man cannot be conditional, to be part of any package deal.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Leonid

[anthony]

GS, whyNOT

Re: freedom and responsibility: the claim that one cannot have freedom without responsibility is self-contradictory-one rejects responsibility exactly because he has freedom to do so. If by irresponsible behavior you mean that one infringes rights of other people, then it's exactly a freedom of his choice to do so gives to us a basis to punish him. That is, freedom is precondition of justice. If you accept GS definition n17 which includes all the rest of definitions, then you'd agree that freedom as intrinsic property of man cannot be conditional, to be part of any package deal.

Hi Leon,

If I read you right, Freedom is a Primary, not pre-conditional on anything else; or, an inalienable right.

That is an important point, but pertains mainly to the political arena.

The point I'm getting towards is how long will one's freedom last, without self-responsibility? And I don't only mean getting into trouble for infringing the rights of others.

I mean freeing oneself from fellow men: real independence. Maybe I mean 'moral'freedom, as well as 'political'.

The greater the degree of Freedom, the more the onus on a man to think and reason, not less, obviously.

(A bit vague, but I'm working on it.) B)

Tony