thecensoredguy

I recently joined up under another name, posted a number of my blog articles concerning my contrary beliefs, and was quickly permanently censored and relegated to the "Garbage Pile". I read the Terms of Use thinking maybe I did something terribly wrong. Other than not providing my real name (which is a silly request since John Smith or Carl Rove would all be acceptable and undetectable alias names) I didn't see any reason I was in a "Garbage Pile". Than I realized that my contrary views might not be an acceptable use of this forum. So I dillgently rechecked the Terms of Use. No, nothing there that says I need to be a following zombie to participate. So I am at a loss. I honestly came here to explore Objectivism from my point of view and politely debate some of Ms. Rand's beliefs. Apparently this forum is not all about "people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects" but rather about being on board. I sent Michael Stuart Kelly a message four days ago and was ignored. Maybe he's busy? Maybe there's an Objectivist holiday that I am unaware of? Rational Intolerance Day? Who knows - it's his forum and the Kings always get the final say. In the interim, I rejoined today under this name: Censored Guy - it's not an alias it's an axiomatic truth. To get my last word in before I am deleted (or before I am sent to some other pile - maybe the Defiant Pile), I will post the below relevant article I have written here and there on the forum (it will probably take Mr Kelly ten minutes to delete it all or move it all to the Garbage Pile or he may even create a new forum entitled simply "Censored" - which would make more sense to me). I will post it here first and then on my blog (www.amosknows.com), such that the time it is posted at each place will eliminate any potential or feigned fears that I plagiarized the text. If you happen to get to read it before it's in the some "Pile", I welcome your comments (be aware that any agreement with what I have said and you may find yourself in the Garbage Pile as well). Or if you are so inclined you can email me at amosknows@gmail.com. Once it's gone so am I (sad) as I will not be censored twice and rejoin a third time (even Plato would have left the Academy if Socrates kept kicking him out!) Sincerely yours, The Censored Guy ON AYN RANDS FOUNDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Nothing on this material earth is finite. From a scientific point of view human life, our environment, and the earth itself are all subject to a final end. Not necessarily in the destruction of the universe, or even the underlying matter itself, but most likely by way of a reorganization or our universe, our solar system, our sun, or our planet. Any such reorganization could effectively eliminate the conditions which could support any life at all. Among the scientific community it is undisputed that the purpose of biological life is reproduction toward procreation. That survival is a primary function of not only the living organism on our planet but in a sense the interconnected environment which permits life to exists and further procreate. While the system exists and life continues there is a value to a life. Which is simply translated to mean that a life can create another life and further the functionality and existence of the human life itself. Nevertheless, in our environment this value only exists as long as the system itself continues. Other than a continuation of life and a continuation of genetic material human life itself has no other infinite valuable component. Pleasure, pain, emotion (and even condition) are all components which exist only within the environment and which therefore exhibit an identical transient nature. Human life could only have infinite value if somehow humans could transcend our current environment and our eventual death. Or, within this environment, if man could evolve physically such that his death would no longer be inevitable. Any such evolution would require either evolution and a stagnant environment or evolution which evolved with the changing environment itself. While it's possible to believe that physical evolution could create some transcendent physical being or an infinite biological life, we can probably agree that neither of these events are either likely or potentially even possible given our current knowledge. The grander picture, therefore, of what is valuable, can only be examined in the context of (not our environment or our reality) but in the context of the totality of our circumstance. To say that things have “value” for living creatures in an environment with a potential or certain end is to simply say that they have value now, and only now. Or that they have value so long as the chain of procreation and the continuation of life can be maintained. What's more, within our environment itself value is similarly transient to life. Certainly an apple pie may be valuable to a living creature, but if that living creature dies, than the value automatically ceases to exist. We can accordingly say that on a macro level value is dependent on the continuation and procreation of life and the sustenance of the encompassing environment which supports life. Similarly, on a micro level we can say that the value of any object only exists while that object exists and/or while the life that values it exists. Under either of these paths value is illusionary. The apple pie only has value until it's eaten or until the life that values it dies or until the system which supports life no longer exists. “Value “ is therefore relative to both the existence of the object and to actually being alive. If this is the case for any life that will die there is nor real infinite value to anything. The value of everything material is accordingly transient. Seeing that all of existence and all of life has no real infinite value is essential to moving from a focus on material items and material existence and self-survival to something else that could actually have potential infinite value. We can endlessly debate about whether there is or is not some non-biological component of you which can or will transcend your human life. But for the moment let's simply define “spirit” or “soul” within you as all those things which encompass your consciousness. These would include your personality, your thought patterns, your feelings, you wants and desires, and your values. The things which ultimately influence your behavior. Given this definition, we can clearly see that those things which are the substance of your soul are changeable. And in fact they inevitably change over time. Consequently, what you value also changes over time. When you are a child a big red ball may have tremendous value that changes as (and when) you become and adult. In fact as an adult the same previously enormously valuable big red ball may have no value at all. Therefore, values are also dependent on your soul (as defined above). If your soul changes, so too will your values. In addition, values can change via circumstance. If I just ate a large meal and am fully satiated, the value of a big fat steak is severely diminished - and potentially eliminated. This changeability further exhibits that values are essentially illusionary. Specifically in the first instance they are finite and in the second instance they are subject to changing internal and external conditions. In examining the philosophy of Ayn Rand, we must accordingly look first to the relative importance she places on the “value” of things in relation to behavior. If we recognize that the value of all things is both subjective and illusionary, than we must immediately question how this foundation should be the basis for how we ultimately behave? Or more importantly how we ultimately behave in a moral fashion? To focus singularly on the value of an object in relation to self is to act upon things which are illusionary. Yet Rand states that the achievement of one's own happiness (based upon the values we place on objects) is the highest moral purpose. She specifically defines happiness to mean “that state of unconsciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.” According to Rand we can define rational thought as an ability to make a choice and act accordingly based upon our values (as opposed to actions which are taken without a thought process). However, this definition specifically contradicts her concurrent (but seemingly unbeknownst to her) idea that rational thought is as an ability to think about actions and avoid our instinctual programming (that is common in all animals). In my opinion, the only thing that separates us from animals is in fact an ability to rationally think about our potential behavior outside the confines of our otherwise instinctual behavioral programs. This ability lets us assign purely instinctual wants and desires in to categories of “good” and “bad”; of moral and immoral. Moral behavior is there nor based upon the “value” or potential value that we assign to an object. It is instead based upon the distinction between (A) obtaining that object we value instinctually (without rational thought - often by any and all means) or (B) obtaining that object we value by adding rational thought to our decisions (which includes an examination of the consequences of obtaining that object) and or © the conscious forfeiture of that object we value (that we want and desire) as a result of a rational conclusion that obtaining the object would either (i) injure or harm another human being or even another life or (ii) actually help or further another human being or even another life. Rand was specifically aware that acts which arose without rational thought were purely instinctual when she called such an origin “that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought”. She understood that these instinctual programs were the “secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence”. She also realized that avoiding these programs was not “automatic” and that people who operated without reason (animals alone) could themselves not be reasoned with when she said: “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”. Evidence that she intuitively understood that people acting on instinctual programs alone did not use rational thought prior to behavior. And that these animals could not consequently be reasoned with themselves. Despite this understanding, she fails to recognize that man's irrationality is not “the rejection of man's means of survival” but rather an inability (or conscious omission) to rationally think about that survival (and wants, needs and desires) in terms of it's consequence to the survival of other human beings (and to act accordingly). In other words, a rational human being is not acting on his values alone, but rather on his values in relation to the values and conditions of others. This examination includes an understanding that there is a difference between the value we place on an object and our actual needs and understanding that the value we place on any object is temporal. Consequently, while some of her premises are correct, her ultimate conclusions are invalid and clearly contradict some of her own foundational beliefs. Any philosophy which shifts the focus from avoiding wants and desires and self to a focus on individual wants and desires and self is actually supporting the opposite of rational thought. This is exemplified by the fact that many actions which would further our own values or survival we intuitively deem to be immoral. These include killing, stealing, etc. While Rand reaches the proper conclusions regarding what drives our behavior (either emotional (i.e. instinctual) influences or rational (conscious) influences, she nevertheless ultimately erroneously concludes that rationality is the basis for (not a relinquishment of our survival instincts) but rather a means of achieving one's own individual survival. Rational thought, in fact, should be the basis for actions which are contrary to one's survival but which either support humanity as a whole or which support other individual humans. In short. she was at the cliff of understanding and then suddenly jumped off.