samr

Objectivism believes that man is inherently an individum, and a creature fit for independence. But, since a human being could never survive on his own (we are all born babies), it shows that connection with other human beings is a primary condition of existence. Therefore, man, is primarily a dependent entity, not an independent one. Second, objectivists argue that "a right to have clothes, shelter and food" is not a right. But, without these survival is impossible, therefore the need to have clothes, shelter and food is in the nature of man. This is part of what makes the whole concept of rights possible. Since life is a primary concept, and it is possible to speak of our actions only if we do have a life at all, whatever is necessary to protect our life is morally right, even if it comes at the expense of other human beings.

I, personally, do not understand how his principles can be deduced from reality. They negate all the scientific method of observation and hypothesis. Probably there is a problem with the scientific method. (The scientific method of observing the relative success of PeterKeatings versus HowardRoarks would never lift of the ground. Empirically, you wouldn't even be able to define a "HowardRoark" versus a "PeterKeating". I think that the empirical method (implicitly) treats the human being as a black box. All the variables in a scientific test have to be "objectively" measured. Ands objectively means "able to be measured by instruments". While I consider the following assessment as real, it is not what science calls "objective" I often think that he's the only one of us who's achieved immortality. I don't mean in the sense of fame and I don't mean that he won't die some day. But he's living it. I think he is what the conception really means. You know how people long to be eternal. But they die with every day that passes. When you meet them, they're not what you met last. In any given hour, they kill some part of themselves. They change, they deny, they contradict--and they call it growth. At the end there's nothing left, nothing unreversed or unbetrayed; as if there had never been an entity, only a succession of adjectives fading in and out on an unformed mass. How do they expect a permanence which they have never held for a single moment? But Howard--one can imagine him lasting forever." Also, all empirical methods could do is generate a certainity. HowardRoarks succeed in a certain environment more than PterKeatings with a probability of 95.67% .... NONE of that could generate a saying like "Never compromise".

Sam: Let's assume that you have decided to climb a small cliff so that you could dive into a beautiful pond to cool off on a hot day... How would you critically evalute the risks and potential pleasures of the action? Adam If you are asking me _personally_, being the person I am right now, I would probably look at the cliff, think "what is the rational way to decide", then think "what is rational", then think "how to decide what is rational", and think ad infinitum without moving. I guess that what you mean is a way of assessing risks versus pleasures. Having a primitive math-model. I want to go to the lake 10, the risk is 5, my fitness is 0.9 - let's do it. Am I right? (I think it is very non-objectivist. Howard Roark doesn't "assess" risks of being an unpopular architector, otherwise he would never do it. He has some principles into which he fits reality. )

How do you do this "objective thinking" thing? "Critical thinking". I just don't understand how it is done.

I think the basic problem is we don't have a good definition of "existence".

Just wondering. Formal mathematical writing is pure content. Style only exists in the side-notes. It really puts things in perspective. You are correct, style definitely yields information about a person & his/her relationship to the ideas being discussed. If that's what you're after, then attention must be paid to style. If you're after a person's arguments & ideas, then simplification/clarification must be done as I've suggested above. It all depends on your goal. I just remember discussions before I figured out that I need to understand exactly what a person (myself included) is talking about before I can deal with it. So much time/effort wasted on political discussions where neither I nor my opponent knew what we were talking about. But we knew plenty of statements from pundits/politicians and had definite 'styles'... I guess a good rule of thumb would be to figure out if the person knows what they're talking about, and then pay significant attention to style. What do you think? Mike I am toying with the idea that you need to pay attention only to style, or mainly to style. (Maybe because just I am really bad in figuring out content). The argument for this is that one can speak of a "philosophy" of a human being, in a wider sense than the meaning of the statements he has said. The "philosophy" of a human being is his outlook on life. And __this__ is what you should read when you read a philosophy. You can tell the values of a person, and thus his "real" philosophy from his behaviour much more than from his content. For example, I think that Rand had the soul of a political activist, not a soul of an individualist. She is a person that dedicated her life to the cause of individualism, not to just living as one. And it is very apparent in her writings, when you think of "**Why** does she write that?" It is not merely in order to express herself, or to build something beautiful. It is to change "the culture". And, for me, noting this is the *only* way I personally have not to fall into Randoidism. I read her texts, and I want to believe her, then I stop myself - hey, that is not what she _really_ meant. Really she wanted you to be a better person for her own sake, not for the sake of being an individual. For example, I could never get an idea of what objectivism is like (as a living philosophy) from ARI. Their version of objectivism is : Read Ayn Rand. Then capitalize on her ideas, and make money from them. Also, spread their ideas. And even not from Rand herself. I get a sense of what objectivism is much better from Atlas Society than from her. But maybe it is just because I am copying people.

What are the exact arguments that show slavery is immoral? I guess it has to be based upon the idea that all men are equal - but equal in what? It cannot be something based on empirical grounds - then one could always argue that perhaps some tribe in the amazones will be found that does not possess characteristics x,y,z and therefore *they* actually are fitted to be slaves. AND, it has to be a strict criteria - one that applies equally to *all* human beings (sick, idiots, demented, crazy), but doesn't apply to ANY animal (otherwise, SOME of the higher apes would be equal to human beings, and you would say "all human beings, and a certain type of higher apes are created equal...")

I think that religious hatred of atheists as such, and denounciations of atheists as "moral monsters" comes from a very specific logic. They believe that god is the source of morality, and therefore whoever doesn't believe in god, is immoral. The only problem in belief in god as being a source of morality, is non-contextual. Suppose that god was real. Then, every person would come to his knowledge via a difficult road of thinking. And, each would come to it, in his own special way. (If god would really exist). The way one comes to believing in real things is not via hearing a lecturer, or suddenly, but after a long process of thinking. In a sense, belief is non-contextual. Somebody tells you that the earth is round, and you believe it. You don't need to pass through a way in order to cognize it. To have knowledge, contrary to belief, *you* personally have to make an excruciating process of thinking. A person needs to look at atlases, look at pictures of the earth, know some data, think and reject some hypothesis. (Maybe they all are lying? No, it can't be... - this is actually a hypothesis that a person needs to make and reject in order to gain real knowledge). So, real knowledge, contrary to belief, cannot be achieved by mere hearing someone and believing him. The logic of religious persons 1) Belief in god is the source of all morality 2) Atheists are immoral. (2) does follow from (1). (1) is probably wrong, but the cause of cultic thinking is not that it is wrong, but that this is non-contextual. If a person would realize that (1) is gained in a personal, contextual way, and not via believing an authority, then even if (1) would be right, then this person would be tolerant, realizing that truth is discovered in a contextual way.

Just wondering. Formal mathematical writing is pure content. Style only exists in the side-notes. It really puts things in perspective. You are correct, style definitely yields information about a person & his/her relationship to the ideas being discussed. If that's what you're after, then attention must be paid to style. If you're after a person's arguments & ideas, then simplification/clarification must be done as I've suggested above. It all depends on your goal. I just remember discussions before I figured out that I need to understand exactly what a person (myself included) is talking about before I can deal with it. So much time/effort wasted on political discussions where neither I nor my opponent knew what we were talking about. But we knew plenty of statements from pundits/politicians and had definite 'styles'... I guess a good rule of thumb would be to figure out if the person knows what they're talking about, and then pay significant attention to style. What do you think? Mike I am toying with the idea that you need to pay attention only to style, or mainly to style. (Maybe because just I am really bad in figuring out content). The argument for this is that one can speak of a "philosophy" of a human being, in a wider sense than the meaning of the statements he has said. The "philosophy" of a human being is his outlook on life. And __this__ is what you should read when you read a philosophy. You can tell the values of a person, and thus his "real" philosophy from his behaviour much more than from his content. For example, I think that Rand had the soul of a political activist, not a soul of an individualist. She is a person that dedicated her life to the cause of individualism, not to just living as one. And it is very apparent in her writings, when you think of "**Why** does she write that?" It is not merely in order to express herself, or to build something beautiful. It is to change "the culture". And, for me, noting this is the *only* way I personally have not to fall into Randoidism. I read her texts, and I want to believe her, then I stop myself - hey, that is not what she _really_ meant. Really she wanted you to be a better person for her own sake, not for the sake of being an individual.

I asked earlier in this thread: What am I without memory? You can't describe it. You are a disoriented, confused, disentegrating being.

What does "mind" mean to you, then? To me, consciousness is identical to mind more or less.

As to the brain "creating" personality and experience, I think a few things 1) Science can never determine things about metaphysics. Metaphysics, as in Aristotle is supposed to determine the first principles and the basic concepts. (Casuality, entity, concept, essence). THEN, science can work. In a sense, science can find only specific facts of reality, while it is metaphysics that really finds out basics. 2) What does really "creating" mean? Can the brain "create" consciousness? I think the concept assumes creation EX NIHILO, and this is a _very_ problematic concept. I mean, the idea that the brain "creates" mean that there is a feeling, and before that, it didn't exist. So what is it made from? When we make a pot, we make it from clay. Is the feeling made from something? If not, it appears to reality from nothing.

I think that there is body and mind. Buddhists argue that the question what is a "self" is a different question than the question of body-and-mind, and I think I agree. Even if you establish that there is body and mind, you still have a lot to think about what is "self". If you try to pin down its referent, I mean. What is it - the body? The mind? Both, in some sense? The mind changes, so what is the "self"? Memory? But what if a person has lost his memory, he does remain his selfhood, even if not in the sense of "being the same person". In the most literal meaning, it is still himself. Maybe you can call the personality of the person as himself, but if has personality has changed, in the literal sense, he is still himself.

What about the claim that "Insted of me, other people die"? What would I answer to that? I do understand, according to objectivism, it is because of a social concept that you have this collective army that protects all, and you have to be part of the collecttive, and if you do not want, you have no choice, or you will be blamed for letting others down. And the sense of blame I feel is ultimate - you let other people die for you! I agree that this is not a desirbable concept, and it would be best not to have a socialist army, but an army that whoever would want, would pay for. That would be fair. But AS LONG AS I am here, can I really benefit from it? It is not that I can avoid help from the IDF. I guess that fairness is a rotten concept. If "fairness" is true, then SOMEBODY necessarily is being treated against his will. But as long as it exists, and I cannot help relying on the army, what can I do?

No, zero experience. I will try your advice; I was trying to pay attention to style and not to content, failing to distinguish by content between the sincerely motivated and the hypocritical. Perhaps your suggestion will work. But I also think there is a deeper reason to pay attention to style - style, not content usually reflects the 'soul' of the person. Nietzche's style reflects his depth of thinking, more than his arguments.

Well, thanks Michael, and whyNOT. Though I am unsure that it is just, I am not going to reenlist. Unfortunate choice, and perhaps in some way evading from my own mind, but the best I can do right now. I am not going to serve in a country in which some population was against the release of Gilad Shalit for the price of releasing terrorists. (This reasoning, by them, seems to me extremely selfish. They ARE going to send him to fight for them, but not going to pay a risk for releasing them. That's just horrible. Rand or not Rand, selfish it is. Call it another name if you want, I don't care.). Michael, what do you mean by a metaphysical absolute without an absolutist philosophy?

It seems to me that thinking about the style in which one writes, is often even more important a task than evaluating the content, in order to evaluate the person. Sometimes, the actual arguments the person makes are pretty good, but the context in which he makes them is totally unfitting. For example, the heroes of Rand's novels, are egoists, but the highest point of the plot is _not_ in the buildings they make, or in the the things they build, but in their opposition (reflected in speeches), to the altruistic society. A true egoist, I sense, wouldn't be that conscious about society in the first place. And, writers related to objectivism (though, NOT in this forum), often make good arguments, but their arguments seem contrived. They always use the same words. In the writings of Gandhi, what is striking, is the power with which he makes the statements. They aren't "academic arguments", but emanate from his being. I guess that any normal person does not advocate regarding only the arguments of the person, not regarding the person, or his style. That would be disregarding the person himself, and disregarding communication. Some people recommend adressing the arguments, and the person separately. But I don't think it can be done, since arguments are _a part_ of a person, they are the content of his thoughts, hence they are *him* in some sense. Can you help me and tell me in what sense a person can treat the arguments of another, and that other person separately? Sam

I'm not sure anymore that it is really smart to defend christian religion, not being a christian myself. It isn't mine terms that I am using (mystery), so I am not sure that there is sense in defending the thinking of others. I detract the post, and will try to make posts in the future that will be a result of my personal thinking.

For example, I think that Pyotr Chaadayev, though he isn't a "rational" philosopher like Descartes, or Hume (trying to dissect reality into the different components), is definitely a great philosopher. Though I am not sure I always understand him - like a moth trying to fly into the fire, but bumping into glass. And, what Nikolai Nikolayevich says in the beginning of Dr. Zhivago on life and death. If that is christianity, I will never say a bad word against it.

I dodged the military draft in Israel, and am reconsidering it now. I do depend on the military protection, it seems to be a fact. Nevertheless, I don't think that a military draft is right. I am a bit stuck in the dilemma - on one hand, I wouldn't want me, or anyone to be recruited to the army against his wishes. On the other hand, dismissing it in a day would be disasterous. So I cannot see how can I (1) avoid being a free rider (2) apply Kant's categorical imperative in any meaningful way to this situation. It leads to a contradiction.

It is pretty hard to find out how to distinguish between a perception and what the perception perceives, and how to define each of the terms in a coherent way. I am not talking of a way to differentiate between illusions and perceptions, but of seeing versus what-we-see. I cannot find it out using introspection since it isn't possible to observe the content of a perception without a perception. When I tried yesterday to make a realistic theory (not a solipsistic one), I came up with something like that : Things can be cognized directly or indirectly. Indirectly would be like seeing a photo of Bob, knowing that it is a reliable photo . You would know something about Bob. But you wouldn't have a direct perception of Bob himself. Kant seems to think (as far as I understand Rand) that our senses present us with photoes of the world, not with "direct perception". I guess that you could object to this, maintaing that that the concept of "seeing a picture " implies that you see it directly, and that a person who says that one can see a picture admits that direct perception is in fact possible. Buddhists would say that conceptual thought cognizes things indirectly (via concepts\words), and I think they are right. As to my original thesis, I could say that it is just given. Every perception necessarily (by its nature) has its object, and every thought has its object. You cannot have them one without the other, so the way you distinguish between them is not like between a dog and a cat. How, it is still a mystery to me. How you use conceptual thinking to differentiate between them is a mystery to me, since conceptual thinking is supposed to rest upon perception.

__deleted

Ghs, I see what you mean. Sometimes the conclusions of an argument can contradict the presuppositions of its premises - which makes the argument invalid. Alright. But how is it possible for a person to make that distinction (between perceptions, and objects of perceptions) in the first place? How can you form two universals, one for perception, one for its objects, without being able to observe one without the other? Do you have a theory?

Does your skeptic concede that his interlocutor exists as an external object? If he does, then the skeptic is clearly able to distinguish perceptions from external objects, so he need only apply the same standard to other situations. If the skeptic does not concede this -- if he truly believes that the other person is merely a perception in his head -- then he is talking to himself, and I suggest that he be left alone to carry on the conversation. Ghs Hm... I think even a person that believes that there is no external world,can distinguish between different types of perceptions - those that continue along time (you), and those that do not (dreams). But isn't there a logical problem with your argument (a more important one)? Suppose that you actually can show that for a solipsist it would be ridiculous to try and convince you of solipsism, and what I say above (in this post) isn't true. You would prove that a solipsist has no reason to try and convince you of his position - but not that his position is untrue. Showing that arguing for something necessarily implies a contradiction in motivation doesn't necessarily imply that what he argues for is wrong - only that it would be ridiculous to act upon this belief. At least using what I have learned about in logic.

That we we cannot do in order to make the distinction between a perception and its object. Since I can't see without seeing something, and I can't see something without seeing, how can I distinguish between "seeing" and "what I see" using an ostensive definition?I don't understand why you raise the issue of ostensive definitions in this context. They have nothing to do with the distinction between perception and the object of perception. This distinction is already clear before we use ostensive definitions. Suppose I point to a blue object and say, Look at that. That color is what I mean by "blue." Here I am inviting a person to direct his vision at an external blue object so he can perceive the color for himself. My directions would make no sense, however, unless the other person already understood the difference between a perception and the object of perception. He already understands that is perceiving an object external to himself. Ghs I raised ostensive definitions because they _seem_ a way to rescue my mind from the endless game of trying to find an end to the endless chain of asking "But how do you know that", for every possible question. And I think they fail. I think that a person that doesn't believe in the existance of an object external to himself can reply to you "When the person asks me "to look at that", he believes that there is an external object to myself. However, I know, that all there is are perceptions. So, what I will do is generate a new appearence of "blue" in my head, without it refering to anything real. When a person teaches me the meaning of "blue", I learn how to name a new appearence, not something external to myself. ". As to your reply to BaalChatzaf I am not sure that this is a valid argument. It is more like an appeal to consequences. You argue that it is a bad belief to hold, but not that it is untrue. Samr