audiognostic

Just curious: what originally got you interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy? The concept of virtue of selfishness.. although now as I see it, is not necessarily an "objective virtue".. nevertheless it got me to see something which is a good way of living if one is to live for ones own happiness.. such as the concept of "rational selfishness" and further evidence that altruism is not some universal law of morality... as well as the concept of buildling your own virtues based on your own end.. so if you are to live for your own self interest it is entirely fine to have virtue like "pride, self interest" etc. Also I very much like her ideas, and those of thinkers like Milton Friedman which show that free market capitalism and pure economic self interest works to maintain a healthy society But mostly as a rebellion against people trying to impose the standards of altruism and selflessness upon my behavior.. my rebellion against so called "virtues" of humility etc... What I believe now is that NOTHING is exactly a true objective "virtue".. but certainly social virtues are not the mark from which everything should be measured.. and neither is "god" the mark from which things should be measured.. with that I agree with Rand Then I started getting deeper into what she had to say about the nature of the mind, human psychology etc.. and being a musican.. I automatically started backpeddling and realzing that this totally did not fit anything of the evidence of which I saw in the real world about the ways people or myself think.. Then I found Nietzche.. . so now I would say I am probably far more into Nietzche than I am into Rand.. the only reason I stick around here and argue is to solidify my own thinking.. not because I am an altruist and I want to change your mind ;) Lets just say I agree with the surface-level concepts of Rand .. but I dont agree with the deeper ones.. which Rand apparently says is impossible and that its "all or nothing" but I dont agree with that.. I would place my current philosophical stance being somewhere between Nietzche and Rand.. closer to Nietzche though.. I agree with some of Rands ideas as being quite good... but I agree with Nietzches essential core framework of thinking.. at least as far as I understand it.. with certain discrepancies there as well.. I really dont agree with anybody but myself 100%

let me paraphrase my main points: 1. emotions are valid tools of cognition in circumstances in which they are - such as the type of abstract thinking I am talking about 2. there are types of "abstract right brain" thinking which exist.. according to the study of psychology.. which are non linear.. which show how mathematicians dont make good comedians or artists.. and vice versa.. 3. there are limitations to what reason can explain.. a) it cannot explain things unless it knows 100% of the proper context - such as human psychology.. which must be studied through evidence rather than pontificated about b) you cannot use rational linear thinking to explain abstract things.. such as why comedians are funny.. or why a musical beat can sit "just right" 4. Only being strong in linear logic doesnt make you a superior thinker.. as every comedian, salesman, musican etc.. knows.. logic alone will get you nowhere... 5. you cant simply call that part of human nature "stupid and mystical" and dismiss it as nonsense 6. what exists is primacy of evidence, not primacy of reason.. something can be real without making rational sense.. such as comedy and music.. and something can make rational sense and not be real.. such as reasoning based on faulty premisis

1. Why does something need to be phrased through a Randian framework for it to be correct.. is Rand the god of reasoning? every philosophy class is Nill unless they speak through a Randian framework? 2. it seems to me like they are the ones opinionating and saying non sequiter statements while I am only consistently logically refuting every single thing they say 3. I am just getting frustrated because the only thing I see is that they pick and choose and ignore everything I have said that they cant refute.. and come at me with many of the same things over and over again so I have to keep phrasing myself in different ways.. then telling me I lost the argument.. the whole thing is getting rather rediculous

you missed my first refutation of it http://maverickphilo...-existence.html "existece exists" is a useless statement which means nothing and proves nothing.. about as much as "jumping jumps"

please go ahead and make another post totally disregarding everything I said and say "you have shown nothing!" ok ok.. and the gingerbread man is real too hold on hold on.. im predicting the next statement : "this is funny .. your thoughts are quite a mess.. you still havent shown how emotions precede logic or how there is any limitations to reason.. your thoughts are a jumbled mess.. and totally irrational..you really need to read your way through Rads epistimology then metaphysics first.. then you will be able to argue anything and your thoughts will make sense (since only Randian thoughts make sense)" seems to me like I have no reason to argue anymore .. I have already accomplished proving my point.. over and over again..

let me quote this regarding Ayn Rand and emotion "From a naturalist point of view, it is difficult to escape the view that man is a product of an evolutionary process, and that this process plays an important part in the development of man's character. Since a species, if it is to survive, must both reproduce and care for its offspring, it is likely that the process of evolution will favor those individuals who have a strong predisposition to reproduce and bestow care upon their progeny. Hence the near universality of both sexual desire and jealousy. In comparing Rand's view of human nature with what we find in the study of actual human beings, the astute observer can hardly fail to notice the degree to which Rand has stripped away everything she found annoying in man. In distinguishing all those elements that separated man from the animals, Rand, in effect, implicitly suggests that man is not essentially an animal. His animalistic characteristics are mere accidents. Man's essence is his "reason" and his volition. These elements supercede the natural or animalistic characteristics. Man has no "instincts" or innate predispositions, only such acquired dispositions as he imbibes from the people around him or his own thinking. Although it is unlikely that Rand would have ever (à la William Jennings Bryan) explicitly denied that man was a mammal, her philosophy, at times, seems to blissfully evade this palpable fact. Indeed, in some ways, this evasion is worse than an outright denial. Bryan, because of his belief in the myth of original sin, could at least be brought to recognize those actual characteristics which human beings share with animals. Rand, on the other hand, saw such characteristics (provided they were not merely physical) as defects acquired through evasion and lack of focus, rather than intregal aspects of a functioning animal." Emotions can be entirely "rational," as long as the value premises behind the emotions are "rational." Of course, it would be the most dreadful heresy to suggest that Rand herself ever experienced an irrational emotion. In all of this, what is conspicuously missing is any sense of emotions as cues or incentives for behaviornecessary for the propagation of the species; that, in other words, emotions exist, not to help create Rand's ideal men or provide incentives for enlightened self-interest, but to assist naturalistic goals which, in their absence, would lead to the extinction of the species. On naturalistic premises, the existence of the human species is not, nor could it ever be, the product of a rational decision, since prior to the existence of human beings, no rational thought existed. Therefore, if one wishes to be a naturalist (and this appears to be the case with Rand and her followers), one must accept those facts which are logically connected to the naturalist view. Regarding emotions as mere value premises, either accepted by default or chosen by a focused mind, renders it impossible to understand the natural and biological function of emotions within the human organism. Emotions are somatic markers or cues for predipositions and cognitive evalutions which promote the maintenance and continuance of the species. In their absence, we would no longer exist. While Rand might have been able to recognize the importance for emotions to survival, her inability to fully appreciate the mammalian side of human nature rendered her incapable of understanding the role of emotions in furthering the reproduction of the species.

they shouldnt be so.. because.. Ayn Rand said so.. and she is god... I get it now.. I should just start writing music her way.. then i can be "moral" No it doesnt.. what it means is that the emotional decision PRECEDES rationality You must be wearing your grandmothers glasses so you cant see straight Why would i work my way up using Ayn Rands framework when I have just explained to you why I dont believe in her framework.. I really love statements like this because they try to make one look as if he has lost an argument without offering any evidence... you have seriously failed to provide any legitimate evidence to your posts or failed to refute any of mine where I have refuted all of yours ... all you have done is called me "a big mess" .. which is a nice statement.. but you really need some evidnece for it in order to be able to back it up.. right now it makes about as much sense as "existence exists" apparently the easiest way to win an argument in these boards is to call the other person rediculous and say they make no sense without offering any legitimate logical refutation.. In that case i should have done that in my first response post and have ended it right there This is a statement of pure retardeness.. ok this so called "bizzare dichotomy" is a psychological concept which i by the way didnt arbitrarily create.. and I have also pointed out how some people are very good at being athletic/creative and are very bad at math and logical reasoning type things.. and some people are the way around.. so apparently there is a dichotomy.. at least according to psychology.. but im not sure if there is one in Rands psychology.. a woman who knew nothing of psychology,, I guess to her mathematicians make the best artists and comedians and vice versa.. since there is no dichotomy Whats funny is I have directly addressed every single point you guys made.. and you have failed to directly refute any of mine except for saying nonsense non sequiter statements, taking things out of context, ignoring my refutations and continuing as if they dont exist etc.. I am feeling like I am arguing with closed mind internet trolls who belong to the Rand cult.. and will stop believing the world exists if they found out that Rand thought so.. In which case.. this is all pointless\\ Rand was OBVioUSLY NEVER wrong about ANYTHING because she was GOD.. and understood everything about everybody, their psychology, human drives, the laws of nature, etc.. all objectively.. a truly superhuman genius of godlike proportions.. all forms of thought are pure nonsense and invalid if they do not work their way up through Rands framework of human psychology What it seems to me you are criticizing me on is that im not arguing based of Ayn Rands framework.. and instead I am arguing based of evidence seen in reality.. You have a "primacy of Ayn Rands framework" over a "primacy of reality" make you not objective at all.. but rather more like a dogmatic worshipper

this is hilarious..

my arguments for irrationalist type thinking being valid.. does not mean that I am anti rational.. or that any of my arguments were irrational whether its actually physically left or right makes no difference to me.. lets identify it as "one style of thinking vs another" both of which are proven to exist.. at least as far as im aware.. seems to me like one of the basic tenets of psychology.. but if not.. please show me evidence honestly i dont see where i made any logical fallacies.. anywhere within this post.. anywhere please show me.. Show me how my evidence that reason and logic cant explain everything and has limitations is getting thin... perhaps use it to explain how comedians make people laugh.. make me a rational theorem behind "timing" and "feel" is this good for their lives?? did "timing and feel" come to rescue them as children? please explain to me through reason what is a "funky beat".. and why one sounds "just right" or why one sounds "off" did the just right beat come to save me as a child?? or is it in my genes? if so.. show me the evidnece for the "just right beat gene" it seems to me like YOURE the one painting yourself into a corner.. as I have totally refuted everything you guys have said so far.. Now you can simply laugh and say "hahaha no you havent".. with no evidence.. or proceed to try to refute any evidence/examples I have made without taking them out of context I am not sure where Matt has pointed anything out which I have not directly refuted Even when I posted things which refute "existence exists" which was your whole argument you were trying to get into me with.. you simply failed to respond to my post.. then posted some non sequiter statement that "oh youre losing now!" this reminds me of this

check out this video

oh boy isnt this a lively discussion

I just showed you like 20 times how emotions are in fact tools of cognition and guides to action and not preceded by logical reason Also I have attempted to show why left brain people see right brain thinking as "mysticism".. simply because they cannot rationally linearly comprehend it here is your proof against the primacy of existence argument thing.. whatever.. which frankly doesnt even make much damn sense to me.. and this paper will explain why.. http://maverickphilo...-existence.html Im too lazy to write it out myself.. Here is another paper by Nathaniel Brandon which covers this topic much on objectivist thinking regarding psychology and emotions http://mol.redbarn.o...AndHazards.html It has some humerous examples of people getting married over "value similarities" since emotions are supposed to be products of value judgments..having problems with "irrational emotions" and Rand's "nerd romance" episodes in Atlas Shrugged Apprehended by consciousness??? Im not sure... Im saying they cannot be apprehended by left brain reason... which does not define the whole of consciousness.. which I believe I have already provided sufficient evidence on that point so far I dont argue for a mind-emotion duality.. I argue for a reason-emotion duality... as far as "mind vs emotion" and "divine inspiration" etc.. you can label it mysticism or what you want.. the fact of the matter is there is no way to prove this doesnt actually exist..

Now I cant even write my song for the rest of the night .. my whole "vibe was thrown off" oh well.. better "luck" tommorow..

ok i felt like coming back on here to bitch this shit out.. Ok.. reason is a LINEAR SEQUENTIAL connection between multiple ideas...you connect 1 to 35 by counting 1 through 35, 1,2,3 etc... non-reason, irrational thinking. is an ABSTRACT , non-linearly sequential connection between multiple ideas it is a connection between multiple ideas which does not "logically make sense" but it "works".. and you can "Feel it" and you can tell it works by teh results it produces like a comedian uses this abstract reasoning to create "timing" "feel" and "vibe" between him and his audience.. there is no mathematical formula for it, it is neither linear, nor sequential, nor can anybody explain it in any way which "makes sense" other than "just feel it".. that is why nobody can ever , and has never written an effective book on "how to be funny" explaining a linear step by step process of logical proofs.. yet it WORKS... and those who are "good at that which cannot be logically explained" somehow still leave the audience laughing mathematicians dont make good comedians... and I have never heard Ayn Rand tell a single joke.. in fact here is what she had to say about humor quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life... totally showing that she DOESNT "GET IT" she should write a comedy book.. a comedian can go on stage and say "I will just deny the metaphysical importance of things and everybody will laugh"... probably AT HIM.. haha she says: Im sure a lot of people who watch funny things in order to loosen up dont feel that way.. but of course she probably doesnt understand what it means to "loosen up" unless I write a logical proof about it..These statements make about as much sense to me as her statements on emotion.. again showing the limitations of reason.. "technically" it makes sense.. but IN REALITY .. it really doesnt.. one of my theories I came up with is that "right brain" thinking cannot be used to understand nor explain left brain thinking.. and left brain thinking cannot be used to understand nor explain right brain thinking.. that is why people who are stuck in left brain mode simply "dont get it" because they are trying to use left brain thinking to analyze right brain ideas.. also there is this book something about "Right brain intelligence" which talks about kids who do very poorly in school, yet are great artists, athletes, etc.. and people call them "stupid".. because they are too stuck in right brain mode and "dont get" left brain ideas.. Me, being fairly strong in both areas.. I feel kind of weird about it.. because I have to "tell my brain to switch over" and my left brain "doesnt understand" but my right brain does.. etc.. Right brain ideas.. many of them are FUNDAMENTALLY irrational.. and they probably will NEVER be explained through rational Newtonian science. That is why a whole lot of stupid scientists just "dont get it" and they will "never get it".. they think shit that exists doesnt actually exist just because they cant draw a newtonian logical formula to explain it.. they will probably never be able to explain why I like the sound of a guitar over the sound of a piano.. or why I like onions on my spaghetti.. or why I get up and do a weird dance when I hear a funky beat.. or what is a "funky beat", or why I think my bassline needs more distortion.. hmm maybe I got distorted basslines in my genes.. or perhaps one came to save my life when I was a small child.. As Nietzche said: people use reason as a negation of the senses

actually I totally answered your simple question in the very first line of my response, but in case you missed it.. let me re write it for you I have read what Ayn Rand wrote about emotions.. she said emotions are based on personal value judgements........ which are based on?????????????????????????? thats my question.... and as I have attempted to show.. they are based on EMOTION!... so her argument seems rather circular in my mind emotions are based on personal value judgements which are based on emotions I have already demonstrated with my car and music examples how personal value judgements are not specifically based of what is or is not good for the continuation of your life.. nor is there any evidence that they are based on rational explanations.. Unfortunately Ayn Rand knew very little of psychology Currently I am sitting here writing a song.. and I am attempting to accent certain notes over others for greater emotional appeal.. There is neither a "good for my existence" nor a "rational logical explanation" nor a "formula" for any of this.. I am exclusively using my emotions as tools of cognition and to make decisions If I didnt use emotions as tools of cognition, and I only used logic to guide every decision in my life as she suggested, I could never write music. As I have been saying over and over agian.. explain to me how I can hit a note "just right" and say.. oh that sounds tiiight!!!.. what is "just right" and what is "sounds tight".?? How can you explain that with logic..?? and if you cant.. does it mean it doesnt exist? BTW I loved that movie equilibrium.. And what about the picture of that guy right there is funny? (at least to me it is).. how can you explain that "joke" illustration in terms of reason?.. As far as I know that was an example of me using emotion as a tool of cognition and action... I did not have to write a "funny formula" in order to come up with that.. Music doesnt work when made by mathematical machines.. comedians dont work when they try to break everything down logically and into formulas.. there is "timing", "feel".. and other "irrational mystical concepts" of right brain type thinking Now please excuse me for the rest of today.. I have to get back to writing my song.. this conversation is "throwing off my vibe"....

this article will explain to you.. why being a purely logical person.. a person of pure mathematical rationality.. is actually a great weakness rather than a strength when dealing with the world around you http://www.fahrenhei...-brain-is-dead/ There are 8 types of intelligence .. and you are only working with one of them. Being strong in only one area, actually makes someone mentally inferior.. It will show you why through logical rationality alone, someone could never be a producer of great ideas or inventions

I probably shouldn't respond but... What does "rationality" or "reason" mean to you? Left brain formulaic logic rationalists argue.. that which does not make sense to the left brain.. does not exist as Nietzche said.. people use reason as a method of negating the senses... They say.. if it does not make sense it is not true.. in other words, they use primacy of logic vs primacy of senses.. Whereas the reality of the quantum world is What is true is true whether it makes sense to the left brain or not For example "Feeling in music" does not rationally make sense to the left brain... So left brain scientist type people have attempted many times to put together formulaic rational calculation based music machines, they have attempted to rationally study music, then attempt to re create it through rational calculations in terms of what they have picked up "makes sense" in terms of patterns, styles, etc... and trust me I studied this in school actually.. because I took college courses and am certified in electronic audio production.. What the result of those rational experiments were were TRIPE.. music came out which "made sense" but it never made a single good song which people actually enjoyed thoroughly listening to.. because it didnt have any "feel" That shows my point.. that which doesnt make sense to the left brain.. doesnt mean it doesnt exist.. that which exists doesnt need to make sense to the left brain.. Attempting to say all that which does not make sense to the left brain is not "real" and is "irrational mystical garbage" as Rand attempted to do.. is straight up foolishness.. and a "negation of the senses" as Nietzche spoke.. whom she also called an irrationalist mystic garbage philosopher.. There are some irrationalist terms to describe people who do not comprehend the world outside the left brain "geek, nerd"... people who are trying to be vulcans but are totally out of touch with reality.. these are terms which I would bet describe a rather large amount of people populating this forum.. Including their hero Ayn Rand herself.. Many of these people are not great leaders or bosses, but rather cubicle workers, underlings, and engineers.. they work under those who have "right brain business, and people skills and creativity".. who hire them out to act as miniature computers and make calculations all day.. They mistakenly think that their left brain superiority makes them superior human beings .. but in reality they are out of balance.. and out of touch.. and are just as bad off in many ways as people who have no left brain capability.. These are the kids wearing pocket protectors who get trash canned in high school and go home and try to calculate the reasons why using long division.. Luckily for me, I am very strong in my left brain, but also fairly strong in my right brain capabilities.. a trait common to producers of electronic music, who must have superior technical as well as "feeling" and creative skills..

the subjective is that which is axiomatic in itself.. it cannot be rationally argued... I choose that I like cheese over chocolate... Thats the end of that.. you cant argue it.. there is no further rationality behind it.. it is what it is.. I choose that I wish to live for my grandpa joe, rather than for myself.. Same case there Here we have a case, including in music lets say, where one makes judgements or lives life according to emotional premises , which have no rational basis, and therefore could be called "mystical" or "irrational" by Rands definitions You are arguing if my senses are accurate.. and therefore that constitutes no concept of proof Lets flip that and argue if your reasoning is accurate.. since it may SEEM accurate.. but there really is no PROOF for it.. maybe its just all in your imagination... maybe you are actually a bannanna.. if you smoke enough drugs it may certainly seem that way.. therefore my statement "we know what we know in the context that we know it.. In that sense.. maybe I am really living in the matrix.. in the context of my life.. it doesnt matter whether it is real or not.. all that matters is what works and what doesnt work to reach my subjective goals... In that sense.. my senses are more important than reality itself.. As Nietzche said.. superior reasoning is not based on a search for "truth" .. but on a search for "what works"

Here is what I am saying reguarding objectivist psychology.. you are speaking based off assumptions.. and things you know nothing about.. you are attempting to backwards-reason and say that SOMEHOW there is a rational explanation for why i like the black car over the grey car.. when in fact there is no such proof to say so conclusively Science cannot yet conclusively show or calculate why someone would prefer the black car over the grey car.. that is still a mystery to science.. they have theories, postulates, hypothesis.. but still no solid proof... in essence.. they still dont understand the full nature of consciousness.. nobody has yet come out and said "we understand why people love! we understand why people have tastes and preferences! we understand what feelings mean! we can rationally explain everything!"... all they have is hypothetical and unproven theories.. that is why the study of psychology still exists.. and they havent just lumped it into physics and began developing mathematical formulas to figure everything out.. Some call psychology a "pseudoscience" because it deals with the rationality of "what works" or "what seems to work".. rather than what quantifiably, rationally, and mathematically makes sense.. There are the materialist rationalists which simply backwards rationalize and assume that their postulate that materialism is all there is.. and say .. well even though we cant prove it step by step.. it MUST be this way! but this is all based on their unproven assumption that materiast rationality is all there is .. but that is not proof.. that is why there is still major debate.. and now with the advent of quantum physics, there is even more debate than ever.. Trust me.. I follow this.. Nobody has yet conclusively proven that the brain is just a material block based on simple rational newtonian principles.. and that is it and claim they understand and could effectively calculate everything.. The study of the mind is still in its infant stages.. that is why attempts to "Rationally, logically, objectively, rationalize and explain everything away" based on 1960s level of understanding of the human mind during Ayn Rands time.. just seems silly to me As I have shown from my very first post.. you cannot effectively rationalize on things in which you do not know all of the contexts and circumstances.. you cannot rationally map an environment, if you do not know all of which it contains.. it will LOOK rational.. but if your understanding of context is not totally accurate.. there is a high probability it will not work in the real world this essentially refers to the same point as i see it.. This is a strawman argument as i see it Fore I never said that reason has NO place.. what I specifically said is that individual "value judgements" are entirely subjective.. and that is the ONLY thing I said which is subjective NOT every reasoned argument begins and ends with a subjective emotional cause or conclusion.. only those regarding subjective value judgement For example, if I were to argue the composition of water as being H2O.. this has NO place for any sort of subjective value judgement The subjective value judgement here is that we are choosing to argue about the same thing.. the nature of water.. Here I am arguing about the nature of argument and reason therein.. If you catch my drift.. I dont know.. you tell me.. If you follow my whole post it says this 1. Logical reason inside someones mind cant POSSIBLY explain EVERYTHING 2. Reason and logic is strictly limited by its context and circumstances and ones awareness of them.. without a proper awareness one cannot make proper argument.. and many things upon which have been supposedly reasoned.. fall into this category as far as I believe.. including the nature of human psychology, consciousness, and the universe, as explained by objectivism 3. The point behind objectivism is that EVERYTHING is objective.. and that any form of "nonrational" value judgement which cant be distinctly broken down with rational logic is "mystical" and "doesnt exist"... whereas it seems evident to me as I have pointed out that there is no proof to back this assertion up.. 4. Therefore I am saying one cannot simply explain away all of the world through "rational objectivism" there is a mixture of objective and subjective 5. What one chooses to speak of.. is subjective.. ones reasoning in what he is saying when speaking of it is objective.. ultimately to conclude his subjective beginning.. 6. Therefore what we have is a primacy of value judgements in all reason and argument.. which are in terms subjective.. I know this is rather vague to be explained in this one sentence. but if you understand all which I wrote hopefully you will understand what I mean by this.. Trust me I have no beef nor bias.. all I want is the truth and to think correctly.. that is why I am testing my reasoning here.. I WANT you to try and prove me wrong.... mainly because these are the conclusions I have come to .. and I want to make sure I am right and there are no major flaws in my thinking..

lol this is stupid because what you are doing is taking one point i make, and taking it out of context to criticize me while not rationally adressing all the other points i have made so therefore.. i quit here is my final propositon... im going to tell you that i like the black car better than the grey one... objectively prove me wrong or right since all things are objective and rational and reason has no limits and there is no such thing as a proper irrationalist or "mystical" judgement I think that this car looks cooler and is better art than this car objectively prove me right or wrong using rationality and the objective theory of art explain to me rationally what is "looks cooler" after all arent all value judgements related to how much something benefits or hurts my life? I would still prefer the top car, even if it had lower crash test ratings, and worse gas mileage and worse handling..at least i would continue to think it "looks cooler" and if thats not a rationally explainable phenomenon.. then does it mean its an invalid one and shouldnt be made because it is "mystical and irrational"? I think this song is garbage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim6s8Ea_bE i think this song is awesome and better am I right or wrong.. or should i not make that decision because it is not objective or rational? Please objectively explain to me how one benefits my life better than the other How are emotions not valid tools of judgement or cognition

Of course subjectivity exists. Where do you get the idea that anyone here thinks it doesn't exist? But since applying an objective verification process makes no sense when it comes to subjective personal preferences, it follows that a question about which choice is "objectively right" in the above case makes no sense either. If subjectivity exists, and it cant be rationally explained through logic.. such as.. i dont like one car over the other because it is more capable of saving my life, or because it has better crash test ratings or gas mileage, but because of its "style" Such "style" cannot be explained rationally.. it is an emotional decision What this proves to me is that emotions are tools of cognition.. and if you follow my entire posts on here.. what im essentially saying is that ALL value judgement essentially are subjective, and therefore come from emotions.. The essential choice in the virtue of selfishness for example which allows selfishness to be called a "virtue" is whether one chooses to live ones life for oneself or for others, argue as much as you want, this is still an emotional judgement.. Whether it is illogical, or negates the purpose of ones own existence or what.. If somebody decides not to care about their own existence but instead about someone else s existence.. this is an emotional decision... and a purely subjective one.. What I am saying is the "primacy of existence" argument does not make sense.. Read this youll see what Im saying http://maverickphilo...-existence.html Also as far as Im aware , Rand claims subjectivity does NOT exist.. because that implies in itself primacy of consciousness it in itself implies the necessity of irrational, illogical decisions with emotions being valid tools of cognition.. and "mysticism".. that is why i understand she has gone so far as to make an objective theory for art. From what I understand her WHOLE POINT is that EVERYTHING is objective and rational. Nathanael Brandon is the person who Ayn Rand herself called John Galt and said that he understood her philosophy better than anybody else.. this is what he posted as the foundations of objectivism.. I strongly doubt you understand it better than him: Objectivism teaches: That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A; That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality; That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected; That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality; That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being; That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others; That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships; That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others; That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use; That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights. Nowhere in here does it ever seem to imply the necessity of subjective thought... I even heard Rand herself in interviews criticize "subjectivits" saying they are irrational mystics or something of the sort.. From what I understand Rand would not agree with a statement such as "I like this style of car because it "vibes" with me .. I just like how it makes me feel when I look at it so thats why I want it".. she would call that irrational mysticism and using emotions as tools of cognition and demand I break it down somehow into rational postulates.. You might think Im attacking Ayn Rand or that Im some socialist who hates all her theories.. and that is totally not the case.. In fact I live by the idea of rational selfishness, what I have learned to recognize however is that is a SUBJECTIVE decision.. and that those who do not choose to live by that value.. people who ARE altruists.. I cannot OBJECTIVELY call them wrong.. that is like saying someone who likes the black car is wrong because it does not fit the objectivist criteria for art.. I do not think many of Ayn Rands ideas are silly.. what I think is silly is the idea of "objectivism" being the definitive judgement for everything in the world based on pure rationality.. with everything being able to be calculated as right or wrong through some series of objective rational principles invented inside Ayn Rands mind.. her constant throwings out of "good" and "evil" as if they are objective facts... Value judgements essentially being subjective.. what is "good" is all that which goes for ones personal value judgement.. all that which is "evil" goes against it.. her value judgement was that she wanted to live for herself.. so for her altruism was "evil".. to an altruist who genuinely wishes to dedicate his life to helping others.. selfishness is "evil"... it is a silly subjective word... This only takes us back to primacy of consciousness and morality becoming subjective again.. To sum up what Im saying, you do realize that.. if irrational subjective choices exist.. and are valid.. that implies primacy of consciousness and "irrational, mystical" emotions as valid tools of cognition, and if they truly are the origin of most value judgments... or at least many.. if not all... that brings us to "primacy of passion" as Nietzche spoke it.. Where I believe people make the mistake.. is thinking that emotional thinking can be validly applied to everything.. or that rational thinking can be validly applied to anything.. in the end.. the most important thing is that one recognizes their place.. emotional being in subjective value judgements.. rational being in procedural arguments.. one cannot intertwine either one into either one.. For example, even for Rand to rationally argue against communism.. first she would have to sit down with the proponents and ask "what is it that we are actually trying to achieve here.. what is the end result we are trying to get to?".. and that would be a subjective value judgement.. once they agree on the end result.. then logic steps in.. and argues whether the procedures outlined are actually going to get to their desired destination or not.. Also this shows that force will ALWAYS exist in the world.. because for as long as people cannot agree on their subjective value judgments.. and there is no way to argue them.. eventually one side will end up conspiring through the use of force to take the other side out so they can get their own way.. essentially coming down to "might makes right" Sorry... the world is a harsh and irrational place.. Attempting to rationally argue subjective value judgements becomes just as confusing and nonsensical.. as trying to emotionally argue matters of procedure..

logical fallacy: If A then B doesnt mean If B then A Plus PROVE IT.. prove that existence is the pre requisite of consciousness . what if consciousness is the pre requisite of existence.. what defines existence?? if existence is everything.. including consciousness . then isnt that a rather redundant statement? What if the ability for apprehending sensation and logic.. is the pre requisite of consciousness?? what if that is what defines consciousness? Thats also one thing reason cant always do.. is PROVE things.. ultimately what proves things is EVIDENCE.. or in other words as Nietzche said "WHAT WORKS"... not solely whether it makes sense in someones head... what we need first before we can make any logical proofs.. is all the circumstances and facts of the situation.. you cant just assume facts and then make logical propisitions based off them ok... one person prefers this car One person prefers this car objectively rationalize that which one is objectively "right" if subjectivity doesnt exist? and how is this case "explained by reason" Plus the left brain reason Rand speaks of is Newtoninan in nature.. the deeper structures of the world.. Quantum physics/mechanics.. do not operate by simple reason and rationality..

reason is nothing without the circumstances it is based around reason is not a pre requisite of existence.. existence is a pre requisite of reason.. even though reason does not create reality reality creates reason.. but that doesnt mean all of reality is based in reason

To some extent, we are all a reactionary product of our environments meanwhile.. logically objectivize this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Az_7U0-cK0 I agree with Niezche.. that pure rationality, not in line with passions and instincts is simply WEAK rationality.. it is a symptom of people who are weak minded.. as he said he speaks of this form of "weak reason" which is not in line with the passions.. In other words from my perspective . it comes from an inner weakness and FEAR.. because ultimately what we fear.. is the fear of the unknown.. so the greatest fear of all.. is that our lives may be run by forces which are not ultimately known, not ultimately controllable or quantifiable, and not totally within our control.. more info in this paper: http://www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/Papers/nietzscheReas.html

I understand this. The Rand-worship you noted in a previous post, arose because Rand the novelist was wedded to Rand the philosopher; she unwisely said that her fictional heroes exist in real life and that she knew one. Worse, she allowed her followers to believe that everything she did in her life was a reflection of her philosophy and could be justified by it/ She put an intolerable burden on herself in this way. Hah this is funny.. because I have heard several things.. such as .. Rand had a love interest with some man, who then broke up with her to have sex with younger women.. and the "irrational, emotional" sparks were flying.. Also I heard she objectively knew that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer.. until she got lung cancer.. Also from what I understand she lived off medicare and welfare for her later years.. This is not to bash the shit out of her like some terrible person.. but simply.. to bring her down to earth.. the difference between pride and arrogance.. is that one is based in reality, while the other in fantasyland..