audiognostic

One of the things I think Rand messed up in was the whole view of the purpose of argument.. Argument ultimately begins with personal value judgements.. and people have to share the same personal value judgments in order for that argument to even make sense.. such as.. they have to be arguing about the same thing.. Preferences such as, whether to turn something into a circle or a square, whether one wants to live for oneself or for others, whether to make a doughnut.. or a piece of cake.. are entirely subjective value judgments, not exactly entirely backed by "objective reason" per se.. it is the METHODS OF GETTING THERE.. which are objective and rational.. If two people decide it is best to make a doughnut.. they can rationally argue about how to best make that doughnut, and emotions do not belong in such an argument or form of cognition.. If one person wants to make a doughnut, and the other a piece of cake.. there is NO WAY people can "use rational reasoning" to argue that situation.. That is what i think Ayn Rand ultimately missed.. and what Nietzche understood about philosophy.. That things are ultimately subjective.. AND objective.. not one nor the other.. as he says something along the lines of.. when studying any philosophers argument.. you first have to ask yourself what moral premises are they pushing for.. or in other words what is their value judgement.. do they want cake, ice cream, doughnuts, or pudding..' Neither being reasonably "right" nor "wrong" neither objectively "good" nor "evil" As I have stated previously.. evil is simply everything which goes against your personal subjective value judgements.. and good is everything that goes for them.. In the christian inquisition, the heretics burned were "evil".. the christians doing it were "good".. Im sure from many of our perspectives and personal value judgments.. the christians doing the burning were "evil" and the heretics were "good" That is the ultimately scary thing about morality, and all forms of good and evil, is that it does not objectively exist..

Lol Selene.. now that you said that.. I am beggining to think about it and feel some sympathy for Rand... She was just a woman who thought in a clear rational way, and she was seeing all the irrational bullshit going on around her and all the destruction it was bringing.. She just wanted to escape and bring some goodness and sense back into reality.. Although she did overstep her boundaries in my view.. And thats what probably causes such a harsh reaction of me bashing the shit out of SOME of her philosophies.. since I guess it is a reactionary thing for the feeling that she almost tries to get inside someones head and tells them how exactly to think properly, or how not to, and if you agree with her you are good and smart, and if you dont you are evil and stupid and your life will fail. Although at the same time I can totally see where she was coming from with all of that..

I definitely understand what you are saying.. And I do cut her slack... I believe her theories on capitalism were great.. theories on rational self interest, etc.. I guess what bothered me was her dogmatic "reasonings" of psychology and attempts to explain away the entire world inside her mind, tell everyone who didnt use "pure rationality" to govern their lives that they were wrong.. and that everyone who didnt agree with her was wrong.. LOL But.. yea.. everyone is human.. sometimes it seems like this is the very thing that PURE objectivism often struggles with admitting ;) I can definitely see where she is coming from.. as a "reactionary" message to where she came from.. the same reason I was initially drawn to her writings, as a reactionary message to where I came from.. I guess if she proposed her own personal philosophy under the premises that this was not only good for the individual, but also a balance with what was good for the masses, and is the opposite of communism which clearly "works" for neither.. I would go wholeheartedly with that.. Attempting to take it into the realm of epistimology, metaphysics, etc.. and the realms of "explaining the universe and all of human nature" was I believe.. overstepping her boundaries.. Her strongest point was interpersonal economics In fact.. I totally see where she was coming from when she developed her theory that "you cant think with emotions!" I often bitch about the same thing.. when it comes to discussing politics, policy, etc.. people start bringing up things like "well my uncle was part of that! and what do you think he doesnt deserve equality!" or "you are selfish and that is not fair to everyone!".. etc.. and it makes me want to smack them upside the head.. I guess where I draw the distinction is.. Emotions are where personal value judgements come from Rationality is the means and argument of deciding which is the best way to actualize those personal value judgements So one simply cannot argue for or against anothers personal value judgements, and they are not rational at all in many ways The realm of political argument resides in rationality, that is.. lets all agree on what value judgement, what ultimate purpose we are trying to get to.. and then rationally decide what is the best way to get there Therefore rational argument has no place for emotions

Ayn Rand directly stated that emotions, and all processes which are not directly rational to not be tools of cognition.. That does not mean I believe that she did not feel them.. Also being a writer, is a far more left brain process of a description of reality, then lets say being a musician.. which she was not.. As a musician . her concept of all emotions being value judgments relative to what is beneficial to ones survival or not.. really makes very little to no sense... as I cannot figure out how boop boop boop is more beneficial to my survival as wop wop, , yet I still pick one over the other, using emotions as tools of cognition.. Again.. the whole concept of reducing all of reality to left brain reason seems rather silly.. I think Ayn Rands explanation of the entire world.. is simply a rather primitive and underdeveloped under evidenced version of modern science.. since modern science is the very definition of PURE objective reason.. and even it has not claimed to "definitively objectively" figure out all the things that Ayn Rand has as such solely in her own mind Perhaps the idea that I find the most silly, is the idea that we can explain away all human action using basic Newtonian reasoning..

Thank you for the complements. I would argue that first order emotional needs are not simply logically related to ones survival.. My first order desire to not kill children and sell their organs.. even once.. whether I can get away with it or not.. has nothing to do with promoting my survival... If Im 100% sure I can get away with it and make a lot of money... I STILL dont want to do it. My first order desire to be a musician instead of a literature teacher.. has NOTHING to do directly and logically with my survival... My first order desire to take care of my parents.. even if they are not taking care of me in any material, non -emotional way.. and even if they stop funcitoning emotionally.. is a first order desire which has NOTHING to do directly and logically with my personal livelyhood.. Therefore comes the role of so called "mystical" emotions in being tools of cognition and guiding ones life.. One can push them aside... and attempt to live by reason alone.. but unless they are satisfied.. one will never truly be happy.. whether it makes any sense or not. If the degree of thought and reasoning a man incorporates into his life causes him to become less effective and less happy rather than more effective and more happy.. reason and logic in fact becomes a DISEASE of the mind rather than an assistant

I just read this quote on another website.. I would agree with it As far as objectivists left.. at first I thought the same thing... Then from what I came to realize is Ayn Rand is another person.. with many good ideologies.. and many bad ones.. that PURE objectivism.. is a joke.. nothing more than her personal immature dogma.. what is even dogmatic in itself is for someone to make a philosophy up in their heads and then title it "objectivism" as if it presents the one and only true reality and anyone who argues with it is un-objective To think Ayn Rand is god and to clammor to every word she says as "objective reality" is quite silly Im all for using rationality to balance self interest- and through that process creating a personal code of ethics and rules to live by to accomplish ones goals, Im all for capitalism and free markets... Im all for ones ability, without feeling "duty" or guilt to others to live for oneself.. But when taken too far into the whole epistimology, metaphysics, and a global explanation of the entire world that exists in Rands head.. it does seem rather silly

reason is never denied I am simply saying it is not the end all be all.. and that it it simply ONE of the tools which is used to function in reality

Thats exactly what im saying.. They were able to use reason to build boats because they facatually understood all the paramaters of boat building.. they were right there in front of them.. there were no unknowns.. If one knows 5 objects.. and there are only in fact 5 objects.. one can construct a reasoned explanation for how to maneuver them.. and thats why they were able to use reason to build their boats, but not reach America If I like two girls and I have the choice between either one.. and I know for sure I like girl A better than girl B.. I can use reason to assume that i should rather pick girl A than girl B... But to attempt to use reason to understand the psychological processes in my mind behind that.. would be over stepping the bounds of reason.. unless I know ALL the factors of the inner workings of my mind.. It becomes entirely possible in that case that I could come up with a theory which is "perfectly logical" in theory.. just like the path from Spain to America.. however.. not play out in the real world at all.. or as Nathanael Brandon says:

actually i would personally argue that.. that which we cannot know by reason, we cannot know by reason.. and reasonably.. that is the only thing we can truly assert from that that which we can know by "feel".. we can know by "feel" etc... and this "knowledge" is not a concrete knowledge .. but rather an abstract knowledge of probability sort of thing.. and reason.. has no "solid proof" against this concept.. other than a subjective attempt to demonize it as "mysticism" does anyone else find it curious that there seems to be a praising of the left brain, and a demonization of the right brain going on? If the right wasnt as much a part of life as the left.. we wouldnt have it Sometimes objectivism if taken in its whole.. looks far too much like the left side everything comprised of simply computeristic rational structures the left brain is in essense what is "good".. the right brain in essense what is "evil"' I am not arguing about all of Rands theories as a whole.. what I am arguing against is the idea that her framework and underlying base theories of objectivism is this "end all be all theory of everything.. and thats it.. case closed the whole world can be explained through basic Newtonian logic" type of deal.. I was just reading this article by Nathanael Brandon.. and it struck me how similiar it was to the very questions I was asking.. about emotions being just "value judgements of facts" and all that: as well as this kind of relates to my very concerns and this my point is.. how can one rationalize about things like the inner workings of the human mind, art, human relations, etc.. through simple reason of mind.. it is an improper use of reason similar to the example in my first post.. only instead of there being 3 knowns and 2 unknowns.. it is more like 3 knowns and an unlimited potential number of unknowns.. the result can seem totally rational.. although not neccesarily even work in the real world.. I like what Nietzche said.. the purpose of rationality, is not to find some "Truth".. or some "magic answers" but to simply find "what works"

HAH.. ah yes.. I have always had issues with this, which have been a curse and a blessing.. a blessing in the sense that in my school days, I could be asked to write a 10 page essay on the texture of bread and be able to do it with no problems LOL

I am a musician, an audio designer, and a recording engineer.. and I personally reject the objectivist philosophy of evaluating art.. I am a believer that art lies both, in the world of subjectivity and objectivity.. subjectivity might be the ideas a certain musician presents- Marilyn Manson vibes with some people and not others.., objectivity being his ability to stay on beat, or play his instrument, and other technical skills.. a singer may have ideas I judge as excellent in my subjective tastes, but his preciseness, his details,and his execution being far from perfect.. ultimately leaving me un impressed.. same with a "boring" purely objective musician.. may be an excellent performer, and his ideas may be excellently categorized and organized, but they lack any kind of "inspiration" or "feeling" which would cause it to strike a chord with myself or others.. As you may realize.. I do not buy entirely that everything is objective, nor that everything is subjective, but in fact a blend of both.. My philosophy is subjectivity can present us with base ideas, and objectivity presents us with rational methods for executing them.. Also, I view the objective balance issue on hedonism, to actually be an ultimate form of hedonism.. Your goal is to use rationality to sublimate smaller values (whims) in order to accumulate the largest value judgements possible... and what are value judgements except for that which brings you pleasure, otherwise why would you value it if it brings you pain

Put it this way. For you, you have to have both. For me, I have to have both. For the rest of existence, it can get along just fine without either of us. Michael Haha .. I love it

@ Selene I am in between student and worker.. a rather personally embarrasing position.. Yes I have found my personal path, I am going to make it in the music industry.. and I have many rational paths and plans of getting there.. not in a single minded manner of "I want to get signed and be a star for 15 minutes" as most people my age think.. I have already made about 2 thousand dollars out of my bedroom from my music in various ways, and without even trying very hard, I have plans to make much much more I am somebody who has just finished the first phase of my life of indoctrination, and occupation.. being to indoctrinated to be happy, and too occupied to think clearly.. I broke free of my religion a long time ago.. however I never FULLY broke free from it in heart until recently, as I said i was too occupied to think clearly.. What I encountered was a sort of existential crisis similar to that of Nietzche.. the same question everybody asks, why am I here, what am I doing, what does it matter if nobody remembers me.. Which to an extent, I believe a question largely asked by people due to the proposition that they must somehow live for some external being, external society, external cause, under external rules for their life to be meaningful, that they cannot live for themselves.. the underlying altruist mentality rules here.. that is the fundamental conclusion I eventually came to after reading Rand, and then recently Nietzche in combination with my own previous self made philosophies to personally confirm it But somehow deep inside I had the determination to keep living.. I was not about to sit back and resign myself to Nhilism nor waiting for death.. I already knew religion was bullshit.. and i have had enough personal experience with "having nothing" in my life to know that all the life ideologies which idealized "having nothing" as ideals to happiness to be dead wrong.. I came up with my own philosophy in a time.. I realized that the essence of my philosophy for personal fulfillment essentially had to do with a gaining - of - self.. rather than a giving away of self.. I came to realize nobody was depressed because they did not give enough, but plenty were depressed because they did not have enough.. what I essentially also came to was the realization that the large majority of the moral system of society, would shame my ideas, and that in a sense, that was the very thing I was allowing to keep me down, I began researching on others who agreed with me that selfishness was a key to personal happiness.. for evidence that wealth and prosperity DID in fact create happiness, and that happiness and purpose could in fact be found in the material world, rather than in some immaterial "after life". I found few people in agreement, and massive people in disagreement, promoting the destruction of the self and altruism, etc.. as some universally worshipped ideal, backed with savage emotions and name calling to re-enforce their points.. Then I found Rand.. then Nietzche.. and they both confirmed in slightly separate ways what I have believed all along.. With Rand espousing creating ones own values based on rational selfishness if one wishes to be happy, and Nietzche with a total destruction of common social morality and an ideal of returning back to nature, and the body, and ones instincts, and drives for life, and for power, the very things which the altruist, self immolating, self oppressing moral system of society at large is intented to shame.. Anyway.. thats my story.. Im glad to hear another person saying they followed the philosophy against public morality, and never looked back since.. that only confirms my personal beliefs more..

@ Selene, I actually agree with you and share your views on that 100% I just try to ask some fundamental questions.. I guess what sort of bothered me is the entire concept of objectivism being called "objectivism.. as being the one and only complete truth.. And I guess that is what I was trying to break through.. But I guess I am simply behind the curve on that already ;)

ok.. I guess I just keep doing that because I believe I have come to a foundational question which im trying to get people to thoroughly understand that which I am asking.. But you are right.. I will lay off and give it some time.. I think I already clarified my points sufficiently

I think that the black-white dilemma here is wrong in itself.. It is a rather non sequitor, a loop statement.. They appear to be two sides of the same coin... As what defines that which is truly good for oneself? Either the subjective opinion of another person.. or the fulfillment of ONES OWN values which base what is good for oneself through the fulfillment of ones own values which are determined by what one chooses to believe is good for oneself, particularly ones self interest, ones self interest is governed by free will, and does not necessarily have to reflect an expansion of ones own existence, ones self interest can just as easily be the shortening of ones existence . we can escape the self, but we cannot escape self interest For the man who truly wishes to end his life for the benefit of another, the good is to end his life for the benefit of another.. unless we have another external subject attempt to judge his good through their own values.. which becomes nothing more than an opinionated judgement.. Therefore all that is good is that which you like AND that which you like is that which is good... Thats how I see it

Hmm ok.. I agree.. You do seem rather well versed in all of this It seems to me that Rand doesn't agree with this though.. at least my line of thought .. as I cannot assume I 100% grasp your line of thought.. Here is the lexicon article: http://aynrandlexico...sciousness.html Rand seems to assert FACTUALLY that somehow THINGS exist without the need for a consciousness.. that man does not create things, nor that does anything come from any "mystical" irrational place.. in a sense she takes a very Newtonian model of existence.. and in that sense, a rather primitive, and un-scientifically updated one.. Others seem to believe that man creates EVERYTHING in his mind.. First of all.. as far as I see it you cant logically prove either one of these assertions.. as without consciousness.. there is noone to KNOW if reality exists or not.. or in which form it exists.. I seem to hold an idea between both ends personally.. which it seems to me you do as well but Im not sure.. That in what seems to be the highest possibility event.. man does not necessarily create EVERYTHING, nor does he create NOTHING.. as it was always my belief that man is said to be in the image of a creator, not because a creator is some man in the clouds, but because the creator creates.. The human is the only being with the possibility to create NEW things.. specifically NEW ENTITIES.. man can pretty much create any new entity he desires theoretically within the laws of physics.. what he does not seem to be able to create is the raw materials themselves.. A man can imagine something in his mind.. and then create it into reality.. So its not that consciousness doesnt create reality.. nor that reality doesnt create consciousness ,, but a sort of mixture of both.. at least in the realm of human consciousnesses..' It seems with this paradigm in mind, even in science.. mans creative force and ideas are not determined through sheer objective reason or calculations.. but his processes through which he achieves those ends are.. the laws of physics.. there is BOTH a subjective AND an objective part to the world it seems to me having to pick one or the other exclusively is a false dichotomy

You see that may be your value judgement.. That an individual sound is crap... however.. I am a sound designer.. as in.. I am skilled in the practice of designing individual sounds.. so I can find beauty in a sound on its own.. Can that objectively be explained? I agree.. that both conciousness and determinism exist.. this is the essence of my very worldview.. what I find silly is Rand apparently tries to claim that only determinism exists in a certain way.. to a certain extent.. Such as determinism is the plane of formulas, and conciousness is in the plane of the quantum unknown.. sometimes it seems to me what she says is all of life can be lived and all things can be determined based on logic and reason alone.. which technically puts things into the realm of pure determinism.. and your goal of conscious decision being to either follow that deterministic path or not.. which I agree with to a certain extent as well.. However it is also my point that each persons values/deterministic elements within their consciousness.. are in many ways essentially different.. and cannot all simply be explained away with rationality.. so claiming that one can live by reason alone and ignore things such as "mystical instinct" "free will from seemingly nowhere" and other forms of "mystical type thought" etc,, seems rather non-sequitor which sort of takes us more into subjectivism and primacy of consciousness rather than a pure objective world.. My view is that reason is the method which guides us between various subjective goals.

consider this.. we know which we know in the context of which we know it.. and that is what gives rise to the limitations of reason.. if there are 5 objects in a room, and one only knows of three.. he may come up with the perfect philosophical theory to jump on all 3, not realizing that there are actually 5 possibilities to jump on.. or that one of the 5 may even be in the way of one of the 3.. In the same way the ancient Spaniards had the perfect route planned out rationally to get from Spain to India.. and landed in America...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHqEPN-J_d0 The entire foundation here starts with the assumption that an organisms ONLY purpose to action is to sustain his own life, and that everything which goes for that is the good, and anything which goes against it is evil.. and the entire basis of ethics and guidance for how one should live his life and epistimology and all else revolves arond the concept that what one should do is determined by whether or not one sustains his own life with it.. and that all else .. or things "without a such a purpose" is an epistimilogical impossibility.. as I understand Rand says it... the question is WHO SAID that is the value which all standards of action lay upon??? so what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ1UgDg5OU so is that all evil and irrational as it does not directly work to promote life-affirming values? Is it wrong to make those actions part of our lives? It seems to me things are only right or wrong, or only good or evil by the STANDARD of value by which we judge them.. and that only brings us back to subjectivism..

the day somebody explains to me why I like the sound "pow wub pow wub" more than I like the sound "pink pink boink pink".. And why if i guide my music off emotional determinations and I'm satisfied with the result, why its wrong for me to live some of my life in the same manner.. I will stop believing in primacy of consciousness and being against reasoned - determinism

.

the day somebody explains to me why I like the sound "pow wub pow wub" more than I like the sound "pink pink boink pink".. And why if i guide my music off emotional determinations and I'm satisfied with the result, why its wrong for me to live some of my life in the same manner.. I will stop believing in primacy of consciousness and being against reasoned - determinism