A metaphysical argument against objectivism

[bmacwilliam]

...

[bmacwilliam]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

Bob:

You cannot be this shallow...

Adam,

But Bob is this shallow.

Every discussion of his always goes back to his kindergarten name-calling and taunting.

That is the true point of his discussion--his payoff, not anything dealing with using his brain.

It's like the law of causality. Once people get roped into discussing ideas seriously with him, it's only a matter of time before he does this crap.

And it never fails.

Michael

""arrogant proposition"

"top of your nothing hill"

"don't yet deserve a conversation"

.....

"chicken shit"

Reality must be a real bitch for you Michael. Why don't you answer the question too?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

dupe, damn...

[bmacwilliam]

Listen, I'll stop playing games here.

The question is an obvious trap, and I know it, you know it, and anybody with more than one brain cell knows it. You/he avoid it because you can't wiggle your way out. So Brant resorts to name-calling to deflect. Now he's offended??

Bullshit. Bull...frigging...shit. He's avoiding, and so are you.

WhyNot wrote

"A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions

of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)"

Classic, outright, undeniable, blantant, bold-faced Petitio Principii. This should be in the definition of the term it's so damn good. This argument is dead as a friggin' doornail and so is Objectivist Ethics.

You don't like looking at the truth Mr Stuart Kelly, that much is painfully clear.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Your neurotic self-promotion at the expense of others is really starting to bore me.

You just said you are going to stop playing games, and yet, you are still playing them.

Get this discussion on track, or i will do some selective Garbage Pile pruning.

Michael

[anthony]

...and a human who can visualize his entire life as a work of art.

Irrespective of its full context, in all justice this fine sentiment should not go unacknowledged.

Poetic truth...

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Your neurotic self-promotion at the expense of others is really starting to bore me.

You just said you are going to stop playing games, and yet, you are still playing them.

Get this discussion on track, or i will do some selective Garbage Pile pruning.

Michael

Whynot said it well. Why don't you take a crack at enlightening me as to why this statement above is not petitio principii? Another simple question. No games, no trap, right back on track.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

He thinks he sees awesome physical specimen where others see a self obsessed fool impressed with appearance, ignoring functionality.

This made me chuckle. It reminds me of 'Liar Liar' where Jim Carrey's son (or daughter?) asks him: "Daddy, is it true that beauty is only skin deep?" Carrey "No, that's just something ugly people say".

You refuse to see the difference between a dog looking for his next meal and a human who can visualize his entire life as a work of art.

No Mikee, you misunderstand. Quite the opposite. Since this is Objectivism and not 'Whimsicalism' I'd like proof, not fallacies or emotional arguments. I don't make the positive claim for a link between the moral and rational. The burden of proof is on you.

Enjoy your pathetic life.

Waaa, waaaa, waaaa....So mean......

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I don't like discussing things with you. Here's why.

It took you months, nay years, to read my posts with enough focus to halfway understand them. (Actually, I don't believe you ever did. But at least, after calling you on it by blaring so I could be heard, I think you understood enough to stop attributing me with ideas that I do not express.)

You didn't understand during all that time, but you did play plenty of macho self-congratulation games with plenty of spite.

That's my context as I just now looked over this thread. My thoughts? I don't see much of a chance for any rational or productive discussion with you in your present frame of mind.

You're into your thing again and I don't find any value in it.

Michael

[anthony]

WhyNot wrote "A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)" Classic, outright, undeniable, blantant, bold-faced Petitio Principii. This should be in the definition of the term it's so damn good. Bob

Bob doesn't see the distinction.

That a bank robber could be simultaneously logical - he'd have to be to survive for long - and irrational.

ie, his existence depends upon unreality, the unearned.

Logic is our major tool toward rationality. Logic is not morality. I'm pretty sure Josef Stalin was highly logical.

[bmacwilliam]

WhyNot wrote "A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)" Classic, outright, undeniable, blantant, bold-faced Petitio Principii. This should be in the definition of the term it's so damn good. Bob

Bob doesn't see the distinction.

That a bank robber could be simultaneously logical - he'd have to be to survive for long - and irrational.

ie, his existence depends upon unreality, the unearned.

Logic is our major tool toward rationality. Logic is not morality. I'm pretty sure Josef Stalin was highly logical.

I understand the distinction quite clearly.

But you cannot say that Stalin was irrational because he was immoral. Why? Because your definition of 'rational' requires or assumes morality.

This is not wrong. Tony, again, THIS. IS. NOT. WRONG. This is illegal. That's the distinction you need to understand.

The argument is illegal.

Logic 101 - quite literally - Logic 101.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Tony,

Not just you. Michael, Brant, Mikee and others also fail to distinguish this.

I'd really really like to know how many of these characters took (or passed) Logic 101. Seriously.

Bob

[Mikee]

He thinks he sees awesome physical specimen where others see a self obsessed fool impressed with appearance, ignoring functionality.

This made me chuckle. It reminds me of 'Liar Liar' where Jim Carrey's son (or daughter?) asks him: "Daddy, is it true that beauty is only skin deep?" Carrey "No, that's just something ugly people say".

You refuse to see the difference between a dog looking for his next meal and a human who can visualize his entire life as a work of art.

No Mikee, you misunderstand. Quite the opposite. Since this is Objectivism and not 'Whimsicalism' I'd like proof, not fallacies or emotional arguments. I don't make the positive claim for a link between the moral and rational. The burden of proof is on you.

Enjoy your pathetic life.

Waaa, waaaa, waaaa....So mean......

A perfect example of you looking in the mirror and posturing "look what a badass I am". Pointless and...pathetic.

[bmacwilliam]

A perfect example of you looking in the mirror and posturing "look what a badass I am". Pointless and...pathetic.

"I don't make the positive claim for a link between the moral and rational. The burden of proof is on you."

Posturing? Bad-ass? Pointless? Pathetic?

No.

Factual. Emotionless. Clear point. Pathetically straightforward.

Curious...

Must not be speaking the same language or something...

Bob

[anthony]

Tony, Not just you. Michael, Brant, Mikee and others also fail to distinguish this. I'd really really like to know how many of these characters took (or passed) Logic 101. Seriously. Bob

Tony, Not just you. Michael, Brant, Mikee and others also fail to distinguish this. I'd really really like to know how many of these characters took (or passed) Logic 101. Seriously. Bob

"Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues."

..."The virtue of rationality means the recognition and accceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full mental focus in all issues, in all choices..."

That's from the horse's mouth, Bob - because what you are trying to do is reduce a complete, complex, and integrated concept, to Logic 101 - and failing.

You know Virtue of Selfishness, don't you? Well, read this chapter "The Objectivist Ethics" again, and that's all you will ever need to understand concerning O'ist morality.

You haven't read it? then what am I doing discussing it with you? I am not here to educate you, if you don't show enough respect to comprehend basic Objectivism, before attacking it.

Do some reading before we talk some more.

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Tony, Not just you. Michael, Brant, Mikee and others also fail to distinguish this. I'd really really like to know how many of these characters took (or passed) Logic 101. Seriously. Bob

Tony, Not just you. Michael, Brant, Mikee and others also fail to distinguish this. I'd really really like to know how many of these characters took (or passed) Logic 101. Seriously. Bob

"Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues."

..."The virtue of rationality means the recognition and accceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full mental focus in all issues, in all choices..."

That's from the horse's mouth, Bob - because what you are trying to do is reduce a complete, complex, and integrated concept, to Logic 101 - and failing.

You know Virtue of Selfishness, don't you? Well, read this chapter "The Objectivist Ethics" again, and that's all you will ever need to understand concerning O'ist morality.

You haven't read it? then what am I doing discussing it with you? I am not here to educate you, if you don't show enough respect to comprehend basic Objectivism, before attacking it.

Do some reading before we talk some more.

Tony

Tony, Rand's position or quote is hardly relevant. I've criticized what you've said. That being said, Rand commits the fallacy too. Your reasoning is in line with hers, but it's not on full display above. But that's not "keeping on track". I've read it, indeed I've read it, but apparently I was conscious while doing so.

"a complete, complex, and integrated concept" rests on a huge obvious fallacy. If it fails the most basic "Logic 101" test, it fails completely. There's a reason Objectivism isn't taken seriously by academics Tony. It's like the WWE is to wrestling. Pretend Philosophy for morons.

Bob

[Xray]

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

But isn't history full of counter examples?

[john42t]

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

But isn't history full of counter examples?

I don't want what they gained. And they wouldn't have wanted it had they known what it means.

[john42t]

There's a reason Objectivism isn't taken seriously by academics Tony.

Yes, they usually depend on government funding because they can't offer anything others would buy voluntarily.

Very natural that they should wish Rand to be incorrect.

[anthony]

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

But isn't history full of counter examples?

As an unrepentant atheist, I've not the slightest problem quoting the few good and true parts from the Bible.

"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

Wisdom is wisdom, whatever its premises.

What does said bank robber gain if he spends his whole life stealing his wealth - by suspending reality and reason, and forfeiting self-esteem? Or a George Soros-type 'Capitalist'?

It is not merely the measure of results - that is cynical pragmatism - it's the measure of one's Self.

[anthony]

Rand commits the fallacy too. Your reasoning is in line with hers, Bob

That's the nicest thing you've said. Thank you - I think...

Read VoS again, and come back with a cogent argument against rational morality.

So far, the greater your criticism of "fallacies", the more it confirms Rand's correctness.

[Dglgmut]

Okay, so the only way I figure morality is not ultimately emotional is if one comes to the logical conclusion that one deserves an opportunity to be happy. Not that one necessarily deserves happiness, but that one deserves the chance to make oneself happy. Why? Because every living thing has been thrown into existence without a choice, it's only fair that they do with their life what they want.

Now, to take a bag of unattended money without risk of being caught would be rational if you thought it would make you happy. However, to go against one's rational morals is self deprecating in a way, and as I said before, proves a lack of self-esteem.

So, to take the money in hopes of happiness is rational, but to think the unearned money would lead to happiness in the first place is irrational...

[MrBenjamatic]

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.

A baby, as I've discussed in another thread, is, in fact, a parasite. As evidence I offer you the existence and purpose of the umbilical cord. A human can survive independently, but in order to surive he has to think. In order to be a human you must think (Rand). A baby is not yet a human. Once man is able to and does practice (Objectivist) virtue, he is a human.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A baby, as I've discussed in another thread, is, in fact, a parasite. As evidence I offer you the existence and purpose of the umbilical cord. A human can survive independently, but in order to surive he has to think. In order to be a human you must think (Rand). A baby is not yet a human. Once man is able to and does practice (Objectivist) virtue, he is a human.

Talk about Original Sin!

According to this view, man is not only born morally defective (i.e. a looter), he's born not even human.

You don't get any more true-believing than that.

I see a premise that needs some serious checking.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

A baby, as I've discussed in another thread, is, in fact, a parasite. As evidence I offer you the existence and purpose of the umbilical cord. A human can survive independently, but in order to surive he has to think. In order to be a human you must think (Rand). A baby is not yet a human. Once man is able to and does practice (Objectivist) virtue, he is a human.

Talk about Original Sin!

According to this view, man is not only born morally defective (i.e. a looter), he's born not even human.

You don't get any more true-believing than that.

I see a premise that needs some serious checking.

Michael

We become human beings over a period of time. At birth a newborn infant has half the brain mass required to be a full fledged human being. The good news is that the brain grows very rapidly. It doubles its mass in under a year in a normal infant.

Ba'al Chatzaf