Military Technocracy

Before I get a predictable response, 'mine prescribes finding happiness where you can' in no way implies how to find it. So the argument that my philosophy prescribes the method of attaining happiness is false.

Post 61

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:30pm

Vertigo:
For ****'s sake, read something about Objectivism before just blathering on, and on, and on. You just can't jump into the middle of discussion about Objectivism and make sense any more than you could effectively criticize high energy physics without understanding Newtonian physics.

That's why you're unintelligible.

Geez.

Post 62

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:53pm

OK, I'll not post until I have read up on Objectivism.

Post 63

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:33pm

Vertigo:
That was pathetic. I could have maybe been respectful to you, if you hadn't done this, but now you went and ruined your chance.

1. You admit that you don't know anything about Objectivism. This, mysteriously, means that you can just jump into midstream -- on an OBJECTIVIST board -- and start trying to "argue" points with us.
HOW the hell are you going to "argue" anything when you don't even KNOW what you're arguing against???? Would you repsect it if somebody came in on a board dedicated to, let's say, veterenary medicine, and started with "well, I don't know anything about animals -- but here's why you guys are WRONG!!!"
No. likewise, when your entire exposure to Objectivism is self-described OPPONENTS, you're not going to get anywhere.
Either read up on what Rand, Peikoff, Kelley etc, said, and DO YOUR OWN THINKING, or don't even bother.
(as you eminently explained in the other thread, a little thing like 'facts' needn't even get in your way. Whatever YOU BELIEVE about Objectivsism is 'true' -- whether we're actually like that, or not.

So, and I say this with the utmost respect and gentleness that I can muster: SHUT THE HELL UP, UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE "DEBATING".

We might have been nicer to you, if you hadn't dove in midstream, and started to "dispute" with us -- opperating solely, it would seem -- from the work of "critics" who seem to have a REALLY SHAKY grounding themselves.

Post 64

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 4:45pm

The final answer is this, vetigo:
Look into what you are debating. There are hundreds of websites dedicated to Objectivism, including this one, that you could delve into and explore. You don't even have to buy a book! It's all free!

Engaging in debate with "students of Objectivism" won't get you anywhere if you require a tutorial. Familiarize yourself with the terrain, then look for clarification. The nature of online forums is sometimes too erratic to expect fully-contextual, satisfying answers. Especially if you haven't acquainted yourself with the terms and concepts in which the answer is given.

No Objectivist will ever grab you by the throat and scream in your face "Conform, you little son of a bitch!!" like your grade school teachers were aching to do every time you asked a question. The philosophy is so consistent that they don't have to; what's more, that consistency forbades Objectivists from doing such a thing, through their own sense of self-worth and decency. As Henry put it--in a less cordial but quite amusing manner:)--begin at the beginning; don't jump in midstream and expect the fish not to bite.

Post 65

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 4:47pm

Apologies for mispelling your "name".

Post 66

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:33pm

Life has no consequences? "judged in some pre-heaven"????? Damn, Vertigo -- you really DONT know anything about Objectivism, do you???

Objectivism is ALL about life having consequences, or rather, about the fact that OUR ACTIONS have consequences. Everything, from the infamous "A is A", down to the political and esthetic stuff, is explicitly predicated on the idea that what you do matters.

The standard? Human life.
What is human life? not just some arbitrary level of "not quite dead". Look into it, beffore you arbitrarily dismiss us as some sort of cult, or whatever you're trying to do.

If you choose bad politics: totalitarianism, and bloody death-camps result.

If you choose bad epistemology, you won't know how to learn anything, or be able to survive for long. (This is why stupid theories which go like "there's no such thing as a real world, but I don't advise you to ACT on it" are so disgustingly dishonest. The whole premise of "acting as if" Reality is real is a collossal copout. Either it's real, and will KICK YOUR ASS for doing something stupid -- or it's not.)

If you choose the wrong Metaphysical foundation, then you're going to believe that "wishing real hard" is enough to change your life for the better. The reason we need to adhere to specific courses of action is because our actions have CONSEQUENCES. (This is amply illustrated by your own experiences, here: you jump in wanting to "debate" something because you "disagree" with us -- but you don't even known waht you "disagree" with). Result: you get treated like the absurd little troll you are --- NOT because you are wrong, but because you didn't even BOTHER to have any idea what you were doing in the first place.

Sincere disagreement is one thing. Blind, unreasoning, incoherent IGNORANCE is another.

To be really honest, I don't care anymore. We all gave you chance after chance after chance, and you continued to treat us like we were idiots. It's REALLY easy to 'disagree" with somebody if you're not going to bother to know what they stand for. At least learn something about us, before you come in here.

Is that clear enough for you, buddy?

Post 67

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 8:57pm

Vertigo: This isn't opening a dialogue ... it's one way only. Read Atlas Shrugged to get a glimmer of what Objectivism is about. Read it from front to back with all the speeches. If you've then got comments we'll identify the most basic level on which we disagree. Only then can we have productive discussions. Arguing about issues that are at a higher level just leads to incoherence. That's why no one can relate to your opinions, as your arguments have been based on many important, unresolved issues at a lower level. However,if you position your arguments at an appropriate level you'll find that this board can be very constructive. After all, it's a "Sense of Life" board.

Objectivism has a hard edge to it and advocates don't tolerate fools gladly, as you've grown to appreciate.

Post 68

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 11:57am

Anthem, by Ayn Rand, slightly disappointing.

Recently SamErica gave a list of titles to read in respect of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Since then I have got hold of Anthem and Atlas Shrugged, both by Ayn Rand. I chose to read Anthem first, as it is far shorter. I had great expectations, but unfortunately there are some things about it I find disappointing. Here I will simply address the first issue; there are others.

I quote from Anthem, by Ayn Rand.

`So we looked straight upon the Golden One, and we saw the shadows of their lashes on their white cheeks and the sparks of sun on their lips. And we said: "You are beautiful, Liberty 5-3000." Their face did not move and they did not avert their eyes. Only their eyes grew wider, and there was triumph in their eyes, and it was not triumph over us, but over things we could not guess.'

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is certainly true. Generally, society dictates to some extent what constitutes beauty. In some African tribes, a women is beautiful is she is fat and looks capable of providing many children. Generally a person's upbringing will play some part as to what they see as beautiful.

In society there are roles into which most people try to fit. There is societal pressure to not be outdone, to prove ourselves. People want big cars, nice clothes, and so on. Having things such as these potentially proves our worth to others. This is the mindset of many people in society.

As such, a wife is equally a token of pride, and having a beautiful wife is definitely a goal of most people. How often if presented with a number of girls in a bar, for instance, will we ignore the frumpy or ugly ones? Some can look past such outword appearances, to see other qualities below. These qualities below are often also desired by society, like being charitable, etc. Many times I have heard men say you need two girlfriends, one to cook food, take care of you and take home to the family, and a feisty, good looking one to take out, etc. One girl can't perfectly fit both of these roles. This shows us that, at least primarily, society's ideals plays a role in defining beauty.

For something to be beautiful, it must fit some ideal we have. When we buy a horse, what would make us regard a horse as being beautiful is completely different to what would make us regard a women as being beautiful.

About the quote now. The man looks at the women and comments on her beauty. In the society in this story, everybody is regarded equal, and any differences must be ignored. 'Mating' between men and women is seen as a vulgar necessity, nothing more. There is no such things as friends, as any preference of some people above others is disallowed. Society's ideal in this case is conformance. The 'beauty' of a person in this society is how well they conform.

Firstly, the man notices 'the sparks of sun on their lips' and such and then cmments on her beauty. For a normal person in that society, calling someone beautiful would mean they are completely non-descript, an example of the norm, admirable for their level of conformance.

However, here the man has discovered some further knowledge, and realises that people are different, and have unique qualities, etc. In the story, he and this girl have been greeting each other secretly for a while. Although this is forbidden, she has participated in it too. As such, she is more aware than those around her, as is he. He can relate to her more than anyone else, as the others haven't changed their thinking at all.

This could result in him regarding her as beautiful, in that he feels they share some common trait that others are lacking. In a sense, he feels he might not be alone with his heretic opinions, as she exhibits similar behaviour. If he is sinning, at least he is not alone is that sin. In this case his ideal is somebody whi thinks like him.

Apart from this, he would have no basis to call her 'beautiful'. In the quote, she gets a thrill from getting complemented. Generally, when people get a thrill from getting complemented it is because it is shown that they are actually worth something, and not worthless like they feared. This is a consequence of the human condition, the human inferiority complex, in that we must prove our worth to others, lest they realise the awful truth, that we are inferior for some reason. It is telling that a complement heard in public or an achievement in the public sight often makes one much happier than a complement recieved in private, or an achievement with no recognition whatsoever.

As a result of this, the man's complement is more likely to upset the girl than make her proud. By saying she is beautiful he is telling her that she embodies some ideal he holds. We don't know what it is she believes his ideal is, however it is obvious from the context that she realises he doesn't regard conforming as the ideal.

Hence she might reason his complement as him recognising she has similar thoughts. I don't know think this would make her proud, though.

Quote:
"If you see us among scores of women, will you look upon us?"
"We shall look upon you, Liberty 5-3000, if we see you among all the women of the earth."

This shows that the guy can identify her individuality. He regards her as an individual, and different to other people.

Quote: `Are Street Sweepers sent to different parts of the City or do they always work in the same places?'

This shows she has realised it to, and wants to know where to find him.

-continued-

Post 69

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 11:59am

Quote: `And we sighed, as if a burden had been taken from us, for we had been thinking without reason of the Palace of Mating. And we thought that we would not let the Golden One be sent to the Palace. How to prevent it, how to bar the will of the Councils, we knew not, but we knew suddenly that we would. Only we do not know why such thought came to us, for these ugly matters bear no relation to us and the Golden One.'

Suddenly, after having all these thoughts, he no longer want other people to 'mate' with her. I don't see that this follows in any way from what happened before. This is a drastic leap of faith by Ayn Rand, and detracts hugely from the story. Let me explain.

It might be assumed that the desire for another to not be mated with others comes from a desire to only mate with them yourself. This is typically a societal ideal of our world, that of monogomy. However, in the context of the story, there is no such societal ideal for sex. It is considered vulgar, and is detested (presumably by more than just this one person). We can assume that they are affected by sexual urges and such, but why should this in any way mean they suddenly don't want to mate with anybody else?

It does not logically follow that they detest mating in the Palace of Mating because their partner is chosen for them. I don't think Ayn Rand is doing this though, but I just wanted to clear that up. I don't think they detest it because of the forced nature of it, or their lack of liberty. I think they detest it because of the closeness of another indivudual in the process.

Throughout their lives they ignore people, regarding them as simply 'one of the bunch'. However, sex is (typically) a much more intimate activity, especially as regards the participants behaviour during it. Also, men and women are typically kept seperate, and don't think of each other, due, as the story says, to 'the law which says that men may not think of women, save at the Time of Mating'.

The guy particularly dislikes it. He says: 'Twice have we been sent to the Palace of Mating, but it is an ugly and shameful matter, of which we do not like to think'. I reason that he and others do not like to think about it because it goes against what the laws of society have stipulated, like not having intimate contact with women, etc.

In this regard it makes no sense then that suddenly these two want no more mating with others to take place. Also, notice the slant on the words. It is the guy himself who suddenly doesn't want this girl to mate with anyone else. We know he dislikes mating entirely, so perhaps he simply wants to spare her the ordeal. However, that doesn't seem to be the intent in this case. It seems far more personal than this.

The point being, why suddenly is he so opposed to it? Remember we can't put our mindset and our society's ideals on this story, we must view it in the right context. In this society there is no such thing as 'love'. One can't use the argument 'he likes her, therefore he doesn't want her to mate with other people'. That doesn't hold in the context. With such a dislike of mating himself, I can only imagine that he wants to spare her out of some altruistic sense of duty. Again, this altruistic sense of duty comes from our society, not theirs. Their only sense of duty is to conform. He secretly has lost faith in that idea.

He states categorically in the quote above 'How to prevent it, we knew not, but we knew suddenly that we would'. Where does this come from? In the context of the story it makes absolutely no sense, and to me it detracts from the story. I could understand if they wanted to explore mating between themselves, and such things. But I feel that this imposition of an effect of our society on this story where it doesn't apply is greatly disappointing.

Post 70

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 12:55pm

Vertigo: Do you have any concept of what a hero is? Do you have any heroes? This is a story of a hero. Read it as such. If he thinks she's beautiful, then she's beautiful.

If you're trying to destroy Objectivism by this type of picayune criticism you're barking up the wrong tree.

Post 71

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 1:19pm

Sorry, I was tired when I wrote the previous post, having woke at 02:00 and travelled in the car >1100km that day (returning from holiday). There are many instances where 'women' should have been the singular 'woman'. Please excuse any other mistakes.

Post 72

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 1:26pm

Don't you think it is strange how suddenly he doesn't her to mate with anybody else? That behaviour is not a priori to my knowledge. I think it is based on our society's ideal of monogomous relationships.

Do you disagree? By the way, I am not trying to unnecessarily slam the story, that was something I found strange. There is one or two other points, on similar lines to that one. One is where they kiss. They wouldn't have any urge to kiss each other, that behaviour was not known to them. Animals have sexual urges and don't kiss each other. Kissing is also a product of our society, and not in the context of the story.

I am simply using reason in my evaluations. Surely that is acceptable...

By the way, I am now reading Atlas Shrugged, have read up the first three chapters. I am enjoying it so far, and I agree with much that has been said.

Post 73

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 6:56am

"They wouldn't have any urge to kiss each other, that behaviour was not known to them"

Admiration leads to affection. Affection knows no cultural boundaries. I guess Rand could have had them rubbing noses. Would that have sat better with you?

Post 74

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:27am

The only problem I have is that it puts forward a wrong impression for readers who haven't thought much about how our society is made up, and which parts of which parts of our lives are dictated by society.

The impression the story gives is that suddenly the guy in the story 'comes to his senses', especially when he doesn't want her to mate with anybody else. The impression is that monogomous sexual relationships like that are an a priori norm to be expected, when I don't think it is.

Our society dictates the moral wrongness of monogomouns sexual relationships, without such a society or moral code I see no reason for them to assume that out of hand. Many things in our society are just that way because our society dictates them to be that way. It is not simply the 'obvious' way to do it.

The individual discretions in the story are not my concern too much, but as a whole it seems to imply that our society is good and any other is bad. I don't see that this is true. In particular, a society where mating is controlled and sex doesn't play such a big role in society doesn't seem wholly bad to me. You may disagree, but to me sex's increased role in relationships has been the cause of much grief for people, and has had much effect of the longevity of relationships, due to people seeking sexual gratification primarily, outside a partnership if needs be.

I have no problem with monogomous relationships, and they make sense to me. In the story it makes perfect sense that they want to be together in such a relationship. However, in many ages past even married people had concubines and such as sex wasn't an integral part of a relationship; wasn't strictly to be had only by one partner.

The story is about a person who learns to shrug off society's dictations and live life for himself, without dictation by others. This is a very good thing, but why then did he accept factors of our society, which had no place? I don't see that a he would place much value in sex at all, but as soon as he 'comes around', suddenly he views sex like our society does. I called that a drastic leap of faith in my previous post, and I see it as such.

As for the kissing, Rand could very well have made them rub noses, or some similar thing. The fact that they kiss doesn't bother me. Perhaps they just decided kissing would be a nice thing to do. The problem is that kissing is an artifact of our society, and using it in the story seems to imply that it is the natural or expected thing to do, whereas it really isn't.

For the less discerning reader, it might seem that our society is 'right' as to the place of sex and with things like kissing, whereas these are only one of a set of possiblities. I hope you see my point now.

In some African tribes, unmarried women wear no shirt or bra, covering the torso is reserved for married women. In their society it is completely normal, only in ours is it not. In the story, all people are clothed, however I don't have a problem with this as it makes sense in the context. Men are not wanted to think about women, and certainly seeing the anatomical differences of women so openly displayed as them wearing no shirts would hamper that effect.

I hope you understand my beef with the story. I have serious disagreements about what our society dictates as 'normal', especially since I am quite different to the standard and have often been called 'mad' or 'crazy'. Seeing aspects of our society which are not fixed paraded as being necessarily the right and expected things to do doesn't sit well with me.

Post 75

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:49am

Vertigo: "In particular, a society where mating is controlled ...doesn't seem wholly bad to me."

This doesn't deserve a response. End of conversation.

Post 76

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 2:30pm

Think about animals. One species gets too dominant, exhausts the food supply, and then starves.

Think about china. There are so many people they have had to limit child births to only one child per family.

The chinese example is an example of a type of controlled mating, as I said above. The reason I stated it is because of the animal quote above.

How do you propose to combat the phenomenon described above? Insisting on monogomous relationships and not indilging in sex outside marriage is also a form of controlled mating. This has generally been agreed upon to be bad.

How do you propose to combat the inevitable over-population that results from no control? I haven't yet heard a convincing argument about this.

Because of this, I chose to say what I did. If you can provide such an argument, please do. I wasn't being funny with it, or meaning anything untowards. Don't ignore me now out of spite.

Post 77

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 4:11pm

You don't do anything to combat the "over population"

(1) I'm not sure the planet is over populated.
If production and distribution were more efficient thn they are I am sure that there is no shortage of food, clothing or andthing else for that mater.
(2)Would you like to live in a society where the police break into your house to make sure that you are obeying the states "sex laws"
(3) the laws would work abot as well as prohibition didi.
(4) Bah! (waves paw)
(5) The other poster was Right - this was not really worth replying to

Love

Mary

Post 78

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 4:27pm

(1) I'm not sure the planet is over populated.

Do you disagree that people will exhaust the earth's resources soon, leading to potential self distruction, if everybody looks out for himself alone? The atmosphere could become critically polluted or the forrests decimated, etc. Surely an overly large population attributes to this, as over-fishing attributes to the scarcity of mature fish in the sea, or not?

(2)Would you like to live in a society where the police break into your house to make sure that you are obeying the states "sex laws"

Cetainly not. I would love to live in a society where people use reason to temper their judgements, unfortunately that is not the case. Generally, people will do what they want regardless of consequences to themselves or others. If you don't believe this, explain why we have drug addicts.

(3) the laws would work abot as well as prohibition didi.

I can't comment on that, but it sounds like 'it's too hard to implement'. What's the alternative, allowing a behemoth population to raze the earth completely? Surely to do nothing is not the only option.

(4) Bah! (waves paw)

Sorry I offended you, but I have valid questions regarding this matter, and they won't go away.

(5) The other poster was Right - this was not really worth replying to

In that case, was it worth asking it in the first place?

Post 79

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 4:45pm