About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A parasite is not a human. A human must be human by choice. Anyone who acts parisitically undercuts their own reality. We are at an interesting evolutionary time where we can choose to act against our nature. But to do so is to defy the law of identity, thereforce changing what you are. A parasite is a subhuman animal.

Post 61

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan, imagine they both have the money to pay the piece of real state, they both want it, and the price is fixed by law.

It's not rational for the price to be fixed by law, therefore your example is flawed.


Post 62

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 11:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That would imply that neither of them wants the piece of real estate.

Another example: suppose my neighbor wants to build a shed while he needs it for his gardening tools. But I'm not happy with that while it will take away the breathtaking view I have. This is a conflict of interests and both our viewpoints are rational. That is not to say that it can't be solved, we may take it to court and the result might be that the interest of one of us is deemed more important than that of the other one, or there may be found some compromise. But the fact that a solution can be found does not mean that there is no conflict of interests and that we are not rational in having that conflict, that would be defining the conflict away by mere word play.

If the shed is on your neighbors property, it is irrational for you to attempt to dictate what he does on his property.


Post 63

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan:
If the shed is on your neighbors property, it is irrational for you to attempt to dictate what he does on his property.
I don't agree, and fortunately neither does the law where I live. His actions may significantly reduce the value of my house for example. Otherwise he might for example also erect a huge wall which takes all the ligth away in my house. If you think you can do anything on your own property without considering the effect that that might have on people outside of your property, I emphatically disagree. If that is the Objectivist viewpoint, then my reaction to Objectivism is "Thanks, but no thanks".

Post 64

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never said you could do anything on your property without regard to how it will affect someone else. Obviously you have to respect another man's rights. However, in our example, you do not have a right to the view, therefore he is not violating your rights.

Post 65

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, a priori, no correlation. In the same way that a pencil is a tool to write, reasoning is a method to gain knowledge.
Yes that's what I thought you meant.  Doesn't hurt to amplify for the continuity of the thread.

Cheers,



Post 66

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel,

Ed, you smuggled your values in.

Just imagine that the parasite does not share your values: imagine that that human parasite is Lenin.

Apparently, you don't understand the nature of humanity, either.

"My own" values -- gimme' a break!

Ed
[ever hear of objective values, Joel?]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/23, 12:58pm)


Post 67

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Crime isn't "rational" (as crime doesn't "pay").

Ed


Post 68

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Suppose you value comics and collect vintage editions.  I find this silly and assert that comics are a mediocre, banal, worthless and irrational pursuit. 

Am I being objective?  If so by what standard?  Can that standard vary from one person to another and still be objective, or is there an 'intrinsic' objectivity to which every man must subscribe?


Post 69

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf,

You can have a desire that isn't within your best interests -- a desire that isn't in ANYONE'S best interests.

Do you believe that?

Ed


Post 70

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:
Crime isn't "rational" (as crime doesn't "pay").
Crime doesn't pay - always. In those cases we see the bad results. But that doesn't mean that crime never pays, for all we know it may pay very often, but in general that'll be beyond our perception, which therefore may be heavily biased.

Post 71

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal,

It doesn't pay. It's a well documented argument in OPAR.

Ethan


Post 72

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And what is the argument?

Post 73

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the long run, even if you manage not to be caught stealing (for example) you harm yourself because you are destroying your independence and self-confidence. I recommend looking it up to see exactly how Peikoff dealt with this. If you have a copy of OPAR look up "crime" in the index and it should point you there. I can get you a page reference when I'm near my copy.

E.


Post 74

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry, I don't have the book. But from your description I gather that it is a psychological argument in which I don't have much confidence. I'd rather see some real evidence.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Suppose you value comics and collect vintage editions. I find this silly and assert that comics are a mediocre, banal, worthless and irrational pursuit.

Am I being objective? If so by what standard? Can that standard vary from one person to another and still be objective, or is there an 'intrinsic' objectivity to which every man must subscribe?



Not that I need to speak on behalf of Ed. But to respond, if you find comics silly, mediocre, banal and worthless, then it would be an irrational pursuit to you. If Ed finds them intriguing and derives happiness from reading and acquiring them, then it would be a rational pursuit to him. That is an objective analysis and that would constitute an is from the ought. Because Ed enjoys comics, i.e. gives him joy and happiness, he ought to buy them to fulfill a value. That value, the pursuit of happiness, is definitely an objective value. Ed did not create the value the pursuit of happiness for just himself. It is an objective value that applies to all men. But how one obtains that value, is dependent upon what makes the individual happy.



Post 76

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well said, John -- though I'm prepared to take the argument one step further ...

Wolf,

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit from others -- or are 'people' an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit from knowledge -- or is knowledge so fundamental to a human way of existing, that it is an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit by living in a free society -- or is a free society so fundamental to a human way of existing, that it is an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit from physical health -- or is physical health an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit from mental health -- or is mental health an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit from the appreciation of beauty -- or is beauty an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

-Are there folks who wouldn't ever actually benefit from self-esteem -- or is self-esteem an objective value (good, in principle, for all men)?

There are objective values, Wolf, valid for the members of the species H. sapiens. It's because of the kind of beings we are.

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,


Dragonfly warned early in this thread that not all decisions derive from the facts of nature:

The argument to defend that fallacy is that humans have universal needs to be able to survive and that you can objectively derive from those needs what they "ought" to do. Now this may be true for example for the need to eat: if you want to survive you "ought" to eat regularly. But that is hardly an ethical issue. In fact what we call ethical issues are exactly those "oughts" that cannot be derived from the facts of nature, and that makes ethics such a tricky issue. Rand states that humans ought to do certain things to be able to survive, but then she switches from mere survival of man to "survival of man qua man", thereby introducing a subjective element . . . .

You wrote: 
[ever hear of objective values, Joel?]
Which is what prompted me to take this tangent.

My question to you was what is objectivity (by which I mean a rational decision which results in the discovery of a value of fixed intrinsic worth) and by what standard is that judgement made? 

Your answer appears to be something that is 'good for all men'.  By providing that answer you ignore the areas of personal choice, which is what I thought we were discussing.  But even your list of 'universals' is unsatisfying and with one exception, is subjective, i.e., in the eye of the beholder, e.g., beauty, mental health, self esteem.  These concepts all require definitions, but out of context they are floating abstractions impossible to define. 

There are objective values, Wolf, valid for the members of the species H. sapiens. It's because of the kind of beings we are.
I agree that there are objective values that relate to man qua man and his survival, but my example of collecting comics is not one of them.  Doing so makes the man happy, period, nothing 'objective' about it, any more than Rand's penchant for Mickey Spillane was 'objective'. These are what Rand calls "Sense of Life" issues. 

"A sense of life is formed by the process of emotional generalization which may be described as a subconscious counterpart of the process of abstraction, since it is a method of classifying and integrating.  But it is a process of emotional abstraction: it consists of classifying things according to the emotions they invoke--i.e. of tying together, by association and connotation, all those things which have the power to make an individual experience the same (or a similar) emotion."  Philosophy and Sense of Life, aAyn Rand, THE OBJECTIVIST, FEB 66.
"...a sense of life always retains a profoundly personal quality; it reflects a man's deepest values; it is experienced by him as a sense of his own identity." ibid.
Since Ethics can not be derived from epistemology, it is also part of this metaphysical sense of life.

Yes man must eat to survive, but that food can derive from the sweat of his brow or he can steal it from a neighbor. 

At this point you will argue that it is intrinsically wrong to steal; that if the food is stolen the man's self esteem will suffer, his conscience will distress him and he will sicken, whither and die.  You will also say that Psychology has determined this to be true.  Therefore theft is antithetical to life.  Stuff and nonsense.  In context, some consciences will be bothered greatly, some a bit, and some not all all; and  what if the man was never taught that stealing is wrong?  The pronouncements of Psychology and its attendant remedies vary from individual to individual.   Despite the psycho-babble with which Brandon has littered the Objectivist landscape, Psychology is not a science because it can not be universally applied, even within a single culture. 


Post 78

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf, thanks for the reply.

==================
Ed,


Dragonfly warned early in this thread that not all decisions derive from the facts of nature:


The argument to defend that fallacy is that humans have universal needs to be able to survive and that you can objectively derive from those needs what they "ought" to do. Now this may be true for example for the need to eat: if you want to survive you "ought" to eat regularly. But that is hardly an ethical issue.
==================

Here's the rub, it's not 'the need to eat, here & now' (which could include stealing food) -- it's the need to eat over an entire lifespan. This is what Cal and Wolf do not integrate or understand, that morality is life-long and society-wide.



==================
My question to you was what is objectivity (by which I mean a rational decision which results in the discovery of a value of fixed intrinsic worth) and by what standard is that judgement made? 

Your answer appears to be something that is 'good for all men'.  By providing that answer you ignore the areas of personal choice,
==================

Not 'ignore' -- but discount. If, in the business of living a human life, someone 'chooses' to not take care of their health (they choose to not value it anymore), then their choice is objectively wrong and morally reproachable. They made a wrong personal choice.



==================
But even your list of 'universals' is unsatisfying and with one exception, is subjective, i.e., in the eye of the beholder, e.g., beauty, mental health, self esteem.  These concepts all require definitions, but out of context they are floating abstractions impossible to define.
==================

Wolf, you are like the skeptic who wails and moans that, because there is a split-second that separates night from day -- and we aren't aware of WHICH millisecond it actually is -- that we can't ever know the difference between night and day.

Beauty
As to beauty, the positive existence of "taste" (as in 'good' taste, and 'bad' taste) and, especially, the possibility of 'improving' your tastes, points out that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder who, simultaneously, is a man of good taste. When folks' taste improves, they're able to more highly appreciate beauty. They are changing, beauty is not. Beauty is objective (though we each, subjectively, have to refine ourselves in order to deeply appreciate it).

Mental Health
First of all, I share some of your disdain for psychology as a science. It seems impossible to separate it from one's philosophy (skeptics will always interpret psychological data one way, and mystics will always interpret it another, and Objectivists tend to disagree with both of them). Even so, mental health is not a floating abstraction. It is identifiable and even measurable. There are 2 measures of mental health, commonly found going hand-in-hand ...

1) the lack of persistant, pain-causing mental activity
2) the presence of a 'joy-desire'

When either of these 2 things goes awry -- it can be said that the individual is not currently mentally healthy. If you ask an individual who has been through a time when one or both of these things went awry, then they will tell you that they were less mentally healthy then -- a point that can be confirmed via personal introspection of one's own life.

Self Esteem
Self esteem is 'high regard for self.' While there are psychological mechanisms that tend to make one want "esteem at any price" -- or pseudo-self-esteem -- there are also objective ways (ie. building character and virtue) to truly earn your own self-respect. The existence (in the world) of a counterfeit self esteem DOES NOT discredit the existence of genuine self esteem in the world.

Ed


Post 79

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf, Tibor said something relevant to this discussion in replying to the recent article on trade by Stolyarov ...

==================
The reason for the problem is the equivocation between "to be satisfied by" and "to be benefitted from." Many people are satisfied by what does not benefit them--for example, drug abusers, sadomasochists, folks who do not pay attention to what is best for them, etc.
==================

Morality is about benefit, and not about subjective and feeble satisfaction.

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.