I'm an Objectivist. Debate me.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Appleo, Sep 3, 2018.

  1. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reality? A guessing game. Majority opinion? Mystical insight? Social conditioning? Parental imprint. Whims of fate? Genetically determined? Or is is just is. Hmmm? What did Ayn Rand write? And is she right or wrong? Why?

    Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

    Ayn Rand writes:

    “The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

    “Observe that the philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man’s identity and rights. But the philosophical systems based on the primacy of consciousness (i.e., on the seemingly megalomaniacal notion that nature is whatever man wants it to be) lead to the view that man possesses no identity, that he is infinitely flexible, malleable, usable and disposable. Ask yourself why.”

    My take: You can’t wish reality away; to do so is to commit intellectual, and ultimately, existential suicide and mass murder,

    Hmmm. Stalin and Mao come to mind, as well as Hitler. Perhaps AOC and Trump? Time will tell.

    In others words, want to be really happy, be for frigging real. Want to prevent gas chambers, concentration camps, and gulags. Be for frigging real. Want to stop the rivers of blood and screams of horror? Be for frigging real. Want to live as a human...being? Be...real.

    Existence exist. This fundamental axiom is the key to all of existence. It can be ignored, mocked, and slandered, but it can’t be escaped.

    So....? Be for frigging real. You mudrackers. You sycophants. You pseudo-intellectual imbeciles. And get the hell off of life’s stage. Your con-game is over. Your time is up.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
  2. Kyklos

    Kyklos Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My, how does history repeat itself! The Billionaires are all upset that the country is going socialist!!! Oh, my goodness! It sounds like the French coup of 1851 went Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte took all dictatorial powers because of a restless population. After regaining power, Bonaparte restored Empire.

    “The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something that has never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of the world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language”-- Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1851). Not Copyrighted
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Plato and Marx. Hand and hand. Across many millennia. Well, one did give birth to the other.
     
  4. Kyklos

    Kyklos Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "The entire company's history is based on 'we are all in this together'.”Starbuck’s Neoliberal Ayn Randian Libertarian CEO, Howard Schultz.

    You can't make this stuff up. Suddenly, Ayn Rand has an attack of moral empathy. Randianism is an ethical theory based on a school of ethical theory known as, “Interest egoism” which means “Everyone always acts so as to promote his own self-interest either immediately or long run, to the exclusion of everyone else.” However, this version of egoism fails on a number of grounds; for example, interest egoism is often defended with circular reasoning. Randian Self-Interest egoism is really an anti-ethical theory.

    And out of thin air the interest egoist proclaims a universal a priori prescription--even a Duty! (Categorical Imperative)-- "Everyone should seek their self-interest." If you really believed in “self-interest” egoism you wouldn’t tell anyone because others acting in their self-interest is just more social competitor against yourself—your self-interest.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
  5. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you suggesting that energy can't be obtained from anything but solid particles/matter? The Big Bang did not originate from matter. What is your point? Some energy is given off by matter, e.g. a photon is released when an electron drops to a lower orbit/shell within an atom. An extreme example is nuclear detonation.

    It appears you're obfuscating again. The issue, as I made clear, is not about observing the experiment but observing the data on the experiment in progress.

    That has to include you. The experiment is clearly detailed on current websites.

    You don't seem to be making any sense. The Logos, the higher consciousness system, and the collective universal belief are totally intangible.

    P.S. By the way, there's no apostrophe in a possessive "its."
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
    Kyklos likes this.
  6. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. I'm claiming that that "waveform energy arises from the conversion of solid particles/matter" is equally valid to your inverse claim, and equally plain.

    My point is your implication that conscious observation plays a key role. It does not.
     
  7. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If physicists can’t figure out the cause and effect of a phenomena; if they observe what they view as chaos and a violation of the law of identity
    and causality, then they desperately need to recheck their premises and assumptions.

    Nothing in the universe can violate the law of identity and causality; any who think this have lost their bloody minds.

    Futhermore, physics doesn’t determine philosophy; but a proper philosophy will lead to knowledge about the universe.

    Ayn Rand: “To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.”

    This is the foundation of knowing the universe. It takes away the “maybes”, “might haves”, and the “could have beens” . No more magic; no more mysticism, no more dueces wild. The universe—as real as real can get.

    And if this is wrong, then we all just might as well blow are brains out—what would be the point in living in an insane universe.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
  8. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmm. Does the lack of activity signal that Ayn Rand’s ideas of “...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can’t be impeached? That her view of metaphysics and epistemology are unbreakable? That her morality of reason and selfishness are unchallengeable? That her premise that man’s nature as a reasoning being gives him an inviolable sovereignty? That her claim that no man has a claim on another man’s life is beyond reproach?

    We shall see.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
    Kyklos likes this.
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,138
    Likes Received:
    30,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Direct observation and experimentation has lead physicists to conclude that our basic causal and mechanical assumptions break down at the quantum level: we must sacrifice either counterfactual definiteness or locality or both at that level. If Objectivists disagree, and many do, just as many Objectivists disagree with experimentally verifiable relativity, then it is they that must reexamine their premises.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
    Gelecski7238 and Kyklos like this.
  10. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong. Entanglement and nonlocality have already been rechecked. It is what it is without any available clue to the how or why.

    Wrong. An electron has no definitive identity 100% consistent with solid matter because it manifests as wave/particle duality.

    If the viewpoints below are what you call proper philosophy, note that it is full of inadequacies. Inability to grasp anything beyond "existence exists" is a form of blindness caused by the assumption that objective physical reality contains all of the factors that determine reality. Conscious involvement in the formation of reality cannot be ruled out because there is a subjective background to the formation and manifestation of physical reality. Chance cannot be ruled out because many-worlds, multiverse, and virtual reality concepts feature consideration of probable scenarios among diverse possibilities. Bottom line: Existence did not create itself.

    It is wrong, but there is no need to wreck the grey matter. Again, "knowing the universe" is just obsolete shortsightedness focusing on objective physical reality. The real nitty gritty can be grasped without resorting to insanity.

    Also, the notion that the universe cannot be created or destroyed is false as indicated by quark disappearance from existence.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
    Kyklos likes this.
  11. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All of that just to destroy the law of causality and identity.

    LOL. Good luck with that when driving.

    Or tell it to Rahaf Mohammed: Your quest for freedom is delusional because physics can’t explain what it doesn’t comprehend.

    And lastly: How do the physicists know that reality is unreal if reality is unreal. And if reality is unreal, what’s the point in studying it?

    How bizarre.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  12. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Next, you’ll be telling me gravity isn’t real because jets fly.

    Your whole premise: misunderstood phenomena wipes out the laws of identity and causality. Or, objective reality—which is a redundancy—isn’t real because it’s so real it’s surreal.

    Really? Or not?
     
  13. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Translation.
    It is absolutely true there are no absolutes. Physics has proven this. I’m absolutely certain of this because of the Heinesberg Principle of Uncertainty. Heisenberg certainly proved this. There is no such thing as objective morality. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity proves this.

    Or: Nothing is real; everything changes. Sound familiar? Heraclitus? No man can step into the same river twice?

    It was nonsense then; it’s still nonsense.

    Physics doesn’t determine philosophy; but the wrong philosophy will destroy physics.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  14. ibshambat

    ibshambat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Boy have you come to the right place:

    https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatwritings/errors-of-ayn-rand
    https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatwritings/ayn-rand-and-positive-middle
     
    Kyklos likes this.
  15. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Causality and identity are not destroyed since they apply to objective physical reality where they are consistent and highly reliable. They are not entirely consistent and reliable in subjective reality where certain behaviors of subatomic particles defy the standard laws of physics.

    Ordinary reality as we know it is not unreal. What is happening beneath the surface veil of solid reality includes activities that seem unreal, bizarre, enough to provoke Einstein into describing entanglement as "spooky action at a distance."
     
    Kyklos likes this.
  16. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It would help if you tried to grasp the distinctive facts and characteristics of the subject matter at hand. We are talking about the components of matter (substance) and the deep details discovered by science, but you keep bringing every aspect back up to the macrolevel where the cited critical factors do not apply but where they are more accessible and convenient for you to trash.
     
  17. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If anybody's philosophy is a threat to physics, it's yours with your wild abuse of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and your resort to assigning absurdities to processes that you aren't addressing in a logical, scientifically analytical manner. Maybe you are more astute in other types of endeavors that are not pivotal on these types of technical details that have been tripping you up.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hey. I stated reality is real: Then you bring in Physics and quarks proves reality isn’t real. To which I reply. Bollocks.

    I didn’t bring physics into this. You did.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
  19. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, well, well. OP asked to debate Objectivism, and the responses were: Ayn Rand is a drunken hypocritical slut; and physics and the social sciences proved her wrong. Really? Go figure.

    So, physics has demonstrated this metaphysical princple of objectivity wrong?

    Ayn Rand: “Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the “mixed,” moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or “extreme” subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)

    “In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men’s primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so.

    The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity—an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one’s attention outward to the facts.”
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

    To put it simply: Subjectivity vs Objectivity
    Subjectivism—It’s true because that’s what I feel.
    Objectivism—It’s true because that’s what it is.


    Ad Hominem vs the Ideal

    Ad Hominem: Ayn Rand’s ideas are wrong because she was a hypocritical drunken slut.

    The ideal: “The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition.”
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sex.html

    Let each decide for themselves: Existence or non-existence; celebration of life or sins of the flesh?

    And then offer the reasons for their judgment, be they feelings or facts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2019
  20. YourBrainIsGod

    YourBrainIsGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    478
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Objectivism is entirely based on the subjective, by Rand’s own definition.
     
  21. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, reason proves reason isn’t reasonable; Reality demonstrates the real is unreal; and the unreal is real. Go for it—even fools deserve to be fools.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  22. YourBrainIsGod

    YourBrainIsGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    478
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Exactly, it is all pseudo intellectual nonsense.
     
  23. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    End of discussion. No point—It’s all nonsense. You win. Bye.
     
    YourBrainIsGod likes this.
  24. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm no fan of Rand, but to be honest, if we judged philosophies by the philosophers who created them there'd be very little of the Western or Eastern traditions left standing.
     
  25. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Live her life, then judge.
     

Share This Page