ob·jec·tiv·ism ( P ) (b-jkt-vzm)n.
Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.
Why would anyone want to base their life on objects? Why do we need to follow a philosophy to live and be happy? ...Does this make you happy? I'm just wondering, because all you people who claim to be objectivists sure dont seem as happy as you should be.
And it's getting to the point where it's pointless. Selfishness will get you nowhere. I'm not saying that "rational self interest" (as some put it) is bad, but disregarding others completely for your own benefit is just a bunch of crap. Humans are the only creatures without a niche, so its obvious our job is with each other--with relationships. And with God.
And if me saying God offends anyone, well then I feel sorry for you.
I really think it's time people start considering how they're living their lives. Are you truly happy? Are you stable? What's your foundation? What are your goals? What are your morals? Where do you gain your strength? In yourself? How arrogant.
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. ...Is that good news to you?
For me, personally, I'll go ahead and say it. I think objectivism is a load of BS. Anyone agree with me?
I'm going to live my life the best I can for my God. Thats all the philosophy I need. And in turn, that will make me most happy. And I can definitely say a whole lot more on this subject, but just not now.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
96 comments:
It's about time someone said something on that subject. I don't understand how being selfish could make anyone happy. But I guess that's their decision. I just think people need to stop thinking so much and just enjoy the their life and the world.
I don't think it's a bunch of BS. If that's how someone wants to live their life so be it, it's their decision.
We choose to live differently, it's all a matter of perspective and while we may never see the world as an objectivist does that doesn't make it wrong nor does it make it right.
So for all of you who want to change people's opinions on the way they live. I'm asking you now to stop. Just live life the way you want to and have faith that things will work out the way they're supposed to in the end.
Dannielle, the thing is that humans are inherently social creatures, much like chimps, wolves, dogs, etc.
We can say however many times we want to that each person is free to make their own choice on how they want to live, but when their choice affects another person, it is no longer only their choice. It becomes also the choice of the person whom it affects, and due to the fact that every human relies on other humans for support, mentally, emotionally, and physically, it is impossible for one not to have one's opinions affected and guided by another.
When one separates oneself from society, one loses his humanity. It is impossible to remain a human without being a part of society. (Okay, okay, you technical people will bring biology in and say that one is still technically a part of the human species, and this is true, but one would no longer be a part of the human race.)
Varying degrees of self-interest lead to varying degrees of self-destruction.
i think everyone should shut up about objectivism and shit because no on is going to change their minds and this pointless arguing gets really annoying.
Kevin while I respect everything you just took the time to type. My whole comment was basically a nice way of saying shut the fuck up about the subject and just live like you want. JUST LIVE. that's it that's the whole point. stop talking about it and just do it.
you tell 'em dannielle. i tottaly agree with you. people need to stop sitting around arguing about how to live, just do it. people choose how they want to live, they do it for a reason, and if it works for them, leave them alone about it. its their choice to make, not yours, if you dont like it, then dont say anything about it, and live your own life.
whoa i didnt mean to start a fight.
alright dont take my blog the wrong way.
im not accusing or condemning. im asking--are you happy?
and if youre not, then why stay how you are?
Wow, I can't believe I'm the one being told to "just life" and "shut the fuck up."
I've been telling Colin to "just live" for a while now. Am I the one you see reading Ayn Rand books? Nope. I don't give a fuck about philosophy. I've been trying to save Colin from this pit of despair (no, I'm not trying to claim to be noble or any crap like that) called Objectivism, and I don't believe in letting people do what they want if what they want is self-destructive. We should help each other, not hurt ourselves and in the process hurt one another.
Please, don't tell me to shut the fuck up, whether in a nice way or not.
I agree with Kevin on this one.
Sorry guys.
PS.
Nobody's telling anyone how to live their life.
We're sharing our opinions.
Are we not allowed to do that?
Dannielle you go girl! I agree with you. And after that I will say no more, because I don't want anymore arguments started.
Kevin I apologize I did not mean to say "Shut the Fuck up" to you. I meant in general to everyone on the subject.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it's impossible to be a true objectivist unless one's in an objectivist society (aka living all alone). It also seems to me that doing something generous is against objectiveist philosophy. Religion too seems to go against objectivism. (Ayn Rand was an atheist) Now I'm sure I'll be corrected on this, but objectivism seems to me to be the "emo" philosophy.
For the reccord, I don't have a problem with anyone believing whatever they want, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others, and I'm not going to try to force people to change their mind, but I do want to learn more about what they believe, if you're willing to tell me.
Ah...where to start?
First of all, arguing is not pointless. Especially about philosophy. Philosophy is man's way of knowing how to live. Now, I, personally argue over philosophy for two reasons: (1)in hopes that I'll reach a reasonable and rational mind out there that'll listen to reason and (2)I will stick up for my beliefs and show respect for others when somebody argues against them (or calls the BS); if I did not speak when I could've, it would be the equivalent of lying to myself.
Now. I'll address each question in turn before commenting on the comments.
"Why would anyone want to base their life on objects?"
What do you propose it be based on? Emotions? Consider that objects are stable. Emotions are wild and easily subject to change. Objects exist outside of our emotions. They function within the parameters of natural law; nature never defies itself. It cannot. Objects one can grasp and one can rely on; nothing else is the same. So then why would you base life of something that is unstable and could come out from under you at any second?
"Why do we need to follow a philosophy to live and be happy?"
Firstly, this question implies that we can live without a philosophy. He cannot. Philosophy, as aforementioned, tells man how to live. What I believe you meant is: why does man need to consciously recognize a philosophy to live happily? If man does not consciously recognize his morals and values, what is to stop him from violating his own? If man does not recognize that he values honesty, i.e., he may become a liar and violate his own values and morals. A man cannot be truly happy while he violates and betrays his values and morals, which is the probable outcome if man does not consciously recognize his philosophy.
"Does this make you happy?"
No. A philosophy does not make you happy, it allows you to find what would bring you happiness. It gives you the means to be happy.
You claim, now, selfishness will get one nowhere. That is wrong. For one day, I'd like to see anybody be totally selfless. Give up all your food, your clothes, your shelter. If one lives a life like this, one will not live long. It is by nature we are selfish and must be selfish. Also, I disagree with the definition of selfishness that claims disregarding others completely. Being selfish means recognizing your needs and working for them, first and foremost.
You agree that capitalism is the best method of the economy. Capitalism is driven by selfishness. As for those of you that preach socialism, I believe that you'd be a little angry if you work but receive no pay.
Now, My disregarding others would not necessarily work to benefit myself. And, my disregarding others would not necessarily hurt others.
Objectivism, as a philosophy, says nothing about building relationships (except that they should be built on reason and rationality), or being kind, caring, and generous. It doesn't condemn any of them, assuming you do not feel it is your duty and you have a rational reason behind it.
Humans do have a niche. We, having the highest ability of cognition, are ultimately at the top of every food chain and are able to command nature. Our niche is at the top.
Consider the slew of questions you present near the end of the post. "Are you truly happy?" Since this is a personal question, I'll not answer--not because I mind, but, rather, because it is, as of right now, irrelevant to the conversation and is not appropriate in context. "Are you stable?" Same as the question about happiness. Although, regarding these questions, if one says yes, how will they know? How does one know how to achieve either one? Philosophy. Which also happens to answer the next question, "What are your goals?" These can only be defined upon thinking of ones values and what one would like to obtain; by using philosophy. "What are your morals?" How does one define them? Philosophy. Is having inner strength really arrogant? Or, perhaps, is it a good thing. One is not always relying so heavily on others to support oneself. And the last question, "...Is that good news to you?" is unanswerable, as it assumes that one agrees with the given quote. Which I do not. A different situation can produce more happiness than another, depending on the values of the philosophy.
I do not agree with you. At all.
Now, onto the comments...
Chelsea, it is not the act of being selfish. It is what one receives and recognizes in being selfish. I do not believe people can be truly happy if they do not think. For instance, man does not typically enjoy that which he does not understand. If man has no understanding of their life and of the world--a thing only thinking in some form can provide--how can he derive pleasure from (enjoy) it?
Dannielle, there is a difference between wanting to change people's opinions and sticking up for your own. Admittedly, I'd like to do both; but the former may be achieved in doing the latter.
Ah, but Toni, if you don't like it, and it effects you, especially in a negative fashion, then why should one not speak out against it? Of course, life will be the ultimate teacher, as to who is right and who is wrong, provided they live according to their values and morals. Also, if asked if they like it, or if they accept a way they do not agree with, one should argue, in my opinion.
Jessica, if every time you were unhappy you changed your whole way of thinking, you'd be in a constant state of change and disarray. Philosophies do not cause unhappiness, various stimuli do. Of course, one should work to achieve happiness, but one should not necessarily attribute unhappiness to their philosophy.
Kevin, I imagine you've noticed I've saved your argument for last. That is because, of all the comments, yours is the most elaborate.
Man's decision, regardless of how it affects others, is still his to make. A business example: if RubberMade decides to recall all their plastic bins, that will affect many, but it is still their call.
Another, not business, example: I may choose not to associate with some people (i.e., druggies). This affects them as well, but it is still my decision. They may try to associate with me, but my associating with them is still my decision.
Humans, though, do not need to rely on other humans. We've grown accustomed to it, but it does not need to be as such. It is, of course, more convenient--though not necessarily better--for man to rely on others. It allows them to avoid thinking.
As for the opinions, if I paint a painting, never seen by anyone else, I can formulate my opinion on it. This opinion of mine exists independently of others, and will not be affected by the opinions of others, assuming my opinion was founded upon solid reasoning.
Self-interest does not lead to self-destruction. Just the opposite. Selflessness leads to self-destruction. If I buy food, clothing, and a house, I am not being self-destructive. If you, being selfless, give away all your food, clothing, and shelter, you are being self-destructive. I cannot think of any situation in which rational self-interest is self-destructive.
That is all.
x.x
Now, to rebut the comments made during my writing of one comment.
It's a shame none of you care about philosophy. You should. It decides how you live your life. Your not caring only shows flawed thoughts and thought processes.
Now, Objectivism is hardly a pit of despair. Now, Kevin, I'd like you to please tell me how it is a pit of despair and how it is self-destructive. If you can do so.
John, in an Objectivist society one would not be all alone. One would be free to do as he wished, as long as he did not infringe upon the rights of others. Also, one would be rational. Assuming one would be an Objectivist. Mysticism, moreso than religion, according to Rand, is against Objectivism. Of course, as my brother and I have noted in our discussions, Rand does sometimes infer a greater being, although she recognizes it as nature.
How, John, is objectivism the "emo" philosophy? Please, provide some type of reasoning, so as to allow people to refute.
x.x
okay, im going to say nothing else except that "emo" is complete shit. why do people feel the need to label others like that?
abhdjkglarkhdsfjgv;kshkf.
Also, fellow posters, please refrain from using profanity. It shows an extreme lack of respect. On that note, please show respect for the arguments of others.
x.x
Oh, Colin..
I could definitely say how it's self destructive.
:-/
But its not my place to say.
Colin, you seem only to be able to present arguments against being selfless on the basis of physical elements.
Of course I understand that one cannot go without food, water, or shelter for an extensive period of time and hope to survive, but I know you're fully capable of looking more deeply into the matter than such basic necessities.
Colin, ever heard of Determinism? How about Fatalism? Now, I don't believe in Fatalism, but I am somewhat of a soft-Determinist. I don't believe that even if you painted a painting that you would be free to form your own opinion of it. After all, you seen good paintings before, and you've seen bad paintings before, and this automatically forms an unconscious scale in your mind to which you would subject this new painting of yours.
Yes, I agree with your example that it would be RubberMade's choice to make. But the consumers would be affected, and they have the right to complain. That is a business example, however, and it doesn't really apply to our argument. Your druggie example does only slightly more. It is your choice not to associate yourself with druggies, and so you'd agree that if they associate themselves with you, they would be violating your privacy.
Man is inherently a social being. That's what this all comes down to. Man is not given a choice of whether or not to be social (as in, a part of society), it is pre-dertemined for him. You are a part of society, Colin. You are a product of society, and you could not be otherwise.
Man cannot be completely self-reliable. A baby can't survive without food from his mother. Typically (not as much nowadays) the baby and mother are fed by the father, who works for society, contributing a service in exchange for money (which holds only the value which society assigns to it) with which he can provide for his family.
And the question of whether or not you are happy has great bearing on this conversation. Are you? Because if you are (truly are, not just saying it for the sake of this argument), then I will accept that Objectivism has worked for you. But if you aren't truly happy as an Objectivist, then how can you expect others to follow it as the philosophy of their choice to lead them to happiness? You can't rationally (ironic that I used that word, isn't it?) expect them too, if you aren't happy with it.
(I apologize for any grammatical mistakes I made. I did not first type this up in Word before commenting.)
I also disagree with the using of the term "emo" to refer to something sad.
Emo does not mean sad.
Colin, what I meant by that "(aka living all alone)" is that there has never been any other objectivist society besides complete anarchy.
Objectivism does not allow generous acts, if you are in optimal condition and need no help then that's fine, but if you ever need help, you can't count on it from an objectivist, so why associate with such people?
You like the idea of the noble savage, don't you? Do you really think that in the "state of nature" everyone is happy? Greed is in human nature, when left unchecked, people will steal from and kill others weaker than themselves.
Religion is against objectivism, religion requires faith. One can't "objectively" prove that God exists, and regardless, a true objectivist wouldn't submit to God, just like he wouldn't submit to man.
Are you an objectivist?
You probably know the steryotype of the emo person better than I do, the one who doesn't care about anyone and wants to withdraw from society, well objectivists do this, and have other similar behaviors, it's hard to put into words but the similarities are there.
I have another question, I've already asked you this: What is an objectivist's goal in life?
As a follow up question: Are you happy?
and another: If not, mabey you're not going about achieving happiness the right way, why not try another way?
(another question to consider is "what makes you happy?" and whether this is the same as what objectivism requires.)
I seem to have touched a nerve, very well, you can disregard my "emo" comment, it's definatly not one of my stronger arguments, and with a relatively slang word like that the true meaning is open to interpretation, but I think you can determine what I meant by that.
APPLESAUCE!
Kevin, if one is truly selfless--as most who claim to be aren't--they won't be happy, they won't have hope for themselves; their selflessness is self-destructive.
Yes. I've heard of both.
Yes. But I believe each opinion can be held seperately if you base your opinions on reason, not comparitively with the work of others.
It would be their decision to complain. But, other than the fact that the recalling caused it, the two decisions exist independantly of each other. RubberMade made the choice to recall all of the bins. The people make the choice to complain. RubberMade makes the choice to put out new, better bins. Also, my choosing to not associate them, they should accept.
Excuse me. I meant a grown man.
I've not denied man being a societal being. Under most conditions, yes, man will have to live within a society. He sells his good or services (in his self interest) for a value (ie, money) with which he obtain another value (ie, food).
I still do not believe that my happiness would be relevant, in that one may falsely attribute one's happiness or unhappiness to their philosophy, which, ultimately, may be the case; however, the stimulus may be more to blame--much more so.
x.x
John, you are equating never has been with never can be. Because one has never existed does not mean one could not.
Of course, an Objectivist society would not be like the state of nature. Objectivism calls for a complete separation of government and economy; it does not call for the removal of government.
Am I an Objectivist?
Once again, I do not see how it is relevant, but no, Rand would not call me an Objectivist. I agree with many of her points, but upon some of the finer ones I disagree, and, as such, I am not an Objectivist.
John, for future reference, don't use stereotypes in your arguments. It'll get people upset (although you can see this).
The Objectivist goal of life would be to find and maintain a true rational happiness rationally.
Once again, you've associated happiness only with the philosophy. Not the stimulus.
x.x
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You can't just pick and choose parts of a philosophy when taking some and refusing others makes you a hypocrite. Religion, and the moral values that go along with most religions are in complete opposition to the central ideals of objectivism, you can't have it both ways. (If Jesus were an objectivist he wouldn't have died for humanity)
Disclaimer: I know all this is getting very controversial, it might spark some... disagreements, and I don't mean to offend anyone by it.
If the economy and the government are COMPLETELY separated, what does the government do? It can't collect taxes, it can't provide services to the people, in fact it can't even exist unless someone decides to set up their own personal government. Indeed you might be right about Rand believing in some type of god, perhaps that's who would regulate everything.
And what is a philosophy good for when it fails at what it's trying to do: to make people happy.
My point is that objectivism is a philosophy of greed, masked by false promises. None of us are the ones this philosophy is best suited for. Objectivism represents a philosophy far more sinister than it appears. The facts of the matter are that it is only a means to the ends of the richest most power-hungry individuals who need support from the masses, one way or another. I'm not saying that objectivists are all evil power-hungry people, most objectivists (I could assume Ayn Rand is included) really want that ideal world, but if you follow the logical conclusions about the philosophy, the reality would be quite different. Greed is everywhere, that will never change, but that doesn't mean that we should all accept it without question. (that is not to say that Ayn Rand intended it that way, I don't know, but the line of thought is the same as what a greedy, power-hungry maniac would have)
Well, that's quite a conspiricy I've exposed, I think I'll give myself a pat on the back for that. Good work John!
(My point in all of that is to say that Objectivism doesn't work.)
So then, Colin, you're one of the one's who believe in the infallible truth that is Ayn Rand? There many, however, that are Objectivists and do not believe everything Ayn Rand has written or said. THere are many who disagree with her on many points but still consider themselves an Objectivist. Do you think Branden still considered him an Objectivist, just because Rand excommunicated (for lack of a better word, she did simply kick him out of the movement, as if she was the pope or another figure similar) him? I doubt he did. Most likely he still held his same beliefs, obviously with a different view on Rand.
John, it isn't picking and choosing parts of a philosophy. Upon thinking, one can certainly agree or disagree with different points of a philosophy. Doing such does not make one a hypocrite.
What does the government do? They work on government's basic job: protect the rights of individuals. Set up objective laws and courts of law.
No. It doesn't collect taxes or provide services. It can exist; it just needs voluntary funding. In an objectivist society, ie, there would be no public schools; if one values education, they would voluntarily give money for the setting up of a school. The same goes for the courts and the national defense.
[Note: this is one of the aspects upon which I disagree with Rand.]
What regulates the economy, then? Well, John, there is no regulating of the economy; each man acts independantly in his own rational self-interest. Of course, this all depends on man being rational.
John, you've misidentified the purpose of philosophy. The role of philosophy is to give a man a way with which to govern his life. It'll give him the means to be happy, the means to be successful, the means to be rational; it will not--and is not its role to--make man happy, successful, or rational.
There is no greed in Objectivism. I've addressed this before; there is rational self-interest, but greed is far exceeding that. There is selfishness, but greed is excessive selfishness.
What false promises?
How is Objectivism sinister?
It isn't. It tells man to live, to reach his highest, for himself. To live for himself. How is that sinister?
Objectivism is not a way of rationalizing for the rich. It provides, again, a way for every man to live on this earth. Not just the rich and the power hungry.
[On a side note:if objectivists become rich and gain power, is that really a blow to the philosophy?]
Objectivists don't want an 'ideal world.' They want to live on this world. Objectivism presents a philosophy for living on this earth.
Once again, you equate greed with rational self-interest. And you associate greed with Objectivism. There is no such association.
Kevin, as I've said, I don't agree with all that Rand said. Only, upon inspection, much of it makes sense.
Even still, I would not be an Objectivist. Objectivism is Rand's philosophy; it being hers, she would decide with whom it is associated. Those who do not agree with everything would not be Objectivist. Objectivism is a strict set of morals and beliefs; if one disagrees with any of them, one is not an Objectivist. It matters not what they call themselves; they are not Objectivists. This being said, I would not be an Objectivist, because, as I've said, I do not agree with everything Rand said.
One cannot be an objectivist, truly, unless one agrees wholly with all the beliefs and teachings of Objectivism.
x.x
Okay Colin. Here's something.
Yeah the philosophy isnt what 'makes you happy', but it sets how you view the various stimuli that affect you. Right?
"Humans, though, do not need to rely on other humans. We've grown accustomed to it, but it does not need to be as such. It is, of course, more convenient--though not necessarily better--for man to rely on others. It allows them to avoid thinking."
...Your friends are just a convenience, Colin? Is that all I am? Nothing deeper than that?
I'm sorry, that just..hurt.
"Upon thinking, one can certainly agree or disagree with different points of a philosophy. Doing such does not make one a hypocrite."
Actually, yes it does.
For example, if you called yourself a Christian and you only agreed with, say, 7 out of the 10 commandments and disregarded the other 3, then that's hypocrisy.
Its the same with any other 'philosophy'
I thought a philosophy was a collection of beliefs and values that helped one decide everything in their life. Apparently, you have one set of beliefs for one situation and another completely different one for another. Doing that would completely violate everything objectivism stands for.
I have not misidentified the purpose of philosophy, if a philosophy gives people the means to be happy, they will be happy.
Why do people do good things? Apart from moral reasons, we know that if we do something bad to someone else, it's likely that they will do the same to us, objectivism tells you to ignore this principle.
That is the problem with objectivism, nobody is going to "voluntarily" set up a government or education system, why should they? It is true that they can set up their own personal dictatorship if they so choose, but that isn't a objectivist society anymore. You don't expect people to voluntarily work in Communism, so why should this be any different?
This kind of lie is exactly what the power-hungry want you to believe. Just take away everything stopping their rise to power and then... we'll all live happily ever after in a magical fantasy world. A lot like what Communists have said in some ways...
Yes, Jessica, that would make me a hypocrite. However, consider what you are arguing and what I have claimed. If I called myself an Objectivist and disagreed with some points, I would be a hypocrite. However, I explicitly said I was not an Objectivist. As such, I can disagree with what I will and not be a hypocrite.
John, I do not hold two set of values. How do you come upon such a conclusion?
No. Philosophy gives people the means to be happy, but if the right stimuli is not presented, they will still not be happy. For instance, if, under your philosophy, success would make you happy, but you are not successful, you would not be happy. It would not be the fault of the philosophy, necessarily, but also the stimulus. Then, under your suggestion, one would have to change one's philosophy to make success bad (in the continuance of the example). You cannot change your values on every will and whim just to achieve happiness.
How does Objectivism ignore that principle? Also, why would you separate the situation from moral reasons? These would be key in the decision making; you cannot exclude them from the decision making process.
Why should they? Because they need it. Because they value the things which would be set up under voluntary funding. The difference is, in this example, between Communism and this, that in such a society, people would be working in their own rational self-interest. They would voluntarily work and donate because it would directly benefit them. Such does not happen in Communism; one works, but they do not reap the benefits.
What lie?
Objectivism does not take away anything that could hinder one's rise to riches and/or power. It gives man the means to be successful (not necessarily materiallistically, given the number of irrational people in the world), no matter the obstacles.
John, I do wish you'd attempt to further back up your statements. You draw conclusions, but don't say how you came to these conclusions.
x.x
goodness lol it seems like my blogs stir up a lot of conversation.
im just too cool.
I could completely support my arguments, but that would take a very long time, however if you're incapable of analyzing anything I say, then mabey I should write a lot, but I should hope that's not the case. When discussing philosophy, the goal is often not to specifically tell what the answer is, but to ask questions that will lead one to find the answer by their own logical thought, whether they would agree or not. However this only works when the person is open-minded.
I've already said how I know you hold at least 2 different sets of values. The 2 values are Objectivist beliefs and traditional Christian values. I know enough about objectivist philosophy to tell that the basic principles behind it conflict with the other beliefs. I've already said why this is the case, but if you wish to show that they are not conflicting belifs then go ahead. If you can compromise objectivist philosophy in some situations, what's to stop you from doing that in other situations? The problem with this is that the logical process that you use to argue for the objectivist beliefs doesn't allow your other system of values, so you must know that one of these has to be wrong. I think I can therefore assume that you have a fundamental problem with objectivism for this reason.
People choose their philosophy, it doesn't choose them. They choose a philosophy based on what they want in life. If they want happiness, then they'd choose a philosophy that makes them happy, anyone can be happy if they are determined to be. If an objectivist isn't happy, there must be something else that they want, which objectivist philosophy provides, or they just made an illogical choice of philosophy. Everyone is sad sometimes, but unless there are extrodinary circumstances the average person can be happy.
It will never be in anyone's rational self interest to provide a government, education, roads, utilities, and all the other things governments provide. If America was an objectivist society, and I had the equivelent of a trillion dollars (there couldn't be any type of currency, not even gold, in such a state, another disadvantage of objectivism) I wouldn't give it all away to give everyone a government, I'd just spend it to improve my own life and achieve my goals. Of course if I weren't such a good person as I am, I'd create my own militia, set up my own police state and create a "Brave New World" or "1984" type society with other brainwashed people whose only purpose would be to serve me, and there'd be nothing to stop me hahahahaha! Anyway, now that I'm done being evil, both of these options would help me much more than making roads and setting up schools would.
Thus, the fantasy world that will never exist.
Then, John, do support your arguments.
Tell me now, John, how do you 'know' what values I hold?
Either way, not all of the objectivist philosophy is in opposition of christianity.
And if one compromises values in one situation, he should compromise them in the same manner in each and every situation.
John, you cannot always blame the philosophy for people's unahppiness. Would you have people choose a philosophy that's basic statement was "be happy no matter what"? They'd always be happy--even in times when they shouldn't. Their mother died--oh joy! All their money is gone--yay!
No, John.
Also, you disregard the fact that the goal I mentioned was rational happiness. One, then, would have to act rationally to achieve rational happiness.
Every time one is unhappy, one should not change their philosophy--that'd lead to inconsistency and despair.
Yes, it would be. A government--to protect their rights. Which they value. Education--to provide learning, so that when their future is in their children's hands, they will be in good hands. And they value good education, and wish it to be spread. Roads--to get around much more easily. Utilities--for water and electricity; to live a better life. The last three would, of course, be taken up by private enterprises, who'd be paid for their services.
And their would be currency. It'd be gold backed, because gold has value. Its unique properties make it valuable.
And nobody's asking you to give any of it away. No, but to trade it for an equal value.
With as few rational people we have today, the world is not ready for such a society.
x.x
I thought you'd say that... but I do have a life you know...
I don't know, I just assume based on what I know about you, and I'm right.
"And if one compromises values in one situation, he should compromise them in the same manner in each and every situation." Exactly, so if you compromise objectivist philosophy in one situation then you should do it in all situations, economics, morality, and theology.
You can, because unless one loses all their money or someone close to them dies every day, it is possible to be happy. The conclusion is that objectivists don't want happiness. Rational happiness could be interpreted to mean any number of things, a definition of that would help.
Nobody's going to pay for all of that. Supposing someone did volunteer to do some of these things, would you want what you are allowed to learn in school to be determined by say Wal-Mart, according to their interests? - "ok children, today you'll be learning how to use the cash register..." Of course if one is rich it is easy to provide themself with everything they need, as long as the masses are alive and able to work for them, there's no need to provide anything above the bare minimum needed to keep them alive.
There won't be currency because there's no way to regulate the value. Say you traded your car for a pound of gold, there's no guarentee that that gold will buy you even your next meal, all it is is a lump of shiny metal, you can't eat gold, and there's nobody to set it's value, so as a result you'd only trade for what you really need, the result being a very primitive economy. There can't be any practical type of currency (coins, paper money, forget electronic transactions) because there's nobody to print and regulate it, anyone could just start printing their own money, or dispute the value of someone else's money.
john = my hero
i don't care how you live or what you think, just don't tell me what i think is wrong. all who are sick of this argument say 'aye'
aye
aye, you guys have been arguing for too long, just accept what you think and let other people have their own beliefs
Right John. Is it that you don't have time, that you don't care, or that you can't?
You shouldn't assume John. Assumptions can be wrong. Dead wrong.
John, Objectivism covers economical and moral theories; to make an exception in one area does not necessarily carry it over to the other.
Firstly, the sadness can last more than one day. And never have I said that it is impossible to be happy. That is a faulty conclusion; Objectivism holds that the ultimate goal in life is a rational happiness. How you come to such a conclusion is beyond me (you offer no support; like many of your conclusions). Rational happiness would mean happiness that is achieved rationally; happiness that is a product of one's rationality; i.e. happiness that is derived from one's values and their acting upon them.
I did not say for all of it. But, rather, for what they need, what they [rationally] want. It wouldn't be volunteering either. In examplia, a teacher offers his services--i.e. to teach the children math--for payment. If one come's offering to teach the children to use cash registers--and somebody pays him to teach his children such--then yes. But ultimately, the parents would not pay to have that taught to their students, for they do not see it as needed or rationally wanted (believe it or not, some people have higher expectations in their life than Wal-Mart).
John, the masses would be able to work for him. But if the pay and benefits are awful, would they? No. There wouldn't be just one business, one place for man to be employed. Also, one may always strike up his own business, and become quite successful--provided he fills a need or demand. The man in charge only has as much power as the people below grant--grant--to him.
There would still be a currency. People would still rationally recognize the value of gold, and set the standard accordingly (i.e., a brick of gold behind every 100 dollars).
Nobody could effectively forge money if the society, by consent of all individuals, sets a standard, currency, etc.
x.x
someone make it stop!
this is like...the neverending story all over again.
except without atreyu or that cool flying dog dragon.
Hahaha...
"You shouldn't assume John. Assumptions can be wrong. Dead wrong."
You crack me up, Colin. The way you try to be all serious sounding and everything. Like we'll be impressed by your usage of the word "dead" in that sentence. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm the only one who finds humor in Colin's style of talk, and especially his away messages (which technically isn't his style of talk, considering they're pretty much all song lyrics).
Impressed? I'm not trying to impress you. I'm trying to add emphasis to that statement, considering the truthfullness of it, and the possible consequences of making assumptions.
In examplia, Kitty Genovese. Many of the witnesses assumed that others had called the police (one wife explicitly told a husband not to call; her reasoning, that the police station was probably swamped with calls about the incident).
It is an extreme example. But such can result from assumptions.
x.x
What I meant when I said that I 'assumed' was that I knew beyond a reasonable doubt, but since I'm not you I technically don't know for certain. You should have assumed this.
And it is because I don't care enough to spend much more of my time on this. I have already said enough to explain what have said. In your post responding to what I said you used the assumption that people are rational for every one of your points, I admit, if everyone was perfect, anything would work, but people are not "rational" so you have really said nothing to deny what I've said in previous posts.
And if you're trying to impress Kevin by cracking him up I'd say you're doing a pretty good job.
No, John, I shouldn't've. I know you don't know for certain; thus you were assuming, and you shouldn't.
You've really not supported your arguments at all John; rather, you've drawn false conclusion after false conclusion with little, if any, support.
If everyone was perfect, John, if,by perfect, you mean moral and rational, anything would not work; communism and socialism, ultimately, would still not work. Although, capitalism would.
And, I've already said, I am not trying to impress Kevin. One could easily draw that from my last comment. How you did not observe that yet make unsupported faulty conclusions is beyond me.
x.x
Thank you for pointing out that my conclusions are faulty. I'm glad you're there to get my back.
Kevin, surely you noted that I called John's conclusion's faulty.
Although, both appear similar, and faulty.
x.x
Well if you'll think that my arguments are false no matter what (which I know(sorry, I 'assume') is true) then there's really no point in explaining them anymore. If you refuse to be open minded or even think about what I'm saying, I'm not going to try.
How can you say that socialism wouldn't work but capitalism would if everyone was perfect?
You really need to start assuming things, for example, when Kevin and I reach the same conclusion, it's safe to assume that our conclusions are the same and that if you call one faulty, you're probably calling the other faulty, especially when you've already said that it's false.
No John, that isn't what I think. If you're arguments were rational and thought-out and similar to my and pro-capitalism, I'd agree.
But that isn't why you'll not try. You are trying, I believe, to rationalize your not trying, although the real reason is that you have no support for your arguments.
If everyone was perfect, everyone would be rational, and capitalism is the only rational economical system. Easy enough.
x.x
"How you [Kevin] did not observe that yet make unsupported faulty conclusions is beyond me."
Colin, you're saying that you'd agree with our arguments if they didn't disagree with yours? Duh.
And the real reason John won't argue any more is most likely that he simply realizes that he can't win. This doesn't mean that he realizes he will lose, just that there is no getting through to you, because you have a response to every one of our claims. That response is the same for each one, that the claim is not rational, and therefore not worthy to consider. You, however, are the one not providing evidence for your arguments. You've called our arguments irrational many (many, many, many...) times, and yet have not told us why they are irrational, nor have you explained why being irrational is a bad thing. (Note: I'm not saying irrationality is a good thing, I simply want to know your explanation of why its not good.)
No. Kevin. The you was referring to John. Consider the context of the conversation; he'd accused me, indirectly, of trying to impress you, despite the fact that I had explicitly denied trying to impress anyone. What was beyond me was how John could miss such an explicitly open response, and yet draw faulty conclusions. Although I guess, upon further inspection, that isn't so far from what he's been doing anyway.
That is exactly what I'm saying.
No. He cannot win. Not that he will not win--but that he cannot. Due largely to the fact that he is wrong.
Thank you for pointing that out. I have a rational response to every one of your claims. However, I do consider it, and then attempt to show either the irrationality of it or the rationality of its opposite, which would render it irrational. I've told you why it is irrational. Perhaps you've not seen the reasons, but I've said them.
Irrationality is bad, simply, because it is maladaptive to life.
x.x
Once again(!): "And, I've already said, I am not trying to impress Kevin. One could easily draw that from my last comment. How you did not observe that yet make unsupported faulty conclusions is beyond me."
That it was you said, and that paragraph was specifically referring to me.
Not all irrationality is maladaptive to life. For the big things, sure. But for trivial things, being irrational would not hurt you. A lot of times being irrational actually helps you, because it is often considered fun (unless you consider the pursuit of fun [or happiness, to broaden it] the main goal in life, in which case pursuing it would be rational at any costs).
Once again, Kevin, read the paragraph. In context. Yes, I used your name, and was referring to what I had said in response to your comment, but it was directed at John. Referring to you, yes; directed at you, no.
All irrationality. The 'fun' derived from the trivial things is the individual attempting to escape reality and/or the pressure being taken off to be rational. It's just another way to evade reality, and, mentally, very maladaptive.
And, Kevin, yes, happiness. But rational happiness. You've seemed to totally disregarded that.
x.x
I obviously didn't miss your statement denying that you're trying to impress Kevin. My comment "And if you're trying to impress Kevin by cracking him up I'd say you're doing a pretty good job." was mainly to note that your response to Kevin's comment about you trying to impress him with your attempted seriousness (use of the word 'dead' specifically) might have also been humorous for the same reason as the first. Of course I did imply that you were trying to impress him, I saw you deny it, but I don't believe it.
Colin, the reason I "can't" win is that you will not listen. You've admitted that you're not even going to consider anything that you don't already agree with, and you won't think about any of my arguments, the only way you'll agree is if you recognize the argument as being one that you already agree with. So there's really nothing I can do to convince you. I however am open-minded about this, I'll listen to your arguments, and if, having considered them, I think they're good, then I'll agree with you.
And you have given very few actual reasons for why you think something is rational besides the belief that it agrees with Objectivist philosophy.
Irrationality is generally a bad thing, but since everyone (including and especially you) does many irrational things, it seems to be at least a nescessary evil.
Smart, John. Don't trust the person who knows best, when regarding themselves.
John, I have listened. And I've rebutted every argument you've made. That's why you cannot win.
Of course, the fault could be mine. I could've very easily over estimated your ability to think rationally and reasonably.
I have considered it, John. And none of your argument works.
I've given reasons; many more than you have. As aforementioned, your brain seemingly doesn't think reasonably, rationally.
Just because 'everyone' (which you cannot prove) does something, that does not make it necessary. And I myself have never claimed to be perfectly rational; that's just my goal.
x.x
Wow, Colin. You pull it off again. You never actually provided any reason for your arguments, but you claim that you did, and every time we ask you for some you simply say that you've already provided it and we must have missed it. Can't you show us the error, instead of simply telling us we've made one? SHow us where the reason to support your argument lies, because I haven't seen it yet.
Colin, you may know yourself best, but that doesn't mean you can't lie.
I've provided arguments and reasons. I just don't care to repeat them all. Especially they are all documented, in the comments of the blogs.
I could lie, Kevin. But reason have I to do that?
x.x
You just did.
You said you've provided evidence, but thats not true. At least, by the typical definition of evidence you haven't. Maybe by your warped view you've provided some.
I have provided evidence. If you want factual evidence, you know that's impossible. But I've provided a rational and reasonable argument, with evidence based on reason. Which is, I think, as far as one can go.
x.x
How is gaining strength from yourself arrogant?
x.x
Its not.
Gaining strength only from yourself is.
How so?
x.x
Arrogance: "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims" (Merriam-Webster).
Attempting to find strength only in yourself is a way of showing that you believe you don't need to find strength in others.
There must be a reason why you don't believe you need to find strength in others, but you believe you do need to find strength in yourself. The only reason I can think of for this assessment of yours is that you believe others are inferior to you as far as strength-providing goes, and that they simply cannot meet your needs. Believing others to be inferior is a display of arrogance.
Ah, but consider. It said gaining strength from yourself (and you clarified to 'only' yourself) was arrogant.
Now, what you've said assumes that one is able to find strength from others. What if you find no strength from others, and, as such, your strength comes only from yourself?
Or, perhaps, if one does not look for strength in others because one finds plenty of strength within himself..he needs no other. But nor is he calling others inferior. How would that be arrogance?
x.x
Saying that one needs no others would be the same as saying the are inferior. If they were superior, then it would be better to draw strength from them, instead of oneself.
And yes, I did clarify to only oneself. Gaining strength from oneself is not arrogant, its only arrogant when one gains strength only from oneself.
Why do you ask this? What's your opinion on the matter, if you'll tell me?
But would it always necessarily be arrogant? Consider my first example; what if you can find strength in no other? The only strength available comes from oneself?
What if you don't think you are better than others, but you know so?
My opinion? I don't think it's arrogant, in any form. Confident. But not arrogant. Self-sufficient. Self-dependant. It'd be better for all to be able to gain strength from themselves than having to rely on others, I think.
x.x
"What if you don't think you are better than others, but you know so?"
I'm not going to say anything to that, because I'm sure you only used the word 'know' to ilicit a reaction from me on another subject.
"It'd be better for all to be able to gain strength from themselves than having to rely on others, I think."
When you say "others," are you including or excluding God? Because I thought you fancied yourself a Catholic.
I wasn't; nor was I implying that I know I'm better than anyone.
It includes God, considering that all strength, ultimately, comes from God.
You still haven't addressed my first example, though it may be extreme: What if one cannot find support elsewhere, and thus must gain strength from only himself?
x.x
You've just said that all strength comes from God, so how does exmaple make sense at all?
That example is irrelevant, it only applies if the person has no contact with other people and doesn't believe in God. Even if one is in a society and claims not to be able to get strength from others they're still getting strength from them, they're just too arrogant to admit it. It's good to want to be self-sufficient to some extent, but none of us are completely self-sufficient and you can't pretend otherwise and make it so.
What of those that everyone is against. The ones that nobody thinks can make it. I do not consider God an external source of strength, here.
And I've already said that the example was extreme. But plausible.
x.x
God is an external source. To say He is internal, in one sense of the word, may be true. He is inside you, but He comes from the outside, and He is a completely separate entity from yourself.
The only way an extreme example would work, as John was getting at, would be if the person had no contact with other humans, and didn't believe in God. In this case, he would gain strength only from himself because he had no other choice. It would not be him consciously picking himself as the sole provider of strength, so either way your example doesn't work.
It does. All that was said gaining strength from oneself was arrogant. Such is not applicable to all situations; if one has no other source, it is not. Thus, the example is relevant and disproves the statement that "gaining strength from oneself is arrogant" [paraphrased].
x.x
No, the example does not prove anything except a trivial point of yours. Sorry, but the exmaple John and I just proposed is not the same one of which you were thinking when you first asked about the topic. (You can go on about how would I know what you were thinking, but you know that you weren't thinking that when you proposed your example.)
Mabey I should quote you from your AIM away message where you said that if getting strength only from onesself was evil you didn't want to be virtuous (something along those lines anyway) this along with the other things you've said shows that you didn't mean only in a situation where there weren't any others around, because I know you don't want to be all alone and then reject God, like one would if they got strength only from themself.
All the example was supposed to do was to prove that point. Which I really don't find trivial.
Getting strength, I believe, from yourself, would not be rejecting God.
x.x
You're entitled to believe what you want. But I also believe getting strength only from yourself would be rejecting God. (Note the "only." You seem to be leaving that key part out.)
No, I've not really left it out. As I said earlier, I would count God as an external source, since he would, ultimately, be the source of all strength.
x.x
If you believe God is the source of all strength, that means that you believe that you get strength from God, not only yourself. Do you think that you get strength from only yourself? If not, do you want to get strength only from yourself? That's certainly what you've implied. (including or excluding God)
"As I said earlier, I would count God as an external source..."
Exactly. So you agree with us.
I apologize. I meant, I do NOT see God as an external source.
You get strength from yourself, which would have come from God.
x.x
If you believe some of your strength comes from God, even if it's through yourself, that means that you see God as an external source, even though you might deny it.
Okay what I was mainly trying to say here is that...
A philosophy should provide us with a way of life that brings us happiness and prosperity.
Haha..and when you have an away message up that says "All happiness is is good health and a bad memory"...Well that philosophy is pretty screwed up.
Colin, you can't claim to 'know'--and i mean really know-- God and be so eternally depressed. And write things like "Void" or "Rejection" or "Lies" all over your agenda. If you do, then you dont know the first thing about God. Unless you know and reject everything because you want to be so down.
I'd go on, but...
With that said...
If your strength comes from God, etc... but you claim it comes from yourself--thats what the arrogance is.
Also, acknowledging you're too good to be helped is a form of arrogance. Isn't it?
PS--It was pretty gross how you all were stroking the pigs. Ugh!
No, John, I don't. I can't say it much more clearly.
Jessica, firstly, I believe most of that to be irrelevant.
Also, it was 'poor' memory. And that itself would not be a philosophy.
Nor have I said that I had effectively applied any philosophy. To bring in personal examples, I believe, would be faulty, considering the persons and the fact that it would be nothing more than a case study and there would be no evidence, no cause/effect...you'd have to get a real sample for such. Which is widely unavailable at this point.
x.x
I agree with some of what you said just now, Colin. The case-point example mainly. We cannot base our views that objectivism does not work and only depresses people on our experiences with it, considering most of our experience comes from you.
The goal of any philosophy is to provide a way in which to live life. The goal of any life is to be happy (after the primitive goal, of course, of surviving).
Colin, are you God? If you answer that with a 'no' and you get strength from God, then you ARE GETTING STRENGTH FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE. Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Getting strength from yourself is the only example of getting strength from an internal source. All else is external.
How is God not an external source of strength if you get strength from God? You can't get strength from something other than yourself and rightly claim that you got all the strength yourself. The only other logical conclusion is that you believe yourself to be God. An easier way to argue this would be for you to say that God doesn't count, that you were only talking about other people, since there's really no way to argue your current position.
You can argue around the facts as much as you want, but if a philosophy does the opposite of what it is meant to (make one happy) then it can't be very good for that person.
Jessica, also you did not argue on the [abstract] points of philosophy, which is, I believe, what was awaited.
But there is God in each of us. He would manifest Himself in several forms. One of such may be strength; as such it would be internal. I see your argument per se, and I think the concept is almost ambigious.
John, once again, philosophy's goal is not to make people happy. It's goal is to give you a code by which to live by--which would give one the means to be happy; it would not make them happy.
x.x
"But there is God in each of us. He would manifest Himself in several forms. One of such may be strength; as such it would be internal. I see your argument per se, and I think the concept is almost ambigious."
Still, wrong. Even if he did manifest himself in us in many forms, one of them being strength, it would still have come from an external source. Its not ambiguous, you just don't see the truth (either because you're in too deep in the argument and refuse to give in now, or you simply aren't using logic).
I believe if you look at my comment (a few up) you'll see that I agree with you, Colin, about the goal of a philosophy. But I also agree with John. This is because a philosophy provides a way in which to lead one's life, and the goal of living one's life is to be happy, thus the purpose of a philosophy is to provide a way to happiness (feel free to disagree).
I still wouldn't count it as an external source. Although I can certainly see why you would.
And I see how one could say that their philosophy is not fulfilling. But, again, any unhappiness, than, could be and would be attributed to the philosophy. One cannot do such; philosophy will give you the means. You must figure out the rest. If you are not happy, you cannot necessarily blame the philosophy--though in some cases, you most likely could--but also the other significant factors that would contribute to one's unhappiness. In examplia, the stimuli of one's unhappiness, ie. one's friend dying; one cannot say that their philosophy is wrong because they are sad at such occasion.
x.x
Whats the sad occasion for you, Colin? What's your excuse?
Have I said there is one?
Although I certainly could apply one, I won't, seeing as I find it irrelevant. Once again, you are using a case study to try and prove your point, but that does not really refute my point at all.
x.x
by now, im not trying to prove a point about philosophy or anything, Colin.
In case you havent notice, I'm worried about YOU.
This entire year all I've wanted is for you to be...happy. But something is binding you to non-happy feelings.
I'm just concerned, that's all.
But this is a case about philosophy. Not one person. Philosophy.
x.x
*sigh*
Post a Comment