Objectivism.

[jacobo]

1. reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. he must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. the pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. the ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. the government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. in a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. -rand please react to this...

[mongreloctopus]

how have you determined number one?

[Merlock]

The third point is pathetic. Even from the view point of ultimate objectivity the purpose of existance is in experiences, not solely in self gain and experiences can be vastly different. However, I prefer living life, not just existing and there are things in life that are wroth sacrificing yourself for. Or have you not heard of love? Emotions unlike logic are something that greatly contribute to the formation of one's ego.

[Dangeruss]

the ideals presented here sound very American, and a bit cold, but that doesn't mean they don't have merit. There is no purpose in life other than to pursue one's own self interest, to live freely and make the most of every second. However, there are few cases in which a person's interests don't include goodwill towards others and a general motivation to get along. Societies have existed for some time now, and so empathy is a fundamental part of the psyche. in fact, wild man is dead and forgotten. Societal peoples driven by unity encountered wild man driven by pursuing just his own interests and happiness, and in an ironic twist of fate they wiped him off the face of the earth or made him do work for them. Those who lived absolutely free soon learned that they were defenseless, and ended up in absolute slavery. So as societies continue to develop, the carefree nature of the wild man slips farther and farther from human memory, replaced with ideals of love and goodwill towards men, even if it means sacrificing no small amount of personal freedom. In this transitionary stage, we are together at a superficial level, our feelings of mutual acceptance surpressed by various forces, our want of personal freedom suppressed by even greater forces. We are all alone together, neither free to roam the metaphorical gardens of eden nor unified by universal human understanding, caught in limbo between our love of each other and our love of ourselves. Feeling two ways at once as we always do, there is no perfect system and no single definition of happiness; the world in which we are trapped is our own to explore and understand, but only as far as the times will allow. And I just got a really weird Deja vu.

[jacobo]

this is the fundamental philosophy set forth by author ayn rand. i did not write these. and funny enough she's not a product of america... she's a product of communist russia. how have you determined number one?[/b] well there IS one uniform reality... people choose to bend it to their will. Even from the view point of ultimate objectivity the purpose of existance is in experiences, not solely in self gain and experiences can be vastly different. [/b] experience is a form of self gain.

[mongreloctopus]

well there IS one uniform reality... people choose to bend it to their will. [/b] saying that doesn't make it true.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Originally posted by adidas 1. reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....5858&highlight= I'd ask which facts she was talking about, where she got them, and if the facts on this thread are a part of them. And the simple fact that she sees #3 the way she does makes me question her mental capacity.

[Moonbeam]

I concur in theory, but what about: the environment, animals, children whose parents aren't good at capitalism? Ayn Rand was against charity. I think libertarianism is a major step in the right direction from both objectivism and whatever it is we have now; but I don't want to step over starving kids in the street (I am not entirely convinced I should have to help pay for their public education though!), I don't want corporations to be treated like people (limiting the freedom of a corporation is entirely different than limiting the freedom of a person), and I absolutely hate toll roads. Also: what about the fact that the have-nots get very restless when the smart or lucky or well-born haves don't give a little? Not sustainable in the long run, like communism. But if we went 95% of the way it would be good. Some anarchists think that you should only be able to use and own what you can physically control, like if you want to have a factory, you have it in your own backyard, so the harm that it does is done directly to you. Kind of interesting way of looking at things, and maybe a way of freedom without the damage of extreme capitalism. I realize, not practical, but anarchists usually aren't!

[jacobo]

Originally posted by Oneironaut http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....5858&highlight= I'd ask which facts she was talking about, where she got them, and if the facts on this thread are a part of them. And the simple fact that she sees #3 the way she does makes me question her mental capacity. i throw a stone into a lake and it sinks to the bottom. that's a fact. you can make up as many laws as you want to explain that FACT but those laws are not FACTs by proxy. quantum physics is not fact... hell... physics is not fact. it's law created by man in reaction to his environment. also i'd like to point out that i do not totally adhere to this philosophy. it's extremely fun to toy with and strive for... but i'm not capable of it in my current state of mind... and frankly anyone who does adhere to this philosophy wouldn't take the time to explain it to you or defend Rand's intelligence. saying that doesn't make it true.[/b] why not?

[mongreloctopus]

Originally posted by adidas why not? i have never experienced anything objective.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Originally posted by adidas i throw a stone into a lake and it sinks to the bottom. that's a fact. you can make up as many laws as you want to explain that FACT but those laws are not FACTs by proxy. quantum physics is not fact... hell... physics is not fact. it's law created by man in reaction to his environment. You are only partially correct. You are confusing the observations with the theories and “laws” they spawn. The fundamental observations seen in both physics and quantum physics are facts. It’s advocating what they imply where we step into the world of opinion. You throw a stone into a lake and it sinks to the bottom. How do you know? Because you watched it happen. Does it imply that anytime you drop a rock into a lake it’s going to sink to the bottom? No it doesn’t. Perhaps it’s got a smooth surface on the bottom side, breaks the plane of water and curves into the side of the lake bed and get’s stuck. Can you even see the bottom of the lake? What if it’s a small stone and it’s mistaken for food on it’s way to the bottom and a large fish just happens to swallow it? If YOU SEE the rock you threw touch the bottom of the lake, that is the only way that you can factually say it happened. The occurrence of quantum entanglement is a fact, and has been, long since before Einstein called it “Spooky action at a distance.” The idea that the same force that causes your rock to sink to the lake is the same that makes asteroids and meteors break their forward momentum and curve toward a planet after coming within a certain range is a fact. How do we know this? Because, given a straight path toward water, the space rock would most likely (given no unexpected variables occur) hit the water and sink to the bottom, just like your rock. The physical observation that the force gravity exists is a fact. To say how it works, or that “What goes up must inarguably come down” are not. See the difference? In this way, I agree with you about “Physical Laws” I don’t think any Physical observation should ever be called a “Law,” because Laws give the sense of infallibility. But I don’t know of any “Laws” within the realm of quantum physics…..do you? As of now, it is a study of facts, just like how you observe your rock sinking to the bottom, physicists have observed electrons that can jump orbit by momentarily disappearing from any and all physical detection, and that light can be perceived as either wave or particle. To give the assessment that wave/particle duality and non-locality have been witnessed is fact. To state that they imply something like say…Bohm’s Implicate Order..is not, but is a possiblity, based on facts, in direct resistence to Rand's philosophy of stating "Facts are Facts" to suggest any objective, absolute, reality. This works both ways, though, as the existence of these phenomena forces Rand to take them into account, and this would probably be a hell of a task for such a materialist. The fact that these things happen means that Rand must know, unequivocally, that they do not give Any Credit Whatsoever to the possibility of a subjective universe. If she can display that sort of knowledge, as I said earlier, I’d like to see what facts she’s talking about, in full. Originally posted by adidas and frankly anyone who does adhere to this philosophy wouldn't take the time to explain it to you or defend Rand's intelligence. ..is that a fact?

[Peregrinus]

Originally posted by adidas+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adidas)</div> 1. reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.[/b] The ultimate nature of reality has nothing to do with the human experience - only human perception does - and human perception is most definitively subjective. Human beings do not perceive an objective absolute; they perceive human feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears superimposed upon arguably objective events. I say arguably here since what you are proposing is within the realm of philosophy, religion, and opinion - not science. Science deals only with the human perception of reality, stripped, as much as is possible, of subjectivity, but not devoid of it. All of our measurements taken by hopefully objective instrumentation must inevitably pass through human sense perception before being recognized, experienced, and analyzed. Whether that which we are measuring is absolute and objective is unknowable. It seems that way, it appears that way, it is most often perceived that way by modern scientific minds, but that is all that we can truly say. Anything beyond that is judgment, opinion, and speculation, regardless of whether one's ultimate interpretation is of an absolute, objective reality or a purely subjective one. For this reason, any talk of an ultimate reality is irrelevant and extraneous to the development of a human code of behavior and economic conduct. Human life is an act of interpretation through our sensory faculties, and that interpretation, regardless of the nature of what is being interpreted, is subjective, not objective. It is foolish and irresponsible to ignore the fundamental subjectivity of human experience. Even our reason is predicated upon subjective emotions and value judgments. Those emotions include love and caring and goodwill toward other human beings, regardless of whether one believes those emotions are based in empathetic emotional connections or informed self-interest. For this reason, Rand's number three is not logically consistent. <!--QuoteBegin-adidas/Rand he must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. the pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. Sometimes people do sacrifice themselves for others - for their family, their friends, their fellow soldiers, their ideals. They place the continuation of other lives above the continuation of their own. It can be quite effectively argued that such sacrifices are selfish - namely, that those who sacrifice themselves could not live with their own sense of guilt and betrayed morals if they did not make the sacrifice and thus the act was to preserve their own mental well-being and not truly for the sake of those saved. In this case, one's own rational self-interest leads directly to sacrifice. You cannot decouple emotion from rationality in human beings. Sacrifice, in these cases, is the logical choice, and if one believes that emotional connections are innately self-interested, then these sacrifeces are made for the sake of the one sacrificed, not for the sake of those saved. People love and care for each other. They hate and harm each other. Whether those feelings are selfless or simply an evolved survival mechanism is irrelevant. The emotions are real and they form an integral part of our perceptual experiences and our human rationality and logic. To disregard the role of emotion and other subjective aspects of the human experience when formulating any code of conduct is to create a flawed and incomplete code. And of course, if number one and number three are so fundamentally flawed, number four has no logical foundation upon which it can be supported. Until evidence more compelling and consistent with the human experience is forwarded, the value of laissez-faire capitalism will remain in dispute, especially considering the human rights abuses which were perpetrated under the essentially laissez-faire system which operated in the United States pre-Great Depression.

[wombing]

*laughs* truly rand's intellect dazzles me...if only one of the geniuses who understands this supreme knowledge would enlighten us lowly mental peasants...but alas, it is not to be. they are too busy trying to justify (and institute?) laissez-faire capitalism... the absurdity is delicious...it starts with talk of "objective absolutes" and ends up with 4. the ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. the government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. in a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. [/b] and on top of that it throws in morals... pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. [/b] absolute objectivism---->human reason----->highest moral purpose----> laissez-faire capitalism of course!!! that's truth if i've ever heard it.

[jacobo]

the only fact is that it happened... not how or why. Originally posted by Oneironaut ..is that a fact? :chuckle: that's an observation. and Peregrinus, this is a philosophy. a method/process one can choose to follow. of course people sacrifice themselves to others. i do it every day and frankly i don't know anyone who doesn't. of course!!! that's truth if i've ever heard it.[/b] well then please explain life and everything in it. and go.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Originally posted by adidas+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adidas)</div> the only fact is that it happened... not how or why. [/b] ....I'm sure I said that somewhere up there ^^^ <!--QuoteBegin-adidas that's an observation. Is it? What did you observe that gives you that impression? I think the fact that Ayn Rand is an author, writing books that explain her philosophy in detail is a direct contradiction to your observation. What you call an observation, I guess I have to call speculation, at best.

[wombing]

well then please explain life and everything in it. and go.[/b] i do not believe life can be explained. i was overly sarcastic, but that is only because i have become increasingly frustrated lately with words. those four points just struck me as so obviously absurd...why do so many thinkers feel the need to bring "absolutes", "objectiveness", and other such childish (IMHO) non-sense into things? reason is as much a subjective human faculty as sight or hearing. we can only show someone with similar eyes a colourful sunset (but cannot show that same sunset to a dog, or fly). we can only reason with those who already accept our general premises. there is no absolute or objective mode of sight, and there is no absolute or objective mode of reasoning. if rand feels a particular brand of capitalism would be the "best" course of action for subjective humans, that should be the focus of her thoughts/writings. she herself called her philosphy of objectivism "a philosophy for living on earth"..so why all this completely speculative mumbo-jumbo about "objective absolutes"? they add absolutely nothing to her thoughts except fluff and dogma, and make me personally look on anything else she might say as suspect. seeing as you asked me to explain life, here's my explanation: we are seemingly a bunch of subjective animals in a dualistic world...any attempts at explaining subjective, limited, perception-based existence in terms of absolutes or objectiveness is based purely in conjecture, and speculation. historically those who have couched personal philosophies based on whimsy and personal predisposition in objective absolutist terms have spawned some of the worst injustices between brother and brother.

[Peregrinus]

Originally posted by adidas and Peregrinus, this is a philosophy. a method/process one can choose to follow. of course people sacrifice themselves to others. i do it every day and frankly i don't know anyone who doesn't. Then what is the advantage of holding to such an obviously flawed philosophy, one which ignores in its formulation one of the most important aspects of the human experience (namely our subjective, emotional attachments to each other)? And why would you post and ask for a discussion on something clearly absurd?

[sasha]

I probably don't agree with Rand about anything and I despise some of her ideas, but I still highly recommend two of her novels: Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Even if you end up rejecting her philosophy entirely, they still get you to do some soul-searching. And besides that, I make a point of exposing myself to things I disagree with. But, seriously, she writes good and substantial fiction. Even if you hate her, you will frequently find yourself enamored with her protagonists. For a better quick intro to Objectivism: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...jectivism_intro

[sasha]

Hmmm... coincidence? Atlas Shrugged coming out as a movie http://www.variety.com/VR1117942127.html

[jacobo]

show me any philosophy and i'll show you flaws. ayn rand is not an objectivist. ayn rand did not write any sort of field guide to objectivism, she wrote fiction. her novels fostered the philosophy of objectivism. so oneironaut before you try to cut me down for 'poor observations' i suggest you reflect on what you're saying, and why you're saying it. honestly i think she's difficult to read. i think her writing is beautiful but she's very much a jagged little pill. if any of you have read the fountainhead... i have never met anyone in my life that is like howard roark. at least not the extreme of his character. i've never met someone who's pure reason and every thing they do is done deliberately. i think it was john milton who wrote an essay on how to solve a nation's hunger problems. the satire follows pure reason to its inevitable doom. his pure reason answer to starvation is that we eat our children. it gives us something to eat and it makes less mouths to feed. that's pure reason. that's objectivism. it's not my philosophy but it's better than most of the crap i hear from peers.

[sasha]

Originally posted by adidas ayn rand is not an objectivist. ayn rand did not write any sort of field guide to objectivism, she wrote fiction. her novels fostered the philosophy of objectivism. She may have written fiction, but she did so to very explicitly communicate the philosophy that she developed. Go here for her own short statement on it: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...jectivism_intro Originally posted by adidas i think it was john milton who wrote an essay on how to solve a nation's hunger problems. Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal

[Oneironaut Zero]

That was the same link I was going to repost, Sasha. Thanks. And I'm not trying to "cut you down" for anything, adidas. You simply stated, giving the illusion of a well-founded observation, that " frankly anyone who does adhere to this philosophy wouldn't take the time to explain it to you or defend Rand's intelligence.” All I said was, basically, that this is a bold statement to make and, if baseless, was more of an assumption than an observation, and thereafter asked what your bases were. Nothing more. From her page I got the impression that Ayn is an Objectivist. (still do) But if your goal wasn't to point and counterpoint on the essense of the philosophy, then I guess I just misunderstood the intention behind your opening post.

[PhowaBoy]

Point # 1 can be deposed using Relativity. If all objects of existence are made of time, space, mass (ie. Energy - E=mc^2), then all objects of existence come into being, with respect to the other objects. There is no absolute position one can take to define an object universally, accept by saying that all objects are defined relative to a chosen frame of reference. This supports the Axiom of Choice (math) as well as observed phenomena (high speed particle physics). It's a lot to explain, but modern physics can prove that existence is not an absolute. All that follows from an argument proclaiming that existence is absolute, must be flawed. I'd like to think the world is truly how you percieve it, and what you make it. I'd like to see a governmental system created from that!

[sasha]

Originally posted by PhowaBoy Point # 1 can be deposed using Relativity. This deals only with a relativity of frame of reference. Objectivists have no problem at all with relativity. Accepting relativity doesn't require viewing reality as whatever we perceive. Translating velocities and such between frames of reference actually requires accepting the objective existence of both the objects in motion and the laws of motion used to analyze that motion. They exist independent of the frames of reference or the observer's perceptions or politics.

[PhowaBoy]

Originally posted by sasha They exist independent of the frames of reference or the observer's perceptions or politics. I'm of the opinion that objects can not exist seperate from thier frames of reference. A massive object can not exist without it's geometry, and geometry can not exist without mass. In order to define an object, you need to relate it to a frame of reference. This is true for all things percieved and experienced.