I think it's a better argument than the Buddhist claim. And I never said anything about putting faith in anything. "Particles" was a metaphorical example. I'm simply realizing limitations. No matter how far we can see, there's always something further we can't see. To deny limitations is irrational. That doesn't mean our limited view doesn't constitute our reality. This is the very heart of perspectivism; one's perspective is one's reality. But holding onto my perspectivist tendencies, citing Nietzsche, the idea of reaching some center of "reality" isn't possible, and for this very reason, one person's idea of "reality" is no more true than another person's idea of "reality" (validity aside).
In any sense, what we perceive as reality is closely related to consciousness, and I know objectivism touches on this (I'm not sure if I differ from the theory here or not encase I haven't read that much into it). When you’re conscious you’re more lucid, when you’re unconscious you’re more imaginative, for example... thus interpreting how you perceive your reality. Without consciousness reality wouldn't exist from our point of view, because we wouldn't be here to perceive it. "Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." I'm not trying to refute that claim, but as an addendum one must recognize that a reality exists beyond our consciousness. If we step outside our bodies, and our consciousness, we're likely to "see" an intact physical reality that exists and persists independent of us, whether we're here or not.
There is a reality independent of humans (there's an obvious logic to this), that exists with or without humans. I don't know if this supports objectivism or not.
If you're into science (I don't claim to know much of anything about science), you might find this interesting: http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html This could easily be pseudo-science, but it's interesting nonetheless. Bohn basically proposes objective reality does not exist (based on some experiments done on subatomic particles), and that despite an apparent solidity the universe is, at heart, a phantasm.
I would also like to offer that the word “reality” is essentially defined as that which is known to exist. With that in mind, isn’t it ironic (or in some cases hypocritical) to use it in such contexts of uncertainty? I revert back to Nietzschean perspectivism here, and fully realize my own hypocrisies.
Interesting. Because I could also make the true claim that moral altruism can account for the oppression caused by governments. I am not discrediting your statement, but merely pointing out that you only presented one side. This is a fine line you are walking, and I am not certain how many logical deductions you can make from this line of though. Furthermore I would claim that Objectivism at it's core is against the notions in government that would cause oppression of the people. And Objectivism embraces ethical egoism and rejects moral altruism.
I can make the logical deduction that ethical egoism accounts for atrocities and oppression committed by governments because ethical egoism is centered around acting in self-interest, which is precisely what governments do. If objectivism is against oppression it would be against governments, not pro-governments that don't oppress, because no such government exists. I'm not sure why you think altruistic tendencies in governments would cause oppression like egoistic tendencies. One would promote the welfare of others even if acting in self-interest and the other would just act in self-interest, with the welfare of others being irrelevant unless it served the self-interest of the government. There is a difference there (one promotes welfare regardless while the other does not, therefore one is more just than the other, not necessarily morally prominent). Please explain your thinking on that.
I take issue with your use of the word greedy here. I don't believe that necessary all desires result in wanting an excess of what it requires. I believe that the human will ultimately act in their best interests, but I do believe it is unfair to call their self interests greed.
Call it whatever you will. Promoting one's self works as well. Greed may just be an excessive way of describing self-interest or self-promotion, though. Adam Smith thought it was inherent in our nature, Karl Marx didn't. There are actually some interesting arguments out there that greed is a product of economic systems. I don't really buy that, but it's interesting reading.
I fail to see why this is a distraction? care to elaborate a little? I am okay with dropping this branch, but I am curious why you believe this would derail us. Specifically Rockefeller.
Quite simply, if we're going to discuss philosophy, let's discuss philosophy. If we're going to discuss economics, let's discuss economics. But let's not combine the two. And also, I don't know enough about Rockefeller to challenge your case.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Interesting. Because I could also make the true claim that moral altruism can account for the oppression caused by governments. I am not discrediting your statement, but merely pointing out that you only presented one side. This is a fine line you are walking, and I am not certain how many logical deductions you can make from this line of though. Furthermore I would claim that Objectivism at it's core is against the notions in government that would cause oppression of the people. And Objectivism embraces ethical egoism and rejects moral altruism.
I can make the logical deduction that ethical egoism accounts for atrocities and oppression committed by governments because ethical egoism is centered around acting in self-interest, which is precisely what governments do. If objectivism is against oppression it would be against governments, not pro-governments that don't oppress, because no such government exists. I'm not sure why you think altruistic tendencies in governments would cause oppression like egoistic tendencies. One would promote the welfare of others even if acting in self-interest and the other would just act in self-interest, with the welfare of others being irrelevant unless it served the self-interest of the government. There is a difference there (one promotes welfare regardless while the other does not, therefore one is more just than the other, not necessarily morally prominent). Please explain your thinking on that.
Do you not consider what the elected officials say when they are doing these acts that you consider "acting in self-interest"? I understand what I am about to say is skimming the surface of a really large on complex economic situation, so please allow us to only talk in generalities. Obama and his Health-care package was not Obama acting in his own self-interests. He had said it was our moral obligation to make sure all citizens of this society have access to health-care. How can you claim that this is Obama acting in his own self-interest when he benefits nothing from this health-care package? He had great coverage and can afford the best doctors in the world. Clearly Obama is actions regarding this package can more be thought of as moral altruism (defined as "selfless concern for the welfare of others").
Before you respond to the above, let me just come clean and say that I totally understand that Obama most likely was using this as some political ploy to gain some extra political power. This is such a common thing for elected officials; Preach how you need to do something to "save the world" and really behind closed doors it is lining your pockets. Regardless, this is what I mean when I claim that Moral Altruism is to blame for the injustices by our governments. Moral Altruism in name is to blame for the injustices in our legal system. I don't care if that Moral Altruism is just a wolf in sheep clothing, the people are too dumb to see through this lie and it pushes us further down the spiral of bigger government, more ethical and moral injustices, and just simply less freedom. I believe Moral Altruism has NO place in politics... Its only use is deceit and deception.
Politically speaking, Objectivism holds that the only purpose of the government is to protect the individuals right to life, liberty, and the product of their efforts (or property if you like). You can try and widdle down the meaning of Objectivism to acting in your own self-interests, but that I really only half the story. The full story is it is acting in your own self-interest in an arrangement that is agreeable to all parties involved. Your liberty shall not trump the liberty of others. In that sense, I would say Objectivism isnt to blame for any governmental crimes against humanity. Yes, the crimes might be elected officials acting in their own self-interest, however they are doing so at the sake of others liberty. This is not Objectivism.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
The full story is it is acting in your own self-interest in an arrangement that is agreeable to all parties involved.
:-?
Do you disagree with that comment as it relates to Objectivism? Or is the idea foreign to you? An example - I spend my time and money making a painting. Someone sees that painting and asks to buy it. I consider how much time and money I spent to create it and decide that I value 100 dollars more then I value the painting. I tell him 100 dollars and he thinks that he values my painting for more then 100 dollars so we make the exchange. Both people are acting in their self interests in this situation, neither is getting fucked. I understand this is an economic example of philosophy. However when illuminatus917 tried to bring Objectivism into something tangential like politics, that is the result. That sentence you quoted is exactly how objectivism is required to be implemented in the real world. It is consistent with the philosophy and realistic.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Part of me wants to read all that cause I know it will be intelligent and well written, but the other part just says "fuck it, too long."
I think the second part is closer to the truth here. I don't know how intelligent or well written any of that conversation was. Really the only thing meaningful you could take away from any of that is that I am right yet again. :-))
Comments
In any sense, what we perceive as reality is closely related to consciousness, and I know objectivism touches on this (I'm not sure if I differ from the theory here or not encase I haven't read that much into it). When you’re conscious you’re more lucid, when you’re unconscious you’re more imaginative, for example... thus interpreting how you perceive your reality. Without consciousness reality wouldn't exist from our point of view, because we wouldn't be here to perceive it. "Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." I'm not trying to refute that claim, but as an addendum one must recognize that a reality exists beyond our consciousness. If we step outside our bodies, and our consciousness, we're likely to "see" an intact physical reality that exists and persists independent of us, whether we're here or not.
There is a reality independent of humans (there's an obvious logic to this), that exists with or without humans. I don't know if this supports objectivism or not.
If you're into science (I don't claim to know much of anything about science), you might find this interesting:
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html
This could easily be pseudo-science, but it's interesting nonetheless. Bohn basically proposes objective reality does not exist (based on some experiments done on subatomic particles), and that despite an apparent solidity the universe is, at heart, a phantasm.
I would also like to offer that the word “reality” is essentially defined as that which is known to exist. With that in mind, isn’t it ironic (or in some cases hypocritical) to use it in such contexts of uncertainty? I revert back to Nietzschean perspectivism here, and fully realize my own hypocrisies.
I can make the logical deduction that ethical egoism accounts for atrocities and oppression committed by governments because ethical egoism is centered around acting in self-interest, which is precisely what governments do. If objectivism is against oppression it would be against governments, not pro-governments that don't oppress, because no such government exists. I'm not sure why you think altruistic tendencies in governments would cause oppression like egoistic tendencies. One would promote the welfare of others even if acting in self-interest and the other would just act in self-interest, with the welfare of others being irrelevant unless it served the self-interest of the government. There is a difference there (one promotes welfare regardless while the other does not, therefore one is more just than the other, not necessarily morally prominent). Please explain your thinking on that.
Call it whatever you will. Promoting one's self works as well. Greed may just be an excessive way of describing self-interest or self-promotion, though. Adam Smith thought it was inherent in our nature, Karl Marx didn't. There are actually some interesting arguments out there that greed is a product of economic systems. I don't really buy that, but it's interesting reading.
Quite simply, if we're going to discuss philosophy, let's discuss philosophy. If we're going to discuss economics, let's discuss economics. But let's not combine the two. And also, I don't know enough about Rockefeller to challenge your case.
Before you respond to the above, let me just come clean and say that I totally understand that Obama most likely was using this as some political ploy to gain some extra political power. This is such a common thing for elected officials; Preach how you need to do something to "save the world" and really behind closed doors it is lining your pockets. Regardless, this is what I mean when I claim that Moral Altruism is to blame for the injustices by our governments. Moral Altruism in name is to blame for the injustices in our legal system. I don't care if that Moral Altruism is just a wolf in sheep clothing, the people are too dumb to see through this lie and it pushes us further down the spiral of bigger government, more ethical and moral injustices, and just simply less freedom. I believe Moral Altruism has NO place in politics... Its only use is deceit and deception.
Politically speaking, Objectivism holds that the only purpose of the government is to protect the individuals right to life, liberty, and the product of their efforts (or property if you like). You can try and widdle down the meaning of Objectivism to acting in your own self-interests, but that I really only half the story. The full story is it is acting in your own self-interest in an arrangement that is agreeable to all parties involved. Your liberty shall not trump the liberty of others. In that sense, I would say Objectivism isnt to blame for any governmental crimes against humanity. Yes, the crimes might be elected officials acting in their own self-interest, however they are doing so at the sake of others liberty. This is not Objectivism.
{Upload|9440}