Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Prismatic Sphere]

You assume too much. Why and how are the human values you espouse concrete and fixed in any way, shape or form?

I assume nothing. Because the sustaining of one's life through the production of objective values is one of man's moral absolutes, along with honesty. Altruism treats THAT as a moral wrong; which is why altruism is morally repugnant and you should reject it immediately.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Thanks for returning and making this thread interesting to read again Prismatic.

Yeah, I get bored too; as I'm sure, does Dakryn when you look at these frivolous debates put up by others.

As for the Atlas Shrugged movie, I'm not looking forward to it in the least. For the record, there were no black people in the book. If they're going to do it properly, it needs to be, at the least, a 3 part movie. Also, every word of John Galt's speech should be in it as well. All 70 pages.

Don't remember if there were any blacks or not. The movie WILL be in three parts and as for Galt's great speech; I highly doubt the whole thing will be in there; but yes, it should.

 

[Einherjar86]

objective values

There is no such thing as an objective value. In fact, to believe so is a form of mysticism.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

^That's actually a really good point. "objective values" It's so absolute, it's borderline religious.

 

[Badbird]

To piss Prismatic Sphere off: Bill Maher/Noam Chomsky for the Libertarian party 2012!

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

There is no such thing as an objective value. In fact, to believe so is a form of mysticism.

^That's actually a really good point. "objective values" It's so absolute, it's borderline religious.

Not at all. Let's clear up some more definitions shall we?

Objective values can be defined as qualities or entities that are objectively good for and add to the well-being, guiltless pleasures(the only kind), and long-range happiness of the human organism. Absolute objective values to all human beings can include such basic and unchanging values as productivity, honesty, justice(not mercy- what we have now), self-esteem, pleasures, sex, and romantic love.

I'm sure you can all think of your own ideas of what these are. The first things that come to mind for me are the air conditioner and birth control. The wealth of information on the internet is another one. Surely, you have to acknowledge that some things are objectively good for mankind and some are objectively bad. In fact, you all believe so much in objectively bad values; that your neglect for the objectively good ones only deflates your arguments further.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

The best and most accurate quote I've heard about our government in a long, long time:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"the federal government has, in fact, been an enemy of the people's welfare, and that the progress in our living standards has occurred in spite of its efforts. [The government] pits individuals, firms, industries, regions, races and age groups against each other in a zero-sum game of mutual plunder. It takes credit for improvements in material conditions that we, in fact, owe to the private sector, while refusing to accept responsibility for the countless failures and social ills to which its own programs have given rise." - Thomas Woods, Rollback[/FONT]

 

[skeptik]

There is no objective good either you god damn ponce. I didn't even read beyond that line because it's already dogmatic.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Is it though? How is stealing somebody's time and effort - assuming that that's what's actually going on here - an act of aggression against them? I only "stole" their time and effort; I didn't do anything to them strictly speaking. And anyway, how can I steal somebody's time and effort? I can clearly take a thing that somebody has, but I can't take somebody's time and effort merely by taking something that is a product of their time and effort. For the thing that is a product of their time and effort is not in any straightforward sense equivalent to their time and effort.

...what? You're way overthinking what he said.

 

[Badbird]

There is no objective good either you god damn ponce. I didn't even read beyond that line because it's already dogmatic.

.

 

[Einherjar86]

Objective values can be defined as qualities or entities that are objectively good for and add to the well-being, guiltless pleasures(the only kind), and long-range happiness of the human organism.

There is no way you can prove that any such thing exists. You can claim that it is subjectively good for you; but that's the exact opposite of an "objective good."

Absolute objective values to all human beings can include such basic and unchanging values as productivity, honesty, justice(not mercy- what we have now), self-esteem, pleasures, sex, and romantic love.

None of those are objective values; in fact, rendering them into "values" is one flaw of the human condition (and a form of mysticism).

Take "honesty" for example; the only reason you claim it as a value is because you're thinking within an epistemological framework with strict parameters on life and language. You think you're being less mystical, but you're actually more mystical.

Say hypothetically that aliens arrive from a distant galaxy, and they communicate through a telepathic/empathic medium. For them, there is no spoken language, entities merely experience and understand each other through an emotional medium. For beings such as this, "honesty" as a value doesn't exist. They can't differentiate between "true" and "false." For them, there is no "lying;" and thus, there is no truth. A situation such as this shatters the illusion that honesty is a value; it's not an objectively good thing, it's merely a binary we've constructed since we work within a specific set of epistemological parameters (and we feel the need to narrativize our existence).

Now, a potential rebuttal might be that "well, humans can't read each other's minds, so for us honesty is a value." But simply by saying that, we've undercut the idea that it can be an "objective" value. If it is only valuable "for us," that means it's not objective. And if it's not objective, then it isn't necessarily good for all humans either (in fact, there are plenty of situations when lying is good).

Surely, you have to acknowledge that some things are objectively good for mankind and some are objectively bad.

You just proved my point right there.

There's a great book on how all these things break down; it's called The Shape of the Signifier, by Walter Benn Michaels.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Say hypothetically that aliens arrive from a distant galaxy, and they communicate through a telepathic/empathic medium. For them, there is no spoken language, entities merely experience and understand each other through an emotional medium. For beings such as this, "honesty" as a value doesn't exist. They can't differentiate between "true" and "false." For them, there is no "lying;" and thus, there is no truth. A situation such as this shatters the illusion that honesty is a value; it's not an objectively good thing, it's merely a binary we've constructed since we work within a specific set of epistemological parameters (and we feel the need to narrativize our existence).

This is more mystical than anything presented thus far. WE, as humans, created the mystical notion of telepathic beings. Show me where such a conscious being exists? They don't so far that we've seen. So this is beyond a straw man argument or a red herring. You'll have to do better than man-made mystical uber-hypotheticals.

(Just for the hell of it, I'd be much more willing to bet that other intelligent conscious beings deal with one another through volitionally honest and free business; just by the sheer logic and fundamental reason of it.)

Now, a potential rebuttal might be that "well, humans can't read each other's minds, so for us honesty is a value." But simply by saying that, we've undercut the idea that it can be an "objective" value. If it is only valuable "for us," that means it's not objective. And if it's not objective, then it isn't necessarily good for all humans either (in fact, there are plenty of situations when lying is good).

Yeah, lying to government officials can be good; but that's all after the fact of a dishonest precedent being set(much like lying to a mugger is good). Just as the initation of force is always always wrong(an objectively moral absolute evil). But using force against those who initiate it against you is not only right, but morally and objectively responsible and good.

You're aware that honesty isn't only not lying right? The honest integration of reality? Like you failed to do above?

I can't be swindled by these tactics.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Just curious PS, Do you ever read anything ( Books in particular ) that counter your argument and challenge your ideas/beliefs?
and has any one of these books ideas changed your mind about any said subject?

Also, is there anything notable you feel Ayn Rand has fundamentally wrong when speaking of existence, consciousness and reality? or would you call yourself a strict Randian

I'm not trying do be sarcastic here; these are simple, sincere questions.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is more mystical than anything presented thus far. WE, as humans, created the mystical notion of telepathic beings. Show me where such a conscious being exists? They don't so far that we've seen. So this is beyond a straw man argument or a red herring. You'll have to do better than man-made mystical uber-hypotheticals.

We, as humans, created the mystical notion of values.

All that's important is that we can conceive of a situation where this is the case. You advocate an anthropocentric view that doesn't take into account the possibility that life could be constituted in a way we aren't aware of.

And for "reality's" sake, take into account the fact that there are now machines that can predict (quite accurately) the decisions of human beings up to eight seconds before they make their cognizant choices. The ideas of "free will" and "truth/falsity" are coming close to being eradicated.

(Just for the hell of it, I'd be much more willing to bet that other intelligent conscious beings deal with one another through volitionally honest and free business; just by the sheer logic and fundamental reason of it.)

It's logical for you. If a society wants to care for its elders without requiring that they do any work, that's their prerogative; and maybe they feel better for doing it. You define altruism as an objectively negative trait, but there's absolutely nothing that makes it so. The mysticism of your argument lies in that you perceive an inherently "evil" quality to altruism. In reality, altruism has positive effects in multiple scenarios. You're being irrational.

Yeah, lying to government officials can be good; but that's all after the fact of a dishonest precedent being set(much like lying to a mugger is good). Just as the initation of force is always always wrong(an objectively moral absolute evil). But using force against those who initiate it against you is not only right, but morally and objectively responsible and good.

I disagree. "Lying" carries negative connotations because we live in a society that advocates "honesty, and integrity;" but a person can effect a positive atmosphere by lying about the way someone died (for instance: "You're father died peacefully," rather than: "He bled internally for ten hours; he experienced immense pain"). Lies are told all the time to ease the suffering of others; I can see no crime or fault in this.

You're aware that honesty isn't only not lying right? The honest integration of reality? Like you failed to do above?

I can't be swindled by these tactics.

It's you who ignore reality in favor of your own subjective experience. You perceive what's right for you to be what's right for everyone. Sacrifice, altruism, mercy; these are not objectively bad concepts. You see the world in black and white and attribute inherently negative and positive qualities to the words of your choosing. You're the biggest mystic on this forum.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Just curious PS, Do you ever read anything ( Books in particular ) that counter your argument and challenge your ideas/beliefs?
and has any one of these books ideas changed your mind about any said subject?

Also, is there anything notable you feel Ayn Rand has fundamentally wrong when speaking of existence, consciousness and reality? or would you call yourself a strict Randian

I'm not trying do be sarcastic here; these are simple, sincere questions.

Thank you for being rational. Yeah, Rand did not have it all together. She didn't approve of drinking and drugging, but she engaged in it herself. She failed to include aesthetics along with her metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

I am NOT a strict Randist. Ayn was never the beginning nor the end for me in terms of philosophy. Just a very good middle guidance system. But do I fully believe that Atlas Shrugged the film could not have come out at a better time? Yes I do.

 

[The Ozzman]

Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books and it really opened my eyes to a lot of things as an impressionable college student. I don't treat the book like it's sacrosanct though. There are definitely holes in her philosophy and problems with her writing, but the overall message is great IMO.

The endings of her novels are terrible. I have yet to get through any of her 'non-fiction' work as the way she writes can be kinda bad, but eventually I'll read them.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Who here has read Atlas Shrugged?

 

[Einherjar86]

I have. Decent novel.

 

[The Ozzman]

I've read it twice. The first time I read it, I was unable to get through Galt's speech. I made sure to get through it the second time in its entirety. I read it in about 15-20 page segments the second time around.

All this talk about it has me wanting to read it again..

 

[Pessimism]

I have, and found it to be utter drivel philosophically (especially when combined with her other works and personal notes).

Aside from a philosophical standpoint, I felt the novel was simply boring. There was no attachment to the characters emotionally, their placement within the upper echelons of society brought no connections to me physically, and their actions throughout the book were, at times, incredibly sociopathic, narcissistic and avaricious.


And it should be noted that Rand did have an aesthetic theory. Frankly it sounds like she was mimicking Tolstoy's aesthetic statements on the surface. Tolstoy however went into far more depth, and because of this there are very easily identifiable distinctions between the two.

Thank you for being rational. Yeah, Rand did not have it all together. She didn't approve of drinking and drugging, but she engaged in it herself. She failed to include aesthetics along with her metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

I am NOT a strict Randist. Ayn was never the beginning nor the end for me in terms of philosophy. Just a very good middle guidance system. But do I fully believe that Atlas Shrugged the film could not have come out at a better time? Yes I do.

Now that you've answered his second question, how about answering the first.