the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 06, 2015 11:55 am

I was checking with my GP, asking them some questions about my supposed friend, if they could tell me what this might be about, and this is what I got:

http://www.ivyroses.com/Define/Logophobia

Logophobia refers to the condition of having an abnormal, extreme, and persistent fear of words.

There can be many subtle versions of logophobia, such as:

fear of words
fear of Greek words
fear of difficult-sounding words
fear of language itself
fear of the Word (in the Christian sense)
fear of the spoken word
fear of abstractions
fear of truth, order, or any transcendent reality
fear of giving out one's name.


Have you ever went to school?

Ever studied math?

I can barely imagine your reaction to math . . .
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 06, 2015 4:32 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I was checking with my GP, asking them some questions about my supposed friend, if they could tell me what this might be about, and this is what I got:

http://www.ivyroses.com/Define/Logophobia

Logophobia refers to the condition of having an abnormal, extreme, and persistent fear of words.

There can be many subtle versions of logophobia, such as:

fear of words
fear of Greek words
fear of difficult-sounding words
fear of language itself
fear of the Word (in the Christian sense)
fear of the spoken word
fear of abstractions
fear of truth, order, or any transcendent reality
fear of giving out one's name.


Have you ever went to school?

Ever studied math?

I can barely imagine your reaction to math . . .


Well, one thing no one would ever accuse you of is being afraid of words. But then that's kinda my point, isn't it? And the more abstract, the better.

As for math, that would seem to have little to do with the psychology of objectivism. After all, the laws of mathematics really are applicable to everyone, everywhere.

In other words, it's not likely that someone [as dasein] will come to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, and then defend it by insisting that others who do not believe this are irrational or immoral.

Or imbeciles.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 06, 2015 4:54 pm

Are they? So why do people still argue over whether 0.999~ equals 1 or not?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 06, 2015 4:59 pm

iambiguous wrote:In other words, it's not likely that someone [as dasein] will come to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, and then defend it by insisting that others who do not believe this are irrational or immoral.

Or imbeciles.

Obviously you don't read a lot of the posts in rant and science. :lol:

I can still prove that 0.999... is not equal to 1.0. And Wiki still lists their proofs that it is.
No, math is not universally settled.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 06, 2015 5:42 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:In other words, it's not likely that someone [as dasein] will come to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, and then defend it by insisting that others who do not believe this are irrational or immoral.

Or imbeciles.

Obviously you don't read a lot of the posts in rant and science. :lol:

I can still prove that 0.999... is not equal to 1.0. And Wiki still lists their proofs that it is.
No, math is not universally settled.


Yes, James, but what you can't prove -- what you absolutely refuse to prove -- is what rational metaphysics has to do with conflicting moral and political value judgments. Which, by the way, is the focus of the OP.

Or are you actually ready to bring your "definitional logic" down to earth? :-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 06, 2015 5:51 pm

No. The only thing that I refuse, is trying to teach mathematics to monkeys while I have better things to do.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 06, 2015 6:12 pm

James S Saint wrote:No. The only thing that I refuse, is trying to teach mathematics to monkeys while I have better things to do.


Let's not derail the thread, okay? Just say the word and I'll start a new thread. We can pursue the relationship between mathematics and morality more...productively? Like old times!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 06, 2015 7:41 pm

There were no "productive old times" between us. I was merely keeping you distracted and occupied while other things were going on. You proved to be entirely disingenuous, so discussion beyond that wasn't appropriate .. much like now.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 06, 2015 7:50 pm

James S Saint wrote:There were no "productive old times" between us. I was merely keeping you distracted and occupied while other things were going on. You proved to be entirely disingenuous, so discussion beyond that wasn't appropriate .. much like now.


You really don't have an ironic bone in your body, do you? It's a wonder you don't have 19,797 posts at the Know Thyself forum by now.

Anyway, I'll start the new thread, okay? Look for it.

But, in being a realist, I'll start it up in the rant forum. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 06, 2015 8:11 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Are they? So why do people still argue over whether 0.999~ equals 1 or not?


Someone gives you an apple. Are you going to argue that they cheated you -- that they only gave you 0.999~ of an apple instead? Sure you can take mathematics out into the more speculative realms. But most of us are quite content in accepting that the laws of mathematics and science really do seem to transcend dasein.

But what of moral and political agendas? How are they not bursting at seams with the manner in which I construe dasein and conflicting goods?

Why don't you focus instead on why my argument here is less reasonable than yours?

But only pertaining to an actual moral conflict that we are all familiar with. What is your argument "down here"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Wed May 06, 2015 9:01 pm

You, I am actually curious about your answers to the questions in my previous post.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 06, 2015 11:41 pm

phoneutria wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Where satyr situates his morals is where a bit of an incoherence lies. You will see him say that there is no objective morality, no absolutely correct representation of reality, but at other times you will see him say "I speak of reality as it is".
He really should be saying I speak of reality as I see it... shouldn't he?


As with most objectivists of his ilk, the crucial point I am trying to raise has little to do with whatever particular behaviors Satyr deems to be moral or immoral, noble or ignoble. Rather it is the manner in which he insists that only the manner in which he insists on differentiating the ubermen from the sheep, reflects the manner in which you are either one of Us or one of Them.

Really, how different is Satyr's spiel from Ayn Rands? You are either at one with her [him] or you are at one with the collectivists [the retards].

From my perspective [and that's all it is], moral and political objectivism is more likely to be a psychological agenda than a philosophical one.


Well, think of it as if it was language. Language develops in a region of the world and is deeply tied to the culture and the people's way of being. The farther you move from a point, the more difference in accents and vocabulary you will see until it's not the same language anymore. However, if a foreigner moves into my land, I expect them to learn my language so that they can communicate with me, not the other way around. Also, languages are alive, they evolve and adapt. I can learn some interesting sounds and phrases from the foreigner if I have a use for them, and if some new phenomena appears, I'll have to create new expressions to refer to it.


Here, the distinction I make is between language able to denote the objective truth and language rooted more or less in personal opinion.

If a doctor is performing an abortion there may be different words used to describe the operation as a medical procedure. But then it is only a matter of learning the sounds invented in different parts of the world to encompass the words used in order to communicate coherently with the pregnant woman or with other doctors.

But the medical procedure itself transcends gender or race or ethnicity or sexual preference or religious convictions or political values.

It is only when we shift gears and the language used focuses instead on the morality of abortion, that objectivity [eventually] gives why to the subjective/subjunctive parameters of value judgments.

And it is here that we bump into the manner in which I construe dasein and conflicting goods.

phoneutria wrote: There is no such thing as a right language and a wrong language. But it is my language. In my land, I enforce it.
It is the preservation of a cultural value in it's own land. The foreigner can call that an agenda and choose to fight it. He will be met with resistance.

How does that sound?


I would only suggest that, again, with respect to those relationships that language can in fact denote objectively [the laws of math and science, empirical fact, the logical rules of language etc], there is a right word and a wrong word. But with respect to identity and value judgments, right and wrong can always be rationalized by making certain assumptions about what is true or false.

Thus there are folks who insist that abortion is immoral because it results in the killing of innocent human life. Meanwhile there are other folks who insist that abortion is moral because otherwise women will be forced to give birth against their will. And that is immoral.

Thus conflicting goods. Both sides have arguments that the other side is unable to make go away. But we can't live in a world where both sides prevail.

The same is true with all other moral conflicts that make the headlines day after day after day.

Even extreme behavior like rape can be rationalized. If one starts from the premise that, morally, personal gratification is the center of the universe [in a world sans God] anything can be justified if one is willing to accept the consequences of living with those who will punish such behavior. And then with God, all bets are off, right? What monstrosity has not been rationalized through religion? Or, for the secularists, through ideology [Reason].


phoneutria wrote:Why must all rational men behave the same? Is there ever only one solution to a problem?


What is crucial though is that behaviors must be fitted into one or another legal and political contraption. And here that can revolve around either God or ideology or democracy. What's important to me is in recognizing that if there be no deontological agenda open to us, the only recourse is moderation, negotiation and compromise. But that will always be fluid and unstable and problematic.

But at least most folks are able to make their own existential leap to a frame of mind they deem the most rational/moral. Instead, I'm rather hopelessly entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.


They can either take what they want and rationalize it in terms of a world where the strong prevail over the weak, or they can try to justify what they do by constructing an intellectual contraption like Satyr's. In other words, he feels compelled to justify his behaviors as more than just the brute facticity of might makes right. Instead, what he rationalizes must be seen as the noble and virtuous thing to do. Only he hardly ever brings this down to earth such that the discussion revolves around actual conflicting human behaviors that we are all familiar with. Instead, it's always ascribed in the lofty [and didactic] rhetoric of The Intellectual.

Or, being less kind, The Pedant.


phoneutria wrote: I see what you mean, but why do you think think that there is anything particularly wrong with justifying one's behaviors through reasoning, even if ultimately you are doing something simply because you want to?
With Satyr, I find that the problem is that at times what he says doesn't match his behaviors, but I won't speak in detail about that. That would be very indelicate.


My point is that the scholastic/didactic "reasoning" that folks like Satyr and Lyssa employ revolves largely around the definitions that they give to words such that the meaning of the words used in their [largely] abstract arguments is necessarily true because it is predicated on the internal logic derived from the definition/meaning they give to the words.

And, in fact, it is when you take that circular logic down here and plug it into actual moral and political conflicts that you begin to ascertain the limitations of their serial assertions.

Almost all of the objectivists focus the beam on these clouds of abstraction over there.

And, with Satyr and Lyssa and Magnum, I have asked them repeatedly to give us examples of how they actually do walk the talk in their interactions with others. But that necessarily does involve bringing their theoretical jargon down to earth and [so far] they won't go there.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu May 07, 2015 12:10 pm

Moral decisions have real life consequences and it is through these consequences that one determines their value.

Furthermore, one has to learn how to separate the genesis of a decision with its value.

I can decide using a dice throw, or using my "dasein", and still be correct because the genesis of a decision is separate from its value.

In short, the quality of a decision should be measured against reality, against its real life consequences.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu May 07, 2015 3:09 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Are they? So why do people still argue over whether 0.999~ equals 1 or not?


Because we all see from different perspectives. Brain matter does that to us. lol And we would prefer to be stubborn and/or right in our assumptions than to simply come to creating synthesis.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15299
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu May 07, 2015 3:50 pm

iambiguous

.... I have asked them repeatedly to give us examples of how they actually do walk the talk in their interactions with others. But that necessarily does involve bringing their theoretical jargon down to earth and [so far] they won't go there


So, what is it that you are asking for here? That people reveal particular things within their own private lives that would point to their relationships with others - how objective they are capable of being or how subjectivity rules their lives. That would be an interesting thing to indulge in and as you say it would bring anything being discussed more down to earth - kind of getting into the nitty gritty.
But it's safe not doing that. That requires a certain degree of self-trust and discernment.
But in the name of clarification and synthesis, gee how good it would be.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15299
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 07, 2015 3:59 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Moral decisions have real life consequences and it is through these consequences that one determines their value.

Furthermore, one has to learn how to separate the genesis of a decision with its value.

I can decide using a dice throw, or using my "dasein", and still be correct because the genesis of a decision is separate from its value.

In short, the quality of a decision should be measured against reality, against its real life consequences.


Just more of the same.

You make a series of didactic assertions. I respond to them, probing the extent to which they may or may not be applicable to actual conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

You ignore the probe and just make new assertions.

Now, I'm not saying that what you assert to be true is not true. I am simply asking you to situate the assertions in a moral conflict we are all familiar with and/or or in personal experiences you have had in confronting the odious "liberals" who just don't get it.
Last edited by iambiguous on Thu May 07, 2015 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phyllo » Thu May 07, 2015 4:17 pm

I have gone down this road so many times ...

For example, abortion.

Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus cannot live outside of the woman's womb. Before week 22, there is no chance of survival outside the womb.
Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus does not have a developed brain or body and cannot be considered as a conscious human being.
Scientifically documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viab ... thresholds
Therefore, it is moral to abort a fetus before week 22. Objective reasoning.

"But how on Earth can you make an argument to convince someone who believes that the fetus is a human being at conception, that it is moral to abort before week 22?"

I just did. Off the skyhooks. No abstract words. No theoretical assertions.
Last edited by phyllo on Thu May 07, 2015 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10922
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Moreno » Thu May 07, 2015 4:31 pm

phyllo wrote:I have gone down this road so many times ...

For example, abortion.

Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus cannot live outside of the woman's womb. Before week 22, there is no chance of survival outside the womb.
Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus does not have a developed brain or body and cannot be considered as a conscious human being.
Scientifically documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viab ... thresholds
Therefore, it is moral to abort a fetus before week 22. Objective reasoning.

"But how on Earth can you make an argument to convince someone who believes that the fetus is a human being at conception, that is is moral to abort before week 22?"

I just did. Off the skyhooks. No abstract words. No theoretical assertions.

And when he responds that some people will not be convinced, this would be making into a kind of criterion for knowledge 'no one is unconvinced by the argument'.
No such argument can exist, including scientific ones. Even mathematical proofs and proofs in symbolic logic - iow objectively infallible and/or by definition - will not convince everyone.

Just to avoid a repeated muddle.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu May 07, 2015 5:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:Now, I'm not saying that what you assert to be true is not true. I am simply asking you to situate the assertions in a moral conflict we are all familiar with and/or or in personal experiences you have had in confronting the odious "liberals" who just don't get it.


Keep begging me.

Maybe it will work.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 07, 2015 5:38 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Now, I'm not saying that what you assert to be true is not true. I am simply asking you to situate the assertions in a moral conflict we are all familiar with and/or or in personal experiences you have had in confronting the odious "liberals" who just don't get it.


Keep begging me.

Maybe it will work.


Wow! I didn't even know I was begging!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 07, 2015 6:27 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:iambiguous

.... I have asked them repeatedly to give us examples of how they actually do walk the talk in their interactions with others. But that necessarily does involve bringing their theoretical jargon down to earth and [so far] they won't go there


So, what is it that you are asking for here? That people reveal particular things within their own private lives that would point to their relationships with others - how objective they are capable of being or how subjectivity rules their lives. That would be an interesting thing to indulge in and as you say it would bring anything being discussed more down to earth - kind of getting into the nitty gritty.

But it's safe not doing that. That requires a certain degree of self-trust and discernment.

But in the name of clarification and synthesis, gee how good it would be.


Yes, some folks are uncomfortable divulging personal information online. Either about themselves or others. And that's not exactly an irrational point of view, is it?

But there are ways to do this without naming names.

For example, on other threads I have divulged an experience I had with "John" and "Mary". John impregnated Mary. Mary chose to abort the baby. This led to the disintegration of their impending marriage. Why? Because John was infuriated that Mary would do this without first discussing it with him. And John was opposed to abortion.

John and Mary are not their real names. And the episode did not unfold on a college campus. I respected their privacy but choose to use this particular example as the manner in which I first came to piece together the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

It was a truly profound experience for me because up until then I had always viewed moral issues like this from the perspective of either/or. In other words, As a Christian, as an Objectivist, as a Marxist, as a Feminist. As an objectivist.

And it was around this time that I bumped into William Barrett's The Irrational Man. And from that I bumped into this:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

And it was when I situated Barrett's argument here in the experience I had with John and Mary, that I began to truly grasp what philosophers like Wittgenstein were suggesting: that there were profound limitations to language and logic pertaining to actual human interactions. Especially when they come into conflict over value judgments.

Besides, I offer didacticists like Magnus, Satyr and Lyssa the option of framing their argument by situating it instead in a moral issue that clearly precipitates conflicting moral and political agendas. I like to use abortion becasue that is the issue that first prompted me to explore these relationships existentially. But they are certainly welcome to choose any other issue.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 07, 2015 6:44 pm

phyllo wrote:I have gone down this road so many times ...

For example, abortion.

Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus cannot live outside of the woman's womb. Before week 22, there is no chance of survival outside the womb.
Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus does not have a developed brain or body and cannot be considered as a conscious human being.
Scientifically documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viab ... thresholds
Therefore, it is moral to abort a fetus before week 22. Objective reasoning.


Huh? Are you telling me that if others propose arguments [as they have] that human life begins as far back as conception itself they are necessarily wrong? And that if they choose an abortion after the 22nd week, they are necessarily immoral?

Do you even think through what you are proposing?

In other words, are you suggesting that those who do not think as you do here are necessarily irrational? You actually believe that?!

Here, read this: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Oh, and by the way, as I have asked you time and time again, how do you integrate your moral "objectivism" here with your belief in God?

Talk about the psychology of objectivism!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 07, 2015 7:01 pm

Moreno wrote:
phyllo wrote:I have gone down this road so many times ...

For example, abortion.

Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus cannot live outside of the woman's womb. Before week 22, there is no chance of survival outside the womb.
Up to a certain point in the gestation period, the fetus does not have a developed brain or body and cannot be considered as a conscious human being.
Scientifically documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viab ... thresholds
Therefore, it is moral to abort a fetus before week 22. Objective reasoning.

"But how on Earth can you make an argument to convince someone who believes that the fetus is a human being at conception, that is is moral to abort before week 22?"

I just did. Off the skyhooks. No abstract words. No theoretical assertions.

And when he responds that some people will not be convinced, this would be making into a kind of criterion for knowledge 'no one is unconvinced by the argument'.
No such argument can exist, including scientific ones. Even mathematical proofs and proofs in symbolic logic - iow objectively infallible and/or by definition - will not convince everyone.

Just to avoid a repeated muddle.


No, my point is that folks on both sides of the abortion conflagration accumulate criteria that is linked to the assumptions they make as to when a human life begins. In other words, given those assumptions, both sides are able to make convincing arguments. Either using the tools of philosophy or science.

Then what?

It is precisely the "muddle" that the objectivists seek to avoid by insisting that they have arrived at a set of premises/assumptions that makes their own moral agenda necessarily rational. And then if others do not share it, they are necessarily irrational.

Alas, you are becoming more and more like Magnus. You pop into threads where I post, level your criticisms, and then after I respond, you disappear. Only to come back later with yet more assertions about how I've got it all wrong.

And yet, ironically, the point I keep trying to make is that my own arguments, in being rooted existentially in dasein, can never be more than my own personal opinions here and now. Opinions that over the years [in a world bursting at the seams with contingency chance and change] have evolved profoundly as I acquired new experiences, new relationships and new sources of information.

Just like you, right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27389
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu May 07, 2015 8:41 pm

I test moral decisions against reality, I don't test them against other people.

Do you understand that, you retard?

You are asking me to discuss John and Mary . . . but that is pointless, you idiot. I don't want to discuss John and Mary, I want to discuss John and reality, or Mary and reality.

Do you get that, you imbecile?

John wants Mary to abort because he does not want a child . . . he is not ready for a child, he cannot raise a child, he does not want a dysfunctional family.

Mary refuses to do so because Mary is incapable of controlling her emotions.

Her interests are short-term. She only wants to feel okay. This comes at the cost of long-term interests, at the cost of family.

John's interests are long-term. He does not care about feeling bad in the present if that is going to save him from feeling terrible in the future.

Do you get that!?

They have different priorities. John prioritizes family, Mary prioritizes her feelings.

Mary is the stupid one, selfish one.

She wants the baby, cause she's too weak to kill it. She will raise a retard thinking she's raising a genius . . . she will use denial to hide the fact that he is turning out a retard.

Or are you going to tell me that prioritizing feelings is just as okay as prioritizing family?

Think about it, retard.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Thu May 07, 2015 9:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Well, think of it as if it was language. Language develops in a region of the world and is deeply tied to the culture and the people's way of being. The farther you move from a point, the more difference in accents and vocabulary you will see until it's not the same language anymore. However, if a foreigner moves into my land, I expect them to learn my language so that they can communicate with me, not the other way around. Also, languages are alive, they evolve and adapt. I can learn some interesting sounds and phrases from the foreigner if I have a use for them, and if some new phenomena appears, I'll have to create new expressions to refer to it.


Here, the distinction I make is between language able to denote the objective truth and language rooted more or less in personal opinion.

If a doctor is performing an abortion there may be different words used to describe the operation as a medical procedure. But then it is only a matter of learning the sounds invented in different parts of the world to encompass the words used in order to communicate coherently with the pregnant woman or with other doctors.

But the medical procedure itself transcends gender or race or ethnicity or sexual preference or religious convictions or political values.

It is only when we shift gears and the language used focuses instead on the morality of abortion, that objectivity [eventually] gives why to the subjective/subjunctive parameters of value judgments.

And it is here that we bump into the manner in which I construe dasein and conflicting goods.


I was using language as a metaphor for morals. Certainly within a language there is a right and a wrong, just as there is a right and a wrong within one particular set of morals. Calling a potato an apple is incorrect... unless you're French ;)
But there are many languages, as there are many sets of morals. You can call a potato potato, you can call it batata, you can call it patata, you can call it papas, you can call it pomme-de-terre, and in all three cases you are correct.
Your choice to use one of these words is not only dependent on your preference, or your ability, or your knowledge. It is also dependent on the context. When you leave your country and you go to a distant place, you can yell "I want a goddamn potato!" all you want, and that will take you nowhere.
Similarly, if I go to one of those extremely islamic countries, I will be expected to cover my hair. I may insist that I will not cover my hair because it is my way and my way is the right thing, and break a law, end up in prison or stoned to death or whatever those ass-backwards people do to cheeky chicks.
So is demanding that women be covered right, or wrong? It's right and wrong, depending on where you are and depending on who you are.
To me it's wrong, still I'd cover my hair because I value my life more than I would value making some kind of statement about women's rights, but there are plenty of stories of people to whom making that sort of statement is more important than their own personal safety.
Just an example.
Anyway, too much typing... basically, when in France, eat your damn ground apples with mayonnaise.

phoneutria wrote: There is no such thing as a right language and a wrong language. But it is my language. In my land, I enforce it.
It is the preservation of a cultural value in it's own land. The foreigner can call that an agenda and choose to fight it. He will be met with resistance.

How does that sound?


I would only suggest that, again, with respect to those relationships that language can in fact denote objectively [the laws of math and science, empirical fact, the logical rules of language etc], there is a right word and a wrong word. But with respect to identity and value judgments, right and wrong can always be rationalized by making certain assumptions about what is true or false.

Thus there are folks who insist that abortion is immoral because it results in the killing of innocent human life. Meanwhile there are other folks who insist that abortion is moral because otherwise women will be forced to give birth against their will. And that is immoral.

Thus conflicting goods. Both sides have arguments that the other side is unable to make go away. But we can't live in a world where both sides prevail.

The same is true with all other moral conflicts that make the headlines day after day after day.

Even extreme behavior like rape can be rationalized. If one starts from the premise that, morally, personal gratification is the center of the universe [in a world sans God] anything can be justified if one is willing to accept the consequences of living with those who will punish such behavior. And then with God, all bets are off, right? What monstrosity has not been rationalized through religion? Or, for the secularists, through ideology [Reason].


There isn't with language, a right and a wrong. There are many rights, and many wrongs.
Why can we not live in a world where both sides prevail?

phoneutria wrote:Why must all rational men behave the same? Is there ever only one solution to a problem?


What is crucial though is that behaviors must be fitted into one or another legal and political contraption. And here that can revolve around either God or ideology or democracy. What's important to me is in recognizing that if there be no deontological agenda open to us, the only recourse is moderation, negotiation and compromise. But that will always be fluid and unstable and problematic.


I recognize that as well, and that it being fluid, unstable and problematic is a given.
What I am asking you is why do you think it must not be so. What is your end-game here, peace on earth? Some sort of utopia where nobody fights about anything because everyone thinks the same... everyone is the same?

But at least most folks are able to make their own existential leap to a frame of mind they deem the most rational/moral. Instead, I'm rather hopelessly entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.


Don't you know who you are?

phoneutria wrote: I see what you mean, but why do you think think that there is anything particularly wrong with justifying one's behaviors through reasoning, even if ultimately you are doing something simply because you want to?
With Satyr, I find that the problem is that at times what he says doesn't match his behaviors, but I won't speak in detail about that. That would be very indelicate.


My point is that the scholastic/didactic "reasoning" that folks like Satyr and Lyssa employ revolves largely around the definitions that they give to words such that the meaning of the words used in their [largely] abstract arguments is necessarily true because it is predicated on the internal logic derived from the definition/meaning they give to the words.

And, in fact, it is when you take that circular logic down here and plug it into actual moral and political conflicts that you begin to ascertain the limitations of their serial assertions.

Almost all of the objectivists focus the beam on these clouds of abstraction over there.

And, with Satyr and Lyssa and Magnum, I have asked them repeatedly to give us examples of how they actually do walk the talk in their interactions with others. But that necessarily does involve bringing their theoretical jargon down to earth and [so far] they won't go there.


Here is an anecdote.
On that thread that Lyssa linked you, about whether or not one would save a drowning child, when pressed for an answer, she said she would flip a coin. Later on, she seems to have inconspicuously removed that post.
You can read this as a metaphor as well, if you want to.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users