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 Lev Muishkin » Thu May 22, 2014 9:22 am

obe wrote: There are even boundaries between issues and ideas. As for example in cases where issues are framed in terms of ideas. The political post war climate between Germany and France can not be discounted in basically ideological garb, although a case can be made for that view. Even the distinction between idealism and the existential reduction can be interpreted, as the effect of political backlash, on part;of former underground french patriots,Sartre having been one of them, to reduce the traces of an ideal buildup by a reduction of politically loaded ideas.

Granted the genesis of existentialism did not begin with Sartre, Nietzsche, too, reacted against that, however, Nietzche did not end idealism, he merely closed it with the circle. The metaphor of the ring cycle, culminating with Brunhilda's immolation, leads to the view that Sartre, par excellance, started the politico-ontological deconstruction of the ideal, Liebnitzean world. He proved too metaphorically obscure, and propped it up with the system anti system of the pure Heglelian dialectic, that of Marx. That failing, meaning analysis was reduced to the meaning of meaning, and preoccupation with text and context. Unfortunately for Russel, he was caught in a semantic ,irresolute semantic trap.

What remains? Hermeneutics and relational meaning between subject and object, ad hoc creation of temporal meaning.

You are right, that there is no subject/object referentiality in all this, and it is because the language of reference and meaning, has been buried within in solution of irreversibility. But vestiges remain, and these are archetypical foundations of what Polanyi calls 'tacit knowledge'

The only reason to bring up this absence in presence, as Stirner calls it, is because, it is too tempting to bring in old notions of subjective/objective differentiation, of what it has become basically a text-context issue.

Whether it is or is not what he intended to effect, or if what he has achieved would be the primary focus , in defining the contradictory nature of dasein, is trumped by the antithetical Sartrean position on Heidegger's intentionality, vis. presence can be imbued in absense.(ibid)

Sartre's existenze is not absolute,it persists in a nausating duration, containing within it, the possibility of what is absent. The nothingness is contained in being, but from a so called objective position, being may well turn out as empty as nothingness. For Russell, these terms are probably co-dependent to a point where definitionally it may prove totally reductive to build any real framework upon them.


It's a matter of choice. Accept the Hedeggerian Dasein, or wallow in the Sartrean Angst. The choice is yours.
Nothing you write here establishes any "boundaries", and nothing you write here necessitates a position where all we have left is some sort of half digested Hermaneutic Circle.
If you accept H's Dasein then you are free from the worry of the Gallic navel gazing, but that is as open to a Frenchman as it is to a Anglo-Saxon.
With H you are the centre of your experience and when asked what you think about your girlfriend's abortion, inevitably all questions have to be filtered through the Dasein.
The point is that in H there are no objective moral considerations. Ultimately your choice is about how you feel about and for your girlfriend, not about some societal injunction gained through moral law. The Dasein might want to have adopted such views, and might "do the decent thing" in terms of society or his girlfriend. But the dilemma is a mirage. Ultimately all personal decisions are made by , and taken responsibility for the Self. This is true whether or not you accept H's concept of the moral self or not.
The difference comes, that when you accept the truth of the Dasein, you are enlightened in a super-Kantian sense of Aufklarung, far in excess of Kant's rather servile version of enlightenment. There is now no need to obey; that is nothing more the "obey" that your true self.

Dasein clutches to the heart, and embraces the truth of the human experience; that all we do is on our own heads. Whilst Sartre beats himself like a true Catholic wallowing in self loathing, and at odds with his relationship with the world; H puts himself first.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Orbie » Thu May 22, 2014 12:59 pm

While giving you the benefit of doubt the only weakness in the above argument lies in the idea of free will, grounded in total freedom. The aufklarung it seems has nothing objective about it, it is based on a realization of synthetic unity, where reductive or regressive and progressive issues define the way we live. The boundaries are limits where such realizations can bear fruition. We may think we are totally free, or, absolutely hampered by a lack of clarity or the presence of responsibility. The aufklarung is a state of mind, with no connextion to issues as above?

The special relationship which exists between being and knowledge, present boundaries, which are matters of interpretation. Certainly our knowledge has to do with the clarity of mind, as well as the heart, and the it is not as if either one can act individually. To put it in another way, would place too much of an emphasis away from it dynamics of it, reducing it as it were from the framing of it, toward the pure object. It would deny the ontological intuition, which is behind it, and put it on the level of emotion.

I see where you are going with this, but emotional solutions lead away from the underlying structure, which, here on this forum, may be leading the truth of being through various routes, none of which are set in stone, and the authoritarian focus may be abandoned by inapplicable particulars. The connection between knowledge and it.s object Being present overlapping boundaries, as the need to know sometimes dictates it's content, which includes it's ultimate objective: Being.

My particular need, the knowledge and place of intuition within the erklarung? (framed by an commonly sensed objective)
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Orbie » Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm

Here is a direct quote from Kant:

Enlightenment is not merely the process by which individuals would see their own personal freedom of thought guaranteed. There is Enlightenment, where the universal, the free, and the public uses of reason are superimposed on one another.

The boundaries here are implied by the text, that of the ideas of the universal are bounded by the free and public uses of reason. The guarantee of personal reason is an idea bounded and overlapping by the free and the public use of that reason.

This throws light on the meaning of the idea of 'a process of seeing their personal freedom' as basically an idea, whereas public use is an extension of that into the realm of basing that supposed freedom of thought, toward functioning as such. The difference implies what Kant may means by superimposition. At the least, there is vagueness in maintaining wherefrom the process and the idea are differentiable.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Fri May 23, 2014 9:31 pm

stop dancing and keep to the points.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:06 am

iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Sounds profoundly like a description of you.
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 Sep 24, 2014 1:23 am

James S Saint wrote:Sounds profoundly like a description of you.


But not you, right? :lol:
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:32 am

iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Sounds profoundly like a description of you.


But not you, right? :lol:

Wow, you actually said something right. :o :shock:
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 phyllo » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:40 am

That 1-7 is me, is it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:06 pm

phyllo wrote:That 1-7 is me, is it?


Maybe. Maybe not. Again, this list can only reflect my own subjective reaction to what I construe an objectivist mind to be. You will either see yourself reflected in it or you won't.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:09 pm

Again, this list can only reflect my own subjective reaction to what I construe an objectivist mind to be.
You claim not to be an objectivist and yet #7 describes you and your posts very well.

Also, your ad hom responses, in several threads, show that #6 applies - you are defending your Self from objectivist arguments.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:12 pm

First of all, I want to thank you and James for making this thread "active" again. I think that it is important for the objectivists among us to at least consider the points I am raising.

phyllo wrote:
Again, this list can only reflect my own subjective reaction to what I construe an objectivist mind to be.
You claim not to be an objectivist and yet #7 describes you and your posts very well.


7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Over and again, I have noted how in the past I had come to embrace what I did construe to be the "philosophical truth" -- the objective truth: Christianity, Objectivism, Marxism, Existentialism etc. I did indeed try to embody all of point 7 either through God or through Reason.

But now, regarding the question "how ought one to live?", I have come to believe that such essentialist points of view are, instead, rooted more in the existential parameters of dasein...and that the "goods" they propagated were predicated only on certain assumptions. In other words, that the Objectivists embraced one set of premises while the Marxists embraced a different set. Yet both sides insisted that only their own assumptions were necessarily true for all rational human beings.

And then there are all of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of additional objectivists out there [both ecclesiastic and secular] who insist that, on the contrary, it is only their assumptions that count.

Right?

Also, as I note time and again, I recognize that in a world brimming with contingency, chance and change there is always the possibilty that, through a new experience, relationship, point of view etc., I might change my mind yet again.

IF ONLY BECAUSE I HAVE SO OFTEN IN THE PAST!

Ah, but it is when I tap others on the shoulder and suggest this is also applicable to them, that the truly hardcore objectivists demur. After all, if my own narrative is more reasonable than theirs they might have to admit that maybe, just maybe, their own moral and political agenda is as well largely rootecd in dasein and in conflicted goods. Which [in my opinion] means point 7 is, in fact, more applicable TO an objectivist frame of mind that is in fact embracing one or another God or one or another deontological approach to ethics.

phyllo wrote:Also, your ad hom responses, in several threads, show that #6 applies - you are defending your Self from objectivist arguments.


6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

And yet my very argument here starts with the assumption that "intellectual integrity" is in itself rooted existentially in daseins interacting in a world where, intersubjectively, the "self" is prefabricated in childhood and then ceaselessly refabricated to the grave. And that in a world of contingency, chance and change, we come upon new experiences, relationships, sources of information etc. which always have the potential to reconfigure our points of view pertaining to moral and political values -- and to the manner in which we come to understand the fabrication/construction of a "self".

Now, sure, you can insist that this too is just another "objectivist" frame of mind. Then all I can do is to speculate that others will see it more in the manner in which I do instead.

As for the "ad homs", that is more reflective of the manner in which I do so enjoy "polemics". And very often it reflects in turn the manner in which others will try to make me the argument instead.

In other words, they started it!!! :wink: :o :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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:21 pm

wrong thread
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:50 pm

Gee. Thanks for making this "active".

Six months later, one post: "Wrong Thread."

I have to say this is the least active, active thread out there.

Clearly the narrative of the psychology of objectivism, is a null idea.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


I know it is over a year since this post. But has anyone pointed out that the narrative is most probably upside-down?
As children we are forced to accept that beyond our own desires and wishes there is an objectively truth out there which is used by authority figures and parents to impose upon us rules and customs.
This is so insidious that we hold within our behaviours what, Slavoz Zizek calls "Unknown Knows"; a set of ideas we consider self evidently true that lead to us behaving in ways that we do not even realise are part of our conditioning. These endemic assumptions; these things taken for granted, make up our very social selves to such a degree that we are blissfully unaware that they are in fact historically and culturally idiosyncratic.
This is the first step in the process of the myth of objectivism. The constructed social being is unaware of the danger of his position. His childhood certainties gradually become challenged and the social being faces cognitive dissonance, which is met with exceptionalism and denial.
This creates a fearful view. Society is starting to fragment. It is at this time that he seeks the warm cosy reassurance of like-minded people. Those that share his endemic delusional swaddlings. Sure, that somewhere in the social maelstrom there must be others like himself that share the same set of delusions.
Objectivists are simply children looking for the warm safety of the myth that there are universal truths, and that morals can be scientifically determined.
They used to call this religion, and still do. Objectivism is nothing more than a religion without the god.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:09 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:Gee. Thanks for making this "active".

Six months later, one post: "Wrong Thread."

I have to say this is the least active, active thread out there.

Clearly the narrative of the psychology of objectivism, is a null idea.


Allow me to explain: I opened this thread in order to copy and paste it onto a post from another thread. But then I got distracted and ended up posting it in this thread instead. Simple mistake. I've done it before.

So, what exactly is your point here? Would you like to reactivate the thread? Would you like to explore the manner in which, say, the psychology of objectivism is not applicable to you?

How in particular is it "null"?

And neither one of us can fall back on God to resolve it, right? :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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:39 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


I know it is over a year since this post. But has anyone pointed out that the narrative is most probably upside-down?
As children we are forced to accept that beyond our own desires and wishes there is an objectively truth out there which is used by authority figures and parents to impose upon us rules and customs.


Ture. But this can get particularly tricky because in any number of historical and cultural contexts, this is not done cynically at all. The authority fugures really do believe in what they instruct the children to believe in. In fact the indoctrination itself can actually be pursued out of love for the children. That's why it is often so effective.

Lev Muishkin wrote: This is so insidious that we hold within our behaviours what, Slavoz Zizek calls "Unknown Knows"; a set of ideas we consider self evidently true that lead to us behaving in ways that we do not even realise are part of our conditioning. These endemic assumptions; these things taken for granted, make up our very social selves to such a degree that we are blissfully unaware that they are in fact historically and culturally idiosyncratic.

This is the first step in the process of the myth of objectivism. The constructed social being is unaware of the danger of his position. His childhood certainties gradually become challenged and the social being faces cognitive dissonance, which is met with exceptionalism and denial.

This creates a fearful view. Society is starting to fragment. It is at this time that he seeks the warm cosy reassurance of like-minded people. Those that share his endemic delusional swaddlings. Sure, that somewhere in the social maelstrom there must be others like himself that share the same set of delusions.

Objectivists are simply children looking for the warm safety of the myth that there are universal truths, and that morals can be scientifically determined.

They used to call this religion, and still do. Objectivism is nothing more than a religion without the god.


I can agree with much of this, sure. Though the actual relationships here will always be enormously complex because the number of variables [and permutations of variables] can vary considerably from individual to individual.

Now the reason I ordered it as I did in the op is related to the manner in which I construe human identity rooted in dasein.

That's why, in my signature, along with the psychology of objectivism, I also include this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What's crucial here then is that I am assuming that an individual has come to embody the psychology of objectivism either because she was indoctrinated as a child to swallow it whole or, later, as a more autonomous adult, she was able to largely transcend this indoctrination and has come upon -- through philosophy or political involvement or one or another eventful experience -- a point of view that she is now convinced is wholly rational or moral or just.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ture. But this can get particularly tricky because in any number of historical and cultural contexts, this is not done cynically at all. The authority fugures really do believe in what they instruct the children to believe in. In fact the indoctrination itself can actually be pursued out of love for the children. That's why it is often so effective.

...

I can agree with much of this, sure. Though the actual relationships here will always be enormously complex because the number of variables [and permutations of variables] can vary considerably from individual to individual.

Now the reason I ordered it as I did in the op is related to the manner in which I construe human identity rooted in dasein.

That's why, in my signature, along with the psychology of objectivism, I also include this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What's crucial here then is that I am assuming that an individual has come to embody the psychology of objectivism either because she was indoctrinated as a child to swallow it whole or, later, as a more autonomous adult, she was able to largely transcend this indoctrination and has come upon -- through philosophy or political involvement or one or another eventful experience -- a point of view that she is now convinced is wholly rational or moral or just.


I was not trying to suggest that parents are consciously tricking their children. That's not the point. The point was to show how people apprehend their world view.
Mostly they apprehend it without questioning the assumptions behind it. A good dose of anthropology often helps to give people a wider context with which to understand their own.
When you understand another's culture, you can stand back and unpack your own.
There never is a pure objective position from which to view it. But one thing ought to become very clear; the current set of social norms are not "IT" either.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:41 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:I was not trying to suggest that parents are consciously tricking their children. That's not the point. The point was to show how people apprehend their world view.
Mostly they apprehend it without questioning the assumptions behind it. A good dose of anthropology often helps to give people a wider context with which to understand their own.
When you understand another's culture, you can stand back and unpack your own.
There never is a pure objective position from which to view it. But one thing ought to become very clear; the current set of social norms are not "IT" either.


They apprehend a sense of "reality" as dasein. But to understand this as I do discomfits many. And so [more or less consciously] they embrace one or another "objective" account of human interactions. One that transcends history or culture. This allows them to integrate "I" into the one true objective reality [their own].

For some though this is still not enough. They need to integrate their own sense of reality into a/the Reality itself. For some it's God, for others it's Reason.

And that is when I introduce them to conflicting goods. In other words, with regard to different Gods and different Reasons, there are different behaviors deemed rational, moral, just, virtuous etc. How then does the philosopher determine which behaviors the truly rational man or woman is obligated to pursue?

And that is when I introduce them to 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.

That's where I get "stuck". In fact, I've been stuck there now for years.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:55 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:I was not trying to suggest that parents are consciously tricking their children. That's not the point. The point was to show how people apprehend their world view.
Mostly they apprehend it without questioning the assumptions behind it. A good dose of anthropology often helps to give people a wider context with which to understand their own.
When you understand another's culture, you can stand back and unpack your own.
There never is a pure objective position from which to view it. But one thing ought to become very clear; the current set of social norms are not "IT" either.


They apprehend a sense of "reality" as dasein. But to understand this as I do discomfits many. And so [more or less consciously] they embrace one or another "objective" account of human interactions. One that transcends history or culture. This allows them to integrate "I" into the one true objective reality [their own].

For some though this is still not enough. They need to integrate their own sense of reality into a/the Reality itself. For some it's God, for others it's Reason.

And that is when I introduce them to conflicting goods. In other words, with regard to different Gods and different Reasons, there are different behaviors deemed rational, moral, just, virtuous etc. How then does the philosopher determine which behaviors the truly rational man or woman is obligated to pursue?

And that is when I introduce them to 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.

That's where I get "stuck". In fact, I've been stuck there now for years.


I think it is perhaps unwarranted to say people apprehend their sense of reality as Dasein. The first reason for this is that 99.9% of people are unaware of the existence of the word, let alone the complex concept which Martin H. designed for its use. The second reason is that the notion, where understood is contested. Contested as an idiosyncratic theory of existentialism. But thirdly, I think Martin H. was of the opinion that only a few select people would ever be capable of coming to terms with their existential reality.
Most of us accept a disunited reflective and objectivised reality and so are in denial of the true Dasein self.

I always used to think that a two year old is more close to true Dasein than older humans. But there is an element of Mr. H. requiring the child to come through the objectivising and reflectivity to return as an adult to the true inner self. And only a few achieve this.

Maybe the self interested child is the best place to begin to understand Dasein. Did Martin H. ever say anything about other mammals?

I think the reason you might be stuck is applying "values" to Dasein. You can't have a value without comparison. Values can't exist wihout evalualtion. You cannot make a comparison without reflection, and you loose sight of Dasein when you reflect. Dasein has to remain the root of being, having no value but its own. And I don't mean "values". Dasein is all self-(value).

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:10 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:
I think it is perhaps unwarranted to say people apprehend their sense of reality as Dasein. The first reason for this is that 99.9% of people are unaware of the existence of the word, let alone the complex concept which Martin H. designed for its use. The second reason is that the notion, where understood is contested. Contested as an idiosyncratic theory of existentialism. But thirdly, I think Martin H. was of the opinion that only a few select people would ever be capable of coming to terms with their existential reality.


In my view, Heidegger's Dasein is largely an intellectual contraption. That's why it it always capitalized. Like Being.

From him I took the idea of each individual being "thrown" adventitiously at birth into a particular time and place. And because they are born and bred in one particular historical, cultural and experiential juncture rather than another, this can have a profound impact on how they come to construe "reality" in terms of both their identity and their value judgments.

But, sure, some do become more aquainted with these human-all-too-human fabrications. But then they have to ask themselves this: to what extent [using the tools of philosophy] am I able to grasp my one "true" identity? to what extent am I able to discern the most rational, moral, just value judgments?

Sans God, is this even possible?

In any event, "down here" in the throes of human interactions that do come into conflict, I construe dasein as this:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Lev Muishkin wrote:I think the reason you might be stuck is applying "values" to Dasein. You can't have a value without comparison. Values can't exist wihout evalualtion. You cannot make a comparison without reflection, and you loose sight of Dasein when you reflect. Dasein has to remain the root of being, having no value but its own. And I don't mean "values". Dasein is all self-(value).


I'm "stuck" because I recognize the extent to which any particular individual's moral and political evaluations are rooted in the manner in which I construe the existential parameters of human identity. And I recognize the manner in which these evalutions come back to conflicting goods rooted in conflicting value judgments that are not able to be resolved such that actual flesh and blood human beings are able to arrive at a deontological juncture where it is said that rational men and women are obligated to behave in one manner rather than another.

And that is when I suggest that we take these abstractions down to earth and discuss them in the context of actual moral/political conflagrations we are all familiar with.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:01 pm

Read this one, toots.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1750 ... subjective

It appears to me that when talking to kts folks, we are often saying the exact same thing, but they are so eager to pick a fight with you that they don't bother to read what your wrote, let alone understand it.
As to your current discussion, I can't seem to find where you and kts disagree.
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 Apr 29, 2015 8:23 pm

phoneutria wrote:Read this one, toots.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1750 ... subjective

It appears to me that when talking to kts folks, we are often saying the exact same thing, but they are so eager to pick a fight with you that they don't bother to read what your wrote, let alone understand it.
As to your current discussion, I can't seem to find where you and kts disagree.


Read this one, toots: http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1467-identity

I pop in about half way down the first page. I'm camus666 there.

Where we seem to disagree revolves around the manner in which I situate human morality in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Meanwhile, I have yet to actually figure out where they situate it. Well, other than in the manner in which they insist that if you don't think like they do about it, you are a "moron" or a "retard" or a "turd" or a "cunt".

So, where do you situate it? You're not an objectivist, are you?! :o :wink: :o
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:56 pm

I read that one, toots. That's what prompted me to post here.
And I know you're camus. You have the uncanny skill of using the word dasein in your every post.
I am not an objectivist. Read my posts in the thread I linked, toots.

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?

In any case, reality is the ultimate judge of whether an opinion is correct or not. Accuracy is measured by success.
If existing is the game, and thriving is the objective, and cooperating is the strategy, morals are the rules. And as rules go, the strategy only works if everyone who is participating agrees to the rules and follow them. If someone breaks the rules, and gets caught... I guess we kick his ass, eh? ;)
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 » Sat May 02, 2015 7:46 pm

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.

phoneutria wrote:In any case, reality is the ultimate judge of whether an opinion is correct or not. Accuracy is measured by success.


And the reality of success will revolve more or less around "might makes right" or around "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

But this would seem to be so only in recognizing that, in the absense of God, mere mortals have no other recourse. Sans God, how do mere mortals arrive at an actual deontological agenda such that it can be demonstrated that all rational men and women must behave in one way rather than another? Even Nietzsche's ubermen recognized the inherent ambiguities embedded in a Godless universe.

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:If existing is the game, and thriving is the objective, and cooperating is the strategy, morals are the rules. And as rules go, the strategy only works if everyone who is participating agrees to the rules and follow them. If someone breaks the rules, and gets caught... I guess we kick his ass, eh? ;)


Sure. One or another social, political and economic consensus rooted in one or another historical and cultural and experiential context. But from my frame of mind this all goes back to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26590
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 04, 2015 9:02 am

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".


There is no "objective reality" means that reality is not an object, i.e. it is not static, so there is no objective stance which should be adopted without being processed by the brain (without questioning/thinking.)

When people seek "absolutely correct representations of reality", i.e. "objective truths", they are really only seeking someone to tell them how to live their lives, since they are too cowardly to think for themselves.

iambiguous is of that sort.

He wants to be told how to live his life. He wants to be comforted. He automatically submits to anyone who appears to be confident in his ideas. Metaphorically speaking, he sucks your dick without asking for permission, and if he does not like it, he accuses you of being a pretend "alpha male".

He cannot think.

He cannot tolerate other people's opinions if they are not comforting.

So he falsifies the other in order to make it easy for himself.

Both you and iambiguous have unresolved psychological issues.

You automatically and unconsciously submit to other people.

You have zero self-control.
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: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider]