the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

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.

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.

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.

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.

[u][b]IF ONLY BECAUSE I HAVE SO OFTEN IN THE PAST![/u][/b]

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.

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: :astonished: :wink:

wrong thread

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.

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.

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:

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.

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).

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

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.

Read this one, toots.
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: 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?! :astonished: :wink: :astonished:

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? :wink:

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.

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.

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.

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.

And what is this self-control that I am talking about?

Self-control is the capacity to refuse to ingest what you cannot digest.

It is about knowing yourself, knowing your limits.

iambiguous’s obsession with identity tells us that he has an extremely poor self-consciousness.

His conclusion that identity is unknowable is a projection of his own incapacity onto the universe.

It is not him who is too stupid to know his identity, who is too weak-willed to create psychological calm necessary for any genuine thinking to being, but it is the universe, the laws of nature, that forbid(s) him to do so.

Well thanks for chewing this over.
It’s obvious enough that you have not managed to digest what is going on and therefore offer us this vomitus.
Might I suggest some virtual Gaviscon?

I like what Carl Jung said - in his “Psychological Reflections” (Awareness and creative living).
I think a good response to the above -

“Never in any circumstances should one indulge in the unscientic illusion that one’s own subjective prejudice is a universal and fundamental psychological truth. No true science can spring from this, only a faith whose shadow is intolerance and fanaticism. Contradictory views are necessary for the evolutution of any science, only they must not be set up in any rigid opposition to each other but should strive for the earliest possible synthesis.”

One can’t always help leaning toward or evolving through especially No. 7 but one always has to keep Jung’s words in mind, in mnsho.
One can change the word psychological to philosophical and it still fits.