the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Profound in that it exposed to me how the gap [enormous at times] between the words we use to sustain our value judgments [and the way in which they seem clear to us “in our heads”] is not able to be translated as seamlessly out in the world. Prior to this experience I was more or less able to ground my value judgments in one or another religious or political “truth”. Afterwards, that became increasingly more problematic. Now I am all but hopelessly entangled in the way in which I construe a moral dilemma in dasein.

Again, 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.

And I have found that, as a rule, many objectivists are particularly unnerved by this frame of mind. Why? Because they are able to glimpse the manner in which it might also be applicable to them.

But, again, that is only how it seems to me.

And many, like you perhaps, construe this dilemma not as an immoral frame of mind but as an amoral threat to a world that they see as one in which we must be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong behavior.

But, absent God, how is this possible? Even folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a transcending font here.

This sort of argument always seems reasonable to me – on paper. But when you take it down into the nitty gritty complexities of human interactions awash in conflicting goods awash in contingency chance and change, sides must be chosen and rationalizations advanced. It’s just that my own leaps [here and now] are considerably more wobbly than others.

Forever that.

Try changing the color at least.

Ask a didactic objectivist to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth and this is what you get! =D>

Seriously though, how is this not the embodiment of your own personal experiences pertaining to abortion? And how do the personal experiences of others inclining them to disagree with you make them necessarily wrong?

Because you say so, right?

You are merely making your own existential leap to a particular political agenda. You have offered no argument that makes the conflicting goods go away.

In other words:

If abortion is deemed objectively moral [and made legal] then many unborn babies will die.
If abortion is deemed objectively immoral [and made illegal] then many pregnant women will be forced to give birth.

What is the objective philosophical argument that makes this go away?

How, using the tools of philosophy, are we able to know for certain which point of view the rational, virtuous and noble uberman is obligated to embrace? You know, so as not to be seen as one of the sheep.

Yeah, that’s an idea:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which one is most appealing to you. Or choose your own color.

Now, let’s move on to this part:

[i][b]And I have found that, as a rule, many objectivists are particularly unnerved by this frame of mind. Why? Because they are able to glimpse the manner in which it might also be applicable to them.

But, again, that is only how it seems to me.

And many, like you perhaps, construe this dilemma not as an immoral frame of mind but as an amoral threat to a world that they see as one in which we must be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong behavior.

But, absent God, how is this possible? Even folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a transcending font here. [/b][/i]

No, I don’t think so.
But where I disagree with you, is where you state that because there is no ONE RIGHT OPTION, all options are equally good.
I ought not to tolerate actions that I find wrong. Allowing for all morals is the same as having no morals at all.

There can’t be a decision that is right, because circumstances aren’t the same.

What is more moral to you, the death of a child, or a child being abused and neglected?
Some things are worse than death.
To me, the standard for moral isn’t “that which promotes life”. It is “that which promotes a thriving life”.

A world which allows for a man, the philospher-king of his own home, to determine the moral obligation of his household, and raise his children to uphold them and preserve them through #2, and when that fails, #1.

Even the christian bible says that all things are permitted, but not all are expedient… something like that.

There is no need to be willing to accept anything. Acceptance or not does not change the fact that we live in it. Accepting that fact is an exercise in understanding human nature. That’s about it.

And yet I still spend a lot of time in places like this looking for arguments that might allow me to extricate myself from my own “dasein dilemma”.
[/quote]
How can I delicately put it… nobody cares.
The only reason anybody would want to try to understand what something means to you, is so that they can replace that understanding with one of their own.
We’re memetic viruses

What you said here is the same as to say that because you can throw paint at a canvas a million different ways, there is no real painting!
The sum of all of the colors, and all of the solvents, and all of the hand gestures that landed the paint on the canvas, and all the motivations behind it, and all of the themes within it, those things all together are the real painting. And it doesn’t end there. Solvent cures, paint cracks, dust sets over…

I think that it is the same as to say that one saves the child when one feels morally obligated to do so, given the circumstances.

El oh el…

The irony seems to escape you that you cannot even conceive of a hypothetical female making a rational, calculated decision, because you, yourself, are so emotionally vested in your spite for women.

Are you quite certain? Can you think of a scenario in which a person’s sense of right/wrong might overrides his/her sense of self-preservation?

Doesn’t gravity pull objects to the ground EVERY time?
Doesn’t the sun rise in the east EVERY time?

I didn’t contest the notion that we want to convince people. I contested whether we can or not.

You are not the center of the universe, estupida, you are not WOMEN, you are A WOMAN, and a stupid one at that.

PAY SOME CLOSER FUCKING ATTENTION TO MY WORDS, YOU . . . YOU . . . whatever.

This is what YOU get, your mom, however, will get something else, something MORE down to earth.

Seriously, you imbecile, how is this not you just wasting my time here by asking me to start a discussion only so that you can put an end to it with your pathetic annoying never-ending drivel.

Either just swallow the sperm or shut the fuck up.

Whine whine whine . . . let’s just continue whining . . . because I say so . . . because Magnus says so . . . because your daddy does not say so . . . because your neighbour does not think so . . .

I am merely wasting my time here by ejaculating inside an anus of a braindead failure of an abortion of a monkey of a . . .

In other words, you imbecile, you are an robot recycling word leftovers of dead philosophers such as “dasein”, “conflicting” and “moral” and “goods”.

If you keep your head deeply stuck into the anus of Ayn Rand you will never be able to see, let alone understand, anything.

Bottom line:

Momma, don’t let your babies grow up to be objectivists.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, Magnus, how do you get the computer in the crib?

Just joshing, my friend. You keep me young.

Yes, I know, I keep you young.

A female can only do so if she’s in “man-mode”. If a female has high levels of testosterone she is in the “man-mode.” Therefore when someone acts egomaniacal, over-dramatic, and generally ignorant to rationality and or communication I don the phrase “acting like a female-woman.” Also known to apply to homosexuals, ass-clowns, bible thumpers, 12 year old xbox kids and transsexuals and the like.

Magnus is giving us a good show of the female woman, whether that is his usual personality or a farce it matters not, applause applause applause applause. I live for the applause, applause, applause…

You get that shit because you are so full of it, it comes out of your mouth

all over your head.

I wonder, Lev, do you have a single post which is not a knee-jerk reaction?

Rhetorical question.

Let me try to define the word “rhetorical” since it is too abstract.

Rhetorical comes from French retardere which means “make slow or slower” meaning it is a question you should try to answer slowly on your own, you are not morally obliged to respond to the dasein that posed it.

So what do you think, Lev, are you not just another self-loathing communist imbecile despising the universe because your moronic ancestors were too stupid to take care of you?

Don’t make me wait too long, Lev.

This is because you are an-hedonic, love, so emotionality is non-sensical to you. Which is why you are posing pleasure as an end goal and I am not.

I need no pleasure because unlike you, I am not denying my emotions.

Now go back to your let-s-destroy-the-universe crap.

Take it down a notch, kiddo. You’re running the risk of becoming irrelevant