the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

My opinion is that the hardware and software is broken. The majority of humans act like chimps, it is in their nature. However chimp society is not really a sustainable or courteous way of living. Being a monkey they don’t accept me in their social circles and most of the games and activities they do are boring anyway. I’m just grateful I wasn’t randomly born in africa.

You say I betrayed my ancestors grand plan? What was their grand plan exactly? They didn’t include me in any of it, so if anyone’s been betrayed, theyve betrayed me.

It’s evolutionarily advantageous to love thy neighbor, I don’t see how it’s unnatural to love thy neighbor, especially if thy neighbor is the milf sort.

Advantage is a relative term. Love thy neighbor is advantageous if you want to remain alive at all costs, disregarding the consequences, but it is disadvantageous if you want to remain alive with your brain in your head on your shoulders.

A man cannot adopt any sort of behavior that provides survival advantage without suffering certain consequences. In order for the brain to maintain its integrity, it must adapt properly, which is to say, the foreign activity it considers adopting must be integrated within its system of behavior before it can be made use of. Otherwise, the brain disintegrates.

This is what courage is all about.

Either you strive to identify, register, every single problem that you have, that pops up in your mind, manifesting as a psychological disagreement in the form of negative reaction to your actions and external stimuli, or you close your mind to the existence of your problems, sweeping them under the carpet, hoping you will be able to deal with them at a later point in time. The former requires courage, sacrificing short-term survival for long-term survival, the latter requires nothing, for it is an absence of courage, a cowardice.

Love thy neihgbor is (or was) not a thought-out behavior, it is not a product of reason, it is a product of fear, it is a product of mental reflex.

There are no laws to the universe, Fluxy, nothing is striving to survive, things are simply drawing their ultimate consequences, and they either survive or they do not. Don’t be confused by evolutionary theory . . .

And here, we are discussing values, and as I’ve explained earlier, survival does not indicate superiority per se.

What matters is whether the organism is asserting itself or denying itself. Not whether it survives or not. Survival is not the goal, it is a symptom, a consequence. Sometimes it is the strong, self-asserting, who survive, and weak, self-denying, who die. But sometimes, it is the reverse.

Advantage, then, should be understood in terms of self-assertion. Activity is said to be advantageous if it promotes self-assertion, even if it means death. Similarly, activity is said to be disadvantageous if it promotes self-denial, even if it means survival.

Domination is much more important than mere survival.

Wasnt talking about turn thy cheek, I was talking about love thy neighbor. Turn thy cheek is evolutionarily advantageous for females. Love thy neighbor is advantageous for all parties.

A highly sensitive man has a peculiar weakness: he is easily overwhelmed by emotions, which is to say, his movement is easily inhibited.

This is paralyzing, risking his short-term survival.

Though he has a choice of surviving, he chooses not to, because he values mental integrity above all else.

He remains paralyzed and refuses to continue moving until he interprets, understands, makes sense of his inhibiting negative reactions.

This necessitates courage, lest he become a vulgar man.

A highly sensitive man without courage becomes a vulgar man, a man who walks over his reactions.

The brain tells him not to, but he continues walking nonetheless.

I am often asked how this is reflected in real life. Since iambiguous is the kind of man who cannot understand anything unless you provide him with a real life example, and most of all since I want to, I will provide an example or two.

But this should be obvious . . .

A high school student refusing his “duty” is the simplest of examples.

If you sense that something is wrong, then something is wrong and you shouldn’t do it until you understand what is wrong.

A student senses that something is wrong with going to school, so he simply refuses to do it . . .

A hyper-rational parent, however, will try to force his child into a school, inventing all sorts of “reasons” as to why he should be doing it, ignoring his child’s reactions . . . this is what Satyr calls “top<>down thinking”.

If a stubborn child is unable to endure the pressure, he will start making shit up himself in order to defend himself from his forceful parents. The child himself will start using “top<>down thinking” in order to protect his “bottom<>up thinking”. For example, he will try to deny the value of schooling in general . . . A child not allowed to understand his problems will be forced into falsifying his problems . . .

No school means no job, and no job means no basic necessities of life . . .

A man who refuses to work is another example.

Most people today are desperate to find a job, even if not having a job is not risking their life. Bad conscience is enough . . . If you do not have a job you are a loser, and if you cannot endure the pressure, you will have to force yourself into any kind of job, just so that you can get rid of your bad conscience.

But for a highly sensitive man, choosing a job is as delicate as every other choice in life.

Hyper-rational people do not analyze their feelings, their reactions, their taste . . . they do not care about aesthetics . . . all they care about is putting an end to their fear, whatever the origin of this fear might be.

Unless the path has been built by his ancestors, a highly sensitive man will have to spend a lot of time choosing his job.

Unlike the vulgar man, who chooses what is most popular or where is all the money at, he always picks the job that fits his habits the best.

All of this means enduring pressure, and eventually, risking death.

Love thy neighbor is most often turn thy cheek because neighbor is too general of a category . . . it is not discriminatory enough, and so, it can easily become hypocritical.

We all die. But some die as a human, loved by others, the insensitive child dies like an animal.

For some, love thy neighbor and turn the cheek are synonymous until they’ve learned to grasp the difference through experience or through the experience of having awoken to the realization that they’ve had enough.

How is turning the cheek of an evolutionary advantage? Ever come across women (or men too for that matter) who have been abused both physically and mentally? They’ve turned the cheek because they thought that they had to, because they thought that that was what “real” love was all about.

BUT maybe you meant it in another way. In what way is turn the cheek of an evolutionarily stable advantage? unless you’re cheek kissing in France. I see none.

Why would a sensitive child thrive in a group? That’s retarded, most sensitive kids get bullied all the time and avoid groups.

iambiguous

I agree with this. It is natural.

But why do you call it rationalizing? Our perspectives and selves are not set in stone or at least ought not to be except for those which we still hold as having value and meaning for us. An honest realization is not rationalization. Rationalizing happens when we don’t feel secure in our thinking – we need to convince ourselves/justify ourselves. Then we need to take another look.

True. At one time, I did not “see” capital punishment. Some would say if you’re pro-life you cannot believe in capital punishment. But I accept both and there is no contradiction there for me. At one time there was. Our views do change because we see further and we begin to see more. It is just what it is.

Existence is messy and we don’t have all the answers. We have more questions but this doesn’t mean that for “THIS TIME” we have to question over and over again what we see especially if we understand the whys and wherefores of our new perspectives. But you don’t have to see it that way.

Give me an example that more clearly points to that for me, please, aside from this thread.

As for your first point, I can in a way see it. At the same time, at some point I have to take that giant leap and decide for myself what can be seen as objective – since for many others, it is seen in the same way. For instance – doing no deliberate harm to a child – can be logically and reasonably seen as an objective ethical value for one who is naturally sane.

As for the second, you don’t think that we still have the capacity to claim as our own our values? Does the fact that others may share them make them less our own if we’ve come to them honestly and do indeed live by them? We may be a part of the whole but separate individuals at the same time. I know that’s simplifying it. I think that when you use terms like “wholly” you’re dealing more in absolutes…where there are none.

But my view above gives us more breathing room. I think that you thoroughly enjoy living in negative capability. Nothing wrong with that. Questions can be more exhilarating then solutions. They keep us open to more possibilities. Have you ever stopped to consider though that there may be a much deeper underlying reason for this in you. We all them you know. I certainly do.

I don’t go along with the premise that might makes right nor that all arguments are or have to be rooted in Reason and Virtue and Nobility. What is virtue and what is nobility? They may also be rooted in what we subjectively see as moral so they’re capable of error. Everything though is capable of error since we can’t see or know everything as it really is.

So what’s the answer to our dilemma?

Now that can be considered as so much rationalization and even narcissism. Even the Pharisees saw things in that way standing in the corner whispering to self. “I am just and righteous. My thinking is flawless.” …says the pharisees.

Lol Oh poor Freddie. But was it really a “will to power” which Freddie exhorted or more so like Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, that inner strength which is a will of a kind toward struggling and becoming?
But let’s not go and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I read more than a few of his books and they are so full of intelligence and wisdom and poetic beauty. You can’t only see his life in terms of what you say above. His will to power was ALSO the determination to achieve through struggle and transcendence what his life did achieve. Depending on our personal psychology, we all see power differently.

Now I know Tricksie that you are not speaking to me here with reference to what I wrote above - not to Iambiguous - but to you. I would give you credit for more intelligence and reading comprehension than that.
Carry on.

Wasn’t talking to you but
I guess you are from the planet Mo-ron where you believe sensitive kids lead happy lives and have large circles of friends. I suppose your next step is to say the sky is red and autistic people don’t keep to themselves.

This is exactly the definition of sensitive. People who are capable of making good friends, living and contributing to the community and gaining the love and respect of others, have to have emotional sensitivity.
That fact that you cannot see that speaks volumes about the fact the you are failing as a human being.

Lev, being a communist imbecile, conflates psychological sensitivity with social sensitivity.

Psychological sensitivity means being nice to yourself, being in touch with your needs, not ignoring, denying or overriding them.

Social sensitivity means being nice to others, being in touch with other people’s needs, not ignoring, denying or overriding them.

Now depending on whether your psychology is self-assertive or self-denying, you may prioritize psychological over social (self-assertive) or social over psychological (self-denying.)

The first makes social sensitivity conditional, depending on whether others are sufficiently related to you.

The second makes psychological sensitivity conditional, depending on whether you are sufficiently related to others.

The self-denying communist retard such as Lev will not be able to see the difference between the two.

The retard is too stupid to understand that I am not rejecting communities in general, but only herd-like, egalitarian communities of self-denying self-loathing retards.

You cannot redirect a strong force of denial. He will never turn around and start moving in the right direction. Instead, he will simply find new “openings” in my posts to “exploit” them by increasing possibilities.

So what if I am simply wrong . . .
What if there is no such a difference between social and psychological sensitivity . . .
What if there is but I am mistaken about his sensitivity being social . . .
What if it is psychological sensitivity to be friends with everyone with as little discrimination as possible . . .
What if?

What kind of “what if” is Lev going to introduce to this topic?

My guess is none considering that his posts in general are nothing but pure knee-jerk reactions resembling premature ejaculations of microscopic drops of water of questionable existence . . .

I don’t need to take lessons from an emotionally retarded child.

How do you “win” against retards?

By reducing them to a simple algorithm which can be used to program bots that will mimic their behavior almost perfectly.

iambiguous is already predictable . . . He need not post at all, I will post instead of him.

iambiguous: What does this have to do with the particular way in which blah blah blah?

Zero interaction, zero adaptation, nothing, nada, nula, nuletina.

You do not, you also do not have to respond. It’s just a waste of your time, Lev, you being an emotionally intellegent man in his 50’s or 60’s or whatever, has much better things to do in his spare time.

I am just a child, remember?

Another warning, another (4 day) ban for Magnus Anderson.

Well, my point revolves around clarity:

Clear to me [re the OP] is the extent to which the objectivists are able to translate their didactic intellectual contraptions into an argument that integrates their words and the world that we live in. At least as it relates to conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

Now, if one is asked to make a philosophical determination regarding the morality of abortion, one can claim an argument exists that encompasses all abortions universally, or one can claim [as folks like von rivers often did here] that, while a universal morality does not exist, it is still possible to attain an objective assessment pertaining to each particular abortion.

But consider:

In the United States, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Of all unintended pregnancies, 4 in 10 are aborted. There are approximately 1.21 million abortions in America each year.

So, per the von rivers perspective, there are approximately 1.2 million objective moral truths a year. And that’s just in the United States.

And what then are the “epistemological” parameters of all of this? What is the “serious philosopher” to make of it?

Yes, that’s true. And I have addressed this issue on other threads. For example, Mary might have in fact been pregnant and she might have in fact induced an abortion. But only Mary was ever aware of this. So, even here, God is necessary, isn’t He? Still, either Mary was pregnant or she was not, either she induced the abortion or she did not. How are we able in turn [philosophically] to determine if Mary’s abortion was or was not moral? I always come back to that distinction, right? The one that seems considerably more rooted in the objective truth rather than the subjective opinion.

Okay, I am still, technically, making this “category error”. My epistemology is still out of whack.

But let’s get back to this:

Some argue that abortion is immoral. The reason? We should not kill the unborn.
Some argue that abortion is moral. The reason? Women should not be forced to give birth.
But we can’t live in a world where both points of view prevail.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what is to be done?

Now, how would a serious philosopher well-schooled in all branches of epistemolgy respond to that and not make a single solitary “category error” at all? That’s what I am after, of course.

As I note time and again, my chief aim here is to discover the extent to which the tools of philosophy are or are not applicable in making a moral determination when human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. And then the extend to which our individual value judgments might be embedded in the manner in which I construe dasein. And then, finally, the extent to which my “dasein dilemma” might be deemed unreasonable.

I welcome all epistemologists and serious philosophers in exploring this with me. But sooner or later they have to take their technical excellence down to earth. They can’t all be James S. Saint, right?

Yes, well this [to me] is precisely the sort of didactic rhetoric I have come to expect from the folks at KTS. What in the world does it have to do with discussions that revolve around conflicting value judgments in a world sans God?

And while in fact it may well have a great deal to do with them, when do we get to explore this pertaining to an issue like abortion “down here”? I’m still not really certain what your own ideas are here. What would the optimal argument sound like free of all category errors?

Obviously, given the number of times in the past that I have changed my mind regarding the relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, I am more than willing to acknowledge that I might change my mind again. That frame of mind is, after all, at the very heart and the very soul of my ever pointing out the extent to which dasein and conflicting goods are awash in contingency, chance and change.

Now, what exactly are your objections to the manner in which I construe dasein as it relates to the accumulation of value judgments “in the head” of any particular individual? How do you encompass your own value judgments here? How are they related to your philosophical precepts and your pantheistic religious framework?

What say you regarding the morality of abortion? Or, again, pick another issue altogether.

Come on, my friend, we have both gone down the polemical path here on this thread. And on other threads. Don’t put the burden all on me.

In fact, I tend to engage polemics to the extent that it seems aimed at me. For example, in my exchange with Arcturus Descending here there is not a hint of polemics. The exchange is entirely civil.

As for “process”, I try to make it as clear as I possibly can that this interest me only to the extent that it is integrated “out in the world” of actual conflicting goods. If others wish to explore it instead only with fellow “serious philosophers” let them go right ahead.

Anyway, thanks for this:

Over there, it’s all basically just entertainment. I think.

Probably because I am running out of time in which to integrate whatever philosophy might have to contribute to my life as it relates to the manner in which [here and now] I do understand the profoundly existential relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And if folks can’t or don’t or won’t bring their own understanding of it down to earth they can move on to the didactic abstractionists [Will Durants “epistemologists”] who are more than eager to explore all of this free of category errors.

“Up there”, as it were.

But, as I explained above to Arcturus Descending…

[b]…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: [/b]

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.

Over and again I make it clear that others can choose another issue of more interest to them. Hopefully however it will be one that most of us here will at least have some familiarity with.

When it comes to moral conflicts, there are always going to be those issues in which the consensus is either broad or narrow. With issues like abortion or capital punishment or the role of government or gun control or animal rights etc., there are generally large swaths of folks on both sides of the controversy.

But, as I explored recently with peacegirl on the determinism thread, even regarding a more extreme behavior like rape, in which the consensus is almost always overwhelmingly that such behavior is immoral, there is no way in which to establish philosophically that this is so objectively.

Or so it seems to me.

Here [in a world sans God] all any particular individual need do is to insist that morality revolves around that which he construes to self-fullilling or self-gratifying.

How then do the epistemologists or the serious philosophers demonstrate that this is necessarily false?

And while there are those, using that criteria, able to rationalize even sticking forks into the eyes of children, we have to remember there are those who view the killing of the unborn as far more egregious morally. And that’s before we get to those folks able to rationalize genocide or historical events like the Holocaust.

What then is chattel slavery or pedophilia or human sacrifice next to that? Again: In the absense of God all things can be rationalized. No less so than in the name of God all things can be.

But at least with God we have the [alleged] embodiment of omniscience and omnitpotence. Not so with mere mortals. Here [in my view] we are unable to extricate ourselves from the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Let me be specific about potential hypocrisy:
You say…

Now perhaps this was a point of information in an argument and did not include even a whiff of moral judgment. IOW since they respond this way, then this is the same as them thinking their argument will erase all objection. I don’t see it as the same since they assume that objectiion will continue. So I took this statement as at least in part moral judgment of their behavior.

Now the arguments I quickly tossed out for each side and not particularly the point. I just wanted to give examples and it does not really matter if the examples of the justifications fit you or KTS. Their certain are ones that do and they do not fit with eachother.

My point is that if you really want to put forward a position of moral relativism (epistemologically - iow one cannot determine), then you cannot then leap out of that position and make moral judgments and be consistant. You cannot even generalize and say that objectivists are causing problems, since we have no way TO AGREE ON what a problem is, since this will have value judgments in it.

One way to sum up this post is:

how does your position eliminate the arguments?

And if it doesn’t, and it clearly has not, so far, at least, why should this be a valid critique of other systems of belief?