I've got a great idea! How about we get our information right on the Partial Spoiler!
Mortarpod is an uncommon!
Rusted Slasher is out of alphabetical order!
Hexplate Golem is a common!
Gust-Skimmer is hyphenated!
I like exclamation points!
Well, that clears things up a little bit. However, it also undermines ljoss' argument, because if it's possible to fund a government voluntarily, then presumably state socialism doesn't have to rely on taxes.
If the government is in control of the economy (this is a principle tenant of state socialism), then how can government financing be voluntary?
Socialism is all about making people do "the right thing." What the right thing is, and how the government makes the people do it, are variable but invariably a detriment to liberty.
Laissez-faire capitalism is not about making people do the right thing; it is about making sure the people are left alone, free from coercion by others, to determine on their own what the right thing is (or the right things are).
Fiercely was probably overboard. Sorry. But it certainly did seem that you were at least advocating them. Still does; it's a tone thing. For example, earlier in this post it is clear from my tone that I am advocating laissez-faire capitalism, even though I never expressly said as much.
Ljossberir was listing things he thought "missing from most philosophers". I was pointing out that these things are, in fact, present in some of the most prominent philosophers of all time. Reading comprehension for the win.
I would agree with you that an "attempt" is present. (It can be argued in some cases, especially Kant, that there was not a good-faith effort on the philosopher's part.) So the real question is: if one is given a philosophical problem, and answers it incorrectly, is the question really answered?
I think she clearly explained why socialism, state socialism, in her view, is evil.
Theft is evil,
State socialism relies on taxes,
Taxes are theft,
Therefore, state socialism is evil.
Now I know you don't agree with every premise, but it's quite a convincing argument in my view and we can discuss it again if you'd like. In any event, I think the reasoning is pretty clear here, if you accept the premises, you accept the conclusion.
I think you're mistaking your argument for hers. You yourself pointed out that she's a minarchist of sorts, not an anarchist, so either she's in a pretty nasty inconsistency or she doesn't really believe that theft is evil and taxes are theft.
Ayn Rand was not an anarchist (actually vehemently opposed to it, as she was vehemently opposed to many things), but she believed all taxes should be abolished (eventually). This isn't a contradiction, she explains, because government will be funded differently: essentially, it will be paid for services rendered. For example, let's take breach of contract. The way the system is now, if someone doesn't hold up their end of a bargain, you automatically have the right to take them to court. Under Rand's system, you wouldn't have that right automatically; you'd have to pay for it when the contract was signed, much as you'd pay for insurance. Another example of government funding she liked was the state lottery. The point is, there would still be government, but it would be funded voluntarily. No true taxes.
I do remember, however, that in her novels pretty much everyone who isn't a raging Objectivist or an on-the-fence obvious-convert-to-be is a simpering mouthpiece of strong collectivism.
All philosophies use logic as a tool to develop upon their axioms. Not all philosophies use logic to develop their axioms to develop 2 contradictory premises, thus proving that one of their axioms is incorrect. Objectivism's greatest strength from a metaphysical/epistemological point of view is its axiom choice.
Obviously no one philosophy has a monopoly on logic, but Rand and other Objectivists have plenty of experience using logic as a tool to destroy other philosophies — in other words, to expose their contradictions.
Which, not to be snide, just reveals how little you understand of them. I'm no expert, myself - but really, mentioning rationalism and empiricism as "missing from most philosophers" right after I've just named the leading figures in both of those movements?
You're not an expert on the philosophies you are advocating!?
What, then, is your motivation for advocating them as fiercely as you have?
A movement is just a lot of people agreeing. It doesn't necessarily mean they are right. I am not impressed by prestige, fame, recognition, or anything like that — so give me a reason why I should care about any of the philosophies you mentioned. (Warning: You may have to develop some expertise.)
Of course he is. But that's the whole point of the concept "selfless."
See, most selfless people stop being selfless at some point. They are afraid of self-destruction. They know that certain conditions are conducive to their life, and they don't want to jeopardize that. However, a truly selfless person will sacrifice everything: their self-respect, their honor, their integrity, their very souls, if only to help someone else.
Jigsaw is a very selfless person. There is nothing he won't do to himself, so long as it furthers YOUR self-improvement.
This naturally makes him a hypocrite. His self-improvement doesn't matter to him at all. He's not trying to become a better person. He's trying to hit bottom. But YOU are supposed to be concerned with your own self-improvement. YOU must become a better person. He's hitting bottom FOR YOU.
Most people who try to be Jigsaw in real life end up being history's major villains. Hitler probably thought he was sincerely improving the lives of Germans when he perpetrated the Holocaust. The fact that he was part-Jewish himself may have made him a hypocrite, but it didn't make him any less sincere; I'm sure he hated that part of him and, eventually, he did kill himself.
Jigsaw is dangerous; Hitler is dangerous. Selflessness, without self-interest to moderate it, is dangerous. However, it can be fun to watch. That's why I like the Saw movies.
Also, I'm starting to remember those passages in the Fountainhead you pointed out. Your post makes a lot of sense.
Thank you.
You seem to like my ideas. Here's something I wrote some time ago. I expected it to receive very few replies (as it was rather technical); I was a little shocked when it got no replies whatsoever.
Surely you see the extraordinary difference in the strength of the original theories (if Locke or Hobbes had failed to account for conflicts in rights). I can dig up twenty or so web-pages explaining the conception of classical rights to a level on par with Newton.
I'm sure you'll agree that Newton's error lay extraordinarily deep, and this is more of a "gotcha!" pseudo-error.
I have no idea how to properly reply to your response; it is unintelligible to me. Perhaps you didn't understand my point. In my analogy, Rand is Newton; I was making no attempt to reference philosophers before her. My point was that even if one admires the work of someone, and even if it seems like their theories explain many observed phenemona, one must be watchful for errors in that philosopher's theory, and anyone who spots such an error and creates a new theory to explain phenomena that do not match up with the previous theory is to be admired, as we admire Einstein; therefore, it is important to be critical of Rand's work.
Who is the "Einstein" in my analogy? We don't know yet, specifically. However, we do know generally—the next great modern philosopher.
I'm not really making arguments--merely discussing the possibilities of a philosophical system. And I see no reason to take someone quite unfamiliar with the whole of Objectivism at his word when he says Rand failed to account for a child's mistake.
I was not taking him at this word. You should keep in mind that any disagreement I have with you does not mean that I agree with anyone you're arguing with.
If you would have said "Given their achievements, it is highly unlikely that Hobbes and Locke and Kant and everyone else could have made such a catastrophic error as to not consider the many areas where rights conflict" — then that would be more reasonable. The way you had it earlier, you were essentially making an argument that Hobbes, Locke, and Kant were infallible — that is obviously untrue and is the place to start in any reasonable reply.
REGARDING A BETTER EXPLANATION OF RAND:
Rand never made any case that charity is as evil (nor more evil) than murder. Rand on many occassions said that the only source of interpersonal evil was the use of physical force; actions involving physical force have always been the main focus of Rand's "crusade against evil", and she considered government redistribution of wealth to be a form of physical force. However, charitible acts usually involve two or more willing parties, and therefore it doesn't fall under that category. Rand even has a quote somewhere to the effect of "In an Objectivist society, charity would be allowed — but not encouraged." She never would have said that about murder. Furthermore, she explained how charity could be selfish — at least twice, once in a nonfiction essay (I forget which one), and once in The Fountainhead, where the hero, Howard Roark, explains his motivation for his donations to his friend & sculptor Steven Mallory.
Well, obviously no one is that naive. Hobbes and Locke and Kant and everyone else certainly wouldn't have made such a catastrophic error as to not consider the many areas where rights conflict.
Even great thinkers have errors in their systems; for example, Einstein proved that Newton's theories on physics were not fully consistent with reality. Would it have been fair to tell Einstein, "Don't be naive. Newton certainly wouldn't have made such a large error as to not have predicted that"?
(The Newton/Einstein model also serves to explain why I believe it's erroneous to take Rand's works as dogma. The belief that such a work may contain flaws does not make Rand an incompetent thinker, nor attack her character; what matters is whether her work was considerably better than philosophical systems that existed at the time. One does not have to be infallible to be a great hero like Newton.)
It is wise to never make arguments of the "no, he couldn't have" variety. Either examine the evidence directly or have the honesty to admit that you do not know for sure; if you make an assumption on someone's quality of work based upon their character, keep in mind that such assumption is merely an estimate.
But more seriously... my problem with Objectivism (from the libertarian's perspective) is, at least with regards to the Virtue of Selfishness and whatnot, that it's both inconsistent and misguided. The former, because her perspective that each should look to his full happiness obviously seems to conflict with itself when you introduce more than one person, and her solution of "full protection of individual rights" is a significant step down from "full happiness".
What is it that makes two people together inherenty less happy than one person alone? It seems to me that, as the number of people in a society increases, the amount of specialization available in work increases; specialization, in turn, should cause more people enjoy their work and/or produce better (more enjoyable) products.
I think when you say "one person alone," you do not mean one person truly alone; you mean a single person functioning as a member of a much larger society. In that case, you are dropping the context; in order to be in society, a person must fundamentally not be alone; therefore what you're really considering is the case of a person in a society who was somehow exempt from society's methods. (Methods are even more basic than laws; someone who refuses to trade with others is not an outlaw, but nevertheless has rejected the basic premises underlying societal interaction.) If an individual forsakes the methods of society, he finds himself disconnected from society's benefits (if the society knows what is good for its members and acts on that knowledge); he is ostracized and alone once more.
Consider the happiness of a man, truly alone, having to fend for himself in the wilderness. Consider what steps he would take to attain his full happiness. Then add more levels of societal interaction to that first individual; start with one person at a time, then eventually add several, perhaps millions, all at once. Then tell me wherein the conflict lies.
The latter because, well, "full happiness" isn't the greatest value in any kind of system, at least in my mind. Most philosophers look at it as subservient (or a result of) other values such as justice and morality.
This isn't the exact Rand definition, but: Happiness is the state of having reached one's moral goals relative to one's own survival as a human being. It is a goal to be properly nourished; the nature of human existence is the source of this goal. When you are properly nourished, you feel some happiness because your goal is met. When you properly nourish someone else, you may or may not feel happiness; that depends on whether the continued existence of the person justified the cost in food, relative to your goals.
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear, but I find it hard to dissect happiness any further. In particular, I wanted to dissociate happiness from the goals of sustaining one's existence as a human being; however, I can't find any way to separate the concepts. If you act against your own ability to survive as a human being (perhaps by giving the very last of your money to a homeless person, only to end up in his shoes a week later), what you feel noble or righteous, but you won't feel happy. The only way you could feel happy in such a situation is if you believed you had, in fact, increased your survivability as a human being (perhaps by belief that would would have everlasting life in Heaven due to your selfless acts; or because you expect the positive attention others pay you for your selfless, "moral" acts to pay for the costs paid initially, plus a little profit).
The point of all this is: to say happiness is subservient to morality is like saying production is subservient to work. It doesn't really make any sense. Happiness is the emotional effect one feels when practicing a morality that affirms and/or supports one's existence.
There's nothing wrong with significant interest in individual rights, but there are situations in which such an interest is counterproductive at best and patently unjust at worst.
Counterproductive to whom? In what instance could someone's "significant interest" in their own rights be a liability to that same person? Unjust to whom? In what instance could somone be unjust to themselves because of a "significant interest" in their own rights?
Where is a less-than-significant interest in one's individual rights, the people that stand to benefit are not those disinterested in their own rights. Instead, the beneficiaries are those who seek to use others as a means to an end. If you're a slavedriver, I imagine you would indeed see an interest in individual rights as counterproductive and unjust; that interest would keep you from meeting your work quotas and would cause you to complain to your friends about how unreasonable difficult it is for you to maintain your chain gang.
If you ask me (you being a Magic player), Objectivists are blue/green. The core of blue is an adherence to logical principles, a thirst for knowledge, and a love of thought; the core of green is the acceptance of one's nature, constant growth, and a love of life. Objectivists consider these two things to be 2 sides of the same coin. Numerous times Rand speaks of "the fallacy of the body/mind dichotomy"— this is what she's talking about.
To most, the assumption that blue and green are enemy colors is an easy sell. Society tells us to equate "rational" with "artificial" and "intutive" with "natural". Objectivists believe reason/logic is natural, normal, the proper function of human beings according to evolution; and that failing to use your reason and instead relying on "intuition" makes you into a broken robot, an abhomination, an animal trapped in a human's body. To an Objectivist, blue and green aren't just allied colors; they're inseperable; to forsake one is to forsake the other.
Rand's novels are, at their core, a celebration of how exercising your rational capacity to your fullest makes you one with nature.
There is a lot of confusion by what Rand means when she says "selfishness." She means: in a green way.
Objectivism's heavily reliance on reason makes it nearly impossible to pose Objectivism without at least being blue; its reliance on the written word makes it rather easy to pose as an Objectivist without being green (as emotions transmit poorly in written discourse). I suspect a substantial number of blue-black type individuals have seen the value of posing as Objectivists and have utilized that to serve their own agendas; I find it strange that Objectivists are so overwhelmingly Republican, despite the last 7 years of evidence for their logic-heavy brains to compute; I declare shenanigans. Blue-red types are also sometimes Objectivists, but it never meshes with them totally and they eventually move on to some other kooky philosophy. As for blue-white... as detailed in the memoir Judgment Day, Rand herself went through that transformation. Originally blue-green and content to construct her philosophy for the self-interested purpose of writing her novel, Rand eventually became a contradiction in terms: a selfless advocate of philosophy of rational selfishness, concerned more about converting as much of the country to Objectivism than anything else. The contradiction didn't fully destroy her ability to reason, but it weakened her and the Objectivist cause.
why is her appeal so limited? Why is she so despised in some (most) circles?
After Rand made her switch to blue/white, she became much more defensive. As a result, she stopped refining her philosophy any further, and when someone from within the Objectivist "collective" brought up a point of critique, they were discharged from the group and members were told never to associate with that person again. This eventually lead the original/official group, which became the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), to be a dogmatic defender of Rand's explicit philosophy. A splinter group, formed of less dogmatic disciples of Objectivism, has formed The Atlas Society (TAS), which attempts to improve upon the foundation Rand has provided. The two organizations are somewhat at odds.
However, since ARI controls the copyright to Rand's novels, it's their advertisement you see whenever you open a copy. As Rand described her philosophy as "extreme" and attacked anyone claiming to be a moderate Objectivist, ARI had difficulty accepting viewpoints that don't mesh up exactly with their status quo; additionally, it intellectually attacks individuals, organizations, and policies often. Therefore, since adults have less of an extremist/revolutionary bent than teens, it's no surprise that Objectivism isn't the most popular movement, despite its potential.
I believe that if people help other people out they want to feel good when others feel good. Serving others in order to satisfy your emotions.
I dunno. I was just thinking about it.
"Selfishness" is not synonymous with "psychological motivation." All psychological motivations come from within — another person can't desire for you. Furthermore, selflessness is not an instinct — therefore, it must have a psycholigical motivation. You've more or less found it.
What did you think before — that selflessness was some sort of vacuum, where the person acted without desiring, having no will whatsoever? A person without desires has no will to do anything — a hard fact to confirm, since no human is without desire, even if he's so bereft of ambition that his only desire is to avoid pain. Nevertheless, it's that desire that gives him the will to move, as opposed to a blank apathy regarding anything he could possibly ever do. "Selflessness" doesn't mean apathy towards everything — contrary to the word's appearance, it means a desire of a particular sort, and desire necessitates a self to do the desiring.
Let me ask you: Are 80% of Americans slaveowners? Was there ever a point where the number of U.S. slaves ever even came close to the number of Christians there are now?
There was a time when the economic and political structure of the Southern U.S. was centered upon slavery. To my knowledge, there is no region (of that size or any significant size at all) where the economic and political structure is based on Christianity — although I should probably know more about the economics of Texas' "Bible Belt."
If you live... Anywhere that isn't Asia, your primary contact with religion is probably Christianity.
This is in some part unfortunate, as I believe that this can result in some problematic ways of thinking, including:
1. Presuming to know about Christianity when one in fact knows nothing about it.
2. Presuming Christianity is the only religion or that all religions follow Christianity's pattern or mold.
3. Intolerance to external religions.
The first problem is one I wish to tackle. What I believe is we have a golden opportunity on this site to learn about what is easily the most important and influential system of thinking that has ever entered our culture.
Personally, I think we squander it. I do not believe in indoctrination. However, I believe the fact that the Bible is not taught in school is ludicrous. I admit I am being a bit too critical, as other religions would have to be represented in the process, which would open up a floodgate, and all of this is a debate for another time.
However, I will maintain that I believe it is useless to be in a society so shaped by a single movement and yet have many know nothing about it, and I say this not out of criticism toward others but out of frustration towards myself.
Allow me to make my point using a similar case.
For years, the United States was shaped by the doctrine of racism. Sure, we believed that all men were created with inalienable rights... but we did not consider all human beings to be "men." We let an irrational standard cloud rational judgment, and due to this failure we allowed abominable things to happen. Now, years later, we are in a much more rational position. To say racism no longer exists is wrong, of course: there are still bigots out there. Heck, to be honest, even the claim that racism has been pushed off of the mainstream is wrong: consider the wild popularity of Chapelle's Show. But the point isn't that we've defeated racism or become perfect. It's that, overall, we're a lot less racist than we used to be — in other words, we're more likely than past Americans to judge the people we meet by rational standards instead of by a certain superficial, meaningless standard.
However, the key to combatting the racist philosophy is the knowledge that "race" doesn't matter, that it's no more important than hair color. As a teacher of the history of "racism," the focus should be on the victories against racism and the heroes who made such victories possible — first, through the abolition of slavery; later, through the early civil rights movement. Getting into the history of the KKK and the justifications slaveowners used to justify their crimes is not necessary because the wrongness of their positions becomes obvious when, urged by their teachers to have an open mind, the students actually collect their own evidence and judge for themselves. The person who said "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" obviously forgot about those cases wherein the ancient error is only repeatable by someone who also fails to study the present.
I'm done with the set-up now, so now it's time for the punchline:
What if I view Christianity as an abomination — in the same way, and for the same reasons, that racism is an abomination? While slavery led men to believe their bodies were not their property, but the property of another, Christianity leads men to believe their soul isn't theirs, but the property of another — and furthermore, that even if they did own their souls, that they'd be incapable of caring for it properly.
However, in the same way that American "slavery" is a stronger form of American "racism," American Christiandom has its weaker equivalent, the form far more practiced today. Few Americans are fundamentalist Bible-thumpers, but even gangsta rappers publicly support Christianity. This weaker form is the version that is pervasive through contemporary America, and it hinges on the sense of wonder one feels towards the world: "How did all this come to be? Who made this, and why?" But you can't allow yourself to be suckered into a reality-defying belief system just because you can't answer questions like "How was the universe created?" and "How did man come to live on earth?" Sure, Dr. Sceintist has his theories, but until you review the evidence for yourselves, you're running on faith in his word, which makes you little better than someone with faith in His Word. The truth is that you're not very sure; but that's okay, because as far as your daily life is concerned, it really doesn't matter that much — in the same way that the color of someone's hair doesn't matter that much.
So you expect me to agree to teaching the history of Christianity in schools because it's played such a large role in America's past? I think it's played too much of a role already.
"Social perspective" is generally a term used to qualify looking at something in its social context. Two or more people can be qualified in social terms. I don't see a problem with what he said here.
I guess I can see the "two or more people" reasoning, but I don't understand what you mean by "social context." My prediction is that you're either using it as a round-about synonym for the concept of "deserved vs undeserved," or that introducing such an idea is frivolous and should therefore be omitted from a definition of justice; however, that's merely a prediction.
By "educated," do you mean by the schools? If that's the case, I'd say that schools don't have to exist. They're useful, but motivated people teach themselves, and with the creation of the Internet, being able to access the information they're curious about is as easy as acquiring a computer and an internet connection — even if only for brief periods of time at a public library. (People who aren't motivated to teach themselves get no sympathy from me, and I hope they suffer to their last breaths.)
As far as to what everyone should know, I'd say philosophy. It's more important than literature, math, and science — because without any philosophy, those subjects have no meaning, and with a subpar philosophy they have less impact — or they can be perverted towards evil ends. However, philosophy, particularly ethics, tells us what is sacred and what is blasphemous — and thus every man who truly believes his philosophy is "religous" in some sense. Therefore, teaching philosophy in schools in any way other than a "history of philosophy" course with a dry, clinical eye, could very well be considered teaching religion in schools — and even if it's a secular, atheistic religion, it's still too close to violating the separation of church and state. The only two remedies I can offer are to discuss philosophy actively outside of school settings, or to support private schools.
Though I'd guess different people and perspectives would have different qualifications for it.
Two untruths. First, that justice requires "social perspective"; you need only two individuals for justice to be relevant, and a "social perspective" is generally a euphemism for some form of mystical perception (which doesn't exist). Second — although this one's merely implied — that justice is subjective. It's true that each individual has to evaluate justice independently, and thus methods will differ. However, some answers are objectively better than others, due to their reasoning.
Justice is a virtue, which is a moral quality. It qualifies a course of action in the following way:
The activity or inactivity has been justified by the circumstance.
For instance, if a man kills another, and is not punished, most would say that the inactivity was not justified by the circumstance. Thus, it's injustice.
Although virtues are generally in the realm of moral imperatives, the determination of what circumstances warrant what actions/inactions are most effective when they are based on studies of past determinations and their outcomes. In other words, determinations of justification can be based on utility, while justice itself is an imperative which demands the application of those utility-based determinations.
I'm not a big fan of utilitarianism, but you started off pretty good. Your definition is vague, but it gives the reader a feel for the concept without lowering it — in other words, a true definition, if not a full one.
Justice is the occurrence of fortune or misfortune which is appropriate for a given moral agent's right or wrong conduct. Right conduct should invoke fortune, and wrong conduct should invoke misfortune.
As long as this occurs, there is justice. When there isn't, there is no Justice.
I think you're defining "karma" here. As it so happens, I don't believe in karma's existence... and I definitely do not equate karma with justice. Justice is, as extremestan states, a virtue; I would further say it's a virtue of men, not of the universe. (Can the universe even have virtues? Probably a pointless topic.)
I wrote up to this point before reading BlinkingSpirit's post. Oh well.
What I think: Justice is a virtue held by those who intentionally reject both selflessness and selfishness (as those terms are commonly understood). The just man neither seeks nor desires that which he does not deserve — whether it's the undeserved in matter or the undeserved in spirit. In all his dealings, he determines, to the best of his ability, what all parties involved truly deserve, then acts upon it. For a common example for Magic players, someone with the virtue of justice is an infallibly fair trader — one who feels he's betraying himself if he does nothing when someone sets themselves up to be ripped off by him, but who also feels he's betraying himself if he allows himself to be ripped off.
Regarding justice towards criminals, it should be said first that the vast majority of one's interactions are with non-criminals, and therefore the virtue of justice, as described above, is relevant much more often — thus has far more utility, thus deserves far more thought — than the issue of justice towards rapists, murders, etc. However, it is also clear that those who do nothing in the face of criminality, sanction it through their inaction — and thus are immoral. Criminal justice seeks to find correct punishments for crimes which cannot be undone. However, because such situations are so deviant from the true concept of justice — that is, because the situation has devolved too far from the point where both parties could have what they truly deserved — criminal justice is not an exact science, and therefore exists mostly as a deterant, motivating people to have the virtue of justice in their dealings with others in order to avoid the harsh consequences imposed by the system.
You're equating what a human does with what a human's function is.
Why not? Everything else we know of operates under this premise. A TV's does what its function is, or it's a bad TV. Or, if you sick of TV's, an artist's function is what an artist does. What makes "human" exempt from this type of thinking?
... It was established that I'm not actually Christian, simply arguing my interpretation of the religion given that no one else was, right? I just want to make that clear, because you're starting to get preachy as though you actually were the definitive word of God or something, and given that you were never elected into the papacy, not that I believe the Pope is a divine authority anyway, I think the absurdity of this is somewhat obvious.
No, I was fooled. I generally focus on people's expressed ideas in this forum; if I've debated with you before, I didn't exert the necessary effort to remember what labels to apply to you. You expressed Christian beliefs; I believed you a Christian. You're not exactly innocent in this, either: earlier, when I expressed wariness over your "deserted island" metaphor, it was pretty clear I assumed you a Christian.
Whenever I advocate a position that isn't mine, I qualify it thoroughly. I don't want anyone to believe I'm a Christian, even when I'm arguing from a Christian basis. I took the time to qualify my statements to leave no reasonable doubt about this. You failed to.
I think the fundamental outlook is the same with regards to the mortal world in both Christianity and Existentialism, which is what I was going for. The key difference is that Christianity believes in the existence of God. Existentialism does not. I do, however, believe that mortal life is fundamentally isolating and meaningless in and of itself no matter which way you go.
So are you arguing for Existentialism? Establishing which philosophy you are actually arguing from would make this easier.
You seem to be equating, "Mortal life is meaningless" and the precepts of Christianity as fundamental differences, which I don't think they are. This belief in mortal life being a test is perhaps the root of this. Can you elaborate on that? A test toward what exactly?
Toward the afterlife. No matter how much they talk about "grace", moral unworthiness for Heaven, and similar mumbojumbo, Christians believe in a route to Heaven that they advocate following. Whether this path goes all the way or just halfway — with God picking up the other half — is irrelevant. They all believe some actions send you to Heaven and others send you to Hell, even if they simplify it all down to the simple issue of whether you accept Jesus as your savior or not. Thus they advocate a morality — in the same way that a reasonable morality begins with the value of "human life" and progresses forward from there, Christian morality begins with the value of "eternal life with God" and moves forward from there. However, since one's eternal life can be forfeited through one's actions in this life, this life is not meaningless; the eternal life depends upon this life being properly executed. Thus this life is a test. Does that clear things up?
Mortarpod is an uncommon!
Rusted Slasher is out of alphabetical order!
Hexplate Golem is a common!
Gust-Skimmer is hyphenated!
I like exclamation points!
Socialism is all about making people do "the right thing." What the right thing is, and how the government makes the people do it, are variable but invariably a detriment to liberty.
Laissez-faire capitalism is not about making people do the right thing; it is about making sure the people are left alone, free from coercion by others, to determine on their own what the right thing is (or the right things are).
Fiercely was probably overboard. Sorry. But it certainly did seem that you were at least advocating them. Still does; it's a tone thing. For example, earlier in this post it is clear from my tone that I am advocating laissez-faire capitalism, even though I never expressly said as much.
I would agree with you that an "attempt" is present. (It can be argued in some cases, especially Kant, that there was not a good-faith effort on the philosopher's part.) So the real question is: if one is given a philosophical problem, and answers it incorrectly, is the question really answered?
Ayn Rand was not an anarchist (actually vehemently opposed to it, as she was vehemently opposed to many things), but she believed all taxes should be abolished (eventually). This isn't a contradiction, she explains, because government will be funded differently: essentially, it will be paid for services rendered. For example, let's take breach of contract. The way the system is now, if someone doesn't hold up their end of a bargain, you automatically have the right to take them to court. Under Rand's system, you wouldn't have that right automatically; you'd have to pay for it when the contract was signed, much as you'd pay for insurance. Another example of government funding she liked was the state lottery. The point is, there would still be government, but it would be funded voluntarily. No true taxes.
Agree with you. Disagree with Rand.
All philosophies use logic as a tool to develop upon their axioms. Not all philosophies use logic to develop their axioms to develop 2 contradictory premises, thus proving that one of their axioms is incorrect. Objectivism's greatest strength from a metaphysical/epistemological point of view is its axiom choice.
Obviously no one philosophy has a monopoly on logic, but Rand and other Objectivists have plenty of experience using logic as a tool to destroy other philosophies — in other words, to expose their contradictions.
You're not an expert on the philosophies you are advocating!?
What, then, is your motivation for advocating them as fiercely as you have?
A movement is just a lot of people agreeing. It doesn't necessarily mean they are right. I am not impressed by prestige, fame, recognition, or anything like that — so give me a reason why I should care about any of the philosophies you mentioned. (Warning: You may have to develop some expertise.)
Of course he is. But that's the whole point of the concept "selfless."
See, most selfless people stop being selfless at some point. They are afraid of self-destruction. They know that certain conditions are conducive to their life, and they don't want to jeopardize that. However, a truly selfless person will sacrifice everything: their self-respect, their honor, their integrity, their very souls, if only to help someone else.
Jigsaw is a very selfless person. There is nothing he won't do to himself, so long as it furthers YOUR self-improvement.
This naturally makes him a hypocrite. His self-improvement doesn't matter to him at all. He's not trying to become a better person. He's trying to hit bottom. But YOU are supposed to be concerned with your own self-improvement. YOU must become a better person. He's hitting bottom FOR YOU.
Most people who try to be Jigsaw in real life end up being history's major villains. Hitler probably thought he was sincerely improving the lives of Germans when he perpetrated the Holocaust. The fact that he was part-Jewish himself may have made him a hypocrite, but it didn't make him any less sincere; I'm sure he hated that part of him and, eventually, he did kill himself.
Jigsaw is dangerous; Hitler is dangerous. Selflessness, without self-interest to moderate it, is dangerous. However, it can be fun to watch. That's why I like the Saw movies.
Thank you.
You seem to like my ideas. Here's something I wrote some time ago. I expected it to receive very few replies (as it was rather technical); I was a little shocked when it got no replies whatsoever.
I have no idea how to properly reply to your response; it is unintelligible to me. Perhaps you didn't understand my point. In my analogy, Rand is Newton; I was making no attempt to reference philosophers before her. My point was that even if one admires the work of someone, and even if it seems like their theories explain many observed phenemona, one must be watchful for errors in that philosopher's theory, and anyone who spots such an error and creates a new theory to explain phenomena that do not match up with the previous theory is to be admired, as we admire Einstein; therefore, it is important to be critical of Rand's work.
Who is the "Einstein" in my analogy? We don't know yet, specifically. However, we do know generally—the next great modern philosopher.
I was not taking him at this word. You should keep in mind that any disagreement I have with you does not mean that I agree with anyone you're arguing with.
If you would have said "Given their achievements, it is highly unlikely that Hobbes and Locke and Kant and everyone else could have made such a catastrophic error as to not consider the many areas where rights conflict" — then that would be more reasonable. The way you had it earlier, you were essentially making an argument that Hobbes, Locke, and Kant were infallible — that is obviously untrue and is the place to start in any reasonable reply.
REGARDING A BETTER EXPLANATION OF RAND:
Rand never made any case that charity is as evil (nor more evil) than murder. Rand on many occassions said that the only source of interpersonal evil was the use of physical force; actions involving physical force have always been the main focus of Rand's "crusade against evil", and she considered government redistribution of wealth to be a form of physical force. However, charitible acts usually involve two or more willing parties, and therefore it doesn't fall under that category. Rand even has a quote somewhere to the effect of "In an Objectivist society, charity would be allowed — but not encouraged." She never would have said that about murder. Furthermore, she explained how charity could be selfish — at least twice, once in a nonfiction essay (I forget which one), and once in The Fountainhead, where the hero, Howard Roark, explains his motivation for his donations to his friend & sculptor Steven Mallory.
(The Newton/Einstein model also serves to explain why I believe it's erroneous to take Rand's works as dogma. The belief that such a work may contain flaws does not make Rand an incompetent thinker, nor attack her character; what matters is whether her work was considerably better than philosophical systems that existed at the time. One does not have to be infallible to be a great hero like Newton.)
It is wise to never make arguments of the "no, he couldn't have" variety. Either examine the evidence directly or have the honesty to admit that you do not know for sure; if you make an assumption on someone's quality of work based upon their character, keep in mind that such assumption is merely an estimate.
What is it that makes two people together inherenty less happy than one person alone? It seems to me that, as the number of people in a society increases, the amount of specialization available in work increases; specialization, in turn, should cause more people enjoy their work and/or produce better (more enjoyable) products.
I think when you say "one person alone," you do not mean one person truly alone; you mean a single person functioning as a member of a much larger society. In that case, you are dropping the context; in order to be in society, a person must fundamentally not be alone; therefore what you're really considering is the case of a person in a society who was somehow exempt from society's methods. (Methods are even more basic than laws; someone who refuses to trade with others is not an outlaw, but nevertheless has rejected the basic premises underlying societal interaction.) If an individual forsakes the methods of society, he finds himself disconnected from society's benefits (if the society knows what is good for its members and acts on that knowledge); he is ostracized and alone once more.
Consider the happiness of a man, truly alone, having to fend for himself in the wilderness. Consider what steps he would take to attain his full happiness. Then add more levels of societal interaction to that first individual; start with one person at a time, then eventually add several, perhaps millions, all at once. Then tell me wherein the conflict lies.
This isn't the exact Rand definition, but: Happiness is the state of having reached one's moral goals relative to one's own survival as a human being. It is a goal to be properly nourished; the nature of human existence is the source of this goal. When you are properly nourished, you feel some happiness because your goal is met. When you properly nourish someone else, you may or may not feel happiness; that depends on whether the continued existence of the person justified the cost in food, relative to your goals.
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear, but I find it hard to dissect happiness any further. In particular, I wanted to dissociate happiness from the goals of sustaining one's existence as a human being; however, I can't find any way to separate the concepts. If you act against your own ability to survive as a human being (perhaps by giving the very last of your money to a homeless person, only to end up in his shoes a week later), what you feel noble or righteous, but you won't feel happy. The only way you could feel happy in such a situation is if you believed you had, in fact, increased your survivability as a human being (perhaps by belief that would would have everlasting life in Heaven due to your selfless acts; or because you expect the positive attention others pay you for your selfless, "moral" acts to pay for the costs paid initially, plus a little profit).
The point of all this is: to say happiness is subservient to morality is like saying production is subservient to work. It doesn't really make any sense. Happiness is the emotional effect one feels when practicing a morality that affirms and/or supports one's existence.
Counterproductive to whom? In what instance could someone's "significant interest" in their own rights be a liability to that same person? Unjust to whom? In what instance could somone be unjust to themselves because of a "significant interest" in their own rights?
Where is a less-than-significant interest in one's individual rights, the people that stand to benefit are not those disinterested in their own rights. Instead, the beneficiaries are those who seek to use others as a means to an end. If you're a slavedriver, I imagine you would indeed see an interest in individual rights as counterproductive and unjust; that interest would keep you from meeting your work quotas and would cause you to complain to your friends about how unreasonable difficult it is for you to maintain your chain gang.
If you ask me (you being a Magic player), Objectivists are blue/green. The core of blue is an adherence to logical principles, a thirst for knowledge, and a love of thought; the core of green is the acceptance of one's nature, constant growth, and a love of life. Objectivists consider these two things to be 2 sides of the same coin. Numerous times Rand speaks of "the fallacy of the body/mind dichotomy"— this is what she's talking about.
To most, the assumption that blue and green are enemy colors is an easy sell. Society tells us to equate "rational" with "artificial" and "intutive" with "natural". Objectivists believe reason/logic is natural, normal, the proper function of human beings according to evolution; and that failing to use your reason and instead relying on "intuition" makes you into a broken robot, an abhomination, an animal trapped in a human's body. To an Objectivist, blue and green aren't just allied colors; they're inseperable; to forsake one is to forsake the other.
Rand's novels are, at their core, a celebration of how exercising your rational capacity to your fullest makes you one with nature.
There is a lot of confusion by what Rand means when she says "selfishness." She means: in a green way.
Objectivism's heavily reliance on reason makes it nearly impossible to pose Objectivism without at least being blue; its reliance on the written word makes it rather easy to pose as an Objectivist without being green (as emotions transmit poorly in written discourse). I suspect a substantial number of blue-black type individuals have seen the value of posing as Objectivists and have utilized that to serve their own agendas; I find it strange that Objectivists are so overwhelmingly Republican, despite the last 7 years of evidence for their logic-heavy brains to compute; I declare shenanigans. Blue-red types are also sometimes Objectivists, but it never meshes with them totally and they eventually move on to some other kooky philosophy. As for blue-white... as detailed in the memoir Judgment Day, Rand herself went through that transformation. Originally blue-green and content to construct her philosophy for the self-interested purpose of writing her novel, Rand eventually became a contradiction in terms: a selfless advocate of philosophy of rational selfishness, concerned more about converting as much of the country to Objectivism than anything else. The contradiction didn't fully destroy her ability to reason, but it weakened her and the Objectivist cause.
After Rand made her switch to blue/white, she became much more defensive. As a result, she stopped refining her philosophy any further, and when someone from within the Objectivist "collective" brought up a point of critique, they were discharged from the group and members were told never to associate with that person again. This eventually lead the original/official group, which became the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), to be a dogmatic defender of Rand's explicit philosophy. A splinter group, formed of less dogmatic disciples of Objectivism, has formed The Atlas Society (TAS), which attempts to improve upon the foundation Rand has provided. The two organizations are somewhat at odds.
However, since ARI controls the copyright to Rand's novels, it's their advertisement you see whenever you open a copy. As Rand described her philosophy as "extreme" and attacked anyone claiming to be a moderate Objectivist, ARI had difficulty accepting viewpoints that don't mesh up exactly with their status quo; additionally, it intellectually attacks individuals, organizations, and policies often. Therefore, since adults have less of an extremist/revolutionary bent than teens, it's no surprise that Objectivism isn't the most popular movement, despite its potential.
"Selfishness" is not synonymous with "psychological motivation." All psychological motivations come from within — another person can't desire for you. Furthermore, selflessness is not an instinct — therefore, it must have a psycholigical motivation. You've more or less found it.
What did you think before — that selflessness was some sort of vacuum, where the person acted without desiring, having no will whatsoever? A person without desires has no will to do anything — a hard fact to confirm, since no human is without desire, even if he's so bereft of ambition that his only desire is to avoid pain. Nevertheless, it's that desire that gives him the will to move, as opposed to a blank apathy regarding anything he could possibly ever do. "Selflessness" doesn't mean apathy towards everything — contrary to the word's appearance, it means a desire of a particular sort, and desire necessitates a self to do the desiring.
There was a time when the economic and political structure of the Southern U.S. was centered upon slavery. To my knowledge, there is no region (of that size or any significant size at all) where the economic and political structure is based on Christianity — although I should probably know more about the economics of Texas' "Bible Belt."
Allow me to make my point using a similar case.
For years, the United States was shaped by the doctrine of racism. Sure, we believed that all men were created with inalienable rights... but we did not consider all human beings to be "men." We let an irrational standard cloud rational judgment, and due to this failure we allowed abominable things to happen. Now, years later, we are in a much more rational position. To say racism no longer exists is wrong, of course: there are still bigots out there. Heck, to be honest, even the claim that racism has been pushed off of the mainstream is wrong: consider the wild popularity of Chapelle's Show. But the point isn't that we've defeated racism or become perfect. It's that, overall, we're a lot less racist than we used to be — in other words, we're more likely than past Americans to judge the people we meet by rational standards instead of by a certain superficial, meaningless standard.
However, the key to combatting the racist philosophy is the knowledge that "race" doesn't matter, that it's no more important than hair color. As a teacher of the history of "racism," the focus should be on the victories against racism and the heroes who made such victories possible — first, through the abolition of slavery; later, through the early civil rights movement. Getting into the history of the KKK and the justifications slaveowners used to justify their crimes is not necessary because the wrongness of their positions becomes obvious when, urged by their teachers to have an open mind, the students actually collect their own evidence and judge for themselves. The person who said "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" obviously forgot about those cases wherein the ancient error is only repeatable by someone who also fails to study the present.
I'm done with the set-up now, so now it's time for the punchline:
What if I view Christianity as an abomination — in the same way, and for the same reasons, that racism is an abomination? While slavery led men to believe their bodies were not their property, but the property of another, Christianity leads men to believe their soul isn't theirs, but the property of another — and furthermore, that even if they did own their souls, that they'd be incapable of caring for it properly.
However, in the same way that American "slavery" is a stronger form of American "racism," American Christiandom has its weaker equivalent, the form far more practiced today. Few Americans are fundamentalist Bible-thumpers, but even gangsta rappers publicly support Christianity. This weaker form is the version that is pervasive through contemporary America, and it hinges on the sense of wonder one feels towards the world: "How did all this come to be? Who made this, and why?" But you can't allow yourself to be suckered into a reality-defying belief system just because you can't answer questions like "How was the universe created?" and "How did man come to live on earth?" Sure, Dr. Sceintist has his theories, but until you review the evidence for yourselves, you're running on faith in his word, which makes you little better than someone with faith in His Word. The truth is that you're not very sure; but that's okay, because as far as your daily life is concerned, it really doesn't matter that much — in the same way that the color of someone's hair doesn't matter that much.
So you expect me to agree to teaching the history of Christianity in schools because it's played such a large role in America's past? I think it's played too much of a role already.
I guess I can see the "two or more people" reasoning, but I don't understand what you mean by "social context." My prediction is that you're either using it as a round-about synonym for the concept of "deserved vs undeserved," or that introducing such an idea is frivolous and should therefore be omitted from a definition of justice; however, that's merely a prediction.
As far as to what everyone should know, I'd say philosophy. It's more important than literature, math, and science — because without any philosophy, those subjects have no meaning, and with a subpar philosophy they have less impact — or they can be perverted towards evil ends. However, philosophy, particularly ethics, tells us what is sacred and what is blasphemous — and thus every man who truly believes his philosophy is "religous" in some sense. Therefore, teaching philosophy in schools in any way other than a "history of philosophy" course with a dry, clinical eye, could very well be considered teaching religion in schools — and even if it's a secular, atheistic religion, it's still too close to violating the separation of church and state. The only two remedies I can offer are to discuss philosophy actively outside of school settings, or to support private schools.
Two untruths. First, that justice requires "social perspective"; you need only two individuals for justice to be relevant, and a "social perspective" is generally a euphemism for some form of mystical perception (which doesn't exist). Second — although this one's merely implied — that justice is subjective. It's true that each individual has to evaluate justice independently, and thus methods will differ. However, some answers are objectively better than others, due to their reasoning.
I'm not a big fan of utilitarianism, but you started off pretty good. Your definition is vague, but it gives the reader a feel for the concept without lowering it — in other words, a true definition, if not a full one.
I think you're defining "karma" here. As it so happens, I don't believe in karma's existence... and I definitely do not equate karma with justice. Justice is, as extremestan states, a virtue; I would further say it's a virtue of men, not of the universe. (Can the universe even have virtues? Probably a pointless topic.)
I wrote up to this point before reading BlinkingSpirit's post. Oh well.
What I think: Justice is a virtue held by those who intentionally reject both selflessness and selfishness (as those terms are commonly understood). The just man neither seeks nor desires that which he does not deserve — whether it's the undeserved in matter or the undeserved in spirit. In all his dealings, he determines, to the best of his ability, what all parties involved truly deserve, then acts upon it. For a common example for Magic players, someone with the virtue of justice is an infallibly fair trader — one who feels he's betraying himself if he does nothing when someone sets themselves up to be ripped off by him, but who also feels he's betraying himself if he allows himself to be ripped off.
Regarding justice towards criminals, it should be said first that the vast majority of one's interactions are with non-criminals, and therefore the virtue of justice, as described above, is relevant much more often — thus has far more utility, thus deserves far more thought — than the issue of justice towards rapists, murders, etc. However, it is also clear that those who do nothing in the face of criminality, sanction it through their inaction — and thus are immoral. Criminal justice seeks to find correct punishments for crimes which cannot be undone. However, because such situations are so deviant from the true concept of justice — that is, because the situation has devolved too far from the point where both parties could have what they truly deserved — criminal justice is not an exact science, and therefore exists mostly as a deterant, motivating people to have the virtue of justice in their dealings with others in order to avoid the harsh consequences imposed by the system.
No, I was fooled. I generally focus on people's expressed ideas in this forum; if I've debated with you before, I didn't exert the necessary effort to remember what labels to apply to you. You expressed Christian beliefs; I believed you a Christian. You're not exactly innocent in this, either: earlier, when I expressed wariness over your "deserted island" metaphor, it was pretty clear I assumed you a Christian.
Whenever I advocate a position that isn't mine, I qualify it thoroughly. I don't want anyone to believe I'm a Christian, even when I'm arguing from a Christian basis. I took the time to qualify my statements to leave no reasonable doubt about this. You failed to.
So are you arguing for Existentialism? Establishing which philosophy you are actually arguing from would make this easier.
Toward the afterlife. No matter how much they talk about "grace", moral unworthiness for Heaven, and similar mumbojumbo, Christians believe in a route to Heaven that they advocate following. Whether this path goes all the way or just halfway — with God picking up the other half — is irrelevant. They all believe some actions send you to Heaven and others send you to Hell, even if they simplify it all down to the simple issue of whether you accept Jesus as your savior or not. Thus they advocate a morality — in the same way that a reasonable morality begins with the value of "human life" and progresses forward from there, Christian morality begins with the value of "eternal life with God" and moves forward from there. However, since one's eternal life can be forfeited through one's actions in this life, this life is not meaningless; the eternal life depends upon this life being properly executed. Thus this life is a test. Does that clear things up?