Existence

[Gatefan1976]

Back to Rand briefly, there is another inherent problem in her objectivism. Her point #3 basically extols the virtues of narcicissm by saying you have to treat yourself as most important. Even with her stricture against using force against other humans you wind up unable to account for charity, love or any other type of other centered behavior. Objectivism tends to be really popular with people who are self centered.

Hmmmm

I'm not sure that was entirely her point Joe.
The way *I* see it, is that if you don't take time to "smell the roses"/ "Meditate" / "Pray to god" et al, you end up being more of a burden than a help, burnt out and sucked dry by the concernes of others. At SOME point, you MUST put yourself first, if for no more that you cannot help people when you are burned out.
Remember, the context is *mutual benefit*, She may have couched it in economic terms, but mutual benefit extends far, FAR beyond that.

 

[Gatefan1976]

And therein is the beauty of WHY. It can NEVER be answered. That is why curiosity and knowledge and exploration of ourselves and the universe will continue, because if it were ever to be fully answered, then there would be no need for curiosity, and therefore no need for knowledge. Religion gives people a false answer. And for people who are uncomfortable with living in a universe that is still a mystery, religion gives them solace. But it is false. In my opinion, of course!

I don't think religion gives "false answers", I think it provides the best it can within it's framework, my opinion as well. People WANT the "program", they want the "answer", again, they don't want to think.

As for this:

"WHY do you pay for this site when we have basicly 10 active members, WHY, WHY, WHY"

Answer: Because you 10 people make me happy. Because I think it provides a way to give something to others. Because it gives me a non-porn site to read!

you READ porn sites!!???!!!!

Shit, I just look at the pictures

 

[Joelist]

Hmmmm

I'm not sure that was entirely her point Joe.
The way *I* see it, is that if you don't take time to "smell the roses"/ "Meditate" / "Pray to god" et al, you end up being more of a burden than a help, burnt out and sucked dry by the concernes of others. At SOME point, you MUST put yourself first, if for no more that you cannot help people when you are burned out.
Remember, the context is *mutual benefit*, She may have couched it in economic terms, but mutual benefit extends far, FAR beyond that.

I wish it were GF, but the historical evidence says otherwise. She really was extolling selfishness and narcissism.

 

[Joelist]

I also do not think all religions give false answers. But that is a topic for another discussion.

 

[Overmind One]

I also do not think all religions give false answers. But that is a topic for another discussion.

True. I should have not gone there in this thread.

GF:

Perhaps I should have said: "It gives me a site where I can read instead of watch"? I have to use both hands to type threads here, but when I am on porn sites, that is....not possible.

 

[Joelist]

True. I should have not gone there in this thread.

GF:

Perhaps I should have said: "It gives me a site where I can read instead of watch"? I have to use both hands to type threads here, but when I am on porn sites, that is....not possible.

You have feet and toes too...

 

[Overmind One]

You have feet and toes too...

Dude, if you can use your feet and toes to...., I am damned jealous!

 

[Joelist]

Dude, if you can use your feet and toes to...., I am damned jealous!

What?....to type?

 

[Gatefan1976]

I wish it were GF, but the historical evidence says otherwise. She really was extolling selfishness and narcissism.

To take a slight detour as it were
"historical evidence" says ALOT about the Selfishness and Narcissism of the Abrahamic faiths, yet I do not judge YOU as an Individual via that lens, nor do I judge someone like Rac80 by my own personal "bad experiences" with the LDS faith. Her (Ayn's) view has some merit to it, what a person or group *chooses* to do with that view is up to them, or perhaps I see things differently, I don't know.

 

[Gatefan1976]

True. I should have not gone there in this thread.

I think the 3 of us are smart enough to "keep it clean and on point"

GF:

Perhaps I should have said: "It gives me a site where I can read instead of watch"? I have to use both hands to type threads here, but when I am on porn sites, that is....not possible.

I KNEW there was a reason why I learned one handed touch typing................

 

[Gatefan1976]

What?....to type?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!
You are the perfect "straight-man" Joe

 

[Gatefan1976]

I also do not think all religions give false answers. But that is a topic for another discussion.

Is it??
I think that anything that structures your worldview very much is on topic when discussing the nature or "reality" of existance.

 

[Joelist]

To take a slight detour as it were
"historical evidence" says ALOT about the Selfishness and Narcissism of the Abrahamic faiths, yet I do not judge YOU as an Individual via that lens, nor do I judge someone like Rac80 by my own personal "bad experiences" with the LDS faith. Her (Ayn's) view has some merit to it, what a person or group *chooses* to do with that view is up to them, or perhaps I see things differently, I don't know.

When I say "historical evidence" about Ayn Rand I am referring to what she herself wrote and said. For example the Stanford encyclopedia records:

Conspicuous by their absence from Rand's list of virtues are the “virtues of benevolence”, such as kindness, charity, generosity, and forgiveness. Rand states that charity is not a major virtue or moral duty (1964b); likewise, presumably, kindness, generosity, and forgiveness. Whether, and how much, one should help others depends on their place in one's rationally defined hierarchy of values, and on the particular circumstances (whether they are worthy of help, what the likely consequences are of helping them, and so on). The greater their value vis-à-vis one's rational self-interest, the greater the help that one should be willing to give,ceteris paribus. What is never morally appropriate is making sacrifices, that is, surrendering something of value to oneself for the sake of something of less or no value to oneself. Thus, it can never be moral to knowingly risk one's life for a stranger (unless, of course, one's life is no longer worth living) or to court unhappiness for the happiness of another, whether stranger or friend.

This derives both from her book "Atlas Shrugged" (Galt's speech) and also "The Objectivist Ethics" and "The Virtue of Selfishness".

 

[Joelist]

Is it??
I think that anything that structures your worldview very much is on topic when discussing the nature or "reality" of existance.

I am simply trying to keep the discussion rooted in Philosophy and not stray off into Apologetics.

 

[Gatefan1976]

When I say "historical evidence" about Ayn Rand I am referring to what she herself wrote and said. For example the Stanford encyclopedia records:

Conspicuous by their absence from Rand's list of virtues are the “virtues of benevolence”, such as kindness, charity, generosity, and forgiveness. Rand states that charity is not a major virtue or moral duty (1964b);

And exactly who determines such things to be "Virtues" Joe?

likewise, presumably, kindness, generosity, and forgiveness. Whether, and how much, one should help others depends on their place in one's rationally defined hierarchy of values,

So, it is subjective to the observer and thier worldview??
Where do issues that the church rail against and define your worldview sit on your own "heirarchy of values"?

and on the particular circumstances (whether they are worthy of help, what the likely consequences are of helping them, and so on). The greater their value vis-à-vis one's rational self-interest, the greater the help that one should be willing to give,ceteris paribus. What is never morally appropriate is making sacrifices, that is, surrendering something of value to oneself for the sake of something of less or no value to oneself. Thus, it can never be moral to knowingly risk one's life for a stranger (unless, of course, one's life is no longer worth living) or to court unhappiness for the happiness of another, whether stranger or friend.

This derives both from her book "Atlas Shrugged" (Galt's speech) and also "The Objectivist Ethics" and "The Virtue of Selfishness".

As I said, I don't agree with ALL of her suppositions, I do however feel that the idea's behind them are worth investigating.
However, she does put a "caveat" on the notion of sacrifice, inasmuch as you should never offer to sacrifice something you cannot afford to lose. To go all "christian" for a sec, Jesus Christ surrendered his own life because he found the value of humanities "collective souls" to be worth the cost, which in turn begs the question, was it a "sacrifice" as we understand the notion today? If you are "willing", exactly what are you sacrificing?

 

[Gatefan1976]

I am simply trying to keep the discussion rooted in Philosophy and not stray off into Apologetics.

Sure, but does discussion of religion nessesitate the feild of apologetics?

 

[Overmind One]

I am simply trying to keep the discussion rooted in Philosophy and not stray off into Apologetics.

What is it when you know you cannot define existence without using something based IN existence? On another forum a few years ago, there was a similar thread arguing reality. Is reality real? The thread covered other permutations of that, like "How big are we", which broke down into "is our universe a particle orbiting the nucleus of an atom in another universe" and such. It is fun to philosophize, but Ann's perspective seems rather bleak and wanting IMO. Very narcissistic and self-centered. The very nature of social animals like primates is the capacity to be family/group centered and NOT self-centered.

 

[Gatefan1976]

What is it when you know you cannot define existence without using something based IN existence? On another forum a few years ago, there was a similar thread arguing reality. Is reality real? The thread covered other permutations of that, like "How big are we", which broke down into "is our universe a particle orbiting the nucleus of an atom in another universe" and such. It is fun to philosophize, but Ann's perspective seems rather bleak and wanting IMO. Very narcissistic and self-centered. The very nature of social animals like primates is the capacity to be family/group centered and NOT self-centered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk



Ok, serious again

Is she being "self centered", or is she just telling it like it is?
We all inherently WANT to think the best of our fellow (wo)man, and hope we would "do the right thing" in a pinch, unfortunately, history is replete with examples where we just don't do that.

As for "primates", tell me OM, how many "alpha males" get to......... service the female of the species?
Are you sure they are "family centered"?

 

[Gatefan1976]

And to abuse B5 once more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2UQ2l9NPIg

 

[shavedape]

Exactly. That is part of what I was thinking of. Her conception of humans makes us come off like a bunch of smartphones and not emotional humans who think in abstract terms.

You have taken this thread off track. I was using Rand's epistemology to make my point about existence. One can quibble about things further down the line in her philosophy but the issue here is do you or do you not agree with her tenet of the Primacy of Existence (that we must first exist in order to then know that we exist)?

The argument I was having with Mzzz pertained to his belief that we can somehow exist without existing, i.e. have consciousness without existence, which is a contradiction in terms and isn't possible. (I'm sure he will be along to claim that I just misrepresented his stance.)