Do you agree with this quote from Waking Life?

[Eudaimonist]

Again, I don't see the connection between what you're saying I said and what I actually said.

We are probably failing to communicate.

I was saying the philosophy itself is grounded in a foundation that is, for all intents and purposes, a victim complex (that is, it feeds off of perceived victimization).

I don't see how this can be true of any philosophy. Philosophies don't feed off of anything. Only people can. And people can choose to do this or not.

In any case, I disagree that Objectivism is "for all intents and purposes, a victim complex". It is not a muddled psychological state. It is a set of related arguments. This is not a trivial distinction.

And simply because you disagree with such a statement doesn't make what I said an ad hominem.

I never said this. I was saying that if you try to reduce a philosophy to the psychology of the philosopher, you are engaging in ad hominem. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. It doesn't matter who says them. It doesn't matter what they felt at the time they said them.

Is it possible to use a word without receiving flak for using it in not a sctrictly analytical or academic way?

When you are using words to be casually dismissive of philosophical systems, you should expect flak.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[funyun]

I don't see how this can be true of any philosophy. Philosophies don't feed off of anything. Only people can. And people can choose to do this or not.

People construct their philosophies. Philosophies aren't some pristine, bullet-proof medium. They're highly muddled by their makers' preconceived notions. No one starts constructing a worldview in the womb. Everyone brings their own nurture to the table.

In any case, I disagree that Objectivism is "for all intents and purposes, a victim complex". It is not a muddled psychological state. It is a set of related arguments. This is not a trivial distinction.

As I knew you would.

I never said this. I was saying that if you try to reduce a philosophy to the psychology of the philosopher, you are engaging in ad hominem. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. It doesn't matter who says them. It doesn't matter what they felt at the time they said them.

Again, I wasn't reducing anything to anything else. You're putting words into my mouth and completely, completely turning what I said into something you see as easier to attack.

When you are using words to be casually dismissive of philosophical systems, you should expect flak.

Oh, I expect it, especially if that philosophical system is objectivism. But flak isn't necessarilly a compelling philosophical argument. So unless it's substantive, and not just paroxysm, I don't care.

 

[funyun]

A society which promotes an ideology that humanity is somehow better than and can control the natural world about us is bound to promote a false identity upon members of that society, as well as an imbalance within the ecosystem in which such a society functions.

I agree. I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion or whether or not you're talking about a specific society.

I was not saying that as a human one can escape the nurturing aspect of up bringing or as a social animal escape interactions on a broader scale. And if anything I am pointing out causality. You act as if modern day societies have been around since the dawn of humanity when actually such is a relatively new phenomena.

That depends on your definition of "modern day societies." But, in a general sense, I don't believe I said that.

And you are right in saying that I or anyone els cannot escape human nature, yet be aware that just because the disruption perpetuated within the natural balance is unlikely to snuff out all life on Earth, humans are definitely up for potential extinction as well. And you might say that how can that be? There are billions upon billions of human living on Earth today, and the numbers are growing exponentially... that would simply confirm my point because within biological systems it is not uncommon for there to be exponential growth of a population that is followed by a comparable sharp decline, which can potentially result in an extinction of that population due to disruptions within the ecosystem making it difficult for the population to stabilize.

Especially today with the on going industrial revolution against ecosystems, humans are causing more of a drastic change in the environment than any other species known.

Umm...I'm sorry, but I'm lost.

Still not sure what it has to do with the discussion at large, I will respond by saying yes, it is certainly possible for human life to die out at this point. In fact, since the mid 60s, I believe, the rate at which human population is growing has slowed. This population data can be extrapolated into a pattern telling us we are reaching earth's carrying capacity.

If we don't drastically change our methods of energy consumption and our views on birth rates, our grandchildren are going to find themselves in a very, very bad place. We could literally stop almost all of our problems in a single generation if every couple had no more than 1 child, manufacturers began working towards energy efficient system standards, and the general public adopted energy efficient practices. The problem is, people and corporations have shown a refusal to take up that responsibility.

Objectivism and other, for lack of a better phrase, "economic libertarian" schools, are perpetuating this problem, not helping it. It has been my perception that in the United States much of the anti-global warming awareness initiative has been stifled by people who have an ideological, or monetary, aversion to "forcing" private entities to take certain actions, even when those actions are necessary.

If we continue perpetuating a static system that is not clean, not efficient, and not sustainable, simply so a few can reap the economic rewards, we will lose in the end. We need to work on making our system cleaner and more efficient by embracing new technology, rather than ranting about how bad the "industrial revolution on nature" is.

I'd love to live in a world where private entities took the responsibility necessary to work towards solving serious and unavoidable problems without the intervention of laws and statutes. But as history has shown, we simply do not live in that world. History has proven that school to be built on a faith in human nature which is ill-founded.

The identity put on to each of us growing up in the modern world is something along the lines of it is our right as human beings to do so. Getting back to my original point, to be free of the moral standards and false ego conditioned into oneself may be a stepping stone for change in this trend... I can surely say that blindly following the piper is not.

Who is blindly following the piper? How can you accuse me of perpetuating earth's environmental crisis based on our prior exchanges, which have had nothing to do with that subject?

The true tools are the ones who don't see that what they reap comes from what they sow, and the ones who help to keep alive a static system which works towards the bottom line at the expense of everything else, including the environment you say you care so much about. What Randianism has to say about economics falls right into that definition.

 

[Mysticus]

I agree. I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion or whether or not you're talking about a specific society.



That depends on your definition of "modern day societies." But, in a general sense, I don't believe I said that.



Umm...I'm sorry, but I'm lost.

Still not sure what it has to do with the discussion at large, I will respond by saying yes, it is certainly possible for human life to die out at this point. In fact, since the mid 60s, I believe, the rate at which human population is growing has slowed. This population data can be extrapolated into a pattern telling us we are reaching earth's carrying capacity.

If we don't drastically change our methods of energy consumption and our views on birth rates, our grandchildren are going to find themselves in a very, very bad place. We could literally stop almost all of our problems in a single generation if every couple had no more than 1 child, manufacturers began working towards energy efficient system standards, and the general public adopted energy efficient practices. The problem is, people and corporations have shown a refusal to take up that responsibility.

Objectivism and other, for lack of a better phrase, "economic libertarian" schools, are perpetuating this problem, not helping it. It has been my perception that in the United States much of the anti-global warming awareness initiative has been stifled by people who have an ideological, or monetary, aversion to "forcing" private entities to take certain actions, even when those actions are necessary.

If we continue perpetuating a static system that is not clean, not efficient, and not sustainable, simply so a few can reap the economic rewards, we will lose in the end. We need to work on making our system cleaner and more efficient by embracing new technology, rather than ranting about how bad the "industrial revolution on nature" is.

I'd love to live in a world where private entities took the responsibility necessary to work towards solving serious and unavoidable problems without the intervention of laws and statutes. But as history has shown, we simply do not live in that world. History has proven that school to be built on a faith in human nature which is ill-founded.



Who is blindly following the piper? How can you accuse me of perpetuating earth's environmental crisis based on our prior exchanges, which have had nothing to do with that subject?

The true tools are the ones who don't see that what they reap comes from what they sow, and the ones who help to keep alive a static system which works towards the bottom line at the expense of everything else, including the environment you say you care so much about. What Randianism has to say about economics falls right into that definition.

What I mean by modern day society is the likes of what you and I were raised in here in the US; industrialized nations. How that has anything to do with what we were discussing has to do with my mentioning that most indigenous cultures have promoted lifestyles which exhibit minimal impact on the environment in which they live; a bit of wisdom that would be worth recognizing. And that was in response to your comment on my statement "you are born free then you become a citizen."

In reference to the industrial revolution, since the 1800's pollution levels have increased dramatically as well as the human population... and I am not whining about it, I am simply making an observation. For being "lost" you seemed to have elaborated on the point I was alluding to. Yet, due to technologies human population is exponentially growing- our population has not stabilized since the 60's. My point is that humanity happens to be experiencing a very critical point in our history in regards to the state of the environment and the growth of our population, which does not seem to be much of a concern of most of the industrialized world. There is a difference between applying knowledge that has been gathered and blindly embracing technologies because they seem convenient or because a corporate controlled media suggests it is something we can not live without. Which brings me back to the reference I made to Nietzsche's philosophy of doing away with conditioned moral ideal's so to discover the nature of an individual's own moral position, which essentially is a call to action on a personal level. And on a personal level is the best means for making change on a broader scale by education one's self and teaching our children to do the same, especially in our rapidly changing world.

I was not suggesting you personally are "blindly following the piper," what I meant is that most people blindly follow the cultural ideals in which they are condition without a second thought instead of recognizing truths around them and within.

Being at a critical point in human history we as a species are likely to either make it or break it... make it meaning expand off this planet to colonize space with our growing population and recognize and do something about our impact on the environment in which we live, or break it meaning stuck on Earth with a growing population within a rapidly changing environment, an environment that will eventually become so changed that it can no longer sustain us as it does today. At that point we might as well be colonizing other worlds because Earth's environment will be inhospitable and seem alien to us. And by perpetuating a greed based culture with capitalist based ideology we are more likely to find our species in the later predicament.

 

[funyun]

What I mean by modern day society is the likes of what you and I were raised in here in the US; industrialized nations. How that has anything to do with what we were discussing has to do with my mentioning that most indigenous cultures have promoted lifestyles which exhibit minimal impact on the environment in which they live; a bit of wisdom that would be worth recognizing. And that was in response to your comment on my statement "you are born free then you become a citizen."

Ok. Totally. No argument here. But I don't think being a "citizen" has to entail all that negative stuff. That's not "citizen" in the broad sense, it's just "citizen of a modern industrialized nation".

In reference to the industrial revolution, since the 1800's pollution levels have increased dramatically as well as the human population... and I am not whining about it, I am simply making an observation.

Didn't say you were whining, just ranting, and I especially used that word because I wasn't sure where you were going in regards to what we were talking about before. I get it now, but I'm still not sure how or why you made the huge jump to this from Rand so quickly.

For being "lost" you seemed to have elaborated on the point I was alluding to. Yet, due to technologies human population is exponentially growing- our population has not stabilized since the 60's.

I did not say our population has stabilized since the 60s. I said the rate at which our population is growing has decreased since the 60s. The population is still growing way too fast, and at the speed at which that rate is decreasing, the population still won't stabilize for a much longer period of time than the current situation requires.

My point is that humanity happens to be experiencing a very critical point in our history in regards to the state of the environment and the growth of our population, which does not seem to be much of a concern of most of the industrialized world. There is a difference between applying knowledge that has been gathered and blindly embracing technologies because they seem convenient or because a corporate controlled media suggests it is something we can not live without. Which brings me back to the reference I made to Nietzsche's philosophy of doing away with conditioned moral ideal's so to discover the nature of an individual's own moral position, which essentially is a call to action on a personal level. And on a personal level is the best means for making change on a broader scale by education one's self and teaching our children to do the same, especially in our rapidly changing world.

I was not suggesting you personally are "blindly following the piper," what I meant is that most people blindly follow the cultural ideals in which they are condition without a second thought instead of recognizing truths around them and within.

I don't disagree with that look at Nietzsche, but that's hardly what was going on earlier in the thread. It doesn't follow to extrapolate some of the other points that were raised (not necessarily by you) earlier.

I completely agree with you though. We need to rehaul our static system. I'm a firm believer that green technology is possible, and that one day we can live in a world where clean and efficient technological societies can live in harmony with nature.

But back to Rand, and why you were seemingly defending her (though it's been so long I can't quite remember the original nature of the argument), don't you see a conflict between what you're saying and a philosophy which espouses a non-interventionist position with regards to government regulation of industry practices? Industries will never, in a million years, make these necessary changes voluntarily, and anyone who believes they will is living in a fantasy land.

Being at a critical point in human history we as a species are likely to either make it or break it... make it meaning expand off this planet to colonize space with our growing population and recognize and do something about our impact on the environment in which we live, or break it meaning stuck on Earth with a growing population within a rapidly changing environment, an environment that will eventually become so changed that it can no longer sustain us as it does today. At that point we might as well be colonizing other worlds because Earth's environment will be inhospitable and seem alien to us. And by perpetuating a greed based culture with capitalist based ideology we are more likely to find our species in the later predicament.

Ok, again, you seem to be bashing capitalism, but I don't see how that jives with your earlier defense of Rand.

EDIT:

Ok, after reviewing the thread it seems you weren't so much defending Rand as taking objection to Locke. Is that correct?

In that case I think you should know I don't agree with Locke's economics, just like I don't agree with Rand's. I was commenting upon Locke's social contract and democracy.

 

[Mysticus]

To be honest, like you said, it has been so long I'm not quite sure what direction the discussion was going in. I think I may have been defending Nietzsche's "Super man" concept... or at least interpreting it in a context that applied to some of the previous posts.

I could go back and read over what has been posted but I'm not going to do that for now.

I don't live by a non-interventionist perspective but at the same time I'm not so much of an activists either. I tend towards education, educating others, and living accordingly as best I can for now- sort of my own passive revolution.

 

[PureLove]

if applied to myself YES!!!!!

 

[Im_A]

The difference between Plato or Neitzsche and the average human being is greater then the difference between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

Thoughts? I'm inclined to agree. Can a human who doesn't ask or care about the great questions of life really that sentient?

don't know. sometimes i can see how there is a difference because they came to greater understanding of such things, but then again, all any of those people are, to me at least, people just theorizing about their own existence. everyone does that.