Looking for input here. My society appalls me.

[SilverBear]

Yes. A tree is a tree and not a ham sandwich or a planet. Everything that exists is something and it is that thing and not something other than that which it is.

a door is a door unless it's ajar

 

[The happy Objectivist]

a door is a door unless it's ajar

Good one SilverBear.

 

[durangodawood]

It's not meant to refute anything but to recognize in conceptual form a general fact of reality. You're right that to say a tree is not tree would be a nonsense statement because the law of identity is true. How can a statement that has truth value not have any meaning?! If I said that the Earth is the Earth, thereby distinguishing it from Mars, would that be a meaningless statement. You understand that the A in A is A is a abstraction right? The A stands for any existent or any attribute or action. If I said that you are you and not me this would be a true statement, no?

A=A as a statement is neither true nor false because it asserts nothing. It's no different than just saying "A", which also is neither true nor false.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

A=A as a statement is neither true nor false because it asserts nothing. It's no different than just saying "A", which also is neither true nor false.

No, it is not the same. Saying a tree is itself and not something other than itself is not the same as saying tree.

I guess you just don't get it. The A is like a variable in a math equation just as a variable in a math equation can stand for any quantity, The A in the statement stands for any existent. Plug any existent into the statement. And actually, it does say something that is true because the letter A is the Letter A and not B, C, or D but this is trivial and misses the point that the A is an abstraction. The statement a baseball is a baseball is true. The only way it could be false is if a baseball is not a baseball. Do you understand that all of human knowledge rests on the law of identity, that logic rests on the law of identity, that every statement you have made so far in this thread and throughout your life rests on the law of identity?

What you are saying is that the law of identity doesn't assert anything. Do you realize by specifying the law of identity, which is often stated as A is A, as opposed to other principles such as the secondary objectivity of consciousness, that you are making use of the very principle you are taking issue with and that you say says nothing? Don't you see you are contradicting yourself here?

A rock is a rock and not an apple or a Giraffe, yes or no?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I take it that you are quite blind to the total contradiction between these two statements, not to mention the inherent contradiction within the second statement. Or did you really mean "Wouldn't it be nice if . . . . . . .[the two statements] . . . . What a pity it is not possible."

I'm still waiting for you to point out the contradiction. I'm betting you never will. You can't because there isn't one.

 

[Ophiolite]

All human relations should be voluntary and to mutual benefit. There should be a complete abolition of the initiation of force from society.

That's what you said. I responded thus:

I take it that you are quite blind to the total contradiction between these two statements, not to mention the inherent contradiction within the second statement. Or did you really mean "Wouldn't it be nice if . . . . . . .[the two statements] . . . . What a pity it is not possible."

You thought as follows:

No, I don't and you do not point out any contradiction, simply assert it as if it is self evident. Until you show your work, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm surprised you fail to see how self-evident it is. Let's examine it.

• "All human relations should be voluntary" It is a nice thought. It would be great if they could be. Human history and all we know of human character are against it as a practical possibility.
• "All human relations should be . . . to mutual benefit." An even nicer idea, but no less practical than the former.
• So we have desirable, yet impossible to attain, twinned objectives. The only way we might partially achieve these is to require that "all relations be to human benefit"
• But that can only be achieved through the application of coercion. i.e. some form of force, which is contradicted by your requirement that "there should be a complete abolition of force from society".

I offered you a way out, as in my quoted remarks above. You rejected that; your second mistake.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

That's what you said. I responded thus:
You thought as follows:
I'm surprised you fail to see how self-evident it is. Let's examine it.

• "All human relations should be voluntary" It is a nice thought. It would be great if they could be. Human history and all we know of human character are against it as a practical possibility.
• "All human relations should be . . . to mutual benefit." An even nicer idea, but no less practical than the former.
• So we have desirable, yet impossible to attain, twinned objectives. The only way we might partially achieve these is to require that "all relations be to human benefit"
• But that can only be achieved through the application of coercion. i.e. some form of force, which is contradicted by your requirement that "there should be a complete abolition of force from society".

I offered you a way out, as in my quoted remarks above. You rejected that; your second mistake.

Thank you very much for answering Ophiolite. There is much in what you write that is wrong. I want to do a proper job of refuting it and that will take me more time than I have today as I'll be working all day and celebrating tonight. I will have time tomorrow morning to do it and I look forward to it. Indeed lets examine it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you very much for answering Ophiolite. There is much in what you write that is wrong. I want to do a proper job of refuting it and that will take me more time than I have today as I'll be working all day and celebrating tonight. I will have time tomorrow morning to do it and I look forward to it. Indeed lets examine it.

There is no rush.

Note: I don't Follow threads and rely on notification of responses to my posts via Alerts. I find a proportion of these either never arrive, or come in late. That may explain why you felt the need for the terse message #85. You saw it as a reminder. I saw it as a first response. No harm caused.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

There is no rush.

Note: I don't Follow threads and rely on notification of responses to my posts via Alerts. I find a proportion of these either never arrive, or come in late. That may explain why you felt the need for the terse message #85. You saw it as a reminder. I saw it as a first response. No harm caused.

Well, I apologize for my terseness. I'm used to people refusing to answer questions or to show their work. I was pleasantly surprised that you responded.

 

[MehGuy]

Well that is what happens when humans have free speech and a platform to openly discuss and pick apart ideas. Naturally sacred cows will be cut up, ripped apart and scrutinized. Plenty of whining from both sides of the political spectrum though.

 

[NerdGirl]

For context, I live in the USA, and the more I read and learn about God the more I don't want to be part of this society or even this world. I searched for some place to try to get the opinions of other people about this topic and found this forum. I just want to see what others out there think of this. Am I the crazy one?

For many many years, before I got saved even, I have not agreed with the bulk of the way my society lives, acts, and seems to be headed in general. But now that I am studying the bible and Jesus's teachings I have an even stronger repulsion towards my society and the things its trying to push. Every where I turn all I see is people that refuse to acknowledge truth. Everything is all transgender, sexualization of anything and everything, rampant abortion, extreme fornication, normalization of drug abuse, normalization of inappropriate contentography, LGBTQIA~ agenda, (insert depraved act) "It's my right to do whatever I want whenever I want" sort of mentality and it just absolutely disgusts me. Just for example, go to Yahoo.com and simply scroll down the main page and look at the articles headlines. Its 90% debauchery, "my 6 year old son is a girl now, "she" made this choice all on her own" or "so and so poses nude for instagram, what a hero" or "this person was having a hard time so she turned to OnlyFans to make ends meet and now shes being shamed...what an outrage!" I could go on. It just feels like the entire world has gone completely insane and flown off the deep end. My point is the USA, as far as I'm concerned, is the modern equivalent to Sodom and is just begging to be annihilated. I don't want anything to do with this place and I don't know what to do about it. Doesn't anyone out there have ethics or morals or even just basic modesty anymore? Even in christian circles I see people that dwell in adultery and they claim they don't see the issue with it. I understand that we are all broken and are all sinners but to follow Christ means to repent and CHANGE your behaviour. Not even my own family members that claim to be christians live a repentant life. They just continue to do whatever sin they feel like as if it doesn't matter. I feel alone in an insane world.

Social media is a terrible place for anyone to hang out. It is not a representation of "the average American" at all, yet that is what is portrayed, and that is what people believe. Most people are not transgender, or having abortions, or posing nude anywhere. Social media is all about attention, clicks, subscribers, and views; therefore, you're going to see a certain portion of society there, but an even larger portion of society is nowhere to be seen. Those who are quietly living respectable, normal lives.

There is also a big problem with worldliness creeping into the church. This is nothing new. But it takes on different forms and different flavors with each shift in generation and culture. You can't control anyone else. You can only control yourself. Watch over your own soul, nurture your own faith, and be a beacon of what you want others to see.

My concern is that you seem to think that all of "your society" - meaning all of America - is a bunch of depraved, sick, evil sinners. And that's simply not accurate. That sort of thinking will only embitter you and breed despair and anger in you.

There are still many, many Americans just going about a decent, simple life. Going to work, raising their children, attending church, praying, and not garnering any attention in the media. Which is as it should be

 

[The happy Objectivist]

That's what you said. I responded thus:
You thought as follows:
I'm surprised you fail to see how self-evident it is. Let's examine it.

• "All human relations should be voluntary" It is a nice thought. It would be great if they could be. Human history and all we know of human character are against it as a practical possibility.
• "All human relations should be . . . to mutual benefit." An even nicer idea, but no less practical than the former.
• So we have desirable, yet impossible to attain, twinned objectives. The only way we might partially achieve these is to require that "all relations be to human benefit"
• But that can only be achieved through the application of coercion. i.e. some form of force, which is contradicted by your requirement that "there should be a complete abolition of force from society".

I offered you a way out, as in my quoted remarks above. You rejected that; your second mistake.

There is no contradiction in my statements as they are meant to be normative statements and not descriptive statements. They are moral/political principles. I certainly recognize that the majority of men act in contradiction to my statements, but what men do and how they act has no bearing on what is philosophically correct.

You say that my statements are nice but impractical and you blame this on man's character and nature. I reject this because it is false. Man has free will. While his nature is metaphysically given he is a being of self-made character. He can choose in the face of alternatives. The most fundamental alternative he faces is life or death. Man can choose to act on the premise of life or death. If a man is unable, by his nature to be good, then he is not a moral being. He is totally out of control and can't be held morally accountable. If he has free will then he is morally accountable. What he needs is an objective theory of ethics which Ayn Rand provided. If he chooses to act in contradiction to this code, that is not a problem for the code. That's his loss and he will pay the price.

To say that man is evil by nature, unable to act for good is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. Good and bad are value judgments and value judgments do not exist intrinsically as a part of a thing's nature. They exist in the subject-object relationship. To claim that anything is bad by nature is to use the concept of judgment apart from the mind. That's a textbook example of the fallacy.

Blaming these bad actions on man's nature precludes looking for the actual cause which is philosophy.

When you teach people from their earliest years that reality isn't real, that their minds are impotent, that they are evil by nature, and when you give them a moral code impossible to live up to ........why would you expect men to be good. Why would you expect them to act rationally and to respect each other's rights? That would be insane. And that moral code of self-sacrifice does not have the good as its purpose. Its purpose is to instill feelings of guilt and self-loathing in those who try to practice it. It's a code that punishes those who follow it, for following it, and rewards those who cheat on it, for cheating on it.

There is no contradiction between my first two statements and my third. I made clear I was talking about the initiation of force, i.e., force used to obtain a value. The retaliatory use of force is moral. Certainly, if people act irrationally and initiate force or fraud then it is the proper role of the government to step in and use force in retaliation.

Take away your stolen concepts, context dropping, and determinism, and your charge of contradiction vanishes. It fails.

Throughout all of man's history, with a few brief exceptions, these are the things he is taught and he's never been given an alternative, until now. Ayn Rand offered us an alternative. It goes against everything we've been taught which is why it is hated so much. But it is true.

 

[Ophiolite]

Throughout all of man's history, with a few brief exceptions, these are the things he is taught and he's never been given an alternative, until now. Ayn Rand offered us an alternative. It goes against everything we've been taught which is why it is hated so much. But it is true.

I shall hope to reply comprehensively to your post. It may take some time and it may take the form of a new thread. Meanwhile, here are two points that will impact on my reply and may help you anticipate some of its content:

• Atlas Shrugged ranks in my top five favourite works of fiction.
• I admire her efforts to generate and communicate a meaningful philosophy. I deplore the fatuous, juvenile, ill-informed monster she created.

 

[A_Thinker]

Ayn Rand offered us an alternative. It goes against everything we've been taught which is why it is hated so much. But it is true.

Ayn Rand offers a philosophy, similar to thousands of others throughout human existence. It may contain truth, ... and almost certainly contains error, but there is no evidence that it, in totality, is truth.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I shall hope to reply comprehensively to your post. It may take some time and it may take the form of a new thread. Meanwhile, here are two points that will impact on my reply and may help you anticipate some of its content:

• Atlas Shrugged ranks in my top five favourite works of fiction.
• I admire her efforts to generate and communicate a meaningful philosophy. I deplore the fatuous, juvenile, ill-informed monster she created.

what monster are you referring to?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Ayn Rand offers a philosophy, similar to thousands of others throughout human existence. It may contain truth, ... and almost certainly contains error, but there is no evidence that it, in totality, is truth.

If you think it contains errors, name just one so we can discuss it. Don't just do a drive-by post with no substance.

And I disagree that she offered a philosophy similar to thousands of others. It is the only philosophy that recognizes and remains fully consistent with the primacy of existence principle for the first time in history. And she's the only philosopher to solve the problem of universals.

 

[Ophiolite]

what monster are you referring to?

Was that intended to be rhetorical?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Was that intended to be rhetorical?

No. And if you could do me a favor, Ophiolite, I'd appreciate if you'd pick one point to discuss at a time as my time is limited and I can't respond to long posts right now. But anything can be on the table and you can bring up as many points as you would like and I will respond to the best of my ability. If I may make a suggestion: start with metaphysics and let's work our way up from there. It makes more sense than to start with ethics or politics. It's too bad there isn't a general philosophy forum.

 

[A_Thinker]

If you think it contains errors, name just one so we can discuss it. Don't just do a drive-by post with no substance.

This is one of the points of her philosophy ...

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Conversely, even Science has affirmed that empathy for others is one of humanitiy's greatest advantages in living life on this earth successfully.

Simply put, we are capable of many times more together ... than we are as individuals ...

 

[The happy Objectivist]

This is one of the points of her philosophy ...

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Conversely, even Science has affirmed that empathy for others is one of humanitiy's greatest advantages in living life on this earth successfully.

Simply put, we are capable of many times more together ... than we are as individuals ...

What does Objectivism mean by self interest A_Thinker? How does Objectivism define sacrifice? You'll need to know this to avoid smuggling in premises that are no part of Objectivism. You can be perfectly rationally selfish and you can cooperate with others, join groups to accomplish great goals, help other, donate to charity and be benevolent. There is no contradiction between these things and being rationally selfish. So learn what the Objectivist means by self interest and what Objectivism means by sacrifice. Hint, it does not mean benevolence or kindness or good will. These are all fully compatible with the Objective Theory of Ethics.