The legacy of Ayn Rand

[blackstar212]

Scientism has replaced science and reason has been banished. I wonder if any of you will wake from your deep slumber so before it's too late ? Hard to predict. Hope so, particularly for the young.

Scientism?

 

Also making a reference that we should wake from our slumber would be an example of an ad hominom. It implies you are awake and understanding while we are not understanding.

[ralis]

Scientism has replaced science and reason has been banished. I wonder if any of you will wake from your deep slumber so before it's too late ? Hard to predict. Hope so, particularly for the young.

 

Reason as your narrative states is an extreme absolute black/white rigid view. However, scientific research and modeling does not posit that point of view, in that models are based on probabilities which are not based on absolutes.

[Karl]

E.O Wilson's work on altruistic biology is a good place to start in that species survive as a group and not as selfish individuals.

I know an entire political movement that would agree with you.

 

Tell me Ralis how do you define what moral action to apply for the sake of the group ? Anything that works, regardless of the moral consequences ? Doesn't that sounds more like the actions of those who have no moral code and are selfish precisely in the way that you and supporters of this thesis appear to decry. If these people need to die so the group survives, then so be it. By which moral standard do you begin to execute ? Altruism says there is none. Don't worry, go ahead, do what's necessary.

 

We cannot seperate moral from action. Every action has consequences.

[Karl]

Altruism in action right now on a state wide scale... Southern Louisiana in the midst of the flood; not trained first responders, nor paid emergency personnel... but a spontaneous mass movement of regular people with flat bottom boats, going door to door, spending their own money on gas to save strangers, not checking to see if who lives in the houses are black, white, latino, or asian... just helping. 

 

Tens of thousands of people massing food and clean water and sleeping bags and donating their own personal property, at their own expense, not being reimbursed by the state, nor the function of the self... but selfless actions to benefit others in need.

 

I know it's nearly impossible to account for the merit of spirit, when all you have ever experienced are the seemingly all encompassing senses of your body and hence all you believe to be real is mud and skin and wood and bits of atoms bumping together randomly to create life.

 

But I tell you, there is no where you can point in the universe, nor in your imagination, that is bereft of spirit.

 

And if you find yourself in this most dire and poor of perceptual circumstances, you have my profound love, for you are in the midst of suffering that I find unimaginably unendurable.

 

It isn't altruism. An altruistic person is just as likely to drown people in order to save the water voles.

What you are witnessing is rational selfishness in action, people making decisions on a moral basis. This is absent in the altruist, there are no morals codes.

[ralis]

I know an entire political movement that would agree with you.

 

Tell me Ralis how do you define what moral action to apply for the sake of the group ? Anything that works, regardless of the moral consequences ? Doesn't that sounds more like the actions of those who have no moral code and are selfish precisely in the way that you and supporters of this thesis appear to decry. If these people need to die so the group survives, then so be it. By which moral standard do you begin to execute ? Altruism says there is none. Don't worry, go ahead, do what's necessary.

 

We cannot seperate moral from action. Every action has consequences.

 

Thinking too much is the problem and not the solution. Spontaneous creativity and action without analysis would be the natural way of expressing altruism which has evolved over millions of years.

[Karl]

Scientism?Also making a reference that we should wake from our slumber would be an example of an ad hominom. It implies you are awake and understanding while we are not understanding.

Its a plea.

[blackstar212]

It isn't altruism. An altruistic person is just as likely to drown people in order to save the water voles.

What you are witnessing is rational selfishness in action, people making decisions on a moral basis. This is absent in the altruist, there are no morals codes.

It is now obvious that Karl has rejected science when it comes to altruism. We are at an impasse.

[Karl]

Thinking too much is the problem and not the solution. Spontaneous creativity and action without analysis would be the natural way of expressing altruism which has evolved over millions of years.

Where is the moral code ? Do you have an answer, or will you continue to evade and swerve ?

[Karl]

It is now obvious that Karl has rejected science when it comes to altruism. We are at an impasse.

I rejected scientism long ago, just as I rejected religion and materialism.

 

Explain how you know what action to take ? Maybe drowning a child is better than saving one. How can you tell ? It's just a selfless action bereft of any guidance according to you and your scientism.

[ralis]

Where is the moral code ? Do you have an answer, or will you continue to evade and swerve ?

 

I just gave you the answer. Stop badgering me! There are more important areas of the brain than the analytical neo cortex which dominates with verbal limitations. Evolutionary forces are extremely complex and to reduce to a single meme is futile.

[Apech]

This is a very poor attempt to prove your point.

 

The hero in your example is putting himself at risk to protect his comrades and is therefor acting from rational self interest.

 

Or are you suggesting that many Victoria Crosses have been awarded to those who assisted the enemy in some way? Now that would indeed be altruistic.

 

That is a ridiculous argument.  Why would anyone, altruist or not, assist someone who was trying to kill them?

[Karl]

Reason as your narrative states is an extreme absolute black/white rigid view. However, scientific research and modeling does not posit that point of view, in that models are based on probabilities which are not based on absolutes.

Oh, but unfortunately my dear Ralis, that premise relies on using reason. You are infact uttering an absolute whilst rejecting absolutes. You can neither have your cake and eat it, nor eat your cake before you have it.

 

Science is the method of using logic and reason. You have just proved my point beautifully. Science is dead because reason is dead. Bye bye human race.

[Karl]

I just gave you the answer. Stop badgering me! There are more important areas of the brain than the analytical neo cortex which dominates with verbal limitations. Evolutionary forces are extremely complex and to reduce to a single meme is futile.

What a load of old piffle. Your waffling sir. This is nothing to do with evolutionary forces and all to do with your own basis of deciding right from wrong. By What moral code and from where is it derived.

[Karl]

That is a ridiculous argument. Why would anyone, altruist or not, assist someone who was trying to kill them?

Aww heck. Because there is no moral code attached to the altruistic ideology. How can there be one ? You said that you don't act selfishly, you just do it. So, how can you possibly know what to do ? A cyber man and Dalek are the ideal altruists devoid of a moral code they just do whatever they are commanded to do in order to further the aims of the group. A individual altruist would be like a Dalek seperated from its master.

 

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

 

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

To the one or there may be more than one that uses the 'classic double bind' on others. Dr. Gregory Bateson published his research on the 'classic double bind' years ago.

 

 

[blackstar212]

I rejected scientism long ago, just as I rejected religion and materialism.

 

Explain how you know what action to take ? Maybe drowning a child is better than saving one. How can you tell ? It's just a selfless action bereft of any guidance according to you and your scientism.

Again Scientism? This sounds like this is your own rationalization for science you don't agree with?

[ralis]

Again Scientism? This sounds like this is your own rationalization for science you don't agree with?

 

The problem being, that any discussion with him is that everything that you state is wrong. The messages are always conflicting.

[ralis]

“We do not live in the sort of universe in which simple lineal control is possible. Life is not like that.”—Gregory Bateson, “Conscious Purpose versus Nature” (1968, 47)

[Karl]

Or we could get back on topic with Rand's legacy ? Just a thought. All this scientific altruism, the death of reason and double binding doesn't bode well for there being any legacy at all.

 

Double bind is really question begging if I interpret you correctly. That is 'are you still beating your wife'. It doesn't include those who create their own double bind on themselves. In fight club there are three rules ....

[Apech]

Aww heck. Because there is no moral code attached to the altruistic ideology. How can there be one ? You said that you don't act selfishly, you just do it. So, how can you possibly know what to do ? A cyber man and Dalek are the ideal altruists devoid of a moral code they just do whatever they are commanded to do in order to further the aims of the group. A individual altruist would be like a Dalek seperated from its master.

 

Cybermen and Daleks (from what i can remember (beyond the shakey sets and rubber masks) are devoid of feelings and empathy and are thus the perfect psychopaths.  They are characterised by not being altruistic.  I think that's pretty obvious.

 

 

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

 

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

 

According to you altruists are metallic and trundle around shouting 'exterminate'.   Such is the strange world you inhabit.

[ralis]

Or we could get back on topic with Rand's legacy ? Just a thought. All this scientific altruism, the death of reason and double binding doesn't bode well for there being any legacy at all.

 

Double bind is really question begging if I interpret you correctly. That is 'are you still beating your wife'. It doesn't include those who create their own double bind on themselves. In fight club there are three rules ....

 

Much more complicated than that. Watch the movie I posted.

[Karl]

Again Scientism? This sounds like this is your own rationalization for science you don't agree with?

Science is the tool of reason. I'm not a scientist I'm a philosopher, so, I know what the scientific method is based upon. If you deny reason then you deny science and leave only whim. Science isn't going to show us morality, or consciousness, it might show us what part of the brain is stimulated, it might count the pulses and waves, it can show how to shut down or distort perception, it can help us cure abnormalities and brain diseases, but beyond that it runs into axiomatic truths.

[Karl]

 

Aww heck. Because there is no moral code attached to the altruistic ideology. How can there be one ? You said that you don't act selfishly, you just do it. So, how can you possibly know what to do ? A cyber man and Dalek are the ideal altruists devoid of a moral code they just do whatever they are commanded to do in order to further the aims of the group. A individual altruist would be like a Dalek seperated from its master.

 

Cybermen and Daleks (from what i can remember (beyond the shakey sets and rubber masks) are devoid of feelings and empathy and are thus the perfect psychopaths.  They are characterised by not being altruistic.  I think that's pretty obvious.

 

 

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

 

 

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

 

According to you altruists are metallic and trundle around shouting 'exterminate'.   Such is the strange world you inhabit.

 

Not such a strange world because there are no altruists, only those that pretend there are.

Dales weren't devoid of emotion indeed they appeared positively riddled with them-they feared the Doctor and that increasing pitch of their electronic voices definitely bordered on hysteria, not unlike Social Justice Warriors. They had empathy for each other. The problem with Daleks is that they were irrational and devoid of a moral compass.

[Karl]

Much more complicated than that. Watch the movie I posted.

I did, I know it well, seen it many, many times. I model myself on the drill instructor private Ralis :-)

 

What do you see as being the double bind ? Remember that these guys volunteered for the Army and could walk at any time. They couldn't back chat the drill instructor without receiving some form of violent attack.

[ralis]

I did, I know it well, seen it many, many times. I model myself on the drill instructor private Ralis :-)

 

What do you see as being the double bind ? Remember that these guys volunteered for the Army and could walk at any time. They couldn't back chat the drill instructor without receiving some form of violent attack.

 

Volunteered and could walk at any time? That time was during Vietnam and once drafted and signed up there was no way out. I was in the military during Vietnam and believe me there was no way out except in a body bag or medical reason.