The legacy of Ayn Rand

[ralis]

Was it take drugs.

 

No.

[Karl]

Your narrative is dogmatic given that everyone else is usually wrong and you are the purveyor of absolute truth. If you can't see that, then..................

Then you should try harder if you think you have a better argument.

 

As I have proven, if someone presents a good argument then I will listen. It's no good a shopkeeper complaining that I've chosen not to buy his goods because I'm ignorant of the benefit of buying them. I used to have salesmen that adopted that attitude and ended up fired. Now I don't complain that you don't listen, or you have cloth ears, or you can't see it, I just give the argument and a rebuttal/refutation. Few of you listen, that's my problem, I don't get annoyed about it, I wonder if I'm not clear, or perhaps where my argument is poor, or even where I'm not entirely clear in my own head.

 

I find that it's mainly whinging and bad temper if anyone challenges, or fails to accept your views (I mean generally, I'm not singling you out here Ralis). This seems to progress until one or other gets to brow beating, insults and threats.

 

I could easily level the same accusation that it's you that believe you hold the absolute truth, but that serves no purpose, of course you do or you woukd expound your own view. There aren't many people that hold views that they disagree with.

[ralis]

Then you should try harder if you think you have a better argument.

 

As I have proven, if someone presents a good argument then I will listen. It's no good a shopkeeper complaining that I've chosen not to buy his goods because I'm ignorant of the benefit of buying them. I used to have salesmen that adopted that attitude and ended up fired. Now I don't complain that you don't listen, or you have cloth ears, or you can't see it, I just give the argument and a rebuttal/refutation. Few of you listen, that's my problem, I don't get annoyed about it, I wonder if I'm not clear, or perhaps where my argument is poor, or even where I'm not entirely clear in my own head.

 

I find that it's mainly whinging and bad temper if anyone challenges, or fails to accept your views (I mean generally, I'm not singling you out here Ralis). This seems to progress until one or other gets to brow beating, insults and threats.

 

I could easily level the same accusation that it's you that believe you hold the absolute truth, but that serves no purpose, of course you do or you woukd expound your own view. There aren't many people that hold views that they disagree with.

 

Absolute truth has been an embedded meme since Aristotle and infects the minds of anyone not aware of its limitations and failing to understand the continuum of possibilities. Jettisoning a black/white view along with the absolute view of the 'isness' of the phenomenal world is a place to begin. I doubt you would listen to the wisdom of such.

[Karl]

Absolute truth has been an embedded meme since Aristotle and infects the minds of anyone not aware of its limitations and failing to understand the continuum of possibilities. Jettisoning a black/white view along with the absolute view of the 'isness' of the phenomenal world is a place to begin. I doubt you would listen to the wisdom of such.

Can you see that this opinion is your absolute truth ?

 

Whilst you accuse me of having an absolute truth and that's fine by me, I don't regard such things, in context, as any kind of negative. Where as what you are saying is that you have your own view of an absolute truth which you are equally keen to propagate, but which you consider is a greater absolute truth, where as mine is apparently the lesser.

 

So, why don't you drop the pretense and say that you believe your absolute truth is more absolute truth than mine ? Why carry on with the charade that the problem is all mine because I won't listen/black and white/absolute, when you are making an identical claim.

 

What does 'truth' mean ? How can you test it and on what does it stand ? Doesn't truth require evidence ? Is evidence available in some other sense than concrete perceptions ?

[ralis]

Can you see that this opinion is your absolute truth ?

 

Whilst you accuse me of having an absolute truth and that's fine by me, I don't regard such things, in context, as any kind of negative. Where as what you are saying is that you have your own view of an absolute truth which you are equally keen to propagate, but which you consider is a greater absolute truth, where as mine is apparently the lesser.

 

So, why don't you drop the pretense and say that you believe your absolute truth is more absolute truth than mine ? Why carry on with the charade that the problem is all mine because I won't listen/black and white/absolute, when you are making an identical claim.

 

What does 'truth' mean ? How can you test it and on what does it stand ? Doesn't truth require evidence ? Is evidence available in some other sense than concrete perceptions ?

 

You have stated that you are a purveyor of truth regarding your libertarian belief system. From your post, it appears that you have no interest evolving beyond a simplistic black/white world view.

[ralis]

I am not suggesting any appearance of an absolute belief system. Wilson wrote this entire book without the use of 'is' or 'isness' or Non-Aristotelian logic.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Psychology-Brain-Software-Programs-ebook/dp/1561840718/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471893604&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+anton+wilson+quantum+psychology

 

https://www.amazon.com/Selections-Science-Sanity-Second-Korzybski/dp/0982755910/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471893673&sr=1-1&keywords=korzybski+science+and+sanity

[Karl]

You have stated that you are a purveyor of truth regarding your libertarian belief system. From your post, it appears that you have no interest evolving beyond a simplistic black/white world view.

Well as previously stated I'm not a libertarian as this is yet another form of mysticism, but that aside.

 

I suppose you haven't considered it might instead be you who is over complicating it ?

[Karl]

I am not suggesting any appearance of an absolute belief system. Wilson wrote this entire book without the use of 'is' or 'isness' or Non-Aristotelian logic.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Psychology-Brain-Software-Programs-ebook/dp/1561840718/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471893604&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+anton+wilson+quantum+psychology

 

https://www.amazon.com/Selections-Science-Sanity-Second-Korzybski/dp/0982755910/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471893673&sr=1-1&keywords=korzybski+science+and+sanity

Your belief IS your absolute belief system.

 

This is as it is for me. If you have a cold then you don't doubt it, the cold is an absolute. Is there any point at which you doubt you have a cold ? If I have a cold then your answer would be that because you don't, then I'm being an absolutist and you are some omniscient being capable of holding both possibilities in perfect balance. Do you decide if I have a cold, or I decide for you ? No.

 

It so not that quantum theory is ridiculous because of the theory, but because of human conception. We don't hold perfect opposites, or different ideas which appear one moment and vanish inexplicably the very next moment. When you have Schrödinger's cat living in your mind then you can't be certain of anything at all.

 

This isn't about describing scientific theory but our ability to differentiate and integrate consistently.

[ralis]

Your belief IS your absolute belief system.

 

This is as it is for me. If you have a cold then you don't doubt it, the cold is an absolute. Is there any point at which you doubt you have a cold ? If I have a cold then your answer would be that because you don't, then I'm being an absolutist and you are some omniscient being capable of holding both possibilities in perfect balance. Do you decide if I have a cold, or I decide for you ? No.

 

It so not that quantum theory is ridiculous because of the theory, but because of human conception. We don't hold perfect opposites, or different ideas which appear one moment and vanish inexplicably the very next moment. When you have Schrödinger's cat living in your mind then you can't be certain of anything at all.

 

This isn't about describing scientific theory but our ability to differentiate and integrate consistently.

 

I don't have an appearance of any belief system. Perception appears as an abstraction and not an absolute.  Have fun with your black/white mindset. No more for me since I have better things to do out in the mountains and desert.

[Karl]

I don't have an appearance of any belief system. Perception appears as an abstraction and not an absolute. Have fun with your black/white mindset. No more for me since I have better things to do out in the mountains and desert.

Everything you say is part of your belief system. Part of understanding that is cultivation of the witness during DM. Conceptions appear as abstractions and these are not automatic and must be consciously integrated, our senses and perception are automatic as are those of animals. Our eyes and other senses originated out of the same star stuff, the senses are real as are the perceptions. Nature would not evolve senses that sensed something other than reality.

 

Have a great time in the mountains or desert. I like deserts but we don't have any around here, plenty of mountains.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Karl

[thelerner]

Well, you might be shocked to hear, that I wasn't born with an Ayn Rand mind map, nor a libertarian one, neither did I understand capitalism, or economics..

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by thelerner

[Astral Monk]

Really the only question now with science is the connection between natural selection and altruism and how it works.

Easy. Altruists all die leaving the rest of us to procreate. Selected.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

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.

Problem is that 'groups' arent real things--they are only a conceptual association of individuals.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

Talking about objectivism through ethics is boring. For me rational self-interest is practically a no-brainer if not a fact of human existence. People act from motivations and intentions and these all arise internally because we are free and not puppets. There is always choice even at the point of a gun.

 

For me Rand fails much earlier on at the metaphysical and hence epistemological levels. Quite frankly, A is A is not an ontological law, that is, it does not and cannot refer to any individual thing in reality other than reality in total, at which point there is no judgment or knowledge imparted. Meaning it doesnt reveal anything about reality--only how we choose to momentarily and provisionally divide reality into discrete elements or sections or units or whatever.

 

A is A is the start of logic because it is the start of perception, the beginning of grasping and thus forceful differentiation of the continuous flux of experience. It is first and foremost an act. One might call it the first act of cognition, and it isnt even done in real time, lol. It can only occur where some kind of mechanism of memory exists. But its all grasping at straws. As the results of modern science clearly indicate, there is no end to differentiation because, again, it doestn reflect reality but a provisional perspective of it.

 

Its all about context. When we speak of ethics and politics we speak of the human agent, the axiological agent. This is a choice. We adopt this level purposefully to engage in discourse. But in reality there are no such individuals--that is, at uncountable other provisional perspectives the human agent ceases to exist as a 'thing' or unit. Unfortunately all things slip away into nothingness (or the fulless of the phenomenal plenum) with enough scrutiny.

 

So Rand as a provisional practicality (which is what all ethics amount to) is pretty solid because it reflects the actual nature of human being rather than some other systems that attempt to force humans into impossible conundrums via lofty ideals.

 

I never read the novels and never will, but the other collected works discussing philosophy a la objectivism, including Peikoff's clear summary, are all accessible. Rand's 'critique' of Kant is laughable though, freshman level at best, and it shows, so she lost me there. But if you like objectivist ethics I recommend following up with objectivist aesthetics, bring some purpose into art discussions.

 

So rational self interest YES, secrets of the universe deep understanding of reality, NO.

 

imho

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

As for the legacy, at least when I was in school no one considered Rand a philosopher at all, let alone a significant player in the modern and contemporary philosophy narrative. Her appeal, it was said, was always with the young, eager, and inexperienced who cling to simplistic models and embrace them dogmatically. Surely not the intent of objectivism, but you cant say it isnt largely true, lol.

 

Ever try to debate an objectivist? 20 pages later and A is still A lmao.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

One last thought--its because objectivism cant comprehend quantum uncertainty and the fundamental chaos of the undiiferentiated manifold that it fails as a complete philosophical system. No big deal, those are hard to come to terms with.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

It so not that quantum theory is ridiculous because of the theory, but because of human conception. We don't hold perfect opposites, or different ideas which appear one moment and vanish inexplicably the very next moment.

Actually that is exactly how it works, since differentiation of 'things' is a cognitive act not something ontologically enforced upon us. The 'A' we focussed on just now is gone for good as soon as our focus shifts. And every new 'A' automatically creates its polarity '-A', which also vanishes. These are just cognitive structures loosely associted whose strength and coherence are developed by the sheer weight of repetition--structure built on structure built on structure...and all of it build on phenomenal sand.

 

We dont receive reality 'as is' except when we first come into existence. But, one might say, surely there are things out there etc. Naive realism is naive because it fails to critcally examine the roots os sensation and perception and assumes that 'the world' we adult mature fully cognizant people speak of is 'what is really out there'. But adult mature fully cognizant people are desparately far from experiencing reality 'as is'. What naive realism suggests is we just accept common uncritcal belief which is already couched in such a deep and strongly entrenched narrative so as to make any other ideas appear shocking.

 

Objectivism makes this mistake--it accepts A is A as ontological and thenceforth rejects the only true basis we have for critical reflection on deep reality--consciousness--the only primary and only constant in our experience. It makes an epistemological process into an immutable ontological law. Thats basically why it feels 'off' to some people--at its root its just another conceptual artifice trying to pass itself off as the reAlly real deal. Rand would reject the very idea of going beyond reason, but unfortunately that is the limitation of this mindset, one that cannot be overcome by any means other than total epistemological transformation, nay, obliteration.

 

Logic has a beginning and ending. Reality does not.

 

8)

Edited August 25, 2016 by Astral Monk

[Karl]

Actually that is exactly how it works, since differentiation of 'things' is a cognitive act not something ontologically enforced upon us. The 'A' we focussed on just now is gone for good as soon as our focus shifts. And every new 'A' automatically creates its polarity '-A', which also vanishes. These are just cognitive structures loosely associted whose strength and coherence are developed by the sheer weight of repetition--structure built on structure built on structure...and all of it build on phenomenal sand.

We dont receive reality 'as is' except when we first come into existence. But, one might say, surely there are things out there etc. Naive realism is naive because it fails to critcally examine the roots os sensation and perception and assumes that 'the world' we adult mature fully cognizant people speak of is 'what is really out there'. But adult mature fully cognizant people are desparately far from experiencing reality 'as is'. What naive realism suggests is we just accept common uncritcal belief which is already couched in such a deep and strongly entrenched narrative so as to make any other ideas appear shocking.

Objectivism makes this mistake--it accepts A is A as ontological and thenceforth rejects the only true basis we have for critical reflection on deep reality--consciousness--the only primary and only constant in our experience. It makes an epistemological process into an immutable ontological law. Thats basically why it feels 'off' to some people--at its root its just another conceptual artifice trying to pass itself off as the reAlly real deal. Rand would reject the very idea of going beyond reason, but unfortunately that is the limitation of this mindset, one that cannot be overcome by any means other than total epistemological transformation, nay, obliteration.

Logic has a beginning and ending. Reality does not.

8)

It's here that you have misunderstood objectivism. What you have said is partially true, but you offer only an olive branch to patch up the differences between muscle mysticism and objectivism. I've seen that happen over and over as either rejection or inclusion (with caveats) into the Mystics cannon. "Objectivism is right, up to the point it deviates with the Mystics philosophy".

 

It's the same old story repeated ad nauseum, that consciousness has primacy over existence. Kant had one clear purpose which was to deny reason in the minds of his readers. He succeeded brilliantly.

 

Differentiation, or identification is forced upon us if we wish to survive. Conception is not automatic, it is a conscious process. Because we are rational creatures our automatic perception is not sufficient, we not only have choice, we are forced to choose. We are the only creature that, as yet, has the power of voluntary, consciously chosen self destruction.

 

You are right that there is a continuum of causality with respect to our perception and relativity, but we are here and present. Just because our awareness shifts does not mean existence at the point has ceased to exist, only that we are perceptually unaware of it. Yet we conceptualy grasp it and this seems to be where the difficulty is experienced by the mystic in refuting reality.

 

Logic is a tool of reason, reason is the faculty of integrating concepts, concepts are the non automatic means of humans building an internal map of reality, but that map is based on direct perception of reality by the senses. This preoccupation with consciousness (the observer effect) as having an effect on existence is hogwash. Any quantum entanglement is material only. In other words we cannot remove the material body of the observer be it through sensor, or distance. Pure consciousness without a body does not exist and this is precisely what Kant set out to prove was true. Reason destroyed his philosophy and so it had to be dealt with. Since then, scientists have had reason stolen from them, except in the limited silos in which they engage in their work, science is dying, perhaps dead because of this fragmentation through Kants stated philosophical aim.

 

A is not A because of some quirk of logic, but because we humans must insist upon it in every conceptual abstraction. Even if it's wrong it makes no difference, because we have nothing else. Reality either conforms to our conceptions or our conceptions are pure floating abstracts- castles in the air.

 

I find that it's difficult to explain, because it should be obvious to anyone and is a mystery to me why it isn't. In a nutshell we can't utter a phrase like 'there are no absolutes' without realising that uttering the phrase IS an absolute. The proof that is part of our reasoned approach to science IS of necessity required to compare our abstract conceptions to existent reality. Logic is required because this has been and remains our only sure method of ensuring our integrations and methodology conform to reality. Logic is not a floating abstraction but a method of tying conception to perception. Kants entire work, though completely wrong, is wrong, not simply because of an error, but by deliberate effort to blur the reality between the necessity to use reason, logic, existence to write the book, but in effect to deny that use. It's a master stroke. It is the icicle used in the murder which melts away leaving no visible weapon, however Kant accomplished this through mental contortions of effort which we would properly call today 'hypnotic writing'. Kant weaponised philosophy to achieve his stated aim of destroying reason whilst simultaneously being forced to use it, but in such a way as to make the reader doubt it.

 

Any argument presented must be the result of reason, it can't be avoided, no one can do it any other way. All proof depends on our direct perception of existent reality and that cannot be avoided. Existence has primacy and reason is an axiomatic corollary of identification. It's exactly like any equation. Rand's legacy is 'existence is identity; consciousness is identification'. That's the genius part. Consciousness must be conscious of something and that means existence must have primacy. Just as with the chicken and the egg, we do not have an ad infinitum regression, but Kant would have it so. Consciousness is aware of something existent and in that moment of there is both identification of it.

[blackstar212]

I think this sums up her legacy.

 

"An Asian peasant who labors through all of his waking hours, with tools created in Biblical times—a South American aborigine who is devoured by piranha in a jungle stream—an African who is bitten by the tsetse fly—an Arab whose teeth are green with decay in his mouth—these do live with their 'natural environment,' but are scarcely able to appreciate its beauty." Ayn Rand , The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism%27s_rejection_of_the_primitive

 

This is the type of thinking that ruins worlds.

[Karl]

I think this sums up her legacy."An Asian peasant who labors through all of his waking hours, with tools created in Biblical times—a South American aborigine who is devoured by piranha in a jungle stream—an African who is bitten by the tsetse fly—an Arab whose teeth are green with decay in his mouth—these do live with their 'natural environment,' but are scarcely able to appreciate its beauty." Ayn Rand , The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism's_rejection_of_the_primitiveThis is the type of thinking that ruins worlds.

Why do you think that ? What is it that makes you say 'this is the thinking that ruins the world'.

 

I was watching a programme about some farmers in India who were deprived of water for their crops by a corrupt Government and the lack of property rights/ competition/ capital creation. These farmers could not manage to scrape together a living and instead they were throwing themselves in the near by river (off limits to them as a source of irrigation). Luckily capitalism, coupled with the industrial revolution has saved the West from this kind of life. We can look at the beauty of the world because we are wealthy enough to do so, meanwhile Indian farmers rotting corpses are extracted from the river at a rate of several per day.

[blackstar212]

Why do you think that ? What is it that makes you say 'this is the thinking that ruins the world'.

 

I was watching a programme about some farmers in India who were deprived of water for their crops by a corrupt Government and the lack of property rights/ competition/ capital creation. These farmers could not manage to scrape together a living and instead they were throwing themselves in the near by river (off limits to them as a source of irrigation). Luckily capitalism, coupled with the industrial revolution has saved the West from this kind of life. We can look at the beauty of the world because we are wealthy enough to do so, meanwhile Indian farmers rotting corpses are extracted from the river at a rate of several per day.

Ayn Rand believed indigenous tribes to be stupid like animals and needed us which they do not.

 

India is capitalist so I am not surprised that farmers are being left out to drown.

 

http://blog.peerform.com/the-five-most-capitalistic-countries-in-the-world/

[ralis]

Ayn Rand believed indigenous tribes to be stupid like animals and needed us which they do not.

 

India is capitalist so I am not surprised that farmers are being left out to drown.

 

http://blog.peerform.com/the-five-most-capitalistic-countries-in-the-world/

 

The ultimate goal of Capitalism is for all the wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few. That is what is happening here in the US.

[blackstar212]

The ultimate goal of Capitalism is for all the wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few. That is what is happening here in the US.

Yes the corruption Karl brings up is a part of being capitalist and objectivist. Capitalism leads to plutocracy and oligarchy which are horrible. You have the few rich and wealthy and the rest are servants.

[Karl]

Ayn Rand believed indigenous tribes to be stupid like animals and needed us which they do not.India is capitalist so I am not surprised that farmers are being left out to drown.http://blog.peerform.com/the-five-most-capitalistic-countries-in-the-world/

Err no she didn't. Is this another one of your feelings ? She made the argument that the industrial revolution saved us from the fate that befalls those who never experience it. She doesn't regard any person as 'stupid like animals'.

 

No India isn't capitalist-when I say capitalist I mean laissez faire capitalism which shouldn't need saying, but unfortunately Marx and our modern corporate, facistic political class has meant that the distinction is necessary. India has some level of free markets, but it as yet not very wide and corporatism has taken hold, as it has across the entire West today. Corporatism isn't capitalism in any sense, but our politicians like to talk about free markets. I'm guessing you haven't read Atlas Shrugged or you would understand the difference between this crony corporatism and true capitalism.

[Karl]

The ultimate goal of Capitalism is for all the wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few. That is what is happening here in the US.

If only you had capitalism eh ? You can't talk about something that you don't have Ralis. You might just as well say that communism is the reason that is concentrating the wealth in fewer hands-you don't have that either, but why not blame it anyway.

 

It's funny that you think capitalism -and I mean here unfettered, free market laissez faire capitalism has any 'aim' in any sense. It essentially people trading value for value for the purpose of improving their situation. Most people prefer to have more of the values they choose, than less, so, in that sense everyone is trying to maximise their trade.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Karl