|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts 
|
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute; facts are facts, independent of mans feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by mans senses) is mans only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 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. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects the rights of every man; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts
|
What's wrong with it?
Start with your first premise: reality exists as an objective absolute. Define "reality," define "exists," define "objective," and then define "absolute." Make these definitions in rationally indisputable, convincing ways. When it is clear that your proposition is indisputable, we'll go to your second point. Are you wrong? Maybe not. But the burden of proof is on YOU (or Ayn Rand) to demonstrate that you are RIGHT. Otherwise you have nothing approaching "philosophy;" you only have undefined assertions that fail to persuade. The world is waiting. This is your thread, so feel welcome to start here. |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Life is half objective and half subjective, which is why we have half a left and half a left brain, which is why the world half dark and half light, etcetera.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Yea objective obviously from your own point of view I guess right?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote: But, of course, you're not allowed to use any words in those definitions unless you also define each of those words in rationally indisputable, convincing ways. (Actually, that's an exaggeration: you are certainly allowed to define each of them in a single, rationally indisputable, convincing way; multiple ways are not necessary.) |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, S2000magician wrote: Amusing, but unfair 
It's ok to start with provisional definitions. Just be prepared to revise as you go. Start with "reality". There are a few possibilities. We live in a world of objects and forces (such as rocks and gravity). But we also live in a world of conventionally defined things like money and judges. What makes rocks, gravity, money and judges all "real"? Are promises real? Memories? Is love real?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: No, yes, yes. In seriousness, I'd say the ability of more than one sentient being to experience their effects. I was about to add "in similar manner", but that gets us back to my objection to Jeff's (utterly unfair) post. (Side note: your parallel construction needs work. Just sayin'. Merry Christmas, John!) Almost forgot: you're wrong; it's completely fair. (Recall that I took a philosophy class - Logic - as an (unwilling) undergrad.) |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote: I'm baring my soul here, Jeff: if you want people to take you seriously, you need to learn to nest your text attributes (bold, italic) correctly. Your sloppiness here completely undermines your credibility. |
|||||||||
|
Salguod Nairb Room 101 0 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Amusing, but unfair We apologize for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked. Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, S2000magician wrote:No, yes, yes. We apologize again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness...
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote: What is real (reality)? It is that which two or more people agree exists. Sans mental illness. Exists? See reality. Objective? Impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral. (sorry for the copy and paste) Absolute? Universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, noncorruptible ( )
Quote:
When it is clear that your proposition is indisputable, we'll go to your second point. Do the definitions meet your criteria? Quote:
Are you wrong? Maybe not. But the burden of proof is on YOU (or Ayn Rand) to demonstrate that you are RIGHT. Otherwise you have nothing approaching "philosophy;" you only have undefined assertions that fail to persuade. Am I right, given the definitions I've given? Of couse I understand that I've assumed the burden of proof.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, S2000magician wrote: Why assume I want anyone to take me seriously? If I were to get around to being serious, I wouldn't start with Ayn Rand. I'd probably start wth baseball, in which terms like "strike" and "ball" have definitions those who understand baeball readily understand and agree upon, but which have different meanings outside of baseball. Likewise, the word "objective" might have a definition within baseball which differs from that outside baseball. It might be utterly unfair, but that's what is expected if you want to have a serious dialog with others about proposed philosophic truth. |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote: Are you suggesting that history's philosophers have proven their positions?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Warhol was wrong; perception isn't reality.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts
|
Let's move past those quibbles.
Quote:
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. This is the heart of the heartless "philosophy," religion, really. Why do you believe this? Why do you believe this is the highest moral purpose in life? Some, including myself, would say this is the sure way to destruction and madness.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote: Just the opposite. My point is that none of this stuff is "provable." My response was directly to the question, "What's wrong with it?" My answer--unclear, I suppose--it's that it's unprovable and full of disputed terms. Bill does me the injustice of accusing me of being unfair, since one can hardly be asked to define every word one implements. Yet entire books have been written on the question of each and every term I put into quotation marks. What's "unfair" is to assume that any group of people anywhere in the world would agree on those terms, much less the following points. My point about defining them indisputably was meant sincerely: if one can't do that (and one can't), then one will be thrown into the quagmire of philosophy. Philosophy is a quagmire. I'm just telling it like it is. |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts
|
Okay, I'll drop by again next week, by which time we may actually get to discuss the core of his question.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote: With all due respect, I didn't accuse you of anything. You may be confusing me with John, who accused me of being unfair. I agree with you utterly. Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote: To quote Carlton (Roscoe Lee Browne), "Tell it as it is! Don't die with wretched grammar on your lips." |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, landmark wrote: I very rarely agree with landmark but on this point I'm going to have to agree. It sounds pretty bleak to think that the pursuit of someone's self-interest and happiness is the highest moral purpose of life. I believe in the pursuit of happiness, just not to the exclusion of all else. |
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, landmark wrote: Why heartless? And the opposite of religion, btw. If man isn't an end in himself, then what is he an end unto? His brothers? Society? Some undefined "greater good"? If not his rational self interest, and his own happiness, then what should his highest moral purpose be? The interests of others and their happiness? Understand that this doesn't mean I get to do what I want, when I want to. It may seem strange but my rational self interest precludes this. What is wrong with existing for ones own sake? This doesn't preclude loving deeply, or valuing another highly. I love my son and would die for him, but I cannot and will not live for him. He must exist for his own sake, and live for himself. Destruction and madness? Isn't that what we have now? After thousands of years of being told to "be our brothers keeper" and "we are all equally valuable" we've gotten a global society of people who know what to think, but not how to think, or how to value anything, including themselves. A world full of suckers, led around by the nose by the hand that will eventually slaughter them, after it has taken everything it can. (Hyperbole of course, but too often true.) To me THAT'S madness. You seem to have an opposite viewpoint, so what do you propose as alternatives? What should mans highest moral purpose be? And what about the rest of it?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
[quote]On Dec 26, 2016, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
On Dec 26, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote: Just the opposite. My point is that none of this stuff is "provable." My response was directly to the question, "What's wrong with it?" My answer--unclear, I suppose--it's that it's unprovable and full of disputed terms. Why must something be proven before any action is taken? Disputed terms are not necessarily undefinable. We've taken massive action based on unproven schools of "thought" before, all of which were based on subjective factors and none of which have a chance of working globally. Quote:
What's "unfair" is to assume that any group of people anywhere in the world would agree on those terms, much less the following points. Why not? If an argument can be made for those points, and people can come to understand that argument, and those terms, then why can't they agree? Because they cannot change? Quote:
My point about defining them indisputably was meant sincerely: if one can't do that (and one can't), then one will be thrown into the quagmire of philosophy. Philosophy is a quagmire. I'm just telling it like it is. Stone, people can, and have, agreed on the definition and meaning of words and concepts. I'd hoped no one would come along and obfuscate, but I get your point(s). Philosophy IS a quagmire because most of them are ill-defined opinions, with no clear actionable plan. What I'm looking for is what would constitute a proper global morality. Terms that are objective - fair to all - and constitute a code of conduct that we can all adhere to, so we can stop killing each other over subjective factors. What I posted seems reasonable and correct to me; so I asked what's wrong with any of it, which you still haven't told me.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » What is wrong with any of this? (11 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Dec 26, 2016 08:29 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|