About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,-
"You sound like Hamlet after the Borg have gotten to him!"
Very funny! A better reply than my poor attempt at humor at 6 o'clock in the morning deserved
Well I tell you what, if you can deal that sort of thing when you're half-asleep you're in fine shape. I love the vernacular! And if you're right to say I might die from trying to find out the meaning of life then I'd die happy, and with my boots on.
I've got it. Our values are our meaning. If we valued nothing our lives certainly would have no meaning. Our values give us purpose in what we pursue and create and that gives our lives meaning. Does that smoke in your syllogistic pipe?
I'm afraid not. 'Life' is primary and the values are just aspect extentions thereof. All the values rest upon life, not the other way around, so what does life rest upon? Ie what makes it choiceworthy? How do you get an 'is' to be an 'ought'?
Great! I along with "many many Solonaughts" now have an "agenda to substitute slogans and catch-cries for reason."
Yeah! Wince in the exposing light of whistle song, you and your co-conspirators! Decompiling day has come Mr C++...
Your assumption of dishonesty is based on another motive-based argument: that since the current replies haven't satisfied you, we must simply be evading your "challenge."
I would expect more objectivity and less griping.
I can multitask objectivity and grumbles both at the same time. It's my thing.
The current answers, save the theological one, are not true to the question. It's a good and noble question and deserves better than the polemical equivalent of blowing a party horn at me. That's dishonest, independently of how much it gets on my wick.
"A is A"

Oh my Galt... the horror! Due to the "positive contradiction" of this tautology, Objectivism is "bunk!"
Distrust of grammar is the first requisite for philosophising. The poverty of English will not let us say things the way mathematics does, or as well as diagrams do- ie as truthfully as reality is. Nomenclature can, and does, lead us astray- as was shown in Orwell's 1984.

We are confined to expressing our Objectivist axioms in our poor tounge, I'm not complaining about that today. I'm not complaining about linguistic tautologies, such as we are reduced to employing to explain Objectivist metaphysics. Today I'm complaining about tautologies of reality.

Your answer, your quote above, is another in a long line of these argumentum ad nike (© House 2005).
What do you mean by "positive contradiction"? That phrase sounds, well, contradictory. Please provide a definition outside of theology or Hegel.
I'm not well-schooled enough to know if I can define it outside theology or Hegel.
Metaphysics can be seen as a very dry subject. Its purpose is to provide a non-contradictory and non-superficial basis for explaining the nature of reality. It is not the purpose of metaphysics to somehow provide us transportation to the bliss of existence.
ie Dispassionate persuit of the truth, I quite agree.

Objectivism- a design for life, for those that choose life.
 
Choose: Life vs Death
 
Thesis: Philosophy must answer this question
 
Antithesis: Whim must answer this question

Sure you're on the right side?


Post 21

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

"I'm afraid not. 'Life' is primary and the values are just aspect extensions thereof. All the values rest upon life, not the other way around, so what does life rest upon? Ie what makes it choiceworthy? How do you get an 'is' to be an 'ought'?"

Ouch. Well, I guess I'm right back to life being a property of living beings. And asking "what is the meaning of life" is as meaningful as asking what is the meaning of length or mass or color. You've put me back to square one.

Wait. Try this: "Life is the universes strategy for becoming aware of itself." That has a sort of religious tone, don't you think? Aside: Have you ever thought that the human species is the only life form on earth potentially capable of surviving the death our sun?

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 4:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel Català: "Does anyone know from where Mr. Fromm 'deduced' the need of the 'only'?"

From "one"?

Then let's rewrite the quote according to your assertion:

According to num++'s comment, Fromm meant that there is one and only one meaning of life: the act of living itself.

Again, my question: from where did Mr. Fromm "deduce" that life is only --exclusively-- for itself?

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/30, 7:12am)


Post 23

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

"Decompiling day has come Mr C++..."

Huh? You don't decompile source.

The identification of truisms is the first requisite of philosophy, not "distrust of grammar." All the grammar in the world will be of no use without referents to begin with.

A few of your assessments about the replies you have received are as follows:
"...Nike Logo..."
"...honey talk..."
"...you sound like Hamlet after the Borg have gotten to him..."
"...not true to the question..."
"...polemical equivalent of blowing a party horn..."

You're simply exercising banter to describe the responses to your comfort WITHOUT your providing any objective reason as to WHY you have those assessments in the first place. That's dishonest.

And still you invite objectivists' answers to your "challenge" WITHOUT providing your own answer. That's even more dishonest.

So... What kind of reply would you expect to be "true to the question" and what is your own answer to the meaning of life?

Edited to add...
Before I forget, you said regarding "positive contradiction", "I'm not well-schooled enough to know if I can define it outside theology or Hegel.

Well then, define it inside Hegel or theology; but this time you'll have to argue why objectivists have to accept any antecedent concepts such a term entails.

You also griped, "Today I'm complaining about tautologies of reality."

What exactly do you mean by "tautologies of reality" and why do you have to complain about it? Are you complaining about the non-contradiction in existence?

These "catch-cries" of yours simply muddle the discussion and drive reason out, very contrary to your stated intent.
...end edit.

You respond to Mike Erickson:
"All the values rest upon life, not the other way around, so what does life rest upon? Ie what makes it choiceworthy? How do you get an 'is' to be an 'ought'?"

You won't get a more objectivist response than from Ayn Rand herself (at this point, you'll need the quote, before you take the speculations of other objectivists as representative of the philosophy):
Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

- The Objectivist Ethics in VOS



Mike Erickson, that was an intriguing reply you gave Rick [post 21]; like an Anthropic Principle writ larger than Anthro. I still see problems with it, but I'll just save it for another thread.



Joel Català,

That was a toungue-in-cheek response I gave you earlier. Here's another:

"One" was used in the answer because the question is, "What is the meaning of life?" not "What are the meanings of life?"

OK, now with more earnestness...

You asked, "...from where did Mr. Fromm "deduce" that life is only --exclusively-- for itself?"

Fromm was a self-actualization psychologist like Abraham Maslow. It would have been antithetical of him to posit a reason for actualization outside of one's own life. In this he is in agreenment with Rand above.


(Edited by num++
on 6/30, 6:07pm)


Post 24

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,- 
Wait. Try this: "Life is the universes strategy for becoming aware of itself." That has a sort of religious tone, don't you think?
If by that you mean balmy, yip. :)
Aside: Have you ever thought that the human species is the only life form on earth potentially capable of surviving the death our sun?
The thought that future mankind will be without bacon and eggs is too horrible to contemplate.
Why, what do you think?
 
Joel,-
Again, my question: from where did Mr. Fromm "deduce" that life is only --exclusively-- for itself?
Joel ain't taking 'nike' for an answer. On ya dude.
 
Mr C,-
"Decompiling day has come Mr C++..."
Huh? You don't decompile source.
Call the metaphor police, they can put you in touch with the class action against me.

"...Nike Logo..."
"...honey talk..."
"...you sound like Hamlet after the Borg have gotten to him..."
"...not true to the question..."
"...polemical equivalent of blowing a party horn..."

You're simply exercising banter to describe the responses to your comfort WITHOUT your providing any objective reason as to WHY you have those assessments in the first place. That's dishonest.
Don't forget the cherry bowl. http..#34

What do you want me to do? Show why these responses are whim or show why whim don't cut it? I don't mean to be dishonest, just giving the audience some credit for knowing a fudge answer when it's pointed out to them.
And still you invite objectivists' answers to your "challenge" WITHOUT providing your own answer. That's even more dishonest.
As honest as an essay competition or exam paper?
So... What kind of reply would you expect to be "true to the question" and what is your own answer to the meaning of life?
I'd accept a kind of reply which posits that sustaining and generating one's own activity is natural for man. My own answer is Kantian imperative.
You respond to Mike Erickson:
"All the values rest upon life, not the other way around, so what does life rest upon? Ie what makes it choiceworthy? How do you get an 'is' to be an 'ought'?"

You won't get a more objectivist response than from Ayn Rand herself
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. You've got that CD with all the books on it you can cut and paste from haven't you? Might invest in that one day.


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As philosopher Douglas Rasmussen once told me, "The significance of life is that without life, there would be no significance." Plug in "meaning" for "significance," and I think you can see that meaning presupposes life, that life is foundational to meaning, that in the strictest sense, it does not "have" meaning, but is the ground for meaning.

Roger Bissell


Post 26

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
KANTIAN IMPERATIVE??? Sheesh Rick.... You should have said so from the start. No wonder you leave so many terms undefined. So the meaning of life is derived from a transcendent "Pure Reason"... You should give your exam to Fred Seddon instead. Objectivists don't take Kant lessons very well.

Thanks for the transcendent waste of time.

Post 27

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In Post #23 Num++ said:

You [Joel Català] asked, "...from where did Mr. Fromm "deduce" that life is only --exclusively-- for itself?"

Fromm was a self-actualization psychologist like Abraham Maslow. It would have been antithetical of him to posit a reason for actualization outside of one's own life. In this he is in agreenment with Rand above.
Num++, I asked you how Mr. Fromm deduced that life is exclusively for itself. You know: his deduction, if real, must have been produced inside his life.

If you say "I don't know" I won't have nothing to object.

Best wishes,

Joel Català


Post 28

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel Català,

Fromm's 'deduction' was more from ethics, psychology, and politics, rather than from metaphysics (I prefer Rand, who delivers it 'straight'). I'll roughly 'reconstruct' his reasoning as follows:

1) Man's self-awareness of his mortality introduces existential angst.
2) In trying to be rid of the angst, Man propounds "meanings of life" outside himself.
3) This "Other-significance" inevitably results in authoritarianism/dehumanization.

Fromm labels this the "Escape from Freedom." He then contends...

4) The above results from a lack of inner strength.
5) Authoritarianism can be avoided by not sacrificing individuality, as in #2.
6) Hence, any "meanings of life" must be contained within the individual.
7) By parsimony - any plurality can introduce conflict within the individual, costing mental health.
8) Reducing the "meaning of life" to a non-contradicting singularity: ^The Quote Above^.

I do hope this helps, as this is the best I can do within current constraints. If you need more, of course you'll have to read his works; you might find something I egregiously missed. As you may infer from the above, Fromm has much more to say about religion and authoritarianism than with actual metaphysics.

Again my disclaimer: Fromm's self-actualization psychology is much aligned with objectivism. I do however, have several and major disagreements with his thoughts, especially in politics.

If this did not help you at all, well... I'll just cough up another Fromm quote:
"It is awfully difficult to take one quote and discuss it."
- Interview with Mike Wallace


PS: I found you, at least in this thread, more 'inquiring' than 'objecting.' I have no problems discussing disagreements in serious matters as long as the language does not devolve into infantile gesticulations substituting for reason (which may incompetently masquerade as 'humor', something which I do appreciate).

Post 29

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 3:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Num++, replying your post #28,

 

Fromm’s assertion is a metaphysical statement: "the only purpose of life is life".  If he builds a metaphysical statement prescinding from metaphysics, well, then it’s obviously irrelevant, a tautology (your “non-contradictory singularity”): "life is for living."

 

I think that metaphysics must be faced in basis of reason and logic (remaining aware that it can be politically manipulated), and trying to build more than tautologies.

 

Anyway, I will discuss some of Mr. Fromm’s points:

 

 

1) Man's self-awareness of his mortality introduces existential angst.


The central aspect of point 1) is not mortality, but self-awareness. To put it differently: animals do not suffer existential crises because of their lack of self-awareness. That issue must be addressed properly.

 

 

2) In trying to be rid of the angst, Man propounds "meanings of life" outside himself. 

Related to this point, one may say that Mr Fromm, who did not resort to ““meanings of  life” outside himself”, is a proof that there is possible the case of humans without existential angst, or humans with existential angst who don't need to find meanings of life “outside himself.”

 

 

3) This "Other-significance" inevitably results in authoritarianism/dehumanization.

  



 

Point 3), specially by using the word “inevitability” is simply not true. We all know Theist individuals who are not dehumanized or authoritarians.

 

Moreover, the reverse is also possible: there have been Atheist individuals who did behave in authoritarian/dehumanized ways (e.g., Stalin, Mao, Hitler).

 

 

Point 4), which says “you believe in God because you are weak”, is a poor argument. Atheism can also be interpreted as a weakness: a way to embrace moral relativism in order to justify self-indulgence.

 

In reference to point 5), he is again wrong: not sacrificing individuality is compatible with some “outer” (I would say different than egotistic) purposes in life.

 

Best wishes,

 

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/05, 7:17am)


Post 30

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel Català, I'll address the points you pointed out point for point, even as I sense a language problem pointing at us. I still point you to reading Fromm himself if you want to really get his point. [it's a mental tic...]

1) No surprise here. Fromm has been labeled an existentialist by some - this is only a restatement of Exisentialism's basic premise.

2) "...humans with existential angst who don't need to find meanings of life 'outside himself'” is exactly what Fromm's 'project' is. He is not trying to make the case that everybody needs his psychotherapy. As for "humans without existential angst," which should be taken to mean those who have never had the angst - they're either lucky for being outside the existentialist orbit or they're living the unexamined life.

3) The sentence "This 'Other-significance' inevitably results in authoritarianism/dehumanization." is to be taken to apply to nation-states, not individuals. Fromm is making the point that when societies run on an 'Other-significance' ethic, the result will be authoritarianism/dehumanization.

You say, "there have been Atheist individuals who did behave in authoritarian/dehumanized ways (e.g., Stalin, Mao, Hitler)." This equates Atheism with self-directedness, a mistake. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were 'other-directed' men since they sought personal fulfillment by lusting after social domination. Obviously, the communist ethic is 'other-directed' even if atheist.

4) The counter-argument you provided is incorrect. I'll show by taking a syllogistic tack:

You take this as a poor argument: “you believe in God because you are weak” by stating "Atheism can also be interpreted as a weakness."

let P = "belief in God"
let Q = "weakness"

If you seek to falsify P ⇒ Q, you must prove P ⇒ ∼Q, instead you went ∼P ⇒ Q.

This is similar to disagreeing with the statement "a duck is a bird" by saying "not a duck can also be a bird" - an obvious fallacy.

And if we confine the objection to Christianity - there are more than enough references to cite the weakness of man in the Bible. Fromm's stand here is not insubstantial.

5) You said, "...not sacrificing individuality is compatible with some “outer” (I would say different than egotistic) purposes in life."

Fromm could probably agree with you here that individuality ≠ egotism. At this point, I'll see more disagreement with objectivists (this 'equation' is material enough for another thread or two). It would be interesting if any fully developed philosophical system has evolved a non-egotistic individualist ethic.

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel,

A factual correction: Hitler was not an Atheist. Hitler imposed theocratic regimes on several Nazi satellites (Slovakia, Croatia, Vichy France) and always identified himself in his own writings as a Christian and defender of Christendom. The only source for allegations that Hitler was an Atheist is "Hitler's Table Talk," a notorious forgery based on the alleged memoirs of pathological lier Rudolf Hoess.

Stalin's Atheism is also questionable. Stalin studied in a seminary for the Orthodox Christian priesthood, and supported himself by working for the Tzarist secret police as an infiltrator assigned to Communist cells. Even as dictator of the Soviet Union, Stalin never denounced Orthodox Christianity or endorsed Atheism. Stalin restored the Orthodox Christian Church as the established religion of Russia, put the Orthodox Christian priesthood on government salaries etc.

Now, if you want to show that at least some historical monsters were Atheists, you will find some actual evidence for Mao and Pol Pot. There is no corresponding evidence on either Hitler or Stalin.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/05, 10:35pm)


Post 32

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 6:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Adam! I will look for more info in what you say about Hitler's and Stalin's Theism.

Anyway, my point is still valid by consideting Mao or, as you said, Pol Pot: Theism (or Atheism) and authoritarianism/dehumanzation are not correlated.

Best regards,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/06, 6:49am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/06, 7:02am)


Post 33

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 6:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Num++,

I was not trying to disprove 4), for the simple fact that some individuals (typically unconsciously) accept Theism as an anxiolytic, so to speak. My point is that, Atheism can also be an anxiolytic. So I am saying that point 4) does not involve an exclusive correlation of 'mental weakness' with 'other-significance'.

(Besides, it's obvious that a lot in the Christian dogma does not stand the test of reason and reality.)


 "Fromm is making the point that when societies run on an 'Other-significance' ethic, the result will be authoritarianism/dehumanization."

It's possible that there would be no viable society without an 'Other-siginificance' ethic. Another interesting issue.


"Fromm could probably agree with you here that individuality [is not equal to] egotism. At this point, I'll see more disagreement with objectivists (this 'equation' is material enough for another thread or two)."

I think so. Objectivism sees egoism and greed as good things. To me, self-esteem and ambition are enough.


"It would be interesting if any fully developed philosophical system has evolved a non-egotistic individualist ethic."

I think Judaism is a way of life with an individualist, non-egotistic ethic. Nonetheless, it also includes some Altruist ('other-significance') components in relation to mankind, to Jewry and, obviously, to a Creator.
My view is that altruism and individualism are not necessarily opposed. An analogy in 'the field' of feelings: pleasure and pain can be experienced at the same time --in example, while climbing a mountain--, and both are useful and good to have!

Best regards,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/07, 12:52am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/07, 3:11am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.