Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational
Showing posts with label Moral codes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moral codes. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Objectivism is it a closed or open system? Case Closed
I have written on previous Objectvism based articles that there is two different ways to look at the philosophy. One way being that it is a closed system and cannot have anything added or removed to it. The other way is as an open system open to change and revision while still being called Objectivism. Some people think the split is only about associating with libertarians, but, that is not the case it is two different ways of looking at the philosophy as a whole. However, what is the correct answer? Is it an open system open to revision, change and new additions? Or is it a closed system and only The Philosophy as discovered/espoused by Ayn Rand nothing more or less?
No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.
It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.
Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.
Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.
To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;
Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.
I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.
No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.
It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.
Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.
Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.
To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;
The "closed system" view of Objectivism just asks that people respect Ayn Rand's philosophy as her own creation – and differentiate it from their own or others' ideas. Contrary to the advocates of the "open system," that approach doesn't lead to insularity, dogmatism, or intolerance.
Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.
I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.
The Objectivist Ethics ; not what you might think they are.
Morality is the recognition of the fact that as mortal beings with a rational, volitional consciousness, we need to adopt and practice certain principles in order to live.
Living beings clearly act to achieve particular values by particular means. Their actions are aimed at specific ends " namely, their survival and reproduction. But the question of purpose does not arise for them either because their actions are automatic, determined by instinct. They cannot choose, as men do, to live by one means or another, to be carnivores or herbivores, to live or die. Unlike non-living entities, they have various values, such as food, reproduction, and shelter, but they have no means to choose which values to achieve or which course of action to take to achieve them beyond their immediate environment.
Like all living organisms, man can be distinguished from non-living matter by the fact that in order to remain alive, he must act to attain the values needed for his survival (such as food, water, shelter, clothes.) For animals, which operate entirely on the perceptual level, this guidance comes automatically through their facility of instinct. Man does not have any automatic means of attaining the values needed for his life. He may have urges (hunger, thirst, etc) but he has no automatic means of fulfilling them. Unlike animals, human beings lack any kind of innate ideas or instinct - we learn our values and ideas from your experience of reality. We are the creators of our own mental nature - but we have no power over our metaphysical nature - we can refuse to recognize that we need food to live - but that does not change the fact that we are mortal beings who need food to live.
As a conceptual being, his survival depends on correctly using reason to identify and attain the values necessary for his life. As a volitional being, his thinking is neither automatic nor infallible, but is an active process that requires a constant focus on correctly identifying the facts of reality and applying them to achieve the values needed for his well-being. Unlike the automatic function of animal instinct, man must choose to think, " and his thoughts will determine his actions, his values, his emotions, and his character. The primary choice of every individual " to think or not" corresponds to his primary alternative " to live or not. His own life is the primary moral value of each individual" whether he chooses to accept it or not.
Rational self-interest, or egoism is therefore the proper morality each man must adopt if he wishes to live " the application of his reason to achieve the values needed for his survival. A man may choose not to think or to reject his life, but to the extent he does so, he chooses to act towards his death. Egoism is not a virtue by itself - simply knowing that one should act selfishly provides no guide to action. One must use reason to derive virtues, which are specific principles for practicing rationality in all areas of one's life.
Objectivism, however, does not list "selfishness" among its official virtues. The "values" officially recognized by Objectivism are "reason," "purpose," and "self-esteem," and the "virtues" by which these are achieved are said to be "rationality", "productiveness," and "pride."
Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some other ultimate purpose. In particular it rejects as immoral any variant of what it calls "altruism" — by which it means, essentially, any ethical doctrine according to which a human being must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, every ethical or moral action has the agent as its primary beneficiary.
Objectivism especially opposes any ethical demand for sacrifice. Objectivism uses this term in a special sense: a "sacrifice", according to its Objectivist definition, is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one. (In other worlds of discourse, for example baseball and chess, the term is used to mean the giving up of a lesser or shorter-term value for the sake of a greater or longer-term one. Objectivism does not regard such an exchange as a genuine "sacrifice.")
Not all superficially self-interested actions count as moral, however. Objectivism espouses an ethic of genuine self-interest — that is, of choices and actions that genuinely do promote one's life qua human being, not merely those that we think or hope may do so. The Objectivist ethic can be called one of "rational self-interest" (rational egoism) on the grounds that human beings must discover, through reason, what genuinely is of value to them.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Ethics&oldid=9287"
Living beings clearly act to achieve particular values by particular means. Their actions are aimed at specific ends " namely, their survival and reproduction. But the question of purpose does not arise for them either because their actions are automatic, determined by instinct. They cannot choose, as men do, to live by one means or another, to be carnivores or herbivores, to live or die. Unlike non-living entities, they have various values, such as food, reproduction, and shelter, but they have no means to choose which values to achieve or which course of action to take to achieve them beyond their immediate environment.
Like all living organisms, man can be distinguished from non-living matter by the fact that in order to remain alive, he must act to attain the values needed for his survival (such as food, water, shelter, clothes.) For animals, which operate entirely on the perceptual level, this guidance comes automatically through their facility of instinct. Man does not have any automatic means of attaining the values needed for his life. He may have urges (hunger, thirst, etc) but he has no automatic means of fulfilling them. Unlike animals, human beings lack any kind of innate ideas or instinct - we learn our values and ideas from your experience of reality. We are the creators of our own mental nature - but we have no power over our metaphysical nature - we can refuse to recognize that we need food to live - but that does not change the fact that we are mortal beings who need food to live.
As a conceptual being, his survival depends on correctly using reason to identify and attain the values necessary for his life. As a volitional being, his thinking is neither automatic nor infallible, but is an active process that requires a constant focus on correctly identifying the facts of reality and applying them to achieve the values needed for his well-being. Unlike the automatic function of animal instinct, man must choose to think, " and his thoughts will determine his actions, his values, his emotions, and his character. The primary choice of every individual " to think or not" corresponds to his primary alternative " to live or not. His own life is the primary moral value of each individual" whether he chooses to accept it or not.
Rational self-interest, or egoism is therefore the proper morality each man must adopt if he wishes to live " the application of his reason to achieve the values needed for his survival. A man may choose not to think or to reject his life, but to the extent he does so, he chooses to act towards his death. Egoism is not a virtue by itself - simply knowing that one should act selfishly provides no guide to action. One must use reason to derive virtues, which are specific principles for practicing rationality in all areas of one's life.
Objectivism, however, does not list "selfishness" among its official virtues. The "values" officially recognized by Objectivism are "reason," "purpose," and "self-esteem," and the "virtues" by which these are achieved are said to be "rationality", "productiveness," and "pride."
Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some other ultimate purpose. In particular it rejects as immoral any variant of what it calls "altruism" — by which it means, essentially, any ethical doctrine according to which a human being must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, every ethical or moral action has the agent as its primary beneficiary.
Objectivism especially opposes any ethical demand for sacrifice. Objectivism uses this term in a special sense: a "sacrifice", according to its Objectivist definition, is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one. (In other worlds of discourse, for example baseball and chess, the term is used to mean the giving up of a lesser or shorter-term value for the sake of a greater or longer-term one. Objectivism does not regard such an exchange as a genuine "sacrifice.")
Not all superficially self-interested actions count as moral, however. Objectivism espouses an ethic of genuine self-interest — that is, of choices and actions that genuinely do promote one's life qua human being, not merely those that we think or hope may do so. The Objectivist ethic can be called one of "rational self-interest" (rational egoism) on the grounds that human beings must discover, through reason, what genuinely is of value to them.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Ethics&oldid=9287"
The Objectivist Metaphysics ; a dedication to Reality as it is.
Because Objectivism is an integrated philosophy with a hierarchical structure, all other branches of Objectivism rest on Objectivist metaphysics. Metaphysics includes those basic facts about reality which one must understand before one can learn Epistemology, because one cannot attempt to study knowledge until one has established that there is a reality to know.
Objectivist metaphysics relies on three primary axioms which are (in order of primacy): Existence, Identity (and its corollary Causality), and Consciousness. These axioms can be summarized as follows:
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Metaphysics&oldid=9213"
Objectivist metaphysics relies on three primary axioms which are (in order of primacy): Existence, Identity (and its corollary Causality), and Consciousness. These axioms can be summarized as follows:
- Existence
- Something exists, including the things I perceive.
- Identity (and Causality)
- Everything is something specific and acts according to its nature.
- Consciousness
- I am conscious of the things I perceive and my perceptions reflect reality.
The Axioms
The Primacy of Existence
The Primacy of Existence premise says that reality is objective: the universe exists independently of the particular psychological states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual cognizers. This view was also held by Aristotle. Objectivism distinguishes The Primacy of Existence from the Primacy of Consciousness. The Primacy of Consciousness holds that consciousness is prior to existence. It is the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's self. Objectivism rejects this view: it holds that objects present themselves to consciousness in such a way that they must be genuinely "other," that is, non-identical to one's own consciousness. This axiom is the basis of the Objectivist refutation of both theism and idealism. Though Objectivism grants that some particular existents are mental (e.g., minds, thoughts, desires, intentions), it holds that, if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental. (This argument is laid out in Chapter 1 of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).The Law of Identity
The Law of Identity states that everything that exists has an identity. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific nature, consisting of various properties or characteristics (as Rand wrote, "to be is to be something in particular"). Moreover, Objectivism holds that the properties and characteristics in question must exist each in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means finitude. According to Objectivism, then, everything that exists has a specific finite nature. To have a specific, finite nature, is incompatible with having a self-contradictory nature. Therefore, the whole of reality is noncontradictory; though contradictions might exist in thought, there are no contradictions in the real world.The Law of Causality
Each thing's specific nature determines how it acts. This principle is Objectivism's formulation of the Law of Causality; it is held to be a corollary of the Law of Identity (see above). Contemporary philosophers define the Law of Causality differently, e.g., as "Every event has a cause." Objectivism rejects this contemporary definition because it leads to paradoxes concerning free will and cosmology. A further implication of the Objectivist account of causality concerns explanation: since genuine explanation is causal, nature can only be explained in terms of nature (i.e., without reference to the supernatural).The Axiom of Consciousness
This axiom states that consciousness is an irreducible primary. It cannot be analyzed in terms of other concepts and it is at the foundation of all knowledge. While we can study the faculty of consciousness, we cannot study what it means to be conscious as such. She writes that "consciousness is conscious," affirming both that the thinker is conscious and that he is conscious of something external to himself. She writes, "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms" (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1015). One cannot be self-conscious without first being aware of something other than one's awareness. Rand's axioms of consciousness is different from Descartes' Cogito principle in that Descartes' Cogito is an a priori principle, while Rand's axiom of consciousness is a self-evidency only available in perception.Mind and body
Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, viewing man as a single integrated being, with both the mental and physical realms having particular causal properties.Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Metaphysics&oldid=9213"
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Yaron Brook Show | Objectivist Morality; Morality without God
This video was created by Christian Jackson. Taken from: Yaron Brook Show: Interview with Philosopher Ben Bayer-Consipiracy Theories+++
Streamed on Sept. 18 2018 You can see the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuiJQ...
#MoralityWithoutGod #RationalMorality #Morality
Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Jim Browning | Faking GMail support
Scammers at D3BK Webservices in Noida India (http://d3bk.in) have managed to get their fake adverts right at the top of Google's search engine and they are making a fortune by scamming innocent callers.
This video shows how their scam works and how they manage to get their website and phone number at the top of Google's search results.
Friday, March 15, 2019
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Another busy week for me
Once again my week has been busy with meetings and therapy sessions. Things are personally going quite well these days. I do get my own psychiatrist on April 1st and my new medications seem to be working well still. I have not come out as an Objectivist yet to anyone from the men's group. I have left little hints a bread trail if you will. I mentioned individualism vs collectivism a couple times.
I will continue to drop hints whenever subjects surrounding philosophy come up in the meetings. I might just let the facilitators know before one of these meetings. It is nothing I am ashamed of being known as. I also will spend tomorrow resting up as I have no meetings tomorrow. I am watching American Ninja at this time something I have not seen in a long time. It is just as good as ever
Signing off for the night,
Chris M.
Friday, March 8, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Yaron Brook | Being Selfish: The Virtue of Selfishness
This lecture was given in August 17, 2012 in Austin, TX at the Men's Conference hosted by the 21 Convention.
Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Greg Salmieri - How are These Ideas Radical?
This video was created by Christian Jackson. Taken from Objectivist Living: Interview w/ Philosopher Greg Salmieri Mar. 18 2018
You can see the full video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6tSG...
#selfinterest #Altruism #Selfishness
Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Religion and Morality
From the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in the classroom to federal prohibition of the funding of stem cell research to the Terri Schiavo case, religion is playing an increasing role in America’s public life. The advocates of religion claim that only religion can restore values to America — by combating moral skepticism and relativism with an absolute view of right and wrong, applicable to everyone. If God is dead, it is often thought today, then everything would be permitted. But , Onkar Ghate asks, does morality rest on religion? Can it rest on religion? Are moral absolutes possible with religion? Without religion? What approach to morality can actually bring values to American culture? These are the questions this talk addresses.
Recorded October 18, 2006
---
Subscribe to ARI's channel: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Headquartered in Irvine, California, ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.
ARI is composed of a dedicated board of directors and an energetic staff of more than 45 people. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
Explore ARI: http://www.AynRand.org
Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst
Like ARI on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AynRandInstitute
Friday, March 1, 2019
The Rubin Report | Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Helping the Poor, Capitalism, and Human Nature
Ayn Rand's philosophy on social safety nets, capitalism, human nature and more.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Objectivism for beginners in Philosophy (a primer for newcomers to philosophical thinking)
This is intended as an article for people whom know nothing or at least very little in regards to broader philosophy in general. It will be both an intro to philosophical thinking as well as an introduction specifically to Objectivism. There is no intention in the reader coming out of the article a new Objectivist by any means. In fact, in order to actually be able to give yourself said title you would need to be able to see the philosophy is grounded in reality and only take on the label following seeing it is correct in reality or not. Objectivism is not a faith like a religion it is a reality based philosophy and thus for the title to be truthful you need to see the truth in its principals first.
Let us start with the first region of philosophy and that is the domain of metaphysics or the nature of reality. All philosophies have something to say about the nature of reality and different ones say different things. Some are coherent with reality and others are in fact incorrect about the nature of reality. However, metaphysics is this crucial aspect of our worldview. We all have such a worldview even if it is not explicit we pick up ones implicitly from others around us. Such is the fact with all philosophical thinking. We all have one even if it is just copying the thinking of those around us. (Even if that view is dead wrong.)
Metaphysics means asking yourself the crucial question does reality even exist? Is there a reality and if so what is its properties? What comes first consciousness or existence? Some people will answer reality is subjective. Some people like myself will say reality is objective and external to our consciousness.
Existence does exist outside of just our wants and desires. The real world is outside there and reality itself exists regardless of ones wishing it did not. If I jump at a wall I will no go through it like a character in a work of fiction where the laws of nature need not apply. Reality is in other words objective and not subjective. Things outside you exist as they do irregardless of what you would like them to be. The role of your consciousness is to look out at existence and learn how to navigate in your current environment using your reason/facts/knowledge of your environment. Consciousness is not primary existence is primary and your means of survival in your current environment is your reason. The fact that we are an animal that has the ability to be rational as its main differentiating factor from other species of Apes in the Animal Kingdom.
Reason brings us to the second level in philosophical thinking epistemology or how one gains knowledge of existence or reality. Reason is our means of taking facts about the world and integrating them together in a concise whole. It is our means of using logic to guide our lives as opposed wanting the facts to change to match what you wish them to be. Other philosophies will come to different conclusions, but, they would be wrong. We cannot just act on mere whim and not think through our actions. This level is all about knowledge and whim is not knowledge. Nor is instincts which were evolved in a different environment. Reality is primary and thus reason is our primary means of long term survival.
This brings us to the third level or aspect of philosophy. Ethics what ethics would or should one live by and many different philosophies with give you different answers. However, following the hierarchy nature of philosophical thinking will bring you to your ethical destination. As the reality is that we all have our own mind and must live our own lives. As we need to take certain actions in order to live. Mainly we need to pursue certain things to live we all have values we need. We need to act to gain and keep them. However, it is the individual that needs to pursue values to live there is no collective mind or collective stomach. Thus the ethical attribute of philosophy in accordance with the level below it would be rational long term flourishing of each individual person. AKA nurturing the self AKA "Rational Long Term" Selfishness or Rational Egoism.
This does not mean one condones throat cutting or harming other people or their property. Nor does it mean that one condones using other people as your means to an end. The exact opposite as all minds are individual only individuals truly exist. Society is just a bunch of individuals living together that come together for various reasons. However, in the end we are all individual minds, individual souls if you wish to use such terminology. Which means it is immoral to use others and instead each individual mind that exists on the Earth is an end in themselves to pursue their own happiness in life. The only ethical social system is where no-one is sacrificing others to themselves nor sacrificing themselves and their values to others. All actions are taken as mutual exchange to mutual benefit and voluntary. The initiation of removal of consent, the initiation of coercion on other people is banned in an ethical social system.
This leads to the next branch which is social or political systems. Only one is constantly coherent with the previous levels of philosophy in my view. However, lots of other philosophies will and do come up with other views other than my own. The important part is that it is in the hierarchy at a different level and not primary, but, a conclusion based on broader philosophical considerations. The only social system consistent with a world where you are left alone to live as you see fit is a Genuine free market AKA Capitalism. This is because it is a social system that lets peaceful live as they see fit and in which all property is privately owned. Meaning you are able to keep the fruits of your labor and any rightful and just property you have obtained by creating it or trading it with other people.
The final area of philosophy is aesthetics or art. Many people will come to many different conclusions based on their broader philosophical outlooks. This is simply a beginner primer in philosophy and Objectivism. There is no obligation or duty on your part to agree with Objectivism based on this outline. However, I do hope this at least makes you realize the importance of philosophy in all of our human lives on this Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)