DReaver13
5th August 2004, 13:15
This post has become outdated. I don't want it to be viewed and people still think these are my finalized points. Still, I'll leave it for reference.
Are there universal truths, universal rights & wrongs, or universal facts? The idea that yes, there are, forms the very foundation of objectivism and therefore capitalism. This extends from the thread on moral relativism and takes the crtique of objectivism one step further.
Marx says that the material world, known to us by our senses and explored by science, is real. The development of the world is due to its own natural laws, without any recourse to the supernatural. There is only one world, the material one. Thought is a product of matter (the brain) without which there can be no separate ideas. Therefore minds or ideas cannot exist in isolation apart from matter. General ideas are only reflections of the material world. "To me," wrote Marx, "the idea is nothing else than the material world reflected in the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." And further, "Social being determines consciousness". Marx's ideas say that the material world is 'real' and is interpreted by the human brain to create ideas.
A quote from capitalism.org :
Reality is that which exists. It is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary.
Things are what they are, independent of our or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions.
Or, in the immortal words of Aristotle: A is A. To be, is to be something: finite, limited, and non-contradictory.
This is my critique of objectivism :
Someone can only go as far as believing that existence exists, at least in the way that your consciousness perceives it, and you can't know that the said perception is reality. All human beings perceive their universe independently of anything else, and perception of said universe cannot prove it's existence. Relying on our five senses we cannot know anything outside of what we perceive, and we only know what we have perceived, not necessarily what is real. I saw a ghost, does that make it real?
I can understand how everything must exist in one form or another, e.g. this chair I am sat on may actually be a chair, or it may be mere electrical signals in my brain which make me perceive a chair, though the chair itself is not actually 'a chair' (i.e. a collection of atoms and molecules and material to make up a physical object).
The perception of the entire world is merely electrical signals that are passed into our brain, and these signals or interpretations are by no means definitely accurate or consistent with regards to both the individual, and from person to person. I do not believe that what is 'real' can be identified as such by humans, and therefore any laws or truths deduced from 'reality' are, by their very nature subjective. Human consciousness itself is not necessarily what we perceive it to be. Reality is absolute, but humans cannot identify what is real and what is not, and therefore cannot make arguments based on the absolute, since this "absolute" was and is formulated within a human mind. Objectivism becomes subjective once it reaches the brain.
All that I can prove is that I exist. I think therefore I am. No one can prove that they themselves exist to another person. For all I know, all other people are figments of my imagination.
Consciousness is capable of perceiving the universe and of knowing the facts of reality.
I can only see it as capable of perceiving one universe, that which one calls 'reality'. The person is capable of attempting to understand the reality in which they 'exist' through experiencing it and 'testing it out'. To suggest one can 'know' the facts of reality, and that these facts are all encompassing seems un-provable. At least one reality must exist in order for a person to percieve anything however as "minds or ideas cannot exist in isolation apart from matter".
Now, what must man do to survive? Man's sole means of survival is his mind. He must use it to grasp reality and to figure out how to survive.
Yes, reason is a man's only means of knowing 'reality' and survival may depend on this, but survival is not necessarily one's goal. What is a better fate : a short and happy life, or a long and miserable one? One may prefer extended survival, another may prefer happiness (which could be attained by any number of variables such as number of friends, good food, a big house, all dependant on the individuals goals and preferences).
Well, you might say that he could mooch off his Uncle Larry. Uncle Larry is smart; maybe he'll tell you how to survive.
Isn't Uncle Larry a personification society? Without Uncle Larry people would have to develop in isolation. Without families and schools educating new people how to survive and how to act within society, would not every succeeding generation of human beings be 'reset to zero' and have make all the previous accomplishments of mankind on their own. Without taking ideas and tools from previous generations and / or other people then our species would not progress.
Since man has the requirement to be free from the initiation of force.
On holiday I had a little think about force and started to wonder why it is completely negative. Is force completely removed from discpline? For example growing up, a child may act in immature ways or in ways that impose on others (screaming and demanding sweets for example). Force needs to be used to socialise the new generations otherwise the new generations would be far too chaotic. Also, at school, discipline must be enforced, but it is done so in the interest of the pupils and their development.
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.
Surely this is only true if humans are able to survive alone without the help from others of the same kind. This is not possible and humans must work together to survive, larger numbers often means humans are more successful. Individually humans would die without support from other humans.
Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others.
So you are telling me is that the only way to be happy is acknowledge yourself to be an outstanding selfish member of society? Yet, only the happiness from others can make us happy? Does survival alone make you happy that you have achieved survival? Happiness more often than not comes from external sources ; other people.
I'd appreciate some comrades to expand on any flaws they see in objectivist philosophy, or indeed, any counter-arguments.
Are there universal truths, universal rights & wrongs, or universal facts? The idea that yes, there are, forms the very foundation of objectivism and therefore capitalism. This extends from the thread on moral relativism and takes the crtique of objectivism one step further.
Marx says that the material world, known to us by our senses and explored by science, is real. The development of the world is due to its own natural laws, without any recourse to the supernatural. There is only one world, the material one. Thought is a product of matter (the brain) without which there can be no separate ideas. Therefore minds or ideas cannot exist in isolation apart from matter. General ideas are only reflections of the material world. "To me," wrote Marx, "the idea is nothing else than the material world reflected in the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." And further, "Social being determines consciousness". Marx's ideas say that the material world is 'real' and is interpreted by the human brain to create ideas.
A quote from capitalism.org :
Reality is that which exists. It is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary.
Things are what they are, independent of our or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions.
Or, in the immortal words of Aristotle: A is A. To be, is to be something: finite, limited, and non-contradictory.
This is my critique of objectivism :
Someone can only go as far as believing that existence exists, at least in the way that your consciousness perceives it, and you can't know that the said perception is reality. All human beings perceive their universe independently of anything else, and perception of said universe cannot prove it's existence. Relying on our five senses we cannot know anything outside of what we perceive, and we only know what we have perceived, not necessarily what is real. I saw a ghost, does that make it real?
I can understand how everything must exist in one form or another, e.g. this chair I am sat on may actually be a chair, or it may be mere electrical signals in my brain which make me perceive a chair, though the chair itself is not actually 'a chair' (i.e. a collection of atoms and molecules and material to make up a physical object).
The perception of the entire world is merely electrical signals that are passed into our brain, and these signals or interpretations are by no means definitely accurate or consistent with regards to both the individual, and from person to person. I do not believe that what is 'real' can be identified as such by humans, and therefore any laws or truths deduced from 'reality' are, by their very nature subjective. Human consciousness itself is not necessarily what we perceive it to be. Reality is absolute, but humans cannot identify what is real and what is not, and therefore cannot make arguments based on the absolute, since this "absolute" was and is formulated within a human mind. Objectivism becomes subjective once it reaches the brain.
All that I can prove is that I exist. I think therefore I am. No one can prove that they themselves exist to another person. For all I know, all other people are figments of my imagination.
Consciousness is capable of perceiving the universe and of knowing the facts of reality.
I can only see it as capable of perceiving one universe, that which one calls 'reality'. The person is capable of attempting to understand the reality in which they 'exist' through experiencing it and 'testing it out'. To suggest one can 'know' the facts of reality, and that these facts are all encompassing seems un-provable. At least one reality must exist in order for a person to percieve anything however as "minds or ideas cannot exist in isolation apart from matter".
Now, what must man do to survive? Man's sole means of survival is his mind. He must use it to grasp reality and to figure out how to survive.
Yes, reason is a man's only means of knowing 'reality' and survival may depend on this, but survival is not necessarily one's goal. What is a better fate : a short and happy life, or a long and miserable one? One may prefer extended survival, another may prefer happiness (which could be attained by any number of variables such as number of friends, good food, a big house, all dependant on the individuals goals and preferences).
Well, you might say that he could mooch off his Uncle Larry. Uncle Larry is smart; maybe he'll tell you how to survive.
Isn't Uncle Larry a personification society? Without Uncle Larry people would have to develop in isolation. Without families and schools educating new people how to survive and how to act within society, would not every succeeding generation of human beings be 'reset to zero' and have make all the previous accomplishments of mankind on their own. Without taking ideas and tools from previous generations and / or other people then our species would not progress.
Since man has the requirement to be free from the initiation of force.
On holiday I had a little think about force and started to wonder why it is completely negative. Is force completely removed from discpline? For example growing up, a child may act in immature ways or in ways that impose on others (screaming and demanding sweets for example). Force needs to be used to socialise the new generations otherwise the new generations would be far too chaotic. Also, at school, discipline must be enforced, but it is done so in the interest of the pupils and their development.
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.
Surely this is only true if humans are able to survive alone without the help from others of the same kind. This is not possible and humans must work together to survive, larger numbers often means humans are more successful. Individually humans would die without support from other humans.
Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others.
So you are telling me is that the only way to be happy is acknowledge yourself to be an outstanding selfish member of society? Yet, only the happiness from others can make us happy? Does survival alone make you happy that you have achieved survival? Happiness more often than not comes from external sources ; other people.
I'd appreciate some comrades to expand on any flaws they see in objectivist philosophy, or indeed, any counter-arguments.