Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A Rare Semi-Rational Tom on "Objectivism"!!?!

Expand Messages
  • Bob Wynman
    Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@wynman.com) OK, Tom I ll probably regret it pretty soon, but put on your rarely seen pretense of
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) OK, Tom I'll probably regret it pretty soon, but put on your rarely seen pretense of rationality, so, yeah, you've suckered me in & I'll make an attempt at a rational response.

      --bob

      :-)
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: AudioLaw@...
      Subject: Re: So, What's "Objectivism"?


      In a message dated 4/19/2013 10:50:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bobalou@... writes:
      Objectivism, holds that:

      1.. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Of course, identifying what the fact are remains a problem. Objectivists have as many feelings, wishes, hopes and fears as anyone, and such feeling routinely lead to denying facts that they don't like.

      2.. Well, Tom, there are two ways to discover & verify facts, truth:

      A--the Scientific Method &
      B--everything else

      I prefer the Scientific Method. And you?
      --bob
      Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. Like "facts," "reason" is often in the eye of the beholder. Defining "reason" as the faculty which identifies and integrates the material presented by man's senses allows Objectivists to exclude from "reason" anything that the decide that they have not "identified" or "integrated" into their senses. The most common things not "identified" or "integrated" are facts that the Objectivists don't like, or that undemine Objectivists' predetermined conclusions.

      3.. Interesting opinion, Tom .... based on what? --bob
      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 concept that man exists only for his own sake isn't a fact, it's a wish or feeling of Objectivists. It is a conclusion, crafted to justify selfish action.

      4.. --Either man exists for his own sake or for others, Is it your conclusion that he lives for the sake of others (I'd expect a "yes" here, Tom,if you're to remain consistent in your collectivist/altruist posture)? And, yes, of course, given that man exists for his own sake & owns his own life (again I suspect you'd prefer that the State, or others own your life, yes?) then rational self-interest, which you choose to call greed,owing to it's connotation of sacrifice of others for self, which is part of YOUR creed, not ours, is the proper action for humans. --bob
      e.. It is equally odd to cast this wish or feeling in terms of "moral purpose", in a philosophy that defines personal greed as the only "moral" thing.

      f.. --Yes, rational self-interest, which you choose to call greed,owing to it's connotation of sacrifice of others for self, which is part of YOUR creed, not ours, is the proper action for humans. -- bob

      7.. 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 man’s rights; 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. The focus on "physical force" is a central theme in Objectivism. Objectivists hold that any kind of intellectual force, particularly lying, concealing truths, and misleading people, are legitimate (even necessary) tools of pure capitalism. Because lying is at the heart of Objectivist concepts of "Voluntary" business transactions, it is only force that they find objectionable

      8.. --Welcome back! It's refreshing to have the "Real" AudioLie back on board, fabricating strawmen, misrepresentations & untruths with which to label any proponent of freedom. No, tom, fraud is "intellectual coercion, or force, perhaps worse than physical force, since so many folks can't recognize it as readily as they can see/feel physical force. Here's Rand on the subject:

      9.. "A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.



      “The Nature of Government,”
      The Virtue of Selfishness, 111"

      10.. . It the real world, governments exist to protect people from snakeoil salesmen, Bernie Madoff wannabees and ponzi scheme promoters as well as from foreign invaders.

      -- tom in the real world, the State, pure force, exists to provide us with everlasting war, poverty and servitude. The Voluntary Society offers lasting peace, prosperity and freedom. We've noticed which you favor, Tom.

      Thank you for the rare opportunity to respond to a few semi-rational points.

      The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is, of course, the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism
      - Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science [1962]

      The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

      -- Winston Churchill

      --bob
    • Ben Joseph
      Ben Joseph (rkelly_pleasedontpeeonme@yahoo.com) Dear Bob, et al., Tom (I believe) originally wrote:   Like facts, reason is often in the eye of the
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Ben Joseph (rkelly_pleasedontpeeonme@...) Dear Bob, et al.,



        Tom (I believe) originally wrote:  "Like "facts," "reason" is often in the eye of the beholder.  Defining "reason" as the faculty which identifies and integrates the material presented by man's senses allows Objectivists to exclude from "reason" anything that the decide that they have not "identified" or "integrated" into their senses.  The most common things not "identified" or "integrated" are facts that the Objectivists don't like, or that undemine Objectivists' predetermined conclusions."

        Bob (I believe) responded:  "Interesting opinion, Tom .... based on what? --bob"




        Me:  Tom's point seems to be that while objectivism as an idea has merit, individual objectivists are prone to the same faulty errors of perception, self-deception, and self-fulfilling prophecies as other human beings.  It's difficult, imo, to combine morality--a rather subjective issue--and something called "objectivism," which is truth independent of our perceptions of morality.

        In other words, "reason is often in the eye of the beholder."



        Bob wrote:  "--Either man exists for his own sake or for others,..."



        Me:  False dilemma.

        Man simply exists.  That ought to be the default objectivist point of view if, indeed, we are operating from the standpoint of that which is absolutely true independent of man's interpretations.

        Sometimes a man might do for others (live for others, if you will) and other times he might do for himself (live for himself, if you will).  The either/or, there, creates a false dilemma which contradicts the objectivist imperative (i.e., to have a perspective of truth which is independent of interpretive elements).

        Sincerely,

        Ben


        Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) OK, Tom I'll
        probably regret it pretty soon, but put on your rarely seen pretense of
        rationality, so, yeah, you've suckered me in & I'll make an attempt at a
        rational response.
         
        --bob
         
        :-)
        ----- Original Message -----
        >From: AudioLaw@...
        >Subject: Re: So, What's "Objectivism"?
        >
        >In a message dated 4/19/2013 10:50:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bobalou@... writes:
        >Objectivism, holds that:
        >> * Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.  Of course, identifying what the fact are remains a problem.  Objectivists have as many feelings, wishes, hopes and fears as anyone, and such feeling routinely lead to denying facts that they don't like. 
        >> * Well, Tom, there are two ways to discover & verify facts, truth:
        >> 
        >>A--the Scientific Method &
        >>B--everything else
        >> 
        >>I prefer the Scientific Method.  And you?
        >>--bob
        >>Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.  Like "facts," "reason" is often in the eye of the beholder.  Defining "reason" as the faculty which identifies and integrates the material presented by man's senses allows Objectivists to exclude from "reason" anything that the decide that they have not "identified" or "integrated" into their senses.  The most common things not "identified" or "integrated" are facts that the Objectivists don't like, or that undemine Objectivists' predetermined conclusions. 
        >> * Interesting opinion, Tom .... based on what? --bob
        >>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 concept that man exists only for his own sake isn't a fact, it's a wish or feeling of Objectivists.  It is a conclusion, crafted to justify selfish action.
        >> 1. --Either man exists for his own sake or for others,  Is it your conclusion that he lives for the sake of others (I'd expect a "yes" here, Tom,if you're to remain consistent in your collectivist/altruist posture)?  And, yes, of course, given that man exists for his own sake & owns his own life (again I suspect you'd prefer that the State, or others own your life, yes?) then rational self-interest, which you choose to call greed,owing to it's connotation of sacrifice of others for self, which is part of YOUR creed, not ours, is the proper action for humans. --bob
        > *   It is equally odd to cast this wish or feeling in terms of "moral purpose", in a philosophy that defines personal greed as the only "moral" thing. 
        > * --Yes, rational self-interest, which you choose to call greed,owing to it's connotation of sacrifice of others for self, which is part of YOUR creed, not ours, is the proper action for humans. -- bob
        > * 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 man’s rights; 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.  The focus on "physical force" is a central theme in Objectivism.  Objectivists hold that any kind of intellectual force, particularly lying,
        concealing truths, and misleading people, are legitimate (even necessary) tools of pure capitalism.  Because lying is at the heart of Objectivist concepts of "Voluntary" business transactions, it is only force that they find objectionable
        > * --Welcome back!  It's refreshing to have the "Real" AudioLie back on board, fabricating strawmen, misrepresentations & untruths with which to label any proponent of freedom.  No, tom, fraud is "intellectual coercion, or force, perhaps worse than physical force, since so many folks can't recognize it as readily as they can see/feel physical force.  Here's Rand on the subject:
        > * "A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.
        >“The Nature of Government,”
        >The Virtue of Selfishness, 111"
        > * .    It the real world, governments exist to protect people from snakeoil salesmen, Bernie Madoff wannabees and ponzi scheme promoters as well as from foreign invaders. 
        >-- tom in the real world, the State, pure force, exists to provide us with everlasting war, poverty and servitude.  The Voluntary Society offers lasting peace, prosperity and freedom.  We've noticed which you favor, Tom.
        >Thank you for the rare opportunity to respond to a few semi-rational points.
        >The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is, of course, the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism
        >- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of
        Economic Science [1962]
        >The inherent vice  of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of  socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
        >-- Winston 
        Churchill
        >--bob
      • Bob Wynman
        Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@wynman.com) Thank you, Ben. --bob Ben Joseph (rkelly_pleasedontpeeonme@yahoo.com) Dear Bob, et al., Tom
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) Thank you, Ben.

          --bob

          Ben Joseph (rkelly_pleasedontpeeonme@...) Dear Bob, et al.,
          Tom (I believe) originally wrote: "Like "facts," "reason" is often in the eye of the beholder. Defining "reason" as the faculty which identifies and integrates the material presented by man's senses allows Objectivists to exclude from "reason" anything that the decide that they have not "identified" or "integrated" into their senses. The most common things not "identified" or "integrated" are facts that the Objectivists don't like, or that undemine Objectivists' predetermined conclusions."


          Bob (I believe) responded: "Interesting opinion, Tom .... based on what? --bob"







          Me: Tom's point seems to be that while objectivism as an idea has merit, individual objectivists are prone to the same faulty errors of perception, self-deception, and self-fulfilling prophecies as other human beings. It's difficult, imo, to combine morality--a rather subjective issue--and something called "objectivism," which is truth independent of our perceptions of morality.


          In other words, "reason is often in the eye of the beholder."






          Bob wrote: "--Either man exists for his own sake or for others,..."






          Me: False dilemma.


          Man simply exists. That ought to be the default objectivist point of view if, indeed, we are operating from the standpoint of that which is absolutely true independent of man's interpretations.


          Sometimes a man might do for others (live for others, if you will) and other times he might do for himself (live for himself, if you will). The either/or, there, creates a false dilemma which contradicts the objectivist imperative (i.e., to have a perspective of truth which is independent of interpretive elements).


          Sincerely,


          Ben
        • audiolaw@...
          Automatic Lie, a liberty loathing loony lowdown larcenous litigious little ol LA living lying lightfooted liberal lawyer lacking legitimacy (AudioLaw@aol.com)
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 21, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Automatic Lie, a liberty loathing loony lowdown larcenous litigious little'ol LA living lying lightfooted liberal lawyer lacking legitimacy (AudioLaw@...)
            Bob Wynman:

            Thanks for responding without the usual pretence about
            misrepresentations.

            I too believe in the scientific method. I think that it lines up well
            with a concept called "Occam's Razor", the concept that states: "among
            competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be
            selected."

            But even in this apparent agreement, we stumble. Scientific Method has
            been given a pretty clear process by scientists for centuries. That
            process is:

            1. Define a question
            2. Gather information and resources (observe)
            3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
            4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data
            in a _reproducible_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
            manner
            5. Analyze the data
            6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting
            point for new hypothesis
            7. Publish results
            8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
            The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step method goes from point 3
            to 6 back to 3 again. (I copy this statement of process from Wikipedia,
            without including all the citations to authority included on that page.)
            This long accepted Scientific Method allows for gathering information and
            data and analyzing it with the possibility that it will completely
            contradict the hypothesis.
            We can contrast this scientific, objectively verifiable method that leads
            to reproducible results with a different "Scientific Method" defined by
            religious leader, Andrew Galambos. Galambos defined his "Scientific Method"
            as:
            Scientific Method

            1. Observation (for gathering data)

            2. Hypothesis formulation

            3. Extrapolation

            4. Observation (for corroboration)

            Plus Occam's Razor. (I have copied the Galambist definition, verbatim, off
            of the Wynman.com website.)
            Note that for Galamboid religionists, their "Scientific Method" does not
            include any data analysis. And leads only to "corroboration" of their
            prophet's original pronouncement ("hypothesis").
            Thus for non-Galamboid religionists, "Facts" are determined by a
            Scientific Method which gathers data and analyses it to test hypotheses, and that
            the original hypotheses can be disproven as well as proven. But in contrast,
            the "Scientific Method" used by religious Galamboids involves NO analysis
            or testing of the prophet's hypotheses, but only "corroboration" of what
            the prophet preached.
            The religious definition also includes "Occam's Razor". Which tells us
            that we should accept the simplest explanation of things, rather than looking
            for complex explanations that require alls sorts of complicating
            assumptions.
            Occam's Razor tells us that when someone promises that a "Voluntary
            Society" is possible (or even "scientifically provable" [again quoting the
            Wynman.com site]) we should analyze that promise by eliminating all of the
            "assumptions" (ie: government is bad, corporations never do wrong things, no one
            ever voluntarily cheats in business, etc.) and then look to see if there
            are any, or even one single, demonstrable fact that support the promise that a
            "Voluntary Society" could possibly exist, or solve all of the world's
            problems.
            It seems pretty clear that if one uses a definition of "Scientific Method"
            that calls for simply "corroborating" a prophet's religious
            pronouncements, simply because the prophet made tem, then that method has no connection
            in the real world for the search for facts.
            So, I accept that Bob Wynman prefers the Galambist definition of
            "Scientific Method". But that method has NOTHING to do with gathering, testing and
            verifying facts. All it is a method for ratifying the prophet's sermons.
            It might be worthy of note that the Wynman website also quotes the
            prophet, Galambos, as defining morality:
            Moral

            "Absence of coercion."
            Thus, any business practice that merely involves lying, fraud, trickery,
            misleading, concealing information, etc. is MORAL.
            This makes it much clearer why Galamboid businessmen are so strident in
            their opposition to truth in lending laws, pollution control laws,
            environmental protection laws, anti-theft laws, traffic safety laws,
            anti-discrimination laws, etc.


            Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) Well, Tom, there are two ways to discover & verify facts, truth:

            A--the Scientific Method &
            B--everything else

            I prefer the Scientific Method. And you?
            --bob
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.