For DJs who follow Objectivism

[Phyzzle]

The issue here is not Objectivism, it's your lack of understanding or your unwillingness to.

Perhaps there is some hidden meaning in Objectivism I can't grasp. All I can do is read their statements in plain English.

Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff repeatedly made statements about the human mind, in plain English, that are blatantly false.

Maybe there is some hidden subtext that maked them true. I just can't find it.

 

[Phyzzle]

When I was arguing with Nocturnal last night, I was trying to argue that Rand's view of the mind was too simplistic. I somehow ended up arguing for materialism, and against free will.

This was a foolish thing to do. It's a false dichotomy; Objectivists agree. We are atoms and molecules, AND we have free will. There is nothing to argue about.

So my point was this: the Objectivist theory of mind is too simple.

Not only is it incomplete, but it results in wrong beliefs about human behaviour.

These wrong beliefs can even be disproven by experiments, such as cognitive dissonance studies.

THAT's what I'm trying to say. Not that we're all slaves too peer pressure.

 

[Nocturnal]

Phyzzle, I'd love to see an example of an experiment which has disproved one of Objectivism's "wrong beliefs" or false principles.

 

[Phyzzle]

Phyzzle, I'd love to see an example of an experiment which has disproved one of Objectivism's "wrong beliefs" or false principles.

Objectivist position:
"The ideas you hold in your conscious mind are fed into your subconscious mind and act as instructions for its functioning. The emotions that result from this functioning can reveal its nature to you. Armed with this knowledge, you can "reprogram" your subconscious by changing the evaluations made by your conscious mind." (Edith Parker)

"Feelings are products of men's ideas and value-judgments, held consciously or subconsciously." (Leonard Peikoff)


Experiemental data:
Subconcious feelings are not propositions or judgements that can be altered.
Even when homosexuals were convinced by psychotherapy that their feelings were "definitely wrong", the feelings continued.
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

It's like they're talking about some Ideal Vulcan mind, which would be nice, if it existed.

I could write a whole essay about how Objectivism is wrong about REAL human minds.

But somebody already did.

http://www.walden3.org/Chapter 1.pdf

 

[Phyzzle]

Most Objectivist psych literature was written by Dr. Nathaniel Branden, Ayn Rand's first favorite disciple.

However, she repudiated all of his scholarly contributions when she found out he was cheating on her with a younger, hotter chick! (Seriously!)

I think Peikoff and Packer hate eachother now . . .

Who the fvck knows what Objectivism is?

All I know is,

1. Cognitive philosophy is fascinating, to me and a lot of other people. AI is one of THE pressing philosophical problems of our times.

2. Objectivists say very little about about it.

3. What they do say seems kinda stupid.

And that's why I'm not an Objectivist.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

The problem with philosophy is, they often try to apply a moral standard where there isn't any.

Do we, as humans, have any rights? I don't believe we do. Our so-called "rights" are simply laws enacted by powerful governments, enforced by armed soldiers and the police. At any time, if those powerful governments collapse, you're on your own.

The best way to illustrate our lack of rights is to look at nature. Do you think Miss Nature gives a damn about our rights? Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, volcanoes...what happened to our human rights during natural disasters?

Your rights are nothing more than laws. Your government and your armed forces make sure you have rights. Without them, you're just another helpless meatbag. And millions of meatbags die each year.

 

[RedPill]

Do we, as humans, have any rights? I don't believe we do. Our so-called "rights" are simply laws enacted by powerful governments, enforced by armed soldiers and the police. At any time, if those powerful governments collapse, you're on your own.

Rights in a legal sense really mean 'entitlements.' Rights in a philosophical context mean 'choices.' At least that's my take on it. We all have certain personal rights, which are mutually exclusive from our legal rights.

 

[Nocturnal]

I don't have time right now to go in depth on the details of Objectivism, but here is a thread where Objectivists discuss why rights exist: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=7215

 

[Phyzzle]

I agree with Objectivists, it's quite possible for rights to exist, independent of government.

Think of it this way: the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. That's true - even if nobody gets a pen and draws the line.

So you can see how rights are "there" in some sense - even when nobody's enforcing them with a pen, or a sword.

 

[Egoist]

i think Phyzzle brings up valid points.

I also do not think that Objectivism provides all the guidance you need - it provides some very general but very good rules, but there is much more to the world.

But yeah, I have also been trying to consolidate my love of objectivist thinking with other stuff like psychology and other kinds of philisophy. For example, I am a big fan of Machiavelli/nietzsche school of individualist thinking.

Interestingly enough, it seems that AR dismisses power and leadership from her theories. Yes, we understand how it all works on a businessman/producer level. What about the leader/ruler/prince/conqueror level? You can't really ignore that. It requires a different model than her "traders unlimited" view.

So many questions, so little time.

 

[Phyzzle]

Interestingly enough, it seems that AR dismisses power and leadership from her theories. [...] What about the leader/ruler/prince/conqueror level?

Her position on (political) power was, "show me a happy dictator." She has a point there.

 

[Nocturnal]

I would love to really get into this with you guys but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment. I'm hoping someone else can do the job (Francisco?).

I would like to point out that there is a difference between not discussing something and being wrong about it. Phyzzle said Objectivism says very little about cognitive philosophy. Egoist says Objectivism does not provide all of the guidance one needs. This does not mean that it is wrong. At the very least, all this says is that there are topics which are undeveloped from an Objectivist point of view.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I would love to really get into this with you guys but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment. I'm hoping someone else can do the job (Francisco?).

I would like to point out that there is a difference between not discussing something and being wrong about it. Phyzzle said Objectivism says very little about cognitive philosophy. Egoist says Objectivism does not provide all of the guidance one needs. This does not mean that it is wrong. At the very least, all this says is that there are topics which are undeveloped from an Objectivist point of view.

Oh yeah, leave it up to me to educate the masses. Like you I don't readily have the time necessary to give this topic justice. One suggestion is that if anyone in the thread hasn't read "Atlas Shrugged," they should. It shows a very good depiction on Objectivism and how the masses misuse men of reason.

I do agree that Objectivism says virtually nothing about congnitive psychology. It's not of the mind, it is of the spirit (not the religious kind either).

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Her position on (political) power was, "show me a happy dictator." She has a point there.

That's actually quite a good point. Most of the world's most powerful men, especially those with absolute power (aka. dictators) were unhappy in some way. Caesar was stabbed by his own buddies, Stalin was paranoid about his safety, Hitler never achieved his goals, even democratic leaders like Clinton and Bush were always stressed and tired.

I guess it IS lonely at the top.

 

[Vulpine]

I do agree that Objectivism says virtually nothing about congnitive psychology. It's not of the mind, it is of the spirit (not the religious kind either).

The way I think is this: People think too much. People try to find meaning where there is no intended meaning. People try to interpret things and "read into" where there is nothing to interpret. Call me lazy, but, some things just don't need to be thought about. I find myself living with an "auto pilot" mindset most of the time. I do what I do and really don't need to devote much conscious thought to anything. That's not to say that I'm not a "thinker", it's more like I'm reserving the "thinking" for only the important matters.

And this is part of why I feel my philosophies are somewhat inline with Objectivism. Objectivism seems to gloss over the "thinking" and psychological because, well, psychology isn't really that important in MY great scheme. I don't need to think about what others are thinking because it is of little consequence to me. Simply put, I don't care what you think. So, I don't need to know how or why you think the way that you do. If I do something that a person thinks a certain way about... that's their business - I'm over here, minding my own business. Unless other people affect me, I don't need to think about them. Simple.

Have you ever been looking at a woman and they've asked you "what?" just because you were looking at them? It's like that. I was just looking at you, and nothing, just looking. There was no "what?" to tell them about. People think too much.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

That's actually quite a good point. Most of the world's most powerful men, especially those with absolute power (aka. dictators) were unhappy in some way. Caesar was stabbed by his own buddies, Stalin was paranoid about his safety, Hitler never achieved his goals, even democratic leaders like Clinton and Bush were always stressed and tired.

I guess it IS lonely at the top.

And this is why people who follow Objectivism may be leaders or organizations but they do not, rather WILL NOT choose to be the leader of people. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The way I think is this: People think too much. People try to find meaning where there is no intended meaning. People try to interpret things and "read into" where there is nothing to interpret. Call me lazy, but, some things just don't need to be thought about. I find myself living with an "auto pilot" mindset most of the time. I do what I do and really don't need to devote much conscious thought to anything. That's not to say that I'm not a "thinker", it's more like I'm reserving the "thinking" for only the important matters.

And this is part of why I feel my philosophies are somewhat inline with Objectivism. Objectivism seems to gloss over the "thinking" and psychological because, well, psychology isn't really that important in MY great scheme. I don't need to think about what others are thinking because it is of little consequence to me. Simply put, I don't care what you think. So, I don't need to know how or why you think the way that you do. If I do something that a person thinks a certain way about... that's their business - I'm over here, minding my own business. Unless other people affect me, I don't need to think about them. Simple.

Have you ever been looking at a woman and they've asked you "what?" just because you were looking at them? It's like that. I was just looking at you, and nothing, just looking. There was no "what?" to tell them about. People think too much.

I get what you're saying but I see it a little differently. I don't feel that people think enough; however I do feel that the worry way too much. The bad thing about it is that the majority of the time they are worrying about how they are perceived by other people or how they measure up. That's the wonderful thing about Objectivism, your being is based on the merits you set for yourself; unique and all inclusive. It's beauty is in its simplicity.

 

[Vulpine]

I get what you're saying but I see it a little differently. I don't feel that people think enough; however I do feel that the worry way too much. The bad thing about it is that the majority of the time they are worrying about how they are perceived by other people or how they measure up. That's the wonderful thing about Objectivism, your being is based on the merits you set for yourself; unique and all inclusive. It's beauty is in its simplicity.

I think we are getting at the same thing. People think about the wrong stuff. I personally think that people are stupid... sheeple. They are so wrapped up in "needless thought" that they fail to deal with the important things. Just this Saturday this was once again demonstrated to me. I went to a local toy store to pick up a board game. I went straight in, got what I came for, and went to the checkout. Wouldn't you know it, there is a line of 15 people and someone is waiting for me in the parking lot. Ok, here's the problem. There's a long line. Now here is the part where people should've started thinking about what was important - fixing the problem. No, these people rather start getting pizzed off about the line instead. Now, I didn't want to stand around with all these pizzed off people, so I started thinking.

1. There is a line. I don't want to wait this long.
2. How many registers are open? One light is on...*looking around* Ooop... there is a light on way over there in that video game department.
3. Is there anyone over there? I can't see from here.
4. How can I find out? I'll walk over there... there worst that can happen is I'll lose my spot at the end of the ridiculously long line.
5. Get there. No line. Hand dude money. The wait time total was a minute. "Cool, thanks, bye." I walk out past a line of 15 people looking at me like I'm some sort of azzhole. But noone leaves the line... baa-a-a-ah!

What were they thinking about? How late they are going to be for their next appointment? How slow the cashier was? "C'mon lady pay with cash"? Were they getting emotional and irrate? Who knows... who cares... they didn't affect me. Their lack of problem solving was of no concern of mine - I solved my problem. Bye folks! Enjoy your wait!

The people in the line in front of me didn't affect me. Did I feel bad for them? I didn't "feel" at all. Did I go back and help them by telling them what to do? What would I have gotten out of that? I had fatter fish to fry. How do I measure up to the people in the line? I Don't care: they are people in a line that I'm not in, so it's none of my business.


So F d'A, I think we agree. I just used the blanket term "thinking too much". If someone is worrying, they are indeed thinking too much. But more accurately, they are thinking about the wrong things or "wasteful thinking".

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Sounds like we are both talking about irrational people in that they don't use (and I use the term lightly) "common sense."

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

i think Phyzzle brings up valid points.

I also do not think that Objectivism provides all the guidance you need - it provides some very general but very good rules, but there is much more to the world. ....

I just got this. The problem you guys are having with Objectivism is that it doesn't tell you what to do, it's basically a hypothesis on the purpose of man. You guys are too use to someone else laying out guidelines for you and that goes completely against the soul of Objectivism. Until you guys come to a place of believing that such a thing exists you will not be able understand it.