Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2017, 10:37 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 10:15 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Unfortunately, secular morality is based on the same basic principles as religious morality.

Only if you think of secular morality as a dogma or an ideology.

I went through an Objectivist phase. Then, I read Branden's answers to Ayn Rand.

Even "enlightened self-interest" has the ring of being dogmatic. Humanism is non-dogmatic. It is open to change, if it becomes necessary and advisable. It is based on the mutuality of interests between all rather than just self-interest.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 666wannabe's post
16-02-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 10:37 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 10:15 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Unfortunately, secular morality is based on the same basic principles as religious morality.

Only if you think of secular morality as a dogma or an ideology.

I went through an Objectivist phase. Then, I read Branden's answers to Ayn Rand.

Even "enlightened self-interest" has the ring of being dogmatic. Humanism is non-dogmatic. It is open to change, if it becomes necessary and advisable. It is based on the mutuality of interests between all rather than just self-interest.
I see it as being based on a false premise, that man has no right to live for his own sake. Secular morality is very much based on this premise if you drill down to its fundamentals. And I didn't say enlightened self interest, I said rational self interest. How is that dogmatic? Reason is always open to correction by reasoned argument and evidence, so you could hardly call it dogmatic.

If the kind of openness to change that you speak of regarding Humanism means compromising on basic fundamental principles "when it becomes necessary" then it will lead again to the type of dog eat dog, welfare state collectivist that we have now. In any compromise between two opposing principles, the only result will be a steady move toward the evil one and away from the good because the good has nothing to gain from evil and evil has everything to gain from the good. Just look at the name "Humanism". It holds the Human race as a whole above the individual. That can only lead to conflict and tribalism, as it has everywhere it is tried.

I have not read that book by Branden. I'll have to check it out. I tend to try and find and read every criticism of Objectivism I can find. I haven't found an honest one yet.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 12:42 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 11:28 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 10:37 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  Only if you think of secular morality as a dogma or an ideology.

I went through an Objectivist phase. Then, I read Branden's answers to Ayn Rand.

Even "enlightened self-interest" has the ring of being dogmatic. Humanism is non-dogmatic. It is open to change, if it becomes necessary and advisable. It is based on the mutuality of interests between all rather than just self-interest.

I see it as being based on a false premise, that man has no right to live for his own sake. Secular morality is very much based on this premise if you drill down to its fundamentals. And I didn't say enlightened self interest, I said rational self interest. How is that dogmatic? Reason is always open to correction by reasoned argument and evidence, so you could hardly call it dogmatic.

If the kind of openness to change that you speak of regarding Humanism means compromising on basic fundamental principles "when it becomes necessary" then it will lead again to the type of dog eat dog, welfare state collectivist that we have now. In any compromise between two opposing principles, the only result will be a steady move toward the evil one and away from the good because the good has nothing to gain from evil and evil has everything to gain from the good. Just look at the name "Humanism". It holds the Human race as a whole above the individual. That can only lead to conflict and tribalism, as it has everywhere it is tried.

I have not read that book by Branden. I'll have to check it out. I tend to try and find and read every criticism of Objectivism I can find. I haven't found an honest one yet.

That is, indeed, a false premise, and it is not what I am saying. I have the same disdain for the idea of "altruism" as I do for "self-interest" (in it's blatant form). The former because it includes the idea of self-denial and the other because it includes the idea of disregard for the rights of others.

Humanism, at least as I understand it, infers that the rights of others has as much validity, but not more validity, than one's own rights. The other side of the coin is that one's individual rights has as much validity as the rights of others. This is what I mean by mutuality.

To use either altruism or self-interest as a standard is adherence to a dogma. And both are destructive.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 666wannabe's post
16-02-2017, 01:10 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 12:42 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 11:28 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I see it as being based on a false premise, that man has no right to live for his own sake. Secular morality is very much based on this premise if you drill down to its fundamentals. And I didn't say enlightened self interest, I said rational self interest. How is that dogmatic? Reason is always open to correction by reasoned argument and evidence, so you could hardly call it dogmatic.

If the kind of openness to change that you speak of regarding Humanism means compromising on basic fundamental principles "when it becomes necessary" then it will lead again to the type of dog eat dog, welfare state collectivist that we have now. In any compromise between two opposing principles, the only result will be a steady move toward the evil one and away from the good because the good has nothing to gain from evil and evil has everything to gain from the good. Just look at the name "Humanism". It holds the Human race as a whole above the individual. That can only lead to conflict and tribalism, as it has everywhere it is tried.

I have not read that book by Branden. I'll have to check it out. I tend to try and find and read every criticism of Objectivism I can find. I haven't found an honest one yet.

That is, indeed, a false premise, and it is not what I am saying. I have the same disdain for the idea of "altruism" as I do for "self-interest" (in it's blatant form). The former because it includes the idea of self-denial and the other because it includes the idea of disregard for the rights of others.

Humanism, at least as I understand it, infers that the rights of others has as much validity, but not more validity, than one's own rights. The other side of the coin is that one's individual rights has as much validity as the rights of others. This is what I mean by mutuality.

To use either altruism or self-interest as a standard is adherence to a dogma. And both are destructive.
You have a very different understanding of Humanism than I do. As I said everything that I have read from Humanists as far as ethics goes is straight up the morality of altruism and collectivism. Obviously Humanism places the standard of value with the group, not the individual. This is collectivism.

"To use either altruism or self-interest as a standard is adherence to a dogma. And both are destructive." I didn't say this. I said that my standard of value was man's life, his individual life. I was very clear about this. And what you seem to be against is any kind of firm principle. It is unclear how acting in ones rational self-interest consistently could be destructive. It's when we compromise on basic principles that destruction ensues. What you seem to be saying is "we shouldn't go the extremes. We should be for individual rights most of the time but we should violate them when it is deemed necessary, in which case you're not really for individual rights. Again you keep dropping the rational from rational self-interest. I thought you had studied Objectivism at one time. You seem remarkably uninformed about what it teaches.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 02:24 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 12:50 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Acknowledgement of rights? What rights? Where do these rights come from? What property are they grounded in? And why do you get to set the objective standard? What's wrong with someone who says morality is based on hating everyone?

(Springy G sighs heavily, rolls Her eyes, and reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BONK* Shaddup.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 07:49 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 10:11 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  Mordant,

Sorry about screwing up the format of my reply. I am still trying to learn to use this forum.
No problem, I think it's a little demanding / unforgiving for the casual user. As a software developer it's just simplified markup to me, but I am surprised most people do as well with it as they do. I sometimes see my replies vanish entirely because of a mismatched set of quote tags or a closing one where I fat-fingered it and left out the slash, etc. So there is the problem of faulty connection between user and keyboard, too.

I like that nested quotes are preserved, unlike some forums, but that also makes it trickier to edit.

Be patient working with it and you'll get the hang of it. In my experience, this forum is worth it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 08:07 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 01:10 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is unclear how acting in ones rational self-interest consistently could be destructive.
Depends on whether a person understands the scope and implications of "rational self-interest" or not. I believe in rational self interest too, but understand that part of what's in my rational self-interest is to promote the kind of civil society I want to live in, which means, being kind and generous to others so that I get the social reciprocity I need as a human, which is to say, I'm hypersocial relative to other species.

In my experience, too many people think that their rational self-interest is what makes them feel pleasure and ease in any given moment and never demands delayed gratification or personal sacrifice. It is the flip side of what you are pointing out, that to some people humanism is all about delayed gratification and personal sacrifice to the point of imbalance, rather than understanding it as 666wannabe (and I) do.

In other words I really don't see an inherent conflict between humanism as I understand it and rational self interest as I understand it; it is a question of balance and motivation and awareness of the nuanced dance between the two; I see them as facets of the same thing.

But then again I am an introvert who is suspicious of institutionalized formulations. I don't go to humanist meetups or Ayn Rand book clubs, I just take from each what I consider useful and ditch the rest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
16-02-2017, 08:35 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 07:49 PM)mordant Wrote:  I like that nested quotes are preserved, unlike some forums, but that also makes it trickier to edit.

Be patient working with it and you'll get the hang of it. In my experience, this forum is worth it.

Can I quote you on that?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 09:39 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 09:16 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 12:50 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Acknowledgement of rights? What rights? Where do these rights come from? What property are they grounded in? And why do you get to set the objective standard? What's wrong with someone who says morality is based on hating everyone?

Yes!
Human Rights!
We are social creatures!
I don't set the standard, I just acknowledge it"s existence!
They are insane!

You acknowledge the existence of rights but you fail to explain their ontology at any level. You fail to explain how you know rights exist at all.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 09:39 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 02:24 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 12:50 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Acknowledgement of rights? What rights? Where do these rights come from? What property are they grounded in? And why do you get to set the objective standard? What's wrong with someone who says morality is based on hating everyone?

(Springy G sighs heavily, rolls Her eyes, and reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BONK* Shaddup.

Well that's a good way to shut down a conversation, but I'm here to debate actual issues.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: