Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2017, 02:30 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 10:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 09:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I agree that consequentialist philosophy is ridiculous in nature. It leads to collectivism. But I don't think we need to model after Rand. Personally, I'm a virtue ethicist. I think there are certain behaviors that are best fit for each entity.

Well then if you think this why not adopt the Objectivist theory of ethics because this is precisely what it is based on, that there is a specific means of survival best fit to man according to his nature as a rational being and any other course of action is destructive of his life. Actually Objectivism starts with the concept of values, not virtues as it's base of ethics. The fact that man needs certain values to succeed given his nature as a biological organism that faces the fundamental alternative between life and death. First we must identify what these values are and then discover what virtues are required to get them.

Do you have any links to articles on Rand's Objectivism? I'd love to read them.

"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
18-02-2017, 02:31 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(17-02-2017 12:26 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I was thinking something roughly along the same lines: For all their rules and regulations, the various religions haven't done a particularly good job when it comes to applied morality. You can't make someone act decently towards others if they don't actually want to.

In the real world, theory, worldviews and the best of intentions all tend to break down when they come into conflict with our emotions and whatever motivations we carry around below our threshold of awareness. Perhaps we should be encouraging more self-reflection and more self-actualized mature behaviour, rather than inundating people with a bunch of rules.

You still haven't shown that being decent to other people is moral.

"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
18-02-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(18-02-2017 02:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 10:59 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well then if you think this why not adopt the Objectivist theory of ethics because this is precisely what it is based on, that there is a specific means of survival best fit to man according to his nature as a rational being and any other course of action is destructive of his life. Actually Objectivism starts with the concept of values, not virtues as it's base of ethics. The fact that man needs certain values to succeed given his nature as a biological organism that faces the fundamental alternative between life and death. First we must identify what these values are and then discover what virtues are required to get them.

Do you have any links to articles on Rand's Objectivism? I'd love to read them.

Most of her non-fiction writing appeared in the Objectivist magazine which you can get a copy of from the Ayn Rand institute. Many of these articles are published as collections in her other non-fiction works. I'm not aware of it being available online. A good place to start is The Ayn Rand Lexicon which is available online here. I would start by reading that to get familiar with some of Objectivism's terms. Then I would read Philosophy: Who Needs It. This was her last book published before she died. Then I would read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Piekoff, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, the Voice of reason by Ayn Rand and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. There Are also writings to be found online by David Kelly, Harry Binswanger Peter schwartz, and Yaron Brook.

There is also an excellent blog called Incinerating Presuppositionalism written by Objectivist Dawson Bethrick that is fantastic and perhaps the best resource on Objectivism on the web. He absolutely crushes Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Segars, Jason Petersen, Rick Warden, Chris Bolt, Paul Manatta and many other prominent presuppers. Many of the comments sections of his blog entries are a real hoot to read and you will see first hand how utterly unable these apologists are to deal with Objectivism applied to the question of God's existence.

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
18-02-2017, 10:26 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(18-02-2017 09:00 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 02:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Do you have any links to articles on Rand's Objectivism? I'd love to read them.

Most of her non-fiction writing appeared in the Objectivist magazine which you can get a copy of from the Ayn Rand institute. Many of these articles are published as collections in her other non-fiction works. I'm not aware of it being available online. A good place to start is The Ayn Rand Lexicon which is available online here. I would start by reading that to get familiar with some of Objectivism's terms. Then I would read Philosophy: Who Needs It. This was her last book published before she died. Then I would read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Piekoff, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, the Voice of reason by Ayn Rand and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. There Are also writings to be found online by David Kelly, Harry Binswanger Peter schwartz, and Yaron Brook.

There is also an excellent blog called Incinerating Presuppositionalism written by Objectivist Dawson Bethrick that is fantastic and perhaps the best resource on Objectivism on the web. He absolutely crushes Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Segars, Jason Petersen, Rick Warden, Chris Bolt, Paul Manatta and many other prominent presuppers. Many of the comments sections of his blog entries are a real hoot to read and you will see first hand how utterly unable these apologists are to deal with Objectivism applied to the question of God's existence.

Thanks I'll certainly have to do some reading. Also you should join our Skype convo. We have quite a few presuppers in there that are just hilarious.

"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
18-02-2017, 10:56 AM
RE: Love sucks???????


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 11:17 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(18-02-2017 10:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 09:00 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Most of her non-fiction writing appeared in the Objectivist magazine which you can get a copy of from the Ayn Rand institute. Many of these articles are published as collections in her other non-fiction works. I'm not aware of it being available online. A good place to start is The Ayn Rand Lexicon which is available online here. I would start by reading that to get familiar with some of Objectivism's terms. Then I would read Philosophy: Who Needs It. This was her last book published before she died. Then I would read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Piekoff, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, the Voice of reason by Ayn Rand and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. There Are also writings to be found online by David Kelly, Harry Binswanger Peter schwartz, and Yaron Brook.

There is also an excellent blog called Incinerating Presuppositionalism written by Objectivist Dawson Bethrick that is fantastic and perhaps the best resource on Objectivism on the web. He absolutely crushes Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Segars, Jason Petersen, Rick Warden, Chris Bolt, Paul Manatta and many other prominent presuppers. Many of the comments sections of his blog entries are a real hoot to read and you will see first hand how utterly unable these apologists are to deal with Objectivism applied to the question of God's existence.

Thanks I'll certainly have to do some reading. Also you should join our Skype convo. We have quite a few presuppers in there that are just hilarious.

I would love to join your group but unfortunately I just don't have the time. I really shouldn't be posting on here either, but I love ideas. I just don't have an hour free to join in to a skype discussion although I have no doubt that it would be fun watching those presuppers beating their heads against Objectivist atheology. Also I don't even have a web camera.

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
18-02-2017, 03:39 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(18-02-2017 02:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You still haven't shown that being decent to other people is moral.

I don't have to show it.

I choose to live it instead.

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
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
19-02-2017, 01:48 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(18-02-2017 03:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 02:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You still haven't shown that being decent to other people is moral.

I don't have to show it.

I choose to live it instead.

Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?

"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
19-02-2017, 02:46 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 01:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 03:39 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I don't have to show it.

I choose to live it instead.

Then you willingly choose ignorance over knowledge. How are you any different from the religious?

That's not ignorance over knowledge; it's pragmatism over introspection.

Which, yes, is no different than a follower of religion.

Why? Because it's human.

Rolleyes

(16-02-2017 01:10 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
Obviously Humanism places the standard of value with the group, not the individual. This is collectivism.
...

Isn't a human just cells working as a collective?

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
19-02-2017, 04:51 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 12:50 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 12:24 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  [...] My primary objection to religious morality--other than it usually being based on the rantings of a madman--is that it promotes tribalism rather than universalism--an us versus them mentality that, inevitably leads to hatred and distrust for those who are not in the "in" group.

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?

I totally agree that religious tenets, mores, and morals are divisive. One only has to look at the approximately 20+ civil wars that have or are being fought in the current century purely in the name of religion, as per East Timor (Christians & Muslims), Iraq (Shiite Muslims & Sunnis), Kashmir (Hindus & Muslims), Gaza (Jews, Muslims, & Christians), Thailand (Buddhists & Muslims), and the Philippines (Christians & Muslims) to name just a few. Nowhere do I see "atheists versus.....".

And as to your question of which "rights" and their source: They come from a socially aware, articulate, cohesive, innately moral, conscientious society which is ultimately self-determining based on the common, ultimate positivity of survival, absence of physical distress, avoidance of conflict, societal harmonising, and lack of undue mental duress.

If you need the oftentimes dubious words of an ancient book, written by a disparate group of ill-educated desert nomads thousands of years ago to dissuade you from mugging old ladies, robbing banks, or raping kids, then your innate humanistic moral and ethical values are pretty fucking woeful aren't they?

And atheists do, and should, get to set the objective standard—as you call it—because we see the world and its populous from an objective viewpoint—rather than the subjective and largely false perspective of people who still believe in supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena, plus the myths in their "holy" book.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: