Philosophy of Conquistadorianism: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Philosophy of Conquistadorianism » Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism
Otherwise known as Opportunism

Page: 1 2 3

Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:57 AM: Subject: Philosophy of Conquistadorianism	#1
I will here present the philosophy of Conquistadorianism (otherwise known as Opportunism). My purpose is to solicit criticism and feedback. I've put many of these ideas forward before in various posts but now I'm trying to bring them together into a cohesive whole. I will not present an epistemology. For that I rely on a simple form of Pragmatism, a claim is true if it is proven useful to explaining and predicting. The Philosophy of Conquistadorianism consists of three parts: 1) The Basic Principles 2) Covenant Theory 3) The Eightfold Path to Success I plan eventually to put all three of these forward here, but let's start with the first. There are two Basic Principles of Conquistadorianism: 1) We do not deserve to exist. 2) We are not indebted for our existence. The first principle is a simple observation of fact, albeit one with huge implications. To establish the factuality of the first principle, simply notice that you never did anything to deserve being born. You couldn't without existing before you existed. Your life, your existence, is an unearned gift. And although the actions of others (e.g. your parents) caused you to be born, whatever merit they deserve for their part in your birth, they cannot pass that merit to you without such passing of merit being, itself, an undeserved gift. The second principle may at first appear also to be observation of fact, however it is, instead, axiomatic only. That is to say, it is a statement of belief. You never agreed to any obligation of debt as a condition of being born, which is the usual way we understand acquiring a debt. This does, though, presuppose that debts are only acquired by agreement, an arguable point. Nevertheless, we choose to regard agreement as an essential element of debt and thus reject any notion that we are indebted to anyone for our existence. In summary of the first two principles, we can say that our life is an undeserved but unencumbered gift. Does anyone deserve a gift? No. But a gift doesn't need to be deserved to be received. What this implies is that we ought to live in a perpetual state of gratitude for the opportunity that life presents to us. A man who develops terminal cancer, through no fault of his own, has not been cheated of life. Indeed, were he to have died in childbirth he would already have lived longer than he deserved. What this also implies is that we owe our existence to the injustice of the world. Thank God that life is so unfair. If we got what we deserved we would not exist. We do not want the good to be determined by people getting what they deserve. We do not want cosmic justice. And we should suspect anyone who promises that they will make the world "right" by insuring that everyone gets only what they deserve. That person might as well be the Angel of Death. We want gifts. And we got gifts. And we can give gifts. Lucky us! Viewing the world through the prism of these two fundamental principles, life is a wonderful opportunity where our will is free to pursue our desires. We do not have to believe that the world was created for our benefit alone in order to view the world as a playground and to go out and play in it. But of course, there are boundaries in the form of physical reality as well as the unbounded will of others. We can set our will against physical reality and, provided we are smart about it and build on the efforts of others, we can often conquer it to one extent or another. But dealing with other people is a more complex matter. It is in dealing with others that we utilize the concept of the covenant, or agreement, under which we restrain our will. But it is important always to keep in mind that such restraints are conditioned on the particular covenant, not on the nature of our existence. The world owes us nothing, not even our existence, and, in the absence of agreement, we don't owe anyone else. And that is where we take up Covenant Theory.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/03/08 - 04:05 PM:	#2
Very interesting indeed. Connotations of the conquistador imply: "a terribly cruel and heartless individual who proceeded to retrieve whatever his heart desired with an incomparable boldness and tenacity". This sounds like an ethical norm that resembles my own rational egoism, even though this "Conquistadorian" system of ethics would be based on emotions and whims ("his heart desired") and embody more like the Nietzschean system of ethics. Overall, I like this philosophy. It emphasizes reason and choice and contract and agreement between reasoned parties. cortes wrote: 1) We do not deserve to exist. Beautiful in its simplicity. But your philosophy loses the "intelligent design" crowd and the "God"-huggers who see life as a value to the spirit. I am a naturalist, though, one who happens to agree with this point on a volitional, conscious level. But to say that "you never did anything to deserve being born" applies the word "you" to a conscious thought process. The dichotomy between the conscious and the unconscious (the merely happening) is demonstrable by the difference in (1) "you do math" and (2) "you have a couple of legs". You can apply "deserve" to this rational, conscious process. But you cannot apply "deserve" to the merely happening. In the context of this unconscious, physical reality, "deserve" implies cause and effect. If you say that my unconscious being (my body), which eventually gave rise to my conscious being (my mind) through my early life, never deserved "existence", you are saying it was an uncaused effect of some process. My consciousness, as you say, did not exist at this early time of my life, which I was a sac of cells which had no volitional consciousness. In that respect, I did not "reason" my way to existence. But I, as an unconscious, involitional being, most certainly deserve to exist because something caused that to happen. My parents did not construct all of the causes to the effects of the sustainment of my unconscious being, although they may have initiated the chain of causal events. But they did not split the 100 cells of my blastocyst after my conception; they did not send the electrical impulse to start my heart or my brain. These causes must have effects and the effects are, in a matter of speaking, "deserved". cortes wrote: 2) We are not indebted for our existence. This point is very true and once again applied strictly to consciousness, as the verb "indebt" implies choice. The early living organism, or the human being, does not agree to being born because it inherently cannot make such a decision: it lacks conscious, rational awareness. I will not argue that debts need to be volitional, even though they do not necessarily have to be: the poor parents of a costly newborn can be financially ruined caring for the child. Indeed, life is a "gift" ("something acquired without compensation"). However, I'm not entirely sure how these metaphysical claims entail meta-ethical doctrines of self-interest and opportunism. Suppose my brother gives me a gun for Christmas, does that justify using the gun to rob a bank? cortes wrote: We do not want the good to be determined by people getting what they deserve. We do not want cosmic justice. And we should suspect anyone who promises that they will make the world "right" by insuring that everyone gets only what they deserve. That person might as well be the Angel of Death. Such an Angel of Death only makes these claims to maintain the control and comprehensibility inherent in cause-and-effect: that if one can identify the cause, he can know the effect. Unforeseeable events occur, gifts are given without cause. However, gifts are given in volitional consciousness. Physical reality does not "give" "gifts"; the unexplainable phenomenon which seem impossible or uncaused or contradictory arise only because of a lack of human knowledge regarding the nature of its cause, not from a lack of physical cause. cortes wrote: But dealing with other people is a more complex matter. It is in dealing with others that we utilize the concept of the covenant, or agreement, under which we restrain our will. Now we approach ethics. I like this particular statement. It is the equivalent to a non-initiation of force: no one has the inherent right to initiate a violation of another human being's rights. Or, we must retrain that which we want because it may impinge upon others' interests. That and the fact that there is nothing morally desirable about living like a parasite upon other human beings' weaknesses.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/04/08 - 07:51 AM:	#3
The_Rational_Animal wrote: Very interesting indeed. Connotations of the conquistador imply: "a terribly cruel and heartless individual who proceeded to retrieve whatever his heart desired with an incomparable boldness and tenacity". This sounds like an ethical norm that resembles my own rational egoism, even though this "Conquistadorian" system of ethics would be based on emotions and whims ("his heart desired") and embody more like the Nietzschean system of ethics. I am not uncomfortable with those connotations. (To a socialist, anyone who doesn't see the virtue of social and economic justice is "cruel and heartless".) Certainly "incomparable boldness and tenacity" fit. As for the "heart desires", thats a more complex subject that we'll be dealing with. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Overall, I like this philosophy. It emphasizes reason and choice and contract and agreement between reasoned parties. I take it that you are an Objectivist. You'll find that I am a big fan of Ayn Rand, though I have some particular objections to her philosophy and so do not consider myself an Objectivist. Nevertheless, you will see a great deal of her influence on what I present here. It's been so long since I read Rand that I've lost touch with what specific ideas I borrowed from her. If you are more familiar, feel free to point out where I do so we can give he proper credit. I also invite you to argue with me where we do disagree. Just because 90% of the world won't be able to distinguish Conquistadorianism from Objectivism doesn't mean we can't hash out our differences. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Beautiful in its simplicity. But your philosophy loses the "intelligent design" crowd and the "God"-huggers who see life as a value to the spirit. You'll see when I present Covenant Theory that I do carve out a place for God (being myself a nominal Christian) but I agree that my approach would unsettle most Christians (I'm prerfectly ready to argue with them). The_Rational_Animal wrote: I am a naturalist, though, one who happens to agree with this point on a volitional, conscious level. But to say that "you never did anything to deserve being born" applies the word "you" to a conscious thought process. The dichotomy between the conscious and the unconscious (the merely happening) is demonstrable by the difference in (1) "you do math" and (2) "you have a couple of legs". You can apply "deserve" to this rational, conscious process. But you cannot apply "deserve" to the merely happening. In the context of this unconscious, physical reality, "deserve" implies cause and effect. Your inference is correct, I meant the former and not the la but I should probably clarify my meaning to prevent any misunderstanding on what I mean by "deserve". The_Rational_Animal wrote: This point is very true and once again applied strictly to consciousness, as the verb "indebt" implies choice. I'm really tempted to call the second point an observation too but I just know that there are those who will argue that we really do incur a debt (e.g. to "society") the instant that we are born. You may not be able to prove the matter one way or another but you can certainly choose to view the world one way or another. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Indeed, life is a "gift" ("something acquired without compensation"). However, I'm not entirely sure how these metaphysical claims entail meta-ethical doctrines of self-interest and opportunism. In a sense, what these two points accomplish is to "clear the deck". What remains standing (at this point in conceptual isolation of others) is the individual and the world around him. I don't argue, as Rand does, that we have a moral duty to go out and conquer the world. I simply say that we have the opportunity to do that and no reason to restrain ourselves from doing so. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Such an Angel of Death only makes these claims to maintain the control and comprehensibility inherent in cause-and-effect: I had the likes of Stalin in mind here. I am very critical of the idea of "cosmic justice". The_Rational_Animal wrote: Unforeseeable events occur, gifts are given without cause. However, gifts are given in volitional consciousness. I don't think it is necessary to try to explain the source of a gift to recognize the fact of a gift. If you receive a gift in the mail and don't know who it was from that doesn't diminish its giftness. Take and enjoy. But you can willfully give gifts and I think this is important. Objectivists seem very conflicted on this subject. The_Rational_Animal wrote: cortes wrote: But dealing with other people is a more complex matter. It is in dealing with others that we utilize the concept of the covenant, or agreement, under which we restrain our will. Now we approach ethics. I like this particular statement. It is the equivalent to a non-initiation of force: no one has the inherent right to initiate a violation of another human being's rights. Or, we must retrain that which we want because it may impinge upon others' interests. That and the fact that there is nothing morally desirable about living like a parasite upon other human beings' weaknesses. I think you will find that it tends toward the same results though by a different path. I do not start out with "rights" as an inherent nature of being. I do not believe that "we are endowed by our Creator with inalieanable rights". I have elsewhere argued in favor of torture of terrorists and kidnappers, for example. But within the context of Covenants, the matter is quite different, as you'll see.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/04/08 - 01:56 PM:	#4
I like this lack of disagreement, but a few notes before I depart... cortes wrote: I don't argue, as Rand does, that we have a moral duty to go out and conquer the world. "Duty"... that word just makes me shiver. To say that Rand argued for any kind of duty is, well, not the case: Ayn Rand, "Causality vs. Duty" wrote: One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty." An anti-concept is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions... The meaning of the term “duty” is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest. As for "conquer[ing] the world", Rand saw such as the reward for productive work and natural abilities. One's responsibility is to his own rational self-interest; if one's rational conquistadorianism/opportunism is in his self-interest, then it may as well be moral. cortes wrote: But you can willfully give gifts and I think this is important. Objectivists seem very conflicted on this subject. Objectivists are conflicted on this point, but only to the normative aspect of gifts, namely under what circumstances is a gift ("something acquired without compensation") necessary. Some like to say that it contradicts capitalism, the free trade and compensation of market; while some like to say that it still serves one's best interests in most situations. I agree that we can willfully give gifts, but the extent to which this is important or essential is questionable. Certain types of high-risk investments seem like gifts, but they are still really investments, much gifts we give at Christmas: we exchange them for love and affection and the sustainment of our relationships with others. It truly depends upon the circumstances involved whether the gift fulfills a certain usefulness to both parties, the giver and the receiver. cortes wrote: I think you will find that it tends toward the same results though by a different path. I do not start out with "rights" as an inherent nature of being. I do not believe that "we are endowed by our Creator with inalieanable rights"... But within the context of Covenants, the matter is quite different, as you'll see. Agreement (or covenant) entails rights, where right (n.) means "something you are morally, legally or officially allowed to do or have". As I take it, you need one or possibly more rights to enter into an agreement. Even if they are not "inherent nature[s] of being", they must be recognized by both parties of an agreement. Otherwise, one may choose not to recognize the other as having any right to enter the agreement. If rights are not fundamental, two parties can agree to recognize each others' rights beforehand, but that leads to an infinite regress. I do not believe that human beings are naturally equal or are deserving of the same rights; but I see rights as a necessary social construct on top of which all human actions must be considered within the context of. But it sounds like Covenants have something else in mind and I'm interested in what that may be.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 05/04/08 - 04:14 PM:	#5
On the first principle, I would agree, in the sense of deserving as in earning as opposed to worthiness. This is a grace-compatible definition, since one can deserve in the latter by making oneself worthy of that which one is given, and it is not something achived by paying back as in debt, like when one is to earn something which one puts oneself into debt to possess. As an analogy, one can pay someone respect for being an upright person, which one consider deserved, yet not earned, in that he did not give you anything in exchange. In turn such respect allows for further trusting that person with various privileges one would not offer to others. The second principle I have accepted for the same reason cortes puts out, namely that we did not agree to make a payment, and debt consists of that which one has agreed to pay. I like this point of view that conquistadorianism has toward life, this positive attitude that life is not a burden, but a gift and that we shouldn't complain and become cynical over what we didn't get, but be grateful for what we have. I would not however say that grace cancels out justice as cortes seems to imply, but I guess we may be terming concepts differently. I think justice is a fundamental concept in a free market, because if criminals gets away with their deeds, it counts as a coersive third party entity intervening in the market, thereby distorting prices. Anyways I look forward to hearing about the convenant theory.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/04/08 - 05:23 PM:	#6
keda wrote: I like this point of view that conquistadorianism has toward life, this positive attitude that life is not a burden, but a gift and that we shouldn't complain and become cynical over what we didn't get, but be grateful for what we have. This really strikes me as a powerful confirmation of the approach. I have to admit I was always skeptical of arguments that we should be content with what life is, that always sounded like sour grapes, but seeing how it falls out of the first principle is quite interesting. There is much research in psychology that suggests, quite clearly, that those who think the world owes them something tend to be a very unhappy lot. You can reach for the stars without expecting them to be handed to you on a silver platter. keda wrote: I would not however say that grace cancels out justice as cortes seems to imply, but I guess we may be terming concepts differently. I think justice is a fundamental concept in a free market, because if criminals gets away with their deeds, it counts as a coersive third party entity intervening in the market, thereby distorting prices. Anyways I look forward to hearing about the convenant theory. I would just ask that you hold this thought until after I present Covenant Theory (hopefully before the end of next week). What I'm arguing against is what I call, pejoratively, "cosmic justice." (In the other threads where we discussed this I never got past the first two principles.)
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/04/08 - 05:45 PM:	#7
The_Rational_Animal wrote: I like this lack of disagreement, but a few notes before I depart... I think in this post you've uncovered some areas where we are more likely to disagree. But as I said, I invite your arguments. The_Rational_Animal wrote: "Duty"... that word just makes me shiver. To say that Rand argued for any kind of duty is, well, not the case: I appreciate the quote from Rand. But here is what I've seen: In Objectivist forums I've watched debates between, on the one hand, those who argue that an individual may be be altruistic if he chooses and those who claim that it is immoral to set aside self-interest to be altruistic. Perhaps "duty" is not the right word but clearly there are Objectivists who take a dim view towards altruism. The word itself is problematic, thanks in large part to people like Kant, and in the Ethics "Altruism" thread I drew a distinction between "hard" altrusim, the Kantian variety that disallows any trace of self-interest or self-centeredness, and "soft" altruism, which simply means putting others first in the moment perhaps (most likely) in the context of self-interest. I think that "hard" altruism is simply ridiculous but "soft" altruism is a wondeful thing for a variety of reasons. An example of "soft" altruism is taking care of your family. On the one hand, I will do things for my wife and children without a moment's thought as to what I get out of it. On the other hand, I would not necessariy do those things for a stranger so the context of family provides a packaged "self-interest" within which I act selflessly. Similarly, I choose my charitable activities in part according to my prefence for causes, which charity makes me feel good. The_Rational_Animal wrote: As for "conquer[ing] the world", Rand saw such as the reward for productive work and natural abilities. One's responsibility is to his own rational self-interest; if one's rational conquistadorianism/opportunism is in his self-interest, then it may as well be moral. Let's see how closely these match up as we go forward. I would be very interested to see how far I've strayed from Rand on this point. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Objectivists are conflicted on this point, but only to the normative aspect of gifts, namely under what circumstances is a gift ("something acquired without compensation") necessary. I know what you are referring to here and I just have to say that this is exactly the sort of thing that the second principle clears away. You'd think that Objectivists were tilting here at windmills but I know that is not the case; there are those who claim that "gifts are required" or that we "have a duty to give gifts" which of course make them not gifts at all but taxes. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Some like to say that it contradicts capitalism, the free trade and compensation of market; while some like to say that it still serves one's best interests in most situations. I agree that we can willfully give gifts, but the extent to which this is important or essential is questionable. Certain types of high-risk investments seem like gifts, but they are still really investments, much gifts we give at Christmas: we exchange them for love and affection and the sustainment of our relationships with others. It truly depends upon the circumstances involved whether the gift fulfills a certain usefulness to both parties, the giver and the receiver. I think if you reject the notion that "gifts are required" then this gives you true freedom to give genuine gifts. And as I argued in the Ethics "Altruism" thread, there are many actions for which it is just imposible to sort out self-interest from altruism. My resonse is "why bother"? If gifts are not required then you don't need to justify the gift as a selfless. If the action has both altruistic and self-interested aspects then that's just fine. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Agreement (or covenant) entails rights, where right (n.) means "something you are morally, legally or officially allowed to do or have". As I take it, you need one or possibly more rights to enter into an agreement. Even if they are not "inherent nature[s] of being", they must be recognized by both parties of an agreement. Otherwise, one may choose not to recognize the other as having any right to enter the agreement. If rights are not fundamental, two parties can agree to recognize each others' rights beforehand, but that leads to an infinite regress. This is where I'm going to disagree with you. I"m going to argue that agreements are the foundation of rights, and not the reverse. And I know that I am departing from Rand on this point so. again, I invite you to defend her on it. The_Rational_Animal wrote: But it sounds like Covenants have something else in mind and I'm interested in what that may be. I guess I should get back to work on it now...
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/05/08 - 07:52 AM:	#8
cortes wrote: 1) We do not deserve to exist. The word 'deserve' implies there is someone to whom we are deserving. Who is this someone? Your statement involves a 'value' judgement. Why does existence need to have a 'value'? cortes wrote: Your life, your existence, is an unearned gift. The word gift implies a giver and a receiver. Who is the giver? cortes wrote: The second principle may at first appear also to be observation of fact, however it is, instead, axiomatic only. That is to say, it is a statement of belief. The first principle is also a 'belief'. You have presented your 'beliefs', but where are the premises on which those beliefs are founded? cortes wrote: What this implies is that we ought to live in a perpetual state of gratitude for the opportunity that life presents to us. To whom must we be grateful? If you say that we should be grateful to life, then you are implying that life is an 'entity'. Why should we be 'grateful'? Why should a person be in any 'perpetual state'? cortes wrote: What this also implies is that we owe our existence to the injustice of the world. Thank God that life is so unfair. If we got what we deserved we would not exist. From whence do you derive that the world is 'unjust'? This is a value judgement. Why do we need to owe our existence to anything? Why not just say that we exist and let that be the end of it? Objectivism's axiom is that existence exists. Are you implying that there is a 'creator' of existence? And, why a creator? cortes wrote: Viewing the world through the prism of these two fundamental principles, life is a wonderful opportunity where our will is free to pursue our desires. We do not have to believe that the world was created for our benefit alone in order to view the world as a playground and to go out and play in it. You need to elaborate more on your fundamental principles. They may appear simple, but they are loaded with implications and value judgements.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/05/08 - 08:14 AM:	#9
Existence exists, the mouse mouses and the house houses. Jeez, please... Anyways, as to point 1) We do not not deserve to exist nor do we deserve to exist. The only "fact" is that we exist. Whether we deserve it or not is an irrelevant question because existence is without intent or purpose and itself - as a cold hard fact of existence - meaningless. It is only afterwards that we exist and that we develop a concept of self that we start to value our own existence, although some people do not and commit suicide instead. point 2) Makes no more sense in relation to my remarks regarding to point 1). It's all rather dull.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/05/08 - 02:15 PM:	#10
Benkei wrote: Existence exists, the mouse mouses and the house houses. Jeez, please... Existence exists is the axiom of Objectivism. Cortes understands what I mean. It means that there is an objective reality. Some people like to believe that without consciousness there is no external reality. In that context, 'reality' is subjective in nature. Benkei wrote: We do not not deserve to exist nor do we deserve to exist. The only "fact" is that we exist. Whether we deserve it or not is an irrelevant question... Very well said! Cortes is introducing 'intention', 'meaning', and 'cause' into existence. It may be that he 'finds' his concept of 'not deserving to exist' as a practical construction which helps guide his path through life, because I believe he is a pragmatist. Maybe he can elaborate on this point. Benkei wrote: It is only afterwards that we exist and that we develop a concept of self that we start to value our own existence, although some people do not and commit suicide instead. Most people fail to understand the words they use. As an example, lets examine Cortes's first principle: "We do not deserve to exist." The word 'deserve' is full of hidden implications. It implies that there is an entitiy which judges us and says that we do not deserve to live. This is basically religion and his first principle is a religious statement. So, are we discussing philosophy or religion? A lot of people throw around the phrase that the 'universe has been created'. The word created implies that there is a creator. Why not just say the universe 'formed' or the universe 'evolved'? The last two words say basically the same thing as created does, except they do not require a creator. Benkei wrote: Makes no more sense in relation to my remarks regarding to point 1). Principle 2: "We are not indebted for our existence." The word 'indebted' implies that there is some entity to whom we owe a debt. Cortes says that we are not indebted. But, why this principle? What use does it serve? In the first principle he is implying there is an entity with whom we do not deserve to exist, and in the second principle he is saying that we are not indebted to this entity. So, I have to agree with your assessement that principle 2 makes no more sense than principle 1. Benkei wrote: existence is without intent or purpose and itself - as a cold hard fact of existence - meaningless. I understand the context in which you use 'meaningless', and I think you mean that human life has no external meaning. I see no meaning to existence or reality. However, I do find meaning within my own life and the lives of others. In this sense, we each create our own inward meaning of existence.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/05/08 - 04:13 PM:	#11
optrader wrote: The word 'deserve' implies there is someone to whom we are deserving. Who is this someone? Your statement involves a 'value' judgement. Why does existence need to have a 'value'? Er, no. If I observe that we do not deserve to exist then there is noone to whom we are deserving. But, in particular, I mean here to refute the notion that we have rights by virtue of our existence. optrader wrote: The word gift implies a giver and a receiver. Who is the giver? If I receive a gift in the mail I don't need to know who the sender was to observe that it is a gift. We can therefore leave aside the debate about whether existence is a product of nature, God, or society. optrader wrote: To whom must we be grateful? Doesn't matter. For purposes of these principles, it is sufficient that we are not owed a long, healthy life. optrader wrote: From whence do you derive that the world is 'unjust'? This is a value judgement. Why do we need to owe our existence to anything? Why not just say that we exist and let that be the end of it? Because that would not make the point that we do not owe, and are not owed, anything for our existence.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/05/08 - 04:21 PM:	#12
Benkei wrote: Whether we deserve it or not is an irrelevant question because existence is without intent or purpose and itself - as a cold hard fact of existence - meaningless. It is only afterwards that we exist and that we develop a concept of self that we start to value our own existence, although some people do not and commit suicide instead. To what are you claiming that the question of whether we deserve to exist is irrelevant?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/05/08 - 04:38 PM:	#13
optrader wrote: Existence exists is the axiom of Objectivism. Cortes understands what I mean. It means that there is an objective reality. Some people like to believe that without consciousness there is no external reality. In that context, 'reality' is subjective in nature. Yes, as noted in the first para, I am bypassing epistemology with a wave of the hand to pragmatism. By whatever reasoning, I agree that "reality exists". (I do, however, have a problem with some of the inferences that Rand draws from that fact.) optrader wrote: Principle 2: "We are not indebted for our existence." The word 'indebted' implies that there is some entity to whom we owe a debt. Cortes says that we are not indebted. But, why this principle? What use does it serve? In the first principle he is implying there is an entity with whom we do not deserve to exist, and in the second principle he is saying that we are not indebted to this entity. You can fill in the blank. The most common claim that the second principle conflicts with is the claim that we are indebted to society (by which is usually meant the nation-state). Both these statements are general, negative statements. You can refute the first by showing how someone can, in some sense of "deserve", deserve their existence to anyone. Similarly, with the second, you can refute it by showing that, in some sense of "debt", we are indebted to anyone upon our existence. Now the first is observable insofar as it is understood that one must do something to deserve and since you can't do something before you are born, you can't deserve your existence. The second is reasonable insofar as there is no evidence of debt to contradict it. Given the choice between believing that I am indebted and believing that I am not, I choose to proceed with my life as if I were not indebted to anyone for my existence. (I'll change my opinion as soon as someone shows me the contract I signed before I was born.) If you have some evidence to contradict either of these points then, by all means, step forward with it. But to claim, as Bernkei does, that they are somehow irrelevant before they have even been put into use is premature to say the least.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/05/08 - 08:14 PM:	#14
cortes wrote: I mean here to refute the notion that we have rights by virtue of our existence. But, should you not place 'rights' within some kind of context. Example: man exists in the universe, but he has no 'right' to exist. Example: a man lives within a society, and he has the social 'right' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In one sense, I have to agree with Benkei, that these principles do not make sense. cortes wrote: If I receive a gift in the mail I don't need to know who the sender was to observe that it is a gift. We can therefore leave aside the debate about whether existence is a product of nature, God, or society. But, why call life a 'gift'? The very word denotes a giver and a receiver! You may not name the giver, but the terminology still implies a giver. cortes wrote: Doesn't matter. For purposes of these principles, it is sufficient that we are not owed a long, healthy life. Why make this statement at all? Of course we are not 'owed' a long and healthy life. Again, your statements are implying that someone or something could owe us a long, healthy life. cortes wrote: Because that would not make the point that we do not owe, and are not owed, anything for our existence. What is the crux of your argument? Are you trying to imply that there is no authority, no god, or no creator and therefore we don't owe anything to this 'thing'? cortes wrote: Yes, as noted in the first para, I am bypassing epistemology with a wave of the hand to pragmatism. By whatever reasoning, I agree that "reality exists". (I do, however, have a problem with some of the inferences that Rand draws from that fact.) Like you, I have a problem with the inferences that Rand draws. cortes wrote: you can fill in the blank. The most common claim that the second principle conflicts with is the claim that we are indebted to society (by which is usually meant the nation-state). We are very much in agreement on this point. I don't believe that any person is indebted to society. cortes wrote: The second is reasonable insofar as there is no evidence of debt to contradict it. Given the choice between believing that I am indebted and believing that I am not, I choose to proceed with my life as if I were not indebted to anyone for my existence. (I'll change my opinion as soon as someone shows me the contract I signed before I was born.) It appears that you are trying to refute someone or some group by your principles. As a starting point for a philosophical system, you seem to have leaped over a number of principles or axioms to reach the two that you mentioned. Just as you, I proceed with my life as if I am indebted to no one, other than my parents that raised me. I do feel a debt to them. cortes wrote: If you have some evidence to contradict either of these points then, by all means, step forward with it. But to claim, as Bernkei does, that they are somehow irrelevant before they have even been put into use is premature to say the least. I am not trying to refute your claim. I just feel that something is missing from your principles. They appear to have no context. You make these statements, but I cannot understand the context in which they would be applicable. You make a broad, sweeping statement that we do not deserve to exist. But, within the context of this statement, it could be said that you are implying that we should not exist and that there is something 'wrong' with us existing. Sorry, I am trying, but like Benkei, I can make no sense out of this statement.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/05/08 - 09:04 PM:	#15
optrader wrote: But, should you not place 'rights' within some kind of context. Example: man exists in the universe, but he has no 'right' to exist. Example: a man lives within a society, and he has the social 'right' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But that is precisely what we are going to take up next. optrader wrote: But, why call life a 'gift'? The very word denotes a giver and a receiver! You may not name the giver, but the terminology still implies a giver. If you know of another word that represents the idea better I'm listening. There is the phrase, "living on borrowed time," but then who are we borrowing time from optrader wrote: Of course we are not 'owed' a long and healthy life. You say "of course" but this is controversial to some people. (If stating the obvious were a sin then "existence exists" would be a greater one.) optrader wrote: Again, your statements are implying that someone or something could owe us a long, healthy life. "Could" is perhaps a bit too strong. I am recognizing that there are many people who claim that they are owed for the mere fact that they take up space and suck air. What these two principles accomplish is to "clear the deck" for what follows. optrader wrote: What is the crux of your argument? Are you trying to imply that there is no authority, no god, or no creator and therefore we don't owe anything to this 'thing'? Almost. I am saying that even if there were such an authority we would still not owe it anything. (We don't need to resolve the question of the existence of God to verify these two principles. Even if God exists we don't owe him anything for creating us.) optrader wrote: We are very much in agreement on this point. I don't believe that any person is indebted to society. Ok, but would you extend that arbitrarily to say that we don't owe anyone anything for our existence? (And just to be clear, by "owe" I mean a literal debt to be repaid, obviously we "owe" our existence in the looser sense of being an effect fo causes and choices outside ourselves, e.g. our parents copulation.) optrader wrote: It appears that you are trying to refute someone or some group by your principles. As a starting point for a philosophical system, you seem to have leaped over a number of principles or axioms to reach the two that you mentioned. Just as you, I proceed with my life as if I am indebted to no one, other than my parents that raised me. I do feel a debt to them. These two points "clear the deck" for what is to follow. They may seem obvious to you but they are in fact quite controversial. optrader wrote: I am not trying to refute your claim. I just feel that something is missing from your principles. They appear to have no context. You make these statements, but I cannot understand the context in which they would be applicable. What I'll do is leave this thread for the first part and then start a new thread for the second part. Once I start putting these first to principles to work perhaps you might be able to offer some guidance on better explaining them. optrader wrote: You make a broad, sweeping statement that we do not deserve to exist. But, within the context of this statement, it could be said that you are implying that we should not exist and that there is something 'wrong' with us existing. Sorry, I am trying, but like Benkei, I can make no sense out of this statement. I think this in fact the most interesting corrolary of these two points. Just stop and think how much is constructed on the assumption that people ought to get what they deserve, what I call "cosmic justice". Among the ideas that I am clearing away here is that "cosmic justice" is desirable. That strikes me as a pretty bold conclusion from two "obvious" statements. It is only wrong that we exist if the universe ought to be just. But if an unfair universe is ok, then our existence is ok. Our existence depends on the universe not being just. But where is the argument for a just universe? Where is the argument for cosmic justice? Will someone please step forward and present that argument? I will approach the concept of justice again with in a social context, in the context of agreement/covenant, where it will have an entirely different meaning. What we can say, though, is that there is no meaningful basis for claiming that a society is just or unjust outside the context of a larger society. There is no cosmic justice to which an appeal may be made, at least not any that we should want to appeal given the injustice of our existence.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/06/08 - 03:29 AM:	#16
Existence exists is the axiom of Objectivism. Cortes understands what I mean. It means that there is an objective reality. Some people like to believe that without consciousness there is no external reality. In that context, 'reality' is subjective in nature. It's a tautology and as such does not provide additional knowledge, which makes it a useless axiom and just a silly sound bite. As to Ayn Rand's inferences with regard to her realism; of course, they are ridiculous because she didn't understand the first thing about metaphysics. She had to hate Kant just to be able to pursue her vision of man as a rational being. Kant's work is a limitation on reason and rationality because we are in essence blind due to the fact that we perceive in a certain way and therefore incapable to escape our limited, human perception. In the end Rand herself with her hatred for various philosophers that didn't fit her conceptual universe was a creature of emotion rather than reason... the irony of which should not be lost on those who consider themselves objectivists. Rand is convinced that her metaphysics allows her to tell what is real or only an illusion. Standard reading material for any objectivist should therefore be Hilary Putnam's Brains in a VAT to realise the silliness of such a claim. Knowledge for her is unlimited and therefore leaves no room for faith. And yet, Ratio has become God.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/06/08 - 11:32 AM:	#17
Benkei wrote: [Existence exists] is a tautology and as such does not provide additional knowledge, which makes it a useless axiom and just a silly sound bite. Yes, so what if "existence exists" is a tautology? Think of it this way, "existence exists" is something like an aphorism, something which condenses pages and pages of argument into two very simply little words. Nowhere, in the Objectivist logic, is "existence exists" used as a premise, or an "axiom" as you say. It is merely the summation and implication of more fundamental, undeniable axioms. That word "tautology" is often used negatively in supposed refutations of Objectivism, because you can't prove one, and her "whole philosophy rests on one". No it doesn't. It rests on the ostensive fact freely obvious to any human that you're a real person living in a real world with real rules. At the end of the day, my explanation of "how I know" it exists rests, not on a faith, but on the simple fact that I have zero evidence to believe that existence does not exist. Sleep, dreams, acid trips... nothing changes, it's still my cognition in reality. Burn me and it hurts, and I form an automatic memory of the experience and the source. A concept is a mental equivalent of the object it represents, and the nature of the concept must exactly match the nature of the object, in essential details. Fire burns, which can be held to be an objectively true statement, and NOT a tautology, when the proper definitions are used. See "guns kill". Tautology? But we can all agree that "Existence exists" is a tautology, but not meaningless when considered as a sound bite, and that the statement is not used in her logical chain. Benkei wrote: As to Ayn Rand's inferences with regard to her realism; of course, they are ridiculous because she didn't understand the first thing about metaphysics. She had to hate Kant just to be able to pursue her vision of man as a rational being. You're obviously confused. Rand's repudiation of Kant's metaphysics or lack thereof was not based on a conclusion formed independently from argument. She formally rejected Kant after forming the bases of Objectivist thought. The fact that modern academic philosophy works only to refine and interpret the works of Kant and his followers mirrors the overall misunderstandings on Rand's work and the irrational rejections of it. Benkei wrote: [In the end Rand herself with her hatred for various philosophers that didn't fit her conceptual universe was a creature of emotion rather than reason... the irony of which should not be lost on those who consider themselves objectivists. I personally don't find this ironic. I do find it comical, however, how you like to pretend to know what you are talking about. Benkei wrote: [Rand is convinced that her metaphysics allows her to tell what is real or only an illusion. Standard reading material for any objectivist should therefore be Hilary Putnam's Brains in a VAT to realise the silliness of such a claim. Knowledge for her is unlimited and therefore leaves no room for faith. And yet, rationality has become God. Once again, you are confusing me. Don't put the words "rationality" and "God" in the same sentence, for whatever form that sentence has, it will always be nonsensical. This proposition depends upon your definition of God. I hear mystics crying out all of the time "Oh! God is within all of us!" In this sense, then possibly rationality resembles God, but this is not a distorted definition on the part of Objectivists. Rationality is inseparably part of man: it comprises a defining essential property. God, last I checked, even in the confused Christian definitions, is not inseparably part of man because It can exist independently of man. Also, Rand's epistemology is what "allows her to tell what is real or only an illusion", not her metaphysics although her metaphysics gives rise to her epistemology. And you only need to consider the "brain in a vat" proposition philosophically and rationally to see how silly that is. The mere fact that Putnam relies upon the verification principle ("anything that cannot be experienced is meaningless") to talk about the meaning of the external reality, which apparently is not there, makes his claim a laughable return to logical positivism. I'm willing to talk about a nonexistent external reality, as long as we do so meaningfully. Nigel Powers wrote: There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/06/08 - 04:10 PM
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/06/08 - 04:22 PM:	#18
benkei wrote: It's a tautology and as such does not provide additional knowledge, which makes it a useless axiom and just a silly sound bite. I believe you are missing the fact that there is a vast divide among people and it is all based on the nature of existence. Objectivists are simply stating that existence is real, as opposed to something 'spiritual' or 'metaphysical'. A lot of people believe that some creator created this existence and that this existence is much like the 'thoughts' of that creator, or that when they die they will go to this other existence that is the real existence. Objectivists are just trying to say that this life, this earth, and this cosmos is the composite of existence and that there is no other existence beyond this existence. Some people believe the 'spiritual world' is the primary world and is more real than this world. This is why the statement that 'existence exists' is so important. benkei wrote: As to Ayn Rand's inferences with regard to her realism; of course, they are ridiculous because she didn't understand the first thing about metaphysics. It does not take a 'rocket scientist' to differentiate between the world being real or the world being an illusion. Whether she understood one thing about metaphysics does not change this fact. I certainly don't subscribe to all her ideas. However, the basis of existence as being real is an important point. It takes us out of the mystical, spiritual, religious mumbo-jumbo. cortes wrote: It is only wrong that we exist if the universe ought to be just. But if an unfair universe is ok, then our existence is ok. Our existence depends on the universe not being just. You seem to be going 'around the world' to present a very simple point. Why not just say that the universe is real. There is no evidence of any spiritual or religious realm, and the universe is a process and not a god sitting around watching his wayward children. The universe simply exists and there is no right or wrong about our existence, and the universe is neither fair nor unfair.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:38 PM:	#19
optrader wrote: You seem to be going 'around the world' to present a very simple point. Why not just say that the universe is real. There is no evidence of any spiritual or religious realm, and the universe is a process and not a god sitting around watching his wayward children. The universe simply exists and there is no right or wrong about our existence, and the universe is neither fair nor unfair. I am claiming more than simply that the universe is "neither fair nor unfair." Most thinking people accept this. As the saying goes, "life is not fair." The question is whether the universe ought to be fair or just. Does it make sense to pursue justice as many advocate. In any case, we can test if "reality exists" is sufficient after I post the next part.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/06/08 - 07:26 PM:	#20
cortes wrote: The question is whether the universe ought to be fair or just. Each question has a number of hidden implications. Just the question of whether the universe ought to be fair implies that the universe is some kind of entity that can think and make decisions and cause actions. Maybe most people probably never see these implications. But, they are there just the same. You could just have easily substitued god for the universe, because most people are thinking god ought to be fair or just. You cannot get around the religious implications of this question. A problem with your statements and questions is that they are too general. You need to narrow your focus. I know that a lot of people make broad, sweeping statements; but, much misunderstanding arises because they never narrow their questions. This is why a lot of general questions are really nonsense questions. Just as the question of whether the universe should be fair is a nonsense question because the universe is not an entity. Or, is it? If it is an entity, then your question would be aboutwhether the universal entity is fair. The point I am trying to make is that your question implies the universe is some kind of entity. Ok...I am looking forward to your future posts. I know you are going to elaborate on this. I am just having a problem getting a start on your thinking by only knowing the 2 principles.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/06/08 - 07:44 PM:	#21
optrader wrote: A problem with your statements and questions is that they are too general. General statements are always to be preferred for their efficiency where they can be demonstrated. For example, (x+y)+z=x+(y+z) is a nice, general statement that covers much ground whereas an itemized listing of instances would go on forever.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 02:37 AM:	#22
An Objectivist defending that tautologies contain information after writing a paragraph to put it in a certain context, showing that the information is in the context and not in the tautology. "rational" You're obviously confused. Rand's repudiation of Kant's metaphysics or lack thereof was not based on a conclusion formed independently from argument. She formally rejected Kant after forming the bases of Objectivist thought. The fact that modern academic philosophy works only to refine and interpret the works of Kant and his followers mirrors the overall misunderstandings on Rand's work and the irrational rejections of it. Hmmm... I'm obviously confused because...? Rand did not repudiate, she rejected. Rand had a vision of the perfect man and based all her philosophy on that. There was no rational inquisition into anything; just a gut feeling. She never read Kant so she didn't know what to reject. She was vaguely aware of his categorisations but had no idea how he reached them and she therefore never argued against Kant only insulted him (not unlike your last quote, objectivists are apparently all emotionalist creatures, while screaming at the top of their lungs "I'm rational, I'm RATIONAL!"), she was unaware of Schopenhauer's work that make a few interesting amendments to Kant. Her rejection was irrational to begin with, her project was not based on rationality but emotion. Entirely reactionary and badly written too. I believe you are missing the fact that there is a vast divide among people and it is all based on the nature of existence. Objectivists are simply stating that existence is real, as opposed to something 'spiritual' or 'metaphysical'. Existence is obviously not metaphysical as the two terms are mutually exclusive, wouldn't you agree? In any case, I hope she was trying to make the distinction between realism and idealism (e.g. mind-dependent world and mind-independent world). Of course, you never know with her. That doesn't diminish the fact that her existence exists is a silly sound bite I shall counter with "nothing nothings" (pace Heidegger I believe). It does seem to work as a mantra though, considering the number of cultists she has attracted. But yes, Rand did want to remove any room for faith in her metaphysics. The problem is she can't because rationality is limited. She wrongly believes knowledge is unlimited, whereas Kant has authoritatively proven that this is not the case and that the proving and disproving of faith-based claims is impossible. Why she has such a hard time understanding this is because she never read Kant and therefore has no idea what she's talking about. Pretend-philosophy for pretend-philosophers. Rationality is inseparably part of man: it comprises a defining essential property. God, last I checked, even in the confused Christian definitions, is not inseparably part of man because It can exist independently of man. Oh yes, this is... this is... another objectivist who didn't read Rand? Rand: "Reason, as man?s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual?s choice ... "This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.?Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions). " Rand herself claims that not everyone uses reason, so apparently it isn't wholly indispensible is it? So it's more a technique, which is not a matter of choice but learning. We must be taught to reason. (Spot the umpteenth tautology by the way). However, the basis of existence as being real is an important point. It takes us out of the mystical, spiritual, religious mumbo-jumbo. No it doesn't. It is just assuming that there is a reality that is mind-independent, or "objective reality". It says nothing about the existence of mystical and spiritual entities. Faith-based claims cannot be proven or proved. Rationality is limited, knowledge is limited, despite the well-wishing of Objectivists. Also, existence as we experience it is a 4-dimensional affair but it is likely that there are several more. Should we take those into account as well even though they are not experienced as part of our existence. Is it meaningful to do so if the existence of these addtional dimensions is proved? Don't put the words "rationality" and "God" in the same sentence, for whatever form that sentence has, it will always be nonsensical. You must be very bad at grammar if you can't make a meaningful sentence using those two words. In any case, Rand's belief in the limitless of knowledge and the power of reason are just as "irrational" (e.g. faith based) as belief in God. Rationality to Rand is then as God to Christians. The mere fact that Putnam relies upon the verification principle ("anything that cannot be experienced is meaningless") to talk about the meaning of the external reality, which apparently is not there, makes his claim a laughable return to logical positivism. It's not the meaning of external reality but of sentences that the verification principle concerns itself with. It is not that anything that cannot be experienced is meaningless but any sentence about things that cannot be experienced is meaningless. Well, that's the original "tenet" but there are quite a few verification principles out there. Not all of them so "laughable" as you claim. The BIV experiment shows that we cannot meaningfully speak of the external world (outside the virtual reality in te VAT) because anything the BIV talks about is related to virtual experience. A tree in a BIV's vocabulary is a virtual tree not a real one. This does not mean that there is no external reality just that it is meaningless for the BIV to consider it and therefore meaningless for us to take the Matrix seriously - even if it were true. But no amount of rational thinking will reveal the truth of the non-virtual reality and therefore rationality cannot distinguish between reality and illusion. It's as simple as that. And I suppose Karl Popper was a laughable return to logical empiricism as well? You fail to show in any way why logical empiricism is laughable to begin with. Emotionalist reaction per usual in defense of your saviour. At least objectivists are predictable - just like Rand you state things and assume we should accept it as truth. It makes for such wonderful rational discourse don't you agree?
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 200

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:19 AM:	#23
cortes wrote: There are two Basic Principles of Conquistadorianism: 1) We do not deserve to exist. 2) We are not indebted for our existence. In summary of the first two principles, we can say that our life is an undeserved but unencumbered gift. Does anyone deserve a gift? No. But a gift doesn't need to be deserved to be received. No. 'Gift' is an unnecessary value judgement. An unhappy person may take from the first principle that life is an undeserved nightmare. And it is no good to argue that they can simply reject the nightmare by committing suicide - since some of them try quite often. cortes wrote: What this implies is that we ought to live in a perpetual state of gratitude for the opportunity that life presents to us. A man who develops terminal cancer, through no fault of his own, has not been cheated of life. Indeed, were he to have died in childbirth he would already have lived longer than he deserved. Again, this does not follow at all. It might imply to the unhappy person that we 'ought' to live in a perpetual state of anger and resentment. There is no logical reason you can provide for us to see the glass half full instead of half empty - and no 'ought' follows from this even if we do see it as half full. There is no reason to feel gratitude towards something undeserved, and certainly no moral obligation. cortes wrote: What this also implies is that we owe our existence to the injustice of the world. Thank God that life is so unfair. If we got what we deserved we would not exist. Here you are confusing the meaning of the word deserved. We do 'not deserve' life in the sense that a stone does 'not deserve' to fall into a pond. This does not at all imply that if the stone got what it 'deserved' it would not fall into the pond. In fact, it is quite clear that the word 'deserved' is inapplicable in this case. There is no actual 'deserving' at all, merely a process which happens. The same is true of life. But this in no way entails that we owe our existence to injustice. This is a non-sequitur. cortes wrote: Viewing the world through the prism of these two fundamental principles, life is a wonderful opportunity where our will is free to pursue our desires. We do not have to believe that the world was created for our benefit alone in order to view the world as a playground and to go out and play in it. The world owes us nothing, not even our existence, and, in the absence of agreement, we don't owe anyone else. Might you not think that you owe someone something if you explicitly promise them something?
_____________________ One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 111

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:06 AM:	#24
Benkei wrote: Rand had a vision of the perfect man and based all her philosophy on that. There was no rational inquisition into anything; just a gut feeling. A lot of her philosophy does appear to be based on certain 'ideals', and I don't see how we can overlook the affects of her emotions on her philosophy. I believe her life in socialist Russia shaped her worlview and is the basis for her philosophy( or we might say her perception of the world). Her writings do not depict the deep scrutiny of ideas in the way other philosphers have done. I would say that she latched on to some 'ideals' and then built a philsophy around it. I do find the basic tenet of her ideas to be true: that there is a reality independent of a human mind. Benkei wrote: That doesn't diminish the fact that her existence exists is a silly sound bite I shall counter with "nothing nothings" (pace Heidegger I believe). It does seem to work as a mantra though, considering the number of cultists she has attracted. Existence exists is just a shortcut terminology for existence is real and it is independent of a human mind. My basis for this idea is based on evolution and the fossil record. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that all kinds of life forms have existed and evolved prior to our own lives. As we read the works of past philosphers, we have to conclude that they existed in the past. Thus, there is a reality that is independent of the human mind. Benkei wrote: Rand herself claims that not everyone uses reason, so apparently it isn't wholly indispensible is it? So it's more a technique, which is not a matter of choice but learning. We must be taught to reason. (Spot the umpteenth tautology by the way). I must agree with you regarding her use of reason. Just what is 'reason'? Is there such a thing as pure reason? Or, are all our ideas in some way a composite of reason and emotion? What is it that drives our pursuit of philosophy or of 'reason'? Is it our 'emotions'? After all, we must 'enjoy' or 'wish' to prove some point, so we pursue ways to 'prove' our ideas. Benkei wrote: It says nothing about the existence of mystical and spiritual entities. Faith-based claims cannot be proven or proved. Rationality is limited, knowledge is limited, despite the well-wishing of Objectivists. Agreed! We cannot prove that there are no spiritual entities, reason and knowledge are limitited. Benkei wrote: But no amount of rational thinking will reveal the truth of the non-virtual reality and therefore rationality cannot distinguish between reality and illusion. It's as simple as that. You are right about non-virtual reality. I must modify your idea about distinguishing between reality and illusion. We can only be aware of a portion of 'reality'. Our senses are limited and therefore our concepts of reality are limited. And, the more I think about it, we cannot be fully aware of reality. So, let me just say that we perceive a slice of 'reality'. Does this mean that we cannot distinquish between reality and illusion? Partially! In our world of thinking, we want to divide things into absolutes, into 1's and 0's. There is no room for partials for 0.2's or 0.5's. Rand's reliance on some kind of pure rationality is just so much wishful thinking. So, we cannot completely, but only partially distinquish between reality and illusion. This still does not invalidate the idea that existence is independent of a human mind. Anyway, you presented some very good arguments.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:30 AM:	#25
I think Putnam does not try to invalidate that existence is mind independent but he would consider knowledge immanent in experience. Taking Kant's division Putnam (as well as Rand actually) would be considered empirical realists.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Members currently reading this thread: cortes, keda, optrader
	Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.