But, as a side note, given where we are in the conversation, tell me what your take on the Randian view is now that we've explored a bit. Are you less hostile, are you more hostile? Are things more clear, did you have misconceptions that were dealt with? Give me a comment jus on that sort of analysis, would you? — Garrett Travers

I’ve been trying to process all of this carefully, and I have to admit that my original criticism of her philosophy being ‘limited’ came from individualist approaches to the essence of her philosophy, which she described as:

“the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

To say that Rand’s philosophy amounts to individualism is a misunderstanding of the rational depth and breadth to the terms ‘happiness’, ‘productivity’ and ‘reason’. These extend through reasoning processes far beyond the individual towards a logical absolute, prior to any self-beneficiary analysis.

When we act, we do so necessarily from a position of selfishness: reason, at the end of the day, is not what moves us. But it is our capacity for reasoning (extending awareness, connection and collaboration towards a logical absolute) that can take into account these limitations of humanity - our finite resource of time, effort and attention - and from it create a qualitative contribution to rational consciousness.

I do think there is a romantic variability to Rand’s philosophy that leaves it vulnerable to the ignorant, isolating and exclusive political ideologies of individualism, moralism and capitalism - all three of which Rand supported to an extent. That is its weakness, and perhaps the main reason for hostility and misconception. What constitutes a qualitative contribution in her philosophy is too easily hijacked by propagandists, and then capacity for reason is limited.

To say that Rand’s philosophy amounts to individualism is a misunderstanding of the rational depth and breadth to the terms ‘happiness’, ‘productivity’ and ‘reason’. These extend through reasoning processes far beyond the individual towards a logical absolute, prior to any self-beneficiary analysis. — Possibility

A fair assertion. What is this area beyond the individual, and when does anybody involved contemplate an ethical action without a self-beneficial analysis? I'll need you to describe what you're talking about, just as I described what I was talking about.

When we act, we do so necessarily from a position of selfishness: reason, at the end of the day, is not what moves us. — Possibility

..... Then what moves you? It's reason that moves me. Describe what moves you, and in what way it is divorced from reason.

do think there is a romantic variability to Rand’s philosophy that leaves it vulnerable to the ignorant, isolating and exclusive political ideologies of individualism, moralism and capitalism - all three of which Rand supported to an extent. — Possibility

Ignorant? You're gonna need to have a supported argument before you get to use that term here.

hat is its weakness, and perhaps the main reason for hostility and misconception. What constitutes a qualitative contribution in her philosophy is too easily hijacked by propagandists, and then capacity for reason is limited. — Possibility

Except it has never been associated with mass murder the way all of her competition has, from Marxism, to Kantian Deontology, to Christianity. All of these are murderous ideologies on their own, Objectivism is not. Again, you just saying things doesn't make them true. You're going to need to defend your claims, or at least explain why you are claiming them.

Sure, there's going to be analytical elements, but those formulae don't just emerge in analytics and then become immediately accept by the physics community, they have learned to be applied, learned through applications ahead of those developments. That's why we have the domain of applied physics, the empirical domain. But, yes, you are correct as well. I just wouldn't separate them with too much space in between. — Garrett Travers

There is no ‘space’ in between - it’s all about qualitative structure. Theoretical physics is five-dimensional, applied physics is four-dimensional. That’s the only real difference.

Right, you're echoing my position. Empiricism is how we test for reality, but that doesn't mean our methods are currently up to snuff, hence the LHC. That thing was designed, wonder of the modern world, to approach empirical understanding of quanta. In the end, when we do understand how QM and Relativity are compatible, it will be through empirical methods. No doubt whatsoever. — Garrett Travers

I appreciate the phrase ‘to approach empirical understanding’. I have my doubts that we can achieve a sufficient level of certainty or agreement in any conceptual understanding of reality at this level. It is the nature of conceptualisation that lets us down, as a key tool in our empirical methods. But this appears to be an unreasonable assertion of faith on your part. To reach a position of ‘no doubt whatsoever’, there must be a degree of ignorance, isolation or exclusion. Our finite access to time, effort and attention seems to be the problem - and we’re already deep in the red here, collaboratively speaking. A dose of humility is in order - preferably as an experience of prediction/calculation, rather than observation.

Again, this is echoing what I have already asserted here. Affect is an element of reason. Emotions, attention, conceptualizition, all elements of reason. We are agreeing. — Garrett Travers

Not really - you seem to be equivocating reason and reasoning without qualification. Reason is five-dimensional, reasoning is four-dimensional. Affect is also four-dimensional: an element in reasoning, but an aspect of reason.

I just wanted to address these before I tackle your approach to ethics...

There is no ‘space’ in between - it’s all about qualitative structure. Theoretical physics is five-dimensional, applied physics is four-dimensional. That’s the only real difference. — Possibility

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.

I appreciate the phrase ‘to approach empirical understanding’. I have my doubts that we can achieve a sufficient level of certainty or agreement in any conceptual understanding of reality at this level. It is the nature of conceptualisation that lets us down, as a key tool in our empirical methods. But this appears to be an unreasonable assertion of faith on your part. To reach a position of ‘no doubt whatsoever’, there must be a degree of ignorance, isolation or exclusion. Our finite access to time, effort and attention seems to be the problem - and we’re already deep in the red here, collaboratively speaking. A dose of humility is in order - preferably as an experience of prediction/calculation, rather than observation. — Possibility

I don't understand what any of this has to do with what we were talking about. The no doubt part is how we discover truth, that is within the realm of reason and empiricism, no doubt whatsoever. Experience and calculation fall into the observation category. That's the integration of data via multisensory induction.

Not really - you seem to be equivocating reason and reasoning without qualification. Reason is five-dimensional, reasoning is four-dimensional. Affect is also four-dimensional: an element in reasoning, but an aspect of reason. — Possibility

reason- think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
reasoning- the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

This is what I mean. Not equivocating anything. Look, man. Just read what I say. Don't worry about interpreting it, just read what I say and that will suffice.

I just wanted to address these before I tackle your approach to ethics... — Possibility

Sounds good, I've been waiting for this since the thread went up from someone. Please keep it legit, don't want a repeat of the last guy that tried to do this.

Yes. The only reason a collective would claim right to something as a general good, would be because it is of good to each individual, or the maximal number of individuals. Meaning, even if one wants to stray from the baseline standard of ethics, they simply cannot, any more than they can see throught the eyes of someone else. — Garrett Travers

What about when we perceive some action as a general good for another person while we wouldn’t see it that way for ourselves? For example, a person who doesn’t like pizza buys some pizza for her friend. That doesn’t constitute a good to her, but it does to her friend. In this case it seems compassion is at play instead of rational selfish motives.

Any perceived gain. However, a rational approach, as implied by 'rational selfishness,' would have one consider that not all perceived gains are actual gains, and to be sure that analysis is present. — Garrett Travers

How do we distinguish between actual gains and false gains ?

What about when we perceive some action as a general good for another person while we wouldn’t see it that way for ourselves? For example, a person who doesn’t like pizza buys some pizza for her friend. That doesn’t constitute a good to her, but it does to her friend. In this case it seems compassion is at play instead of rational selfish motives. — Hello Human

People who constitute a value to you being pleased with something you've done is a value to you, a benefit, or you simply would not do such a thing. Giving a friend a pizza would only happen as a result of having excess funds, and/or that person being a friend you desire to remain a friend, so benefit plays into that. Even if it's only to make oneself feel better about themselves, people will do things for other people. But, frankly, not all actions are morally valenced. For example, friends don't give friends money when rent is due and they're barely scraping by, that would be a morally valenced action. Pizza, not so much, but benefit never leaves the equation. Rand's point on this is about sacrifice. Compassion is fine, giving is fine. But, one should never sacrifice their rent for their friend's circumstances, not unless the giving didn't constitute a sacrifice for some reason.

How do we distinguish between actual gains and false gains ? — Hello Human

Knowledge and education. Which is why the pursuit of both is ethically valenced, and willful ignorance is evil. It's not always going to be clear, but one learns along the way.

I just don't see how that could be the case. "Net gains" describes an individual benefit for a number of individuals receiving benefit. The "qualitative net gain" you speak of would not be agreed to by people who did not understand how they were benefitting, and would not be agreed to it unless you forced them. Nor should they. There's no way out of the individual cost/benefit analysis, which, has always been the basis of Ethics. The "good life" of the ancients is the same "rational selfishness" that individuals decide upon in mutual co-operation. You must be able to see this. You wouldn't be speaking with me here if you hadn't perceived some gain from it, and the same goes for me. We're hardwired to avoid pain and seek pleasure, and that is the basis of all ethical deliberations. That doesn't mean that that is where deliberations end, that's where rationality comes in. But, it is an ethical non-starter if an action is not at bare minimum self-beneficiary. — Garrett Travers

You seem to be assuming that I’m talking about ethics in relation to a collection of individuals, but I don’t subscribe to individualism at all. I recognise that the individual cost/benefit analysis applies in relation to choosing to act (or not), but that’s all. The possible gain I perceive from our interaction has always been to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, and whether that occurs in my mind or in yours is a gain either way. To that end, I sometimes have to step away and work through the pain of humiliation, or restrain my glee before engaging, because this tendency to avoid pain and seek pleasure only distorts perception through ignorance, isolation and exclusion, which is counter-productive at this level of discussion. Action is another story.

To say that Rand’s philosophy amounts to individualism is a misunderstanding of the rational depth and breadth to the terms ‘happiness’, ‘productivity’ and ‘reason’. These extend through reasoning processes far beyond the individual towards a logical absolute, prior to any self-beneficiary analysis.
— Possibility

A fair assertion. What is this area beyond the individual, — Garrett Travers

I’m talking dimensionality (again - bear with me). The ‘individual’ is a five-dimensional consolidating system of potentiality in consciousness, defined in common perception by the observable/measurable (4D) logical and energy structures of a human life, yet extending in qualitative variability beyond these spatio-temporal limitations through reasoning processes. Beyond this ‘individual’ is the perceived potentiality of the universe, with which this ‘individual’ is considered an eternally interacting element.

But this perceived potentiality is defined in reasoning by the (5D) logical and energy correlations of the human mind, extending in qualitative variability beyond perceived value through rational speculation. Beyond rationality is the imaginable possibilities of reality, to which this mind exists in necessary relation.

... and when does anybody involved contemplate an ethical action without a self-beneficial analysis? — Garrett Travers

When reasoning in perceived potentiality or rational speculation - ie. engaged in philosophical discussion.

When we act, we do so necessarily from a position of selfishness: reason, at the end of the day, is not what moves us.
— Possibility

..... Then what moves you? It's reason that moves me. Describe what moves you, and in what way it is divorced from reason. — Garrett Travers

You misunderstand me. I did not say that what moves us is divorced from reason. Let’s be honest: not all affect derives from reason, and not all reason contributes to affect. Yet it is affect that moves us, and affect which is ultimately selfish - as this term is more commonly understood.

Ignorant? You're gonna need to have a supported argument before you get to use that term here. — Garrett Travers

Okay, let me be clear here first, before you get your back up. I do recognise the pure romantic ideals behind these ‘-isms’. But the political ideologies that result do tend towards ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Individualism ignores the logical interconnectedness of reality; Moralism ignores relativity; and Capitalism ignores intrinsic quality. Most ‘-isms’ do ignore something.

Except it has never been associated with mass murder the way all of her competition has, from Marxism, to Kantian Deontology, to Christianity. All of these are murderous ideologies on their own, Objectivism is not. Again, you just saying things doesn't make them true. You're going to need to defend your claims, or at least explain why you are claiming them. — Garrett Travers

Don’t get defensive - this is not a competition, but she was aiming for perfection, was she not? If Rand wants her philosophy to see us maximise our capacity for reason, then she needs to address this romanticism as a weakness. These notions of morality, nobility and singularity are not rationally absolute.

Not really - you seem to be equivocating reason and reasoning without qualification. Reason is five-dimensional, reasoning is four-dimensional. Affect is also four-dimensional: an element in reasoning, but an aspect of reason.
— Possibility

reason- think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
reasoning- the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

This is what I mean. Not equivocating anything. Look, man. Just read what I say. Don't worry about interpreting it, just read what I say and that will suffice. — Garrett Travers

Trying to follow you here, but you keep using ‘reason’ as a noun, and then define it as a verb.

Reason (noun) - the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

How is reason(ing) 5 dimensional?

How is reason(ing) 5 dimensional? — Agent Smith

Reason exists without spatio-temporal location, as a system of value/potential. Another term for this is conceptual structure (which I prefer as it’s less confusing), or mind. Reason develops in potentiality, and informs the reasoning process by generating predictions, hypotheses, etc, based on existing knowledge, values and beliefs, structured according to perceived value or significance (not according to time or space).

Reasoning is an ongoing (4D) event without a definitive spatial location, as a system of change. Reasoning is the process by which our conceptual structures are open to change from experiential data, and vice versa - through a mutual language of affect. Reasoning occurs in time.

But, one should never sacrifice their rent for their friend's circumstances, not unless the giving didn't constitute a sacrifice for some reason. — Garrett Travers

What if one considers one’s rent as important, but at the same time also considers their friends’ wellbeing as more important? It is still a sacrifice, but it is done in the name of some greater good.

Knowledge and education. Which is why the pursuit of both is ethically valenced, and willful ignorance is evil. It's not always going to be clear, but one learns along the way. — Garrett Travers

I agree, but by itself, that knowledge does not create any true normative proposition. For example, knowing that one is allergic to chocolate is not enough to form the proposition that one mustn’t eat chocolate. For that proposition to be formed we need the proposition that allergenic reactions are to be avoided. So we need some value judgments with that knowledge.

he possible gain I perceive from our interaction has always been to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, and whether that occurs in my mind or in yours is a gain either way. — Possibility

Right, this kind potential-benefit analysis is never absent from an ethical deliberation, and is the basic standard for your ethics.

because this tendency to avoid pain and seek pleasure only distorts perception through ignorance, isolation and exclusion, which is counter-productive at this level of discussion. — Possibility

Well, I'm not talking strictly pain/pleasure analysis, although that's going to be the basic biological impetus to action. I'm talking any perceived benefit, which is up to subjective analysis. What you are describing is a benefit analysis as an impetus to action, it just may be more broad than pain/pleasure, and may include values that differ from mine, i.e. the avoidance of the ignorance that blinds a basic pain/pleasure analysis. It's still all rationally selfish, it's unavoidable.

I’m talking dimensionality (again - bear with me). The ‘individual’ is a five-dimensional consolidating system of potentiality in consciousness, defined in common perception by the observable/measurable (4D) logical and energy structures of a human life, yet extending in qualitative variability beyond these spatio-temporal limitations through reasoning processes. Beyond this ‘individual’ is the perceived potentiality of the universe, with which this ‘individual’ is considered an eternally interacting element. — Possibility

So, this is a cool perspective, but it isn't really aligned with modern cognitive neuroscience, which is one of my personal philosophical/scientific pursuits. Reason is how we take miultisensory data, and use it to inform future behavior, at a basic level. Is this kind of what you're getting at? Because, they postulate that reason evolved as a means to overcome adversity in a chaotic set of changing environments. So, in other words, even reason was designed by nature to be a rationally selfish tool, and actual may encompass what you're talking about here in this paragraph.

Let’s be honest: not all affect derives from reason, and not all reason contributes to affect. Yet it is affect that moves us, and affect which is ultimately selfish - as this term is more commonly understood. — Possibility

Yes, biologically, affect is older and more imperative, as it were, from that perspective. But, reason is the executive function that conceptualizes how such affect can be utilized for future behavior. Any process by which you inform future behavior is reason, or is encompassed by reason. And it happens to be your only means by which to navigate the world in pursuit of the means to sustain your life.

Okay, let me be clear here first, before you get your back up. I do recognise the pure romantic ideals behind these ‘-isms’. But the political ideologies that result do tend towards ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Individualism ignores the logical interconnectedness of reality; Moralism ignores relativity; and Capitalism ignores intrinsic quality. Most ‘-isms’ do ignore something. — Possibility

Hehaha, I have no back up, brother. It's just me. I agreed to take you all on here, irrespective of how many of you came to detract. I consider it a pleasure. And, frankly, the only ideology that has resulted from Objectivism is Libertarianism, and it is the only remaining legitimate political party in America for reasons of having not been associated with war crimes, mass murder, or any other major evil in America's history. However, let's handle these topics at a different time, topic is too big.

Don’t get defensive - this is not a competition, but she was aiming for perfection, was she not? If Rand wants her philosophy to see us maximise our capacity for reason, then she needs to address this romanticism as a weakness. These notions of morality, nobility and singularity are not rationally absolute. — Possibility

Hey, fair enough, no worries. But, no, not perfection. Her writing was meant to convey the ideal human's, but they're Romantic novels by nature. Like reading about Jean Valjean, same idea. In other words, it was intentional. It wasn't meant to be argument. Her arguments are far more structured and supported. I recommend you check out at least chapter 1 of Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, if you haven't, to get a sample of what I mean. Her arguments are grounded and sophisticated. Probably the most sophisticated ethical arguments of the past century.

What if one considers one’s rent as important, but at the same time also considers their friends’ wellbeing as more important? It is still a sacrifice, but it is done in the name of some greater good. — Hello Human

If one actually values the person, then no, it is selfish. However, Rand would have you consider the rational reasons behind why you value them more than your rent, and fact that if your friend valued you, they probably wouldn't be asking for money in such circumstances. It's ethically neutral to give, it is not ethically neutral to give in ay your own expense of well-being, and nobody should ever ask such a thing of you.

I agree, but by itself, that knowledge does not create any true normative proposition. — Hello Human

The normative position is grounded in your benefit. Knowledge informs the dimensions associated with that benefit with a greater clarity, it doesn't provide it itself.

For example, knowing that one is allergic to chocolate is not enough to form the proposition that one mustn’t eat chocolate. For that proposition to be formed we need the proposition that allergenic reactions are to be avoided. So we need some value judgments with that knowledge. — Hello Human

Right, that's why your ethics are grounded in rational selfishness. You don't eat the chocolate, because the choclate is a detriment to your life, and your benefit is the standard of your ethics. It's way more straight forward than what you are just letting yourself see. Try to simplify things in your mind here. Self-good = Moral. Self-harm = Evil. Basic as hell.

Right, that's why your ethics are grounded in rational selfishness. You don't eat the chocolate, because the choclate is a detriment to your life, and your benefit is the standard of your ethics. It's way more straight forward than what you are just letting yourself see. Try to simplify things in your mind here. Self-good = Moral. Self-harm = Evil. Basic as hell. — Garrett Travers

I wonder how you reconcile your notion of self with that of Varela , who integrates results from cognitive neuroscience and mindfulness traditions to conclude that there is no such thing as a ‘self’ as a self-same entity, only a constantly changing relational process that integrates bodily and social inputs. Because the self is its relations with others, it is the interaction that is primary.

“We believe that the view of the self as an economic man, which is the view the social sciences hold, is quite consonant with the unexamined view of our own motivation that we hold as ordinary, nonmindful people. Let us state that view clearly. The self is seen as a territory with boundaries. The goal of the self is to bring inside the boundaries all of the good things while paying out as few goods as possible and conversely to remove to the outside of the boundaries all of the bad things while letting in as little bad as possible. Since goods are scarce, each autonomous self is in competition with other selves to get them. Since cooperation between individuals and whole societies may be needed to get more goods, uneasy and unstable alliances are formed between autonomous selves. Some selves (altruists) and many selves in some roles (parents, teachers) may get (immaterial) goods by helping other selves, but they will become disappointed (even disillusioned) if those other selves do not reciprocate by being properly helped.

What does the mindfulness/awareness tradition or enactive cognitive science have to contribute to this portrait of self-interest? The mindful, open-ended approach to experience reveals that moment by moment this so-called self occurs only in relation to the other. If I want praise, love, fame, or power, there has to be another (even if only a mental one) to praise, love, know about, or submit to me. If I want to obtain things, they have to be things that I don't already have. Even with respect to the desire for pleasure, the pleasure is something to which I am in a relation. Because self is always codependent with other (even at the gross level we are now discussing), the force of self-interest is always other-directed in the very same respect with which it is self-directed. What, then, are people doing who appear so self-interested as opposed to other-interested? Mindfulness/awareness meditators suggest that those people are struggling, in a confused way, to maintain the sense of a separate self by engaging in self-referential relationships with the other. Whether I gain or lose, there can be a sense of I; if there is nothing to be gained or lost, I am groundless. If Hobbes's despot were actually to succeed in obtaining everything in the universe, he would have to find some other preoccupation quickly, or he would be in a woeful state: he would be unable to maintain his sense of himself. Of course, as we have seen with nihilism, one can always turn that groundlessness into a ground; then one can maintain oneself in relation to it by feeling despair.

The mindfulness/awareness student first begins to see in a precise fashion what the mind is doing, its restless, perpetual grasping, moment to moment. This enables the student to cut some of the automaticity of his habitual patterns, which leads to further mindfulness, and he begins to realize that there is no self in any of his actual experience. This can be disturbing and offers the temptation to swing to the other extreme, producing moments of loss of heart. The philosophical flight into nihilism that we saw earlier in this chapter mirrors a psychological process: the reflex to grasp is so strong and deep seated that we reify the absence of a solid foundation into a solid absence or abyss.

As the student goes on, however, and his mind relaxes further into awareness, a sense of warmth and inclusiveness dawns. The street fighter mentality of watchful self-interest can be let go somewhat to be replaced by interest in others. We are already other-directed even at our most negative, and we already feel warmth toward some people, such as family and friends. The conscious realization of the sense of relatedness and the development of a more impartial sense of warmth are encouraged in the mindfulness/awareness tradition by various contemplative practices such as the generation of loving-kindness. It is said that the full realization of groundlessness (sunyata) cannot occur if there is no warmth.“

I'd say the facts are generally correct, but the conclusion is wrong. There's no reason why someone would conclude that a progressive diminution of automaticity would somehow lead to a lack of self. It's exactly the opposite. One becomes more individual as one gains knowledge and independence from basic programming. Not to mention, even with automaticity, a biological entity is unequivocally, and inarguably, self-contained. So, really this is little more than intellectual exploration that doesn't line up with science. I take the exact opposite opinion usign the same information he is, with the extra help of modern neuroscience.

One becomes more individual as one gains knowledge and independence from basic programming. Not to mention, even with automaticity, a biological entity is unequivocally, and inarguably, self-contained. — Garrett Travers

How can a biological entity be self-contained if it is not a container? Does the body contain organs? If we extract a liver, is the liver a self-contained entity? What about liver cells? Is each cell self-contained? What about mitochondria within the cell wall? Are these self-contained? We could go on and on , accumulating all sorts of little selves within the body. But any of these little containers are just arbitrarily labels we slap onto aspects of organismic functioning that tell us nothing about themselves, how they function and what role they play in the organism’s functions. If we put a liver on a table, its structure and function only become clear when we know that it belongs to a digestive system , and this digestive system serves the purpose of dealing with fuel for an active organism , which has means of moving around itse environment. Each animal has parts that are exquisitely organized in relation to its functioning as a whole , and this functioning can only be understood in terms of how it fits i it that animal’s specific ecological niche, what it eats, where it lives , what nests it builds , how it breaths, what its social behaviors are. So if there is a container , it is not some imagined boundary around a body , but the ecological niches that the animal is a part of.
The human body includes the air it breaths and exhales , the food it eats and eliminates, the surfaces it moves onithat keep its bones healthy , its social stimulation that allow its perceptual system to take shape. The adaptive patterns of our neurological functioning , the specific nature of our rationality , is created, supported by and dependent on the human-built social-technological environment that we live in. We can only move forward in our understanding of our world by changing that niche through social and technological progress.This changed environment will then in turn feed back to us and enable further innovations of thought. So our ‘container’ is this culture that supports us. Of course , each of us inhabit our own micro-culture within the larger one consisting of our families, friends , neighborhood, etc.
Everything that is precious to you as a modern rational philosopher and scientist comes to you as pieces of the minds of others, the devices you use and services, education and entertainment you make use of , the advice and support you get, the medical care, etc. Those pieces from others is what allows you to grow as a person. Every time you make a decision to expose yourself to and benefit from anything anyone else has produced, you are expanding your self by incorporating a piece of them into you. We are always ‘altruistic’ towards those pieces of value and creativity we embrace from others from the time we are in the womb, and do everything f we can to protect, nourish and encourage them. Because there are other pieces of others we cannot relate to or embrace , we say we are selfish , but in fact we are discriminating altruists.

How can a biological entity be self-contained if it is not a container? Does the body contain organs? If we extract a liver, is the liver a self-contained entity? What about liver cells? Is each cell self-contained? What about mitochondria within the cell wall? Are these self-contained? We could go on and on , accumulating all sorts of little selves within the body. — Joshs

Think real hard about this argument, and get back to me. The human being is a self-contained organism that possesses self-contained consciousness. I do not care about the ways you can reduce the human being by describing all of the individual components that comprise a human being. This is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with consciousness and ethics.

But any of these little containers are just arbitrarily labels we slap onto aspects of organismic functioning that tell us nothing about themselves, how they function and what role they play in the organism’s functions. If we put a liver on a table, its structure and function only become clear when we know that it belongs to a digestive system , and this digestive system serves the purpose of dealing with fuel for an active organism , which has means of moving around itse environment. Each animal has parts that are exquisitely organized in relation to its functioning as a whole , and this functioning can only be understood in terms of how it fits i it that animal’s specific ecological niche, what it eats, where it lives , what nests it builds , how it breaths, what its social behaviors are. So if there is a container , it is not some imagined boundary around a body , but the ecological niches that the animal is a part of. — Joshs

Every single word of this is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

The human body includes the air it breaths and exhales , the food it eats and eliminates, the surfaces it moves onithat keep its bones healthy , its social stimulation that allow its perceptual system to take shape. The adaptive patterns of our neurological functioning , the specific nature of our rationality , is created, supported by and dependent on the human-built social-technological environment that we live in. We can only move forward in our understanding of our world by changing that niche through social and technological progress. — Joshs

Irrelevant.

So our ‘container’ is this culture that supports us. Of course , each of us inhabit our own micro-culture within the larger one consisting of our families, friends , neighborhood, etc.
Everything that is precious to you as a modern rational philosopher and scientist comes to you as pieces of the minds of others, the devices you use and services, education and entertainment you make use of , the advice and support you get, the medical care, etc. Those pieces from others is what allows you to grow as a person. Every time you make a decision to expose yourself to and benefit from anything anyone else has produced, you are expanding your self by incorporating a piece of them into you. — Joshs

And? It is my prerogative to value any of that, because I am a self-contained individual who gets to choose to do so, because my consciousness belongs to me. Again, benefiting from eachother for the value we produce is part of the ethical model in question. You're simply echoing my argument here. I do not benefit from people who do not provide value to society, notice you didn't mention any of them. This society you are talking about is itself comprised of individuals, not of an amorphus blob of human emotion, as all societies are. I don't know what the point of this post is.

We are always ‘altruistic’ towards those pieces of value and creativity we embrace from others from the time we are in the womb, and do everything f we can to protect, nourish and encourage them. — Joshs

No, we're not. Children are the exact opposite of altruists, they are irrationally selfish beings by nature, as are all animals that are not eusocial, which we are not. And I'm not altruistic at all, and I find it to be grotesque, the concept. Exchanging value between people who value one another is not altruism. Altruism is specifically placing a higher value on life that is not my own. If what you describe is how you operate, you will suffer for it. Consider this your friendly warning from a fellow philosopher, I really woudn't just say it to make a point. I genuinely believe it as a result of reason and experience, and history for that matter.

Because there are other pieces of others we cannot relate to or embrace , we say we are selfish , but in fact we are discriminating altruists. — Joshs

The people who are discriminating altruists, will understand one day just how evil such a thing can be, and will suffer for it. I, however, am not an altruist, and I don't believe anybody really is when they think about it. I think that Christianity left us with the idea that such was the proper mode of being, and most humans fall for the trap of sacrificiality. People want to be regarded by others as ethical, because they have no self and no pride of it. They require the acceptance of others. Well, guess what, that's not the way, my friend. I will never be treated with disrespect to my value as a conscious being ever again, and I will never initiate anything of the kind either. Now, let's get on with talking about Objectivism, I'm not really here to discuss our different opinions.

In fact, idea: moving forward, let's keep our posts as short as we can keep them, so that we can address individual points about this topic in an isolated manner. I don't much care for this multi-response thing all of us have going on here on TPF. IT drains me pretty hard, and this stuff is important to all of us. I think it will be far more productive that way. Sound good?

Well, I'm not talking strictly pain/pleasure analysis, although that's going to be the basic biological impetus to action. I'm talking any perceived benefit, which is up to subjective analysis. What you are describing is a benefit analysis as an impetus to action, it just may be more broad than pain/pleasure, and may include values that differ from mine, i.e. the avoidance of the ignorance that blinds a basic pain/pleasure analysis. It's still all rationally selfish, it's unavoidable. — Garrett Travers

I agree that the basic biological impetus to action is more broad than pain/pleasure - it’s more along the lines of valence and arousal. A subjective analysis must eventually tend towards a form of ‘rational selfishness’ in proposing a distribution of attention and effort, but this is merely a translation of reasoning into affect, not a justification.

So, this is a cool perspective, but it isn't really aligned with modern cognitive neuroscience, which is one of my personal philosophical/scientific pursuits. Reason is how we take miultisensory data, and use it to inform future behavior, at a basic level. Is this kind of what you're getting at? Because, they postulate that reason evolved as a means to overcome adversity in a chaotic set of changing environments. So, in other words, even reason was designed by nature to be a rationally selfish tool, and actual may encompass what you're talking about here in this paragraph. — Garrett Travers

Yes. DNA was ‘designed by nature’ as a means to overcome adversity in a chaotic set of changing environments, too - just at the level between 3D and 4D structures. Reasoning - or the process of converting back and forth between affect and reason - achieves the same at the level between 4D and 5D structures.

Yes, biologically, affect is older and more imperative, as it were, from that perspective. But, reason is the executive function that conceptualizes how such affect can be utilized for future behavior. Any process by which you inform future behavior is reason, or is encompassed by reason. And it happens to be your only means by which to navigate the world in pursuit of the means to sustain your life. — Garrett Travers

This is an oversimplification. The process is more of a collaboration between reason and affect. Reason cannot function in the world without affect, but affect can function without reason - just not anywhere near as accurately.

Hehaha, I have no back up, brother. It's just me. I agreed to take you all on here, irrespective of how many of you came to detract. I consider it a pleasure. And, frankly, the only ideology that has resulted from Objectivism is Libertarianism, and it is the only remaining legitimate political party in America for reasons of having not been associated with war crimes, mass murder, or any other major evil in America's history. However, let's handle these topics at a different time, topic is too big. — Garrett Travers

Your focus here is on defending Rand, I get that. I’m not suggesting that Rand or indeed Objectivism was the cause in any way. But a lack of political association with ‘evil’ does not necessarily amount to innocence, only a lack of responsibility. Libertarianism seems to me an a-political movement, not a political party. Still, I’m not American, so my capacity to debate this topic is severely limited by ignorance - and I agree that it’s too big to take on here. We have enough to discuss.

Her writing was meant to convey the ideal human's, but they're Romantic novels by nature. Like reading about Jean Valjean, same idea. In other words, it was intentional. It wasn't meant to be argument. Her arguments are far more structured and supported. I recommend you check out at least chapter 1 of Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, if you haven't, to get a sample of what I mean. Her arguments are grounded and sophisticated. Probably the most sophisticated ethical arguments of the past century. — Garrett Travers

I will check it out, thanks.

I agree that the basic biological impetus to action is more broad than pain/pleasure - it’s more along the lines of valence and arousal. A subjective analysis must eventually tend towards a form of ‘rational selfishness’ in proposing a distribution of attention and effort, but this is merely a translation of reasoning into affect, not a justification. — Possibility

Right, exactly. The justification comes from a philosophical analysis that I'd love to finally address with you, now that we're on the same page here with this material above.

Yes. DNA was ‘designed by nature’ as a means to overcome adversity in a chaotic set of changing environments, too - just at the level between 3D and 4D structures. Reasoning - or the process of converting back and forth between affect and reason - achieves the same at the level between 4D and 5D structures. — Possibility

Give me time to play with this idea, this is new to me. Any references to look up with this? I believe I can probably adopt it into my own philosophy, maybe even Rand's, if it isn't woo. Which, I don't think you've been a woo type guy thus far, so that's a good sign.

This is an oversimplification. The process is more of a collaboration between reason and affect. Reason cannot function in the world without affect, but affect can function without reason - just not anywhere near as accurately. — Possibility

Accepted assertion. I think we're getting places, you and I. I dig it. I agree, that was an oversimplification, but not in an attempt to do that, but to crystallize something in writ that would generally take a while to lay out.

We have enough to discuss. — Possibility

Thanks, pal. I appreciate it.

I will check it out, thanks. — Possibility

Just first chapter. You think it's garbage after that, I'll never bother you about again, you have my word.

No, we're not. Children are the exact opposite of altruists, they are irrationally selfish beings by nature, as are all animals that are not eusocial, which we are not. And I'm not altruistic at all, and I find it to be grotesque, the concept. Exchanging value between people who value one another is not altruism. Altruism is specifically placing a higher value on life that is not my own. If what you describe is how you operate, you will suffer for it. Consider this your friendly warning from a fellow philosopher, I really woudn't just say it to make a point. I genuinely believe it as a result of reason and experience, and history for that matter. — Garrett Travers

I just noticed this in passing and felt the urge to pipe in. Studies show that babies and young children are not as selfish as we assume - this is part of what makes them so vulnerable. Altruism is commonly misinterpreted or consolidated as placing a higher value on life that is not one’s own. But I see it as part of an underlying impetus to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, which prevails to some extent in all of existence, drives evolution through variability, and forms the basis of ethics.

I just noticed this in passing and felt the urge to pipe in. Studies show that babies and young children are not as selfish as we assume - this is part of what makes them so vulnerable. Altruism is commonly misinterpreted or consolidated as placing a higher value on life that is not one’s own. But I see it as part of an underlying impetus to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, which prevails to some extent in all of existence, drives evolution through variability, and forms the basis of ethics. — Possibility

Okay. Can you point me to them I'll have a look? If I'm wrong, I will retract this portion of my argument.

Children are the exact opposite of altruists, they are irrationally selfish beings by nature, as are all animals that are not eusocial, which we are not. And I'm not altruistic at all, and I find it to be grotesque, the concept. Exchanging value between people who value one another is not altruism. Altruism is specifically placing a higher value on life that is not my own. — Garrett Travers

Let me retract my use of the term altruism then. What I want to say is not that we value others above
ourselves but that in our dealings with people in our lives that we care about , we find what they offer us to be almost as valuable as our own thoughts and feelings. In relating to loved ones it’s mostly not a question of choosing between ourselves and them but of having both. What difference does it make that I know and care for my self a little better than I know my loved one? I need both my own thoughts and feelings and what they contribute to me, even thought I slightly prefer my own. Those aspects of the other that I can’t relate to or embrace I will reject, but in any close relationship those moments are secondary. Small children love and need their parents intensely. So why do they appear irrational selfish? Because one minute their parent offers them
exactly what they need in terms of love, comfort or understanding , and the next minute the parent seems to deprive them of what they want , or punish or ignore them. The young child doesnt understand why the parent cannot act and think exactly as the child thinks all the time, and so moves from love to hate and back again for the parent constantly. But when the child is in a loving mood, it wants only the best for the parent, even though it still recognizes its own thinking and feeling as slightly preferable to the parent. So in love the child isn’t choosing itself over the parent, it is choosing both.

As adults, mostly I and my beloved find our interactions to be mutually valuable without having to worry about the fact that each of us value ourselves slightly higher than we value the other. This is because in my day to day living the central choice is not between my interpretation of a situation and my friend’s interpretation of that same situation, but between my being alone and isolated or in the company of someone who I value. So we dont spend most of our lives choosing our selves over others, we spend most of our lives using the valuable qualities we find in others to trigger richer thoughts and feelings in our own selves that we could not have generated without their help.

We make these choices all the time. We can sleep all day, stare at a wall, listen to music , watch television or be with a friend. In each of these examples our ‘self’ is being stimulated by something that is added to our experience. Each of those situations expands our ‘self’. But why is it that being with a close friend causes me to have much more enjoyable thoughts and feelings than staring at the wall? It’s because what my friend contributes is almost as valuable to me as my own thoughts and feelings, so much so that being with them triggers richer and more valuable thoughts and feelings within my ‘self’ than I ever could have generated alone. Thus, I can only achieve my best self by seeing the world through their eyes.

I will never be treated with disrespect to my value as a conscious being ever again, — Garrett Travers

What does seeing others as almost as valuable as yourself have to do with disrespecting your own value?

Let me retract my use of the term altruism then. What I want to say is not that we value others above
ourselves but that in our dealings with people in our lives that we care about , we find what they offer us to be almost as valuable as our own thoughts and feelings. In relating to loved ones it’s mostly not a question of choosing between ourselves and them but of having both. What difference does it make that I know and care for my self a little better than I know my loved one? I need both my own thoughts and feelings and what they contribute to me, even thought I slightly prefer my own. Those aspects of the other that I can’t relate to or embrace I will reject, but in any close relationship those moments are secondary. Small children love and need their parents intensely. So why do they appear irrational selfish? Because one minute their parent offers them — Joshs

Yes, this is all 100% in line with Objectivism. However, I will add that children cannot independently conceptualize ethical material, and it isn't clear what age they start. Around 12ish and beyond is the best guess.

As adults, mostly I and my beloved find our interactions to be mutually valuable without having to worry about the fact that each of us value ourselves slightly higher than we value the other. This is because in my day to day living the central choice is not between my interpretation of a situation and my friend’s interpretation of that same situation, but between my being alone and isolated or in the company of someone who I value. So we dont spend most of our lives choosing our selves over others, we spend most of our lives using the valuable qualities we find in others to trigger richer thoughts and feelings in our own selves that we could not have generated without their help. — Joshs

Bingo. You're an Objectivist, for your own part. Although, I'll not dare tell you what you are. I'm sure you are wonderful mixture of many things. But, know that this is what it is really all about. Romantic love, true, valued, romantic love, was the highest form of value for Rand.

We make these choices all the time. We can sleep all day, stare at a wall, listen to music , watch television or be with a friend. In each of these examples our ‘self’ is being stimulated by something that is added to our experience. Each of those situations expands our ‘self’. But why is it that being with a close friend causes me to have much more enjoyable thoughts and feelings than staring at the wall? It’s because what my friend contributes is almost as valuable to me as my own thoughts and feelings, so much so that being with them triggers richer and more valuable thoughts and feelings within my ‘self’ than I ever could have generated alone. Thus, I can only achieve my best self by seeing the world through their eyes. — Joshs

100%, Josh. You and I are finally on board. And we are all completely compatible. And this is why I do these kinds of conversations, to come to this point. Now, we can get into the nitty gritty of where you depart from the framework in a far more rational, and mutually understood way.

What does seeing others as almost as valuable as yourself have to do with disrespecting your own value? — Joshs

Because, that which makes Man valuable is universal. Any discrimination thereof is asymmetrical, and invites diminution of my own value. Not to mention, one cannot violate a separate, but equal source of value, and call that a value. It simply cannot be done. To violate value in its source and origin, is to violate value itself. It is evil.

I get the 4D part of it (we reason in spacetime). What about the 5^th dimension?

if your friend valued you, they probably wouldn't be asking for money in such circumstances. — Garrett Travers

It’s also possible that my friend does value me, but does not value me more than having a roof over their head. Values are not either/or, they come in degrees.

It's ethically neutral to give, it is not ethically neutral to give in ay your own expense of well-being, — Garrett Travers

What do you mean exactly by wellbeing?

It’s also possible that my friend does value me, but does not value me more than having a roof over their head. Values are not either/or, they come in degrees. — Hello Human

That's exactly the point.

What do you mean exactly by wellbeing? — Hello Human

Wellbeing: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.

I get the 4D part of it (we reason in spacetime). What about the 5th dimension? — Agent Smith

Did you get this part...?

Reason exists without spatio-temporal location, as a system of value/potential. Another term for this is conceptual structure (which I prefer as it’s less confusing), or mind. Reason develops in potentiality, and informs the reasoning process by generating predictions, hypotheses, etc, based on existing knowledge, values and beliefs, structured according to perceived value or significance (not according to time or space). — Possibility

We conceptualise in potentiality.

"Reason exists without spatiotemporal location". Ok, but what's a (5^th) dimension?

Give me time to play with this idea, this is new to me. Any references to look up with this? I believe I can probably adopt it into my own philosophy, maybe even Rand's, if it isn't woo. Which, I don't think you've been a woo type guy thus far, so that's a good sign. — Garrett Travers

No references - this is my own speculative philosophy. Let’s just say that the article you posted about Buddhist logic is indicative of how I have developed this - by resisting the urge to simply dismiss the woo, and finding more rational ways that we already accept to make sense of seemingly irrational expressions of reality. Following the Tao Te Ching’s structure makes this easier. Carlo Rovelli’s ‘philosophical’ writing has also been very helpful, as was a book entitled ‘Quantum Enigma: Quantum Physics Encounters Consciousness’ - my understanding of quantum physics is not mathematical. But I do have a specialist Mathematics teacher in my back pocket, who keeps me from going wildly off the reservation, because my basic approach is almost purely qualitative (think Ontic Structural Realism).

I make sense of the dimensional structure by extrapolating from my understanding of dimensional geometry and art, particularly the relationship between awareness and processes of expression, definition and creation, as well as describing and rendering. I’m pretty confident the structure I have in mind can withstand empirical testing, but I’m no scientist - I lack the time and the academic discipline to develop workable hypotheses at this stage.

Most people here don’t see it - they don’t understand how I make sense of the dimensional structure. For me, it is beautiful in its rational symmetry and simplicity, but I find it’s really complicated to answer the question: what is a dimension?

"Reason exists without spatiotemporal location". Ok, but what's a (5th) dimension? — Agent Smith

Dimension is basically a qualitative structure of relations. When you make two marks on a page, the relationship between them is one-dimensional. But when you draw (or imagine) the line connecting them, that one-dimensional line exists in two dimensions because of its internal relational structure (as a series of points) and their relationship to a reference point or observer. So a line exists as a dimensional structure only in relation to an extra-dimensional point.

Each dimension also has a quality to it that is relative to the overall structure, and to the structure of the observer. The basic qualitative structure goes: distance, direction, space, change, value, meaning.