Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:15 pm

To those who have read things I posted months ago, this will be nothing new. I will mostly be repeating myself. When I say something new, it will mostly be connecting the dots. Another thing to note is that I don't care what others before me thought of objectivism, or what their version of objectivism was. A name that is frequently associated with objectivism is Ayn Rand. I'm not interested in her, never read a word of hers, I'm not willing to defend her positions, don't give a shit. If you want to attack my positions, attack MY positions as you read them in this thread or another thread where I posted. Don't pull strawmen out of your anuses and then claim you're attacking me. I do not claim to represent the views of anybody else but me.

These are the foundations of objectivism as I understand it. They are still in their initial stages of development (wrote all of this today) and there is plenty more to be said about it, many specifics and details to be worked out. As a general determination I'd say my objectivism is based on an empirical, scientific understanding of nature as opposed to being based on things like religious beliefs, human social constructs, etc. If somebody is so hellbent on comparing my version of objectivism with some other, you can refer to my objectivism as naturalistic objectivism, or refer to the other objectivism differently to distinguish it.

Lastly before I begin, please pardon my poor writing style and try to focus more on substance than style. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Foundation for Objectivism

-----------------------------------------------------------


a) The foundational/first objective.


First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable "oughts" that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.

When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective. For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats. In relation to this objective of acquiring a big cat, the statement "you ought to buy Maine Coons then instead of >insert smaller species of cats here<" is objectively true, meaning, in relation to my objective independently of what anybody else's preferences are. This is how objectives can dictate what is a superior and inferior course of action. However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.

But is there some objective that all humans necessarily share?

The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
1) short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.

If you choose any objective, that objective implies your survival because without survival you can not choose objectives, you can not act, and you cannot accomplish anything. You can indeed choose not to survive, but if you were truly consistent with that choice, you wouldn't be reading this, you would have killed yourself and you would be dead. Survival is necessarily the first priority (first objective) of all living organisms. Anything that doesn't consider it a first priority is a deviation from natural selection, and it will by definition be corrected because, all other factors equal, its chances of survival are lower than of an identical organism which DOES consider survival a first objective and a highest priority. All other objectives one might have can thus be judged according to how they contribute to accomplishing this first objective of survival. The only thing that survival can be sacrificed for without being filtered out by natural selection is another type of survival, and even then it only makes sense to sacrifice short-term for long-term (dying to save your kids), while sacrificing your kids to save yourself makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it by definition gets filtered out simply because people who have that kind of mindset tend to have fewer surviving offspring who would pass it on.

So, although an ought cannot be concluded from an is, and although the choosing of survival as the first objective is based on a subjective (subjective in the sense that it is a consequence of the nature of a subject in question) preference of a subject to be alive instead of dead, it IS something that is universal among all of us living beings. Since it is an universal objective (goal) for all of us living beings to survive, to continue living, it can be universally and objectively determined in relation to that objective what is the best course of action one can take to accomplish that first objective of being alive and surviving.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b) Survival and the objective world

The objective world is a filtering mechanism, and to survive means to bypass and overcome this filtering mechanism, to not get filtered out by it. This filtering mechanism we also call natural selection. Everything that is alive, as well as groups consisting of living individuals, are ultimately tested against the objective world for survival (objective world, meaning, not some imaginary world, but the world we all inhabit that exists regardless of humans). How much of the objective world an organism (or a group) can perceive, and how effectively it can act, is thus of crucial importance. And no, society/technology doesn't magically make this mechanism of natural selection go away. It is true that in societies individuals can escape the consequences of their own actions. But that only means the consequences and effects are transferred to society, they don't disappear (that will be explained later in the post). As for technologies, the natural processes of evolution didn't stop when primates learned to use the environment to their advantage, be it chimpanzees using sticks to get bananas or humans using more advanced technologies. Technologies and society are still restricted at the level of biology both, by human nature (limitations of human imagination) as well as evolution (natural selection), and at the level of physics by natural laws. Human societies and technology have to work within those confines, they don't magically transcend them.

All organisms/groups of organisms are first tested for survival by their most immediate environment, and so they receive consequences (which is feedback from the objective world) from that most immediate environment. For most individuals, that is a human society. Then this human society, which is a group of organisms/individuals is tested against the natural environment, which includes other societies, with which one can either wage war or try to ally with and cooperate. The natural environment also includes other animal species which are excluded from human society (wildlife), as well as natural processes detrimental to the well-being of human organisms (the elements).

If you get lost in nature, you are tested against the natural world directly without the society intervening to save you from the consequences of your choices. This is why it is so traumatizing for people to get lost in nature after having been adapted their whole lives to the comfortable, sheltering confines of a society. So for the sake of protecting the physical well being and psychological sanity of its inhabitants, societies often tend to insulate themselves from the natural world and purge all traces of nature from themselves - more specifically, they tend to LIE about nature or DENY it altogether, at least in words, because the very existence of society rests on at least a part of society dealing with nature to some extent. But societies (human constructed environments) are also subject to the natural environment, so if they don't recognize the natural environment and its rules, and if they don't construct the rules of the society to align with natural rules, they will have inferior results objectively. Meaning, they will be filtered out by natural selection, most likely by being conquered by another society.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c) 2 main types of environments to survive in and the 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world

So there are two possible environments an individual can find themselves in, a natural and a human constructed, social one (which exists within the natural one). This isn't an absolute distinction, in reality as with most things there are gradations and not all human constructed environments are equally artificial (detached from nature), some are more less natural, (modern environments with advanced technology), others are more natural (some tribes living in Amazon rainforest f.e.). This results in 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world.

1) Individual organism <> Nature.

A very rare occurrence, an anomaly. Usually only happens when a person gets lost in nature. Here the person immediately faces the consequences of their choices. Here the choices one makes truly matter. Here the word games and lies can't save him. Here his cries for help are lost to the howling of the wolves in the distance and the thick darkness surrounding him. Here, the difference between being strong or weak, smart or stupid, mean a difference between life and death. Kill or be killed. Destroy or be destroyed. Act efficiently to preserve yourself, or die. Nature doesn't care, it is indifferent. Only the strongest and the most fit emerge victorious, and mere survival is a grand victory when it is in a natural environment.

2) Individual organism <> Society <> Nature

Most of us humans don't exist directly in the natural environment, we exist in society, which is an environment constructed and maintained by humans and for humans. In this environment the consequences of our choices are also responded to immediately, but by the society, not nature. The rules of society, unlike the rules of nature, are constructed specifically to meet human needs and facilitate group human survival by cooperation and limited competition. This makes society a safe, forgiving, comfortable environment, compared to nature (and also opens it up for exploitation by particular kind of individuals, but we'll leave that for now). Because society consists of many other individuals, its well-being is determined by the consequences of actions of a huge collective of people. So every choice a person makes has consequences for the person, yes, but also for the society. The consequences of individual choices are in a sense redistributed to the entire society, especially in societies with socialist-leaning policies. The well-being and survival of the society thus depends on how people act collectively. If the society imposes rules that are aligned with nature, the society will be healthy and likely to survive. If it imposes rules contrary to natural ones, it is less likely to survive.

For example. The rule in nature is that only those who are prepared to have offspring get to reproduce their genes. To be prepared means to have enough resources (energy) accumulated to provide for their offspring, and that parents are around to take care of it. Having genetic offspring is a risk because infants are very need and vulnerable and require nutrition, nurture, and protection. When an organism has genetic offspring in nature and successfully raises it, it MEANS something. It means that the organism has managed to accumulate enough excess energies to feed its offspring, and that it is physically and mentally fit to protect it (deal with threats) and to nurture it. It is an indication of fitness, of being able to deal with nature. Thus the ones who reproduce their genes in nature are the most fit members of a species. Basically, making superior choices and acting in superior (effective) ways results in successful reproduction, while making inferior choices and acting in inferior (ineffective) ways results in failure and being selected out of the gene pool. The connection between choice and consequence is direct, clear, and undeniable.

This may not be so in a society. In a society, the rules can be set up so that the good, superior choices (productivity and capability) of certain members of society can benefit people who make bad, inferior choices, thus preventing them from suffering the consequences of those bad choices. For example, in a society that offers free welfare to people just for having children, a woman with a low IQ incapable/unwilling to be productive can simply get herself impregnated (usually by a low IQ man or multiple low IQ men) and receive welfare to survive. This is not aligned with the rules of nature, it is an example of a rule that is self-defeating in the long-term. Instead of rewarding productivity and competence, it rewards incompetence and non-productivity. Such a woman is parasitic because she takes away more than she gives back. And whatever traits made her be unproductive and make bad choices, will also be passed on and present in her children. Because this rule promotes parasitism it is self-defeating in the long-term, since in order to survive it is dependent upon the very kind of people (productive people) that it is exterminating by removing all incentives to be productive and providing incentives to be unproductive as well as promoting the reproduction of unproductive people. Because societies are ultimately judged by the rules of nature, introducing such anit-natural rules makes a society unfit. And once the social constructs that protect parasites are broken down because of their very parasitism, the parasites are forced to face the natural environment directly. Then natural selection would take its course and the parasites would die off.

This is why it is important not to judge things in relation to some social standard - a social standard can be pulled out of an anus, it can be anti-nature, it can be, simply, wrong because under the protection of a society and not having to directly face the natural consequences of their actions, people tend to lie and deny reality (objective world, nature). Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature. Nature is the ultimate judge. Unfit people may escape natural selection for a few generations, especially with all the modern technologies compensating for natural weaknesses, but nature catches up, eventually, and the longer you try to escape from it, the harder it will hit you. The more degeneracy accumulates in a society, the greater the eventual culling. Technologies can only protect and shelter weakness so far.

So, all subjective preferences and subjectively constructed opinions, and choices resulting from them are ultimately judged against the objective world/nature by its filtering mechanism (natural selection). Ultimately, these preferences lead people to make choices corresponding to these preferences, and these choices result in objectively superior or inferior outcomes, as determined by natural selection. If an individual exists within a society, then inidividual is tested against the society, and the society is then tested against nature, so the relationship between individual and nature still exists, though it is mediated by society and so the impact of inferior choices is lessened by society and usually redistributed to the entire society instead of reflected back almost directly to the individual who made the inferior choice.
Example: You may prefer to cut your legs off. That may be your "subjective preference", based on your "subjective opinion" and "subjective understanding" of the world, and many other subjective things, or whatever. But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war? What happens is that natural selection takes its course, and the tribe who cut their legs off suffer the consequences of their inferior choices, and they get killed, their lands conquered, their resources plundered. This is the case of whole societies being judged against nature (objective world), where some are objectively determined to be superior, and others inferior.
And do I even need to mention what happens if you get lost in nature alone, and cut your legs off? You would likely die within hours, if not from bleeding then from infections, if not from infections then from predators, and if not from predators then from starvation/dehydration as you would have difficulties acquiring the necessary nutrients to survive. Point is, you're not very likely to survive.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion: We can objectively measure and evaluate the validity of certain subjective preferences, opinions, and choices based on their natural consequences of how well they can survive natural selection. Natural selection is the ultimate filtering mechanism of the objective world, and social selection is only valid to the extent it is based on natural selection. Certain things can objectively be proven to contribute to the survival of an individual and/or a group, and certain other things can be proven to be detrimental to it. Subjectivity tests its fitness against the objective world, and based on its performance and success in reproducing itself (dealing with the objective world) its fitness can be objectively measured and evaluated. In a social context, consequences can be avoided or postponed by transferring them to others, but if a society allows that eventually natural selection catches up and hits the society hard. There is no escaping the objective world. No escaping natural selection.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:30 pm

The thesis is good.

Only a comment...
Never apologize for giving an opinion. There are imbeciles who should shut the fuck up, posting all kinds of crap, never showing half as much humility....
You know of ILP right?
There's another...BTL
But there are many more.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:45 pm

It is reason which is built upon objective world.
Brain is the product of the world it then confronts and is confronted by.
Brain processes, functions, reflect necessary worldly patterns for the brain, and the organism it serves, to emerge.

This reaction to objective/world is called subjectivity.
It is how ordering deals with Flux, when it becomes conscious.
Subjectivity adapts to objectivity, if there is no mitigating, warping, intervention, adjusting costs/benefits.
Costs/Benefits are consequences the organism may, or may not become aware of - depending on their severity, and if no intervening force does not mitigate to adjust them.

Costs/Benefits are not dependent on subjectivity, or whether or not they are perceived, and appreciated.
Often the mind is unaware, util costs/benefits accumulate and become impossible to ignore...then unable to trace the causes the mind projects them as a caused by the immediate - blaming whatever is at hand to escape culpability, and because it has lost the causal chains and can no longer trace the causes of the costs, primarily.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:07 pm

Autsider wrote:
The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL.

Though, aren't there possibly people who actually didn't have the goal of survival and yet survived for a long time and even had offspring?

When you say goal and objective, do you mean having a consciously self-aware goal, or would you also count bodily reflexes like breathing and such?

Because if it's only the conscious goals then I think there are many examples where people lived a very sheltered life and never had to formulate a conscious goal of survival, a long-term plan to postpone their death so to speak. And yet lived a long life including having some offspring.
They might not even have had offspring because of the conscious goal of passing on their genes (and memes) but it just happened and then you do what your instincts tell you to do, or what society proposes as being the 'good' life, or the right way to live, or how to call it a successful life.
Have a child because that's what is expected - at least it was some time ago.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:48 pm

Anfang wrote:
When you say goal and objective, do you mean having a consciously self-aware goal, or would you also count bodily reflexes like breathing and such

I was mostly thinking of consciously self-aware goals. But I consider bodily reflexes we have little or no control over, such as breathing, to also support my argument because they evolved to facilitate survival. Speaking in evolutionary terms, the ultimate reason we evolved everything that we did is to replicate ourselves (survive in the short-term enough to reproduce and ensure long-term survival). The things which are inferior at accomplishing this goal of replication die out. That is how the objective world shaped us to be and that is what it shaped us to do. We can deviate from that purpose, but every deviation is a risk and an impediment to survival.

Anfang wrote:
Because if it's only the conscious goals then I think there are many examples where people lived a very sheltered life and never had to formulate a conscious goal of survival, a long-term plan to postpone their death so to speak. And yet lived a long life including having some offspring.
They might not even have had offspring because of the conscious goal of passing on their genes (and memes) but it just happened and then you do what your instincts tell you to do, or what society proposes as being the 'good' life, or the right way to live, or how to call it a successful life.
Have a child because that's what is expected - at least it was some time ago.

Merely by living in a modern society the short-term survival of most of us is already guaranteed. I agree that when most people have kids they don't have them because of a conscious goal of survival, they think how everybody else has kids, kids are cute, and so they want some of their own cute kids too. And we evolved to think kids are cute and to love our offspring because it facilitates survival. So even if people don't consciously choose to survive, they do it instinctively.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:51 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr/Crow wrote:
"Survival at all costs!!!", screams the desperate miser, for all life is valuable, and that which survives, at all costs is, automatically, superior to what perishes, unable to live as a miser.

If not pleasure, then why not life, for the sake of living.
Degrade yourself, sacrifice your integrity, your pride, all to survive.

Have not bacteria out-survived other species, consuming their feces....and may out-live mankind?
Yes...therefore bacteria are superior to man, thinks the degenerate wanting to justify why he does not kill himself, or why he endures his own wretchedness.

Hm, this also applies as criticism for the kind of objectivism I put forward in the OP. I made similar criticism, self-criticism in my case, on the ILP duplicate of this thread. It's something to ponder...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

My post:

Anyway, since I haven't received the kind of criticism I hoped for, I had to come up with criticisms of my own thread myself.

Mainly, I am still uncertain to what extent the dots between "is" and "ought" can really be connected. I tried to use the First Foundational objective (survival) as that which would connect the dots for all living beings, but a video by TFM made me think.

TFM says in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-HZu2jqdg) that survival in the sense of what I call long-term survival (genetic propagation) is irrelevant because we don't, really, survive to any relevant extent, as our genes become extremely diluted only after a few generations. He didn't mention the specific numbers himself, but since parents pass on approximately 50% of genes to their child, already by the 2nd generation only half of you survives. The 3rd generation, 25%. By the tenth generation, which is only about 200-300 years, the percentage of you which survives is reduced to below 1%. And ultimately none of that matters and it will be reduced to 0% because scientists predict that just as the Big Bang happened, there will be an opposite, a Big Crunch. So whereas Big Bang was an expansion of a singularity into a universe, a big crunch would be the universe contracting back into a singularity, and erasing all life. If that doesn't exterminate us humans, something like the explosion of the sun, or shortage of water and food, or pollution, or nuclear war or some other thing will.

So the question then becomes - Do you really have a reason to give a shit about reproducing your genes and caring about the evolutionary process, when the evolutionary process itself will eventually be extinguished when all life on earth goes extinct. It becomes more personal - what do you want? Is it worth it to give up a portion of your life to make and possibly care for offspring, or not?

Perhaps to somebody it is indeed worth it. Perhaps somebody so enjoys taking drugs that they consider the high pleasurable enough to risk their life for it. Of course, if their life is centered around that and so they don't propagate their genes, evolution will just filter them out, because like they don't care about evolutionary processes, evolutionary processes don't care about them. If taking drugs is truly what they wanted and truly what made them happy, then it might have been all worth it, for them. If somebody is ugly, or stupid, or has some other deficiency which prevents them from actually accomplishing things in life, they may subconsciously realize that inebriating themselves to temporarily forget their own inferiority is the only way they can be happy, even for a little while. That inebriation can also take the form of flattering ideologies which tell them they are valuable, and beautiful, and not worse than anybody else... that they are equal to all others.

A perhaps shorter and clearer version - though some action, like drinking a beverage mixed with a deadly poison, may be in direct conflict with the first objective of survival, and thus in the long-term, with itself, since drinking such a beverage once will make it impossible for you to do it ever again since you will be dead, it is still possible that to the subject, despite of all that, IT IS STILL WORTH IT in terms of cost/benefit to drink it because the taste is just so good that it is worth dying for. It doesn't mean the subject escaped the consequences of their actions, or the filtering (evolutionary) process of the objective world. It means that the subject accepted the consequences and costs.

The same logic applies to small poisons. Somebody may like cigarettes so much that they are willing to shorten their lifespan by smoking cigarettes for the pleasure of smoking, knowing that it will take away time of their life they could have used to do other things.

Ultimately the only judge of what we ought to do (how to accomplish happiness) are ourselves. So the only way to do it is to know ourselves - what we need and want in life. If we are unhappy it means we haven't accomplished something which we think would make us happy, and/or we are dissatisfied with how we have previously used our time. If we haven't done it, it is either because we couldn't recognize what it is that would make us happy due to failing to know ourselves, or we did recognize it but didn't have the ability to do it. Another option is that we might think something will make us happy, do it, then realize it doesn't make us happy after all, and that we wasted our time. This is why knowing what we truly want, and what the limits of our abilities to get it are, is crucial.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid. Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:34 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Another flaw in my Objectivism, at which I already hinted in the OP, is that the processes of the objective world filtering can be distorted, as is the case in the stage of the "cycle" above when good times create weak men. In this case, artificial environments existing within natural environments permit the genetic/memetic propagation of what is unfit in nature. This is why not only reproduction is important, but also the context.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

Back to top Go down
 
The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Laying the foundation for a health center at a cost of 1.8 million dollars funded Indian in Kirkuk Editor: MN | SA Wednesday, 21 k 1 2011 20:53 GMT
» herd foundation females
» Imam al-Hakim Foundation hosts: Dr. Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum in a dialogue on "The Future of the political process in a Date: Thursday, 02/02/2012 18:42
» Valid license issued by PRC
» Storm moves the house off foundation

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: