# Are there right and wrong values to hold in Art (music) Evaluation?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I postulate that there are right and wrong values to hold in music appreciation. 

Example 1: If someone values complexity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply attempting to achieve an irrational value of feeling intelligent?

Example 2: If someone values simplicity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply rebelling against those who are trying to look intelligent and achieving the value of feeling superior in their humble nature?

Is there Psychologically healthy Art Appreciation? To elaborate, two different ppl can view the same piece, one in a Psychologically healthy manner and another in a Psychologically Unhealthy manner.

Also, being honest with yourself in what appeals to you Artistically can uncover great Psychological insights.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't feel there are any right or wrong values to hold concerning appreciation of music. 

I'm trying to imagine someone telling me my musical values are wrong - shove off and mind your own business.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I don't feel there are any right or wrong values to hold concerning appreciation of music.
> 
> I'm trying to imagine someone telling me my musical values are wrong - shove off and mind your own business.


You seem defensive. You seem to be reacting from the sub-conscious value of open-mindedness instead of actually considering the points and forming a thoughtful response.

The right values to hold in music is to appreciate what does it for you, which can be anything. To understand the your subconscious better, you should evaluate the ideas it stores that are driving your tastes.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You seem defensive. You seem to be reacting from the sub-conscious value of open-mindedness instead of actually considering the points and forming a thoughtful response.
> 
> The right values to hold in music is to appreciate what does it for you, which can be anything. To understand the your subconscious better, you should evaluate the ideas it stores that are driving your tastes.


I considered your points and decided they did not have merit. Also, I don't appreciate your lecturing tone expecially since you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I considered your points and decided they did not have merit. Also, I don't appreciate your lecturing tone expecially since you don't know what you're talking about.


Let me state it differently:

1. Do you agree people have values either explicitly or implicitly that drive their taste in Art?
2. Do you think some have genuine values but also hold the value to fit in, so they hide their genuine values in order to fit into a group?
3. Do you think this is dishonest, and in fact wrong in terms of evaluating Art?

Also, while you emoted to the idea I presented, you failed to dissect the points and form a counter-argument, which is anti-intellectual.


----------



## Sun Junqing (Sep 26, 2018)

I think no.. But there is one basic theory in music -- the perfect fifth. It's because of physics(harmonic series) and biology(our ear)..sorry maybe I can't describe it very clearly and thoroughly


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Sun Junqing said:


> I think no.. But there is one basic theory in music -- the perfect fifth. It's because of physics(harmonic series) and biology(our ear)..sorry maybe I can't describe it very clearly and thoroughly


I don't understand it, but it (your quote and music I like) sounds good. That is all that matters. But the OP is suggesting some may listen to certain styles or types of music more because others' say it is good, or to impress others. I think that may happen more in pop music than classical.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_Is there a Psychologically healthy Art Appreciation?_

Socrates certainly believed there was with regard to music: 
_
Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful._

Early Christian philosopher Boethius said this:

_Music is part of us, and either ennobles or degrades our behavior._

Sixth-century Chinese philosopher Shu Ching agrees with Boethius, saying,_ "for changing people's manners and altering their customs there is nothing better than music_."

So here are three philosophers who felt that the exposure to the right type of music was a morally good thing and thought that people could also be corrupted by being exposed to the wrong type. I doubt if any of them would have gone for someone like Birtwistle or Ferneyhough. I think there's a virtue in knowing what one is exposing oneself to in the arts on a habitual basis, and after satisfying one's curiosity, it's psychologically healthier to steer clear of some of it, especially if it could be damaging to one's hearing or the intent behind is dark or self-destructive.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

we had this kind of discussion so many times here before.... Taste and music appreciation are largely subjective and there are no objective or good or bad values in art appreciation. If you make such values and try to force them upon others, you become a dictator. Remember Stalin and his prohibition of the decadent imperialist music or Hitler and his prohibition of modernist Jewish music. Each one of us has his own subjective system of values, of what he considers good and bad art, and we tend to think, that this value system is objective. It is not. For me, the highest form of art is nature and a walk in the woods or among fields is a more spiritual experience than any music. When I am in the middle of a wood, it seems barbaric to me to listen to music, so as not to disturb the music of nature (birds, wind in the tree crowns etc)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

As I have pointed out before, the only thing approaching objectivity in these matters is that your tastes may be validated or rejected by a larger body of other people. This effect of measuring an evolving mass of shared reactions gains some strength over a longer period of time. That does not necessarily establish a right or wrong since time continues and tastes can continue to shift.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The OP seems to imply complexity is irrational and that they are with those who "try to look intelligent".  I understand what you mean though, Capt'n. I had the same notion of modern music before. What it is is a different language using different principles. After understanding the language, I found composers (at least some) that use this language are actually trying to communicate with it in simple terms, just in a different language (a side note is I try to do the same in my own music, but some say I appear to be striving for complexity  which is actually what I'm trying to avoid) . Even some Serialists seem to try to communicate in understandable ways, although I sense some have a "take it or leave it, I'm just above you" sort of message, and some using complexity trying to state something that could be said in simpler, more uninhibited ways, like solving those puzzles where each alphabet letter is disguised by a certain symbol.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

My problem with the OP is it assumes we make unfounded assumptions about others's motives and reasons. It seems to require that we use prejudices to put down the views and preferences of others.

For the record I don't use complexity-simplicity as a criterion for judging music. There is good music that is complex and good music that is simple. Let me guess, my reason for thinking this *must *therefore be that I need to feel superior to all those who do use this criterion to judge music?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It may be that when someone likes a style, it says something about them psychologically. But anything one does says something of that type. 

While accepting that tastes are subjective, I think it's best to be wholehearted about what I like and not to waste time navel-gazing. 

And if someone tells me they like a particular style of music, I'll try it for myself and see if I agree, rather than start second-guessing what their motives are. 

My response is inward but my focus is outward - the music.

I like simplicity in music - but I don't go looking for it as a quality. I just listen to a tune and think 'I like that'. Quite often, it has an attractive simplicity - but occasionally it has a glorious complexity.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> we had this kind of discussion so many times here before.... Taste and music appreciation are largely subjective and there are no objective or good or bad values in art appreciation. If you make such values and try to force them upon others, you become a dictator. Remember Stalin and his prohibition of the decadent imperialist music or Hitler and his prohibition of modernist Jewish music. Each one of us has his own subjective system of values, of what he considers good and bad art, and we tend to think, that this value system is objective. It is not. For me, the highest form of art is nature and a walk in the woods or among fields is a more spiritual experience than any music. When I am in the middle of a wood, it seems barbaric to me to listen to music, so as not to disturb the music of nature (birds, wind in the tree crowns etc)


It is nothing about force, it is about understanding and making observations.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Early Christian philosopher Boethius said this:
> 
> _Music is part of us, and either ennobles or degrades our behavior._


This begs the question of music vs. the actual performance. Music videos make that very clear, but even a live performance can add a lot of degrading behavior that is not necessarily part of the music. Not just pop music but opera can have decadent performances. But, dealing only with the music, some have said that the syncopated beat of rock music is immoral in and of itself.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I posted an essay by Kyle Gann last week on this subject, but no one responded. I think I agree with it completely. Here it is again. It's not too long and I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to read it: https://www.kylegann.com/PC090806-EpistemologyofElitism.html

Key excerpts:

_For instance: there are people for whom the best music must involve innovation. These people are likely to value Varese, Partch, Cage. There are others who value craftsmanship above all else. These people tend to like Hindemith, Sessions, perhaps Ligeti. Other people feel that music should be, above all else, emotionally true; perhaps they gravitate toward Barber, Vaughan Williams, maybe Messiaen. There are people who love music for its sonic lushness and sensuousness, who may relish Takemitsu and Feldman. There are people who value clarity, who value simplicity, who value intellectualism, who value memorability, who value physicality, who value theoretical rigor. Most people value several of these virtues, and we could create Venn diagrams of audiences who love different new musics because of the specific virtues they possess. The innovation + emotive sincerity intersectors love Ives. The intellectualism + sensuousness people love Takemitsu.
...

Where subjectivity comes in is that there is no objective criterion by which we can proclaim that craftsmanship is a higher virtue than innovation or sensuousness. We just can't. One type of personality will value the careful, revising craftsman over the visionary innovator who comes up with something radically new, and that's what makes horseraces. There is no way to objectively rank the artistic virtues. They are too closely allied to the structure of personality. Where objectivity comes in is in determing what innovation or craftsmanship is. Say you love innovation but don't believe Varese was innovative? Good luck. I want to read the treatise proving your point, but if it doesn't grab me in three sentences I'm trashing it. We can prove on paper that Varese was an amazing innovator, whether that impresses you or not. I happen not to care much for Varese because, for me, innovation is kind of wasted if the music doesn't grab me emotionally, and his doesn't; but I grant he was innovative. You think Crumb is a better composer than Sessions? You have my blessing. You think Crumb was a better craftsman than Sessions? You're an idiot._


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The OP seems to imply complexity is irrational and that they are with those who "try to look intelligent".  I understand what you mean though, Capt'n. I had the same notion of modern music before. What it is is a different language using different principles. After understanding the language, I found composers (at least some) that use this language are actually trying to communicate with it in simple terms, just in a different language (a side note is I try to do the same in my own music, but some say I appear to be striving for complexity  which is actually what I'm trying to avoid) . Even some Serialists seem to try to communicate in understandable ways, although I sense some have a "take it or leave it, I'm just above you" sort of message, and some using complexity trying to state something that could be said in simpler, more uninhibited ways, like solving those puzzles where each alphabet letter is disguised by a certain symbol.


Just to clarify, I don't think everyone that values complexity is trying to look intelligent, though those types do exist.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> I posted an essay by Kyle Gann last week on this subject, but no one responded. I think I agree with it completely. Here it is again. It's not too long and I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to read it: https://www.kylegann.com/PC090806-EpistemologyofElitism.html
> 
> Key excerpts:
> 
> ...


I think what I'm trying to say is, it is important to understand our values and then dissect the psychological implications of those values.

I think Psychologically Healthy Values exist.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I will have to bow out of this one. If I state what my true feelings about the OP the author would accused me of being defensive. Just because someone may appear to be defensive does it mean he is in error.

Anyways many of my friends have done a great job of addressing many of my concerns.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> My problem with the OP is it assumes we make unfounded assumptions about others's motives and reasons. It seems to require that we use prejudices to put down the views and preferences of others.
> 
> For the record I don't use complexity-simplicity as a criterion for judging music. There is good music that is complex and good music that is simple. Let me guess, my reason for thinking this *must *therefore be that I need to feel superior to all those who do use this criterion to judge music?


One of my favorite responses to the OP.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> My problem with the OP is it assumes we make unfounded assumptions about others's motives and reasons. It seems to require that we use prejudices to put down the views and preferences of others.
> 
> For the record I don't use complexity-simplicity as a criterion for judging music. There is good music that is complex and good music that is simple. Let me guess, my reason for thinking this *must *therefore be that I need to feel superior to all those who do use this criterion to judge music?


You are failing to understand the point, but I am adjusting my verbiage from the OP and letting my stance grow as the responses come in.

I believe there are "right" psychologically healthy values to hold in music appreciation, but only the listener can decide and assess this for themselves. Another person can help get to the root of another's value system, however.

I am not enforcing prejudice, I am only attempting to develop a theory that others who care about such matters can use to make assessments on their own about themselves.

If you like music that appeals to you for no irrational justification, such as the ones noted in the OP, then there is nothing superior about it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> I will have to bow out of this one. If I state what my true feelings about the OP the author would accused me of being defensive. Just because someone may appear to be defensive does it mean he is in error.
> 
> Anyways many of my friends have done a great job of addressing many of my concerns.


You certainly seem to have opinions on what constitutes good and bad in music. In the Today's Composers section, you made a statement along the lines of "this is superior to the wannabe composer submissions around here".


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I believe there are "right" psychologically healthy values to hold in music appreciation, but only the listener can decide and assess this for themselves. Another person can help get to the root of another's value system, however.


There's something not quite right here. To declare something "right" has to assume some sort of agreed-upon definition, but then you go on to suggest that it is somehow a matter of the person's internal values.

The two don't sit well together. And in any case a person's 'value system' can be highly contradictory, even internally. How can this translate to any idea of "right" that can be understood externally?

The question is muddled.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> There's something not quite right here. To declare something "right" has to assume some sort of agreed-upon definition, but then you go on to suggest that it is somehow a matter of the person's internal values.
> 
> The two don't sit well together. And in any case a person's 'value system' can be highly contradictory, even internally. How can this translate to any idea of "right" that can be understood externally?
> 
> The question is muddled.


And we could search for that definition, but I am hypothesizing one exists.

What does it mean to be Psychologically healthy?
What are Psychologically healthy values to hold?

For example, is Art that promotes rape healthy if the listener finds meaning in the songs promotion of this Act?

Is Art that promotes suicide healthy if the listener derives meaning in the songs promotion of ending ones life?

If Psychologcially Healthy in Art Appreciation means gaining meaning from the work that is life affirming of the self and/or others, then anything else would be unhealthy.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And we could search for that definition, but I am hypothesizing one exists.
> 
> What does it mean to be Psychologically healthy?
> What are Psychologically healthy values to hold?


I'd also be interested to know. Mostly interested in by whom and by what criteria these are judged.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, while you emoted to the idea I presented, you failed to dissect the points and form a counter-argument, which is anti-intellectual.


You didn't make any points worth dissecting.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> You didn't make any points worth dissecting.


Then you need not have participated in the thread. I am posing a question I find interesting, and your only motivation in response was to diminish my claims as worthless and show how your view is correct, that there is no right or wrong values in Art Appreciation, without taking the time to dismantle my points and explain how you believe yours are right.

This is anti intellectual, but not right or wrong. You are free to not take the time to use logic if you do not find my points worthwhile.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You certainly seem to have opinions on what constitutes good and bad in music. In the Today's Composers section, you made a statement along the lines of "this is superior to the wannabe composer submissions around here".


So what. There is also that horrible arrangement of "The World Is Waiting For the Sunrise" that I hate that I took some heat for. There is also the music of Middendorf. But I hate those works for none of the reasons in the OP.

Rats. He tricked me into responding so he can accuse me of being defensive. You sneaky devil.

The rest is silence...………..

Note: I would like to make one final point. As many of you know, I have over fifty years experience as an amateur performer. One of the lessons I learned from this experience is that no matter how bad I think a piece of music I am performing is, there are going to be members of the audience who are going to like it. This is why discussions like this are meaningless to many of us and are impossible to resolve.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Another example, if someone introspected and discovered the reason they enjoy the music of Britney Spears is b/c of her sex appeal, it shows they value sex appeal most in their taste.

That isn't right or wrong, but it is not based on the music itself.

An interesting insight on such a person may be the concept of Lust; do they value lust over love?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> So what. There is also that horrible arrangement of "The World Is Waiting For the Sunrise" that I hate that I took some heat for. There is also the music of Middendorf. But I hate those works for none of the reasons in the OP.
> 
> Rats. He tricked me into responding so he can accuse me of being defensive. You sneaky devil.
> 
> The rest is silence...………..


So what? It means you personally believe there is good and bad music, which is a step further than what I am stating, in fact, and you vehemently disagreed and showed your disdain for my thoughts in this thread almost implying a sense of superiority in disagreeing with them. You personally take it a step further than this thread to actually claim there is good and bad music, when all I am trying to state is there are psychologically healthy and unhealthy values in music appreciation.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

It is, of course, _Britney_ Spears. The people of Brittany are not going to be happy about this.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> It is, of course, _Britney_ Spears. The people of Brittany are not going to be happy about this.


Edited!  Thanks.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think what I'm trying to say is, it is important to understand our values and then dissect the psychological implications of those values.
> 
> I think Psychologically Healthy Values exist.


I think the kind of thing you're talking about - e.g., valuing complex music in order to "look intelligent" - is better understood as a failure to evaluate the music at all.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that there are right and wrong values to hold in music appreciation.


The above was your first sentence on this thread. I took issue with your statement because I believe that each person's musical values has equal merit from an individual point of view. I also indicated that my reaction to someone telling me that I hold the wrong values would be to respond that he/she could shove off and mind his/her own business. What's your problem?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> though those types do exist.


How do you know?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

captainnumber36 said:


> i believe there are "right" psychologically healthy values to hold in music appreciation,
> 
> .


eg?

..........


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It means you personally believe there is good and bad music, which is a step further than what I am stating.....all I am trying to state is there are psychologically healthy and unhealthy values in music appreciation.


Captain, could you flesh out these ideas some more? As always, my limited powers of imagination force me to rely heavily upon clearly enunciated examples, so I'd appreciate more clarity about healthy and unhealthy values, with specific examples.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> How do you know?


I've observed it in people before. What is the job of a Psychologist, but to have perceptive power into the inner workings of others based on their verbiage, body language and actions?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Captain, could you flesh out these ideas some more? As always, my limited powers of imagination force me to rely heavily upon clearly enunciated examples, so I'd appreciate more clarity about healthy and unhealthy values, with specific examples.


Try post #24 to see if that helps!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> eg?
> 
> ..........


Try post #24!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> The above was your first sentence on this thread. I took issue with your statement because I believe that each person's musical values has equal merit from an individual point of view. I also indicated that my reaction to someone telling me that I hold the wrong values would be to respond that he/she could shove off and mind his/her own business. What's your problem?


So I was right to say you have a value of open mindedness. I believe all values are valid, but not all are healthy Psychologically. Also, all you've really done here is restated what you said above with better writing and haven't done much thinking about the ideas at all.

Also, why do you keep coming back to this thread if you find my notions ridiculous?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, why do you keep coming back to this thread if you find my notions ridiculous?


I suppose it's because I also find your notions elitist and rather offensive.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I believe all values are valid, but not all are healthy Psychologically


What do you think constitutes a 'psychologically healthy' value?

Like Strange Magic I need it spelling out for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I suppose it's because I also find your notions elitist and rather offensive.


I figured as much...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> What do you think constitutes a 'psychologically healthy' value?
> 
> Like Strange Magic I need it spelling out for me.


If a sad song/piece resonates with the heartache of a loss due to death, or after a breakup from a long term relationship, that is a healthy way of coping with the negative feelings that we need to process and would be psychologically healthy.

If a song/piece resonates w/ the feelings of immense joy during the birth of your child or the union in marriage between you and a loved one, it is psychologically healthy.

If a song/piece validates immoral action within a person such as violence against innocent persons, that is psychologically unhealthy.

If you listen to a band constantly that promotes anger/frustration, that _*COULD*_ be psychologically unhealthy depending on the person. We all get angry from time to time, and to hear that expressed in Art can help us process those feelings, and can be healthy.

However, if you are constantly listening to this kind of music, it would be a red flag into your current emotionality and I would recommend seeking therapy to process your ongoing anger and frustrated feelings.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

And who decides if/how a piece of music is validating 'immoral action'? And how would you discern whether it is the song at fault or the person's view of it?

This is songs though, with text. I'm not sure how a piece of pure music would be able to work this way. In any case music that generates, or rather portrays, anger, as you acknowledge, is not necessarily wholly negative.

Perhaps you have a point somewhere, but I can't see it yet. When I saw the title of the thread I thought it meant the criteria people use for evaluating art and how much of it was based on , perhaps arbitrary, personal psychological values. Now, with the elaboration to the questions I don't really know what you are saying.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> And who decides if/how a piece of music is validating 'immoral action'? And how would you discern whether it is the song at fault or the person's view of it?
> 
> This is songs though, with text. I'm not sure how a piece of pure music would be able to work this way. In any case music that generates, or rather portrays, anger, as you acknowledge, is not necessarily wholly negative.
> 
> Perhaps you have a point somewhere, but I can't see it yet. When I saw the title of the thread I thought it meant the criteria people use for evaluating art and how much of it was based on , perhaps arbitrary, personal psychological values. Now, with the elaboration to the questions I don't really know what you are saying.


To first make clear my point as it has evolved throughout this thread, I postulate that all values are valid, not all are moral and not all are psychologically healthy.

I'm not discussing causation, but if the value a listener achieves from either instrumental music or music with words is immoral, the person has immoral values.

Two ppl can view the same work differently, one can take a moral view of it and one can take and immoral view of it, so in discerning the immorality of a work is up to the listener themselves.

Instrumental Music still conveys emotions, and what a piece does for us and the values we achieve from it can be either moral or immoral.

Didn't I say music that portrays anger can be both healthy and unhealthy depending on the listener?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captain - You appear to be displaying yourself as an expert in the field of psychology. To be considered as such by TC members, it would be a good idea for you to offer some details concerning your expertise:

1. The degrees that you hold.
2. What psychological category is your expertise?
3. For how many years have you been employed as a psychologist?
4. What journals have published your papers?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Captain - You appear to be displaying yourself as an expert in the field of psychology. To be considered as such by TC members, it would be a good idea for you to offer some details concerning your expertise:
> 
> 1. The degrees that you hold.
> 2. What psychological category is your expertise?
> ...


I was a Psychology Major and then did a Masters in Social Work, specializing in Mental Health. I have been Published in a Psych Journal on the causal relationship between the Olfactory System and the detection of Alzheimers.

I have had about three jobs as a Mental Health Therapist, as a Social Worker and have spent considerable amount of my personal time postulating human behavior and emotions in particular.

However, I do not consider this to be the basis of justification to take my ideas seriously. If you have the ability to reason and think about the ideas, then you would be able to see there is merit in them.

You seem to be simply attacking me in an effort to bring me down, and probably expected that I have no experience in this field, that probably would have made you happy in that you would have achieved the value of condemning me and invalidating my claims before TC.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> To first make clear my point as it has evolved throughout this thread, I postulate that all values are valid, not all are moral and not all are psychologically healthy.
> 
> Two ppl can view the same work differently, one can take a moral view of it and one can take and immoral view of it, so in discerning the immorality of a work is up to the listener themselves.Instrumental Music still conveys emotions, and what a piece does for us and the values we achieve from it can be either moral or immoral.


See, this is where it comes unstuck for me because ethics is not a fixed idea. I'm suspicious when someone declares things moral or immoral with this degree of certainty; it has the ring of a certain ideology about it.



Captainnumber36 said:


> Didn't I say music that portrays anger can be both healthy and unhealthy depending on the listener?


You did and I said you did!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Are there psychologically healthy or unhealthy thoughts? Healthy or unhealthy emotions? Healthy or unhealthy relationships? Healthy or unhealthy foods? Healthy or unhealthy environments? Healthy or unhealthy stimulants or music?

"_Music takes us out of the actual and whispers to us dim secrets that startles out wonder as to who we are, and for what, whence, and whereto." ―Ralph Waldo Emerson_

_The House

...She lays her beams in music,
In music everyone,
To the cadence of the whirling world
Which dances around the sun-
That so they shall not be displaced
By lapses or by wars,
But for the love of happy souls
Outlive the newest stars.

-Emerson_ :cheers:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You seem to be simply attacking me in an effort to bring me down, and probably expected that I have no experience in this field, that probably would have made you happy in that you would have achieved the value of condemning me and invalidating my claims before TC.


Wrong! I already knew that you had stated some time ago that you worked in the field of psychology. Stop being paranoid.

Anyways, I thank you for your quick response.

I see involvement in music as a healthy endeavor and see no reason to bring psychology into the thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Wrong! I already knew that you had stated some time ago that you worked in the field of psychology. Stop being paranoid.
> 
> Anyways, I thank you for your quick response.
> 
> I see involvement in music as a healthy endeavor and see no reason to bring psychology into the thread.


That is the PURPOSE of the thread.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That is the PURPOSE of the thread.


I regret to say that you are correct since you're the person who started the thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I regret to say that you are correct since you're the person who started the thread.


Why do you regret to say that?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> See, this is where it comes unstuck for me because ethics is not a fixed idea. I'm suspicious when someone declares things moral or immoral with this degree of certainty; it has the ring of a certain ideology about it.
> 
> You did and I said you did!


My apologies, I missed the part where you wrote "as you acknowledged".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> See, this is where it comes unstuck for me because ethics is not a fixed idea. I'm suspicious when someone declares things moral or immoral with this degree of certainty; it has the ring of a certain ideology about it.
> 
> You did and I said you did!


Morality is objective. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to refuse the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others (taxes).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

And also, I should also note I have no notions of censorship. Freedom of Speech is of the utmost importance.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Morality is objective. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to refuse the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others (taxes).


Good luck with those standards, especially the last two.

I see morality as reflecting the standards of a particular community. As such, subjectivity certainly is part of the picture.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Good luck with those standards, especially the last two.
> 
> I see morality as reflecting the standards of a particular community. As such, subjectivity certainly is part of the picture.


Can you elaborate? Is the USA one big community? How does the fact that you believe standards apply to communities lead to the conclusion that subjectivity plays a part in the picture? Why do you wish me luck with my standards? What is your point in wishing me luck?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Can you elaborate? Is the USA one big community? How does the fact that you believe standards apply to communities lead to the conclusion that subjectivity plays a part in the picture? Why do you wish me luck with my standards? What is your point in wishing me luck?


It's all mostly subjective. I believe the USA is one community, but that's because I most identify with my country. However, I know folks who most identify with their neighborhood, and the neighborhood standards are all they care about.

I'd love to know how you can say that refusing the right of abortion to women is objectively wrong.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> If a sad song/piece resonates with the heartache of a loss due to death, or after a breakup from a long term relationship, that is a healthy way of coping with the negative feelings that we need to process and would be psychologically healthy.


It seems to me that all this discussion would be a lot easier if we had it in the non-classical forum. Anyway, what you are talking about here is exactly what blues music is all about. By sharing one's pain with the singer you feel good. Can't say it any better than in the Johnny Winter song, World of Contradictions:

_Some folks say you can't sing blues, when you're feeling good
I'm just feeling lousy, I knock on wood
I make my living feeling rotten, but I feel good when I play blues

In this world of contradictions, man what can a poor boy do?
I guess the worst things get, the better they must be_



> If a song/piece validates immoral action within a person such as violence against innocent persons, that is psychologically unhealthy.


Like maybe the RAP song that got notoriety for its message about killing cops?



> If you listen to a band constantly that promotes anger/frustration, that _*COULD*_ be psychologically unhealthy depending on the person. We all get angry from time to time, and to hear that expressed in Art can help us process those feelings, and can be healthy.


If music makes me feel that way, I am not going to keep listening to it.

Finally, are you a psychologist (real or armchair) or student of psychology?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> It seems to me that all this discussion would be a lot easier if we had it in the non-classical forum. Anyway, what you are talking about here is exactly what blues music is all about. By sharing one's pain with the singer you feel good. Can't say it any better than in the Johnny Winter song, World of Contradictions:
> 
> _Some folks say you can't sing blues, when you're feeling good
> I'm just feeling lousy, I knock on wood
> ...


Refer to post #49 to find your answer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let me state it differently:
> 
> 1. Do you agree people have values either explicitly or implicitly that drive their taste in Art?
> 2. Do you think some have genuine values but also hold the value to fit in, so they hide their genuine values in order to fit into a group?
> ...


I agree with No. 1, although its not always easy - or maybe even necessary - to be able to articulate these values.

I also agree with No. 2. Humans are social animals and its not a sin to gravitate towards those who share similar values or cultural tastes. Of course, the urge to elevate oneself above others is as old as the hills. Snobbism comes from the word sans nobilite, which was coined in the 19th century as the emerging middle class adopted the trappings of good taste and refinement associated with the declining aristocracy. I think that its an unfortunate tendency in human nature to do this for whatever reason, and music can be one of them. Music can unite as well as divide people. One hopes that the former will prevail over the latter, but its not always the case. Even if it unites, music can be distorted to fit corrosive ideologies, as has unfortunately been proven many times during history. I'd like to think that the positive outweighs the negative.

In terms of No. 3, I think it is dishonest unless the person admits to using music for an agenda. That would be extremely rare, but there have been cases where people regret making a stance after seeing the damage done by using music as part of divide and conquer tactics. The agendas keep changing but the music stays the same. I'd like to think that its the latter that counts more the politics, snobbism and back stabbing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> It's all mostly subjective. I believe the USA is one community, but that's because I most identify with my country. However, I know folks who most identify with their neighborhood, and the neighborhood standards are all they care about.
> 
> I'd love to know how you can say that refusing the right of abortion to women is objectively wrong.


Ok, as far as politics go and the role of government, I am a Capitalist. The role of government is to stop the initiation of force against others in every sense, and to promote freedom of choice.

The government has no bearing on a woman's body, she has the right to have an abortion if she wants while it is still inside of her.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2018)

Example 1: If someone values complexity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply attempting to achieve an irrational value of feeling intelligent? Possibly. It takes all sorts.

Example 2: If someone values simplicity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply rebelling against those who are trying to look intelligent and achieving the value of feeling superior in their humble nature? Possibly. It takes all sorts

Is there Psychologically healthy Art Appreciation? To elaborate, two different ppl can view the same piece, one in a Psychologically healthy manner and another in a Psychologically Unhealthy manner. An individual's appreciation of art could conceivably be "pyschologically unhealthy" I suppose, though I'm not sure what that might look like.




Captainnumber36 said:


> I think what I'm trying to say is, it is important to understand our values and then dissect the psychological implications of those values.
> 
> I think Psychologically Healthy Values exist.


I think there are two slightly different things going on here, and some have made a shortcut rejection of your hypothesis, taking you to mean only that "it is right to like this or that kind of music, but only for the right kind of reason".

I think what you're saying is that underlying our liking for...whomever...is a psychological response (or multiple responses) that we may or may not be aware of; that one such is to do with how others regard us, rather than something intrinsic to the music; and that we should try to recognise that we might have such a response and reject it as a "dishonest" response (my word, not yours) and it is this that might be deemed "psychologically unhealthy".

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

This is most interesting. A "lazy" or shallow interpretation of, say, Nietzsche can certainly lead to all sorts of abominable, preposterous conclusions. That is to say, one can certainly interpret/appreciate him in an "unhealthy" way...

There is also this bizarre story of Lenin, who, in order not to "soften" before mankind, actively chose _not_ to listen to Beethoven, a composer he otherwise loved and adored beyond measure.

I wholeheartedly agree with Socrates on this issue, as I so often do, that (classical) music is the "most potent instrument" for the edification of one's soul.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Morality is objective. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to refuse the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others (taxes).


I'm taking taxation out of that list because that's just ridiculous. There may be punitive taxation at times, but taxation generally is not 'immoral'. Maybe you could have offered: tax dodging.

The thing with all the others (and more besides) is they have to be first established and also the circumstances investigated. Ethics is not objectively cut and dried. It's naive to say it is; 'unhealthy' one might even say.

I really can't imagine any ordinary situations where people are listening to music to reinforce ideas of murder and abortion refusal...etc. Perhaps the Nazis and their control of music? I don't want to fall into the Godwin trap.

I don't know, maybe the singing of hymns that reinforce a fantasy worldview is 'unhealthy'. Or listening to classical music so much and obsessively that one comes to think of it as the crux of everything to the point of lauding it all the time.

Worth thinking about.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

on the other hand, if we claim that there are no objective criteria in art appreciation, then it follows that it is impossible to claim that Biber is better than Bieber


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Surely they are roughly about the same?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> If a sad song/piece resonates with the heartache of a loss due to death, or after a breakup from a long term relationship, that is a healthy way of coping with the negative feelings that we need to process and would be psychologically healthy.
> 
> If a song/piece resonates w/ the feelings of immense joy during the birth of your child or the union in marriage between you and a loved one, it is psychologically healthy.
> 
> ...


I am not sure who can decide for someone else what will nourish them or what they will (should?) get out of the art they choose to consume. A deeply depressed person may experience harm from a work like, say, Sartre's Nausea and another might find help and validation. So it is not about the art so much as what people do with it and what they get out of it. And that depends (I suspect) on what they bring to it. People's responses to art can be very individual. I'm mindful of A Clockwork Orange (the Kubrick film or the Burgess book) and the way the central character (a real thug) is turned on (to violence) by listening to Beethoven. Of course, that is just fiction.

I am also worried about what "psychological health" is. It isn't only about who decides for us what is psychologically healthy. It is also about which thought processes we have that may be deemed unhealthy by others. We can decide for ourselves but I do not believe a mental health professional would try to do so except through exploring _with us _the effects of our habits and consumption patterns. And, in that case, it is we who would get to decide for ourselves in the end.

But none of this is about the value of a work of art. It is not uncommon for critics to evaluate art in terms of how it nourishes _*society *_but that is a different matter and is normally subject to discussion and re-evaluation as society's values change over time. It is also notoriously hard to do it for music that does not have a programme.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> on the other hand, if we claim that there are no objective criteria in art appreciation, then it follows that it is impossible to claim that Biber is better than Bieber


It is not impossible to claim that Biber is better than Bieber. It is just impossible to make the claim, properly speaking, as an _objective fact_. In normal conversation, it would be perfectly reasonable to express the claim, even without specifically identifying it as an opinion, as long as it is recognized as such.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Bieber has an extra 'e' so he's probably superior.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Example 1: If someone values complexity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply attempting to achieve an irrational value of feeling intelligent? Possibly. It takes all sorts.
> 
> Example 2: If someone values simplicity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply rebelling against those who are trying to look intelligent and achieving the value of feeling superior in their humble nature? Possibly. It takes all sorts
> 
> ...


Yes, you are 100% correct!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> It is not impossible to claim that Biber is better than Bieber. It is just impossible to make the claim, properly speaking, as an _objective fact_. In normal conversation, it would be perfectly reasonable to express the claim, even without specifically identifying it as an opinion, as long as it is recognized as such.


Yes, I agree completely.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Morality is objective. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to refuse the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others (taxes).


Since there are various moral codes around the world, whose morality then is objective?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Since there are various moral codes around the world, whose morality then is objective?


The one that protects individual rights and the enforcement by government against coercion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure who can decide for someone else what will nourish them or what they will (should?) get out of the art they choose to consume. A deeply depressed person may experience harm from a work like, say, Sartre's Nausea and another might find help and validation. So it is not about the art so much as what people do with it and what they get out of it. And that depends (I suspect) on what they bring to it. People's responses to art can be very individual. I'm mindful of A Clockwork Orange (the Kubrick film or the Burgess book) and the way the central character (a real thug) is turned on (to violence) by listening to Beethoven. Of course, that is just fiction.
> 
> I am also worried about what "psychological health" is. It isn't only about who decides for us what is psychologically healthy. It is also about which thought processes we have that may be deemed unhealthy by others. We can decide for ourselves but I do not believe a mental health professional would try to do so except through exploring _with us _the effects of our habits and consumption patterns. And, in that case, it is we who would get to decide for ourselves in the end.
> 
> But none of this is about the value of a work of art. It is not uncommon for critics to evaluate art in terms of how it nourishes _*society *_but that is a different matter and is normally subject to discussion and re-evaluation as society's values change over time. It is also notoriously hard to do it for music that does not have a programme.


Try back reading through the thread, you seem to have incorrectly understood what I have stated.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ I have read the thread and have observed your position changing quite radically. Indeed, in your post 47, you refer to this .... "my point as it has evolved throughout this thread". I don't think I have understood the points I answered incorrectly but I can believe, given your shifting position in this one, that you are struggling to express what it is that is on your mind. No worries. I don't want to get into a ping-pong match with you over what you said and meant. You made some points and I responded to them (constructively, I hope). My responses may be of some value as your position evolves further.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

> Quote Originally Posted by Fritz Kobus View Post
> Since there are various moral codes around the world, whose morality then is objective?





Captainnumber36 said:


> The one that protects individual rights and the enforcement by government against coercion.


A moral code protects nothing. It only sets behavioral standards. You are speaking of a government, and presumably a libertarian one from the above statement.

So again, what establishes the objective moral code? If a man, then when he dies or is overpowered, it changes, and therefore is not objective. Or if a majority establishes a moral code, when they are overpowered it changes. And a majority determined moral code does not guarantee a correct moral code. Frankly, unless you can point to a creator who has ultimate authority over all things and who wrote a moral code in stone, you have nothing that will last in the form of a moral code.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The one that protects individual rights and the enforcement by government against coercion.


I'm kind of curious about how you know what rights people have? Are they the ones governments give them in law or are they some other type of thing?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The one that protects individual rights and the enforcement by government against coercion.


That's legislation, not a moral code.

Plus, government enforcing against coercion?! What brand of coercion? You're undermining your own stated governmental preferences. I think it's wrong for a government to legislate allowing capitalist organisations to coerce all their employees into things they don't want to do, how immoral is that on your sliding scale? And what music accompanies it?

You're opening a can of worms here and one you'll not contain in a hurry.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Frankly, unless you can point to a creator who has ultimate authority over all things and who wrote a moral code in stone, you have nothing that will last in the form of a moral code.


Having a moral code, and having a moral code given by absolute authority are different things. Arguably, people who have pointed to a "creator who has ultimate authority" have nevertheless to depend on people's faith that such a creator not only exists, but has given the code to someone who carries that authority on his behalf.

Several such people(s) have done this quite successfully over millennia, but it seems to me that is evidence for the ability of a moral code to last because many humans wish it to, not because they've successfully pointed to a creator.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Whilst I would probably not share Fritz Kobus's theology (and this is not the issue) I think he is right to state that pointing to some divine moral authority (and showing it to be so) would be the only way to underpin this idea of a given, immutable moral code.

Since the OP has no chance of this, it is doomed.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Whilst I would probably not share Fritz Kobus's theology (and this is not the issue) I think he is right to state that pointing to some divine moral authority (and showing it to be the so) would be the only way to underpin this idea of a given, immutable moral code. Since the OP has no chance of this, it is doomed.


I think people are innate with some form of moral code, ie they know that it is wrong to hurt others, to kill others, to steal, to lie, to cheat and that the 7 kardinal virtues and 7 kardinal sins are more or less cross-culturally universal to all mankind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It think it’s a given that an external authority (God, usually) is required for there to be any absolute moral code, or even a non-utilitarian definition of “right” and “wrong.”

On another matter raised, the founders of the US generally though the most important rights were “inalienable,” meaning that man has these rights by nature, automatically. So government does not grant these rights; it can only circumscribe them or deny them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> On another matter raised, the founders of the US generally though the most important rights were "inalienable," meaning that man has these rights by nature, automatically.


Did they have an argument for natural rights? It seems a strange idea to me.



KenOC said:


> It think it's a given that an external authority (God, usually) is required for there to be any absolute moral code, or even a non-utilitarian definition of "right" and "wrong."


Kant argues that if God says "Do X", "You ought to do X" the rational person will ask why.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Maybe it depends on the style of art/music that's evaluated and that everything is relative. Can you say that yet again?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Did they have an argument for natural rights? It seems a strange idea to me.


No argument is necessary since these rights are "self-evident." It's all right here:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…"

Note that governments do not "grant" these rights; in fact their purpose is to "secure" them.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> No argument is necessary since these rights are "self-evident." It's all right here:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…"
> 
> Note that governments do not "grant" these rights; in fact their purpose is to "secure" them.


Those are desires, not 'rights'. A society comes together and decides how it wants to live and legislates accordingly. That section from that document is 18th century poppycock.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

kenoc said:


> no argument is necessary since these rights are "self-evident." it's all right here:


lol.

...............


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that there are right and wrong values to hold in music appreciation.
> 
> Example 1: If someone values complexity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply attempting to achieve an irrational value of feeling intelligent?


Composers write music that varies in complexity, consisting of various patterns, chord changes, progressions, themes, recapitulations, and the like. It is the listener's job to recover and grasp these patterns. Expert listeners recover more patterns than inexpert listeners, and are therefore more qualified to make aesthetic judgements about a particular piece of music. Thus, music is essentially a language-like transmission of patterns from composer to listener.

But, it doesn't matter if a listener gets all the details, as long as he still enjoys the music. Like a magician's trick, it doesn't matter if you understand the trick, as long as you are entertained by the illusion.

This neutralizes the notion of "complexity" and "intelligence" in music, from a listening standpoint.



> Example 2: If someone values simplicity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply rebelling against those who are trying to look intelligent and achieving the value of feeling superior in their humble nature?


No; I don't think listeners are motivated by "getting back"at anyone; they simply glean from the music whatever patterns they can, and can enjoy the general effect of the music, even if they don't understand every aspect of it.



> Is there Psychologically healthy Art Appreciation? To elaborate, two different ppl can view the same piece, one in a Psychologically healthy manner and another in a Psychologically Unhealthy manner.


Yes, it's possible; I consider Charles Manson's interpretation of songs from The Beatles' "White Album" to be "unhealthy" in light of the actions he took.



> Also, being honest with yourself in what appeals to you Artistically can uncover great Psychological insights.


"Appeal" is an open-ended term. As a composer, one might be attracted to complex music for different reasons than a listener might. A composer is interested in "musical ideas" in perhaps a more abstract way than most listeners.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> Those are desires, not 'rights'. A society comes together and decides how it wants to live and legislates accordingly. That section from that document is 18th century poppycock.


I pretty much agree with that. It's the same as religion or any other form of superstition. As people never seem to realize, societies survive by shared lies, certainly not truths.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

_Lies_ might be a strong way of putting it, but yes it is sometimes that way. I'd opt for saying that people are basically in support of prohibiting things (by peer pressure, codes, values etc) that puts them at risk of being killed and hurt.

"You refrain from killing me and I'll refrain from killing you; truce, let's call it murder and deprecate it for all our benefit.." That sort of thing.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The question remains whether any rights are rationally required. That's to say, if we imagine someone setting up social rules impartially, _*not knowing what his place in the society was going to be* _-- would he rationally (self interestedly) enshrine any right in law?

Think about things to do with security, for example. The right to a home, civil protection, access to health care. Or about redistribution of wealth -- that the least well have a right to receive sufficient aid to make them better off -- indeed as well off as possible without harming incentives to create wealth.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> The question remains whether any rights are rationally required. That's to say, if we imagine someone setting up social rules impartially, not knowing what his place in the society was going to be -- would he rationally enshrine any right in law? Think about things to do with security, for example. Or about redistribution of wealth -- that the least well off should be as well off as possible.


People evolved in small tribes of maybe 50-100 members. In such communities everybody knew each other and any deviant behavior such as agression would be punished by the rest of the group. In such communities things like sharing, common protection etc. evolved and they are the basis of society and our interpersonal relations even now. Our problems came into being when human societies started growing larger and larger and then it was no more possible that every member knows other members personally. This allowed psychopaths (the dominant and most aggressive alpha leaders) to come to power and ground dynasties, kingdoms. Then all kind of mischief came into being such as slavery, huge armies, kingdoms, wars etc. and through cultural evolution we have our states today. But our mentality is still designed to live in groups of 50-100 members.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> _Lies_ might be a strong way of putting it, but yes it is sometimes that way. I'd opt for saying that people are basically in support of prohibiting things (by peer pressure, codes, values etc) that puts them at risk of being killed and hurt.
> 
> "You refrain from killing me and I'll refrain from killing you; truce, let's call it murder and deprecate it for all our benefit.." That sort of thing.


That sounds like a psychology based on fear, rather than love. According to Salmon Rushdie, we all know innately that it's wrong to murder other people. Do we really need to be told these things, or are they really originally based on what we innately know to be right? Otherwise, you are admitting that Man is basically evil, or at least flawed, or at least unable to peacefully co-exist. If you think so, then you are admittedly misanthropes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jacck said:


> People evolved in small tribes of maybe 50-100 members. In such communities everybody knew each other and any deviant behavior such as agression would be punished by the rest of the group. In such communities things like sharing, common protection etc. evolved and they are the basis of society and our interpersonal relations even now. Our problems came into being when human societies started growing larger and larger and then it was no more possible that every member knows other members personally. This allowed psychopaths (the dominant and most aggressive alpha leaders) to come to power and ground dynasties, kingdoms. Then all kind of mischief came into being such as slavery, huge armies, kingdoms, wars etc. and through cultural evolution we have our states today. But our mentality is still designed to live in groups of 50-100 members.


Then the hippies were right...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like a psychology based on fear, rather than love. According to Salmon Rushdie, we all know innately that it's wrong to murder other people.


Then why do we happily do it every day, and often in vast numbers? And cheer when our hated enemies fall?

We devote a huge piece of our annual income to devising better ways to murder people we don't know and have never even seen.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like a psychology based on fear, rather than love. According to Salmon Rushdie, we all know innately that it's wrong to murder other people. Do we really need to be told these things, or are they really originally based on what we innately know to be right? Otherwise, you are admitting that Man is basically evil, or at least flawed, or at least unable to peacefully co-exist. If you think so, then you are admittedly misanthropes.


We can be almost certain that some form of morality is innate. People are social animals and can feel emotions such as empathy through the mirror neuron system in their brains, ie if you see another person in pain, the same centers in your brain get activated as when you yourself were suffering the pain. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
the real problem since the beginning of ages are psychopaths, ie people with deviant behavior and deviant personality which are unable to empathize and care not if they cause others harm. According to research, maybe 3% of people are psychopaths (=evil), but some 25% are easily manipulated by the psychopaths to do evil. That is enough for every totalitarian regime to thrive. The main psychopaths at the top, and their henchmen (secrect service, police, army etc) do their commands. Only 10% of people are people of high moral integrity, ie the opposite of the psychopaths. Here you have religious figures such as Buddha, Christ etc.

https://www.sott.net/article/218599-Intraspecies-Predator-How-A-Psychopath-Sees-The-World


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like a psychology based on fear, rather than love. According to Salmon Rushdie, we all know innately that it's wrong to murder other people. Do we really need to be told these things, or are they really originally based on what we innately know to be right? Otherwise, you are admitting that Man is basically evil, or at least flawed, or at least unable to peacefully co-exist. If you think so, then you are admittedly misanthropes.


It _is_ a psychology based on fear. Human society has risen out of something far less appalling than a Brian Ferneyhough quartet. The 'nasty, brutish and short' of Hobbes describes it perfectly. To get most of the population to the point of passing on their genes needs agreements for staying alive that long.

There's no pretty philosophy for dressing this up. As KenOC points out, what we say when lauding 'morality' rather contradicts so many of our actions.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Jacck said:


> We can be almost certain that some form of morality is innate. People are social animals and can feel emotions such as empathy through the mirror neuron system in their brains, ie if you see another person in pain, the same centers in your brain get activated as when you yourself were suffering the pain.


Being able to discern it and acting upon it are not the same thing. In a one-to-one situation perhaps it will triumph, but societies are larger and more complex than that and most of the people you share it with you will never meet. You need a social contract for that, not a holy grail of morality.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Being able to discern it and acting upon it are not the same thing. In a one-to-one situation perhaps it will triumph, but societies are larger and more complex than that and most of the people you share it with you will never meet. You need a social contract for that, not a holy grail of morality.


yes, I was saying the same above. Our morality evolved in groups of 50-100 members where everybody knows everybody and that severely limits deviant behavior. And current complex societies allow to do harm to people you do not know personally. Of course we need a social contract to have some form of social order. In the past religions offered unifying principles how to join large groups of people together under common faith and they had their morality. Now when the religions desintegrated we are in a moral vacuum.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I don't think we are in a vacuum, not regarding those major crimes which have such a history within value systems - since they allow normal life to continue - that they taken as some sort of natural law.
Hence our host's misguided idea that it is a natural phenomenon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Then why do we happily do it every day, and often in vast numbers? And cheer when our hated enemies fall?
> 
> We devote a huge piece of our annual income to devising better ways to murder people we don't know and have never even seen.


I didn't say we didn't do it; just that we know it's wrong, at some level. I never promised you a rose garden.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't say we didn't do it; just that we know it's wrong, at some level. I never promised you a rose garden.


I remember reading of a tribe of Maori in New Zealand who would, from time immemorial, take to sea to find islands inhabited by other tribes. Their practice was to slaughter all the men and male children and to bring the rest back to their land to become slaves, wives, or whatever.

They were baffled when European missionaries showed up and told them that what they were doing was "wrong." It was, after all, what they had always done and it seemed to be working fine.

In their case, guilt had to be taught. That process apparently succeeded.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> A moral code protects nothing. It only sets behavioral standards. You are speaking of a government, and presumably a libertarian one from the above statement.
> 
> So again, what establishes the objective moral code? If a man, then when he dies or is overpowered, it changes, and therefore is not objective. Or if a majority establishes a moral code, when they are overpowered it changes. And a majority determined moral code does not guarantee a correct moral code. Frankly, unless you can point to a creator who has ultimate authority over all things and who wrote a moral code in stone, you have nothing that will last in the form of a moral code.


I believe in allowing people to behave in anyway they want as long as it does not involve coercion against others. I postulate there are psychologically healthy ways of living, but would not force those notions on anyone.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I'm kind of curious about how you know what rights people have? Are they the ones governments give them in law or are they some other type of thing?


People have the right to behave, think and create in anyway they please as long as it does not use coercion on others. What rights do people have? Individual Rights.

The government has no bearing on how people should conduct themselves other than to protect people from coercion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's legislation, not a moral code.
> 
> Plus, government enforcing against coercion?! What brand of coercion? You're undermining your own stated governmental preferences. I think it's wrong for a government to legislate allowing capitalist organisations to coerce all their employees into things they don't want to do, how immoral is that on your sliding scale? And what music accompanies it?
> 
> You're opening a can of worms here and one you'll not contain in a hurry.


Government does not have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves. In a free society, you can quit a job if you don't like how they are treating you.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Government does not have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves. In a free society, you can quit a job if you don't like how they are treating you.


. . . assuming that you can get another job or have other financial sources to survive. The US government does indeed have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves, not absolutely, but in a variety of ways.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> . . . assuming that you can get another job or have other financial sources to survive. The US government does indeed have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves, not absolutely, but in a variety of ways.


You have a choice to stay at your current job until you find another one.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Government does not have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves. In a free society, you can quit a job if you don't like how they are treating you.


This is the most deluded remark I have read this week.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You have a choice to stay at your current job until you find another one.


Unless you get fired, or laid off. If you cannot find another job, the opportunity of moving is mostly illusion. (And good luck changing a job after the age of 40 in the current environment.) Sadly, freedom is often little more than empty promises and unfulfilled hopes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Unless you get fired, or laid off. If you cannot find another job, the opportunity of moving is mostly illusion. (And good luck changing a job after the age of 40 in the current environment.) Sadly, freedom is often little more than empty promises and unfulfilled hopes.


People must be prepared for lay offs in having money saved up. If someone is fired, it's typically b/c of their own doing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Can we bring the discussion back to Psychology, Values and Music and away from Government and politics?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm afraid that's where this leads. The 'psychology' propping up this thread is utterly bankrupt.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Can we bring the discussion back to Psychology, Values and Music and away from Government and politics?


I hope you know more about psychology, values and music than about government, politics, or economic and practical realities of employment.

On a more positive note, I will mention that The Great Courses series has several offerings in the area of philosophy and morality that are really quite interesting. There are many complexities that people often do not typically consider, and in the end there is really no escaping some degree of relativism.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm afraid that's where this leads. The 'psychology' propping up this thread is utterly bankrupt.


It's an avenue it can take, but it is not appropriate for this section of the forum and takes away from the initial point of the thread. I'm just beating the eventual statements from the mods.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> I hope you know more about psychology, values and music than about government, politics, or economic and practical realities of employment.
> 
> On a more positive note, I will mention that The Great Courses series has several offerings in the area of philosophy and morality that are really quite interesting. There are many complexities that people often do not typically consider, and in the end there is really no escaping some degree of relativism.


I am an absolutist and value certainty. It is what leads to a fully confident man/woman.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Also, when I say there is a way to be emotionally healthy, that doesn't mean everyone has to be the same. I believe there are very abstract ideas that should produce a great variety of healthy psychologies.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am an absolutist and value certainty. It is what leads to a fully confident man/woman.


So was Jim Jones.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> So was Jim Jones.


You can be confident and irrational.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

As I grow older, about the only thing I grow more confident of is that the certainties of others are largely illusory.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> As I grow older, about the only thing I grow more confident of is that the certainties of others are largely illusory.


To be certain requires a great deal of thought and complexity of thought.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Is it wrong to Murder?

1. The death penalty is immoral.
2. Killing as a murderer is immoral.
3. Killing in defense is Moral.
4. Hunting Animals is not Immoral.
5. Killing someone's pet, which is property, unless in defense, is immoral.

I hope to show the complexity of certainty with the above example.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> To be certain requires a great deal of thought and complexity of thought.


We are born with brainwashing, we live with brainwashing, and with brainwashing we die. Small wonder so many of us are certain of so many things!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> We are born with brainwashing, we live with brainwashing, and with brainwashing we die. Small wonder so many of us are certain of so many things!


I think a part of being certain is to be open to new ideas that either invalidate past truths or expand upon them. You can be certain that we will gain new knowledge which will have impact on our current notions.

We should be certain that our senses are our means of perceiving the natural world, and we then integrate these sensory experiences into knowledge/concepts.

The deeper we dive and the more intellectually honest the research, the greater the validity. The point of science is to prove causation, which it often doesn't.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think a part of being certain is to be open to new ideas that either invalidate past truths or expand upon them. You can be certain that we will gain new knowledge which will have impact on our current notions.
> 
> We should be certain that our senses are our means of perceiving the natural world, and we then combine these sensory experiences into knowledge/concepts.
> 
> The deeper we dive and the more intellectually honest the research, the greater the validity. The point of science is to prove causation, which it often doesn't.


David Hume completely destroyed causation, almost 300 years ago.

Yet philosophers (and their paychecks) largely pretended he never happened.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You can be confident and irrational.


Yes, a warning to remember, but unlikely to be heeded by the irrational.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is it wrong to Murder?
> 
> 1. The death penalty is immoral.
> 2. Killing as a murderer is immoral.
> ...


Holes can be punched in every one of these. Certainty is usually a goal, not an achievement.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

An important part of speaking with certainty, clarity and confidence is to ensure the abstract principal you are attempting to convey, is conveyed.

The terms we have to hold various concepts are less important than describing the principal behind the term you are trying to communicate since words are used quite subjectively in our modern society.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Holes can be punched in every one of these. Certainty is usually a goal, not an achievement.


Punch away...................


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Punch away...................


Please define your term "moral" that you use as an adjective. "Immoral" I suppose we can derive from that.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Yes, a warning to remember, but unlikely to be heeded by the irrational.


B/C certainty of mind leads to happiness and confidence, man needs a rational philosophy and morality since rationality is the way of man.

Man needs Philosophy to guide his actions just like we need a map to tell us how to get from point a to point b if we have never taken a certain path before between the two destinations and no one is around who does know to tell you.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> B/C certainty of mind leads to happiness and confidence, man needs a rational philosophy and morality since rationality is the way of man.


And ignorance leads to bliss.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Morality is objective. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to refuse the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others (taxes).


Rather than pointing to some divine morality, the only one that works in society, without everyone killing each other, is one that is based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is not only in the Christian religion. So based on that, yes, it is objectively wrong to rape, to murder (which is different than killing).

With the idea of abortion, there is the argument that the fetus is alive, and abortion is the same as murder (I can't say I have a stand on this myself). And to say it is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others through taxes (in the form of Welfare or disability pension benefits I suppose), it is the will of the majority of voters or lawmakers who want to see this. Would it be morally acceptable if governments killed off the weak and unable to work? Basically to refuse help and not to tax the rich/well-off for these benefits is almost the same as seeing them dead.



Captainnumber36 said:


> The one that protects individual rights and the enforcement by government against coercion.





Captainnumber36 said:


> Government does not have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves. In a free society, you can quit a job if you don't like how they are treating you.


There is a possibility contradiction of these 2 statements. Companies that are not conducting themselves properly with their employees may involve coercion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Please define your term "moral" that you use as an adjective. "Immoral" I suppose we can derive from that.


Morality is a code of ethics that drives man's choices. A moral morality consists of a code of ethics that does not include coercion. Immoral morality is then a code of ethics that includes coercion.

Under what I am postulating, and what I have stated just above, you can be moral yet psychologically unhealthy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> ...since rationality is the way of man.


Sorry, I live in the universe down the block where things are somewhat different.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> And ignorance leads to bliss.


Ignorance is not passionate and lacks a complete love of life. To live life to the fullest, one must embrace it and figure out how you fit into it; you must integrate yourself and your philosophy with the world.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Rather than pointing to some divine morality, the only one that works in society, without everyone killing each other, is one that is based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is not only in the Christian religion. So based on that, yes, it is objectively wrong to rape, to murder (which is different than killing).
> 
> With the idea of abortion, there is the argument that the fetus is alive, and abortion is the same as murder (I can't say I have a stand on this myself). And to say it is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others through taxes (in the form of Welfare or disability pension benefits I suppose), it is the will of the majority of voters or lawmakers who want to see this. Would it be morally acceptable if governments killed off the weak and unable to work? Basically to refuse help and not to tax the rich/well-off for these benefits is almost the same as seeing them dead.
> 
> There is a possibility contradiction of these 2 statements. Companies that are not conducting themselves properly with their employees may involve coercion.


The abstract idea is not do unto others as you would have them do to you, b/c some ppl have very different notions of what they would like done to them.

The rational abstract idea is to eliminate coercion and allow for freedom of the individual's mind to think and act completely for himself/herself.

Yes, but you have the right to quit if you do not like how you are being treated. You also have the choice to tough it out in the job until you find new work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is it wrong to Murder?
> 
> 1. The death penalty is immoral.
> 2. Killing as a murderer is immoral.
> ...


I am not going to bother with all of these, as a few examples should be sufficient. If someone comes into your house to steal, and brings a gun, but you confront the person with a gun, and he shoots you first, was he acting in self-defense? Was that moral? Is it immoral to hunt an animal, and not use the meat for food? Is it immoral to engage in fox hunting and let your dogs tear the fox apart, as sport? I don't necessarily sport the death penalty, as it has certainly been abused, but it has regularly been proposed precisely as a moral position. Is war killing in defense or as a murderer? Does it matter which side of the battle you are on? Reality is complicated.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Sorry, I live in the universe down the block where things are somewhat different.


Rationality, powered by emotional fuel that is attached to it, is the essence of man. Most are not rational beings, we do have free will after all, I at least have seen no evidence against the notion, and several observations to indicate we do indeed have free will.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ignorance is not passionate and lacks a complete love of life. To live life to the fullest, one must embrace it and figure out how you fit into it; you must integrate yourself and your philosophy with the world.


I have known plenty of passionate ignorant people. In fact, they are often among the most passionate. The rest of your post sounds like weak Objectivism, which is already a dead end. But none of this is being applied to music, and I suspect that we are unreasonably testing the moderators, and so I am done.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> I am not going to bother with all of these, as a few examples should be sufficient. If someone comes into your house to steal, and brings a gun, but you confront the person with a gun, and he shoots you first, was he acting in self-defense? Was that moral? Is it immoral to hunt an animal, and not use the meat for food? Is it immoral to engage in fox hunting and let your dogs tear the fox apart, as sport? I don't necessarily sport the death penalty, as it has certainly been abused, but it has regularly been proposed precisely as a moral position. Is war killing in defense or as a murderer? Does it matter which side of the battle you are on? Reality is complicated.


1. The person broke into your house, that means you have the right to end his/her life to protect yourself regardless.
2. Animals do not have rights, only beings capable of participating in political discussion and arriving at what rights are, are allowed to have rights. There is no point in providing rights to beings that cannot respect or comprehend the rights of others, like Animals.
3. War, like the intruder in your house, is moral if the nation is engaging in it as defense against an enemy. (I am strongly against "The White Man's Burden").
4. I would be willing to debate the death penalty further.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> 1. The person broke into your house, that means you have the right to end his/her life to protect yourself regardless.


Sez who? This is simply an assertion without foundation. Anybody can spout opinions and call them "truths."

BTW, a certain fellow had a quite contrary view of your situation, expressed in the sermon on the mount. He may have been wrong as well, but his opinion was at least interesting.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Sez who? This is simply an assertion without foundation. Anybody can spout opinions and call them "truths."
> 
> BTW, a certain fellow had a quite contrary view of your situation, expressed in the sermon on the mount. He may have been wrong as well, but his opinion was at least interesting.


If someone breaks into your house and poses a threat to you and your loved ones, why wouldn't you have the right to take their life in the name of self defense? Should you just take a chance and see if they mean you physical harm?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

(Can we move this thread to the community section since it's quite diverted from music?)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> (Can we move this thread to the community section since it's quite diverted from music?)


Actually this thread belongs in Groups, under Religion and/or one of the three Politics groups. Old news.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> (Can we move this thread to the community section since it's quite diverted from music?)


Just PM a moderator and they will move it for you. Moderators are listed at the bottom of the page of the forum's thread listing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> People have the right to behave, think and create in anyway they please as long as it does not use coercion on others. What rights do people have? Individual Rights.
> 
> The government has no bearing on how people should conduct themselves other than to protect people from coercion.


People have no rights except that we create systems based on the _belief _that we do, and create governments for protecting them. The two are interconnected.



Captainnumber36 said:


> Government does not have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves. In a free society, you can quit a job if you don't like how they are treating you.


The government - to the extent that it is held accountable to the people - does have _permission _to legislate. That's not quite the same as a 'right'.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I am an absolutist and value certainty. It is what leads to a fully confident man/woman.


And yet you subsequently demonstrate that you value ambiguity and scepticism.



Couchie said:


> David Hume completely destroyed causation, almost 300 years ago.


He did? Well someone came along and restored its existence.



Captainnumber36 said:


> If someone breaks into your house and poses a threat to you and your loved ones, why wouldn't you have the right to take their life in the name of self defense?


See my previous comment about ambiguity.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Thanks Macleod for your responses, I appreciate them. You are posing good counter-arguments that make logical sense from what I stated.

I agree with your implication that rights are a man made construct and do not exist in nature. However, we can use human nature to create a government that protects it's people based upon what it is humans need. And what do people need? The freedom to think and act in their own interests without coercing others in the process. Man needs the freedom to think for himself and have the ability to use his rationality, fueled by emotions, to guide his actions. 

I agree the government currently has permission to legislate companies, but that does not allow entrepreneurs the full control of their minds to do what they think is best for their companies success. 

I don't value ambiguity, I just acknowledge that new knowledge can effect the accuracy of old knowledge. We are certain until proven wrong, just like a Scientific Theory, such as Evolution.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't value ambiguity, I just acknowledge that new knowledge can effect the accuracy of old knowledge. We are certain until proven wrong, just like a Scientific Theory, such as Evolution.


I had in mind the post where you acknowledge "the complexity of certainty" - which looks to me like ambiguity!

Are there right and wrong values to hold in Art (music) Evaluation?

And of course your OP.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I had in mind the post where you acknowledge "the complexity of certainty" - which looks to me like ambiguity!
> 
> Are there right and wrong values to hold in Art (music) Evaluation?
> 
> And of course your OP.


All I meant by saying "the complexity of certainty" is to deter from simple generalizations that do not actually reflect a truth-ism.

For example, "Murder is bad". No, that isn't a truth and is a simplified generalization. Murder in self-defense is not bad. Hunting animals is not bad. etc.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captain, are you a follower of Ayn Rand? I ask because several of your assertions are at the core of her belief system, Objectivism. I deduce that you are familiar with her viewpoint, or, if not, you would find her writings supportive.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Thanks Macleod for your responses, I appreciate them. You are posing good counter-arguments that make logical sense from what I stated.


Meant to say thanks for this.

Thanks.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and admit that no one has any rights that he or she cannot establish and defend for himself or herself, or someone else is not willing to establish and defend for them (or us). The rest is pure fantasy.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Captain, are you a follower of Ayn Rand? I ask because several of your assertions are at the core of her belief system, Objectivism. I deduce that you are familiar with her viewpoint, or, if not, you would find her writings supportive.


Which is not to suggest that it is a good thing. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. The well-known quip by John Rogers is always useful here: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

'Philosophy' of megalomania for narcissists, psychopaths and people who imagine they belong to the group of super-beings in those fantasy books by dint of reading them. 

Anyone who declares: 'the self is God' is ripe for analysis,.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Captain, are you a follower of Ayn Rand? I ask because several of your assertions are at the core of her belief system, Objectivism. I deduce that you are familiar with her viewpoint, or, if not, you would find her writings supportive.


Yes, I am an Objectivist.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Which is not to suggest that it is a good thing. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. The well-known quip by John Rogers is always useful here: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."


Those are the two books(series) I have lined up for reading next; Atlas and LOTR series including The Hobbit.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Meant to say thanks for this.
> 
> Thanks.


No problem, I love giving praise where it is deserved.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Yes, I am an Objectivist.


it's pseudo-intellectual garbage. 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/confessions-recovering-objectivist-ayn-rand


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> it's pseudo-intellectual garbage.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/confessions-recovering-objectivist-ayn-rand


A female Objectivist is fairly rare (other than Rand herself). The only people I know personally who are fairly intelligent but continue to claim the label of Objectivist as adults don't really believe in it as philosophy and are just trying to scam less intelligent devotees (in one case, quite successfully).

There are two long interviews Rand did for Phil Donohue, obviously many years ago. Donohue did a very good job of letting her speak, and express her views, with relatively few interruptions. She was a dreadful person, who has imposed her terrible childhood on subsequent generations of people who might otherwise have led useful, productive and fulfilling lives.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> A female Objectivist is fairly rare (other than Rand herself). The only people I know personally who are fairly intelligent but continue to claim the label of Objectivist as adults don't really believe in it as philosophy and are just trying to scam less intelligent devotees (in one case, quite successfully). There are two long interviews Rand did for Phil Donohue, obviously many years ago. Donohue did a very good job of letting her speak, and express her views, with relatively few interruptions. She was a dreadful person, who has imposed her terrible childhood on subsequent generations of people who might otherwise have led useful, productive and fulfilling lives.


I saw some documentary about Rand and she was mentally ill and her philosophy is a reflection of her sad life. The only surprising thing is that she found so many followers, especiallly in the US. I would even go as far as to claim that her philosophy had a pretty devastating effect on the whole American intellectual culture and might be one of the reason, why the US has for example such a dysfunctional and antisocial healthcare system (because the political ideology of the Republican party is based on these Rand delusions)
Adam Curtis has made some good documentaries about this, for example his Century of Self


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> A female Objectivist is fairly rare (other than Rand herself). The only people I know personally who are fairly intelligent but continue to claim the label of Objectivist as adults don't really believe in it as philosophy and are just trying to scam less intelligent devotees (in one case, quite successfully).
> 
> There are two long interviews Rand did for Phil Donohue, obviously many years ago. Donohue did a very good job of letting her speak, and express her views, with relatively few interruptions. She was a dreadful person, who has imposed her terrible childhood on subsequent generations of people who might otherwise have led useful, productive and fulfilling lives.


I find it the most appealing/useful philosophy, and most in accordance with human nature to date...until proven wrong. Most people highly misrepresent/misinterpret her ideas, especially on selfishness.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I saw some documentary about Rand and she was mentally ill and her philosophy is a reflection of her sad life. The only surprising thing is that she found so many followers, especiallly in the US. I would even go as far as to claim that her philosophy had a pretty devastating effect on the whole American intellectual culture and might be one of the reason, why the US has for example such a dysfunctional and antisocial healthcare system (because the political ideology of the Republican party is based on these Rand delusions)
> Adam Curtis has made some good documentaries about this, for example his Century of Self


Republicans are not fully in line with Rand's ideas. They mix religion and politics which is anti-rand and another example is that (R) support abortion which is also anti Rand.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Reason, certainty and rationality are the basis of a healthy philosophy when aligned with reality.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Reason, certainty and rationality are the basis of a healthy philosophy when aligned with reality.


Reason and rationality are fine, within the limits of what is actually possible, but there is nothing quite like reality to take a bite out certainty.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Reason and rationality are fine, within the limits of what is actually possible, but there is nothing quite like reality to take a bite out certainty.


I disagree, we can be certain of our knowledge until proven wrong with new knowledge. For example, the theory of evolution and natural selection is reasonable and represents an integrated concept of sensory information (great in part by Darwin). We can be certain of the theory until new information disproves it or modifies it (which tends to happen more often).


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Why do you disagree, that's the same thing JAS wrote? In your case, however, Ayn Rand's ranting diatribes don't align with any reasonable view of reality other than the one cooked up for her own books.

You're young, you have a lot to learn.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Republicans are not fully in line with Rand's ideas. They mix religion and politics which is anti-rand and another example is that *(R) support abortion* which is also anti Rand.


Are you saying Republicans support abortion? Must be a typo. Most Republicans are against abortion so far as I am aware.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I disagree, we can be certain of our knowledge until proven wrong with new knowledge. For example, the theory of evolution and natural selection is reasonable and represents an integrated concept of sensory information (great in part by Darwin). We can be certain of the theory until new information disproves it or modifies it (which tends to happen more often).


This all makes very little sense. If we are certain about something, and later proven to have been wrong, then we were certainly wrong all along. If our certainty is invalidated by the new knowledge, what value was there in the certainty in the first place?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Are you saying Republicans support abortion? Must be a typo. Most Republicans are against abortion so far as I am aware.


Yes, a typo. (R) don't support abortion, my apologies!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> This all makes very little sense. If we are certain about something, and later proven to have been wrong, then we were certainly wrong all along. If our certainty is invalidated by the new knowledge, what value was there in the certainty in the first place?


We can be certain based upon reason and observation. For example, our ancestors observed occurrences in nature and explained their observations by non-observable phenomenon such as god's making the sun rise each day and making it rain so their crops can flourish.

The greater our observations of phenomenon are explained by observable facts, the harder it will be to invalidate them, unless their is a change in the environment that causes a change in the phenomenon's process.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

There was no factual observable reason to believe in God's causing it to rain and so-forth, the human power of imagination can get the best of us and we must keep it for the Arts, and in Science, it must be used in accordance with reality.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that there are right and wrong values to hold in music appreciation.
> 
> Example 1: If someone values complexity in music regardless of anything else, are they simply attempting to achieve an irrational value of feeling intelligent?
> 
> ...


If one starts with the idea that music is a language and its purpose communication, I think it's reasonable to suppose that both simplicity and complexity have their place, depending on the context. Sometimes communication needs to be simple and direct, sometimes subtle and nuanced. As far as music being right or wrong or good or bad, I've suggested in many threads here that the question should be, how effectively is it communicating its message, at least to those who take the time and trouble to examine it carefully?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

fluteman said:


> If one starts with the idea that music is a language and its purpose communication, I think it's reasonable to suppose that both simplicity and complexity have their place, depending on the context. Sometimes communication needs to be simple and direct, sometimes subtle and nuanced. As far as music being right or wrong or good or bad, I've suggested in many threads here that the question should be, how effectively is it communicating its message, at least to those who take the time and trouble to examine it carefully?


I'm not attempting to say good or bad in Art, but rather, psychologically healthy and unhealthy associations to the work in question; what is it we value in it?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We can be certain based upon reason and observation. For example, our ancestors observed occurrences in nature and explained their observations by non-observable phenomenon such as god's making the sun rise each day and making it rain so their crops can flourish.
> 
> The greater our observations of phenomenon are explained by observable facts, the harder it will be to invalidate them, unless their is a change in the environment that causes a change in the phenomenon's process.


I don't think that you understand what the idea of certainty actually means, not even a little bit.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> I don't think that you understand what the idea of certainty actually means, not even a little bit.


We can be certain as long as we have no rational reason to doubt.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not attempting to say good or bad in Art, but rather, psychologically healthy and unhealthy associations to the work in question; what is it we value in it.


OK then, healthy v. unhealthy. I go back to, Is the message being communicated effectively? Can we (or at any rate, some audience somewhere) empathize or understand, emotionally or intellectually? Do you know the expression, "strike a chord"? Something that elicits an emotional response, understanding or agreement is said to "strike a chord". I don't think the musical metaphor is accidental.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We can be certain as long as we have no rational reason to doubt.


You cannot be certain simply because you are unaware, either by circumstances or willful intent, of better information or explanations. That isn't certainty, it is ignorance. Nor is it rational to make a hard and fast conclusion based on an absence of information. If, in the face of uncertainty, one has to make some choice as best one can, that may be pragmatic, but is still not certainty.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We can be certain as long as we have no rational reason to doubt.


No, I have no reason to doubt that you have two arms, but I am not certain.

Maybe "as long as we could have no reason to doubt" -- but that's now very strong, probably too strong.

If I hold my hand in front of my face, I am certain that this is a hand. It may be false, I could be dreaming, but still I am certain. Wittgenstein wrote a book on this, but in truth I can't remember a thing about it!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We can be certain as long as we have no rational reason to doubt.


There are too many counter-examples to count! Here's one: In the 19th century, physicists believed the universe was suffused with a substance they called phlogiston, which allowed light to propagate as waves. It explained a lot and there were no rational reasons to doubt it. Yes, they were *certain*. Then somebody did an experiment with an interferometer...

Similarly, a stone-age tribe might well believe that those big booms are caused by He-whose-burp-is-thunder-in-the-hills. It explains the phenomenon, and there are no rational reasons to doubt it. In fact, I still believe it!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Is this sideshow going to end? It's cruel to mock the afflicted.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Btw, I hope the anti-science contingent isn't rubbing its hands with glee at this performance of undignified reductionism. These 'objectivist' mavericks are not representatives of scientific method.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> No, I have no reason to doubt that you have two arms, but I am not certain.
> 
> Maybe "as long as we could have no reason to doubt" -- but that's now very strong, probably too strong.
> 
> If I hold my hand in front of my face, I am certain that this is a hand. It may be false, I could be dreaming, but still I am certain. Wittgenstein wrote a book on this, but in truth I can't remember a thing about it!


You've never met me, but it would be a reasonable _*prediction*_ to state I have two arms, but you can't know for sure until you actually meet me and can make the observation.

We have the ability to decipher between dream states and waking states. Often in my dreams, I logically process that I am dreaming b/c I know the actions couldn't happen in our current reality.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It probably should be said that in science nothing is certain. The best-accepted theory, no matter how explanatory or valuable in its predictive power, remains just a theory, awaiting disproof - often by a single contrary observation.

That loud oafish fellow down at the pub holding forth about a multitude of things is _certain_; a good scientist or a reasonable person never is.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We have the ability to decipher between dream states and waking states. Often in my dreams, I logically process that I am dreaming b/c I know the actions couldn't happen in our current reality.


You could have fooled me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Several well-known people (all Republicans, of course) who acknowledge their indebtedness to the works of Ayn Rand: Alan Greenspan, Rex Tillerson, Paul Ryan. Probably hordes more, but keeping quiet. The sticking point for many is Rand's atheism, but they buy the rest of the package. As I've freely affirmed to all and sundry, I used to be a devotee, but then I grew up .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Several well-known people (all Republicans, of course) who acknowledge their indebtedness to the works of Ayn Rand: Alan Greenspan, Rex Tillerson, Paul Ryan. Probably hordes more, but keeping quiet. The sticking point for many is Rand's atheism, but they buy the rest of the package. As I've freely affirmed to all and sundry, I used to be a devotee, but then I grew up .


Republicans value government subsidies, tax cuts for the rich and putting legislation on business practice to help the top 1% which is all Anti-Rand.

They may claim to be pro Rand, but they don't fully comprehend her notions.

They also do not comprehend her notions of Selfishness. Is Howard Roark from the Fountainhead a chaser of more and more money in a greedy fashion at the expense of coercion of others like most Republicans, or does he chase his artistic vision in an uncompromising manner?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

The kind of thinking that Captainnumber36 is advocating is very dangerous. It is precisely the same kind of argument that was used in the Bush administration to justify torture (sorry, "enhanced interrogation"). The idea is based on a scenario that might make a tv movie (and probably has, more than once). The good guys have information that there is a bomb in a warehouse near the city, and that it will go off at midnight. They also have information on one of the possible terrorists. So, they arrest the suspect, and torture him to find out where the bomb is. He eventually relents and provides the whereabouts of the warehouse. They go to the warehouse, find the bomb and diffuse it, and all is well. 

The problem with this scenario, of course, is that the verification of the premise comes only at the end. What if we have the same situation, but when the good guys get to the warehouse, there is no bomb, nor any sign of a bomb having been there, and thus no validation? Did someone move the bomb and just manage to leave no traces? Did the suspect lie, so that they just have to do more or worse torture? Might he actually not know where the bomb is? Might he be innocent of the accusations? Is there really a bomb at all? 

For Captainnumber36, I hope that life opens your eyes gently, and before you go too far down this wrong-headed path.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> The kind of thinking that Captainnumber36 is advocating is very dangerous. It is precisely the same kind of argument that was used in the Bush administration to justify torture (sorry, "enhanced interrogation"). The idea is based on a scenario that might make a tv movie (and probably has, more than once). The good guys have information that there is a bomb in a warehouse near the city, and that it will go off at midnight. They also have information on one of the possible terrorists. So, they arrest the suspect, and torture him to find out where the bomb is. He eventually relents and provides the whereabouts of the warehouse. They go to the warehouse, find the bomb and diffuse it, and all is well.
> 
> The problem with this scenario, of course, is that the verification of the premise comes only at the end. What if we have the same situation, but when the good guys get to the warehouse, there is no bomb, nor any sign of a bomb having been there, and thus no validation? Did someone move the bomb and just manage to leave no traces? Did the suspect lie, so that they just have to do more or worse torture? Might he actually not know where the bomb is? Might he be innocent of the accusations? Is there really a bomb at all?
> 
> For Captainnumber36, I hope that life opens your eyes gently, and before you go too far down this wrong-headed path.


No, it isn't. That is a form of coercion. We can question, not torture suspects.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> No, it isn't. That is a form of coercion. We can question, not torture suspects.


But they are certain, in your definition, and they only have until midnight to save lives and preserve substantial amounts of property. Like most Objectivists I have encountered, you are just arguing your preferred outcome, and assigning its virtue to Rand (who, by the way, was quite willing to accept government largess in the form of Social Security, much like acolyte Paul Rand. He, not coincidentally, shares your favorable view of Objectivism but thinks that it means we need to reward the "job creators," the John Galts of society, which, surprise, surprise, just happen to be the 1%.) There is nothing Objective about Objectivism.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> But they are certain, in your definition, and they only have until midnight to save lives and preserve substantial amounts of property. Like most Objectivists I have encountered, you are just arguing your preferred outcome, and assigning its virtue to Rand (who, by the way, was quite willing to accept government largess in the form of Social Security, much like acolyte Paul Rand. He, not coincidentally, shares your favorable view of Objectivism but thinks that it means we need to reward the "job creators," the John Galts of society, which, surprise, surprise, just happen to be the 1%.) There is nothing Objective about Objectivism.


I know Rand was on SS near the end of her life. We have to live in the current system until it changes, it is unavoidable to use Government benefits in one form or the other in the way our system is set up. I work as a Pharm Tech and we accept medicaid and medicare, but we also take other insurance as well. We are independent too, so I'm getting a lot of what I believe in, but not 100%.

It is clearly written in Rand's philosophy that the use of physical force is forbidden and the nations people should be protected by government from it, that is the purpose of Government.

How does Paul Rand want to reward them? If he means using Government funding to reward them, or grand them special benefits from the Government, that is Anti-Rand. He may call himself an Objectivist, but he isn't following the philosophy.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Well maybe you can also explain this section of her 'philosophy' considering you began this travesty of a thread declaring that rape is immoral (and in any case what is moral/immoral in world of the superman?):



Insayne Rand: The Fountainhead said:


> "She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists, pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades. She twisted her head back. She felt his lips on her breast…She fought like an animal… He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement."


The misguided belief in solitary self-reliance is extremely comforting because it promises an end to uncertainty (most appropriate!): You don't have to worry about being abandoned, betrayed, or let down if you simply never cooperate or depend on anyone else. Or imagine that you don't have to.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

JAS said:


> ...who, by the way, was quite willing to accept government largess in the form of Social Security, much like acolyte Paul Rand.


Please note that SS is not government largesse; the checks you receive depend on how much you've paid in over your working life. It is, specifically, a pension fund managed (or mismanaged) by the government, with each recipient's pension determined by the amount of contributions by the pensioner and, if not self-employed, by the pensioner's past employers.

Medicare, of course, is a different matter.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Morality is objective. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to refuse the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It is wrong to force others to give their money up to help others (taxes).





Captainnumber36 said:


> The one that protects individual rights and the enforcement by government against coercion.





Captainnumber36 said:


> Government does not have the right to legislate how companies should conduct themselves. In a free society, you can quit a job if you don't like how they are treating you.





Captainnumber36 said:


> The abstract idea is not do unto others as you would have them do to you, b/c some ppl have very different notions of what they would like done to them.
> 
> The rational abstract idea is to eliminate coercion and allow for freedom of the individual's mind to think and act completely for himself/herself.
> 
> Yes, but you have the right to quit if you do not like how you are being treated. You also have the choice to tough it out in the job until you find new work.


The idea of doing unto others, means not to murder, since I don't want to be murdered, and not something specific like to give someone a yellow t-shirt because I like yellow t-shirts. That principle goes a long way in a functional society. It is really the only underlying principle of morality.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Please note that SS is not government largesse; the checks you receive depend on how much you've paid in over your working life. It is, specifically, a pension fund managed (or mismanaged) by the government, with each recipient's pension determined by the amount of contributions by the pensioner and, if not self-employed, by the pensioner's past employers.
> 
> Medicare, of course, is a different matter.


Plenty of people collect far more than they pay in to the system, of course. And the requirement of corporate contribution is still money that is not directly coming from the pocket of the beneficiary. (SSI is a more obvious form of government largess.)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Well maybe you can also explain this section of her 'philosophy' considering you began this travesty of a thread declaring that rape is immoral (and in any case what is moral/immoral in world of the superman?):
> 
> The misguided belief in solitary self-reliance is extremely comforting because it promises an end to uncertainty (most appropriate!): You don't have to worry about being abandoned, betrayed, or let down if you simply never cooperate or depend on anyone else. Or imagine that you don't have to.


She does not anywhere in her stance say we can't experience pain or abandonment. She believes relationships should be based on ego gratification in a rational manner. To elucidate, we should value our significant others; perhaps their creativity, their beauty, their rationality, their drive, their passion. In this sense, relationships are selfish, to use her word.

She also is not against helping others. If you have a dollar, and have no need for it and want to give it to a beggar, that is not sacrificial and you are gaining a benefit of helping a man in need.

If you need that dollar to buy a burger from Mcdonalds since you are starving and won't have access to food in a while, yet you give it to the homeless man in an altruistic and sacrificial manner, that is anti-Rand and also indicates that you value others lives, even a stranger, above your own.

However, if you take a bullet to protect your child, you are gaining the ego value of protecting your loved ones life.

The question to ask yourself is, are you sacrificing or gaining values.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> The idea of doing unto others, means not to murder, since I don't want to be murdered, and not something specific like to give someone a yellow t-shirt because I like yellow t-shirts. That principle goes a long way in a functional society. It is really the only underlying principle of morality.


The ideal of the golden rule is more positive than simply not doing harm to others. At least in Christian tradition, it advocates actively helping others who need help. The distinction is subtle, but significant.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> The kind of thinking that Captainnumber36 is advocating is very dangerous. It is precisely the same kind of argument that was used in the Bush administration to justify torture (sorry, "enhanced interrogation"). The idea is based on a scenario that might make a tv movie (and probably has, more than once). The good guys have information that there is a bomb in a warehouse near the city, and that it will go off at midnight. They also have information on one of the possible terrorists. So, they arrest the suspect, and torture him to find out where the bomb is. He eventually relents and provides the whereabouts of the warehouse. They go to the warehouse, find the bomb and diffuse it, and all is well.
> 
> The problem with this scenario, of course, is that the verification of the premise comes only at the end. What if we have the same situation, but when the good guys get to the warehouse, there is no bomb, nor any sign of a bomb having been there, and thus no validation? Did someone move the bomb and just manage to leave no traces? Did the suspect lie, so that they just have to do more or worse torture? Might he actually not know where the bomb is? Might he be innocent of the accusations? Is there really a bomb at all?
> 
> For Captainnumber36, I hope that life opens your eyes gently, and before you go too far down this wrong-headed path.


Rand's Words:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man's deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The idea of doing unto others, means not to murder, since I don't want to be murdered, and not something specific like to give someone a yellow t-shirt because I like yellow t-shirts. That principle goes a long way in a functional society. It is really the only underlying principle of morality.


The words may have multiple variations in how it's followed, but their objective meaning would not suffice as moral code in that it allows for a person to behave in masochistic ways towards others if they value that practice on themselves.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

JAS said:


> Plenty of people collect far more than they pay in to the system, of course.


Social Security seems "pretty fair" overall, so far as fairness goes. There are some distortions of course, that make it not exactly match what an actuary might calculate:

"…For example, a pure actuarial approach would charge higher FICA taxes for women compared to men, but that's socially unacceptable, so men and women are asked to pay the same FICA tax rate."

"Our political leaders have incorporated other social goals into Social Security as well. For example, when you consider the expected benefits relative to FICA taxes paid, the program provides relatively more benefits for low-income workers compared to high-income workers. When designing the program, lawmakers took into account the fact that high-income workers usually have more resources to provide for their own retirement security than low-income workers do."

"Similarly, the program provides higher expected benefits to married people with families compared to single people without children, because the lawmakers also believe families have higher financial needs."

And so forth. SS's _real _problems are much deeper and more serious. I will hold forth if asked!

(Note I am referring to the OASDI program only, funded by FICA taxes, not SSI or other related programs.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-social-security-fair/


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Rand can be quoted to support or oppose many things, often the same things. Her claims of morality are no morality at all. There is no morality worth the name that does not incorporate empathy and concern for others. No workable morality can be based utterly on selfishness. Criminals sometimes wear suits, and own banks.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> Rand can be quoted to support or oppose many things, often the same things. Her claims of morality are no morality at all. There is no morality worth the name that does not incorporate empathy and concern for others. No workable morality can be based utterly on selfishness. Criminals sometimes wear suits, and own banks.


You are simply an evasion case, and big time. You are producing generalized and shallow claims to dismiss Rand's ideas, such as "she can be quoted to oppose or support many things" without actually critically thinking about the ideas and continuing to fail to produce quality, logical counter-arguments.

You show a great misunderstanding of her notions of selfishness; i'll quote her, but you'll dismiss it most likely rather than process it.

"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are simply an evasion case, and big time. You are producing generalized and shallow claims to dismiss Rand's ideas, such as "she can be quoted to oppose or support many things" without actually critically thinking about the ideas and continuing to fail to produce quality, logical counter-arguments.
> 
> You show a great misunderstanding of her notions of selfishness; i'll quote her, but you'll dismiss it most likely rather than process it.
> 
> ...


One cannot really distort Rand's supposed philosophy as it is already a distortion. This conversation has gone the way it always goes with Objectivists that are still in the thrall of their own false sense of intellectual power. As such, it is pointless to continue, and well beyond the point of entertainment . . . not to mention having nothing to do with music or even art.

Again, may life be gentle in opening your eyes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> One cannot really distort Rand's supposed philosophy as it is already a distortion. This conversation has gone the way it always goes with Objectivists that are still in the thrall of their own false sense of intellectual power. As such, it is pointless to continue, and well beyond the point of entertainment . . . not to mention having nothing to do with music or even art.
> 
> Again, may life be gentle in opening your eyes.


Nice way to once again refuse to consider the ideas, and put yourself in a view of superiority and end with a superficial sense of care in stating you hope I grow past this "stage" of my life.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> She does not anywhere in her stance say we can't experience pain or abandonment. She believes relationships should be based on ego gratification in a rational manner. To elucidate, we should value our significant others; perhaps their creativity, their beauty, their rationality, their drive, their passion. In this sense, relationships are selfish, to use her word.


Are you joking? I fear you aren't What she describes in that passage is sadism and at best sado-masochism - it's essentially rape. So for all your posturing earlier about the immorality of rape, you are really a hypocrite under the spell of a psychopath-hypocrite who peddled a reductionist ideology.



Captainnumber36 said:


> She also is not against helping others. If you have a dollar, and have no need for it and want to give it to a beggar, that is not sacrificial and you are gaining a benefit of helping a man in need.


Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... give me a break.



Captainnumber36 said:


> If you need that dollar to buy a burger from Mcdonalds since you are starving and won't have access to food in a while, yet you give it to the homeless man in an altruistic and sacrificial manner, that is anti-Rand and also indicates that you value others lives, even a stranger, above your own.


Hardly a realistic scenario, though in general there are too many real-life examples that explode it. Lots of 'hungry' people in the 30s gave food to the people they thought were 'starving'. Plus in a world of access to McDonald's, there aren't many starving people.



Captainnumber36 said:


> However, if you take a bullet to protect your child, you are gaining the ego value of protecting your loved ones life.
> 
> The question to ask yourself is, are you sacrificing or gaining values.


The 'ego value'? You are ignorant and brainwashed. People are wasting their time on you here and you just think you've worked it all out.

I'll repeat the bit you didn't grasp:

The misguided belief in solitary self-reliance is extremely comforting because it promises an end to uncertainty (most appropriate!): You don't have to worry about being abandoned, betrayed, or let down if you simply never cooperate or depend on anyone else. Or imagine that you don't have to.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KenOC said:


> It probably should be said that in science nothing is certain. The best-accepted theory, no matter how explanatory or valuable in its predictive power, remains just a theory, awaiting disproof - often by a single contrary observation.
> 
> That loud oafish fellow down at the pub holding forth about a multitude of things is _certain_; a good scientist or a reasonable person never is.


Yes. Some posters here seem to reject empiricism and endlessly search for absolute platonic ideals. They seem to have forgotten that empiricism has long since won the day. Galileo was arrested for daring to propose the blasphemous idea that the earth and other planets orbited around the sun. But in the end, Galileo's theory prevailed because it was supported by the empirical evidence. The same goes for Newtonian mechanics, which teaches us that the earth and sun actually orbit around each other, but as the sun is so much more massive, its "orbit" around the earth is but an infinitesimal twitch along its axis.

Finally, our ability to make empirical observations improved so much we learned that Newtonian mechanics is but an approximation, and developed the theory of quantum mechanics. So absolute, objective, scientific fact is elusive. Rather, our ideas become more precise and accurate as we are able to gather more empirical data. But despite this limitation, science achieved its leading position in our society because of all the amazing and empirically observable technological feats that have been accomplished with it.

And at least since the 18th century and thinkers such as David Hume, we have acknowledged that empirical principles underlie art and aesthetics just as they do science and engineering. That is where posters who endlessly try to propose absolute objective artistic or aesthetic principles wander off track.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Ayn Rand. There has been some mention of Ayn Rand and her philosophy over the past decades, with more than a few staunch Republicans self-identified as followers: Alan Greenspan, Rex Tillerson, Paul Ryan, the father-and-son team of Ron and Rand Paul. I know a little something about Rand and her Objectivist philosophy, having been enthralled by her writings from about age 14 up until about my 21st or 22nd year of age. I've read all her works published through 1961, and have heard her speak: once vigorously defending the right of General Electric executives to fix prices. But then I grew up. My increasing knowledge of how the world works, how people best live together, and to what extent Rand's Objectivism is a belief system that can easily swing over into True Believer territory, all helped in dampening my ardor for Ms. Rand's ideology. 

Several influences stand out: A) the example of the civilized, orderly, humane and contented lives that many denizens of northern and western Europe lead, in democratic-socialist societies totally unlike John Galt's Valley of Greed and its handful of demigods. B) A re-reading of Eric Hoffer's brilliant analysis of the True Believer mindset convinced me to abandon my own march into the Valley of Greed; and C) Garrett Hardin's epoch 1965 paper, The Tragedy of the Commons, which addressed in part the utter irrelevance and futility of Rand's hyperindividualism in an ecologically interconnected world.

But while I feel--quite correctly, I believe--that I have outgrown any lingering influence of Rand on my thinking, I do believe that Rand's Objectivism does appeal very strongly to the adolescent imagination, as it appealed to mine at 14. I imagined myself as the peer of Francisco d'Anconia, Howard Roark, Ragnar Danneskjöld, and the fearless, striding figure of John Galt Himself. And so I tend to judge the emotional and the intellectual maturity of others to the degree to which they express fulfillment by Rand's ideas and works. The plain fact is that there is nowhere on earth, now or ever, where Randian hyperindividualism has ever been practiced where it has resulted in the improvement in the lives of millions of people, in universal justice, or in a sense of community. It is the ultimate dream of a certain kind of diseased Romanticism, like the dream of the civilized and honorable Old Antebellum South under the Spanish moss.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Well Eugene, I won't spend anymore time responding to you b/c you like some others in this thread, are failing drastically to comprehend the ideas, even though I am stating them simply and they aren't difficult to grasp, out of an unwillingness to try. You CERTAINLY want to hold onto your anti-rand notions and are reacting based on your judgements of the Philosophy rather than critically think about what I am posting and deriving logical counter-arguments.

Thanks again Macleod for using your critical thinking skills in responding to me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Are you joking? I fear you aren't What she describes in that passage is sadism and at best sado-masochism - it's essentially rape. So for all your posturing earlier about the immorality of rape, you are really a hypocrite under the spell of a psychopath-hypocrite who peddled a reductionist ideology.
> 
> Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... give me a break.
> 
> ...


You don't depend on others to make you happy, you should make yourself happy. The people you love in your life, selfishly, should add to your happiness.

When you are feeling low, you can talk it out with your loved ones who value you. Or, you can process the emotions yourself!
Rand's Words on Love:

"Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person's virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one's own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a ****."


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> The idea of doing unto others, means not to murder, since I don't want to be murdered, and not something specific like to give someone a yellow t-shirt because I like yellow t-shirts. That principle goes a long way in a functional society. It is really the only underlying principle of morality.


I wonder whether, for a moral code to work, there needs to be regular reinforcement for the individual? I wasn't born into a family where I needed to make daily decisions about how to treat others in my family on the basis of how they treated me. When I went to school, I didn't need to calculate the extent of others kindness to me before determining whether I should be kind in return.

Not consciously, at any rate.

We may be able to make generalised observations that the golden rule seems to be at work in civilised populations - except when it isn't working in warring communities with long held grudges - Palestine/Israel springs to mind. Or is that an example of the rule working to the negative?

What then? I think there is something else going on which is neither as simplistic as the golden rule or as elusive as an unseen absolute authority. We have an innate set of responses to our circumstances - nature and nurture - which determines how we behave and, most critically, how we raise our children and perpetuate those circumstances. The feedback loop that reinforces our behaviour is built into the community, not ourselves. However, that loop weakens as we become less a part of a community, or the community identifiers become diffuse or break apart, or, in fact, we recognise that we belong not to one but to many communities with complicated allegiances.

As for Rand and Hume, the idea that philosophers have, with certainty, resolved any of our problems, or should be held up as moral guides is absurd. I've never read Rand (or Hume - though I've read _about _them) and I'm not about to invest in either. What they have done is to try to explain "the human condition" as it appeared to them at the time, and, of course, taking into account what their predecessors have had to say. Some may have set out to give us rules, but others have been musing, offering insights, postulating theories. But I think most of us can get in daily life by without referring to any of them, or even being aware of them.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Well Eugene, I won't spend anymore time responding to you b/c you like some others in this thread, are failing drastically to comprehend the ideas, even though I am stating them simply and they aren't difficult to grasp, out of an unwillingness to try. You CERTAINLY want to hold onto your anti-rand notions and are reacting based on your judgements of the Philosophy rather than critically think about what I am posting and deriving logical counter-arguments..


I left my intellectual confrontation with ideas such as these in the past. I did not study Rand, but her ideological brethren - Hayek, Mises, Rothbard - the Austrian school of economics. After the fall of comunism, the Czech society turned ideologically to the other extreme, laissez-faire capitalism. They all claim the same: that state is unnecessary, and if each man pursues his own selfish happiness in society, it will lead to some mysterious self-organization that will create order in society which is far better than the order created by the state and hence everything possible should be privatized, including the whole healthcare system, education and even judical system. It is an ideological utopia not unlike communism and is not supported by science. Facts not supporting this ideology are dismissed (for example the privatization of railways in Britain). I don't know what your background is but you seem not to understand how science works and verifies facts and theories. You cannot base any theory purely on logic and work by reason and deduction alone. Theology does the same, it postulates the existence of God the Almighty and then uses reason and logic to derived all the rest. Rand postulates similiar things about the nature of men and uses logic and reason to derive her conclusions. The problem is that her pustulates (axioms) are false and not supported by reality, and hence her conclusions too. She postulates (without proof) that men are all selfish, all rational etc. These are not truths.

There are many examples where the laissez-faire market fails and an legislative intervention is necessary. I studied those when when I was younger and interested in these things (I am not anymore interested in any political ideology, most of them are stupid). One such market failure is the tragedy of the commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Another economics delusion is that resources are infinite. Find out what happened in Easter Island
http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm
or the issue of positive and negative externalities which laissez-faire capitalism fails to adress...
I could go on, but I am no longer interested in these issue.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

She postulates (without proof) that men are all selfish, all rational etc. These are not truths. 


No, she doesn't postulate that, and in fact states the role of government is to protect us from the physical force of the irrational.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

You cannot base any theory purely on logic and work by reason and deduction alone. Theology does the same, it postulates the existence of God the Almighty and then uses reason and logic to derived all the rest.



First of all, you work from observations to form a hypothesis which is then tested, and then theories are formed; you don't form theories first. The conclusions of Theology are not based on the natural world, but mythology.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I can strongly recommend Jennifer Burns' book _Goddess of the Market_, her bio of Ayn Rand. Burns devotes a lot of energy to detailing Rand's influence on the conservative movement. The Communist seizure of her father's business in Odessa evidently kindled a hatred of any sort of collective action that any government might take to alleviate socio-economic inequalities that perpetuate a _status quo_ or lead to a constant growth of those inequalities. My observation is that Objectivism is actually a theology without the "Theo", the deity, but with the same step-by-step march to a false outcome drawn from spurious First Principles (see Creationism). It is a reaction to Communism that is as flawed as its nemesis.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I can strongly recommend Jennifer Burns' book _Goddess of the Market_, her bio of Ayn Rand. Burns devotes a lot of energy to detailing Rand's influence on the conservative movement. The Communist seizure of her father's business in Odessa evidently kindled a hatred of any sort of collective action that any government might take to alleviate socio-economic inequalities that perpetuate a _status quo_ or lead to a constant growth of those inequalities. My observation is that Objectivism is actually a theology without the "Theo", the deity, but with the same step-by-step march to a false outcome drawn from spurious First Principles (see Creationism). It is a reaction to Communism that is as flawed as its nemesis.


I just don't agree. Her ideas are largely misunderstood in both practice by pseudo objectivists that want to justify irrational selfishness and in comprehension by anti-randists.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I can support your opinion on the majority of what you said here, except the last part of the last sentence!


I have no idea what you mean .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I have no idea what you mean .


that capitalism is flawed.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

You have a right to reject her notions on having a rational ego, full of pride and happiness.
You have a right to accept Altruism as your path.
You have a right to reject her Philosophy as a Theology in disguise.
But you do not have the right to force your way of thinking on others and Capitalism is the only branch of Government that allows for man to think and act for himself.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I wonder whether, for a moral code to work, there needs to be regular reinforcement for the individual? I wasn't born into a family where I needed to make daily decisions about how to treat others in my family on the basis of how they treated me. When I went to school, I didn't need to calculate the extent of others kindness to me before determining whether I should be kind in return.
> 
> Not consciously, at any rate.
> 
> ...


I'll just state, you will always have Philosophy guiding your actions, either implicitly or explicitly.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am an absolutist and value certainty. It is what leads to a fully confident man/woman.


I've read through the last 8 or so pages of this thread with some disbelief. Your creed as represented by this post seems to explain a lot. It is clear that certainty is an illusion (and I think you acknowledged this at some point after this post). But that is not enough because through history it is "the certain" who have committed the worst crimes that mankind has managed. Confidence in this narrow sense also tends often to be an obnoxious trait in those who possess it. The thing is that your positions on nearly everything mentioned in this thread have been very fluid and subject to regular radical change. Your summary of Popper's ideas about what science is - aside from misusing it somewhat - is in direct contradiction to this post, for example. So it seems that you, at least, cannot manage certainty about these subjects and that any confidence that you feel in what you are saying is seriously misplaced. But a lot of your narrow ideas have been explored repeatedly in this thread since you posted this and, as mentioned, your own position is not at all certain.

The thing that amazes me most, though, is that I think I remember your saying that you practice some form of psychotherapy. I wonder what directions you lead your clients in? Is it about their finding some form of certainty or do they have to find your certainty? And if not yours then how can you send them out in the world with ideas that you must "know" with certainty are wrong? If, on the other hand, you insist on them accepting you certainties then aren't you functioning as some sort of cult leader or guru? I wonder who would pay you to do that? I imagine your malpractice insurance premium is a high one.

I've got an idea! Can you now embrace your uncertainty? Can you instead celebrate your humanity and intelligence as fallible guides while you, like the rest of us, try to make sense of the world?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I've read through the last 8 or so pages of this thread with some disbelief. Your creed as represented by this post seems to explain a lot. It is clear that certainty is an illusion (and I think you acknowledged this at some point after this post). But that is not enough because through history it is "the certain" who have committed the worst crimes that mankind has managed. Confidence in this narrow sense also tends often to be an obnoxious trait in those who possess it. The thing is that your positions on nearly everything mentioned in this thread have been very fluid and subject to regular radical change. Your summary of Popper's ideas about what science is - aside from misusing it somewhat - is in direct contradiction to this post, for example. So it seems that you, at least, cannot manage certainty about these subjects and that any confidence that you feel in what you are saying is seriously misplaced. But a lot of your narrow ideas have been explored repeatedly in this thread since you posted this and, as mentioned, your own position is not at all certain.
> 
> The thing that amazes me most, though, is that I think I remember your saying that you practice some form of psychotherapy. I wonder what directions you lead your clients in? Is it about their finding some form of certainty or do they have to find your certainty? And if not yours then how can you send them out in the world with ideas that you must "know" with certainty are wrong? If, on the other hand, you insist on them accepting you certainties then aren't you functioning as some sort of cult leader or guru? I wonder who would pay you to do that? I imagine your malpractice insurance premium is a high one.
> 
> I've got an idea! Can you now embrace your uncertainty? Can you instead celebrate your humanity and intelligence as fallible guides while you, like the rest of us, try to make sense of the world?


I can be fallible and Rand acknowledges that man is fallible. I am certain I can be uncertain when I have no reason, based on my current level of understanding on a given topic, to be certain.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I've read through the last 8 or so pages of this thread with some disbelief. Your creed as represented by this post seems to explain a lot. It is clear that certainty is an illusion (and I think you acknowledged this at some point after this post). But that is not enough because through history it is "the certain" who have committed the worst crimes that mankind has managed. Confidence in this narrow sense also tends often to be an obnoxious trait in those who possess it. The thing is that your positions on nearly everything mentioned in this thread have been very fluid and subject to regular radical change. Your summary of Popper's ideas about what science is - aside from misusing it somewhat - is in direct contradiction to this post, for example. So it seems that you, at least, cannot manage certainty about these subjects and that any confidence that you feel in what you are saying is seriously misplaced. But a lot of your narrow ideas have been explored repeatedly in this thread since you posted this and, as mentioned, your own position is not at all certain.
> 
> The thing that amazes me most, though, is that I think I remember your saying that you practice some form of psychotherapy. I wonder what directions you lead your clients in? Is it about their finding some form of certainty or do they have to find your certainty? And if not yours then how can you send them out in the world with ideas that you must "know" with certainty are wrong? If, on the other hand, you insist on them accepting you certainties then aren't you functioning as some sort of cult leader or guru? I wonder who would pay you to do that? I imagine your malpractice insurance premium is a high one.
> 
> I've got an idea! Can you now embrace your uncertainty? Can you instead celebrate your humanity and intelligence as fallible guides while you, like the rest of us, try to make sense of the world?


I don't practice anymore for this very reason. Most ppl want easy/fast answers, and I believe, as I have said earlier in this thread, there are very abstract values to pursue that lead to a multitude of healthy psychologies.

When I practiced, I helped people find their own sense of Truth, subjective well being.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't practice anymore for this very reason. Most ppl want easy/fast answers, and I believe, as I have said earlier in this thread, there are very abstract values to pursue that lead to a multitude of healthy psychologies.
> 
> When I practiced, I helped people find their own sense of Truth, subjective well being.


Phew! That sounds healthier. So what happened to you that you ended up with some fairly brittle views?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I can be fallible and Rand acknowledges that man is fallible. I am certain I can be uncertain when I have no reason, based on my current level of understanding on a given topic, to be certain.


Deep. Or nonsense - Rand's - but, given that reasons for certainty must be tentative and temporary, what role does certainty play aside from bolstering your confidence and sense of self?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Deep. Or nonsense - Rand's - but, given that reasons for certainty must be tentative and temporary, what role does certainty play aside from bolstering your confidence and sense of self?


Confidence and sense of self are not unimportant concepts. Positive and rational self esteem is very important! Being certain means being honest too; you know what you know and nothing less and nothing more. You can enter new knowledge into your brain, and as new knowledge is gained, we can be certain it will have an effect on old knowledge.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do worry about the cults of certainty (which is in effect an - arguably inappropriate - emotional value attached to an opinion) and "happiness as a goal". That seems like a very fragile edifice. And when I see it blended with fairly extreme right wing political views such as those you espouse I get all the more worried that you are constructing a licence to exploit or abuse out of what seems like a failure of empathy. Confidence and a sense of self do not need to be products of certainty and will be more robust if they are not. Happiness is very nice but who says we have to be happy all of the time? Or that we should do things simply because they make us happy?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Well Eugene, I won't spend anymore time responding to you b/c you like some others in this thread, are failing drastically to comprehend the ideas, even though I am stating them simply and they aren't difficult to grasp, out of an unwillingness to try. You CERTAINLY want to hold onto your anti-rand notions and are reacting based on your judgements of the Philosophy rather than critically think about what I am posting and deriving logical counter-arguments.
> 
> Thanks again Macleod for using your critical thinking skills in responding to me.


'Failing drastically'..haha. You are propounding an ideology that has already long been shown up as barren and bankrupt, yet you speak about it as though it has worthwhile currency. Get a grip. I was probably already encountering Rand's silly ideas while you were gurgling in a crib; as Strange Magic said it appeals to adolescent minds who can't, or who refuse to, comprehend the messy complexities of the world. It sits in the same boat as vulgar Marxists and fascist panaceas; all designed to remove complex reality and replace it with an imagined simplicity, which is a foundation of sand for whatever is erected upon it.

You haven't presented any philosophy, I would recognise it since I taught undergraduate philosophy. It's a secular religion for people to justify bad behaviour and confirm their own narcissism.

Several people here have already wasted your attempts, but you choose to respond to those who are entertaining you and then name these as 'critical thinking responses'.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> We can be certain as long as we have no rational reason to doubt.


The problems with this are multiple!:
- For you the biggest problem is that Rand would never have accepted this thesis. It is absurd from an Objectivist position! The absence of doubt is not a basis for certainty. Only an overwhelming preponderance of evidence even begins to justify certainty, and that certainty remains provisional. 
- What if we have no reason to doubt because we are ignorant?
… or because we just didn't bother to read the right sources?
… or because we are so desperate for certainty that we believe that one narrow philosophy (which we have misunderstood in any case) answers all questions?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Question for the Captain: did you study under Nathaniel Branden, disciple and lover of Ayn Rand, and founder of the Nathaniel Branden Institute? Also, carefully regulated capitalism with strong social/economic justice safeguards built in, is clearly a most excellent economic "philosophy". I am currently reading a biography of John Maynard Keynes, an architect of the idea of a practical approach to establishing a workable and humane economic system. His empiricism and pragmatism I am sure nauseated the fundamentalist mindset of Ms. Rand and continues to nauseate her remaining acolytes.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Seeing as Greenspan was mentioned (by Strange Magic), many are perhaps aware that as well as being a follower of Rand's ideology he is also a (jazz) musician, playing clari/sax. Maybe the Captain can drop him a line and put the OP question to him?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Rand's Words:
> 
> "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.


Let's test this thesis:
- Is allowing the existence of financial instruments like the collateralized debt obligations and bundled subprime mortgages that caused the financial collapse a decade ago an act of violence? No, it clearly isn't. But through such instruments and the failure of banks to maintain sufficient funds to cover their potential downsides, millions of Americans were defrauded. What policeman covers this threat? It would have to be a complex system of banking/investment regulation, wouldn't it?
- Is allowing a pollutant from ones factory to poison an aquifer on which others rely physical violence? Yes, it is. It's just a very sneaky kind of violence. What sort of policeman is going to protect us from threats of this kind? It would have to be something like the EPA, right?
- And while we are on that, is putting particulate matter in the air that causes asthma and respiratory ailments an act of violence? Yes it is. Hence the Clean Air Act.
- Is claiming a food product has nutritional value it does not have an act of violence against those who are improperly nourished by consuming it? Not in any sense one could reasonably argue. Nevertheless, something like the FDA is needed to protect against such threats.
- Are the earthquakes caused by fracking acts of violence against the citizens who experience them? Yes they are. 
- Is allowing a product posing a physical hazard to a small number of individuals to stay on the market an act of violence? Not in any normal sense, but this threat necessitates an agency for consumer protection.
- Is infringing on the patent of an individual an act of physical violence? No. But patents must be policed, which means another government agency. 
- Since many humans value the existence of other species, especially sentient and self-aware species like great apes and elephants, is the extermination of such species an act of violence against their birthright? Arguably it is. Remedy? The Endangered Species Act.
- Since creating a private prison system creates a condition of untenable moral hazard because it gives companies a profit motive for violently restraining and confining individuals, a motive which will inevitably and predictably result in false imprisonment, is creating such a system abetting countless acts of violence? Yes it is. What policeman deals with this?

Rand's simplistic thesis is incapable of dealing with countless real-life situations. As I've shown, there are multiple threats from which citizens must be protected only a small number of which have anything to do with physical violence. All of the agencies that Randians and their moronic right wing offspring rail against because they restrict the actions of businesses are in fact there to protect the rights of citizens, often from actions having nothing to do with, or only the most tenuous relation to, physical violence. It just doesn't work. Eventually, all young Randians who are not congenital idiots either grow up and look for principles that actually work in the real world - or join the Trump administration.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Eventually, all young Randians who are not congenital idiots grow up and look for principles that actually work in the real world.


Or they get appointed to head the Federal Reserve.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The words may have multiple variations in how it's followed, but their objective meaning would not suffice as moral code in that it allows for a person to behave in masochistic ways towards others if they value that practice on themselves.


You're still missing the point. The golden rule was not meant to be prescriptive, but a guide, and is superior to prescriptive law because it requires common sense. If I don't want people that know me to annoy me by playing Rihanna and such, then I shouldn't annoy them by playing say Ferneyhough. It is not exactly like for like. Therefore noise pollution is wrong.

With prescriptive law there are always loopholes, but not with the golden rule. The 'problem' is it is not enforceable, so we have to settle with prescriptive that upholds this as much as possible in the widest variety of cases


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Several people here have already wasted your attempts, but you choose to respond to those who are entertaining you and then name these as 'critical thinking responses'.


I've responded to practically everyone in this thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Let's test this thesis:
> - Is allowing the existence of financial instruments like the collateralized debt obligations and bundled subprime mortgages that caused the financial collapse a decade ago an act of violence? No, it clearly isn't. But through such instruments and the failure of banks to maintain sufficient funds to cover their potential downsides, millions of Americans were defrauded. What policeman covers this threat? It would have to be a complex system of banking/investment regulation, wouldn't it?
> - Is allowing a pollutant from ones factory to poison an aquifer on which others rely physical violence? Yes, it is. It's just a very sneaky kind of violence. What sort of policeman is going to protect us from threats of this kind? It would have to be something like the EPA, right?
> - And while we are on that, is putting particulate matter in the air that causes asthma and respiratory ailments an act of violence? Yes it is. Hence the Clean Air Act.
> ...


"As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved-as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry-if the preservation of human life is the standard.

It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You're still missing the point. The golden rule was not meant to be prescriptive, but a guide, and is superior to prescriptive law because it requires common sense. If I don't want people that know me to annoy me by playing Rihanna and such, then I shouldn't annoy them by playing say Ferneyhough. It is not exactly like for like. Therefore noise pollution is wrong.
> 
> With prescriptive law there are always loopholes, but not with the golden rule. The 'problem' is it is not enforceable, so we have to settle with prescriptive that upholds this as much as possible in the widest variety of cases


I get what you are saying, I really do, but it is too open ended to define a morality.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Let's test this thesis:
> - Is allowing the existence of financial instruments like the collateralized debt obligations and bundled subprime mortgages that caused the financial collapse a decade ago an act of violence? No, it clearly isn't. But through such instruments and the failure of banks to maintain sufficient funds to cover their potential downsides, millions of Americans were defrauded. What policeman covers this threat? It would have to be a complex system of banking/investment regulation, wouldn't it?
> - Is allowing a pollutant from ones factory to poison an aquifer on which others rely physical violence? Yes, it is. It's just a very sneaky kind of violence. What sort of policeman is going to protect us from threats of this kind? It would have to be something like the EPA, right?
> - And while we are on that, is putting particulate matter in the air that causes asthma and respiratory ailments an act of violence? Yes it is. Hence the Clean Air Act.
> ...


Lying about products to sell them, like food, would be protected against by the government since that could drastically effect someones health, negatively.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Let's test this thesis:
> - Is allowing the existence of financial instruments like the collateralized debt obligations and bundled subprime mortgages that caused the financial collapse a decade ago an act of violence? No, it clearly isn't. But through such instruments and the failure of banks to maintain sufficient funds to cover their potential downsides, millions of Americans were defrauded. What policeman covers this threat? It would have to be a complex system of banking/investment regulation, wouldn't it?
> - Is allowing a pollutant from ones factory to poison an aquifer on which others rely physical violence? Yes, it is. It's just a very sneaky kind of violence. What sort of policeman is going to protect us from threats of this kind? It would have to be something like the EPA, right?
> - And while we are on that, is putting particulate matter in the air that causes asthma and respiratory ailments an act of violence? Yes it is. Hence the Clean Air Act.
> ...


Animals can't comprehend rights, cannot respect the rights of others, so thus do not get rights. People can protest and raise awareness though.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)




----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I do worry about the cults of certainty (which is in effect an - arguably inappropriate - emotional value attached to an opinion) and "happiness as a goal". That seems like a very fragile edifice. And when I see it blended with fairly extreme right wing political views such as those you espouse I get all the more worried that you are constructing a licence to exploit or abuse out of what seems like a failure of empathy. Confidence and a sense of self do not need to be products of certainty and will be more robust if they are not. Happiness is very nice but who says we have to be happy all of the time? Or that we should do things simply because they make us happy?


Don't mistake me for hedonism.

"I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue."


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Animals can't comprehend rights, cannot respect the rights of others, so thus do not get rights. People can protest and raise awareness though.


so is it OK to torture animals for fun? And some mentally retarted people (IQ < 60) can't comprehend rights either, so why not use them as slaves or for medical experiments?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> so is it OK to torture animals for fun? And some mentally retarted people (IQ < 60) can't comprehend rights either, so why not use them as slaves or for medical experiments?


That is an abnormality, and those persons will receive rights b/c they are humans and further, b/c they are not violent...where Animals are.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> so is it OK to torture animals for fun? And some mentally retarted people (IQ < 60) can't comprehend rights either, so why not use them as slaves or for medical experiments?


Animal torture for fun would be an act that would occur and not regulated by government.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Animal torture for fun would be an act that would occur and not regulated by government.


Not sure this makes any sense. What are you saying CNo36?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Not sure this makes any sense. What are you saying CNo36?


Animals wouldn't be protected by government, so they could potentially be tortured for fun.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captain, you have not told us whether you studied under Nathaniel Branden. Also, be patient with yourself. There will come a time when the certainties of Ayn Rand's Objectivism will seem to clash more and more with your daily experiences and your knowledge of the world. We have no working, positive examples of an Objectivist social/economic state, and, we hope, never will. The closest the USA got (and it was deeply corrupt both as an experiment in _laissez faire_ economics, and as governance in general) was the pre-Theodore Roosevelt "Gilded Age" of the second half of the 19th century. This is the state that people on the far Right like Grover Norquist want the US to return to.

It would also be interesting to know what taxes Objectivists would feel obligated to coerce their brethren into paying--the tiny government that Objectivists still require to enforce contracts and provide for the common defense does require some source of funds.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Animals wouldn't be protected by government, so they could potentially be tortured for fun.


Sorry - I haven't read all the posts - are you talking about in the context of Rand philosophy?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Animals wouldn't be protected by government, so they could potentially be tortured for fun.


Would this be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing? Could it be viewed as a form of Art? Just asking.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Animals can't comprehend rights, cannot respect the rights of others, so thus do not get rights. People can protest and raise awareness though.


That's your only response to a complete takedown of Rand's vision of government?

But even in the case of animals you are incorrect. There is compelling evidence that elephants and great apes do have empathy for one another, recognize their "rights" and are motivated by principles of fairness toward other members of their species. When some great apes, like bonobos and chimps, come into conflict, they remember the fight and often later apologize to the other party and make up for it. Elephants mourn their dead, as do crows, whales, and dolphins. Perhaps their level of moral development is only that of a human child, but we don't go around murdering children because they only have the moral awareness of elephants, do we?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> That's your only response to a complete takedown of Rand's vision of government?
> 
> But even in the case of animals you are incorrect. There is compelling evidence that elephants and great apes do have empathy for one another, recognize their "rights" and are motivated by principles of fairness toward other members of their species. When some great apes, like bonobos and chimps, come into conflict, they remember the fight and often later apologize to the other party and make up for it. Elephants mourn their dead, as do crows, whales, and dolphins. Perhaps their level of moral development is only that of a human child, but we don't go around murdering children because they only have the moral awareness of elephants, do we?


They may have empathy, but they cannot comprehend and communicate rights to humans.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Jacck said:


> I left my intellectual confrontation with ideas such as these in the past. I did not study Rand, but her ideological brethren - Hayek, Mises, Rothbard - the Austrian school of economics. After the fall of comunism, the Czech society turned ideologically to the other extreme, laissez-faire capitalism. They all claim the same: that state is unnecessary, and if each man pursues his own selfish happiness in society, it will lead to some mysterious self-organization that will create order in society which is far better than the order created by the state and hence everything possible should be privatized, including the whole healthcare system, education and even judical system.


I too read a lot of Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. (Rothbard is much easier reading than Mises.) I too concluded that pure laissez-faire capitalism cannot work without regulation to protect the people. That "mysterious self-organization" is, I believe, what economist Adam Smith called, "the invisible hand." If we go with pure laissez-faire capitalism, many corporations will treat people like another piece of equipment. Well, they already to to a degree that they can get away with it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That is an abnormality, and those persons will receive rights b/c they are humans and further, b/c they are not violent...where Animals are.


Wrong. Not all animal species are violent to their own species - at least not to the appalling degree humans are. Your argument is nonsense.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I believe the Captain will eventually come to understand how threadbare his defense of Objectivism (his version of it anyway) is when he is reduced to "explaining" the lack of a prohibition in Objectivism to the torture of animals of whatever degree of sentience; torture understood as being a deliberate act.

How about answers to my questions about Nathaniel Branden, and the issue of taxation?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> They may have empathy, but they cannot comprehend and communicate rights to humans.


Absurd! It is obvious they comprehend rights as defined by their social groups, that they enforce them, as in the case of elephant matriarchs disciplining younger elephants, and that they communicate with one another in ways governed by ethical awareness. The fact that we understand these behaviors proves that their moral awareness has been communicated to humans. Some of us are too dense and arrogant to recognize it, but that isn't the fault of the animals. With greater awareness - human awareness - comes greater moral responsibility.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I believe the Captain will eventually come to understand how threadbare his defense of Objectivism (his version of it anyway) is when he is reduced to "explaining" the lack of a prohibition in Objectivism to the torture of animals of whatever degree of sentience; torture understood as being a deliberate act.
> 
> How about answers to my questions about Nathaniel Branden, and the issue of taxation?


"In a fully free society, taxation-or, to be exact, payment for governmental services-would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government-the police, the armed forces, the law courts-are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing-how to determine the best means of applying it in practice-is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today-since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Animal torture for fun would be an act that would occur and not regulated by government.


That's the way it was in prior times and in many places still is. Think bear-baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, people beating aged draft animals until broken, and so forth.

We used to think that stuff was fine, now we don't. Of course we were wrong then and we're right now. We know that because…because…well, we just *know *it!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Absurd! It is obvious they comprehend rights as defined by their social groups, that they enforce them, as in the case of elephant matriarchs disciplining younger elephants, and that they communicate with one another in ways governed by ethical awareness. The fact that we understand these behaviors proves that their moral awareness has been communicated to humans. Some of us are too dense and arrogant to recognize it, but that isn't the fault of the animals. With greater awareness - human awareness - comes greater moral responsibility.


I'm not as familiar with elephant sentience, however, it is clear their level of reason is far below that of humans, and they would not be able to comprehend and and obey our political ideologies.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not as familiar with elephant sentience, however, it is clear their level of reason is far below that of humans, and they would not be able to comprehend and and obey our political ideologies.


You don't think that the woes of humanity are attributable to our pride?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That is an abnormality, and those persons will receive rights b/c they are humans and further, b/c they are not violent...where Animals are.


So it's an argument from speciesism? Rather than mere ability to comprehend so-called "rights" of the natural variety which you seek to establish? Humans equally unable to comprehend "rights" (and perhaps even less aware of an attack upon themselves) receive automatic natural "rights" predicated upon their existence as homo sapiens?

Well well... now you've unintentionally confirmed the view that these "rights" are merely a human agreement to preserve that collective group from outside and within. Or perhaps you are positing some other reason for extending "rights" to beings without full comprehension?

Oh dear.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

janxharris said:


> You don't think that the woes of humanity are attributable to our pride?


Irrational pride.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> So it's an argument from speciesism? Rather than mere ability to comprehend so-called "rights" of the natural variety which you seek to establish? Humans equally unable to comprehend "rights" (and perhaps even less aware of an attack upon themselves) receive automatic natural "rights" predicated upon their existence as homo sapiens?
> 
> Well well... now you've unintentionally confirmed the view that these "rights" are merely a human agreement to preserve that collective group from outside and within. Or perhaps you are positing some other reason for extending "rights" to beings without full comprehension?
> 
> Oh dear.


A person with such a low IQ is never a potential threat to society, Animals can turn on you any second.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not as familiar with elephant sentience, however, it is clear their level of reason is far below that of humans, and they would not be able to comprehend and and obey our political ideologies.


"Respect my authorita!," you scofflaw beavers and wombats. Kill all of those elephants before they commit bank fraud or public urination! Yes, a political vision whose time has come.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A person with such a low IQ is never a potential threat to society.


Have you watched the news lately?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> A person with such a low IQ is never a potential threat to society, Animals can turn on you any second.


These responses are unreasoned and silly. It's an avoidance of issues you've never properly thought through.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> These responses are unreasoned and silly. It's an avoidance of issues you've never properly thought through.


I'll admit I'm "winging it" on the notions of rights and low IQ persons, and have never considered it before, which is more than what you've done throughout this thread, in terms of critical thinking.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The Captain quotes from his several Objectivist tracts; it is clear we are dealing here with a classic True Believer syndrome. No amount or quality of counter-argument will cause him to reassess his views. The passage of time may but only may. 
It is creation "science" reborn as philosophico-economic certitude, and its grip is equally powerful.

Captain, Nathaniel Branden? Did you study under his tutelage?

P.S. I like the voluntary taxation answer: good Objectivists will all voluntarily pay their taxes, and those who don't will not be punished, not even tortured.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> The Captain quotes from his several Objectivist tracts; it is clear we are dealing here with a classic True Believer syndrome. No amount or quality of counter-argument will cause him to reassess his views. The passage of time may but only may.
> It is creation "science" reborn as philosophico-economic certitude, and its grip is equally powerful.
> Captain, Nathaniel Branden? Did you study under his tutelage?


no need to be so harsh on Captain. We all adopt various ideas, opinions, attitudes, ideologies, beliefs based on our age, life experience etc. Later we discard them and can view them in a critical light. It might happen to Captain, or not. Even Greenspan learned in the end
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> The Captain quotes from his several Objectivist tracts; it is clear we are dealing here with a classic True Believer syndrome. No amount or quality of counter-argument will cause him to reassess his views. The passage of time may but only may.
> It is creation "science" reborn as philosophico-economic certitude, and its grip is equally powerful.
> 
> Captain, Nathaniel Branden? Did you study under his tutelage?


I don't accept everything Rand spouted, and neither do all Objectivists. She was strongly against homosexuality as a personal value and thought it disgusting, but acknowledged their rights.

I do not find homosexuality disgusting, and in fact celebrate the selfish love between same sex relationships.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't accept everything Rand spouted, and neither do all Objectivists. She was strongly against homosexuality as a personal value and thought it disgusting, but acknowledged their rights.
> 
> I do not find homosexuality disgusting, and in fact celebrate the selfish love between same sex relationships.


Good to know, though no one asked. But what about Branden?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Good to know, though no one asked. But what about Branden?


Sorry, I keep forgetting to answer that for you. No, I haven't studied his ideas at all.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

"selfish love". Nice putting your own spin on it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Jacck said:


> no need to be so harsh on Captain. We all adopt various ideas, opinions, attitudes, ideologies, beliefs based on our age, life experience etc. Later we discard them and can view them in a critical light. It might happen to Captain, or not. Even Greenspan learned in the end
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan


Not a repudiation of either Rand or Objectivism. Probably Greenspan does not like to be reminded, or to remind himself, that he was her loyal acolyte for years. My hope is that the Captain will also look back, as do I, on years of adolescent folly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> "selfish love". Nice putting your own spin on it.


Spin? Love is a selfish act, and should be. You should make yourself happy, love of another person is due to their character and values and they contribute, selfishly, to your own happiness.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Spin? Love is a selfish act, and should be. You should make yourself happy, love of another person is due to their character and values and they contribute, selfishly, to your own happiness.


I wonder how long before Darwinism comes up? I sense it underlies much of your philosophy.

That's a observation not a criticism.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Spin? Love is a selfish act, and should be. You should make yourself happy, love of another person is due to their character and values and they contribute, selfishly, to your own happiness.


Rot. It has some selfish elements and some non-selfish elements. The pattern of your 'ideas' is clear though, it's the same concept of selfishness posited behind every act, idea, value etc.

These tired 'philosophies' grew out of mistaken applications of natural selection to artificial social environments (such as human society) constructed _against_ the unrelenting natural world.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

After considering many of the stances here, I believe there is a lot of opinion in legislation that can't be measured as objective fact. For example, I don't much care about non-pet animal rights b/c they can't comprehend our ideas; it's not an issue that is very important to me b/c of that reason. That doesn't mean someone else may not find a solid reason for wanting to protect their rights. If someone who does care about such issues raises valid points that I find compelling in terms of legislation for animal rights, I would vote in favor of that law.

Another example that arose from the above discussion and follows from the paragraph I just typed above, is the rights of babies/children/mentally retarded who cannot fully comprehend complex political ideologies either. Being that I have care for my fellow man, I would vote for legislation that protects such persons.

B/C of this thread, I am returning to my previous political stance of being an Independent within a Democracy and voting for the candidate that fits my values best.

I also now question if certainty does in fact lead to happiness. I think it still does, but what I am certain of has changed. I am certain that scientific theories are explanations that can be validated, expanded upon or invalidated as new knowledge is gained, which I'm not sure Rand would agree with. I believe she would have said the purpose of science is to find causality, and when it does that, it is a truism. I am unsure if she recognized that the environment can change over time and a theory may become invalid over time as a result.

I still like Rand's concept of selfishness, but really don't like using that term for the principal she described. I like the idea of achieving your values which I believe does lead to happiness and high self esteem; but we must accept that we live in a complex world where everyone has an opinion and we have must accept that we can't always get what we want in order to live together; sometimes we must be sacrificial for the benefit of co-existing.

*There is no such thing as perfection.*

In terms of Theology, I am going back to being Agnostic rather than adopting Rand's Atheism. I have no reason to believe in any of the current religious icons, and do not act on faith, but am open to what we can discover down the road.

As far as music, values and psychology go, I still think we can gain insights into our inner workings by understanding what it is we appreciate about specific works. I do not believe there is good and bad art, at all, only implications to our psychologies.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

*I'm certain about imperfection and I value fighting for what I think is right and getting opinions from the opposition on my stance of choice before making choices*


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

*Well done sir. There's not like the certainty of uncertainty.*


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Rot. It has some selfish elements and some non-selfish elements. The pattern of your 'ideas' is clear though, it's the same concept of selfishness posited behind every act, idea, value etc.
> 
> These tired 'philosophies' grew out of mistaken applications of natural selection to artificial social environments (such as human society) *constructed against the unrelenting natural world*.


You blew my mind with the bolded text. The concept of Society is a way to bring about some sense of order and justice to mankind, even though Anarchy is the most _natural_ and in harmony with the natural world.

But I don't support Anarchy, I like maintaining some sense of order.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You blew my mind with the bolded text. The concept of Society is a way to bring about some sense of order and justice to mankind, even though Anarchy is the most _natural_ and in harmony with the natural world.
> 
> But I don't support Anarchy, I like maintaining some sense of order.


Actually, a state of anarchy is hard to find day to day in most of the world, most of the time. Anarchy is generally only observed when societies or people are placed in situations of extreme stress--Hobbes' War of All against All--families shattered, all social bonds broken, horror unimaginable, cannibalism....


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, a state of anarchy is hard to find day to day in most of the world, most of the time. Anarchy is generally only observed when societies or people are placed in situations of extreme stress--Hobbes' War of All against All--families shattered, all social bonds broken, horror unimaginable, cannibalism....


I know we don't find Anarchy regularly, my point was that Anarchy allows us to behave like Animals in the natural world. It would be chaos, but it would be natural.

Hunting, protecting, building shelter. It would be uncivilized, but to construct a society means to have a partial sense of order vs Anarchy which is a full sense of freedom. All societal driven political ideologies are imperfect in their attempt to provide justice and order, Anarchy is 100% perfect in allowing freedom.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I know we don't find Anarchy regularly, my point was that Anarchy allows us to behave like Animals in the natural world. It would be chaos, but it would be natural.
> 
> Hunting, protecting, building shelter. It would be uncivilized, but to construct a society means to have a partial sense of order vs Anarchy which is a full sense of freedom. All societal driven political ideologies are imperfect in their attempt to provide justice and order, Anarchy is 100% perfect in allowing freedom.


I don't mean to endlessly dispute, but anarchy is equally rarely found among animals in the state of nature. Intraspecific behavior is well regulated, and even the hunter and the hunted often display a certain ritualized behavior, as lions loll about or begin their hunting behavior as the prey herd looks on. The stalk, the pounce, the kill are not anarchic; they are the acting out of programmed behaviors and responses. And very little freedom is found in situations of pure anarchy. Terror yes, constraint of possibility, starvation, sudden death.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> *I'm certain about imperfection and I value fighting for what I think is right and getting opinions from the opposition on my stance of choice before making choices*


That's all well and good. But so many of the views you have expressed so baldly here are extreme and, frankly, unpleasant. Merely allowing such opinions to hold sway in your mind until someone shows you the error seems to me to suggest that you lack quite a few of the characteristics that I had always thought went some way towards defining what a human adult is! I mean empathy and the ability to imagine situations from another's viewpoint and so on. And I am also shocked at how little you are aware about how the world works and how, for example, terrible things can happen to people through no fault or weakness of their own (to say nothing of what can happen if someone does have a weakness or two). I have come to the conclusion that you are in some way trolling us or generating click bate for this thread. No other explanation works.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness on steroids was extended to her best friend's husband.  This philosophy acts as a contagion and upon entering the psyche, destroys all empathy brains cells. The only known cure can best be expressed in the Gagaian philosophy of, _Til It Happens To You._. Prominent historical example: Nancy Reagan.

Opps, sorry I didn't mean to inject myself into this thread and go all Kavanaugh on you.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> "As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible.


The second statement here is incorrect, and therefore so is the first. The United States, under its pro-industry President Donald Trump, has announced that the US, the world's second-largest producer of carbon dioxide, will withdraw from the Paris Agreement on greenhouse gas emissions And many scientists believe the Paris Agreement's standards are insufficient even if the US did not withdraw. The problem is exacerbated by the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest currently encouraged by the pro-industry policies of the Brazilian government.
While there is no one scapegoat, the problem is most certainly primarily political and not primarily scientific. In the US at least, laws seeking to hold those accountable who create physical harm to others that extends beyond the line of their own property have always been difficult to enact and enforce. Again, primarily a political problem.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> That's all well and good. But so many of the views you have expressed so baldly here are extreme and, frankly, unpleasant. Merely allowing such opinions to hold sway in your mind until someone shows you the error seems to me to suggest that you lack quite a few of the characteristics that I had always thought went some way towards defining what a human adult is! I mean empathy and the ability to imagine situations from another's viewpoint and so on. And I am also shocked at how little you are aware about how the world works and how, for example, terrible things can happen to people through no fault or weakness of their own (to say nothing of what can happen if someone does have a weakness or two). I have come to the conclusion that you are in some way trolling us or generating click bate for this thread. No other explanation works.


I'm just not going to respond to this.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I don't mean to endlessly dispute, but anarchy is equally rarely found among animals in the state of nature. Intraspecific behavior is well regulated, and even the hunter and the hunted often display a certain ritualized behavior, as lions loll about or begin their hunting behavior as the prey herd looks on. The stalk, the pounce, the kill are not anarchic; they are the acting out of programmed behaviors and responses. And very little freedom is found in situations of pure anarchy. Terror yes, constraint of possibility, starvation, sudden death.


We are not seeing, understanding and defining things the same way at all. All Anarchy means to me is that there are no rules to govern our behavior and no consequences, from a government, for our actions.

Government provides a partial sense of order, Anarchy provides a complete sense of freedom to do and think as you please.

I believe you are attempting to use Anarchy to describe mental states of living organisms, which is completely different.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

In some way I have to agree with the Captain with regard to 'Anarchy', since as a political idea it really is an idea of no government and self-regulation, but certainly not 'no rules'. 

Strange Magic is completely correct to point to the ordered behaviour in the natural world arising from genetically determined behaviours and the responses to typical stimuli of environments.

Forget 1:1 comparisons with the natural world when discussing human-created society, since most of it transgresses the state of nature and we end up with our invented human social problems which are, nevertheless, impinged upon by our natural history. Anarchy is a human concept, not a natural state. It is not analogous with 'social chaos'.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> In some way I have to agree with the Captain with regard to 'Anarchy', since as a political idea it really is an idea of no government and self-regulation, but certainly not 'no rules'.
> 
> Strange Magic is completely correct to point to the ordered behaviour in the natural world arising from genetically determined behaviours and the responses to typical stimuli of environments.
> 
> Forget 1:1 comparisons with the natural world when discussing human-created society, since most of it transgresses the state of nature and we end up with our invented human social problems which are, nevertheless, impinged upon by our natural history. Anarchy is a human concept, not a natural state. It is not analogous with 'social chaos'.


1. Anarchy means there are no human created rules to follow that are enforced by a government.
2. Anarchy is the term used to describe a natural state. 
3. I'll agree it is not social chaos though.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> 1. Anarchy means there are no human created rules to follow that are enforced by a government.


It does not. It is merely the absence of central authority (government removed from 'the people').



Captainnumber36 said:


> 2. Anarchy is the term used to describe a natural state.


No, it most certainly does not describe a natural state and is not an absence of either values or rules, even though there is no central authority in the plan.



Captainnumber36 said:


> 3. I'll agree it is not social chaos though.


It is very organised as a political idea.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> It does not. It is merely the absence of central authority (government removed from 'the people').
> 
> No, it most certainly does not describe a natural state and is not an absence of either values or rules, even though there is no central authority in the plan.
> 
> It is very organised as a political idea.


1. We said the same thing. No central authority creating rules by which to follow.
2. I didn't say it is sans values or rules, I am merely saying it allows man to conduct himself in nature the way he sees fit. There are laws of nature and such, no doubt, however.
3. Anarchy isn't organized, it simply means no government, there is no central authority.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> 1. We said the same thing. No central authority creating rules by which to follow.
> 2. I didn't say it is sans values or rules, I am merely saying it allows man to conduct himself in nature the way he sees fit. There are laws of nature and such, no doubt, however.
> 3. Anarchy isn't organized, it simply means no government, there is no central authority.


It is very organised as an idea and it also isn't just some sort of individualist free-for-all (despite being hijacked by all those 'capitalist-anarchist' fantasists).

Not having a central government doesn't mean there is no discussion of behaviour modified, codified or regulated by rules. Rules only need to be agreed upon, not imposed.

'Man' in society isn't in 'nature'. He is in a society which requires organisation and also levels of co-operation. Individualism is a fairy story.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> It is very organised as an idea and it also isn't just some sort of individualist free-for-all (despite being hijacked by all those 'capitalist-anarchist' fantasists).
> 
> Not having a central government doesn't mean there is no discussion of behaviour modified, codified or regulated by rules. Rules only need to be agreed upon, not imposed.
> 
> 'Man' in society isn't in 'nature'. He is in a society which requires organisation and also levels of co-operation. Individualism is a fairy story.


We are defining our terms slightly differently. Let's let the Anarchy term go and just describe concepts.

1. I agree people can still have discussions about behavior even if there is no government.
2. No government means people are not forced to abide by a set of rules instilled by a government.
3. No government doesn't mean ppl can't join created communities with sets of rules.
4. No government doesn't mean there aren't innate rules that govern our actions naturally.

I simply define Anarchy as "No government", so any place above where I said "No government" could be replaced with Anarchy, defined in this way.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Time to crack open the Murray Bookchin and sweep out the lifestyle anarchists!

Bedtime for me though.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Weh, ach weh. ................


----------

