Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By i_feel_tiredsleepy
  • 1 Post By Amaroq

Thread: Objectivism and Nihilism, which am i?

  1. #1 Objectivism and Nihilism, which am i? 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    I dont believe in morals and right or wrong, rather cause and effect. I dont believe the universe has any inherent meaning. I do however think that we should live according to freethinker philosophy. That is, to build the world/future on logic and reasoning, and cast away traditions and religions. Focus 100% on science and technology.

    I dont reject that there may be a god as i cant disprove it, but i think that untill we can prove its existence any time and effort, even a minute of it - is meaningless and wasted.

    Ive labeled myself as a nihilist for years but those i know that has an interest in philosophy, and people on forums - including this one has stated im actually an objectivist. How exactly should i go about labeling myself? It is for convenience sake, as id rather say "Im this..." than bore new people i meet with 10 pages of what i believe in.

    Could i say "Im a morally nihilistic freethinker that believe in objectivism" or would that be contradictary in some way?


    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    I would go with "nihilist". Ayn Rand was a (expletive deleted) Nazi.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Of the two, I pick Nihilist, yet it appears you believe that there is inherent value in the pursuit of knowledge.What you have said would greatly set you apart from Nihilism and set you on, at the very least, a heavy lean toward Positivism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Of the two, I pick Nihilist, yet it appears you believe that there is inherent value in the pursuit of knowledge.What you have said would greatly set you apart from Nihilism and set you on, at the very least, a heavy lean toward Positivism.
    ill look that up Cheers for the replies.

    I guess i shouldve mentioned a rather important view i have aswell, that might be relevant if Ayn Rand in fact, were a nazi. I believe that humanity should build an own "Super state" where only the smartest and best of their fields in the world are allowed to live. An elitist society that decides all affairs led by philosophers.

    I also believe that most of the worlds "Useless" population should be forcefully removed by military, or long term reduced by population control. Again, im morally nihilistic so "Good or evil" isnt considered. Im thinking here the best way to create a domino effect for humanity to develop forward.

    When saying this i often meet criticism that are spoken by people that dont get the point. Like " ...who decides who lives and dies, you? Maybe YOU should die!" again, i dont care about myself but the survival of our species and about it running at the best possible efficency.

    Edit: Im not racist though, i have no delusions that skin color affects intellect or other traits.

    Edit 2: "The ultimate goal of science is to produce knowledge, regardless of any politics, morals, or values held by those involved in the research. Science should be judged by logic" 5th point of positivism from wiki, defines what i believe in completely. Ill need to read up more about positivism.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    id rather say "Im this..." than bore new people i meet with 10 pages of what i believe in.
    You could do what I do and say "I'm an engineer". That bores people immediately and usually changes the subject; no need for ten pages of explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    id rather say "Im this..." than bore new people i meet with 10 pages of what i believe in.
    You could do what I do and say "I'm an engineer". That bores people immediately and usually changes the subject; no need for ten pages of explanation.


    No no, I can do better. Say, "I'm a coin collector."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    I guess i shouldve mentioned a rather important view i have aswell, that might be relevant if Ayn Rand in fact, were a nazi. I believe that humanity should build an own "Super state" where only the smartest and best of their fields in the world are allowed to live. An elitist society that decides all affairs led by philosophers.

    I also believe that most of the worlds "Useless" population should be forcefully removed by military, or long term reduced by population control.
    I hope you are just saying that for shock value. When I called Ayn Rand a Nazi it was hyperbole, really I accuse her of being a selfish anarchist. You however, if what you wrote is your true belief, are an evil psychopath, inhuman and soul less. I hope for your sake you are merely misguided, mildly disturbed, or a troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    This sounds like a bunch of absurdism.

    No, really: absurdism in which there is no inherent meaning in life but an individual may create his own meaning so long as it acknowledges the lack of purpose in the universe.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    everywhere yet nowhere
    Posts
    22
    if u believe in logic and reasoning u believe in a right or wrong answer you are completely contradicting yourself when u say u dont believe in right or wrong. and if u use logic u use morals because logically it is unecessary to call you completely stupid and also morally it is wrong to call u stupid but since u are contradicting yourself you are ignorant yet you have logic that is completely limited.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Well :P

    I think its better to have 1 billion people in this world that has it great and can develop science forward, while at the same time having fun and live meaningless lives than...

    having 10 billion people where half live average at best lives and the other half live miserable lives and like 1/10 actually are rich, happy, successfull etc.

    It doesent matter how this is done, but it should be done by any means neccessary. My motto here is "The means justifies the end, if the end means never having to use those means a second time"

    Is this truly wrong of me to think?

    The world has limited resources yet we flood the world with lives in form of organic waste and parasites that contributes with nothing.

    What i want is a world EVERYONE would WANT to be born into.

    Why is this considered illogical , cruel, inhuman etc? Love and kindness would be easily implemented in a world of quality over quantity.

    I think you people think to short term. Im thinking for the best of our species based on thousands of years into the future.

    Todays world is a festering wound of overpopulation ruled by mans dark nature because we arent people anymore but mere numbers. Our deaths goes unoticed by and we are forgotten. We do the same mistakes we did thousands of years still. What im talking about is extreme and shocking sure, but i think you guys give humanitys worth to much credit. You can come on your political correct self rightious horses now and yell "But that would be inhuman and evil!" but as of now ill give humanity 50 years max before destroying itself. I dont want to be there then to tell you "Told you so"

    Edit: @Giant: I dont believe in a soul or anything supernatural so i wouldnt really be soulless. Inhuman? Maybe. Because as humanity is today (To dumb to do what needs to be done) how can one avoid becoming a misantrophist? Psychopath? I live myself so much into characters in movies , books etc that i sometimes cry and feel their pain. I believe that is called empathy? If anything i hate the flaws and faults of reality and i want to purge them permanently. I think what i am is a misunderstood genius, then again the line between genius and madman is pretty close. Guess i may have crossed over.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I guess i shouldve mentioned a rather important view i have aswell, that might be relevant if Ayn Rand in fact, were a nazi. I believe that humanity should build an own "Super state" where only the smartest and best of their fields in the world are allowed to live. An elitist society that decides all affairs led by philosophers.

    I also believe that most of the worlds "Useless" population should be forcefully removed by military, or long term reduced by population control.
    I hope you are just saying that for shock value. When I called Ayn Rand a Nazi it was hyperbole, really I accuse her of being a selfish anarchist. You however, if what you wrote is your true belief, are an evil psychopath, inhuman and soul less. I hope for your sake you are merely misguided, mildly disturbed, or a troll.
    Rand was technically a Russian Jew, so Nazi is probably a bit of a silly label to attach to her.

    An intellectually flimsy pseudo-philosopher and a total bitch, sure, but not a Nazi.
    shlunka likes this.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Here's a great line:



    http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03...ra-2009-7.html

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Rand was technically a Russian Jew, so Nazi is probably a bit of a silly label to attach to her.

    An intellectually flimsy pseudo-philosopher and a total bitch, sure, but not a Nazi.
    I did admit to hyperbole, but in light of the more accurate designation of "total bitch" I hereby fully rescind my "Nazi" assertion.

    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.
    Hilarious! And true!

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=18701&start=0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    When I called Ayn Rand a Nazi it was hyperbole, really I accuse her of being a selfish anarchist.
    I am glad you corrected that. The only weakness, in my view, in Rand's philosophy was to ignore the plight of those unable to stand by themselves. And ignoring that required she ignore a fundamental aspect of the social creature that is man. That was a mistake. It was not, however, in the same league as Hitler's Final Solution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    The world has limited resources yet we flood the world with lives in form of organic waste and parasites that contributes with nothing.

    What i want is a world EVERYONE would WANT to be born into.

    Why is this considered illogical , cruel, inhuman etc?
    Because of the means by which you intend to achieve your goal.

    It doesent matter how this is done, but it should be done by any means neccessary. My motto here is "The means justifies the end, if the end means never having to use those means a second time"
    I would be more persuaded of your sincerity if you indicated that once the cull was complete those who had been complicit in the cull, yourself included, would remove themselves from the planet.

    You may also find a significant number of people who would say "I do not wish to be born into a world whose comforts have been achieved at such a cost."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    The only weakness, in my view, in Rand's philosophy was to ignore the plight of those unable to stand by themselves.
    A wholly individualist(anti-social) environment leads to ghettos, concentrations of those with the misfortune to not be arbitrarily included in the artificial construct of the "upper class". And in the example of history we see the "ghetto" as one of the stages in the buildup to "final solutions". So while Ayn Rand wasn't a brick in the "wall of the oven's", she was a paving stone in the path to the "death camp". The term "Nazi" is itself a misnomer. The Nazi's had nothing to do with the German national character of democracy and reason, and the Nazi's most certainly were in no discernable way socialist, social, or sociable in any normal context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    It doesent matter how this is done, but it should be done by any means neccessary. My motto here is "The means justifies the end, if the end means never having to use those means a second time"
    I would be more persuaded of your sincerity if you indicated that once the cull was complete those who had been complicit in the cull, yourself included, would remove themselves from the planet.

    You may also find a significant number of people who would say "I do not wish to be born into a world whose comforts have been achieved at such a cost."[/quote]

    If i could have the world become this idea of mine, i would gladly die for it. Because i believe it would create a butterfly effect which eventually would actually have a happy ending for humanity.

    Todays world is ruled by 2 extremes: The way to kind, and the way to cruel. There dont seem to be a middle ground.

    Also, though i did state "killing them off by any means..." i do realize a better way would be population control (1 child per family) that would lower the population over time. This would be more realistic. There is no "Evil" in doing the firstmentioned in my mind though as i sincerely believe there is no right or wrong only cause and effect. But because of subjective morality and values the lastly mentioned would have a healthier transition.

    The important thing is to create a society where all human needs are met and has a healthy and efficent system for development. The problem with todays societies, its governments and laws isnt the systems themselves. It is HUMAN NATURE that fails because all peoples NEEEDS cant be met with overpopulation.

    Also im way to far off topic on my own post

    Someone wanna take another shot at pinpointing my believes? And no im not trolling. My believes may be extreme, and i know im probably making a fool of myself and appear seemingly a monster. But im the "Truth > all" kinda guy so i just say it as i mean it allthough it doesent always come out right.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    In case you're a troll; good job.

    Your beliefs are ridiculous. If you truly value science and reason, you would know that such idealism as you preach is unfounded. There's no way to account for the causes and effects of what you're suggesting. With our rather poor understanding of what constitutes a "smart" and "better" person, we're more likely to confound to our own subjective perception on the matter. This makes it even more laughable to hear you say, "Again, im morally nihilistic so "Good or evil" isnt considered." It's apparent that you think of your own moral judgment as absolute. You're not a god, get over yourself. You're a mere stupid human being like the rest of us; factor that into the equation.

    The fact that you've put so much faith in your belief that you've ended up with the fallacious "the end justifies the means" principle makes your superiority-complex even more apparent. If the end justifies the means, then you've defeated your own ideologue; because it's clear that it couldn't be achieved in the first place. Our specie is one of great social variety, one that can't be easily ignored. You can't force people to one view. Not even the 'elites' would find any of your arguments convincing.

    You claim that your position is concerned with the specie as a whole. This is wrong. Your position is concerned with your view of how the specie as a whole should be by ignoring how it is. There are so many variables involved in the real world. That's why one should look at the world as it is, and judge from there what can be improved.

    You are guilty of the moralistic fallacy, my good sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    I have to agree, for the most part, with Obviously.

    Also, I noticed that you were audacious enough to label yourself a "misunderstood genius" (As a side note, the line is between madman and creative genius). It's one thing when another person decides to describe you in such way. To describe yourself that way is indicative of quite a different thing. That way of thinking can blind one's thought process the same way that strong emotions, such as rage, can.

    In your case, you may believe that your ideas are absolute truths, but if you consider yourself nihilist, you may consider them only relatively absolute. Anyhow, the sense of "I'm one of the best" leads to intolerance of those you deem to have less intellectual worth than yourself, which would be most people in your case, if not by way interaction, by the way their mistakes permeate into your existence, affecting your life by direct and indirect means.

    Any method that doesn't involve eliminating the existence of the lower beings isn't an option because they are still around to screw up your perceived Utopia. This is why I fail to see how limiting population growth (i.e. one child per family) will achieve your goal of attaining a competent, appropriately sized population that will move science forward. Note the word I bolded, because you put heavy emphasis previously on the fact that the word is filled is dumb, parasitic human beings that make no contributions to the race-wide pursuit of knowledge. I hold the belief that you put that forth in fear, after being called extreme, in an effort to appear to be a logical being that has thought of every option. I notice at this point that your goal, as you have presented it, has changed. It transformed from "moving science forward" to "meeting the needs of humanity", which is a hard turn toward something that appears quite altruistic.

    In interest of time, I will end without further analysis into the psyche of an egoist and clearly state that you are not hard-set in your goals. By complaint of extreme, you abandoned the essence of your initial statements. Also, the fickle nature of your views is certainly a testament to the feeble foundation behind your self-proclaimed title of "misunderstood genius".

    Food for thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I dont believe in morals and right or wrong, rather cause and effect. I dont believe the universe has any inherent meaning. I do however think that we should live according to freethinker philosophy. That is, to build the world/future on logic and reasoning, and cast away traditions and religions. Focus 100% on science and technology.

    I dont reject that there may be a god as i cant disprove it, but i think that untill we can prove its existence any time and effort, even a minute of it - is meaningless and wasted.

    Ive labeled myself as a nihilist for years but those i know that has an interest in philosophy, and people on forums - including this one has stated im actually an objectivist. How exactly should i go about labeling myself? It is for convenience sake, as id rather say "Im this..." than bore new people i meet with 10 pages of what i believe in.

    Could i say "Im a morally nihilistic freethinker that believe in objectivism" or would that be contradictary in some way?
    To me, Nihilism is the idea that life is without meaning, and that morality is manifest in the individual. Objectivism deals more with the role of government allowing people to maximize their pursuit of their own hapiness so far that it doens't infringe on the rights of others. So, Nihilism is a philosophical concept while objectivism is a politicial concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Why are you bring up a thread that is 2 years old?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Why are you bring up a thread that is 2 years old?
    What difference does it make? I did a google search for something, this question came up, I wanted to reply to it. Why is it that whenever someone wants to talk about something that was already talked about before, people say they should go to the original post, but whenever someone actually goes to the original post, they get made fun of for going to a post that was made 2 years ago? I'm so tired of people's snotty attitudes on forums.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Objectivist Amaroq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Red Wing, MN
    Posts
    25
    I'm also a guy googling around who came across this. I'd like to resurrect it too.

    Quezocotl, Objectivism isn't just a political philosophy. It's an entire worldview that covers five branches of philosophy, each branch of philosophy dealing with certain fundamental questions.

    Metaphysics: What's the nature of reality? What's my nature? What's my place in relation to this world?
    Epistemology: What's the nature of knowledge? Essentially, what do I know, and how do I know it?
    Ethics: What is good and evil? What actions should I take and should I not take?
    Politics: There are other human beings around. What's the best way for us to coexist?
    Aesthetics: What is art, and what's its purpose?

    With the exception of Metaphysics, I know Ayn Rand wrote a whole non-fiction book for each of those branches. For Epistemology, you can read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. For Ethics, you can read The Virtue of Selfishness. For Politics, you can read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. For Aesthetics, you can read The Romantic Manifesto. For Metaphysics, I know for sure Leonard Peikoff covers it in the first chapter of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Along with what Objectivism has to say about the other branches.

    The value of Ayn Rand is that she originated an unheard of philosophy and challenged centuries of irrational ideas. The value of Leonard Peikoff is that there are pitfalls in learning Objectivism, and he has fell into them and gotten out again, so his books are really good for someone trying to study Objectivism. For example, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, presents the whole philosophy bare-bones, but integrated into a logical structure from the foundation of Metaphysics and Epistemology, all the way up to Politics and Aesthetics. Another book of his I'm currently reading, Understanding Objectivism, deals with a method of learning philosophical ideas so that you can prove or disprove abstract ideas for yourself, and he uses Objectivism as an example to demonstrate the method on.

    Also, for science lovers, I'd recommend The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, by David Harriman. It builds off of Rand's theory of concepts (presented in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) and presents a theory of induction based on Rand's theory of concepts.

    I'm posting all of this for the benefit of the Original Poster too. Raziell, from what you said in just the original post, you do sound very objectivish. But Objectivism has a capital O. It's an -ism. It's the particular philosophical system originated by Ayn Rand. And calling yourself an Objectivist is basically saying "I agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, as far as I understand it." It's definitely worth checking out though. I think someone who thinks like you might like it.

    However, your second post is completely contradictory to Objectivism. You seem to be some kind of Utilitarian Altruist in that regard. Willing to sacrifice individuals for a "Greater Good". That is completely the opposite of Objectivism. Rand believed that every individual has the right to own their own life. Each should be able to pursue their own well-being without the others being allowed to interfere. But the fact that you're willing to promote ridiculously cold-hearted ideas because you find them logical, tells me that you still might like Ayn Rand's philosophy and that you could simply be making an error about what's good for us humans. I remember once posting in a debate forum on another website that the fetuses of rape victims should all be aborted because if they're not, then natural selection favors rapists and the human race will gradually be dominated by rapists. The post was quickly deleted, because even though that particular subforum was created for the sole purpose of allowing controversial debate, what I said was too much even then for those people. Now I've changed my mind on that because Ayn Rand convinced me that we are all born tabula rasa. That is, we don't possess knowledge or innate morality. We have to learn it for ourselves and we are all capable of choosing whether to be good or evil, rational or irrational. Maybe you'll change your mind on the idea that you need to forcefully purge the world of "lesser" humans when you learn that Laissez-Faire Capitalism promotes and rewards the best in us as long as we are all left free to act on our own.

    As to the people stating "Ayn Rand is a Bitch". Ignore them. They're the kind of people who would never understand you when you post anything controversial. They start thinking with their emotions rather than dealing in reason. And they never studied Ayn Rand either or they'd have some criticism of some kind at all to give. She's quite possibly the most controversial philosopher to-date. Her ideas have pissed off pretty much every single group of people in the world because she challenged all of their irrational assumptions. She pissed of religious people, she pissed off skepticist atheists, she pissed off relativists and multiculturalists, she pissed off corporatists, she pissed off environmentalists, she pissed off liberals, she pissed off republicans, she pissed off communists, she pissed off socialists, she pissed off libertarians who took her political ideas and left them disconnected from any kind of moral foundation. She even pissed off academia. Which is why if you ever mention her name, they'll all say "She wasn't a REAL philosopher." Because she called them out on their irrationality too and ripped them all a new one.

    I've only been studying her philosophy for three or four years, off and on in my own free time. But I see the world in a radically different light now. I see a hell of a lot deeper into things than I did before I picked up Atlas Shrugged and got my mind blown away.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •