Isbskins vs Osborn F. Enready - Life, world, and society.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins, I have started this thread so that you and I may go topic by topic, or point by point, without the risk of "derailing" a thread.

I think this enviroment, or forum, could provide a way for us to see where our differences are, aire them, and offer a clearer picture of why exactly we differ in our views in an exercise to find the roots of our seemingly opposed, logic, or view of the world and how we as people relate to it.

I, being as confident as I am, feel justly generous through my confidence to let you start the conversation at any point you so desire. I do this, because you said you preferred to look back further than I, to base your logic. By giving you the opprotunity to start the topic, I feel it is most just, since that allows you to set the timeline for which you wish to start discussing the issues, fully knowing what is needed to express your points of view moreso than I can, or could.

So with no further adieu, please, at your convenience, fire away.

[lsbskins1]

See my post in our other thread. Here or there, it does not matter. You have to be willing to know or research something of philosophical underpinnings. I don't seek to let others speak for me, I seek to allow you and I to do this without having to explain each little issue in pains-taking detail.

[lsbskins1]

duplicate, sorry.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am asking you to educate me, in finite detail of how you arrive where you are, as I am offering the same to you.

Do you not feel as though you are up to the task of defending your views?

[lsbskins1]

I can defend anything I believe. It's just much less cumbersome when I do not have to explain what existentialism is, or explain what I mean when I say, "It has meaning, you know, pushing your rock!"

[Osborn F Enready]

existentialism: (philosophy) a 20th-century philosophical movement chiefly in Europe; assumes that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves)

I am asking what in my discussions from the perspective of individualism, or objectivism you find illogical as an existentialist.

[lsbskins1]

That objectivism pretty much ignores the responsibility that freedom entails, the responsibility to strive not only for your individual advancement, but your responsibility to your fellow man. And the fact that no matter how much you claim unfettered means free, what it means in practice is uncontrolled and unanswerable.

[Osborn F Enready]

Define free and or freedom isbskins, as you imply.

Explain how respect for the free will of the individual goes against this individual "responsibility" to fellow man.

You say objectivism ignores the responsibility that freedom entails, by alledging that objectivism somehow negates a "burden" man is born into, which is the "burden" of some responsiblity to our fellow man.

I am asking you to define this burden, and explain how objectivism doesn't deal with it, because I alledge it clearly does deal with it quite handily.

If man wishes to help his fellow men, what is the incentive to do so? Can you define that, under your ideology?

[lsbskins1]

Free - not bound by another's perception, but free in that we are what we can become. Aristotle may have once been a slave but his mind was not enslaved. It is not about the condition you find in the world, as that can lead to the enslavement of an Aristotle or the Holocaust, it is about "potential". We are surrounded by absurdities, often we are bounced and beaten by forces that are beyond our control. It is the dignity we evidence in response to these forces, that gives us our meaning and purpose. We are free to do right in response to wrong. We are free to choose how we view our world. But we must accept that we are often libel to be thwarted and abused and that fair may be fair but it is not a condition that any human can secure to himself. No amount of brains, or firepower or planning can alter the fact that a trash truck may squash you, or a serial killer may capture, torture and kill you or your wife or your child. Free is more a state of consciousness than a state of citizenship or a condition that can be secured to you in any way.

I would say the difference between freedom as viewed by existentialism and objectivism is the fact that existentialism builds the idea of the nobility of the striving, even if it is a useless striving, into the equation, while objectivism tends to rail and flail against any restriction, as if restrictions can ever be eleminated. In that, objecivism is an angry philosophy, and therefore leads to anger and frustration. That would be why you characterize social responsibillity as a "burden".

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Free - not bound by another's perception, but free in that we are what we can become.

I say:
I don't understand how anothers perception can bound you without the use of force? You are free to become whatever you want under objectivism, as long as you respect the free will of others. What would you want to be, that others free will would impede you?

Isbskins said: We are surrounded by absurdities, often we are bounced and beaten by forces that are beyond our control.

I say:
What is mans natural predilection to explore and investigate what is around him, if not the quest of understanding what it is he observes? To seek to understand, not as you imply, to necessarily "control".

Isbskins said: It is the dignity we evidence in response to these forces, that gives us our meaning and purpose.

subjective

We are free to do right in response to wrong.

subjective

Isbskins said: We are free to choose how we view our world.

I say:
That is quite a statement, to which I mostly agree. However, regardless of your view, is it not imperative that whichever view it may be, it makes room for the facts of the physical world within which we reside?

Isbskins said: But we must accept that we are often libel to be thwarted and abused and that fair may be fair but it is not a condition that any human can secure to himself.

I say:
Objectivism makes full notice of abuse, and obstacles. It proposes the nearest level of individual fairness that man can achieve through peace or tool of man.

Isbskins said: No amount of brains, or firepower or planning can alter the fact that a trash truck may squash you, or a serial killer may capture, torture and kill you or your wife or your child.

I say:
Well, I obviously hold the contention that you can alter the options, in most cases, but some things happen that are beyond our control, or before we can react.

Isbskins said: Free is more a state of consciousness than a state of citizenship or a condition that can be secured to you in any way.

I say:
I would say essentially that is true. A man can be enslaved by propaganda, through information fraud. The rights to remain free however, are what are secured in this country if you are willing to fight for them, at whatever level they are threatened.

Also, free and liberty, two different things.

Isn't being free in the mind, being honest with the self?

Isbskins said: I would say the difference between freedom as viewed by existentialism and objectivism is the fact that existentialism builds the idea of the nobility of the striving, even if it is a useless striving, into the equation, while objectivism tends to rail and flail against any restriction, as if restrictions can ever be eleminated.

I say:
Labor is an individual effort. The individual has freedom to toil for whatever he deems necessary for his needs. The option to work, or to not work, and the option to barter wage. The option to work for one's self, and to barter in any situation to benefit the self as long as it is a voluntary conscent transaction of both parties. Since intrests and needs are different, all parties can theoretically benefit from any given transaction.

Do you have a problem with trade, or money, or neither?

As far as objectivism tends to rail and flail against any restriction, first of all, I don't have a clue what you mean. Can you please explain what you mean by that?

Isbskins said: In that, objecivism is an angry philosophy, and therefore leads to anger and frustration.

I say:
Once again, subjective. (For someone who doesn't like to recognize the individual, you sure do have a lot of individual subjective opinion implanted in your writing.)

Isbskins said: That would be why you characterize social responsibillity as a "burden".

I say:
You couldn't be more wrong on that. Perhaps, you should ask me that question so you can "quote my words against me", instead of speculating on how I feel about social responsibility, and where I derive that it is a burden?

Allow me to tell you why our "current" supposed social responsibility is a burden.

It is a burden, because our "social programs" are not voluntary funded operations, and they are operated by funding that is derived using government force. It is a burden because it is taken at gunpoint, literally, if you refuse to comply. It is a burden most of all, because "all of those" being forced to pay in, are not paying in "of free will", hence, the implication of force for non-compliance.

Every dollar, every cent I earn with MY LABOR, is my earnings to be spent as I see fit. Every good I trade for, or barter for labor or cash, is a PRODUCT OF MY LABOR. I am a giving person, and I have no problem with giving to what charity or individual I feel has just cause, if I am able and within my means, but only by free will. When I am forced to live outside my means, simply because of government intervention into my profitability, and or sustinence level either through interference in legitimate business, or in my income, that more than a simple "problem". IT is unacceptable.

A burden is what it is, and you may dress it up pretty and lay flowers upon it, but it will still be a burden. Human compassion, if you value it, is bigger than government could EVER hope to accomplish.

Do you think so little of humans, as to relegate them to the hopeless bin? Why do you think FORCE is necessary to provide for those that CAN'T (not won't) provide for themselves?

Why do you think you can force people to provide for those who won't provide for themselves? What gives you this right?

[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

If you hold objectivism to be good philosophy, and you agree with it's tenents, then you do not value "sacrifice for others" be it voluntary or no. If you volunteer to sacrifice, you are abandoning one of it's major points. Allow me to quote the one and only Ayn Rand:

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

That, by the way, is a very subjective statement. Do not demand of existentialism what your own philosophy does not demand of itself. Or do you now wish to back away from Ayn and objectivism?

Rail and flail means rail and flail. Objectivists tend to complain loudly and harshly (rail) about paying taxes and government regulation and they like to flail (To strike or lash out violently) against the means the government uses to enforce [Keep pushing and we'll just get our guns and the war will be on, man!].

[lsbskins1]

Please be patient, I can not address this point by point, I have to kinda take it in chunks.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: If you hold objectivism to be good philosophy, and you agree with it's tenents, then you do not value "sacrifice for others" be it voluntary or no.

I say:
That is not true. Firstly, I am not an objectivist in the "gospel" sense, as I am my own man and I have my own beliefs. Secondly, you miss an important point. The reason man is charitable, is to GAIN something. That something is payment for the charity, though often times it has NOTHING to do with what is being given, or to whom. That payment is the feeling given from charity to the person who donates to a cause of their choice, towards fellow men who truly need it for a multitude of reasons. I have always given to needs I found virtuous, assuming I had the means.

Isbskins said: If you volunteer to sacrifice, you are abandoning one of it's major points. Allow me to quote the one and only Ayn Rand: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." That, by the way, is a very subjective statement. Do not demand of existentialism what your own philosophy does not demand of itself. Or do you now wish to back away from Ayn and objectivism?

I say:
Of course not, as I know what I value. I don't give to those that can "earn" for themselves, nor do I attempt to further mire those in honest need by no fault of their own.

I didn't claim to be a poster boy of any party, or any ideolgy, to the letter, and it is wrong of you to assume otherwise. I simply recognize Rands contribution to the core ideology of Liberty.

The statement you quoted, I believe, is exactly correct. Man can not find "satisfaction" if he doesn't love himself enough to acknowlege honestly, and to provide himself with what he desires, in other words, no amount of money can buy personal satisfaction, it is the labor of love that one finds for satisfaction.

For example:
A rich man, born rich, never HAVING to labor doesn't understand why he can't get satisfaction from doling away all of his previously earned millions of his family that he received on their death to charities of his choice. The reason for this lack of "satisfaction" is not because he is not helping many, but because he is neglecting the self, which wants to toil for the benefit of others to give from the heart, not from the wallet. The act of giving is not noble, the act of giving of one's self is noble if it is of free will.

I don't think you understand Rands intention of defining things in many ways, from the extreme to the timid. One quote does not objectivism make.

I think her point is, if you can't be honest with yourself, how can you ever be truly happy? Some men LIVE to donate their time, and if that is what it takes to appease their ideals, so be it. No man should be forced to. Hence, free will.

I am no pigeon, so don't try to hole me.

[lsbskins1]

So you are free to load someone's plain statements up with your interpretations but if I read anything into what you "mean" by burden, I am not playing fair? Being an existentialist, I expect that my fellow humans will behave in such a way and it doesn't make me want to resort to armed revolt. But you, requiring that I have faith in my fellow humans, essentially put everyone in a no-win situation, because even you, who is cut of such obviously moral cloth, can not manage to hold to a consistent set of rules and nothing of any "life or death" value is at stake.

[lsbskins1]

To make it a little more plain. I believe objectivism fails precisely because it requires nothing of anyone that they do not deam worthy themselves and the ugly and historically realized ends of the unfettered ubermensch is Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin. It does not matter one wit what economic ideal you attach to the unfettered man, unfettered men will always corrupt the unselfish ideal. It is unavoidable.You do not have to be pigion holed for that to be true.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: So you are free to load someone's plain statements up with your interpretations but if I read anything into what you "mean" by burden, I am not playing fair?

I say:
No, that isn't what I said. I said if you wanted to be CORRECT about how I feel, I should explain it, instead of you, since you have no clue how I feel.

I said what I did, for you to use against me, since you seem to think you have the logical ground with which to do it. I provided the ammunition. Fire away.

Isbskins said: Being an existentialist, I expect that my fellow humans will behave in such a way and it doesn't make me want to resort to armed revolt.

I say:
Expect in one hand, shit in the other, tell me which fills up first.

I don't WANT to revolt, I claim we NEED to revolt, see the difference?

Isbskins said: But you, requiring that I have faith in my fellow humans, essentially put everyone in a no-win situation, because even you, who is cut of such obviously moral cloth, can not manage to hold to a consistent set of rules and nothing of any "life or death" value is at stake.

I say:
In case you didn't notice, I am one of the few fighting for our ORIGINAL RULES< the ones before the perversion, you know, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for all men.

Isn't silly to say I am willing to stick to no standard, when I am saying the only standard we ever TRULY HAD, was our Constitution which was drafted hundreds of years ago?

Am I not the one clinging to a standard, while all those about me seek to perverse that standard to THEIR OWN ENDS, be it party, corporation or corrupted individual?


Are you going to directly answer ANY of my questions, or only speak indirectly, since you have no argument, I assume?

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: To make it a little more plain. I believe objectivism fails precisely because it requires nothing of anyone that they do not deam worthy themselves and the ugly and historically realized ends of the unfettered ubermensch is Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin.

I say:
You neglect to mention they put themselves above every other. They had no respect for the rights of others, unless the others "fit into" their reality, which was not the physical world.

Attach blame where blame is do, not to what you dislike.

Isbskins said: It does not matter one wit what economic ideal you attach to the unfettered man, unfettered men will always corrupt the unselfish ideal.

I say:
You take unfettered in the literal sense, as opposed to the sense of the relation between government and man.

Man will never be unfettered by his own mind, as his mind is the one thing man can't control, fully.

Man can choose not to act on ANY given thought, he can't choose not to think.

Isbskins said: It is unavoidable.You do not have to be pigion holed for that to be true.

I say:
LOL.

Go ahead and try to pigeonhole all men. It can't be done except by two words I know of......


Human- Being of the human race

Fallible- likely to fail or make errors; "everyone is fallible to some degree"; having the attributes of man as opposed to e.g. divine beings; "I'm only a fallible human"; "frail humanity"

[lsbskins1]

And that last statement would be my point. You advocate for a system that puts no brakes on those, all too human, tendencies and then have the nerve to say that the fault is in me for not "trusting" man to not fail. Either man is imperfect and needs government and the external controls it brings, or man is noble and not subject to corruption and therefore is only hampered by external controls. You can not, as they say, have your cake and eat it, too. Which, dear friend, is it?

[lsbskins1]

Oh, and it's "Wish in one hand and shit in the other." You just keep wishing man would be noble and actually care for others without being "forced" to do so. Keep wishing and see which hand fills up first.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Which, dear friend, is it?

I say:
I have said it a thousand times, if you had been listening.

Limited government serves a purpose, minimal government being the best.

Man has no right to rule other men by use of force, unless those men create government of free will, and all who are under it, are there of free will. Do you see how the created system as it was created, is different than it is now in the United States?

In the states early years, taxation had SPECIFIC RULES for being issued, and a means of doing so.
Taxes werent taken for wealth redistribution, they were taken for BARE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT, and taken as fairly as known of the time. (census)

What we have today is a government who stands with a gun, forcing those under it to donate to its coffers, regardless of its use or intent, socialist programs or not, even though this is a DESIGNED CAPITALIST, LIMITED GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

Most importantly, I don't believe ANY government is just, without recognizing the rights of man as in the BOR, in full, without any "clause" that allows changing those rights as recognized and ISOLATING government from attempting to infringe those rights, unless substantial proof or sworn testimony is given by a person claiming their rights have been violated by another.

In other words. If you of free will live in a town, that towns community has a right to set laws with which to govern itself, by the will of the people. Those laws, whatever they may be, can be just, as long as they do not infringe or limit the rights of the individual unless SUFFICIENT PROOF has been shown to authorities of the town, that a wrong has been committed. The action of rights infringement is THE CRIME, and only then may government interfere, with substantial proof met to ALLOW their entry to the case.

I am not an anarchist, though I would be without a government that recognizes my rights, since at that time, government would no longer serve any rational purpose to me.

Isbskins said: Oh, and it's "Wish in one hand and shit in the other." You just keep wishing man would be noble and actually care for others without being "forced" to do so. Keep wishing and see which hand fills up first.

I say:
So, you claim that mankind is void of nobility as a free act of will? You must also discount honor, trust and respect also then?

I hate to tell you this, but I often give without being forced to by government. If people didn't GIVE of their own will, how would non-profit charities stay in business helping the poor?

You alledge that nobility is rare, while I say it is THE NORM.

Men seek to escape oppression of any means, and oppression in the name of freeing the human spirit has to be the weakest case EVER BUILT.

Where does respect come from, if there is no seperator from sloth to ambition? In your "ideals" what is that seperator?