| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#35
April 19th 11, 01:04 PM
posted to rec.radio.shortwave,alt.news-media,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism
|
|||
|
|||
Reality is the only morality
On 04/18/2011 01:42 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:47 am, "D. Peter wrote: That a work of fiction can't be debated on its content is utter rubbish. OK, I've rethought this. I agree that it could be done. I'm not in a position to do so. I was introduced to Ayn Rand with the film "The Foundainhead" when as a kid I would stay up late and watch movies. I bought several of her books and read them. When I started thinking about her philosophy I realized just how bad it was. Everything we know we know through our senses. So far so good. Some people are blind and some are deaf. The blind person cannot know the color red in the same way the sighted do nor can the deaf know middle C the same way the hearing do. The lack of a sense doesn't change what actaully exists only our realization of it. Radiation existed prior to our ability to detect it. There is some stuff we do due to our evolutionary heritage. Many animals survive mainly on inate response to stimulii. We think of ourselves as thinking beings so when we act without thought we will try to explain our actions as if rational even where there's nothing rational going on--evolution selects behaviors based upon survival; thoughtful action isn't necessarily the most efficient. Reality has no morality. Even when we discuss morality we limit it to human actions. This alone should put the lie to it. If morality had an objective existence then it would apply to all of reality not just humans. Reasoning can improve our survivability. While I'd like to say our existence proves this I cannot do so directly because traits neither selected for nor against will randomly drift. I must instead suggest each look into himself or herself and look for situations where prior thought has lead to survival. I believe all of us can find such cases. We are social animals. Social animals benefit from predicting the behaviors of one's fellow societal members. This doesn't make one behavior moral and another immoral. We can modify our behavior based upon our predictions of others' responses and we benefit from doing so. The range of human behaviors is quite large. By restricting those behaviors with the social context we reduce the complexity in predicting others' behaviors and responses to our behaviors. Myths, such as morality, serves to restrict the range of behaviors we can expect and this aides our survival. I suspect I've said enough for now and you can find stuff with which to disagree. Hell, you'll probably discount it yet again becuase I don't like Ayn Rand's characterization of her philosophy as "Objectivism" when nothing could be further from the truth. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FCC Opens Up Unused TV Frequencies for HD Radio | Shortwave | |||
| WJR Detroit downtime opens 760 for DX | Shortwave | |||
| NBC: Bush opens double digit lead over Kerry NOT! | Shortwave | |||
| OT NBC: Bush opens double digit lead over Kerry | Shortwave | |||
| NBC: Bush opens double digit lead over Kerry | Shortwave | |||
Threaded Mode
