Well it would have been helpful if you had identified yourself as an Objectivist first. If you did, and I missed it, then I apologize. You are naturally entitled to your views but I personally reject objectivism and wouldn't have bothered you with a response had I known the situation. I have had too many protracted 'discussions' with objectivist to know that we would have a very difficult time finding any common ground.

Take care...

Jim

And the "open ear" problem strikes again.

Well to be fair, I wouldn't hole myself into an entirely objectivist label because I believe that there is an underlying theme to all philosophies and as I mentioned before, the problem is how we communicate these ideas to other people. Language creates roadblocks - and often specific terms force people to become defensive or shutdown because of what they naturally associate with those terms - which you just perfectly demonstrated. my use of the word objectivist made you turn off. Here I was agreeing with you and defining my words so you would see that, and you failed to see it because you were not able to move past the "language" barrier.

Then again I also believe that objectivism can also be reconciled with relativism since i dont live in the dualistic world that most people do around me. So I am a strange one... I think its important to explore all ways of looking at life - and be wary of living too inside your personal bubble of beliefs. How do you know that pecan pie is your favorite if you only judge the other types from the pictures on the box instead of taking time to do a taste test?

off-topic, but, from what/where/whom do you derive your objectivism?

also, how do you reconcile two opposing viewpoints such as objectivism and relativism?

an objectivist who doesn't live in a dualistic world -- you _are_ a strange one. ;)

I am a banana.

my eyes came down the page and read "I am a banana. And don't I just know it?"

i eat banana's like you for breakfast

That leads to such a long conversation !! And unfortunetly much of that thought process lives inside my head since people have a stigma of discussing things when two people disagree about something - and when you are like me and belive in "both" things (use term very loosely) you always find yourself disagreeing with someone - and thus noone wants to talk to you about it ;)

so in a nutshell - relativists tend to assert that reality is what we make of - it is a creation of our ideas - thus there are different realities. while an objectivist would counter that the world is static and not dynamic and things are the way they are. period. life will continue whether or not we are around to interpret it (basically the two different answers to what sound does a tree make when it falls alone in the woods) Does it make a sound because we percieve it - or does it make a sound regardless. So my non dualistic brain (similar to wilber and spectrum of consciousness) says sure there is a sound when it falls, even if there is not someone there to perceive it, but how we percieve it when we are there creates the different realities - i hear a big tree, you hear a small tree. So objectivist in that the sound happens no matter what - but relativist in that noone hears the sound the same way, thus everyone is perceiving different realities. So the reconciliation is simply that its not black and white - but instead a spectrum of greys. In other words i believe in a static world but the way we perceive it is dynamic.

Then again - what is it Robert A. Wilson always says: "believe everything, accept nothing" oh wait thats mine - he says: "I believe in nothing, but I have many suspicions." My old sig used to say: life is most interesting at the intersection of its contradictions.

When I replied, I was actually thinking of objectivism and relativism in the moral sense -- universal good and bad versus individual analysis and judgement of reality based on previous experience. So anyone prescribing to moral objectivism would seem to live in a dualistic world.

Anyway, I really enjoyed your explanation. I found some words from Wilber that should be included somewhere in the sign-up process for any internet forum:

Anyone want to get this thread back on track?

How so? Open ear? As in willing to listen to other's ideas? Maybe, if you were the first person to speak of objectivism to me that would be true, but I have already stated that I've had too many 'discussions' with objectivists in the past. Why would you make this assumption?

Differences in ideas/philosphies/opinions create roadblocks too. I think your placing to much emphasis on language here.

Defensive: no, shutdown: OK

If by agreeing with me you mean the part about protecting the environment then I think you're missing my point. While the 'ends' are the same, the means were not and that's a big deal for me because I am not an 'ends justifies the means' person. Unless I read you wrong, I believe you were attempting to explain that we were saying the same thing with your toy analogy and that it was a language issue because of your seemingly reversed selfish/selfless wordplay (and the true ramifications of the act). But in reality, it still says 'what's in it for me' as if that's a reasonable way to build future relationships and I reject that for the same reason. It might get you somewhere but it's the low road in my opinion.

Well the only time I've seen objectivism reconciled with relativism is when it's used as a device to achieve a particular objectivist goal, but then that's not being inconsistent. For the record I'm not a relativist.

Once again you assume that my views were formed in a vacuum. Isn't it just as possible that I had learned about objectivism and formed my opinions long before you were ever interested in it? I don't know enough about you to say ... that road runs 2 ways.

Take care...

Jim

Holy crap!!! I had to scroll up to see that this is the Don Walker thread!! I apologize for my part in this.

Ummm, I heard that DW bikes were cool .....uhhhh anyone heard of him?? Does that help alittle?

Jim

Sometimes the "what's in it for me" argument is the only way to reach certain types of people. As materialistic and selfish much of American society has become, it's the argument that reaches a large portion of the people.

Slightly back on topic, does the axiom "don't buy anything American-made that was made on Monday or Friday" still hold true? :D.

also, rationality and reason does not unequivocally lead to egoism. take habermas' "theory of communicative action," which states that the most developed and complex form of rationality is that which is fundamental to when we try to understand each other. a different kind of objectivism, if you will.