The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

[3Sum]

A name that is frequently associated with objectivism is Ayn Rand. I'm not interested in her, never read a word of hers, I'm not willing to defend her positions, don't give a shit. If you want to attack my positions, attack MY positions as you read them in this thread or another thread where I posted. Don't pull strawmen out of your anuses and then claim you're attacking me.

I do not claim to represent the views of anybody else but me.

These are the foundations of objectivism as I understand it. They are still in their initial stages of development (wrote all of this today) and there is plenty more to be said about it, many specifics and details to be worked out. As a general determination I'd say my objectivism is based on an empirical, scientific understanding of nature as opposed to being based on things like religious beliefs, human social constructs, etc. If somebody is so hellbent on comparing my version of objectivism with some other, you can refer to my objectivism as naturalistic objectivism, or refer to the other objectivism differently to distinguish it.

Lastly before I begin, please pardon my poor writing style and try to focus more on substance than style. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The foundations for Objectivism

-----------------------------------------------------------


a) The foundational/first objective.


First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable "oughts" that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.

When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective. For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats. In relation to this objective of acquiring a big cat, the statement "you ought to buy Maine Coons then instead of >insert smaller species of cats here<" is objectively true, meaning, in relation to my objective independently of what anybody else's preferences are. This is how objectives can dictate what is a superior and inferior course of action. However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.

But is there some objective that all humans necessarily share?

The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
1) short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.

If you choose any objective, that objective implies your survival because without survival you can not choose objectives, you can not act, and you cannot accomplish anything. You can indeed choose not to survive, but if you were truly consistent with that choice, you wouldn't be reading this, you would have killed yourself and you would be dead. Survival is necessarily the first priority (first objective) of all living organisms. Anything that doesn't consider it a first priority is a deviation from natural selection, and it will by definition be corrected because, all other factors equal, its chances of survival are lower than of an identical organism which DOES consider survival a first objective and a highest priority. All other objectives one might have can thus be judged according to how they contribute to accomplishing this first objective of survival. The only thing that survival can be sacrificed for without being filtered out by natural selection is another type of survival, and even then it only makes sense to sacrifice short-term for long-term (dying to save your kids), while sacrificing your kids to save yourself makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it by definition gets filtered out simply because people who have that kind of mindset tend to have fewer surviving offspring who would pass it on.

So, although an ought cannot be concluded from an is, and although the choosing of survival as the first objective is based on a subjective (subjective in the sense that it is a consequence of the nature of a subject in question) preference of a subject to be alive instead of dead, it IS something that is universal among all of us living beings. Since it is an universal objective (goal) for all of us living beings to survive, to continue living, it can be universally and objectively determined in relation to that objective what is the best course of action one can take to accomplish that first objective of being alive and surviving.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b) Survival and the objective world

The objective world is a filtering mechanism, and to survive means to bypass and overcome this filtering mechanism, to not get filtered out by it. This filtering mechanism we also call natural selection. Everything that is alive, as well as groups consisting of living individuals, are ultimately tested against the objective world for survival (objective world, meaning, not some imaginary world, but the world we all inhabit that exists regardless of humans). How much of the objective world an organism (or a group) can perceive, and how effectively it can act, is thus of crucial importance. And no, society/technology doesn't magically make this mechanism of natural selection go away. It is true that in societies individuals can escape the consequences of their own actions. But that only means the consequences and effects are transferred to society, they don't disappear (that will be explained later in the post). As for technologies, the natural processes of evolution didn't stop when primates learned to use the environment to their advantage, be it chimpanzees using sticks to get bananas or humans using more advanced technologies. Technologies and society are still restricted at the level of biology both, by human nature (limitations of human imagination) as well as evolution (natural selection), and at the level of physics by natural laws. Human societies and technology have to work within those confines, they don't magically transcend them.

All organisms/groups of organisms are first tested for survival by their most immediate environment, and so they receive consequences (which is feedback from the objective world) from that most immediate environment. For most individuals, that is a human society. Then this human society, which is a group of organisms/individuals is tested against the natural environment, which includes other societies, with which one can either wage war or try to ally with and cooperate. The natural environment also includes other animal species which are excluded from human society (wildlife), as well as natural processes detrimental to the well-being of human organisms (the elements).

If you get lost in nature, you are tested against the natural world directly without the society intervening to save you from the consequences of your choices. This is why it is so traumatizing for people to get lost in nature after having been adapted their whole lives to the comfortable, sheltering confines of a society. So for the sake of protecting the physical well being and psychological sanity of its inhabitants, societies often tend to insulate themselves from the natural world and purge all traces of nature from themselves - more specifically, they tend to LIE about nature or DENY it altogether, at least in words, because the very existence of society rests on at least a part of society dealing with nature to some extent. But societies (human constructed environments) are also subject to the natural environment, so if they don't recognize the natural environment and its rules, and if they don't construct the rules of the society to align with natural rules, they will have inferior results objectively. Meaning, they will be filtered out by natural selection, most likely by being conquered by another society.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c) 2 main types of environments to survive in and the 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world

So there are two possible environments an individual can find themselves in, a natural and a human constructed, social one (which exists within the natural one). This isn't an absolute distinction, in reality as with most things there are gradations and not all human constructed environments are equally artificial (detached from nature), some are more less natural, (modern environments with advanced technology), others are more natural (some tribes living in Amazon rainforest f.e.). This results in 2 corresponding main types of relationships of individual and world.

1) Individual organism <> Nature.

A very rare occurrence, an anomaly. Usually only happens when a person gets lost in nature. Here the person immediately faces the consequences of their choices. Here the choices one makes truly matter. Here the word games and lies can't save him. Here his cries for help are lost to the howling of the wolves in the distance and the thick darkness surrounding him. Here, the difference between being strong or weak, smart or stupid, mean a difference between life and death. Kill or be killed. Destroy or be destroyed. Act efficiently to preserve yourself, or die. Nature doesn't care, it is indifferent. Only the strongest and the most fit emerge victorious, and mere survival is a grand victory when it is in a natural environment.

2) Individual organism <> Society <> Nature

Most of us humans don't exist directly in the natural environment, we exist in society, which is an environment constructed and maintained by humans and for humans. In this environment the consequences of our choices are also responded to immediately, but by the society, not nature. The rules of society, unlike the rules of nature, are constructed specifically to meet human needs and facilitate group human survival by cooperation and limited competition. This makes society a safe, forgiving, comfortable environment, compared to nature (and also opens it up for exploitation by particular kind of individuals, but we'll leave that for now). Because society consists of many other individuals, its well-being is determined by the consequences of actions of a huge collective of people. So every choice a person makes has consequences for the person, yes, but also for the society. The consequences of individual choices are in a sense redistributed to the entire society, especially in societies with socialist-leaning policies. The well-being and survival of the society thus depends on how people act collectively. If the society imposes rules that are aligned with nature, the society will be healthy and likely to survive. If it imposes rules contrary to natural ones, it is less likely to survive.

For example. The rule in nature is that only those who are prepared to have offspring get to reproduce their genes. To be prepared means to have enough resources (energy) accumulated to provide for their offspring, and that parents are around to take care of it. Having genetic offspring is a risk because infants are very need and vulnerable and require nutrition, nurture, and protection. When an organism has genetic offspring in nature and successfully raises it, it MEANS something. It means that the organism has managed to accumulate enough excess energies to feed its offspring, and that it is physically and mentally fit to protect it (deal with threats) and to nurture it. It is an indication of fitness, of being able to deal with nature. Thus the ones who reproduce their genes in nature are the most fit members of a species. Basically, making superior choices and acting in superior (effective) ways results in successful reproduction, while making inferior choices and acting in inferior (ineffective) ways results in failure and being selected out of the gene pool. The connection between choice and consequence is direct, clear, and undeniable.

This may not be so in a society. In a society, the rules can be set up so that the good, superior choices (productivity and capability) of certain members of society can benefit people who make bad, inferior choices, thus preventing them from suffering the consequences of those bad choices. For example, in a society that offers free welfare to people just for having children, a woman with a low IQ incapable/unwilling to be productive can simply get herself impregnated (usually by a low IQ man or multiple low IQ men) and receive welfare to survive. This is not aligned with the rules of nature, it is an example of a rule that is self-defeating in the long-term. Instead of rewarding productivity and competence, it rewards incompetence and non-productivity. Such a woman is parasitic because she takes away more than she gives back. And whatever traits made her be unproductive and make bad choices, will also be passed on and present in her children. Because this rule promotes parasitism it is self-defeating in the long-term, since in order to survive it is dependent upon the very kind of people (productive people) that it is exterminating by removing all incentives to be productive and providing incentives to be unproductive as well as promoting the reproduction of unproductive people. Because societies are ultimately judged by the rules of nature, introducing such anit-natural rules makes a society unfit. And once the social constructs that protect parasites are broken down because of their very parasitism, the parasites are forced to face the natural environment directly. Then natural selection would take its course and the parasites would die off.

This is why it is important not to judge things in relation to some social standard - a social standard can be pulled out of an anus, it can be anti-nature, it can be, simply, wrong because under the protection of a society and not having to directly face the natural consequences of their actions, people tend to lie and deny reality (objective world, nature). Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature. Nature is the ultimate judge. Unfit people may escape natural selection for a few generations, especially with all the modern technologies compensating for natural weaknesses, but nature catches up, eventually, and the longer you try to escape from it, the harder it will hit you. The more degeneracy accumulates in a society, the greater the eventual culling. Technologies can only protect and shelter weakness so far.

So, all subjective preferences and subjectively constructed opinions, and choices resulting from them are ultimately judged against the objective world/nature by its filtering mechanism (natural selection). Ultimately, these preferences lead people to make choices corresponding to these preferences, and these choices result in objectively superior or inferior outcomes, as determined by natural selection. If an individual exists within a society, then inidividual is tested against the society, and the society is then tested against nature, so the relationship between individual and nature still exists, though it is mediated by society and so the impact of inferior choices is lessened by society and usually redistributed to the entire society instead of reflected back almost directly to the individual who made the inferior choice.
Example: You may prefer to cut your legs off. That may be your "subjective preference", based on your "subjective opinion" and "subjective understanding" of the world, and many other subjective things, or whatever. But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war? What happens is that natural selection takes its course, and the tribe who cut their legs off suffer the consequences of their inferior choices, and they get killed, their lands conquered, their resources plundered. This is the case of whole societies being judged against nature (objective world), where some are objectively determined to be superior, and others inferior.
And do I even need to mention what happens if you get lost in nature alone, and cut your legs off? You would likely die within hours, if not from bleeding then from infections, if not from infections then from predators, and if not from predators then from starvation/dehydration as it would be near impossible for you to acquire the necessary nutrients to survive.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: We can objectively measure and evaluate the validity of certain subjective preferences, opinions, and choices based on their natural consequences of how well they can survive natural selection. Natural selection is the ultimate filtering mechanism of the objective world, and social selection is only valid to the extent it is based on natural selection. Certain things can objectively be proven to contribute to the survival of an individual and/or a group, and certain other things can be proven to be detrimental to it. Subjectivity tests its fitness against the objective world, and based on its performance and success in reproducing itself (dealing with the objective world) its fitness can be objectively measured and evaluated. In a social context, consequences can be avoided or postponed by transferring them to others, but if a society allows that eventually natural selection catches up and hits the society hard. There is no escaping the objective world. No escaping natural selection.

[OuterLimits]

Natural selection has made us as we are - often sloppy and sentimental.

Natural selection leads to extinction of species. That is a 100% natural outcome.

Why would we focus on survival of humanity when we could focus on the survival of biodiversity, or just celebrate the diversity of living and nonliving matter in the universe?

Deep ecology is an ecological and environmental philosophy promoting the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the non-human world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_ethics

[TSBU]

A name that is frequently associated with objectivism is Ayn Rand. I'm not interested in her, never read a word of hers, I'm not willing to defend her positions, don't give a shit. If you want to attack my positions, attack MY positions as you read them in this thread or another thread where I posted. Don't pull strawmen out of your anuses and then claim you're attacking me.

I do not claim to represent the views of anybody else but me.

These are the foundations of objectivism as I understand it. They are still in their initial stages of development (wrote all of this today) and there is plenty more to be said about it, many specifics and details to be worked out. As a general determination I'd say my objectivism is based on an empirical, scientific understanding of nature as opposed to being based on things like religious beliefs, human social constructs, etc. If somebody is so hellbent on comparing my version of objectivism with some other, you can refer to my objectivism as naturalistic objectivism, or refer to the other objectivism differently to distinguish it.

You should not use the same word for two things, I mean, everybody will think in Ayn Rand and all that stuff, when you say Objectivism. But ok...

First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable "oughts" that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.

First paragraph and you are already being vague. You are an atheist, ok, easy to understand, but now... what do you understand by ought? Are you saying that there are not oughts? What do you mean by objectively verificable? You mean that we all have the tools (or in this case, don't have) to understand some things? But... lets say that all you are saying is "I won't have oughts I don't understand". Ok, easy to understand and very common thought.

When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective. For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats.

Of course, there can be a bigger cat of a usually small subespecie, than a Maine cat. But ok, Objectively is, that the plan in your head has no contradictions. Ok, again, that's a common thought (the problem isn't in people heads usually, the problem is that the things in their head doesn't fit with real world and how to get what they "really" want, that is, what I said about the species, and that is... having a bigger cat is usually a stupid thought and won't make you more happy than a small cat).

However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.

Fair enough, but the plans in our heads are not a direct result of what we want as I said, and it's more than clear that many people want things that will make them suffer, like drugs. But I agree, we are different.

But is there some objective that all humans necessarily share?

The answer is that there is one objective (goal) that all humans, well, at least, all LIVING humans and all humans who lived in the past and passed on their genes/memes share. That objective is the condition for any other objective, and without which no other objective can be thought of and chosen by any organism. It is the Foundational Objective, or the First Objective. That first objective is, quite simply, SURVIVAL. There are 2 types of survival:
1) short-term survival - what we usually mean by survival, survival of your particular organism,
2) long term survival - the survival of your genetic/memetic offspring.
Short-term survival is pointless without long-term survival, and long-term survival is impossible without first surviving in the short-term.

I don't agree. And that's all, as you said, we are not equal.
1. I can give my life for some things, because of what I am, and like me, many other people. Also, I understand suicide, it isn't necesarily a mistake. And I can fight (put my own life at risk) just to help some people die, with many people forcing them to live.
2. Not everybody wants to have kids, many people is happy without them, and I don't see it like a mistake, they are just that way. They don't live to perserve human specie either, and I don't see it like a mistake.

Why do you need to see that two points as something equal to everybody?

If you choose any objective, that objective implies your survival because without survival you can not choose objectives, you can not act, and you cannot accomplish anything.

Absurd. People make testament, they pay for life insurance, they kill themselves to get some goal, many of them, for example, you may kill yourself to save your children, or your loved one. Or even your dog, or you may kill yourself to stop suffering. Etc.

You can indeed choose not to survive, but if you were truly consistent with that choice, you wouldn't be reading this, you would have killed yourself and you would be dead.

Evidently, Einstein, we are still alive, that doesn't mean that we must have the same thoughts all the time.

Survival is necessarily the first priority (first objective) of all living organisms.

Now you are getting more and more absurd. Humans have goals, that's a human word, we see it that way because we are complex to ourself. Amoebas are ruled by... "go to warm" "eat" "divide when you eat enough". And there are loooooots of living organisms that destroy themselves, for example, lot of male insects die when they have sex, bees kill themselves when they attack... and if you are looking for something that is against the "second rule" too, of course, that's difficult to see (because, evidently, those who don't survive, are not here), but biology has cases of species that make things that in the end destroyed themselves, like migrations that ended nowhere.

Anything that doesn't consider it a first priority is a deviation from natural selection, and it will by definition be corrected because, all other factors equal, its chances of survival are lower than of an identical organism which DOES consider survival a first objective and a highest priority.

As I said, only complex animals have what we call prioritys, but, having prioritys is not enough to be the best for survival. If you are in the dessert, and there is only water for two people, the one who wants more the water is not becesarily the one who gain the battle. The hospital is full of people who want to live more than people out of the hospital, etc. And look, there are no "deviations" of natural selection, natural selection is mutation, and some of them, survive. The line is drawn after that, those who survive are there. Now, if you go to species, often, species with suicides win. Look at ants.

All other objectives one might have can thus be judged according to how they contribute to accomplishing this first objective of survival. The only thing that survival can be sacrificed for without being filtered out by natural selection is another type of survival, and even then it only makes sense to sacrifice short-term for long-term (dying to save your kids), while sacrificing your kids to save yourself makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it by definition gets filtered out simply because people who have that kind of mindset tend to have fewer surviving offspring who would pass it on.

You are not the best ape, nazis weren't the best apes either, just make your own life, it's highly ridiculous to say what you are saying, just supoese that you find a suicide, he is about to jump, and you say all this. He will surely jump to stop hearing so stupid noises. If you want to live your life that way, go ahead! you are saying the same all the time. I can give my life for loved people, yes, children are the most common option, but that's because love, people usually love their kids, and I can love many things.

IS something that is universal among all of us living beings.

At first you said that those who are not that way, are "deviations of natural selection", now you are saying that they don't exist (or they are not living creatures).

Since it is an universal objective (goal) for all of us living beings to survive, to continue living, it can be universally and objectively determined in relation to that objective what is the best course of action one can take to accomplish that first objective of being alive and surviving.

Not at all! We don't need the same to survive, and that's more than obvious. Are you being a parody or something?

And no, society/technology doesn't magically make this mechanism of natural selection go away.

We all will die. But... techonolgy and other people will make easy to survive more time if you want.

The rules of society, unlike the rules of nature, are constructed specifically to meet human needs and facilitate group human survival by cooperation and limited competition.

Society has no rules, society doesn't exist. And many people die in what you call society, being good agains what you call nature, because there are people who kill them to get what they want. For some people, living with other humans is worse than living alone.

For example. The rule in nature is that only those who are prepared to have offspring get to reproduce their genes.

This is not a rule, this is a tautology.

This may not be so in a society. In a society, the rules can be set up so that the good, superior choices (productivity and capability) of certain members of society can benefit people who make bad, inferior choices, thus preventing them from suffering the consequences of those bad choices. For example, in a society that offers free welfare to people just for having children, a woman with a low IQ incapable/unwilling to be productive can simply get herself impregnated (usually by a low IQ man or multiple low IQ men) and receive welfare to survive.

Society doesn't exist. There are people who want that woman alive, and they may want to use your efforts too,and you may not agree, that's true. People doesn't give to "society", they give to other people, not all of them, and you probably won't like things that other people like, you probably won't need things that other people need, and the same in the other way.

This is why it is important not to judge things in relation to some social standard - a social standard can be pulled out of an anus, it can be anti-nature,

Anti YOUR nature.

it can be, simply, wrong because under the protection of a society and not having to directly face the natural consequences of their actions, people tend to lie and deny reality (objective world, nature)

Do you really think so? Oh, I'm glad to hear it in a forum, you are so smart...
People can lie, enslave, steal.... without being "denying reality". Ey, and you are not the richest man in Earth, you are not the one with more kids, that's probably a motherfucker in an arabic Country, with lots of women bought. Monarchys are endogamic, but they know how to keep power, people are stupid enough to don't see it in many places etc... but, looking at "natural selection", you can be sure that there are retarded ill people who think with their dicks, having more kids than people with a healthy body and intelligent minds. People get used to fight for "power", and sometimes, the "best" people, are those who live worse, because everybody look at them like a threat. But that's not thinking in survival, they may be a threat with the one you want to have kids with they may be a threat with the job you want... I'm honest, even knowing that it's worse for survival. Ey, but I'm happy with it XD. If you want to have more genetic pool, then is easy, pay it. Gain money, and pay for childs, it's easy. (well, for some people...), I just don't want that, but if you want to spread your gens... just fuck all you can, and your gens will have more chances of survival.

(And in my eyes, you are completely empty of goals and thoughts, of feelings, and that things, if you don't even think in being happy over having kids like a machine).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzbWXgM0ygU

Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature

.
That's impossible.

Nature is the ultimate judge. Unfit people may escape natural selection for a few generations, especially with all the modern technologies compensating for natural weaknesses, but nature catches up, eventually, and the longer you try to escape from it, the harder it will hit you. The more degeneracy accumulates in a society, the greater the eventual culling. Technologies can only protect and shelter weakness so far.

And who is the one who decide what is weak and what is not? Let me guess... you! And you are retarded enough to say... what? that only "perfect" people (like you) may be allowed to have kids? Are you retarded enough to think that being phisically strong is important now? If something can be repared with technology, there is no need to see more. We have mechanic hearts, we can change our gens with techonology. There is no human, stronger than a machine. No human can see better than a human with human inventions.
"You need glasses and you are fat, so excuse me, I don't want to have kids with you". Don't make me laugh.
Soon enough, we'll have machines in our brain, but we think with machines now, we use calculators, we make programs... is that out of "nature"? And what do you suggest? "Don't have kids if you are ill?". Many people don't have them, but because of their choices, other people have them. If people prefer other people over you, they are not necesarily wrong, they just prefer other people.

So, all subjective preferences and subjectively constructed opinions, and choices resulting from them are ultimately judged against the objective world/nature by its filtering mechanism (natural selection). Ultimately, these preferences lead people to make choices corresponding to these preferences, and these choices result in objectively superior or inferior outcomes, as determined by natural selection. If an individual exists within a society, then inidividual is tested against the society, and the society is then tested against nature, so the relationship between individual and nature still exists, though it is mediated by society and so the impact of inferior choices is lessened by society and usually redistributed to the entire society instead of reflected back almost directly to the individual who made the inferior choice.

Tesla died with no children, he surely was "wrong" in your "thoughts"...

Example: You may prefer to cut your legs off. That may be your "subjective preference", based on your "subjective opinion" and "subjective understanding" of the world, and many other subjective things, or whatever. But now imagine there are 2 tribes of 100 people, equal in everything else but one thing - One tribe is populated exclusively by people cutting their own legs off, while the other tribe has people with normal legs. On the far-fetched assumption that the self-handicapping leg cutting tribe even manages to survive on their own, what do you think would happen if the 2 tribes went to war?

The tribe with guns, or maybe bows and arrows qith poisson.
A tribe, with a man in a welchair because of their gens, who is the only one with head enough to make bow and arrows, is the wining tribe. If he doesn't have kids, the tribe lost his bows and arrows. He can be intelligent enough to made some things and crazy or strange enough to kill himself at the same time.
You seem to be proud of thinking in survive as your first goal. You seem to think that those who don't think that way are wrong... well... as long as you don't get in my way, you'll have more survival chances...will a group with people who give their lives or put them in risk be stronger in a fight against a group in wich every person only want to survive? retoric question, of course it is. More if no member in this group want to survive the fight, only survive to kill as many of the other tribu people they can, giving their lifes to it.
And we are not tribes. We live for more than war, hunting, etc, there are people good for some things and bad for others. Just why are you so fucking anoying with this thought? Just let people be if they don't disturb you...

Conclusion: (...)

Conclusion translation: Fuck me ladies, I'm the best ape.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm fine with sticking with that as your view.

However, when you talk about using "objective" in a "goal" sense, and you say "this is what we mean," what "we" are you talking about?

The philosophical sense of "objective" isn't the "goal" sense. The philosophical sense is contrasted with "subjective." There's no "subjective" counterpart to "objective" in the "goal" sense.

[3Sum]

TSBU

Of course, there can be a bigger cat of a usually small subespecie, than a Maine cat. But ok, Objectively is, that the plan in your head has no contradictions. Ok, again, that's a common thought (the problem isn't in people heads usually, the problem is that the things in their head doesn't fit with real world and how to get what they "really" want, that is, what I said about the species, and that is... having a bigger cat is usually a stupid thought and won't make you more happy than a small cat).

Perhaps unwittingly, by disproving one of my smaller, less relevant points, you admit to one of my larger, more relevant points. Yes, I could be wrong about that - it is possible that some larger members of another, on average smaller species, are bigger than some smaller members of the Main Coon species. And in this case I would be objectively wrong to choose the Maine Coon, under the condition that my goal (objective) is to get a big cat. Meaning that once you set your goal you in a sense externalize it and make it independent of your subjectivity, though it was produced by it. You can choose to reject the goal too, but as long as you commit to a goal, you make it so that you can be proven both, objectively right, and objectively wrong.

I don't agree. And that's all, as you said, we are not equal.
1. I can give my life for some things, because of what I am, and like me, many other people. Also, I understand suicide, it isn't necesarily a mistake. And I can fight (put my own life at risk) just to help some people die, with many people forcing them to live.
2. Not everybody wants to have kids, many people is happy without them, and I don't see it like a mistake, they are just that way. They don't live to perserve human specie either, and I don't see it like a mistake.

This is not about what I personally deem to be a mistake or not. It is not about me. I am weighing the costs and benefits of having kids, myself. However, it is just a fact that natural selection doesn't give a shit about what makes us "happy" or not. If we choose not to have children, we get selected out of the gene pool, and our genes die. Simple as that. Whatever traits people have that make them choose not to have children, also get selected out, whether it is something biological like infertility, or something more psychological, like hedonistic inclinations and/or an unwillingness to accept the responsibility and the burden of having a child. Not choosing survival as a primary goal is, in this sense, a deviation which natural selection corrects by definition.

Absurd. People make testament, they pay for life insurance, they kill themselves to get some goal, many of them, for example, you may kill yourself to save your children, or your loved one. Or even your dog, or you may kill yourself to stop suffering

I already admitted some of those possibilities (killing yourself for the sake of your genetic offspring or memetic "offspring", which is to say, ideals)

Basically my point is that with your actions you participate in the process of natural selection either way. And you can choose what you want to support and help survive, and what you want to support and help destroy. This also includes the possibility of destroying yourself, yes.

Now you are getting more and more absurd. Humans have goals, that's a human word, we see it that way because we are complex to ourself. Amoebas are ruled by... "go to warm" "eat" "divide when you eat enough". And there are loooooots of living organisms that destroy themselves, for example, lot of male insects die when they have sex, bees kill themselves when they attack... and if you are looking for something that is against the "second rule" too, of course, that's difficult to see (because, evidently, those who don't survive, are not here), but biology has cases of species that make things that in the end destroyed themselves, like migrations that ended nowhere.

Migrations that ended nowhere support my point. The organisms who migrate to nowhere and destroy themselves in the process suffer the consequences of their decisions. That is the entire point of natural selection. Not everybody wins. Some must lose. It is about SELECTION, after all, not all inclusiveness.

Humans might be complex if you willingly refuse to see the simplicity hiding behind the surface. When you think about it, doesn't every action we take can be reduced to some fundamental principle, such as survival? Why do you go to work? Because otherwise you wouldn't get the resources necessary to survive. Why do you care about relationships and sex? Because otherwise you wouldn't pass on your genes and survive in the long-term. Why do you eat? To survive. Why do you shit? To survive. Of course, there are some inbetween links and details of the causal chain which can be elaborated upon too, but that's ultimately it. If you don't eat, you die. If you don't shit, you die (and a horrible death, if I might add, I hear the intestines just burst open and feces spill all over your insides, causing you to die in agonizing pain from infections).

As I said, only complex animals have what we call prioritys, but, having prioritys is not enough to be the best for survival. If you are in the dessert, and there is only water for two people, the one who wants more the water is not becesarily the one who gain the battle. The hospital is full of people who want to live more than people out of the hospital, etc. And look, there are no "deviations" of natural selection, natural selection is mutation, and some of them, survive. The line is drawn after that, those who survive are there. Now, if you go to species, often, species with suicides win. Look at ants.

Yes, it is not only enough to know what to do, but in order to act effectively one must also possess the physical capacity to do it, or the mental capacity to persuade somebody else into doing it for them.

At first you said that those who are not that way, are "deviations of natural selection", now you are saying that they don't exist (or they are not living creatures).

Anybody who prioritizes survival less than something else will by definition be less likely to survive, which is to say, more likely to be filtered out by natural selection, than somebody who prioritized survival above all else (all other factors equal).

Not at all! We don't need the same to survive, and that's more than obvious. Are you being a parody or something?

What do you mean by that? Obviously not all of us need EXACTLY the same things to survive. I may be able to survive by satisfying my hunger with food X, somebody else might be allergic to it. But ultimately, all of us need some kind of nutrition to survive.

Society has no rules, society doesn't exist. And many people die in what you call society, being good agains what you call nature, because there are people who kill them to get what they want. For some people, living with other humans is worse than living alone.

Society has no rules and doesn't exist? What? I don't follow you.
Yes, people die in society, but much more people would die in nature.

There are people who want that woman alive, and they may want to use your efforts too,and you may not agree, that's true. People doesn't give to "society", they give to other people, not all of them, and you probably won't like things that other people like, you probably won't need things that other people need, and the same in the other way.

Maybe, but that doesn't disprove anything I said. Even as a parasite it would be wise to not let others be parasites too, because if all become parasites, there would be nobody to parasite on, and then all parasites die. Parasites are thus forced to be hypocrites in order to exist.

Anti YOUR nature.

No, when I said nature I wasn't referring to my "nature", but to the world and the process of natural selection.

Ey, and you are not the richest man in Earth, you are not the one with more kids, that's probably a motherfucker in an arabic Country

I'm not saying that being successful according to social selection necessarily also reflects natural fitness, but yes, there ARE people who are naturally more fit than me in some ways, and there are others who are naturally more fit than me in all ways (or at least, all ways I think of and deem relevant). Again, this is not about me. Nothing I say here flatters me. It's just how things are, and I do not have the ability to lie to myself about it, like some others do, for the good or bad.

you can be sure that there are retarded ill people who think with their dicks, having more kids than people with a healthy body and intelligent minds.

If you have things like welfare in place then yes indeed. But that is a self-correcting problem. More precisely, natural selection will correct it, because stupid people if they begin to outnumber smart people won't have the ability to maintain the complex infrastructure required to preserve their stupidity.

Just like Africans can't reproduce without the technological input and the resources gifted to them by others. Without foreign help, they may keep producing lots of children, but most of those children would die because Africans are too stupid to find a way to preserve themselves without external help. Stupid people of any race or nationality are basically the same. You can only select for stupidity in the short-term, but in the long-term, stupidity is its own worst punishment, and natural selection takes care of it.

That's impossible.

How so? Why is it impossible for societies and their rules to be judged by the rules of nature? Are they for some reason exempt from natural selection? Ah, but I remember now. Societies don't exist at all, so how would they be judged by anything? I got ya

And who is the one who decide what is weak and what is not?

I answered that already. Nature. Natural selection.

And you are retarded enough to say... what? that only "perfect" people (like you) may be allowed to have kids? Are you retarded enough to think that being phisically strong is important now?

Never claimed to be perfect. As I said, this is not about flattering me. I recognize that there are some people who are objectively speaking, superior to me.

Soon enough, we'll have machines in our brain, but we think with machines now, we use calculators, we make programs... is that out of "nature"

Funny that you ask that. Yes, all machines humans make, as well as everything else that humans make, is a product of human imagination, which is limited and determined by, human nature. We cannot make a machine that is beyond our imagination. All machines are extensions of our nature, and meant to serve as amplifiers of certain aspects of it. For example, microscopes serve to amplify our sense of seeing. There are also little devices that can be put in your ears which amplify our sense of hearing. Even a simple creature such as a monkey understands the basic idea, when he uses a stick to reach a banana he cannot otherwise reach. The stick is thus used as an extension of his hand, an amplification of its length. And need I remind you why monkey reaches for banana? To eat, and he eats to survive

Tesla died with no children, he surely was "wrong" in your "thoughts"...

Yes, I would say that was one of his inferior choices.

The tribe with guns, or maybe bows and arrows qith poisson.
.....

Remember, all else equal, all other factors equal. If we are trying to determine if effect X (victory) is more likely to be caused by a (having legs) or b (not having legs), then all other factors, such as c (bows and arrows), d (guns) etc. must be equal. when comparing them. otherwise, it might not be cause a or b which are more likely to cause effect X, but it might be some other cause you decided to mix in.

I googled it right now, seems like the principle is called "Ceteris paribus" in science.

will a group with people who give their lives or put them in risk be stronger in a fight against a group in wich every person only want to survive?

That is true. I think I remember reading about a similar principle in Dawkins's book the God Delusion. He was talking about how religion could actually have been beneficial in a survival sense, because convincing people that there is an afterlife you will go to if you fight for your tribe would give your group an edge in battle obviously as they would fight more fiercely and with less regard for their own well being. But he also said that such a strategy is subject to internal subversion. Namely, those in such a religious, warrior society who are LESS convinced of it, or NOT convinced of it at all, would be more likely to survive the battle, and thus more likely to procreate their genes, while the fanatical ones who are most convinced of it, would be most likely to die in battle.

We live for more than war, hunting, etc, there are people good for some things and bad for others. Just why are you so fucking anoying with this thought? Just let people be if they don't disturb you...

Did I bother you? Did I force you to read any of this?

Conclusion translation: Fuck me ladies, I'm the best ape.

Haha, no, I can admit there are those who are objectively better than me. However, I would never admit that in real life to a "lady" I am interested in romantically. Self-confidence, even if not based on anything and unjustified, makes their pussies wet. Honestly and humbly speaking truth, admitting some other male is your superior, makes it drier than the desert sand. Sad but true, I guess?

[3Sum]

I'm fine with sticking with that as your view.

However, when you talk about using "objective" in a "goal" sense, and you say "this is what we mean," what "we" are you talking about?

The philosophical sense of "objective" isn't the "goal" sense. The philosophical sense is contrasted with "subjective." There's no "subjective" counterpart to "objective" in the "goal" sense.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was using that, perhaps awkwardly and sloppily, to demonstrate what I perceive to be a relationship between the two meanings of "objective".

That once you set up an objective (meaning, goal), it is possible to objectively (philosophical sense) determine what are the superior and inferior means of accomplishing that goal.

But there is no objective (philosophical sense) basis for choosing an objective (goal).

You could also say that survival is about subjects trying to maintain their own subjectivity (agency, being alive) and not be reduced to objects (die and become carcasses), and the superior and inferior means of accomplishing that objective can be determined objectively.

Although I do not deny the existence of subjectivity, it is ultimately judged against objectivity, and thus the validity and accuracy of subjective opinions, preferences, judgments, can be objectively determined. So the typical excuse of a subjectivist, that there is no standard of measurement outside of himself, and that "something may be true to you but it is not true to me", and similar nonsense, is bullshit. Somebody may prefer to eat shit, for example, and it is objectively true that it is his subjective preference, but it is also objectively true that his objective preference is inferior and self-defeating, because eating shit is unhealthy and leads to death by fucking up your digestive system, but in order to eat shit, you must be alive.

[TSBU]

Last post here.

TSBU

Of course, there can be a bigger cat of a usually small subespecie, than a Maine cat. But ok, Objectively is, that the plan in your head has no contradictions. Ok, again, that's a common thought (the problem isn't in people heads usually, the problem is that the things in their head doesn't fit with real world and how to get what they "really" want, that is, what I said about the species, and that is... having a bigger cat is usually a stupid thought and won't make you more happy than a small cat).

Perhaps unwittingly, by disproving one of my smaller, less relevant points, you admit to one of my larger, more relevant points. Yes, I could be wrong about that - it is possible that some larger members of another, on average smaller species, are bigger than some smaller members of the Main Coon species. And in this case I would be objectively wrong to choose the Maine Coon, under the condition that my goal (objective) is to get a big cat. Meaning that once you set your goal you in a sense externalize it and make it independent of your subjectivity, though it was produced by it. You can choose to reject the goal too, but as long as you commit to a goal, you make it so that you can be proven both, objectively right, and objectively wrong.

No, it was an example, examples are used to get to a low level of abstraction an make complex things more easy. Talking about your cats example is talking about every human plan. As I said before,
the plan in your head has no contradictions. Ok, again, that's a common thought (the problem isn't in people heads usually, the problem is that the things in their head doesn't fit with real world and how to get what they "really" want
In abstract terms. You can have no contradictions, and be wrong. Why? because your abstraction may not fit reality (specie is not the cat itself, and the cat in your head is not the real cat).
And...
"that is... having a bigger cat is usually a stupid thought and won't make you more happy than a small cat" wich means, again, that even with those concepts fiting enough reality to fit your goal, your goal may not be what you "really" want, (that is, you make be sure that a big cat is the best... but be wrong, and be happy with small cats.)

I don't agree. And that's all, as you said, we are not equal.
1. I can give my life for some things, because of what I am, and like me, many other people. Also, I understand suicide, it isn't necesarily a mistake. And I can fight (put my own life at risk) just to help some people die, with many people forcing them to live.
2. Not everybody wants to have kids, many people is happy without them, and I don't see it like a mistake, they are just that way. They don't live to perserve human specie either, and I don't see it like a mistake.

This is not about what I personally deem to be a mistake or not. It is not about me. I am weighing the costs and benefits of having kids, myself. However, it is just a fact that natural selection doesn't give a shit about what makes us "happy" or not. If we choose not to have children, we get selected out of the gene pool, and our genes die. Simple as that. Whatever traits people have that make them choose not to have children, also get selected out, whether it is something biological like infertility, or something more psychological, like hedonistic inclinations and/or an unwillingness to accept the responsibility and the burden of having a child. Not choosing survival as a primary goal is, in this sense, a deviation which natural selection corrects by definition.

Again, no. Of course, natural selection doesn't give a shit about what makes you happy... but that's just because natural selection don't give a shit about anything at all. Having kids or not having kids is equaly responsible and hedonistic. The decision of having kids itself doesnt make you "more responsible" than the decision of not having kids, one person is responsible if that person thinks before acting, in that sense, many times, people with no kids are more responsible than people with kids. And not, natural selection doesn't "correct" anything, natural selection means survavil, nothing more than that, and, again, it's a tautology that those who survive, survive. But you seem to know nothing about gens.... and I'm not going to give you a class. It doesn't matter if you have or not kids. And look, having kids is not survival. You seem to be talking about instinct, but the instinct to have children is not the insctint to survive at all. And we, humans, are not part of god plan, or your god plan, that is, evolution. We are here by an accident, do as you wish with your life, and stop looking at a meaning that isn't there. And... I would be happy if you not decide to have kids based in something so stupid as "make my gens survive".

Migrations that ended nowhere support my point. The organisms who migrate to nowhere and destroy themselves in the process suffer the consequences of their decisions. That is the entire point of natural selection. Not everybody wins. Some must lose. It is about SELECTION, after all, not all inclusiveness.

Fuck... they don't decide... and this world is not about "win" and "lose", and why the hell must some "lose"?... pfff you have your head full of shit.

Humans might be complex if you willingly refuse to see the simplicity hiding behind the surface. When you think about it, doesn't every action we take can be reduced to some fundamental principle, such as survival? Why do you go to work? Because otherwise you wouldn't get the resources necessary to survive. Why do you care about relationships and sex? Because otherwise you wouldn't pass on your genes and survive in the long-term. Why do you eat? To survive. Why do you shit? To survive. Of course, there are some inbetween links and details of the causal chain which can be elaborated upon too, but that's ultimately it. If you don't eat, you die. If you don't shit, you die (and a horrible death, if I might add, I hear the intestines just burst open and feces spill all over your insides, causing you to die in agonizing pain from infections).

Obvoiusly not. I don't listen to music for survival. Why do I go to work? In my case, because I enjoy my job, I don't do it because of money. I know better ways to earn money. Why do I care about love and that things? because I can enjoy it, I don't look for a meaning in that, I look love, I listen to music, I read novels, I play videogames or see movies... because I like it. I live, because I like it. There is no "because", yeah, of course, you can see how accidental we are in how our insctincts are sometimes absurd because in ancient times that was what made us survive, for example, many people is afraid to have sex in public or shit in public, probably because when we were stupid enough to live in forests and caves, we felt that we were vulnerable. But what we are is luck, mutations wich survive, we don't serve the purpose of survival, we are our own purpose, and so, suicide is highly understable, and it's even painful to see a person who is suffering and "wants to die" fighting against his own insctints... as it is painful to see frustrated males in seek for casual sex and having an stupid behavour, seeing females spending money on makeups... but we are not equal, we don't like the same things, we are the ones who survived, with the insctints and bodies (and protominds) we have, that's all. I mean, buying big cars is a usuall insctint, and it serve no purpose, makeup isn't "good" for evolution, lies aren't good... but nearly everybody lie. Etc.

Yes, it is not only enough to know what to do, but in order to act effectively one must also possess the physical capacity to do it, or the mental capacity to persuade somebody else into doing it for them.

You are wrong, it's enough to know what do, if it isn't enough, then you don''t know what to do, and, evidently, what to do, depends in what can you do.

Anybody who prioritizes survival less than something else will by definition be less likely to survive, which is to say, more likely to be filtered out by natural selection, than somebody who prioritized survival above all else (all other factors equal).

Wrong. Want something doesn't make you better in that something. Do you realize that you can say "natural selection" and "survive" with the same meaning? you may say death or something like that. But, as I said, we will all die. Including genes. If you knew more about genetics....

Not at all! We don't need the same to survive, and that's more than obvious. Are you being a parody or something?

What do you mean by that? Obviously not all of us need EXACTLY the same things to survive. I may be able to survive by satisfying my hunger with food X, somebody else might be allergic to it. But ultimately, all of us need some kind of nutrition to survive.

In human terms, today, yes, in the future, that nutrition may be light, or who knows. But what is the use of saying that we need nutrition to survive? do you think that deserve the name of a philosophy?

Society has no rules and doesn't exist? What? I don't follow you.
Yes, people die in society, but much more people would die in nature.

We are in nature, we help... and enslave each other. There are no rules of "society", there is no "society", there are some guys that say some orders to other guys, there is violence, everywere. There is not a single rule followed by everyone, and those who put the "rules" (more... warnings, if you do this, I'll punish you) are, of course above them.

Maybe, but that doesn't disprove anything I said. Even as a parasite it would be wise to not let others be parasites too, because if all become parasites, there would be nobody to parasite on, and then all parasites die. Parasites are thus forced to be hypocrites in order to exist.

No, it's better to have lots of parasytes, because some people may want to destroy parasytes, but they can't do that if they are enough. Anyway, nearly nobody thinks in that kind of terms, people just steal and lie, they don't think in survival or anything like that, they just want what they get by doing it. And, of course, most of people doesn't see themselves worse than the rest of the people. And they can be parasytes sometimes, and work sometimes. (As I said, society doesn't exist, you can be parasyte for some people, and have value for other people), also, people themselves are resources, and some predators have the feeling that they are "controlling population", that is, for example lottery and adds, are going to influence just stupid people, only stupid people may try drugs, so they feel like they are doing something good for "society" when they steal or whatever, they make "society" stronger. It's all bullshit, why can't you think in what do you want and do it? why do you need to think in society? What are you trying to evade?

Anti YOUR nature.

No, when I said nature I wasn't referring to my "nature", but to the world and the process of natural selection.

And when I said "your" nature, I said that they are wrong seeing your nature like the one which is "natural". What survives, survives, that's natural.

Ey, and you are not the richest man in Earth, you are not the one with more kids, that's probably a motherfucker in an arabic Country

I'm not saying that being successful according to social selection necessarily also reflects natural fitness, but yes, there ARE people who are naturally more fit than me in some ways, and there are others who are naturally more fit than me in all ways (or at least, all ways I think of and deem relevant). Again, this is not about me. Nothing I say here flatters me. It's just how things are, and I do not have the ability to lie to myself about it, like some others do, for the good or bad.

Hahahahaha, you are lying to yourself, but... you beliieve your lies. Do you think that people know when are they lying to themselves? Oh, there is a song in Spanish... "We all know perfection doesn't eist, that's something for jokes or the bible, but some things are more close to the perfection concept... and what is more close? Me, not you, not you, not you, me, me, me"XD.

If you have things like welfare in place then yes indeed. But that is a self-correcting problem. More precisely, natural selection will correct it, because stupid people if they begin to outnumber smart people won't have the ability to maintain the complex infrastructure required to preserve their stupidity.

This world is always a mess. And yes, as a specie, humanity may disappear because lots of stupid things, but stupid people are always going to be more than the most intelligent people, by definition, the most something, are a low percentage, and the average, are a big percentage.

Just like Africans can't reproduce without the technological input and the resources gifted to them by others.

HAHAHHAHAHA, Africa is big XD.

Without foreign help, they may keep producing lots of children, but most of those children would die because Africans are too stupid to find a way to preserve themselves without external help. Stupid people of any race or nationality are basically the same. You can only select for stupidity in the short-term, but in the long-term, stupidity is its own worst punishment, and natural selection takes care of it.

They are in average, ignorants, not stupid. Someoen has learnt you to write, that's all. What of the techology that you are using is made by you? Do you know how does your TV work? do you know how does your computer work, etc?

Ultimately all social rules and standards, and the kind of people who advocate for them and that they produce, are judged against the standards of nature
.

That's impossible.

How so? Why is it impossible for societies and their rules to be judged by the rules of nature? Are they for some reason exempt from natural selection? Ah, but I remember now. Societies don't exist at all, so how would they be judged by anything? I got ya

No, what is impossible is to judge against standards of nature, because nature has no standards. Some people survive, that's all.

And who is the one who decide what is weak and what is not?

I answered that already. Nature. Natural selection.

Survival. Yeah... but now you are saying that you can be objective when you talk about who is the best for survival, more than nature, and you can't. You are part of nature, and the only "rule" in a survival game, is: Those who survive, win. If they are alive, they are still in the "win" group, it doesn't matter how do they live,all the Universe is a tool. And thats true for survival and for everything. It doesn't matter if a person is stupid or intelligent, strong or weak, beautifull or ugly, gay or hetero, he is not "against nature". If you don't want to give money to help ill people or at least people you dont know, I understand it... but it's only other thing against your freedom, and you don't look like a person who like freedom, you'll judge who is the best for "survival" out of nature. If you let nature be the judge, well, let it be. If you kill, or help, or have kids, with a person, it shouldn't be because of you feeling the judge or police of nature, it should be because it makes you happy.

Never claimed to be perfect. As I said, this is not about flattering me. I recognize that there are some people who are objectively speaking, superior to me.

Superior in what? Do you think that people should be the only people having kids? because variety is good for survival.

Funny that you ask that. Yes, all machines humans make, as well as everything else that humans make, is a product of human imagination, which is limited and determined by, human nature. We cannot make a machine that is beyond our imagination. All machines are extensions of our nature, and meant to serve as amplifiers of certain aspects of it. For example, microscopes serve to amplify our sense of seeing. There are also little devices that can be put in your ears which amplify our sense of hearing. Even a simple creature such as a monkey understands the basic idea, when he uses a stick to reach a banana he cannot otherwise reach. The stick is thus used as an extension of his hand, an amplification of its length. And need I remind you why monkey reaches for banana? To eat, and he eats to survive

I agree... but the moneky it the banana because he is hungry, that's all. Monekeys with hungry insctint survived. That's all. Oh, and also, monkeys who kill other monkeys of their group, becoming a more weak group. Why? because they killed the monkeys with other insctintds, they didn't fight back. That's true in some species, and we as a specie can easily eat (literal and metaphoric) other humans being. Some of us at least. Also, we don't have a clear plan in our head when we born, just some little directives... we are what we are and we enjoy what er enjoy, that's all.

Tesla died with no children, he surely was "wrong" in your "thoughts"...

Yes, I would say that was one of his inferior choices.

And I wo... I say that you are saying a stupid thing when you say that. He wouldn't be happy having kids with the people he met, and so, he din't had kids, as easy as that, he wasn't wrong. You were the first one saying that we don't have "oughts".

The tribe with guns, or maybe bows and arrows qith poisson.
.....

Remember, all else equal, all other factors equal. If we are trying to determine if effect X (victory) is more likely to be caused by a (having legs) or b (not having legs), then all other factors, such as c (bows and arrows), d (guns) etc. must be equal. when comparing them. otherwise, it might not be cause a or b which are more likely to cause effect X, but it might be some other cause you decided to mix in.

Do you remember the example with cats? Well, now you are giving a very low simplification that doesn't fit with reality. Also, cateris paribus is not science, it is latin, it is used out of science too.

will a group with people who give their lives or put them in risk be stronger in a fight against a group in wich every person only want to survive?

That is true. I think I remember reading about a similar principle in Dawkins's book the God Delusion. He was talking about how religion could actually have been beneficial in a survival sense, because convincing people that there is an afterlife you will go to if you fight for your tribe would give your group an edge in battle obviously as they would fight more fiercely and with less regard for their own well being. But he also said that such a strategy is subject to internal subversion. Namely, those in such a religious, warrior society who are LESS convinced of it, or NOT convinced of it at all, would be more likely to survive the battle, and thus more likely to procreate their genes, while the fanatical ones who are most convinced of it, would be most likely to die in battle.

No, it's easier and worse. Coward people, those who born that way, have more chances of survival. It's the same with "bad" people, if they don't look at "long term things" for example, stealing to their organization, they get more chances in the first term. But, then, they died with their group, when those who are "good" are too low. And then, when many people die, for a short period of time, good people number grows, because the group with no lies is better.... and then it happens again. A group of completely cowards and liers doesn't survive, and those who can give their life for a cause easily, won't gain from other people the same the same as cowards. We are not equal, but we are not fully separated in two different species.Yet.

We live for more than war, hunting, etc, there are people good for some things and bad for others. Just why are you so fucking anoying with this thought? Just let people be if they don't disturb you...

Did I bother you? Did I force you to read any of this?

You don't seem like a person who is asking, you seem like a person who is spreading his truth. The test itself isn't worse than nearly all texts here and doesn't disturb me more, but you seem to say that only those who "fit nature" must survive (for example, not gays), and that's anoying.

Haha, no, I can admit there are those who are objectively better than me. However, I would never admit that in real life to a "lady" I am interested in romantically. Self-confidence, even if not based on anything and unjustified, makes their pussies wet. Honestly and humbly speaking truth, admitting some other male is your superior, makes it drier than the desert sand. Sad but true, I guess?

Another lier in the pool I see... Well, I think it's unfair to be lying... but you are not different than nearly everybody in that, so, even though it's obviously bad for survival in long term, you prefer to be with a woman who doesn't know you, it's your choice.
I think it's the fourth time I say that we are not equal in this thread.
You can't be the best for everything, nobody is perfect. You can have confidence (true confidence) in being the best for that women. And not all women are attracted by the same things (like what you call "confidence").



Bye bye.

[TSBU]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YwC4Vsm5h0

[Terrapin Station]

I'm fine with sticking with that as your view.

However, when you talk about using "objective" in a "goal" sense, and you say "this is what we mean," what "we" are you talking about?

The philosophical sense of "objective" isn't the "goal" sense. The philosophical sense is contrasted with "subjective." There's no "subjective" counterpart to "objective" in the "goal" sense.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was using that, perhaps awkwardly and sloppily, to demonstrate what I perceive to be a relationship between the two meanings of "objective".

That once you set up an objective (meaning, goal), it is possible to objectively (philosophical sense) determine what are the superior and inferior means of accomplishing that goal.

But there is no objective (philosophical sense) basis for choosing an objective (goal).

You could also say that survival is about subjects trying to maintain their own subjectivity (agency, being alive) and not be reduced to objects (die and become carcasses), and the superior and inferior means of accomplishing that objective can be determined objectively.

Although I do not deny the existence of subjectivity, it is ultimately judged against objectivity, and thus the validity and accuracy of subjective opinions, preferences, judgments, can be objectively determined. So the typical excuse of a subjectivist, that there is no standard of measurement outside of himself, and that "something may be true to you but it is not true to me", and similar nonsense, is bullshit. Somebody may prefer to eat shit, for example, and it is objectively true that it is his subjective preference, but it is also objectively true that his objective preference is inferior and self-defeating, because eating shit is unhealthy and leads to death by fucking up your digestive system, but in order to eat shit, you must be alive.

Well, first off, I am a subjectivist on value judgments (ethics, aesthetics, etc.), and I'm also a subjectivist on truth, although that's a "technical" matter that has more to do with the standard way of analyzing truth in analytic philosophy.

I agree that there are going to be things that are more or less objectively efficacious for achieving particular goals. Although note that "I want to achieve this goal in the most direct/efficient way" is something subjective that people can differ on.

For example, say that I want to drive from New York City to Philadelphia. There will be a route that's quickest with respect to mileage, tempered by the speed one can travel, tempered by traffic volume etc., but I might not want to take the quickest route--often I do not. I'm someone who likes to take back roads, scenic routes, and different routes for variety's sake.

People usually have complexes of goals, with it not being unusual for them to conflict a bit, and it's also not unusual for some goals in those complexes to shift or change on the fly. It's also not unusual for people to be unsure of some of the goals in their complexes prior to situations arriving where they must make decisions.

With something like smoking, say, people may have a goal to remain alive, but also have a goal to engage in things they find pleasurable, and they might find smoking pleasurable enough that it's worth the health risk to them. Not many people actually have a goal of remaining alive as long as possible regardless of what they have to sacrifice/give up for that.

Note, by the way that when we say that x will achieve goal y, where that's an objective fact, we're not actually stating something that's an objective value.

[Conde Lucanor]

The foundations for Objectivism
a) The foundational/first objective.

First I will point out that no human is magically obliged by some kind of deity or anything, to pursue some goal (an objective). The choosing of a goal (objective) itself, or choosing to have no goal, has no objective basis in the sense that there are no objectively verifiable "oughts" that can be concluded logically, as Hume noted. An Ought cannot be concluded from an Is.

I see some problems right from the start. First, you're mixing logical, ontological, epistemological and moral problems, and it all gets confusing:

"...the choosing of an objective... has no objective basis".

Here you are using objectivity with two different meanings: one in the sense of someone having a goal (an objective) and the other in the sense of something existing independently of the subject (and thus, verifiable).

When we say something is objective-ly correct/true, we are saying that something is true, possibly even an ought statement, in relation to some goal/objective.

Whether something is true or not implies a statement, a proposition with logical value, not referred to a goal, but to some conditions that are met and from which truths are inferred.

For example, if I say that I love big cats more than small cats, then it is an objective-ly (in relation to my goal, objective) superior course of action for me to buy a Maine Coon Cat instead of some smaller subspecies of cats. In relation to this objective of acquiring a big cat, the statement "you ought to buy Maine Coons then instead of >insert smaller species of cats here<" is objectively true, meaning, in relation to my objective independently of what anybody else's preferences are. This is how objectives can dictate what is a superior and inferior course of action. However, this objective of buying big cats may only be objectively superior to me, but it is not universal - it does not apply to all humans.

Not necessarily so. You can love big cats and still feel is not OK to buy pets or not good to have at home. And you may also think that despite not loving some type of cat, it is the best choice for...let's say, catching mice. There's nothing objective about the drivers behind your decisions, they are still subjective. What is objective is that there are cats.