ACLU vs. USNA

[IKE]

I mean Objectivism as described by the works of Ayn Rand, et al.

Also, see my new comments above regarding the "Simulation Argument."

 

[jollygreen07]

Gee-whiz..

You folk are waaay too smart for the likes of me...

I'm struggling to memorize the Formation NATOPS brief. You guys are arguing (somewhat coherently, might I add) about the existence of things I cannot even pronounce.

Back to my corner, I guess.

 

[raptor10]

How is "reality existing independent from consciousness," a self evident axiom?" Nominalists, neutral monists, physicalists, possibly epiphenomenalists, idealists,reists, and a platitude of others would disagree with that.

 

[IKE]

How is "reality existing independent from consciousness," a self evident axiom?"

It isn't. Well, not exactly. Read the entire wiki-entry.
The axioms are:
Existence - "Existence exists"
Identity - To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."
Consciousness - "Consciousness exists", consciousness "being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." or "to be conscious is to be conscious of something."

Nominalists, neutral monists, physicalists, possibly epiphenomenalists, idealists,reists, and a platitude of others would disagree with that.

I'm guessing you meant "plentitude" here. Anyway, I don't care who disagrees, no matter how many or how educated they might be, if they:
1) can't negate the axiom/theory logically, and/or
2) base their system on false premises (such as the primacy of consciousness)

The majority of alchemists disagreed with Mendeleev and other chemists working towards a rational, scientific, molecular model of chemistry. Who was shown to be right?

Note: We've veered way off the course of the OP, probably 6 pages ago. Unless the AW gang wants to see more, I'll gladly continue this by e-mail/pm if you want to. You seem to have quite a wider philosophical education than I do, so it would be interesting.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

Please continue. I only understand ~ 10% of what you guys are talking about, but it's still pretty interesting. Great insights, Cygnus & Raptor!

 

[Afterburner76]

PM?? ^^^ what??? that's like cancelling my favorite show!

 

[raptor10]

Consciousness - "Consciousness exists", consciousness "being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." or "to be conscious is to be conscious of something."

If 'perceiving that which exists' is the only necessary and sufficient clause for consciousness then anytime a program receives input (perceiving something that exists) than it has gained consciousness, I think she has made her definition of conciousness way to broad for it to have any value in defining the difference in reaction to stimuli (which is another way of saying that which exists, and the mental states that we take to be 'consciousness' although a panpsycist would say that things we consider to be unconscious have subjective experiences...

Another fault of the relative self-interested morality that Ayn's morality proposes (although this is not a critique of it's internal incoherence) is that under her system it would be immoral for an individual to sacrifice their own life for the life of say a childs... yet in the mish mosh of morality that we have now, that would be an inconceivable situation... To accept Ayn's philosophy (a sort of super capitalism that I shudder at) would be to accept certain principles that run counter to my (and most peoples) systems of morality, not saying the moral system we have right now is corect just that I would have a difficult time with hers.

 

[TrickyFish]

Another fault of the relative self-interested morality that Ayn's morality proposes (although this is not a critique of it's internal incoherence) is that under her system it would be immoral for an individual to sacrifice their own life for the life of say a childs... yet in the mish mosh of morality that we have now, that would be an inconceivable situation... To accept Ayn's philosophy (a sort of super capitalism that I shudder at) would be to accept certain principles that run counter to my (and most peoples) systems of morality, not saying the moral system we have right now is corect just that I would have a difficult time with hers.

I think all human beings would have a difficult time implementing Rand's morality to it's fullest extent. I personally don't bother. But I try to stick to the things I find most important, blended with a little existentialism. However, while Rand is against self-sacrifice, trading one's life for the life of another is not necessarily against the rules. It depends entirely on the circumstances, and the value gained by both parties in such a trade.

I'll have to actually read carefully through the rest of this and comment later...

 

[IKE]

If 'perceiving that which exists' ...

From the American Heritage Dictionary:


per·ceive

1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.

A computer program, in this sense, does not have a perceptive faculty. I need to find Rand's official (non-wikipedia) definition of consciousness, but I think it includes the fact that the consciousness be capable of at least rudimentary integration of percepts. In this case, an animal is conscious because it is capable of recognizing food as green and leafy, as opposed to just experiencing a jumble of visual sensations. Of course, unlike humans, other animals have a very limited conscious with no need (and therefore no value) of reason. A plant, on the other hand, is not conscious. It doesn't perceive sunlight, it grows toward the sunlight automatically, through biological processses.

although a panpsycist would say that things we consider to be unconscious have subjective experiences...

A nihilist would say that none of it matters... Many people have had many ideas, many of which are garbage. If it's not an idea that you are espousing, and backing up logically, then I don't see the point in mentioning it.

in the mish mosh of morality that we have now, that would be an inconceivable situation...
...I would have a difficult time with hers.

So, it's wrong because 1) it's different, and/or 2) it doesn't feel right?
Rand describes her ethics as a rational self-interest, meaning it is right for a person to pursue the fulfillment of their personal, rational values (based on one's own life as the ultimate value), as opposed to the values of other people. She specifically tackles the dying to save someone else's life problem in an essay. Again, I'd have to look it up, but I think the gist of her response to the problem matches my own feelings towards it. I'd jump in front of a bus for a chance to save my wife, but I would not give my life to save a stranger. It depends on how you value the person to be saved.

 

[eddie]

Many people have had many ideas, many of which are garbage.

And if there is only one thing we take away from this thread, that should be it.

 

[TrickyFish]

Cygnus: So first a disclaimer, I haven't read Rand's actual essays on objectivism, I've only read the fiction stuff illustrating her philosophy. Perhaps if I read more, which I hope to do soon, I would agree with her more. My only problem is that she seems to assume that everyone has the strength of character that her "heroes" do, and to follow her morality requires incredible strength of character. I've met very few individuals who actually have this, not including myself. We're not perfect, and she doesn't seem to address the consequences of faltering. Is there some work where she has done this?

 

[raptor10]

It depends on how you value the person to be saved.

How can it be an objective system if different individuals can have different values for an individuals life? Seems right there it becomes a relative system...

 

[raptor10]

For the record I do not espouse any particular ideology. I am in general a follower of the Pyrrhonian Principles so I look at everything through a critical subjective light...

 

[Gonzo08]

A Former Mid's Opinion

I missed out on a few days of this thread and was quite surprised to see how it has progressed but I just wanted to comment on something that I saw while catching up on this topic...

I'd be interested to hear if scoob, phrog, Bogey, and everyone else would be perfectly ok if the USNA Chaplain was a Muslim and conducted mealtime prayers praying to Allah, and saying "Allah akbar" during the prayer... We're not talking just one time... but every meal. Would you feel comfortable? What about a Wiccan leading prayers praying to Mother Earth and different Gods/Goddesses? Would this be ok?

I'm just asking because it seems that the majority always thinks the minority should just let things slide and go with the flow.

I'm not trying to be confrontational (beleive me, I know maybe it comes out that way in my writing... but I'm just not that great penning feelings to paper). I am curious though.

I was surprised while reading this forum to not see any accounts from actual midshipmen. Maybe there aren't many who frequent this website or maybe they felt inclined not to participate in the discussion. As a recent graduate of the Academy I feel somewhat compelled to put my $.02 in about this issue.

Having attended countless noon meals at the Academy I have seen what this whole "noon meal prayer" process entails. I have seen many people, including some close friends opt NOT to participate in the prayer. In 4 years at the Academy I have never seen a person questioned or ridiculed about their choice to not participate in the prayer.

On a second note, in response to this quote, while the chaplains are Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, I believe they do a decent job of keeping the prayers non-denominational. There are even occasions where the chaplains will offer a hindu or budhist prayer. And yes there have even been times where they have recited "Wiccan" prayers or prayers to nature. Granted they are infrequent, but the chaplains do try to be inclusive if only a little.

Either way, I am disappointed in my classmate for 2 reasons. 1) She felt that she should complain to the ACLU rather than handle her concerns through her Chain of Command and 2) that she is hiding behind anonymity rather than holding herself accountable for what she's done.

 

[trogdor]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I felt that there were a couple of points that hadn't been brought up.

The issue I take with the academy offering a non-denominational prayer at noon meal is that it doesn't really serve to satiate anyone's particular religious appetite. The idea that your god is appeased by a prayer that does not even mention their name could be construed as ridiculous in most religions.

The reality of it is that religious midshipmen pray privately to themselves before they eat, just as they would before any other meal.

The compromise here is to offer a moment of silence in which mids can think/pray about whatever they want to.

In addition, as a former mid who questioned noon meal prayer, I can understand why some chose to bring the ACLU in on this one. I was politely told that if I were to take it any further, I would not become a very popular mid on the yard.