Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Egoism: The Philosophy of Freedom

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:12:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Voltaire once said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Bakunin wisely retorted, "If God did exist, it would be necessary to abolish him." Unfortunately, Bakunin would only abolish God. It is the egoist's intention to abolish gods. It is clear from Bakunin's writings that what he meant by God was what Voltaire meant - namely the religious God. The egoist sees many more gods than that - in fact, as many as there are fixed ideas. Bakunin's gods, for example, include the god of humanity, the god of brotherhood, the god of mankind - all variants on the god of altruism. The egoist, in striking down all gods, looks only to his will. He recognises no legitimate power over himself. The world is there for him to consume - if he can. And he can if he has the power. For the egoist, the only right is the right of might. He accepts no "inalienable rights," for such rights - by virtue of the fact that they're inalienable - must come from a higher power, some god. The American Declaration of Independence, for example, in proclaiming these rights found it necessary to invoke the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The same was true of the French Revolutionary "Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen."

The egoist recognises no right - or what amounts to the same thing - claims all rights for himself. What he can get by force he has a right to; and what he can't, he has no right. He demands no rights, nor does he recognise them in others. "Right - is a wheel in the head, put there by a spook," says Stirner. Right is also the spook which has kept men servile throughout the ages. The believer in rights has always been his own jailer. What sovereign could last the day out without a general belief in the "divine right of kings"? And where would Messrs. Nixon, Heath, et. al. be today without the "right" of the majority?" - Ken Knudson[1]

1 http://www.hack.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 11:32:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:04:03 PM, Puck wrote:
Well I guess if you are ignorant of ethics you could state that.

Eh. I dunno, I tend to agree with ethical nihilism, inasmuch as there's no intrinsic right/wrong or good/bad. The fundamental principles of Ethics--the purpose and standard from which all further ethical principles are thereby derived--are arbitrary.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 5:55:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why would you devote so much effort into immersing yourself into an ideology that revolves around freedom?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 5:58:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 5:55:32 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Why would you devote so much effort into immersing yourself into an ideology that revolves around freedom?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:00:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:04:03 PM, Puck wrote:
Well I guess if you are ignorant of ethics you could state that.

what's there to know?
signature
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:02:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 11:32:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:04:03 PM, Puck wrote:
Well I guess if you are ignorant of ethics you could state that.

Eh. I dunno, I tend to agree with ethical nihilism, inasmuch as there's no intrinsic right/wrong or good/bad. The fundamental principles of Ethics--the purpose and standard from which all further ethical principles are thereby derived--are arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary, they're ontologically brute, (ie. their obtaining is not explained in terms of the obtaining of other states of affairs).
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:11:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:02:15 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/21/2010 11:32:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:04:03 PM, Puck wrote:
Well I guess if you are ignorant of ethics you could state that.

Eh. I dunno, I tend to agree with ethical nihilism, inasmuch as there's no intrinsic right/wrong or good/bad. The fundamental principles of Ethics--the purpose and standard from which all further ethical principles are thereby derived--are arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary, they're ontologically brute, (ie. their obtaining is not explained in terms of the obtaining of other states of affairs).

That just assumes that defining morality as "'intuitions' obtained evolutionarily", which is what you seem to suggest when you cite evolution as the source of morality (which itself is ironic, since ethical non-naturalism says that moral truths are irreducible to natural phenomena, seemingly precluding evolution), isn't an arbitrary conceptualization.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 5:55:32 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Why would you devote so much effort into immersing yourself into an ideology that revolves around freedom?

Slavery sucks. You can say that we "give away" freedom for happiness, but that assumes that you have the freedom to take on responsibilities in the first place. Freedom isn't the same as happiness; it's a means.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:21:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:11:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:02:15 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/21/2010 11:32:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:04:03 PM, Puck wrote:
Well I guess if you are ignorant of ethics you could state that.

Eh. I dunno, I tend to agree with ethical nihilism, inasmuch as there's no intrinsic right/wrong or good/bad. The fundamental principles of Ethics--the purpose and standard from which all further ethical principles are thereby derived--are arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary, they're ontologically brute, (ie. their obtaining is not explained in terms of the obtaining of other states of affairs).

That just assumes that defining morality as "'intuitions' obtained evolutionarily", which is what you seem to suggest when you cite evolution as the source of morality (which itself is ironic, since ethical non-naturalism says that moral truths are irreducible to natural phenomena, seemingly precluding evolution), isn't an arbitrary conceptualization.

Bruteness is an ontological property, not an epistemological one. That a fact is brute doesn't imply that it can't be proven or inferred from other things we know.

The statement "torturing innocent persons for fun" is necessarily true (ie. it obtains in all possible worlds regardless of whether or not any innocent persons actually exist). Let's say there is a button, which, if pressed, will cause the worst possible suffering for all living things for the longest possible time. The fact that it would be wrong to push the button is contingently true, since it is conceivable that in another world pushing it might not cause anything at all.

The fact that we recognize certain moral facts is contingent on our evolutionary nature, but their obtaining is still necessary regardless of our ability to recognize them.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:21:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:11:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:02:15 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/21/2010 11:32:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:04:03 PM, Puck wrote:
Well I guess if you are ignorant of ethics you could state that.

Eh. I dunno, I tend to agree with ethical nihilism, inasmuch as there's no intrinsic right/wrong or good/bad. The fundamental principles of Ethics--the purpose and standard from which all further ethical principles are thereby derived--are arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary, they're ontologically brute, (ie. their obtaining is not explained in terms of the obtaining of other states of affairs).

That just assumes that defining morality as "'intuitions' obtained evolutionarily", which is what you seem to suggest when you cite evolution as the source of morality (which itself is ironic, since ethical non-naturalism says that moral truths are irreducible to natural phenomena, seemingly precluding evolution), isn't an arbitrary conceptualization.

Bruteness is an ontological property, not an epistemological one. That a fact is brute doesn't imply that it can't be proven or inferred from other things we know.

A fact's existence is ontological, yes; knowledge of that fact, however, is the province of epistemology. That's where my question of moral facts is directed. Whether such facts exist at all is the subject of an entirely different inquiry.

The statement "torturing innocent persons for fun" is necessarily true (ie. it obtains in all possible worlds regardless of whether or not any innocent persons actually exist).

Okie dokie.

Let's say there is a button, which, if pressed, will cause the worst possible suffering for all living things for the longest possible time.

Even the button-pusher? Ouch.

The fact that it would be wrong to push the button is contingently true, since it is conceivable that in another world pushing it might not cause anything at all.

That isn't an explanation of why pushing the button is at all wrong. The fact that its truth is allegedly contingent on the possibility of an alternate world where no such effect occurs isn't a proof for the existence of the moral fact, nor proof that the fact is of a moral nature.

The fact that we recognize certain moral facts is contingent on our evolutionary nature, but their obtaining is still necessary regardless of our ability to recognize them.

Again, you're assuming that

1) moral facts exist, and that

2) if moral facts exist, they would necessarily be a product of evolution.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:33:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Again, you're assuming that

1) moral facts exist.

Yes.

2) if moral facts exist, they would necessarily be a product of evolution.

No.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:36:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:33:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Again, you're assuming that

1) moral facts exist.

Yes.

Care to offer some sort of proof of that assumption?

2) if moral facts exist, they would necessarily be a product of evolution.

No.

So, our grasp of moral facts is a part of our nature, but doesn't come from the nature we've evolved?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:39:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A fact's existence is ontological, yes; knowledge of that fact, however, is the province of epistemology. That's where my question of moral facts is directed. Whether such facts exist at all is the subject of an entirely different inquiry.

It seemed like you were conflating ontology and epistemology.

The fact that it would be wrong to push the button is contingently true, since it is conceivable that in another world pushing it might not cause anything at all.

That isn't an explanation of why pushing the button is at all wrong. The fact that its truth is allegedly contingent on the possibility of an alternate world where no such effect occurs isn't a proof for the existence of the moral fact, nor proof that the fact is of a moral nature.

I wasn't claiming that. I think you missed the point of my explanation. You seemed to be claiming that moral facts (if they exist) are contingent truths. I was contrasting a necessary moral fact with a contingent one to show the difference. I hold that moral facts exist regardless of the evolutionary nature that may or may not allow us to recognize them.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:44:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:39:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A fact's existence is ontological, yes; knowledge of that fact, however, is the province of epistemology. That's where my question of moral facts is directed. Whether such facts exist at all is the subject of an entirely different inquiry.

It seemed like you were conflating ontology and epistemology.

Nah. They're cousins.

The fact that it would be wrong to push the button is contingently true, since it is conceivable that in another world pushing it might not cause anything at all.

That isn't an explanation of why pushing the button is at all wrong. The fact that its truth is allegedly contingent on the possibility of an alternate world where no such effect occurs isn't a proof for the existence of the moral fact, nor proof that the fact is of a moral nature.

I wasn't claiming that. I think you missed the point of my explanation. You seemed to be claiming that moral facts (if they exist) are contingent truths.

If moral facts existed, they would be intrinsic. If they're intrinsic, they would be unconditional. I argue that moral theories, as posited, are all contingent on arbitrary fundamentals.

I was contrasting a necessary moral fact with a contingent one to show the difference.

I wasn't aware that "pushing this button causes maximum suffering for all living beings" was a moral fact.

I hold that moral facts exist regardless of the evolutionary nature that may or may not allow us to recognize them.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Where those facts come from is an interesting question.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:44:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:12:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Freedom isn't the same as happiness; it's a means.

That's exactly my point. Why wouldn't a person focused on a freedom-based ideology just focus on a happiness-based one instead?

And I was pondering this the other day. I'm reading Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series and I came across a passage about a Suldam and a Damane interacting. (Please wiki if you so choose). Essentially, A Damane is a human female mage who is enslaved and kept as a pet by a Suldam, a human female caretaker that can control her pet's powers.

Happiness and slavery are not mutually exclusive. None of us are free, we're all restrained by something. Slaves are just restrained by a few additional "somethings". Happiness can be readily attained by being accepting of what we already have and not taking the simple things for granted.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:48:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:44:49 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:12:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Freedom isn't the same as happiness; it's a means.

That's exactly my point. Why wouldn't a person focused on a freedom-based ideology just focus on a happiness-based one instead?

Because focusing on a freedom-based ideology makes me happy.

Where's your god now?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:50:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:44:49 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:12:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Freedom isn't the same as happiness; it's a means.

That's exactly my point. Why wouldn't a person focused on a freedom-based ideology just focus on a happiness-based one instead?

Freedom has to come first. You have to have the means before you utilize them. Freedom is something still being denied in its entirety.

And I was pondering this the other day. I'm reading Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series and I came across a passage about a Suldam and a Damane interacting. (Please wiki if you so choose). Essentially, A Damane is a human female mage who is enslaved and kept as a pet by a Suldam, a human female caretaker that can control her pet's powers.

Happiness and slavery are not mutually exclusive. None of us are free, we're all restrained by something. Slaves are just restrained by a few additional "somethings". Happiness can be readily attained by being accepting of what we already have and not taking the simple things for granted.

I consider freedom to be the absence of physical force against you. In that sense, of course there are restraints.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:51:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:36:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:33:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Again, you're assuming that

1) moral facts exist.

Yes.

Care to offer some sort of proof of that assumption?

Not right now, actually. I'm just defending the possibility of their existence. I'll debate you or TheSkeptic on whether or not they actually exist some time, hopefully within the next couple of months.

2) if moral facts exist, they would necessarily be a product of evolution.

No.

So, our grasp of moral facts is a part of our nature, but doesn't come from the nature we've evolved?

Yes and no. I consider moral facts to be ontologically similar to things like the laws of logic. A = A is a necessary, non-trivial brute fact that obtains regardless of whether or not A exists. Since moral facts are necessarily true, they would obtain even, say, 150 million years ago in the mesozoic period before people actually existed. I would say contingencies like our evolutionary nature and ability to recognize things as moral or immoral do play a role in determining whether or not a particular object is deserving of moral respect, though.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:51:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A few more points, Kleptin.

The philosophy of egoism is the philosophy of happiness. It says "do what pleases you, take regard for nothing else."

Egoism frees you from your chains, your servitude to others. It frees you to pursue happiness.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:55:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:48:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Because focusing on a freedom-based ideology makes me happy.

Where's your god now?

Hey, if labeling yourself as whatever it is you like to be called, and pretending to be all pro at this particular ideology makes you happy, then kudos to you. That's the only practical use for it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:56:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:51:09 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:36:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:33:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:27:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Again, you're assuming that

1) moral facts exist.

Yes.

Care to offer some sort of proof of that assumption?

Not right now, actually. I'm just defending the possibility of their existence. I'll debate you or TheSkeptic on whether or not they actually exist some time, hopefully within the next couple of months.

Alright.

2) if moral facts exist, they would necessarily be a product of evolution.

No.

So, our grasp of moral facts is a part of our nature, but doesn't come from the nature we've evolved?

Yes and no. I consider moral facts to be ontologically similar to things like the laws of logic. A = A is a necessary, non-trivial brute fact that obtains regardless of whether or not A exists.

Since the existence of such facts at all is a debate for another time, I'll just comment that I see a large dichotomy between moral and non-moral facts. Things like identity are necessary for existence; morality is a bit trickier, as most people on this site probably realize. It'll be an interesting debate.

Since moral facts are necessarily true, they would obtain even, say, 150 million years ago in the mesozoic period before people actually existed. I would say contingencies like our evolutionary nature and ability to recognize things as moral or immoral do play a role in determining whether or not a particular object is deserving of moral respect, though.

Our ability to "intuitively" recognize things as moral or immoral is another point of contention which I'm sure will be resolved when the debate happens.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:56:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:51:20 PM, Reasoning wrote:
A few more points, Kleptin.

The philosophy of egoism is the philosophy of happiness. It says "do what pleases you, take regard for nothing else."

Egoism frees you from your chains, your servitude to others. It frees you to pursue happiness.

That's Hedonism. :P
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:57:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:44:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:39:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I wasn't claiming that. I think you missed the point of my explanation. You seemed to be claiming that moral facts (if they exist) are contingent truths.

If moral facts existed, they would be intrinsic. If they're intrinsic, they would be unconditional.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I argue that moral theories, as posited, are all contingent on arbitrary fundamentals.

No, you haven't shown that. Now you're conflating bruteness with arbitrariness.

I was contrasting a necessary moral fact with a contingent one to show the difference.

I wasn't aware that "pushing this button causes maximum suffering for all living beings" was a moral fact.

I was presupposing it for explanatory purposes.

I hold that moral facts exist regardless of the evolutionary nature that may or may not allow us to recognize them.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Where those facts come from is an interesting question.

They don't come from anywhere (hence "brute"), They just are; like the laws of logic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:58:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:56:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:51:20 PM, Reasoning wrote:
A few more points, Kleptin.

The philosophy of egoism is the philosophy of happiness. It says "do what pleases you, take regard for nothing else."

Egoism frees you from your chains, your servitude to others. It frees you to pursue happiness.

That's Hedonism. :P

Beat me to the punch.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:01:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:57:18 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:44:01 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:39:41 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I wasn't claiming that. I think you missed the point of my explanation. You seemed to be claiming that moral facts (if they exist) are contingent truths.

If moral facts existed, they would be intrinsic. If they're intrinsic, they would be unconditional.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I'm agreeing with your evaluation that moral facts would have to be necessarily true, rather than contingently so.

I argue that moral theories, as posited, are all contingent on arbitrary fundamentals.

No, you haven't shown that. Now you're conflating bruteness with arbitrariness.

I'm actually not. I'm pretty sure that all theories, excluding your own (which is the point of contention here), fall straight into the is-ought gap.

I was contrasting a necessary moral fact with a contingent one to show the difference.

I wasn't aware that "pushing this button causes maximum suffering for all living beings" was a moral fact.

I was presupposing it for explanatory purposes.

It's not so much that I'm challenging the presupposition. I'm assuming that the presupposition further rests on the notion that causing suffering is inherently wrong. Gotcha.

I hold that moral facts exist regardless of the evolutionary nature that may or may not allow us to recognize them.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Where those facts come from is an interesting question.

They don't come from anywhere (hence "brute"), They just are; like the laws of logic.

This, as we've agreed, is a huge point of contention. When I say "come from", by the way, I don't mean in the derivative sense.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:02:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:58:56 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:56:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:51:20 PM, Reasoning wrote:
A few more points, Kleptin.

The philosophy of egoism is the philosophy of happiness. It says "do what pleases you, take regard for nothing else."

Egoism frees you from your chains, your servitude to others. It frees you to pursue happiness.

That's Hedonism. :P

Beat me to the punch.

He's going to argue that Egoism ascribe no moral merit to happiness; merely that, since pursuing happiness is what one most prefers, it is, amorally speaking, the best course of action.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:03:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:56:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:51:20 PM, Reasoning wrote:
A few more points, Kleptin.

The philosophy of egoism is the philosophy of happiness. It says "do what pleases you, take regard for nothing else."

Egoism frees you from your chains, your servitude to others. It frees you to pursue happiness.

That's Hedonism. :P

In the broad sense of the term, yes. Though it is also nihilistic.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:03:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 7:02:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:58:56 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:56:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:51:20 PM, Reasoning wrote:
A few more points, Kleptin.

The philosophy of egoism is the philosophy of happiness. It says "do what pleases you, take regard for nothing else."

Egoism frees you from your chains, your servitude to others. It frees you to pursue happiness.

That's Hedonism. :P

Beat me to the punch.

He's going to argue that Egoism ascribes no moral merit to happiness--merely that, since pursuing happiness is what one most prefers, it is, amorally speaking, the best course of action.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:03:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:50:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Freedom has to come first.

We can only ever have freedom in degrees. There's no such thing as pure freedom.

I consider freedom to be the absence of physical force against you. In that sense, of course there are restraints.

The human lifespan? Aging? The inability to fly or breathe underwater without machines? Inability to fire lasers from our eyes, or to move things with our minds? Communicate telepathically?

Everyone has resigned him or herself into a box and defined freedom as what one is able to do within that box. The size of the box is irrelevant to happiness. The only thing that matters is how much you appreciate what you can do in that box.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.