Ask an objectivist

[TackleTheWorld]

The second level of objectivist thought involves the relationship between the inside and outside worlds.
We think reality rules, and mind follows.  After all, consciousness without anything to be conscious of is a contradiction.  Yet existence without any consciousness could exist.  We call this the primacy of existance.

The opposite we call the primacy of consciousness. If you consider god to be a consciousness and he created the universe, you accept the primacy of consciousness.

[Caleb]

Most of your questions, Tackle, have been answered by centuries of Christian theology.  Words like immanence and transcendence as respects God apply.  Minds are existent, and can be aware of other minds.  (In this, the traditional doctrine of Trinity is relevant.)

Alright, changing the topic a little bit, I have another question for the objectivists.

It seems to me that objectivism is inherently pro-war, due to some of Ayn Rand's statements.  The Ayn Rand institute, for instance, is very hawkish.  How can Objectivism justify this stance and claim any harmony with ZAP?  Or is ZAP pushed under the table by Objectivist thought?

[TackleTheWorld]

You ask, but don't listen for an answer.
If you'd only laid low for two more axioms, you'd have been able to use our own weapons against us.
You could have totally refuted our philosophy and established your own.

Now you'll have to lurk until someone else asks a morality question.

[Kevin Bean]

Don't let the young grasshopper keep us from getting to the point.
Isn't the issue of war mentioned in objectivist politics, which follows ethics?

[TackleTheWorld]

Yes, were getting to that.

Step 3 out of 4 for beating objectivists at their own game.

The nature of man.
Man is an animal, but a really weak one.  Deprived of sharp claws, protective fur, or brains hard-wired for one way of life - we have to rely on our mind.  Human's minds have got a unique ability that other animals lack, the ability to examine our own though processes.  Our thought processes are private and volitional.  There is no collective mind, only individual ones.  With mind being our primary organ of survival, we should not damage or ignore it.

[TackleTheWorld]

Objectivist tenet #4

If you agree with

• Logic
• Reality trumping consiousness
• Mans only means of survial being his mind

We get to ethics, or morality.

Ethics is a code that tells you how to act, a set of rules to guide your behavior.
The first question is not What code you should accept,
but, why do we need a code at all?

[BlueLu]

It is important to separate ethics and morality.  At least etymologically, morality has more to do with the rules of one's group, whereas ethics can be logically derived.

I am a big proponent of maintaining the separation of meanings that flow from the words' origins.

[Braddogg]

It is important to separate ethics and morality.  At least etymologically, morality has more to do with the rules of one's group, whereas ethics can be logically derived.

I am a big proponent of maintaining the separation of meanings that flow from the words' origins.

Really?  I always thought it went like this: Morality is universal and can be logically derived and are the basic principles, ethics are universal (or universal to all people in a profession, if we're talking doctor's ethics or whatnot) and are derived from the basic moral principles (they're like second-tier morals), and aesthetics were the rules of one's group (which fork to eat with, which side of the road to drive on) that are necessary to know to get along in the group but violating them does not make you "bad."