0610: "Sheeple"

[Troger64]

I must agree i think this from time to time


in my case i like to think people lack a sense of sophistication
thus i read comics in the bookstore, watch birds for fun, walk places

[pyromuffin]

hah, I wish.

['; DROP DATABASE;--]

Well it's not like you can usually tell the sheep from the non-sheep by just looking at them. Even us non-sheep have to live our lives, because you know, we like to eat.

This reminds me of another comic of the same form, except instead of 5 people on a train, it's dozens of people in a traffic jam, and the thought is "If these idiots would just take the bus, I could be home by now." Brilliant. I need to print that and put it up in a bus someday...

[Okita]

I find this comic amusing because I live in Boston and have been working in an office with an Ayn Rand conference going on next door for the past week.

Alas, the comic came too late for me to post it up all around the conference rooms when no one was looking.

[andrewclunn]

Yet another ad-hominem attack against Objectivists... I'd feel bad, but I know that people only do it because there's no REAL argument to be made against Objectivism, so this is the kind of thing I've come to expect. On a side note, this comic could benefit from more ice cream.

[Pagemaster]

I haven't been able to read past the first chapter in any of rand's books. The prose is just too unbearable.

[Brace]

Yeah, I basically registered to complain about the Ayn Rand thing. Not cool bro. Also there are some real arguments to be made against Rand. Here, have mine!

There are probably others, but this doesn't seem to count. Also the joke is neither perceptive nor original. Same basic form as any "Anarchist convention" joke. Same misapprehension of subject material as well.

[andrewclunn]

Yeah, I basically registered to complain about the Ayn Rand thing. Not cool bro. Also there are some real arguments to be made against Rand. Here, have mine!

There are probably others, but this doesn't seem to count. Also the joke is neither perceptive nor original. Same basic form as any "Anarchist convention" joke. Same misapprehension of subject material as well.

I'm always bothered when people treat Atlas Shrugged as if it were Rand's attempt at a non-fiction representation of her philosophy. It was a simplified, fictitious novel meant to introduce individuals to its core concepts. I'd go further, but then I'd be in danger of sending this thread into "serious Business" territory.

[Brace]

Just recommend an abstract philosophy text she wrote that you think will clarify the issue for me and I'll read it. PM if you're especially concerned.

[MichaelJ]

People really take these comics far too seriously. It's a snide joke in the alt-text, not an essay on the faults of Objectivist philosophy. I'm sure that won't stop people whining on for page after page.

[ducknerd]

Hey.
Guys.
I think the alt-text was supposed to make us implicit members of the comic, objectivism being something popular to feel superior to (on the internet, at least). Y'all failed the test. Though by posting this, so did I.

[Anticitizen]

I couldn't make it through Atlas Shrugged, but I plowed through The Fountainhead in two or three days and loved it.

[klefmung]

I constantly have this thought. I always have tell myself that other people have conscious and even deep thought as much as I do. I get really caught up in my own head, and sometimes it is incomprehensible that others are just as complex. I try to sober myself with the thought that others are capable of it, but it is hard to wrap my head around.

[Kisama]

I had a really long reply but when I treid to submit my internet wanged and now it's all gone

Edit: Solipsism FTW!
Edit2: Not really.

[TiPerihelion]

Yet another ad-hominem attack against Objectivists... I'd feel bad, but I know that people only do it because there's no REAL argument to be made against Objectivism, so this is the kind of thing I've come to expect.

...except the fact that there is no objective reality, or at least not one that we have direct cognitive access to, so a philosophy based on the assumption of an objective reality is fallacious and unsound.

[gamma-normids]

Gee Willikers... I just had a "get-out-of-my-head-randall". few minutes ago I was checking the "the Fountainhead"... in TvTROPES!!

_ _ _
I loved the fountainhead. I think I was the only one from my class who actually read the book and enjoy it, mostly because I had the english version while they read the Spanish censored version. It did have few good parts, I always love the "To say I Love You, you must first learn to say “I”" quote.

[Woxor]

Yet another ad-hominem attack against Objectivists... I'd feel bad, but I know that people only do it because there's no REAL argument to be made against Objectivism, so this is the kind of thing I've come to expect.

Hahahaha ... you guys crack me up. You're like meth-addled psychopaths reading aloud from 19th-century philosophy texts. I love you all.

[TiPerihelion]

You're like meth-addled psychopaths reading aloud from 19th-century philosophy texts.

Nothing wrong with the second half of that!

[Amarsir]

That's not what everyone on a train is thinking. Have you been to http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/ ? That's what everyone on the train is thinking.

(Warning: Reading that site can potentially lead to a TVTropes level of immersion.

[Brace]

...except the fact that there is no objective reality, or at least not one that we have direct cognitive access to, so a philosophy based on the assumption of an objective reality is fallacious and unsound.

It can't be founded on any assumed objective state, but that doesn't mean objective reality has no place in philosophy. Or rather any attempt to found a philosophy is fine to the extent that later information can refute it. Read Karl Popper.

[cephalopod9]

Heh, I'm not entirely sure what objectivism is (much like libertarianism I seem to mostly hear about it from people on the internet who use multiple text colors in the same paragraph) but I'd say it only really gets fun when paired with a rabid sense of entitlement.

[peterchen]

What amazes me most about Ayn Rand:

Her literary model of society matches that of the great 19th century russian novelists like Tolstoi and Dostoyevsky - persons (usually land owners, gentry, military officers and their families) and "the crowd" (usually peasants). The most exemplary might be Gogols "Dead Souls". The bible of material neoliberalism finds it's literary roots in a works of introspection of the human soul, non-freudian psychoasnalysis, great expressions picturing their actors trapped in self-pity.

Not that I want to compare Rands writing skills to these. (You didn't think of putting her up there, did you?) Her crowd never shows an individual face, she never shows how distant her actors are from the crowd, but neither she declines to let the crowd be a mere backdrop - it's her driving force her perpetual deus ex machina that sanctions the plot.

One should take apart her message and her storytelling, though she fails on both - aguably on the first, undeniably at the second. She's repetetive, trivial, maundering around without illuminating anything she didn't show five hundred pages earlier, some passages of full of spite for the creatures she made, she lashes out on them like they wronged her. And the romance.. uh. Whatever she likes, but she could close the curtain.

Even brushing that aside, even when distilling the essence, her focus, she's got only a few enlightened words to share, words that might even be worth the socket of thousands of pages - but she repeats them to death in an attempt to find the most shiny angle. What's left is a primitive model of society, which in its simplicity and ignorance isn't far from the attitude she blames on the crowd.

There, I said it. Ayn Rand sucks.

[andrewclunn]

...except the fact that there is no objective reality, or at least not one that we have direct cognitive access to, so a philosophy based on the assumption of an objective reality is fallacious and unsound.

Not according to Highlander! When in doubt, always go with Queen.

[TiPerihelion]

It can't be founded on any assumed objective state, but that doesn't mean objective reality has no place in philosophy. Or rather any attempt to found a philosophy is fine to the extent that later information can refute it. Read Karl Popper.

Obviously, the question of what constitutes reality and whether there is an objective reality is a long-standing question of metaphysics. As far as "refuting a philosophy" goes, generally it takes an argument to refute a philosophical position, not new information. (Though Einstein's work on relativity all but killed the absolutist view of space and time.)

Not according to Highlander! When in doubt, always go with Queen.

?

[Brace]

As far as "refuting a philosophy" goes, generally it takes an argument to refute a philosophical position, not new information.

An argument is a type of new information, often but not always informed by a new empirical observation.

[andrewclunn]

Not according to Highlander! When in doubt, always go with Queen.

?

Every so often I indulge in a comedic non-sequitur. But seriously, Objectivism assumes that is no supernatural and that we live in a deterministic universe. If either of these things ever turns out to be untrue, then Objectivist epistemology falls apart.

[markfiend]

there's no REAL argument to be made against Objectivism,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh you were serious?

[Sappharos]

Here's another idea: Yes we are all sheep, yet our awareness of this fact does not make it any less so. To continue to exist in this world, you must eat the same food as everyone else (someone above this post said something similar). To pay for this food you usually need to work for society in some way. To work in a job you need to have an appearance that conforms to a certain extent. Let's not forget that our actions are also dictated for the most part by our human instinct.
No matter how much we try to steer clear of being sheep through expressing our individuality, everyone still fits into some class that contains hundreds of others. Most people fit into many groups. Even if you become a punk, style your hair and listen to hardcore music all day long, you fit into a group. Even if you live away from society and take up an unusual hobby, you're a hermit. If you suffer from some neurological disorder that makes you twice as intelligent as average yet unable to carry out practical tasks or socialise, you're an idiosavante, or just weird. If you take your clothes off, you're a naturist. Dammit, if you're a human you fit into a massive group! Even if you want to commit suicide, you're still following a line of thought that so many before you have taken.
Not only this, but whatever group you fit into, someone somewhere hates you.
Comforting words.

Oh well, I've probably missed the point of this discussion anyway, so just ignore this post.

[TiPerihelion]

An argument is a type of new information, often but not always informed by a new empirical observation.

I'll drop this line since we're just arguing semantics.

But seriously, Objectivism assumes that is no supernatural and that we live in a deterministic universe. If either of these things ever turns out to be untrue, then Objectivist epistemology falls apart.

Well, it assumes those as well, but the foundation is a belief in "objectivism" (hence the name) - that there is an objective reality which dictates an absolute, universal morality. That simply isn't true. Also tenuous are the claims that there is no "supernatural" (how do you define it, and how do you prove that it doesn't exist?) and that we live in a deterministic universe (modern physics suggests that there is indeterminacy at the quantum level).

No matter how much we try to steer clear of being sheep through expressing our individuality, everyone still fits into some class that contains hundreds of others.

I agree with you to an extent. Yes, we are pressured to conform because society and circumstance often make it difficult or impossible to do otherwise. But just because somebody in the world can put a label to you doesn't necessarily reduce you to that label.

[guyy]

There must be a lot of sheep around, or we wouldn't still have religion, force-feeding-style education, wars, conspiracy theories, actual conspiracies, etc. All those things require a bunch of people to follow a person or idea without really thinking about it.

Anyway, we all know the only blind morons are the people who disagree with us.
(That was a joke. You sheep.)

[Brace]

(how do you define it, and how do you prove that it doesn't exist?)

Unfalsifiable concepts have no merit, because you can produce an infinite number of them just as easily and they will subsist forever independently of anything that has actual, observable implications, no matter what these are. So it is best to just focus on the things that we can actually focus on in some capacity, nothing else is of consequence.

and that we live in a deterministic universe (modern physics suggests that there is indeterminacy at the quantum level).

Yet Newtonian theory models the universe perfectly well except at the subatomic level and in the presence of certain rarer phenomenon. It correctly accounts for 99% of the observable world. Therefore it would seem that quantum physics includes within it all of the same implications as Newtonian physics, just with additional ones tacked on.

A better argument for indeterminacy is the nature of the pre-reflective consciousness, but this simply tells us the indeterminacy of value; that is, human beings are subjects that can choose the meaning of the world they live in. However they cannot so much determine the world that they live in. For all practical purposes it appears to follow deterministic patterns. Also Lorentz transformations. Quantum physics is not the substrate you are looking for. Subjectivity comes into being through the nature of man. It starts there and it ends there.

[Brace]

Even if you become a punk, style your hair and listen to hardcore music all day long, you fit into a group. Even if you live away from society and take up an unusual hobby, you're a hermit. If you suffer from some neurological disorder that makes you twice as intelligent as average yet unable to carry out practical tasks or socialise, you're an idiosavante, or just weird. If you take your clothes off, you're a naturist. Dammit, if you're a human you fit into a massive group! Even if you want to commit suicide, you're still following a line of thought that so many before you have taken.

Yes, but you forgot to account for the fact that while it isn't important that people are punks or hermits or even human beings, it's extremely important that one specifically is. Why should one specific existence be what it is? Even given the fact that you must conform to something, your conformity still gains a significance specific to you because it is specific to you. Situation is not essence.

Oh well, I've probably missed the point of this discussion anyway, so just ignore this post.

Never.

[L33tsaber]

Okay, I have to admit the alt text for this one actually made me laugh audibly. Probably because it's 3:25 AM Central Standard Time, and I'm a little sleep-deprived. (I'm also ten chapters into an effort to slog my way through Atlas Shrugged. Which reminds me, that's due to go back to the library on the 24th.)

[Ozone]

It can't be founded on any assumed objective state, but that doesn't mean objective reality has no place in philosophy. Or rather any attempt to found a philosophy is fine to the extent that later information can refute it. Read Karl Popper.

Obviously, the question of what constitutes reality and whether there is an objective reality is a long-standing question of metaphysics. As far as "refuting a philosophy" goes, generally it takes an argument to refute a philosophical position, not new information. (Though Einstein's work on relativity all but killed the absolutist view of space and time.)

I don't have a strong opinion on the concept of an objective reality, primarily because I haven't spent particularly long pondering it. Nor do I have a strong opinion on absolutism, but I would like to note my objection to the terminal parenthetical statement here.

I assume that absolutism is defined as per Wikipedia, asserting the possibility of comprehending existence as a whole. Relativity is counter-intuitive because it contradicts the idea of a three-dimensional Euclidean space with linear time. This is how we naturally think about existence, because it approximates our standard experience very well. Relativity only shows that the intuitive Newtonian laws are substantially incorrect when we are dealing with very large, or very fast-moving objects. But relativity does not replace Newton with uncertainty which could make the comprehension of the universe impossible, it is replaced with (longer and more complex) laws that take these relativistic effects into account. Some of them require a different way of thinking about the world than the Newtonian laws, but they are just as deterministic and absolute as those laws were.

Now if you had said quantum theory killed absolutism, I wouldn't have argued with your statement. I wouldn't have accepted it though, because there is no real consensus regarding how best to interpret quantum effects, some of them seem to reject absolutism, while others do not.

[folkhero]

Yet Newtonian theory models the universe perfectly well except at the subatomic level and in the presence of certain rarer phenomenon. It correctly accounts for 99% of the observable world. Therefore it would seem that quantum physics includes within it all of the same implications as Newtonian physics, just with additional ones tacked on.

Probabilistic aspects of quantum theory are necessary to explain radioactive decay, that has a large impact on the observable world which Newton just can't account for. You could say that it just falls into the 1%, but 1% can be huge, especially when a it's a particle of radiation that may or may not be emitted in exactly the right direction to hit some of your DNA in exactly the right way to give you cancer.

[Jsty]

It can't be founded on any assumed objective state, but that doesn't mean objective reality has no place in philosophy. Or rather any attempt to found a philosophy is fine to the extent that later information can refute it. Read Karl Popper.

Obviously, the question of what constitutes reality and whether there is an objective reality is a long-standing question of metaphysics. As far as "refuting a philosophy" goes, generally it takes an argument to refute a philosophical position, not new information. (Though Einstein's work on relativity all but killed the absolutist view of space and time.)

I don't have a strong opinion on the concept of an objective reality, primarily because I haven't spent particularly long pondering it. Nor do I have a strong opinion on absolutism, but I would like to note my objection to the terminal parenthetical statement here.

I assume that absolutism is defined as per Wikipedia, asserting the possibility of comprehending existence as a whole. Relativity is counter-intuitive because it contradicts the idea of a three-dimensional Euclidean space with linear time. This is how we naturally think about existence, because it approximates our standard experience very well. Relativity only shows that the intuitive Newtonian laws are substantially incorrect when we are dealing with very large, or very fast-moving objects. But relativity does not replace Newton with uncertainty which could make the comprehension of the universe impossible, it is replaced with (longer and more complex) laws that take these relativistic effects into account. Some of them require a different way of thinking about the world than the Newtonian laws, but they are just as deterministic and absolute as those laws were.

Now if you had said quantum theory killed absolutism, I wouldn't have argued with your statement. I wouldn't have accepted it though, because there is no real consensus regarding how best to interpret quantum effects, some of them seem to reject absolutism, while others do not.

I could swear, sometimes, I read things in this forum and think, "Hey, I bet they meant something by that."

Then I wonder, "Hey, I wonder if they knew what they meant, or cared."

Then I think, "Oooh! Ice cream!"

[Eternal Density]

That's not what everyone on a train is thinking. Have you been to http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/ ? That's what everyone on the train is thinking.

(Warning: Reading that site can potentially lead to a TVTropes level of immersion.

dammit, I've been clean for around a year. Now I've got to catch up...

[TiPerihelion]

Also tenuous are the claims that there is no "supernatural" (how do you define it, and how do you prove that it doesn't exist?) and that we live in a deterministic universe (modern physics suggests that there is indeterminacy at the quantum level).

Unfalsifiable concepts have no merit, because you can produce an infinite number of them just as easily and they will subsist forever independently of anything that has actual, observable implications, no matter what these are. So it is best to just focus on the things that we can actually focus on in some capacity, nothing else is of consequence.

Well, whether the existence of the "supernatural" is unfalsifiable or not depends upon your definition - hence why my question was two-fold: how do you define it, and how would you disprove it? The existence of the supernatural depends on its definition, which, as you would imagine, is debated heatedly among philosophers. (By the way, for clarification, "concepts" are never falsifiable; neither are ideas. Nor are objects or colors or songs. Only facts and propositions are falsifiable.)

As for the rest of that...I never denied that Newton's model of the universe is still applicable and useful. But if we're talking about determinism vs. indeterminism, I don't see how that's relevant.

I assume that absolutism is defined as per Wikipedia, asserting the possibility of comprehending existence as a whole.

That's where you went wrong. I'm talking about the theory of absolutism in the philosophy of space and time. Your post is irrelevant to my comments.

I could swear, sometimes, I read things in this forum and think, "Hey, I bet they meant something by that."

Small world.

(Edited for clarification)

[musashi1600]

If I'm thinking about someone else on the bus I'm riding (no trains where I live, for the most part), I'm probably wondering for the (2^n)th time why people sit in an aisle seat while blocking off an empty window seat. I've never understood that.

[Kurasuke]

People don't want to sit next to other people on the bus. I usually take the window seat, unless I have one of the bus seats that has one of the tires in the window.