Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Above link explains Stockholm syndrome in psychological context. I feel it can be extended to almost all part of human behavior, mob as well as individual. Let me explain a bit.
1. GOD
Biggest reason to write this article was to investigate how does GOD got so popular, even after we have witnessed so many dark consequences in his/her name.
This concept abducts and hostages individual usually in childhood. But as we grow up, we starts to question. Here comes the crucial stage when it becomes more and more inconvenient to question existence of GOD. Isn't this a glaring example of Stockholm syndrome. Most of us, join the others supporting the existence and reap the benefits of being within the mob event at the cost of our own reason. This is done after recognizing the irrationality in the whole argument against the existence. What else can explain this behavior if not Stockholm syndrome. Religions, Classes, Castes etc etc , these are just the projections of this behavior and we all have seen the consequences. Still masses disapprove to get out of abductor. They feel enraged to talk against the hostage taker. Hostages go for war in the name of their abductor. We learned from history that we never learned from history. Mass human behavior has no significant evolution along with physical evolution. Faith-based-hijacking of reason has dominated all ages of human history.
2. SCIENCE
When science is treated as religion (blind following, no questioning!), this phenomenon is observed amongst scientific community. Followers of Pre-quantum mechanics, opposed the new-science as vehemently as any religious group. Love and respect for the abductor which has been nurtured over the schooling and university years made them so adamant to disapprove the new inconvenient concepts that they ridiculed and opposed it even after understanding the truth. Even so-called men of reason hide behind faith-based arguments when confronted with an opposing view and then to make things more worse, they try to impose authoritarian hierarchy into scientific community. This behavior clearly indicated the infection of Stockholm syndrome.
3. PARENTS
This ideas also applies to the parent-child relationship. When we are children, we usually idolize our parents. Slowly we realize that they are also full of faults. Here comes the major turn towards maturity. Whether we give in to our irrationality due to our deep love for them or whether we turn the tables upside down and come to terms that they CAN BE WRONG, makes a hell lot of difference the way we approach our future. West boast about getting away from this problem but do they actually manage that, or do they become the same for their own children unknowingly. If not then that society must have become entirely rational by now. It didn't.
4. JOBS
Many of us are stuck with jobs we don't like. We keep convincing our self against freedom. Again the hostage taker (The Job) wins most of the times, except for few who manage to pursue what they like the most.
5. FAMILY
Same arguments as in section for parents. But I must clarify that there is a difference between these two cases. We don't choose our parents but we do choose our family. We decide who to marry and how to continue with the family making process. It does not behave as a hostage-taker if the decisions has not been based on compromises and instead based on true mutual understandings. Since i consider friends within the family so the argument goes the same for them.
6. MONITORY PROFIT
This is the case of business institutions. Most of them are established by creative men in search of inventing better tools than existing at their time. But soon the mirage of monitory profit acts as a hostage-taker and people who have no idea of real production, MANAGES and decides the market strategies for the new inventions. Almost all business houses end up striving for monopoly using patents, sabotaging competitors and whoring law/governments. What started as a game for being creative and advancing human civilization ends up in doing opposite and they also show great resistant towards any attempt to free from their hostage. They would make more money doing opposite but probably that's tougher choice and hence not smart enough :)
So then the main question which arises is that, Why do we observe this behavior? What does abductor fill up which satisfies hostage?
As i see, following is the list of attributes being filled up for different abductors:
1. God fills up greatly the identity crisis. It also fill up to great extent the feeling of companionship in hard times. It gives aid to the sense of belonging to a mob for mutual security [social, political, economical, psychological and many other...als :) ]
2. In the case of Science, It fills up the false notion of having respect from others for what we know. If a new science has to change that then they feel threatened to loose their status and the respect associated. Feynman gave an excellent interview in this regard.
3. Parent's case is much more straightforward. Childhood learning period shapes the whole personality and its most difficult to reverse/turn some other away. In many cases the nature of this phenomenon is entirely innocent.
4. Job gives security in many senses and hence this case is very obvious.
5. This has same arguments as the section for Job. Compromise based family is nothing but a series of Stockholm syndromes in succession and inter-twinged so heavily that after some time, people start to ignore it since its too heavy to recognize and live with.
6. Monetary profit secures future and satisfies the individual desire of superiority amongst fellows.
To get out of this loop and see a birds eye view of this whole situation, it took me whole 3 months...Now that i know it, i am free off it :)
Above link explains Stockholm syndrome in psychological context. I feel it can be extended to almost all part of human behavior, mob as well as individual. Let me explain a bit.
1. GOD
Biggest reason to write this article was to investigate how does GOD got so popular, even after we have witnessed so many dark consequences in his/her name.
This concept abducts and hostages individual usually in childhood. But as we grow up, we starts to question. Here comes the crucial stage when it becomes more and more inconvenient to question existence of GOD. Isn't this a glaring example of Stockholm syndrome. Most of us, join the others supporting the existence and reap the benefits of being within the mob event at the cost of our own reason. This is done after recognizing the irrationality in the whole argument against the existence. What else can explain this behavior if not Stockholm syndrome. Religions, Classes, Castes etc etc , these are just the projections of this behavior and we all have seen the consequences. Still masses disapprove to get out of abductor. They feel enraged to talk against the hostage taker. Hostages go for war in the name of their abductor. We learned from history that we never learned from history. Mass human behavior has no significant evolution along with physical evolution. Faith-based-hijacking of reason has dominated all ages of human history.
2. SCIENCE
When science is treated as religion (blind following, no questioning!), this phenomenon is observed amongst scientific community. Followers of Pre-quantum mechanics, opposed the new-science as vehemently as any religious group. Love and respect for the abductor which has been nurtured over the schooling and university years made them so adamant to disapprove the new inconvenient concepts that they ridiculed and opposed it even after understanding the truth. Even so-called men of reason hide behind faith-based arguments when confronted with an opposing view and then to make things more worse, they try to impose authoritarian hierarchy into scientific community. This behavior clearly indicated the infection of Stockholm syndrome.
3. PARENTS
This ideas also applies to the parent-child relationship. When we are children, we usually idolize our parents. Slowly we realize that they are also full of faults. Here comes the major turn towards maturity. Whether we give in to our irrationality due to our deep love for them or whether we turn the tables upside down and come to terms that they CAN BE WRONG, makes a hell lot of difference the way we approach our future. West boast about getting away from this problem but do they actually manage that, or do they become the same for their own children unknowingly. If not then that society must have become entirely rational by now. It didn't.
4. JOBS
Many of us are stuck with jobs we don't like. We keep convincing our self against freedom. Again the hostage taker (The Job) wins most of the times, except for few who manage to pursue what they like the most.
5. FAMILY
Same arguments as in section for parents. But I must clarify that there is a difference between these two cases. We don't choose our parents but we do choose our family. We decide who to marry and how to continue with the family making process. It does not behave as a hostage-taker if the decisions has not been based on compromises and instead based on true mutual understandings. Since i consider friends within the family so the argument goes the same for them.
6. MONITORY PROFIT
This is the case of business institutions. Most of them are established by creative men in search of inventing better tools than existing at their time. But soon the mirage of monitory profit acts as a hostage-taker and people who have no idea of real production, MANAGES and decides the market strategies for the new inventions. Almost all business houses end up striving for monopoly using patents, sabotaging competitors and whoring law/governments. What started as a game for being creative and advancing human civilization ends up in doing opposite and they also show great resistant towards any attempt to free from their hostage. They would make more money doing opposite but probably that's tougher choice and hence not smart enough :)
So then the main question which arises is that, Why do we observe this behavior? What does abductor fill up which satisfies hostage?
As i see, following is the list of attributes being filled up for different abductors:
1. God fills up greatly the identity crisis. It also fill up to great extent the feeling of companionship in hard times. It gives aid to the sense of belonging to a mob for mutual security [social, political, economical, psychological and many other...als :) ]
2. In the case of Science, It fills up the false notion of having respect from others for what we know. If a new science has to change that then they feel threatened to loose their status and the respect associated. Feynman gave an excellent interview in this regard.
3. Parent's case is much more straightforward. Childhood learning period shapes the whole personality and its most difficult to reverse/turn some other away. In many cases the nature of this phenomenon is entirely innocent.
4. Job gives security in many senses and hence this case is very obvious.
5. This has same arguments as the section for Job. Compromise based family is nothing but a series of Stockholm syndromes in succession and inter-twinged so heavily that after some time, people start to ignore it since its too heavy to recognize and live with.
6. Monetary profit secures future and satisfies the individual desire of superiority amongst fellows.
To get out of this loop and see a birds eye view of this whole situation, it took me whole 3 months...Now that i know it, i am free off it :)
22 comments:
Although the common points between the SthlmS and the wish to follow the masses are many the difference is also large.
I'll edit later today.
of course it is difficult to get out of the comfort zone we create around us. this zone encompasses everything ,god,job,money,parents....everything.
and its not always difficult to let go.sometimes it is the most painful thing to do, but doing the harder right instead of the easier wrong is the most rewarding feeling actually.
but all this also depends an the amount of 'feeling of being hijacked' one feels. It entirely depends on the individual. I feel all of us at various stages go through what gautam buddha went through in his younger age, but not everyone has the guts do do what he did, to leave everything for the sake of getting answers one seeks.
I tried posting a comment before, but it failed for some reason. I hope to write the similar things again.
Stockholm Syndrome is specific to when a victim of some trauma, empathizes with and probably joins forces with the abductor. Now, it is assumed that this victim empathizes with the abductor due to some mental problem.
However, when you talk about the abductors as a concept, such a God, or Money etc. then it becomes difficult to differentiate between a person who follows those abductors after thinking or without thinking.
Secondly, in a Stockholm Syndrome there is a victimization of the individual. In the cases you have mentioned like God, Parents, Science, Money etc. no victimization occurs. So it is a bit difficult to relate it to Stockholm syndrome.
Nonetheless, if you do not believe in God, then it is easy to be abducted by atheism, if you do not believe in your parents, it is easy to be abducted by rebellion and if you do not believe in earning money, then it is easy to be abducted poverty.
Are you aware of your choices, and the consequences of your action? That is the question that one must ask. One can believe in God after thinking about it without being emotional. One can believe in one's parents in spite of them being flawed. One can believe in an old principle because you have seen it to work and you can believe in making money because that is what gives you pleasure.
@deepak
rightly pointed out the concept of Buddha...I personally dislike his way of avoiding problems in order to attain peace...though most of the times its difficult way but if one does not do anything in order to have peace, ofcourse one will have peace but then where is the fun...fun goes the way along the fighting path...knowing and still fighting...knowing all this and still fighting for the cause we justify rationally...admitting the mistakes and not repeating them instead of keeping mum henceforth to avoid conflicts...Buddhas way may be relevant to few personal cases in life but when applied to life, it seems to me that it can actually sow disaster because it harbors duality...
@fuse me
Some points are interesting to discuss which are as follows:
Stockholm syndrome might or might not be the product of trauma and at the same time it might or might not be linked to "socially acceptable definition" of mental problems.
It has more to do with the phenomenon of "being influenced" to such an extent as of loosing a self-identity and rationality on the way and surrendering them to abductor.
The concept of victimization comes when we talk about free will. Surrendering free will to abductor or willfully following the abductor is assumed same here (but i also suspect this assumption now). It was this sense which i related to SS.
Last point is about being abducted by the forces opposing abductor as mentioned. This is same to the scenario assuming that police comes to free you up from robbers and then you think that police is another kind of abductor freeing you from these ones for their own interest. Police and hence society is abductor now and robbers are actually here to free you from them. Perhaps this is what some of the hostages thought when they joined abductors. But there is a basic fallacy in this argument. Both way, individual has no identity of himself. "Others give them identity". When society/robbers gives him/her the same, they willfully surrender to them. This is why the dual nature of same argument presents itself in this form.
Best way as i see is to understand that being part of a group does not mean surrendering. If it does, that amounts to abduction of individual reason.
Also, this phenomenon cannot be generalized for whole population as there is always a statistical distribution of a variable in a population. So this phenomenon talks about whats happening near the mean point of that distribution only.
Ya, i agree with you. The problem is a dual one. The crux of it, is to belong to a group, but not losing your own sense of rationality. your sense of rationality may or may not be the same as the group.
I was thinking about it and came to the conclusion that if you use the most general definition of Stockholm syndrome as you seem to use it, rather than just the clinical definition of it, then the only way to get rid of it is to analyse every theory/action until you reach the premise of the theory/action. See if the premise is acceptable to you or not. Then decide to either follow it or not. However, doing that is not only difficult for almost everybody, it is even impossible to do it without spending a lot of time doing just that. But still, many people have done it by thinking in retrospect and have accepted their errors and faults and have been able to lead a life on their own terms.
@fuse me
Its rightly mentioned that until one analyze the basic premise of the argument, one does not understand the inherent fallacy. It takes a lot of inconvenient introspection which majority of population would not like to perform. The phrase "premise been acceptable to you" is slightly debatable here. If hostage (so-called) chooses to remain hostage despite knowing the absolute truth about the nature of basic premise, then (s)he accepts SS as his/her way of life. Mostly that's done for convenience. So i guess the concept of "convenience" place a bigger role in the decision making process of hostage towards his/her abductors. For majority of population, its convenient to let others decide for you.Its convenient to push off all unanswerable questions in the name of god. Its convenient to support the existing false theories for "traditional" scientists. Its convenient socially to let parents dominate the decision making process. Its convenient economically and socially to have a job rather than roam around hungry stomach pursuing your dream. Finally its convenient to make profit by cheap ways than to seek creativity in business process. Is convenience the keyword for majority in humanity?
"If hostage (so-called) chooses to remain hostage despite knowing the absolute truth about the nature of basic premise, then (s)he accepts SS as his/her way of life."
No, then I think the person is no longer a hostage. He is aware of his situation. He has got rid of Stockholm Syndrome, even if it does not seem so to another person who is stuck in the SS from the opposing ideology.
I can believe in God and still not be a hostage of SS, I can follow my parents and still not be a hostage of SS, and make money and still not be a hostage of SS. All this is possible if you have a premise and all your actions or ideologies are logical with that premise.
If your premise is convenience, then by all means you can relate such actions to convenience and not be in SS. But convenience may not be the only such premise. There could be others.
here comes the basic problem : how to determine absolutely whether one is a victim or not.
this viewpoint can be both subjective and objective. As i explained in one of the comment with an example of police freeing hostages from abductors. Subjectively the role of abductors is interchangeable. Objectively a hostage assumes that role when he/she trades his/her personal integrity for security/convenience.
so i guess the premise for objectively studying the situation can be : loosing personal integrity and submitting to others.
I wouldn't try to define 'personal integrity' in an objective sense. For that reason, SS as defined clinically is the most objective way of doing it. But expanding its scope to subjective matters such as belief in God, I think the scope to objectively define it goes down. How can you define 'personal integrity' objectively? I think personal integrity is by definition personal, and has to be subjective.
Unless you come up with a completely new ideology which has never been studied before, you will be submitting to somebody anyway.
So I cannot accept this definition as an objective one, because it would be self contradicting.
aha...a new discussion follows henceforth it seems...
Objective definition of personal integrity is quite simple...one decides for oneself and his/her actions (for himself and his actions towards others) independent of any external influence.
I would also like to comment that being personal "personal integrity" cannot be accepted necessarily as a subjective entity. While personal decisions may differ from person to person, they can be made either way: under influence or without influence. These two choices give it an objective nature.
Se we revisit the statement
"If hostage (so-called) chooses to remain hostage despite knowing the absolute truth about the nature of basic premise, then (s)he accepts SS as his/her way of life."
So if the hostage has knowledge of the truth and accepts it, then is it encroachment of personal integrity?
"independent of any external influence"
Is any thought independent of external influence? Influence to what extent? Who can claim that someone has had no influences from anybody else? If that is the case, I would say that everyone in the world falls in the general objective definition that provide.
If that is the case, then the discussion becomes a triviality.
So now since you have pushed the subjectivity from the definition of hostage to personal integrity to now amount of influence, i'd like to advice you that this is a loop. We can try pushing the subjectivity to another thing. I feel that we cannot escape the subjectivity of a belief system.
right...its a loop if seen through subjectivity due to its inherent nature not to produce a unique answer...i think i must clarify my belief system (premise) based on which i am discussing and i wrote that article...
Personal integrity are a set of principles encompassing self-respect, judgment of right and wrong and acting on them in face of adverse situation, self-critical for every action that one performs or everybody else who is concerned performs. In total i club them into a big term called INDIVIDUALITY.
Now comes the question of categorizing them as objective or subjective.
This choice is personal.
I prefer to choose "objective" way and define these terms in ABSOLUTE sense so that i get unique answers for varying situations. (There is a subtle difference between this way and fundamentalism using the argument involving objective rationality but that would unnecessarily drag our discussions in other direction)
Other way is to define these terms in a subjective sense. Then personal choice is a matter of demands of the situation. There is nothing absolute. Uniqueness is lost but more freedom is exploited. Only tragedy/comedy/useful purpose (depends on view-point) in this arena is loss of uniqueness and hence loss of absolute decisions. Arguments never end this way because there is always a way out depending on personal choice to accept it or reject it.
In case of hostage situation, willful surrender of individuality to abductor or group of abductors is to be studied two ways : objective or subjective.
Objective analysis abhors surrender of any part of individuality. Subjective analysis cannot yield a definite answer in this respect as arguments don't have fixed truth value. primitive and compound statements made out of subjective logic (though i consider it misnomer) have no definite truth value (true or false). So objectively this situation is seen as surrendering personal integrity to will of "other". Whether its right or wrong, can be judged by individual objective /subjective maturity of reason employed. But subjectively seeing this situation, nothing is wrong anywhere. The discussion or any discussion for that matter of fact, is absurd since there are no fixed terms to judge. But subjectivity has a great virtue or employing unrestricted freedom. Objectivity demands responsible freedom and it may not be unrestricted depending on individual belief system.
Belief systems as such employ two different mechanisms: objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity is more restricted in its nature but can yield unique answers. Subjectivity employs total freedom but is impotent to produce a unique answer.
Also, individualism believes that nobody other than oneself can encroach one's individuality. So if hostage prefer to go that way, then they take decisions as an individual and bear the consequences as the same. Even "external influence" acceptance is an individual act.
Also, conscious, subconscious and unconscious acceptance of "external influences" must be taken into account separately.
As a child, lacking self consciousness, external influences are different that conscious decision of accepting external influence (conflicting or non-conflicting which i prefer to called destructive and constructive based on the interference phenomenon in wave theory :)) as an living adult capable of a reasonable mind.
Now you have just managed to push the subjectivity to the definition of individuality.
Well, thats exactly the point I am trying to make here. You have tried to take something objective, SS and tried to apply it to something subjective as a belief system.
So now, as you have rightly said we have to make a choice, subjective or objective.
All kinds of logic have a premise, whether subjective or objective. And we have now come the premise where we choose either to believe in objective logic or subjective logic (which you think is a misnomer).
So if I 'choose' to believe in subjective logic, then am I a hostage of subjectivity? and if you chose to believe in objective logic, are you a hostage of objectivity?
If you kept rejecting the influence of all your surroundings, then aren't you the hostage of rebellion without a cause?
First let me take the objective view of hostage and SS. If the premise is that there is an absolute truth, then SS can be termed according to you as the surrender of an adult person to the absolute falsehood. But the same definition, SS can also be surrender of the person to the absolute truth after he becomes an adult. So both are equal and opposite. So as I see it, the unique solution assuming objectivity, is that you are a hostage either to the truth or the the falsehood. Everyone suffers from SS.
I would like to define SS, subjectively, as the condition when you are unaware of the premises or act even though you do not agree with the premises. Once you are fully aware of all your premises and completely agree with them, then you get rid of SS. By that definition only the people who are fully aware of all their premises in every action or thought is free of SS. There is no unique solution, because no one can find out if that is true. It is up to each individual to get rid of his SS until he feels that he is free. Even then, there may be others who do not feel that the person is free of SS.
"Objective analysis abhors surrender of any part of individuality."
Individualism, in fact is a subjective phenomenon, where every person has his/her own belief system and there is no objective truth.
Collectivism is quite the opposite of that where everyone in the group believes in objective truth.
Thats the paradox of the discussion.
If every individual actually performs objective analysis of his beliefs, then it will result in a subjective truth.
here comes a nice point to discuss:
you rightly pointed out the two cases for SS. In objective definition, since absolute truth is predefined (this is why its objective, truth values are pre-defined by objective reason prior to act), so SS is either of the cases which you mentioned. Objectivity is all about either/or definitions. So its either falsehood to be accepted as falsehood or truth to be accepted as truth.
Also, important act of "surrendering the individual reason" defines a hostage. Objectively the very act of surrendering individuality consciously nullifies any qualification of objective acceptance of any outcome henceforth from this act. An "Objective subject" is not a hostage since it does not qualify as surrender. similarly a "Subjective subject" is not a hostage objectively since he/she accepts subjectivity as a way of life. Its the contradictions which create problems.
Now what is the "cause" in this rebellion? Its individuality. Any loss of individuality by any act is an encroachment. This becomes cause of rebellion. Objectivist fight for objective individuality (again a misnomer) and subjective subjects can rebel as per the conditions of that time, if they feel that conditions are against their conclusions for that time.
For the reasons we have both stated, not necessarily agree upon, I would prefer to drop the word 'individual' from this sentence.
"surrendering the individual reason defines a hostage".
I would prefer to say "surrendering of reason defines a hostage".
I don't understand what you mean my objective individuality. It is not a misnomer, but an oxymoron.
A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms.
Secondly I don't know what you think objectivism is. But most definitely, objectivism does not lead to individuality according to accepted definitions of objectivism. Objectivism believes in an absolute truth independent of the mind. So there is no scope of individuality, nor for perception and observation.
So please elaborate on what you mean by objective individuality.
individualism is explained in better words from a speech given by Raymie Stata at MIT (http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/RaymieStata/WhatIsIndividualism.html)
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1584-Freedom____Achievement____Individualism____ReasonObjectivism.aspx
this link gives much better view about relationship between individualism and objectivism. I must emphasize that Ayn Rand just participated a short part in this whole topic which was actually started by Aristotle so it should not be wrongly mentioned as Randian philosophy, as is popular. Unfortunately since no-one else got so popular for this way of life so it seems Rand's philosophy.
keysentence of all this is "Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism"
If its agreed upon that reason is an individual entity and not a collective one then I would prefer to say "surrendering of reason defines a hostage".
Misnomers are widespread in our daily language since rarely concepts are defined and accepted objectively. hence i call objective individuality since basic nature of individuality is objective (its use can be subjective). Its like alphabets needs to be fixed (objective) but then we are free to make any words out of them (subjectivity). If individuality is considered subjective, it can never be defined.
Well, I understand now why we have this dispute. It is because I don't agree with Ayn Rand's ideas of everyone coming to the same views by individual reasoning without sharing a common premise at some point.
Here the premise is that there 'is' some common truth that you can know without any premise or assumption and you can get there by reasoning. Well, I don't buy that premise, because I feel it contradicts it self. How can you have a premise that there is no premise? But if I decide to believe that there is no premise, then I can understand your view of objective individualism. But I have to laugh at the paradox that it creates and I feel that Ayn Rand must be laughing at this paradox too.
The paradox extends to say that you are a hostage presently of Ayn Rand's philosophy by your own definition.
But it just does not make sense to me to say that the basic nature of individuality is objective. You cannot make words whose meaning is not accepted upon. And we cannot argue unless we agree upon a premise.
So we can at this point safely agree to disagree.
We can discuss my views on Ayn Rand's philosophy some other time.
here comes the basic human flaw again...we just love to tag people to concepts...i must repeat again, for me Ayn Rand is not equal to objectivism...she had fairly good view of objectivism but her view was limited to knowledge upto 1960s and what she wrote were within the context of social structures and conditions of her times...much work has been done in the field of objectivity since then....it cannot be ruled out that she was promoted by west since her philosophy looked anti-communist, intellectual yet appealing to common man and hence make the way to thier pseudo-capatalist collectivism.
if you read back the last line of the main article you would realize what i mean by a free man who is free off any SS even if one remains within the various SS. Not becoming the part even while residing inside the system is only possible by having an independent and objective understanding of the whole structure of logical arguments involved in the issue...i wasn't free untill i wrote it...that's why 3 months...needed that time to get moral okay to write it :)
Also rightly pointed paradox about lack of provable basic premise has been debated for many years now...the basic premise of objectivism is existence of truth values "true" and "false"...
one view is that the concept of premise as a valid way of checking an argument is faulty...how...for this they studied how paradoxes are made...paradoxes originate from circular logic...we need a premise to prove something but what will prove the original premise...is there a way out...i don't know...i haven't heard of a solution to this nor i could think of something in this regard! By the way this is the kind of stuff we do in physics, when confronted with a question challenging the basics of the theory, physicist try to start questioning the very nature of basics...it has worked a few times,,,this is how quantum mechanics was born out of theory of light by newton :) i know for nuber theory in mathematics they have a basic theorem which defines the number system...but this basic theorem is unprovable...its because of circular logic again?
some links which could be useful:
1. http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/sexydood/philpaper1.html
2. http://en.allexperts.com/e/o/ob/objectivist_metaphysics.htm
3.
People tag others for want of a better way to categorize. So as I had said before we cannot define words unless we agree upon the meaning. I categorized your view of objectivism to that of Ayn Rand's, for want of a better name. If you do not agree, we could call it whatever you like.
Post a Comment