# Reality



## Argus (Nov 24, 2009)

I've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand's books and after much reflection I have been lead to an interesting conclusion.

There are two realities. One is the objective reality that is independent of the mind, that we interpret through our sensory experiences, and which we percieve through measurement. The other is the relative reality, where we understand and evaluate the world in the contexts of experience, culture, history, etc. These realities can exist in perfect sync with one another, not unlike two sides of the same coin, until people use them to try to interpret concepts like morality and ethics.

Those predisposed to the objective side will see things rationally and logically. They will argue that self interest is the most moral pursuit, and people should follow a "live and let live" philosophy. They will value humans only by how much they create and produce, and whether they can survive on their own.

Those predisposed to the relativistic side will see things empathetically and compassionately because of their awareness of the biases within society. They will argue that social responsiblity is the most moral pursuit, and people should openly seek to fight inequalities and oppression. They will value humans by their potential.

When it comes to constructs such as politics and religion, these two sides will be in eternal conflict with one another. Objectivists usually support individualism, egoism, and capitalism.

Relativists usually support collectivism, altruism, and socialism. Each side in its purest form is destined for collapse. Human beings are social animals, and therefore, they cannot exist in a purely objectivistic society. At the same time, humans must look out for their own self interest in order to survive, so they can't possibly live in a purely relativistic society.

Even though the value judgments of both sides are often in contention with one another, a balance of both is necessary in order to have an understanding of true reality. One that is composed of the objective perception of the physical universe, but also the relative experiences, behaviors, and cultures of human beings.


I believe this is a universal psyche. Objectivists principles are for the self preservation and self fulfillment of the human species, and relativistic principles are for the cooperation and socialization of humans. Not unlike the id vs. the superego in Freud's psyche. A balance is necessary, and therefore an "ego" is established between the two realities.


Thoughts?


----------



## adragonfly (Nov 24, 2009)

i think in a harmonious society, it would be in our best self interest to support collectivism. i believe if we fully love other people as much as ourselves we would be willing to act collectively. We could also say that out of love we would be free to help freely.


----------



## bote (Nov 24, 2009)

never really liked that Ayn Rand, but I read this just a couple days ago and I like whatever that is on her head:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/19/ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged-us-economy


----------



## Rstank (Nov 25, 2009)

true everything folds up nice and neat there is the self and the outside and in order to reach true enlightenment i belive it is nesscary to explore these sides and distinguish for self about everything.......nothing is white and black in this world because white and black both exist at an instant there are those who think black thoughts and there are those who think white thoughts but i believe balance is necessary and is truly an individuals experience through the path of life......break down everything and construct it again with no predisposition then your mind will truly be unlocked from the torrents and gears for the machines and systems that wish to unslave and blind our minds eye


----------



## freepizzaforlife (Nov 28, 2009)

its a one dimension story in a three dimension time.


----------



## Gypsybones (Nov 29, 2009)

Jean-Paul Sartre any one?


----------



## Rstank (Nov 30, 2009)

i guess there are no more thoughts just pot-shots from the rim of the ego


----------



## Argus (Nov 30, 2009)

heavens_fall said:


> Jean-Paul Sartre any one?



Read his book Being and Nothingness.

I prefer Soren Kierkegaard over Sarte.


----------

