Objectivism: The Philisophical Side

[Vladimir Lenin]

(Note: I'm dividing Objectivism into two parts for two Forums, the Lassiez-Faire Capitalism will be posted in the Political Academy)


Let's start off with some basic principles:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest

Translated:
1. Wishing won't make it so.
2. You can't eat your cake and eat it too.
3. Man is an end in himself

Taken from the ARI (Ayn Rand Institute, the entire article can be read at, http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ectivism_intro )

I'll start posting advanced Metaphysics and Epistemology when I don't have a headache.

[drak10687]

1. Can you name me one fact, as well as prove to me that it is "in fact" a fact?

2. Well, as far as reason being the only source of knowledge, Socrates would agree with you on that one, but he also said that you have to separate the soul from the body in order to achieve it, as reason only comes from the soul, and one can only do so through death... which would seem to contradict you "#1" (though I'm not really sure as to what you mean by supernatural or sacred).

3. What exactly is it that a man makes? Apparently you say "facts are facts"... well, according to any modern science, the principle of conservation of matter and energy holds up in any situation known to man... which means no new matter or energy can be created or destroyed (though one can be transformed into the other, as can be seen in the atom bomb). Hence man does not create or destroy anything technically, he only "borrows" and transforms.

I guess we'll have to wait for your advanced Meta-physics and Epistemology...

[Justinian]

1. Reality exists an objective absolute, facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears

This is both true and not true at the same time. Undeniably, facts have nothing to do with what we want and we can't change them. But the power of human perception is not to be ignored. If a man is truly an island, or as you put it, an "end in himself" who must control only his own being, it doesn't matter what is true and what isn't. Our minds, our perception, can pervert the most simple and true fact into whatever we want it to be. It is the power of placebo. If we except something to happen, want something to happen, whether we choose it to be or we are influenced to want it; it happens.

And if we only live to fulfill our own purposes, there logically cannot be anything wrong with this. If I want to think that 2+2 is 4, I can; yes, it is illogical, but with the power of my mind I can make it logical to myself. Our mind can be easily twisted to make us believe things that have no logical basis; the indoctrination of Nazi Germany, for example.

The human mind is not perfect, we see things because we want them to happen and ignore things because we don't.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

What is reason? If reason is the undeniable quality we must base our lives on, than surely reason is truth. Truth is reason. Right? Wrong. Reason is a tool, a tool by which anything is possible - Socrates could convince you that justice is doing wrong to one's enemies and right to ones' friends (I can dig up the actual argument for you if you like). The argument uses reason; it is logically sound, unshakeable in fact, but you can't agree with it because it isn't true. Truth, not reason, is the thing we base our lives on; not because we live in truth or tell the truth, but because we always know what is true and what isn't. We wrestle with the truth; we have philosophies like Objectivism because of our desire to see the truth. When we lie, we know we aren't telling the truth.

Reason does not explain anything. It is not reasonable to want to be loved. It is not reasonable to hate others. It is not reasonable to follow any philosophy at all, whether it be objectivism or nihilism; reason denies the need for philosophy. Reason should mean we do not need to base our beliefs and being on anything; and yet undeniably, we do, even if our belief is simply that we have no beliefs (a la atheism).

None of this is reasonable, and yet it is undeniably present, and not even the staunchest stoic or Objectivist can say otherwise.

3. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

Tell me, John Galt, do you seek love or are you truly, completely indifferent? For if you live only for yourself, to achieve your own end, to do what Objectivism preaches, you must be completely, utterly indifferent to all things that are not pertaining to you; reasonable to you. You should not object to the death of others, if it does not effect you. You should not care for others' misfortune, if it does not effect you. You should not love your family or friends, unless it does you reasonable good, and it really doesn't.

For some reason, call it providence or inexplicable nature, humans seek what is right for us and have the niggling wish to do what is right by others. You don't plow over civilians in the street because you have a right to motion whenever you want.

Face it, agree or not, humans have an undeniable urge to do good, and it is only by contradicting the other terms of Objectivism that we can convince ourselves to do otherwise - only by lying to ourselves, obscuring our own beliefs, using our perception to change what we think is right - only in these ways can we resist our human desire to do good and to have good done to us.

1. No god, no supernatural, no sacred anything.

The belief that we deny beliefs. Yet surely Philosophy and Reason are gods in their own sense, some useless thing we should for some reason follow. What is the difference between God and Reason? They both achieve the same purpose. They both give us a meaning, something to strive for. They are both intangible and unproveable. They both tell us to do things that, without their existence, we have no reason to do.

If there is no sacred anything, Objectivism itself is not sacred and it is ridiculous - IT IS AGAINST OBJECTIVISM - to follow it. You believe in something which calls you a fool to believe in anything, including itself.

2. Man is a heroic being, productive achievement his greatest activity.

The very idea of heroism is simply a projection of what I said before, our desire to do good and have good done to us. How can man possibly be heroic when man lives only for itself? That is simply contradictory and ridiculous.

Heroism is "The qualities characteristic of a hero, as courage, bravery, fortitude, unselfishness, etc.; the display of such qualities."

Neither courage, nor bravery, nor unselfishness (especially not unselfishness) have any place in Objectivist doctrine. You cannot be heroic and be divorced of others at the same time. To be an Objectivist is to be, by definition, an antihero. Not a villain, but certainly not a hero.

3. What a man make's he should be able to keep, then do away with it or do whatever he wants with it no matter what.

Why not?

[Farnan]

And if we only live to fulfill our own purposes, there logically cannot be anything wrong with this. If I want to think that 2+2 is 4, I can; yes, it is illogical, but with the power of my mind I can make it logical to myself. Our mind can be easily twisted to make us believe things that have no logical basis; the indoctrination of Nazi Germany, for example.

Sorry for being off-topic, but am I the only one who caught that when he was trying to be illogical he gave the logical answer?

[mocker]

Sorry for being off-topic, but am I the only one who caught that when he was trying to be illogical he gave the logical answer?

Maybe he wasn't thinking in the decimal system?:hmmm:

[Ummon]

1. Reality exists an objective absolute, facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears

Provably false. So if facts are facts, we must discard objectivism, if facts are not facts we must discard objectivism.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

You define reason unproperly: your definition would infact include emotion, in neuroscientific terms. The problem of qualia essentially leaves this philosophy as a useless invention.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

That neither. Human beings are part of a network and acting as molecules-gone-selfish makes the network, and the single beings, fail as well.

These are the basics, of what an Objectivist believes Philisophically what it actually means:

1. No god, no supernatural, no sacred anything.

2. Man is a heroic being, productive achievement his greatest activity.

3. What a man make's he should be able to keep, then do away with it or do whatever he wants with it no matter what.

I'll start posting advanced Meta-physics and Epistemology when I don't have a headache.

We are already in serious trouble with basics, let alone advanced stuff.

[Garbarsardar]

(Note: I'm dividing Objectivism into two parts for two Forums, the Lassiez-Faire Capitalism will be posted in the Political Academy)


Let's start off with some basic principles:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest

Translated:
1. Wishing won't make it so.
2. You can't eat your cake and eat it too.
3. Man is an end in himself

Translated again:
1. Reality exists an objective absolute, facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

These are the basics, of what an Objectivist believes Philisophically what it actually means:

1. No god, no supernatural, no sacred anything.

2. Man is a heroic being, productive achievement his greatest activity.

3. What a man make's he should be able to keep, then do away with it or do whatever he wants with it no matter what.

I'll start posting advanced Meta-physics and Epistemology when I don't have a headache.

It is customary to quote the source especially since you copied and pasted the whole post from Wiki:

http://www.philowiki.com/wiki/index....m_Debate_Guide

And I suggest you avoid this in any other context since it is plagiarism. Or maybe it's your "headache".

[Vladimir Lenin]

It is customary to quote the source especially since you copied and pasted the whole post from Wiki:

http://www.philowiki.com/wiki/index....m_Debate_Guide

And I suggest you avoid this in any other context since it is plagiarism. Or maybe it's your "headache".

Thank you, I forgot to post it.

And I got it from: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ectivism_intro

Not the wiki.

[chilon]

We are already in serious trouble with basics, let alone advanced stuff.

LMAO

[Spurius]

She wrote, "In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

If existence is absolute, it would apply equally to every entity, determining nothing.

HOW something is defines what it 'ought' to do. Form follows function, and the reverse - more than anything else.

[Chaigidel]

why do I just have this gut feeling that objectivism is one of the most evil and disgusting ways of looking at the world?

[Spurius]

why do I just have this gut feeling that objectivism is one of the most evil and disgusting ways of looking at the world?

It's more of a soap, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charact...Atlas_Shrugged

Can I be Mort Liddy, pls pls?

[Chaigidel]

I want to be Mystery Worker or Wesley Mouch

seriously objectivism really seems to support the most horrible facets of humanity rather than any of the best.

[Spurius]

Seriously, where's the creator of the thread? NM the 'who', but *where* is John Galt?

[Lord Condormanius]

Seriously, where's the creator of the thread? NM the 'who', but *where* is John Galt?

He's 14, it's the middle of the day...I am guessing/hoping he is at school. It would be nice to see some kind of rebuttal that lies outside of an Ayn Rand novel.

[Justinian]

JG, it would be nice if you actually replied to my post and the posts refuting your "arguments".

[Vladimir Lenin]

My apologies, I had school, then I went to go work on my Oratory piece for a debate tournament.

Let's begin:

@ Drak: I'm pretty sure if I hit you over the head with a huge block of wood, we could both agree you would feel pain. We use our five senses and mind as guides in the world. Also, to your second argument, does it really seem logical that your inner-soul will float out of you and you will understand all? Remember: Aristotle, not Socrates.

To your third argument, I will say that if a man cuts a tree down and creates a boat, he has made something that boat did not exist. That is what I am talking about.

@ Justinian:

1. Feelings may taint reality, but that does not change it. It is the diffrence between looking through a clear glass window, and then looking through a piece of wax paper. What you see is still there and exists, however through clear glass you see what it really is, through the wax paper you see a distorted vision of it.

2. If I knew I owned a million dollars, and I light it on fire, am I using Reason? Of course not.

3. Of course I seek love, I'm doing it for my own happiness. Also, Rand never says you must scowl at everyone and be focused only on money, she says happiness, if money makes you happy, good for you. If love makes you happy, good on you as well.

4. When did I ever call Objectivism sacred? There is no god, to explain it to you in a better way, "God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive." - Ayn Rand

5. heroism • noun great bravery. Oxford Compact Dictionary. Is not taking a risk in a buisness deal not bravery?

6. Please rephrase.

@ Ummon

1. Your premise is flawed. You make an assumption that Objectivism is against reality.

2. Reason, is a clear glass, emotion is like smearing soap all over it, you can still see through it, but it is less clear.

3. You find something wrong with pursuing your own happiness instead of pursuing someonelse's?

4. I'll apply KISS, Keep it Simple, Stupid.

@ Chaigdel: Because you don't understand.

@ Spurius: The famous is-ought problem. She did solve it with those words. The phrase could also be rephrased as, "I am, therefore I'll think."

It was 1957, they were good Character names, how would you like an army, of Bob's and Bill's filling the pages.

@ Lord Con.: Yes, you're correct, I was at school.

[Ummon]

@ Ummon

1. Your premise is flawed. You make an assumption that Objectivism is against reality.

Objectivism is against observed reality, as a consequence of observation, and not as a premise.

2. Reason, is a clear glass, emotion is like smearing soap all over it, you can still see through it, but it is less clear.

In your own idealistic/ideological classification, yes.

3. You find something wrong with pursuing your own happiness instead of pursuing someonelse's?

Your own is linked to that of others.

[Vladimir Lenin]

In your own idealistic/ideological classification, yes.



Your own is linked to that of others.

And if the world benefits from a discovery that I make, because I wanted to, that's not a bad thing.

[Justinian]

If I knew I owned a million dollars, and I light it on fire, am I using Reason? Of course not.

Might I ask what the hell that has to do with what I said?

When did I ever call Objectivism sacred? There is no god, to explain it to you in a better way,

You follow it like the Bible. Don't be silly, your devotion to following Objectivism is no different than a Christian's devotion to following the Bible. You're simply following a different set of beliefs.

Is not taking a risk in a buisness deal not bravery?

Not bravery in the sense that defines a hero; not even in the slightest. A firefighter is a hero, a fat **** in a business suit making a business call is incomparable.

Wait, we shouldn't have firefighters - fighting fires isn't in their interest unless it's burning their own house, or killing them!