FRIENDLY Objectivist Discussion Thread

[Aspie]

It just doesn't seem constructive. It just specifys and simplifies.

[stephen]

Keep in mind that I'm simplifying and giving examples of the philosophy to specific questions.  The philosophy goes into great detail about a great many things.

The philosophy is providing an alternate world view opposed to (among others) religion.  Objective realty seems a good place to start.

[SM]

Yeah but is it really something you can live your life by?  Even you said you only agree with bits.

Only Arcangel seems to try and adhere to it and is apparently constantly marginalised because of it.

[stephen]

Yeah but is it really something you can live your life by?  Even you said you only agree with bits.

Only Arcangel seems to try and adhere to it and is apparently constantly marginalised because of it.

The bits that I agree with, yes I do have that particular world view.

I believe in an objective reality.

As far as the ethics are concerned, i've come to my own, reasoned conclusion of ethics, taking into account my religious up bringing and my personal discussions and study surrounding objectivism and other philosophies.

Can someone live by the philosophy of objectivism.  Yes they can.

As far as archangel is concerned - he SAYS he lives by objectivism but I can't know whether that is true or not.  He probably believes that he does, but whether in fact he is or not I can't say.  He could have a misunderstanding of the philosophy.  I just don't know.  As far as being constantly marginalised because of it, again, I just simply don't know.  he could be but then again, as he's shown, he could just be an arrogant so and so and that is why he is marginalised.

[stephen]

I try to adhere to objectivism as best I can. I apply it to everyday life.

That's all anyone can ever do.

Or for a different view point.

Do or do not.  There is no try.

I may have a misunderstanding of the philosophy, but I am not aware of it at this time.

People usually don't know they've got a misunderstanding until it's pointed out to them.

[Eva]

It's 2am, so I'll have to get back to you.

Here's an idea for thought though - you mention gravity. Gravity still remains a force of which its exact nature continues to elude us. Why? In part, because we are still restricted by our subjective perception of the universe, be it measurements, observations, thought experiments, theories... Subjective does not necessarily mean 'opinionated'. 

People once thought the world was flat too.

Our knowledge of the universe is ever increasing.

The point is that, if there is a difference between how I percieve a rock lying on the ground, and how you perceive a rock lying on the ground, then it is so infitessimally small as to not even bother with it.

Now someone who is blind can't perceive the rock through sight.  They can perceive it through touch and taste (yuck) etc.  The rock is still there regardless.

I return to house building.  Two builders can look at the same set of blueprints and build the exact same house.  Their perceptions of reality are vastly the same.

The world is an objective place.  Rocks exist, whether I'm here or not.  We as human beings, can perceive the reality of the rock no problems.

The rock analogy - so, a rock in my eyes is most likely also a rock in your eyes... and...?

That doesn't really suggest anything in itself, other than we have both learned what makes a 'rock'. A plethora of other philosophies can arrive at this conclusion as well.

The building analogy - I'm not sure this can be applied to objectivism at all, as seen through the prism of Ayn Rand or in any way validate anything.

A house is a 'construct' - humans didn't tap into some kind of knowledge, pre-existing in the 'objective reality' and discovered for ourselves how to build a house. We can build houses, based on centuries of trial and error experimentation with materials and other factors. The very notion that your analogy presupposed that the only people able to actually construct a functioning house are builders, suggest that the required knowledge does not exist in an objective reality, where everybody can just 'discover' for themselves how to build houses.

In my humble opinion, Ayn Rand's philosophy can be fun to study but nevertheless, when applied to the world we are living in, it always falls short. The society and moral/ethical constructs she promotes, exists as an utopian idea only. It has never materialized in real life and imo it never will.

So, I'm a bit in SM's boat - the main principles of objectivism become somewhat pointless in a world that is populated by very subjective minds.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards Nietzchse's words about how our reality is not dictated by truth, but by power. But I don't really embrace any philosophic views as a whole.

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

That was awesome Eva! 

[BANE]

Just saw this posted on Funny Or Die. Holy crap, coincidence!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctu8Pqgrn9g#noexternalembed

[stephen]

The rock analogy - so, a rock in my eyes is most likely also a rock in your eyes... and...?

Isn't this a large part of what philosophy is about?  Objectivism isn't the only philosophy to propose how we see reality and what reality is.

That doesn't really suggest anything in itself, other than we have both learned what makes a 'rock'. A plethora of other philosophies can arrive at this conclusion as well.

Of course other philosophies probably have.  Just as other philosophies have come up with different viewpoints.  As I said, it is a large part of what philosophy is.

The building analogy - I'm not sure this can be applied to objectivism at all, as seen through the prism of Ayn Rand or in any way validate anything.

A house is a 'construct' - humans didn't tap into some kind of knowledge, pre-existing in the 'objective reality' and discovered for ourselves how to build a house. We can build houses, based on centuries of trial and error experimentation with materials and other factors. The very notion that your analogy presupposed that the only people able to actually construct a functioning house are builders, suggest that the required knowledge does not exist in an objective reality, where everybody can just 'discover' for themselves how to build houses.

No what I was saying is that the materials that go into building a house are apart of objective realty.  They exist.  Things that are man made (concrete for example) all come from natural elements.  We didn't will concrete into existence.

Of course it is the sum of centuries of knowledge that allow us to do this.  But we get there through reason and rational thought.  That's the point.  By thinking and using our minds, (yes over centuries) we are able to mold the natural world into bulding a house.  I couldn't build a house because I don't have the knowledge to do so.  But, using my mind, using reason and rational thought, I could learn that knowledge.

In my humble opinion, Ayn Rand's philosophy can be fun to study but nevertheless, when applied to the world we are living in, it always falls short.

In certain respects I agree.

The society and moral/ethical constructs she promotes, exists as an utopian idea only. It has never materialized in real life and imo it never will.

I agree with this as well.  Human nature does not and will not conform to the objectivist philosophy.

So, I'm a bit in SM's boat - the main principles of objectivism become somewhat pointless in a world that is populated by very subjective minds.

I agree in some respects but disagree with others.

I believe in reason and rational thought.  I believe that we can know the truth of reality.  We see this every single day in the houses that get built, in the cars we drive, in the computer screen you're reading this very post on.  I believe that that part of the objectivist philosophy is bang on.

As I've said before, Rand herself was stubborn and I think angry to some degree.  She was Egotistical and looked down upon everyone else feeling that she was superior and this flowed through into how she spoke and wrote about her philosophy.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards Nietzchse's words about how our reality is not dictated by truth, but by power. But I don't really embrace any philosophic views as a whole.

I thought Nietzchse rejected the idea of objective reality and that knowledge was contingent on all sorts of things.

I disagree.  While people allow their subjective thoughts and feelings etc to perceive realty, I believe we have the capacity to know the objective truth of things.  Like I said, we can build that house.

[Eva]

Isn't this a large part of what philosophy is about?  Objectivism isn't the only philosophy to propose how we see reality and what reality is.
.........

Of course other philosophies probably have.  Just as other philosophies have come up with different viewpoints.  As I said, it is a large part of what philosophy is.

...which was my point exactly. Why bring up an analogy that suggests nothing in itself, apart from what is obvious to everybody?

No what I was saying is that the materials that go into building a house are apart of objective realty.  They exist.  Things that are man made (concrete for example) all come from natural elements.  We didn't will concrete into existence.

Of course it is the sum of centuries of knowledge that allow us to do this.  But we get there through reason and rational thought.  That's the point.  By thinking and using our minds, (yes over centuries) we are able to mold the natural world into bulding a house.  I couldn't build a house because I don't have the knowledge to do so.  But, using my mind, using reason and rational thought, I could learn that knowledge.

Objectivism isn't really examining the reality of physical objects. It just takes that as a given, pretty much. What objectivism suggests is that reality inhibits a self-evident 'truth' that exists completely independent of the observer, hence Ayn Rand acknowledges that the observer does inhabit a sum of knowledge he or she has obtained through subjective perception, but she refutes that the reality observed, is influenced or should be 'interpreted' by this knowledge. Reality is precisely what it is perceived as.

Logic, reason and rational thought are not exclusive to objectivism. They are applied to almost every philosophical argument I've ever heard of, no matter the originator of the argument. Logic simply describes a way of reasoning. There's no truth or validity in logic by itself.

In my humble opinion, Ayn Rand's philosophy can be fun to study but nevertheless, when applied to the world we are living in, it always falls short.

In certain respects I agree.

The society and moral/ethical constructs she promotes, exists as an utopian idea only. It has never materialized in real life and imo it never will.

I agree with this as well.  Human nature does not and will not conform to the objectivist philosophy.

Ok... and yet you adhere to Ayn Rand's philosophy, even if it by your own admission has done a very poor job so far, when applied to real world concepts and constructs, such as politics, ethics, socialism etc.?

So, I'm a bit in SM's boat - the main principles of objectivism become somewhat pointless in a world that is populated by very subjective minds.

I agree in some respects but disagree with others.

I believe in reason and rational thought.  I believe that we can know the truth of reality.  We see this every single day in the houses that get built, in the cars we drive, in the computer screen you're reading this very post on.  I believe that that part of the objectivist philosophy is bang on.

As I've said before, Rand herself was stubborn and I think angry to some degree.  She was Egotistical and looked down upon everyone else feeling that she was superior and this flowed through into how she spoke and wrote about her philosophy.

Again, I seriously question this perception that there exists a 'truth of reality' and that it can be achieved by applying Ayn Rand's version of logic onto the world we perceive.

To me, her philosophy looks a lot more like ideology in the guise of philosophy, something that imo becomes apparent whenever Rand dissects concepts such as socialism, capitalism, morality, ethics, man, good vs evil etc. through her objectivism prism. In the end, she imagines 'the heroic man' as someone who acts out of selfishness and amorality, standing alone opposed to all other men. In a political context, I understand fully why some right-wing republicans embrace her philosophy, when taken at face value. But I would love to see the same individuals being challenged with the more complex underpinnings of Rand's arguments (or any other philosopher for that matter). I'd guess it would be the shortest philosophical discussion I've ever witnessed.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards Nietzchse's words about how our reality is not dictated by truth, but by power. But I don't really embrace any philosophic views as a whole.

I thought Nietzchse rejected the idea of objective reality and that knowledge was contingent on all sorts of things.

I disagree.  While people allow their subjective thoughts and feelings etc to perceive realty, I believe we have the capacity to know the objective truth of things.  Like I said, we can build that house.

What Nietzchse is arguing is, that all things are given to our interpretation of them - an interpretation that is governed by power, not truth. Hence, you could argue he rejects the idea of an 'absolute truth' of anything and everything, as proposed by Rand. Or at least, he rejects that such an absolute truth can ever be derived.

[Space Sweeper]

And besides, Objectivism isn't for everyone. It is a rare gift in modern day to be able to think rationally. And if you find comfort, success, and happiness in Altruism, don't expect me or any other Objectivist to support you, or even consider you as human. Maybe when you look up at us out of the gutter when your charity has given you nothing in return, maybe you'll understand.

[Blacklabel]

You forgot my ammendment. It's "If you choose to practice Altruism, That's fine. I won't attempt to persuade you." Then that objectivists won't view you as a true man/woman. (yes, there is a difference between a Man/Woman and a human. Neither does male/female mean the same thing.)

Thank you. We are all feeling enlightened right now.

[Aspie]

This guy is the philisophical equivalent to Rick Grimes.

[Predaker]

It doesn't matter what philosophy you believe - when you act like you would let someone drown in quicksand because they are less than human and you might get your boots muddy, you won't make a lot of friends.

[Predaker]

All your comments are based on the idea that what you're saying is going to insult or bother me. Which none of them do. So don't even try.

Actually I had to edit something insulting out before posting.