• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Objectivism

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
While I know that there are some here familiar (probably more familiar than I) with the concept of Objectivism I was wondering what other views people have of this phylosophy.

For those unfamiliar with it here is everything you wanted (or didn't want) to know and more.





 

Gager

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
A friend of mine introduced me to Rand and Objectivism. I enjoy quite a few of the points but I could never be a pure objectivist for the sole reason that I find it too preachy on the side of the individual. She and others have made good points that when the individual is empowered with reason and has the lack of constraint from governments, other people, or other forces - that much good can come simply from everyone pursuing their own interest and cooperating. Though on the flip side, its not always that simple and I think thats where I start to lose interest. Sometimes one individual gets the shaft while the other does the shafting - and if I recall I can be ordered to be aggressive and uncompromising, abandoning any notion of cooperation, so it would be dishonest for me to sign on as a full blown 'Randroid'

That being said I enjoyed the 'Virtue of Selfishness' - she more or less demolished the notion of altruism and now I can't use the insult 'self-serving' as it just doesn't register as being wrong.
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Gager said:
Sometimes one individual gets the shaft while the other does the shafting

But that isn't part of it.  Objectivisim works on the ideal of trade/cooperation as a mutually reliant venture.  If one person is getting screwed then that person is not operating in his own best interest, and the person doing the screwing is more than likely committing a fraud of some sort and acting improperly anyway.  No philosophy can ensure that the unscrupulous will not try to take advantage of a situation, the individual must still be wary.  The ideal is to fight the collectivist concept so many people have that life is a zero sum game, in order for me to win... you must loose, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

- and if I recall I can be ordered to be aggressive and uncompromising, abandoning any notion of cooperation, so it would be dishonest for me to sign on as a full blown 'Randroid'

I think you've missed the idea here.  In an objectivist sense there is nothing that would preclude soldiers from being uncompromising and uncooperative.  The reasons why you might be ordered to do your duty might be significantly curtailed but not the doing of them.
 

Gager

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
I understand that is not how Objectivism works - but that is how life can work. Are there not some things in this world that are zero sum games? How does the Objectivist answer to that?

Reccesoldier said:
I think you've missed the idea here.  In an objectivist sense there is nothing that would preclude soldiers from being uncompromising and uncooperative.  The reasons why you might be ordered to do your duty might be significantly curtailed but not the doing of them.

In an objectivist sense?

I'm more or less saying that in a position where you can be called to kill, destroy and assist in doing both - that I cannot actually be an objectivist when some of its main tennants are cooperation, respecting the 'natural rights' (i.e. to live) of all people, and not having to use violence or use coercive force - which although I admire if you can do and I do strive to do such - I cannot or will not always be able to due to the requirements of being a soldier. 
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Gager said:
I understand that is not how Objectivism works - but that is how life can work.
  Of course that is how life can work, the idea is to contemplate how life aught to work.

Are there not some things in this world that are zero sum games? How does the Objectivist answer to that?

Can you think of any?  I can't think of any recurring circumstance of life/living that demands for every benefit one person achieves another must suffer.  Can you?

I'm more or less saying that in a position where you can be called to kill, destroy and assist in doing both - that I cannot actually be an objectivist when some of its main tennants are cooperation, respecting the 'natural rights' (i.e. to live) of all people, and not having to use violence or use coercive force - which although I admire if you can do and I do strive to do such - I cannot or will not always be able to due to the requirements of being a soldier. 

An objectivist isn't some sort of pacifist, an objectivist would not have a problem fighting to preserve his/her way of life.  The capitalist system, democracy and the individuals right to property and the ownership of his productive achievement are all worth fighting for.  The coercive force you are referring to is the force used against an individual to deny him of the right to freedom, property and the benefits of his personal production.  It is not coercive force to defend yourself or your way of life.

Do you believe in god?  Are you a Christian?  How then do you reconcile the same argument?  "Thou shall not kill", that tenant does not preclude the judicious use and application of violence, and indeed the killing it strictly forbids under certain circumstances.


 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Ayn Rand herself was quite clear that while it was improper to use farce or fraud against an individual, it was proper and indeed required to use force to destroy enemy regimes that would take away individual rights. I'm pretty sure that she even wrote that it was the right and duty of the United States to take the lead in destroying Communism throughout the world (and eventually, they did, although not in as direct a manner she was probably thinking of).

It is also interesting to note that she held the military and the police in some regard (in Atlas Shrugged, the Army and Navy are treated sympathetically even as they try to enforce the orders of the collectivist State). On a similar note, Jane Jacobs makes a clear case (in "Systems of Survival") that the State has no business in business or trade, since they already have the monopoly on the use of force, which gives then an immoral advantage against their unarmed competitors. She also notes that in many societies, this was implicitly recognized, and the armed classes of past societies were often constrained from engaging in trade by legal and cultural prohibitions.

edit to fix links
 

Gager

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Reccesoldier said:
Can you think of any?  I can't think of any recurring circumstance of life/living that demands for every benefit one person achieves another must suffer.  Can you?

Were I to kill another human, would breathing be a benefit, and his/her absence of breathing be suffering? Do people on our world die on a regular basis? How about fortunes? Women? Land? There are endless examples of where someone or something is in limited supply and when all is said and done there is a clearly defined winner and a loser. That being said there are many things on our world where there are two winners - though my point is not everything ends up that way and sometimes someone is left with the short end of the stick.

Reccesoldier said:
An objectivist isn't some sort of pacifist, an objectivist would not have a problem fighting to preserve his/her way of life.  The capitalist system, democracy and the individuals right to property and the ownership of his productive achievement are all worth fighting for.  The coercive force you are referring to is the force used against an individual to deny him of the right to freedom, property and the benefits of his personal production.  It is not coercive force to defend yourself or your way of life.

No doubt they or any other people wouldn't. I understand that an objectivist is willing to defend, but are they willing to assault? What does an objectivist think of colonialism and imperialism? Do they condemn it as it goes further than simply defending your way of life? Is it rationalized? Or is it opposed - with a shoulder shrug and blank stare given to the past and how our property here in North America was obtained?

Reccesoldier said:
Do you believe in god?  Are you a Christian?  How then do you reconcile the same argument?  "Thou shall not kill", that tenant does not preclude the judicious use and application of violence, and indeed the killing it strictly forbids under certain circumstances.

No to both. I hold no belief in God.

*Edited to change "would not breathing be a benefit" to "would breathing"
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Objectivism is probably best understood if taken in context with its polar opposite: relativism.  (Try to explain hot without reference to cold, or big without reference to small)
Briefly, objectivism will mean that something holds true, irrespective of a person's opinion, whereas relativism will mean that something depends on a persons (or people's) opinion (or opinions).  As an example, the fact that 1+1=2 is an objective fact, whereas "Heidi Klum is beautiful" is purely relative.  Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.  So are some other concepts, such as tall, short and fat.  Having said that, such concepts as taller, shorter and fatter are objective facts.  Allow me to illustrate.
A person who is 5 feet in height may not be seen as tall, but perhaps to a 2 year old, that five foot person does "seem" tall (or, more accurately, that two year old has the opinion that the five foot person is tall.)  A six foot six inch person would have the contrary opinion that the five footer is short.  Those are opinions, and are all relative.
The fact that the five foot tall person is taller than the two year old is an objective fact, and the fact that the five foot tall person is shorter than the six foot six inch tall person is also an objective fact.
So far, so good.

Now let's talk about morals.  (Or ethics, if you prefer).  Since the time of Plato, people have argued that moral relativism is "the way to go" whereas others talk of moral objectivism.  (NB: Both of these terms have several variations, such as subjectivism, and so forth).  That little argument has yet to be solved (though ironically, only our opinion of this may ever be solved).  Having said all that, I'm all for moral objectivism.  Though the specific applications of various acts may in some cases be deemed "morally good" and that same act, in a different situation, may be "morally bad", and this could be part of the confusion "out there".
"Thou shalt not murder" is one way to describe that commandment.  The problem with that definition is that murder is, by definition, an act of immoral or unjustified killing of a human by another human.  So, the commandment says "It is wrong if you kill someone when it is wrong".  See what I mean? 

Anyway, I've philosophised enough for a Sunday evening, though I look forward to more discussion on the matter.  In the end, I hope I've helped to muddy the waters a bit for everyone.

;D
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Objectivism is a close relative of the political philosophy of Libertarianism. Although there are differences (and the Ontario Freedom Party maintains these are quite critical, hence the two parties are quite separate entities), most people would find it difficult to point out the differences. Reading up on Libertarianism is probably a good introduction and easier since there are a lot more books, magazines, websites etc. on Libertarianism than Objectivism. Once you decipher MR's post, things will begin to become clear  ;)

On the subject of Armed Forces, any Objectivist/Libertarian nation would have a military establishment resembling Switzerland's or Sweden's, suitable to defend the nation against foreign aggression. Should they decide there are reasons to project force, they may choose to maintain a small Navy and Marines, similar in size and scope to the early American Republic (large permanent standing forces in the United States are a historical anomaly, and are very much a product of the Cold War).
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Gager said:
Were I to kill another human, would breathing be a benefit, and his/her absence of breathing be suffering?

Were you to kill someone and benefit from their death as you propose you would most likely be committing a crime and therefore subject to the punishments of our society (imprisonment and in some places death yourself ) so the question of how much you benefit from that immoral action is debatable. 

Or are you trying to say that because that person is not breathing that you have more air to breathe, which is just stupid.

Do people on our world die on a regular basis?
 

I believe you are being purposefully ignorant with this but I'll answer anyway. Tell me when a person dies do you benefit from it?  Even if you receive an inheritance, say from a Grandparent, which is more beneficial to you, the inheritance or the way that the living thinking person affects your life and living?

How about fortunes?

This is one of the biggest lies of socialist thought...

It is based on the incomprehensible idea that there is a finite amount of wealth, resources and most illogically of all, human industriousness in the world.  The logic goes that if I earn a dollar, then that is one less dollar that can be earned by anyone else. Rubbish.

Money is made. It is manufactured by man and is used to trade goods and services for other goods and services. There is no limit to the amount of money that can be made. To think so is to believe that there is a limit to the ingenuity, spirit and industry of man as a rational animal.

Those that would have you believe the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" are the socialists and their complaint stems from the fact that they aren’t, merely by virtue of their existence, entitled to profit from your use of resources and your personal industriousness.



So the fact that I am married has denied you the ability to be married?  So if I were in competition with another man for a woman's attention the fact that he or I gain that attention means that the other person has lost something irreplaceable?  Are you omniscient?  You know that there is only that one woman to make both of us happy in love and life?


True enough, if I own a goldmine you can't by definition own it at the same time.  However presuming that I bought it, that transaction in and of itself does not lead to a win loose situation.  I would of course negotiate to get the lowest possible price/the best possible deal on the property while the person who sold it would be doing the same to get the best possible price/deal.  In the end, with both of us working toward our own selfish interest we should reach a deal that is in the end a fair trade and in essence a win/win situation. 

Oh, the fact that you "want" something (my goldmine) does not in any way mean that you have a right to it.  And the fact that you don't possess it does not mean that I have made you loose anything because, as I mentioned, you didn't have the right to it in the first instance.

There are endless examples of where someone or something is in limited supply and when all is said and done there is a clearly defined winner and a loser. That being said there are many things on our world where there are two winners - though my point is not everything ends up that way and sometimes someone is left with the short end of the stick.

I think I'm beginning to see your problem.  You define winning and loosing like in a game where you are keeping count of goals in a net.  My ideal of winning or loosing is in counting harm to another person.  If I work my fingers to the bone and save my money in order to earn for my pleasure a brand new Mercedes Benz does that act of me 'winning' hurt you?  If we were competing to buy a piece of property and you outbid me on it would you have hurt me?  (think carefully, I have not lost any money, you did not steal the property from me or commit fraud to get it, and property is continually being bought and sold) If we love the same woman and she chooses you over me have I been harmed buy her self determination?

People are not helpless animals at the whim of anyone and anything that happens in their lives.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If I am poor and you are rich, your richness is not responsible for my being poor.  If you are in love, I do not have to be hated.  If you own a home, I am not by virtue of that fact homeless.

If I am poor, hated and homeless the fact is that I would probably have to examine my actions, decisions and choices to understand why I am, not yours.
 

Gager

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Reccesoldier said:
Were you to kill someone and benefit from their death as you propose you would most likely be committing a crime and therefore subject to the punishments of our society (imprisonment and in some places death yourself ) so the question of how much you benefit from that immoral action is debatable. 

Or are you trying to say that because that person is not breathing that you have more air to breathe, which is just stupid.

Yes it would be debatable. And no - I wasn't trying to say I'd have more air to breathe, though if we found ourselves in a 'Spaceballs' situation and I was all out of Perriair, then yes I would benefit.

I believe you are being purposefully ignorant with this but I'll answer anyway. Tell me when a person dies do you benefit from it?  Even if you receive an inheritance, say from a Grandparent, which is more beneficial to you, the inheritance or the way that the living thinking person affects your life and living?

That would depend on quite a few circumstances, so quite frankly yes a family members passing could benefit and yes it could cause pain and suffering. Is Grandpa a rich asshole? Is Grandpa a rich, genuine man of integrity and honour? The point is it could be beneficial.

This is one of the biggest lies of socialist thought...

It is based on the incomprehensible idea that there is a finite amount of wealth, resources and most illogically of all, human industriousness in the world.  The logic goes that if I earn a dollar, then that is one less dollar that can be earned by anyone else. Rubbish.

Money is made. It is manufactured by man and is used to trade goods and services for other goods and services. There is no limit to the amount of money that can be made. To think so is to believe that there is a limit to the ingenuity, spirit and industry of man as a rational animal.

Those that would have you believe the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" are the socialists and their complaint stems from the fact that they aren’t, merely by virtue of their existence, entitled to profit from your use of resources and your personal industriousness.

I agree with you on money and the ingenunity of man - but are you saying their is a finite amount of resources or did that get lumped in? You were responding to my 'Fortune?' though it was mentioned. Right away I can think of a few resources that have run out for civilizations, and a few that may run out given time.

So the fact that I am married has denied you the ability to be married?  So if I were in competition with another man for a woman's attention the fact that he or I gain that attention means that the other person has lost something irreplaceable?  Are you omniscient?  You know that there is only that one woman to make both of us happy in love and life?

It does not deny me the opportunity to marry but it does deny me the opportunity to marry with that specific woman. Whether or not she is replaceable and the key to my everlasting happiness is a question of preference. Happiness is a state of mind - I could be married to Rita McNeil and be happy if I wanted to be. What if a wife left her husband? Is that not seen as her benefit and his suffering? It must be at first - with the John Deere letter that says I'm screwing your best friend.

True enough, if I own a goldmine you can't by definition own it at the same time.  However presuming that I bought it, that transaction in and of itself does not lead to a win loose situation.  I would of course negotiate to get the lowest possible price/the best possible deal on the property while the person who sold it would be doing the same to get the best possible price/deal.  In the end, with both of us working toward our own selfish interest we should reach a deal that is in the end a fair trade and in essence a win/win situation. 

Oh, the fact that you "want" something (my goldmine) does not in any way mean that you have a right to it.  And the fact that you don't possess it does not mean that I have made you loose anything because, as I mentioned, you didn't have the right to it in the first instance.

Of couse you haven't made me lose anything because of it. But the fact remains if we both bid for that gold mine, there is only one winner lest we enter a parternship. And if there is only one gold mine, well then I best be on my way to go find another (if there is one - resources and all) or settle for something else.

I think I'm beginning to see your problem.  You define winning and loosing like in a game where you are keeping count of goals in a net.  My ideal of winning or loosing is in counting harm to another person.  If I work my fingers to the bone and save my money in order to earn for my pleasure a brand new Mercedes Benz does that act of me 'winning' hurt you?  If we were competing to buy a piece of property and you outbid me on it would you have hurt me?  (think carefully, I have not lost any money, you did not steal the property from me or commit fraud to get it, and property is continually being bought and sold) If we love the same woman and she chooses you over me have I been harmed buy her self determination?

People are not helpless animals at the whim of anyone and anything that happens in their lives.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If I am poor and you are rich, your richness is not responsible for my being poor.  If you are in love, I do not have to be hated.  If you own a home, I am not by virtue of that fact homeless.

If I am poor, hated and homeless the fact is that I would probably have to examine my actions, decisions and choices to understand why I am, not yours.

You being rich, buying a Benz, being married, in love, out of debt etc. does not hurt me in itself. The question is what Benz are we competing for? What property are we after? I wouldn't give much a care were you to buy a 1993 Corolla and a $440,000 home. But there is a limit and legacy of Dodge Vipers. There is only one Graceland, two DisneyLands (Screw EuroDisney) and some truly awe-inspiring, spectacular, and damn expensive pieces of property that are only available to those who are quick and fast with seizing the opportunity. I'd have to agree that for the most part, life isn't a zero-sum game. But there is enough zero-sum going around for me to question a philosophy, no matter how many good points it raises, that suggests its all neatly wrapped up.

People are not helpless themselves - you do always have choices and options. When I see people relying on EI, welfare or dogging those who work hard, smart or a combination of both - I shake my head like any other person with some sense. That isn't to say that some people though, are very disadvantaged. And I'm not speaking of people here in the West who have a lot to work with - but rather those who have no water, no stability, and sometimes no chance at all given any variation of conflict that can erupt. Objectivism seems to be a good philosophy for those who value the individual, hate the tyrannical and are lucky enough to be reared in a time like the 20 and 21st century and a place like North America or Europe. I don't know how Objectivists fare in third world countries, on islands with little resources, or when the system of capital we so value today has not yet been firmly established - but if I'm familar with my history, it appears that it takes a little dirt to get to a point where you can be that righteous.
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Gager said:
I agree with you on money and the ingenunity of man - but are you saying their is a finite amount of resources or did that get lumped in?

No, I'm saying that there is a infinite amount of resources.  I'm not saying that the world is making more gold or oil as we speak but those are just individual elements.  Resources are practically anything.  The sun, the air, forests, rock, earth... Anything.

What if a wife left her husband? Is that not seen as her benefit and his suffering? It must be at first - with the John Deere letter that says I'm screwing your best friend.
  But these are transient emotional reactions.  In the fullnss of time the man would probably agree that he was better off without her, especially in cases of infidelity, and from her point of view she was probably better off from the get go.

You being rich, buying a Benz, being married, in love, out of debt etc. does not hurt me in itself. The question is what Benz are we competing for? What property are we after? I wouldn't give much a care were you to buy a 1993 Corolla and a $440,000 home. But there is a limit and legacy of Dodge Vipers. There is only one Graceland, two DisneyLands (Screw EuroDisney) and some truly awe-inspiring, spectacular, and damn expensive pieces of property that are only available to those who are quick and fast with seizing the opportunity.

I'm honestly seeing nothing wrong in this, I'm seeing no harm in there being a limited number of certain things.  For me where harm comes into it is when some moron says "but if you have one of those then I should be entitled to one too" all the while ignoring the fact that I worked to get mine and he does not have the will, skill of capacity to be able to earn one on his own.

People are not helpless themselves - you do always have choices and options. When I see people relying on EI, welfare or dogging those who work hard, smart or a combination of both - I shake my head like any other person with some sense. That isn't to say that some people though, are very disadvantaged. And I'm not speaking of people here in the West who have a lot to work with - but rather those who have no water, no stability, and sometimes no chance at all given any variation of conflict that can erupt. Objectivism seems to be a good philosophy for those who value the individual, hate the tyrannical and are lucky enough to be reared in a time like the 20 and 21st century and a place like North America or Europe. I don't know how Objectivists fare in third world countries, on islands with little resources, or when the system of capital we so value today has not yet been firmly established

Fair enough, I don't know how an objectivist would survive in the third world either, other than to know that the principals of objectivism would demand that that person would work very hard to rise above whatever his/her condition was at birth.

- but if I'm familar with my history, it appears that it takes a little dirt to get to a point where you can be that righteous.

You've completely lost me here...
 

Gager

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Reccesoldier said:
No, I'm saying that there is a infinite amount of resources.  I'm not saying that the world is making more gold or oil as we speak but those are just individual elements.  Resources are practically anything.  The sun, the air, forests, rock, earth... Anything.

Alright. So there is a finite amount of elements but an infinite amount of resources? Are you saying that we can call anything a resource, and that no matter what we lose (gold, oil, forest timber) that there will always be something else to call a resource and use it? i.e. if we did run out of oil (not for a while) we would only lose an element, and instead would use another resource to fill that gap?

But these are transient emotional reactions.  In the fullnss of time the man would probably agree that he was better off without her, especially in cases of infidelity, and from her point of view she was probably better off from the get go.

Fair enough - time heals. But for the time being there would be a one up for her and one down for you.

I'm honestly seeing nothing wrong in this, I'm seeing no harm in there being a limited number of certain things.  For me where harm comes into it is when some moron says "but if you have one of those then I should be entitled to one too" all the while ignoring the fact that I worked to get mine and he does not have the will, skill of capacity to be able to earn one on his own.

I don't see a problem in it either - I hate the entitlement mentality that you just described. I was merely pointing out that there are somethings on our world that are finite and only accessible to some people. Its not to say you can't work hard, save your green and go be that person who owns that property - its just that not everyone can occupy Buckingham Palace and be king of the castle.

Fair enough, I don't know how an objectivist would survive in the third world either, other than to know that the principals of objectivism would demand that that person would work very hard to rise above whatever his/her condition was at birth.

I don't know either - I'd imagine they have a better chance than someone who worships dung. But who knows if the Revolutionary Freedom Fighters come around.

You've completely lost me here...

I asked a question about this earlier on in the thread which is what that last part was in reference to. How does the Objectivist feel about the history of North America and how the land was inititally appropriated? I'm not looking for a guilt inspired apology - as far as I'm concerned were all African squatters - but I am curious to how they would view the act of conquering, assimilating and moving people off land in order to begin what was more or less a new civilization - when their interest in force only seems to extend to self-defence when threatened.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Gager said:
Alright. So there is a finite amount of elements but an infinite amount of resources? Are you saying that we can call anything a resource, and that no matter what we lose (gold, oil, forest timber) that there will always be something else to call a resource and use it? i.e. if we did run out of oil (not for a while) we would only lose an element, and instead would use another resource to fill that gap?

Objectivism means looking rationally at the world around, and making decisions based on the evidence. If copper becomes scarce, you do not wish for more copper or steal it from your neighbours, you look for substitutes to replace copper. In the case of telecommunications, sand has become the standard (as the source of silica for optical fiber cables) and aluminum is sometimes used as a substitute for electrical cables. Various sorts of plastics are now used in plumbing to substitute copper pipes, and so on. Overall, this sort of thinking reduces the risks of war and conflict (I am less inclined to invade you for your copper reserves, and my substitution of other materials for copper reduces overall demand and prices for copper as well).

Most materials can be subjected to the same analysis, and this historical process has been repeated several times throughout history. Elizabethan England was undergoing an energy crisis; wood was becoming too scarce to be turned into charcoal for smelting and metal working. Luckily coal was available to take its place. The replacement of whale oil by petroleum took a relatively short time as well. This process is less successful where government monopolies exist, or cartels are allowed to form and exist (usually through the manipulation of tax laws or other forms or coercion against the taxpayer).
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
How does the Objectivist feel about the history of North America and how the land was initially appropriated? I'm not looking for a guilt inspired apology - as far as I'm concerned were all African squatters - but I am curious to how they would view the act of conquering, assimilating and moving people off land in order to begin what was more or less a new civilization - when their interest in force only seems to extend to self-defence when threatened.

Did the Objectivists of today commit these crimes?  Apologizing for things that are beyond your control defies reason. 

Closely related Q&A

Lots of other Q&A
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Thucydides said:
Objectivism means looking rationally at the world around, and making decisions based on the evidence.

Pardon me, but quite wrong.  Objectivism is quite obviously misunderstood on this thread.  What you describe is empiricism, not objectivism.  You see, empiricism means you are relying upon empirical evidence to come to a conclusion.  You are not employing logic, only your own input.  It is anything BUT objective.

Now, back to the corner with me to watch the rest of this thread make my skin crawl.

 

Gager

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Reccesoldier said:
Did the Objectivists of today commit these crimes?  Apologizing for things that are beyond your control defies reason. 

Closely related Q&A

Lots of other Q&A

I made a specific point to avoid what you posted: I said "I'm not looking for a guilt inspired apology". Of course the Objectivsts did not commit those acts - they weren't alive. I'm not looking for apologies or reparations or taking responsibility when one has no authority.

The Objectivist says correctly that it is not my fault. What it doesn't say is that it would oppose the very actions of our history, today, that yesterday benefitted us and put us on a path and in a place where Objectivism can be successfully employed in present time.
 

Reccesoldier

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Gager said:
What it doesn't say is that it would oppose the very actions of our history, today, that yesterday benefitted us and put us on a path and in a place where Objectivism can be successfully employed in present time.

Your point is pointless.  Most people living today regardless of their ideology or philosophy would tell you that slavery, racism, and colonialist practices are incompatible with basic human rights.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
Pardon me, but quite wrong.  Objectivism is quite obviously misunderstood on this thread.  What you describe is empiricism, not objectivism.  You see, empiricism means you are relying upon empirical evidence to come to a conclusion.  You are not employing logic, only your own input.  It is anything BUT objective.

Empirical evidence is the practical means of following Aristotle's Law of Identity (A=A), which is one of the foundations of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It does not matter what you or I wish to be true, or what our opinions are, or what other people's opinions are, the empirical evidence stands quite alone and independent of subjective factors.

What is subjective is how the evidence is treated, non objectivists can and do distort, dispute or ignore the evidence to support what they wish to be true.
 
Top