Objectivists
Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
It is interesting to me how hard core Objectivists interact with me on this site (the only one that I participate in as the truly hard core Objectivist sites are so militant as to be irrational).
On the one hand, as one who has a foundation of Catholic faith, I am told that I must accept anything that comes out of Rome as an absolute - that I cannot use my own rationality to decide for myself "truth", and that religion isn't a menu that one can choose from.
And on the other hand, when I point out inconsistencies with Objectivism, I'm told that "AR said it, so it's truth" and those people refuse to use their own rational mind to evaluate things for themselves.
This seems to be a stark inconsistency and irrationality to me.
On the one hand, as one who has a foundation of Catholic faith, I am told that I must accept anything that comes out of Rome as an absolute - that I cannot use my own rationality to decide for myself "truth", and that religion isn't a menu that one can choose from.
And on the other hand, when I point out inconsistencies with Objectivism, I'm told that "AR said it, so it's truth" and those people refuse to use their own rational mind to evaluate things for themselves.
This seems to be a stark inconsistency and irrationality to me.
Quotation without analysis or interpretation is tantamount to citation of source documentation - or "AR said it, so it's truth."
Following up with "and from that I determine...," or "what that means to me..." would be citation of a reference and analysis. Otherwise, as someone else said, this is merely an echo chamber, with no independent thought.
Objectivism is NOT a religion, it is not based on faith... stop trying to compare the two. It's irrational to do so.
Ayn Rand was extremely precise in her definitions, so what's wrong with quoting her to make a point. The bible gets quoted all over the place in here I don't see you complaining about that?
"Enslavement" to me... grow up.
Why does the bible get thumped so much in here? And so insistently too. Speaking of intellectual honestly....
Why does it get attacked so much in here? Don't see the Koran getting as much hostility, even.
Why does AS get thumped so much in here? "And so insistently too. Speaking of intellectual honestly...."
http://www.quotationmarks.org/ironic-usa...
AR might have been precise, but she was inconsistent with common usage definitions.
The bible might be quoted "all over the place in here" (did I get the use of "quotation marks" correct here?), but not by me. I have used such on occasion, as have others. OK, that's a source document. The beliefs of AR on things like the definition of verbiage is not a source document, and thus is not something that is necessary to be quoted or regurgitated. She said what she said, that does not make it truth. Citing what she said is fine. Using it as proof of anything is not. I challenge you to cite an instance of where I (or others for that matter) have cited the Bible and said that just because it says it there, it is truth. I, for one, will use a Bible citation to get the statement correct, and them give my understanding/interpretation of what that passage means, at least to me. I don't think that I've ever made a Bible citation and said - "there, that's the truth." (again, did I get the use of quotation marks "correct?")
As for "bible thumping" (use of quotation marks here is for a paraphrase of a statement you made but is not a direct quotation, again, a use of quotation marks that I was taught to indicate paraphrasing a reference to something said even though not precisely what another said - although I have since learned that such is not necessary - but old habits are difficult to break), I can't keep up on every post and comment in every thread, so I cannot speak to that. I can't remember in recent discussions such, but again, I can't speak for everything in the open side, and certainly not on the closed side.
There might be some "thumpers" here (have I made my point yet about the quotation marks?), but I don't see them. Of course, I have different sensitivities about such things, so I might not be the best judge.
However, to answer your question, you will find this in the Gulch Code of Conduct:
"Debate is fine, but remember this site is specifically for supporters of Ayn Rand's ideas. If you don't support Ayn Rand's ideas, you're in the wrong place."
On the other hand, I can see how anti-Objectivist, anti-Rand, anti-logicial or anti-reason people would be shunned.
I hold my religion to a higher standard than seemingly most of you do the tenets and foundations of Objectivism.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods:
Philosophy: |fəˈläsəfē| noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy
Apples and walnuts.
You need to tell the feds to take the religious exemptions away from Buddhism, Taoism, and Scientology.
I have trouble with a definition of "philosophy" as a study of the fundamental nature of *knowledge*. Philosophy translates to mean "love of knowledge". With that, as a study of the fundamental nature of the universe fits better, imo.
Religion began as an attempt to understand the nature of the universe, prior to the invention of the scientific method. Philosophy can address the question of "how", but not the question of "why".
"How" is the realm of philosophy and, with it, science. "Why" is the realm of religion.
Philosophy: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
Religion: Religions attempt to answer basic questions intrinsic to the human condition - or more succinctly, the nature and meaning of life.
A lion pulling down a gazelle is murder. It's moral, because a lion must do so to survive. It's immoral, because it ends the life of the gazelle. Morality without theology is a matter of viewpoint.
For people who do not treat Objectivism as a religion, you sure do treat it like a religion.
My objections have not been to critical analysis of various theologies; my objections have been the consistent attack on Christianity specifically, *and especially the condescension and ad hominem attacks* on Christian belief by dbhalling and, occassionally, others.
I do believe treating other participants with contempt while they are still participating civilly is a violation of the rules. Yes, I may at times have been guilty of it myself... doesn't stop it from being a violation.
Because "Ayn Rand was right" so often about so many things, the distinction between her thought and truth was often difficult to discern, especially for those who wanted to agree with her.
Rand protected the name Objectivism fiercely, and disliked having anyone make pronouncements about what she was thinking. Misinterpretations of her words, both innocent and deliberate, occur to this day.
Leonard Peikoff expressed a proper view of how to add to Objectivism. He said (I paraphrase here from memory), "You can have your own philosophy that mostly agrees with Objectivism. But please don't call it Objectivism. Call it Gloopism, or something else. Not Objectivism."
Some people are careful to make these distinctions, while others are either sloppy or are actually working to tear down Rand's philosophy and replace it with something else of the same name.
More than once at Ford Hall Forum I heard questions such as, "Miss Rand, you believe XXX. So doesn't that mean you favor YYY?" Sometimes she would carefully explain why XXX did not lead to YYY. Other times she would attack the questioner, saying, "I never said XXX, and here is your motivation in claiming that I did ..."
Without the standard of what Rand wrote and spoke, everything comes loose. Imagine a collection of competing versions of Objectivism, some of which contradict others. Enemies of Objectivism, in particular, would be happy to pose as Objectivist scholars, working from within to destroy Rands work by extending it, in her name, in ways designed to support their particular mysticism. Various pseudo-Objectivist anarchist communes I have known come to mind.
During Rand's lifetime I was involved in a naive but anti-Rand group that proclaimed allegiance to (but disagreement with) Rand. One of the members was an actual thief who stole money from the group's funds.
Let us be precise. Distinguish Objectivism from Gloopism. Just because a an idea is true does not make it part of Objectivism.
Further, since Objectivism's primary objective is the search and determination of truth for the individual, how could and idea that is true not be a part of Objectivism. Although Objectivism is a complete logical and rational system, it is not closed to only those experiences of familiarity familiar to AR. It wouldn't be a workable philosophy if so.
What your argument is-an historical study for what Rand actually said. Which means it is dead. We can show some proofs that Euclid made were wrong and not consistent with Euclidean Geometry. This does not mean it is a free-for-all. You do not have to accept someone's proposition that something is Objectivist. They must prove by the rules of logic and evidence. We do not need a governing body on Euclidean Geometry any more than Objectivism. If Objectivism is that weak of a logical system which cannot withstand charlatans and incorrect propositions-then it would not be a useful system anyway. Your last statement has no logical bearing. Why is something that is true, not Objectivist? I would argue the opposite. Objectivism is a SYSTEM for how we define what is true. (IF it is not, why be a part of it?) There are all sorts of areas of further study if Objectivism is a logical system. But you and Peikoff say no. Economics is in sore need of an Objectivist system. Yet, closed Objectivism, says there is nothing left to be said. This has caused a lack of meaningful scholarship across many areas as a result.
Any unthinking ends justify the means collective can damage just about anything.
1. What is so?
2. How do you know?
3. What should you do?
Objectivism answers these questions in its own particular way, which is different from all other philosophies before it. Most people are not Objectivists.
Knowing what is the truth is requires getting one and two right.
If number one or two is wrong, for most people, then three becomes the mess we have today.
All philosophies, even the most rudimentary or the hopelessly broken, contribute to the study of these three aspects. Religion as well helps us "ring all the changes" of the possible formulations of answers, but on number 2 is almost invariably stuck on "God said so" or "We told you."
1. God is so. The Holy Words are so.
2. The Holy Words tell us God wrote the Holy Words. Therefore, God said so.
3. We follow the Holy Word.
The glue for this type of thinking is faith and collective thought.
I would like to hear how each one of us Gulchers view Objectivism.
I also wonder how Gulchers view other types of philosophy in relation to Objectivism. Well, you know, 19th century European philosophy and its deterministic malignancy that influenced 20th century European history.
Second addendum to my previous post:
Thank God Faraday, Maxwell and the other great European Scientists and Inventors were not involved in philosophy!!
Addendum to my previous post: Hence, moral pragmatism.
There are so many other fantastic and absurd inconsistencies in 19th century European philosophy that we would need an infinite amount of threads to delineate them.
Other labels I enjoy using include 'bleeding heart libertarian', and 'extreme right wing fundamentalist iconoclast'. The label -starkly inconsistent and irrational, also appeals.
Further, I have no intention of choosing between 'hard-core' and 'soft-core', until I change my mind.
Wouldn't an iconoclast be constantly challenging the assumptions inherent in Objectivism, on this site?
Hospers did get AR on the 'back foot'. However, it is often the case that examples can be contrived to oppose any general philosophical view. That may have been what was happening.
Often in persuasion, style matters more than substance. Consider the way Milton Friedman answered hostile questions, not just with countering logic but polite good humor, AR did that - but not always.