Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy
In the universe, what you see is what you get,
figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,
and each person's independence is respected by all
Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words
- "Metaphysics: Objective Reality" "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
- "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
- "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
- "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
Objectivism Online Chat
- 25 replies
- 188 views
- Add Reply
- 7 replies
- 79 views
- Add Reply
- 103 replies
- 1750 views
- Add Reply
- 14 replies
- 231 views
- Add Reply
Find the error (according to Objectivism) in the following: 1. Everything existing in reality exists independent of any person's perception, knowledge, consciousness, experience etc. 2. Consciousness identifies existents of reality 3. A person is conscious of first person experience 4. A first person experience is an existent of reality and has identity 5. First person experiences of a particular individual are not experienced by any other person, or another animal, or a machine which is not the particular individual. YOU and ME have identity. YOU are not ME and what it is to be YOU is not what it is to be ME. 6. From 5, first person experience is entirely dependent upon the person experiencing the first person experience, without the person or the person's act of experiencing, there is no first person experience. 7. From 6, something about existence utterly depends upon the experience of a person 8. From 7, NOT everything existing in reality exists independent of any person's perception, knowledge, consciousness, experience etc. (i.e. NOT 1.) I may play devil's advocate in reply to your responses, but am genuinely interested in your answers as to what error gives rise to the contradiction.
Recently, I read a transcript taken from one of Binswanger's lectures in which he defends perception from certain skeptical attacks against it. He calls perception "inerrant" which means that the information that you do perceive cannot be wrong because it is silent and cannot play tricks on you because it does not tell you anything. The concepts that you form based on perception can be wrong, according to my understanding of Binswanger. At first, I was in complete agreement with this but then I thought of the example of depth perception. With modern 3D glasses (either passive or active), it seems to me that your eyes are truly deceived because they get sensory input that leads to you perceiving a 3D object that is not really a 3D object at all, just a projection on 2D screen. I see this as significant because if depth perception can be wrong, then so can all perception, which conflicts with Oist epistemology's teachings that humans are infallible at the perceptual level. The only way that I could think of this not invalidating the sense of sight is if depth is not something that is perceived, but instead is a concept formed based on perceiving entities that have a spatial relationship to you. I know that Peikoff did mention that Space is a relational concept and refers to a relationship between entities that exists in reality. And this reinforces my thinking that depth cannot be perceived because depth is like space and there is no such thing as the space between two entities to perceive in the first place. There is only a relationship between entities that exist in the universe. I'm not sure about this though and I hope to learn what anybody else's thoughts are on this.
By Azrael Rand,
Hi, Originally posted this article on my minds page earlier today: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand If you're interested, I also have a rebuttal to Stefan Molyneux's UPB: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-objective-critique-of-stefan-molyneux-s-universally-prefe-891837573402587136
Ayn Rand in her book the Objectivist ethics--while not explicating the reason for this truth--claims that the basic emotions are joy and suffering from which all others are derivatives; but, perhaps this is merely a result from my past Stoic philosophy before my conversion to Objectivism, however, are not the basic emotions desire and aversion? I.e, joy, being the result of the successful state of life is then necessarily the result of the satisfaction of desire, and the aversion of that which is bad. Desire being the logical correlate of volitional thought--i.e, value judgments. E.g, the desire for food is not some innate biological instinct, but the result of value-judgments; the frustration of that desire is what results in a host of other negative emotions, and if prolonged long enough, results in suffering.