Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
AmoProbos

The RationalWiki

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I don't feel that this is the proper category to discuss this in, but I can't find one that suits my needs precisely. A mod can adjust any mistakes accordingly.

I recently stumbled upon a website called the RationalWiki. Some of you, maybe most of you, have heard of it. I was initially pleased with its dry and witty skepticism and beatings towards many conventional topics, but when I found its page on Objectivism, I was appalled.

Admittedly, the page states that it is "horribly incomplete", but that doesn't excuse the trash that is written on it to begin with.

There seems to be no argument to the philosophy, only a lofty and pompous disdain for it.

Here is the page.

I would expect this from an organization rooted in irrationality, but not from the opposite. I'm not saying that the website should embrace the philosophy with open arms, but it should receive the same level and quality of scrutiny as any of the other things discussed therein. Am I right or am I crazy?

Edited by AmoProbos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was initially pleased with its dry and witty skepticism and beatings towards many conventional topics, but when I found its page on Objectivism, I was appalled.

You realize Objectivism is opposed to skepticism, right?

Also, sorry for this blunt answer, but who cares? It's just another organization claiming to be champions of reason while attacking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You realize Objectivism is opposed to skepticism, right?

Also, sorry for this blunt answer, but who cares? It's just another organization claiming to be champions of reason while attacking it.

I was not aware. I've always considered a certain amount of skepticism important to rational progress. A little elaboration on why this is not the case would be appreciated.

Don't be sorry, you are absolutely right. I'm a bit disappointed though. I thought there was some quality to be had on the website. Alas, no luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not aware. I've always considered a certain amount of skepticism important to rational progress. A little elaboration on why this is not the case would be appreciated.

I'm going to assume you don't know what skepticism really is. I used to think it meant not believing things as soon as you hear them. Because I held this false definition, I used to call myself a skeptic.

However, what skepticism really is is a philosophy that teaches that mankind can not really ever know anything. A skeptic would say that because man is fallible, he can never truly know he is correct about anything. This is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. However, if you already knew the true definition of skepticism and accepted it, let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to assume you don't know what skepticism really is. I used to think it meant not believing things as soon as you hear them. Because I held this false definition, I used to call myself a skeptic.

However, what skepticism really is is a philosophy that teaches that mankind can not really ever know anything. A skeptic would say that because man is fallible, he can never truly know he is correct about anything. This is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. However, if you already knew the true definition of skepticism and accepted it, let me know.

I interpreted skepticism to mean what I boldfaced.

The revised definition is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. Thanks for clearing that up. I need more immersion in the lexicon, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I interpreted skepticism to mean what I boldfaced.

The revised definition is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. Thanks for clearing that up. I need more immersion in the lexicon, I'm afraid.

Don't worry about it. I think most people believe that definition of skepticism. I know I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Many Objectivists, at least during Ayn Rand's lifetime, held that cigarette smoking is a moral obligation."

The reference used didn't even support that.

"The closest known relative to Objectivism is the Sith Code, which also sees giving to and loving other human beings as irrational."

Another great line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your time with it. The entire page is a poorly-written smear-job.

Edited by NickS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone on this forum who objects to the portrayals of Objectivism or Ayn Rand put forth in those articles on RationalWiki that address the subjects is invited to join the Wiki and make their views known on those articles' talk-pages. We on the Wiki are open to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...