Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dream_weaver said:

When the pupil is ready, the teacher appears.

Good that you are not a teacher. His goal is to convey concept X, is he does not try to explain the concept until understood he is doing a poor job. 

Your statement entails that there is just one form to interpret reality, and despite of that is a good strategy to learn that way instead of just mindlessly imitating what others do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jose said:

 I just want to understand the philosophy better. As far as I understand it being Objective is a fundamental part of Rand’s philosophy, what are the limits of her claim? Given that my understanding is correct.

Your understanding is not correct. If language is a barrier, perhaps there may be editions of Objectivist literature in your first language.

I am not a teacher, and the best recommendation I will make to anyone is to self-educate.

I will try to impress upon you for the third time: Objectivism is not objectivity. Yes, practicing objectivity is encouraged as a part of Objectivist thinking, but it is not the entire philosophy. How much effort are you willing to engage in for the purpose of understanding Objectivism?

Edited by Repairman
minor grammarical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jose said:

Your statement entails that there is just one form to interpret reality, ...

Jose, perhaps quite unintentionally, you have stumbled upon a very important underpinning of Objectivism: Reality is an absolute. Indeed, the proper interpretation of reality is that it takes one form, rather than many forms, such as Plato professed. If anyone needs to teach you about Plato, and his influence on Western thought, we have a very long way to go...

And that is the reason why I am not a teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Repairman said:

will try to impress upon you for the third time: Objectivism is not objectivity. Yes, practicing objectivity is encouraged as a part of Objectivist thinking, but it is not the entire philosophy. How much effort are you willing to engage in for the purpose of understanding Objectivism?

That is what I want to learn about the limits of objectivity, do you have any pointers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Repairman said:

Jose, perhaps quite unintentionally, you have stumbled upon a very important underpinning of Objectivism: Reality is an absolute. Indeed, the proper interpretation of reality is that it takes one form, rather than many forms, such as Plato professed. If anyone needs to teach you about Plato, and his influence on Western thought, we have a very long way to go...

You just need to explain why is necessary to learn philosophy, if there is one correct way to interpret reality I do not see a point of learning philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jose said:

That is what I want to learn about the limits of objectivity, do you have any pointers?

There are no limits. I will point to the basics, and after you've developed a basic understanding, you may find that decisions are no so hard to make. But before one may understand Objectivist morality, please take some time to understand the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of Objectivism.

 

9 minutes ago, Jose said:

You just need to explain why is necessary to learn philosophy, if there is one correct way to interpret reality I do not see a point of learning philosophy.

It is evident by your inquiry on this forum, particularly on this "Questions about Objectivism," that you seek explanations and answers to something. If not philosophy, what? Have you ever considered that you are living by a moral code with or without ever having taken a formal study of philosophy?

Edited by Repairman
minor errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Repairman said:

There are no limits.

If there are no limits, why do I know that I have to use just objective criteria to interpret reality, and when subjective criteria are a good criteria.

18 minutes ago, Repairman said:

It is evident by your inquiry on this forum, particularly on this "Questions about Objectivism," that you seek explanations and answers to something. If not philosophy, what?

You are right, but it is rooted in there are multiple ways to interpret reality.
 

19 minutes ago, Repairman said:

Have you ever considered that you are living by a moral code with or without ever having taken a formal study of philosophy?

Yes, and again there is a root of having multiple ways to interpret reality.

As an example, Plato believe that soul exist while Rand’s no. You cannot use someone philosophy with just the part that fits your philosophy and ignores the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jose said:

If there are no limits, why do I know that I have to use just objective criteria to interpret reality, and when subjective criteria are a good criteria.

You are right, but it is rooted in there are multiple ways to interpret reality.

Yes, and again there is a root of having multiple ways to interpret reality.

As an example, Plato believe that soul exist while Rand’s no. You cannon 

1) If a subjective criteria is your preferential approach to reality, then, anything goes. For example: The events of nature may be explained as supernatural events. This is a subjective statement. The scientific method is much more objective, (although, science is not Objectivism.) If you choose to ignore reality, choosing to interpret reality as subjective, you do so at your own risk, and perhaps at the risk of people who rely on you. Subjectivity is a gamble, when compared to objectivity.

2) That which Plato identified as "the soul," is that which Ayn Rand identified as "consciousness." If you choose to use one term in favor of another, I can understand your meaning. The first has a mystical implication, while the other a more clinical implication.

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

 You cannot use someone philosophy with just the part that fits your philosophy and ignores the rest.

3) Well, you can, but I wouldn't recommend doing so.

Edited by Repairman
minor errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Repairman said:

1) If a subjective criteria is your preferential approach to reality, then, anything goes. For example: The events of nature may be explained as supernatural events. This is a subjective statement. The scientific method is much more objective, (although, science is not Objectivism.) If you choose to ignore reality, choosing to interpret reality as subjective, you do so at your own risk, and perhaps at the risk of people who rely on you. Subjectivity is a gamble, when compared to objectivity.

This is my whole point, I came up with an escenario where is not posible to take a decision in just objective facts (the fact that is lunch is irrelevant, you can change it to cover any aspect of life, you can ask me of a realm and I’ll adapt the scenario) So if there is no criteria of when to use subjective criteria to move forward there is limited application of that worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose, this statement verifies my whole point, that you're on this forum for no other purpose than to make attempts at discrediting objectivity by presenting a scenario in which you change the criteria of the scenario at your subjective whim: 

5 hours ago, Jose said:

This is my whole point, I came up with an escenario where is not posible to take a decision in just objective facts (the fact that is lunch is irrelevant, you can change it to cover any aspect of life, you can ask me of a realm and I’ll adapt the scenario) So if there is no criteria of when to use subjective criteria to move forward there is limited application of that worldview.

If your game has a set of criterion, please, present a complete and objective list of the criterion. The obvious reason that there is no criteria for your choice of restaurants is because you chose to omit the criteria, until it's your subjective choice to change the rules of the game. This is the tacit of children.Throughout this thread, you've altered your scenario pointlessly. If lunch is irrelevant, perhaps you are suggesting that life is irrelevant, as you seem to insist that subjectivity is your choice of "worldview." Subjectivity and/or emotional reaction is not the choice of "worldview" for many of the participants on this forum, including myself. You are attempting to discredit Objectivism. That is why I question your honesty and accuse you of trolling.

If you sincerely seek explanations of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, (rather than a pointless exchange of contradictory counter-points and alterations of your scenario), I point to the fact that there are other resources. If you were to go online to Amazon, you will find: Objetivismo: La Filosofia de Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff. I would argue that this book offers a concise and systematic explanation of Objectivism in Spanish, (and I don't wish to assume that Spanish is your primary language, so, you may correct me if I'm wrong.) $28 in paperback/$8.95 on Kindle. There are other titles translated. However, if you are thoroughly convinced that it is impossible to make an objective decision (outside of the limits of a mathematical statement), then I suggest you have extremely flawed foundations in your present philosophy/theology/worldview. Subjectivity is a matter of choice, reality is not. Make your decisions anyway you want. It's your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jose said:

there is a root of having multiple ways to interpret reality.

Is that an objective fact? How do you know there are multiple ways to interpret reality, and not just one way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jose said:

Good that you are not a teacher. His goal is to convey concept X, is [sic][if?] he does not try to explain the concept until [it is] understood [then] he is doing a poor job. 

In this case, it may be more instructive to assume the role of a pupil and seek to understand any lesson(s) that might be imparted to others.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Is that an objective fact? How do you know there are multiple ways to interpret reality, and not just one way?

Is what I deduct from the Newton and Einstein. Their laws are different, but it is hard to call them subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

In this case, it may be more instructive to assume the role of a pupil and seek to understand any lesson(s) that might be imparted to others.

But, you need to understand the point of view of the pupil ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Repairman said:

Jose, this statement verifies my whole point, that you're on this forum for no other purpose than to make attempts at discrediting objectivity by presenting a scenario in which you change the criteria of the scenario at your subjective whim: 

The scenario has not change ... what I offer was to come with an additional scenario (that means two, the original one and the new one) so it’s an expansion rather than a change.

 

4 hours ago, Repairman said:

If your game has a set of criterion, please, present a complete and objective list of the criterion

Having a way of provide a way to know when to use a subjective criteria. That is a whole point. The list of criteria is not relevant ... what is important is that they are the same. Same distance, same menu, same cost, same atmosphere, same furniture ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jose said:

Is what I deduct from the Newton and Einstein. Their laws are different, but it is hard to call them subjective.

How do you know that you "deduct" it? Maybe you don't deduct it. Is it an objective fact that you deduct it?

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jose said:

The scenario has not change ... what I offer was to come with an additional scenario (that means two, the original one and the new one) so it’s an expansion rather than a change.

So let me see... If one were to make an addition to an equation, that would not be the same as a change? But somehow only you would arrive at the same answer. This is utterly irrational.

 

10 minutes ago, Jose said:

Having a way of provide a way to know when to use a subjective criteria. That is a whole point. The list of criteria is not relevant ... what is important is that they are the same. Same distance, same menu, same cost, same atmosphere, same furniture ...

Well then, let's look at it from your point of view: If there may be multiple ways of interpreting reality, how can you possibly know when to use any criteria or none at all? How can you know anything at all? From your point of view, reality is entirely subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 12:15 AM, Jose said:

Hi all,

I have the following scenario. Someone is deciding where to go for lunch, two places have the same objective pros and cons. But, one of the places really do not like one of the places. If we use just Objective there is no way to make a decision. But once we introduce fillings (an subjective criteria) the decision is trivial. What is the Objectivists way to see this scenario?

This presumes that the (perceiving, knowing, valuing) "subject" cannot be "objective". Heard variations of this one before. ;)To make that choice of food and ambience, prices, service, clientele, etc. which, say 1. a Greek restaurant 2. an Italian restaurant provides - both of which one has enjoyed - it becomes a "subjective" choice? Or "trivial"? Why?

Rather, if one acts by the best knowledge possible of the characteristics of each and what each differently provides (without omniscience about what 'might' occur at either place), and in full knowledge of one's specific tastes and mood that particular day, the choice is certainly objective and selfish. Simply, are your taste buds and senses and stomach your own or someone else's?

Are you suggesting that one's satisfaction and enjoyment in living can only be left up in the air, to arbitrary means?

If you deliberately act in defiance of your knowledge, evaluations, self-knowledge, anticipation and emotions  - that's to be non-objective.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

How do you know that you "deduct" it? Maybe you don't deduct it. Is it an objective fact that you deduct it?

Why is important who deduct it. That they are different is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Repairman said:
2 hours ago, Jose said:

 

So let me see... If one were to make an addition to an equation, that would not be the same as a change? But somehow only you would arrive at the same answer. This is utterly irrational.

 

That I did was not a change, it was a clarification. The question is who does Objectivist interpret reality when you need a subjective fact? What I give was an example, and offer a second one.

 

2 hours ago, Repairman said:

Well then, let's look at it from your point of view: If there may be multiple ways of interpreting reality, how can you possibly know when to use any criteria or none at all? How can you know anything at all? From your point of view, reality is entirely subjective.

You can use which criteria do you want to explore ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This presumes that the (perceiving, knowing, valuing) "subject" cannot be "objective". Heard variations of this one before. ;)To make that choice of food and ambience, prices, service, clientele, etc. which, say 1. a Greek restaurant 2. an Italian restaurant provides - both of which one has enjoyed - it becomes a "subjective" choice? Or "trivial"? Why?

 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But, one of the places really do not like one of the places

This is why?

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...