Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objections! Ayn Rand tackled (I think).

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I must say that I onced met an ex-Objectivist who seemed to hate Rand to the extreme. He never gave her credit for anything and he contended that she was an "amateur philosopher" to boot. One must confess that the term "amateur philosopher" is a rather silly one. He is now a pragmatist. Anyhow, while searching for a particular Ayn Rand quote I stumbled upon a site that is authored by an ex-Objectivist. I would like some comments about the site and particularly the critiques of Objectivist ethics.

Objections to Objectivism

A Critique of Ayn Rand's Ethics

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/TOC.html

Concerning the document linked below.

How You Can Eat Your Cake and Have It Too

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooCake.html

Hello it is an analogy proverb. What a ridiculous straw man argument.

Take for instance the cliché that one "you can’t have your cake and eat it too". When an individual uses this cliché it is very important to not leave the context behind. Arguing endlessly over this issue is like arguing about the cliché "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". Is the mind a terrible thing? Is waste of the mind the terrible thing? One can safely say that many people who utter the cliché mean that it is a terrible thing to waste one's mind (i.e., not use one's faculties to the greatest extent). So too Rand meant what the definition below conveys:

"You can't have your cake and eat it too -- One can't use something up and still have it to enjoy."

Did some say Stolen Concept?

Clearly the word "have" does not convey a meaning similar to one consuming something. This is because the word "eat" is present and it is offered as an alternative (to "have"). From the underlying context the nutritional benefits of cake are not to be taken into consideration. What we are here dealing with is something (cake) as it was in actual form and one being unable to possess it (in its original form) once it is eaten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is a mess. You indicate with the title that you do believe AR has somehow been "tackled" - ie refuted or proven wrong in some respect. Then you make a post which trashes ex-objectivists. Since the author of the site is an ex-objectivist, one would imagine all your negative comments apply to the author as well. If that is the case, then your title would contradict your post. If not, then your post seems to be one big non-sequitor - ie something designed to make you look like you accept objectivism while at the same time attacking it.

Either way, your post makes no sense.

So I'll ask you - WHY do you want comments about the linked site? Are there things written there you believe are valid? If so, what ideas do you believe are valid? And how do you believe they contradict Objectivism?

Or, if you do not think they are valid, why bring them up? Are you unable to argue against them? If so, which arguments are you having problems with? Or is it you simply think others here will be unable to argue against them and want to try to stump them??

One merely has to look at his "argument" against Objectivist metaphysics (in "How you can have your cake and eat it too") to understand he either hasn't a clue - or is being extremely intellectually dishonest and is trying to dupe those with little understanding OF metaphysics.

Perhaps you could point out to us what is wrong with his argument there. Or do you think he is correct?

edit - LOL. You added to your post the answer to the above before I even asked it. BTW - the issue is less one of stolen concept and more obfuscation. The phrase simply means A cannot be non-A. It is an expression of the law of identity. Nothing he says can change that fact. But he can DISTRACT from the fact. And that is ALL he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is a mess.
Your estimation is a mess.

You indicate with the title that you do believe AR has somehow been "tackled" - ie refuted or proven wrong in some respect.

Reading comprehension is especially vital but given the time of the day I forgive your indiscretion. If I were said to have been tackled that in no way suggest that I have been defeated. In the title of this forum I including the words "I think" and they appeared after the word "tackle". Everyone ought to know where my sympathies lie so I wonder why you are interrogating me at this time. I used the word "tackle" in this sense:

"Embark on doing something: to undertake or deal with something that requires effort."

The context should have notified you of this fact. The numerous questions posed to me are simply irrelevant at this time.

Note: My post is not hostile and I am replying in like tone.

Oh, one must not forget that there are many people that are new to Objectivism here. I think that a discussion like this would help them as well as "experts" such as yourself RedCap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not speculate on Capleton’s motivations for posting this, but I will comment on the trend of posting critiques of Objectivism and asking us to refute it.

You don’t need to refute every possible criticism of an idea to be certain that it is true. You just need to validate that it must according the facts of reality and consistent with the rest of your knowledge. Since there is no limit to the arbitrary ideas one can come up with, there will always be new critiques of Objectivism, arguments for new regulations, and environmentalist panic attacks.

Personally, I find no value in trying to refute any of them, but more importantly, you cannot study philosophy from polemics, especially if you are just learning Objectivism. Many of these essays are dishonest, evasive, and intentionally confusing – they have to be, since they often try to deny basic facts of reality. Your time would be much better spent studying real philosophy than untangling some leftists or mystics confused maze.

If you want to learn to defend your ideas, than first study your ideas, not those who oppose them. If you want to promote your ideas to others, address the ideas they hold directly instead of trying to impress them by answering someone else’s arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capleton

Your post is still a mess.

ESPECIALLY if one considers I responded BEFORE you ammended your post (adding an actual critique) the content of your post did NOT (as you claim) indicate the definition of the word tackled. That was the ENTIRE reason FOR my post - AS I STATED.

In fact, BECAUSE you included "I think" after the word "tackled", you REMOVED the one definition you CLAIM you meant.

"Embark on doing something: to undertake or deal with something that requires effort"

It is OBVIOUS the site you reference EMBARKED on, DEALT with, or UNDERTOOK an ATTACK on objectivism. You state that CLEARLY in your actual post. Yet you add "I think" as a MODIFIER to the term "tackled" - meaning you WEREN'T sure if it WAS being tackled or not. Well, for the definition you site - either someone DOES undertake something - or they do NOT (success of the undertaking does NOT have a bearing on whether or not the thing WAS undertaken). Since the author of the linked site DID embark upon an attack upon Objectivism, and since you ACKNOWLEGED that fact in your post, that RATIONALLY ruled OUT the definition you now claim.

The definition which DOES rationally fit your title is: "To stop (an opponent carrying the ball), especially by forcing the opponent to the ground." And the reason it fits is because the author of the site, as you clearly state, tries to prove AR wrong. He was trying to stop her from being accepted as correct. And the "I think" modifier would mean you were not certain if he was SUCCESSFUL in trying to tackle her - if he did bring her to the ground.

THAT is why I responded as I did. Your title suggested one thing but it had NO apparent relation to the post you made. Thus my assertion that your post made no sense. It DOESNT in this context - and still doesnt. This ALSO accounts for the questions I asked.

In other words, you modified a term incorrectly, thus leading to confusion. So do NOT become INDIGNANT when YOUR words are NOT clear.

Now I COULD responde here like a smart-arse and say "I forgive you for your not being clear because of the late hour. You were obviously not thinking straight." But that would NOT be an appropriate response. Nor did *I* do ANYTHING like that in my post. My "tone" was NOT at all irreverent. Go back and read it WITHOUT the chip on your shoulder and you MIGHT see that.

As to the comment that "Everyone ought to know where your symphaties lie" I have news for you - not everyone knows, reads, or remembers your posts. *I* certainly did not remember them. So no - your "sympathies" were NOT known. And your post did NOT make them clear. So everyone should NOT have already "known" why you posted what you did.

--

As an aside, if you read my post carefully, you will find I never speculated as to Capelton's "motives" for making his post. In fact, I explicitly ASKED him WHAT he was asking and WHY he was asking it. And I provided specific questions for him, depending upon his answer. I asked him - was it this? Was it that? If it was this, why was it this? If it was that, why was it that? etc In other words, I didnt KNOW why he was asking whatever he was asking, and sought the answer to that (and other) questions - AS I SAID.

If there is anything "obvious" here, that SHOULD have been it.

--

Finally, as to your remarks about beginners and "experts" (ignoring your sneer and smear via use of the scare quotes), GC is absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedCap:

I will let most my previous post suffice. The title of my post was meant to be sarcastic for your information. Besides I know you have been on this site long enough to know where I stand concerning Objectivism. To claim that you are blissfully unaware of the fact that I am an Objectivist is disingenuous. I quite frankly have no time for your questions because they lack cognitive significance to me at this stage.

In fact, BECAUSE you included "I think" after the word "tackled", you REMOVED the one definition you CLAIM you meant.

"Embark on doing something: to undertake or deal with something that requires effort"

It is OBVIOUS the site you reference EMBARKED on, DEALT with, or UNDERTOOK an ATTACK on objectivism. You state that CLEARLY in your actual post. Yet you add "I think" as a MODIFIER to the term "tackled" - meaning you WEREN'T sure if it WAS being tackled or not. Well, for the definition you site - either someone DOES undertake something - or they do NOT (success of the undertaking does NOT have a bearing on whether or not the thing WAS undertaken). Since the author of the linked site DID embark upon an attack upon Objectivism, and since you ACKNOWLEGED that fact in your post, that RATIONALLY ruled OUT the definition you now claim.

I stated that he used a straw man argument so the "I think" is to be understood as me essentially saying that I was of the view that her actual ideas may not have been tackled in any sense. It is like you trying to tackle my ideas but when one evaluates the matter your critique might be completely off base. In the case of a football player he might attempt to tackle an opponent and in the end only "grab" wind. All the while the opponent is left unscathed by an ill fated attempt.

GreedyCapitalist:

Personally, I find no value in trying to refute any of them, but more importantly, you cannot study philosophy from polemics, especially if you are just learning Objectivism.

Ayn Rand was a very polemical writer mind you.

Your time would be much better spent studying real philosophy than untangling some leftists or mystics confused maze.
What is "real philosophy"? Such ambiguity!

If you want to learn to defend your ideas, than first study your ideas, not those who oppose them.

Before ever embarking on defending my ideas I usually have a good grasp of what they are. In that regard you admonition was not useful to me. Further, evil ideas can only strive if they are ignored. I am not here suggesting that one go on a crusade against the irrational ideas of today but what I am saying is that they must be confronted whenever possible.

If you want to promote your ideas to others, address the ideas they hold directly instead of trying to impress them by answering someone else’s arguments.

This is philosophy we are here referring to. The fact is that many people share the same premises although some hold them more conscientiously (read "Philosophy Who Needs It"). To argue against altruism one must give examples of altruists and have an understanding their premises (this is if one wants to be a good teacher). I am not here trying to impress anyone for your information.

It must be noted that one only needs to ignore this forum if one deems it to be trivial. I am not enthused about replying to all these inconsequential posts. If this forum does interest you please leave it alone, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capelton

You have now called me a liar - and have done so IN PUBLIC. You are therefore PUBLICLY being given a warning for that ad hom attack - and your posting privileges are suspended for 48 hours.

As to your claim that I should KNOW your position, GET OVER YOURSELF. It is the truth that I remember NOT ONE of your posts. If they were anything like the one's you have made in this thread, it is no wonder.

If you wish to continue posting once the suspension has been removed, as I said before - get the chip OFF your shoulder.

--

"I stated that he used a straw man argument so the "I think" is to be understood as me essentially saying that I was of the view that her actual ideas may not have been tackled in any sense"

If you had actually READ my argument instead of apparently being blinded by your anger (or were you "blissfully unaware" of the meaning of my words), you would have realized I said my post was written BEFORE you AMENDED (ie CHANGED) your post to INCLUDE such comments like "straw man". In other words, my post was written BEFORE you ADDED such content - before you CHANGED its context. As such, your defense has NO bearing upon my post WHATSOEVER because it is OUTSIDE their CONTEXT. It is INVALID.

As to your 'tackled' "explanation" you say: "In the case of a football player he might attempt to tackle an opponent and in the end only "grab" wind."

Since you used the PAST tense - ie tacklED - that means the attempt WAS successful. All you have done with your argument is CHANGE the TENSE of the word to try to make your case. But that changes CONTEXT. And that is not the way to defend an argument. As such, the argument is FALSE.

Furthermore, since you claim NOT to be using tackled in the sense *I* defined it, but in the sense YOU defined it, your entire post simply diverts attention away from the fact that "I think" CANNOT be used as a PROPER modifier for YOUR definition. As I stated before, it is NOT rational. The only thing such a diversion does is allow you to respond as IF you have addressed the issue when in REALITY you have EVADED it. That TOO is NOT RATIONAL.

(The fact that you ARE using my definition to identify your word choice and usage suggests that definition was INDEED the one you meant all along, that you got caught using it incorrectly, and now simply do not want to admit it. You seek to 'save face' with a personal attack on me instead. I do not cotton to individuals who engage in mudslinging and ad homs - especially in place of simply admitting error - especially when the errors are simple ones themselves - and especially when those logical fallacies are aimed at me specifically. Nor does this forum allow such behavior. So do NOT engage in them again.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capleton,

Further, evil ideas can only strive if they are ignored.

I assume you mean "succeed". And to that, I can only say: wouldn't it be a wonderful world if they were ignored? Evil ideas can only succeed if they are accepted.

The number of bad ideas floating around makes it important to pick your battles. I hardly think Ku is at the top of the list.

This isn't to say that addressing him isn't an option. It is, of course. But don't talk as though it's mandatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to learn to defend your ideas, than first study your ideas, not those who oppose them.  If you want to promote your ideas to others, address the ideas they hold directly instead of trying to impress them by answering someone else’s arguments.

Excellent post. I sometimes make this mistake myself. Thanks for reminding me of the proper approach to learning ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GEEZ! This is one of the most hostile posting sites I have ever seen. i too have had my minor arguments, but this really seems like useless nonsense. ah, whatever. I don't want to get involved. I'm just saying, that posting here should not be about refuting the views of everybody else, it's simply a matter of opinion, while respecting others, or at least for me it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmbivalentEye:

You should be aware that no one here is out to prove anybody else wrong (if that was their purpose they would be recognised as a troll fairly quickly)...

What people here want to do is acertain reality.

Such is not a matter of opinion, because reality is Objectivly knowable.

See my point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GEEZ! This is one of the most hostile posting sites I have ever seen. i too have had my minor arguments, but this really seems like useless nonsense. ah, whatever. I don't want to get involved. I'm just saying, that posting here should not be about refuting the views of everybody else, it's simply a matter of opinion, while respecting others, or at least for me it is.

If this is what you call "hostility," I'd like to hear what you call whatever goes on at almost every other message board I've ever seen. We have "minor arguments" around here all the time, and depending on the attitude of those involved, it is usually resolved fairly quickly. And as RH said, nobody here is just going around looking to pick fights with other people--it's about identifying the truth. Considering that this is an Objectivist board, we're interested in objective reality, not "matters of opinion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Capelton

You have now called me a liar - and have done so IN PUBLIC. You are therefore PUBLICLY being given a warning for that ad hom attack - and your posting privileges are suspended for 48 hours.

As to your claim that I should KNOW your position, GET OVER YOURSELF. It is the truth that I remember NOT ONE of your posts. If they were anything like the one's you have made in this thread, it is no wonder.

If you wish to continue posting once the suspension has been removed, as I said before - get the chip OFF your shoulder.

--

"I stated that he used a straw man argument so the "I think" is to be understood as me essentially saying that I was of the view that her actual ideas may not have been tackled in any sense"

If you had actually READ my argument instead of apparently being blinded by your anger (or were you "blissfully unaware" of the meaning of my words), you would have realized I said my post was written BEFORE you AMENDED (ie CHANGED) your post to INCLUDE such comments like "straw man". In other words, my post was written BEFORE you ADDED such content - before you CHANGED its context. As such, your defense has NO bearing upon my post WHATSOEVER because it is OUTSIDE their CONTEXT. It is INVALID.

As to your 'tackled' "explanation" you say: "In the case of a football player he might attempt to tackle an opponent and in the end only "grab" wind."

Since you used the PAST tense - ie tacklED - that means the attempt WAS successful. All you have done with your argument is CHANGE the TENSE of the word to try to make your case. But that changes CONTEXT. And that is not the way to defend an argument. As such, the argument is FALSE.

Furthermore, since you claim NOT to be using tackled in the sense *I* defined it, but in the sense YOU defined it, your entire post simply diverts attention away from the fact that "I think" CANNOT be used as a PROPER modifier for YOUR definition. As I stated before, it is NOT rational. The only thing such a diversion does is allow you to respond as IF you have addressed the issue when in REALITY you have EVADED it. That TOO is NOT RATIONAL.

(The fact that you ARE using my definition to identify your word choice and usage suggests that definition was INDEED the one you meant all along, that you got caught using it incorrectly, and now simply do not want to admit it. You seek to 'save face' with a personal attack on me instead. I do not cotton to individuals who engage in mudslinging and ad homs - especially in place of simply admitting error - especially when the errors are simple ones themselves - and especially when those logical fallacies are aimed at me specifically. Nor does this forum allow such behavior. So do NOT engage in them again.)

I DISAGREE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started reading the comments from that person on Rand's description of values. I stopped very soon after. If these are the kind of objections they are going to offer then I am not going to waste my time reading any of that.

The objection I came across was that values can exist without an ultimate value. They offer no proof of this whatsoever. What they fail to realize is that your ultimate value does not have to be conciously known to you, everyone has an ultimate value whether they know it and can describe it and why in detail or whether it is subconcious and they have on clue.

They are ex-objectivists because they failed to understand the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are ex-objectivists because they failed to understand the philosophy.

Agree. I scanned through the second site and realized they totally missed the point of Rand's "Cake" slogan. As I was reading, I thought to myself, "where the hell is this coming from?"

Story.

I've met way to many people who spend their time reading about Rand from her opponents instead of Rand herself. I went to a friend's workplace and Rand suddenly came up, a co-worker of his face brightened because he had just heard about Rand that very day. They turned to each other and began talking about it. They both mentioned that they thought it was just another form of "hedonism". (Shudders).

My friend's brother said that she took the concept of Individualism to the extreme and that's why he hadn't read "Atlas Shrugged". I sit here thinking, "I've should of said, "That's only one of the reasons why you misread her. You didn't read her at all," but at the time nothing smart came to my mind. I decided to explain some of the basics that I knew I couldn't of misread and were probably right of the book from word to word. Ya know, going down the philosophical branches. They had to leave once I was done with the basics of Rand's metaphysics. They had all decided that I gave a good argument and that they agreed. I'm happy I studied the hell off of the first chapter of OPAR. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met way to many people who spend their time reading about Rand from her opponents instead of Rand herself.

So do I.

If they come on like totally convinced authorities on the subject, I write them off as second-handers who accept untrue ideas from others on faith. If, on the other hand, they say, "I have heard that Ayn Rand advocates [genuinely bad stuff]" I reply, "Not at all. In fact, she is very much for [tantalizingly unusual good stuff]," and see how they react. If they express interest, I follow up on whatever they are interested in. If not, I let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capleton,

I think you owe it to yourself to go back and re-read RadCap's posts more carefully because I don't believe you fully understand the errors you made in your thinking.

RadCap was actually doing you a favor by responding to your first post. Most people would probably not have the patience to address it in so detailed and thorough a manner. He is trying to be helpful and there is no reason to get so defensive about it. We can all learn from mistakes, but only if we're able to recognize and acknowledge them.

Link to comment
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...