Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A great example of a person reaching a spurious conclusion by using a non-objective method is Peikoff's position on the "ground zero mosque." He began with an "I wish" -- he wished the mosque not to be built, and to use the initiation of government force to prevent its construction -- and then very poorly "reasoned" backward from there, asserting that our "metaphysical survival" was at stake, and thus proposing the "solution" that the building not be allowed to be built, but neglecting to propose the alternative idea that those whom he was accusing of presenting a clear and present danger to our very survival should first be tried and then imprisoned if found guilty. His desire to violate property rights based on his mere aesthetic (symbolic) distastes, and to rationalize those aesthetic feelings as being based in rational ethical thought, was very subjective, whimsical and irrational.

You have to be dropping a great deal of context -- facts about LP -- to make such an accusation and to attempt to state that LP made a statement based on feelings and then rationalized this feeling into a statement that the NYC Mosque should not be built. Not only has LP provided a lecture called "Religion versus America", he has explicitly talked about how Islam as an evil ideology (explicitly against man's life as the standard) and needs to be stifled before it takes over the world by force (which is their aim via Caliphate) and that Islam specifically advocates killing anyone who disagrees with Islam (which means they are against reason per se and the discovery of the world via reason); not only that in terms of ideology, but they actually *do* it, they actually put their evil doctrine into practice **and** used that ideology to slaughter 3,000 innocent American lives, attacked our Pentagon, and sought to attack the White House. If that is not enough for you to hate Islam and to vilify it, then you are not applying the principles of "Fact and Value" -- of evaluating ideas and what the logical outcome of ideas would have on human existence. The claim that they should be free to become established in the United States is also to ignore all of that context.

This sort or methodology is what Checking Premises is all about, and all against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I do not speak for CP nor the people who operate it. In fact, Chip Joyce, John Kagebein, Dwayne Davies all defriended me over on FaceBook over various issues related to CP (both in the early stages and currently). In my opinion, Chip Joyce was not making himself clear on FB regarding people who were disrespectful to LP (especially DH regarding the resignation of McCaskey), since at that time, I did not see it as disrespectful. John Kagebein and Dwayne Davies seem to have defriended me over my statements at the beginning of CP that the opening statement, "Subjectivist Objectivist" was not clear and represented a floating abstraction and a contradiction in terms and an over generalized. Originally, that essay did have all of those flaws, but it is more clear now, and I can stand by their policy, even if I am not personal friends with the primaries. I can recognize a good position to take, even if said primaries want nothing to do with me at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally, that essay did have all of those flaws, but it is more clear now, and I can stand by their policy, ... ...
I think the essay is still mostly a smear job on DH. The author dredges up DH's past association with Branden as if this is some type of ongoing offence; he mentions a different person who stated (I don't remember where... I guess on some blog somewhere) that Objectivism would be better without Peikoff and therefore would be better off with Peikoff dead [there was a similar flap in our chat too]. The essay is a mix of things that anyone, even DH, would agree with at an abstract level, plus some smears, plus a little modicum of genuine criticism against DH's substantial views, but there too raising the same straw-men that you do.

In addition, the site made its intent and quality pretty clear in its first attempt. now they want to re-write their drafts without so much as an apology!

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be dropping a great deal of context -- facts about LP -- to make such an accusation and to attempt to state that LP made a statement based on feelings and then rationalized this feeling into a statement that the NYC Mosque should not be built. Not only has LP provided a lecture called "Religion versus America"...

In his lecture, does he also advocate initiating force against the other religions which he claims are a threat to America? Does he assert that he and the government have the right to prevent, say, Catholics from building churches on their own property, especially if their doing so is aesthetically/symbolically upsetting to him?

...he has explicitly talked about how Islam as an evil ideology (explicitly against man's life as the standard) and needs to be stifled before it takes over the world by force (which is their aim via Caliphate) and that Islam specifically advocates killing anyone who disagrees with Islam (which means they are against reason per se and the discovery of the world via reason); not only that in terms of ideology, but they actually *do* it, they actually put their evil doctrine into practice **and** used that ideology to slaughter 3,000 innocent American lives, attacked our Pentagon, and sought to attack the White House.

So are you saying that your notion of "rationality" and "objectivity" involves assigning guilt collectively? And therefore all Muslims are guilty of slaughtering Americans, and, in their quest to take over the world by force, they are on the verge of wiping us out (our "metaphysical survival" is at stake), so therefore your and Peikoff's "rational" solution to the threat is to prevent them from building one building while letting them walk around freely amongst us?

If that is not enough for you to hate Islam and to vilify it, then you are not applying the principles of "Fact and Value" -- of evaluating ideas and what the logical outcome of ideas would have on human existence. The claim that they should be free to become established in the United States is also to ignore all of that context.

What about Kantians? They're even more evil than all Muslims combined, no? After all, Rand said that Kant was the most evil man in mankind's history. Surely his followers are an immediate threat to your and Peikoff's "metaphysical survival." Shouldn't people who openly support and promote Kantianism be prevented from constructing buildings which will be used to spread Kantianism? Why not expand your and Peikoff's little theory to all ideologies, and then advocate the use of government force against the property rights of everyone who disagrees with your philosophy? They're an immediate threat to your very existence, and the most effective way of stopping them from killing you is to deny them their building permits, no?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the essay is still mostly a smear job on DH. The author dredges up DH's past association with Branden as if this is some type of ongoing offence; he mentions a different person who stated (I don't remember where... I guess on some blog somewhere) that Objectivism would be better without Peikoff and therefore would be better off with Peikoff dead [there was a similar flap in our chat too]. The essay is a mix of things that anyone, even DH, would agree with at an abstract level, plus some smears, plus a little modicum of genuine criticism against DH's substantial views, but there too raising the same straw-men that you do.

In addition, the site made its intent and quality pretty clear in its first attempt. now they want to re-write their drafts without so much as an apology!

From what I've been able to tell in cyber-O-land, most observers see this as a case of a horrible sauce being shown to taste equally badly on the goose and the gander, but that it does at least have a redeeming hint of schadenfreude in its lingering aftertaste.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that the original draft of SO by Chip Joyce was horribly non-objective, and said so. It is improved, but still not quite there with more than one example (DH) and doesn't contain a clear identification of what the objective method entails. So, sure, it's a field day for those who are against the site. I even brought it up to them originally, and got defriended.

SN, can you explain to me what straw man argument I am making against DH or anyone else? What do you mean by a "straw man argument" and how did I employ it?

As to Objectivists advocating using force against the irrational; no, certainly we do not endorse that idea, nor have we ever said so. We have never advocated shutting down schools that teach Kantianism, even though it is the most evil philosophy on earth. But with regard to Islam, yes, they would have the right to free speech and to practice their religion (insofar as that religion is not using force against others), but I think you are forgetting that we are at war with Islam, even though none of our officials want to put it that way. So, yes, at least until the war is over and Islam is pacified the way Christianity due to the influence of reason or counter-force, then I would not be against, say, a moratorium on building any new mosques, and if individual Muslims stood by the attacks on civilization around the world, they should be deported if they are immigrants and not American citizens. In a certain sense, since they did attack us directly, I think one could even make a case that Muslims who support those attacks are very close to treason, if they are American citizens. I don't have an exact quote, but "treason" is defined in the Constitution as an American citizen waging war against the United States.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s plenty of precedent to be found for this in Rand-land. Here’s an essay on the McCaskey imbroglio:

http://txpropertyrig...rd-peikoff.html

For the answer to how McCaskey should be evaluated, I suggest reviewing Leonard Peikoff’s excellent article “Fact and Value”, which is available for viewing on the ARI website. Discussing Ayn Rand’s evaluation of Kant in that article, Leonard Peikoff states:

In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history.” She said it knowing full well that, apart from his ideas, Kant’s actions were unexceptionable, even exemplary. Like Ellsworth Toohey, he was a peaceful citizen, a witty lecturer, a popular dinner guest, a prolific writer.
She said it because of what Kant wrote—and why—and what it would have to do to mankind.
[bold added]

In summary, ideas require an evaluation with man’s life as the standard of value. McCaskey should be evaluated for what he said about scientific induction, and what it would mean for science.

I’m not going to take the time to express my opinion of this mentality, er, policy.

Well then I will.

Kant was a philosopher, Diana Hsieh studied philosophy in school. There is a big difference. There is no possibility that Diana Hsieh will ever become even one hundredth as influential as Kant either for good or ill because she does not originate novel philosophical principles. Essentially, what Kant did was consequential on huge scale across centuries and continents affecting people who have never heard of Kant, all far beyond what he could ever imagine and what Diana Hsieh does will never matter beyond the particular individuals who read her stuff. That is the difference between making principles and applying someone else's principles.

I evaluate McCaskey as an extremely competent and thorough scholar of the history of science and founder of the Anthem Foundation who made well founded critiques of Harriman's book and the argument presented for Peikoff's theory (not the substance of the theory itself) because he was asked to, not because he spoiling for a fight to advance his own novel philosophy. It is ridiculous overreaching to equate McCaskey's moral status with that of Kant.

Kant is the creator of certain philosophical principles which have had certain philosophical and existential consequences. Kant's moral status as bane to mankind is the product of his being the cause of effects for which he is morally responsible. He could not ever be held legally responsible or subject to retribution even if he were still alive but it is an error to think what is legal must therefore be moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the "straw man argument" is a logical fallacy, I certainly do not want to engage in it. Here is the definition of that fallacy, according to Wikipedia:

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"

After listening that the podcast on AltosCon, I thought that DH was making the following rationalistic argument:

We can eat those things which don't have rights

Brainless children do not have rights (because they don't have the capacity to reason)

Therefore, we can eat brainless children

I brought this to her attention, and she said that I was mis-representing her statements -- that I was making a straw man argument against her. However, I listened to that podcast several times, and I still think that was her argument, even though she didn't state it explicitly.

Later, she did say that she wished she hadn't focused so much on rights as the center piece of her argument, but she never corrected it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually misunderstood CP's mission statement and statements made by their principles back at the beginning; thinking that what they were saying was that insofar as one is a rationalist (making arguments not connected to the facts) they were subjectivists. This is why my original post is presented the way it is, I was arguing against that position. But that is not their position, which is made more clear by the SO re-written post and John K's post. So, in a sense, they, too, could claim that I was making a straw man argument against them, though that was most certainly not my intent. Since it stemmed from a misunderstanding of their position, I have deleted my post from both FaceBook and my website (I actually did so last week).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually misunderstood CP's mission statement and statements made by their principles back at the beginning;

This entire thread is a farce. CheckingPremises.org is a farce. Equating people who misapply principles held in common with world-historical villians is a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire thread is a farce. CheckingPremises.org is a farce. Equating people who misapply principles held in common with world-historical villians is a farce.

I think that is a straw man argument, as no one on CP nor myself nor anyone on this thread has said that NB, DK, or even DH are in the same category as world-class villains. And talking about Islam and the threat they pose to us as an example of dropping context, as I have, does not imply that we are saying the same thing about any of the aforementioned people. Now, someone could certainly make the case that DH is not as bad as NB and DK, insofar as she has not explicitly stated a principle that is contrary to Objectivism as they have, but the point of the thread and the website is that these people, DH, and others, make non-objective arguments not based on the facts of reality and not stemming from Objectivism, but claim their arguments are compatible with Objectivism; and when it is pointed out that they are not so compatible, they stamp their foot at reality or at the guy showing that is the case, implying that they are against reason and reality as the standard, and placing an "I wish" (my argument was that good) over an "It is" (it is not that good).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SN, can you explain to me what straw man argument I am making against DH or anyone else? What do you mean by a "straw man argument" and how did I employ it?
Since the "straw man argument" is a logical fallacy, I certainly do not want to engage in it.

Thomas, I'm not going to use the eating-babies example. As I said above, I find that type of example as being of little real life use.

So, instead, I will use the example of the NYC mosque. Your claim is that DH (and perhaps others folks "defending" the NYC mosque) did not understand the context of rights/hierarchy of rights. This claim -- i.e. that DH think rights are context-less absolutes -- is the straw-man I'm talking about.

For starters, let me ask you if Diana has ever made such a claim explicitly. Even though I do not read her blog or listen to her podcast, from what little I know of her I'm willing to bet that she has not said this.

If she has said explicitly that people have rights as some type of contextless absolutes, even if they want to use those rights destroy our rights, then I will apologize to you and attempt to make recompense.

If no such explicit claim was made, then you are actually inferring that she believes this, based on her other arguments. Now, to prevent another straw-man, let me state this explicitly: it is often perfectly fine to infer things even if people do not state those things explicitly. However, one has to have good reason for such inference.

Consider this, I will bet that from other things that DH has posted on other topics, it is reasonable to believe that she does in fact think that context is critical to all sorts of philosophical principles, including individual rights. So, there is evidence against the straw-man, and when one has counter-factuals like the mosque example, one would be jumping to conclusions to think that DH changed her view.

Take an example.... obviously, there is no such thing as a right to start a bomb-making factory that is making weapons to attack NYC people and property. Do you seriously think DH would argue that there is such a right? Of course not. Do you seriously think many of the other Objectivists who said the mosque ought to be allowed would also argue for such a context-less right? Again... obviously not.

Take a second example. Consider some other mosque in some other American city -- say in Chicago, attended by taxi-drivers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Imagine that there was no reason to think this mosque was radical. If an Objectivist said that such a mosque does not rise to the level of a threat upon which government should act, would you say that this person is wrong? Perhaps you would, but would it valid to call this person's judgement of the nature of this activity and the level of threat a fundamental philosophical error? Would it be honest to claim that this person thought rights were context-less absolutes? To do so would be to argue a straw-man.

However, there is a difference between such a mosque and the one that was planned in NYC, and we ought to look at reality, and not allow people to smooth talk us with bullshit about good intentions if other evidence tells us the contrary. So, it is completely relevant to ask who is organizing the controversial mosque, what their motives are, etc. With this information, one can argue -- as many have done -- that these people are an actual threat -- and are no comparison to some no-name mosque frequented by regular middle-class immigrants. Fair enough... make that case then, and expect to convince your opponent or not. However, if you cannot convince your opponent that there is a real threat to individual rights, do not accuse them of not understanding that it is perfectly legitimate to act in the face of a real threat to rights.

I hope he above makes clear what I was referring to as being a "straw-man". The example of juries is similar. Juries are just one particular implementation of a justice system, and Objectivism is silent about whether it is a good implementation. There have been threads on this forum discussing why juries sometimes result in a miscarriage of justice. Now, if one were to show conclusively that individual freedom and justice cannot be served without having this particular implementation (viz. juries), then you can make the case that to be against juries is to be against individual right. If so, make that case before you raise the straw-man of people wanting to have their rights and eat them too.

I'm sure you'd agree that when encountering examples like this, it is wise to understand what your opponent is a actually saying, before starting to attack them. However, there is a certain method to doing so when that opponent is an Objectivist: try to understand how they tie their argument to the fundamental Objectivist principles. You will find that the disagreement is often not about principles, but about something far down the hierarchy. Often, the disagreement is about actual evaluation of some messy bundle of facts where one has to make one's best assessment, while knowing that one might be wrong.

In such instances, to attack one's opponent's basic philosophy is a straw-man that hurts your own position. Two sides of a small philosophical movement, who agree on fundamental principles, accuse the other side of disagreeing with the principles on which they -- in fact -- agree. The poster above was right: it is a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SN, thanks for your explanation. There is an issue as to at what point a given individual has gone against Objectivism, including his method of arguing for his position that might be contrary to objectivity. This is not an easy topic to resolve. I do think the individual would have to make more or less explicit statements about the principle of non-objectivity and uphold it as the right way to be before one can definitely say they have violated Objectivism on principle (as I think David Kelley and Nathaniel Brandon have done). Diana Hsieh has not done this to date, I agree. But those examples given by John K are an indication that something is wrong in that once her mistakes are pointed out, she doesn't check her premises, realize she made a mistake, and take action to correct them. I do not listen to her podcasts any longer after being defriended by her, and didn't listen to much of them beforehand; so I don't have the full context to come to a definite conclusion. But part of the crucial context is that she upholds herself as a professional Objectivist philosopher specializing in rational ethics -- which means she must be held to the highest standards of objectivity. Objectivists expect no less from Dr. Peikoff or any other Objectivist public speaker working for ARI, for example. So, if she is going to make the claim that she does about herself, then she ought to be able to demonstrate that she can be objective for her podcasts and public writings. For example, there isn't anything whatsoever in the Objectivist ethics that says that it would be OK to eat deformed children, encourage our enemies to make camp here during a war against them, be disrespectful to someone who has proven himself to be rational for over thirty years (LP), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, there isn't anything whatsoever in the Objectivist ethics that says that it would be OK to ..., encourage our enemies to make camp here during a war against them, ... ...
Wow! After my long explanation and after thanking me for it, you raise the same straw-man again. Who said there was anything in the Objectivist ethics that says it is okay to encourage our enemies to camp here during a war against them. I suppose there's no point saying any more, because we'll probably go around in circles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take an example.... obviously, there is no such thing as a right to start a bomb-making factory that is making weapons to attack NYC people and property. Do you seriously think DH would argue that there is such a right? Of course not. Do you seriously think many of the other Objectivists who said the mosque ought to be allowed would also argue for such a context-less right? Again... obviously not.

No, I don't think the Objectivists (including DH) would be for the property rights, of say, Al Capone, who owned a building and set up a gang specifically for the purpose of attacking Chicago with sub-machine guns. I don't even think their position for the building of the NYC Mosque implies this (and they certainly have not come out and said that explicitly). I think they would be all for taking away Al Capone's property rights and throwing him in jail, or even taking away his life and kill him on the spot.

But here's the curious thing: The imam of that mosque would be a radical who not only endorsed the attacks of 911, but had hoped that the damage would have been far greater, and that if it were up to him, he would destroy America in a heartbeat; and he has said so explicitly, and would actively recruit members to do damage to NYC. So, he is the equivalent of Al Capone wanting to set up shop in Chicago. Now, I don't think any Objectivist would be against arresting Al Capone once his intentions were made clear, since it would be shown that he was a clear and present danger to the people of Chicago. And yet, when a religious zealot basically says the same thing, they don't see it as an eminent threat to the people of NYC. Why is that? I think some of them have not fully concretized Islam and what it would unleash on America if given half a chance -- that we would have suicide bombers all over the place, as they do in Israel; so they don't see it as an eminent threat. This position is quite mistaken, and does not take the ideology of Islam seriously enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Objectivists advocating using force against the irrational; no, certainly we do not endorse that idea, nor have we ever said so. We have never advocated shutting down schools that teach Kantianism, even though it is the most evil philosophy on earth.

Well, what are you waiting for?!! If Kantianism is the most evil philosophy on earth, and if it is as destructively influential as Rand and other Objectivists have said, then shouldn't you declare war against it in the name of consistency?!!!

...but I think you are forgetting that we are at war with Islam, even though none of our officials want to put it that way.

Who is "we"? You and Peikoff? And when and how did you acquire the power and authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, and to do so against a religion? You say that I'm forgetting that we are at war with Islam? Um, no, YOU are apparently forgetting that, in reality, we are NOT at war with Islam!!!

So, yes, at least until the war is over...

There is no war against Islam outside of your imagination. Your wishing for the existence of such a war doesn't make it true in reality.

...and Islam is pacified the way Christianity due to the influence of reason or counter-force, then I would not be against, say, a moratorium on building any new mosques, and if individual Muslims stood by the attacks on civilization around the world, they should be deported if they are immigrants and not American citizens.

That sounds like a very lame concept of "war." Usually in wars, especially when the situation is so dire that one's "metaphysical survival" is at stake, the idea is to KILL those against whom one has declared war, and not just to deny one's enemies building permits in symbolic locations.

In a certain sense, since they did attack us directly, I think one could even make a case that Muslims who support those attacks are very close to treason, if they are American citizens.

What about the Muslims who did not support the attacks, or who you and Peikoff can't prove supported the attacks? You really haven't even tried to bring any objectively at all to thinking this issue through, have you? Your position is completely illogical.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. What's an "eminent threat"? Perhaps the term that you're groping for is "imminent threat"?

J

eminent: standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted

imminent: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>

I view Islam as an eminent threat, rather than imminent. Eminent has the potential to become imminent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are at war with Islam (or Islamic Totalitarianism, to use Yaron's words) for the same reason we were at war against Nazism and Shintoism during World War II. That our officials have not stated so openly shows their moral cowardice and their refusal to acknowledge that holding onto certain ideas and acting on them is dangerous to the United States. In reality, we should be openly at war with Iran, because it is an Islamic Totalitarian Theocracy seeking to take over the world with force or terrorism, which they sponsor.

The irrational qua irrational (i.e. Kantianism) posses no direct physical threat to anyone, and hence we cannot take physical action against those who preach it openly. But when imams of Islam openly preach that the infidel ought to be slaughtered wherever they are and openly recruit terrorist acts against non-believers (suicide bombers in Israel), then yes, we can take specific physical action against them.

[added on edit] I will remind you that inciting a riot is illegal and ought to be when one is directly encouraging others to take up violent acts against those not using force against anyone. Similarly, if an imam is directly encouraging his flock to take up arms against those not using force against them for the sake of spreading Islam, then yes , this, too, is illegal.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view Islam as an eminent threat, rather than imminent. Eminent has the potential to become imminent.

Thanks for the correction, yes, I meant "imminent." Like Peikoff, I have no idea what they are going to have to do before people realize that the terrorists of 911 were acting logically consistently with their religion and the admonition to kill the infidel, and especially to attack the centers of modern civilization insofar as they permit people to speak out against Islam. Iran is seeking an atom bomb and has made it clear that they would use it against Israel or the United States -- but I guess that is OK, since Islam means peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This position is quite mistaken, and does not take the ideology of Islam seriously enough.

Ah, finally someone who takes Islam seriously enough to study it!

-- but I guess that is OK, since Islam means peace.

Um, y’know, actually it means “submission”. Maybe you were thinking of "salaam". Sounds kind of like "shalom".

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the topic of this thread is objectivity, I'm not going to discuss Islam much further, as it is definitely a non-objective system of beliefs. Yes, Islam mean "submission" and that is actually one of the more evil aspects of it, quite aside from physical jihad against infidels and honor killings. Even if Islam did not aim for world domination through force (Caliphate), it would be evil since it is not based on a rational grasp of the world and is anti-man and anti-mind. The acceptance of Islam practiced fully leads a man to turn away from reason as an absolute, to submit his own rational judgement to that of the religious leader, to make him submit; which is evil.

By contrast, Objectivism understands that the mind is individual and that we are not to submit to either Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff or to any other man who claims to be an intellectual leader. One has to think things through on their own, judging the truth or falsity of an idea or a system of ideas by his own rational effort. And Dr.Peikoff has come out and stated that one does not have to agree with him on every topic, that neither he nor Ayn Rand sought blind followers. Yes, he is an authority on Objectivism -- the one most knowledgeable about it and what Ayn Rand taught; but the individual must come to understand Objectivism by his own rational, logical, and fact-based effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And besides, if you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Yaron, or anyone else, then out with it and prove your case. However, if you are going to claim that Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires), anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected), God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts), Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), modern art ( no content smears on canvas), determinism (which rejects reason is volitional) or any other such thing is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that those [islam and Islamic Totalitarianism] are not at all interchangeable, right? Not at all.

I think I would disagree with this. The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy -- it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter. Plato was the first to realize this in his Republic and his Philosopher King, which would not lead to a republic at all, but some form of totalitarianistic "Formocracy." Since such edicts require a special mind open to the real truth that is "out there" instead of being graspable via the senses and reason (objectivity), then the "true follower" would have to be given the reigns of the State to keep the lesser populous in check and following the right path. This was also true for Communism, for which the Soviet Union was the logical result of their metaphysics and their ethics (collectivism). The point is to develop the ability to logically project the practical results of holding non-objective ideas that cannot be confirmed via evidence and rationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...