Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Szalapski

Regulars
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Szalapski

  1. Thanks for listening, and I hope you will continue to listen and respond however you see fit. I will try to post some objections (or antiobjections) in forum format to encourage written dialog. One motive for this podcast is that I think Rand's ideas need to be considered more seriously among the less philosophical, more conservational crowd. To many of my friends and deeper thinking acquaintances never have considered anything other than conservatism, leftism, Christianity, or centrism. As such, although I am not an objectivist, I am not anti objectivist. I think we need more Rand in the discussion, but so many are opposed to her extremism that they won't consider the core of her argument. I fully expect that I have many red herrings or straw men mixed in with good objections, so maybe I can get to a better place after several episodes more.
  2. Why is it strictly either-or on this one? Why can't I "cater" (I might say "defer") to others to a limited extent. When I am most uncertain of my own position, when their influence is weighty and proper, when "I need it most"--presuming that I think critically about their influence and question it and attempt to judge it as I go?
  3. So if Zach or myself were more Objectivist than 99% of the population, the remaining impurity you would emphasize and argue against?
  4. I did not really follow where you were going with the rest of that post, but I will respond to this. In its barest strict form, I'd presently, tentatively agree that "I cannot fully know my own self" and "I can better know my own self with the help of others than I can without." I do not think Zach was claiming that one ought to substantially subvert most of one's own ambitions or judgments and substitute others. To speak for myself, I wonder if it would be wise, not to try to be 100% Roark and 0% Keating, but instead 90% Roark and 10% Keating. It strikes me as extreme and foolhardy to trust one's own judgments so much that one would never deign to let anyone else overrule unless you can first admit inferiority in that area.
  5. > it seems apparent that you have a desire to undermine the validity of Objectivism. No, that is not my agenda; it is more to explore and have a conversation, skeptical of Objectivism but open to it. I'll take your questions as sincere though I realize some may be rhetorical. > Do you really believe that someone seeking a rational explanation for the general insanity of the world would be best served by presenting "Objections to Objectivism" without a firm grasp of the concept of Objectivism? No, my goal with this podcast is not to best serve anyone except for myself, to understand these things better. > How does Zack Schmitt qualify as an expert on Objectivism? He is not and did not claim to be, and neither do I. > an admitted mystic who claims "we can't know your own selves," (paraphrased) I see that you like to use that word "mystic" like Rand did--I'm still not sure that every religious person ought to be dismissed as a mystic. I myself am agnostic, but I am not convinced that the religious have no place to argue with me or have nothing to teach me. > If you have arguments with Ayn Rand's metaphysical or epistemological assertions, I recommend you address these concerns directly; perhaps these more scholarly participants could help you with these more abstract fundamental, however I always recommend some self-study followed by your own independent contemplation before engaging in any argument. I'll study some, but I think I'm at the point were I need to reason things out with smart people. I could read forever without arguing or making a podcast, but conversation will steer the learning in a better direction, as I suspect (unlike Roark or Galt) that I can understand the world better by deferring to others--not all the time, nor to the full extent, but sometimes and to some degree.
  6. OK, so let me boil this down to an informal line of reasoning that I can ponder and scrutinize: - Things exist. A=A. - Living things exist and act in order to live. - People exist and act on the basis of thoughts. - A person's values is the object of his actions--what a person acts to gain or keep. - Values would be meaningless without life, but life gives values meaning. - Values are moral if they are in line with life. - Since people are only individuals, this judgment applies to individuals. - The individual's own life is his own ultimate value. - Achieving one's values is the way to happiness. - Humans must use volitional and abstract thinking to survive. - Observation is required, gaining knowledge. - We must integrate our observation into concepts, generalizations, and principles that correspond to reality so that we can act. - Only physical force (including fraud) from others can prevent such action and cause us to act otherwise, to act in bondage. A human life is a life guided by the judgment of one's mind. - Government should exist to prevent such force and not to initiate such force itself. Did I miss anything? Where are the logical leaps in the above? I shall ponder it further.
  7. Is this explained more fully in OPAR? Rand certainly seems to appeal back to A=A fervently enough that she should have explained this more fully if she didn't think that her philosophy could be implied from it. I never took it to be a strict deduction of logical proof, but rather a place which a thinking, reasoning person can start from and yield many valid conclusions using other knowledge. I guess we've started this discussion in this other thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/30488-how-does-a-is-a-connect-to-government/#comment-348916
  8. Good thoughts. > Does it concern you at all that you might [be wrong about something]? It does not concern me--in fact, I look forward to it, as it is just a small-time podcast and a way (and motivation) to learn and explore these topics. I hope you decide to have a listen and then tell me all the points that I misunderstood! In fact, I made an error in episode 2 that I addressed in episode 3. > How is it possible to know what problems there are with something before you know it completely? It isn't possible to fully completely know anything of sufficient breadth, and more than just experts are allowed to comment on something. Podcasts can be somewhat conversational and relational, so that's what I'm going for here. I don't think it is imprudent to try something out without being an expert.
  9. Yes, I've read Atlas, Fountainhead, TVoS, Anthem, and many articles online, and listened to lots of Peikoff. Need to read lots more, though; I just started We The Living. Thanks for that concern!
  10. On this page: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/forum/58-the-objectivism-meta-blog-discussion/ "Want to join the Meta-Blog? Contact us!" doesn't seem to work. Anyone know how to fix it?
  11. There seems to be an assumption that those who are pro-science would favor more government funding of science, and those who are against government funding of science are simply anti-science. This conflation and lack of nuance is breathtakingly frustrating.
  12. Split from: How Does "A is A" Connect to Government? Where it isn't clear for me: suppose I accept that A is A; A thing is itself; Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Identification. From there, how does it follow that each individual has a right to pursue and attempt the natural actions that enhance that life and cause that life to flourish? How does it follow that each individual has an obligation not to impede or prevent others attempting such efforts? I have not seen Rand or anyone else explain this step in logic. I intuitively can accept that it seems fair, but I don't have a firm grasp on the reason behind such a claim.
  13. Great to find this forum, I'll browse around and hopefully have some time to jump in. I have made "Objections to Objectivism", a podcast that examines problems with Objectivism, as a way myself to learn it. Would love feedback.This podcast is intended for those with a bit of familiarity with Objectivism, but even those who have never looked into Objectivism or Rand, this podcast is still for them, as I try to explain the basics before examining them. I'm guessing many members here know more about the topics than I do and you will find much to comment on, object to, or agree with. Let me know what you think! I'll read every reply here, or just e-mail the address I give in the podcast. Here's the main podcast feed and the podcast website. Also you can find it on iTunes, Stitcher, TuneIn, Google Play, and PodcastAddict as well as any podcast app you might have. Just look for "Objections to Objectivism" using your app's podcast search/add feature.
×
×
  • Create New...