Report What are your biggest issues with Objectivism? in Questions about Objectivism Posted February 21 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Potentially, but IQ is also a double-edged sword in a certain way. There are three basic methods of mental functioning: rational, truth-oriented thinking, drifting (or "going with the grain") and evading. Both the rational and evasive forms of thought are "active" and their effectiveness is at least partially mediated by IQ. So although it's true that someone with a higher IQ could potentially be more effective at the proper cognitive method (like John Galt) they could also be more effective at evasion and self-delusion (like Robert Stadler). Right but you agree that IQ is an example of genetics influencing human behaviour? Do you know of any Objectivist writings on evolutionary psychology? This is a burgeoning field and I think Objectivists are too dismissive of 'hard wired' biological biases in human behaviour. As we've agreed, it doesn't mean incompatibility with Objectivism. Reality is what it is. That is what an Objectivist seeks to know. 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Well, we can't just ban everyone on Earth who calls themselves a "Muslim"; as with any other religion there are plenty of "Muslims" who get drunk, have sex with random strangers and simply are not a threat to anything except logical consistency. If half of the "Muslims" in the UK believe that homosexuality should be illegal then that also means that the other half do not It actually doesn't. The study found that 52% disagreed that homosexuality should be legal while only 18% agreed. But does it matter? 52% is huge compared to the population at large, which is 5%, the same study found. That is a massive disparity. And the population of British Muslims is rapidly growing in size. Plus, legality is the bare minimum, attitudes on the morality of homosexuality would be even worse, which has its own cultural influence. The study also found that 23% support the introduction of Sharia Law and 39% agreed that 'wives should always obey their husbands' compared to 5% of the pop at large. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is the rapid expansion of the Muslim population likely means the rapid expansion of these attitudes and the growth of a serious threat to western civlisation (as this is happening across the west). 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Now, it's a different question as to whether or not such people should really count as Muslims, but as long as they don't believe in the parts of Islam that would truly make them dangerous they have the same freedom of movement as anybody else. What we really want our screening process to look for are basically those individuals who believe that infidels and blasphemers deserve to be murdered. Yes I agree we could implement more detailed screening processes. Right now it is political suicide to speak of the drawbacks of the growth of the Muslim population and the need for discriminatory migration policies based on values. 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: While I tend to agree with the sentiment I'm really not sure it's as cut-and-dry as that. What about native Muslims who were born here and wouldn't be willing to personally harm anyone at all, but who would vote for Sharia law if they ever could? What about Communists, antihumanists or "people" who talk in movie theatres? What you're proposing is that the government should get involved in policing certain ideas, and although I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of having neighbors that support Sharia law (or Communism) we should only continue down that line of reasoning with extreme caution. I agree it requires extreme caution but mostly what the government needs to do is simply protect our rights to allow critics to undermine Islam. Hate speech laws are doing just the opposite. But this must be combined with restricting immigration to be more effective, considering the Muslim population is already growing rapidly even without further immigration, due to their birth rates. 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: If you're worried about the voting tendencies of immigrants, though - who said they should automatically be given a vote as soon as they arrive? Good idea. How long would you leave it? 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Also you misspelled favor. Haha I don't think so! 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: If they are a threat. I suspect they wouldn't bother making the journey to your country if you'd stop giving them all free houses, free money and free reign with your daughters. Yes this is an important factor of course. Subsidising their breeding is literally a suicidal policy. 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: No. Free societies originally developed in the West but they've since taken root all over the place. Were Australia and Hong Kong not free societies until just last year? Certain people all over the world do actually get it (like the Nepali-American couple I mentioned) and certain others don't. Responding to the latter by giving up on the very freedoms on which such societies are based (including the freedom of movement) would be like trying to cure COVID by administering drain cleaner. Not as much 'taken root' as having been transplanted. You'll notice those British colonies where freedom 'took root' most successfully is actually mostly those colonies that were literal British offshoot societies, meaning the British people themselves physically settled in those colonies, bringing their culture with them. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ in particular. An actual transplantation process from one peoples to another is a much slower process, though I agree it is possible. The longer the process is attempted, the more successful it is going to be. Hong Kong was a British colony for 156 years. The recent attempts to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East with only a few years of occupation was laughable. It didn't stand a chance. 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Despite such ideas I'm personally quite fond of Jordan Peterson. Many of his other ideas are correct and a few of them mesh quite nicely with Objectivism. But despite the fact that chemicals and hierarchies are an aspect of human biology, you can't adequately describe human behavior in those terms; it's like trying to explain how an internal combustion engine works in terms of individual molecules. Adequately, no. In the nature vs nurture debate, few would claim it is all nature. But that doesn't mean it isn't significant. And there is a lot of evidence that it is significant. Any philosophy has to account for it: Lincoln said: "It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot" Is it not an aspect of human nature to some degree, originating perhaps in the evolution of power dynamics, that man tends to seek power and tear down those on top? (Again, not saying free will and rational thought cannot overcome this on an individual basis). So one justification for the American system of government is that it exists to constrain that tendency through the balance of powers, making it as difficult as possible for that tyrant to surface. That is a rational response to what may be an innate tendency of man. That is a political philosophy based on human beings as they tend to behave, as opposed to human beings as we would like them to behave. 8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Maybe it won't. That changes neither the fact that it is the truth nor that every single person would benefit from learning about it. Shouldn't we advocate for the truth regardless of whether anyone else wants to hear it or not? I agree we should, but we should also understand the limitations of that approach and subscribe to a philosophy that takes account of that reality. It's all very well for Objectivists to preach about how the world ought to be and how humans ought to behave (and it is a vital service) but someone has to get on with the business of dealing with the world as it is and how humans actually behave, which means confronting the reality of certain 'tendencies' which don't seem to be dissipating any time soon.