chuff

My email to Dr. Peikoff: Dr. Peikoff's response email to me: So I propose we do as he asks. I have finished six episodes of his podcast. I'll let a moderator or someone pin the thread or take the mantle on how to organize this, since it will be (as per request) in the site's name and not in mine. Also, I'm not sure how to do #4.

From the same author, in response to exactly this TAS review: available here

I read this response and sent it along to the author of the five-part criticism. Very good.

Something about knowing something is the truth (or even being convinced something is objective truth, as in the case of Christians who are) makes you want to share it with everybody.

Shouldn't this be a huge concern of students of Objectivism, especially the ones with a great understanding of it? There is no doubt the United States government needs significant changes. If these changes can only come about through others accepting Objectivism (through the vote, which requires that big voting blocs vote in favor of objective law, etc.), shouldn't one of our very important goals be to share Objectivism with others and explain to them why it is the best philosophy there is?

Right; I yield this point to you, since my complaint was against current government, rather than government made up of individuals which are, itself, governed by objective laws. The main problem in my mind is taking government workers to court, using government judges... how could anyone that isn't the government win? I yield this point to you as well, I acknowledge my mistake in using the FDA as an example. We cannot fire policemen; only their bosses can. That means the onus for that is on someone other than, for example, the affected party. This point also brings up a point on the necessary revisions (or entire re-drafting) of the Constitution. I will look for a thread on this, and if I don't find it, I'll probably create one. What I've seen and use for this reference is not Rand's advocacy; I yield to you there. However, I have seen and do not think I am amiss in thinking that many people working together on a project to continually better it is one of the demonstrable benefits of things like science (improving on former knowledge by correcting errors, always open to new discoveries based on new evidence) and Wikipedia. For example, the Constitution will not be flawless, I assume, in its first drafting... to say so, I think, would be a little bit evasive of the reality that its drafters could and will make and have made mistakes. Here you are also right; I yield. Again my complaint is with the current government (which, it does not seem likely, will be overthrown apart from violence or massive 'enlightenment' if you will). On a related note, I think a small step toward an Objectivist society would be to make the U.S. government not as federal, i.e., have state sovereignty. This would make changes in government that need to happen actually plausible.

This was the only point of yours where I didn't see the reason behind it. If they are provided by government, they are not provided objectively. A government is a group of people: people are not the source of objective laws. A government in Objectivism is a private one: it is not funded by "public means," i.e. taxation. It is funded voluntarily. What you are asking for as Objectivists is a system in which persons can voluntarily choose to fund a means of protection for themselves, but can ONLY choose ONE. That is not a choice anymore. Alternatives (in this case competition) must exist for there to be any choice in the matter. And it cannot be "choose this one or choose none," as that's the same as "choose life as a lawyer in my firm or choose death" = not a real choice. These firms would not provide protection if they do not provide retaliatory force. What are they going to do, ask a burglar to leave? No, they have to make him leave to protect my house if, for example, I'm not at it. They are shams without recognized legitimacy in their use of force.

I thought that, especially for people at my level of understanding of the philosophy, it would be a good exercise to have a go at refuting even the 'silly childish' stuff that the heavyweights justifiably refuse to consider.

Yes, it is clear that the author of the criticisms does not understand the nature of axioms.

I am sorry to have made that unfounded assumption about you or any user, and I take full responsibility for doing that.

It's true that I've read OPAR and it's true that I see the distortions in his attacks. The refusal to refute it is just odd to me that since it is 'so easy' to refute. This isn't an attack on you guys for making that choice, it just seems like a different reaction to me than the natural one if it's the simplest objection to see through. I mean, at one point in my life, I was a Christian who would not have accepted plenty of the points of Objectivism. Now that I have seen their validity and realize the truth of the philosophy, I do. To refuse to refute the people that disagree with you seems strange to me.

I am said user from the first post. The two most troublesome parts to me concerning a monopolistic government. I am willing and open to hear new thoughts on this matter, so feel free to contribute on these admittedly messy propositions: 1. When it messes up, what can the people it governs do about it? (ex: if the FDA approves salmonella peanut butter, no one gets fired... after police brutality) Objectivism supports free market economics and capitalism, and one of the good reasons for this is in inherent in the nature of competition: constant betterment. The failures of businesses cause them to go out of business, and a better alternative to take its place or to add to its achievements. This kind of approach to science is similar (constant upward motion). When monopolistic government fails, the people can do nothing but sit on their hands and accept its failures. (A person can't vote it out, he must have the other 48.9999...% of the country to do so) (Leaving the country is not a real solution, especially if the only alternative is... other monopolistic and failing governments). This idea that we "just have to deal with" the corruption in (the persons who work in) government is totally against the rest of Objectivist ethics. 1a. If our government REALLY messes up and does something immoral that causes another government to bomb us and kill innocent people in our country (which Objectivism finds moral in war), Objectivism proposes that it is our fault for not overthrowing the government we had and making a new one. 2. Governments are made up of individuals who work for it ("Government" is no more a "thing" than "black people" is a "thing." It's just a collection of individuals we label by a common attribute. I may be off on my specific language usage, but the point I am making is not linguistic, rather metaphysic(al?)). This means that some people are, monopolistically, and unbridledly (as #1 shows), governing other people. A support of such a system is inconsistent with the rest of Objectivism in regard to its beliefs about man's nature. When do men become untrustworthy/Biblical by nature? The nature of man, the individual, has not changed suddenly to a starting-from-distrust total depravity sort of thing has it? If man is a heroic being, he governs his own actions and his business dealings. Why not his protection? 2a. What makes the people who work for the government sufficiently better than the ones it governs?

The following are things I have read before that, in the past, convinced me. 1. The origin of life is unexplained. Objectivism doesn't explain it, but then it need not. The 'origin of life' which some scientists (I don't remember which, I'm sorry to equivocate) have even proposed it arrived on Earth riding the backs of crystals, or that an alien race dropped it off here... which doesn't answer the question, but merely pushes it down one turtle on the infinite regression of them. 2. The radiation echo and the expanding universe both support belief in a finite universe (that the universe had a beginning), which Objectivism does not support. 3. Matter is not infinite, by its nature. 4. The universe is running out of usable energy; things get constantly less ordered (2nd law of thermodynamics) The extent of my "deism" has been a labeling of the source of the contents of the universe as 'god.' The above is selected paraphrastically from a book called Unshakable Foundations by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino

Going back to your original question, you'll see the main problem with it. Respecting rights is not what kills you. Your being in the desert for an extended period of time with no water is what kills you, in this instance.

I think the criticisms he makes are of broader philosophical concepts he believes Objectivism espouses. To clear them up for him I think would really be the point. Perhaps I should just work at it myself and ask you guys, instead, about the legitimacy of my contributions to him on the topic.

Over at Noble Soul, they've got a page full of criticisms of Objectivism. I wrote a response to this one by Jonathan Dolhenty for him to put up next to it. Tell me what you think; it's as follows. Anything I should add, delete, amend?

Part 1: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-1_02.html Part 2: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-2.html Part 3: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-3.html Part 4: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-begin-discussing-objectivists.html Part 5: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-5.html I'm sorry not to post any of my own rebuttal attempts at the moment; I'll return here and try my hand at it. What I would like to see by the end is a fleshed-out rebuttal using the different parts of all our objections from this thread. Thank you, guys!

I have long believed Deism and Objectivism are compatible, in case anyone is looking for someone who does.

I got to page seven and started to write a rebuttal but shied away from the project. What I gleaned from it was a work of well-read sophistry. The author of the article says Rand wasn't a novelist. Or a philosopher, for that matter; probably in some tongue-in-cheek, I can drop names and be really cute about pretentiously knowing more than you do, sort of way. All Corey Robin is capable of doing is hurling epithets at her personally.

The wiki has a problem I don't know how to fix. This link works: "http://wiki.objectivismonline.n​et/index.php?title=NAMEOFARTICLE" (ex: http://wiki.objectivismonline.n​et/index...le=Metaphysics) but this one doesn't, which is what all the links link to: "http://wiki.objectivismonline.n​et/wiki/NAMEOFARTICLE" (ex: http://wiki.objectivismonline.n​et/wiki/Metaphysics) The second is what all the links link to. --- Even the two homepages look different: the Right One ( http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/ ) and the Wrong One, whereto everything leads ( http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki ) --- Is there any way you guys can take this /wiki in the middle *off* of Auto-Add to interwiki links? Even then, I don't think it would solve the problem (you would have to add in its place "index.php?title=NAMEOFARTICLE"

Language study is a big interest of mine, and I can only recommend and have only heard against Rosetta Stone for these exact reasons. Get the books and watch videos from free Israeli news sites, or even YouTube videos perhaps.

For me it happens at 5:00am every morning.

To be fair, I don't really belong in this thread as I need more solid backing as to the legal system and its just use and whatnot.

Would you mind finishing these so we know your complete thoughts?

Given that rights are objective (not intrinsic, not subjective) in man's nature (natural rights), the government's purpose is to ensure everyone recognizes this fact? To enforce this rule? Sheesh, having swayed between objectivism and anarcho-capitalism, it's definitely still a struggle for me to see how one can allow this group to be the only one that can legitimately use force to arbitrate disputes. On the bright side, discussions like these show me how important Law (how the state should operate) as a subject is! Fascinating.