chuff
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by chuff
-
-
Yes, and it is. See the daily operations of ARI and the many ventures into effecting the culture of America to create this change, namely giving great deals to classes whose teachers wish to use one of Rand's fiction works for fiction, and the OAC's preference for academics when picking who they enroll.
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.
-
One thing the anarchists seem to regularly forget is that an Objectivist government would:
...
2. There is a revised constitution. Ours is full of problems due to issues at the time it was written, unconstitutionally added amendments, etc. An Objectivist constitution would be extremely clear on what it means in regards to everything, so that no misinterpretation is possible (it is not as if there is a limit to the length or detail of a constitution) and would ban all force from society, except for that which is allowed to the individual (self-defense, which is heavily tied to private property as well), and it would be very clear in defining the proper role of government and in defining what use of of force (retaliatory) is appropriate with said government. There would be no ability to change these laws, and no presidential executive orders, as they are absolute and final. The only changes in law necessary are those required to adapt to the change in times (so long as they do not violate absolute preconditions, such as that they may not violate individual rights) and the majority of this, with very few exceptions would be done through city ordinances and state laws. There would also unlikely be state constitutions, the national constitution would supplant that.
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?
-
To begin with, you're implicitly presuming that government must be infallible. Let's turn the question around and aim it at business: "When a business like BP messes up, what can the people who are affected do about it?". When anyone messes up, they should take responsibility and fix the mess. That applies both to government and business.
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?
That's mixing apples and elephants. The FDA should not exist at all, and there should be no requirement for prior government approval for action.I yield this point to you as well, I acknowledge my mistake in using the FDA as an example.
Now, what do we do if the police engage in brutality? Fire and prosecute the miscreants. That's something we can do if you have the rule of law. But what do we do if you don't have the rule of law, and the private enforcers brutally beat someone? There is nothing that can be done, since these are the guys to get to make the rules. Necessarily, they are above the law.
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.
Could you show me where Rand bases her advocacy of capitalism on "constant betterment"? I think you've confused the libertarian pragmatic argument with the Objectivist moral argument.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.
What similarity do you have in mind between "failure of a business" and "failure of a government", other than the fact that you used the word "failure" in both cases? If a business fails to do what it ought to do, it will lose support (customers) and eventually cease to exist because of financial attrition. But no one person can bring down a business by himself -- he needs to persuade the vast majority of people to stop patronizing the business. When a government fails to do what it ought to do, all you have to go is persuade more people that some alternative is better than support the current government, therefore the most you have to do is persuade 51% of the people to oppose the current government. Even if you persuaded 80% of the people to not patronise Whole Foods, you could not put them out of business. So it is really hard to depose a business, compared to a government.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.
-
Note that man is not prohibited from using his mind to govern his own protection under Objectivism. In fact, only under a government consistent with Objectivism is the unrestricted use of his mind to govern his own actions is safeguarded. He can do a lot about his own protection, aside from government. He can even start a private firm that offers protection and security services, including armed security officers and bodyguards, alarm systems, neighborhood watches, and a wide range of goods in the protection and security industry... just as long as he does not attempt to exercise force, either in initiation or retaliation, unless he is acting under rationally-arrived at principles, ie., objective laws, which are provided by a proper government. Once a proper government is formed under these principles, no other laws may compete with them, and anyone who does attempt to dispense his own private justice is a lynch mob.
This was the only point of yours where I didn't see the reason behind it.
ie., objective laws, which are provided by a proper government.
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.
Once a proper government is formed under these principles, no other laws may compete with them, and anyone who does attempt to dispense his own private justice is a lynch mob.
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.
He can do a lot about his own protection, aside from government. He can even start a private firm that offers protection and security services, including armed security officers and bodyguards, alarm systems, neighborhood watches, and a wide range of goods in the protection and security industry... just as long as he does not attempt to exercise force, either in initiation or retaliation, unless he is acting under rationally-arrived at principles, ie., objective laws,
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 actually think responding to something like this is worth it for those who can, I mean I would like to read a response to this, mainly the epistemology part (the rest really is a waste of time.) But just think about someone who doesn't know very much about empiricism or concept formation and just reads this, it might spur more third party/onlookers to look more deeper into Objectivism if even a brief correction of some of the errors were put in the comments. At least it was an actual attempt at criticism and not just a barrage of insults and ad hominem. I mean, I've seen Harry Binswanger personally respond to stuff that was almost pure ad hominem, just to correct misunderstandings for any casual onlookers, so we might consider doing the same here.
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.
-
That is what I just said???
Maybe you were confused because I merely copied his text and put it into quotations, rather than in a quotation box to properly separate it?
Yes, it is clear that the author of the criticisms does not understand the nature of axioms.
-
I have studied Objectivism for about ten years. I have heard plenty of objections. I myself had plenty of objections and questions when I first encountered Objectivism. And I still get plenty of objections and questions from others. I love objections and questions, intelligent and honest ones. So do not make any assumptions about me nor for that matter about anybody else. I do, however, not find any pleasure in answering really bad and ridiculous objections. I think it is a pure waste of time.
It is good to play the Devil's advocate if you seek a good understanding of Objectivism. That is, to present the BEST arguments against one's position and to answer them. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have both argued that you should engage in this. I have done that and most serious students of Objectivism do it to for the same reason; if you cannot answer the best case from the Devil then you have to check your premises and see if you can come up with an answer or, if they turn out to be false, drop them.
There is another value of being able to answer the best arguments of the Devil; not only will you discover that your ideas are true, if you can defend them, and that the ideas of your opponent are false. Another value is that your clarity of thought will also improve. You can only communicate clearly what you really understand. So if you manage to answer good arguments, then you will get a clearer understanding of your own ideas and this, in turn, will allow you to answer other objections and questions with even greater clarity.
I am sorry to have made that unfounded assumption about you or any user, and I take full responsibility for doing that.
-
I see no reason to refute people who do not have the slightest clue of what they are talking about.
Example: accusing Ayn Rand of subjectivism because she, correctly, says that you can only judge reality using your reason and that reality is the standard of truth and false. This criticism is dishonest and makes no sense. If this is "subjectivism", what is then not subjectivism?
And this is what I found in the very first sentences of this nonsensical mess of lies and contradictions. I will not engage it. There is no reason.
I submit that any honest and knowledgeable observer can see for himself that this makes no sense and is dishonest. It is a prerequisite for a rational discussion that you know your subject and that you do not intentionally engage in bizarre misinterpretations, the arbitrary or outright straw man-attacks.
If you have read OPAR, which you claim you have, then you should easily be able to spot all the obvious fallacies and distortions in these futile and silly attacks on Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
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.
-
Yeah I already know its a poor argument and is indeed a straw-man (it is more or less the same arguments I hear time and time again that have been refuted over and over again since they are based on misunderstanding Objectivism). My reasons for posting it were for clarification on the response and so people here can be aware of the arguments within right away if someone decides to pop that one out of nowhere on them at some future time. I also didn't mention the person who brought this up because I have not been given permission to and I didn't want people to start a debate with him on it in the chatroom or wherever without his own wish to do so first. Thanks for that link 2046...interesting.
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?
-
Is Deism compatible with Objectivism? No. Why? Because, if you think about this issue in terms of fundamentals, then you will quickly discover that Deism amounts to the primacy of consciousness. Since the primacy of consciousness violates every single basic philosophic axiom and is false, Deism is therefore also false for the very same reasons. There is really nothing more that needs to be said.
Furthermore, I find it very interesting that some people insist on believing in something for which there is not a shred of evidence and never will be (because according to the very false premises of Deism nothing in this causally orderly universe suggests God, and there is no need for any God to explain, prove or understand anything). Even when they know that this supposed God would make no practical difference in their own life whatsoever.
Since there are no facts that suggest the existence of any God, since there are no logical reasons to believe in God, and since Deism suggests that God makes no difference in your own life, this strongly suggests that this is a matter of WANTING to believe in something regardless of the facts of reality, i.e., of putting one's emotions above reality.
It therefore seems to me that Deism is a rationalization for those who for some emotional reason still want to cling on to the belief in God. The reason to strongly suspect that it is a rationalization is the very fact that this belief in God makes no difference in their life except on a emotional level (they have some emotional connection to the idea of God that they, for some reason, cannot let go of).
Deism is not compatible with reality or reason. It is not compatible with Objectivism. Check your premises.
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
-
A cursory look over the "Ethics" forum and this one yielded no similar threads, and in attempting to search for it I found that there were simply too many ways to phrase the question.
Since ethics is based on the choice to live, what if respecting rights ended my life?
Let's say, for instance, that I were to get lost in the desert and came upon a man with several water bottles. If he refused to give them to me, and my death were certain otherwise, should I respect his rights, or would that be unethical in that it would kill me?
I guess I could phrase it this way: Should I hold another man's rights superior to my life, and if so how would that be ethical?
I imagine this question's been asked before, I just can't seem to find it. Apologies if I just didn't look hard enough.
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.
-
If these are simply religious criticisms elaboration is not necessary nor worthwhile, one must simply point to the axiomatic principles it violates...no less the other extremely good reasons.
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.
The reason for Peikoff's insistence that Objectivism is not a form of philosophical materialism is well explained in the paragraphs following the very page Mr. Dolhenty cites, found in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I quote from it here:Seely’s definition of modern materialism seems to exclude Peikoff’s main objection to the philosophy: the abnegation of consciousness as “unnatural” or as “unscientific on the grounds that it cannot be defined” (OPAR p. 34). Peikoff then contends that “there is no valid reason to reject consciousness or to struggle to reduce it to matter; not if such reduction means the attempt to define it out of existence” (OPAR p. 35). Dolhenty’s description of materialism, “which believes all reality is material and only material,” is more like Peikoff’s than Seely’s is.
Dolhenty is correct in his identification of the philosophy of Objectivism as non-idealist. However, his description of one of its potential categories, “moderate Realism,” as accepting of a “nonmaterial or immaterial reality” is facetious, evidently an attempt to corner Peikoff later in the article to include the possibility of some sort of God-figure. Objectivism is, indeed, not Idealism, and for the reason above, not Materialism; it then could be (circumlocutorily) described as a “moderate Realism.” There is also a need to mention Dolhenty’s straw man, which takes the form of a fictional Peikoff who answers in a way he imagines, to which he then responds.
The allowance for — or rather, acknowledgement of — consciousness in Objectivism is not an allowance for nonmaterial reality which cannot be perceived by either introspection or extrospection: the former for the perception of material entities, (to use Peikoff’s example, the eye), the latter for the perception of consciousness.
Peikoff goes on to call the acceptance of consciousness and the mind, which separates his philosophy from materialism, the acceptance of reason. In any case, the sought-after grounds on which Objectivism distinguishes itself from materialism are made clear in the subsequent paragraphs of Peikoff’s treatise.
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.net/index.php?title=NAMEOFARTICLE"
(ex: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index...le=Metaphysics)
but this one doesn't, which is what all the links link to: "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/NAMEOFARTICLE"
(ex: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/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"
-
From what I know, all of their language learning software is really slow going. For those prices, you could buy tonnes of Herbrew books and other media that would keep you occupied for years.
I recommend you go to the How To Learn Any Language forums and digest some of the techniques from the successful polyglots there. You might also want to check out the blog All Japanese All The Time, which is more about language learning in general than the Japanese language specifically.
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.
-
Yeah I am regulary annoyed by this. And I mean regulary, as it happens seemingly every day about the same times.
For me it happens at 5:00am every morning.
-
Grames gave that I consider to be the best argument: that its illegality follows from the definition of murder. The flaw in that, IMO, is that it depends on presuming that participation in a duel is proof that a person does not wish to die, and that it could be legal to kill a person only if they have provably no will to live. However, as I argued, this does not follow from a proper definition of murder.
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.
-
I argued that it doesn't makeHe told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not
Would you mind finishing these so we know your complete thoughts?
-
A 'right' is just a grant of privilege by the state, and the notion that there are some types of privilege the state should extend (like the right to free speech) and others the state should not extend (like the right to free health care) is a mere arbitrary policy preference.
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.
-
Also, forgive me since I have not the time nor the inclination to read every post in here, but is this thread decidedly on lethal duels?
Yes, the OP said he was referring only to lethal duels, the intent being to kill the other person.
I use the following "quote" BBcodes only to show what I gathered from the poster's posts, not actual quotes.
I've studied Victorian, Edwardian, cultures, etc. Saying "yes" to every duel was really important back then!Sure. But it's not coercive force when entered into voluntarily. It's merely a wager one can choose for or against.
The social (or emotional or whatever other) penalties cast on the duel participant by the society around her are, I would argue, unsound. But they are irrelevant to the decision of whether the voluntary agreement/contract (whichever it is) should be allowed individuals by government to be entered into.
specific contractWhether the contract is specified or not or we detail the entire 'Robert's Rules of Dueling' (in both volumes
) on this thread, I was thinking that the question is whether it should ever even be considered in the legal process, i.e., whether it should be legal.At this point, after having read the entire thread, I see it this way:
If you have the right to end your life, I would think you have the right to wager it.
When one agrees to a duel, she wagers her life for the other participant's. The point to this wager, I thought, is the desire not to be living along with the other person at the same time. 'One of us must die.' To me, it's more similar to a non-drafted soldier than a boxer. In some sense it involves trying one's hand at killing another person who is also trying to kill the first; not being willing to live while the other person is alive.
I have yet to understand any of the arguments against its legality.
-
I occasionally play Nexuiz.
Nickname: Chuff <3s Ayn Rand.
Can we refute this criticism of Objectivism?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
I read this response and sent it along to the author of the five-part criticism. Very good.