Hardline Critics of objectivism

[Rourke]

The honest but mistaken may have a difficult time with Objectivism for a while, but they will not develop a hatred for it unless they begin to evade. If they have a respect for reason and the rational man -- in whatever capacity they have for recognizing the admirably rational -- then they will eventually come to admire Howard Roark or John Galt, and therefore Objectivism, if they are going to live up to their respect for reason.

Some people just don't get it, but those are not the ones who spit at the philosophy of reason.

I have a problem with this. It implies that the only possible rational philosophy is Objectivism, and that somehow one can only see truth through an Objectivist worldview. This reminds me of my fundamentalist Baptist mother-in-law in its absolutism. I think we need to show a tolerance of other's beliefs, just like we would expect others to respect Objectivism, and that other philosophies can be rational, given a different context.

[softwareNerd]

I think we need to show a tolerance of other's beliefs, just like we would expect others to respect Objectivism, and that other philosophies can be rational, given a different context.

Well, this depends what exactly you mean. Someone who has a certain context might rationally reach a certain philosophy that is not Objectivism. To take just one example, it would unreasonable to look back in history and call everyone irrational because they weren't Objectivists. Even if we say that we now realize they were wrong, that does not mean they were irrational. Rationality refers to a human process, and someone can be rational but still wrong.

On the other hand, the opposite doesn't hold: it is unreasonable to say that everyone who is wrong is nevertheless rational. We can't give everyone a free pass, assuming that they merely have a different context.

But, before going further, could you clarify what exactly you're objecting to. Are you objecting to the idea that "all others are irrational", which -- as I point out -- is not reasonable. Or, are you saying that one should not have think that "all others are wrong"? If the latter is the type of "absolutism" you're talking about, then that requires a different answer.

[DavidOdden]

It implies that the only possible rational philosophy is Objectivism, and that somehow one can only see truth through an Objectivist worldview.

Is that a problem? If there's some other philosophy out there that contradicts Objectivism, let's call it "Dadaism" just to give it a name, then Dadaism and Objectivism can't both be right (if you think they can, then we've identified the basic problem). Of course if you want to argue that Dadaism is actually right, then you should advance the argument, and if it's really a clearly compelling argument, then all rational people will convert.

I guess I object to your presumption because it seems to grant the basic premise of the epistemological nihilists, that we can't ever actually know anything so we could never have the "right" philosophy. If you grant that there is one reality and truth is the description of reality, and that man can indeed know the truth, then Objectivism could in fact be the truth. Now you're sorta implying that you think it isn't, and being a curious guy, I want to know exactly where is it that you think Dadaism is right and Objectivism is wrong. Or do you dispute that there is truth; or that man can know the truth?

[Rourke]

Well, this depends what exactly you mean. Someone who has a certain context might rationally reach a certain philosophy that is not Objectivism. To take just one example, it would unreasonable to look back in history and call everyone irrational because they weren't Objectivists. Even if we say that we now realize they were wrong, that does not mean they were irrational. Rationality refers to a human process, and someone can be rational but still wrong.

On the other hand, the opposite doesn't hold: it is unreasonable to say that everyone who is wrong is nevertheless rational. We can't give everyone a free pass, assuming that they merely have a different context.

But, before going further, could you clarify what exactly you're objecting to. Are you objecting to the idea that "all others are irrational", which -- as I point out -- is not reasonable. Or, are you saying that one should not have think that "all others are wrong"? If the latter is the type of "absolutism" you're talking about, then that requires a different answer.

I objected to his statement because it sounds like he is implying that anyone with any rational sense would embrace Objectivism. I wasn't presenting a case that "all people are rational." Rational thought follows a logical progression, and, depending on one's values, may be different from person to person.

[DavidOdden]

I objected to his statement because it sounds like he is implying that anyone with any rational sense would embrace Objectivism.

No, I think it implies this about anyone with a strong and uncompromising rational sense. A person with an occasional and selective commitment to rationality could be a Dadaist.

[Jon Pizzo]

Is that a problem? If there's some other philosophy out there that contradicts Objectivism, let's call it "Dadaism" just to give it a name, then Dadaism and Objectivism can't both be right (if you think they can, then we've identified the basic problem). Of course if you want to argue that Dadaism is actually right, then you should advance the argument, and if it's really a clearly compelling argument, then all rational people will convert.

I guess I object to your presumption because it seems to grant the basic premise of the epistemological nihilists, that we can't ever actually know anything so we could never have the "right" philosophy. If you grant that there is one reality and truth is the description of reality, and that man can indeed know the truth, then Objectivism could in fact be the truth. Now you're sorta implying that you think it isn't, and being a curious guy, I want to know exactly where is it that you think Dadaism is right and Objectivism is wrong. Or do you dispute that there is truth; or that man can know the truth?

I have yet to hear anyone make this point in a more clear, concise way. It's exactly correct, they can't both be right. The sooner people start realizing that, the better.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I have a problem with this. It implies that the only possible rational philosophy is Objectivism, and that somehow one can only see truth through an Objectivist worldview. This reminds me of my fundamentalist Baptist mother-in-law in its absolutism. I think we need to show a tolerance of other's beliefs, just like we would expect others to respect Objectivism, and that other philosophies can be rational, given a different context.

Objectivism is a form of absolutism -- a rational, objective absolutism; and no, we ought not be going around tolerating ideas that we think are wrong. That doesn't mean that one has to go around picking a fight with everyone who spouts nonsense. If my neighbor wants to claim that little pixies are in her head pushing buttons to make her speak, that's her problem, not mine; so long as she leaves me alone.

You might be thinking of the idea of a political right -- as in the right to free speech or the right not to be accosted due to one's ideas. But this is not intellectual tolerance.

Once you know you are correct in your intellectual stance, and you can prove it rationally with strict logic backed by evidence, then one cannot back down and say that the opposite or a kind of a shade of the truth is right. That would be like saying that existence doesn't exist, or that the nature of existence and the nature of man's mind just isn't important.

If you want to say that 2+2=5, then you are wrong; and nobody who understands simply mathematics ought to let you get away with saying that 2+2=5.

Likewise, for more complex thinking, as in a philosophy, if you want to say that Objectivists ought to be tolerant; well, you are wrong. "A rational man tolerates no tolerance" to quote John Galt. A rational man, one who takes his knowledge seriously, ought not to accept a statement that will invalidate his consciousness -- it would be like throwing a monkey wrench into the workings of a finely tuned machine; eventually, it will destroy it.

So, if you are asking us to tolerate those who besmirch, ridicule, and outright misrepresent Objectivism, then you are wrong. If you are saying that we ought to tolerate ideas which are counter to reason, then you are wrong. If you are saying that any ole thing out there that anyone says is a good as Objectivism, then you are wrong

Objectivism is the most rational philosophy that anyone has ever created. And while it is possible for someone to have been rational without ever having heard of Objectivism -- Aristotle, for example -- any such rational man would welcome Objectivism; he wouldn't spit at it. If someone spits at rationality as such, then they are spitting at reality and their own lives. And I think a lot of people know that about themselves, but they hope that others will not find out that truth about them; which is why they spit so virulently.

[Inspector]

Rourke,

Your question seems to be in line with your continued misunderstanding of the purpose of this forum. The stance of this forum is that Objectivism is 100% true, and therefore by definition any other system of philosophy is - to one extent or another - wrong. Thus if anyone is attempting to "see the truth" through any other (wrong!) "worldview" (as you put it) then - to the extent that that worldview is dissimilar from Objectivism (and therefore wrong) - they will not see the truth.

This forum is for people who accept that Objectivism is 100% true, and thus other systems are by definition incorrect to whatever extent they differ from it.

We allow guests, such as yourself, to come and ask questions about Objectivism and about how to evaluate things using Objectivism. This is not a place for other "worldviews" and for how they evaluate things. If you are not knowledgeable in Objectivism and capable of making evaluations that are consistent with it, then we are not interested in what you have to say, as such. This is not a place for the opinions of non-Objectivists. If you have questions to ask, and for the purpose of those questions must mention your current view then by all means do so.

But this is an Objectivist forum. As such, a lot of what you have been posting is most unwelcome and furthermore quite rude. Thus the somewhat strained responses you have received. Whether you realize it or not, you have been rather impolite here.

We even have a debate forum for if you want to dispute Objectivism. All we ask is that you stick to it if you want to make arguments instead of asking questions.

[RationalBiker]

I think we need to show a tolerance of other's beliefs

YOU can show tolerance to whatever you wish. Whether WE need to do this is another matter. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance has no value to me. What "we" are you referring to anyway?

This reminds me of my fundamentalist Baptist mother-in-law in its absolutism.

And that statement reminds me of people who like to make meaningless negative insinuations. What does this memory of yours have anything to do with Objectivism or this forum? Does the existence of, say, extreme fundamental Muslim absolutists have any impact on whether or not a rational philosophy really does exist and whether or not Objecitivism is that philosophy? I don't think it does.

Do you have any interest in learning about Objectivism or is your purpose here simply to come and argue against it (as seems to be the case in most of your posts)? Assuming you are a rational man, can you not respect the rules and purpose of this private property forum? Do you think you have some right to come here and ignore these things? Is that your idea of tolerance? Do you go to other private property forums and tell them how wrong they are as well?

[Rourke]

YOU can show tolerance to whatever you wish. Whether WE need to do this is another matter. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance has no value to me. What "we" are you referring to anyway?

And that statement reminds me of people who like to make meaningless negative insinuations. What does this memory of yours have anything to do with Objectivism or this forum? Does the existence of, say, extreme fundamental Muslim absolutists have any impact on whether or not a rational philosophy really does exist and whether or not Objecitivism is that philosophy? I don't think it does.

Do you have any interest in learning about Objectivism or is your purpose here simply to come and argue against it (as seems to be the case in most of your posts)? Assuming you are a rational man, can you not respect the rules and purpose of this private property forum? Do you think you have some right to come here and ignore these things? Is that your idea of tolerance? Do you go to other private property forums and tell them how wrong they are as well?

Well I don't mean to disrupt the forum. My idea was to use a crude form of the Socratic Method to help myself learn Objectivism better from people here, and judging from the IM's I get, it is helping others as well. So far I have learned quite a bit this way. I suppose the comparison to my fundamentalist mother-in-law was out of line, so apologies for that. It was not my intention to start an argument, its just that I have a big problem with the premise that to act rationally is to adopt Objectivism 100%. But I'll just stop this dialogue right here. If anyone wants to know why such a view is mistaken, why a different set of personal values would lead one to act rationally but not as an Objectivist, shoot me an IM.

Peace.

[DavidOdden]

It was not my intention to start an argument, its just that I have a big problem with the premise that to act rationally is to adopt Objectivism 100%. But I'll just stop this dialogue right here. If anyone wants to know why such a view is mistaken, why a different set of personal values would lead one to act rationally but not as an Objectivist, shoot me an IM.

What I find offensive in your approach is the dishonesty of the appeal to emotion. Now that you know why you're wrong, it seems to me a rational person would do one of two things. Either you'd show me why in fact you're right and therefore you'd address my answer directly and show where the error in Objectivism is, or you you would say "Oh, I understand now; I can't honestly say that there is any rational basis for disagreeing with Objectivism." It is intellectually dishonest to assume from the get-go that Objectivism is wrong while claiming to adhere to rationality, and to refuse to even acknowledge a refutation when one is handed to you.

[Acount Overdrawn]

its just that I have a big problem with the premise that to act rationally is to adopt Objectivism 100%.

I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I think Rourke is missing the points made by the other posters, in particular Inspector.

In my view, a person is capable of acting rationally without an explicit endorsement of Objectivism; but I don't think it is possible to act rationally in contradiction to the ideas and observations made within the system. For instance, I don't think someone can act rationally on the idea that there's no moral need to be honest to oneself and one's grasp of reality.

"I think we need to show a tolerance of other's beliefs, just like we would expect others to respect Objectivism, and that other philosophies can be rational, given a different context."

Aren't you equating a "different context" to "a different reality/universe"? I could concede that within certain contexts, the connections within a given philosophy are logical, but I would not say that they are rational. And once I introduce the full context of my knowledge, I would have to conclude that the given philosophy is illogical, as well.

For example, given Kant's metaphysics, his ethics follows logically in certain respects, but I couldn't honestly argue that his philosophy was rational.

It seems that this view of "context" would be more akin to Relativism, not to the understanding of "context" that Objectivism posits.

[Jon Pizzo]

He (Rourke) is one of the kinds of people I was referring to when I created this thread. He attacks Objectivism, but I have not seen him give one direct argument against it. It seems to me that he is afraid that perhaps only one philosophy can be the right and rational one, and, just like mystical spiritualists, insists that any road is the right road as long as the intentions are honorable.

[Rourke]

What I find offensive in your approach is the dishonesty of the appeal to emotion. Now that you know why you're wrong, it seems to me a rational person would do one of two things. Either you'd show me why in fact you're right and therefore you'd address my answer directly and show where the error in Objectivism is, or you you would say "Oh, I understand now; I can't honestly say that there is any rational basis for disagreeing with Objectivism." It is intellectually dishonest to assume from the get-go that Objectivism is wrong while claiming to adhere to rationality, and to refuse to even acknowledge a refutation when one is handed to you.

David, as I previously mentioned, we'll have to let it go here. Inspector's brain is going to melt if I post another opinion outside of the debate forum. So at some point there we can delve into why you continue to mischaracterize your opponent's arguments into false dichotomies.

[Jon Pizzo]

David, as I previously mentioned, we'll have to let it go here. Inspector's brain is going to melt if I post another opinion outside of the debate forum. So at some point there we can delve into why you continue to mischaracterize your opponent's arguments into false dichotomies.

I haven't seen you post any arguments in this thread. You keep saying that objectivism is not the right philosophy, but I haven't seen any reasons why (if you have in another thread, i apologize in advance). You keep saying that we need to be tolerant of other kinds of philosophies, but tell me, honestly, how do you expect us to do that, when all of those philosophies offer us only one thing in the end?

The believers in objectivism know exactly what I'm talking about, and you will too someday, I hope, for your own good.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Jon Pizzo

[Greebo]

No, I think it implies this about anyone with a strong and uncompromising rational sense. A person with an occasional and selective commitment to rationality could be a Dadaist.

I know I'm new here, and I know this thread is kind of old and if reviving an old thread is bad form, I apologize in advance. I am, however, confused by this concept, and seek clarification.

How can one occasionally, selectively commit to rationality?

I sense a contradiction. If one is only occasionally rational, then one must, by definition, occasionally be irrational. A person who is rational and irrational is a contradiction.

[DavidOdden]

How can one occasionally, selectively commit to rationality?

I sense a contradiction. If one is only occasionally rational, then one must, by definition, occasionally be irrational. A person who is rational and irrational is a contradiction.

Being rational is something that you have to choose to do, it's not an immutable personal property. A person who unfailingly chooses to act by reason is always rational, and that same person may (thanks to our friend free will) also choose to live by raw emotion every leap year on the last day of February. Rationality is not like wine and irrationality is not like sewage -- acting irrationally once does not thereby pollute all of your past and future acts so that as of the day that you flew off the handle, suddenly all of your acts are converted into irrational ones. A person who is rational and irrational at the same time is a contradiction.