Parts of objectivism you disagree with

[crizon]

I just realised that it is improper for me to argue here. Every single aspect that i talk about is in some way addressed in other threads already and each needs a seperate one (also this belongs in the debate board).

[Jake_Ellison]

See what you did here, James?

You should include a requirement that whatever the substance of the disagreement is, it should from now on be backed up by a quote or link proving that Ayn Rand actually held that conviction.

Turing, you're exaggerating on both those descriptions of Rand's views.

1. Women lack masculinity, and masculinity is what they want in a man. A component of femininity is this "worship" of a man she loves.

These are just picked from the "Femininity" entry of the Lexicon:

Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such...

Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

“To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments.

I think disagreeing with this much would mean a denial of the existence of "masculinity" and "femininity". To me, their existence is obvious.

On the other hand, if instead, you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on a woman President, or parts of this last sentence from that entry: "It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.", then I'm right there with you.

2. With your second statement, I suspect you may be referring to something from Atlas Shrugged, but I'll let you do the quoting to back up the claim that her words amount to what you said above. The AS stuff on this most definitely doesn't, as I remember it.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't understand the objection. Why can't nobody own the sun or the moon? (my intention is to think about if yes, if it was ok to destroy the moon or alter it in a way that would affect people on earth)

The purpose of property rights is to allow people to further their lives. If you can't make use of it to do that, you don't own it. That doesn't mean that the government gets to claim land which is unowned-why would it? The only reason to have property is so that an individual can use his rational mind to create things which further his life and happiness.

No one can own the Sun or the Moon just yet (or the summit of Everest) because no one has found a legitimate use for it. As far as the surface of the Moon goes, maybe people will find some use for it, and then they will own that part which they are using. Even with sunlight, maybe at some point people will be able to build solar panels closer to the Sun, to capture more of its energy. Then they will own that solar surface which radiates that light they are capturing.

And property rights are objective. You can't violate the rights of people who established their right to a property before you. (by making use of it) That means that you can't build an airport and fly planes over someone's house, but it also means that you can't build a house under the path of planes, and then get the government to close the airport.

Also, no one should be allowed to move the moon (or block the sunlight from reaching Earth), since that would interfere with all sorts of property rights which have already been established on Earth. (like electricity generators using tides)

[Marc K.]

It is a practical conclusion. I don't see any practical way to make everything in nature property. How do you do it with air or the ocean?

How do you solve it with the moon or the sun?

First you must understand that you have to act in order to gain or keep property. You must act, you must expend effort in order to create or acquire property.

You couldn't own all of the air, it is an impossibility but you could own some air if you pumped it into canisters under pressure. The sun is impossible to own and so is the moon. But you could own a part of the moon if you expended the effort required to get there and lay a claim and then actually do something to improve or exploit it, just as it should be and once was on earth.

I think by now I can say, that i disagree with the way she formulates the axioms. Maybe that is what he meant. Personally I'm not 100% sure on that one yet.

So you're not sure how to formulate axioms but you are sure that Ayn Rand did it incorrectly? OK, I'll bite, how do you think it should be done? What are some of the common attributes of axioms? How do you validate axioms? Are there some characteristics of axioms that signal when someone is denying an axiom? Which particular axioms have you formulated?

Well. "starting with an assumption" would be an axiom in a way. Also the rules on how to formulate axioms are somewhat assumptions as well.

As an answer for you and James Bond: axioms are not assumptions, nor are the rules on how to formulate them. They are presupposed by everything you know and everything you do, by every thought and action. They are validated by every percept and all knowledge. Knowledge is not possible without their existence. They are presupposed even in the act of trying to deny them.

The three primary axioms are identified (parenthetically) in the paraphrased sentence that stands in my signature:

"There is (existence) something (identity) of which I am aware (consciousness)."

[crizon]

The thing is, I read a bit in the physics and math board, especially the thread about QM. There I read quite a few times that interpretations of QM can't be right because they violate one of the axioms.

Thats were my feeling that they are maybe not formulated correctly stems from. As I said several times before, I'm still reading a lot about QM and it's interpretations.

My understanding so far is that the subject plays a fundamental role, which might not be reflected fully in the way rand formulates the axioms..

Also it doesn't feel right for me how Rand concludes the free mind and deterministic aspects of objectvism. IE a free mind seem to be deterministic in way that it _will_ adopt individual right when being reasonable and it will adobt capitalism.

In other words I feel that Rands describtion of a reasonable man does not feel consistent with free will to me.

I think some of my issues are addressed in the debate on the maverick philosopher blog (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/one-fallacy-of-objectivism-.html), but i have to admit that i lack substantial knowledge to fully understand the debate there.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Thats [QM and physics] were my feeling that [the axioms] are maybe not formulated correctly stems from. As I said several times before, I'm still reading a lot about QM and it's interpretations.

My understanding so far is that the subject plays a fundamental role, which might not be reflected fully in the way rand formulates the axioms.

You are making the mistake of thinking that physics is more fundamental than philosophy, along with accepting the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which claims that reality is fundamentally random and not causal. The fundamental nature of existence is given in perception -- that is we perceive reality the way it really is via the senses -- and we can observe that reality is not random, but rather that it is causal in every respect. If a special science contradicts everything you know about existence, then it is time to question that special science, rather than questioning everything else you know about existence.

Regarding free will, the Objectivist position is basically that a man has the free will to conform to reality or try to get away with not conforming to reality; but there is not anything about human consciousness that will compel you to go along with the facts, hence he has free will. However, free will does not mean doing whatever the hell you feel like doing, since it is an act of free will for you to integrate the facts of reality. In other words, reason is free will, and to abdicate on the responsibility of conforming to reality means that you are just going along with non-integrations in your own mind and not using your free will. Conforming to the facts -- i.e. being rational -- does not happen automatically; one must go through the effort to integrate the facts of reality and act accordingly. You are, of course, free to configure your mind differently from the facts -- to disregard them -- but those facts will still be there, since existence has primacy over consciousness.

[KendallJ]

Also it doesn't feel right for me how Rand concludes the free mind and deterministic aspects of objectvism. IE a free mind seem to be deterministic in way that it _will_ adopt individual right when being reasonable and it will adobt capitalism.

In other words I feel that Rands describtion of a reasonable man does not feel consistent with free will to me.

Just a comment on your method. Philosophy is not something you analyze by "feeling." It is extremely dangerous to do this. Intuition is a poor guide for philosophical topics. It is a sign of fuzzying thinking, and fuzzy thinkng in philosophical issues will wrap you up in knots. It is because so many things within metaphysics and epistemology are self-reinforcing, and self-dependant as to be implicit in statements you make. If you use sloppy thinking you'll simply keep drawing in the same implicit mistakes over and over again, and end up chasing your tail.

From my standpoint, until it's more than a feeling, I would give no credence to your thoughts about it. You must be able state it with clarity or you're essentially stating nothing.

Edited April 22, 2009 by KendallJ

[crizon]

What I meant when i use "feel" is not that I don't like it as a matter of taste. In other words some aspects do not connect the way they should for me to accept every aspect of objectivism.

About the copenhagen interpretation and philosophy:

I think you agree with me that philosophy must be in accordance with reality. The Copenhagen interpretation is not just some maniacs mystic babbling about science but a widely accepted theory.

The Copenhagen interpretation does not disagree with philosophy in principle; it "just" disagrees with objectivism.

"that is we perceive reality the way it really is via the senses"

That is i think the root. I'd like to quote Erwin Schrödinger here from a talk with the heading: "Objectification". I have the text in German here. I don't know if the talk was originally in English but i try my best to translate it.

"With that (with the principle of objectification) I mean exactly the same as what is often called "the hypothesis of the real outside world". I argue this is a sort of simplification that we adopt to master the egregiously intricate problem of nature.

We exclude the subject of cognition from the domain, that we want to understand in nature, without making that clear to our selfs and without being always strictly coherent.

We step back with our persons in the role of an observer, who does not belong to reality, which in the end becomes an objective world by that."

[The Wrath]

Again this is a complete rejection of reason on principle. A rejection of the efficacy of man's mind.

I was going to respond, point-by-point, but decided not to because it wouldn't do any good. I've stated explicitly that I am not an Objectivist, numerous times. For a philosophy that abhors packaged deals, its followers sure do like to try and make it one. I agree with much of Objectivism, and my posting history reflects that. I also disagree with numerous parts. If you think that means that I am, on principle, rejecting the efficacy of reason...well, whatever. To me, that sounds like the words of a religious fanatic who condemns everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% of the time.

In the end, I don't claim to have everything figured out, and I don't think you should either. I'm sure I'm wrong about some things, but I don't doubt that I'm right about others.

Edited April 22, 2009 by The Wrath

[Jake_Ellison]

I was going to respond to you point-by-point, until I saw this and realized that you are probably what I would refer to as a religious fanatic.

Sounds a lot like biblical literalists who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of explicitly rejecting God's gift of eternal life.

And that sounds like any leftists on a diatribe against Ayn Rand. Evasive, irrational, insulting and without any substantive content. Maybe you should respond point by point instead.

[The Wrath]

Calling me a leftist is nothing short of laughable. Thinking that you're full of shit on the Israel-Palestine debate (which you are) does not make me a leftist. I said nothing whatsoever insulting about Ayn Rand. You'll also note that I changed the post to something a little more reasonable than my initial gut level reaction.

[fountainhead777]

I think his disdain is more with this statement and one's like it:

In the end, I don't claim to have everything figured out, and I don't think you should either. I'm sure I'm wrong about some things, but I don't doubt that I'm right about others.

That general mindset is that no one has all the answers and no one will. This is the mindset that creates self-doubt and spawns subjectivism. There is nothing wrong with thinking you are correct but objectivity must be maintained. Additionally everyone's values are not the same as yours. They can still be rational and objective without being yours. Opinions may differ but about the nature of knowledge there cannot be any concession.

[Marc K.]

I agree with much of Objectivism, and my posting history reflects that.

Yes, that is what I recalled when you went by the moniker "Moose", that is why your post really caught me off guard. I wanted to give you as much of the benefit of the doubt as I could but your post left no room. I stand by my evaluation: your post was a rejection of nearly every fundamental tenant of Objectivism.

I'll just review the one you mentioned here:

I also disagree with numerous parts. If you think that means that I am, on principle, rejecting the efficacy of reason...well, whatever.

This is what you said:

Epistemology: I don't believe in absolute certainty about anything but logic. I think that there comes a point where it is ridiculous to doubt certain things, but I think we should always admit the possibility that we are mistaken.

Do you see how the first sentence is self-contradictory? How it defeats itself? How it has no meaning? You are saying that you are absolutely certain that you can't be absolutely certain. You are saying that logic is certain when nothing is certain. In one breath you say that you are certain of nothing and in the very next breath you say you are certain of logic. Which one are we to believe? Are you certain or aren't you? If you are certain of nothing but logic, how did you become certain of logic? Which uncertain observations did you use to validate logic?

There might be a way to cut a novice some slack on the second sentence but certainly not you and certainly not when combined with the first sentence. You are essentially just restating the first sentence but you are turning it into a moral principle. You are recommending that we act on the supposed fact that nothing is certain and that everything we know could be mistaken.

This is completely wrong and deserves no consideration. There are innumerable things of which you can be certain. I am certain that existence exists, that I am conscious and that everything that exists exists as something specific. I am certain that 2 plus 2 equals 4. I am certain that if I throw a rock in the air it will come back down to earth. I am certain that I love my mother. I am certain that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. I am certain that my car is blue. I am certain that Newton was correct within his context of knowledge. Etc...

The reason I said what I said is that your two simple sentences above have the potential to destroy a mind. If you were able to program them into a computer it would explode. They could keep an untrained mind busy for years. If you ever uttered them to a child (and I hope you never do) you could literally destroy her mind. If she accepted what you said as truth and tried to reconcile it with everything she knows, she might end up a raving lunatic or she might kill herself. Please be careful.

Perhaps you find me overly dramatic, I don't think so. Perhaps you think I am heaping unwarranted scorn on you, please don't, I mean you no harm. In fact I wouldn't waste my time on someone I thought undeserving of it.

I think you should reevaluate and reconsider your position on certainty. Perhaps a good exercise would be for you to go back and try to validate the Objectivist Ethics since it is clear that you don't understand it. You should be able to prove to yourself the train of logic that leads from the facts of reality to the central question of ethics with certainty, from a fact of existence to what a man should do if he wants to live. If not, then ask questions.

[Robert Freeman]

I'm trying to understand the independent qualities of masculinity and femininity, as well as how they relate.

1. Women lack masculinity, and masculinity is what they want in a man. A component of femininity is this "worship" of a man she loves.

These are just picked from the "Femininity" entry of the Lexicon:

Could the same not be said for man/masculinity? That, just as a component of femininity is this "worship" of a man she loves, a component of his masculinity is the "worship" of a woman he loves? That "Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being," HE has to be HER equal "then the object of" his "worship is specifically" her femininity "not any human virtue" he "might lack"? If the same could not be said for both, why? If it can, why emphasize the female worship of man over the male worship of woman (if worship "means an intense kind of admiration").

I think disagreeing with this much would mean a denial of the existence of "masculinity" and "femininity". To me, their existence is obvious.

I'm not trying to disagree about the existence of masculinity or femininity as much as understand their essential characteristics (independent of each other) and then their relationship. Are women to be admired less for their femininity than men for their masculinity (assuming all else is equal)? Are women to be less of their own heroes as men are to be their own heroes? Again, I'm not in disagreement, just trying to understand.

On the other hand, if instead, you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on a woman President, or parts of this last sentence from that entry: "It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.", then I'm right there with you.

How did she think a properly feminine woman was to treat men? What about how a properly masculine man was to treat women?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Could the same not be said for man/masculinity? That, just as a component of femininity is this "worship" of a man she loves, a component of his masculinity is the "worship" of a woman he loves?

According to Ayn Rand, and not every admirer of hers agrees with this, the hero-worship a woman has towards her man makes it possible for her to submit to him sexually. If she didn't admire him that much, then sex becomes too casual; at least according to Miss Rand's views of masculine / feminine regarding sex.

From my personal point of view, yes I have to admire her to want to have sex with her, and the more I admire her the more intense is the attraction; once I lose respect for her, for whatever reason, my desire dissipates. But I wouldn't say that I looked up to her, as in hero-worship, though I might greatly admire her.

A lot of people view this as more of a psychological issue than a philosophical issue anyhow. But Miss Rand makes the claim that male qua male involves sexually taking the woman, whereas the woman more responds to him. Certainly, in her stories, the woman hero-worships her man, so her view is clearly stated in art. I haven't seen the other view so clearly stated, except, perhaps, in the view that once a man falls in love with a woman he is willing to go through a lot of effort to keep her, as in doing heroic acts; which some people might identify as him worshiping her. I personally find being in love with a woman to be very inspiring.

The best way I've seen this illustrated by Objectivist females is that the man's primary orientation is to reality and conquering nature (including conquering a woman) all of the time; whereas for a woman, her normal orientation is also to conquer nature -- except she goes through a psychological transformation during the act of sex to be conquered by her man. And Miss Rand considered this to be the essence of being female.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Robert Freeman]

I guess I'm not catching something because I fail to see the similarity between conquering nature and conquering a woman. Why does sex involve the man "conquering" the woman? Doesn't she want to as much as he does?

"the hero-worship a woman has towards her man makes it possible for her to submit to him sexually."

Wouldn't this hero-worship (if it means intense admiration) be what makes him also desire her sexually?

[JASKN]

Wouldn't this hero-worship (if it means intense admiration) be what makes him also desire her sexually?

There are many very long threads all about sex, sexuality, sex-specific behavior, sex-specific mental make-up, Rand's views on sex, forum members' views on sex, and even this very question. Get a little creative with the forum search function, and make a cup of coffee, because you're in for some reading.

[happilyawkward]

I would like to clarify on a previous statement made by Wrath on the Objectivist view that Altruism is "evil" for those that may be confused while reading this thread. Altruism and kindness are two different things. Objectivism does not consider acts of kindness towards others to be evil. It does, however, reject the notion that a person's existence has no value if they choose NOT to perform these acts of kindness: A notion that Altruism holds to be true. This may be a basic comparison, but i believe that it is an important distinction within this environment.

[D'kian]

Altruism and kindness are two different things. Objectivism does not consider acts of kindness towards others to be evil. It does, however, reject the notion that a person's existence has no value if they choose NOT to perform these acts of kindness: A notion that Altruism holds to be true. This may be a basic comparison, but i believe that it is an important distinction within this environment.

Altruism doesn't require acts of kindness, just service to others. Altruism holds that your life is not your own, that it belongs to others. The others can be anyone or anything: society, the proletariat, the race, the planet, God, whatever. And the only purpose of your life is to serve these others.

Usually this is depicted as acts of kindness, like helping the poor, the "less fortunate," endangered animals, etc. But that's not necesarily so. Even when it is, those whom you are meant to help usually wind up worse off, as you do yourself. Take "universal healthcare." It seems kind to do something for those who can't afford medical care, but the result is always crappy medical care for all with not enough of it to go around.

[happilyawkward]

Usually this is depicted as acts of kindness, like helping the poor, the "less fortunate," endangered animals, etc. But that's not necesarily so. Even when it is, those whom you are meant to help usually wind up worse off, as you do yourself. Take "universal healthcare." It seems kind to do something for those who can't afford medical care, but the result is always crappy medical care for all with not enough of it to go around.

Yes, D'kian, that was a poor choice of words on my part. As you say, Altruism is usually depicted through descriptions of acts of kindness. That is what I meant to clarify (and failed): The fact that people associate acts of kindness with Altruism and therefore, because Objectivism holds Altruism to be evil, view Objectivism as "anti-kindness." I created my post for those people that may have these associations in mind while reading this thread. In an attempt to be concise I ended up leaving out valuable information. Thank you for your further explanation.