AmoProbos Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) I don't feel that this is the proper category to discuss this in, but I can't find one that suits my needs precisely. A mod can adjust any mistakes accordingly. I recently stumbled upon a website called the RationalWiki. Some of you, maybe most of you, have heard of it. I was initially pleased with its dry and witty skepticism and beatings towards many conventional topics, but when I found its page on Objectivism, I was appalled. Admittedly, the page states that it is "horribly incomplete", but that doesn't excuse the trash that is written on it to begin with. There seems to be no argument to the philosophy, only a lofty and pompous disdain for it. Here is the page. I would expect this from an organization rooted in irrationality, but not from the opposite. I'm not saying that the website should embrace the philosophy with open arms, but it should receive the same level and quality of scrutiny as any of the other things discussed therein. Am I right or am I crazy? Edited July 27, 2009 by AmoProbos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I was initially pleased with its dry and witty skepticism and beatings towards many conventional topics, but when I found its page on Objectivism, I was appalled. You realize Objectivism is opposed to skepticism, right? Also, sorry for this blunt answer, but who cares? It's just another organization claiming to be champions of reason while attacking it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmoProbos Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 You realize Objectivism is opposed to skepticism, right? Also, sorry for this blunt answer, but who cares? It's just another organization claiming to be champions of reason while attacking it. I was not aware. I've always considered a certain amount of skepticism important to rational progress. A little elaboration on why this is not the case would be appreciated. Don't be sorry, you are absolutely right. I'm a bit disappointed though. I thought there was some quality to be had on the website. Alas, no luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I was not aware. I've always considered a certain amount of skepticism important to rational progress. A little elaboration on why this is not the case would be appreciated. I'm going to assume you don't know what skepticism really is. I used to think it meant not believing things as soon as you hear them. Because I held this false definition, I used to call myself a skeptic. However, what skepticism really is is a philosophy that teaches that mankind can not really ever know anything. A skeptic would say that because man is fallible, he can never truly know he is correct about anything. This is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. However, if you already knew the true definition of skepticism and accepted it, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmoProbos Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I'm going to assume you don't know what skepticism really is. I used to think it meant not believing things as soon as you hear them. Because I held this false definition, I used to call myself a skeptic. However, what skepticism really is is a philosophy that teaches that mankind can not really ever know anything. A skeptic would say that because man is fallible, he can never truly know he is correct about anything. This is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. However, if you already knew the true definition of skepticism and accepted it, let me know. I interpreted skepticism to mean what I boldfaced. The revised definition is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. Thanks for clearing that up. I need more immersion in the lexicon, I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I interpreted skepticism to mean what I boldfaced. The revised definition is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. Thanks for clearing that up. I need more immersion in the lexicon, I'm afraid. Don't worry about it. I think most people believe that definition of skepticism. I know I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 "Many Objectivists, at least during Ayn Rand's lifetime, held that cigarette smoking is a moral obligation." The reference used didn't even support that. "The closest known relative to Objectivism is the Sith Code, which also sees giving to and loving other human beings as irrational." Another great line... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Don't waste your time with it. The entire page is a poorly-written smear-job. Edited July 27, 2009 by NickS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ListenerX Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Anyone on this forum who objects to the portrayals of Objectivism or Ayn Rand put forth in those articles on RationalWiki that address the subjects is invited to join the Wiki and make their views known on those articles' talk-pages. We on the Wiki are open to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.