Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism ticked off my best friend

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I really could have done better to explain how Objectivism views "use of force"... Anyway, this is actually pretty hilarious now that it's over. We were talking about a guy we know who kept threatening to use violence on people.

PKD says (3:06 PM):

then he's narrow minded because he believes in the use of force to impose his views unto others

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:06 PM):

nope

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:22 PM):

because if you're talking about that "giving them the power because you're using violence" then that's simple opinion

PKD says (3:22 PM):

it's an oversimplification, i would need to look up the exact wording

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:23 PM):

no no no, you misunderstand

PKD says (3:23 PM):

but that wasn't what i was thinking about

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:23 PM):

literally, that's an opinion

it doesn't become true because you dig up a different wording that rand wrote or something

PKD says (3:23 PM):

it's an analysis of dynamics

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:23 PM):

it's just a view

PKD says (3:24 PM):

it's a rational objective fact, in the way it was originally writen

written

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:24 PM):

HAHAHA

or not at all

rational objective fact... LOL

biggest pile of bullshit today

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:25 PM):

so I guess every army that ever won a war gave power away?

PKD says (3:25 PM):

everything in the actual Objectivist epistemology is [based on] rational objective fact

no, that's a deturpation of view

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:25 PM):

okay, a question for you

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:26 PM):

is it just your opinion that "everything in the actual objectivist epistemology is [based on] rational objective fact" or is that a pervasive view among all/most objectivists, started by rand?

PKD says (3:27 PM):

it's generally agreed by Objectivists

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:27 PM):

alright, then it's a cult

PKD says (3:28 PM):

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

it's not

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:28 PM):

only explanation why a group of people could get so brainwashed

ffs

it doesn't matter if it's evil

we're talking power here

regardless of good/evil

an army has power

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:29 PM):

and army attacking someone is never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever

ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever

ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever

giving power to the opponents

the whole concept is fucking asinine

PKD says (3:29 PM):

you are talking about the army

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:30 PM):

and the fact that most objectivists sees that concept as a rational, objective truth or whatever just speaks more about how brainwashed they are

PKD says (3:30 PM):

not an individual

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:30 PM):

FFS

THE ARMY IS MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS AND MOSTLY LEAD BY AN INDIVIDUAL

PKD says (3:31 PM):

they give up that individuality to become like ants

they surrender the individuality to the control of the state

the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones.

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:31 PM):

objectivists saying that their OPINION is the rational objective truth is just them catering to their own ego, convincing themselves that they're right, even though it's most definitely a gray area

okay, we're done with this

I'm dropping this conversation right now because it's getting retarded

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:32 PM):

please don't bring up objectivism again

PKD says (3:32 PM):

i'm answering what they think

ok

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:32 PM):

it riles me up like nothing else because it's, quite frankly, retarded

it's so disconnected from actual reality

PKD says (3:32 PM):

i thought you wanted to know the Objectivist take on it

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:32 PM):

I don't anymore

because it's all stupid

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:33 PM):

it's all been completely fucking stupid

and self-serving

PKD says (3:33 PM):

just one quote which I think might help you understand:

"If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged “good” can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations."

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:33 PM):

look

it's not about me not understanding

I understand perfectly

I just plain disagree

PKD says (3:34 PM):

how can you disagree which objective, rational views??

i would have thought you'd completely agree

with objective rationality

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:34 PM):

and I can't stand the self-aggrandizing that comes with stating that your own OPINION (not even close to being a truth) is the rational and objective truth

IT FUCKING ISN'T OBJECTIVE RATIONALITY!!!

IT'S FUCKING OPINION!

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:35 PM):

jesus fucking christ

PKD says (3:35 PM):

so to you all this is just as "real" as Ian's theories?

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:36 PM):

no

ian's theories are stupid

this is horribly disingenious

and dishonest

and the thing is

that it's a non-starter

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:37 PM):

if you declare something that is quite clearly opinion as objective, rational fact, then you've lost before the discussion even began

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:38 PM):

so I never again want to talk about ayn rand, objectivism, john galt, the fountainhead, atlas shrugged, or anyting related to that. it leads nowhere and I just can't stand it. I don't want to become frustrated and angry when I talk to you

PKD says (3:39 PM):

is there a way of talking about it that doesn't make you frustrated and angry?

PKD says (3:40 PM):

because it's a part of life for me and it would be nice to have intelligent constructive discussions

i'll try to not make it a central theme anymore

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:42 PM):

I just know that every time we've talked about over the last few months, I've become agitated or sometimes angry because it's such a fucking arrogant philosophy, that is completely fucking meaningless

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:43 PM):

it's disingenious, it's dishonest, it's arrogant, it's cult-like (although a lot of philosophies/religions are), it's plain wrong

the straw that broke the camel's back was the objective rational fact thing

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:44 PM):

that is literally the biggest load of bullshit I've heard all damn year

if not longer

PKD says (3:44 PM):

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:44 PM):

because it is NOT N-O-T objective rational fact

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:45 PM):

in fact, the whole damn philosophy has sullied the word objective

at least to me

because objective means objective

objective doesn't mean "the opinion of ayn rand"

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:46 PM):

and a philosophy that tries to arrogantly mask simple opinion as something grandiose as "rational objective fact" is just complete horse manure

that shows a big flaw, a big weakness

PKD says (3:47 PM):

i think if you actually READ Objectivism you might not think it was that inflexible.

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:47 PM):

besides, why the need to get your life hung up on something like this, as if it has all the right answers? just live for christ's sake

has nothing to do with inflexibility

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:48 PM):

it's flawed faaaar before inflexibility even comes into the picture

PKD says (3:48 PM):

it's actually quite hard to live solely by objective rationality

PKD says (3:50 PM):

i think the real idea is that Objectivism is built upon objective, rational ideas

PKD says (3:51 PM):

not that Ayn Rand has the ultimate word on everything

because that would be worship, which is against Objectivism

PKD says (3:55 PM):

i'm actually very surprised you don't agree with Objectivism, since it pushes so much for using rationality

thought it would be right up your alley

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:57 PM):

again

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:58 PM):

it's like ian

it doesn't matter how much logic and rationality you use

if the base is flawed, it's all bullshit

and besides

objectivism claims that some of its opinions (or the opinions held by objectivists) to be rational, objective fact

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (3:59 PM):

as I said, that's a non-starter, because there already the objectivists have shot themselves in the foot

and lose any argument before it even starts

for example

my opinion is that it's VERY rational to help my fellow man

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:00 PM):

there is nothing - NOTHING - that anyone can say that is going to change that

PKD says (4:00 PM):

it is rational, it doesn't say ANYWHERE that it isn't, unless it will cause you to lose your life

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:01 PM):

and just because some old lady equates altruism with suicide (retarded analogy btw), it doesn't mean that it's irrational for me to help my fellow man

PKD says (4:01 PM):

or, more to the point, if you'll be giving up one great value for a lesser one

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:01 PM):

see, I completely disagree

it is not, not once ever, a fact

PKD says (4:01 PM):

you disagree because you are dealing in an extreme

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:01 PM):

no

I disagree with the concept

it is NOT a fucking fact, end of fucking story

PKD says (4:02 PM):

there's a whole chapter in "the virtue of selfishness" exactly about that

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:02 PM):

I

PKD says (4:02 PM):

because some people took that notion

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:02 PM):

DON'T

FUCKING

CARE

PKD says (4:02 PM):

ok

no more

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:02 PM):

it's retarded

and it's wrong

and it doesn't matter how much any idiot twists the words

it doesn't make it a

FUCKING

RATIONAL

OBJECTIVE

FACT

idiocy

complete and utter idiocy

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:03 PM):

arrogant fucking bullshit and I hate it with all of my being to tell you the truth

PKD says (4:03 PM):

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:03 PM):

seriously

it's so fucking stupid that I want to throw my keyboard out my window

PKD says (4:03 PM):

ok, i will try to not frustrate you with this anymore

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:04 PM):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

PKD says (4:04 PM):

LOL you are watching it now?

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:05 PM):

that has got to be, in all of my life, seeing it being spoken by a supposed intelligent person, the most stupid argument I have ever heard

I am not joking

that is the most asinine comeback in all of my life

PKD says (4:05 PM):

she means the original literal meaning of altruism

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:05 PM):

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

I KNOW WHAT SHE IS FUCKING SAYING

PKD says (4:05 PM):

ok

sorry

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:06 PM):

SHE SAYS THAT ANYONE SACRIFICING HIM OR HERSELF - EVEN A LITTLE - TO HELP OTHERS IS AN ALTRUIST

PKD says (4:06 PM):

i want to say "she means the original literal meaning of sacrifice" but i don't want you to be mad

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:07 PM):

AND THEN SHE - SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HERSELF WHO CAME UP WITH THE BULLSHIT AND CLAIMS TO BE SO SUPREMELY FUCKING INTELLIGENT - PULLS OUT OF HER ASS THE MOST ASININE AND EXTREME ANALOGY IN THE HISTORY OF DEBATE

PKD says (4:07 PM):

which is?

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:07 PM):

0poäh8iwlsdgsfdh

are you retarded?

seriously

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy säger (01:05):

ayn rand: it's the self-sacrificing person who is an altruist

phil donahue: yeah, what's wrong with that?

ayn rand: what's wrong with committing suicide

PKD says (4:07 PM):

LOL

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:08 PM):

THE FUCKING SUICIDE ANALOGY

PKD says (4:08 PM):

ok

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:08 PM):

she's saying

that if you sacrifice something of yourself to help someone

why not just kill yourself?

that is exactly what she's saying and that's the stupidest fucking argument ever

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:09 PM):

ALSO

she claims to be rational

and objectivist

an objective person does not place value on anything

so how can she place value on life, your own or anyone else's?

objectivity doesn't value anything

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:10 PM):

it just sees things as they are

objectivism is the stupidest, most retarded fucking idea ever

I won't read that brick of shit atlas shrugged

that would be the biggest fucking waste of time in my life

I'm burning that fucker

PKD says (4:10 PM):

LOL

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:11 PM):

mostly because it's bad writing

PKD says (4:11 PM):

you can't judge a book you haven't read

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:11 PM):

60 page monologues is atrocious authorship

get a fucking editor, you fucking cunt...1200 pages my ass

idiot

I hate that bitch

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:12 PM):

I know enough about it to judge it

PKD says (4:12 PM):

you forgot Francisco's [Money Speech]

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:13 PM):

even more absurd

seriously

if you read that out loud as if you were talking

how long would that speech take?

it's completely insipid and retarded

PKD says (4:13 PM):

i don't know but it would sound like Ayn Rand speaking

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:14 PM):

a giant snoozefest

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:15 PM):

so there

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:16 PM):

I now consider the subject dropped

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion here, I think your best friend could have used a sedative by about half way through. >> Something to calm him down.

Anyway, stuff like this, this is why I don't like to bring up and try to discuss in depth much stuff from Objectivist standpoints with people who aren't already familiar with Objectivism. Trying to pull a random topic and discuss it then will just have so many places where they will not understand what you mean AT ALL even just with specific terminology uses, yet be SO SURE they DO understand and so sure that you're just as nuts, baseless, and even arrogant as most other ideologies. There's a very good reason OPAR starts with where it does with metaphysics and works it's way up, it's even explained later on about the hierarchy of knowledge. If you don't work up from the beginning with people you'll find most people will not have the patience with you to take the time to trace what you are saying back to the start to prove it and will just flip out and want to drop the subject on the note of, "So therefore I'm right and you're wrong, end of story." If you can ever get your friend to stay calm enough and listen, try maybe starting a discussion on the axioms and see if you can at least get an agreement from him on those. If you can succeed on that much, maybe bit by bit, a little here and there, you can have discussions building upon each other until you can eventually get back to the subject you had been discussing before viewed from a new knowledge context. Based on the text here, I don't think you would try to force it, but in case it needs to be said anyway - trying to force him to go at a faster pace than he'd want to in progressing on these things will just be a hindrance. I think if you can't even come to terms on discussion of the axioms though you may as well just give up on it and look elsewhere for intelligent conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it interesting how people object to the very notion of knowing something objectively. It's as though its a personal affront to them to state something as fact, and that unless everything is couched in terms of personal opinions you're using force in some strange way.

It would have taken me everything to not come back at "It's not an objective fact, it's just an opinion!" with "Well, that's just your opinion."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the beginning and end of that because it's way too long, but it sounds like your friend is of the same type as a former friend of mine. You might want to reevaluate your friendship. Or if he's willing to sit down, shut up and think, you could baby-step him through Epistemology and Ethics before Politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me, PKD, as if you pulled some statement out of the middle of the politics (I suspect an early part of the conversation--or an earlier conversation--that would provide a bit more context, is missing here), and merely asserted (without backing it up) that it was a rational, objective fact. This comes across as rationalistic (even if you aren't actually being rationalistic).

How many times have you done this with your friend? Maybe he had some reason to be frustrated.

I'd take Bluecherry's advice in the future, with a couple of modifications. In future conversations try to find out if this person believes in an objective reality, the primacy of existence, the fact that no contradictions can exist in reality, that there IS a reality... but try not to use the word "objective" since that will simply set him off.

If he disagrees with that, it's probably just hopeless. If he does agree, stress that stuff the next couple of times, and resist the temptation to push it further. Establish a common ground. If this guy is non-religious and likes to rag on religion, poke fun at religions for denying this stuff. He'll enjoy that. Move on into the epistemology. When you run into disagreement, work on *that* disagreement, don't go on to politics, ethics.... And you may never get past it, but the point is you cannot leapfrog over it, one piece of O-ism builds upon what came before it.

From what I read, the ethics will be the hardest part for him to swallow (assuming he doesn't choke on issues like certainty, infallibility of the senses, etc.). You'll probably have to spend a lot of time on the nature of Man first, since that's the bridge between the epistemology and the ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the first part of the conversation and I agree with Steve. You don't just assert something is objectively true even if it is so, when it requires argument to make the case.

Objectivism starts with axioms and the most important one is existence exists. You have to establish these axioms, otherwise the discussion will be rationalistic and floating.

For example, your friend says:

for example

my opinion is that it's VERY rational to help my fellow man

Mellanmjölk och O'Boy says (4:00 PM):

there is nothing - NOTHING - that anyone can say that is going to change that

Clearly that is a completely subjective statement, because not only is it detached from reality, the guy refuses to anchor it in reality. So, what you have to do is show him the importance of anchor views in reality, otherwise there really is no reason to believe in anything.

Also, he is talking about ethics, which is way up the chain from metaphysics and epistemology, both of which have to be established first. So, there is a long road to hoe with this guy.

Btw, I didn't follow the point you were making about war and it being the second greatest evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he's just going to be a coward and filibuster you with copy and pasting over and over, cutting you off, and spamming the screen with ad hominem, what's the point in talking about it? If he were serious about having a debate, the least he can do is come prepared and show basic respect. Otherwise you might as well be trying to talk to a toddler who is covering his ears, closing his eyes, and going "blahblahblahblahblahIcan'theeeeeaaryou!"

He looks like a real second-hander to me. (If you're talking to a guy who thinks "RATIONAL OBJECTIVE FACT IS [email protected]#@kn42" then why does he care enough to argue about anything?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find the best way to argue with people when you intend to present objectivism is to never mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism just the argument itself, and often people will find themselves agreeing with you. Mention Rand only if they ask for more information on where you got the argument. If you simply present the classic unbroken chains of logic people nearly always agree. The only caveat here is that you must have some idea ahead of time that they will not deny reality to keep their own views intact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. The second you mention Ayn Rand you end up with little more than bizarre anti Rand assertions.

Recently when I mentioned Objectivism on my business' Twitter account someone shot back with:

"Ayn Rand was a Nazi"

:huh:

..again demonstrating the reason some animals eat their young.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. The second you mention Ayn Rand you end up with little more than bizarre anti Rand assertions.

Sometimes. Other times if you fail to mention Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism, you get accused of trying to pass off Objectivism as something else. For those who hate Ayn Rand it's always damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes. Other times if you fail to mention Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism, you get accused of trying to pass off Objectivism as something else. For those who hate Ayn Rand it's always damned if you do and damned if you don't.

People like that are best left to their own devices. They're not interested in what you have to say, so why waste your time? There's plenty of other people in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes. Other times if you fail to mention Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism, you get accused of trying to pass off Objectivism as something else. For those who hate Ayn Rand it's always damned if you do and damned if you don't.

At least you won't get shut out by people who have heard that Ayn Rand is "bad" but don't know much more about her or Objectivism. In other words, you won't get ignored out of ignorance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Yes, it's the "You can't be certain of that/anything" / "There are no Absolutes!" crowd. They're dumb enough that they give you the means to defeat them:

"Then how are you certain that you can't be certain of that/anything?"

"Isn't THAT an absolute statement?"

He seems to believe that it's a rational fucking objective fact that no rational fucking objective facts can be held. I'd ask him how he was so certain of that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times must we debunk the notion that objectivism is a cult?

It's a stupid talking point made by people who think they're cute. If Objectivism is a cult, then

- Why do modern day objectivist disagree with Ayn Rand on the ethics of homosexuality?

- Why is it that whenever someone told Ayn Rand that they stopped reading their books, Ayn Rand said it was their own loss, not hers?

- Why is it that cults usually involve sacrifice to a higher power, both of which Ayn Rand has condemned?

Actually, just don't bother wasting time with this guy. He keeps on saying "There's nothing wrong with helping your fellow man", as if Ayn Rand never wanted us to help other people out. She just said that charity or helping others should never be a primary virtue.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy enough to turn the tables in arguments like that:

Say Objectivists only believe in something when it's a rational, objective fact. Ask if they do the same?

At this point they'll either need to concede that they believe in something irrational/non-objective, or they'll need to agree that the only worthwhile opinion is something held to be a rational, objective fact.

Of course you still need to present the CASE for something being an objective fact but at least you'll now be able to do so.

Yeah, easy enough... in theory. In practice it's very hard to argue in these circumstances where the other party is getting so emotional and there's even a friendship at stake. That's what I've found, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Wow, that's probably as fatiguing for me to read as I bet my posts have been to others trying to get through them. Now I know how you others feel. :dough: I decided to actually give it an essay length post in response, in part to see whether others agreed or disagreed that I understood Objectivism. There's disagreement elsewhere whether or not I understand Objectivism because i've argued devil's advocate on some things. So take this for what you will, these are my opinions. If you think i'm on the right track, tell me, if you think i've got it all wrong, please suggest I not post until I understand more in a PM. My goal is to try and provide interesting comments or things I hope people can take to use in debates elsewhere, not to bore you to death, if i'm failing i'll withdraw from the pro-Objectivist posts as well.

It first seems to be hating Objectivism for calling or claiming itself to be objective. It is an argument with words, because the same words mean or imply different things to different people. When I first read Atlas Shrugged I was shocked yet intrigued by some of what I was reading, reacting to what I thought it said before the context was fully established through example. Much of that confusion remained until I started Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

What I best understand it to be is that your Mind is the final arbiter. Only your Mind (the sole tool with which you can perceive the world) can determine whether an argument is true or not true, whether it is in line with your values (and your highest value is self preservation - to willingly be a sacrificial lamb is irrational because it is suicidal). If somebody cannot reach or appeal to your mind, it might be their failure to describe, or your failure to understand, but it is the ONLY possible tool you have. To agree to anything else, that is something irrational by refusing to judge with your Mind, is to allow others to control you by proxy and use you as a sacrificial lamb for their benefit or delusion. To do that either because someone has their hand in your pocket, or has the socialists controlling you exclusively "for the benefit of your great grandchildren" in their opinion, or the mystics controlling you to serve their idea of God. It is not objective to refuse to use the mind to judge.

The only alternative is to FORCE people to agree with you - but as Rand says, a gun is not an argument. If you have to use a gun to force them to do something, either 1) your argument is not rational, 2) you've failed to convince their mind of a rational reason to go along with what you suggest, 3) they are irrational and incapable of perceiving the truths just like a blind man cannot see the sun. Having the personal right to choose for yourself what is true, a free market of ideas, is the only possible cultural attitude to even allow a culture to ever arrive at the best ideas. Even if in some cases only the best of men will be able to perceive and use them and the howling mob will not because they are unable (blind) or unwilling (refuse/scared) to use their mind.

Even if you may actually be 'right', it is moral to allow them to make their own decision and bear the consequences of their decision. As the Buddists say, the best response to the fool is to let him persist in being a fool so that he may become wise. There is nothing moral about forcing someone to agree at gunpoint. Even if there is a case where someone else might actually know something better you don't win the argument with a gun. If the wise man were to use a gun to make the fool obey that is not moral. It is never moral or rational to initiate force, but only allowed in self defense to prevent one from being enslaved. To initiate force is either the realm of the tyrant, or the looter's mentality, to take what you could not produce for yourself, nor create something of equal value to trade in fair and consensual trade.

Your friends arguments about force would have to be:

- A looter mentality. Or...

- Forcing others to agree at gunpoint. Either because they believe they are wise, the person being forced is irrational, or most likely of all because what is being forced is NOT rational to the person at the other end of the gun, not in their interest, etc.

Objectivism cant be explained in a handful of words because there are an interrelated number of concepts. Very precise definitions of things like "altruism" and "self sacrifice" and "selfishness" that mean different things to the howling mob, and cause knee jerk reactions in most of them. It's a system, a mosaic that only makes sense when enough of the right pieces are in the right places to start to make a sensible picture, but if you take a single piece out of context it might just look like a blob of meaningless color or be assumed to be something else. I'm almost trying to define it by defining what it's not.

I think there are several reasons for Rand to call it Objectivism because you have to think in order to survive, the process of thinking leads to a sense of self, you have to preserve the self via your thinking and your judgment about your rational self interest, and you realize that all men of the mind will come to the same (that is objective) conclusions about this nature of reality with enough thinking. It is not subjective, because survival is not subjective and requires thought and judgment. Any compromise with the other paths lead to the literal or ideological suicide of the self and any path contributing to willful death is irrational. They are paths without thought, analysis, judgment, or virtue. They are sacrifice to an idea that exists only in someone else's mind which they judge as being some good, even if many people share the mass delusion. They are sacrifices to fantasies and delusions, because other ideas followed to their ultimate end lead to widespread destruction of social collapse.

Objectivism is objective because it allows everyone to determine the truth to the best of their ability, yet the best minds can verify all the axioms for themself. It taps into undeniable truths and observations about the human condition, it encompasses the only way man can live as a man, as a rational being, as a moral being, to best enable his own survival, and to best enable social survival in the long term sense.

That last segment is admittedly a value judgement. You have to accept the unprovable axiom that it is good for you to survive, and not be a slave, and for society to not destroy itself by looting the producers until none are left, and that anything in violation of that is irrational. Accepting those things starts a line of reasoning which makes Rand's conclusions self evident and self-proving.

Edited by Puppy Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...