Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Target Audiences

Rate this topic


Axiomatic

Recommended Posts

I can infer that by "dominant ethics of this age" you refer to altruism. You also are asserting a similarity in metaphysics, but I cannot guess on what basis. Both theist vs. atheist metaphysics can be compatible with the ethical altruism of socialism. Religious socialism is a real phenomena even if it is not something you have experienced.

Yes, I mean altruism. I am asserting that the religious right accept the notion of God in their metaphysics and that Libertarianism is agnostic on the issue and leaves the door open for any metaphysical position, including UFO's and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What do you think "intellectually dishonest" means? It is supposed to mean evading a truth or intentionally omitting evidence counter to your position. (I just looked it up). Are you asserting the dishonesty in being theist and altruist is somehow worse than the dishonesty in atheist altruism by socialists? No, I think you are saying the superficial identification of Republican and Libertarians with freedom and rights is dishonest while the economic authoritarianism of the socialists is not dishonest, and that 'not dishonest' means something significant.

I am asserting that the politics of individual rights and freedom is not at all compatible with altruistic ethical positions and religious metaphysical positions. As such I am stating that those who attempt to support freedom on that basis are intellectually dishonest in the wikipedia definition of the term you have cited

My response to this is that you are splitting hairs. There is no such thing as "Republicanism", a political party in the U.S. is not a philosophy. "Conservatism" and "Libertarianism" are ideologies but also incoherent jumbles. Broad generalizations about the psychoepistemologies of typical conservatives, libertarians and socialists are as unjustifiable as any other psychologizing.

I am not splitting hairs, where did I make any such broad generalisations about psychoepistomologies? I am stating, as a matter of fact, that socialists do not disconnect their ethics from their political views and as such they are more intellectually honest and consistent. People who wear the clothes and speak the rhetoric of freedom whilst holding altruistic ethics and metaphysical positions that are not consistent with reality however, are not intellectually honest in the manner I have stated. This invariably includes the religious Right and can also include Libertarians, who as is well known, have no consistent philosophical basis.

Your method of arguing for this case has been entirely based on what strings of words go together better, i.e. rationalism. The most common reason somebody is an atheist today is epistemological skepticism. This is not necessarily a more fruitful starting place from which to make the case for Objectivism than is theism.

No, I am outlining the difference between specific audiences and which would be most receptive to a philosophy which is intellectually consistent in morality, metaphysics, epistemology and politics. You however have just made a giant bit of rationalism by broadly generalizing about the epistemology of socialists.

The "Target Audience" is the whole world, whoever will listen. Fox News is a good platform to appear on by that standard because it actually has an audience.

The Target Audience should be whoever will be most receptive, but from which platform one stands dictates which kind of typical audience you are speaking too. For example, if I were to go and speak at a particular venue, say a KKK rally to choose an extreme context, then that audience is a subset of 'the whole world, but it is certainly not an audience that would be receptive to my message. Not only this but in speaking at that Klan rally I am implicitly saying that the Klan and the Klan host of the event are worthwhile people to have a discussion with. If I then proceed to agree with Klan members on political points, such as their position on wanting less government, then this is even worse.

Now, I did not bring up Fox News here and that can of worms is already open in existing thread, so take your argument over there.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not splitting hairs, where did I make any such broad generalisations about psychoepistomologies? I am stating, as a matter of fact, that socialists do not disconnect their ethics from their political views and as such they are more intellectually honest and consistent. People who wear the clothes and speak the rhetoric of freedom whilst holding altruistic ethics and metaphysical positions that are not consistent with reality however, are not intellectually honest in the manner I have stated. This invariably includes the religious Right and can also include Libertarians, who as is well known, have no consistent philosophical basis.

The habit of intellectual honesty, which you assert socialists have, is a psychoepistemological concept. You think it will save them and bring the into our orbit but it can just as well cause fully committed opposition.

No, I am outlining the difference between specific audiences and which would be most receptive to a philosophy which is intellectually consistent in morality, metaphysics, epistemology and politics. You however have just made a giant bit of rationalism by broadly generalizing about the epistemology of socialists.

First, one instance of generalizing by itself is not rationalizing. Second, your broad generalization that socialists are more intellectually honest than theists is the basis of this thread so if such generalizing is out of bounds the entire thread is self-refuting. Third, I deny that socialism can ever be the result of consistent intellectual honesty. The most important part of honesty is not mere consistency but truthfulness, reference and adherence to reality. The entire scaffolding of socialism is built on repeated evasions of inconvenient truths in epistemology, ethics, politics, economics, human nature, psychology, history ... I'll stop there. Just like a committed theist, a committed socialist has a long track record of intellectual crimes and is a poor candidate for rehabilitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, one instance of generalizing by itself is not rationalizing. Second, your broad generalization that socialists are more intellectually honest than theists is the basis of this thread so if such generalizing is out of bounds the entire thread is self-refuting. Third, I deny that socialism can ever be the result of consistent intellectual honesty. The most important part of honesty is not mere consistency but truthfulness, reference and adherence to reality. The entire scaffolding of socialism is built on repeated evasions of inconvenient truths in epistemology, ethics, politics, economics, human nature, psychology, history ... I'll stop there. Just like a committed theist, a committed socialist has a long track record of intellectual crimes and is a poor candidate for rehabilitation.

Whether or not a socialist *is* intellectually honest is not really the point I think. It's how much they are intellectually honest about. If someone thinks collectivism is a good thing, and they understand what collectivism means, they will recognize taxing the better off will be necessary. I know that is true, but since I recognize collectivism as immoral and what it requires to function as immoral, I won't do anything a collectivist thinks is proper. If you help them realize the evils of collectivism (which I really don't think is that difficult), they will simply re-evaluate what they think is right or wrong. The facts wouldn't change, but their moral evaluations of those facts would change. I think a conservative or a capital L libertarian will only say that taxation is bad and should be reduced, but not understand what freedom really means or what collectivism really means. I think such people take most facts as intuitive rather than thought out. I think spending time in front of a "liberal" audience would do more good than a "conservative" audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not a socialist *is* intellectually honest is not really the point I think. It's how much they are intellectually honest about. If someone thinks collectivism is a good thing, and they understand what collectivism means, they will recognize taxing the better off will be necessary. I know that is true, but since I recognize collectivism as immoral and what it requires to function as immoral, I won't do anything a collectivist thinks is proper. If you help them realize the evils of collectivism (which I really don't think is that difficult), they will simply re-evaluate what they think is right or wrong. The facts wouldn't change, but their moral evaluations of those facts would change. I think a conservative or a capital L libertarian will only say that taxation is bad and should be reduced, but not understand what freedom really means or what collectivism really means. I think such people take most facts as intuitive rather than thought out. I think spending time in front of a "liberal" audience would do more good than a "conservative" audience.

That is still a broad generalization to say that the liberals follow that train of thought at all as opposed to simply agreeing on the major hot topics and divorcing their morality from it altogether. As has been said before political parties -are not- philosophical movements. There is no guaranty whatsoever that any member of such a party has taken the time to rationalize out that particular chain of thought in regards to their morality.

If you were saying that the ideology of the modern liberal movement is more intellectually honest than the ideology of the modern conservative movement, then you would be correct. However, the individuals which make up that movement do not have the consistency to even understand the principles involved -in their own political party.-

If you want to start 'targeting' a particular audience to effect widespread cultural change, then target children. It is through the education of children that an ideology gains widespread acceptance. The morality of altruism has had many generations to take root. I do not believe it will take as long for rational self interest to dominate, however there is no rushing it. We must get the word out through every possible medium, so long as in doing so we do not compromise with falsehoods and looters, so that the next generation will have the seed of these ideas planted, and they will be that much more acceptable.

Childrens' minds must be affected, be they the children of democrats or of republicans or of libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The habit of intellectual honesty, which you assert socialists have, is a psychoepistemological concept. You think it will save them and bring the into our orbit but it can just as well cause fully committed opposition.

Yes it is, but you are taking it outside the strict context which I outilined.

First, one instance of generalizing by itself is not rationalizing. Second, your broad generalization that socialists are more intellectually honest than theists is the basis of this thread so if such generalizing is out of bounds the entire thread is self-refuting.

I made no such assertion. Read my arguments again.

Third, I deny that socialism can ever be the result of consistent intellectual honesty. The most important part of honesty is not mere consistency but truthfulness, reference and adherence to reality.

You are dropping the strict context in which I employ the concept of intellectual honesty

The entire scaffolding of socialism is built on repeated evasions of inconvenient truths in epistemology, ethics, politics, economics, human nature, psychology, history ... I'll stop there. Just like a committed theist, a committed socialist has a long track record of intellectual crimes and is a poor candidate for rehabilitation.

I have not specified 'committed' socialists as a target audience. I agree that socialism is built upon evasion but it is consistent in its deriving from its ethics a full political philosophy, that no doubt needs to be refuted directly.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot get from "socialism is consistent and intellectually honest" to "socialists can be receptive to Objectivism" without transforming 'socialism' into 'socialists'. If you are not imputing intellectual honesty to particular socialists as a result of the consistency in socialism, then how do you do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot get from "socialism is consistent and intellectually honest"

I did not once state that the political philosophy of socialism was consistent (with reality) or intellectually honest (as a political philosophy in relation to reality). I am saying that socialists are intellectually honest in the strict sense that they connect their ethics to their political philosophy in a consistent manner.

to "socialists can be receptive to Objectivism" without transforming 'socialism' into 'socialists'. If you are not imputing intellectual honesty to particular socialists as a result of the consistency in socialism, then how do you do it?

Read my answer above.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that socialists are intellectually honest in the strict sense that they connect their ethics to their political philosophy in a consistent manner.

I repeat, mere consistency is not enough to establish intellectual honesty. Not for socialism, not for socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused about the way you're using the term "intellectual honesty". Is it synonymous with "consistency of premises"?

You seem to be saying that the political principle of socialism is more consistent with the morality of altruism. i.e. that anyone who starts from altruism would get to socialism if he were consistent. Is that the sum of your proposition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat, mere consistency is not enough to establish intellectual honesty. Not for socialism, not for socialists.

Agreed, but you are missing the point. Intellectual honesty in the context I am stating is the recognition of the connection between political theory and ethics. Those who divorce ethics from political theory are of course more intellectually dishonest as they knowingly evade the truth of their ethics and the implications in political application. I am not going to repeat myself again as you are the one now splitting hairs when I have made myself abundantly clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat, mere consistency is not enough to establish intellectual honesty. Not for socialism, not for socialists.
Further, it is false to claim that socialism is more consistent with altruism than is a mixed economy, unless one also adds in other assumptions about economics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, it is false to claim that socialism is more consistent with altruism than is a mixed economy, unless one also adds in other assumptions about economics.

How so? I certainly think that outright socialism is more consistent with altruism than a mixed economy based upon mixed premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we need to widen the context for it to be useful and supportive of ANY conclusion? Hmmm.....

Exactly. From the Lexicon

Knowledge is contextual . . . By “context” we mean the sum of cognitive elements conditioning the acquisition, validity or application of any item of human knowledge. Knowledge is an organization or integration of interconnected elements, each relevant to the others . . . Knowledge is not a mosaic of independent pieces each of which stands apart from the rest . . . .

In regard to any concept, idea, proposal, theory, or item of knowledge, never forget or ignore the context on which it depends and which conditions its validity and use.

Intellectual honesty cannot be reduced to theoretical consistency because it drops the context of what else honesty is, adherence to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly think that outright socialism is more consistent with altruism than a mixed economy based upon mixed premises.
There are at least a few steps from "altruism is good" to "socialism is good". If you're arguing that one does lead to the other in practice and over time, I'd agree. However, as I understand it, you're talking about consistency of argument; and, I don't see how one logically follows from another. Perhaps it does, but it depends on what other premises one introduces.

You seem to be implying the following logical sequence:

  1. Altruism is good
  2. The government should enforce altruism
  3. Extensive state ownership and/or control is the best way to implement such altruism

I don't see how each of those necessarily follows from the previous one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual honesty cannot be reduced to theoretical consistency because it drops the context of what else honesty is, adherence to reality.

OK, if this is merely an argument over usage of the term 'honesty', then I will drop that term and use 'consistent' in its place. Consistency however is not the meat of my argument, the meat of my argument is the acceptance of the implications of accepting a notion in one philosophical category and being true to its consequences higher up in the philosophical heir-achy.

If one can see and understand this, one already has an adequate understanding of the power of ideas and how they shape every aspect of ones life and how we interact with the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you start with 'intellectual honesty' but then are willing to drop honesty and even consistency, aren't you just left with 'intellectual'? Either 'socialists are intellectual' is a class distinction and you are turning your nose up at those anti-intellectual Jesus-freaks or you are saying that theists can't be just as good at rationalism as secular socialists.

To which I would answer, deal with individuals not class prejudices. Not every theist is an evangelical speaker-in-tongues, there are theist intellectuals. They engage in rationalism as thoroughly as the socialists. I don't see how you can make the case that the metaphysical idealism of a theist is somehow a worse mistake than the materialist determinism of a socialist. In my own understanding both positions are in fact ways to be subjectivist so neither is closer to Objectivism.

Also, the importance of a hierarchy in knowledge is an idea found in Objectivism derived from the theory of concepts. I don't think the "consistency of socialism" is creditable because it is not intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
You seem to be implying the following logical sequence:

  1. Altruism is good
  2. The government should enforce altruism
  3. Extensive state ownership and/or control is the best way to implement such altruism

I don't see how each of those necessarily follows from the previous one.

I think I can see where it could logically be stated that 3 follows 2. The best (not meaning desirable or good but simply complete and/or efficient) way to make something univeral in an imperfect world is to use compulsion.

The sequence breaks for me when 2 tries to follow 1. Because something is good does not mean it should be forced. Cake is good... I don't think that means I should ram a piece down my neighbor's throat. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be implying the following logical sequence:

  1. Altruism is good
  2. The government should enforce altruism
  3. Extensive state ownership and/or control is the best way to implement such altruism

I don't see how each of those necessarily follows from the previous one.

You're missing the big step in there, SNerd. It usually goes like this:

1. Altruism is good.

2. People aren't altruistic on their own and we can't convince them to be.

3. People must be *forced* to be altruistic.

4. Where's a medium of force? Oh, yeah, the government. It should make everyone be altruistic. Result: Socialism/Fascism/Communism.

Socialism/Communism follows directly and automatically from Altruism because of the *method* by which someone decides that altruism is good, i.e. irrationality. It is the irrational nature of Altruism that requires force to impose it, because people won't just adopt it on their own and no rational argument exists that would convince them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can see where it could logically be stated that 3 follows 2. The best (not meaning desirable or good but simply complete and/or efficient) way to make something univeral in an imperfect world is to use compulsion.

The sequence breaks for me when 2 tries to follow 1. Because something is good does not mean it should be forced. Cake is good... I don't think that means I should ram a piece down my neighbor's throat. B)

A collectivist would not even consider thing like taxation to be force for reasons that lead them to be a collectivist in the first place. It certainly does follow that if one is an altruist that the world should operate as a collective whole.

Of course, it doesn't follow from anything that altruism is good, so the root premises are certainly irrational. But it would also be irrational for a person to say that too much regulation is force (like a Republican would) if a person is a collectivist. I can at least follow a socialist's logic. But a typical Republican makes utterly no sense to me if they talk about more than 1 topic at once because its they're so inconsistent with even their own premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it doesn't follow from anything that altruism is good, so the root premises are certainly irrational. But it would also be irrational for a person to say that too much regulation is force (like a Republican would) if a person is a collectivist. I can at least follow a socialist's logic. But a typical Republican makes utterly no sense to me if they talk about more than 1 topic at once because its they're so inconsistent with even their own premises.

This was pretty much my whole point.

Socialists at least have some logical consistency. That qualifies them as better candidates for rational discourse than any republican or libertard. Many socialists can understand that A leads to B which leads to C.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to comment
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...