What's the correct response to this?

[iflyboats]

A mystic (I think) on reddit writes:

"Objectivism claims to be a completely secular philosophy, but basically enjoins one to have faith in the supremacy of reason."

Is this a skeptic argument equivalent to saying "we know that we know nothing?" The person is making a claim to firm knowledge, which, if it were true, he would have had to use reason to validate?

Edited May 16, 2013 by iflyboats

[softwareNerd]

In essence, the comment is not about Objectivism, but about anyone who claims that reason is better than faith. The person is saying that there is no such thing as reason. Of course he is lying. he uses reason numerous times a day: for instance, when he gets into his car, he does not pray, he does not run around it three times chanting abra-ca-dabra, he follows a certain process. This process he now wants to call "faith". Supposedly, he has "faith" that the car will start. And, if you have faith that circling it in costume will work better, then that's your faith, and there is no way to say one faith is better than the other. Obviously, he is lying about what he really thinks.

Edited May 16, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Eiuol]

Considering you saw it on reddit, I think the comment is more like: "Objectivism claims to be secular and for reason, but it's more like a cult/religion and treats reason as a matter of faith". It's not really a claim about knowledge really. Something like Objectivism doesn't validate reason, just takes reason as obvious and therefore more like faith. Except, that's all wrong, and there is a lot of Objectivist literature on what reason is, why it's not automatic, why reason is a method that requires effort as opposed to flowing passively into your mind. As far as I can tell, many people see Objectivism as intrinsicism - intrinsicism *should* be rejected. As an example, people like Kant or Descartes and other rationalists believe in the supremacy of reason, but as intrinsicists ultimately, their form of "reason" is more like faith. That person on reddit probably has a good point, but is misapplying the idea to Objectivism (and if you so choose, you can educate that poster if you think they will listen).

 

Then again, it's possible that it's just a trite phrase used to bash Objectivism like the cool kids are supposed to do, as opposed to an actual philosophical point.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Eiuol

[tadmjones]

I also wasn't aware of o'ism 'enjoining' one to anything, so I doubt the implication of understanding o'ism is correct in the first place

[thenelli01]

I saw an interview a while ago with Ayn Rand and that statement (or a variant of it) was asked to her. She responded that she doesn't have faith, only convictions. And that is the point. Faith is believing in something with the absence of evidence i.e. not based on reality. Reason is the means to acquiring knowledge based on the facts of reality. Reason is a process that is clearly defined in Objectivist and other literature.

 

Basically he is saying, if you have a conviction or agree with something (anything), it is "faith". No matter how much evidence or logic is behind it --- Everything is faith.

Edited May 17, 2013 by thenelli01

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

I for one think there are some great reasons to use reason and no reason not to. 

 

Someone who regards all knowledge as arbitrary however will simply rephrase that premise whenever they hear it said that it isn't in a specific field.

He'd probably just as soon say you have faith in; cows door knobs the color blue and the letter I.

[Devil's Advocate]

Here's the response that came to mind after reading your quote...

 

"It is important to distinguish between belief and knowledge. What one believes, one cannot know. What one knows, one cannot believe. To believe something means that its perceived veracity depends upon the subjective loyalty of the believer, based upon reason, personal experience, or some other compelling catalyst to such faith; to know something depends upon its being provable as fact." ~ Rabbi Irving Greenberg

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I would inquire as to what else we should place our faith in.

"Objectivism claims to be a completely secular philosophy, but basically enjoins one to have faith in the supremacy of reason."

That implies that our belief in the supremacy of reason is arbitrary and causeless (this is connoted by "faith") and that there are plenty of alternatives to that faith.  So, what would they be?

Faith in the supremacy of emotions?  Faith in the supremacy of instincts?  Faith in the supremacy of buttered toast?

 

This isn't a rational assertion and I sincerely doubt that any thought went into it.  If you do respond I would treat it as if he had declared France to be far too purple for the astronaut; the actual content in either statement is identical.

[Druckenmiller]

In addition to all of the great comments concerning knowledge and convictions vice faith and belief, the other correct response is that the supremacy of reason is deducible by way of the metaphysical axioms and objectivist epistemology.  Certainly, it is possible to disagree with the conclusions drawn from those processes, but it is not based on "faith", rather it is based on deduced argumentation.