KodoKB Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I have often heard, and agree with, the Objectivist answer that a failure of knowledge is not a failure of principle. But what about people who do not grasp the proper principles of thinking? They are destined to come to many false and bad ideas, and if they really believe them and act accordingly will act badly. How does one judge them? When people followed untrue beliefs--like the belief in god--earlier in human history it seems more excusable. In today's modern and western culture, however, it seems much less so. Are there cultural and time-based standards of what someone should believe due to the type of evidence around them? Are there similar standards for the type of intellectual methodology one should have? I ask these questions because without them, it is hard for me to see the justification for me judging an ignorant person as evil without knowing why they are ignorant. More broadly, I guess I'm asking: is there a basic level of knowledge of proper epistemological methods (in an implicit or explicit sense) that Objectivism assumes people should develop? If yes, why? If no, does one judge certain ignorant people as bad? If yes to that, what's the justification? Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. I've been chewing this problem for a week and haven't gotten very far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 This earlier thread may have some answers. There's an older one that's about judgement, but not on your specific question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KodoKB Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Thanks softwareNerd; I enjoyed those theads. While many opinions there echoed my own about how and why one should judge others, I'd still like to delve into the more metaphysical-nature-of-man based level of validating those judgements. Again, if anyone has thoughts to share about that, I'd appreciate reading them. Edited June 22, 2015 by KodoKB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Outside the realm of morality, its pretty clear there are things a modern who has been through an average schooling ought to know. That the earth is not flat. That the sun is at the center of our solar system, with the planets around it. That rain and thunder do not come from Yu Shi, or Zeus, or Indra. At the level of epistemology, such moderns have little excuse not to be mostly reality-oriented in notions about causation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) This is closely related to one of the issues that caused the split between Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. My understanding of the split is that Peikoff thinks that people who take certain non-Objectivist positions, like Marxism, can automatically be condemned as evaders. He calls these positions "inherently dishonest ideas." Kelley, by contrast, thinks that even in these cases we need to accumulate evidence about the person for a long period of time before we condemn them as dishonest. Kelley is also more inclined than Peikoff to think that Objectivists can benefit from interacting with people who reject fundamental components of Objectivism. (To be clear, Peikoff denies that Kelley and his followers are Objectivists, although to my knowledge Kelley does not return the favor.) You can read Peikoff's article in defense of his position on the split, "Fact and Value," here. As the title suggests, he explains how his position integrates with other Objectivist philosophical principles like the unity of fact and value. https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/Fact-and-Value Kelley has also written a book defending his position on the split against this article. The book is available online for free, although a quick Google search did not turn anything up, so perhaps someone else has the link. Both Peikoff and Kelley, and their respective followers, continue to turn out valuable philosophical work defending Objectivism. In my experience online, most Objectivists who have an interest in philosophy just ignore the split and study the work produced by both sides. Edit: I want to add a couple of things to this for clarity. First, there are non-Objectivist ideas like theism that Peikoff explicitly says are not inherently dishonest. Second, there were other important issues involved in the Peikoff - Kelley split, like whether or not Objectivism is a closed system. Edited June 24, 2015 by William O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 William said: Both Peikoff and Kelley, and their respective followers, continue to turn out valuable philosophical work defending Objectivism. In my experience online, most Objectivists who have an interest in philosophy just ignore the split and study the work produced by both sides. This might work for some until one is confronted with the real world necessity to judge on issues that the split is central to. Then suddenly the evasion or seeming lack of relevance of the subject becomes value threatening. 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.