Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am semi-convinced by the philosophy and I keep coming back to it because I support its fundamental premises regarding metaphysics and epistemology. 

Ultimately, all with have is our minds and our senses to know reality. I get that. 

However, what is an Objectivist to do when the vast majority of people refuse to think, refuse to exercise reason?

So my problems are more with the applicability and practicality of Objectivism on the macro scale in the real world.

Take mass immigration and/or open borders. 

It is obvious that open borders today would destroy western civilisation. Perhaps it is true Objectivism logically leads to the advocacy of open borders but it is also suicidal in the current circumstances. 

So please share your issues with the philosophy and what you think the solutions are? 

Clearly I am directing this more toward people who think the philosophy can be revised or at least expanded upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd like to think my reference to the other stink juice inspired it.

But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is.  And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality)

Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence: Personali

Posted Images

I don't tackle mass immigration or open borders. I can advocate for or against them.

When it comes to Objectivism, as a philosophy, it is a philosophy for individuals to live by. Fixing the politics is merely a fortunate side-effect that will come from successful implementation of the moral aspects outlined and advocated in your own life. As a living example of being able to successfully deal with the world, identify essential issues from inessential ones, surrounding yourself with what you value leaving no space for what is not a value to you.

In short, it is a philosophy that has be embraced by those who choose to embrace it. It cannot be imposed on a macro scale. Man's nature forbids it to be imposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

However, what is an Objectivist to do when the vast majority of people refuse to think, refuse to exercise reason?

So my problems are more with the applicability and practicality of Objectivism on the macro scale in the real world.

Why would the "applicability and practicality of Objectivism" have anything whatever to do with what the "vast majority of people" think or do?

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

Take mass immigration and/or open borders. 

It is obvious that open borders today would destroy western civilisation. Perhaps it is true Objectivism logically leads to the advocacy of open borders but it is also suicidal in the current circumstances. 

It's usually impossible to consider a single political issue in isolation because "controls necessitate further controls." Closed borders will often appear necessary because of other bad government policies, such as welfare statism, or failure to fight wars of self-defense. In order to open the borders, the other bad policies have to be unwound first; then, closed borders would no longer be necessary. I do think it would be suicidal to open the borders without unwinding those bad policies, though.

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

So please share your issues with the philosophy and what you think the solutions are?

Clearly I am directing this more toward people who think the philosophy can be revised or at least expanded upon.

Anybody can propose a new philosophy, but I don't see the need. I don't think there are any issues with Objectivism.

There are issues with people, though -- they reject the philosophy for incorrect reasons, or sometimes they accept it for incorrect reasons, or sometimes they advocate it incorrectly, or apply it incorrectly.

There are also issues that are simply complicated, and it might take a lot of work to apply Objectivism to those issues.

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

I don't tackle mass immigration or open borders. I can advocate for or against them.

When it comes to Objectivism, as a philosophy, it is a philosophy for individuals to live by. Fixing the politics is merely a fortunate side-effect that will come from successful implementation of the moral aspects outlined and advocated in your own life. As a living example of being able to successfully deal with the world, identify essential issues from inessential ones, surrounding yourself with what you value leaving no space for what is not a value to you.

In short, it is a philosophy that has be embraced by those who choose to embrace it. It cannot be imposed on a macro scale. Man's nature forbids it to be imposed.

The politics will only be fixed though if the moral aspects are successfully implemented by a significant portion of the population. That’s the issue. How do we reach that stage?
 

Please could you put forward your Objectivist case against open borders? I’d love to hear it. 
 

My biggest fear regarding open borders is not the welfare state related arguments but the cultural impact and potential instability resulting from a multiracial/cultural society. I do not see how a free society can survive the cultural onslaught that would come from Arab and Asian nations in particular. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Why would the "applicability and practicality of Objectivism" have anything whatever to do with what the "vast majority of people" think or do?

Because the political application of the philosophy depends on what the majority think.

51 minutes ago, necrovore said:

It's usually impossible to consider a single political issue in isolation because "controls necessitate further controls." Closed borders will often appear necessary because of other bad government policies, such as welfare statism, or failure to fight wars of self-defense. In order to open the borders, the other bad policies have to be unwound first; then, closed borders would no longer be necessary. I do think it would be suicidal to open the borders without unwinding those bad policies, though.

I agree. But what about the cultural impact. The anti-freedom mystics are already breeding at a much faster rate than even the consequentialist freedom lovers, let alone the rights based ones. 
Importing more anti-freedom mystics in their droves gives a free society little chance of survival does it not?

51 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Anybody can propose a new philosophy, but I don't see the need. I don't think there are any issues with Objectivism.

There are issues with people, though -- they reject the philosophy for incorrect reasons, or sometimes they accept it for incorrect reasons, or sometimes they advocate it incorrectly, or apply it incorrectly.

There are also issues that are simply complicated, and it might take a lot of work to apply Objectivism to those issues.

Which complicated issues come to mind? Perhaps biology related ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence:

Personality predicts sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction predicts personality.

Artistic taste predicts personality.

Personality predicts artistic taste.

Childhood literary exposure predicts adult character.

Philosophical training and belief predict intellectual efficacy.

This is not to say that one couldn't test these claims, only that I haven't seen such tests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

Because the political application of the philosophy depends on what the majority think.

That was the best part of Atlas Shrugged when John Galt had to convince the majority before doing what he wanted

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

The politics will only be fixed though if the moral aspects are successfully implemented by a significant portion of the population. That’s the issue. How do we reach that stage?

You start with yourself and let others manage themselves.

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

Please could you put forward your Objectivist case against open borders? I’d love to hear it.

It would not be an Objectivist case. It would only be an objective case were I so inclined.

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

My biggest fear regarding open borders is not the welfare state related arguments but the cultural impact and potential instability resulting from a multiracial/cultural society. I do not see how a free society can survive the cultural onslaught that would come from Arab and Asian nations in particular.

Consider, too, the role compulsory education contributes as an obstacle going forward.

If you're still intent on changing the world (or even just standing up for America) consider the advice provided in the hidden comment by William McRaven:

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Reidy said:

Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence:

Personality predicts sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction predicts personality.

Artistic taste predicts personality.

Personality predicts artistic taste.

Childhood literary exposure predicts adult character.

Philosophical training and belief predict intellectual efficacy.

This is not to say that one couldn't test these claims, only that I haven't seen such tests.

You've touched on one of my ongoing issues with Objectivism here. I am concerned that the philosophy leaves insufficent room for the complicated nature of psychology and how the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes affects decision making/human behaviour.

You may have noticed I posted another question asking for any Objectivist writings on heuristics.

If my concern is misplaced, please could you or anyone explain why?

Sexual attraction is a good one. The Objectivist position on this has changed over time. Before, homosexuality was simply a case of holding the wrong premises. Now it is one's nature.

Even if it is true that ultimately we have free will and we have the final say on our actions, it seems to me that certain biological processes exert a bias on human behaviour; the pain of hunger exerting an incentive to eat food, orgasms to have sex, endorphins influencing behaviour, all the biological processes resulting from evolution and natural selection etc.

How does Objectivism approach these issues? For exmaple, what do you make of Jordan Peterson's point about the biological determinism, or at least bias, toward the creation of hierarchies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

Clearly I am directing this more toward people who think the philosophy can be revised or at least expanded upon.

I don't believe Rand's philosophy is mine to revise or expand upon. I have, however, criticized her position regarding public property. And so I think her definition of capitalism is mistaken and partly accounts for some of our rifts when it comes to politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, 2046 said:

That was the best part of Atlas Shrugged when John Galt had to convince the majority before doing what he wanted

I assume this is sarcasm? Please could you be more specific about the point you are making? I am referring to the politics of entire countries, not a small group of Objectivists practicing Objectivist politics in a valley.

I cannot do what I want here in the UK. My rights are severely restricted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

I do not see how a free society can survive the cultural onslaught that would come from Arab and Asian nations in particular. 

If we are talking about immigrants rather than refugees, most immigrants come to the US because they see US society is better than where they came from. They are already open and wanting to gradually change their viewpoint to one consistent with America. And then their children are pretty much as American as anyone else. All that this means is that if the culture is healthy and strong, immigrants will come because they seek that health and strength. If the culture is unhealthy and weak, and the immigrant's culture is by comparison stronger, then of course the immigrant's prior culture will take over instead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

You start with yourself and let others manage themselves.

I appreciate the sentiment but letting others manage themselves means my rights being severely restricted. That is the current state of affairs.

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

It would not be an Objectivist case. It would only be an objective case were I so inclined.

Please do share it.

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Consider, too, the role compulsory education contributes as an obstacle going forward.

Yes, as a temporary step, do you support the 'infiltration' of the education system? If we cannot privatise it currently, the least we can do is wrestle it back off the leftists.

30 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

If you're still intent on changing the world (or even just standing up for America) consider the advice provided in the hidden comment by William McRaven:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great advice. I'm all for self-improvement and I'm a big fan of motivational speakers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If we are talking about immigrants rather than refugees, most immigrants come to the US because they see US society is better than where they came from. They are already open and wanting to gradually change their viewpoint to one consistent with America. And then their children are pretty much as American as anyone else. All that this means is that if the culture is healthy and strong, immigrants will come because they seek that health and strength. If the culture is unhealthy and weak, and the immigrant's culture is by comparison stronger, then of course the immigrant's prior culture will take over instead.

 

Agreed. There is more than enough evidence to conclude that culture can be transplanted from one people to another, including from one race to another. Thomas Sowell's example of black American ghetto culture originating with white southern rednecks who came from Scotland and Ireland is a good one.

Another good example is the increase in the ethnic minority vote for Trump.

On the other hand, we know the transplantation is a very slow process. The ethnic minority vote for Trump was still only a very small percentage of the total ethnic minority vote, despite the increase.

So, if we know these things, is it possible to create an objective, if not Objectivist, case to limit immigration based on the likelihood that without that limit, our relatively free society will be destroyed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 12:48 PM, TruthSeeker946 said:

I am concerned that the philosophy leaves insufficent room for the complicated nature of psychology and how the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes affects decision making/human behaviour.

We have the power to choose rationally.  To the extent that instead we let our emotions do our thinking for us, we leave ourselves very vulnerable to the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 1:04 PM, TruthSeeker946 said:
On 2/18/2021 at 12:24 PM, dream_weaver said:

You start with yourself and let others manage themselves.

I appreciate the sentiment but letting others manage themselves means my rights being severely restricted. That is the current state of affairs.

How do you propose to alter human nature? Are you proposing that others need to be managed since self-management mysteriously leads to your rights being severely restricted, as is the current state of affairs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 1:14 PM, TruthSeeker946 said:

On the other hand, we know the transplantation is a very slow process. The ethnic minority vote for Trump was still only a very small percentage of the total ethnic minority vote, despite the increase.

Do we? If you mean first-generation adults, perhaps. If you mean the children of that first-generation, not really, they will assimilate just as well as any other child. Carnegie was born in Scotland by the way, it is not as if some standout Americans that we think of as Americans are never immigrants.

By the way, the example you gave of ethnic minorities voting for Trump doesn't have anything to do with adapting to a culture. On top of that, not all ethnic minorities are immigrants... 

On 2/18/2021 at 1:14 PM, TruthSeeker946 said:

case to limit immigration based on the likelihood that without that limit, our relatively free society will be destroyed?

What kind of limitation are you thinking of? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 11:50 AM, MisterSwig said:

I don't believe Rand's philosophy is mine to revise or expand upon.

But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is.  And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality) then there has only ever been one Objectivist and I doubt there will ever be another one.

 

On a purely personal note I find the "student of Objectivism" or "admirer of Ayn Rand" terminology extremely self-deprecating and sad.  It's one thing if you can't bring yourself to actually LIVE the philosophy, but if you're doing everything you can to live up to your own ideals then I think you deserve to say so.  As I intend to!  ;)

 

On 2/18/2021 at 12:14 PM, TruthSeeker946 said:

So, if we know these things, is it possible to create an objective, if not Objectivist, case to limit immigration based on the likelihood that without that limit, our relatively free society will be destroyed?

No.

 

Fundamentally, each of us has a right to the freedom of movement (including international movement) so long as we're not doing so for any nefarious purpose (such as terrorism).  There are no two ways around that.  And while it's true that we can't simultaneously have open borders and a welfare state, one of these things is already strangling the West to death regardless of WHAT we do with our borders.

This is neither to say that O'ism is a "closed" system (which I don't believe) nor that anyone who advocates for closed borders automatically ceases to be an O'ist; only that certain tenets of the philosophy are more essential than others, and that Rand's conception of individual rights is a rather core component of it.  If you remove or alter that part then it ceases to be the philosophy of Howard Roark or John Galt and becomes something tangibly different.

That being said...

While we should have "open" borders that allow any civilized person to live wherever the Hell they want, it does make sense for us to have some sort of screening process to ensure that potential immigrants are, in fact, civilized people who aren't planning on manufacturing sarin gas or instituting Sharia law as soon as they arrive.  And since we should be trying to constrain the welfare state as much as we possibly can, it seems prudent to also say something like no immigrant can ever qualify for any sort of government handout, for example.  Once we had something like that in place we could then start trying to talk about whether we should really be giving handouts to anyone at all.

The Objectivist position on borders is that they should be open - within reason.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say that you can't still call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with that position - just that you're currently wrong.  :P  But that happens to us all.

On 2/18/2021 at 12:14 PM, TruthSeeker946 said:

On the other hand, we know the transplantation is a very slow process.

Do we know that, though?

I once knew an immigrant couple from Nepal who, despite not speaking the best English, acted like some of the most American people I've ever met.  The one time I made the mistake of referring to them as Nepali-Americans I was swiftly told on no uncertain terms that they were full-fledged Americans like myself.  That couple took about two years to become almost entirely integrated (with the exception of some slight accents that I'm sure they've ditched by now).

I bring them up, not to say that transplantation is quick, but simply to point out that it depends on whom we are talking about transplanting.  Some people drag their feet while others are eager to get it out of the way ASAP.

 

And those who drag their feet about it, and set up little miniature versions of their respective homelands - do they actually want to BE American (or British)?  If not then what we should really be asking about are their motives for trying to enter our countries in the first place.  I also know a number of Somali immigrants to my area who have no intention of ever integrating, learning English or getting a job; they came to America for the handouts.  Handouts which should not exist in the first place.

On 2/18/2021 at 7:49 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

I agree. But what about the cultural impact. The anti-freedom mystics are already breeding at a much faster rate than even the consequentialist freedom lovers, let alone the rights based ones. 
Importing more anti-freedom mystics in their droves gives a free society little chance of survival does it not?

And yet children do not automatically inherit their parents' philosophies (as I am living proof of and suspect that you probably are as well).

On 2/18/2021 at 11:48 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

You've touched on one of my ongoing issues with Objectivism here. I am concerned that the philosophy leaves insufficent room for the complicated nature of psychology and how the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes affects decision making/human behaviour.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

Objectivism doesn't deny the existence of feelings (including hunger, fear, sexual desire, etc).  All it really has to say about them is that not all are valid (i.e. some feelings are not worth paying any attention to) and that they aren't a method for decision making.  They can be perfectly valid data on which to base your decisions, but the method should consist of rational thought.  So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point to.

 

 

 

On 2/18/2021 at 7:49 AM, TruthSeeker946 said:

[The] political application of the philosophy depends on what the majority think.

The majority is lucky to inhabit MY world with me!

 

PS:

 

Too much of a focus on politics is not good for you.  I know it can be very hard to focus on anything other than politics nowadays (I've been struggling with it quite a bit since the start of the COVID era) but the trajectory of your own life is much more important.  If you rationally think that the country you're in will only continue getting worse then you should move.  And (although I don't think you've actually said this I'll just mention) what most people accept as their own philosophy should certainly have ZERO relevance to what you accept as your own.  Furthermore (as in the above music video) the best way to get others interested in your own philosophy is to actually make something of yourself and show them there's something of practical value to it.

Hyperfocusing on the beliefs of the majority is a path to the dark side.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
postscript
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 5:50 PM, MisterSwig said:

I don't believe Rand's philosophy is mine to revise or expand upon. I have, however, criticized her position regarding public property. And so I think her definition of capitalism is mistaken and partly accounts for some of our rifts when it comes to politics. 

Thanks. Rand revised and expanded on Aristotle. I'm not saying it necessarily has to still be called Objectivism. It depends how big the changes are.

19 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

We have the power to choose rationally.  To the extent that instead we let our emotions do our thinking for us, we leave ourselves very vulnerable to the subconscious and/or genetics/biological processes.

I agree. The problem is very few people choose to think, to be rational, and even among those who attempt it, there is fierce disagreement.

We know that it takes a deliberate, conscious effort to focus and think rationally, which can be a draining process, and most people simply 'go with the grain' so to speak, meaning to avoid the burden of thinking for oneself in large areas of their lives and having faith in established patterns of thought and action, passed down over generations, essentially allowing them to econmise on the time and effort that goes into thinking everything through rationally on their own.

But also to 'go with the grain' in the sense of those biological processes we are referring to. Perhaps those processes themselves exert a 'bias' or incentive against thinking too much. An obvious example, which may be just the tip of the iceberg, is the painful sensation one feels when focusing over a prolonged period. Another is IQ. The higher the IQ, the easier it probably is to spend the same amount of time focusing and thinking rationally, so the lower the incentive to 'switch off'.

15 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

How do you propose to alter human nature? Are you proposing that others need to be managed since self-management mysteriously leads to your rights being severely restricted, as is the current state of affairs?

I don't propose altering human nature, though in the future this may be possible with new technology, and may be the only way for humans to ever behave on a mass scale in the way Rand had advocated.

I understood 'manage themselves' to include politics. It's not particularly mysterious why my rights are severely restricted. We live in a democratic system where people can vote away my rights/resources.

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Do we? If you mean first-generation adults, perhaps. If you mean the children of that first-generation, not really, they will assimilate just as well as any other child. Carnegie was born in Scotland by the way, it is not as if some standout Americans that we think of as Americans are never immigrants.

By the way, the example you gave of ethnic minorities voting for Trump doesn't have anything to do with adapting to a culture. On top of that, not all ethnic minorities are immigrants... 

What kind of limitation are you thinking of? 

I suppose we would need to be more specific about what we mean by assimilate and of course it varies depending on the immigrant group.

In the UK, Muslims are extremely out of step with the average on attitudes toward women and gays. For example, a recent study found that half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. I disagree that the average child of Muslim immigrants will assimilate to British culture just as well as the average child of indigenous Brits.

The problem is that immigrants tend to concentrate in particular areas so that the area becomes a microcosm of their homeland to an extent. I was in one of those areas recently, which is dominated by Muslims. I walked past a school in the area and it was about 90% Muslim.

Limitations based on values essentially. Discriminatory immigration policies. Perhaps a cap on Muslim immigration to stem the flow. The larger and faster particular immigrant groups grow, the more self-sustaining their culture is and the more resistant to outside influence.

 

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Fundamentally, each of us has a right to the freedom of movement (including international movement) so long as we're not doing so for any nefarious purpose (such as terrorism).  There are no two ways around that.

I fear you are right.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

While we should have "open" borders that allow any civilized person to live wherever the Hell they want, it does make sense for us to have some sort of screening process to ensure that potential immigrants are, in fact, civilized people who aren't planning on manufacturing sarin gas or instituting Sharia law as soon as they arrive.  And since we should be trying to constrain the welfare state as much as we possibly can, it seems prudent to also say something like no immigrant can ever qualify for any sort of government handout, for example.  Once we had something like that in place we could then start trying to talk about whether we should really be giving handouts to anyone at all.

I agree so where do we draw the line on this? Perhaps there is a rational case to impose discriminatory immigration policies based on values.

You say institute Sharia law as soon as they arrive. What about simply being in favour of it? Of wanting to see it in the host country? Such a person is an enemy. There must be a rational case against immigrants who want to come here and violate our rights/don't recognise those rights, pledging allegiance to Allah, the Quran and sharia law etc.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The Objectivist position on borders is that they should be open - within reason.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say that you can't still call yourself an Objectivist if you disagree with that position - just that you're currently wrong.  :P  But that happens to us all.

Do we know that, though?

I once knew an immigrant couple from Nepal who, despite not speaking the best English, acted like some of the most American people I've ever met.  The one time I made the mistake of referring to them as Nepali-Americans I was swiftly told on no uncertain terms that they were full-fledged Americans like myself.  That couple took about two years to become almost entirely integrated (with the exception of some slight accents that I'm sure they've ditched by now).

I bring them up, not to say that transplantation is quick, but simply to point out that it depends on whom we are talking about transplanting.  Some people drag their feet while others are eager to get it out of the way ASAP.

Yes it depends on the people. Ultimately, those who already share similar fundamental values will assimilate quicker than those who don't (but then is it really assimilation?). So those that drag their feet are the ones we ought to limit, if they are a threat to a free society.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

And those who drag their feet about it, and set up little miniature versions of their respective homelands - do they actually want to BE American (or British)?  If not then what we should really be asking about are their motives for trying to enter our countries in the first place.  I also know a number of Somali immigrants to my area who have no intention of ever integrating, learning English or getting a job; they came to America for the handouts.  Handouts which should not exist in the first place.

Exactly. This is the issue that the west is currently facing. The development of free societies grew out of a small corner of the world by a group of very particular peoples. It has never developed anywhere else. It is surely playing with fire to allow peoples from all over the world to pour in and risk crushing that precious development, on the belief that they will 'get it' and recognise and defend human rights.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

See my response to Doug above. I will add the question I asked Reidy earlier; what do you make of Peterson's point about human beings tending to form hierarchies and that there are deep biological causes of this which he shows is shared with other animals and therefore has deep evolutionary origins?

Now I'm not necessarily saying that humans cannot use their freewill and reason to overcome any biological 'bias' toward forming hierarchies but do you think that bias exists, generally speaking? And that there are many other biases at play that 'push' or provide incentives for humans to behave in particular ways which helps explain particular behaviours and trends that we can observe throughout human history, common to all cultures and races?

I also don't think Objectivism is necessarily incompatible with this stuff. Ultimately we have to take reality as it is. The issue I have is the reality of human nature is far from well understood due to these biological processes that we don't fully understand.

And surely if we know, or think it is highly likely, that society will never be filled with mostly Objectivists on a mass scale, then the political philosophy of Objectivism is inadequate as a prescription for the world as it is, and more suitable for the world we would like to see, that is, a world where most people subscribe to Objectivism and respect human rights. I want that world but I don't see it happening perhaps ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

I don't propose altering human nature, though in the future this may be possible with new technology, and may be the only way for humans to ever behave on a mass scale in the way Rand had advocated.

I understood 'manage themselves' to include politics. It's not particularly mysterious why my rights are severely restricted. We live in a democratic system where people can vote away my rights/resources.

What comes to my mind is that "suffering, as such, is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is." There are people engaged in the fight against the suffering you are expressing. What are you contributing to the effort?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

And surely if we know, or think it is highly likely, that society will never be filled with mostly Objectivists on a mass scale, then the political philosophy of Objectivism is inadequate as a prescription for the world as it is, and more suitable for the world we would like to see, that is, a world where most people subscribe to Objectivism and respect human rights. I want that world but I don't see it happening perhaps ever.

Maybe we can start a separate thread in which we debate the long-term prospects for Objectivism.

We can expect that, at least, there will be multiple election cycles during which Objectivists are in the minority.  In deciding what to do with our votes, we will have to choose between undesirable alternatives, but to do this well we still need to understand the fundamentals. 

In discussions, we should be presenting Objectivism as best we can under the circumstances of each discussion.  One possible approach is to start with "In order to understand my views on that, you need to understand my views on what government is."  We should try to identify and address the most fundamental level on which a person disagrees with us, but this may require working our way down from level to level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

We should try to identify and address the most fundamental level on which a person disagrees with us, but this may require working our way down from level to level.

I've actually tried that, and it's surprising how often it is that the most fundamental disagreement is in metaphysics. Too many people believe in the primacy of consciousness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

I disagree that the average child of Muslim immigrants will assimilate to British culture just as well as the average child of indigenous Brits.

But why? I doubt that it is true, but even if it is, we don't have to suppose that the reason is because they are immigrants. Why would it be that a foreign culture that they are only exposed to at home exerts more cultural pressure than the culture they see everywhere else? 

7 hours ago, TruthSeeker946 said:

The problem is that immigrants tend to concentrate in particular areas so that the area becomes a microcosm of their homeland to an extent. I was in one of those areas recently, which is dominated by Muslims. I walked past a school in the area and it was about 90% Muslim.

Like above, I doubt this is true and I don't know how you could simply know that the area was 90% Muslim just by walking by. But even if it is true, you have to ask why it developed into a microcosm, and to what extent the microcosm has adopted or significantly mixed with the local culture. China Towns across the US are a microcosm but they are extremely capitalistic and possibly even more so than the average American. 

And for the sake of argument, we could even suppose that the microcosm failed to assimilate, perhaps as far as to advocate for sharia law. I would characterize the situation as the chickens coming home to roost. The problem is not the nature of the immigrants and the nature of the country where the immigrants come from. The problem is the culture of the UK. The culture of the UK always seemed weak to me and doesn't exert much influence. I mean, sure, I like some British TV, and there are some regional quirks that I find funny. But really there isn't much to it. Not to mention even on the level of government, the UK is kind of... Nothing. On top of that, it was heavily imperialistic for so long, so there isn't much people really seek out from the UK. You should hardly be surprised when the UK barely exerts cultural pressure on immigrants. It won't matter how many Muslims you prevent from entering the UK, the societal decline you are concerned about will still be going on.

If you fix the cultural problems, the rest will follow. 

 

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...