"Arguments Against Objectivism" Subforum

[nimble]

Speaking for myself only, I am willing to forgo a new screen name, as long as I can place a CAUTION STATEMENT on my posts. Apparently nimble has no problem with using his screen name as long as the moderators assure him that he won't be penalized for his disagreement with Objectivism.

Well, I am not here to make enemies, as I have said before, if people are likely to hate or loathe me based on either my convictions or on my devil's advocate arguments, then I would prefer a caution statement next to my posts (when I play devil's advocate).

Yes, debaters rarely admit defeat. Much easier, though, is admitting that the debate has become fruitless. At least as an experiment in the first debate (nimble vs. x), I think we can rely on at least one of the debaters to say the debate is going nowhere. In a face-to-face debate, a time limit would end the debate. But that isn't appropriate, I think, for an internet debate (for example, because some individuals may be sleeping while others are writing posts).

I don't think that any debates on this forum have gone no where. Even in my most lengthy debate about fractional reserve banking, almost every post was filled with content, and by the end of it, I think we came to some sort of agreement that fractional reserve banking is not morally wrong/fraudulent, but the fractional reserve bank's fiduciary media would be valued at the fraction of gold that backed the fiduciary media, making the process moot. So the point is, that if I am wrong (like the case that above about fraudulence) I will admit it. And even the other party admitted that the banks fiduciary media would not be valued as highly as other currency, which is a point they conceded. I think rational people will find the truth, and we happen to have a forum full of rational people, which helps our situation.

Edited for quotation marks.

Edited August 5, 2005 by nimble

[jrs]

When proposing a debate, the proposer will specify some portion of Objectivism which will be assumed as true by both sides, say its Metaphysics and Epistemology.  The topic being debated will be in a more derivative part of the philosophy, say in Ethics. Then the proposer will take a position at variance from Objectivism in that derivative part of philosophy, but must argue in a rational way from the agreed portion of Objectivism. The opposition will adhere to the regular version of Objectivism entirely.

The reason vs. faith debate proposal draws into question the suggestion made by jrs; that both debaters should be in agreement with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. I don't see any reason why matters of metaphysics or epistemology should not be debated. Afterall, arguments against metaphysical axioms are the easiest to disprove.

I did not mean to limit the choice of a common basis to just the one example which I gave. To be clearer, let me suggest several possibilities:

Basis: the axioms only

Thesis: Thomas Aquinas's case for God

Basis: Objectivist Metaphysics (OPAR, chapter 1)

Thesis: "Faith or Revelation is a valid source of knowledge."

Basis: Objectivist Metaphysics and the nature of sensation and perception (OPAR thru page 54)

Thesis: Determinism rather than Free Will

Basis: OPAR, chapters 1 and 2

Thesis: Karl Popper's epistemology

Basis: Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology (ITOE and OPAR thru chapter 5)

Thesis: Kant's categorical imperative

Basis: ITOE and OPAR thru chapter 7

Thesis: David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration"

Basis: ITOE and OPAR thru chapter 7

Thesis: Kelley's benevolence as a major virtue

Basis: ITOE and OPAR thru page 362

Thesis: Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism

Basis: ITOE and OPAR thru chapter 11

Thesis: "Some Impressionist painting is good art."

Basis: ITOE and OPAR thru chapter 11

Thesis: "Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' is good art."

Basis: ITOE and OPAR

Thesis: "Intellectual property is invalid."

The proponent and opponent of the Thesis should agree on the Basis. I cannot guarantee that the my suggestions are optimal.

[Cole]

I apologize. Your suggestion was clear originally, but I misread it. I mistook your example of a possible basis for a single debate as an example of a possible basis for every debate on the forum.

[softwareNerd]

I would be willing to take an un-Objectivist position,... intellectual property rights (in the legal sense) and anarchy, and maybe the Objectivist stance on the killing of civilians in times of war ...

Thanks, "Nimble", for offering to take an anti-Objectivism "podium" in one of the following:

1) intellectual property rights (in the legal sense)

2) anarchy

3) killing of civilians in times of war

I suggest the following as a next step:

1) Someone who would like to take the Objectivism "podium" on any of these three can start by refining one of the above into a more formal proposition for the debate, in consultation with "Nimble"

2) Then the two debaters can work out the rules (perhaps by PM/eMail).

"Nimble", I suggest that you use a specially-created "devilsAdvocate" username, unless you feel strongly against it.

[HaloNoble6]

I nominate "softwareNerd" for the pro-Objectivist position.

Edited August 6, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

I nominate "softwareNerd" for the pro-Objectivist position.

Thanks Felipe, but I'm going to take a rain-check.

[BurgessLau]

Thanks, "Nimble", for offering to take an anti-Objectivism "podium" in one of the following:

1) intellectual property rights (in the legal sense)

2) anarchy

3) killing of civilians in times of war 

SoftwareNerd, thank you for laying the options out. This menu approach really does help expedite the process.

I would like to note that only item 2, anarchy vs. government, is a philosophical question. Items 1 and 3 are applications of philosophy to special circumstances, aren't they? That's okay for debate, but I think the situation should be clearly stated: There is no Objectivist position on applications of philosophy.

So, for items 1 and 3, the debate would be between an Objectivist applying his principles to a special situation versus a non-Objectivist applying his philosophical principles to the same situation.

Finally, I want to congratulate nimble on his courage in stepping forward to debate from his non-Objectivist philosophical position. Nimble and I have disagreed on many issues, but I respect nimble's openness and honesty in this circumstance.

Edited August 6, 2005 by BurgessLau

[nimble]

"Nimble", I suggest that you use a specially-created "devilsAdvocate" username, unless you feel strongly against it.

Why should I use a devilsadvocate name? I will do it if I am playing devil's advocate. But if I take a stance that I hold, then I think it is appropriate to use my name, unless you think it is a bad idea. I am just curious about why you said I should use a different name.

[nimble]

Well, if someone would like to contact me ASAP we can get this debate going. I would like to complete it before I take a few days vacation. I leave on the 18th of August, and I get back about 5 days later. I don't want to have to end the debate early, so if someone will pick up the other side, that would be cool. Hopefully, I won't be ostracized for my views, but I will forego the need for a pseudonym. I don't mind people viewing what I say, as long as I say it. There is no sense in hiding a fact that I am participating in a debate.

[nimble]

Finally, I want to congratulate nimble on his courage in stepping forward to debate from his non-Objectivist philosophical position. Nimble and I have disagreed on many issues, but I respect nimble's openness and honesty in this circumstance.

Thank you that means a lot to me coming from you. And if you want, I just started the debate thread, so you can go watch when you feel like it.

[DavidV]

Apparently there was confusion about my mention of the forum rules. It is indeed my intention to allow anti-Objectivist positions to be debated. By observance of the forum rules, I meant things such as adherence to logical argument and civil behavior.