Am I stupid for thinking Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics are brilliant?

[Frank]

Looking around it's easy to see that most main stream philosphy classes, and people who study philosophy, and so on, don't consider Objectivism valid. Yet, I think it's brilliant, and find that its fundamental metaphysics and epistemology are insecapably correct. Thus, either I'm too dumb to understand why I'm wrong, and the academics are right, or something else is afoot.

By what measure might it be demonstrated that Objectivism is just as brilliant as I believe?

 

 

[dream_weaver]

By what measure(s) did you refer to the fundamental metaphysics and epistemology as being inescapably correct?

[Apollo Masters]

Reaffirmation through denial babyyyyyyy

[Boydstun]

Frank,

I'd take correctness as one thing and brilliance another. I'd take brilliance in this context as correctness that is not found elsewhere. Knowledge of the brilliance, then, would requiring knowing what is to be found elsewhere, i.e., in the history of philosophy to the present.

Finding out why so many professional philosophers would not consider Objectivism a valid philosophy would require getting hold of their specific criticisms and thinking them over. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any professional philosophers put their criticisms into writing, actually be competent in what the Objectivist view is in the major areas of philosophy, and be able to step out of, for a moment, the presumptions of their own philosophic school.

I'd say just keep on studying other philosophers until you can for yourself identify the ways in which they are different from Objectivism, and where they agree, and which, if any, of the positions (Objectivist or not) are correct by your lights. 

[Frank]

6 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Frank,

I'd take correctness as one thing and brilliance another. I'd take brilliance in this context as correctness that is not found elsewhere. Knowledge of the brilliance, then, would requiring knowing what is to be found elsewhere, i.e., in the history of philosophy to the present.

Finding out why so many professional philosophers would not consider Objectivism a valid philosophy would require getting hold of their specific criticisms and thinking them over. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any professional philosophers put their criticisms into writing, actually be competent in what the Objectivist view is in the major areas of philosophy, and be able to step out of, for a moment, the presumptions of their own philosophic school.

I'd say just keep on studying other philosophers until you can for yourself identify the ways in which they are different from Objectivism, and where they agree, and which, if any, of the positions (Objectivist or not) are correct by your lights. 

That's certainly a fair assessment. I suppose I just don't understand all the hate. I've studied many other philosophies, from ancient Greek, to ancient Indian philosophy, as well as some more modern ones. I have come up with two possibilities, though:

 

1.) The hate is due to Rand's political stances, not her metaphysics, but the two generally run together, so people hate the whole thing.

2.) Objectivism affirms common sense, and most philosophers make their living, and relevance, by attacking common sense at every turn. They generally create the problems they only ostensibly solve. Someone solving their pseudo problems is bad for business.

[Frank]

21 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

By what measure(s) did you refer to the fundamental metaphysics and epistemology as being inescapably correct?

Rand broke down reality into inescapable points. Like existence exists. It's so simple, it cannot be avoided. And so on. As it gets more complex, it is harder to defend, and that's why I specified the fundamentals are what I find inescapable. The further delineations, like politics and such, I wouldn't make such a strong claim about. 

[RupeeRoundhouse]

18 minutes ago, Frank said:

Rand broke down reality into inescapable points. Like existence exists. It's so simple, it cannot be avoided. And so on. As it gets more complex, it is harder to defend, and that's why I specified the fundamentals are what I find inescapable. The further delineations, like politics and such, I wouldn't make such a strong claim about. 

To further drive the point home, the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are inescapable, even when disputing those axioms. I challenge anyone to escape those axioms!

[Eiuol]

On 2/13/2023 at 7:07 PM, Frank said:

Thus, either I'm too dumb to understand why I'm wrong, and the academics are right, or something else is afoot.

Yes, some people have an inflated sense of their understanding and buy into strange and bizarre ways of thinking. There are people who claim to have discovered the secrets of physics with a brilliant insight, when the reality is they have a rudimentary understanding of physics, are making an elementary mistake, and lack the training to come up with a meaningfully new theory. 

You can avoid being that person by broadening your knowledge, corroborating your knowledge with others that have been developing theories for a long time, and reflecting on your own thinking process. As far as Oism, these sort of things are actually encouraged. You can even find some corroboration with other thinkers, both ancient and modern. It's not like you're dealing with a philosophy that appeared out of nowhere with all its principles fully formed, like Scientology. 

For the most part, academics don't say anything about Oism. You will probably find that if you talked about it (and in a reasonable way without being preachy) you'll make sense and the other person will at least find the conversation engaging. I have noticed that if I don't mention where exactly my ideas come from (and that goes with subjects besides philosophy), people will engage with me, not with their conception of the entire theory from a birds eye view. 

2 hours ago, Frank said:

1.) The hate is due to Rand's political stances, not her metaphysics, but the two generally run together, so people hate the whole thing.

Mostly. Or their judgment comes from seeing how the preachy types act, or those that talk about Oism in a very top-down and deductive way. As if reciting OPAR reflects a genuine understanding. Or they hear something about her personal life that rubs them the wrong way. 

3 hours ago, Frank said:

2.) Objectivism affirms common sense

If it were common sense, it wouldn't be so niche. I don't believe there is a such thing as common sense. Think of it more like Oism affirms the accessibility of reason to all people. You don't need to spend 30 years as a professor in math, or have a specific IQ, or spend years building up a skill to do it at all (like training to become an astronaut and land on Mars). Not only do you have everything you need already, but reason is part of what makes you human. 

3 hours ago, Frank said:

Rand broke down reality into inescapable points.

To reach those points inductively, you always begin with the wild complexities of reality. It's not that she began with those points and then reasoned from there. The same goes with anyone who wants to understand Oism. "Existence exists" is the culmination of a lot of thinking. As a logical statement, it's inescapable. But that comes from looking at the world around you in the first place. The world around you where you see so many exceptions and regularities.