Pure Objectivism Vs. Mixed Philosophy

[yesno42]

Rules:

1. If an argument is given that cannot be refuted, the other must conceed the point.

2. Debaters must agree to continue until one is convinced of the others correctness.

I will attempt to show that Objectivist views are not all constructive and that a subtly different view of things that incorporates some other philosophy is a much better approach.

[softwareNerd]

I will attempt to show that Objectivist views are not all constructive and that a subtly different view of things that incorporates some other philosophy is a much better approach. (emphasis mine)

I suggest making the topic more specific. What views? Something in particular that Objectivism says? Everything is says? Secondly, what does "constructive" mean?

[Free Thinker]

Rules:

1. If an argument is given that cannot be refuted, the other must conceed the point.

2. Debaters must agree to continue until one is convinced of the others correctness.

I will attempt to show that Objectivist views are not all constructive and that a subtly different view of things that incorporates some other philosophy is a much better approach.

This I'd like to see.

[Maarten]

I think for rule number 1 you should establish a certain time frame in advance, in order for it to work. Not sure what would be best, but for example: You have to respond within one day to the other person's post, and if you cannot refute it by then you have to concede?

[Hal]

If you want to argue that Objectivism should be mixed with a different philosophy, then surely youre implicitly arguing that Objectivism is either wrong, or incomplete, on some particular point. In that case, wouldnt it be a better idea to debate the particular area where you think Objectivist views need to be replaced/suplanted, rather than the more open-ended question you propose?

[Plisken]

If you want to argue that Objectivism should be mixed with a different philosophy, then surely youre implicitly arguing that Objectivism is either wrong, or incomplete, on some particular point. In that case, wouldnt it be a better idea to debate the particular area where you think Objectivist views need to be replaced/suplanted, rather than the more open-ended question you propose?

From the topic, I presumed that objectivism as part of an individual philosophy would be debated.

[DavidOdden]

From the topic, I presumed that objectivism as part of an individual philosophy would be debated.

Objectivism cannot be part of an individual philosophy, it has to be the philosophy held by an individual. Since Objectivism is both complete and closed, it's immiscible; so the underlying idea that you could somehow "mix" Objectivism with something is contradictory.

[Eudaemonian]

Objectivism cannot be part of an individual philosophy, it has to be the philosophy held by an individual.

This is true if the person calls her/himself an Objectivist, and that goes into a whole other topic with lots of history and debate.

I think this topic needs clarifying, upon specific definition on what is "constructive" and what is "Objectivist" and what is "views", what is "different", what is "things", and how one supports arguments for each side. Also, I'd like to see this debate, but this topic might have the danger of going into other related territories. The topic probably needs more structuring to keep it on topic.

[Kevin]

Has anyone heard from yesno since he introduced this? I was interested to read his argument, but nothing has been forthcoming.

[EC]

There's a reason for that.... he probably has none.

I like this part

2. Debaters must agree to continue until one is convinced of the others correctness.

This could be one longggggggggg debate.

[RationalBiker]

I think for rule number 1 you should establish a certain time frame in advance, in order for it to work. Not sure what would be best, but for example: You have to respond within one day to the other person's post, and if you cannot refute it by then you have to concede?

I think this rule may be helpful in determining who "wins" the debate, but how is it helpful to determine which person is actually right? If you concede something you later reason out to be false, are you obliged to continue arguing based on the conceded premise?

[Kevin]

I think this rule may be helpful in determining who "wins" the debate, but how is it helpful to determine which person is actually right? If you concede something you later reason out to be false, are you obliged to continue arguing based on the conceded premise?

I guess it's kind of a moot point now anyway. Unless someone else feels like arguing the point that a mixed philosophy is superior to pure Objectivism...

[Bold Standard]

This could be one longggggggggg debate.

Funny, when I imagine how that would sound if it were spoken aloud, it's the "o" sound that gets prolonged, even though that's not the letter being repeated..

[nimble]

I'll argue for a mixed philosophy, just to see the debate happen. I don't know whether a mixed philosophy is the optimal way to use Objectivism, but that is how I live, so I suppose I'll be able to conjure up some type of argument. Plus this seems fun.

For a more specific topic, I would like to address love and art in Objectivism. I find that individualism in love is very hard to work out. I started dating my current girlfriend because of her traits like ambition, intelligence, and because she reminded me of Dagny (both physically and psychologically). Now I find that trying to work things out with an uncompromisable person is so very hard and sometimes hurtful to me or her (emotionally). So maybe incorporating a more main-stream view of love is appropriate.

Secondly about art, I have painted for about 5 years now. I must say that I like painting regardless of whether I am expressing some deep philosophical view, or merely stroking canvas with a brush. So long as it looks good and others like it too, I feel like my time was well spent. If my goal is my happiness and it can be acheived through non-Objectivist means, I see this as proof that Rand's views on art may be off a bit.

[steven1972]

I would agree with Rand, that because the point of philosophy is to find life or truth, any compromising of this aim would allow desires for death or falseness to be mixed with desires life. Why would one have differing or opposed principles then, or mix death with life in one's actions?

Is there any hole in this argument?

Steven

[nimble]

It's not about compromising as an end in itself. It is about compromising Objectivism because you find that is does not cover every aspect of life or is counterproductive in some aspects. That would be my argument, and then I would proceed to say where I find Objectivism lacking.

[Bold Standard]

Secondly about art, I have painted for about 5 years now. I must say that I like painting regardless of whether I am expressing some deep philosophical view, or merely stroking canvas with a brush. So long as it looks good and others like it too, I feel like my time was well spent. If my goal is my happiness and it can be achieved through non-Objectivist means, I see this as proof that Rand's views on art may be off a bit.

My understanding of AR's theories on art apply mostly to art as a profession (I can look up some of the parts of RM that give me that impression, if you want). Creating "art" for your own pleasure, for your friends, or decorating your apartment, etc. would, I think, fall under a somewhat different category of standards than "art" as an official representation of your metaphysical value judgments to the world. That being said, according to the standards for valuing art that AR lays out in The Romantic Manifesto, open attacks on values and perception, such as her example of the otherwise beautiful woman with a horrible blemish in plain display on her face, would still be immoral for the creator, and properly offensive to anyone who sees it. Would you disagree with that?

As to the relationship thing, are you implying that your relationship was miserable because your girlfriend refused to compromise on moral principles? Or are you just saying she was stubborn and inconsiderate in general, and if so, how does this behavior follow from Objectivism? What other code of morality would provide the antidote, and how? To what extent should the two codes be "mixed"? When is it appropriate, in your view, for Objectivism to resume its position as one's primary ethical code, and by what standards does someone choose when to be an Objectivist, and when to rely on antithetical premises?