Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My first step into the [...] world of objectivism.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I don't know much about objectivism, and what I do know I do not agree with, but I figured I might as well try and find out some more.

Or well, that's not entirely true: A friend of mine seems to be really into objectivism and therefore I wanted to know what it's all about. Why not ask him, you ask. Well, he's leaving for a couple of weeks of vacation tomorrow morning, and I just can't wait.

So, I'm not going to read any works on objectivism as of yet, as I have plenty of other things to read. I'm hoping to gather the central points of this 'philosophy' from browsing the boards and perhaps asking a question here or there.

That's all for now, but I think I will edit this post in a while to include a list with some basic info about me.

Jan.

Edited by Shading Inc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to gather the central points of this 'philosophy' from browsing the boards and perhaps asking a question here or there.

Placing "philosophy" in scare quotes probably isn't the best way to start.

Rand once did a standing-on-one-foot summary of Objectivism:

  • In metaphysics: Reality is objective.
  • In epistemology: Man gains knowledge through reason.
  • In ethics: Rational, principled egoism.
  • In politics: Laissez-faire capitalism.
  • In esthetics: Romantic realism.

Of course, that list is so staccato that by itself it means basically nothing. A couple of very brief expansions may be found here and here.

It might be helpful if you were to tell us which Objectivist positions you do know about and disagree with, and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Placing "philosophy" in scare quotes probably isn't the best way to start.

Rand once did a standing-on-one-foot summary of Objectivism:

  • In metaphysics: Reality is objective.
  • In epistemology: Man gains knowledge through reason.
  • In ethics: Rational, principled egoism.
  • In politics: Laissez-faire capitalism.
  • In esthetics: Romantic realism.

Of course, that list is so staccato that by itself it means basically nothing. A couple of very brief expansions may be found here and here.

It might be helpful if you were to tell us which Objectivist positions you do know about and disagree with, and why.

I can hardly feel sorry for not jumping to conclusions. :P

I think that the thing about objectivism I disagree with, or I don't understand, is its claiming objectivity. However, I would rather read some more about objectivism before entering into a discussion about this.

Thanks for the links and your very brief summary! :lol:

Jan.

Edited by Shading Inc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the thing about objectivism I disagree with, or I don't understand, is its claiming objectivity.

Shading, welcome to the forum.

Yeah, I don't think I'd start there. There are a miriad of reasons that Miss Rand named her philosophy Objectivism, but don't gravitate to the issue of objectivity has having primacy. Objectivism advocates reason, and states that reason when properly used, is objective. But that relies on Objectivist metaphysics, epitemology to conclude. I'd read some more before I tackled that one.

Highly suggest if you haven't read The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged first, that you do so. While Atlas explains the philosophy succintly late in the book, the real purpose is primarily motivational. If you really love those, then you'll come back to the ideas, and be willing to spend some time with them. If they really, really, really turn you off, then trust me, you aren't ready for us. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Atlas explains the philosophy succintly late in the book...
I disagree on that. I collected her philosophy while reading the beginning part and the middle. The end (speech) was mainly a restatement in a concrete form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree on that. I collected her philosophy while reading the beginning part and the middle. The end (speech) was mainly a restatement in a concrete form.

in succinct conceptual form. I only said that because it can be pulled out and stand by itself as a statement of the philosophy (and that was done in For the New Intellectual). You can certainly pick up the elements the philosophy througout the book as they are shown everywhere in concretized form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, welcome to the forum :P

Yes Maarten, we have an appointment when you're back - that is, if you don't choose to stay in NY. :P

Shading, welcome to the forum.

Yeah, I don't think I'd start there. There are a miriad of reasons that Miss Rand named her philosophy Objectivism, but don't gravitate to the issue of objectivity has having primacy. Objectivism advocates reason, and states that reason when properly used, is objective. But that relies on Objectivist metaphysics, epitemology to conclude. I'd read some more before I tackled that one.

Highly suggest if you haven't read The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged first, that you do so. While Atlas explains the philosophy succintly late in the book, the real purpose is primarily motivational. If you really love those, then you'll come back to the ideas, and be willing to spend some time with them. If they really, really, really turn you off, then trust me, you aren't ready for us. :lol:

So from reason, Rand manages to produce a metaphysics -that should be called physics, if the reason she advocates really is objective, isn't it?-, an epistemology, a form of (political / individual) ethics, and a form of aesthetics? Or vice versa, from an epistemology and a metaphysics a form of reason (excluding ethics and aesthetics for I don't see how those could ever be a foundation for reason)?

I have never encountered a form of reason (or, may I say, rationality?) that wasn't at its root dogmatic. Reason is, for as far as I know, always circular, as the only justification for it being reasonable there is, comes from itself, and thus any objectivism that is deduced from, is not as objective as we would have it. However, I may just be fundamentally misinterpreting you, so I really should stop here and do some research first.

But, a question about these boards: You say I won't be ready for you if I really disagree with Rand. Is that, because this is ultimately a place of celebration of objectivism? I mean, the frequent posters, are there any non- or anti-objectivists among them?

Thanks,

Jan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be proper to say that reason is an axioma, in the sense that you cannot prove with reason that reason exists. But the same holds true for reality; you cannot prove that reality exists either, because it is a necessary component of the concept of proof.

It is, however, possible to validate it. Proof is just one way you can validate something. The only way to validate axiomatic statements is by pointing to the relevant facts.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from reason, Rand manages to produce a metaphysics -that should be called physics, if the reason she advocates really is objective, isn't it?-, an epistemology, a form of (political / individual) ethics, and a form of aesthetics? Or vice versa, from an epistemology and a metaphysics a form of reason (excluding ethics and aesthetics for I don't see how those could ever be a foundation for reason)?

I have never encountered a form of reason (or, may I say, rationality?) that wasn't at its root dogmatic. Reason is, for as far as I know, always circular, as the only justification for it being reasonable there is, comes from itself, and thus any objectivism that is deduced from, is not as objective as we would have it. However, I may just be fundamentally misinterpreting you, so I really should stop here and do some research first.

But, a question about these boards: You say I won't be ready for you if I really disagree with Rand. Is that, because this is ultimately a place of celebration of objectivism? I mean, the frequent posters, are there any non- or anti-objectivists among them?

Thanks,

Jan.

Reason is primarily an epistemological concept. You're right in identifying it as also being dependent on metaphysics. Reason is the faculty for grasping universals, or concepts (Ancient Greek definition); or a faculty which acquires knowledge by derivation from the evidence of the senses (Enlightenment era definition). You might also find Ayn Rand's definition of "logic" helpfull: "the art of non-contradictory identification." (Atlas Shrugged, pg 934)

Objectivism considers metaphysics and epistemology to be the two most basic branches of philosophy, from which is derived ethics. And from ethics are derived politics and aesthetics. These are the five branches of philosophy recognized by Objectivism.

This is more or less a "pro-Objectivism" forum (see the forum rules for elaboration). But there are a few areas where respectfull posts from non-objectivists are welcome (the Questions about Objectivism and the Debate sections are two that I'm aware of).

There are plenty of other forums online full of anti-Objectivists, if that's what you're looking for. ; I

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason is NOT dogmatic; dogmatism is the acceptance of something that is unsupported (or even outright contradicts reason).

Similarly, if you ask "Why should I accept reason?" you are really asking "What is the reason to accept reason?' In asking the question, you implicitly have to accept reason. There's no way around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty common for an Objectivist to recommend Ayn Rand's fiction as an introduction to the philosophy. I usually don't do that. Her novels are ethically and politically charged to the point of turning away people who might otherwise agree with her metaphysics (not physics, which is a specialized science) and epistemology. The ethics, politics and aesthetics all follow from the first two branches of the philosophy, but if you don't agree with the practice of her ethics/politics and do not spend the time to learn the first parts, you won't likely be interested in the novels.

I suggest that you start with the basics. There are two things to keep in mind if you do so:

1) Objectivist metaphysics is based on three axioms - three things that are required to make any claim to knowledge. To attempt to deny them is to engage in self contradiction. Objectivist metaphysics is pretty simple and not very controversial.

2) Reason ultimately must use sensory input to be of any use. Thus, to prove something, one must logically (that is, without contradiction) show how that claim relates to the self evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty common for an Objectivist to recommend Ayn Rand's fiction as an introduction to the philosophy. I usually don't do that. Her novels are ethically and politically charged to the point of turning away people who might otherwise agree with her metaphysics (not physics, which is a specialized science) and epistemology. The ethics, politics and aesthetics all follow from the first two branches of the philosophy, but if you don't agree with the practice of her ethics/politics and do not spend the time to learn the first parts, you won't likely be interested in the novels.

I have a good experience with lending my friends The Fountainhead. All of them enjoyed it and some of them even started studying more about objectivism. I think it´s better than starting studying philosophy first because it give you a motivation to do so afterwards. My friends weren´t interested in philosphy at all before reading Fountainhead but because they loved the book they wanted to know what ideas are lying underneath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from reason, Rand manages to produce a metaphysics -that should be called physics, if the reason she advocates really is objective, isn't it?

No, academic philosophy calls it metaphysics. The term metaphysical in its common usage is what you may be implying. That's been somewhat co-opted (to mean more like supernatural) from the academic meaning.

I have never encountered a form of reason (or, may I say, rationality?) that wasn't at its root dogmatic. Reason is, for as far as I know, always circular, as the only justification for it being reasonable there is, comes from itself, and thus any objectivism that is deduced from, is not as objective as we would have it. However, I may just be fundamentally misinterpreting you, so I really should stop here and do some research first.

hmmm.. well since we've started talking about it, and since you seem pretty sincere, I'm interested to know a little more about what you posit. It'll also help me learn about how you are using the word reason. Your use of reason and "being reasonable" may not be quite the same thing. Objectivism justifies the use of reason (as opposed to being reasonable) because it is man's only means to propertly identify the nature of his word, and ultimately to survive.

So anyway, tell me more about the dogmatism you see in "being reasonabl".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got started with Objectivism because I, like you, believed that objectivity is impossible. "There's no truth. Everything is just somebody's opinion." were my fundamental beliefs. Is that a good characterization of your position?

I have never encountered a form of reason (or, may I say, rationality?) that wasn't at its root dogmatic. Reason is, for as far as I know, always circular, as the only justification for it being reasonable there is, comes from itself, and thus any objectivism that is deduced from, is not as objective as we would have it. However, I may just be fundamentally misinterpreting you, so I really should stop here and do some research first.

There is a good answer to "Why use reason?" that goes beyond "Because it's reasonable."

Why bother with reason in the first place? Why be rational? The answer to this is: "Because there is something called reality out there." You may, at this point, believe that it's impossible to know objective reality. But do you agree that it exists? That there's a real world out there?

In general it would be helpful if we knew more about your current position.

Oh, and welcome to the forum. :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from reason, Rand manages to produce a metaphysics -that should be called physics, if the reason she advocates really is objective, isn't it?
Actually, "metaphysics" is correct, given the distinction between science and philosophy. Physics has progressed to being a highly specialized form of knowledge which is not available to any thinking man. The philosophical content of "physics" in the broad sense is metaphysics. Objectivist metaphysics being what it is, in principle you don't expect divergence between science and philosophy, though other kinds of metaphysics (which gave metaphysics a bad name) wouldn't care about reality. That would be why you find used bookstores with sections labeled "Metaphysics and The Occult"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a good experience with lending my friends The Fountainhead. All of them enjoyed it and some of them even started studying more about objectivism. I think it´s better than starting studying philosophy first because it give you a motivation to do so afterwards. My friends weren´t interested in philosphy at all before reading Fountainhead but because they loved the book they wanted to know what ideas are lying underneath.
I too became interested in Objectivism through the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. However, if someone is interested in learning a little about the philosophy in one or two weeks time, suggesting they read two novels, one of which is over 1,000 pages, may not be the best advice.

Also, if their sense of life conflicts with the sense of life portrayed in the novels, it will give them reason not to explore the ideas that made the novels possible (I've seen it happen). It is important to have a good sense of a person's interests before suggesting the novels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's been somewhat co-opted (to mean more like supernatural) from the academic meaning.

Well (if you're [shading] interested in a fuller story), so far the development of philosophy has been kind of bipolar, historically, swinging between extremes of natural and supernaturalism.

Originally (with Plato, the first systematic philosopher), metaphysics was at the base of philosophy, and it was supernatural. Then (with Aristotle), it was still at the base but it was naturalistic (in the unique Aristotelian use of the word) instead.

The phenomena of modern acedemia which has brought us to the state we're in now is something like this..

Philosophers began to side with Plato that metaphysics was supernatural, and (wanting to be scientific and reject supernaturalism) they ended up rejecting metaphysics as being at the base of philosophy. That's more or less the same as giving up, in philosophy, but that's what they did. At that point, philosophy became a kind of analytic game, disconnected from reality, and metaphysics was surrendered to the realm of religion. That's the climate of things when Ayn Rand appeared on the scene, and reclaimed metaphysics as the base of philosophy, and insisted that it was naturalistic (this-worldly). So, in a certain sense, she was doing something unconventional. But it was only a convention that had gained accpetance in the past couple of centuries. And she did have a new approach to it, rather unprecidented in history prior to her.

But, in the broadest meaning of the term "metaphysics," as the faculty for dealing with universals, organizing sense perceptions, and grasping reality, Ayn Rand's usage is more or less "traditional."

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold Standard: I'm not really into philosophical English. 'Reason', is that your translation of Greek logos, Latin ratio, or German Vernunft? I want to know what we're talking about. Anyway, for as far as I know, we don't live in Ancient Greece or in the Enlightenment, and their interpretations of rationality are out of date.

In fact, technically speaking -you know, from a modern point of view-, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics are all out of date. If metaphysics and epistemology are to be the foundation of philosophy, I can't see how philosophy couldn't ever not be spucalative, and I don't think that that is what modern philosophy should be. I mean, if we allow philosophy to be speculation, then religion for example, would become perfectly viable philosophy, which I really don't think it is anymore.

And well, I guess it doesn't look like I'm going to be a fervent objectivist then, but coming here, it never was my aim to be converted or something. I'm just interested, as I am in all philosophy. I want to have an opinion, so I'm trying find out what things're all about.

LaszloWalrus: You are of course very right in correcting me that reason is not dogmatic. It would be more apropriate to say (wouldn't it?) that although it might be a foundation for ethics, aesthetics, etc., reason itself is either unsupported because it gives rise to an infinite regression, or is supported by something we would claim is a fallacy - but then of course it would be reason dictating us what a fallacy is, making the fallacy even more fallacious. Either way, I think that this kind of research into reason, though fascinating as some attempts may be, will never turn out to be a fruitful philosophical investigation.

FeatherFall: I survived all nine works of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, does that grant me a chance at ploughing through Rand's fiction? :confused:

Could you tell me what objectivism's three basic axioma's are? Oh, and, are these really self-evident, or just a point you say we shouldn't want to go beyond? And, could you explain what's wrong with contradiction? Or is that a question I shouldn't ask because it's self-evident?

KendallJ: Yes, supernatural is what the original Greek metaphysics translates to, basically. And that's what my question really comes down to. How can Rand claim objectivity about something that transcends sensory percention? That's what I'd call speculation, and speculation is not something I would call objective - or very useful, for that matter. Unless her metaphysics does in no way make empirically unsupported claims, but then metaphysics just wouldn't be an appropriate term in her system, or at the very least, a very, very confusing one.

And as for your question about my view on reason, being reasonable: I've said a little more about it already, but perhaps it would be helpful to consider some things Descartes says about philosophy -about science, we would say-: According to Descartes, philosophy is like a tree, with some of it's more importent branches being ethics, mechanics, and medicine. It's trunk, out of which these branches grow, is physics, and the roots of the tree, out of which the trunk grows, are metaphysics. Rand's philosophy seems to fit this pattern, sowing a metaphysical grain of seed, from which might, if tended reasonably, grow a grand philosophically aesthetic, ethical tree. But Descartes adds this little thing (which in his philosophy, he doesn't give a lot of further consideration, by the way), that ultimately the tree is judged by the fruit it produces, and that is somewhat the way I see it: The reasonable tree is not one with good roots, but one with good yield.

Felix: I'm a little hesitant about further elaborating what my position is, as it still shifts now and then. Besides, I'm here to try to get a basic understanding of objectivism, not to spew my ideas on these things. :)

But well, "there's no truth. Everything is just somebody's opinion" may suffice as half of a crude description of what my opinions are. I do not think there is a truth the way objectivism seems to define it, but I do have some kind of a conception of truth.

But I would be interested in how objectivism managed to convince you? Perhaps I'm just missing some 'fundamental' point.

DavidOdden: Could you explain how Rand's metaphysics differs from other kinds of metaphysics? (Where these other kinds may for convenience sake be described as the original Greek ta meta ta physika, Latin trans physicam, English supernatural, as in 'making claims not supported by empirical data'?)

Again to Bold Standard: Rand seems to reject all progress made in philosophy since Kant... I was going to ask whether she is like the pinnacle of scholastic philosophy, with man instead of God as knowledge's point of emanation? :)

For as far as I know, saying byebye to metaphysics doesn't mean saying byebye to philosophy. It 'just' means saying byebye to the philosophy of old, but it opens new ways of exciting contemporary philosophy as well - and then I don't mean logical positivism.

In general: I'm really not here to try to deconstruct objectivism. If it seems I'm criticizing, that's because I want to understand.

And, I'm sorry if the things I'm saying are all very standard questions and remarks. I knew completely nothing about Rand's objectivism a week or two ago. I'm just trying to grasp the material with all the means I have, and if few those be, then so be it. I find that personal interaction with people who know what they're talking about is always much better a teacher than reading books is. I really appreciate the serious

replies you all are giving me!

Thanks,

Jan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you explain how Rand's metaphysics differs from other kinds of metaphysics?
It's probably simplest to say that it's nondistinct from Aristotelian metaphysics. Don't take that to imply that I think I really understand Aristotelian metaphysics. Specifically, Objectivism sets forth the primacy of existence, the law of identity and the corollary law of causality, as well as the axiomaticity of consciousness.

I note your interest in contemporary approaches in philosophy, but don't see why you think that being contemporary is a virtue. That might be a concrete example of a difference between your beliefs and Objectivism. Objectivism hold existence to be primary, and that which exists has an identity; that identity is in the nature of the existent and not the consciousness that perceives it. In short, opinions about things do not change the identity of the thing. So we are interested in what is -- that is, in truth -- and therefore consideration of matters of opinion are irrelevant. An interest in modernity is an appeal to opinion, not reality, so we don't really care what constitutes "modern" philosophy. Perhaps you don't really care more about modernity than you do about reality, but if you are more interested in what is rather than what people think, you could consider just ignoring the "modern" point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, for as far as I know, we don't live in Ancient Greece or in the Enlightenment, and their interpretations of rationality are out of date.

In fact, technically speaking -you know, from a modern point of view-, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics are all out of date.

That is the modern consensus, indeed. However, in reality (assuming there is one), philosophic truths are not like fashions that go in and out of style. If something can be proven to correspond to reality (and it is among the primary goals of Objectivist epistemology to demonstrate that this is possible), then it is true once and for all, in all identical contexts, and immutably so. (I'll have to look up the Greek and Latin root words; someone else might tell you first).

In fact, just as Ayn Rand could (in a certain sense) be viewed as a more extreme or consistent version of Aristotle, all of the moderns can be traced back to similar roots in Ancient Greece. Specifically, Plato and Heraclitus seem to have the modern world under their spell, but in a much more extreme and consistent way than they would have predicted. The very idea of philosophical principles becoming "out of date" reminds me of Heraclitus' famous statements, "Everything changes; nothing abides," or, "One may never step in the same river twice, for new waters are always rushing in." There's nothing "new" about modern philosophical ideas in terms of fundamentals, though-- it's just the extremes to which they take some of their conclusions that's new.

If metaphysics and epistemology are to be the foundation of philosophy, I can't see how philosophy couldn't ever not be speculative, and I don't think that that is what modern philosophy should be. I mean, if we allow philosophy to be speculation, then religion for example, would become perfectly viable philosophy, which I really don't think it is anymore.
It's not speculative. But the reason is more involved that I could expound here-- my best suggestion is to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, even though you said you don't want to read. It's very clearly written, and I think it would end up saving you time in the end.

FeatherFall: I survived all nine works of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, does that grant me a chance at ploughing through Rand's fiction? :confused:

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to say I think AR is a much more interesting writer than Goodkind (in fact, he plagiarizes her pretty often, in the "loose" sense of the word meaning copying a line written by another author verbatim and treating it as if it were your own). But if you liked Sword of Truth, I think you'll like Ayn Rand's fiction even more. There are a lot of Sword of Truth fans at this forum.

Again to Bold Standard: Rand seems to reject all progress made in philosophy since Kant... I was going to ask whether she is like the pinnacle of scholastic philosophy, with man instead of God as knowledge's point of emanation? :)

No, she only rejects the destruction and havoc wrecked since Kant. She makes good use of the progress-- she's not a reversion to pre-Kantian philosophy; she provides a new, revolutionary basis for rejecting Kant. (Again I can refer you to ITOE for a precise explanation). She is not like scholastic philosophy, with Man in the place of God. That would be what she would call the "primacy of consciousness" fallacy, which holds some consciousness or consciousnesses as having power to control or dictate reality. She upholds "the primacy of existence," which holds existence as fundamental, and consciousness is then only a perceiver or "spectator" (as moderns would say) of reality. She believes in volition, but she describes it as merely the power to think (exercise the mind's ability to perceive reality) or not to think. Thinking beings are capable of rearranging (according to laws of nature) reality, but not creating reality.

For as far as I know, saying byebye to metaphysics doesn't mean saying byebye to philosophy. It 'just' means saying byebye to the philosophy of old, but it opens new ways of exciting contemporary philosophy as well - and then I don't mean logical positivism.

Observe what happens to the fruit of a tree, when you dig up the roots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FeatherFall: I survived all nine works of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, does that grant me a chance at ploughing through Rand's fiction? :)

Could you tell me what objectivism's three basic axioma's are? Oh, and, are these really self-evident, or just a point you say we shouldn't want to go beyond? And, could you explain what's wrong with contradiction? Or is that a question I shouldn't ask because it's self-evident?

I don't doubt that you can handle her fiction. I knew a girl who claimed to have read _Atlas_Shrugged_ in one day. I simply don't endorse Rand's novels as useful texts for understanding her philosophy. I endorse her fiction as a means of entertainment for people who identify with her philosophy on an emotional level.

As far as the axioms are concerned, David addressed them:

Specifically, Objectivism sets forth the primacy of existence, the law of identity and the corollary law of causality, as well as the axiomaticity of consciousness.

I'll offer clarity:

1) Identity: A thing cannot at once be one thing, and something its not. Existence exists. A is A.

2) Causality: The law of identity applied to processes. A thing's actions and effects follow it's form.

3) Consciousness: If something is perceived, there must be a consciousness capable of perceiving it.

If you think you can make sense with a claim without employing these three axioms, you're in for disappointment.

This addresses what is wrong with contradictions - they don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law of identity (A is A) is a restatement (from the medieval period) of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction, which was "A cannot equal non-A at the same time and in the same respect." (I only mention that because FeatherFall left out the "in the same respect" part).

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felix: I'm a little hesitant about further elaborating what my position is, as it still shifts now and then. Besides, I'm here to try to get a basic understanding of objectivism, not to spew my ideas on these things. :)

But well, "there's no truth. Everything is just somebody's opinion" may suffice as half of a crude description of what my opinions are. I do not think there is a truth the way objectivism seems to define it, but I do have some kind of a conception of truth.

But I would be interested in how objectivism managed to convince you? Perhaps I'm just missing some 'fundamental' point.

Well, the reason I want to know a bit more about what you currently think is the fact that I don't really know what it is you want (or need) to know about Objectivism to understand what it says. I can't really lead you from A to B if I have no clue where A is.

Therefore it would be good to know what your conception of truth is as well as your idea of what Objectivism's claim to objectivity means. If you don't tell me what you think I have to make assumptions. And you might then find me arguing against things you don't even believe and explaining things you already understand. Or simpler: It will be boring, frustrating and ineffective.

It doesn't matter if your opinion changes now and then. Actually, it means that you are capable of finding errors in your reasoning and eliminating them. That's a good sign. :)

I'm not an expert on Objectivist epistemology, yet, but I think I have a good grasp of the basics, so I'll just give it a try [Note to everyone: If what I'm telling is wrong, please correct me!]:

Objectivity means two things:

First it means that there is an external world out there. Something that is real and not only imagined. I'll assume you agree with that one.

The second part is trickier and this is also where your "It's all just an opinion"-part comes in. I'll try to give you a short introduction to what this means:

Man has to grasp this reality somehow. He does so through his senses, first. So the first thing you'd have to understand is that you have to take your sensory input as 100% valid. Now this requires some additional explainations. If you have a pencil and put it into a glass of water, it appears to be bent. Now you might say that this is proof that you can't assume that your sensory input is 100% valid. But how do you know that? Only through other sensory output. I guess the way to put it is that there's no reason to fundamentally mistrust your senses. For in this example, you see the pencil as bent. Combined with your prior knowledge (sensory input) you can now learn something about the nature of light. What you can't deny is that you see it as bent when it's in the water and as not bent when it's not. You don't really have a choice about that.

What made me consider the possibility of objective knowledge was basically reading Atlas Shrugged. I was a full-fledged relativist at that point (Robert Anton Wilson was my favourite author). It's hard to nail it down to one single reason that convinced me, as it's hard to untangle that since AS is over 1000 pages and contained a philosophy that was the complete opposite of my own at that time. So it was pretty much a roundhouse kick to my face. :ninja:

But if I had to pick one reason to consider dropping relativism as reasonable it would be the approaching-truck-argument. Imagine there was a giant truck rushing towards you. What would you do? Would you say that it's only an opinion? That your senses are tricking you? Would you wonder whether you have the right to assume knowledge? Nope. You'd just jump aside as quick as possible to save your life. This is what everyone would do.

The reason I like this argument is because it shows that you can't stick to relativism consistently, because then you'd have to give up knowledge completely. You basically give up your mind as a tool for survival and die in the end. If "everything is just an opinion" is the fundamental belief then that, too, is just an opinion and you lose yourself in infinite regress.

If you don't want to read a large book, I'd recommend you at least go to a local video store and borrow "The Edge" with Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin.

Link to comment
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...