http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth–71-Has_Objectivism_Been_Refuted.aspx
I read this response and sent it along to the author of the five-part criticism. Very good.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth–71-Has_Objectivism_Been_Refuted.aspx
From the same author, in response to exactly this TAS review:
It’s been a while since I’ve dialogued on Objectivism (see here and here). Despite working a lot, since I was just forwarded this reply to Robbins’ critique on which much - though not all - of my thoughts depended, I thought it might be a good opportunity to refresh my memory, even though the book to which the article’s author is responding is actually a revised edition of the one I read (“Answer to Ayn Rand,” not “Without a Prayer”). Since the author doesn’t deal with the bulk of Robbins’ arguments, I will similarly deal with those of his which I believe best exhibit the problematic nature of Objectivism.
Epistemology
In the first paragraph, the author redefines what it means for a claim to be logically valid. A claim is logically valid because it follows from a [set of] premise. Axioms by definition cannot be conclusions derived from a [set of] premise. He writes: “[An Objectivist’s axiom is] valid because it formulates a fact that is directly perceived.” However, it is one thing to say that an epistemological system is self-attesting (viz. that the system explains the means or historical process by which one comes to accept an axiom), it is quite another to suggest that an axiom - which is a “fundamental” premise by definition - can be predicated on “direct perception” and yet remain an axiom.
Either he is arguing one knows the “axiom of existence” is true because he “directly perceives” it (even though he, like Rand, cannot even define existence!), in which case the idea that existence is “axiomatic” is false, or he is arguing that the “axiom of existence” explains how one was able to historically (not propositionally) come to accept the “axiom of existence,” which doesn’t explain why such an axiom would be valid; after all, I can state that regeneration is the historical point at which I was able to come to terms with Scripturalism, but since Objectivism and Scripturalism purport mutually exclusive claims derived from different epistemological axioms, it cannot be the case that this historical explanatory power is itself sufficient to constitute an axiom as valid. Whatever the author means, he seems to be arguing circularly. Compare these two statements:
“[An Objectivist’s axiom is] valid because it formulates a fact that is directly perceived.”
“…the Objectivist account of perception is that people are directly aware of the external world in perception; that there is no mental stand-in for reality. And since the Objectivist position is a corollary of the axioms of existence and consciousness, it cannot be questioned without self-contradiction.”
In the first quote, we are told that the Objectivist’s axioms are valid *because* they were directly perceived, and in the second, we are told that the concept of direct perception is a corollary (not a justificatory basis) for the Objectivist’s axioms - i.e. direct perception is true *because* of the Objectivist’s axioms. At best, he is equivocating, so, having already teased out the possible meanings of his first quote in as “charitable” a manner as I think can be reasonably expected and found his arguments wanting, I am not inclined to think that, had he actually addressed the other arguments Robbins made in the chapter on Objectivist epistemology, he would have faired much better.
Ethics
This section was exceptionally poor (compare what the author covers to this). The author, noting the “problem of suicide” Robbins noted, states that “Robbins’s claim… does not qualify as an argument. He is simply drawing a correct implication from Rand’s ethics and decrying that implication. He provides no reason for believing that the implication is false.” No, that is not what Robbins is doing. The author seems to forget what he himself wrote was the purpose of Robbins remarks: to demonstrate the subjectivity of Objectivist morality. Rand’s claim, then, that “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do” (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17) is falsified, period.
The rest of the section, small as it is, relies on twin fallacies, inductivism and question-begging, apparent to anyone who reads it:
“A man who seeks to survive by the skin of his teeth into the next moment is highly unlikely to survive for a normal life span. One is more likely to succeed in sustaining one’s existence over a period of time if one attempts to create or trade for a vast array of values, such as material wealth, art, recreation, general education, self-esteem, friendship, romantic love, and all the other values that would make one flourish.”)
I actually think responding to something like this is worth it for those who can, I mean I would like to read a response to this, mainly the epistemology part (the rest really is a waste of time.) But just think about someone who doesn’t know very much about empiricism or concept formation and just reads this, it might spur more third party/onlookers to look more deeper into Objectivism if even a brief correction of some of the errors were put in the comments. At least it was an actual attempt at criticism and not just a barrage of insults and ad hominem. I mean, I’ve seen Harry Binswanger personally respond to stuff that was almost pure ad hominem, just to correct misunderstandings for any casual onlookers, so we might consider doing the same here.
It appears that some are searching for answers without having to think for themselves.
I looked very briefly at the first link originally noted and read:
"‘At birth, a child’s mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness – the mechanism of a human consciousness – but no content…’(Rand)
This is a contradiction in terms; a conscious mind conscious of nothing is nonsensical. Yet it is a presupposition which Rand must believe if her definition of reason and epistemology as experience-derived is to be strictly adhered to…"
Rand’s context has been dropped here: “at birth” means pre-awareness.
Now, do people on this forum really need that level of understanding?
Is it not reasonable to ask them to think through such a conflict and at least form a decent question to better understand what Rand is saying?
On 6/23/2010 at 8:01 PM, DavidOdden said:
An axiom is not derived. Nor is an axiom accepted blindly, without evidence. An axiom is self-evident.
My understanding is that “the impossibility of refutation” ends up being a powerful proof and can serve as evidence.
10 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
My understanding is that “the impossibility of refutation” ends up being a powerful proof and can serve as evidence.
You have to assume the axioms to show that it is impossible to refute the axioms, so it isn’t a proof. “p, therefore p” is never a proof of p, even if p is known to be true on other grounds.
11 minutes ago, William O said:
You have to assume the axioms to show that it is impossible to refute the axioms, so it isn’t a proof. “p, therefore p” is never a proof of p, even if p is known to be true on other grounds.
That is a serious problem for me. I am in a debate with a skeptic who claims that “everything is an assumption, man-made constructs”. I have brought up the law of identity and “existence exists” and his private response is “I don’t understand you”.
The only way I have found to get a response is to have the discussion in public forum and try to “embarrass” him with his self-refuting statements. That has had far better results.
Instead of proof maybe my last statement should be “My understanding is that “the impossibility of refutation” ends up being a strong persuader/explainer”.
Just now, Easy Truth said:
That is a serious problem for me. I am in a debate with a skeptic who claims that “everything is an assumption, man-made constructs”. I have brought up the law of identity and “existence exists” and his private response is “I don’t understand you”.
The only way I have found to get a response is to have the discussion in public forum and try to “embarrass” him with his self-refuting statements. That has had far better results.
Instead of proof maybe my last statement should be “My understanding is that “the impossibility of refutation” ends up being a strong persuader/explainer”.
Is there any particular reason why you need to change this person’s mind? I do debate with non-Objectivists, but I tend to bow out pretty quickly if they say something silly.
Hume got a lot wrong, but I like this passage from the second Enquiry: “Disputes with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are, of all others, the most irksome; except, perhaps, those with persons, entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in inforcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”
1 hour ago, William O said:
Is there any particular reason why you need to change this person’s mind? I do debate with non-Objectivists, but I tend to bow out pretty quickly if they say something silly.
Yes, The reason is he is very influential in the philosophical community I am in. He talks down to people sort of shutting down the flow of information.
I am also interested in the psychological reasons why people evade. If I know how and why others evade, and a method is devised to catch and fix, or prevent, then when I evade, someone can help with my evasions.
Most of the problem in the philosophy groups is simply “not knowing”/ignorance. People who have not read up on philosophy come too.
It has some positive effect. Just yesterday a religious member of the community said he liked an article on Rand so much that he was willing to read “her stuff” now. This is after 3 years of debating with him. I had not read the article but another objectivist had sent the link out. (something about why Christians should pay attention to Rand)
And yes, there is a limit to tolerating them.
16 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
Yes, The reason is he is very influential in the philosophical community I am in. He talks down to people sort of shutting down the flow of information.
This is going to be an uphill battle, because the person you’re debating with is not being honest. I can tell that just from your description of him above: He claimed that he didn’t understand the axioms of existence and identity, but the axioms of existence and identity are self evident, so he is not being honest.
You might try mockery. His claiming not to know anything provides plenty of material for that - he has to assume he has knowledge just to type out his posts on his keyboard. You will also need to point out all of the stolen concepts and fallacies of self exclusion that he is doubtlessly committing with every post.
Quote
I am also interested in the psychological reasons why people evade. If I know how and why others evade, and a method is devised to catch and fix, or prevent, then when I evade, someone can help with my evasions.
He has free will, so if he doesn’t want to look at reality then he won’t.
1 Like
20 minutes ago, William O said:
You might try mockery. His claiming not to know anything provides plenty of material for that - he has to assume he has knowledge just to type out his posts on his keyboard. You will also need to point out all of the stolen concepts and fallacies of self exclusion that he is doubtlessly committing with every post.
Agreed, mockery is the only thing that has brought him out of his shell, based on his desire to maintain his credibility and reputation.
Easy truth, I take your comments as a form of what I coined as rhetoric mining. You say that you decided to try to:
On 7/5/2018 at 1:15 PM, Easy Truth said:
“embarrass” him with his self-refuting statements.
I am curious if you actually decided consciously that pointing out this persons stolen concepts publicly would serve to embarrass him?
I have more thoughts but want to hear your response first.
3 hours ago, Plasmatic said:
I am curious if you actually decided consciously that pointing out this persons stolen concepts publicly would serve to embarrass him?
Not sure, he was embarrassed when I said simple things like:
Him: The important question is does “Absolute Truth” exist?
Me:-For some reason, you can’t recognize the “truth” right now. How would you recognize it when you see it later on?
He basically pushed for the idea that knowledge is all assumptions. My jabs using self-refutation were:
Me:-To say that “we are not equipped to know the truth” is to claim that you know a truth. Now, where did this truth come from?
Me:-The statement “Induction can never lead to absolute truth” is a statement indicating an absolute truth.
One not so comical but bizarre exchange was:
Me:-Is an arbitrary assumption after reflection, after evidence, after the impossibility of refuting it still an arbitrary assumption? (which amazingly he doubled down, said yes) Me:-How can someone convince another that “they can know” when they have decided to “assume” that “knowing is always assuming”.
He attacked truth and falsehood as too simplistic
Me:-So instead of “true” or “false” your preferred system of logic has “who knows” and “what do I care”?
He said I was using the argument for faith: I have faith so I know the truth and since he does not “he should repent”.
Me:–You believe truth is arbitrary assumptions, you’re the one who has faith in your so-called truth. (I don’t know how obvious that was to people)
I was hoping that the “audience/participants” could see the ridiculousness or contradictions in his statements which would force him to explain his assertions otherwise end up looking stupid.
My straight explanations are ignored in a private setting (between me and him) sometimes with abusive comments like “you’re just not educated enough” or something to the effect of “the best minds in the world disagree with you”.
But it ended well with him graciously thanking me for “the information” which I interpret as a major improvement.