7 hours ago, Nicky said:
So, when you said that “Objectivists don’t really have a handle on the other side”, that was just a lie you made up. There is no actual reason for you to say that. You have exactly zero evidence for it.
Rather than “just a lie you made up”, in the light of having zero evidence to substantiate it, would “just an arbitrary assertion” have worked just as well?
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
Rather than “just a lie you made up”, in the light of having zero evidence to substantiate it, would “just an arbitrary assertion” have worked just as well?
No, when someone is lying, calling their lies “arbitrary”, or “alternative facts”, or anything else, won’t do you any good. The only English word that accurately describes someone intentionally stating something that isn’t true is “lie”.
By the way, the post you just replied to was originally deleted. Since you’re a mod, would you mind explaining who and why deleted it, and who and why restored it?
There was also a thread I started, to complain about the deletion, that was deleted. Would you mind explaining why THAT was deleted? Or are these truths I’m not entitled to? And if so, why?
14 hours ago, Nicky said:
No, when someone is lying, calling their lies “arbitrary”, or “alternative facts”, or anything else, won’t do you any good. The only English word that accurately describes someone intentionally stating something that isn’t true is “lie”.
That answers my question.
15 hours ago, Nicky said:
By the way, the post you just replied to was originally deleted. Since you’re a mod, would you mind explaining who and why deleted it, and who and why restored it?
I restored it, in order to respond with my question. It was hidden as being provocative (exact wording eludes me.)
For what it’s worth, “mystic muck” only appears in Galt’s Speech, while her journal was comparing 1950’s India with New York for contrast of lifestyle, which is dropping context if recent events in India are being substituted to draw what amounts to an erroneous conclusion.
On 1/30/2017 at 5:41 AM, Dustin86 said:
Yes, she grew up in Soviet Russia, but that was a regime that claimed the mantle of “logic” and “reason” and “objectivity” every bit as fervently as she. Now you or them or anyone else can argue as to who was the proper heir of that mantle, but the fact is that the Soviets claimed that mantle with equal fervor as she.
Hang on, tovarisch. You just placed Ayn Rand on equal epistemological footing with Joseph Stalin on Objectivism Online.
What sort of response are you looking for here? Are you asking us to disprove your ridiculous assertion by demonstrating some sort of familiarity with whatever supernatural theories you won’t even specify, so that we don’t lose you to “the other side”?
You sound like you’re already there, tovarisch.
On 1/30/2017 at 5:41 AM, Dustin86 said:
With other high-profile Objectivists it seems to be the exact same story. As far as I can tell, Objectivists don’t really have a handle on “the other side”; they fire off criticisms of “mystics” without really knowing what “mystics” are saying.
Try me. B)
On 1/30/2017 at 5:41 AM, Dustin86 said:
With other high-profile Objectivists it seems to be the exact same story. As far as I can tell, Objectivists don’t really have a handle on “the other side”; they fire off criticisms of “mystics” without really knowing what “mystics” are saying.
9 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
Try me. B)
I really should’ve elaborated a bit more. Sorry about that.
There is one and only one “rational” method of thinking. Whatever conclusions you reach by that method, regardless of whatever evidence is at your personal disposal, are rational; whatever you conclude for any other reason is irrational. I use “conclusion” here with a special emphasis on commitment. There’s nothing irrational about the guess-and-check method unless it becomes guess-and-cling-to-forevermore.
The number of alternative ways someone could arrive at their beliefs (I.e. the number of possible forms of irrationality) is unlimited. They could go by the Bible. They could go by their elders’ beliefs or The Party’s beliefs or they could go by their negations. They could go by whatever undigested impressions they take from whatever random experiences. They could go by the stars or the weather or the behavior of birds or something they once saw in a bad acid trip. There is an infinity of wrong options.
If your only complaint is the way we1 (O’ists) lump all “irrational philosophies” into a single bucket - we1 do that because Objectivism is the only philosophical system that fits with “reason” from top to bottom (in essence and in sum if not in every microscopic detail). We1 can rationally demonstrate that this is true and that it is (again, demonstrably) the single most important factor in the quality of every single one of our1 lives. It’s a very real difference which we1 ought to take very seriously.
If you have some particular philosophy in mind - name it! I’m far too familiar with the various tribes of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Wicca, Satanism (Theistic and LaVeyan), a handful of pagan pantheons, the ritualistic methods of Aleister Crowley and the Indian death cult of which Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was such a good caricature. I did some ideological scavenging before I found Objectivism and most of it is still there, today, wasting some irretrievable portion of my brain. I’d love to put it to some use by explaining to you what’s wrong with any particular one but you have to pick one. I will not run through them all, individually, just for your amusement.
If you’d be a bit more specific I’d be happy to discuss it (whatever it is). If not then have some music, anyway. It’s good for the soul.
Footnote 1:
I’d like to apologize for my somewhat cavalier use of “we”, in that sentence, but if you consider yourself an Objectivist and also believe that reason is either useless or meaningless then I simply don’t take any account of you. Life is too short, you know?
I really think not with the exception of a few who have become academic philosophers. When I had my disillusionment with Objectivism, I discovered a wonderful world of ideas beyond. Then I could come back and find a renewed appreciation for the good parts in Objectivist philosophy. Objectivism is like most other philosophies, it has its good parts, and it has its bad parts.
Many Objectivists who hate Nietzsche, Hume and Kant and existentialism haven’t really read them or given them a proper go. The intense moralizing makes it nearly impossible.
I’m reminded of Bruce Lee’s saying. ‘Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.’ - A great piece of meta-philosophical advice. I’ll take the good ideas and discard the rest.
8 hours ago, Nerian said:
I’m reminded of Bruce Lee’s saying. ‘Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.’ - A great piece of meta-philosophical advice. I’ll take the good ideas and discard the rest.
What about the contradictions? How do you deal with those?
12 hours ago, Nicky said:
What about the contradictions? How do you deal with those?
Try to resolve them where possible. I try to build a consistent and empirically verifiable world view.
There are linguistic slight of hands, contradictions and plain empirically false premises in Objectivism too. That’s why I have to discard a lot of it. Keeping only what makes sense and is verifiable.
Sometimes when reading philosophy you can see how something is not quite right, but onto something important, has a point, while not being totally correct.
22 hours ago, Nerian said:
Many Objectivists who hate Nietzsche, Hume and Kant and existentialism haven’t really read them or given them a proper go. The intense moralizing makes it nearly impossible.
Maybe moralizing is an issue, but these aren’t issues of Objectivism per se. Nothing in Objectivism makes Nietzsche, Kant, or Hume inherently wrong. That is, evaluating whether they are right or wrong is a matter of studying them.
1 hour ago, Nerian said:
There are linguistic slight of hands, contradictions and plain empirically false premises in Objectivism too.
I guess (I’d say there aren’t a ton), but whatever the case, don’t be pragmatic with what’s useful! Ask what is true or really does evaluate the world. Dustin seemed to be saying Objectivist type people are simply unwilling to understand any alternative views.
I agree that other philosophers have great and valuable ideas - only you can ultimately judge their words.
On 7/12/2017 at 6:19 AM, Nerian said:
Try to resolve them where possible. I try to build a consistent and empirically verifiable world view.
There are linguistic slight of hands, contradictions and plain empirically false premises in Objectivism too. That’s why I have to discard a lot of it. Keeping only what makes sense and is verifiable.
Sometimes when reading philosophy you can see how something is not quite right, but onto something important, has a point, while not being totally correct.
Ok, well, hopefully you’ll hang around on the forum, and, over time, prove these (thus far superficial) claims by getting into specifics.As a start, would you mind describing what you consider the biggest contradiction within Objectivism?
Quote
Try to resolve them where possible.
Ok, but what do you do about the actual contradictions (meaning the ones that can’t be resolved)?
While we’re on the subject, how do you define a “contradiction”? Do you accept the Objectivist premise of the supremacy or logic applied to reality? In other words, do you believe that contradictions, as defined by Ayn Rand, are flaws?
On 13/07/2017 at 3:32 PM, Nicky said:
Ok, well, hopefully you’ll hang around on the forum, and, over time, prove these (thus far superficial) claims by getting into specifics.As a start, would you mind describing what you consider the biggest contradiction within Objectivism?
Ok, but what do you do about the actual contradictions (meaning the ones that can’t be resolved)?
While we’re on the subject, how do you define a “contradiction”? Do you accept the Objectivist premise of the supremacy or logic applied to reality? In other words, do you believe that contradictions, as defined by Ayn Rand, are flaws?
Quote
these (thus far superficial) claims
I’m not sure if I detect an accusatory tone or not. If asked, I’m happy to elaborate a bit. If you want elaboration and some amount of proof to accept a claim, that’s natural, of course so, but you can’t expect a full elaboration and proof every time someone states any opinion on a forum. Not only is that just impractical, it’d make any normal discussion impossible. You’d have to write an essay or a book in some cases. Hopefully that’s not your attitude, and I misread the tone.
Quote
Ok, but what do you do about the actual contradictions (meaning the ones that can’t be resolved)?
If you determine there to be a genuine contradiction, one way to resolve it is to discard one or both of the contradicting premises. If neither premise can be discarded, the contradiction is left unresolved, and that is life. I note this problem and as stated try to resolve if I can. I may never. I don’t think I have everything figured out. This may seem strange to Objectivists, to have unresolved questions.
One example for me is the contradiction between my direct experience of my free will and the fact that there’s no conception of free will that makes any sense in a universe with cause and effect. From subjective first person view it seems directly apparent that I have free will, but it also makes no sense from a third person view of the universe for free will to exist. (I don’t find the Objectivist arguments persuasive.) Since I cannot get rid of cause and effect, and I see no way to resolve the contradiction. I have no resolution. One or both premises must be incorrect, but nevertheless I cannot determine which.
Quote
As a start, would you mind describing what you consider the biggest contradiction within Objectivism?
I can only point out what I think are contradictions. The only fair and complete treatment would require me to go through OPAR line by line and point out exactly where it goes wrong in my view.
Quote
Do you accept the Objectivist premise of the supremacy or logic applied to reality?
I accept reason and evidence as the only way to know and understand anything about reality. Insofar as we know and understand anything about reality, we do so by reason (and evidence).
Quote
how do you define a “contradiction”?
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another
a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions
a statement that is at variance with itself
Quote
do you believe that contradictions, as defined by Ayn Rand, are flaws?
Yes. lol
8 hours ago, Nerian said:
I can only point out what I think are contradictions. The only fair and complete treatment would require me to go through OPAR line by line and point out exactly where it goes wrong in my view.
Still, … with the caveat that you may have misunderstood, and “E&OE”, what are some things that seem like they’re probably contradictions in Objectivism. Not asking for a thesis. As you said yourself, this is a forum. A conversational few lines will suffice to keep the conversation going.
11 hours ago, Nerian said:
I have no resolution. One or both premises must be incorrect, but nevertheless I cannot determine which.
An additional way to look at it is to actually combine them! The free will thing is hard to get, in particular if you use the typical definition of free will. A combination can lead you to see that first- and third- person can be -of- the same process. I think this relates to the OP since if “lambast” another side you also need to grasp the foundation of ideas and errors, not just being right or wrong. Similarly, some people are caught up in a definition of free will without looking at the possibility of other foundations, -then- judging that side or what value is present in that side.
12 hours ago, Nerian said:
I’m not sure if I detect an accusatory tone or not. If asked, I’m happy to elaborate a bit. If you want elaboration and some amount of proof to accept a claim, that’s natural, of course so, but you can’t expect a full elaboration and proof every time someone states any opinion on a forum. Not only is that just impractical, it’d make any normal discussion impossible. You’d have to write an essay or a book in some cases. Hopefully that’s not your attitude, and I misread the tone.
Not accusatory…just pointing out a fact you seem to be agreeing with: what you’re saying needs to be backed up with some substance, eventually.
So far, you haven’t even touched on any actual ideas. Everything you said could’ve just as easily been said by someone who has never read a single sentence of philosophy, and just happens to know the names of a few philosophers.
Again: not accusing you of anything. Just pointing out what you have and haven’t said.
Quote
If you determine there to be a genuine contradiction, one way to resolve it is to discard one or both of the contradicting premises. If neither premise can be discarded, the contradiction is left unresolved, and that is life. I note this problem and as stated try to resolve if I can. I may never. I don’t think I have everything figured out. This may seem strange to Objectivists, to have unresolved questions.
Why? We don’t think we’re omniscient. We’re confident in our ability to answer questions (because, unlike most people, we believe reason can be used to figure out the answer to any question there is), but that’s not the same as believing we have answered all questions.
2 hours ago, Nicky said:
So far, you haven’t even touched on any actual ideas. Everything you said could’ve just as easily been said by someone who has never read a single sentence of philosophy, and just happens to know the names of a few philosophers.
That is true.
2 hours ago, Nicky said:
Why? We don’t think we’re omniscient. We’re confident in our ability to answer questions (because, unlike most people, we believe reason can be used to figure out the answer to any question there is), but that’s not the same as believing we have answered all questions.
Unfortunately, I’ve experienced the type of Objectivist who thinks failing so solve all questions in philosophy means one cannot be happy, is suspect morally, and cannot even hope to live on this earth without inevitable self destruction looming. But I can accept most are not like this.
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:
An additional way to look at it is to actually combine them! The free will thing is hard to get, in particular if you use the typical definition of free will. A combination can lead you to see that first- and third- person can be -of- the same process. I think this relates to the OP since if “lambast” another side you also need to grasp the foundation of ideas and errors, not just being right or wrong. Similarly, some people are caught up in a definition of free will without looking at the possibility of other foundations, -then- judging that side or what value is present in that side.
I do have an affinity for compatibilist arguments, but it seems to me that there is a point to the retort that it’s merely shifting the definition and moving the goal post, not resolving the actual issue.
5 hours ago, softwareNerd said:
Still, … with the caveat that you may have misunderstood, and “E&OE”, what are some things that seem like they’re probably contradictions in Objectivism. Not asking for a thesis. As you said yourself, this is a forum. A conversational few lines will suffice to keep the conversation going.
Well, the whole thesis of life as the standard of value, yet morality starts with a choice to live. Why choose to live?
That the value in life is to be happy, but life is the standard of value, which makes all other values have value, and you be happy by achieving life, why achieve life, well to be happy, why be happy, to survive, why survive, cause happy. It’s circular and sterile. And it contradicts what is understood about evolution and human psychology. And it even contradicts direct personal experience. And it even contradicts Objectivism’s view that life’s value is the things we enjoy in it. Which is it?
And the answer in OPAR is just moralizing assuming the premise.
Problems with the view of happiness and survival. Happiness is good because it helps survival, but the point of living is to be happy, but to be happy you must be successful at living, but being successful at living is the point of being happy. We really just want to be happy for its own sake. The way you want an orgasm 'cause it feels good. Pleasure is really the intrinsic value in life. And what we find pleasure in, and what makes us happy, is at root unchosen. Once you go looking into psychology, you find a world of interesting ideas about what we want for its own sake. What our innate drives are.
That takes us onto tabula rasa in the face of all the logic and evidence counter to it. Innate drives and inclinations are almost self evident at this point. Especially if you recognize humans are animals like any other.
It seems to me also that Objectivism makes no attempt to integrate itself with facts of human nature, what is understood about psychology and cognitive science, how desires and motivations actually work, where they come from and how they interact with our beliefs. Because of this, you find claims that are in gross contradiction with reality, such as reason can determine what is worth doing, that reason can motivate. And I believe it can cause suffering and emotional distress amongst believers. Rand’s issues in her life initially surprised me, back when I read her biographies, but not anymore. They follow logically. Living in contradiction with reality is often painful.
2 hours ago, Nerian said:
That takes us onto tabula rasa in the face of all the logic and evidence counter to it.
What does the concept tabula rasa refer to? Why would such a concept arise, and furthermore persist, if it were invalidly based?
Another way of asking this is: What was the logic and evidence, or reasoning, that gave rise to the concept of tabula rasa?
(Hint: John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding would be a good start. What, since this, has been discovered that obsoleted his investigative report?)
44 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
What does the concept tabula rasa refer to? Why would such a concept arise, and furthermore persist, if it were invalidly based?
Another way of asking this is: What was the logic and evidence, or reasoning, that gave rise to the concept of tabula rasa?
(Hint: John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding would be a good start. What, since this, has been discovered that obsoleted his investigative report?)
Modern cognitive science, neuroscience, behavioural genetics and evolutionary psychology
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Quote
Why would such a concept arise, and furthermore persist, if it were invalidly based?
Persistence of concepts is no sign of their validity. (if that’s what you are insinuating)
You can water down tabula rasa and it has some validity. It’s true that we aren’t born with proper knowledge or innate ideas of objects. But Rand herself said, you don’t even have any innate tendancies and that man has no instincts, etc. She meant it in the strong sense, not the watered down sense.
5 minutes ago, Nerian said:
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
The title is certainly spontaneous. The modern denial… Why this comes off as trying proving a negative escapes me at the moment.
12 minutes ago, Nerian said:
Persistence of concepts is no sign of their validity. (if that’s what you are insinuating)
Agreed. The validity of any concept rests on a much more intensive (and investigative) basis.