Objectivism and "Objectivist Views"

Questions about Objectivism
1

You are just here to argue with those who sympathize with Objectivist views on foreign policy.

Some of you know me, others not. I’m interested in how Objectivism exists as a movement, what its beliefs are and where they come from. My understanding based on speaking to people in the chat service as well as some web browsing is that “Objectivism” is an abstract philosophy concerning the big 5 - Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. Facts about the world and how we should act in it can be derived from Objectivism but are not part of Objectivism. This means that “Man is volitional”, “There is no God” and “Romanticism is the only valid art” are “Objectivist” positions, self evident and known philosophically whereas “I am 12 feet tall” and “Ron Paul is bad” are applications of Objectivism, not part of it. These issues are therefore open to debate amongst Objectivists as they relate to descriptive and therefore prescriptive facts.

This post me off though. Where is this “Objectivist view” derived from? Is it mentioned as some special self evident fact within the system of Objectivism? Is interventionism really as justified as “A is A”? Is it simply the ARI which determines this “Objectivist view”? If this is an “Objectivist view” are things like Global Warming also covered under this umbrella? What can and can not be doubted in the realm of facts about the world?

2

Are you intentionally trying to construct a strawman here?

“Romanticism is the only valid form of art” is not part of Objectivism. Romanticism is the *highest* form of art. How on earth could you consider “I am 12 feet tall” to be an application of Objectivism? Far from being derived from any aspect of any philosophy, the statement isn’t even *true*. You might as well say that the existence of quasars are an application of proper principles of cheese-making.

*Facts* cannot be doubted, period. What does come into question is what action should be called for to deal with the facts in some sort of productive fashion. Objectivism does not dictate the facts, it presents a method for figuring out what to do based on the facts, whatever they are. This includes a validation that the facts *are* real, that they are important, and that there’s only one method of dealing with them: reason.

Personally, I’m not even sure what “interventionism” consists of, but I do know why there is an official Objectivist stand on the unproven politicized prophecies of doom collectively referred to as “global warming”. This is because the environmentalists’ real goal is not to prevent a catastrophe, but to rule and dominate by scare tactics and reduce men to the level of animals unfit to survive in a world full of starvation, filth, and disease. It is the same stand, for the same reason, taken against anyone that tells you to ditch your means of survival in favor of God, LSD, or endangered minnows.

The “official” Objectivist view arises from the necessary logical consequences of a given course of action, fundamentally, long-term, in essential terms. Where there are two fundamental courses of action, one of them is going to be right and the other wrong and you can actually validate which one is which by application of logic. Fight against tyrranny or don’t fight? Destroy civilization or preserve it? The answers to these questions are simple given the proper framework. There are no fine distinctions here, this is the realm of broad strokes.

Now, several levels up derivation-wise, there is greatly increased complexity and thus it is more difficult to decide what course to take. An official Objectivist position in this realm (and those even more complex and derivative) would be absurd. Great thinkers may aid us in showing the way to approach these problems, but they involve serious choices that individuals must make every day. Everyone must ultimately do their own thinking in these areas and make their own decisions based on that thinking to the best of their ability. This includes things like “should I date this person?” and “what’s the best way to achieve my dream of becoming a writer?” and “what’s the best way for me to promote my political views?” The answers to these questions are not simple, and they are so contextual that it may prove to be right for one person to do one thing and another person to do another thing.

Most of the people on this board have no trouble telling the difference between these two realms, maybe because they actually bothered to do some reading and thinking rather than just browsing the internet and listening to people who may or may not have a clue what they’re talking about in chat. If you actually want to learn, get off your duff and read the books.

3

My question is simple, ultimately, are there facts about the world included within Objectivism? If so are they both descriptive and prescriptive; how and why were these facts determined, by whom, and what other facts are seen as self evident?

Thank you for your reply JMeganSnow, it answered my questions, albeit indirectly. Your reply had the seeds of a complete answer but didn’t say these answers overtly, because of that I want to take this conversation forward by examining what you said.

First is about questioning facts about the world versus questioning Objectivist philosophical positions. My understanding is that in Objectivism “A is A” or “Free Will” can not be doubted without the questioner assuming them in order to refute them. No rational doubt is possible. Facts about the world we live in however can be questioned rationally, I could be 12 feet tall or not, a quasar could be 3 billion light years away or not. Further these facts about the world are open to change with new evidence whereas Obejctivist axioms are not.

I believe this was confirmed with the following:

Facts* cannot be doubted, period. What does come into question is what action should be called for to deal with the facts in some sort of productive fashion. Objectivism does not dictate the facts, it presents a method for figuring out what to do based on the facts, whatever they are. This includes a validation that the facts *are* real, that they are important, and that there’s only one method of dealing with them: reason.

You contradict yourself here, saying facts can not be doubted then say they are open for validation. You then say however that while particular facts can be questioned reason itself can not. Okay, you don’t come out and say it but the process of determining truth is the process of applying reason in this quote, no other method to judge reason itself is offered and that’s the Objectivist position so I assume you agree - particular facts can and ought to be subjected to reason to determine whether they are true or false.

My question was what, if any facts (both descriptive and prescriptive) about the world exist in Objectvism.

I do know why there is an official Objectivist stand on the unproven politicized prophecies of doom collectively referred to as “global warming” his is because the environmentalists’ real goal is not to prevent a catastrophe, but to rule and dominate by scare tactics and reduce men to the level of animals unfit to survive in a world full of starvation, filth, and disease. It is the same stand, for the same reason, taken against anyone that tells you to ditch your means of survival in favor of God, LSD, or endangered minnows.

This could be saying 1 or 2 things, I’m not sure which.

The first, and a large part of my main query, is that in Objectivism Global Warming is not true. It is descriptively not happening. If so can this be subjected to verification, can it be honestly doubted? Or is doubting the falseness of global warming akin to doubting “A is A” or other major parts of the philosophy? If Global warming is self evidently false enough for Objectivists organizations like the ARI to bring its falseness up to this level (if again it does) why stop there? Why not other facts as well? Can we bring other facts like 4 dimensional space time or the causes of middle east violence up to this level?

In terms of prescriptive facts I am confused by the following:

The “official” Objectivist view arises from the necessary logical consequences of a given course of action, fundamentally, long-term, in essential terms. Where there are two fundamental courses of action, one of them is going to be right and the other wrong and you can actually validate which one is which by application of logic. Fight against tyrranny or don’t fight? Destroy civilization or preserve it? The answers to these questions are simple given the proper framework. There are no fine distinctions here, this is the realm of broad strokes.

Now, several levels up derivation-wise, there is greatly increased complexity and thus it is more difficult to decide what course to take. An official Objectivist position in this realm (and those even more complex and derivative) would be absurd.

That argument seems pretty subjective. People deal in all issues with limited information. Not all issues are black and white, in fact very, very few ever are. We fought tyranny in Iraq and the results have been far worse because of it. Very, very few decisions are like “Destroy or Save Civilization”,its an unrealistic dilemma, an extreme situation. The real world consists of these higher level derivations you mentioned. Are there imperatives though in Objectivism, self evident moral truths that can not be questioned?

You are just here to argue with those who sympathize with Objectivist views on foreign policy.

The “official” Objectivist view arises from the necessary logical consequences of a given course of action, fundamentally, long-term, in essential terms.

If facts about how we should act are clearly self evident and thus a part of Objectivism as much as reason or ethical egoism, who decides what these are? Is it left to the individual Objectivist? If so attacking Vlad as being “against those who sympathizes with the Objectivist position” is nonsensical. Is the “Objectivist Position” then simply agreement with the ARI?

4

I wanted to edit that post again for clarity as I made it far, far too complex. Here is my essential question -

Doesn’t an “Objective position on the middle east” blur the lines between facts in our world and Objectivism to the point where attacking a position such as global warming or our role in the middle east is falsely construed as attacking the philosophy itself?

Can I be an Objectivist and believe Global Warming is a fact or that America is causing terrorism through disastrous interventions? Why or why not?

Who decides what issues are so closely part of Objectivism?

5

tim3,

I don’t know you at all, but you appear to be an earnest and sincere person as far as this thread goes. With all due respect, I have to say that you are well off base here. I think your best bet is to read the books that comprise the core of Objectivism viz. _Capitalism_, _Intro to Objectivist Epistemology_, and _The Virtue of Selfishness_. Actually, you might be one of a very few people who I think would benefit from going straight into Rand’s epistemology. Most of your questions are ultimately answerable if you consider her epistemology altogether. This isn’t to discount the importance of the other two books and the two respective branches of philosophy which those books refer to. I just think many of your explicit and implicit concerns hinge on the more fundamental aspects of philosophy.

To give you some idea of how Objectivism is different, I offer the following as a partial answer: Objectivism isn’t a “social construct”, nor is it a Modernist philosophy (even though it’s atheist and chronologically modern.) You seem to think that Objectivism is to be taken (by some people at least) as a Rationalistic system. Facts aren’t “in” Objectivism as you suggest. Actually, the philosophy is _based on_ the facts as viewed in an integrated and conceptual fashion. Again, I would VERY strongly urge you to check out _I.O.E._ to pursue these types of questions further. I think that book by itself will answer many of your current questions as well as quite a few of your future concerns. These are the 3 books I would suggest that anyone read, but the order that a person should read them depends on that individual’s background and interest.

There are some other considerations involving division of labor and contextual matters:

Some questions need to be answered by scientific specialists. For example, how military operations mechanically work is a matter for military scientists. A philosopher can and should only discuss how a science should be treated. (In a word, science is to be _objective_; it’s not a popularity contest nor a matter driven by unchecked emotion.) On the other hand, a philosopher is obligated to be able to help people learn logic so that they can evaluate the sciences.

In order for someone to actually make use of an information group i.e. a set of data, he has to be aware of and make use of his hierarchy and context of knowledge. (The related methods can only be learned by studying epistemic philosophy.) Objects are not “subjected” or conditioned by people in the course of evaluation. It is a man’s mind that is altered by objects insofar as he is willing to actually use logic to ascertain the state and use of objects. You evaluate objects by first starting with sense-perception i.e. you first identify objects, and _then_ you make conceptual evaluations in order to build up your knowledge. (Again, _I.O.E._ goes into tremendous detail about the related methods…)

Since a person is not omnipotent, there are matters of personal context aside from wider contextual issues. For example, an action that should be objectively deemed an act of war is universally (though not self-evidentally) bad, but what a person does about a particular war action depends on that person’s own scope of knowledge and volition. For example, if I read a newspaper article on a website that indicates that there was a military coup in another part of the world, and that coup threatens the rights of the citizenry of that region, then (at my option) I can do some things in response. I could write a letter to an editor, or I could post to a relevant Internet forum, etc. It’s unlikely that I would gain (or generate) as much value by going to that region as some one in a related military outfit or a selfishly motivated news agency could. I wouldn’t have the physical resources or the interest as those other people… In short, my background and knowledge are different from someone employeed by the U.S. Marines or the Associated Press. That is, my personal context is substantially different from that of those other people. Those epistemic differences have real ramifications, and it behooves me (and them) to study Objectivism so that I can better choose and act on the challenges of the day.

You have asked so much of this forum with the scope of your questions, that I wouldn’t expect a complete answer right away. On the other hand, as far as unofficial information sources go, this forum is top-notch, so you might get some other good leads aside from what JMeganSnow offered.

Greg

6

In short, my background and knowledge are different from someone employeed by the U.S. Marines or the Associated Press. That is, my personal context is substantially different from that of those other people. Those epistemic differences have real ramifications, and it behooves me (and them) to study Objectivism so that I can better choose and act on the challenges of the day.

Greg

Hi Greg, thank you very much for your reply. I have not the time to tackle a new epistemology right away, but may soon. What you said (which I quoted above) seems to hit what I was asking from a different angle. We are all bound by where we sit so by applying Objectivism (from what I understand) different people will create different answers. To use a politically neutral example (my first instinct was to go for Iraq), 2 Objectivists can be told different things, one that smoking is bad, the other that it is not so. It would make little since for them to attack each other as being “unsympathetic to the Objectivist position” if they meet and one of them smokes. Individual contexts are ignored and some absolute, omniscient, and immaculate context seems to get asserted.

Did we approach the same problem from two angles there or am I wrong? I guess I could be way off there as you were talking about proper action not proper knowledge.

7

Where is this “Objectivist view” derived from?

I presume you know, intensionally, what “the Objectivist view” is. What is your evidence that, extensionally, those statements are the Objectivist view? I’m not sure about the scope of “this view” in your post.

[edited to reorder stupid error in order of adverbs]

8

We are all bound by where we sit so by applying Objectivism (from what I understand) different people will create different answers.

In order to understand “Objectivism as a movement” you’re going ot have to understand Objectivism. This statement above uses faulty reasoning.

We are all bound by reality, so getting two different answers to a problem of reality, means that one (or both) of us _ is wrong _.

And evaluating Objectivism on that basis would make you wrong as well. :slight_smile:

9

Most of the people on this board have no trouble telling the difference between these two realms, maybe because they actually bothered to do some reading and thinking rather than just browsing the internet and listening to people who may or may not have a clue what they’re talking about in chat. If you actually want to learn, get off your duff and read the books.

Hate to be a dick tim, but I second Jenni’s suggestion here. What literture of Rand’s have you read?

10

Tim, I understand asking about the objectionist view, but I concur with others regarding getting out and reading the material, rather than getting your answers through the knowledge of others.

Maybe it’s because I am new to this forum, but a lot of detail has been discussed regarding “the objectionist viewpoint” from many different angles. The one thing that I didn’t read in the other answers is that objectivism isn’t a “movement” in the normal sense of the word. It is a belief centered around the individual. Catholics may have the pope as a leader from whom to follow and learn, but I have always respected Ayn Rand’s position as an individual when it came to her beliefs, and have started to look into forums to see how others have interpreted her words.

The problem with trying to determine who decides the objectionist viewpoint, is that you are asking who is the one person to speak on behalf of a collection of individuals. This is the problem, short of taking countless surveys on every conceivable issue out there (which is an obvious logistical nightmare), there is no single viewpoint on issues that can be taken, only a collection of opinions of free-thinking individuals.

Myself personally, I hope that there never is a defining “voice of objectivism”. Even Ayn Rand was open to discussions of all sorts, including those that disagreed with her. Her main criteria for discussion seemed to be an open, confident mind. She struck me as the type who would change her mind if a clear precise, logical argument was made towards a topic. The reason this seemed to never happen (or rarely, although I cannot remember reading an example of her changing her opinion) was based on the sheer overpowering logic and reasoning that she possessed, and not finding someone at her level.

I am just starting to read the postings here, but look forward to many open discussions with free, intellegent minds, not a single voice telling me what to think or my opinions. If my opinion is wrong, I will learn. If someone disagrees with me and I can prove this to them, then they will learn. The only “collective” part of objectionism should be the desire to learn or teach, not dictate.

11

Tim, I understand asking about the objectionist view, but I concur with others regarding getting out and reading the material, rather than getting your answers through the knowledge of others.

Maybe it’s because I am new to this forum, but a lot of detail has been discussed regarding “the objectionist viewpoint” from many different angles. The one thing that I didn’t read in the other answers is that objectivism isn’t a “movement” in the normal sense of the word. It is a belief centered around the individual. Catholics may have the pope as a leader from whom to follow and learn, but I have always respected Ayn Rand’s position as an individual when it came to her beliefs, and have started to look into forums to see how others have interpreted her words.

The problem with trying to determine who decides the objectionist viewpoint, is that you are asking who is the one person to speak on behalf of a collection of individuals. This is the problem, short of taking countless surveys on every conceivable issue out there (which is an obvious logistical nightmare), there is no single viewpoint on issues that can be taken, only a collection of opinions of free-thinking individuals.

Myself personally, I hope that there never is a defining “voice of objectivism”. Even Ayn Rand was open to discussions of all sorts, including those that disagreed with her. Her main criteria for discussion seemed to be an open, confident mind. She struck me as the type who would change her mind if a clear precise, logical argument was made towards a topic. The reason this seemed to never happen (or rarely, although I cannot remember reading an example of her changing her opinion) was based on the sheer overpowering logic and reasoning that she possessed, and not finding someone at her level.

I am just starting to read the postings here, but look forward to many open discussions with free, intellegent minds, not a single voice telling me what to think or my opinions. If my opinion is wrong, I will learn. If someone disagrees with me and I can prove this to them, then they will learn. The only “collective” part of objectionism should be the desire to learn or teach, not dictate.

One thing I do know is that many people will have “objections” to your calling it “objectionism” (where I have added bold) or “objectionist”; you might also try capitalizing O bjecti v ist and O bjecti v ism.

(edit to fix stupid strategically bad typo)

12

Perhaps his question is a bit simpler than what has so far been addressed.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Statements made by people other than Ayn Rand, which are not quotations, are not Objectivism but an application or restatement thereof.

Furthermore, Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, so other topics are either not Objectivism or are an application thereof.

Here’s where the confusion sets in: if you have someone spouting nonsense on Iraq or Global Warming, it’s not so much that they are necessarily contradicting Objectivism simply by the bare fact that they are wrong in those applications. But what it does mean is that they are “doing it wrong,” especially given the direct involvement of philosophy in why so many people are wrong on those particular topics. Given that last point, it is usually some misunderstanding of the philosophy which causes people to mis-apply it - especially if they are mis-applying it in a consistent fashion across several topics.

13

Facts about the world we live in however can be questioned rationally . . .

You contradict yourself here, saying facts can not be doubted then say they are open for validation. You then say however that while particular facts can be questioned reason itself can not.

Oh, sorry I should have said that we validate our *knowledge* of the facts.

14

Oh, sorry I should have said that we validate our *knowledge* of the facts.

Jenni,

I’m figuring that you wouldn’t regret correcting yourself for the record, but I have to inform you and anyone else who cares to know that Timmah deserves far less consideration.

I also have something to get on the record considering the circumstances. After seeing what he’s had to say in the chatroom here, I no longer consider him to be sincere about Objectivism (and that’s putting it mildly.) Obviously, it’s fine to make a syllogistic argument. There happens to also be a tendency for people to use the chatroom to make off-color remarks. I have to say that he went over the line.

I don’t know how you or the other mods and admins consider chatroom use to relate to or compare with this website’s forum use. I personally find it offensive when someone not only makes over-generalizations about Objectivism and the intellectuals who teach it but when the person in question also resorts to ad hominem. By that, I specifically mean that Timmah called in the question of the character of certain users of this forum and of certain Objectivist intellectuals, so I certainly won’t be assisting him any further.

15

Are you intentionally trying to construct a strawman here?

I was warned by a moderator about insinuating that a member of this forum was intellectually dishonest. Why is it OK for a moderator to suggest such a thing about a user, like you just did then?

here, I no longer consider him to be sincere about Objectivism (and that’s putting it mildly.) Obviously, it’s fine to make a syllogistic argument. There happens to also be a tendency for people to use the chatroom to make off-color remarks. I have to say that he went over the line.

And why is it OK for a user to say that another member is dishonest? (especially without making the content of the chat visible, but this fact is irrelevant)

16

Jenni,

I’m figuring that you wouldn’t regret correcting yourself for the record, but I have to inform you and anyone else who cares to know that Timmah deserves far less consideration.

I also have something to get on the record considering the circumstances. After seeing what he’s had to say in the chatroom here, I no longer consider him to be sincere about Objectivism (and that’s putting it mildly.) Obviously, it’s fine to make a syllogistic argument. There happens to also be a tendency for people to use the chatroom to make off-color remarks. I have to say that he went over the line.

I don’t know how you or the other mods and admins consider chatroom use to relate to or compare with this website’s forum use. I personally find it offensive when someone not only makes over-generalizations about Objectivism and the intellectuals who teach it but when the person in question also resorts to ad hominem. By that, I specifically mean that Timmah called in the question of the character of certain users of this forum and of certain Objectivist intellectuals, so I certainly won’t be assisting him any further.

Well, you did offer more assistance than everyone else in this thread and thanks for doing so.