Hi I’m new to the forum, and would love to learn enough about objectivism, to be able to win some debates with my friends.
I like what objectivism stands for - I like the stress on reason, as opposed to faith. But in discussions with my friends, they often shoot down objectivism, by stating, that believing we, as humans can be objective is a non-sense. In other words - since our perception of the world is subjective, how can we be objective? How can I refute that? Thanks
Take them literally and see what logical conclusions their statements lead to.
They consider it a FACT that human beings are “biased” and therefore incapable of grasping FACTs.
Unless one of them is an alien in disguise, then you have them caught in a contradiction. :lol:
Hi I’m new to the forum, and would love to learn enough about objectivism, to be able to win some debates with my friends.
I like what objectivism stands for - I like the stress on reason, as opposed to faith. But in discussions with my friends, they often shoot down objectivism, by stating, that believing we, as humans can be objective is a non-sense. In other words - since our perception of the world is subjective, how can we be objective? How can I refute that? Thanks
One argument against anyone who boldly claims that there are no absolutes is to ask him why he states that as an absolute. How does he know that his statement is true? How can he claim truth if there are only subjective feelings. If there are only subjective feelings then you cannot know that they are. All you have is feelings, not knowledge. Anyone claiming such nonsense shoots himself in the foot.
You can’t claim knowledge that there is no knowledge. That’s a contradiction par excellence. You are bound to accept something as truth by the very fact of your thinking. You cannot think without accepting some starting point. Try it. It doesn’t work!
I hope my arguments helped you. There’s more where that came from. 
Welcome to the forum. Please introduce yourself. There’s a part of this forum where you can (and should) do that.
If your goal in learning Objectivism is to beat others in arguments, you are missing the point. This philosophy is all about leading a happy life on earth by reasonable thinking.
Something else:
It is a custom on this forum to write Objectivism with a capital letter in the beginning. You will be reminded of this all the time, so just start with a big O to save you trouble. :lol:
Thanks. I like the refutal, even though it may be frowned upon as a trick (even though it’s perfectly reasonable). So let me go further with this. I see, Felix, that you mention “knowledge” and “emotions” (feelings) in your post - and I may be wrong, but it looks to me like those are key concepts in this context. Would I be correct in claiming that “knowledge” is objective, while “emotions” are subjective? In which case how would I counter somebody stating that individual’s perception of objective “knowledge” can be clouded by subjective “emotions”?
Is there a formal Objectivist definition for “emotions”, and “knowledge”?
Also - forgive me if I say anything that sounds totally absurd, - as I’ve stated earlier I am a complete beginner, when it comes to Objectivism, and philosophy in general.
Winning arguments, is not my ultimate goal, but I would like to be able to defend my life’s philosophy.
I see, Felix, that you mention “knowledge” and “emotions” (feelings) in your post - and I may be wrong, but it looks to me like those are key concepts in this context. Would I be correct in claiming that “knowledge” is objective, while “emotions” are subjective?
Emotions need not be subjective, but they certainly can be. At there roots, emotions are instant evaluations of things that affect our values. Generally, the more important the value the stronger the emotion. If the value is objectively derived, then the emotion can also be objectively proper.
I love (intensely value) my wife and son for many reasons grounded in reality, or for many objective reasons. When something happens that threatens that value, it is objectively proper for me to have an emotional response, sadness, anger, etc. Now, how I act on that emotional response should still be grounded in reason and in reality.
Don’t confuse subjective (in the Objectivist sense meaning whimsical, or the opposite of objective) with personal. My feelings about my values are unique to me (personal), but those feelings can still be based on objective values and reasoning, something I strive to ensure.
I should also have pointed out that knowledge is not always objective either. If one integrates “knowledge” based on false perceptions or premises, that knowledge is not objective, it does not reflect reality. Granted, erroneous knowledge can be obtained by objective means, because knowledge is contextual to all that is known. Newly discovered facts can, and frequently do, require that old knowledge be re-evaluated sometimes to see if it still reflects reality.
Let me give you some tips that should help you win some of these debates you speak of:
I suggest starting with certain axioms. Let me define an axiom in case you are unclear:
An axiom is a fundamental. irreduciable truth expressed in the form of a proposition that are self-evident concepts that form the basis for all higher-level knowledge, and cannot be coherently denied.
Start your arguments with an axiom - such as “A is A”, and attempt to build from here. If they do not accept your axiom, then try to convince them of it, but if this does not work, then they will not accept the rest of your argument. If they do accept your axiom, build up from it using a series of points that are built up from the original axiom, eventually your argument should if your friends are willing to think about your points, and providing you build from the axiom correctly, accept your arguments…if not, perhaps you should get more rational friends. *shrug*
I’m going to offer some different advice.
You should not engage in arguments with other people over ideas that you do not understand yourself, in a direct and first-handed way. Picking up one-line (or even one-paragraph) criticisms from this forum and tossing them back at others is a futile approach. You will do much better in the long run if you start by not debating with people hostile to your views. Instead, pick up copies of Rand’s two major novels, read them and think about what you’ve read. (They are The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged if you aren’t familiar with them.) If you do that, you will have a much better idea of how Objectivism as a system of ideas hangs together. Only when the ideas have started to cohere in your own mind will you be in a good position to debate with others. Plus, the novels themselves are excellent and inspiring reads.
Some other useful resources for getting a quick overview of Objectivism as a system of philosophy:
The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary by Leonard Peikoff.
There is also a 75 minute lecture by Peikoff introducing Objectivism and a 5-hour seminar by Gary Hull freely accessible via RealPlayer here.
Objectivism is a powerful philosophy in part because it is systematic. Plucking one idea out of the system and trying to understand or argue for it in isolation is a recipe for frustration.
Let me give you some tips that should help you win some of these debates you speak of:
I suggest starting with certain axioms. Let me define an axiom in case you are unclear:
An axiom is a fundamental. irreduciable truth expressed in the form of a proposition that are self-evident concepts that form the basis for all higher-level knowledge, and cannot be coherently denied.
Start your arguments with an axiom - such as “A is A”, and attempt to build from here.
I have to disagree with this as an approach, or at least attach a caution to it.
The axioms are the foundation of knowledge. Debating with people who reject existence, consciousness or the law of identity is clearly futile. But even though the axioms are at the base of Objectivism, trying to build the rest of Objectivism *from* them is a mistake and will not work. Objectivism is not deduced from the axioms, it is *induced* from a wide range of concrete experiences and observations. Don’t fall into the trap of treating philosophy as an exercise in logical deduction from self-evident axioms. That way lies rationalism.
(Sorry, I just finished re-listening to Peikoff’s Understanding Objectivism lectures, so I’m a bit sensitive to this sort of thing.)
Winning arguments, is not my ultimate goal, but I would like to be able to defend my life’s philosophy.
Define it! Live it! then, go on to “defend” it.
Given that you say you are “a complete beginner, …[in]… philosophy…”, do not be in a hurry to defend any viewpoint. Indeed, do not be in a hurry to define it to yourself. Just keep asking “why?” on a range of topics, without taking too much for granted. When you reach what seems to be a basic premise, then question that too. Also, on anything about which you conclude: “that’s good because…” also ask “is it also bad in some way?”, and vice versa. Also, on anything that you conclude is good or bad, ask if it is good and bad in all contexts; if not, the ask yourself “why not”?
The problem is that you could do this on your own for years and never get much done. So, the best way is to stand on the shoulders of those who went before. Just as we do not try to figure out the whole of Physics from scratch, it is equally unproductive to attempt to figure out all of Philosophy for oneself. Truth is that you aren’t starting from scratch. If you’re a typical person, you already have been taught some type of philosophy all your life. Most of the explicit teaching would have been in the area of Ethics: you would have been taught about what is good and evil. So, that would be a good place to begin questioning your premises.
At this stage, do not use discussions to defend yourself or to spread your philosophy; use them to learn. So, for instance, if you read one book by Ayn Rand, do not join a Christian forum and argue logically about how wrong they all are. After a single book, you would probably come off as ignorant. You won’t convince anyone anyway, and you will not learn – because you are not listening. At worst, you may come away thinking: they’re all fools, the world is irrational, life is futile.
A better approach for someone at your stage would be focus on your own learning. So, if you join a Christian forum and see a thread of interest, you might approach it like this: ask specific people how they arrived at specific conclusions. The same thing with friends.
The axioms are the foundation of knowledge. Debating with people who reject existence, consciousness or the law of identity is clearly futile. But even though the axioms are at the base of Objectivism, trying to build the rest of Objectivism *from* them is a mistake and will not work. Objectivism is not deduced from the axioms, it is *induced* from a wide range of concrete experiences and observations. Don’t fall into the trap of treating philosophy as an exercise in logical deduction from self-evident axioms. That way lies rationalism.
(Sorry, I just finished re-listening to Peikoff’s Understanding Objectivism lectures, so I’m a bit sensitive to this sort of thing.)
No, its alright, you make a good point, I was a little off there in my advice/ understanding, and I always like to be corrected if so.
Roughly how much do those tapes you speak of cost? They sound rather good from what I have heard.
Roughly how much do those tapes you speak of cost? They sound rather good from what I have heard.
They’re excellent. Unfortunately they are also *very* expensive, as are most of Peikoff’s extended courses. The audiotape version is $270 at the Ayn Rand Bookstore; the CD version is a jaw-dropping $310. You do get something like 26 hours of material, but it’s still a really big chunk of cash (especially if you’re a college student).
There is also an internet-based RealPlayer version available for $150; I’m not sure how that is supposed to work though.
I just recently received my copy of the annual Ayn Rand Bookstore catalog, and I think there’s about two thousand dollars of stuff in there I’d like to buy. Which is pretty scary considering the amount of stuff I already own. (The last time I went to a conference I literally dropped two hundred dollars *each time* I went into the on-site bookstore. After the third trip my wife made me stop.)
If there’s one only set of Objectivism-related tapes you want to spend money on, “Understanding Objectivism” would be a prime candidate for top spot, cheifly because of the topic.
If there’s one only set of Objectivism-related tapes you want to spend money on, “Understanding Objectivism” would be a prime candidate for top spot, cheifly because of the topic.
Yes. The errors of method that Peikoff dissects in Understanding Objectivism probably do more damage to novice Objectivists than any other single thing.
Two other courses I found particularly useful were Peikoff’s The Art of Thinking (which could almost be described as “the rest of Understanding Objectivism”), and Objectivism: The State of the Art. The latter has the best discussion of the role of principles in the Objectivist ethics that I have encountered anywhere.
What I’m getting from some of the posts, is that Objectivism states that one can be objective, despite subjective factors, because one can compensate for those unwanted influences, using reason?
I’ve actually started reading “Attlas Shrugged” recently (one of the reasons I’m not spending too much time on this forum just yet - because I’ve come accross a few spoilers - and I’d like to finish the book first). I wouldn’t have even heard about Objectivism, if it wasn’t for Terry Goodkind’s books. His “Faith of the Fallen” is what got me really interested in the whole philosophy behind the books, and then I heard Ayn Rand’s name mentioned in one of his interviews.
What I’m getting from some of the posts, is that Objectivism states that one can be objective, despite subjective factors, because one can compensate for those unwanted influences, using reason?
Something like that, although I wouldn’t put it that way.
It is obvious that human consciousness has a specific identity. We perceive reality in specific ways, our minds process and integrate information in a specific way, etc. Many people take this fact to show that we are not aware of reality as it actually is, but only reality ‘as it appears to us’. When carried to an extreme, this view leads to reality dropping out of the picture altogether, and things inside consciousness (such as emotions or social agreement) replacing it.
Other people react against this view essentially by denying that consciousness has identity at all. They agree with the subjectivists that a consciousness that contributed anything of its own would not be aware of reality as it actually is; they just take the position that consciousness doesn’t contribute anything. This view leads to consciousness dropping out of the picture. Things like context, purpose, and cognitive method are dispensed with as irrelevant or unnecessary.
The Objectivist approach rejects the premise shared by the two above approaches. Objectivists acknowledge that consciousness has identity, but deny that this poses a problem for being aware of reality. Rather, the identity of consciousness is the *means* by which we are aware of reality. Rand attacked the notion that the identity of consciousness is a barrier to knowing reality as the view that “man is blind, because he has eyes, deaf, because he has ears, and the things he perceives do not exist because he perceives them.”
I’ve actually started reading “Atlas Shrugged” recently (one of the reasons I’m not spending too much time on this forum just yet - because I’ve come accross a few spoilers - and I’d like to finish the book first). I wouldn’t have even heard about Objectivism, if it wasn’t for Terry Goodkind’s books. His “Faith of the Fallen” is what got me really interested in the whole philosophy behind the books, and then I heard Ayn Rand’s name mentioned in one of his interviews.
I’ve seen more and more people introduced to Rand’s ideas through Goodkind’s novels. It’s clearly a trend.