Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objectivism . . . go

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 9:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have realized that I am an objectivist (i don't know if that is an actual label) . . . tell me all the lovely reasons why this philosophy is ridiculous.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:07:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Objectivism was a good phase for me. But I'm very happy it passed. I'm not going to tell you why it's stupid. But I'll tell you that there are bigger and better philosophies to trust in. And I suggest you keep your mind open, as Objectivism has a habit of making people dogmatic and arrogant. If you stay this course anyway, I also suggest you align with The Altas Society, as opposed to the Ayn Rand Institute; the too big splits in Objectivism. The Ayn Rand Institute is very sure of itself and mathematical on it's positions. They believe that fully rational people would never disagree. The Atlas Society is associated with more "Neo-Objectivists" and is open to allowing controversy.

In my personal opinion, no "ism" has ever done anyone any intellectual good. It only coerces one's mind into rigid uncreative thought. A conclusion is what one comes to when they have decided to stop thinking. We should not strive to refine our beliefs, but our attitudes. I don't claim to know anything as Truth. But I can tell you want I want. And what I want is to live as genuinely, as sincerely and as full to my highest potential as possible. I think Objectivists want the same thing and they've constructed an elaborate delusion to help them do it. But it doesn't work that way.

My last advice: don't worry about what you believe; just focus on life and what it means to truly live it. That's my philosophy. Or, as I've been told, my anti-philosophy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:12:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:31:35 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I have realized that I am an objectivist (i don't know if that is an actual label) . . . tell me all the lovely reasons why this philosophy is ridiculous.

How did you decide on what standard to use as the objective one?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:14:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:12:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:35 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I have realized that I am an objectivist (i don't know if that is an actual label) . . . tell me all the lovely reasons why this philosophy is ridiculous.

How did you decide on what standard to use as the objective one?

Oh damn!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:24:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:50:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


The Fool: LOOOL!1
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:25:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Thats a Gem..

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 11:26:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I went through a crazy Objectivist phase when I was 17-19. And then I started reading post-modernism and, you know, stuff like history ;)

Here's something you should watch:
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 11:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 11:26:25 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
I went through a crazy Objectivist phase when I was 17-19. And then I started reading post-modernism and, you know, stuff like history ;)

http://madein1987.com...


Here's something you should watch:


TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 12:35:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Crap ...

It's riddled with basic logical issues anyone would take great strides to avoid...such as question begging (A is A)

Its not differentiated enough.. whats the difference between this or a dogma? The philosophy is riddled with polemics and screeds more than anything, and it doesn't intellectually forward any thought that's new or exciting in the field.

Finally, it rejects whole sciences such as quantum physics in the name of being "objective" when ironically enough objectively speaking quantum physics is more reliable than this philosophy.

Allow me to explain a little further, on the of the things Rand claims is that reality exist independently of consciousness. So essentially, what we observe is what we can see, but that making sense of it, is not objective, it becomes riddled with some kind of bias. The problem is is if that were true, you mine as well throw out everything we know in the sciences, such as gravity for instance...which would be absurd.

Leonard Peikoff' is a well known objectivist who outright rejects most of modern sciences findings, which is interesting. He seems to really have quantum physics, which is at the forefront of scientific inquiry today. The biggest thing he hates is the so-called "uncertainty principal" which essentially holds that our knowledge of what we can expect to observe is limited by a variety of factors at the exact same time. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. Rands philosophy would require you be able to know this by basic observation, which is again silly and absurd.

All and all .. this ideology, and fanatics who praise this nonsense almost in a cultish like manner really annoy me, and I find them to be rather incompetent individuals who think they're intelligent .. the worst kind of stupid you have to deal with.

If Rand is right.. than we're all immoral: we are some of the most altruistic species (assuming her definition of altruism) ever! If so, then being a child, or having a child is immoral .. which is bullsh!t. And in fact she contradicts herself on this position.

Or someone like Simo Hayha objectivists have to either claim that 1) he was acting in a selfish way .. which was absolutely wrong he was the biggest altruist whoRe ever, or 2) believe this guy who single handedly fought off the red army going into Findland was a jerk, even though Rand hated communism and thought it was horrible.

Fun facts:

Many Objectivists, at least during Ayn Rand's lifetime, more than three decades ago, held that cigarette smoking is a moral obligation.

Objectivism's views on art and music tend to reflect Rand's own personal tastes, seriously constructing a philosophical basis in which the art and music Rand liked is moral, while anything else is not. One wonders what some of them think of Rush (the band), whose drummer Neil Peart wrote lyrics inspired by Rand but whose music was clearly not of the type approved by the ever-so-rational Miss Rand, even though she was alive when Rush were making their best, most heroic, and most individualism-celebrating music.

Just for lulz and to confuse people (including her dim-witted intellectual heir), Ayn Rand decided she didn't like libertarians and declared that they plagiarized her ideas when it suited them and besmirched her name when it didn't.

THERE!
Thank you for voting!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 3:21:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 9:31:35 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I have realized that I am an objectivist (i don't know if that is an actual label) . . . tell me all the lovely reasons why this philosophy is ridiculous.

The main problems are that pretty much everything about it is wrong and it is thoroughly morally incoherent. It relies on an entirely deluded imagine of human identity, grossly simplistic and contrary to much that we know to be true about the world.

I hesitate to describe any particular ideology as inherently 'evil'; even the ones I hate tend to be at least well-intended and have one or two redeeming features. Randian Objectivism is not one of these cases. I do not think it has any redeeming features and is about as close to immoral and intellectually bankrupt as I could imagine any ideology being.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 7:30:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 3:21:53 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:35 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I have realized that I am an objectivist (i don't know if that is an actual label) . . . tell me all the lovely reasons why this philosophy is ridiculous.

The main problems are that pretty much everything about it is wrong and it is thoroughly morally incoherent. It relies on an entirely deluded imagine of human identity, grossly simplistic and contrary to much that we know to be true about the world.

I hesitate to describe any particular ideology as inherently 'evil'; even the ones I hate tend to be at least well-intended and have one or two redeeming features. Randian Objectivism is not one of these cases. I do not think it has any redeeming features and is about as close to immoral and intellectually bankrupt as I could imagine any ideology being.

This.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 8:44:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 12:35:48 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Crap ...

It's riddled with basic logical issues anyone would take great strides to avoid...such as question begging (A is A)

Is A not A? How would you prove that without the axiom of identity?


Its not differentiated enough.. whats the difference between this or a dogma? The philosophy is riddled with polemics and screeds more than anything, and it doesn't intellectually forward any thought that's new or exciting in the field.

Finally, it rejects whole sciences such as quantum physics in the name of being "objective" when ironically enough objectively speaking quantum physics is more reliable than this philosophy.

No it doesn't.


Allow me to explain a little further, on the of the things Rand claims is that reality exist independently of consciousness. So essentially, what we observe is what we can see, but that making sense of it, is not objective, it becomes riddled with some kind of bias. The problem is is if that were true, you mine as well throw out everything we know in the sciences, such as gravity for instance...which would be absurd.

I have no idea what you're talking about. She holds reality as an Objective absolute, and reason as man's only means of perceiving it.


Leonard Peikoff' is a well known objectivist who outright rejects most of modern sciences findings, which is interesting. He seems to really have quantum physics, which is at the forefront of scientific inquiry today. The biggest thing he hates is the so-called "uncertainty principal" which essentially holds that our knowledge of what we can expect to observe is limited by a variety of factors at the exact same time. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. Rands philosophy would require you be able to know this by basic observation, which is again silly and absurd.

This isn't an issue with Objectivism, but rather its implementation. Objectivism makes no demands


All and all .. this ideology, and fanatics who praise this nonsense almost in a cultish like manner really annoy me, and I find them to be rather incompetent individuals who think they're intelligent .. the worst kind of stupid you have to deal with.


If Rand is right.. than we're all immoral: we are some of the most altruistic species (assuming her definition of altruism) ever! If so, then being a child, or having a child is immoral .. which is bullsh!t. And in fact she contradicts herself on this position.

This is a confession that you know nothing of Objectivism. Altruism is not merely helping people, but sacrificing( giving up value for non-value) yourself to others. In this case of having children, there need not be any sacrifice.


Or someone like Simo Hayha objectivists have to either claim that 1) he was acting in a selfish way .. which was absolutely wrong he was the biggest altruist whoRe ever, or 2) believe this guy who single handedly fought off the red army going into Findland was a jerk, even though Rand hated communism and thought it was horrible.

What.


Fun facts:

Many Objectivists, at least during Ayn Rand's lifetime, more than three decades ago, held that cigarette smoking is a moral obligation.

Objectivism denies moral obligations of that kind, so if that is true, they aren't Objectivists.


Objectivism's views on art and music tend to reflect Rand's own personal tastes, seriously constructing a philosophical basis in which the art and music Rand liked is moral, while anything else is not.

Until you read her book on her philosophy of art, I don't think you're in the position to make such assertions. You are just making guesses based on your very limited knowledge of the subject.

One wonders what some of them think of Rush (the band), whose drummer Neil Peart wrote lyrics inspired by Rand but whose music was clearly not of the type approved by the ever-so-rational Miss Rand, even though she was alive when Rush were making their best, most heroic, and most individualism-celebrating music.

Just for lulz and to confuse people (including her dim-witted intellectual heir), Ayn Rand decided she didn't like libertarians and declared that they plagiarized her ideas when it suited them and besmirched her name when it didn't.

Once again, you are just making guesses in an attempt to make sense of the details you've heard. She explicitly outlined her objections.


THERE!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 8:53:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"A conclusion is what one comes to when they have decided to stop thinking."

Did you just come to that conclusion?

Hitch, if you're agreeing with that "rational"wiki article, I find it hard to believe that you've read anything Rand actually wrote. Have you?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 8:58:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 3:21:53 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/11/2013 9:31:35 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I have realized that I am an objectivist (i don't know if that is an actual label) . . . tell me all the lovely reasons why this philosophy is ridiculous.

The main problems are that pretty much everything about it is wrong and it is thoroughly morally incoherent. It relies on an entirely deluded imagine of human identity, grossly simplistic and contrary to much that we know to be true about the world.

I hesitate to describe any particular ideology as inherently 'evil'; even the ones I hate tend to be at least well-intended and have one or two redeeming features. Randian Objectivism is not one of these cases. I do not think it has any redeeming features and is about as close to immoral and intellectually bankrupt as I could imagine any ideology being.

This assessment is generic enough that it could be applied to philosophy really. I'd love to address any specific faults you find with Objectivism.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:03:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You've never addressed anything I said dylan, just faltered in your objectivism, then came back once you thought I'd lost strength like the absolute idiot that you are. You know I actually knew you were gonna come back when you did, too. Believe me?

bossyburrito, you've already rather clearly displayed your anti-social personality, it's very strong and obvious in you, time to realize it now dude.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:06:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 8:53:22 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
"A conclusion is what one comes to when they have decided to stop thinking."

Did you just come to that conclusion?

Hitch, if you're agreeing with that "rational"wiki article, I find it hard to believe that you've read anything Rand actually wrote. Have you?

I've found that there are two main types of Objectivist Critique. One is so fluffy that is transcends any legitimate rebuttal, for it makes no actual points, and one is essentially bystander commentary that attempts to draw conclusions from details that one would come across in the first 5 minutes of research.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:06:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:03:34 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You've never addressed anything I said dylan, just faltered in your objectivism, then came back once you thought I'd lost strength like the absolute idiot that you are. You know I actually knew you were gonna come back when you did, too. Believe me?

That is to say, you lurked until I broadened my horizons and there was room once more to ignore me until I made more obliterating sense. You are quiet the stupid human being, dude. Oh wait....quite* =)

bossyburrito, you've already rather clearly displayed your anti-social personality, it's very strong and obvious in you, time to realize it now dude.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:08:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And now he's back in full force because I made some few comments about telepathy. That's dylan for you.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:10:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:03:34 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You've never addressed anything I said dylan, just faltered in your objectivism, then came back once you thought I'd lost strength like the absolute idiot that you are. You know I actually knew you were gonna come back when you did, too. Believe me?

lol I don't know what you're talking about.


bossyburrito, you've already rather clearly displayed your anti-social personality, it's very strong and obvious in you, time to realize it now dude.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:11:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:10:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:03:34 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You've never addressed anything I said dylan, just faltered in your objectivism, then came back once you thought I'd lost strength like the absolute idiot that you are. You know I actually knew you were gonna come back when you did, too. Believe me?

lol I don't know what you're talking about.

I do, though.



bossyburrito, you've already rather clearly displayed your anti-social personality, it's very strong and obvious in you, time to realize it now dude.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:13:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:08:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And now he's back in full force because I made some few comments about telepathy. That's dylan for you.

You are actually crazy.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:24:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:13:29 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:08:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And now he's back in full force because I made some few comments about telepathy. That's dylan for you.

You are actually crazy.

Yeah, that's a good one to lock in, bro, in the face of all evidence.

dylan comes back, having almost renounced Objectivism, having pondered upon what I have said to him in the past. wondered why he was Objectivist in the first place, and then stayed quiet for a time, only to return with vigour when I broaden my horizons, his first comment to me upon returning but to decry all that I say, to state that I have a knack for talking nonsense or some such, alongside another most feeble objection to a critique I made on libertarianism. Dumb and deluded.

What a child. There's confirmation bias for you, quite the petty and idiotic thing.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:26:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And again I am a god. Just think for yourselves, dudes. This is getting annoying to be honest.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:34:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:24:54 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:13:29 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:08:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And now he's back in full force because I made some few comments about telepathy. That's dylan for you.

You are actually crazy.

Yeah, that's a good one to lock in, bro, in the face of all evidence.

dylan comes back, having almost renounced Objectivism, having pondered upon what I have said to him in the past. wondered why he was Objectivist in the first place, and then stayed quiet for a time, only to return with vigour when I broaden my horizons, his first comment to me upon returning but to decry all that I say, to state that I have a knack for talking nonsense or some such, alongside another most feeble objection to a critique I made on libertarianism. Dumb and deluded.

What a child. There's confirmation bias for you, quite the petty and idiotic thing.

http://media.tumblr.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:38:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:34:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:24:54 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:13:29 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:08:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And now he's back in full force because I made some few comments about telepathy. That's dylan for you.

You are actually crazy.

Yeah, that's a good one to lock in, bro, in the face of all evidence.

dylan comes back, having almost renounced Objectivism, having pondered upon what I have said to him in the past. wondered why he was Objectivist in the first place, and then stayed quiet for a time, only to return with vigour when I broaden my horizons, his first comment to me upon returning but to decry all that I say, to state that I have a knack for talking nonsense or some such, alongside another most feeble objection to a critique I made on libertarianism. Dumb and deluded.

What a child. There's confirmation bias for you, quite the petty and idiotic thing.

http://media.tumblr.com...

Do you think you're going to grow out of objectivism?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:41:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually only recently stumbled upon Rand as philosophy quite bores me. Fountain head and Atlas Shrugged are all that I've read of her and I likely won't read much more. However, her statements as to not blindly following the values set down by society resonated with me. Also the idea of value for value is quite possibly my favorite philosophical statement ever. What could be more fair than offering only to that which in your opinion gives you equal value back.

This philosophy has made me personally a very much happier individual as I see myself in my work as getting an equal trade. If ever I feel that the trade is no longer equal I will change my situation to make it appear equal to me.

Just a short personal testament as to why I've stuck with objectivism.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Yin
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:43:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:07:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:

In my personal opinion, no "ism" has ever done anyone any intellectual good. It only coerces one's mind into rigid uncreative thought. A conclusion is what one comes to when they have decided to stop thinking. We should not strive to refine our beliefs, but our attitudes. I don't claim to know anything as Truth. But I can tell you want I want. And what I want is to live as genuinely, as sincerely and as full to my highest potential as possible.

My last advice: don't worry about what you believe; just focus on life and what it means to truly live it. That's my philosophy. Or, as I've been told, my anti-philosophy.

Couldn't agree more!