Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You opinion on Objectivism

Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 9:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

Man is tautologically unable to not be man...

Anyways, I think you have to be very careful deriving ethical values from "man's nature."

Invariably the version of "nature" the author describes is laden with cultural assumptions and essentialist worldview that ignores the multiplicity of value systems across humanity. Rand definitely does this. I can't take seriously a system that claims any economic besides pure free market capitalism is evil or that the logical conclusion of altruism is "self immolation."

I think discourse ethics or ethics rooted in respect for human dignity/autonomy do a better job of leveraging "man's nature" into normative values. I am also sympathetic to systems that claim embedded cultural practices can create normative values as well (e.g. MacIntyre).
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 11:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 9:10:09 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

Man is tautologically unable to not be man...

Lol, it was a joke.


Anyways, I think you have to be very careful deriving ethical values from "man's nature."

Invariably the version of "nature" the author describes is laden with cultural assumptions and essentialist worldview that ignores the multiplicity of value systems across humanity. Rand definitely does this.

In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

I can't take seriously a system that claims any economic besides pure free market capitalism is evil or that the logical conclusion of altruism is "self immolation."

Why can't you take this seriously? Did you read her defence of this line of argument?


I think discourse ethics or ethics rooted in respect for human dignity/autonomy do a better job of leveraging "man's nature" into normative values. I am also sympathetic to systems that claim embedded cultural practices can create normative values as well (e.g. MacIntyre).
Aleksandr
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 7:25:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's all to humanist belief, especially to those who wish to understand the properties of the perception we live in. I merely ignore these things, as they-although insightful, they wouldn't help me in my most valuable wants and are not essential to our nature.

How evil humans are, we are all brainwashed by subject of emotion and influenced by what we observe commonly. I believe philosophy is easily a branch of people's interests and what we like to know, very stupid.

For example, remember a philosophical quote? it doesn't matter to me since it's not going to do any good unless in the depths of some kind of emotion.

Objectivism is part of philosophy and I don't care on this time consuming thing. Such ignorance we have on the outer world when thinking about philosophy. Seriously, I would never prefer to think solidly about objectivism.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 7:45:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As a system of Philosophy, it just doesn't hold together.

Its Metaphysics is self-contradictory nonsense, its Epistemology is uninformed nonsense, and its Ethics is an antithesis of Ethics that reads more like a defense of psychopathology than anything having to do with morality.

But hey, other than those three flaws, its a pretty good philosophical system.

If you are a Randroid, lets have a debate and I'll be more explicit.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 8:37:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As far as what you said above, I'd definitely go to Max Stirner. Basically, this Randian idea of egoism is a false egoism because it places "man in general" or "myself as Man" as an imperative above the actual 'ego', which is my own unique experience. I am not man in general, and thus 'His' concern is not my concern.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 8:51:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 7:25:37 AM, Aleksandr wrote:
Objectivism is part of philosophy and I don't care on this time consuming thing. Such ignorance we have on the outer world when thinking about philosophy. Seriously, I would never prefer to think solidly about objectivism.

Do you realize you are on a philosophy forum? lol. What are you doing here?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 6:15:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 11:06:18 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:10:09 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

Man is tautologically unable to not be man...

Lol, it was a joke.


Anyways, I think you have to be very careful deriving ethical values from "man's nature."

Invariably the version of "nature" the author describes is laden with cultural assumptions and essentialist worldview that ignores the multiplicity of value systems across humanity. Rand definitely does this.

In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.


I can't take seriously a system that claims any economic besides pure free market capitalism is evil or that the logical conclusion of altruism is "self immolation."

Why can't you take this seriously? Did you read her defence of this line of argument?


I've read Atlas Shrugged twice and have read bts and pieces of Peikoff and her other writings.


I think discourse ethics or ethics rooted in respect for human dignity/autonomy do a better job of leveraging "man's nature" into normative values. I am also sympathetic to systems that claim embedded cultural practices can create normative values as well (e.g. MacIntyre).
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 7:57:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"You opinion on Objectivism" There are some things in this world that are absolute truth and have absolute consequences when ignored.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:48:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:15:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:06:18 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:10:09 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

Man is tautologically unable to not be man...

Lol, it was a joke.


Anyways, I think you have to be very careful deriving ethical values from "man's nature."

Invariably the version of "nature" the author describes is laden with cultural assumptions and essentialist worldview that ignores the multiplicity of value systems across humanity. Rand definitely does this.

In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

^^^
Yeah, this is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to Rand. Israel is a civilized beacon surrounded by savages, and Aristotle is a barometer of a society's worth, yet we likely wouldn't even have Aristotle if it weren't for those 'savages'. I think that Rand absorbed a lot of values from her formative milieu (St. Petersburg bourgeoisie), and that those biases eventually surfaced and were rationalized into her philosophy. Perhaps the biggest examples of this are her homophobia and xenophobia, both of which were common among that social group.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Aleksandr
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:09:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 8:51:01 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:25:37 AM, Aleksandr wrote:
Objectivism is part of philosophy and I don't care on this time consuming thing. Such ignorance we have on the outer world when thinking about philosophy. Seriously, I would never prefer to think solidly about objectivism.

Do you realize you are on a philosophy forum? lol. What are you doing here?

Obviously, I'm here to shove my opinion on the forum. Maybe, I was too negative for you.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:24:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 7:45:44 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As a system of Philosophy, it just doesn't hold together.

Its Metaphysics is self-contradictory nonsense, its Epistemology is uninformed nonsense, and its Ethics is an antithesis of Ethics that reads more like a defense of psychopathology than anything having to do with morality.

But hey, other than those three flaws, its a pretty good philosophical system.

If you are a Randroid, lets have a debate and I'll be more explicit.

Challenge me if you like.
#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
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:30:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:15:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:06:18 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:10:09 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

Man is tautologically unable to not be man...

Lol, it was a joke.


Anyways, I think you have to be very careful deriving ethical values from "man's nature."

Invariably the version of "nature" the author describes is laden with cultural assumptions and essentialist worldview that ignores the multiplicity of value systems across humanity. Rand definitely does this.

In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

The issue isn't whether or not the values are currently universal or are only found in certain cultures - the issue is whether they should be universal. Anything else is irrelevant in ethics.
#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
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:51:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 7:45:44 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As a system of Philosophy, it just doesn't hold together.

Its Metaphysics is self-contradictory nonsense, its Epistemology is uninformed nonsense, and its Ethics is an antithesis of Ethics that reads more like a defense of psychopathology than anything having to do with morality.

Would you like to elaborate on these points?


But hey, other than those three flaws, its a pretty good philosophical system.

If you are a Randroid, lets have a debate and I'll be more explicit.

I'm not. I was just wondering about Objectivism and I might be doing a debate on it soon.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:59:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 8:37:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As far as what you said above, I'd definitely go to Max Stirner. Basically, this Randian idea of egoism is a false egoism because it places "man in general" or "myself as Man" as an imperative above the actual 'ego', which is my own unique experience. I am not man in general, and thus 'His' concern is not my concern.

Damn. I had to read that a few times to understand it (I think). So, you mean that your actual ego is no reflected in Rand's generalised ego? In other words, because of your unique experience, Rand's generalised description doesn't align enough?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:02:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:15:38 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 11:06:18 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/2/2015 9:10:09 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

Man is tautologically unable to not be man...

Lol, it was a joke.


Anyways, I think you have to be very careful deriving ethical values from "man's nature."

Invariably the version of "nature" the author describes is laden with cultural assumptions and essentialist worldview that ignores the multiplicity of value systems across humanity. Rand definitely does this.

In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

Whoah. I completely misunderstood what you meant previously. Thank you for not getting annoyed with me! I understand what you're saying now (presenting cultural assumptions as if they were universal truths). Thank you for responding, Raisor.



I can't take seriously a system that claims any economic besides pure free market capitalism is evil or that the logical conclusion of altruism is "self immolation."

Why can't you take this seriously? Did you read her defence of this line of argument?


I've read Atlas Shrugged twice and have read bts and pieces of Peikoff and her other writings.


I think discourse ethics or ethics rooted in respect for human dignity/autonomy do a better job of leveraging "man's nature" into normative values. I am also sympathetic to systems that claim embedded cultural practices can create normative values as well (e.g. MacIntyre).
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 5:45:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 1:09:23 AM, Aleksandr wrote:
At 4/3/2015 8:51:01 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/3/2015 7:25:37 AM, Aleksandr wrote:
Objectivism is part of philosophy and I don't care on this time consuming thing. Such ignorance we have on the outer world when thinking about philosophy. Seriously, I would never prefer to think solidly about objectivism.

Do you realize you are on a philosophy forum? lol. What are you doing here?

Obviously, I'm here to shove my opinion on the forum. Maybe, I was too negative for you.

Well, why do you think Objectivism, and philosophy in general, implies ignorance?

Isn't your post, about the "all too human" (which is a Nietzsche quote) nature of a type of thought, making philosophical statements in itself?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 6:37:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 2:59:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 4/3/2015 8:37:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As far as what you said above, I'd definitely go to Max Stirner. Basically, this Randian idea of egoism is a false egoism because it places "man in general" or "myself as Man" as an imperative above the actual 'ego', which is my own unique experience. I am not man in general, and thus 'His' concern is not my concern.

Damn. I had to read that a few times to understand it (I think). So, you mean that your actual ego is no reflected in Rand's generalised ego? In other words, because of your unique experience, Rand's generalised description doesn't align enough?

You got it. Rand tries to get from defining "Man" as a concept, or making general descriptions about how Man is, to deriving these as necessary rules or imperatives beyond my personal preference. However there is no "is" statement which can overcome my personal preference... (whatever statement about how Man 'is' she makes, it always ends up "up to me" whether I share that value or not,) so her attempt at solving the is/ought problem fails.

Stirner describes this kind of thing as corresponding to a stage of development between childhood and adulthood, where we become fascinated with "pure ideas", over and above the physical world, and where these ideas hold a power over us. We see descriptions, generalities and pure ideas as dictating our preference, rather than ourselves using ideas as we see fit. (Sorry for rambling about Stirner it's just what I'm into atm :P..) Anyway, this seems very relevant to Rand's attempts to derive an entire morality in some kind of logical vacuum, starting from "A = A". It can be appealing to some people for that reason, in offering complete certainty, but it's also a pretty absurd endeavor when seen in perspective.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:03:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 1:30:30 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

The issue isn't whether or not the values are currently universal or are only found in certain cultures - the issue is whether they should be universal. Anything else is irrelevant in ethics.

I think you missed his point, which is that your deductions about what 'should' happen are themselves derived from premises which seem basic or certain but which are actually only cultural.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:09:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 7:03:28 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:30:30 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

The issue isn't whether or not the values are currently universal or are only found in certain cultures - the issue is whether they should be universal. Anything else is irrelevant in ethics.

I think you missed his point, which is that your deductions about what 'should' happen are themselves derived from premises which seem basic or certain but which are actually only cultural.

That's the way I interpreted it. I mean to say that it doesn't matter if other cultures hold different premises or values or definitions or whatever else - the issue is whether or not they're wrong. I would argue that they are, so it doesn't matter if they're completely disregarded.

Ignoring "the multiplicity of value systems across humanity" isn't a bad thing if those value systems are irrelevant, and, if they're in conflict with reality, they are. Rand does operate on distinctly Western premises and values, but she does this because those are the only premises and values that make sense. Not taking into account the cultures that are completely wrong isn't a black mark against the philosophy.
#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
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:15:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 7:09:01 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:03:28 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:30:30 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

The issue isn't whether or not the values are currently universal or are only found in certain cultures - the issue is whether they should be universal. Anything else is irrelevant in ethics.

I think you missed his point, which is that your deductions about what 'should' happen are themselves derived from premises which seem basic or certain but which are actually only cultural.

That's the way I interpreted it. I mean to say that it doesn't matter if other cultures hold different premises or values or definitions or whatever else - the issue is whether or not they're wrong. I would argue that they are, so it doesn't matter if they're completely disregarded.

Ignoring "the multiplicity of value systems across humanity" isn't a bad thing if those value systems are irrelevant, and, if they're in conflict with reality, they are. Rand does operate on distinctly Western premises and values, but she does this because those are the only premises and values that make sense. Not taking into account the cultures that are completely wrong isn't a black mark against the philosophy.

Where does she get this barometer of 'right vs wrong' by which she first measures those societies? Rand positions herself as having constructed some kind of completely certain system deducing from descriptions of man's nature. It's like, 'A is A', 'Man is Man', 'Man is like x,y,z'.. 'therefore Man should do this...'. But those assumptions themselves which form the 'is' section could be cultural; that is, before we even get to the 'ought'. Rand doesn't include many studies or anything, so how does she discover the nature of man in such a definite way without possibly being influenced by her own culture?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:23:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 7:15:31 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:09:01 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:03:28 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:30:30 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
In a normative sense (i.e. if we're trying to find the ideal ideology, in the long term, for every country), why should these value systems be accounted for?

Well if you are implicitly relying on cultural assumptions, you should acknowledge them and not treat them as universal values.

The issue isn't whether or not the values are currently universal or are only found in certain cultures - the issue is whether they should be universal. Anything else is irrelevant in ethics.

I think you missed his point, which is that your deductions about what 'should' happen are themselves derived from premises which seem basic or certain but which are actually only cultural.

That's the way I interpreted it. I mean to say that it doesn't matter if other cultures hold different premises or values or definitions or whatever else - the issue is whether or not they're wrong. I would argue that they are, so it doesn't matter if they're completely disregarded.

Ignoring "the multiplicity of value systems across humanity" isn't a bad thing if those value systems are irrelevant, and, if they're in conflict with reality, they are. Rand does operate on distinctly Western premises and values, but she does this because those are the only premises and values that make sense. Not taking into account the cultures that are completely wrong isn't a black mark against the philosophy.

Where does she get this barometer of 'right vs wrong' by which she first measures those societies? Rand positions herself as having constructed some kind of completely certain system deducing from descriptions of man's nature. It's like, 'A is A', 'Man is Man', 'Man is like x,y,z'.. 'therefore Man should do this...'. But those assumptions themselves which form the 'is' section could be cultural; that is, before we even get to the 'ought'. Rand doesn't include many studies or anything, so how does she discover the nature of man in such a definite way without possibly being influenced by her own culture?

She discovered the nature of man through her infallible perception of reality and recognition of undebatable axiomatic concepts. All truths are tautological.

Are you suggesting that there is any doubt about whether or not Rand's concept of "man" includes, as his defining characteristic, rationality? If it does, then it's tautologically true that man is the rational animal, just as much as it's tautologically true that a = a. If you object to her argument on the grounds that other cultures have different concepts of something they call man, you're either equivocating by trying to equate two concepts which really don't deal with the same things or you're trying to posit that Rand's concept is deficient in some respect, in which case you would have to show why.

For Rand, man is, by definition, man. I don't see how that could be influenced by culture at all any more than 1 + 1 = 2 is influenced by culture.
#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
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 8:02:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 7:23:26 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
She discovered the nature of man through her infallible perception of reality

Are you saying Ayn Rand is omniscient??

and recognition of undebatable axiomatic concepts. All truths are tautological.

Just out of interest, have you read any Wittgenstein?

Are you suggesting that there is any doubt about whether or not Rand's concept of "man" includes, as his defining characteristic, rationality? If it does, then it's tautologically true that man is the rational animal, just as much as it's tautologically true that a = a. If you object to her argument on the grounds that other cultures have different concepts of something they call man, you're either equivocating by trying to equate two concepts which really don't deal with the same things or you're trying to posit that Rand's concept is deficient in some respect, in which case you would have to show why.

This basically seems to reduce to a conditional statement like, "If you accept man as being fundamentally rational, then you accept man as fundamentally rational." It's a long path from there to an 'ought': "My use of the word 'man' involves rationality, therefore you should always be rational," or "My use of the word 'man' involves life as a primary value, therefore you shouldn't commit suicide"... Not many would find that convincing.

For Rand, man is, by definition, man. I don't see how that could be influenced by culture at all any more than 1 + 1 = 2 is influenced by culture.

I don't think "man" is a definition of "man". More like a repetition. The definition, which might be something like, for Rand, "rational animal", would indeed be cultural. I think a definition is, 'by definition', a cultural standard for how we use a certain word.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 8:24:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 8:02:53 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:23:26 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
She discovered the nature of man through her infallible perception of reality

Are you saying Ayn Rand is omniscient??
Not conceptually omniscient. Perceptually infallible in the sense that sense perception cannot be flawed. Any concepts formed from them, though, can be.
and recognition of undebatable axiomatic concepts. All truths are tautological.

Just out of interest, have you read any Wittgenstein?
No, I haven't. Should I?
Are you suggesting that there is any doubt about whether or not Rand's concept of "man" includes, as his defining characteristic, rationality? If it does, then it's tautologically true that man is the rational animal, just as much as it's tautologically true that a = a. If you object to her argument on the grounds that other cultures have different concepts of something they call man, you're either equivocating by trying to equate two concepts which really don't deal with the same things or you're trying to posit that Rand's concept is deficient in some respect, in which case you would have to show why.

This basically seems to reduce to a conditional statement like, "If you accept man as being fundamentally rational, then you accept man as fundamentally rational." It's a long path from there to an 'ought': "My use of the word 'man' involves rationality, therefore you should always be rational," or "My use of the word 'man' involves life as a primary value, therefore you shouldn't commit suicide"... Not many would find that convincing.
It's completely an if, then, kind of statement, but I don't see how that matters if the "if" section describes you. If it does, it's compelling and useful, and, if it isn't, Rand would say that you're not someone who can be saved.

The argument is that, if you want to live as man using Rand's definition of man, you have to live via the means she describes. The only issue is to determine if you do want to live qua man, but that's a pre-moral issue and can't be deliberated on.

Basically, if you've already chosen to live as Rand's conception of man and you want to continue doing so, you must live as Rand describes. That's all there is to it, and it's convincing only if you do make the pre-moral choice to live as Rand's conception of man. Anyone else is excluded from the philosophizing because they're irrelevant and nothing Rand says is applicable.
For Rand, man is, by definition, man. I don't see how that could be influenced by culture at all any more than 1 + 1 = 2 is influenced by culture.

I don't think "man" is a definition of "man". More like a repetition. The definition, which might be something like, for Rand, "rational animal", would indeed be cultural. I think a definition is, 'by definition', a cultural standard for how we use a certain word.

If the definition of "man" is "rational animal" so that man = rational animal, that's basically just saying that man is man (since rational animal can be said as "man" anyway). Man is what man is, which happens to be a rational animal, which is, again, man.

Definitions are in no way determined by culture unless you equivocate. If your definition is in conflict with the definition of another, then, since reality is objective, you must be defining different parts of reality and just calling them by the same name. If you treat the two as interchangeable, though, that's essentially the definition of equivocation.

Man is the rational animal because man is the rational animal. This is verified by looking at the entities which Rand's - specifically Rand's - concept of "man" refers to. It doesn't matter what other concepts of man refer to because if they refer to different things they're incomparable to Rand's and to the current discussion.
#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
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 9:20:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 8:24:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/4/2015 8:02:53 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 7:23:26 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
She discovered the nature of man through her infallible perception of reality

Are you saying Ayn Rand is omniscient??
Not conceptually omniscient. Perceptually infallible in the sense that sense perception cannot be flawed. Any concepts formed from them, though, can be.

But the definition of 'man' is conceptual, so her cognition of that is no more omniscient than mine or anyone else's.

and recognition of undebatable axiomatic concepts. All truths are tautological.

Just out of interest, have you read any Wittgenstein?
No, I haven't. Should I?

I'd say yes, because it's all about certainty, definitions, axiomatic concepts etc.

This basically seems to reduce to a conditional statement like, "If you accept man as being fundamentally rational, then you accept man as fundamentally rational." It's a long path from there to an 'ought': "My use of the word 'man' involves rationality, therefore you should always be rational," or "My use of the word 'man' involves life as a primary value, therefore you shouldn't commit suicide"... Not many would find that convincing.

It's completely an if, then, kind of statement, but I don't see how that matters if the "if" section describes you. If it does, it's compelling and useful, and, if it isn't, Rand would say that you're not someone who can be saved.

This seems to be an extremely different picture than what I've gotten from reading Rand. I'm almost getting a 'subjectivist', "true for you, true for me" vibe from what you wrote above. I honestly can't picture Ayn Rand saying, "Well, if what I say helps you, then it's for you, but if you don't agree with the premises, then it doesn't apply for you." ... I mean, that seems like the polar opposite of her whole enterprise.

The argument is that, if you want to live as man using Rand's definition of man, you have to live via the means she describes. The only issue is to determine if you do want to live qua man, but that's a pre-moral issue and can't be deliberated on.

But really it's not "live qua man", but live qua *Rand's idea* of man, right? If you have a different definition, then it doesn't apply, according to what you've said. How is that 'Objectivist'? You're painting Rand's writing as some kind of easy-going, 'take it or leave it' tips for people who happen to find them useful if they happen to want the same thing Rand wants.

Basically, if you've already chosen to live as Rand's conception of man and you want to continue doing so, you must live as Rand describes.

That's not normative, though. It's not a morality. A cookbook says "If you do these steps, then you'll end up with a carrot cake," but that's not a morality, it's just an if / then statement.

That's all there is to it, and it's convincing only if you do make the pre-moral choice to live as Rand's conception of man. Anyone else is excluded from the philosophizing because they're irrelevant and nothing Rand says is applicable.

I'm assuming "excluded from philosophizing" means "excluded from Rand's definition of philosophizing" too, right? Isn't this version of Rand kind of like that character, I think it was in Vonnegut or something, who locks up the world by locking themselves in a cage? Isn't Rand just saying, "If you don't agree with me, I'll ignore you?"

For Rand, man is, by definition, man. I don't see how that could be influenced by culture at all any more than 1 + 1 = 2 is influenced by culture.

I don't think "man" is a definition of "man". More like a repetition. The definition, which might be something like, for Rand, "rational animal", would indeed be cultural. I think a definition is, 'by definition', a cultural standard for how we use a certain word.

If the definition of "man" is "rational animal" so that man = rational animal, that's basically just saying that man is man (since rational animal can be said as "man" anyway). Man is what man is, which happens to be a rational animal, which is, again, man.

Definitions are in no way determined by culture unless you equivocate. If your definition is in conflict with the definition of another, then, since reality is objective, you must be defining different parts of reality and just calling them by the same name. If you treat the two as interchangeable, though, that's essentially the definition of equivocation.

Man is the rational animal because man is the rational animal. This is verified by looking at the entities which Rand's - specifically Rand's - concept of "man" refers to. It doesn't matter what other concepts of man refer to because if they refer to different things they're incomparable to Rand's and to the current discussion.

But then if I hit someone in the face, and Rand says "You are doing the wrong thing, because you're going against the definition of Man," then she is equivocating between her definition of man and mine, because she's assuming that my definition involves solving problems rationally, not oppressing people, and so on.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:35:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can someone break down to me what objectivism is? I get the egoism and selfish part but I'm confused as to how this relates to what constitutes a man? Maybe because I think in terms of things being a social construction, especially gender (not your sex or biology of course). Is this man that she uses biologically man? Or what we perceive as a man?

I also don't see how this philosophy is "reasonable"...

I also don't see how if the objectivists moral goal is happiness that capitalism is the economic system many of them want. I am not saying if you are poor, your sad and if you are rich you are happy, even though nowadays its the opposite, but is a rat race for money really and environment where everyone is happy? And If most people include money as a part of their happiness wouldn't they inherently take away someones happiness and right to happiness if they were to exercise their own goal of happiness. In simpler terms is objectivism simply acquire happiness at the possible expense of others for your own reasons? And would that in turn truly make you happy?

Does objectivism exclude the idea of god and only uphold material and physical happiness?

Any one give me clarity...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:50:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 12:35:39 PM, AFism wrote:
Can someone break down to me what objectivism is?

I'll try to do a summary as I understand the philosophy. Let's see how I do :P..

Reality exists, and only one reality. Man perceives the world through his 'percepts' (like immediate experiences, pre-conceptual), and these cannot be flawed because only concepts can be mistaken. Then, reality is those percepts as managed by our reason: reason is man's only means of interacting with reality, and if he uses reason, he will definitely find reality, because his percepts cannot be mistaken; man has free-will, and his primary choice is whether to think or not think.

A is A, and Man is Man. Man is defined as a rational animal, and the goal of any living being is its life (since life must sustain itself in order to continue existing). The life of man is not simply 'life' in the sense of not dying, but living as what he really is, which is, 'life as a rational animal'. This means that in order to truly live, man must use his faculty of reason to its fullest extent.

His goal should be the use of his own reason, and therefore any rewards he comes by he should not want unless he has earned them. He should earn what he can, and be proud of what he has earned, and not expect to be given the unearned. Thus, a society of rational men would be one where each is entitled only to what they have earned, and men engage with each other only insofar as it plays into their own lives as rational animals (their own self-interests). This system would be total capitalism, with the only function of the state being the protection of man's right to his property.

I get the egoism and selfish part but I'm confused as to how this relates to what constitutes a man? Maybe because I think in terms of things being a social construction, especially gender (not your sex or biology of course). Is this man that she uses biologically man? Or what we perceive as a man?

She uses 'man' as the term for human beings in general. Man is a rational animal because that is his essential characteristic. Rand's philosophy is inspired by Aristotle, and one piece of inspiration she took from him was the idea that, for each word, there is some feature of the thing referred to which makes it 'that thing' and anything else different. For instance, (and I'm not actually sure how this works or if it's even possible so this is just meant to illustrate the idea,) for a chair, its defining characteristic might be, "a piece of furniture whose main function is to be sit on"... and then, for any thing, if it fulfills that criteria then it's a chair, and if it doesn't then it isn't.

Man's characteristic is that of being a rational animal, and so it's important to Rand that we see her description not as socially constructed, but that she has, in observing and understanding actual people, somehow determined the definition which differentiates man from all other animals and things.

I also don't see how this philosophy is "reasonable"...

I also don't see how if the objectivists moral goal is happiness that capitalism is the economic system many of them want. I am not saying if you are poor, your sad and if you are rich you are happy, even though nowadays its the opposite, but is a rat race for money really and environment where everyone is happy? And If most people include money as a part of their happiness wouldn't they inherently take away someones happiness and right to happiness if they were to exercise their own goal of happiness.

Rand said something like, if you wanted a job and someone else gets it rather than you, you should be pleased that you're shown the reality, that that person was more suited to the job than you.

In simpler terms is objectivism simply acquire happiness at the possible expense of others for your own reasons? And would that in turn truly make you happy?

Rand didn't regard it as possible for two people's rational self-interests to be in conflict. It's something like that idea above about two people going for a job: like, the goal isn't some material result, but simply to exercise your reason, and for reality to respond as it will. That's the best I can make sense of it, anyway.

Does objectivism exclude the idea of god and only uphold material and physical happiness?

Rand was adamantly anti-God, and a materialist.

Any one give me clarity...

I tried haha.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 1:50:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:35:39 PM, AFism wrote:
Can someone break down to me what objectivism is?

I'll try to do a summary as I understand the philosophy. Let's see how I do :P..

Reality exists, and only one reality. Man perceives the world through his 'percepts' (like immediate experiences, pre-conceptual), and these cannot be flawed because only concepts can be mistaken. Then, reality is those percepts as managed by our reason: reason is man's only means of interacting with reality, and if he uses reason, he will definitely find reality, because his percepts cannot be mistaken; man has free-will, and his primary choice is whether to think or not think.

A is A, and Man is Man. Man is defined as a rational animal, and the goal of any living being is its life (since life must sustain itself in order to continue existing). The life of man is not simply 'life' in the sense of not dying, but living as what he really is, which is, 'life as a rational animal'. This means that in order to truly live, man must use his faculty of reason to its fullest extent.

His goal should be the use of his own reason, and therefore any rewards he comes by he should not want unless he has earned them. He should earn what he can, and be proud of what he has earned, and not expect to be given the unearned. Thus, a society of rational men would be one where each is entitled only to what they have earned, and men engage with each other only insofar as it plays into their own lives as rational animals (their own self-interests). This system would be total capitalism, with the only function of the state being the protection of man's right to his property.

I get the egoism and selfish part but I'm confused as to how this relates to what constitutes a man? Maybe because I think in terms of things being a social construction, especially gender (not your sex or biology of course). Is this man that she uses biologically man? Or what we perceive as a man?

She uses 'man' as the term for human beings in general. Man is a rational animal because that is his essential characteristic. Rand's philosophy is inspired by Aristotle, and one piece of inspiration she took from him was the idea that, for each word, there is some feature of the thing referred to which makes it 'that thing' and anything else different. For instance, (and I'm not actually sure how this works or if it's even possible so this is just meant to illustrate the idea,) for a chair, its defining characteristic might be, "a piece of furniture whose main function is to be sit on"... and then, for any thing, if it fulfills that criteria then it's a chair, and if it doesn't then it isn't.

Man's characteristic is that of being a rational animal, and so it's important to Rand that we see her description not as socially constructed, but that she has, in observing and understanding actual people, somehow determined the definition which differentiates man from all other animals and things.

I also don't see how this philosophy is "reasonable"...

I also don't see how if the objectivists moral goal is happiness that capitalism is the economic system many of them want. I am not saying if you are poor, your sad and if you are rich you are happy, even though nowadays its the opposite, but is a rat race for money really and environment where everyone is happy? And If most people include money as a part of their happiness wouldn't they inherently take away someones happiness and right to happiness if they were to exercise their own goal of happiness.

Rand said something like, if you wanted a job and someone else gets it rather than you, you should be pleased that you're shown the reality, that that person was more suited to the job than you.

In simpler terms is objectivism simply acquire happiness at the possible expense of others for your own reasons? And would that in turn truly make you happy?

Rand didn't regard it as possible for two people's rational self-interests to be in conflict. It's something like that idea above about two people going for a job: like, the goal isn't some material result, but simply to exercise your reason, and for reality to respond as it will. That's the best I can make sense of it, anyway.

Does objectivism exclude the idea of god and only uphold material and physical happiness?

Rand was adamantly anti-God, and a materialist.

Any one give me clarity...

I tried haha.

Thanks!

Wow to think like this must feel really sad.. not happy...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 3:34:29 PM, AFism wrote:

Thanks!

Wow to think like this must feel really sad.. not happy...

Rand was actually an enormous optimist when it came to human nature.

"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this word to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours."
- Atlas Shrugged -

I actually disagree with her rosy outlook on people, but I can't imagine an objectivist who believes in that sort of uplifting vision to be sad about life.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:34:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 6:03:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Is Man Man, or should Man be something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

As a philosophy it's got no faults in my eyes. Subjectively I think it's a waste of time because I find its hyper-realist qualities to be unfulfilling and sometimes impractical.