Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Question about Objectivism

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2009 7:16:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
One thing I've never understood about objectivism is how its views on metaphysics and epistemology have anything to do with its ethics and politics. I mean, I believe in an objective reality, and I think that reason is the only means by which we should carry out our decisions. Yet, I believe that selfishness is fundamentally bad, and that pure capitalism is dangerous for the consumer.

Anyone care to explain?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2009 9:11:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Rand believes that selfishness can be defined as concern with one's own interests. In that case, it would be rational to pursue one's own life and happiness. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life. Selfishness DOESN'T mean to disregard the well-being of others, as people naturally assume.

Additionally, how is capitalism dangerous for the consumer? The consumer defines the market (supply and demand). Objectivist epistemology begins with the principle that Knowledge is Identification. This is understood to be a direct consequence of the metaphysical principle that "Existence is Identity." Objectivism maintains that what exists simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion according to its metaphysical ideal.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2009 9:13:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/20/2009 7:16:50 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
One thing I've never understood about objectivism is how its views on metaphysics and epistemology have anything to do with its ethics and politics. I mean, I believe in an objective reality, and I think that reason is the only means by which we should carry out our decisions. Yet, I believe that selfishness is fundamentally bad, and that pure capitalism is dangerous for the consumer.

Anyone care to explain?

What's your reason for thinking selfishness is fundamentally bad? What do you even objectively mean by the statement? :)

And anyone with a commitment to objective reality would realize that danger (i.e. the possibility of loss) by definition refers to all possible states of affairs except the ones where you are already dead, and so would need a better reason than "it's dangerous" to prohibit something.

The bridge between metaphysics/epistemology and ethics/politics is a goal. Once you've established a goal (in Objectivism's case, the choice to live as a human, i.e. as a rational animal), one has to refer to reality to figure out how to achieve the goal. If you believe that a better way to one's than-- well, first of all, not sacrificing your life (i.e. being selfish) is available exists, what do you point to to establish this? If you believe there is a political order more conducive to one's life than one where the introduction of force and fraud into a situation is prohibited, what do you point to as evidence for this statement?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2009 9:28:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
From an opposing view, I'd argue that Rand doesn't make a convincing solution for the is-ought problem, in which she attempts (and claims to have solved). So for Objectivism, it fails to even launch off the meta-ethical platform, let alone get to a justified ethical one.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2009 9:51:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/20/2009 9:28:44 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
From an opposing view, I'd argue that Rand doesn't make a convincing solution for the is-ought problem, in which she attempts (and claims to have solved). So for Objectivism, it fails to even launch off the meta-ethical platform, let alone get to a justified ethical one.

Care to elaborate?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 7:09:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/20/2009 9:51:10 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 9/20/2009 9:28:44 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
From an opposing view, I'd argue that Rand doesn't make a convincing solution for the is-ought problem, in which she attempts (and claims to have solved). So for Objectivism, it fails to even launch off the meta-ethical platform, let alone get to a justified ethical one.

Care to elaborate?

Apparently not :)
President of DDO
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 7:29:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/20/2009 7:16:50 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
One thing I've never understood about objectivism is how its views on metaphysics and epistemology have anything to do with its ethics and politics.

It doesn't. She is wrong, probably based on a desire to claim that her opinions are objectively true.

I mean, I believe in an objective reality, and I think that reason is the only means by which we should carry out our decisions. Yet, I believe that selfishness is fundamentally bad, and that pure capitalism is dangerous for the consumer.

Well, you are also wrong. But there ya go. :)
So prove me wrong, then.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 8:47:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 7:29:23 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/20/2009 7:16:50 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
One thing I've never understood about objectivism is how its views on metaphysics and epistemology have anything to do with its ethics and politics.

It doesn't. She is wrong, probably based on a desire to claim that her opinions are objectively true.

Wrong :)

I mean, I believe in an objective reality, and I think that reason is the only means by which we should carry out our decisions. Yet, I believe that selfishness is fundamentally bad, and that pure capitalism is dangerous for the consumer.

Well, you are also wrong. But there ya go. :)

About which part?
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 10:24:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Something doesn't quite link up, but I'm finding it very difficult to figure out where. As a result, I am convinced that it has something to do with an assumption we take for granted. Going by her own philosophy, I'm going to want to check her premises, and I'm convinced that one of them is wrong.

The problem I have with Rand's philosophy is that it assumes that man is a rational animal and thus, should think rationally. I find something wrong with this. Humans don't have rationality any more so than a microbe does. All of our choices and actions can theoretically be reduced down to the level of atomic reactions, which operate under physical law.

Rationality doesn't really exist as something we practice. It is something inherent to us by nature, like the cilia of a bacterium or a chemical receptor of a nerve cell.

Thus, if her philosophy is that we should make our own choices, but be able to rationalize said choices, then it's akin to saying absolutely nothing. Humans cannot be purposely irrational. Humans can't be more rational than they already are.

Her proposed method of a Capitalism-based society is something I agree with, at least to some extent, but I think her philosophy is essentially meaningless. I don't see how following her "philosophy" would yield any results that are different from any other philosophy, nor do I see how we can use her philosophy to argue for or against any position. 0 = 0.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 10:54:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Humans don't have rationality any more so than a microbe does.
Speak for yourself, brother.

Humans cannot be purposely irrational
*points to the nearest meth lab customer*
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 5:18:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 7:09:12 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/20/2009 9:51:10 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 9/20/2009 9:28:44 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
From an opposing view, I'd argue that Rand doesn't make a convincing solution for the is-ought problem, in which she attempts (and claims to have solved). So for Objectivism, it fails to even launch off the meta-ethical platform, let alone get to a justified ethical one.

Care to elaborate?

Apparently not :)

Aw, not fair it's just that I didn't check back on this thread.

Don't worry - I'll start an open debate addressing Objectivism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 9:06:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 10:54:50 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Humans don't have rationality any more so than a microbe does.
Speak for yourself, brother.

Humans cannot be purposely irrational
*points to the nearest meth lab customer*

I have to ask; exactly what criteria makes a choice rational or irrational to Objectivists, and how do you justify such criteria?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 9:12:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If it achieves the goal you strive toward, it is rational, if it stands in the way of it, it is irrational. Objectivists specifically strive to live life qua human.

For more information see over 9000 word discussion with Kleptin that takes up most of the following thread:

http://www.debate.org...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 9:14:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
As for justifying one's end goal-- that's kind of a contradiction, but don't tell Peikoff that, or Rand in a bad mood (so call it a point of contention I suppose).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 11:13:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You forgot a variable or two. We're dealing with a multiplication equation here, not an already solved identity :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 12:54:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 9:29:17 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I still don't get it.

How does believing in an objective reality ---> capitalism?

Well, to be honest, debates with anti-capitalists tend to end with the anti-capitalists denying that there is objective truth, and that "no one really knows anything". ;-)
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 12:55:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 8:47:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/24/2009 7:29:23 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/20/2009 7:16:50 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I mean, I believe in an objective reality, and I think that reason is the only means by which we should carry out our decisions. Yet, I believe that selfishness is fundamentally bad, and that pure capitalism is dangerous for the consumer.

Well, you are also wrong. But there ya go. :)

About which part?

Capitalism being dangerous for the consumer, at the very least.
So prove me wrong, then.