The Instigator
Geo-Mutualist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Objectivism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 119281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Geo-Mutualist

Con

Definition:
Objectivism - the philosophical position that certain things in this existence can be objectively known, Other than the existence of oneself.
Objective - Proven with evidence not reliant on one's own perspective. , Evidence that exists outside of the mind.

Rules:
1) Opponent must agree to the above definitions and they will be arguing in favor of objectivism
2) Opponent must forfeit the last round of debate so that we have an equal amount of rounds used by each of us for the debate since I'm not using the first round. Say something like "As agreed upon, I will not be using this round for debate".
3) Google docs or something like it is permitted to your argument on, And post the link to your argument. Try to keep as close to 10, 000 characters as possible though so that I, Nor voters will have an extremely long amount of argument to read through. If you go over a few characters, That's fine with me, But don't be too excessive with it.
4) Keep it civil, No ad hominem attacks.
omar2345

Pro

My acceptance round.

Awaiting an argument in the next.

May we both learn something new.
Debate Round No. 1
Geo-Mutualist

Con

The main axiom objectivism relies on
Axioms are statements which in order to disprove would create a paradox. For example, The statement "I know my perceptions to be correct", Is an axiom since in order to disprove it, One must use their perception, Which creates a paradox of: how did you know the perceptions that perceived your perceptions to be wrong, Werent' also wrong?

At any rate, I can only assume my opponent, Since they didn't use round 2 for debate like I had hoped, Was going to argue something like this. Really, Objectivism is absolutely reliant on the assumption that one's own perceptions are accurate, For our perceptions are the only thing that can be used to prove to ourselves anything exists. We have to use our sight, Feeling, Hearing, Etc.

Now, I do not find satisfying the following logic satisfying: "I know my perceptions to be correct" can't be proven false, Then it must then be true. However, To argue something is true because it can't be proven false at this time, Is the exact definition of an argument from ignorance, Which is a logical fallacy.

This means objectivist almost always rely on a logical fallacy. It's true that a logical fallacy doesn't prove the opponent's position false, But it would show that this line of reasoning is in error.

The logical conclusion to come off of for "I know my perceptions to be correct" is that we do NOT have a position regarding that statement.

No position and one's perspective must be used
So what does this mean if we should not have a position regarding whether our perceptions are correct? Well, It means objectivism cannot be proven true. Everything in this universe as we perceive it, Is dependent on if we perceive it correctly. One can argue something exists regardless of if we perceive it. While this logic is corect, It doesn't actually prove that item exists objectively though. To prove to someone objectively that something is existent, That means you must use their perception: whether it is by looking at scientific data which proves something is true, Or performing the experiment yourself, One's perception has to be used. Since one's perspective has to be used in determining whether it exists for themselves, Objectivism can't exist. If it's reliant on one's own perspective, That means it's reliant on their own mind, Feelings, Etc, Which is the very definition of subjective.

Conclusion
Since objectivism states that certain things exist outside of the mind, Other than oneself, But it's not actually possible to prove it to someone without using their own mind to do so, Objectivism itself is paradoxical, And cannot be true.
omar2345

Pro

I also kinda used the first round as acceptance to know where you were going with the debate. No offence should be taken since we both start in the same round which I think is more fair.

I would be using theories or not proven ideas but I hope you would take them seriously. To me objectivism can exist. The reason why I think it can exist is by using tools. This can be scanners or machines that are able to see the world. You might say we are still using our perception to perceive the different tool that was used to get a result. To that I say there is no way other that you can perceive the world without our 5 senses. Scanners are programmed by us to create facts. These facts rely on it being right, The machine not being faulty and the person's perception is not affected when seeing it (blindness). By this argument I think objectivism can exist if we are using any other things perception to view if our perception is right.

I know my perceptions to be correct
I think that is more of an assumption if not I would say the person is religious.

how did you know the perceptions that perceived your perceptions to be wrong, Weren't' also wrong?

We don't know and can't know until we gain 6th sense of some sort or an out of body experience that can be repeatable. As of right now we do not know.

Objectivism is absolutely reliant on the assumption that one's own perceptions are accurate, For our perceptions are the only thing that can be used to prove to ourselves anything exists. We have to use our sight, Feeling, Hearing, Etc.
We have to assume we exist. If we don't then nothing can be factual and everything is subjective.

Which is the very definition of subjective.
Yes and I think you are saying everything is subjective. To know is simply a lie and we all know what other people have applied rules to as a way to determine we know. Like a world in a world. An example of this would be chess. We know the rules of chess but lets say the chess pieces were alive do they know the rules that they were given? No.

A question from me would be can't a fact be agreed upon or based on assumptions (we exist, This is fact away from feelings, Etc)?

Reason is also a tool but if required feelings ceases to be reason. Reason definition: a cause, Explanation, Or justification for an action or event. This is a recording of sorts or understanding of events. If someone said I feel bad about someone dying because of car crash. Feel bad is subjective. Car crash is the reason which is objective assuming we exist. I think even if another species was dominant they would also find reason. This most likely would not be labelled the same way but would have attributes similar to ours. My argument here would be reason would happen in any species evolved enough. I cannot prove it but I think it is a given if the species has the capacity to do so.

May we still learn something new.



Debate Round No. 2
Geo-Mutualist

Con

I will italicize all quotes from my opponent and work from there, If I did not quote portions of what my opponent said, It's because I saw no reason to refute it or saw a need to comment on it. I will also add words in my opponent's quotes that would be assumed based off of context in brackets.

"We don't know [that our perceptions are right/wrong] and can't know until we gain 6th sense of some sort or an out of body experience that can be repeatable. As of right now we do not know" (words in brackets were added by me in order to make context clear, )but anyone who read this knows that what I put in brackets is what my opponent meant)

Then we don't disagree, And this sounds like a concession. My argument was based around that objectivism relies on the axiom "my perceptions are correct" to be a true statement. Since you hadn't refuted that objectivism has its base arguments stem from that axiom, And conceded that we can't know the axiom is true or false, This sounds like a major win for me as con.

"We have to assume we exist. If we don't then nothing can be factual and everything is subjective. "
You should choose words carefully. Objectivism isn't supposed to be built off of assumptions, And you used the word "assume". Objectivism is based off of what objectivists claim is objective evidence, Not assumptions. Please note the definitions I provided in round 1 that we both agreed to.



"A question from me would be can't a fact be agreed upon or based on assumptions (we exist, This is fact away from feelings, Etc)? "
A fact is not a fact because multiple people agree on it, That would border using an argumentum ad populum. Plus, The existence of other people can only be proven through one's own perceptions, Which you agreed that we can't know our perceptions are correct, Which means we don't know for certain other people exist, So we can't use their agreement with us as validation of a fact.

"Reason is also a tool but if required feelings ceases to be reason. "
Yes, Reason is another way to justify statements and ideas. That said, Reason is not a physical object that exists. Reason comes about through thougt processes of one's own mind, It makes it a part of the mind and oneself. Thus since my definition of objectivism clearly precludes things about oneself or one's own mind, Reason is not something that falls under objectivism. The self and reason are also ideas in competing philosophies hat aren't objectivist, Such as solipsism. Objectivism specifically refers to whether things physically exist, Not if they mentally or consciously do, Which reason falls under the latter.
omar2345

Pro

Then we don't disagree, And this sounds like a concession.
If I did disagree I would require evidence. I guess I can say I think therefore I am.
I think you miss what objectivism is. I did agree to the definition but objectivism from Ayn Rand starts off with the premise reality is objective. I think that was the assumption and everything else after that is considered fact based of the assumption. Other than the existence of oneself. - Did you state this so does reality come into line with this?

Objectivism isn't supposed to be built off of assumptions
I think the assumption has to be we exist so that there can be objectivism.

A fact is not a fact because multiple people agree on it
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/fact The first definition was something that has actual existence. What is fact if we cannot assume on existence or if our perception is real?

Reason is not a physical object that exists.
It does mean it exists non-physically. Would reason also be hindered by our perception? I did make the argument that reason might not be called the same thing but what it does will carry on with intelligent species given enough time.





Debate Round No. 3
Geo-Mutualist

Con

Geo-Mutualist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Are there objects that can be seen by a subject. Yes. But they are not the object itself. But an idea created by the subject.
Are there objects by it self? Yes they can be defined by a subject and therefore not the object itself.
Objectivism. . ? The only thing existing for the subject.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Geo-Mutualist

I had a debate on this topic but was on your side. You are better at explaining your points then I was when I was doing it before.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Geo-Mutualist

I'll lay out my arguments and rebut claims when it is my turn in debate. I still have a burden of proof to fulfil.
Posted by Geo-Mutualist 3 years ago
Geo-Mutualist
@omar2345
Ok, That will be a little difficult. I was hoping pro would lay out arguments in favor of objectivism, As usually pro has the burden of proof in any given debate topic. But, I suppose I will offer some arguments against it in my first round.

Ignore my rule about the last round being forfeited then. Since you used the first round as acceptance, You wouldn't get the same amount of rounds as I for debate if you did that.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Geo-Mutualist

I am going to use Round 1 as my acceptance so the actual debate starts in Round 2.
Posted by Geo-Mutualist 3 years ago
Geo-Mutualist
@omar2345
Yes, That's why I took the con position.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Geo-Mutualist

Am I right in saying you are against objectivism?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.