An Objectivist Divorce

The Autonomist ^ | 2/21/04 | Reginald Firehammer

[Doctor Stochastic]

So how do the Republicans and Democrats, without displaying any ideas at all, attract so many flakes?

[DannyTN]

"Since a central tenant of Objectivism is that you must think for yourself and let nobody else make moral decisions for you , the very idea of being "in the group" (or not) is rather silly."

What if you think for yourself and decide that God is wiser and can make better moral decisions than you and can teach you a lot?

I guess the objectivist collective would object to that level of individuality.

[elfman2]

"Since a central tenant of Objectivism is that you must think for yourself and let nobody else make moral decisions for you , the very idea of being "in the group" (or not) is rather silly. "

I think that’s both a limitation and a foundation of Objectivism. Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She believed that it was the inevitable conclusion of clear thinking. If one concludes something else, it’s open for debate, but it’s not Objectivism. To some degree, it has to be that way, or it’s Subjectivism.

[Labyrinthos]

Most people are simply do not have the required horsepower to study philosophy.

It may have has less to do with horsepower than it does with economics. There is also the snoot factor in that philosophers are far too full of themselves considering the fact that their work produces little if anything of immediate value to society as a whole.

One of the best definitions of philosophy is the one that I coined in response to an essay question on the final exam in a philosophy class I took back in college many years ago. The question was "what is philosophy?" and my response was "simple concepts made overly complicated by tenured egomaniacs with far too much time on their hands." The second question was "what is courage?" and my response was "see answer to question number one." I got an A+ on the exam.

[DannyTN]

"Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She believed that it was the inevitable conclusion of clear thinking"

What if she was wrong? What if she wasn't thinking clearly?

Then objectivism would be proven subjective and at least one form of what you labeled "Subjectivism" would in fact be Objective.

[DannyTN]

One of my favorite observations of philosophy is that the word "philosophical" is pronounced wrong.

Notice that the pronunciation of the root doesn't change in other subjects.

Mechanic
Mechanism
Mechanist
Mechanical


Medicine
Medical

Chemistry
Chemist
Chemical

Theology
Theologian
Theological

So why change the pronunciation and emphasis on the root of philosophical.

It should be pronounced like philoso-fickle.

[ffusco]

Is there any reason that should concern you?

[ffusco]

Well...there's "LIFE CHANGING" and "life changing".

[Labyrinthos]

Dangle some letter behind you name, get a meaningless job teaching a meaningless course at an overrated college or university, and apply for a taxpayer funded grant to study the problem. Thanks for the chuckle.

[ffusco]

Objectivism is flawed because the conscious, rational observer is not a seperate phenomenon from the observed.

There are no subjects and objects only events.

[elfman2]

"Objectivism is flawed because the conscious, rational observer is not a seperate phenomenon from the observed. There are no subjects and objects only events."

I think what you are describing is so infinitesimally small, excluding that which can be predicted and accounted for, that it’s meaningless relative to our lives. Kind of like the issue with quantum mechanics, observing an electron’s position at a specific time effects its position. So how’s that effect me?

Also, the same could be said for any non-subjective philosophy or revealed religion. How can we believe the words on paper if we effect their meaning by reading them. If that’s what you’re referring to, it’s too small to worry about.

[Hank Kerchief]

Is there any reason that should concern you?

Absolutely not. Just pullin' you chain.

Hank

[elfman2]

I think you’re confusing “subjective” with “wrong”. Clearly Christianity and Islam can’t both be right, but nether are subjective. They would however be subjective if Christianity recognized Islam as just another personal interpretation of Christianity or visa versa.

[Hank Kerchief]

What if you think for yourself and decide that God is wiser and can make better moral decisions than you and can teach you a lot?

I guess the objectivist collective would object to that level of individuality.

"Objectivist" and "collective" are contradictory terms; but letting that go, Objectivists defend the right of every individual to believe and practice their beliefs and teach their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. No Objectivist would ever attempt to prevent any individual from believing or worshipping as they choose.

An Objectivist might not agree with what you believe, and might exercise their own right to teach what they beleive, but would never prevent you, or, if it were in their power, allow anyone else to prevent you from believing and choosing the way you are convinced is correct.

The question is, are religious people willing to extend that kind of freedom to all others? Everyone would enjoy freedom of religion under an Objectivist system. This is not true under most religious system.

Hank

[DannyTN]

"I think you’re confusing “subjective” with “wrong”. "

No I'm not. The following definitions from dictionary.com work pretty well. What I'm saying is that Ayn Ryan may have missed the evidence or failed to reason clearly. And if she missed the evidence or failed to reason clearly, then her view or reality was subjective (not based on evidence) while the evidence in fact points to another scenario which you summarily lumped with all other scenarios under the label "subjective". Which would then be a misnomer, because if the her entire concept of reality was flawed, then there is another concept of reality out there that is not flawed and the evidence points to it, making it "objective".

Objective
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.

Subjective
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world:

Christianity in my view is Objective, the evidence points to it.

Islam however is both subjective and wrong. It is subjective because the evidence points to Christianity not to Islam. Islam is therefore a matter of faith that Mohammed was really a prophet and that all the other prophets that came before him were wrong or their works were corrupted. Making Islam a matter of faith despite the evidence and therefore totally subjective.

[ffusco]

*bark!*

[CatoRenasci]

Clever, but irrelevant. You conflate academic philosphers (of whom your criticisms may be valid) with philosophy. Even the serious study of philosophers before the 20th century requires significant effort and mental ability. Moreover, I would argue that it takes the highest levels of intelligence to separate the profound from the merely confusingly presented.

[ffusco]

I agree with you completely. For example a flat world view is incorrect but would still permit me to give you directions to my corner store.

[Labyrinthos]

And how many brain cells does it take to present simple ideas in a profoundly complicated manner for no other purpose than to convince others that you are as smart as you think you are?

[Nateman]

What if you think for yourself and decide that God is wiser and can make better moral decisions than you and can teach you a lot?

Which God? Just about everybody has their own version. Do you really just get to pick and choose? I  am convinced the Moslem GOD is about as evil as it gets but one billion people seem to follow that one. How do you decide when the criteria of choice is faith? When you have automaticly thrown out reason from your decision? Just go with the one your parents taught you? If among all the Gods presented to us do we have any that are consistant with scientific discoverys or that actually predicted them?  If there is a God why should he care about us at all? We'd be to Him like Bacteria are to us. Small, numerous and easily ignored.