Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
One would think that a completely objective philosophy shouldn't need that sort of crutch, but there you go. Even Thomas Jefferson didn't claim that "these truths are self-evident", merely that "we hold these truths to be self-evident". And TJ was no dummy - presumably, if he could have proven them, he would have...
Our "constitutional experience" has little in common with Objectivism.
Really? When did it abandon the non-initiation of force principle?
Nicely said.
Either there is a goal or purpose to human life that lies behind "self-interest" or there isn't. If there is such a goal, then wouldn't the pursuit of that goal be the purpose of life, rather than just self-interest. If there isn't such a goal or purpose, then the pursuit of self-interest may well be our highest goal, but that doesn't tell us much about what we should do. So what is one's "self-interest," and how much freedom is there to disagree about just what one's true self-interest may be?
Alternatively, there may be no one purpose or goal or standard of value. I may resist attempts to force me to make sacrifices for some presumed common good, yet still praise those who, at critical moments in history, have made just such sacrifices. Self-sacrifice shouldn't be made the end of our existence, but civilization owes much to those who sacrificed their lives for it. I don't think Rand would disagree with this, though she might try to fudge things to preserve her slogans.
If "good" health is objectively better than "bad" health, then ya'lls arguments are exposed.
Arguing no one can objectively prove anything is pure sophistry, and does not fly with real thinkers, in my experience.
No? How about "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational"? Can you prove that, or do we just accept it to be true? After all, the denial, "acting in one's self-interest is not inherently rational" isn't self-contradictory, is it?
For example. The mystic "axiom," "there is a god." To say, "there is no god" is not self-contradictory, and therefore not an axiom. The logical "axiom" "existence exists" (or there is existence). To say "existence does not exist" (or there is no existence) is self-contradictory, thus, "existence exists" is an axiom.
No, actually it's not axiomatic - you just used the law of non-contradiction to logically prove that existence exists. Given that ~(P & ~P) is true, ~P being false logically implies that P is true. And if you can prove that something is true, there's no need to regard it as an axiom.
She's a horrible writer, albeit one with valuable insights into philosophy? That's a start ;)
Makes more sense than most of the objections on this thread. Sadly.
--------------------------
Why do you, roscoe & the boyos here sneer & ridicule the axioms she supports, -- The same ones you embrace & admit are 'useful'?
The problem isn't the philosophy per se, it's the sales pitch. Objectivism has no special claim to rationality over and above any other system of morality, and yet it purports exactly that - "the only objectively true and rational system of morality", is how it was phrased earlier in the thread, IIRC.
Big deal. One persons opinion, 'IIRC', is not proof that Rand made "special claims".
But it can't be proven objectively true unless the premises can be proven objectively true, and so that claim is of the same order as it would be about any other system of morality - an unproven assertion, that may or may not be actually true.
You seem to think this what, -nihlist?- view of 'unproven assertions' you have is some sort of trump philosophical card. It makes no sense. Get over yourself.
I cant speak for others, of course, but my own objective is not to knock objectivism down, and show that it's somehow inferior to other moral systems - I don't believe that to be the case, really. Rather, this is more dealing with claims of exceptionalism than anything else. It's not worse than any other given system as far as I can tell, but neither is it inherently superior.
You keep repeating the claim that Rands objectivism sees itself as exceptional.. So what?
Yup. Good luck proving it.
Arguing no one can objectively prove anything is pure sophistry
And when you run into such a person, you will rightly point that out to them. On the other hand, that doesn't help you much with someone who only argues that some things cannot be objectively proven.
Really? When did it abandon the non-initiation of force principle?
You will not find in any objectivist literature the principle that describes any "non-initaion of force," axiom. The principle that says, in relationships between human beings, it is the initiation of the use of force that is morally repugnant, is to differentiate it from the use of force in defence against its initiation. It is never described as an axiom.
The principle is based entirely on the nature or human beings and the requirements of their nature for their survival. Humans, to live and survive must be free to think and choose their behavior. The initiation of the use of force prohibits them from carrying out that process.
But, never mind. All of this is for those who are not terrified of being entirely responsible for themselves and their own lives. It is not for you.
Hank
Actually, I think you're complicating a very simple idea.
What if I rephrased it, "in life you're going to have to make choices between short-term, feel-good pleasure and long-term, life-improving gain"?
I believe life has what meaning you give it. To Michael Jordan, the 'meaning of life' was to be the best BBall player. To Mozart, it was to the greatest composer. To some, it's just to make it to their next beer.
'Objectivism' is the idea that is is 'moral' for an individual to make the best choice for their 'long-term' interest. Certainly it's *never* possible to fully know which the right choice is. But the main goal of a man (or woman, of course) is to figure out what that is.
It's what we all do, in fact.
It's as proven as, "the sun is hot".
I suggest you even believe it yourself, and are just arguing to argue.
Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?
Oops!
:-D
Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good nutrition is no better a life choice than good bad nutrition?
No? How about "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational"?
Objectivism does not regard, "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational," as an axiom, and you will never find it described as such. It is a derivative concept. But don't worry about it. It requires some very regorous logic which may be too difficult for you.
No, actually it's not axiomatic - you just used the law of non-contradiction to logically prove that existence exists. Given that ~(P & ~P) is true, ~P being false logically implies that P is true. And if you can prove that something is true, there's no need to regard it as an axiom.
I do not believe most objectivists would regard you as the God of what can and cannot be regarded as something. You may ragard it any way you please, that's what objectivists believe. Objectivists regard "existence exists" as axiomatic because it is an irreduceable primary that cannot be denied without being self-contradictory.
Hank
Or do you really expect me to believe that you, personally believe that good bad nutrition is no better a life choice than good nutrition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.