I used to be such a fan of Objectivism. Now I'm interested in (though not committed to) the opposite - total Subjectivism. Not as a product of relativism, but instead as an observation that it's the natural state of things, no matter what. Even objectivists must operate within their own reference frame.
The questions I can't ignore are - why ignore that which you know? Yes, they are biases, and so....? You should use all the information you have to make good choices. Why throw out certain facts?
What's the difference between loyalty and favoritism, for example, if I'm going to embrace my wife, even when I KNOW she's wrong? No Objectivist can expect to fulfill the requirements of a marriage contract, where some blind loyalty need exist (and I wouldn't have it another way, nor would she).
I'm still a big fan of Ayn Rand for her take on social structure and the simple philosophy that "I own that which I own"... roughly equivalent to her 'a is a' assertion (though that's debatable in some respects. Two apples are two different apples, and so all things are different as the space and time they occupy helps define them, in my opinion; a is NOT a - they are two different "a"'s).
Just because you're using a frame of reference doesn't stop you from being able to observe the objective world around as honestly as possible.
You should use all the information you have to make good choices. Why throw out certain facts?
Objectivism advocates using all of the information you have to make good choices. It just holds that emotions may not be real information. It's subjectivism that throws out facts for personal whim.
What's the difference between loyalty and favoritism, for example, if I'm going to embrace my wife, even when I KNOW she's wrong? No Objectivist can expect to fulfill the requirements of a marriage contract, where some blind loyalty need exist (and I wouldn't have it another way, nor would she)
Just because you think your wife is wrong about something doesn't mean that she still represents a supreme value to you, and so it's not worth fighting over something minor. Love shouldn't be blind loyalty, but open acknowledgement that you both provide value for each other.
Two apples are two different apples, and so all things are different as the space and time they occupy helps define them, in my opinion; a is NOT a - they are two different "a"'s)
Each apple shares universal qualities with all other apples (shape, taste, etc), the things that make us identify it as an apple. In that sense, they are both apples at that time, until something acts upon it to change it's nature (being eaten, rotting, etc). At the same time, each apple has a specific identity apart from the other apples. Everything that exists has a specific identity. That's what A=A is trying to explain.