Ayn Rand

[lars k norberg]

No philosophy "holds" if you take is "to the extreme" exept Objectivism because Ayn Rand developed it from simple axioms using logic. Rand maked sure of this by picking the simple axioms "Existence exists", "consciousness is conscious" and "A is A". Theee axioms are the base of the concept formation in objectivist epistemology. What makes Objectivism special is the fact that is uses logic to proove its claims, include ethics and morality. And this was what made Ayn Rand's philosopy unique.

A=A – well yeah, and so what? Where do you go from there? I don’t think logic is a very useful tool with regards to ethical and moral questions. It soon stagnates in tautologies.

She rejectet scepticism in the form of scepticism that deny the information gained from the human senses. This is; sceptics that deny the existens of an objective reality.

The kind of sceptisim Spiral Architect stand for, I suspect, is the form of scepticism used by Jams Randi. That form of scepticism is more or less objectivist epistemology, because both demandes proof before you can beleve. I am an Objectivist and I love the things Randi have done.

I’m not an objectivist, and I also like Randi’s work a lot. I’m not an expert on him, though, but I reckon the reason why we both enjoy him hides behind the “more or less”-approximation you make between his and objectivist epistemology.

And by the way: All Objectivists are atheists.

The problem with atheism is that it claims knowledge to areas where humans can only speculate. This is unfortunately a trait atheism shares with religion, the nature of its epistemology thus being fundamentalist. As much as I sympathize with the atheist’s agenda, I think the atheist position in fact undermines the battle (if you will) against religion by acknowledging belief as a valid basis for knowledge. This, I think, is the core-argument against religion, and being an agnostic I can make use of that. The atheist, on the other hand, must be prepared to prove the non-existence of God in order to state his case. Now - how would one do that?

 

[Wolfenstein]

The atheist, on the other hand, must be prepared to prove the non-existence of God in order to state his case. Now - how would one do that?

I do not have to proove anything. A claim that cannot been be prooven to be false is not valid as knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science

 

[Øjeblikket]

Objectivism can be summarised in four points

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

I'm no student of Rand's work, and I'm making the assumption that your summary of Objectivism is as it relates to Rand's work, but it is clear to me that the Objectivism summarised is entirely subjective. Perhaps it is my understanding of Objectivism as being essentially and necessarily rooted in objectivity that is entirely naive. Since I am babbling, though, I would say that a subjective objectivity is an objectivity of folly which surely cases the proof -- would that be an a priori? I don't know.

And by the way: All Objectivists are atheists.

Labels, I find, are most proper when their purpose is detailing the ingredients of grocery items.

I must ask -- to what extent does the meaning of objectivity participate in the meaning of Objectivism? If Objectivism bears no relation to objectivity then please disregard this vulgar post of mine.

 

[Øjeblikket]

The atheist, on the other hand, must be prepared to prove the non-existence of God in order to state his case. Now - how would one do that?

correct me if I'm incorrect, but I think what you're getting at is similar to Paul Carus's observation in the opening of his essay, The History of the Devil, which I quote:

A state of irreligion in which mankind would adopt and publicly teach a doctrine of Atheism is an impossibility. Atheism is a negation, and negations cannot stand, for they have sense only as confronted with the positive issues which they reject. Yet our present anthropomorphic view of God, briefly called Anthropotheism, which as a rule conceives him as an infinitely big individual being, will have to yield to a higher view in which we shall understand that the idea of a personal God is a mere simile.

 

[Øjeblikket]

I don't believe in old fairy tales.

- Asgeir

some folktales have merit as metaphors depicting historical events; namely, natural events like earthquakes and rough seas (there is an example of this in that other forum you frequent). I find also that other folktales have value as being pleasant campfire enchantments. For example, a story told by the Coast Miwok Indians brings me great delight:

"The Hookooeko of San Rafael say Yu'-ten me'chah the Evil One lives in the hills just north of San Rafael; he travels about at night and touches people when they are asleep, to frighten them." excerpted from page 35 of Dawn of the World

 

[Wolfenstein]

I must ask -- to what extent does the meaning of objectivity participate in the meaning of Objectivism?

The objective part of Objectivism is simpel: Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. And reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action.

James Randi uses reason and that is why I like him. He is a paranormal investegator, though, and not a philosoper.

 

[Øjeblikket]

The objective part of Objectivism is simpel: Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. And reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action.

James Randi uses reason and that is why I like him. He is a paranormal investegator, though, and not a philosoper.

I'm unfamiliar with Randi, but an investigator of the paranormal that is seasoned with reason has my interests piqued.

As for the discussion, I can agree with the objectivity of Objectivism in that facts are distinct from fancy and afford a clearer and less biased perception of reality than the perception dogmatized by superstition, but I would also go so far as to say that reason need not be limited to logic, except in instances where the purpose of communication is for the recitation of facts, obviously. Technology is cool; however, it does not rule. (heh, cheap rhyme)

My fondness for linguistic loopholes and imagination is as accentuated as my interest in accuracy.

I suppose for the continuation of this delightful discussion we could consider how often reason (in the sense of logical deductions) is deferred by emotions in regard to one's conduct, and whether or not one's subjective experience (emotions and such) is indeed a viable means of perceiving and engaging reality. I would argue in favor of absurdity!

oh, to reiterate and defend my earlier comment, if we understand objectivity as the reasoning which is bereft of personal biases, then we should note that politics are not simply Capitalistic agendas, and etc.

 

[Wolfenstein]

but I would also go so far as to say that reason need not be limited to logic

Then what more should be included?

I suppose for the continuation of this delightful discussion we could consider how often reason (in the sense of logical deductions) is deferred by emotions in regard to one's conduct, and whether or not one's subjective experience (emotions and such) is indeed a viable means of perceiving and engaging reality. I would argue in favor of absurdity!

According to Objectivism, emotions are impilcations of a man's values. Meaning that we are in control of our subconsious, it is not our subconsious that control us. So when your emotions and reason are in conflict you should always follow your reason. Ayn Rand goes the opposite way Freud in this point.

 

[Øjeblikket]

This is probably another underestimation and it's certainly a guess but I think intuitiveness for one is illogical in activity. A reason well versed in intuitiveness is entirely fairer. This is to be included in reason.



"According to Objectivism, emotions are impilcations of a man's values. Meaning that we are in control of our subconsious, it is not our subconsious that control us. So when your emotions and reason are in conflict you should always follow your reason."

I hadn't raised the conflict issue, but there is nothing here I wouldn't advocate except that it is optimistic and medicinal.