Ask An Objectivist

[Dinwar]

I've been toying around with this concept for a while now, and since I'm bored, the other good discussions are all stalled out, and I'm a masochist, I'm going to give it a go.

Basically, I want to provide an insight into the mentality of the average run-of-the-mill Objectivist.

I want to do this for two reasons.

1) I don't think, based on my previous discussions here, most people on this forum who comment on Objectivism understand the philosophy. Most make some pretty basic errors and fall for some pretty obvious lies. Basic and obvious, that is, from the internal perspective; I can certainly appreciate why they aren't so obvious from the external. I'd like to clear up those misconceptions.

2) I think this forum can handle discussions of ideas opposing the forum's mainstream in a better way than is typically done--I think folks here are capable of listening to what the other side says. At the very least, I have to try to find out.

I would like to lay a few ground rules for this before we start:

1) We should assume that those identifying with Objectivism understand Objectivism better than those who don't. This may or may not be true, and if evidence to the contrary comes to light we should certainly take that into account. However, I think this should be the default assumption in these kinds of discussions. Statements like "REAL Muslims believe X!" coming from atheists are obviously intended to shut down the conversation and cast the bblame of a small subset onto the whole population; at minimum, it is an attempt to dictate what the other side believes. And that's simply not something I'm interested in engaging with. We all choose our own beliefs, and I think it only fair to allow each of us to state our beliefs ourselves.

2) I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to this project. I have work, a kid, another on the way, etc. I'll do what I can, but for the most part I'm posting in scraps of time (lunch break, after the hatchling goes to bed, etc). What that means is that I may not answer every question, respond to every statement, or fully flesh out every idea. I'll try, but time is one constraint I've never found a way to work around. In particular, I'm not going to bother giving page number citations; if I have a link I'll provide it, but I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time digging through the literature. I don't expect anyone else to, either. This is a casual conversation, not a research paper.

3) Objectivists often disagree. I'm in the Dr. Hsieh camp, myself; I've found her to be consistently rational and thoughtful, far more so than other Objectivist thinkers. Still, I am not obliged to agree with something merely because Dr. Piekoff says it. For that matter, I disagree with Dr. Hsieh on a few issues. What you're getting is MY understanding of the philosophy. There are broad areas in which we all must agree, obviously; otherwise, categorizing ourselves under the same term would be a contradiction! However, the specifics can get interesting. This is in keeping with Rand's own view of the philosophy; most people in Galt's Gulch disagreed with what Ragnar did, for example. There are some issues I'm not sure about, such as open vs. closed Objectivism; there are some that I strongly disagree with people on, such as aesthetics (I'm a metal head; that does not go over well in some circles!). And folks like Premise Checkers are the Objectivist equivalent of Free Thought Blogs--merely including yourself in that group excludes you from being taken seriously by any sane person.

Okay, that out of the way............

Why do I consider myself an Objectivist? Mostly, Rand put words to what I've always believed. I've never understood why anyone else had a say in what I did with my life--I always took the view that I don't tell you what to do, you don't tell me what to do. There are obvious social necessities; it would be chaos if we drove wherever we wanted, for example! But beyond those, as long as we don't directly interfere with each other's lives, we have no say in each other's lives. I had more or less worked out a fair bit of Objectivist philosophy myself before I even heard of Rand.

When I read Rand, my reaction was "Finally, someone else gets it!" There was some new stuff, though, such as the Objectivist epistemology. I've looked into those, and found them to be more or less consistent with what I've seen in science. Ideas must have a real-world basis, meaning they must be testable; induction or deduction alone are dangerous, and proper thinking is the use of both of them at the same time; proper identification is the foundation of rational thought. That sort of thing.

I know little enough about Rand's life, and care less. I don't care what Enya looks like, I enjoy her for her music. Similarly, I don't care if Rand lived her philosophy, I care whether or not her philosophy makes sense. Her afffair with Nethanial Brandon is incomprehensible to me (his professional work is decent, from what I've seen, but his personal life is a mess). Her acceptance of welfair makes perfect sense to me, though I do wish she had taken a stronger stance (she viewed taxation as theft, and the welfair checks as a pitance returned to her--a person is not inconsistent if they decry theft and get their property back!). Still, I'm not a biographer, nor do I have much interest in studying her life. I'm interested in the philosophy, not the philosophper. That said, that's a personal thing, and I can understand those interested in her life.

Do I think it's time to "Go Galt"? No. I think those who do think so have a very shallow understanding of history. Yes, there are trends I see as dangerous--for example, I'm in the environmental field, and have seen exactly what state controls on the environment do (the Endangered Species Act has killed more endangered animals than pretty much anything else). Still, there's a lot of good in the culture, and a lot of potential for change for the better. I'm not going to give up on it just yet!

So, I open the floor to any questions. What can I clarify? What issues would you like me to address?

 

[Spindrift]

1) We should assume that those identifying with Objectivism understand Objectivism better than those who don't. This may or may not be true, and if evidence to the contrary comes to light we should certainly take that into account.

In order to grant the assumption you need to answer the following:

What is Objectivism?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I've been toying around with this concept for a while now, and since I'm bored, the other good discussions are all stalled out, and I'm a masochist, I'm going to give it a go.

Basically, I want to provide an insight into the mentality of the average run-of-the-mill Objectivist.

I want to do this for two reasons.

1) I don't think, based on my previous discussions here, most people on this forum who comment on Objectivism understand the philosophy. Most make some pretty basic errors and fall for some pretty obvious lies. Basic and obvious, that is, from the internal perspective; I can certainly appreciate why they aren't so obvious from the external. I'd like to clear up those misconceptions.

2) I think this forum can handle discussions of ideas opposing the forum's mainstream in a better way than is typically done--I think folks here are capable of listening to what the other side says. At the very least, I have to try to find out.

I would like to lay a few ground rules for this before we start:

1) We should assume that those identifying with Objectivism understand Objectivism better than those who don't. This may or may not be true, and if evidence to the contrary comes to light we should certainly take that into account. However, I think this should be the default assumption in these kinds of discussions. Statements like "REAL Muslims believe X!" coming from atheists are obviously intended to shut down the conversation and cast the bblame of a small subset onto the whole population; at minimum, it is an attempt to dictate what the other side believes. And that's simply not something I'm interested in engaging with. We all choose our own beliefs, and I think it only fair to allow each of us to state our beliefs ourselves.

2) I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to this project. I have work, a kid, another on the way, etc. I'll do what I can, but for the most part I'm posting in scraps of time (lunch break, after the hatchling goes to bed, etc). What that means is that I may not answer every question, respond to every statement, or fully flesh out every idea. I'll try, but time is one constraint I've never found a way to work around. In particular, I'm not going to bother giving page number citations; if I have a link I'll provide it, but I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time digging through the literature. I don't expect anyone else to, either. This is a casual conversation, not a research paper.

3) Objectivists often disagree. I'm in the Dr. Hsieh camp, myself; I've found her to be consistently rational and thoughtful, far more so than other Objectivist thinkers. Still, I am not obliged to agree with something merely because Dr. Piekoff says it. For that matter, I disagree with Dr. Hsieh on a few issues. What you're getting is MY understanding of the philosophy. There are broad areas in which we all must agree, obviously; otherwise, categorizing ourselves under the same term would be a contradiction! However, the specifics can get interesting. This is in keeping with Rand's own view of the philosophy; most people in Galt's Gulch disagreed with what Ragnar did, for example. There are some issues I'm not sure about, such as open vs. closed Objectivism; there are some that I strongly disagree with people on, such as aesthetics (I'm a metal head; that does not go over well in some circles!). And folks like Premise Checkers are the Objectivist equivalent of Free Thought Blogs--merely including yourself in that group excludes you from being taken seriously by any sane person.

Okay, that out of the way............

Why do I consider myself an Objectivist? Mostly, Rand put words to what I've always believed. I've never understood why anyone else had a say in what I did with my life--I always took the view that I don't tell you what to do, you don't tell me what to do. There are obvious social necessities; it would be chaos if we drove wherever we wanted, for example! But beyond those, as long as we don't directly interfere with each other's lives, we have no say in each other's lives. I had more or less worked out a fair bit of Objectivist philosophy myself before I even heard of Rand.

When I read Rand, my reaction was "Finally, someone else gets it!" There was some new stuff, though, such as the Objectivist epistemology. I've looked into those, and found them to be more or less consistent with what I've seen in science. Ideas must have a real-world basis, meaning they must be testable; induction or deduction alone are dangerous, and proper thinking is the use of both of them at the same time; proper identification is the foundation of rational thought. That sort of thing.

I know little enough about Rand's life, and care less. I don't care what Enya looks like, I enjoy her for her music. Similarly, I don't care if Rand lived her philosophy, I care whether or not her philosophy makes sense. Her afffair with Nethanial Brandon is incomprehensible to me (his professional work is decent, from what I've seen, but his personal life is a mess). Her acceptance of welfair makes perfect sense to me, though I do wish she had taken a stronger stance (she viewed taxation as theft, and the welfair checks as a pitance returned to her--a person is not inconsistent if they decry theft and get their property back!). Still, I'm not a biographer, nor do I have much interest in studying her life. I'm interested in the philosophy, not the philosophper. That said, that's a personal thing, and I can understand those interested in her life.

Do I think it's time to "Go Galt"? No. I think those who do think so have a very shallow understanding of history. Yes, there are trends I see as dangerous--for example, I'm in the environmental field, and have seen exactly what state controls on the environment do (the Endangered Species Act has killed more endangered animals than pretty much anything else). Still, there's a lot of good in the culture, and a lot of potential for change for the better. I'm not going to give up on it just yet!

So, I open the floor to any questions. What can I clarify? What issues would you like me to address?

In all seriousness: what distinguishes this as Objectivism? How does one recognize Objectivism, or an Objectivist?

 

[MG1962]

Sorry I can not see any value in any philosophy that has this as one of its cornerstones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

 

[Dinwar]

In order to grant the assumption you need to answer the following:

What is Objectivism?

Not necessarily. At least, I need not give a minute definition, akin to a species description. Objectivism is more akin to a Family or Order-level classification, with abstract concepts that must be held (otherwise, you're not an Objectivist) but with lots of room for variation.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The closed view is that it's ONLY the philosophy of Ayn Rand; the open view is that it's Rand's philosophy, plus the work of later thinkers. There's too much interpersonal drama to disentangle that issue for now, in my opinion; I withhold judgement.

At minimum, a person calling themselves an Objectivist honestly must hold that existence exists, rational egoism is the foundation of valid ethical philosophy, and that logic and reason are the foundations of valid epistemology. I'm not much on aesthetics; I think too many people take too shallow a view of things and make unjustifiably broad statements on the topic. Still, I would question an Objectivist that found pictures of decaying buildings or bodies moving.

More specifically, an Objectivist must acknowledge that reality exists--and does so as something distinctly separate from conciousness. They must acknowledge that logic, reason, and abstraction are our ownly means of understanding reality (and that logic, reason, and abstraction must necessarily be based upon perception). They must acknowledge that each person is an end in themselves, rather than a means to someone else's end. They must also hold, in social situations, that rights are paramount and (at least without consent) inviolable. (In Objectivism the concept of rights absent a social situation--say, as the lone person on a deserted island--is nonsense, in the sense of Lewis Carol's poetry.) In ethics, they must also acknowledge that values are hierarchical, with one's own life as the standard of value.

That said, how we each apply those concepts is complex, with many differences of opinion as to how to apply them. I'm not comfortable, at this time, defining Objectivism much more specifically than that. I can define my own views of Objectivism more precisely, but I think it's extremely dangerous to attribute one's personal views to the whole of a philosophy.

 

[Dinwar]

Sorry I can not see any value in any philosophy that has this as one of its cornerstones

Not even in understanding it better so as to more effectively refute it? Seems odd to attack something blindly--and I'm offering to paint the target for you here.

 

[MG1962]

Not even in understanding it better so as to more effectively refute it? Seems odd to attack something blindly--and I'm offering to paint the target for you here.

It would seem odd to me that someone supports a philosophy that encompasses a Laissez-faire economic system, but be unaware of the destructive history of such an economic system.

 

[Dinwar]

It would seem odd to me that someone supports a philosophy that encompasses a Laissez-faire economic system, but be unaware of the destructive history of such an economic system.

Now you're making a rather astonishing number of assumptions about my beliefs and knowledge.

Instead of doing so, I suggest it would be more productive to actually learn what I think. What you're doing is the oposite of critical thinking.

I'm not going to respond to any more posts of this kind. I thank you for illustrating the type of behavior my first rule describes--I would be accused of straw-man arguments had someone not done so. However, now that it has been amply demonstrated, I see no further value in responding.

 

[Spindrift]

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. If I'm to go along with your assumption that you know Objectivism better then me then you need to let me know up front what Objectivism is so I don't dictate what you believe.

At least, I need not give a minute definition, akin to a species description. Objectivism is more akin to a Family or Order-level classification, with abstract concepts that must be held (otherwise, you're not an Objectivist) but with lots of room for variation.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The closed view is that it's ONLY the philosophy of Ayn Rand; the open view is that it's Rand's philosophy, plus the work of later thinkers. There's too much interpersonal drama to disentangle that issue for now, in my opinion; I withhold judgement.

At minimum, a person calling themselves an Objectivist honestly must hold that existence exists, rational egoism is the foundation of valid ethical philosophy, and that logic and reason are the foundations of valid epistemology. I'm not much on aesthetics; I think too many people take too shallow a view of things and make unjustifiably broad statements on the topic. Still, I would question an Objectivist that found pictures of decaying buildings or bodies moving.

More specifically, an Objectivist must acknowledge that reality exists--and does so as something distinctly separate from conciousness. They must acknowledge that logic, reason, and abstraction are our ownly means of understanding reality (and that logic, reason, and abstraction must necessarily be based upon perception). They must acknowledge that each person is an end in themselves, rather than a means to someone else's end. They must also hold, in social situations, that rights are paramount and (at least without consent) inviolable. (In Objectivism the concept of rights absent a social situation--say, as the lone person on a deserted island--is nonsense, in the sense of Lewis Carol's poetry.) In ethics, they must also acknowledge that values are hierarchical, with one's own life as the standard of value.

That said, how we each apply those concepts is complex, with many differences of opinion as to how to apply them. I'm not comfortable, at this time, defining Objectivism much more specifically than that. I can define my own views of Objectivism more precisely, but I think it's extremely dangerous to attribute one's personal views to the whole of a philosophy.

I still have no idea what Objectivism means to you after this. If you're not comfortable defining it, should we play games where you just get to tell us we're wrong because we don't know what we're talking about and you do?

You say "rights are paramount and inviolable". Who gets to define what those rights are? What if one group thinks something is a right and another group disagrees?

 

[MG1962]

Now you're making a rather astonishing number of assumptions about my beliefs and knowledge.

Instead of doing so, I suggest it would be more productive to actually learn what I think. What you're doing is the oposite of critical thinking.

I'm not going to respond to any more posts of this kind. I thank you for illustrating the type of behavior my first rule describes--I would be accused of straw-man arguments had someone not done so. However, now that it has been amply demonstrated, I see no further value in responding.

So in summary you are an objectivist as outlined by Ayn Rand, only you are not....seems a very unstable position to start a thread with

 

[marplots]

Is that "A is A" thing some kind of cornerstone of Objectivism, or just something people say to score points? (Or, something else entirely?)

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, necessarily.

I wouldn't think it would be that hard to find out the basics. The Atlas Society and The Ayn Rand Institute both have descriptions.

You are correct that it's necessary for there to be a definition; however, I don't believe I need to be the one to provide it. I was merely saying that declaring--as MG1962 did--what I believe, assume, etc. without any actual data should be avoided. And I'd rather not have to bear the burden of arguments I strongly disagree with (Piekoff has said some stupid things in the past...).

You say "rights are paramount and inviolable". Who gets to define what those rights are?

A fair question. The thing is, the concept of rights being paramount and inviolable define what rights are--as does the fact that all humans have them. If something violates the rights of another, it is not a right. How can it be? It contradicts its own definition.

In practice, this should, in my opinion, be the government's primary role--not defining laws, but rather defining rights. Defining laws inherently assumes that the government has the right--and even obligation--to restrict the activities of its citizens. This more or less inevitably leads to viewing the population as cattle (some economists explicitely made that comparison in the past) or as children (some supporters of Obama that I know have explicitely made that comparison [the blame lies with them, not Obama, and the Republicans are no better]). Defining rights, on the other hand, would start with the assumption that the citizens should not be constrained, and rather that the government should protect the citizens. The police would still have the same job, for the most part, but it would be a very significant shift in how the government interacts with the population on a larger scale.

I'm not a political philosopher, so I can't go into detail about how that would work. And Utopian literature is boring after a few chapters, so I have no interest in exploring it too deeply (it would necessarily be some fictional work). Still, I think this answers the meat of your question: the theoretical framework defines rights from a philosophical perspective, and the government should define rights from a practical prespective.

On the personal level, what this means is that I view a persons right to life, liberty, and property to be paramount. I don't commit theft, I don't attack people, I don't trespass, etc., obviously--95%+ of all philosophies will lead to the same results 95%+ of the time. Less obviously, it means that they get to make the rules for their life and property. If I am at someone's house and I dislike the rules, I leave. If they're in my house and they violate my rules, I throw them out. It also means that I recognize that I don't own what isn't mine--if someone beats me to some goal, be it a race or a job, I've not been harmed in any way. I never had it to begin with. I have an at-will contract with my company, and my wife and I never held that death was the only way to disolve our relationship. This actually became an issue when I moved to California--I had to be willing to divorce my wife, with no hard feelings or recriminations, because California was my future, not necessarily hers. The fact that she chose to come with me was entirely her choice. I'm extatic that she did so, but if she had chosen otherwise I would have had to accept it. I do tend to take it to extremes; I have trouble telling people what to do, which can result in comical cases of groups of people standing around hungry while we all try to not be the one to pick a place to eat. But I'm getting better at that.

What if one group thinks something is a right and another group disagrees?

The obvious solution is discussion. They should be mature enough to actually discuss why they disagree, and to determine who is right. That said, there is NO justification for the initiation of force, period. (Again, defence is another thing--if someone punches you in the nose, no Objectivist would expect you to stand there and take it, and in fact a few [myself included in my more violent moods] would advise killing the person who did it.) They can argue, they can debate, they can write letters to newspapers or blogs online, they can set up their own little communes or towns where they enforce their rules (their property, their rules)--but they CANNOT use violence.

If you're not comfortable defining it, should we play games where you just get to tell us we're wrong because we don't know what we're talking about and you do?

You've misunderstood my intent. I merely wanted to avoid someone saying "Objectivists believe that the mentally incompetant should be taken out and shot. How can you defend this? What, you don't? You're not an Objectivist then!!!" Look at any discussion on Islam that A'isha has participated in to see the sort of behavior I'm talking about (and the above is not a straw-man; Dr. Hsieh has fielded questions of that nature). Or, to put it in a more immediate context: I don't want to have to deal with statements like "All Objectivists are ignorant of history". I don't intend to play any games, and I have nothing but contempt for "Gotcha!" tactics; I merely want to avoid the obsecene disgraces under the guise of discourse that epitomize many of the religious threads on this subforum. I'll gladly state my beliefs, but the only thing I'll do to statements like MG1962's is point out that it's a mere assertion, and ignore it.

As for comfort, I'm fine defining it. Problem is, last time I did so in the amount of detail that would satisfy folks here it took me a month to write and 16 pages of text. I lost it when my hard drive failed, otherwise I'd have edited it (it was a note to my mother, and contained personal information about others) and posted it. I doubt anyone would want to read it though, nor do I think it would be useful. What would happen is that everyone here would pick it apart looking for "Gotcha!" moments of their own--basically, other people would do precisely what you accuse me of doing. I'm not here to defend Objectivism; I'm here to DESCRIBE Objectivism. An actual discussion, starting from the premise that we all know a bit but someone who actually practices the philosophy is likely to know more about it than those who don't, is the best way to do that. Many people here know a bit about the philosophy; I figured it would be useful for folks to see how their understanding stacks up against the understanding of someone who follows the philosophy.

If MG1962 had said "How can you justify LFC in light of historic attrocities associated with that economic stance?" I would not object; the question does not assume any stance on my part not obvious from a brief study of Objectivism. LFC is obligatory for those who wish to call themselves Objectivists, because only LFC accepts fully the concept of property rights. Instead, MG1962 chose to make assertions about my belief, coupled with some insults. THAT is what I object to and will not address.

 

[marplots]

Here's a gem from the Atlas Society:
"Objectivists defend the efficacy of reason against all critics. Skeptics say that because we are fallible, we must doubt all our beliefs. But this claim is a self-contradiction: the skeptic is claiming certainty at least for his belief in our fallibility."

As an Objectivist, do you agree?

 

[Dinwar]

Is that "A is A" thing some kind of cornerstone of Objectivism, or just something people say to score points? (Or, something else entirely?)

Something else entirely, and something egregiously abused by many (no attack here; it's an error among those allegedly on my side).

"A is A" is one of the three axioms, which in Objectivism are limited to the absolute broadest abstractions. Properly applied, it's essentially a re-statement of the Law of Non-contradiction: no valid concept can contradict other valid concepts or data. (Data are what they are; any apparent conflict ini data is merely an error of understanding.) Every thing--every object, every concept, every event--has a particular nature; otherwise, we couldnt' define it as a thing. No thing can violate its nature--that nature can change, but only within the boundaries set by the nature of the thing.

Think of an organism. Say, a bee. It's born, has a specific structure, nutritional needs, environmental needs, etc. It changes from an egg to a larva to a pupa to an adult, but each transition is determined by the nature of the organism as a bee. It can be transformed into a corpse, or into food (I've heard of some people deep-frying them), but again, only in accordance to its nature. It cannot change into an apple. It can be broken down into its constituent components, which can be taken up by a tree and integrated into an apple, but that's according to the nature of those components.

Unfortunately, too many people use it as a pithy "Gotcha!" statement intended to shut down conversation. It's more or less poisoned that well for us, and it's our own fault, to be honest. And it's because, usually, of a very shallow understanding of Objectivism. The axioms aren't fool-prooof trump cards, and Rand herself warned against using them as such (I believe it was in the book Philosophy: Who Needs It, as a post-script to one of her essays).

Properly used, the axioms are more akin to guides for thought than any rhetorical device. They're like the yellow and white stripes on roads: they don't actually physically stop anything, but crossing them means you've screwed up rather badly and bad things are likely to happen. They are a way to test your own chains of reasoning. If your understanding of some concept violates one of the axioms, you've made an error. It then becomes obligatory on your part to find where that error is.

Rand demonstrates this in Atlas Shrugged by having various characters remind Dagney of the concept. It's important to note that they don't use this to disprove anything, but rather they remind her of it to aid her in her thought process. It's internal, not external.

 

[marplots]

Thanks for the nuances. I never liked it. Mereological nihilism attacks it directly.

When I first saw it in connection with Rand, I thought, "Ah, here's someone trying to do a little Descarte dance."

 

[Dinwar]

Here's a gem from the Atlas Society:
"Objectivists defend the efficacy of reason against all critics. Skeptics say that because we are fallible, we must doubt all our beliefs. But this claim is a self-contradiction: the skeptic is claiming certainty at least for his belief in our fallibility."

As an Objectivist, do you agree?

It certainly seems odd that someone who argues against certainty claims certainty. Many on this board and elsewhere go so far as to take a very militant stance that we are certain only of our uncertainty, which gets completely ridiculous and certainly warrants further investigation.

The thing to remember is that Rand is speaking of philosophical skeptics, not necessarily Skeptics; she had a habit of refering to the origional definitions, which sometimes causes confusion. So this statement may not apply to you. The philosophy of skepticism is different from the social construct built around the name by folks like Sagan, Randi, and the like.

Personally, I find a deeper error to be with the misapplication of the term "certainty". Many people apply the mathematical definition to non-mathematical situations. This is just as invalid as applying a cladistic definition to "character" when discussing movies. I am certain that my coffee cup is, essentially, empty. I know this because I drained it by drinking the coffee. Can I state that with 100% certainty? No; I've looked away from my cup a few times in the past ten minutes. However, NOT believing that my cup is empty is simply ridiculous. I am, as far as any non-mathematical definition is concerned, certain of the state of my cup.

The real problem with this is that it's never consistently applied. It's ALWAYS "We can't know, therefore you can't be certain, therefore I'm right". If you wish to believe we can't know anything, that's fine--that means you can't know your own beliefs, and therefore we can dismiss you from the convewsation. (I don't mean that personally; it's just that English doesn't have a good way to generalize a statement like that and using "one" is clunky).

 

[MG1962]

Is that "A is A" thing some kind of cornerstone of Objectivism, or just something people say to score points? (Or, something else entirely?)

Not at all - Ayn Rand wrote extensively on the intrusive nature of government regulation in the business world. What Dinwar is proposing is akin to a communist who does not like the idea of a state controlled economy.

 

[Dinwar]

Not at all - Ayn Rand wrote extensively on the intrusive nature of government regulation in the business world. What Dinwar is proposing is akin to a communist who does not like the idea of a state controlled economy.

At this point, I think anyone asking why I had #1 in the OP is being intentionally obtuse. This is precisely the sort of thing that degrades the conversations on this forum. Note that it didn't even have anything to do with teh quote it ostensibly responded to--it's nothing but an blind attack against something that hasn't been said, by someone who is not interested in actually learning what the other side believes.

THAT is what I have no patience for. People demanding I support my beliefs? Perfectly fine; I wouldn't hold them if I didn't think they were supported by reason and logic. But there's a difference between that, and merely making baseles attacks at the slightest excuse.

 

[Dani]

Hi, Dinwar.

Could you give a brief description of the main traits of rational egotism? Do you think the principles of rational egotism necessarily lead to libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism? Why?

Also, when you refer to the epistemology, you mention separate concepts such as logic, reason, abstraction and perception. I'm guessing logic refers mainly to deduction and maybe some other principle and reason refers to induction and Parsimony, for example, but can you briefly describe what each of these concepts encapsulate, to you, and the relationship among them? I get "perception", but I don't know what "abstraction" refers to.

 

[Dinwar]

Could you give a brief description of the main traits of rational egotism?

Sure.

From a broad perspective, it means that a person's life is their primary concern. I am not obliged to make anyone else's life better; my main concern is MY life. That said, this is not blind predation--the "rational" part comes in to play via the recognition that I cannot advance my life by the violation of the rights of others. And further, I usually can't advance my life from harming others (the rare cases where I can actually amount to me removing threats to myself). Boild down, it means I'm under no obligation to give anything I earn to anyone, but I need to decide if it's in my best interest to do so or not.

I don't give money to panhandlers, or to most charities. I refuse to give money to any charity focused on relief to Africa (I've spoken with people from there, and those charities get people killed). More than that, I feel no obligation to do so, nor any guilt to telling anyone asking for money "No". It's MY money. On the flip side, I'll buy pretzles during traffic jams, and have donated to cancer research, because those causes are valuable to me personally.

Do you think the principles of rational egotism necessarily lead to libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism? Why?

No--Objectivism supports neither Libertarianism nor anarcho-capitalism. Government is a necessary thing; listen to the song "Serious Steel" and you'll see why.

I do believe it leads to LFC, however, because only LFC fully accepts that each person is an end unto themselves. Collectivism and rational egoism are incompatable.

I get "perception", but I don't know what "abstraction" refers to.

This is the easiest: perception is what you do when you percieve things. Abstraction is what you do when you put together precepts and concepts to make a more generalized statement. A good example is taxonomy--the traits of a species are the equivalent of perception. The concepts of speceis, order, genus, domain, etc., are more abstract concepts (remember, taxonomy was invented prior to evolution and, strictly speaking, did not make any assumptions about relatedness). One can make generalized statements about things one experiences directly, or about generalized statements.

Also, when you refer to the epistemology, you mention separate concepts such as logic, reason, abstraction and perception. I'm guessing logic refers mainly to deduction and maybe some other principle and reason refers to induction and Parsimony, for example, but can you briefly describe what each of these concepts encapsulate, to you, and the relationship among them?

I wasn't using them so formally. I used the grouping to mean the whole of rational thought. That's the important bit--what each individual component means wasn't really important to my statement. Logic and reason are, to the best I've been able to determine, interchangeable. They refer to the construction of chains of reasoning--or, to put it another way, the construction of valid arguments to support some conclusion. There are various methods for doing so, but I don't see any reason to divide some into "logic" and some into 'reason". Sorry; that was a bit sloppy on my part.