Make the case for Objectivism in this thread

[Humes fork]

Make the case for Objectivism! Why should I be an Objectivist? Why are you an Objectivist?

 

[Crossbow]

Make the case for Objectivism! Why should I be an Objectivist? Why are you an Objectivist?

I refuse to make a case for 'Objectivism' because I object to this thread!

Since I do not know what 'Objectivism' is, then I cannot know if I am an 'Objectivist' or not, therefore once again, I object to this thread.

Well now, ...

with all of these objections, I may be an 'Objectivist' after all.

Therefore, hereby make a case for 'Objectivism' becasue I am an 'Objectivist' who has a few things that object to.



By the way, does anyone else recall 'UndercoverElephant' who had those wierd ideas about 'Materialism'?

 

[Correa Neto]

Will I get any advantages by making its case?

I'll tell you why you should become one if it'll make my life better.

I'll become an objectivist only if it suits me.

ETA:
Yep, I'm old enough to remember UE. But I will admit it only if it brings me an advantage.

 

[Dancing David]

How does that differ from philosophical naturalism?

 

[Dancing David]

I refuse to make a case for 'Objectivism' because I object to this thread!

Since I do not know what 'Objectivism' is, then I cannot know if I am an 'Objectivist' or not, therefore once again, I object to this thread.

Well now, ...

with all of these objections, I may be an 'Objectivist' after all.

Therefore, hereby make a case for 'Objectivism' becasue I am an 'Objectivist' who has a few things that object to.



By the way, does anyone else recall 'UndercoverElephant' who had those wierd ideas about 'Materialism'?

Objection sustained!

 

[Dinwar]

No.

I wish to re-state, so my refusal to answer HF's challange doesn't get misinterpreted more than necessary: I am not here to advocate or defend Objectivism. I may, occasionally, correct errors about the philosophy, but I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of anything. After several years of observing this forum, I've little doubt that anything I say will get distorted beyond recognition, and most people who participate in these discussions are so hostile to the philosophy that any attempt to advocate it is essentially putting the noose around my own neck.

If anyone is honestly interested in Objectivism, I recommend Diana Hsieh's podcast and essays, as well as the essays by Ayn Rand available at the Ayn Rand Institute. Much of the information regarding Objectivism is freely available online, and what's not is cheap enough on Amazon or in the Philosophy section of Barns & Noble.

 

[tsig]

No.

I wish to re-state, so my refusal to answer HF's challange doesn't get misinterpreted more than necessary: I am not here to advocate or defend Objectivism. I may, occasionally, correct errors about the philosophy, but I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of anything. After several years of observing this forum, I've little doubt that anything I say will get distorted beyond recognition, and most people who participate in these discussions are so hostile to the philosophy that any attempt to advocate it is essentially putting the noose around my own neck.

If anyone is honestly interested in Objectivism, I recommend Diana Hsieh's podcast and essays, as well as the essays by Ayn Rand available at the Ayn Rand Institute. Much of the information regarding Objectivism is freely available online, and what's not is cheap enough on Amazon or in the Philosophy section of Barns & Noble.

It's OK, I wouldn't have thought any the worse of you if you hadn't answered the OP.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

According to Wikipedia, Objectivism's central tenets are that:-

1. Reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception,

2. One can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

3. The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),

4. The only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,

5. The role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.​

IMO, 1 and 2 are obvious. 3 is illogical. 4 and 5 are bunk.

Apparently I am not an Objectivist.

 

[Brainache]

It's simple Humes Fork, just ask yourself: "What would Dawkins do?"

 

[theprestige]

Will I get any advantages by making its case?

I'll tell you why you should become one if it'll make my life better.

I'll become an objectivist only if it suits me.

ETA:
Yep, I'm old enough to remember UE. But I will admit it only if it brings me an advantage.

No.

I wish to re-state, so my refusal to answer HF's challange doesn't get misinterpreted more than necessary: I am not here to advocate or defend Objectivism. I may, occasionally, correct errors about the philosophy, but I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of anything. After several years of observing this forum, I've little doubt that anything I say will get distorted beyond recognition, and most people who participate in these discussions are so hostile to the philosophy that any attempt to advocate it is essentially putting the noose around my own neck.

If anyone is honestly interested in Objectivism, I recommend Diana Hsieh's podcast and essays, as well as the essays by Ayn Rand available at the Ayn Rand Institute. Much of the information regarding Objectivism is freely available online, and what's not is cheap enough on Amazon or in the Philosophy section of Barns & Noble.

I think there's a lot to be learned about Objectivism from these two responses. I must say, I find its case stronger every day.

 

[I Am The Scum]

3. The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),

4. The only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,

But what if being a communist makes me happy?

 

[angrysoba]

But what if being a communist makes me happy?

To use a favourite communist trick I would say, "Ah, you say you're happy, but that is false consciousness foisted upon you by the collectivist culture that were you free of you would know just how miserable you are."

(disclaimer: I have no idea if that is Objectivism's stance on that.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've never been able to fully grasp why Objectivism is so divisive of a philosophy.

I agree with some of it, disagree with some of it. I can think of several better philosophies and countless worse ones.

I don't get either its fervent following or it being the Ur Example of a "bad" philosophy.

 

[angrysoba]

I've never been able to fully grasp why Objectivism is so divisive of a philosophy.

I agree with some of it, disagree with some of it. I can think of several better philosophies and countless worse ones.

I don't get either its fervent following or it being the Ur Example of a "bad" philosophy.

In fact, Objectivism is almost completely unknown outside the US. Ayn Rand is sometimes used as an obscure example within European philosophy departments as an exponent of ethical egoism, but apart from that quintessential "bad philosophies" are more likely to be Fascism or Communism.

 

[marplots]

According to Wikipedia, Objectivism's central tenets are that:-

1. Reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception,

2. One can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

3. The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),

4. The only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,

5. The role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.​

IMO, 1 and 2 are obvious. 3 is illogical. 4 and 5 are bunk.

Apparently I am not an Objectivist.

You are two-fifths Objectivist. You are an Obje, like me.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But what if being a communist makes me happy?

That's why "The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness" is illogical. "Whatever makes me happy" is not morality, it is amorality. It's what people without morals do. It's also incompatible with tenets 1 and 2, because attaining objective knowledge of reality doesn't necessarily make you happy. Ignorance is bliss. Reality sucks.

As for the 'morality' of laissez-faire capitalism, a recent study of climate change skeptics (Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere) found that

"endorsement of free-market ideology emerged as a strong predictor of the rejection of climate science".​

This is not what you would expect from someone who believes in objective reality, but it is what you might expect from someone who believes whatever makes them feel good.

Objective reality tells us that humans are responsible for global warming, but free-market ideologues are afraid that any solution may compromise their 'individual right' to produce greenhouse gasses. Since that makes them unhappy, their 'moral' solution is to simply deny that reality exists!

Objectivism purports to accept objective reality, but then sacrifices it to an amoral ideology. It is a contradiction.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You are two-fifths Objectivist. You are an Obje, like me.

Same here. I prefer to think for myself first and let that determine my affiliation, not let my label do the thinking for me.

Meaning I'd save certain parts, but carve off and dump the rest of Objectivism in the fire.

 

[Cavemonster]

According to Wikipedia, Objectivism's central tenets are that:-

1. Reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception,

2. One can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

3. The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),

4. The only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,

5. The role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.​

IMO, 1 and 2 are obvious. 3 is illogical. 4 and 5 are bunk.

Apparently I am not an Objectivist.

I don't even accept 1 and 2. I think in general we can act basically as though they are true, but it's an overly simplistic and incredibly non-rigorous approach to epistemology and metaphysics both as simply stated above and even more so when objectivist approaches to "knowledge" are explored in detail.

 

[Manopolus]

According to Wikipedia, Objectivism's central tenets are that:-

1. Reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception,

2. One can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

3. The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),

4. The only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,

5. The role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.​

IMO, 1 and 2 are obvious. 3 is illogical. 4 and 5 are bunk.

Apparently I am not an Objectivist.

Yep, it completely loses my interest at #3 as well. Define "happiness." Some days, I actually prefer to be unhappy. I'd put it at about 50/50... particularly since it's a relative term on a sliding scale that doesn't move a bit on average despite changes in your life as far as I can tell. In some cases, the things which you think will make you happier do just the opposite anyway.

...That, and a lifestyle of strife is not likely to beget inner peace. It's nothin' but the donkey chasing the carrot on the stick in my book.