This is a thread I contributed to at The Ponderer's Guild at Ezboard. Some of you will be familar with the place. It just goes to show that some people can't see the meaningfulness of a concept now matter how much you shove it in their faces. Hopefully the formatting doesn't make it to hard to follow:
Gold Community The Ponderers’ Guild
> Courtyard
> I cant deal with objectivism anymore New Topic Add Reply
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
oXYnary
Choose Your Title
Posts: 3211
(24/9/05 4:48)
Reply
I cant deal with objectivism anymore Can someone tell me what the flaws in it are? I mean because it is so attractive but somehow to me misses a crucial point of being human. Is it the reliance of "absolute truth" or other?
Biggier
Choose Your Title
Posts: 987
(24/9/05 9:06)
Reply Re: I cant deal with objectivism anymore You have to learn to become more like Howard Roark. Recall the scene where he is confronted by Ellsworth Toohey, a man who has spent his entire life trying to destroy the Objectivist principles Roark [totally unself-consciously] lives his life by.
When Toohey asks Roark what he thinks of him, Roark responds, "but I don't think of you".
Perhaps, in time, you too will come to see Objectivism as philosophically infantile. You will learn it is not worth the time to actually enumerate its "flaws".
And I know this because for a couple of years I was an Objectivist. And like 90% of those who constitute the Objectivist movement today I was quite young and naive. I was still quite young and naive when I became, in turn, a Marxist and then a Democratic Socialist.
Objectivism is a psychological defense mechanism. It is embraced [as are all other religious and secular renditions of The Way] because the world we actually live in is bursting at the seems with unrelenting contingency and chance and change.
And I suspect it always will be until the day we die.
Death? Things don't get more objective than that. Right?
So, I tell folks to start there if objectivity is their thing.
biggie
Edited by: Biggier at: 24/9/05 9:09
oXYnary
Choose Your Title
Posts: 3212
(24/9/05 12:18)
Reply
Re: I cant deal with objectivism anymore
Quote:When Toohey asks Roark what he thinks of him, Roark responds, "but I don't think of you".
That is one of the problems of it yes. The lack of self reciprocating empathy is promotes. That the self is the ends.
But also to me, the way one looses the glaem in their eye. That they becomes o ground in reality they loose that sense of childhood wonder which is to me a key of living life. They seem to loose in a way a dimension of personality/humanity.
But you cant try to explain that to them. I need the ideas that show the flaws. The ones about the "I" and it true conotations. Or how a underlying global truth/perfection is somewhat limited, and currently contrary to what science is showing us.
But its also hard though because as you show above they can dismiss you as simply another POV they can ignore.
BTW what movie are you speaking of? One of Rands conversions?
Philosophaster
Follower
Posts: 609
(24/9/05 13:41)
Reply
Flaws in Objectivism 1. Rand's erroneous derivation of "ought" from "is."
2. No real attempt to deal with skepticism.
3. Proclaiming "axioms" (and in the process misusing the term "axiom") without bothering to define terms.
I can expand on any of these if you'd like.
Electric Minutes - Either / Or - Neither / Nor - Mad World - Conjectures and Refutations - Zitronen - Gravity
jaredprince
Choose Your Title
Posts: 2393
(24/9/05 21:30)
Reply
Re: Flaws in Objectivism I'm suspicious of anything grounded in objective physical reality.
Objective mathematical reality, perhaps.
_________________________________
Exterminate all rational thought.
William S Burroughs.
Victor Danilchenko
Insult Philosopher
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 7303
(26/9/05 14:36)
Reply
Re: Flaws in Objectivism Objectivism has two kinds of errors: substantitive and methodological. Both are critical.
The gravest methodological error or objectivism is its infallibilism. Rand had assumed that using reason, we can figure out The Truth -- and once The Truth is figured out using reason, that's the end of it. She got trapped by such shit more than once, my favorite being the anecdote sirbytor relayed -- apparently she rejected relativity for 'philosophical' reasons, resolutely denying one of the most important and best-supported advancements of modern science. There are more methodological errors, but they tenmd to be derivative of infallibilism.
Objectivism's substantitive errors are numerous. Philosophaster has listed some of them. Here are some more:
Logic:
Complete misunderstanding of formal logic and its relationship to sensible reality (i.e. she didn't account for the GIGO principle)
Ethics and metaethics:
1)The sadly unadequate 'enlightened egoism' ethics, and Rand's excessive reliance thereupon
2)The unjustified metaethical position that public agreement (on a given ethical sytstem, among rational people) compels actual adherence to it.
3) The bizarre attempts to patch up over various ethical holes by appealing to 'nature of man' (e.g. if someone violates the public agreement they participated in, they deny their own humanity, etc.)
Political:
Clearly Rand was no economist, and she can certainly be forgiven for being unfamiliar with the more recent advances in game theory and economics. Nonetheless, she is profoundly wrong in defending the laissez-faire capitalism as the supreme economic system, and she was also wrong in defending it ass the only ethical economic system.
Just off the top of my head...
Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
but fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.
Abominable Juggernaut
Follower
Posts: 15
(29/9/05 12:54)
Reply
Re: Flaws in Objectivism
Quote:3. Proclaiming "axioms" (and in the process misusing the term "axiom";) without bothering to define terms.
More please ... :D a few examples would be nice.
Peace,
AJ
Philosophaster
Choose your title
-Garden Moderator
Posts: 660
(29/9/05 18:03)
Reply
Two "Existence exists." Okay, but what is "existence?" What does it mean for something "to exist?" Rand doesn't explain this in anything but vague terms.
"A = A" or "All things are self-identical." Why Objectivists think that this says anything profound I can never figure out. Could someone explain it to me?
Electric Minutes - Either / Or - Neither / Nor - Mad World - Conjectures and Refutations - Zitronen - Gravity
drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 252
(29/9/05 19:36)
Reply Re: Two Hey Philo,
Obviously Rand's form of "Objectivism" was bollocks. Any expression of it that takes this form has the flaws that have been pointed out. However, in relation to the significance of A=A, perhaps these two dialogues may give you some insight into why I, at least, find great significance in it:
Quote: David Hodges: What does A=A mean? If this is a self evident truth, what is the truth that is represented by these symbols? I've thought of several different senses in which A=A can be taken: (1) 'A' = 'A' : When we make a definition, a label, then that definition or label 'A' means exactly what we have defined it to mean, no more or less.
David Quinn: Yes, this is the basis of accurate logical thought.
David Hodges: (2) A = 'A' : the thing itself (A) is identical to the definition or label we have made up ('A'); all that we can talk about is the stuff that is in our heads, not stuff that may or may not be "out there".
David Quinn: No, A=A doesn't refer to this. The affirmation of A=A as the underlying principle of logic and truth doesn't require one to adopt any particular belief or viewpoint. Regardless of whether things exist beyond the mind or not, neither position is supported or opposed by A=A.
A=A comes into play the moment we construct definitions and start thinking about them. For example, if we define the mind to be the totality of all there is, then A=A dictates that nothing can exist beyond the mind. And so on.
To me, it constitutes the vital link between logic and existence. If a thing exists in any way, then it necessarily has a form of some kind (i.e. A). If a thing has a form of some kind, then it means that it doesn't have any other kind of form. It's very existence as a form automatically precludes the possibility of it possessing any other form. That is to say, A=A.
A=A can be thought of as the fleshed out version of A. It is what the abstract mind creates out of direct perception in order to in engage in logical thought. 'A' is what we directly perceive in each moment; A=A is our reasonings about what we perceive.
Anna: I have seen in a few places the forum hosts have stated A=A is the foundation of logic, and some convoluted arguments about that, but no further development of the idea. I can't figure out where it ties together with your philosophy.
Dan Rowden: Well, let me try and give a hopefully succinct account of how these ideas (including A=A as the basis of existence itself) tie together:
- - - - -
A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":
Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).
- - - - -
All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":
Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.
- - - - -
A=A as the basis of logic:
This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content [i.e. "things"]. A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.
- - - - -
A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:
Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.
Anna: Well, well! Thank you for your detailed response. I find no fault with it. Right after I sent that post (below) I decided I had figured it out after all, and it has had a profound effect on my mind the past couple of days. Yet what I came up with is quite different! I wonder if it makes sense, or if I can state it. I was thinking rather concretely. You had asked, Why is a thing what it is, and why is A=A the basis for existence? So I thought, if A does not equal A, what is it? If you say it is B, that leaves you with B=B, which amounts to the same thing. But if A is not itself, it is nothing. I do not see how things can exist if a thing is not itself. If this item is not this item, it is not any item, because as soon as you say, no, it is not A, you must say what then it is. But as soon as you say what it is, it is then THAT thing. That brings you right back again to the stability of A=A. Unless every time you say it is THAT thing, it again is not THAT thing but something else yet again. This would go on forever, and nothing could exist.
I don't know why but I can feel a bitch-slap from Victor coming on. Just as well I like to be slapped :smokin
Dan Rowden
Edit: sorry, had to remove a smiley that wasn't supposed to be there.
Edited by: drowden at: 29/9/05 20:06
Guildenstern
p-zombie
-Founder
Posts: 10748
(29/9/05 19:44)
Reply
Re: Two I'm not entirely sure I agree that A=A is particularly profound, but I do agree that it is important to note that
A=A
is not the same thing as
A='A'
These two are often confused (i.e., the symbol is confused for the thing it stands for).
There is another way to address the possibility of zombies, and in some regards I think it is more satisfying. Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies.
— Daniel Dennett
WolfsonJakk
Registerd User
Posts: 1627
(29/9/05 20:24)
Reply Re: Two The representation is profound in that it represents the foundation at which a consciousness identitfies and differentiates an object from its surroundings. It is not necessarily truthful, in the sense that all things actually lack inherent existence. Yet, individual objects do appear relatively distinct and discrete to most basic forms of consciousness.
Tharan
Guildenstern
p-zombie
-Founder
Posts: 10749
(29/9/05 21:28)
Reply
Re: Two
Quote:The representation is profound in that it represents the foundation at which a consciousness identitfies and differentiates an object from its surroundings.
Well, not really. Saying "The object is itself" is not the same as distinguishing the object from its surroundings. I think you're assuming "A=A" means something it doesn't...
Really, the statement "A=A" does not contain any information whatsoever on what A is or isn't. It's simply a tautology.
Quote:It is not necessarily truthful, in the sense that all things actually lack inherent existence.
This is irrelevant, because "A=A" doesn't make any claims about whether A exists. Note my above comment on the fact that "A=A" contains no information about A.
Honestly, if you think it's profound, you're simply reading into it too much.
It is true that out language is sometimes deceiving because it implicitly assumes that certain things exist or can be distinguished when in reality there is no justification for assuming either of these things, but "A=A" is something wholly apart from that.
There is another way to address the possibility of zombies, and in some regards I think it is more satisfying. Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies.
— Daniel Dennett
Sherezada
TPG Mother Figure
Posts: 4231
(29/9/05 22:39)
Reply
Re: Two Philo,
Quote:"A = A" or "All things are self-identical." Why Objectivists think that this says anything profound I can never figure out. Could someone explain it to me?
There is nothing profound in saying A = A. You're wasting time trying to figure it out. Like Guild said, it is only a tautology.
______________________________________________________
Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness
to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem.
Pride and vanity can thus be greater
obstacles to learning than stupidity. - Szasz
jaredprince
Choose Your Title
Posts: 2412
(29/9/05 22:49)
Reply
Re: Two What about:
A=A+1
I write stuff like that all the time while programming, and it touches on the nature of time and the evolution of self, the mystery of something becoming something else, in a way that A=A can never touch.
(Note for programmers: Ok, I really usually write "A++ ;" but you get my meaning.)
_________________________________
Exterminate all rational thought.
William S Burroughs.
Philosophaster
Choose your title
-Garden Moderator
Posts: 662
(29/9/05 22:51)
Reply
Equivocation! But A=A+1 in programming is just assignment, not identity. Right? :p
Electric Minutes - Either / Or - Neither / Nor - Mad World - Conjectures and Refutations - Zitronen - Gravity
jaredprince
Choose Your Title
Posts: 2414
(29/9/05 23:01)
Reply
Re: Equivocation! Depends... A might be part of some huge class, for instance the MR HUMAN SIMULATION class. Mr HS = Mr HS, right? We are ourselves. But on the other hand, young Mr HS != old Mr HS, because now his A variable is higher than it used to be (maybe A stands for "Age".
So there must be a relationship between identity and assignement, as our selves are assigned new information on a constant basis. So Self=Self and Self!=Self.
_________________________________
Exterminate all rational thought.
William S Burroughs.
jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 415
(29/9/05 23:21)
Reply
Re: Equivocation! Victor said:
Rand had assumed that using reason, we can figure out The Truth -- and once The Truth is figured out using reason, that's the end of it.
And how precisely are you any different? Do you not state in everything you say that you have found The truth. Of course you do.
I am not saying I am any different, but since I have worked out the meaning of time, as far as I am concerned I have a greater right to do so. The new things I learn nowadays, while being truths, are not The Truth, they are merely just explanations of causes of the behaviour of humans).
She got trapped by such shit more than once, my favorite being the anecdote sirbytor relayed -- apparently she rejected relativity for 'philosophical' reasons, resolutely denying one of the most important and best-supported advancements of modern science. There are more methodological errors, but they tend to be derivative of infallibilism.
I am certain that Relativity does need to be rejected, for only by rejection can one improve on their knowledge. Relativity remains as a purely mathematical explanation (forget Physics, it is only a form of maths).
Every scientific theory of the past needs to be continaully reassessed. All past theories are incomplete. For instance while Newton’s gifts to the world of science are right, they are also wrong.
You cannot disagree.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 29/9/05 23:24
jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 416
(29/9/05 23:35)
Reply
Re: Equivocation! A=A is completely meaningless, except for its effect.
What it is, is simply a koan, the most basic koan possible.
Un-flippin-believale. I showed them how A=A is the basis of logic, consciousness and existence and they didn't even spend a minute thinking about it.
