Can someone provide a counter-argument against Objectivism?
It is against human nature.
>>1313019
Namely, that social truths, such as cultural practices, aesthetics, how you define a given social group, hell, even how you'd define an economic term such as 'utility' are not in fact objective and cannot be reduced to one right position and numerous deviations from that.
>>1313019
Ayn Rand.
>>1313048
Do you simply mean that different terms have different meanings? In that situation wouldn't we derive the meaning after understanding the context? I don't really see the issue here.
>>1313019
While it is true liberals are trying to cuckold you and rugged individualism is the way forward for America, she goes off the chain later. The idea that you are not morally obligated at all to throw a drowning person a lifesaver for example.
>The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.
>>1313019
Well here's a counter-argument to the quote in your pic:
>he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life
Right before that she says:
>neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself
Sorry woman, but you can't live solely for your own happiness and not sacrifice any others in the process. It's an impossible formula.
I'll give you an argument. The woman looks like a cold hearted bitch that I could easily tie down cuz I'm stronger as a man and then slowly torture her to death cuz it gives me personal pleasure. If she asks me to stop, I won't understand cuz she first asked me to start with her stupid text
>>1313106
>you can't live solely for your own happiness and not sacrifice any others in the process.
Can you clarify why you believe that is?
sure because I'm a hairy sadistic male who believes all that matters is to torture cold hearted bitches - and fingering myself with both my thumbs at the same time - to me that is the purpose of life - good enough?
o you weren't talking to me? Sorry dude - just had to share that with you
>>1313019
Just read the Ego and His Own.
>>1313173
It's at the essence of all action. Action itself requires elimination of things. When you focus on a thing you blur out all other things.
But to be less abstract, finite space and resources.
>>1313127
>>1313181
>>1313182
>"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others".
Read the above image, one of objectivisms primary moral precepts is that each man is an end in himself.
>>1313019
That sure is a bunch of spooks you got there.
>>1313189
Voluntary action amongst man is not considered sacrificial.
>>1313187
>>1313048
These, she basically cal out a bunch of bullshit mumbo jumbo ideals that aren't worth a fuck and says 'hey you don't have to live by these selfsacrifical ideas' but not before erecting a whole mess of spooks (ie baseless oughts) that she says are The Real True Path.
Fuck her, read Stirner. He BTFOs her neomorality before she was a cumdrop in her papa's scrote.
>>1313202
How is eliminating another for your own betterment not an act of sacrifice?
>>1313106
>It's an impossible formula.
This. And this is the reason why Rand was a hack. She never even approached what was hard about her own values, and the contradictions and ambiguities it entails, like any halfway decent philosopher. She just insists there's no obstacles.
This means that her novels have less of a mature look at rugged individualism than Conan the fucking Barbarian. You'd be better off as a Howardist then a Randist.
>>1313181
Nah, because Objectivism still has Natural Law, Natural Rights, endowed by our creator with inherent dignity when it comes to 'violence'.
>objective reality
I can't believe there are people who believe in this shit in 2016
>>1313211
What do you mean by "eliminating another"? I assume you're referring to a market-type situation whereas a competitor is forced off the market because the consumer no longer places in value in the products that particular competitor produces.
>>1313222
The 6 billion people on the planet who have never even encountered philosophy or the concept don't believe in it, but live as if it's the case.
>>1313222
Convince me why I should believe reality isn't objective.
Objectivism is a spook.
>>1313226
To eliminate as in terminate, expel, do away with, kill, remove from a contest or equation, or dismiss from consideration. The dictionary definition.
It goes beyond just marketing, but it's perfectly valid in that context still.
>>1313240
What I think Rand means by "sacrifice", is the use of coercive forces to directly influence the life of another individual. For example, social welfare programs.
>>1313019
You can do it philosophically too, but it doesn't matter because that's just intellectual wanking.
Objectivism is retarded if taken up by society. Stirner bullshit is retarded if taken up by society. Communism is retarded if taken up by society.
Why?
Observe this chart. 34% of people are rather average, 50% are literally below average (dumb). That's 84% of any EUROPEAN country. It's worse in Arab world and far worse in Africa.
People like that CANNOT understand complex ideologies and ideas that form them. They are simply incapable of doing so.
They either fail at living up to those creeds or misinterpret them. Ideology becomes a sort of secular religion that doesn't have same strength as real religion.
People like that, especially the dumb 50% of society, need simple and strict moral guides.
Religion like Christianity provides that. It won't prevent everything but it prevents many things.
Social constructs like state or nation provide that.
Problem with many political ideas is that they are conclusions of smart men or women who idiotically presume consumers of their ideology will all be of their ability.
But that's simply false by very nature of humanity.
Average or dumb people won't understand your perfect ideas the same way you do. Especially extremist ideologies, like libertarianism.
Libertarianism is literally how to fuck up your society.
>>1313232
Because two people can describe the same event in two different ways.
>>1313261
So you think a democratically guided, centralized force is what we should be giving to these people? I partly agree with you, but your conclusion is absolutely wrong.
>>1313262
Can you, or anyone else, provide an example of a situation that can only be subjectively interpreted?
>>1313019
>Can someone provide a counter-argument against Objectivism?
Of course.
There is nothing about "rational self-interest" that logically leads to laissez-faire capitalism.
Her mistake is to assume that her narrow way of defining what it means to lead a fulfilling life, means that you have to support laissez-faire capitalism, which is a complete non-sequitur.
>>1313071
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that under Objectivist philosophy, the answers to questions of social utility have objectively correct answers and everything but that objectively correct answer is WRONG, akin to mathematics.
Take a hot button issue, like gun control. You have a bunch of people on one end saying that personal freedom, in this case to own a firearm, shall not be infringed. You have a bunch of people on the other side pointing to notions of public safety, and saying that guns should be more restricted in the interests of that.
I think most people would agree that both
>personal freedom
and
>public safety
are good things, and in any sort of ideal society, you want as much of both as you can manage. However, in a case of something like gun control, those two principles are at loggerheads (or at least allegedly are, I don't want this to devolve into a bunch of statistics and arguments about interpreting them correctly)
According to Rand, when dealing with an issue like this, there is one RIGHT stance, and every stance but that is WRONG. Nevermind that you might have different balancing acts across different societies, that some cultures might put personal freedom as more important, and that another might put safety as more important. Nevermind that the local crime rates, your chance of being shot by a criminal with a gun, and how effective state measures at gun control are in your locale might affect your stance on gun ownership. To Rand, there is a top-down method of finding the right position of that, and everyone who disagrees is just stupid or misinformed, not espousing different values coherently, because there are no different values under objectivism, merely correct and incorrect understanding.
Hope that helps.
>>1313282
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only known economic system that provides a voluntary outlet, free from coercion, for the individual to fully express and benefit from his productivity, rationality, honesty, independence, and integrity. All of which are objectivist virtues.
>>1313260
Even if that is the case, it is still an impossible formula. There is no such thing as a win-win in business: someone takes a loss somewhere.
>>1313071
> I don't really see the issue here
Rand's entire foundation is based on things have an objective meaning rather than there just being different perspectives. To my knowledge she gives no real argument for this other than begging the question.
So that already leaves a massive hole in her philosophy. From what I've seen her ethics are the worst thought out branch of Egoism ever devized, even Lavey's Satanism is more sustainable and leads to less stupid results. For instance it is very hard to justify ever having a child with Rand's system, having a child is a massive drain on your time, money, which are some of the chief measurements of quality in her system. Other Egoistical systems do not have nearly the same level of retardation.
>>1313275
Just tell me, what's your idea? Some system like aristocracy?
You already have that. Rich people in general are modern aristocracy. Their money is what noble blood (a social construct) or ability to fight and kill was for their historical ancestors.
They aren't so detached (at least formally) from ''lesser'' people, and their means of control are far more subtle.
But it's a de facto aristocracy.
Any other form of aristocracy is simply wishful thinking, because important aspect of old aristocracy was their military power. That is no longer possible.
However, there comes a problem that will lead to decay of modern Western society. Material wealth is important, but money is ''false'' God. Consumerism, materialism, and all that panoply of -isms have taken hold in average people.
Average people don't understand ''good'' ideals of ideologies like libertarianism, the parts that make them viable. They only adopt what they can see, and most they can't see.
This creates massive issues and leads to catastrophe.
>>1313328
But the point I'm attempting to make is that it is a voluntary loss. The loss was not the product of a barrel of a gun, but the product of free-market forces at play.
>>1313342
No one voluntarily loses.
>>1313347
By voluntary I mean that it was not forceful, no bureaucrat passed a mandate forcing the business to close.
>>1313312
>Laissez-faire capitalism is the only known economic system that provides a voluntary outlet
No, because there's plenty of outlets right now, and everyone in the West are free to do as they please.
>>1313279
All of them
>>1313359
I know what you mean, even though it's not really true. Everyone is undercutting everyone all the time, exploiting one another and wringing each other dry when they aren't looking. These actions are not public or in writing, therefore they are not considered as occurring, but everyone knows they still do.
Of course, things couldn't operate if this truth was known. Rand was either wise to this or she was just a typical woman consumed by the culture around her.
>>1313019
>a counter-argument against Objectivism?
The very core of Ayn Rand's philosophy is this iron clad belief in one objective reality. There's just one problem with that prediction: it's bullshit
http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Our reality ceases to exist when its not being observed. It's scientifically proven that the fundamental properties of the universe change when there is someone present to observe them. As a theory of nature it's as dead as the Steady State.
Furthermore, not even the TOC and ARI, the two main branches of Objectivism, can agree on what that one true reality is without their Russian Jew messiah to tell them what is real and what isn't, so it really isn't a legitimate theory of reality grounded in falsifiable science that lends itself to predictive power, but a language structure which grounds itself in its own internal self-consistency that insulates itself from contrary factual evidence.
Her epistemology mostly consists of blaming Immanual Kant for everything that ever went wrong with the world while quietly plagiarizing about %70 of his talking points.
Her ethics are a squirrely justification for greedy selfishness. "Rational self-interest" is a rhetorical back door for escaping difficult moral quandaries. One one hand they declare altruism evil, but then pass off altruistic behavior they approve of as "rational self-interest".
Pic related: Objectivists scamming other Objectivists, and that's totally cool in her philosophy.
Politically she supported the Austrian school of economics, whose defining feature is its rejection of mathematical models in favor of self evident axioms. In other words, like her metaphysics it doesn't take refuge in actual data analysis, it takes refuge in being rhetorically consistent, which gives rise to the common perception of something that sounds great on paper but in practice is unworkable.
>>1313019
>woman
kek
>>1313443
*sigh* Fucking Hollywood pop-sci.
Waveforms collapse whether looked upon by man or machine (and there's always a machine involved) because there's no more fundamental particle with which to measure it. It's like trying to measure the surface of a balloon with a needle. It doesn't mean "reality isn't there when no one's looking".
Besides, we found a way to cheat, so its no longer a thing:
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
Hollywood pop-sci just hopped onto this idea because it makes for fun sci-fi plots. Whether or not you blink, the angel is going to get you.
Not that Ayn Rand isn't bullshit, as you can already easily objectively prove a collective working towards a singular goal is vastly more effective than a bunch of individuals each out for themselves.
>>1313312
Tannistry provides all of that, and an outlet for man's desire for cattle raiding.
Rational self-interest guides us to act like meadowniggers.
>>1313443
>http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
http://themindunleashed.org/2016/04/7-inspirational-stories-of-people-who-beat-their-cancer-with-cannabis-oil.html
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>1313469
>Fucking Hollywood pop-sci.
its falsifiable science that reality is an extremely persistent illusion. You could find out in your living room if you had an electron gun and a double slit panel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
proving or disproving that there is one objective reality is exactly as feasible as proving or disproving solipsism, and it's certainly not something that you should ground a grand theory of human behavior upon, because the problem is not necessarily that there may or may not be one objective reality, it's that you're probably never going to find two humans who agree completely with one another on what that one objective reality actually is, so as a theory it's junk without substance.
>>1313310
>Nevermind that you might have different balancing acts across different societies, that some cultures might put personal freedom as more important, and that another might put safety as more important. Nevermind that the local crime rates, your chance of being shot by a criminal with a gun, and how effective state measures at gun control are in your locale might affect your stance on gun ownership. To Rand, there is a top-down method of finding the right position of that, and everyone who disagrees is just stupid or misinformed, not espousing different values coherently, because there are no different values under objectivism, merely correct and incorrect understanding.
But that's true.
>>1313019
>happiness
Stopped reading there.
Who here has actually read her books?
>>1313577
I read all four of her novels in college and even most of her non-fiction. But I put childish things away after I graduated and entered the real world and realized that people don't automatically arrange themselves into neatly definable ideological categories.
>>1313621
>But I put childish things away after I graduated and entered the real world and realized that people don't automatically arrange themselves into neatly definable ideological categories.
What does that have to do with objectivism?
>>1313310
I find that a lot of people do not understand Rand and just think the philosophy amounts to
*No God
*Do what you want
*Don't feel about being rude
*Smoke
>>1313628
>>1313628
>What does that have to do with objectivism?
that it's a highly idealistic way of looking at the world that for most people (myself included) withers when they encounter the real world and realize that people often don't act the way we wanted them too, and that includes industry titans and bad novelists who cuck their husbands while lionizing child murderers.
>>1313661
>that it's a highly idealistic way of looking at the world that for most people (myself included) withers when they encounter the real world
What?
>and realize that people often don't act the way we wanted them too, and that includes industry titans and the authors of bad novelists who cuck their husbands while lionizing child murderers.
>Muh ad hom
>>1313549
Whatever your opinion on gun control is, I can guarantee you I can present an internally consistent opposing position.
That alone pretty much invalidates Rand.
>>1313703
>Muh Kantian antimonies
How?
Merleau-Ponty did this pretty well back in the day, tbqfh.
Both humanism and objectivism are failed, on their own. Reality is best understood when approached from a perspective that respects and understands the link between subject and object, to know, a mix between objective world and subjective world. Nothing is as it is, because once you approach it, it changes according to your internal perspectives. However, there are physical structures in almost everything that cannot be left out of this interpretation, meaning that a cube will be a cube because it is perceived as such due to its natural, objective structures (see Gestalt) -- what will change its appearance is both the external elements of the perceptive fields and the internal elements of the subjective world, such as opinions, feelings, imaginations, etc.
>>1313708
Because I've just demonstrated a viewpoint that is inherently rational yet opposed to yours.
>>1313724
How does that invalidate Rand, though? I mean, it's entirely possible that one of us is right and the other is wrong, no matter how good our arguments are. You can make a very convincing argument in favor of genocide, while I make one against it, but genocide will be wrong no matter how rational our arguments are.
>>1313679
>>Muh ad hom
I just don't happen to think that the opinions of sociopaths should be taken with much weight.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/05/11/ayn-rand-sociopath-who-admired-a-serial-killer.htm
>it's not unreasonable to find the odd admirable quality in even the worst human being. On the other hand, those "odd admirable qualities" can be found more easily in people who are more admirable overall. The choice of William Hickman cannot be separated from the reasons for his notoriety -- and it does appear that what she admired in him was not something innocuous, such as being good to dogs, but rather precisely the qualities which made him a sociopath...
>What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
>>1313749
That doesn't make it less of an ad hom, man. Just saying.
>>1313774
but it does reduce the credibility of the author
>>1313784
So what? You still haven't attacked her arguments in a substantial way.
>>1313793
Sure I have. My response here >>1313621 demonstrated that while I spent a great deal of time analyzing her work, it ultimately proved idealistic and detached from concrete reality, so I stopped studying them with the dogmatic fervor demanded by her followers.
I would have loved to expand upon that line of reasoning but all you wanted to talk about the fact that I called her out for being a sociopath unable to properly connect with other people and how someone like that might have a very warped, twisted theory of human behavior not fully grounded in reality.
And now you're trying to change the subject to something I would have rather been talking about in the first place. I might have referenced my post here >>1313443 as a break down of every issue that I had with Miss Rand's "philosophy"
>>1313736
>How does that invalidate Rand, though? I mean, it's entirely possible that one of us is right and the other is wrong, no matter how good our arguments are.
And on what basis are you using to determine the rightness and wrongness of these positions? Remember, Rand herself provides nothing in this direction, instead resorting to a Lockian style pure reason argument.
> while I make one against it, but genocide will be wrong no matter how rational our arguments are.
First off, how are you going to rationally prove genocide is wrong, without making some sort of assertion to the sanctity of either life or distinct cultures, both of which are axioms that are difficult if not impossible to logically prove?
Secondly, if I can make a very convincing and rational argument in favor of genocide, while you make an equally convincing and rational argument against it, doesn't that completely invalidate her position that all rational agents would eventually arrive at the same objective truth?
>>1313019
I would attack the assumption of rationality. She assumes certain behaviors to be rational, but my training in economics and game theory tells me that it is most often rational to compromise between oneself and others.
It's like what a lawyer will tell you, it's always better to make a deal.
Ayn Rand spends so much time justifying her selfish philosophy, but goofs on the premise. Even the Epicureans knew it was rational to behave morally. How she missed the boat on this I have no idea.
>>1313469
>It doesn't mean "reality isn't there when no one's looking"
It does mean, however, that we only have access to our own measurement, and that we each have our own measurement of it, and what the reality is beyond all measurements (i.e. the objective reality) is something that does exist, but which is inaccessible to us, therefore impossible to talk about and impossible to construct a moral system perfectly aligned to it.
>>1313019
It was made by a woman.
>>1313838
>My response here >>1313621 demonstrated that while I spent a great deal of time analyzing her work, it ultimately proved idealistic and detached from concrete reality, so I stopped studying them with the dogmatic fervor demanded by her followers.
How did you demonstrate that? I just see a claim.
>I would have loved to expand upon that line of reasoning but all you wanted to talk about the fact that I called her out for being a sociopath unable to properly connect with other people and how someone like that might have a very warped, twisted theory of human behavior not fully grounded in reality.
When I told you you were making an ad hom attack, you could very easily have made your reasoning more explicit instead of saying what you did in >>1313784.
>And now you're trying to change the subject to something I would have rather been talking about in the first place. I might have referenced my post here >>1313443 as a break down of every issue that I had with Miss Rand's "philosophy"
How? You'll have to walk me through it again, that post doesn't seem to make much sense to me. You start ranting about quantum physics and about her hatred of Kant without providing more than one sensationalist blog post about the double slit experiment.
And it is sensationalist. There are various interpretations of the double slit experiment. Besides, you're putting it out there as an objective truth. You're using reason to examine an objective reality. That reality changes? So what? How does that make Rand wrong?
>>1313863
Man, you can go way beyond that to criticize rationality. Ask any Neurologist if humans are inherently rational and capable of behaving in their own self-interest.
>>1313848
>And on what basis are you using to determine the rightness and wrongness of these positions?
My own reason and moral sense. What would you use?
>Remember, Rand herself provides nothing in this direction, instead resorting to a Lockian style pure reason argument.
How about a citation of this Lockian argument? How about a refutation of it?
>First off, how are you going to rationally prove genocide is wrong, without making some sort of assertion to the sanctity of either life or distinct cultures, both of which are axioms that are difficult if not impossible to logically prove?
Why would I need to demonstrate the axiomatic value of human life? I intuitively understand that human life has value, and that large groups of humans are groups of people whose lives have value. It doesn't take logic to understand this.
>
Secondly, if I can make a very convincing and rational argument in favor of genocide, while you make an equally convincing and rational argument against it, doesn't that completely invalidate her position that all rational agents would eventually arrive at the same objective truth?
The objective truth, recognized by all rational beings, is that genocide is wrong. If you were rational, you wouldn't argue in favor of it. I didn't concede that your pro-genocide argument was rational, only that it was convincing. As I said, you haven't yet made your anti-AR-15 argument, you only claimed that rational arguments can be made for gun control.
>>1313864
>therefore impossible to talk about and impossible to construct a moral system perfectly aligned to it.
Why? You're really making leaps of logic here.
>>1313894
>Why?
Why what? Why is it impossible to talk about?
Because it is inaccessible to us.
And it will never be directly accessible. You would have to be something which can contain all possible measurements of reality simultaneously, but then you would have to be everything in the universe at once. The closest thing to knowledge of this we will ever have, is indirect inference... hence what the word God denotes, what Gnostic light refers to, etc. Concepts so abstract, they are meaningless, and only achieve meaning for people when they become a means to obtain some sort of power over society.
>>1313924
What is your morality, then? What is it based on?
>>1313894
>My own reason and moral sense. What would you use?
My own reason and moral sense, which just happen to lead me to different conclusions than yours.
>How about a citation of this Lockian argument? How about a refutation of it?
How about I've already refuted it, you twit?
>Why would I need to demonstrate the axiomatic value of human life?
Because you're arguing from a point of pure reason. An axiom is nothing more or less than an assumption. It's not a thing of reason.
>I intuitively understand that human life has value, and that large groups of humans are groups of people whose lives have value. It doesn't take logic to understand this.
So you're saying your argument isn't actually grounded in reason, but rather your intuition?
>The objective truth, recognized by all rational beings, is that genocide is wrong.
[citation needed]
>As I said, you haven't yet made your anti-AR-15 argument, you only claimed that rational arguments can be made for gun control.
Yes, I have. I can appeal to a measure of public safety, which I would think is a rational position. Favoring public safety is a good thing, especially if you think it's axiomatic that human life is valuable.
>>1314000
>which just happen to lead me to different conclusions than yours.
You approve of genocide? Of whom?
>How about I've already refuted it, you twit?
Where?
>Because you're arguing from a point of pure reason. An axiom is nothing more or less than an assumption. It's not a thing of reason.
I'm arguing from objectivity. Genocide is wrong; this is a fact.
>So you're saying your argument isn't actually grounded in reason, but rather your intuition?
I'm not Rand, am I?
>[citation needed]
Not all humans are capable of rational thought. The irrational ones may very well approve of genocide.
>Favoring public safety is a good thing, especially if you think it's axiomatic that human life is valuable.
I think human life is valuable; for this reason, I think that people should be able to defend themselves and their property without breaking the law. If someone has to use a firearm to do this in a case where another person has initiated the use of force against them, so what? This is the purpose of the right to bear arms.
>>1313880
>How? You'll have to walk me through it again, that post doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
fine
>You start ranting about quantum physics
No, I gave an example of how the "one objective reality theory" breaks down under scrutiny. It's no more substantiated by physics than solipsism, and a total betrayal of the "reason" which she claims to so highly prize. She works backwards from a starting with a premise and trying to prove it with empirical data instead of letting new data inform new premises.
which is the reason why her followers fissured into two camps following her retirement, between the 'orthodox' Ayn Rand Institute which thought that Ayn Rand's ideas formed the totality of philosophy and needs no further expanding upon, to the 'reformist' Objectivist Center which thought that Objectivist ideas should be expanded upon by newer thinkers. Nobody can actually agree with each other in the real world despite their near ideological uniformity. It's like the problems affecting religion but on a far, far smaller scale.
>There are various interpretations of the double slit experiment.
which makes your case worse, really
How can we know what the one objective reality is or if it even exists when no two humans can fully agree on what the one objective reality is?
>That reality changes? So what? How does that make Rand wrong?
Because she grounded her entire philosophy on the metaphysical premise that objective reality exists and can be described as a set of self-proving axioms like A=A, which most legitimate philosophers dismiss as meaningless abstract dribble utterly divorced from concrete reality or proper analytics.It doesn't lend itself to predictive power, it doesn't provide meaningful insights into human behavior, it's just logic puzzles that Objectivists play with people in order to intellectually disarm them.
>>1313936
>What is it based on?
Myself, my measurement of it, like everyone else. We take our own measurement to be the only one, we have to in order to function, but it's the only one insofar as we ourselves, are.
>>1313888
I'm not criticizing rationality, I'm criticizing what exactly she feels rational behavior is.
Rationality can be reduced to wanting the better outcome rather than the worse outcome. But classically, the best outcome comes from compromise. What Rand substitutes for rationality can be essentially classified as wishful thinking.
>>1313019
>>1314027
>No, I gave an example of how the "one objective reality theory" breaks down under scrutiny.
By ranting about quantum physics.
>How can we know what the one objective reality is or if it even exists when no two humans can fully agree on what the one objective reality is?
Why would people have to agree on it? This is what I really don't understand, you think that consensus is necessary.
>Because she grounded her entire philosophy on the metaphysical premise that objective reality exists and can be described as a set of self-proving axioms like A=A, which most legitimate philosophers dismiss as meaningless abstract dribble utterly divorced from concrete reality or proper analytics
You've done a poor job of demonstrating otherwise.
>It doesn't lend itself to predictive power, it doesn't provide meaningful insights into human behavior, it's just logic puzzles that Objectivists play with people in order to intellectually disarm them.
Atlas Shrugged isn't a logic puzzle at all. It's a novel.
>>1314028
>We take our own measurement to be the only one, we have to in order to function, but it's the only one insofar as we ourselves, are.
What?
>>1314024
>You approve of genocide? Of whom?
No, I don't. But it is certainly possible to posit a set of values above and beyond that of human life, which could lead to the permissibly of genocide. If you went ahead and genocided the Mongolians in a late 11th century expedition, you'd probably save the world a lot of trouble.
>Where?
In this thread. What with the whole "actually having to make a logical argument" bit.
>I'm arguing from objectivity. Genocide is wrong; this is a fact.
No, it's an argument. You do understand the difference between facts and arguments, don't you?
>I'm not Rand, am I?
No, but you're claiming that human life is valuable, that is is logically determinable as such, without presenting any sort of logical chain to that effect.
>Not all humans are capable of rational thought. The irrational ones may very well approve of genocide.
What makes you think that the reason someone would disapprove of genocide is grounded in reason?
>I think human life is valuable; for this reason, I think that people should be able to defend themselves and their property without breaking the law.
You do realize you've extended your claim base,? First it was just life. Now it's about life and property. Which is it? Or is it both? Why aren't you making LOGICAL arguments if your position is so innately obvious?
> If someone has to use a firearm to do this in a case where another person has initiated the use of force against them, so what? This is the purpose of the right to bear arms.
None of this is logic, and none of these bear any resemblance to the usual arguments in favor of gun control.
If you can assert that
>Making guns illegal reduces their availability
>Reduction of gun availability in turn reduces the amount of lethality, both in perpetration of crime and prevention of it
>Reduction of lethality is a good thing.
I've just made a completely rational argument in favor of gun control.
What's the Randian solution to the prisoner's dilemma
>>1314043
>What?
tl;dr the world ends with you.
>>1314060
pic related in case anybody needs a refresher
>>1314043
>By ranting about quantum physics.
Now you're the one making ad hominens. And unlike mine, yours are just sour grapes
>Why would people have to agree on it?
Because that's how human knowledge works. You didn't learn true knowledge from a burning bush, you learned from teachers who learned from other teachers. And consensus is how we distinguish the works of great philosophers from the works of raving lunatics.
>You've done a poor job of demonstrating otherwise.
No, you just don't want to hear it.
>Atlas Shrugged isn't a logic puzzle at all. It's a novel.
A shitty political polemic masquerading as the most important literary achievement since Aristotle's Metaphysics.
>>1314055
>But it is certainly possible to posit a set of values above and beyond that of human life, which could lead to the permissibly of genocide.
How about you do it, then?
>In this thread
Link me to it.
>No, it's an argument. You do understand the difference between facts and arguments, don't you?
There's not really enough premises for that to be an argument.
>What makes you think that the reason someone would disapprove of genocide is grounded in reason?
My own capacity to think rationally about moral questions.
>Which is it? Or is it both?
You can tell it's both from the way that I talk about both.
>Why aren't you making LOGICAL arguments if your position is so innately obvious?
Because it's obvious and intuitive. I'm not going to argue with someone who's trying to murder me, I'm going to fight back. Logical arguments, after a certain point, can't stop irrational behavior.
>I've just made a completely rational argument in favor of gun control.
You've thrown three unsupported premises together.
>>1314065
What?
>>1314091
>Now you're the one making ad hominens.
Where did I attack your character? I'm attacking your claims about quantum physics. This just wasn't a particularly good or well-argued rant.
>Because that's how human knowledge works.
So if I refuse to agree with you that 2+2=4, you don't know that 2+2=4?
>No, you just don't want to hear it.
Hmm.
>A shitty political polemic masquerading as the most important literary achievement since Aristotle's Metaphysics.
The Metaphysics wasn't a literary achievement, it was a work of philosophy.
>>1314107
>Where did I attack your character?
By calling it a rant instead of addressing the content in an impartial manner.
> I'm attacking your claims about quantum physics. This just wasn't a particularly good or well-argued rant.
double-speak much? If you want to talk about Quantum Mechanics just state your case and stop with the rhetorical pooh-poohing. The Double slit experiment makes a compelling case that reality is a persistent illusion: when a camera observed the electrons, they acted as particles. However, when the no equipment was used to observe the electrons, they acted as waves and particles simultaneously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>So if I refuse to agree with you that 2+2=4, you don't know that 2+2=4?
If you refuse to agree about basic math, I know a few elementary school teachers who would be happy to explain it to you in a calm, easy to understand manner. It's not that I won't know it, it's just that you'll just be the one asshole in the room whose opinions can't be budged away from their stupidity if you sit there trying to refuse 2+2=4
But do keep in mind that while mathematics is the perfect philosophy for logically grouping arbitrary things it is by no means something that humans automatically grasp when they are born into this world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
>>1314101
>How about you do it, then?
Okay.
>There is no intrinsic value in human life, only inherent value
>I.E., a human life is only worth what it does accomplish in the past and what it can accomplish in the future.
>Elimination of some or all members of humanity will make more room for worthier strains, ones with higher predictive value, to emerge.
>We should wipe out lower potential strains of humanity, starting with low IQ populations, but also ones disposed towards troublemaking, like gypsies.
Prove it wrong, especially that first axiom.
>Link me to it.>>1313703
>There's not really enough premises for that to be an argument.
You have all the premises you need, namely that organized destruction of human life is wrong. That's a value claim, necessarily an argument.
>You can tell it's both from the way that I talk about both.
Then you logically stand for the assertion that you should be able to kill people over contract dispute, since they are threatening your property interests. I find that stance wholly unreasonable, thus invalidating your claim that you are a rational actor and able to ponder moral questions.
>Because it's obvious and intuitive. I'm not going to argue with someone who's trying to murder me, I'm going to fight back. Logical arguments, after a certain point, can't stop irrational behavior.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. We're talking about rational arguments in favor of gun control as proof that you cannot derive objective moral standards from a point of pure reason, remember?
>You've thrown three unsupported premises together.
Oh, so now the argument against is an empirical one? Well, it looks like your stance isn't grounded in pure reason, is it? It's dependent on some notion of efficacy.
Or, maybe you could actually try clearly identifying your arguments as such and proceeding from there, and your refusal to do so makes me think you're a troll.
>>1314060
>>1314069
The idea that you can delude people into always choosing "remain silent" and turn them into altruistic cooperative angels is a myth.
That is not what happens in the real world. If some powerful group is capable of brainwashing the population into doing this then they are doing it for their own benefit. Well meaning attempts to create a utopia collapse when the first person figures out that they benefit from being naughty.
It is better if people are individualists and aware of what is really happening, then they can figure out more realistic ways to foster cooperation.
>>1313032
Hahaha, no.
>>1314140
>>1313864
To suggest that we can't develop as something as macrocosmic as a system of morals, because we couldn't measure a quantum wave without collapsing it half a decade ago, certainly deserves a "what". To suggest we must know all things before we can know anything is childish.
Somehow I think you can work out a system that determines that murder and thievery is bad, without knowing where two bacteria maybe fucking at a given moment.
>>1314035
Yes, but what I'm saying is that 'wanting the better outcome' implies a unity of thought and valuation which isn't even possible internally.
You mentioned a lawyers opinion, I think any divorce lawyer would find it pretty impossible to get a unified, coherent 'what they want' out of their client, even if the other party would agree to anything.
>>1314177
I'm talking about perspectivism. There are infinite perspectives on a single thing. They don't "alter" the thing—because there is no thing outside of the perspective. No alteration is happening. The thing exists within the perspective alone. In other words, there is no objective thing-in-itself beyond all perspectives; or at the very least, if there is, it's forever directly inaccessible to us, because we are always, no matter what we do, or how we analyze, perceiving through our own, narrow, non-universal perspective.
If you wanted to truly know a thing from a universal perspective, you'd have to be the universe. But you aren't. You occupy a small amount of space within the universe. You can know indirect inferences of the universe through advanced insight at best: it's called enlightenment in the east, gnosis in the west, philosophy in the north.
>>1313019
Yes.
>must
Why?
>>1314179
I'd cite awareness of empirical evidence that insects behave according to rational strategies. The confusion is something that comes with higher order intelligence. But we are talking about general cases here.
Rationality is easily provable for example, either one is hungry or not hungry, and one can either eat or not eat. A rational person will eat. One can infer that most living people are rational, because if they did not eat they would be dead.
>>1314177
To continue from >>1314228
>To suggest we must know all things before we can know anything is childish
I never suggested this. I said that the objective thing / reality is inaccessible — we can't directly know THAT, and we can't live a moral life truly aligned with THAT. I didn't say that knowledge is impossible across the board, and I didn't say that moral systems are impossible without this knowledge.
>>1314254
>The confusion is something that comes with higher order intelligence.
Which is the only thing Rand is concerned about. She didn't write a book for walking sticks.
>Rationality is easily provable for example, either one is hungry or not hungry, and one can either eat or not eat. A rational person will eat. One can infer that most living people are rational, because if they did not eat they would be dead.
But that's a perfect example: The will towards death is omnipresent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive
The neat categories of alive as good, and death as bad are not how the human mind works.
>>1313019
Rational self-interest leads in people sabotaging one another until they bring society crumbling down.
It's moral and philosophical cowardliness, leads to one justifying any action otherwise judged as immoral as moral as long as you are advantaged by it.
>>1314291
Well sure. If that person wanted to die, it would be rational to die.
>>1314429
>Well sure. If that person wanted to die, it would be rational to die.
But the life instinct is ALSO omnipresent. Humans are always subject to inconsistent, conflicting desires.
And that's why Rand's philosophy is so pleb tier. Most philosophies provide some framework for sorting out your own headspace. Rand assumes everyone else is a repressed, neurotic jewess who can't handle personal ambiguity, and just needs a verbal justifications for whatever her mind shits out.
>>1313019
It is incompatible with religion and does not allow a society to function in the way it does today.
>>1313019
>he must work for his rational self interest"
>Highest moral purpose of life
To quote the emminent master of memes
>Just as the schoolmen philosophized only inside the belief of the church, … without ever throwing a doubt upon this belief; as authors fill whole folios on the State without calling in question the fixed idea of the State itself; as our newspapers are crammed with politics because they are conjured into the fancy that man was created to be a zoon politicon,—so also subjects vegetate in subjection, virtuous people in virtue, liberals in humanity, etc., without ever putting to these fixed ideas of theirs the searching knife of criticism. Undislodgeable, like a madman’s delusion, those thoughts stand on a firm footing, and he who doubts them—lays hands on the sacred!
She is no different than the liberals in creating yet another master to spook others. They have mankind and progress she has rationality and purpose
>>1313127
Sure is summer in this thread
>>1314429
depends on what you believe, if you believe in an afterlife and maybe you'd want to reconsider suicide
