In What Sense Is Objectivism Objective?

Lance wrote:

The key to answering your question is in epistemology. You'll need a fair grasp of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume, Rand and a few other philosophers to understand it.

Is this sort of non-answer a major reason for the glacially slow spread of Objectivism?

If several semester's worth of study in the history of philosophy is necessary to understand Objectivism, of what use is it to the average person? When college graduates have less knowledge and thinking ability than used to be the standard for High School graduates, how can we ever expect them to understand, let alone live by, Objectivist principles?

I believe there is an "Objectivism for Dummies" or "Objectivism 101" book in the works. It is sorely needed.

Post 21

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 11:26am

I think the fiction and the main non-fiction gets you off to a good start.

Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, We the living

Philosophy Who Needs It?, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (I haven't personally read the last one yet but it usually comes pretty highly reccomended).

I'm a warehouse worker and a business school drop out and I don't get regular complaints that I'm totally mis-representing the philosophy.

---Landon

Post 22

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 11:32am

Mr Pasatto:

Lance wrote:
The key to answering your question is in epistemology. You'll need a fair grasp of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume, Rand and a few other philosophers to understand it.
Is this sort of non-answer a major reason for the glacially slow spread of Objectivism?

If several semester's worth of study in the history of philosophy is necessary to understand Objectivism, of what use is it to the average person?

My "non-answer" is a true answer. Understanding objectivity is hard work. A child brought up in a reason-first environment would have an easier time with it but to pretend it's easy is a mistake. Delta asked a question and I offered some things to consider. You offered garbage as usual.

The skill of kindness is also glacially slow in certain parts of the culture (I'm looking at you) but well worth looking into.

Post 23

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 11:53am

I don't think you need several semesters. In fact if you get one good survey course including selections from Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, some Nietzsche and possible Hume and Kant, it is extraordinarily beneficial.
If I had to emphasize certain core concepts not hammered home in Rand (they are there but you really have to hunt for it), I would include entity-action causality as opposed to event-event causality from Hume, the contextual and hierarchical nature of knowledge.

These things must be integrated with themes common in Rand such as the validity of the senses, concept formation, measurement omission, deductive and inductive logic.

Jim

Post 24

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:10pm

Lance,

Your non-answer is just that -- a non-answer. Understanding objectivity may involve hard work but you haven't helped at all. What you have done is to say "I can't explain it to you. Go RTFM." That is not kindness. That is an abdication.

Delta asked a question and instead of even attempting to answer it you told her(?) to go somewhere else and read a bunch of stuff even though she had already mentioned that she wanted something other than the standard response of "Read this, this, and that." In other words, you didn't take into account all the information presented in the question.

You did get one thing right: you praised Bob Palin's response. He answered the question before suggesting some specific places to look for a more detailed understanding.

My point is that your (type of) response will scare off more people than it will help.

Post 25

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:28pm

Mr. Pasatto, where is your answer for Delta?

I specifically pointed Delta to epistemology because my own experience demanded an understanding of epistemology to answer the question. Bob Palin's answer is excellent as far as it goes but Delta is unlikely to grasp the answer to one of life's most debated questions on a message board. Delta will have to do a lot of reading and thinking to be satisfied with an answer. The truth shouldn't scare anyone.

Post 26

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:30pm

The closest to any introduction to Objectivism - and philosophy in general - is the West Point lecture Ayn gave... it gives the necessary openings of what philosophy is, what it is for, and the basics of each branch - from which one can then further persue the immense detailing which can become a lifelong endeavor. And in so basically presenting, she elucidated the fundamentals of Objectivism itself - which was what she had in mind when she gave the lecture in the first place.

Post 27

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:05pm

And here's the dictionary-method (m-w.com) of answering Delta's question ...

Objective ...
2 b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world

2 d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

[So "objective" is subject-invariant (it is the same for all)]

Individual Rights ...

- by rights : with reason or justice : PROPERLY
- in one's own right : by virtue of one's own qualifications or properties
- of right 1 : as an absolute right 2 : legally or morally exactable
- to rights : into proper order

[So "individual rights" would be that which is in accord with reason & justice & order, they would have to do with "qualifications or properties," and they would be something absolute & morally exactable]

Nature (identity)...
3 : a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics

[So, human beings, being a certain kind of being, would have certain kinds of qualifications & properties (like rationality) -- by which we can discover whether "rights" are in accord with reason, justice, & order; for everyone, everywhere, and for all time -- satisfying the criteria for objective human rights above]

It's because we are a certain kind of creature (and not a different kind of creature) that we have the rights we have. They are a fundamental requirement for our survival on earth.

Ed

Post 28

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:15pm

Ye got flipped by a quid?

Did I mean I was bribed or was it a double-entendre? The world may never know. (I don't know if anyone here knows me well enough to see its other possible meaning)

Sarah

Post 29

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:31pm

Rick-
In simple words, and without telling me to go study algebra, calculus, physics...tell me what the basis is for Schr�dinger�s Equation,
-((h/2π)²/2m)(∂²Ψ(x,t)/∂x²)+V(x,t)Ψ(x,t) = j(h/2π)(∂Ψ(x,t)/∂t),

and tell me how to solve it(make it ...oh..., say time independent)...make me understand it in simple language damn-it. I don't want to spend any damned time on it for christ sakes.

Objectivism is a philosophy to live by, and it can be lived by. However, one can ask for an answer(Do people have rights?), or one can ask for an answer and an explanation, and sometimes the explanation can't be handed out in retard-version without the person continuing to ask the same damn questions. Answers, true answers, sometimes require a little time and effort to fully understand.

Post 30

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 8:03pm

Mighty Mouth queried: "...that it entails making a fairly significant time commitment in order to answer a fairly specific question. Perhaps that's the way it is, but at the moment I can't see any way that someone could argue for an objective morality and so I'd like to see at least a glimpse of how that might be achieved."

Dear MM,

Is that a "fairly specific question"?

;) Michael

Post 31

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 12:19am

Delta asked,

I'm new to objectivism and would appreciate it if someone could tell me in what sense objectivism claims to be objective. For example, how does someone prove that people have certain "rights" at all? Since morality and other seemingly subjective topics cannot be tested experimentally, I don't see how one can say that their philosophy is objective.

Rand identifies a right as "a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context." Moral principles are rules of conduct to help us achieve our values. If we want the freedom to achieve our values, then we must respect each other's freedom of action. There is nothing subjective about that. Morality is simply a means to an end. If you want the end--which is the furtherance of your life and happiness--then you must pursue the means; you must follow whatever principles of conduct will enable you to achieve the end. That's all there is to it.

- Bill

Post 32

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 10:11pm

Everytime I read your responses, I envision you saying them whilst playing that guitar. LOL. I can't get the image out of my head and it's preventing me from reading any more of your posts.

Post 33

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 9:35am

Hi, I'm new to objectivism and would appreciate it if someone could tell me in what sense objectivism claims to be objective. For example, how does someone prove that people have certain "rights" at all? Since morality and other seemingly subjective topics cannot be tested experimentally, I don't see how one can say that their philosophy is objective.

Why do I get the impression you're really not interested in understanding Objectivism as much as you are in dismissing it in some way? Saying Objectivism is "objective" is as easy as saying "you exist, and I know it."

Proving a "right" is as easy getting out of bed everyday. Human action, and the freedom to take action, are your proof. To take any action, human nature requires that an environment be stable and predictable. Objectivism endorses the idea of a "stable, knowable, predictable" world. Other philosophies do not, as your question perfectly suggests.

I enjoy the "on one foot" definition the best:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality (existence exists)
Epistemology: Reason (I know it exists, and how I know it)
Ethics: Rational Self Interest (What do I need to maintain my existence?)
Politics: Capitalism (Trader Principle - existence within a social context)

If you want to know more, I suggest you do the reading. If you can't read, get the audio versions of Rand's novels. If you don't want to do that either, find a local Objectivist club and join.

Comparing the fuzzy Christian ideas written in the Bible, which are hopelessly vague, with the clear cut, linear ideas written by Rand is a poor way of saying you don't want to do the reading, and thinking, for yourself.

Post 34

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 3:02pm

Dear Jody,

But since the world has an objective nature outside of your individual consciousness, then that means that there are objective principles to guide your actions which are needed to ensure your survival and thriving within that world.

Reality exists independant of our minds, but a conscious effort is required to identify it. Principals are not floating abstractions plucked from the "ether" as needed. Objective 'principals are determined epistomologically, not picked from trees.

A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience. A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the basis of experience. Both are epistemological not metaphysical.

Post 35

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:44pm

Dearest Robert,
Thank you very much for your lesson in epistemology. Were it not for you, I would probably fall off the philosophical bed each morning.

Yes, reality exists independently of our minds, and I don't think Landon was trying to refute that. You and Sarah seem to be gung-ho with impugning him. Reality exists. What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means that we do not create our own reality. What is moral and allows man to live his life qua man, is not bowing to cultural mores, it's not relative...it is necessitated by reality. Landon can correct me if I'm wrong, but if he was saying anything other than this, then damn me to the postmodern ring of Dante's Inferno.

Also Robert, it surprises me that you put quotation marks around "ether." The idea of an ether seems right down your scientific alley. I could easily see you railing against the hegemonic evils of modern science and fighting for this idea.

Post 36

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:58pm

No, no, no. You're missing the point, but I don't feel like arguing it. So... whatever.

Sarah

Post 37

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:27pm

Funny Sarah, I thought you were missing the point. Damn it!! I came here for an argument.(done in my best John Cleese impersonation).

Post 38

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:32am

Jody,

Also Robert, it surprises me that you put quotation marks around "ether." The idea of an ether seems right down your scientific alley. I could easily see you railing against the hegemonic evils of modern science and fighting for this idea.

I have made a promise to Joe and others that I will try not to answer insulting remarks in kind.

Post 39

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:23pm