There are many more than three obvious fallacies committed by Objectivists here, but I'd thought I'd keep this post short enough to be readable. If I were to teach a logic class, I'd include these examples:
1.)One of my complains about Objectivism is that it holds that realty is objective, independent of human wishes and whims, and that cause and effect is inviolable. This is inconsistent with the Objectivists’ claims about the existence of free-will. I said, “They believe in immutable laws of logic and physics, but they also believe in free-will because Rand said entities cause things, and this somehow fits in, self-evidently, with their other beliefs.”
Sam Erica came on to make fun of me. He said, “She did? Where? What does a rock cause? How are we suppose to take you seriously?
I quoted Rand from Galt’s speech, “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature…”
Sam came back and said, “You are just being obtuse. Your statement, "Entities cause things" implies that all entities have the capacity to cause things. Rand's statement, "All actions are caused by entities" doesn't imply that a rock can change anything.”
Well, if someone says humans built the bridge over the Columbia River, it doesn’t mean every single human built that bridge. It doesn’t mean that if Jack is a human, then Jack help to build the Columbia River Bridge. And, if someone says, “Entities cause things,” it doesn’t mean that every single entity causes things. It doesn’t imply that a rock can cause things.
The only difference between "All actions are caused by entities," and "Entities cause all actions," is that the later is more concise.
I told this to Sam, and he never returned.
2.) William Dwyer said, “If you're trying to convince us, then you need to demonstrate that you understand Objectivism before presuming to criticize it.”
First, what if one of the criticisms is that it is not capable of being rationally understood? It would be illogical to convince someone that one understands a philosophy and then criticize it for being illogical, incapable of being understood.
Second, would William hold Rand and Peikoff to the same standards? Do Rand and Peikoff understand every philosophy they misrepresent, insult, and dismiss? Does anyone here think Rand and Peikoff understand Existentialism and Zen Buddhism? If so, I’d like to see a case supporting that proposition. If not, if people here think Rand and Peikoff don't always understand the philosophies they criticize, is William Dwyer a hypocrite?
Third, Rand’s original philosophy, as interpreted by Peikoff, is a closed system. If someone disagrees with just one aspect of it, then one is, essentially, criticizing the whole. It’s all or nothing. If this is true, then it doesn’t seem necessary to understand the entire philosophy to criticize part of it. Criticizing part of it is just as good as criticizing all of it.
William Dwyer hasn’t been back to comment on this.
3.I exposed a violation of one of Rand’s principles when I said: “She also says that compromise is only defensible where two people are in agreement on basic moral principles. Politics is always contingent on prior philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth and value. She violates this principle when she says, “One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials)…if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.”
Ed Thompson tried to defend her saying, “The issue here hinges on an equivocation between the right ends -- and the right means to those ends. Your reasoning here arbitrarily detaches and isolates the value that action should aim at, from the right means to the end in mind. The end in mind when voting -- to remind you -- is to effect a political change. Rand was saying that there may, politically, be times to utilize others (even those philosophically inferior) for our purposes -- ie. to achieve a superior social system within the current political framework”.
I said, “I disagree with you here. Rand would not justify using other people as means to an end. This is one place where she agrees with Kant and Sartre. People should be treated as ends, not as means.”
Thompson came back saying, “When you vote for someone, Nick, are you really "using" them in the manner of which you speak? This seems quite a stretch.
You are giving them your sanction, affording them the power to rule (somewhat). How is that equivalent to "using" them? If you grant me power -- I won't feel used. There is a reason for that.
The proper sense of being "used" is when one gains no power from the process. Let's say, for instance, that a man "uses" a prostitute (for sexual gratification). In that instance, she gains no power. It is the absence of power-gain that is essential to "using" someone.
When you use someone, you benefit at their cost. Voting for a right-wing conservative (because he's for lower taxes; while his opponent is a socialist pig) is NOT using him.”
I came back and reminded Ed that he is the one who said Rand justified using people. I quoted him saying, “Rand was saying that there may, politically, be times to utilize others (even those philosophically inferior) for our purposes…”
Ed gave up on that thread.
bis bald,
Nick
| 
