What do you think of objectivism?

Post Reply New Topic

My objection to this is this..................

That's true, but the problem is the claim of something to be factual as well as denial, and Dussel points are very valid towards this, so that premise isn't really enough, and I can say that that isn't actually objective, rather subjective.

What you are describing seems to be subjectivism rather than objectivism, wouldn't it?
Besides, the word reason seems questionable given that it is used to support an agenda and given that basically seems to be a biased position towards certain ideology being better than another, therefore I tend to be skeptic about the validity of said claims.


Well, if man isn't suppose to sacrifice himself for others, why he should not sacrifice others for him? what rational explanation there is for that, and about persuing his own happiness, well, that is a subjective notion and it would differ from one individual to another, his mere survival seems to sound more rational and the happiness issue to be irrelevant, if not, then questionable, as we would need to define what would make him happy.


well, the only thing I can say is that capitalism isn't perfect, it has worked well so far, and I repeat, so far, and yes, it is an ideal political system, but ideal political systems are more than one, and well, any system without government intervention, I have trouble grasping how that can be achieved.

Capitalism is based on the creation of wealth. Wealth is actually a mind-dependent entity, which technically is not an absolute reality, and according to principle 1 in the ordered list, Reality is supposed to be independent of the mind. Capitalism in any form is not a fact of Reality, it exists because it was devised. By proposing Reality, there can be no system by which man creates order to manipulate and suit his pragmatic needs. Thus, I would not concede that principles 1 and 4 can coexist in the set of all four principles.

I consider laissez faire to be analogous of how the West was won. Principles 3 and 4 are also non coexistent. Capitalism sustains because of mutual partnerships, without which, there would be no cooperation or agreement within trade markets. Everyone must compromise, and a laissez faire would create the greater need for this, and thereby weaken the existence of principle 3.

As for myself, I have learned more through the absence of Reason, than any other way. So, principle 2 is supposing that we don't learn by mistakes that we make, and is utter crap to me. Also, bear in mind that this set of principles marginalises huge portions of the population due to the needs of the employed. It also suffices to presume this set suggests that those who would be employed by any other person existing in principle 4, are constructed by principle 3, are relative to 2, and are subjective to principle 1.

I can't see 1, 2, or 3, making any sense alongside 4. The overall objectivity is more like an idealist proposal although I believe it defines a state of materialism.

How can a form of economics be a fact? Your views and my views on capitalism are simply opinions. Capitalism is a system of economics centered about the exchange of resources, goods, and services for capital gain.



Unless one party is being cheated, isn't it usually in your self-interest and the interest of whom you are trading with to cooperate at some degree?



No one is perfect. It's quite rational to observe past errors and learn from our experiences so that we may not repeat our ill choices.



This is why we must cut down on immigration and crack down on illegals. It's not in the self-interest of Americans to have so many facing unemployment. The economy can't keep afloat if no one can afford to spend money on anything other than the necessities.

Truth is objective and is independent of the thoughts of humans. Many truths will never be uncovered by human beings.



How many human beings have no inherent biases? That does not negate the importance of reason.



Man should not sacrifice others for him because it often causes undue harm to innocent people. Happiness does differ from individual to individual and thus it comes from many sources. As I am not an objectivist but do believe in some of their ideals. I believe in never sacrificing your own ideals and fighting for a fair deal. She never stated that giving to others is necessarily negative; only when it is forced does she define it as wrong.










I believe in limited government intervention; where the government acts as a referee as opposed to a coach in terms of economics.

Last edited by timeisdead on 07 Apr 2009, 1:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

This has not been proved - everything we measure and experience does point in this direction; so must assume that this is case. But: Absolute truth via a positive prove is not possible. any prove would rely on the idea that it is to prove.

We are in a philosophical dilemma - and the only solution I see is to recognize that we have an extreme high degree of likelihood regarding the existence of an objective reality, but we have to live the fact that an absolute prove isn't possible.

If truth is not objective; the implication is that truth is subjective. If that were the case, the workings of the solar system and the shape of the earth would illogically change according to the popular view. If a red ball is hidden away in your room and you have always been unaware of its presence, it doesn't mean the ball is nonexistent.

Yes and No: I said that we can't make here an absolute statement. Insofar truth is something which is produced in my brain and therefore subjective. It is likely objective, because there are rule which repeat themselves constantly and therefore appear constant. I can't determinate with absolute knowledge that this will in the future always the case, but I can say that, according my previous experience, they are constant and I do not have any reason to assume that they will be not constant in future - but this can't exclude the possibility fully.




The only thing I can say is that the universe does produce a picture of himself exist NOW in my brain for certain. I can't make this statement for the future with certainty, only with a very high degree of likelihood. This degree is so high that in practical terms we can use it as certainty.



May I take the boldness to ask you for prove of this thesis?

What is your point? I have not stated any form of economics as a fact. Are you conceding that Capitalism is a poor economic choice because my knowledge supports that it is?





You are naive.






Since there is no argument, I'll assume that you have come to understand that principle 2 is assuming the super power of omnipotence in human beings in your fictional system of social constructivism. When did you start trying to apply a philosophical approach to politics? Taking a stab at it, you sound like a Libertarian.





Absurd.

These illegal immigrants you speak of, find work and spend money. The businesses they support can afford to keep them here, and it is in the economy's best interest not to deport them. There is also the parallel phenomenon of the upper middle class and wealthy decisively not spending money in this economic downturn. Bear in mind that you are placing the weight of the majority of an entire nation's unemployment on a minority group whose jobs, if lost to Americans could not downsize the country's unemployment rate by more than a hair. The problem right now is not that those who can barely afford to are, it's that those who can afford more, aren't spending. In other words, potential employers have gone underground rather than make investments that provide jobs and break even for themselves despite potential long term growth and innovations.

How is it in the economy's best interest? Those who lose jobs to illegal aliens often go on SSI, welfare, or unemployment. This, in turn, costs us more of our tax dollars. Those who are unemployed are also statistically more likely to commit crimes. With the rising crime rate, more and more would be imprisoned. Now where does this come from? Our tax dollars. With rising taxes, spending also decreases. Obviously, those who are unemployed won't be big spenders either. With the rising taxes and decreased revenue, many companies will be left with little choice but to fire or lay off workers in the U.S. As spending decreases, many stores/shops/ect go out of business and leave more unemployed. The vicious cycle then continues in a chain reaction...... "Cheap" labor isn't so cheap.

Last edited by timeisdead on 07 Apr 2009, 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Are you suggesting we live our lives devoid of reasoning due to our imperfection as human beings? Without reasoning, there would be no progress. Reasoning is using facts and observations and using them to form conclusions. Without this, there would be no progress in the world.

And yes, I am a Libertarian.

Your disdain of Capitalism is your opinion. What do you suggest as a viable economic alternative to Capitalism?

Truth does not depend on whether or not there is an observer. Truth would still exist without the existence of human beings. The truth may sometimes differ from our common perceptions.




Let me give you an example.....
Prior to the invention of the microscope, no human being has ever observed bacteria (not to be confused with seeing the effects of bacteria) and other microscopic particles. Did bacteria not exist prior to the invention of the microscope?

To be clear, I am not an Objectivist. Although I do agree with some of the ideals, it's currently a cult that doesn't allow for dissension. I am best described as a conservative Libertarian.

I love Ayn Rand's four novels, so I'm a fan of her philosophy, but I've not delved into it deeply enough to understand it. Terry Goodkind apparently largely based his Sword of Truth series on objectivist principles, and I own all of those as well.

From what I've read, I'd probably be an objectivist if I had to choose a new philosophy, my self-chosen servitude to God in no way meshes with Ayn Rand's statement that man should live for himself in a rational fashion. I really like the themes presented, but the level of selfishness required to be a good objectivist is pretty much beyond me.

We have perceptions, we deduct from this perceptions that there is something outside ("thing in itself "). Every one of this step is subject to errors. Therefore we can't determinate with absolute truth and certainty that there is really something. We still end up a likelihood.

I even could construct a world in which everything, including the computer I use and the sun, is just an illusion, but so consistent that take this illusion as real. Because we can explain the world surrounding with the thesis of an objective real very well does not necessary mean there is one.



You repeat the ball-example.

I am even can't be certain that the world existed 1 sec. ago. Image that one second ago the whole universe was created including my brain and everything around in manner that everything points to universe roughly 13 bio. years old.

Again: Probability - not certainty.

To repeat myself: We have an amount of probability which is so high that we can take it for certain. Taking something for certain does not mean certain.

Last edited by Dussel on 07 Apr 2009, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why? Do you think you are the door-mat of others? Do you think others are your door-mat?

ruveyn