Robert_Bumbalough

How to respond to those who slander Objectivism

Recommended Posts

Greetings OL readers, yet I live still, and am troubled by the vast horde of self identified socialists who slander Objectivism, Capitalism, Rand, Peikoff, Kelly, Branden, and the other Objectivist philosophers. How does one succinctly respond to broad sweeping claims that O-ism is nonsense or the realist philosophers are or were kooks without getting pedantic or waxing into pedagogy? 

Thank you for suggestions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
18 minutes ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Greetings OL readers, yet I live still, and am troubled by the vast horde of self identified socialists who slander Objectivism, Capitalism, Rand, Peikoff, Kelly, Branden, and the other Objectivist philosophers. How does one succinctly respond to broad sweeping claims that O-ism is nonsense or the realist philosophers are or were kooks without getting pedantic or waxing into pedagogy? 

Thank you for suggestions.

 

Objectivism as  a philosophical discipline does not need to be slandered.  Its own internal contradictions and limitations  do the job just fine. I am no socialist or collectivist  but I deconstructed the notion of "objective value"  Values require valuers.  And humans  who value something are using their judgement and intuition which is not entirely objective.  That is why two perfectly reasonable people can disagree over the value of something.  If value were the exclusively the property of an object,  then two people correctly identifying what the object is could not possibly disagree on its value.  But people disagree quite frequently.  How do you account for that?   Is there only one way of identifying an object?

Which raises yet another question.  When we perceive something  are we perceiving what we perceive exactly as it is (out there in reality) or as it appears to us.  We look at a rose  in the sunlight and say it is red.  A bee looks at the same rose  and thinks it is ultraviolet.  Who is right?  We both are.  We see what our eyes are structured to see as does the bee. Different nerves, different structures, different views. 

Leonard Peikoff has done more to discredit Objectivism than any left wing collectivist nay-sayer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf DeVoon    0
56 minutes ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Greetings OL readers, yet I live still, and am troubled by the vast horde of self identified socialists who slander Objectivism, Capitalism, Rand

Uh-huh. Certainly a problem. Walk away and live, ignore what other people think or say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
43 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Objectivism as  a philosophical discipline does not need to be slandered.  Its own internal contradictions and limitations  do the job just fine. I am no socialist or collectivist  but I deconstructed the notion of "objective value"  Values require valuers.  And humans  who value something are using their judgement and intuition which is not entirely objective.  That is why two perfectly reasonable people can disagree over the value of something.  If value were the exclusively the property of an object,  then two people correctly identifying what the object is could not possibly disagree on its value.  But people disagree quite frequently.  How do you account for that?   Is there only one way of identifying an object?

Which raises yet another question.  When we perceive something  are we perceiving what we perceive exactly as it is (out there in reality) or as it appears to us.  We look at a rose  in the sunlight and say it is red.  A bee looks at the same rose  and thinks it is ultraviolet.  Who is right?  We both are.  We see what our eyes are structured to see as does the bee. Different nerves, different structures, different views. 

Leonard Peikoff has done more to discredit Objectivism than any left wing collectivist nay-sayer. 

Let's start with contradiction number 1 followed by limitation number 1.

--Brant

so we'll know WTF we (you) are talking about

your "deconstruction" is doxa--maybe sub-doxa--maybe sub-sub-doxa: how TF are we to know?

my own deconstruction of Objectivism, of course, is doxa plus doxa, maybe plus, plus doxa!

since you never said zip about my deconstructing you and your idea of "objective values" I guess we need to start all over again

you don't argue--no ratiocination for you--you just asseverate (all over the place)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let's start with contradiction number 1 followed by limitation number 1.

--Brant

so we'll know WTF we (you) are talking about

your "deconstruction" is doxa--maybe sub-doxa--maybe sub-sub-doxa: how TF are we to know?

my own deconstruction of Objectivism, of course, is doxa plus doxa, maybe plus, plus doxa!

since you never said zip about my deconstructing you and your idea of "objective values" I guess we need to start all over again

you don't argue--no ratiocination for you--you just asseverate (all over the place)

What I said about humans,  bees and ultraviolet  is laboratory tested fact. We perceive according to the way or organs of perception work.  That is fact.  Not opinion or hypothesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf DeVoon    0
5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

asseverate

I vote for plain speaking. To declare earnestly or solemnly; affirm positively; aver. In other words, unsupported assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
Just now, BaalChatzaf said:

What I said about humans,  bees and ultraviolet  is laboratory tested fact. We perceive according to the way or organs of perception work.  That is fact.  Not opinion or hypothesis. 

And what you said about Objectivism? "Laboratory tested fact"?

--Brant

don't ja get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
2 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I vote for plain speaking. To declare earnestly or solemnly; affirm positively; aver. In other words, unsupported assertion.

Then it all stops? It seems to with Bob

--Brant.

all is motion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf DeVoon    0
Just now, Brant Gaede said:

And what you said about Objectivism? "Laboratory tested fact"?

--Brant

don't ja get it?

He doesn't even recognize the business of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

And what you said about Objectivism? "Laboratory tested fact"?

--Brant

don't ja get it?

No.  I let Leonard  stick his foot in his own mouth.  He \will not see the difference between analytical statements and synthetic statements.  The first kind are true by definition and for the second  the truth must be determined by observation. This is a flat out category error on his part.  Poor Leonard.  He has allowed Rand's lexicon become a cage for his intellect.... That is what happens when one becomes a disciple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
10 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No.  I let Leonard  stick his foot in his own mouth.  He \will not see the difference between analytical statements and synthetic statements.  The first kind are true by definition and for the second  the truth must be determined by observation.

This isn't about 'pathetic' Leonard. You digress and not well.

--Brant

Leonard is ad hominem--back to the ideas

if you want to discuss the A.S. Dichotomy, start a thread.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

This isn't about pathetic Leonard. You digress and not well.

--Brant

Leonard is ad hominem--back to the ideas

Leonard's errors are a direct logical consequence of his premises.  His premises, by and large are Rand's premises.   As Rand often advised -- check your premises.  Leonard should take the advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Leonard's errors are a direct logical consequence of his premises.  His premises, by and large are Rand's premises.   As Rand often advised -- check your premises.  Leonard should take the advice. 

Again, what are those "premises"?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
1 minute ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Let's make it simple. Life involves choices and paying attention, voluntary situational awareness.

 

Those who do not pay attention to their surroundings will not be with us for very long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I respond to those who "slander" Objectivism (whatever the hell that means).

I make a forum.

It's called producing.

:)

In other words, I don't care about winning arguments with propagandists. Gotchas never swayed mankind and they never will.

Building good things and promoting good ideas do influence people. But not because you think for them. It's because you show them something good and let them think for themselves.

And the propagandists? If you have to say something, realize you will be saying it for the audience, not them. Propagandists are paid, either in money or status or power. So even if they agree with you, they will never say so.

With that in mind, if you have to say something, merely say you disagree, 100% if necessary, and go back to producing. The audience will see you. And some will seek to be with you or later show they agree with you. And that will grow if you keep doing it and keep producing good stuff.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony    0
14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Objectivism as  a philosophical discipline does not need to be slandered.  Its own internal contradictions and limitations  do the job just fine. I am no socialist or collectivist  but I deconstructed the notion of "objective value"  Values require valuers.  And humans  who value something are using their judgement and intuition which is not entirely objective.  That is why two perfectly reasonable people can disagree over the value of something.  If value were the exclusively the property of an object,  then two people correctly identifying what the object is could not possibly disagree on its value.  But people disagree quite frequently.  How do you account for that?   Is there only one way of identifying an object?

Which raises yet another question.  When we perceive something  are we perceiving what we perceive exactly as it is (out there in reality) or as it appears to us.  We look at a rose  in the sunlight and say it is red.  A bee looks at the same rose  and thinks it is ultraviolet.  Who is right?  We both are.  We see what our eyes are structured to see as does the bee. Different nerves, different structures, different views. 

Leonard Peikoff has done more to discredit Objectivism than any left wing collectivist nay-sayer. 

9

I am most excited someone has at last "deconstructed the notion of objective value".

Oh no, it's Beaver Bob, again.

The assumption that "objective value" means that any and all of the objective persuasion must select values by impartial means, and which are accurate, perfect, and most of all, identical carbon-copies of each other - shows profound ignorance of what "objective" means and what "value" means. Read some Objectivism before bloviating, Bob.

And of what interest apart from academic, is it that a bee sees light differently? Are you concerned with a philosophy for bees? Casting doubt on the senses is so boringly skeptical. Read Kelley on that.

So you found out lately from Objectivists that a value presupposes a valuer. But - two people each see values differently (Duh). One loves Jane, the other Sue. Can you not see that "romantic love" is the common value!? Take that to any value you like: recreation, career, friends, art...and so on. Of Objective value are first, the general abstractions, then, the specific 'things'/ people. The conceptual hierarchy needs to be grasped, or you can't get it. And although true that "people" - vaguely - in general do disagree, when it comes to value (the concept) you will never see Objectivists disagree here. 

If it is not a "perfect" or an empirically-tested 'value' it fails, in your book. But Empirical is not Objective. Perfect is a Platonic ideal. Skepticism is only the other side of the coin from mystical intrinsicism. You regularly flip from one to the other at whim. 

Do some construction before trying deconstruction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0

"So you found out lately from Objectivists that a value presupposes a valuer"

I knew that long before I ever heard of Ayn Rand.   Please do not be condescending.  It is impolite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony    0
7 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

"So you found out lately from Objectivists that a value presupposes a valuer"

I knew that long before I ever heard of Ayn Rand.   Please do not be condescending.  It is impolite. 

Not to add, your above condescension towards Objectivists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
20 minutes ago, anthony said:

Not to add, your above towards Objectivists?

Not  condescension.  Valid criticism plus annoyance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony    0
8 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not  condescension.  Valid criticism plus annoyance. 

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter    0

Brant wrote: Let's start with contradiction number 1 followed by limitation number 1. end quote

I have always wondered about the book title, “East Minus West, Equals Zero.” Help me with the math.

Would that make East one and West one, as in (1 - 1 = 0)? And that places East on equal footing with West, which is not what the author intended. If the communist East was a minus to begin with the math would be (-1) minus (+1) and doesn’t that equal -2? Which is probably the truth because The U.S.S.R. collapsed under its own contradictions and evilness.    

As far as the Objectivist naysayers go, I ignore them, which is not to be conflated with a religious sense of “shunning.” I think it is time to stop considering Objectivism as a “closed” philosophy. (But what Ayn wrote stopped with what Ayn wrote, yadda, yadda. I know.)

It has been a “movement” since around 1963 or 1964 so it must grow, to continue its existence. Therefor accept no authority like Leonard Peikoff And I think splitting the philosophy into “Big O” and “Little O” Objectivism is counter-productive too. Let your conscience and the market, be your guide.  The new, if it fits in is Objectivism. 

(I saw Leonard’s daughter Amy Peikoff on Fox News the other day and I was actually impressed.)

Peter  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter    0

Oops, my error. Amy is the ex-wife of Leonard Peikoff and Kira Peikoff is Leonard’s daughter.

The interview with Tucker Carlson and Amy is on Fox and is worth watching and available online. How odd, because what little I have seen of Tucker, he is usually rational, but here he was like a dense, religious bigot. (If you are not a Christian there is something wrong with you. If you don’t believe in The Gods there is something wrong with you. If you don’t believe in unicorns . . . ) Amy knew enough to not go *Rand* on his sorry ass, or she would not be invited back. Tucker has a serious mental deficiency and defect and I was sorry to see it.  

I just googled Kira. I had no idea she was a novelist and so darn good looking, not that there is anything wrong with her step mom either! I may buy her novels.

Peter

From Wikipedia: Amy Peikoff is a member of the State Bar of California, having been admitted in May 2002. She has worked with The Association for Objective Law, an organization that promotes Objectivism in the legal sector, and her legal work has included the submission of an amicus curiae brief in support of Elián González's right of residence in the United States. Peikoff has taught law and philosophy at Southwestern Law School, Chapman University, the United States Air Force Academy, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Texas at Austin.[2] She has also spoken to audiences at DePaul University and Stanford University. Her specialisms include privacy, intellectual property, and Objectivism. She has contributed articles to the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, the Brandeis Law Journal, Philosophical Explorations, Ethics, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, and to books such as Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem and Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. She was interviewed for the 2011 documentary film, Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged, and she is an occasional guest host of The Tammy Bruce Show. Peikoff runs an Objectivist blog and podcast called Don't Let It Go, named after an essay in Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It. Peikoff is currently writing a book called Legalizing Privacy: Why and How, on the value of privacy for a virtuous life and how to protect it. end quote

 

From Wikipedia about Kira Peikoff: During her undergraduate Internships, Peikoff wrote about Congressional politics for the Orange County Register[ and about business and technology for Newsday. She also researched feature stories for New York magazine and wrote for the New York Daily News. After graduation, Peikoff worked as an editorial assistant for Henry Holt and Company and for Random House. Since 2013, she has worked as a freelance journalist on health and science, having written articles for The New York Times, Slate, Salon, Cosmopolitan, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Psychology Today and The Hastings Center Report. When Peikoff was thirteen years old, Gone with the Wind inspired her to become a novelist. In 2008, Peikoff finished writing her debut novel, Living Proof, having taken a year off after university to write it, and in February 2012 it was published. The book, inspired by her disgust towards President George W. Bush's opposition to stem-cell research, is a dystopian thriller set in a future time when embryo destruction is legally considered first-degree murder and fertility clinics are severely regulated by the government. The novel received largely positive reviews, among them a mildly positive review by Publishers Weekly, a mildly negative review by Kirkus Reviews, and positive reviews by Suspense magazine and Mystery Scene magazine. No Time to Die, a second biomedical thriller by Peikoff, was published in September 2014, receiving mildly positive reviews by the Romantic Times and NJ.com. Peikoff is a member of the International Thriller Writers, Mystery Writers of America, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony    0
8 hours ago, Peter said:

 

As far as the Objectivist naysayers go, I ignore them, which is not to be conflated with a religious sense of “shunning.” I think it is time to stop considering Objectivism as a “closed” philosophy. (But what Ayn wrote stopped with at Ayn wrote, yadda, yadda. I know.)

It has been a “movement” since around 1963 or 196 so it must grow, to continue its existence. Therefor accept no authority like Leonard Peikoff And I think splitting the philosophy into “Big O” and “Little O” Objectivism is counter-productive too. Let your conscience and the market, be your guide.  The new, if it fits in is Objectivism. 

 

Peter  

 

It occurred to me many times the whole thing is superfluous and rather silly. Big O, small o, closed, open, Kelly, Peikoff -  factions. Institutional Objectivism.  What Rand specified, and didn't. By structure and in purpose, O'ism is dedicated to each individual alone. How does knowing Objectivism touch on 'your' life and your practice and purpose of a philosophy to advantage you? There are values and benefits to be had, a-plenty, from knowing and using Objectivism. I for one have not plumbed its potential yet. Not even close, to realization of all the possibilities. "It" will grow from like-minded individuals who will also see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony    0
On 7/16/2017 at 2:14 AM, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Greetings OL readers, yet I live still, and am troubled by the vast horde of self identified socialists who slander Objectivism, Capitalism, Rand, Peikoff, Kelly, Branden, and the other Objectivist philosophers. How does one succinctly respond to broad sweeping claims that O-ism is nonsense or the realist philosophers are or were kooks without getting pedantic or waxing into pedagogy? 

Thank you for suggestions.

 

Robert,

There's only so much you can do to convince others otherwise. If you will appreciate that many who "slander Objectivism"  have detected the truth in it (soon after hearing the first words) and are reacting to a threat, you'll believe like me that most people have built up an edifice - their lives are based on and invested in - that they live in dread will be over-turned by reality, any moment. That's fear, you are seeing/hearing. There isn't a response to that, polite disengagement is all you can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now