Mike Hansen

Objectivist Contradictions

Recommended Posts

Speaking to the original question, Her worst contradiction was her promotion of authoritarianism in Objectivism (particularly her TOF endorsement of it), but you won't run into that problem at OL, most people here are completely immunized.

More insidious than overt contradiction is her view that the philosophy is complete or that it properly emphasizes the right things in every place.

I think the first few pages of ITOE goes off the rails, her theory of perception is wrong.

Shayne

Shayne:

TOF ???

Adam

Objectivist Forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ted.

Sometimes the use of the alphabet shorthand on this forum leaves me scratching my head.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ted.

Sometimes the use of the alphabet shorthand on this forum leaves me scratching my head.

Adam

Well if you don't have the acronyms down then you must not be a very good Objectivist :P

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ted.

Sometimes the use of the alphabet shorthand on this forum leaves me scratching my head.

Adam

Well if you don't have the acronyms down then you must not be a very good Objectivist :P

Shayne

Oh no, please let us not start a thread of what makes a good Objectivist! lol

Remember I was out of the whole late 80's 90's internecine wars, excommunications etc., so even when you post ITOE, like you just did, I have to stop and make sure I know what the poster is referring to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the notion of Objectivist "contradictions", I cannot think of any self contradictions within the system per se. All the criticisms I have of Rand have to do with her notion of human nature, which I see as Platonic and biologically unsophisticated. Her ideas about human nature are more in contradiction with reality than with he other premises as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to the original question, Her worst contradiction was her promotion of authoritarianism in Objectivism (particularly her TOF endorsement of it), but you won't run into that problem at OL, most people here are completely immunized.

More insidious than overt contradiction is her view that the philosophy is complete or that it properly emphasizes the right things in every place.

I think the first few pages of ITOE goes off the rails, her theory of perception is wrong.

Shayne

Shayne,

What do you mean by authoritarianism?

My uncle gave me ITOE as a birthday present a few weeks ago. I'm thinking I'll start it off in a few weeks (Spring Break) when I have some free time. If I run into anything crazy I'll let you know :) .

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by authoritarianism?

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

My uncle gave me ITOE as a birthday present a few weeks ago. I'm thinking I'll start it off in a few weeks (Spring Break) when I have some free time. If I run into anything crazy I'll let you know :) .

Mike

It's not crazy, it's just wrong.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the notion of Objectivist "contradictions", I cannot think of any self contradictions within the system per se. All the criticisms I have of Rand have to do with her notion of human nature, which I see as Platonic and biologically unsophisticated. Her ideas about human nature are more in contradiction with reality than with he other premises as such.

Ted,

I also dislike Rand's ideas about human nature, particularly those concerning instincts and psychology. Fortunately, though, these ideas are just wrong, and not contradictory to her bigger ideas.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

Shayne gets 1 contradiction point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the notion of Objectivist "contradictions", I cannot think of any self contradictions within the system per se. All the criticisms I have of Rand have to do with her notion of human nature, which I see as Platonic and biologically unsophisticated. Her ideas about human nature are more in contradiction with reality than with he other premises as such.

Ted,

I also dislike Rand's ideas about human nature, particularly those concerning instincts and psychology. Fortunately, though, these ideas are just wrong, and not contradictory to her bigger ideas.

Mike

Exactly - "just wrong."

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is one of the most profound books ever written. Read Kelley's Evidence of the Senses, the best book by any of her students, afterwards. And add Rand's aRT OF fICTION AND aRT OF nONFICTION WHICH ARE TREATISES ON ETHICS, aesthetics and epistemology all rolled up in two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

Shayne gets 1 contradiction point.

You should have said this was being scored, I woulda tried harder ;)

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In TOF she laid down the law that "Objectivism" is a doctrine frozen to whatever she said it was, no more, no less, no changes allowed. At this point Objectivism ceased being a philosophy and officially became a religion.

Shayne gets 1 contradiction point.

You should have said this was being scored, I woulda tried harder ;)

Shayne

You should see the take home final exam for the Northwestern Sex class!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say mathematical axioms. Your dropping the context here, of axioms in Rand's philosophy, is exactly what I have come to expect from you, Bob.

I took you at your literal word, which is what I am genetically programmed to do. So you are right to expect this.

Some people have minds. I have a brain, which is capable of executing rules.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for pre-emptive strikes, she explained in "Collectivized 'Rights'" that this could be condoned only after a state has forfeited its legitimacy by failing minimal conditions, which she outlined in the article. The state that is struck (such as Libya might be soon) is the initiator of force.

Where "force" doesn't mean "force"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to the original question, Her worst contradiction was her promotion of authoritarianism in Objectivism (particularly her TOF endorsement of it), but you won't run into that problem at OL, most people here are completely immunized.

More insidious than overt contradiction is her view that the philosophy is complete or that it properly emphasizes the right things in every place.

Good points, I'll add them to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to the original question, Her worst contradiction was her promotion of authoritarianism in Objectivism (particularly her TOF endorsement of it), but you won't run into that problem at OL, most people here are completely immunized.

Shayne

Shayne, I read this first to mean that OL'ers are immunized against authoritarianism, then thought you might mean immunized against the contradiction.

Please clarify.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. And there is actually a valid criticism of a certain concept of Rand's lurking unspoken here - but I am not feeling charitable enough towards Peter to express it for him - others can send me a private message if they are curious.

Just to make things crystal clear: I am not going to accept that my criticisms are invalid until I see a good clear argument to that

effect.

"I have Wonderful Proof, but the margin is too small to contain it" will not work.

"I can argue against that, but it's below my pay grade/I'm too busy making $$$$" will not work.

"I don't the argument against that, but some unspecified person does" will not work

"It's in the books somewhere, but I don't know where" will not work.

And none of the other standard evasions will work either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say mathematical axioms. Your dropping the context here, of axioms in Rand's philosophy, is exactly what I have come to expect from you, Bob.

I took you at your literal word, which is what I am genetically programmed to do. So you are right to expect this.

Some people have minds. I have a brain, which is capable of executing rules.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are full of shit Bob. "Literal" meaning of axiom? I wasn't aware you spoke Ancient Greek. But even so, you know as well as anyone else that Aristotle preceded Euclid.

This has nothing to do with literal mindedness, or your Jewish ancestry. You simply fancy yourself an expert, yet rather than understanding and then judging, you begin with the negative opinion and then search for reasons to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. And there is actually a valid criticism of a certain concept of Rand's lurking unspoken here - but I am not feeling charitable enough towards Peter to express it for him - others can send me a private message if they are curious.

Just to make things crystal clear: I am not going to accept that my criticisms are invalid until I see a good clear argument to that

effect.

"I have Wonderful Proof, but the margin is too small to contain it" will not work.

"I can argue against that, but it's below my pay grade/I'm too busy making $$" will not work.

"I don't the argument against that, but some unspecified person does" will not work

"It's in the books somewhere, but I don't know where" will not work.

And none of the other standard evasions will work either.

You seem to have misunderstood me on both counts. I said you were right on one count, but do not know it - not that you were wrong. Second, I didn't say that I wouldn't or could explain to the readers of my words. Just not to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to the original question, Her worst contradiction was her promotion of authoritarianism in Objectivism (particularly her TOF endorsement of it), but you won't run into that problem at OL, most people here are completely immunized.

Shayne

Shayne, I read this first to mean that OL'ers are immunized against authoritarianism, then thought you might mean immunized against the contradiction.

Please clarify.

Tony

I mean most people at OL reject Rand's authoritarian view of Objectivism, even when they call themselves Objectivists.

I actually think they should let her have her word. If you disagree with her on anything then IMO don't call yourself an Objectivist.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to the original question, Her worst contradiction was her promotion of authoritarianism in Objectivism (particularly her TOF endorsement of it), but you won't run into that problem at OL, most people here are completely immunized.

Shayne

Shayne, I read this first to mean that OL'ers are immunized against authoritarianism, then thought you might mean immunized against the contradiction.

Please clarify.

Tony

I mean most people at OL reject Rand's authoritarian view of Objectivism, even when they call themselves Objectivists.

I actually think they should let her have her word. If you disagree with her on anything then IMO don't call yourself an Objectivist.

Shayne

Thanks; I get it now. To give her her due, I'd speculate that she would demand that you should apply the virtue of independent thought, first.

And then, agree with her. :D

Failing 100% agreement, would you consider the appellation "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper?

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failing 100% agreement, would you consider the appellation "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper?

No, "neo-Objectivism" is unnecessary and allies you with others who would use it to mean different things. So long as you accept the primacy of existence, the hierarchy of concepts, and the rest of the four pillars you are entitled to use the term, and should, to give Rand credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks; I get it now. To give her her due, I'd speculate that she would demand that you should apply the virtue of independent thought, first.

And then, agree with her. :D

Failing 100% agreement, would you consider the appellation "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper?

Tony

It's a massive compliment to her for someone to don the word she coined as the name for their life philosophy. In return for this, she slaps you in the face and demands intellectual subservience. No one who actually believes in her philosophy of independence would suffer such an insult. No true Objectivist would therefore use that word to describe their own philosophy of life. So no, I do not consider the word "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks; I get it now. To give her her due, I'd speculate that she would demand that you should apply the virtue of independent thought, first.

And then, agree with her. :D

Failing 100% agreement, would you consider the appellation "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper?

Tony

It's a massive compliment to her for someone to don the word she coined as the name for their life philosophy. In return for this, she slaps you in the face and demands intellectual subservience. No one who actually believes in her philosophy of independence would suffer such an insult. No true Objectivist would therefore use that word to describe their own philosophy of life. So no, I do not consider the word "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper.

Shayne

Interesting, that you and Ted are both opposed to "neo-Objectivism", but for different reasons!

Shayne, as O'ism becomes more widespread, I'm sure there are going to be all manner of people calling themselves Objectivist. There will be no stopping it. (Yes, this is rationalism on my part.)

We are talking about justice and honesty here, I realise.

On balance, between 'complimenting' Rand by adhering to her basic principles, and 'complimenting' her by using the name of her philosophy, I'll go with both - and with Ted - on this.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks; I get it now. To give her her due, I'd speculate that she would demand that you should apply the virtue of independent thought, first.

And then, agree with her. :D

Failing 100% agreement, would you consider the appellation "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper?

Tony

It's a massive compliment to her for someone to don the word she coined as the name for their life philosophy. In return for this, she slaps you in the face and demands intellectual subservience. No one who actually believes in her philosophy of independence would suffer such an insult. No true Objectivist would therefore use that word to describe their own philosophy of life. So no, I do not consider the word "neo-Objectivist" valid and proper.

Shayne

Interesting, that you and Ted are both opposed to "neo-Objectivism", but for different reasons!

Shayne, as O'ism becomes more widespread, I'm sure there are going to be all manner of people calling themselves Objectivist. There will be no stopping it. (Yes, this is rationalism on my part.)

We are talking about justice and honesty here, I realise.

On balance, between 'complimenting' Rand by adhering to her basic principles, and 'complimenting' her by using the name of her philosophy, I'll go with both - and with Ted - on this.

Tony

You're wrong, but it's your choice. Just be absolutely certain that none of your self-esteem is wrapped up in donning that word, otherwise you will be subconsciously motivated to dishonestly dismiss ideas that would cause you to cease being an "Objectivist" in your own opinion. This is the reason why donning "-ism" and "-ist" words for one's identity is inherently dangerous and probably ill-advised.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...