Poll: Are you an Objectivist?

[pippi]

nevermind

Edited January 9, 2011 by pippi

[kiaer.ts]

Define the term.

[Jerry Biggers]

I suggest the following definition of Objectivism (originally from an NBI course endorsed by Ayn Rand) as a guide to help determine who is an Objectivist:

WHAT IS OBJECTIVISM?

“If I were asked to summarize the philosophy of Objectivism in a single sentence (a very long sentence), I would say that Objectivism holds:

a: that existence, reality, the external world, is what it is, independent of man’s consciousness, independent of anyone’s knowledge, judgment, beliefs, hopes, wishes, or fears – that facts are facts, that A is A, that things are what they are;

b: that reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses, is fully competent to know the facts of reality;

c: that man’s perception of the facts of reality must constitute the basis of his value-judgments, that just as reason is his only guide to knowledge, so is it his only guide to action;

d: that man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, he must live for his own sake with the achievement of his rational self-interest as the moral purpose of his life, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself;

e: that no one has the right to seek values from others by the initiation of physical force;

f: that the politico-economic expression of these principles is laissez-faire capitalism, a system based on the inviolate supremacy of individual rights, in which the exclusive function of government is the protection of rights;

g: that the absence of these principles from men’s minds and actions is responsible for the present state of our world.”

- Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. (excerpted from Chapter 1), THE VISION OF AYN RAND: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBJECTIVISM (2009, Cobden Press/Laissez Faire Books)

[sjw]

a - check

b - check, except not all facts are necessarily knowable due to physical-temporal constraints (e.g. we can not know detailed history from 10,000,000 years ago)

c - I disagree with Rand's theory of perception. Reason is the only guide to knowledge, but personal preferences may flow from more than just reason, thus we must be guided by more than just reason (however we should not act in ways contrary to reason).

d - check

e - check

f - Differing preferences may cause people to associate on different terms than laissez-faire, as long as they don't violate rights they should be recognized as pursuing a politically valid form of government. I do not like the word "capitalism", it emphasizes one particular right above all others. On my view there are 6 fundamental rights; right to property is related to three, but I might prefer a word centered around the main problem I see, which is the usurpation of the right of consent by government.

g - Overly negative. There is a lot of good in the world. I'd say that to the degree that individual rights have been respected, good has resulted, and to the degree that they have been violated, evil has resulted.

Shayne

[Mike11]

A) Sure, though it is often overblown by randroids, "Quantum Mechanics? Irrational! A is A!"

B) Agnostic about that. "Reason" is kind of wrong for social relationships in which Evul things like "Empathy" need to be used. Also, we are 98% Chimpanzee, reality is a lot bigger than we are. Scientific models are the most we can have. I find a lot of Randroids feel hurt and angry when this is pointed out. They need their Egos deflated.

C) In most cases yes, but most life decisions are not made in a "Rational" way, they are more about unconscious drives and needs. Rand was an artist, not a scientist, that says something.

D) Rand's ideas about Altruism and Selfishness are overblown caricatures.

E) Yes

F) Capitalist exploitation has a lot in common with other forms of exploitation. Often being conducted at the point of the gun. It is a good system for creating wealth and protecting rights - along side strong labour unions and regulation.

G) Objectivism is not a magic bullet.

[Rich Engle]

Not enough numbers yet, but we are trending to "No."

If this keeps up, it means Michael has to shut down OL, or at least rename it.

rde

Yeah right.

[anthony]

Not enough numbers yet, but we are trending to "No."

If this keeps up, it means Michael has to shut down OL, or at least rename it.

rde

Yeah right.

Rich,

Don't be too sure about the NO's.

I anticipate a last minute rush of Ayes from the silent majority before polls close.

Tony

[Selene]

Not enough numbers yet, but we are trending to "No."

If this keeps up, it means Michael has to shut down OL, or at least rename it.

rde

Yeah right.

Rich,

Don't be too sure about the NO's.

I anticipate a last minute rush of Ayes from the silent majority before polls close.

Tony

Tony and Rich:

I am from the Mayor Daley Chicago school. We wait for the polls to close, the count to be made and then the phone call to see how many votes we need to suddenly discover that we forgot to phone in.

Works quite well. 1960 was a little scary though because it was too obvious.

Adam

[sjw]

The poll itself is meaningless, it just means "do you use the word "Objectivist" to designate your own viewpoint?" I daresay some who are less Randian than I would call themselves that even though I don't.

Jerry's approach is of more interest.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

An undefined word is an arbitrary sequence of sounds, of no more significance than the Morse Code message from On The Beach.

[Mikee]

I suggest the following definition of Objectivism (originally from an NBI course endorsed by Ayn Rand) as a guide to help determine who is an Objectivist:

WHAT IS OBJECTIVISM?

“If I were asked to summarize the philosophy of Objectivism in a single sentence (a very long sentence), I would say that Objectivism holds:

a: that existence, reality, the external world, is what it is, independent of man’s consciousness, independent of anyone’s knowledge, judgment, beliefs, hopes, wishes, or fears – that facts are facts, that A is A, that things are what they are;

b: that reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses, is fully competent to know the facts of reality;

c: that man’s perception of the facts of reality must constitute the basis of his value-judgments, that just as reason is his only guide to knowledge, so is it his only guide to action;

d: that man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, he must live for his own sake with the achievement of his rational self-interest as the moral purpose of his life, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself;

e: that no one has the right to seek values from others by the initiation of physical force;

f: that the politico-economic expression of these principles is laissez-faire capitalism, a system based on the inviolate supremacy of individual rights, in which the exclusive function of government is the protection of rights;

g: that the absence of these principles from men’s minds and actions is responsible for the present state of our world.”

- Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. (excerpted from Chapter 1), THE VISION OF AYN RAND: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBJECTIVISM (2009, Cobden Press/Laissez Faire Books)

I agree with every word of a-g but I suggest the following change to the wording of b. to: 'that reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses, is fully competent the only means to know the facts of reality;'

Given this definition, I am an Objectivist.

[Philip Coates]

> Not enough numbers yet, but we are trending to "No."

Why am I not surprised?

[Philip Coates]

Maybe because a good Objectivist feels honor-bound not to vote twice....

[pippi]

I closed the poll-go ahead someone make a more "granular" or more "nuanced" poll - have fun

[sjw]

> Not enough numbers yet, but we are trending to "No."

Why am I not surprised?

It's such a sin when people think for themselves, really gets under your skin does it?

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

I closed the poll-go ahead someone make a more "granular" or more "nuanced" poll - have fun

[Jerry Biggers]

I closed the poll-go ahead someone make a more "granular" or more "nuanced" poll - have fun

Interesting idea for a poll. A couple of observations:

Only 16 votes out of a population of 992 (as of this time, today) OL members. That's a return of 0.0161290322580645

It is hard to make any meaningful conclusions when 98% did not vote. Even if the figure of the "most members online at one time" (which was not during the poll) which was 332, that still means about 95% did not vote.

To constitute a more meaningful poll, a considerably larger sample than 16 would be needed. Then there are the problems of defining exactly what is meant by "objectivist." People clustering around Randianism are often not only individualist, but individualistic with a vengence, the exceptions being the Randroids pledging allegiance (obeisance? subservience?) to ARI. Consequently, for many members of this site, and many other sites that attract Rand fans, they would feel obligated to write an essay on what Objectivism means to them and to what extent that they agree or not agree with Rand's invention, and that with many elaborations, exceptions, and qualifications!.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[kiaer.ts]

I closed the poll-go ahead someone make a more "granular" or more "nuanced" poll - have fun

Interesting idea for a poll. A couple of observations:

Only 16 votes out of a population of 992 (as of this time, today) OL members. That's a return of 0.0161290322580645

It is hard to make any meaningful conclusions when 98% did not vote. Even if the figure of the "most members online at one time" (which was not during the poll) which was 332, that still means about 95% did not vote.

To constitute a more meaningful poll, a considerably larger sample than 16 would be needed. Then there are the problems of defining exactly what is meant by "objectivist." People clustering around Randianism are often not only individualist, but individualistic with a vengence, the exceptions being the Randroids pledging allegiance (obeisance? subservience?) to ARI. Consequently, for many members of this site, and many other sites that attract Rand fans, they would feel obligated to write an essay on what Objectivism means to them and to what extent that they agree or not agree with Rand's invention, and that with many elaborations, exceptions, and qualifications!.

It could be that. Or it could just be as Pippi thinks, that we are all just petty minded pricks, unresponsive to her insults, peeing on her parade:

Do any of the assorted rain clouds on this forum ever start their own thread or post an original thought or do they just go around piddling on everyone else's parade? If the case is the latter, which it seems to be, why the heck do they bother?

[pippi]

Make a new poll prove me wrong It would be refreshing - anything here with substance would be

a bunch of pictures and snarky comments are kind of sad

oh well

Edited January 10, 2011 by pippi

[pippi]

It could be that. Or it could just be as Pippi thinks, that we are all just petty minded pricks, unresponsive to her insults, peeing on her parade:

prove it otherwise post something sunny?

please?

you probably didnt expect that (maybe you did) but sadly i am sincere

[pippi]

.

Edited January 10, 2011 by pippi

[Philip Coates]

a) - f) Yes.

g) is tricky because while philosophy is a -massive- cause, there are other contributory causes behind the state of the world.

[Philip Coates]

> Only 16 votes out of a population of 992 (as of this time, today) OL members. That's a return of 0.0161290322580645. It is hard to make any meaningful conclusions when 98% did not vote. [Jerry]

Overwhelming majority of those numbers are 'cold'.

People have been driven away, snarked at or joked at or 'chatty cathied' to death, no longer read the site.

[Rich Engle]

People have been driven away, snarked at or joked at or 'chatty cathied' to death, no longer read the site.

Or pedantically scolded into an alternate universe.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

People have been driven away, snarked at or joked at or 'chatty cathied' to death, no longer read the site.

Phil,

No longer read the site?

Man: I can't see! I can't see! There is no light.

Young child: I can see. There's plenty of light. Your eyes are closed.

Your statement above is based on your own opinion (probably based on hurt feelings, but that part is not my point).

The facts are shown by log numbers (Google Analytics), and my log numbers do not corroborate your opinion.

We get about 8,000 unique visitors to the site every month (with well over 100,000 page views) and the average time spent on the site per visitor is a little over 9 minutes.

You are certainly entitled to it, of course. You are just not entitled to it being reality when it is not.

Michael