Objectivism vs Rationalism (moral, rejecting, beliefs, doctrine, agnostic)

[Brien]

Does anyone know the differences between objectivism and rationalism? I know a little bit about each of them but I was wondering if someone could really sum it up for me. To me it seems to be Plato's logic vs Aristotle's logic but there is a little bit of overlap. Also if you consider yourself to hold one of these philosophies please say why your views make more sense then the other. That should make things interesting. :wink:

[The Voice of Reason]

It seems to me that we would be better served to discuss the differences of Objectivism vs. Subjectivism, not Rationalism.

Objectivism (metaphysically speaking) is the belief that reality exists outside of one's perception or conciousness. Objectivism says that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a crashing sound.

Subjectivism (metaphysically speaking) is the belief that reality only exists within the confines of perception. In other words, for someone that subscribes to Subjectivism, the tree makes no sound, since no one hears it.

Rationalism takes no stance on the existence of God, nor is it humanistic in nature. It relies solely on factual analysis and reasoning, rejecting faith based arguments. Empirical knowledge is a cornerstone of modern day Rationalism, thus forming a fairly strong link to Agnosticism. It is the Rationalist that rejects rhetoric in political arenas, while looking for that rare nugget of truth (if there is one in politics). :roll:

[The Voice of Reason]

If, on the other hand, you are referring to Objectivism as a philosophy, then I would have to amend my previous post with this:

Objectivism (philosophically speaking) was essentially put forth by Ayn Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." This is the primary theme of Rand's Objectivist philosophy, that there is an inherent sanctity of the individual person.

[Brien]

It seems to me that we would be better served to discuss the differences of Objectivism vs. Subjectivism, not Rationalism.

I agree. I have looked into it a little bit since I started this particular thread. I started a new thread for objectvism and subjectivism in the debate forum.

[trishtrish10]

i know of a man who decided to invent a new religion and confuse people into believing it. that's what rationalism, obectivism, subjectivism and transcedentalism sounds like to me.

[trishtrish10]

they are confusingly defined on purpose to get attention or renown.

[trishtrish10]

i must admit, that i was not clear in stating my beliefs about objectivism, subjectivism, etc. God confuses the proud in the conceit of their heart. with this in mind, we find these type of philosophies confusing. may i just say that i read about a man who invented a religion. He wrote confusing doctrine to make himself look wise and only him and maybe a few others were wise enough to understand it. he made a lot of money i venture to say, but the true joke was on him as he was a coward to tell the truth, until later on in life and then made money i'm sure off his book.

[The Voice of Reason]

Trish,

I'm not sure of what you are trying to say. As best I can understand you, you are saying that:

• either you have not taken the time to grasp these concepts, or
• are unable to comprehend them

that they must therefore be a false prophecy.

If that is what you are saying, then you miss the entire point of rationalism. I hope that your strong belief in a revealed God does not impair your ability to think. Then again, maybe I missed the point of your post.