TheSunscientist
Bassist
I've always been interested in this philosophy and have recently finished the Fountainhead.
Anyone else studied this?
Anyone else studied this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objectivism?
- Thread starter TheSunscientist
- Start date
TheSunscientist
Bassist
Partially the rejection of the current system of government in favour of laissez-faire capitalism, and also the rationalist side of it all.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
A let-it-be capitalism would be fine except for the immense corruption of the people in it and the inevitability of it turning into a system like we have now, where Big Businesses control much of the market and through which, government as well.
Overall, it appears to be a rational system, but unfortunately Rand seemed to make a morality out of it.
Personally, I also think that consciousness gives rise more to reality than vice-versa. Objectivism says otherwise.
Alceste
Vagabond
How is your current system of government not laisser-faire capitalism? How do you think it could be more laisser-faire than it already is?
Alceste
Vagabond
I know she is supposed to be a "rationalist", but in my experience, it is not rational to believe the CEOs of major corporations are super-intelligent go-getters. I just went to a corporate booze and schmooze Tuesday, and I can assure you they are generally uninteresting, unimaginative people of average intelligence. The only thing I can imagine is that Rand didn't actually know any corporate CEOs. The Fountainhead is pure fantasy.
My second son, Mike, was a blanket boy. He spent a good part of his first 24 months with a thumb in his mouth and a blanket in his arms. If we left the house with Mike we checked and doubled check that we did not leave his ‘blanky’ behind. After 24 months the blanky was nothing more than a scrap of shredded cloth. He would not accept a substitute.
Absolute truth is our blanky. DickandJane become very anxious when their security blanket, i.e. absolute truth, is not in hand.
Objectivism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It believes that reality is something external to the brain and that the task of the brain is to gain knowledge about this external reality.
Right/wrong and true/false are considered to be objective criteria rather than subjective criteria. Objectivism posits perfect knowledge and assumes such knowledge is obtainable. I think that such views have been discredited.
The myth of objectivism says that: the world is made up of objects that have properties completely independent of those who perceive them; we understand our world through our consciously constructed concepts and categories; “we can say things that are objectively, absolutely true, and unconditionally true and false about it…we cannot rely upon subjective judgments…science can ultimately give a correct, definitive, and general account of reality”; words have fixed meaning that can describe reality correctly. To be objective is to be rational.
The myth of subjectivism informs us that our senses and intuition is our best guide. Feelings are the most important elements of our lives. Aesthetic sensibilities and moral practices are all totally subjective. “Art and poetry transcend rationality and objectivity and put us in touch with more important reality of our feelings and intuitions. We gain this awareness through imagination rather than reason…Science is of no use when it comes to the most important things in our lives.”
The new paradigm of cognitive science rejects both objectivism and subjectivism. I believe in this new cognitive science, which theorizes that objectivity is a shared subjectivity.
Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Objective truth is a misnomer; there is only shared truth/false and there is only shared good/bad.
Objectivity is shared subjectivity. We create reality in our brain. If you and I create the same reality then we have a shared subjectivity. We cannot know the thing-in-itself, as Kant informs us and is easily recognized if we focus upon it.
I would say that reality comes in two forms; the thing-in-itself is the reality that Kant informs us that we cannot know and then we have the reality that our brain creates. This reality we create is aided by the senses and is congruent with how our body interacts with the thing-in-itself. If the interaction between the thing-in-itself and the creature’s embodied mind is too far off--the creature quickly becomes toast.
Most people are objectivist in many ways; do you still comfort yourself with blanky?
Quotes from Moral Imagination Mark Johnson (coauthor of “Philosophy in the Flesh”
Absolute truth is our blanky. DickandJane become very anxious when their security blanket, i.e. absolute truth, is not in hand.
Objectivism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It believes that reality is something external to the brain and that the task of the brain is to gain knowledge about this external reality.
Right/wrong and true/false are considered to be objective criteria rather than subjective criteria. Objectivism posits perfect knowledge and assumes such knowledge is obtainable. I think that such views have been discredited.
The myth of objectivism says that: the world is made up of objects that have properties completely independent of those who perceive them; we understand our world through our consciously constructed concepts and categories; “we can say things that are objectively, absolutely true, and unconditionally true and false about it…we cannot rely upon subjective judgments…science can ultimately give a correct, definitive, and general account of reality”; words have fixed meaning that can describe reality correctly. To be objective is to be rational.
The myth of subjectivism informs us that our senses and intuition is our best guide. Feelings are the most important elements of our lives. Aesthetic sensibilities and moral practices are all totally subjective. “Art and poetry transcend rationality and objectivity and put us in touch with more important reality of our feelings and intuitions. We gain this awareness through imagination rather than reason…Science is of no use when it comes to the most important things in our lives.”
The new paradigm of cognitive science rejects both objectivism and subjectivism. I believe in this new cognitive science, which theorizes that objectivity is a shared subjectivity.
Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Objective truth is a misnomer; there is only shared truth/false and there is only shared good/bad.
Objectivity is shared subjectivity. We create reality in our brain. If you and I create the same reality then we have a shared subjectivity. We cannot know the thing-in-itself, as Kant informs us and is easily recognized if we focus upon it.
I would say that reality comes in two forms; the thing-in-itself is the reality that Kant informs us that we cannot know and then we have the reality that our brain creates. This reality we create is aided by the senses and is congruent with how our body interacts with the thing-in-itself. If the interaction between the thing-in-itself and the creature’s embodied mind is too far off--the creature quickly becomes toast.
Most people are objectivist in many ways; do you still comfort yourself with blanky?
Quotes from Moral Imagination Mark Johnson (coauthor of “Philosophy in the Flesh”
Hey! A coberst post! Imagine that....
I'm ok with some of Rand's ideas like "existence exists and things are what they are independently of what you might think about things", but that's not particularly profound nor original; Aristotle's Law of Identity is a bit older than Rand. I also appreciate reason as a means of obtaining knowledge- but again, not exclusive to Objectivism or Rand.
Objectivists and their "reasoned self interest", as well as capitalism as an ideal where government does not interfere in economics or the unfettered market determines trade- well, that's where the whole mess implodes for me. Objectivists dismissal of altruism is ridiculous; the Randians often ignore or sweep aside basic flaws in Objectivism, like their critique of coercion yet hypocritical support of using the military as an extension of investor interests in Central and S. America; the vocal dismissal of well established science on anthropogenic climate change; and the fatal flaw in my eyes is that Objectivism requires humans to act as noble and scrupulous as John Galt. Corprations and monopolies are not as trusting or kind as John Galt.
Objectivism has no way to adequately deal with worker's rights, environmental causes, children's rights, economic cushions, etc. Time and time again history has shown that a civilized society requires altruism and government intervention to offer a basic safety net.
Though it has no relevance to Objectivism being untenable, Ayn Rand was a horrible writer. Cramming purple prose into every characters mouths to describe her personal philosophy makes for very bad fiction.
I'm ok with some of Rand's ideas like "existence exists and things are what they are independently of what you might think about things", but that's not particularly profound nor original; Aristotle's Law of Identity is a bit older than Rand. I also appreciate reason as a means of obtaining knowledge- but again, not exclusive to Objectivism or Rand.
Objectivists and their "reasoned self interest", as well as capitalism as an ideal where government does not interfere in economics or the unfettered market determines trade- well, that's where the whole mess implodes for me. Objectivists dismissal of altruism is ridiculous; the Randians often ignore or sweep aside basic flaws in Objectivism, like their critique of coercion yet hypocritical support of using the military as an extension of investor interests in Central and S. America; the vocal dismissal of well established science on anthropogenic climate change; and the fatal flaw in my eyes is that Objectivism requires humans to act as noble and scrupulous as John Galt. Corprations and monopolies are not as trusting or kind as John Galt.
Objectivism has no way to adequately deal with worker's rights, environmental causes, children's rights, economic cushions, etc. Time and time again history has shown that a civilized society requires altruism and government intervention to offer a basic safety net.
Though it has no relevance to Objectivism being untenable, Ayn Rand was a horrible writer. Cramming purple prose into every characters mouths to describe her personal philosophy makes for very bad fiction.
Zephyr
Moved on
Dude you listen to Rush, of course you've thought about Objectivism.
Also this.
Also, any philosophy advocating Capitalism is regressive and immoral.
Death to Capitalism, death to Objectivism, Chomsky is great.
Also this.
Also, any philosophy advocating Capitalism is regressive and immoral.
Death to Capitalism, death to Objectivism, Chomsky is great.
Zephyr
Moved on
The few Objectivists I've met do seem an awful lot like your average cult member, but then again, limited sample pool and whatnot.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It ran me over like a truck when I was 15, but I've recovered since.
Zephyr
Moved on
Didn't hit me until 17, but who hasn't had a loony phase or two?
Zephyr
Moved on
See, I didn't wanna go there and be condescending with the "I got over that phase when I was 15" but...
I got over the Randian cult by the time I was 16. It's a phase we all go through.
And Rush!?!?! Not I....:no:
Okay, you've gone too far now.
Rush is awesome.
TheSunscientist
Bassist
It isn't for the simple fact it's the government making the rules and then regulating it makes the present system NOT laissez-faire capitalist.
In an ideal laissez-faire capitalist world, the big companies would make the rules under a rule of self-harm, and the government would merely act as a mediator between them, as well as running the army and police.
I think that is Alceste's point, that that's what's really going on.