Objectivism

[Vittos Ordination]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

I have seen Objectivism argued effectively on the old Jolt Forums, and the argument was sufficient to be acceptable to an old poster that I respect a whole lot more than any of the people I have seen posting this A=A bullshit.

Have any of you even researched Objectivism, the one's that mock it at least.

It seems if you actually understood the subject and dismissed it on an acceptable level, you wouldn't resort to mocking it.

http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread ... or+Deleuze

[Treznor]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because I haven't seen an explanation of Objectivism that wasn't inherently ridiculous.

Next question?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

I have seen Objectivism argued effectively on the old Jolt Forums, and the argument was sufficient to be acceptable to an old poster that I respect a whole lot more than any of the people I have seen posting this A=A bullshit.

Have any of you even researched Objectivism, the one's that mock it at least.

It seems if you actually understood the subject and dismissed it on an acceptable level, you wouldn't resort to mocking it.

http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread ... or+Deleuze

I suppose objectivism is losing sway in favour of subjective experience.
example of A=A bullshit?
i know some of the basics of it, but i don't know enough about it to mock it.

and you can know alot about a subject and mock it, it just makes you a bit of an arse to talk to that's all.

[Vittos Ordination]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because I haven't seen an explanation of Objectivism that wasn't inherently ridiculous.

Next question?

I will wager money in a completely unenforceable bet that you started mocking before you even bothered looking for an explanation of Objectivism.

Explain objectivism to me. I guarantee all you know is "A=A" but can't even tell me how that relates to the philosophy.

[Vittos Ordination]

but i don't know enough about it to mock it.

I reckon most that do mock it don't know enough about it to.

and you can know alot about a subject and mock it, it just makes you a bit of an arse to talk to that's all.

Of course, I just mean that people who are well versed in a subject are hardly going to be up to mocking a basic principle of it.

[Domminus]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

[Dolbri]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

Something exists.

I'm not sure if that proves objectivism, though.

[Domminus]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

Something exists.

I'm not sure if that proves objectivism, though.

...

*thinks*

That's a good one.

[Vittos Ordination]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

Consciousness implies existence. I cannot be conscious without establishing that a consciousness exists in relationship to whatever physical thing it is conscious of.

[Aggicificicerous]

I will wager money in a completely unenforceable bet that you started mocking before you even bothered looking for an explanation of Objectivism.

Explain objectivism to me. I guarantee all you know is "A=A" but can't even tell me how that relates to the philosophy.

I checked the first page or two, but I just don't feel like digging through an entire thread to find something that you should have made clear in your original post.

Give us your explanantion of Objectivism.

[Domminus]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

Consciousness implies existence. I cannot be conscious without establishing that a consciousness exists in relationship to whatever physical thing it is conscious of.

That depends. Define existence. Does a computer program exist? Does a dream exist? Does a thought, itself, exist?

[Treznor]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because I haven't seen an explanation of Objectivism that wasn't inherently ridiculous.

Next question?

I will wager money in a completely unenforceable bet that you started mocking before you even bothered looking for an explanation of Objectivism.

Explain objectivism to me. I guarantee all you know is "A=A" but can't even tell me how that relates to the philosophy.

"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." -Ayn Rand.

It is the glorification of the individual, even when it is held above the needs of the collective (hereafter to be referred to as "society"). It means that the rights of the individual are paramount, that the individual cannot be compelled to cooperate with society even when the individual benefits from society. It infers that somehow, the individual will naturally seek to work toward goals that will ultimately benefit society, but is placed under no obligation from society by the resources made available to him by the society wherein he resides. Somehow, we as individuals will magically come together out of self-interest to build a towering society of achievement, and that our innate greed combined with reason will force us to cooperate competitively.

In other words, this:

[North Suran]

As is there was someting objectionable about a selfish ideology with less factual basis than Scientology...

[Mad hatters in jeans]

but i don't know enough about it to mock it.

I reckon most that do mock it don't know enough about it to.

and you can know alot about a subject and mock it, it just makes you a bit of an arse to talk to that's all.

Of course, I just mean that people who are well versed in a subject are hardly going to be up to mocking a basic principle of it.

so would you say that you want more people to know about objectivism?
perhaps if you outline the parts that you support you can kick off some discussion about it with people who know what they're talking about.
As to mockery itself, in most cases people mock what they don't understand, it's a basic part of that kind of behaviour. I admit i've probably mocked loads of topics and such, purely because i don't know alot about them. It's just automatic human discussion, it's a way of protecting our sense of self by tarring and feathering the things we don't like.
unfortunately it's pretty much inherant within society, and it can be rather irritating. I have experience of people mocking topics i know better than them more often than not i usually ignore them when perhaps i should correct them.

what you're complaing about (as it appears to me), is that people don't know this topic enough to discuss it with them. I'm sure if you look for long enough you'l find someone willing to pass ideas over.

As a small aside, when you talk about objectivism do you mean in the context of morality, or something else?

[Vittos Ordination]

I checked the first page or two, but I just don't feel like digging through an entire thread to find something that you should have made clear in your original post.

Give us your explanantion of Objectivism.

I am not an objectivist. I have never been impressed much by it, and most individuals that I have met who legitimately studied philosophy rejected it, so I never found any reason to study it.

I posted that not really to explain objectivism, but to show that it can be legitimately defended. How much you read is up to you.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

My head hurts...

[The Naked Ape]

Objectivism is the 'philosophy of reality' which rejects relativity, evolutionary psychology, quantum theory and climate science.

I agree that opponents of Objectivism can be harsh but Rand didn't do the philosophy any favours by being so shrill and moralising in her writings.

[Vittos Ordination]

"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." -Ayn Rand.

It is the glorification of the individual, even when it is held above the needs of the collective (hereafter to be referred to as "society"). It means that the rights of the individual are paramount, that the individual cannot be compelled to cooperate with society even when the individual benefits from society. It infers that somehow, the individual will naturally seek to work toward goals that will ultimately benefit society, but is placed under no obligation from society by the resources made available to him by the society wherein he resides. Somehow, we as individuals will magically come together out of self-interest to build a towering society of achievement, and that our innate greed combined with reason will force us to cooperate competitively.

Do you understand the justification for that conclusion, or do you just know the conclusion?

[Aggicificicerous]

I am not an objectivist. I have never been impressed much by it, and most individuals that I have met who legitimately studied philosophy rejected it, so I never found any reason to study it.

I posted that not really to explain objectivism, but to show that it can be legitimately defended. How much you read is up to you.

It doesn't matter if you follow it or not, but an explanation would have been nice.

The "philosophy of reality"? What the heck does that have to do with individual rights?

[Vittos Ordination]

Objectivism is the 'philosophy of reality' which rejects relativity, evolutionary psychology, quantum theory and climate science.

I agree that opponents of Objectivism can be harsh but Rand didn't do the philosophy any favours by being so shrill and moralising in her writings.

I agree with that. It does seem that the polar opinions towards objectivism has more to do with Rand's fetishism with heroes, rather than her actual arguments.

[Bluth Corporation]

It is the glorification of the individual, even when it is held above the needs of the collective (hereafter to be referred to as "society"). It means that the rights of the individual are paramount, that the individual cannot be compelled to cooperate with society even when the individual benefits from society. It infers that somehow, the individual will naturally seek to work toward goals that will ultimately benefit society, but is placed under no obligation from society by the resources made available to him by the society wherein he resides. Somehow, we as individuals will magically come together out of self-interest to build a towering society of achievement, and that our innate greed combined with reason will force us to cooperate competitively.

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

[North Suran]

It is the glorification of the individual, even when it is held above the needs of the collective (hereafter to be referred to as "society"). It means that the rights of the individual are paramount, that the individual cannot be compelled to cooperate with society even when the individual benefits from society. It infers that somehow, the individual will naturally seek to work toward goals that will ultimately benefit society, but is placed under no obligation from society by the resources made available to him by the society wherein he resides. Somehow, we as individuals will magically come together out of self-interest to build a towering society of achievement, and that our innate greed combined with reason will force us to cooperate competitively.

You're operating under the false assumption that "society" provides anything, or that there even is such a thing as "society" to begin with.

"Society" provides nothing. Everything is provided by individuals, who get their due when one pays for the products or services they provide.

And what are these individuals - as a collective - called?

Society.

Unless you're arguing that every individual operates in a bubble and never interacts with anyone else, as a rejection of society is a rejection of reality.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because most of them seem to have graduated from the Peikoff school of bullshit.

If any of them espouse Kelly's ideas, I'd gladly welcome them in.

(Read: I hate Peikoff. Fucking moron. Ruined Objectivism for thousands of people with his fucking books.)

[Natapoc]

I admit that most of what I know about objectivism is based on the stated definitions by posters on this forum claiming to be objectivists. I had not even heard of it until this forum. I have read the document you linked to and I've also researched the websites that promote objectivism but I still won't claim I truly understand it.

What I don't like about objectivists is that they seem to feel they have an absolute truth. This is something I don't understand.

[Gauntleted Fist]

"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." -Ayn Rand.

It is the glorification of the individual, even when it is held above the needs of the collective (hereafter to be referred to as "society"). It means that the rights of the individual are paramount, that the individual cannot be compelled to cooperate with society even when the individual benefits from society. It infers that somehow, the individual will naturally seek to work toward goals that will ultimately benefit society, but is placed under no obligation from society by the resources made available to him by the society wherein he resides. Somehow, we as individuals will magically come together out of self-interest to build a towering society of achievement, and that our innate greed combined with reason will force us to cooperate competitively.

Do you understand the justification for that conclusion, or do you just know the conclusion?

There isn't one.

It's asserted as a self-evident philosophical truth.