Objectivism

[Conserative Morality]

Reasons that are against the rules.

But I still don't see why people mock you, even if you do sound like a complete douche.

Because he'll pop into threads that have very little connection to objectivism and make comments about how subject X is objectively wrong.

He also talks a lot about killing the human spirit, by definitions he gives out in order to provoke a hateful response (By his own admission). The definitions always require that you ignore all signs to the contrary, and that you accept his definition as one that is both objectively right, and unassailable.

Otherwise, you are (objectively) wrong, according to him.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Because he'll pop into threads that have very little connection to objectivism and make comments about how subject X is objectively wrong.

He also talks a lot about killing the human spirit, by definitions he gives out in order to provoke a hateful response (By his own admission). The definitions always require that you ignore all signs to the contrary, and that you accept his definition as one that is both objectively right, and unassailable.

Otherwise, you are (objectively) wrong, according to him.

Not only is everything in existence objective, his opinion on any given subject just happens, by sheer coincidence, to be the objectively correct one.

[Vittos Ordination]

Reasons that are against the rules.

But I still don't see why people mock you, even if you do sound like a complete douche.

Because he'll pop into threads that have very little connection to objectivism and make comments about how subject X is objectively wrong.

He also talks a lot about killing the human spirit, by definitions he gives out in order to provoke a hateful response (By his own admission). The definitions always require that you ignore all signs to the contrary, and that you accept his definition as one that is both objectively right, and unassailable.

Otherwise, you are (objectively) wrong, according to him.

I can scroll over posts in less than a second.

[Treznor]

I have every reason to continue arguing. Please pay attention to what I've posted elsewhere: it serves my interests in other ways.

Reasons that are against the rules.

But I still don't see why people mock you, even if you do sound like a complete douche.

It's because he consistently sounds like a douche. He makes bold assertions, and then when asked to back them up requires others to do his work for him.

We tend to mock people like that.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Interesting side note:

Do objectivists consider making a factual mistake to be a moral wrong? In other words, if I believe something that isn't true, or if I communicate an untrue belief of mine to someone else, is that morally wrong?

[Conserative Morality]

I can scroll over posts in less than a second.

Foolish viewpoints, if ignored, will only be allowed to spread. If oppressed, they will spread faster. If argued against successfully and mocked, they will become exactly that: A mockery.

[Vittos Ordination]

I can scroll over posts in less than a second.

Foolish viewpoints, if ignored, will only be allowed to spread. If oppressed, they will spread faster. If argued against successfully and mocked, they will become exactly that: A mockery.

You think very poorly of your fellow posters. Surely they can recognize foolish viewpoints?

[Treznor]

I can scroll over posts in less than a second.

Foolish viewpoints, if ignored, will only be allowed to spread. If oppressed, they will spread faster. If argued against successfully and mocked, they will become exactly that: A mockery.

You think very poorly of your fellow posters. Surely they can recognize foolish viewpoints?

You ask me this after the last fifteen years of politics in the US? No, I don't assume any such thing any longer.

[Conserative Morality]

You think very poorly of your fellow posters. Surely they can recognize foolish viewpoints?

Obviously they can. Why do you think they've been mocking it?

[Metolsland]

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.

Everything is provided by individuals, only when you're talking about Robinson Crusoe.

[Czardas]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

I'll take these as an admission of trolling. Trolling that, in this case, happens to cover a great deal of your post history in NSG.

You are invited to take seven days off from the forums. Take the time to familiarize yourself with the practice of forming actual arguments. You are welcome to argue whatever viewpoints you like here, but not arguing your points for the stated reason of watching the reactions of others is not acceptable.

Treznor, Obama Jugen III, it's also not really appropriate to abbrievate Bluth Corporation's name as BS (taking a precedent from FreedomAndGlory here <.<)

[Potswana]

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.

"The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West". This is not an opinion but a subscription to an "Absolute Truth".
I think Objectivism is Reality, Subjectivism is Perception. I do not subscribe to the idea that "Perception is Reality".
Reality exists in spite of our Perceptions. What it "is" will always trump what it "means". Subjectivity created the Holocaust. Objectivity ended it. "Absolute Truth" IS Reality. One does not decide Absolute Truth. One can only accept it.

Seek the Truth and not Support.
J. Swircek
President, M.S.R.P.

[Natapoc]

Well, let me ask you this in response:

Can you give me one objective fact?

Everything that's true by definition rather than through observation is a fact.
2+1=3. That's a fact. It doesn't matter what you observe. There is no opinion which can change it without that opinion being wrong.
In Kant's language any a priori truths are objectively true. Any a posteriori truths are true because they are best explain by what has been observed. Some models which are true a priori describe the reality quite well simply because their assumptions agree with observed facts.
The "A=A" statement is essentially there to communicate that facts which are true a priori cannot ever be false.

No 2+1 does not equal 3... at least not in number systems with bases less then 3 base 10 and not under some rules of addition.

In order for 2+1 to equal 3 you must assume a great deal and these assumptions form the basis of mathematics and different assumptions (equally correct) form the basis of other forms of mathematics.

The definition of addition is sometimes modified for various disciplines also greatly depending on what you are adding.

Read the post below this I intended to get there but got lost in my own post not realizing I did not fully respond to the statement.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

"The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West". This is not an opinion but a subscription to an "Absolute Truth".
I think Objectivism is Reality, Subjectivism is Perception. I do not subscribe to the idea that "Perception is Reality".
Reality exists in spite of our Perceptions. What it "is" will always trump what it "means". Subjectivity created the Holocaust. Objectivity ended it. "Absolute Truth" IS Reality. One does not decide Absolute Truth. One can only accept it.

Seek the Truth and not Support.
J. Swircek
President, M.S.R.P.

There's a difference between acknowledging that basic logic dictates that there be statements about reality that are true, and assuming that you necessarily posses the absolutely correct truths about reality. Physics acknowledges that there is a real world about which true statements can be made. It does not then proceed to make the enormous leap in assuming that this means that the current physics that we now possess is the absolutely correct, 100% accurate, infinitely precise description of reality.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No 2+1 does not equal 3... at least not in number systems with bases less then 3 base 10 and not under some rules of addition.

In order for 2+1 to equal 3 you must assume a great deal and these assumptions form the basis of mathematics and different assumptions (equally correct) form the basis of other forms of mathematics.

The definition of addition is sometimes modified for various disciplines also greatly depending on what you are adding.

2+1 does equal 3 in any number base at all, it's just that you notate it differently. A system in which two plus one isn't three would not be a different base, but a structure like, say the cyclic group Z₃.

[Natapoc]

No 2+1 does not equal 3... at least not in number systems with bases less then 3 base 10 and not under some rules of addition.

In order for 2+1 to equal 3 you must assume a great deal and these assumptions form the basis of mathematics and different assumptions (equally correct) form the basis of other forms of mathematics.

The definition of addition is sometimes modified for various disciplines also greatly depending on what you are adding.

2+1 does equal 3 in any number base at all, it's just that you notate it differently. A system in which two plus one isn't three would not be a different base, but a structure like, say the cyclic group Z₃.

Like I said it does not equal 3. What I'm trying to imply here in a subtle way is basically what you said in your reply earlier. In order for his statement to be true 1, 2, 3, and + (and =) must be well defined and given meaning. The statement is only true when using traditional mathematical rules just like objectivism as it has been presented to us is only objectively true given assumptions about the universe and the world. If you agree with the assumptions of objectivism and agree only to operate within their universe then you have no choice but to accept it as 100% true.

However, I do not find the observations upon which they base their premise to be reflective of reality. Does what I was trying to say make sense now?

edit: ps consider a non integer base with certain properties also note that I can use any number system I please even a number system I make up on the spot without breaking any of the rules of mathematics. "3" is just a symbol that is given meaning that depends totally on the system in use.

[Potswana]

"The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West". This is not an opinion but a subscription to an "Absolute Truth".
I think Objectivism is Reality, Subjectivism is Perception. I do not subscribe to the idea that "Perception is Reality".
Reality exists in spite of our Perceptions. What it "is" will always trump what it "means". Subjectivity created the Holocaust. Objectivity ended it. "Absolute Truth" IS Reality. One does not decide Absolute Truth. One can only accept it.

Seek the Truth and not Support.
J. Swircek
President, M.S.R.P.

There's a difference between acknowledging that basic logic dictates that there be statements about reality that are true, and assuming that you necessarily posses the absolutely correct truths about reality. Physics acknowledges that there is a real world about which true statements can be made. It does not then proceed to make the enormous leap in assuming that this means that the current physics that we now possess is the absolutely correct, 100% accurate, infinitely precise description of reality.

Very well put. However I suggest we limit the context here to the World we live in and not the World we think in. I must admit I have yet to achieve the omnipotence of conciousness that would allow me to comment on the Absolute Truth laying at the end of the infinitely precise reality you describe here. How much can you peel an Onion before it's not an Onion anymore?
Sorry, I am only Finite.

[Kamsaki]

From there however she proceeds with a fairly nonsensical proposition. She basically postulates that since existence is a choice of only living things, and that all OTHER choices that living things make is predicated on continually existing, that all choices a living being make must be viewed within the broader choice to continue existing. That since “doing” depends on “being”, that “to be” because the greatest possible goal, because without “being” there can be no “doing”.

At this point she loses any claim to be able to intuit from point to point...

As I understand it, this is where her specific contribution in "A is A" comes into play, as I was touching upon in the other thread. For Rand, Identity is both qualitative and quantitative. To quote from Atlas Shrugged,

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.

Thus everything a man is, he is necessarily - basically, it's Leibniz superessentialism. Consequently, everything he does, he does according to what he is as an individuated being, and his rights, as understood through a sort of Hegelian idea of functional capacity, extend to the ability to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

The problem is not her reasoning, as such. It's actually an interesting analysis of a legitimate consequence of adopting Leibniz's ideas on modality and Hegelian rights as the realisation of the self-actualisation of the will. The problem is that in using a superessentialist approach, she's vulnerable to its weaknesses - namely, its consequences of the erosion of free will and the failure of empiricism as factually productive, and the philosophical weakness of the idea of essential properties and De Re Modality as raised by Quine.

It's worth noting, though, that even given these weaknesses, Rand may be able to survive this by relying on a Leibniz supposition. If, as Leibniz thinks, this really is the best of all possible worlds, then Rand's enlightened self-interest is in fact entirely appropriate. Given that, the most moral action we could possibly take is that which the world would have us do through our built-in personal inclinations. However, this is a very pessimistic view of human potential. As Sartre is more than happy to point out, what makes humans special is precisely their ability to overcome their biology and decide their essence for themselves, and if the best we can do is what is dictated to us by our being-in-the-world, then why do we even bother to exist?

Even though it might be possible, I'm not prepared to accept that humans are at the pinnacle of our achievement when we follow our base biological impulses, and I think this is quite an important intuition.

[Tech-gnosis]

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

People got tired of the various Randroids. Randroids who said stuff like A=A proves that taxation is theft, told us to read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and whatnot. So it became popular to say A=A proves socialism is objectively the only moral economic system, criticise Rand's literary, and whatnot. This long predated Bluth Corporation's presence.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

I think the problem when talking about Objectivism is that it is never specified whether or not we are talking about "Objectivist Economic And Governmental Views And The Subsequent Effect On Society" or if we are talking about "Ayn Rand's Philisophical Objectivist Quasi-Religious Babble".

I subscribe to Ayn Rand's economic principels in that if individuals are allowed to succeed, advance and innovate their own advances will filter back through the rest of society thus improving the quality of life for all.

I do not however believe in the nonsense she peddles about the world being nothing unless you presume it to be so or something like that.

[Kamsaki]

While I wait for people to get back to me on the above analysis, can I just say that the OP's linked thread has actually managed to convince me that NSG really was very good back in the day? I'd thought most of the harping on about declining forum standards was just a sort of sentimental nostalgia, but really, I don't think we'd get a debate like that going right now.

[Conserative Morality]

While I wait for people to get back to me on the above analysis, can I just say that the OP's linked thread has actually managed to convince me that NSG really was very good back in the day? I'd thought most of the harping on about declining forum standards was just a sort of sentimental nostalgia, but really, I don't think we'd get a debate like that going right now.

I think we're still weeding out the noobs.

[Treznor]

I think the problem when talking about Objectivism is that it is never specified whether or not we are talking about "Objectivist Economic And Governmental Views And The Subsequent Effect On Society" or if we are talking about "Ayn Rand's Philisophical Objectivist Quasi-Religious Babble".

I subscribe to Ayn Rand's economic principels in that if individuals are allowed to succeed, advance and innovate their own advances will filter back through the rest of society thus improving the quality of life for all.

Alan Greenspan confessed that he thought the same thing. Then after watching what business elites did when allowed to operate without fetters, he confessed that he was mistaken after all.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

I think the problem when talking about Objectivism is that it is never specified whether or not we are talking about "Objectivist Economic And Governmental Views And The Subsequent Effect On Society" or if we are talking about "Ayn Rand's Philisophical Objectivist Quasi-Religious Babble".

I subscribe to Ayn Rand's economic principels in that if individuals are allowed to succeed, advance and innovate their own advances will filter back through the rest of society thus improving the quality of life for all.

Alan Greenspan confessed that he thought the same thing. Then after watching what business elites did when allowed to operate without fetters, he confessed that he was mistaken after all.

Indeed oil companies at the moment are a perfect example of this. Oil companies are one of the few commercial institutions that rather than try to compete with each other instead keep their prices level, couple that with the fact that they own the patents to most other alternatives to conventional internal combustion locomotion and we have a monopoly on the entire transport of the world practically.

On the one hand I would say that for Objectivism to work in terms of economics it would require society to already have developed a set or morals, which would either come during it's ye olde capitalist/socialist nation days or from a micro-government that still manages education and law and order like a very large community warden.

On the otherhand however oil companies are not following the normal rules of economic competition by virtue of the fact that they do not compete with each other. Hence they are operating out of the economic system that even conventional capitalism works by.

[Treznor]

I think the problem when talking about Objectivism is that it is never specified whether or not we are talking about "Objectivist Economic And Governmental Views And The Subsequent Effect On Society" or if we are talking about "Ayn Rand's Philisophical Objectivist Quasi-Religious Babble".

I subscribe to Ayn Rand's economic principels in that if individuals are allowed to succeed, advance and innovate their own advances will filter back through the rest of society thus improving the quality of life for all.

Alan Greenspan confessed that he thought the same thing. Then after watching what business elites did when allowed to operate without fetters, he confessed that he was mistaken after all.

Indeed oil companies at the moment are a perfect example of this. Oil companies are one of the few commercial institutions that rather than try to compete with each other instead keep their prices level, couple that with the fact that they own the patents to most other alternatives to conventional internal combustion locomotion and we have a monopoly on the entire transport of the world practically.

On the one hand I would say that for Objectivism to work in terms of economics it would require society to already have developed a set or morals, which would either come during it's ye olde capitalist/socialist nation days or from a micro-government that still manages education and law and order like a very large community warden.

On the otherhand however oil companies are not following the normal rules of economic competition by virtue of the fact that they do not compete with each other. Hence they are operating out of the economic system that even conventional capitalism works by.

Doesn't it therefore suggest that all these assumptions are false if people discover a way to maximize personal benefit at the expense of social/public/common good?