Objectivism

[Gift-of-god]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

It doesn't. It explores the alternatives between societies. Anything that is based on introspection of alternatives is not (by definition) dogmatic. So calling it religion is a mis-characterization.

The fundamental premises upon which the entire philosophy rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of said premises as truth. As an unstructured system of thought, it is faith. As a structured belief system, it is a religion.

I think that's too vague a definition.

The fundamental premises upon which science rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of certain premises as truth. Science is structured.

Thus, by your definiton, science is a religion.

Now, obviously, science is not a religion. Therefore, your definiton is too vague.

Edited for fixing coding.

[Obama Jugen III]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

It doesn't. It explores the alternatives between societies. Anything that is based on introspection of alternatives is not (by definition) dogmatic. So calling it religion is a mis-characterization.

The fundamental premises upon which the entire philosophy rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of said premises as truth. As an unstructured system of thought, it is faith. As a structured belief system, it is a religion.

You are judging objectivism by some of the weaker arguments made by objectivists. This type of judgment is a form of a strawman argument.
It does not rely on faithful acceptance of its premises. Once again, it explores alternatives and examines ramifications of both its premises and the ramifications of the alternatives. It is most certainly a structured system of thought. Your 3rd sentence is false because of the falseness of your first sentence. You are describing something, but it isn't objectivism.

[Vittos Ordination]

I think that's too vague a definition.

The fundamental premises upon which science rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of certain premises as truth. Science is structured.

Thus, by your definiton, science is a religion.

Now, obviously, science is not a religion. Therefore, your definiton is too vague.

Edited for fixing coding.

Very true. All knowledge is founded axiomatically. Rand is not alone in this.

[Obama Jugen III]

In a hypothetical "society" of 100 people in which 1 has a weapon and others do not, it only takes agreement of that one person with the weapon. Property rights exist because governments enforce them. Government, for the purposes of this discussion, is the strongest group of people, where strongest is defined as most able to win in a fight.

And I totally agree, the reason I started this line with Bluth is because he asserts that Governments have no rights over property, only the individual has. I merely wished to show that his concept of property was not consistent with his concept of government.
I see that you agree "Property rights exist because governments enforce them."
We must both wait with bated breath for Bluth's contradiction. I hope it is rather longer than "incorrect" this time.

The Objectivism views strong property rights as a better alternative of social orders (perhaps that's less loaded term than "society"?) rather than as a natural occurrence.

[Sdaeriji]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

It doesn't. It explores the alternatives between societies. Anything that is based on introspection of alternatives is not (by definition) dogmatic. So calling it religion is a mis-characterization.

The fundamental premises upon which the entire philosophy rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of said premises as truth. As an unstructured system of thought, it is faith. As a structured belief system, it is a religion.

You are judging objectivism by some of the weaker arguments made by objectivists. This type of judgment is a form of a strawman argument.
It does not rely on faithful acceptance of its premises. Once again, it explores alternatives and examines ramifications of both its premises and the ramifications of the alternatives. It is most certainly a structured system of thought. Your 3rd sentence is false because of the falseness of your first sentence. You are describing something, but it isn't objectivism.

I'm judging objectivism by Peikoff. So, speaking of logical fallacies, is this a play at a No True Scotsman? Does objectivism not hold that certain negative rights, primarily the right to life, are fundamental and inherently objective, existing outside any human consciousness of such a right?

[Bluth Corporation]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why.

Check your premise there.

It's not that I can't, but that I simply choose not to--because there's no need. Those who are truly interested will go and study it on their own, so they won't need me to spoon-feed it to them. Those that aren't truly interested aren't worth my time, so I play with them until I get bored for fun rather than making any serious attempt to convince them.

Rand was right: those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. I have better things to do with my time than to conquer the intellects of those who have rejected reason.

[Bluth Corporation]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

No such assumption is present.

[Neo Art]

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

A philosophy worthy of nothing more than mocking deserves nothing less.

[Bluth Corporation]

The Objectivism views strong property rights as a better alternative of social orders (perhaps that's less loaded term than "society"?) rather than as a natural occurrence.

No, it doesn't.

[Obama Jugen III]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

It doesn't. It explores the alternatives between societies. Anything that is based on introspection of alternatives is not (by definition) dogmatic. So calling it religion is a mis-characterization.

The fundamental premises upon which the entire philosophy rests rely entirely on the faithful acceptance of said premises as truth. As an unstructured system of thought, it is faith. As a structured belief system, it is a religion.

You are judging objectivism by some of the weaker arguments made by objectivists. This type of judgment is a form of a strawman argument.
It does not rely on faithful acceptance of its premises. Once again, it explores alternatives and examines ramifications of both its premises and the ramifications of the alternatives. It is most certainly a structured system of thought. Your 3rd sentence is false because of the falseness of your first sentence. You are describing something, but it isn't objectivism.

I'm judging objectivism by Peikoff. So, speaking of logical fallacies, is this a play at a No True Scotsman? Does objectivism not hold that certain negative rights, primarily the right to life, are fundamental and inherently objective, existing outside any human consciousness of such a right?

You are gonna have to define "right to life" for me. I don't think anyone has a right to an impossible. And everyone is going to die. So can you be clear on what you mean by "right to life"?

[Vittos Ordination]

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

A philosophy worthy of nothing more than mocking deserves nothing less.

For example: Why is this an acceptable post?

[Sdaeriji]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

No such assumption is present.

Vittos can take note of these posts by BC as an explanation why objectivism is routinely mocked on this forum.

[Neo Art]

No such assumption is present.

and, if you're wondering why CERTAIN proponents of objectivism are mocked, this is why. "nuh uh!" isn't an argument. It isn't a debate. It isn't a method of demonstrating your opinion.

It's not anything more evolved than the arguing tactics of a five year old, and absolutly nothing worthy of any respect.

Edit: damn it Sdaeriji

[Bluth Corporation]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

No such assumption is present.

Vittos can take note of these posts by BC as an explanation why objectivism is routinely mocked on this forum.

You're claiming that Objectivism assumes that negative rights are natural.

It makes no such assumption; but rather derives it from prior principles.

[Czardas]

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

A philosophy worthy of nothing more than mocking deserves nothing less.

For example: Why is this an acceptable post?

Strictly speaking, that's just Neo Art being Neo Art. He can't help it, poor thing.


I don't understand Objectivism well enough to comment on it one way or another, and have no real interest in studying it in detail. The way Bluth Corporation and History Land and several other posters present it, however, it comes off as illogical and contradictory and based upon false premises, and leading to morally questionable conclusions, although their intent was probably to do the opposite of that.

[Sdaeriji]

You are gonna have to define "right to life" for me. I don't think anyone has a right to an impossible. And everyone is going to die. So can you be clear on what you mean by "right to life"?

"Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being."

from wiki

Is this going to get into some masturbatory semantic argument? Because, if so, please let me know so I can just remove myself now. You knew full well what I meant by "right to life"; playing dumb is unflattering.

[Neo Art]

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

A philosophy worthy of nothing more than mocking deserves nothing less.

For example: Why is this an acceptable post?

Because, believe it or not, expressing my opinion that a particular philosophy is utter crap is not against any forum rule?

Because, believe it or not, my belief that any philosophical work that has to hand waive a magic perpetual motion machine into existence in order to show how that philosophy is viable in a real world situation is sheer and utter crap, is not against any forum rule?

[Sdaeriji]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

No such assumption is present.

Vittos can take note of these posts by BC as an explanation why objectivism is routinely mocked on this forum.

You're claiming that Objectivism assumes that negative rights are natural.

It makes no such assumption; but rather derives it from prior principles.

You've made no effort to demonstrate this, and my own exploration of the philosophy directly contradicts that statement.

[Bluth Corporation]

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

A philosophy worthy of nothing more than mocking deserves nothing less.

For example: Why is this an acceptable post?

Because, believe it or not, expressing my opinion that a particular philosophy is utter crap is not against any forum rule?

Because, believe it or not, my belief that any philosophical work that has to hand waive a magic perpetual motion machine into existence in order to show how that philosophy is viable in a real world situation is sheer and utter crap, is not against any forum rule?

They're not against any rule; they're also not based on any factually true premises.

[Sitspot]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why.

Check your premise there.

It's not that I can't, but that I simply choose not to--because there's no need. Those who are truly interested will go and study it on their own, so they won't need me to spoon-feed it to them. Those that aren't truly interested aren't worth my time, so I play with them until I get bored for fun rather than making any serious attempt to convince them.

Rand was right: those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. I have better things to do with my time than to conquer the intellects of those who have rejected reason.

Incorrect

[Obama Jugen III]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why.

Check your premise there.

It's not that I can't, but that I simply choose not to--because there's no need. Those who are truly interested will go and study it on their own, so they won't need me to spoon-feed it to them.

"Check my sources" is not an acceptable demand during an argument. You can give a reference to your sources. But those opposing you do not have an obligation to research anything that might back up your argument. If you believe there are facts that back up your argument, the responsibility to state them is on you. If you do not state them, your opposition is within their rights to assume that you do not have them available.

[Bluth Corporation]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why.

Check your premise there.

It's not that I can't, but that I simply choose not to--because there's no need. Those who are truly interested will go and study it on their own, so they won't need me to spoon-feed it to them.

"Check my sources" is not an acceptable demand during an argument.

It's also not what I said.

[Neo Art]

You're claiming that Objectivism assumes that negative rights are natural.

It makes no such assumption; but rather derives it from prior principles.

And again, the exact reason why objectivist arguments are routinely mocked. The argument presented is nothing more than "we don't ASSUME things, we KNOW them."

If you simply replace "that negative rights are natural" with "that god exists" and the objectivist argument essentially becomes a religious one. Predicated on the fundamental belief that they're right, for no other reason than because they're right. Because they said they are.

Which, as pointed out, is extremely ironic considering Rand's dislike of religion for doing...well...exactly the same fucking thing.

And then followed by:

It's not that I can't, but that I simply choose not to--because there's no need. Those who are truly interested will go and study it on their own, so they won't need me to spoon-feed it to them. Those that aren't truly interested aren't worth my time, so I play with them until I get bored for fun rather than making any serious attempt to convince them.

Again, why is this worthy of any other response other than scorn? A simple "I'm right because I said I'm right, and if you want to know why I'm right, you should look it up yourself".

What else am I supposed to take from this other than "if your philosophy is so poor that you can't justify it, then it's a shit philosophy"

[Bluth Corporation]

You're claiming that Objectivism assumes that negative rights are natural.

It makes no such assumption; but rather derives it from prior principles.

And again, the exact reason why objectivist arguments are routinely mocked. The argument presented is nothing more than "we don't ASSUME things, we KNOW them."

I'm not presenting that argument.

I'm not presenting any argument at all, really, for reasons I've already explained.

It's one thing to point out that the arguments I present are poor--they most certainly are, because I don't care to do any better in this venue.

It's another thing entirely to dishonestly assume that the arguments I present are the actual arguments for Objectivism.

[Obama Jugen III]

He is right in saying "incorrect" despite the fact that he can't explain why.

Check your premise there.

It's not that I can't, but that I simply choose not to--because there's no need. Those who are truly interested will go and study it on their own, so they won't need me to spoon-feed it to them. Those that aren't truly interested aren't worth my time, so I play with them until I get bored for fun rather than making any serious attempt to convince them.

Rand was right: those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. I have better things to do with my time than to conquer the intellects of those who have rejected reason.

Incorrect

Wow, he BC could give anything a bad name.
Let me try it: "those who reject cute little puppies cannot be persuaded to like cute little puppies. I have better things to do with my time than to conquer the whims of those who reject cute little puppies. "
I think if someone gave this type of an argument, I'd start hating cute little puppies for a while.