Objectivism, Objectivists, and Randian Nonsense Otherwise Known as...

[Procrustes Stretched]

nitwittism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.



.

i'm Conducting A Little Experiment. Please List Your Objections To Objectivism, If You Have Any.

objectivism (ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

The Basic Principle Of Objectism Is That A Distinct Reality Exists Independent Of Perception.

Seems Reasonable To Me. What Is Objectionable About That?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is nothing objectionable to me about the concept that "A Distinct Reality Exists Independent Of Perception."

 

[garyd]

Then what is your objection to Objectivism?

 

[editec]

Then what is your objection to Objectivism?

If they stopped there, there is none.

If they buy into the blather that Rand though was reality?

My objection is their complete lack of historical background that explain why things are as they are.

We start from a place where the world is unfair, and now they demand a system that they describe as fair, but which rewards those what has who in most cases got their advantages unfairly.

So...my grandfather left me a pile because he ripped off people.

NOW I want a completely fair system because that pile I have would mean in that "fair system" I can enjoy my pile without guilt.

In a nutshell, that is my complaint about most objectivist libertarians.

The refuse to acknowledge that history plays a huge part in the state of affairs we find ourselves in today.

 

[xsited1]

There is nothing objectionable to me about the concept that "A Distinct Reality Exists Independent Of Perception."

You disagree with Objectivism, yet you find nothing objectionable about the above concept. Uh, okay.

 

[Diuretic]

I've heard about it but don't know much about it except that it hasn't apparently had much of an influence. Or am I totally wrong?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've heard about it but don't know much about it except that it hasn't apparently had much of an influence. Or am I totally wrong?

lol


you'd get an argument from the followers because a few very influential people look like they may be Objectivists because they belong to Libertarian-like groups or belong or speak at the Federalist Society,..

but reality says the no limits Free Markets kooks and other nitwits who espoused Randian bs during the last few GOP admins and congresses, are in hiding for a while.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is nothing objectionable to me about the concept that "A Distinct Reality Exists Independent Of Perception."

You disagree with Objectivism, yet you find nothing objectionable about the above concept. Uh, okay.

yes.

There is nothing wrong with believing that one or a few of the premises of a kook like Ayn Rand are valid without buying into the false conclusions of their theories.

okay?

in short, it isn't the concept above I disagree with, it is the shit attached to it that takes it from that concept into Randian Objectivist nitwitticism

 

[xsited1]

yes.

There is nothing wrong with believing that one or a few of the premises of a kook like Ayn Rand are valid without buying into the false conclusions of their theories.

okay?

in short, it isn't the concept above I disagree with, it is the shit attached to it that takes it from that concept into Randian Objectivist nitwitticism

Of course, but you didn't explain why your were so against Randian Objectivism. Perhaps you've since then explained yourself, but we can't read your mind.

Here's at least something to discuss:

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, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition

Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth, grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.

So what part of this do you disagree with and why?

 

[Diuretic]

I've never thought of myself as a "heroic being". That's made my day!

 

[garyd]

And if your father made his money honestly why must he be hled to account for those that did not?

Your problem is the same problem all leftists have the idiot notion that the only way to get rich is to screw people.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

-------------------------------

The basic principle of objectism is that a distinct reality exists independent of perception. Seems reasonable to me. What is objectionable about that?

There is nothing objectionable to me about the concept that "A Distinct Reality Exists Independent Of Perception."

post# 6:::
You disagree with Objectivism, yet you find nothing objectionable about the above concept. Uh, okay.

post# 9:::
yes, I disagree with Objectivism.

There is nothing wrong with believing that one or a few of the premises of a kook like Ayn Rand are valid without buying into the false conclusions of their theories, okay?

In short, it isn't the concept above I disagree with, it is the shit attached to it that takes it from that concept into Randian Objectivist nitwitticism -{edited}

------------------

Of course, but you didn't explain why your were so against Randian Objectivism. Perhaps you've since then explained yourself, but we can't read your mind.

Here's at least something to discuss:

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, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition

Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth, grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.

So what part of this do you disagree with and why?

No need to read my mind as I did explain my objections in brief terms. You sort of asked in post# 6, I replied in post# 9. You can save the mind reading skills for your sessions with Chrisy/kirk, the Edgar Cayce acolyte.


----------------------

Here's at least something to discuss:

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, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition

Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth, grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.

So what part of this do you disagree with and why?

somebody with far more time on their hands than I (believe IT or not) laid it all out in a concise and coherent way on Wikipedia.

I posted this thread to pull how we got here...IT...all together.

I will respond in the next post.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The criticism of Rand's philosophy:::

Theoretical content

Objectivism holds that reality exists independent from consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form — a work of art — that one can comprehend and respond to.[5]

Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas, and Atlas Shrugged in particular, as sophomoric, preachy, and unoriginal,[6] and they have marginalized her philosophy.[7]

A notable exception to the general lack of attention paid to Objectivism in academic philosophy is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection, Socratic Puzzles (1997).[8]

Nozick is sympathetic to Rand's political conclusions, but does not think her arguments justify them. In particular, his essay criticizes her foundational argument in ethics — laid out most explicitly in her book The Virtue of Selfishness — which claims that one's own life is, for each individual, the ultimate value because it makes all other values possible.[9]

Nozick states that to make this argument sound one needs to explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and thus having no values. Thus, he argues, her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is essentially an instance of begging the question. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory.

Raymond Boisvert, a philosophy professor at Siena College, has opined that Rand's theories are out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life.[6]

Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Like Nozick, I am sympathetic to Rand's political conclusions, but do not think her arguments justify them.