Objectivism 101

I also fail to understand how it is possible to judge people based merely on intelligence. The simplification of seeming to imply that intelligence is one unified thing is also problematic. If you mean the ability to learn math or science, for example, that is essentially a talent for a given academic field. Even within that specific area, there are still distinctions between the ability to learn and understand a process well and the ability to independently create new techniques individually. Within sciences, are people intelligent practically or theoretically? A good theoretical mathematician thinks about the world considerably differently than a good engineer.

Do we mean talent for writing? Does this mean the ability to write clear prose for newspapers, or creative writing? You would have to be very brave to claim that, say, William Faulkner was not a genius because you do not value that kind of thinking.

Do you mean intelligence as a kind of character? That people are intelligent enough to see the duties that they have to impose on themselves given their abilities? You can have all the talent in the world, but it takes a different kind of intelligence to realize the duty you have to develop it and apply it well. I have much more respect for people who dedicate their lives to developing themselves as much as possible because of their duty to the world as opposed to the extraordinarily brilliant but self-centered person who only follows his whims.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what Objectivist epistemology actually claims. All knowledge comes from observing the world, but how do these observations actually lead to knowledge? What is knowledge, and how can we have confidence in what we hold to be knowledge? How do we know that an objective world exists? .

The problem with your questions is that you've set yourself up, ie, you've already rejected the idea of reference points that can be used to prove or disprove anything{when you reject reason and reality aka rejecting the validity of your senses}....so how on "earth" can I prove the objective world exists to someone with your type of preconceptions?

Quite frankly, if you think that reality doesn't exist or whatever the hell it is you're suggesting, then we must be living in a dream world, so why not jump off a cliff, why not stand in front of a semi, why not poke your eyes out?.....if the physical world doesn't really exist, what use do you have for your body parts or even your physical life?

Knowledge has structure, it's basis is reality, as we're ultimately describing aspects of it......the elements of knowledge are words, symbols, definitions, concepts etc......the fundamental difference between Objectivist epistemology and other pseudo or speculative epistemologies is that Objectivism references knowledge back to reality, and being that reality is absolute, we at least have the opportunity of being accurate and accountable.

A=A means a thing is what it is and it has identity, IOW, to know what something is or what it will do, you study "it" scientifically.....of course, science rests on it's objective abilities whereby if I make a claim about an object at the macro or micro level, then it must either be empirically verifiable by others duplicating my tests, or be a logical inference based on existing objective knowledge.

Also, you keep assuming I'm a Randite, yet I've repeatedly mentioned that I see myself as a self taught philosopher who's been heavily influenced by objectivism's take on epistemology and metaphysics.....I bought numerous books{80-100} on philosophy/science/society/history etc before I discovered objectivism....however, as I've mentioned, I don't subscribe to every detail of Objectivist political philosophy, so it's pointless speaking to me/us as if we're typical Objectivists.

0 Replies

Thalion : I have much more respect for people who dedicate their lives to developing themselves as much as possible because of their duty to the world as opposed to the extraordinarily brilliant but self-centered person who only follows his whims.

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, where their life and work belong to the group (to society, to the tribe, the state, the nation, the collective) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. You are nothing more than a slave to someone else's objective (presented as the greater good).

If one believes in the objective of one's life, is the pursuit of truth (excellence), then any form of collectivism violates the pursuit of one's own salvation.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

I also fail to understand how it is possible to judge people based merely on intelligence. .

That'd be pretty stupid, that's why I also mentioned knowledge and wisdom and a regard for ethics......but like it or not, intelligence is an important factor in one's level of wisdom and knowledge,........ and we can simply describe wisdom as the application of one's intelligence, and naturally, the higher the IQ, we should see a commensurate level of knowledge and wisdom.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

The fact is, we all judge people, and unlike most people in the west, I judge people by their levels of intelligence, knowledge and wisdom, IOW, I don't care if you have money, it doesn't thrill me, what I care about is whether you're honest, trustworthy and at least capable of intellectual growth.

For those of you who stick up for the symbolic Mexican dishwasher, you're most likely immigrants or deluded, ie, you're more concerned that America progresses economically than spiritually{the nexus between man, nature and the universe}, so it doesn't matter who comes into your country, even if they lack a strong sense of ethics, and or the intelligence to comprehend them.

You're also confused about the operation of a society that functions under IR's, ie, as long as groups{physical} of people don't make decisions on behalf of other groups{abstract}, then no-one's IR's will be violated, as such, people can work in a collaborative fashion for the benefit of themselves and by extension, other members of their society.

Where did I stick up for the Mexican dishwasher? I never did. And why would I most likely be an immigrant, Which I am not.

Both of these are incorrect and of no consequence or counter to the truth and logic of my statement. The objectivity of the masters puts us squarely where we are supposed to be in a system they are in control of.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

Amigo wrote:
How does one person bring down an Army of millions?

Theoretically, by convincing people to swap God/Gov/King said with "Individual rights" said.

Convincing people. The is building a collective. You want a revolution. That requires a collective.

Without a collective their is no revolution. There is one man against the million man army Jennifer said one man could beat. The collective puts a bullet in his head and it is over.

0 Replies

That's exactly my point. It isn't possible to just assert that reality has a definite structure that reason comes to know. Philosophy's job is to understand why and if this is the case, not make unsubstantiated claims that it is. The view that reality is a determinate thing that languages and symbols represent is a very specific form of correspondence realism from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries pioneered initially by Frege and then the logical positivists. I am by no means suggesting that there is no reality, but that there are problems with this type of language-world correspondence theory and the view that an object is simply one thing in relation to only itself. The entire Continental tradition in philosophy explores elements of the difficulty in universally categorizing particular objects (Hegel brought the universal and the particular into a dialectic, Heidegger criticized the emphasis on the particular and employed a hermeneutical approach to Being, Foucault historically contextualized fields of discourse, Derrida deconstructed the initial trace that produced the dichotomies necessary for such a reductionist categorization.) Any claim that reality is simply "real" and that we somehow inexplicably come to know it must respond to these all of these philosophers, at least.

0 Replies

Davidlg, I would not want you to hurt me, but that does not mean that you can't. Just because I would not want you to hurt me, and you would not want me to hurt you, does not mean that cannot objectively go and hurt you.

IR's are not objective, they are merely an opinion as you said yourself. There are people who want to die for a cause, and they belvieve it is the morally correct thing to do.

On a personal level, I really despise your attitude towards other people on this forum. you are such an elitist when it comes to your own opinion. You insult people, make false claims about people. You can have a blind conviction in your own opinion, but you will never persuade anyone on here you are correct, because of the way you treat those people, those people that you try to convince.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Convincing people. The is building a collective. You want a revolution. That requires a collective.
.

There's nothing wrong with people organizing on their own behalf....the key is to make sure you don't enact policies that discriminate against people's individual rights.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

That's exactly my point. It isn't possible to just assert that reality has a definite structure that reason comes to know.

Sorry, Thalion, but if you've rejected reality in advance and subsequently rejected the validity of the senses and your ability to reason, then I'm at a loss as to how I could convince you reality is absolute......remember, people have the option of denying the obvious and the truth, and also of coveting the big name philosophers instead of relying on their instincts and going to the bother of actually doing some independent thinking.

0 Replies

existential potential wrote:

Davidlg, I would not want you to hurt me, but that does not mean that you can't. e.

DOH!!!, that's why we need to recognize that a social contract is necessary+I never said IR's are subjective/optional, I said that obeying them is, and disobeying them is what criminals and sociopaths do all day.

FYI, both JJ and I have been abused by numerous people, yet here you are whinging and bitching like a little girl that I dare to retaliate against their nonsense......you're problem is that you don't know how to determine right from wrong, so you favour nice "sounding" people, even if they're full of ****, and their politics negatively impact upon you.

0 Replies

How can you prove or establish that reality is absolute if you've already taken it as an assumption that our senses provide perfect and unbiased information about the internal nature of reality that we can use to learn facts about reality? That begs the question.

I'm not denying that reality exists. I'm just pointing out problems with any "method" that claims that it's completely certain that an absolute reality exists and that we can come to know it. Sure, common sense tells us that reality exists, but this is not grounds for a philosophical argument that a definite reality exists independent of the observer. Common sense also says that compassion is a good thing irregardless of any abstract pseudo-economical theory of morality.

True, we should not simply parrot the views of the big names of intellectual history, but the supposition that refusing to read or understand what they say indicates some kind of self-sufficiency is absurd. Creativity is only really possible with a very strong knowledge of the tradition. It would be like saying that you can become a great writer without reading Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Proust, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, etc. Arguing that a position is "original" because it fails, for example, to take into account Berkeley's challenges to the existence of a material world and Hume's attack on a posteriori knowledge is just an attempt to defend your own view by appeal to your own ignorance. If you were familiar with the history, you would realize that the argument that the world does not exist independent of the subject is from the tradition of Kant, who attempted to salvage the existence of objective knowledge from Hume. Thus, by blindly insisting on the existence of a material world, for example, and not bothering to learn the tradition, you are in fact undermining your own position because you are unable to recognize the counterarguments that have already been debated.

0 Replies

I own or have read many philosophy books....and like all people who begin a study into the subject, I pursued the thoughts of the "celebrity" philosophers, however, I wanted to know exactly what science, philosophy, logic and knowledge were, so I obviously had a serious problem after being repeatedly confronted with stupid idea's that we can't know anything, that everything is subjective to some degree etc.

You have nothing to back your doubts other than a desire for there to be more{religion/mysticism aka the primacy of consciousness}, so you question everything and reject the obvious, existence.

To suggest you accept reality exists but still aren't sure of how we know it gets back to the fact that you've rejected the validity of the senses and reason, otherwise you'd simply say "existence exists", and I know it by observing it....I mean, how else do you suppose anyone would prove reality exists?

0 Replies

existential potential,

The law of gravity is objectively established, but it doesn't stop you from subjectively jumping to your death and does not make the law of gravity subjective or stop the law of gravity from being objective.

The law of reciprocal actions (if you violate me, I have the right to violate you), doesn't stop you from violating me, but it also doesn't stop the law of reciprocal action (self protection), which gives me the right to violate you, becaue it is objectively established.

0 Replies

Davidlg.

What is this "I" which "wants to know exactly...." ?

It is the questioning of this axiomatic position in the light of observation of
of a fragmentary "self", which leads to the rejection of your position, NOT "desire for the mystical" (etc).

Next time you "have a discussion with yourself"; think about it !

Epistemology and ontology are inseparable.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Davidlg.

What is this "I" which "wants to know exactly...." ?

It is the questioning of this axiomatic position in the light of observation of
of a fragmentary "self", which leads to the rejection of your position, NOT "desire for the mystical" (etc).

Next time you "have a discussion with yourself"; think about it !

Epistemology and ontology are inseparable.

Typical academic philosophy bullshit post.

0 Replies

Davidlg, what sort of reply is "Typical academic philosophy bullshit post"?
You clearly do not know how to respond to such a comment, and you call yourself a philosopher!

Davidlg wrote:
"You have nothing to back your doubts other than a desire for there to be more{religion/mysticism aka the primacy of consciousness}, so you question everything and reject the obvious, existence."

We have nothing to back our doubts? If you took the time to fully understand the "many philosophy books", you claim to have read, maybe you would discover the reason some of us doubt. But of course you do not like the "celebrity" philosophers, your way to good for them aren't you.

Essentially there is no real point in arguing with you because what we are questioning and doubting, you assume to be true, a bit like an evangelical christian really.

0 Replies

The "fragmentary nature of self" is a million miles from "academic philosophy". Smile

It is just a common observation of many who attempt simple meditation. There are those, of course, with a vested interest in a particular "self-image" who will never see the point.

0 Replies

EP.

The implication of doubting that reality exists aka reality is absolute, is that you can walk on water if you just put your mind to it......but I'm sorry, I've rejected religion and mysticism for what it is...."pure bullshit".

It's not my fault you're dissatisfied with your earthly and mortal status, and seek to at least psychologically transcend your apparent dilemma.
As I've said elsewhere on many occasions, it wasn't unreasonable for primitive man to assume various Gods existed, nor was the idea of mystical contemplation, however, in 2008, it's no longer acceptable to hold such antiquated views, especially as you have no grounds for them.

Nah....I'm just interested in the truth, especially ethics thanks to the disgusting and blatant behaviour of the "coalition of the killing"......but of course, people need to be able to think straight, instead, we see your type raising questions on every reasonable and practical matter I suggest......aren't you a real trooper for the truth Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Time and time again you continue to make assumptions about these theories that are not based in fact. Your assumption that critiques of absolutism are based in a kind of desire for a mystical anti-rationalism are entirely wrong. This may be the case for some people, but the arguments that have been posed here are the result of the modern spirit of critique itself. Modernity turned its critical gaze onto itself and realized that there are foundational problems with the objectivity that it had been assumed since the Enlightenment. These critiques came in a variety of forms: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Tarski's theorem on the undefinability of truth, Turing's halting problem, Heisenberg, critiques of chauvinism and colonial superiority, feminism, attempts in literature to determine the exact hermeneutical interpretation of a text, difficulties with establishing a definite interpretation of historical events, a critical analysis of the role of in creating knowledge, the Husserlian and later phenomenological replacement of the traditional view of ontology, existentialism, post-structuralism, etc. The list goes on and on.

Your assumption that any critique of modernity is simply a desire to avoid reason is as unfounded as the accusation against postmodernism that says much the same. Rather, these ideas are outgrowths of the very spirit of modernity becoming conscious of its own limits. Knowledge is not being rejected outright. Rather, the claim that "absolute objective" knowledge can be obtained is being critiqued. Assuming that these critiques are forms of pre-modern irrationalism shows that either you are entirely ignorant of many of the most important intellectual developments of the past century or you have not properly understood them. You are dismissing arguments without having any idea what they are saying or what context they are emerging from.

0 Replies

Objectivism 101

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know