Hugo Holbling

Wrong! The fact is that not everyone recognises the absolute truth of Objectivism. You said, previously:

Thus:

Fact 1 - Anyone can recognise the truth (in this case, of Objective morality)
Fact 2 - Not everyone does

A reasonable conclusion (but not the only possibility) would appear to be that Fact 1 is in error. You conclude that an "intellectual copout" keeps both facts intact. Perhaps my non-Objectivist understanding is at fault, but it seems that you've made a positive claim and therefore you ought to set about proving it, or at least giving the unenlightened a sense of how you figured it out. I asked you about this before but you didn't respond.

How about another shot at it, or will we see yet more wriggling?

Edit: Gurdur's argument should be addressed first, of course. I just want clarification of the "intellectual copout" issue.

August Spies

99percent:

Seeing as every poster except you seems to believe this is a valid argument on Gurdurs part you MAY want to take a closer look at it.

anti-libertarianism was not used in my post, how do I substitute it?

Anyways it is NOT an argument ad populum. If Gurdur had said "most people believe in my theory so there fore my theory is right" that would be an argument ad populum. However he is pointing out an INTERNAL CONTRADICTION in libertarian thought.

Just because Gurdur mentions the population does not mean its a fallacy. Just like I can talk about slippery slopes and not be making the slippery slope fallacy.

August Spies

99, all you have to do to disprove gurdur is show that one of his two premesis are flase, or are false as far as libertarian thought goes.

otherwise you need to show some reason why inherently rational beings would not believe in the self-derivable objective morality of libertarinism.

Zar

Sorry it took so long to respond, but lets try to take an honest stab at this, for better or worse.

I think you have to look carefully at Gurdur's understanding of what the objectivist claim is first, then the rest just follows from there. If you and he are not in agreement as to the precise claim he is attacking, then naturally there will be misunderstanding regarding his objection.

If we substitute the phrase "all humans can see the truth of Objectivist ethical claims when they are presented with them" with the phrase "all crows are black", we get:

1) The Objectivists' claim is that all crows are black.
2) Gurdur points out that there are white crows.
3) It follows, therefore that the Objectivists are incorrect about crows.

In the face of this, you modified your theory to say that anyone who is presented with Objectivist ethics (that all crows are black) and does not accept them (continues to see white crows) must be "intellectual copouts." This is not so much an argument as it is a way to dismiss their objections on grounds of personal psychological fault.

This is trickier to show, especially in regards to humanity as a whole, let alone one sparring partner. For one thing, I do not see any easy way to test this claim. What criterion can there be for being an "intellectual copout"? I can see how we might test this in a very specific case where, say, someone denies what follows directly from the premises of their specific claims, but I don't think anything like that has happened here. So far someone has merely shown a sound reason not to believe a specific claim, that's all.

To go a bit further, if you are actually going to argue the merits of Objectivist ethics in full with someone and you fail to convince them, it seems like chalking the difference up to a psychological aberration such as a "copout" on the other person's part shoud not only be a last resort and not a first explanation by any means, but would again require pointing out where clear inferences are being denied by your opponent. In other words, it requires all the work of a philosophical debate to demonstrate this. But even here, I don't think "copout" is the only explanation. It could still be ordinary, "as-yet-unseen" error (which is a serious issue of epistemology in itself.) And if we want to demonstrate an "intellectual copout" for all other schools of philosophy and ethics beyond just one person, I think at the very least we require a philosophical treatise, and a damn amazing one at that. This seems like a very difficult task, and much more so for a thread like this, so it may be best to stick with "I disagree for reason X, Y and Z" or something like that.

On the other hand, I don't think there is anything especially wrong with having a dislike for some philosopher or his/her ideas, I just think it is too brusque and unpersuasive to go directly from "you don't agree with me" to "you must have a psychological block." And in my experience with Rands work, it seems to have a strong tendency to make its adherents engage in sweeping dismissals like that. I should know, I used to do the same thing way back when I was into reading her books, and anyone I met who was into them also tended toward this behavior. I'm not totally certain what alchemy in her work causes this. Maybe that should be the topic of another thread.

Gurdur

Gurdur, you are violating on of the forum rules.

Quote:

Note: Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators. However disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the discussion topics. They may be discussed in the Bugs, Problems, Complaints, Suggestions & Questions forum. Keep in mind that complaints that are not supported with evidence, such as quotes and links to their source topics, may not be taken seriously.

if you have a complaint of my moderation style take it to the complaint forum or send a PM to the admins.

I will delete any further posts of yours such as this one that do not deal with the topics at hand. - 99Percent

99Percent

Zar I appreciate your response:
Unfortately your example of crows does not follow. There are facts that can visibly be seen (empiricism) and then there are concepts that must be understood more deeply and derived using common sense and reason. That crows are black everyone can see them, but that the number zero conceptually exists requires a bit more thinking because it doesn't exist in reality. For some people the objective truth is very hard to accept and that is why I label them intellectualy copout because they justify their ideology to fit their own causes. For example Marx wrote volumes to justify communism and the necessary revolution to achieve it when in reality its a call for blatant theft of the means of production. Thats intellectual copout.

Gurdur

First off, it would seem Zar and others found my argument fully comprehensible.

As to further personal abuse from you, 99percent, that has now been raised in Bugs&Complaints here.

I'll now deal with your counter-argument:

You missed Zar's point. Objectivist claims state (paraphrased) that all crows are black. That some crows are white was my factual - i.e. empirical - observation, and disproves the Objectivist ideological claim that all are black.

Claiming that an observed fact is an "intellectual cop-out" is not a valisd counter-argument. Furthermore, the lack of acceptance of Objectivism proceeds from a rejection of ideologies, not because of one.

August Spies

How are you defining "copout" here. It seems to me that you are just defining it as someone who disagrees with you, as Zar pointed out.

RED DAVE

I don't want to deride what's going on currently on the thread (objective morality and all that), but I want to say a few things about Rand herself.

A few days ago, elwood blues wrote:

Having just reread the transcription of her remarks (hyperlink to IT below), sure she doesn't name names. No one asks her to. What she does go into is an incredibly pedestrian discussion of war propaganda and the contents of a few films. The point is that she testified at all and made herself a collaborator with McCarthyism and blacklisting! Yes, on principle, that was wrong.

a) "she was a bad author" - Not a problem. Except when people claim she was a good author. That she is capable of certain kind of attraction, I mentioned in my opener to this thread. But what kind of attraction. See a movie like "Triumph of the Will." I challenge you to see it and not be moved. But in what ways are you being moved? Better stick to "Debbie Does Dallas," (Soo to be a Broadway play -- I kd you not.)

b) "Plenty of people have taken her ideas and managed to forge pseudo-cults from them." Oh yeah. And these pseudo-cults (although I'm inclined to think they're real cults) are dangerous like all cults. They substitute themselves for thinking and feeling. I think Objectivism (and Libertarianism) are such and need to be combatted (as is being done here).

c) "She made some questionable decisions in her personal life." Anyone can fuck up. That's not the point. The danger is to make a principle of it. Read up on the behavior of Rand and Brandon, and you'll see the negative consequences. Likewise, her attitudes towards smoking, etc. Rand was, in my opinion, something of a menace. As to panache and gusto, I don't remember her being on the Top Ten lists for panache, gusto or the like in the Sixties and Seventies.

I accounted for this at the beginning of the thread. I think that Rand appeals to a kind of adolescent full of piss and vinegar but with no real sense of who they are. So, instead of getting involved in progressive social movements, which are admittedly pretty weak right now, or reading powerful writers who can help to explore who you are (my favorite, who helped me clarify myself, was that arch-reactionary Dosteyevski). they go to Rand. All she'll do is reinforce your selfish prejudices, not make you think.

Rand Before HUAC

RED DAVE

Zar

Okay, well, I gave it a shot. I'll let the rest of you see what you can make of this. I'm not necessarily coming down on any one side here, but I think this is all a misunderstanding more than anything.