99Percent

I thought this thread was about Rand, not Libertarianism.

99Percent

Well the first exercise is ridiculous. It misses the entire point of objectivism. The author tries to imply that objectivism is a philophy learned by rote. Like the learning math memorizing the tables of multiplication. Unfortunately for those simple minded objectivism requires actual thinking, ie, understanding how it works, like understanding multiplication, not just memorizing a bunch of tables.
Which is why objectivism cannot be a religion, because it is based on reason the complete opposite of faith.

99Percent

Exactly that? I doubt it.

Gurdur

Too bad.
I can reproduce here their entire line of argument, and will later.
Abusing the non-believers as "simple minded" is only fallacious abuse, 99percent, and all you are otherwise doing is making unsupported dogmatic assertions - and moreover some of your assertions have been refuted time and time again, as well as in this very thread.

Objectivism is based on arbitrarily-chosen premises, not reason per se; and some (the most important) of those arbitrarily-chosen premises simply ignore the physical facts.

BTW, methinks you owe me answers on my definitions (the fairly standard ones) on the nature of objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity, and my questions to you as to what
Shall I pose the definitions and questions yet again ?


Plus methinks you owe some apologies

99Percent

I am not abusing anybody. The whole thing is a simplistic joke of objectivism.

Your counter argument is self defeating. I can also say the exact same thing to your counter argument. It leads nowhere.


I owe you nothing. You owe yourself to explore objectivism with a more open mind, instead of just discarding as dogmatic.

Gurdur

Compare the above statement from 99percent with his statement on the first page of this thread:
99percent refutes himself. [QUOTE]Originally posted by 99Percent
LOL ! First of all, 99percent, see my comments in my post just above.
Now:
Empiricism is not an ideology, it's simply one school of scientific philosophy among others, and demands no dogmatic adherence.

Most ideologies are in fact anti-empirical, simply because they promote simplistic solutions that fly in the face of the facts - as does Objectivism.

And more, you telling me that I've missed the point of Rand-promoted Objectivism is extremely ironic, in view of the fact that you still have not answered me or others on the nature of objectivity, subjectivity etc.

Gurdur

So you're back to dogmatic assertions instead of logical argument ?
heh, how irrational.

BTW, you missed the point of the cited article --- it was a parody, and a rather clever one.

If you try bullying again, and abusing your position as moderator to be disruptive in a thread again, you might owe me nothing, but we'll see each other in Bugs&Complaints.

99Percent

Because I say (sort of tongue in cheek BTW) that she is a genius, does not mean I want to become her or even like her.

Care to mention these "facts"? Anyway you confirm my assertion that most if not ideologies are anti-empirical.

Since you have mentioned this like five times already take your supposed "question" of objectivity, subjectivity blah blah to the philosophy forum, and we will take it from there.

Gurdur

Objectivity --- the nature (and existence) of something as independent from human perception, interpretation and/or creation

Subjectivity --- the nature (and existence) of something as dependent upon human perception, interpretation and/or creation

Intersubjectivity --- the nature (and existence) of something as dependent upon broad agreement among a significant group as to an issue involving human perception, interpretation and/or creation
_____________

Objectivism is nothing more than a weak pseudo-philosophy which pretends to being the Ultimate Truth �, among other things by the simple and transparent device of labelling itself "objective".

Terribly easily disproven:
were it so objective as claimed, then far more people would recognise its inherent "correctness", rather than just the tiny minority group in the USA.

Gurdur

Just a couple, which you've ignored and evaded time and time again.
Most humans recognise the practical existence of social responsibilities and understandings.
These social responsibilities and understandings are a direct result of biological evolution .
These are dogmatically held to be non-existent by Objectivism.
Guess who wins ?

Do you think that's a good thing ?


Nope. We'll do it here. Yet again. After all, you've been refuted enough in the Philosophy and Moral forums.