Divide et Impera

In order to be objective, one must have an objective viewpoint (open to debate ). I am wondering (aka: racking my brain), what gives objectivists their objectivism?

Is it a text?

Is it a single principle?

Is it a set of principles?

Is "emotion" a valid moral indicator? (if so: under what circumstances?)

How does one weigh moral problems using "objectivism"?

Without emotion, what does one use to escape nihilism? Does anything really matter? Why? (NO EMOTIONAL PLEAS!)

What makes "objectivism" objective?

Please, do tell.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: 1Time ]</p>

99Percent

Reason

Divide et Impera

Reason...

Under what circumstances?

One must be able to apply value: "&gt; then", "&lt; then", "= to", in order to "reason". In order to be objective, one must have an objective scale -- what is the scale? What exactly is it, that sets you apart from the subjectivists?

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: 1Time ]</p>

99Percent

There is no scale in objectivism, its either true or false, good or bad, honest or dishonest, dead or alive, rational or irrational, violent or reasonable.

d'naturalist

It's my understanding that the defining principle of Objectivism is the idea that real "objects" (and consequently, reality itself) exist independent of our awareness of them (it).

For example, if you're in a room with a chair, a table, and a candle burning on the table, the Objectivist view is that the roon, chair, table, and candle all exist whether or not you're in the room or are aware of the room at all. The goal of Objectivism thus becomes the exercise in stripping away misperceptions and subjective interpretations, and seeing the objects in the room as they actually exist.

At least, that's my understanding of the term "objectivism". I'll leave it to the community as a whole to please correct me if I'm wrong.

Divide et Impera

A gram is a gram, and a kilogram is a kilogram. How do you know a subtle difference, much less a defining difference without a scale?

If I am to believe (Ayn Rand) objectivism, I am to believe in "Free-Market Capitalism" as my ruler -- anything else would be "unobjective", and perhaps even uncivilized. Call me simple minded, but I just want to know what scale she was using.

What scale are you objectivists using?

Divide et Impera

I would be fine with your version d'naturalist, except for the fact that "objectivists" have opinions too -- most of which they attempt to sneak under the label of "objectivity".

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: 1Time ]</p>

d'naturalist

Well, just like there's science and applied science, we have philosophy and applied philosophy. Alot of people build on the basic premise of objectivism and add some subjective ideas of their own. Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with Ayn Rand type applied Objectivism to define the scale or standards they're using. I'll have to give this some more thought.

Divide et Impera

Well, just like there's science and applied science, we have philosophy and applied philosophy. Alot of people build on the basic premise of objectivism and add some subjective ideas of their own.

Is in direct conflict with:

The goal of Objectivism thus becomes the exercise in stripping away misperceptions and subjective interpretations, and seeing the objects in the room as they actually exist.

Divide et Impera

I have no problems with objectivists, just so long as they don't have any opinions.