Gurdur

Why ? Please give detailed reasoning; I'm always happy to go back and correct it where necessary.

I would have thought a comparison of claims and actual results was quite valid; I look forward to your critique.

tk

The argument that "most people don't recognize the validity of Objectivism, thus Objectivism is invalid" hinges on the assumption that most humans evaluate ideas through rigorous logic. But as you know, this is not true. Thus the rejection of Objectivism by most people in the world may be because they have chosen to reject a true statement based on their own pseudo-logic. It says nothing about the intrinsic correctness of Objectivism.

In the terminology of the "scientific method", the argument hinges on an uncontrolled hidden variable -- namely, the degree to which each and every human is logical.

(Regarding the factoid that Objectivism's recognized only by a small group of Americans: I know of some Israelis who are starting to subscribe to the philosophy... )

PostScript: Uh-oh, I failed to see the part that "humans are creatures of reason". To save my own face: It seems the Objectivist notion of "reason" and "rationality" is an extremely vague one. Sometimes it means the ability to recognize patterns, sometimes the ability to generalize (wrongly), sometimes the ability to perform logical proofs. Because the word's so vague, it's easy for a person to slide from one meaning to another. Perhaps it's best to abandon the word "reason", and use more concrete words such as "logic", "generalization" and "induction".

fando

Wow, this thread has exploded.

I'm halfway through The Fountainhead and already consider Rand to be a fairly weak, but entertaining author. Her work is completely transparent and predictable. When female character Y gets introduced, it's immediately obvious that she'll be getting it on with main male character X. When fountainhead Z begins to elaborate on a viewpoint, I sigh and say, "Here comes another Randism." Characters are static, the writing sytle is too prosaic, but somehow Rand manages to keep the story interesting. Maybe I'm just interested in seeing if my predictions come true.

Rand's works are clearly the Platonic dialogue for her invention, Objective Epistemology. Whatever the heck that is, I am not yet convinced of its legitimacy, primarily because the underlying formula and theme of The Fountainhead feels like something Piers Anthony would invent. I'll get back to you on Atlas Shrugged.

August Spies

"This is simply an argumentum ad populum. It proves nothing."

I am not sure this is simply an agument ad populum. As Gurdur notes it seems to contradict with the internal theories of objectivism.

99percent: It has been comonly claimed by objectivists (here I mean people who believe in objective morality, not Randians) that humans would agree to the truth when they see/hear it. Like plato says, people are just ignorant of the truth.

anyways.... I would rather have you explain why Objectivism is ACUTALLY objective than argue over why peopel dont' follow it. No evidence has been given to show it is objective.

Hugo Holbling

I hate to break it to you, August, but you may be one of the intellectual copouts like me and plenty of others.

August Spies

Hugo,

how is asking 99 to explain the objectivness of his beliefs (something he hinges every debate on libertarianism over) a cop out?

Copouts are for people making an argument or defending a stance. Not for people asking a question. Perhaps I cop out in arguments, I dunno, but certainly not here.

Hugo Holbling

Oops! Take a look at the link i posted, August, before jumping on me. Also note the "winking" smilie. I was merely jesting with you, following 99's amazing "intellectual copout" comment which he failed (yet again) to justify.

August Spies

ah je comprend. The link went to this thread so I was a little confused.

tk

I know from my superior intellect that Objectivism is indeed true. If you can't see that the Emperor does indeed have new clothes on, you must be a moron.

In other words, I don't think you should expect a crisp answer to your charge any time soon.

Here's another bit of Objectivist stupidity (from the Objectivist Centre, though not by Rand) that I've wanted to write about:
Suppose a member of an obscure primitive tribe charges into my house. Since practically nobody around understands his language, there's no possibility of "discussion' or "legal sanction". I think I'll kill him.

Kantian

My moment of heretical doubt as a former objectivist occurred while reading Rand's non-fiction: becoming disgusted at her penchant of oversimplifying a class of people who did not agree with her philosophy as the "witch doctors" and those who used force instead of logical discourse as "atilla." Geez, it looks easy to generalize the opponents of philosophy into cheap strawmen (this was long before i learned about logical fallacies or critical thinking), and demonstrates how only in America one may become a philosopher without submitting one's work to a peer-reviewed journal. Up to that point I had been happily swallowing the spoon-feeding of Objectivism.

God bless Rand! :notworthy
~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."