Is objectivism still alive?

[Cutlass]

I would define Objectivism as a philosophical theory of knowledge. It is based on the metaphysical principle that there is an objective reality, and the epistemological principle that we can know about that reality by identification.

...

Objectivists believe that protecting and maximising knowledge and freedom will create the most productive kind of social and economic system - capitalism - and that capitalism is necessary to advance knowledge, to guarantee human survival and prosperity, and to protect and preserve the massive amount of knowledge necessary for an advanced civilisation to exist.

Monopolies will exist in some places and at some times. That's an unavoidable aspect of having free markets and can often be productive.

So, what you are saying is that objectivism supports the utter crushing and destruction of economic freedom? Doesn't sound like you peeps have much interest in objective realities.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, what you are saying is that objectivism supports the utter crushing and destruction of economic freedom?

You should know by now that Objectivism has nothing to do with "freedom". It's all about the übermenschen.

 

[Cutlass]

I never found anything interesting enough in German philosophy to pursue it

 

[Ayn Rand]

You should know by now that Objectivism has nothing to do with "freedom". It's all about the übermenschen.

What is the mechanism that acts as producer of the ubermensch? Isn't it the collective that demands a leader or hero?

The collective and the ubermensch are phenomena of one and the same system, they produce one another. The ubermensch is simply the distorted parody of an individual that arises from the collective panic, blindness and lust of the class of humanity that is dominated by the slave mentality.

It ought to be clear that the real producer of the ubermensch is none other than people like yourself, who long to push forward a hero or leader to act out the role you cannot fulfill yourselves, yet which you need more and more as you descend into the mindlessness of socialism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, give it a rest, I was just taking the mick.

Also, are you sure you don't mean "slave morality"? A "slave mentality" has noting to do with Nietzsche.

 

[Ajidica]

Can you point me to where Kant activly supports the idea of an 'outer reality'? My knowledge of Kant, while limited, is that he emphesised catagorical imperatives and morality. He believed that we could arrive at an ethical system that worked without having to be adjusted to each specific case. Furthermore, with his catagorical imperatives, it is quite similar to a rational self-interest thing. I should do what makes me happy but does not take away the happiness of others.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

It's just a strategy to discombobulate people with big words to think libertarian objectivists are clever.

I play the floccinaucinihilipilification card.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Ayn Rand never once mentions the term "outside reality". No Objectivist ever does.

What Objectivism studies is an Objective reality, not an outside reality.

I don't know how one can exist without the other without doing exactly what Kant, or the Analytics did? What is this objective reality and how do I know it exists? A straight stick appears bent in water and and all that. You've yet to describe what objective even means when it is your titular theory.

It is Kant who goes through the motions of investigating an "outside reality" [noumenon] and coming to conclusions about it. It is Kant who misrepresents the Objectivist position as essentially amounting to "belief in an outside reality".

No. He was responding to dozens of other influential philosophers who held that position at his time and previous.

Kant then goes on to conclude that knowledge of this "outside reality" is impossible. Therefore we should all be subjectivists and doubt our reason.

He does nothing reminiscent of this. I wonder if you know who Kant is at all. Kant argues very clearly that all people have access to the same type of knowledge. He also argues very clearly that reason is most vital of man's attributes. This is, again, what each of his categorical imperatives seek to preserve.

But it is Kant who introduces the concept of an outside reality, it is Kant who describes an outside reality, it is Kant who attributes belief in an outside reality to Objectivists [or their forerunners]. He does this to make you think you are clever and that you have rejected a clearly failed concept of reality. However, he manufactures the whole thing from start to finish specifically to lead you a set of conclusions that he then transfers from an [imaginary] "outside reality" and back into our "objective reality".

Kant is far from the first to introduce an outside reality. It was philosophical mainstream from Plato onwards--all through the Christian era. He did not invent it to conspire against a novelist who was not born yet.

He does this because he knows he can't destroy or refute the principles of an Objective reality, he therefore has to pretend that objective reality means outside reality. He can only get you to accept his lies about Objective reality, by the indirect means of getting you to think you are rejecting lies about an outside reality.

Kant is not the one refuting an objective reality, he is the one defending it. Skeptics are the ones refuting objectivity. I'm taken aback by your misunderstanding of Kant's position. It is not only incorrect but antithetical in your current articulation.

The only people who believe in an outside reality are subjectivists, and they believe in it because it is the concept they invent to discredit our objective reality. Having a belief purely to reject it, is still having a belief.

Okay. How do I know that there is an objective reality? This is called the egocentric predicament. I was hoping to avoid the rudiments. I'd like to make it clear that I am not a skeptic, but our Rand needs to be acquainted with the problem at hand.

All I have are sensory inputs of the world around me. Those sensory inputs can be wrong and incomplete. Sometimes I see water on the road on a sunny day, but as I near it it becomes apparent that it was an illusion--which leads to the question: If my senses can sometimes be illusions, how do I know they are not always illusions? One way to avoid this problem is to say that there is an outside reality that remains constant that I have a series of perceptions of. These things that exist outside of perceptions are noumena and there was 2000 years of philosophy geared towards explaining how we can best describe these. This is what epistemological objectivism is in academia. I know that Rand's objectivism is different, which is which is why I asked you to describe it. But you have not, other that the assertion "objectivity exists" where there is no explanation of what you mean by this. Forgive me for assuming the standard interpretation of a word where no indication was given that you had a non-standard interpretation to dole out.

Kant said that we are beholden to the inputs that humans are capable of. So constant perceptions can form an objective reality for human beings. Modern Analytics say that we can use words to describe objective worlds without relying on their complete application to our own metaphysical world.

How does Rand solve the egocentric predicament--how do we know that what we are observing is objective?

But I doubt any of this makes sense to anybody, it never does.

Because it is a perforated, poorly constructed, at times backwards use of historic philosophy without any explanatory power.


I would like you to find time to answer my previous post. It was directed at you. I remind you that you accused me of intellectual laziness. All of this discussion above is frivolous in comparison to the questions I raised in that post, which question how the above can be used to construct an ethical or political theory.