Objectivism

[WillJ]

From a couple people over the 'net, I've taken a minor interest in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, I suppose mainly because of what it claims to be: objective. When someone claims their entire viewpoint on just about everything, including politics, is entirely objective (not something your average person claims), methinks this warrants further investigation.

Rand had several books on her philosophy published, the most popular being Atlas Shrugged, and I've never read a page of any of them. I'm too lazy to do so, that is until I discover beforehand that Rand is a genius. The Wikipedia article on the subject seems good enough for my purposes, and it's what I'm going to be quoting in this post.

Anyone's welcome to comment on all things Objectivism, particularly any resident Objectivists we may have here. (I know there's at least two....)

Rather, Rand contends that properly formed concepts and values are objective in the sense that they meet the specific needs of the individual human person.

This certainly isn't self-evident, so let's continue...

Objectivism accepts the "primacy of existence" premise and offers in its support the proposition that consciousness is always consciousness of something that is in some way logically prior to the state of consciousness itself.

Objectivism further offers the "primacy of existence" premise, supported by this argument, as a refutation of both theism and idealism. Objectivism grants, of course, that some parts of reality are mental events and mental creations. But if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, Objectivism contends, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental.

---

Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, holding that the mind and body are an integrated whole, neither one of which can exist without the other, and neither of which can be interchanged between persons. Objectivism therefore rejects not only theism and idealism but also materialism, as well as any value judgment that is based upon a dichotomy between mind and body. Objectivism does not propose or favor any particular metaphysical or scientific explanation of the relationship between mind and body.

So mind cannot be reduced to matter, yet it's impossible that mind can exist without matter? How is this so? Sure, I have yet to see some sort of mind functioning without any physical entity behind it, but I don't see how it's completely impossible.

Sensory perception is considered axiomatically "valid", on the grounds that it is self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses as sources of genuine knowledge. (Objectivism argues that such an assertion implicitly relies upon the validity of the senses, since the senses are the only possible source of the alleged knowledge of their invalidity.)

"Valid" in what terms? Surely not valid from an "outsider's" viewpoint (keep in mind the primacy of existence that Objectivism supposedly upholds)? It may be utterly pointless for an individual to completely reject his senses---What else is he going to go by?---but that doesn't mean that his senses are automatically *valid* in an absolute sense.

What about schizophrenic people, after all? What is the proper course of action for an Objectivist schizophrenic? Refuse to take medication from those silly doctors who say his visions and auditory perceptions aren't real? And as soon as you accept that schizophrenics are "wrong," you must accept the possibility of your own perceptions being incorrect. How can you say you are any different?

Not all supposed concepts represent genuine knowledge. In order to constitute knowledge, concepts must be formed validly, in accordance with certain non-arbitrary rules which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. These rules include the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and causality, as well as various principles intended to prevent pseudoconceptual groupings of entities that are not genuinely or relevantly similar.

Where do these supposedly non-arbitrary rules come from? The law of identity, for example: it started this whole epistemological shebang, did it not? Well where did Rand get it from? She couldn't have just pulled it out of Aristotle's butt, right?

And if she did just pull it out of Aristotle's butt, then it seems like she now must confront the regress argument. Is Objectivism a type of foundationalism, with the law of identity, etc. as foundations? If so, then who's to say these foundations are more correct than other philosophy's foundations?

Objectivism also explicitly rejects the analytic-synthetic dichotomy (and, implicitly, the distinction between sense and reference at least as applied to concepts). Objectivism holds that a concept means, or subsumes, all of its referents together with all of their properties, arguing moreover that it is for this very reason that the human mind is able to engage in inductive reasoning. For Objectivism, then, all propositions are "necessary" in a sense: each (true) proposition reduces to a statement of identity, i.e., a statement that an entity is one of the things that in fact it is. For instance, it might be claimed that while the proposition "1+1=2" is "necessary" because true in all possible realities, the proposition "the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1" is "contingent" because not similarly constant across possible worlds. Objectivism would reply that the second proposition is just as "necessary" as the first: if the atomic mass differed, the substance in question would not be hydrogen. Objectivism recognizes no legitimate meaning of "necessity" other than this one.

This way of looking at things only works for true statements; since we humans aren't perfect beings that are right 100% of the time, it is important that distinctions be made between different types of statements. The analytic-synthetic dichotomy obviously wouldn't make any sense if all synthetic statements were certainly true ("true" meaning there are no contradictions, and the synthetic statements align with analytic ones, which are based on observations and assigned classifications), but that's not the case.

A world without the AS dichotomy is one where you can't formulate a classification, and then associate this classification with something else outside of the classification, which is necessary for intellectual advancement. For example, let's say I want to make the claim, "All triangles have three sides." Note that I'm not DEFINING a triangle as something with three sides; rather, my definition is "something with three angles." Thus, in the above claim I am claiming that anything with three angles has three sides, and if someone manages to find something contradictory to this, with the AS dichotomy, they can prove me wrong, and I will gradly recant in the name of mathematical progress. However, without the AS dichotomy, if someone manages to find something with three angles and four sides, they haven't proven me wrong because I can just say, "It's not a triangle!" The statement "All triangles have three sides" thus really has no meaning whatsoever, besides some arbitray classification of mine.

Objectivism offers the foregoing account as the solution of the problem of universals. This problem has throughout the history of philosophy been regarded as a problem of metaphysics, but Objectivism asserts that its proper resolution lies in epistemology. Traditional solutions to the problem divide generally into realism and nominalism. Objectivism regards the first as "intrinsicism" (the view that universals are "intrinsic" to reality) and the second as "subjectivism" (the view that universals are arbitrary creations of the human mind). The proper resolution, Objectivism says, is that universals are concepts, created to meet the unique cognitive needs of the human mind, but objective so long as they are validly formed.

This of course relates to the AS dichotomy thing above.

Any analytic statement is by its nature universal, of course. When a universal synthetic statement is formulated (for example, "All triangles have three sides"), this is actually a significant claim that can be falsified, unlike a universal analytic statement, which is just a classification. And a universal synthetic statement cannot be formed through inductive reasoning alone. (To use the classic example, no matter how many white sheep I see and how long I live my life without seeing a black sheep, I can't say with absolute certainty that there are no black sheep.) And correct me if I'm wrong, but inductive reasoning is how concepts are obtained, according to Objectivism. So then how can a universal be a concept?

["Ethics: rational self-interest" section]

Okay, so valuing reason, etc. may be necessary for our survival as human beings (although that logic seems pretty circular, considering a human is supposedly by definition a reasonable being), but from where does Rand get this worship of "full humans"? What's so special about us?

Objectivism argues that this is not possible under normal circumstances (though it may happen in emergencies).

Well then what about emergencies?

Furthermore, Objectivism holds that physical force is the only kind of force; that is, it holds that physical harm (or threat of physical harm) is the only way a person may be coerced to take an action against his or her will. Therefore, all actions which are taken in the absence of such threats are voluntary according to Objectivism, and, as a result, they are considered to be moral and fair by definition.

And why is that? What's so special about physical force?

In a supposedly "voluntary" transaction, my neighbor and I might agree on a price for my computer, and then I sell it to him. In this transaction, each person evaluates what is best for himself. Now let's say I go to another neighbor, and this time when I sell him another computer of mine I decide to point a gun at him and threaten to shoot him in the foot if he doesn't pay me, say, $2500 for the computer. An Objectivist would be quick to label this "coercive" and "involuntary," and our common sense tells us that this is the case. But when you think about it, why is this really so? Even in this "coercive" scenario, the supposedly coerced person is making his own decision. He didn't HAVE to buy the computer; he wouldn't be breaking the laws of physics if he didn't. He CHOSE to buy the computer and not be shot in the foot (along with receiving a computer). He evaluated the consequences of buying the computer and not buying it. So what makes it involuntary? Perhaps the fact that he had to consider something besides the transaction at hand? Well then what makes the threat of gunfire not part of the transaction, something "extra" that shouldn't be there? Plus, in just about every transaction, there are "outside" things to consider. If I never threatened the neighbor with a gun, but instead the guy had a nagging wife, and he had to worry about what she would think of the computer, and the man decides not to get the computer when he really wants it, is that voluntary? How is it different from threats of physical force? Again, why is physical force in a league of its own?

Also, a thought-provoking scenario: Let's say I'd like to get rid of my computer, and my neighbor wants my computer. I'm not willing to sell it for less than $1250, but my neighbor only values it at $1000. We discuss the issue and can't agree on a price. I'm annoyed by this, so then, each night for the next week, I go right next to the guy's house (making sure I'm not actually on his property), get a megaphone, and yell into it, "HEY BOB, BUY IT FOR $1250! BUY IT! BUY IT! BUY IT NOW!" I repeatedly yell this, preventing the guy from sleeping and making him very, very irritated. Finally he agrees on the price of $1250.

According to the tenets of Objectivism, this transaction was a voluntary one, since no physical force (nor any threats of it) took place.

Then there's psychological abuse. You can replace yelling in the megaphone with insulting the guy, constantly putting him down, spreading embarrassing rumors about him, etc. Why is physical force bad but psychological harm okay?

Oh, and what exactly constitutes physical force in the first place? Theft and fraud are supposedly indirect forms of physical force, although I never figured out how.

On the Objectivist account, the rights of other human beings are not of direct moral import to the agent who respects them; they acquire their moral purchase through an intermediate step. An Objectivist respects the rights of other human beings out of the recognition of the value to himself or herself of living in a world in which the freedom of action of other rational (or potentially rational) human beings is respected.

According to Objectivism, then, one's respect for the rights of others is founded on the value, to oneself, of other persons as actual or potential trading partners. Here is where Objectivism's claim about conflicts of interest attains its full significance: on the Objectivist view, it is precisely because there are no (irresoluble) such conflicts that it is possible for human beings to prosper in a rights-respecting society.

I find it hard to imagine that it's in the best interests for the most powerful to not coervice the less powerful a little, to tilt the slide in their own favor. This is especially true in settings where the less powerful have actually been convinced themselves that they have no infringed-upon rights (an example being feudal Europe). You're telling me that it would have been in the best interests for a lord to give up all the land and property he obtained through force, and instead work for what he obtains, and form a laissez-faire community where everyone else can do the same and be "valuable trading partners"? Yeah, right.

And two closing questions/points:

1) Is whether or not something is in someone's best interests objective (as in it isn't just a matter of opinion)? Should it be determined by the individual? I'm under the impression that the answer to both questions is "yes," which seems contradictory to me. You'd think that if self-interest is objective, you should be able to objectively determine what's in someone else's best interests, and dictate this to them. And if it should be determined by the indvidual, what if someone decides it's in his/her best interests to kill people?

2) see next post

 

[WillJ]

[the above post was too long]

2) Newfangle, a resident Objectivist, in defense of his extremism and rejection of utilitarian comprimises of sorts, has said before that if rights aren't inalienable, they lose all meaning. If the government can take your house at any time, you might as well not have one, for example. To this I ask: What does inalienable mean? Even in a purely capitalist society, crooks still exist, and can certainly alienate your rights. Does that mean it's pointless to own a car, even in a purely capitalist society, because it might get stolen? Why is the government so special? If you want truly inalienable rights, that's impossible.

 

[Quasar1011]

[the above post was too long]

I second that motion!

 

[Aphex_Twin]

An interesting straw-man argument. There are plenty of objectivists out there, shouldn't you have commented on the writings of one of them instead?

Edit: although there are some valid points

 

[luiz]

I never read a single book on Rand, and to be honest I didn't even read your entire post. So I'm in no position to give a proper answer, but anyway I'll try to address your final question with something that I read from Newfangle's posts.

[Keep in mind that I might be wrong here, I have no familiarity at all with the Objectivist philospphy]

According to the Objectivists, human life is what defines what is wrong and what isn't. Everything against human life is also against the best interest of the individuals.
Naturally they acknowledge that there still would be that would commit crimes, under a perfect capitalist society. But Objectivists consider those people as somewhat crazy. And keep in mind that the Objectivist doctrine is against the initiation of force, not all use of force. Therefore, if some guy attempts to steal anuthing, he is no longer protected and can be the target of force, even lethal.

Another interesting point is that Ayn Rand was not an anarcho-capitalist like Rothbard, but rather a extreme minimalist. He believed that government should exist exactly to protect society from those crazy people that do not act in their best interests.

 

[newfangle]

I've read the wiki article and I'm not particularily fond of it, but I am here to offer my quasi-objectivist viewpoint.

Objectivism, spelled with a capitol 'O' denotes the "closed" philosophy as created by Ayn Rand. As far as I can tell, this is its major pitfall.

I am, what you could call, a little 'o' objectivist. Big 'O's hate my guts, incidently. Essentially, I believe in the Primacy of Existence for metaphysics, and the Primacy of Reason for epistemology. This leads me to 95% of the same conclusions as Ayn Rand.

But there are several key differences:
1) Concepts: This epistemic term denotes perceptual evidence converted to abstracts in the human mind. Ayn Rand once said that concepts are open-ended. Point being: no matter how well you define something, its definition is still open to revision. This is not subjectivism, but rather, it remains objective so long as the perceptual evidence is analyzed objectively, ie, no fact of reality is ignored.

I believe that here defining of concepts as "open-ended" directly contradicts her "closed-philosophy." Keep in mind it is only Rand's "intellectual" heirs that define her philosophy as closed. As far as I can tell, these are a bunch of 60-year-old anti-conceptual lonely men who never got to sleep with Rand.

So what do I do? I take reason, and I make sure that every one of my conclusions is justified by reason. I make the claim that this is the true essence of any sort of Objectivism, and my life has been awesomificated because of it.

2) Values: I believe that there are some values formed subjectively. Death-sports would be one such thing. Obviously, if everyone formed values objectively, everyone would have the same values (in the ideal world). I think thats bunk. Not everyone wants to dive balls-first out of an airplane.

3) Free will: I don't believe in it, but rather a form of self-determinism. All my other conclusions remain valid, regardless (after about 6 months of rigorous analysis and the formulation of several papers by close friends of mine).

Now, as for you WillJ, I think it would be beneficial for you to read some of Rand's literature instead of reading only the Wiki article. Obviously, larger bodies of literature offer more supported evidence for the conclusions reached by Rand's reasoning. I particularily enjoy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology because it contains 150 pages of argumentation between Rand and a few professors of Philosophy. You'll find that most of your questions can be answered by simply examining a difference in definitions.

Atlas Shrugged remains the most concise representation of the philosophy. Not only that, but its entertaining to read as well. There is also Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. It is about 400 pages, but his writing is not as clear as Rand's.

As for the specific questions you have, I would recommend simply posting them in the other forum I told you about. They can be just as verbose as you, and they actually enjoy it. Cheers!

 

[newfangle]

Even in a purely capitalist society, crooks still exist, and can certainly alienate your rights. Does that mean it's pointless to own a car, even in a purely capitalist society, because it might get stolen? Why is the government so special? If you want truly inalienable rights, that's impossible.

There is a logical difference between government and crooks (or at least, there should be ).

Consider the difference between "might" get stolen, and "definitely will get stolen because the government has a stranglehood on every single thing ever."

 

[WillJ]

An interesting straw-man argument. There are plenty of objectivists out there, shouldn't you have commented on the writings of one of them instead?

You're probably right; I just assumed the article was an accurate representation/summary of the philosophy.

According to the Objectivists, human life is what defines what is wrong and what isn't. Everything against human life is also against the best interest of the individuals.
Naturally they acknowledge that there still would be that would commit crimes, under a perfect capitalist society. But Objectivists consider those people as somewhat crazy. And keep in mind that the Objectivist doctrine is against the initiation of force, not all use of force. Therefore, if some guy attempts to steal anuthing, he is no longer protected and can be the target of force, even lethal.

Another interesting point is that Ayn Rand was not an anarcho-capitalist like Rothbard, but rather a extreme minimalist. He believed that government should exist exactly to protect society from those crazy people that do not act in their best interests.

But then why not objectively decide that drug use is immoral (after all, it ruins people, and goes against human life in a sense), and then punish the crazy people that use drugs? The only reason I can think of is that a person might find drug use as a source of happiness, and that we shouldn't judge him on this (which would make me wonder what exactly "objective" means). If that's the case, then how's it different from punishing a person who finds happiness from killing people? You might say it's because the murder victim would beg to differ, and that society is rationally acting in self-defense by punishing the perpetrator, but I imagine drug addicts don't truly "want" to be drug addicts, and society would benefit by punishing (or rehabilitating) them so that the drug addicts can become productive members of society.

I've read the wiki article and I'm not particularily fond of it, but I am here to offer my quasi-objectivist viewpoint.

Objectivism, spelled with a capitol 'O' denotes the "closed" philosophy as created by Ayn Rand. As far as I can tell, this is its major pitfall.

I am, what you could call, a little 'o' objectivist. Big 'O's hate my guts, incidently. Essentially, I believe in the Primacy of Existence for metaphysics, and the Primacy of Reason for epistemology. This leads me to 95% of the same conclusions as Ayn Rand.

But there are several key differences:
1) Concepts: This epistemic term denotes perceptual evidence converted to abstracts in the human mind. Ayn Rand once said that concepts are open-ended. Point being: no matter how well you define something, its definition is still open to revision. This is not subjectivism, but rather, it remains objective so long as the perceptual evidence is analyzed objectively, ie, no fact of reality is ignored.

I believe that here defining of concepts as "open-ended" directly contradicts her "closed-philosophy." Keep in mind it is only Rand's "intellectual" heirs that define her philosophy as closed. As far as I can tell, these are a bunch of 60-year-old anti-conceptual lonely men who never got to sleep with Rand.

So what do I do? I take reason, and I make sure that every one of my conclusions is justified by reason. I make the claim that this is the true essence of any sort of Objectivism, and my life has been awesomificated because of it.

2) Values: I believe that there are some values formed subjectively. Death-sports would be one such thing. Obviously, if everyone formed values objectively, everyone would have the same values (in the ideal world). I think thats bunk. Not everyone wants to dive balls-first out of an airplane.

3) Free will: I don't believe in it, but rather a form of self-determinism. All my other conclusions remain valid, regardless (after about 6 months of rigorous analysis and the formulation of several papers by close friends of mine).

Now, as for you WillJ, I think it would be beneficial for you to read some of Rand's literature instead of reading only the Wiki article. Obviously, larger bodies of literature offer more supported evidence for the conclusions reached by Rand's reasoning. I particularily enjoy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology because it contains 150 pages of argumentation between Rand and a few professors of Philosophy. You'll find that most of your questions can be answered by simply examining a difference in definitions.

Atlas Shrugged remains the most concise representation of the philosophy. Not only that, but its entertaining to read as well. There is also Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. It is about 400 pages, but his writing is not as clear as Rand's.

As for the specific questions you have, I would recommend simply posting them in the other forum I told you about. They can be just as verbose as you, and they actually enjoy it. Cheers!

All right, I'll check things out.

There is a logical difference between government and crooks (or at least, there should be ).

Consider the difference between "might" get stolen, and "definitely will get stolen because the government has a stranglehood on every single thing ever."

I would hardly say the American government will definitely take my house, and that there's no reason for me to own it. The chance of it happening is probably much LESS, in fact, than the chance of common crooks stealing my stuff. (And as for taxation, well that's always done by %age, thus there's always a reason to make money.)

Oh, and something I forgot to bring up: how an objective government should be formed. How can its power be kept in check? An objective government has a monopoly of the use of retaliatory force, and is of course quite powerful, and you expect it to not infringe on anyone's rights? How can this be ensured?

 

[newfangle]

How is it ensured currently? I'm operating under the assumption that military is still the most powerful thing in every Western democracy.

When was the last time a Canadian, American, or British general went ape**** and stole a nuclear bomb?

 

[newfangle]

But then why not objectively decide that drug use is immoral (after all, it ruins people, and goes against human life in a sense), and then punish the crazy people that use drugs? The only reason I can think of is that a person might find drug use as a source of happiness, and that we shouldn't judge him on this (which would make me wonder what exactly "objective" means). If that's the case, then how's it different from punishing a person who finds happiness from killing people? You might say it's because the murder victim would beg to differ, and that society is rationally acting in self-defense by punishing the perpetrator, but I imagine drug addicts don't truly "want" to be drug addicts, and society would benefit by punishing (or rehabilitating) them so that the drug addicts can become productive members of society.

Dude? Strawman alert. A drug user can use all the drugs he want. So long as it doesn't harm me, I don't care.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Since we're on topic. I never quite understood the objectivist concept of "propriety".

Does one need to use something in order to own it or simply have to claim it as his own?

I have a gold coin say I own it. If I lose it and someonelse finds it, does he then have posession of it? What if I dropped the coin on the street and if I came back a few hours later I would find it. If someonelse finds the coin before me, does he have a right to "own" it?

 

[WillJ]

Dude? Strawman alert. A drug user can use all the drugs he want. So long as it doesn't harm me, I don't care.

Yes, and what I'm asking is why you care when someone harms someone else, but not when he harms himself.

How is it ensured currently? I'm operating under the assumption that military is still the most powerful thing in every Western democracy.

When was the last time a Canadian, American, or British general went ape**** and stole a nuclear bomb?

I suppose it works through the separation of powers and checks and balances. Nonetheless, there are still powers, ones that regularly infringe on others' rights; I don't see how the individual can reign completely supreme.

 

[newfangle]

Since we're on topic. I never quite understood the objectivist concept of "propriety".

Does one need to use something in order to own it or simply have to claim it as his own?

I have a gold coin say I own it. If I lose it and someonelse finds it, does he then have posession of it? What if I dropped the coin on the street and if I came back a few hours later I would find it. If someonelse finds the coin before me, does he have a right to "own" it?

I don't believe I ever encounted this concept in standard Objectivist literature. But to approach it rationally, the only way you could lay claim to a lost gold coin is to somehow prove that its yours. The instance of theft is a different matter, but if you are the one that loses it and you can't prove its yours, you are basically out of luck.

 

[newfangle]

Yes, and what I'm asking is why you care when someone harms someone else, but not when he harms himself.

Because the person may choose to harm themselve. Someone else does not have that choice. Choice necessitates freedom. (I'm using my definition of choice here, but the common definition suffices as well).

I suppose it works through the separation of powers and checks and balances. Nonetheless, there are still powers, ones that regularly infringe on others' rights; I don't see how the individual can reign completely supreme.

What powers?

 

[cgannon64]

Man, this philosophy takes too damn long to explain.

From what I read in Atlas Shrugged, I think its interesting, just a little extreme.

 

[newfangle]

The biggest problem with trying to present a body of thought is that people automatically flock to the absolute extremes of floating abstractions, before they even begin to look at the foundations. A common example is that when I explain my political view, I'll say something like, "I am a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism because I believe that it is the only system where the rights of an individual are upholded." I'll commonly receive responses such as "what if someone posts a billboard of naked men on a private highway? How are rights being infringed there." Not that I have anything against WillJ's aforementioned example (in fact, I value his highly critical mind), its just that the entire point of capitalism is completely lost.

It becomes a useless semantics debate.

Long ago, I could go on all day about how great my philosophy is, but then I realized that 95% of the time is spend questioning definitions so my opponent and I are speaking the same language.

So my only advice is for someone to do the follow:

1) Estabolish premises.
2) Check for contradictions.
3) Develop your metaphysics.
4) Check for contradictions.
5) Develop your epistemology.
6) Check for contradictions.
7) Develop your ethics.
8) Check for contradictions.
9) Develop your politics.
10) Check for contradictions.
11) Develop your aesthetics.
12) Check for contradictions.

And in that order. Otherwise, its just a waste a time.

 

[WillJ]

Because the person may choose to harm themselve. Someone else does not have that choice. Choice necessitates freedom. (I'm using my definition of choice here, but the common definition suffices as well).

Before I respond to this, I'd like to ask what is meant by "morality" in the following:

Rand's reasoning is that since man's mind and capacity for free will is necessary for morality to exist at all, to take that from him with an immediate threat of force is to prevent and co-opt him from acting morally. Initiation of force is seen by Objectivists as a negation of morality as it precludes choice and freewill by interposing the threat of physical destruction between a man and his desired ends.

What powers?

The people of the government.

"Power," by my definition, is the ability to get what you want; this includes the ability to inflict physical force upon people to your advantage, which of course by Objectivist standards is an undesirable thing. Two things can check power, as I see it: foreign power and personal morals/attitude (which can include being "rational" by Objectivist standards). History has shown that the latter isn't all that effective (What percentage of dictators are benevolent?), so to be the most safe we must ensure the former. The U.S. government does this reasonably well, because for example the power the President has is kept in check by Congress's and the Supreme Court's power, etc. And then there's the Second Ammendment; the government's power is kept somewhat in check by the fact that many citizens are armed themselves.

But things ain't perfect. Power-wise, I don't see how an Objectivist government could be set up and *ensured* to succeed (it may succeed by chance, though). Is it really possible for it to be impossible (or anywhere near it) for people with power (in this case the ability to inflict physical force) to inflict physical force on powerless people, without being punished?

The biggest problem with trying to present a body of thought is that people automatically flock to the absolute extremes of floating abstractions, before they even begin to look at the foundations. A common example is that when I explain my political view, I'll say something like, "I am a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism because I believe that it is the only system where the rights of an individual are upholded." I'll commonly receive responses such as "what if someone posts a billboard of naked men on a private highway? How are rights being infringed there." Not that I have anything against WillJ's aforementioned example (in fact, I value his highly critical mind), its just that the entire point of capitalism is completely lost.

It becomes a useless semantics debate.

Long ago, I could go on all day about how great my philosophy is, but then I realized that 95% of the time is spend questioning definitions so my opponent and I are speaking the same language.

If I'm not mistaken, you like things in black and white, with no room for whimsical, emotional, and personal judgements. That's why I bring up things like billboards of naked obese men, to point out the grey areas that make what you try to do very difficult, but that you must roll up your sleeves and do... either that or give up and just see things as thoughtlessly "good" or "bad" without backing it up through pure reason (like most people).

So my only advice is for someone to do the follow:

1) Estabolish premises.
2) Check for contradictions.
3) Develop your metaphysics.
4) Check for contradictions.
5) Develop your epistemology.
6) Check for contradictions.
7) Develop your ethics.
8) Check for contradictions.
9) Develop your politics.
10) Check for contradictions.
11) Develop your aesthetics.
12) Check for contradictions.

And in that order. Otherwise, its just a waste a time.

What do you mean by "establish premises," and in step 2, with what might contradictions occur?

 

[newfangle]

Before I respond to this, I'd like to ask what is meant by "morality" in the following:

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

I can't seem to find the essay called, "The Objectivist Ethics" online. It is much more comprehensive on the matter.

Is it really possible for it to be impossible (or anywhere near it) for people with power (in this case the ability to inflict physical force) to inflict physical force on powerless people, without being punished?

You seem to think that I've claimed that Objectivists models of government are completely infalliable and will work 100% of the time, and any chance of them not working is zero.

I will never claim such a thing. It is possible for anything to happen. Like you've said yourself, a checks-and-balances system is required. I don't buy the notion that the government would automatically become corrupt. Why would it?

If I'm not mistaken, you like things in black and white, with no room for whimsical, emotional, and personal judgements. That's why I bring up things like billboards of naked obese men, to point out the grey areas that make what you try to do very difficult, but that you must roll up your sleeves and do... either that or give up and just see things as thoughtlessly "good" or "bad" without backing it up through pure reason (like most people).

That would be another strawman. Things are black and white. The three fundamental axioms state that clearly. Working out the kinks in the highest abstract of philosophy (politics) does not mean that its presumptions are incorrect. It simple means that its a high-level abstract. I might not have an answer to the fat naked men, but that in no way affects more fundamental beliefs, ie, man's rights as inalienable.

I can only describe what you're doing as nitpicking. I accept my premises as true, and I let the economists work out the little things. I don't see it as a necessary use of my time. Once again, post at the other forum if you want a detailed answer.

What do you mean by "establish premises," and in step 2, with what might contradictions occur?

I mean: pick your axioms. You may either pick ones with contradictions, or you may not.

 

[WillJ]

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

I can't seem to find the essay called, "The Objectivist Ethics" online. It is much more comprehensive on the matter.

I'm not quite sure how complete "free will" is necessary for that, although I wouldn't expect to, considering I have some more basic kinks to work out.

You seem to think that I've claimed that Objectivists models of government are completely infalliable and will work 100% of the time, and any chance of them not working is zero.

I will never claim such a thing. It is possible for anything to happen. Like you've said yourself, a checks-and-balances system is required. I don't buy the notion that the government would automatically become corrupt. Why would it?

I know you don't think an Objectivist government can be completely certified to function, but I was thinking someone might have come up with a plan on how the power of the government (as a whole; a separation of powers isn't enough, as looking at, say, the American government shows) can be truly limited, besides getting enough people in a democracy convinced that Objectivism is nice. Or, to word it another way, how a sweet elderly lady with no firearms can be certified more power (ideally enough power to protect her life, liberty, and property in any situation) than what her surrounding populace decides to be nice enough to give her.

That would be another strawman. Things are black and white. The three fundamental axioms state that clearly. Working out the kinks in the highest abstract of philosophy (politics) does not mean that its presumptions are incorrect. It simple means that its a high-level abstract. I might not have an answer to the fat naked men, but that in no way affects more fundamental beliefs, ie, man's rights as inalienable.

I can only describe what you're doing as nitpicking. I accept my premises as true, and I let the economists work out the little things. I don't see it as a necessary use of my time. Once again, post at the other forum if you want a detailed answer.

What if these "little problems" turn out to turn the whole system upside-down allowing everyone's life to turn into one big hellhole?

Edit: And I'll post at that other forum soon enough.

I mean: pick your axioms. You may either pick ones with contradictions, or you may not.

So what makes these axioms true? Do you actually think that 12-step plan can guide you to absolute truth?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I've read one Ayn Rand book - ANTHEM - and it looked like a poor version of 1984 from a different perspective.

By FAR my favorite Objectivist is Terry Goodkind, since he writes fantasy books, and his Wizard's First Rule is so true that I sometimes despair of it.