Why is Objectivism Shunned?

[Aphex_Twin]

We could be figments in an aliens' dream. But that doesn't change the fact that there must be an absolute reality.

Why? 10 chars blah blah blah

 

[thestonesfan]

Why? 10 chars blah blah blah

There is no alternative.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I don't think Objectivism is shunned any more than any other religion

But seriously folks, I think a doctrinaire Marxist receives just as dismissive a reception as a doctrinaire Objectivist. Or any other "-ist", but there we see another interesting point: in recent history not many philosophers have sought to create an all-encompassing philosophical system in which each thesis primarily depends on the ones argued before it.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

There is no alternative.

Here's one: An infinite regression of ever expanding "realities", each more encompasing than the previous.

 

[CurtSibling]

If you need someone with a ready-made ideology to 'tell' you how to live, then you are up the latrine with no canoe.

Humans are meant to adapt to each scenario -
Acting like a hardwired android in each instance will lead to discomfort.

...

 

[thestonesfan]

Here's one: An infinite regression of ever expanding "realities", each more encompasing than the previous.

But at any given instant, there is only one state of universal existence. It stands to reason that reality constantly replaces itself in an infinite progression. Absolute reality wouldn't mean "frozen" reality.

Out of curiousity, why do you say "regression" instead of "progression?"

 

[Rhymes]

@stonesfan and Aphextwin: There is one absolute reality, and its the one I can conceive with my senses and brain, everything else is meaningless. How can something exist if it cant be conceived by anything else. Just like the sound of the tree that falls in a distant forest.

 

[thestonesfan]

If you need someone with a ready-made ideology to 'tell' you how to live, then you are up the latrine with no canoe.

Humans are meant to adapt to each scenario -
Acting like a hardwired android in each instance will lead to discomfort.

...

Objectivism doesn't tell anyone how to live. In application to human society, it says "Reason is our only absolute."

 

[thestonesfan]

@stonesfan and Aphextwin: There is one absolute reality, and its the one I can conceive with my senses and brain, everything else is meaningless. How can something exist if it cant be conceived by anything else. Just like the sound of the tree that falls in a distant forest.

Now THAT is egocentricity! By your logic then, there are over 6 billion "absolute realities" on this planet!

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it still falls, or else it wouldn't be falling in a forest. A contradictory statement if there ever was one.

 

[Rhymes]

Now THAT is egocentricity! By your logic then, there are over 6 billion "absolute realities" on this planet!

Indeed, but all those 6 billion realities are pretty similar, we all have the same senses and very similar brains.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it still falls, or else it wouldn't be falling in a forest. A contradictory statement if there ever was one.

That thing is about the sound that the tree makes when it falls. Is there a sound if nobody is there to hear it? My answer is no, a sound only exists in a human (or animal) brain. On the outside world its just air moving in a certain way.

 

[thestonesfan]

Indeed, but all those 6 billion realities are pretty similar, we all have the same senses and very similar brains.

But you just said there was ONE absolute reality - the one you perceive.

That thing is about the sound that the tree makes when it falls. Is there a sound if nobody is there to hear it? My answer is no, a sound only exists in a human (or animal) brain. On the outside world its just air moving in a certain way.

But your point is that if you don't witness it fall, it doesn't happen. My point is that things happen whether you sense them or not.

You clearly know this, so what's the argument?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

But at any given instant, there is only one state of universal existence. It stands to reason that reality constantly replaces itself in an infinite progression. Absolute reality wouldn't mean "frozen" reality.

Well, you have an odd definition of the "absolute". Would you elaborate on it?

"Absolute", as I see it is something general, unchanging, universal. There can't be two absolutes. If you have one idea of the absolute now and tomorrow it will change, you would have had to be "wrong" before. What makes you sure you are not wrong right now?

What I'm saying is that it would be imaginable for the workings of the universe to be "infinitely complicated" (meaning not complicated beyound OUR comprehension, but beyony ANY comprehension), then the concept of an "absolute" reality would be useless.

Out of curiousity, why do you say "regression" instead of "progression?"

Confusion of terms

@stonesfan and Aphextwin: There is one absolute reality, and its the one I can conceive with my senses and brain, everything else is meaningless. How can something exist if it cant be conceived by anything else. Just like the sound of the tree that falls in a distant forest.

If you turn your back to the Moon, the moon does not cease to exist. But if we have our back turned, we can't be 100% sure the moon has not been secretly gauged up by a giant alien spaceship. But we can be prefectly just in not believing more in the non existance of the moon than in it's existance.

 

[Rhymes]

But you just said there was ONE absolute reality - the one you perceive.

Ok I'm gonna try again: there is only one reality for me, there is only one absolute reality for every living being. This has nothing to do with values and feelings, but about the physical reality of the world we live in. What I mean is, if some sort of Matrix bigger world exists, I dont think that it is reality, since we cannot aknowledge its existance. If one day something would happen so that we get a glimpse of a new level of reality, then it will start to exist for those who have acces to the information.
All human being have pretty similar senses and brain, with some exceptions like daltonians, etc. Therefore, our realities are all pretty much the same.

But your point is that if you don't witness it fall, it doesn't happen. My point is that things happen whether you sense them or not.

You clearly know this, so what's the argument?

This is not about the tree falling, but about the sound it makes. The molecules forming the tree will still change places even though no one is there to witness them. But the sound wont exist since a sound only exists through a brain's interpretation.

 

[JohnRM]

If you need someone with a ready-made ideology to 'tell' you how to live, then you are up the latrine with no canoe.

Humans are meant to adapt to each scenario -
Acting like a hardwired android in each instance will lead to discomfort.

...

That is by far the most intelligent thing that I have ever heard on CFC-OT. It shall be honored in my signature.

 

[thestonesfan]

Well, you have an odd definition of the "absolute". Would you elaborate on it?

"Absolute", as I see it is something general, unchanging, universal. There can't be two absolutes. If you have one idea of the absolute now and tomorrow it will change, you would have had to be "wrong" before. What makes you sure you are not wrong right now?

I would call an absolute a universal truth. When I say "Reality is existence" I mean reality is what is. The state of reality doesn't enter into it.

Are saying that in an absolute reality, nothing would ever change?

What I'm saying is that it would be imaginable for the workings of the universe to be "infinitely complicated" (meaning not complicated beyound OUR comprehension, but beyony ANY comprehension), then the concept of an "absolute" reality would be useless.

Yes, that's true. But we have stubborn brains. I doubt we'll ever accept that we would be unable to comprehend the true nature of things.

There's religion for the people who are ready to give up on reason.

 

[thestonesfan]

Ok I'm gonna try again: there is only one reality for me, there is only one absolute reality for every living being. This has nothing to do with values and feelings, but about the physical reality of the world we live in. What I mean is, if some sort of Matrix bigger world exists, I dont think that it is reality, since we cannot aknowledge its existance. If one day something would happen so that we get a glimpse of a new level of reality, then it will start to exist for those who have acces to the information.
All human being have pretty similar senses and brain, with some exceptions like daltonians, etc. Therefore, our realities are all pretty much the same.

So you say something can exist and not be reality? Define "exist" and "reality", please.

This is not about the tree falling, but about the sound it makes. The molecules forming the tree will still change places even though no one is there to witness them. But the sound wont exist since a sound only exists through a brain's interpretation.

Semantics. Nothing about the nature of the tree or the nature of the tree's fall is changed by the presence or absence of an observer.

 

[Adebisi]

I believe one reason, perhaps the main reason, that Objectivism isn't taken seriously (usually ignored, not actually treated with animosity) by academics, is because Rand herself was not an academic. Her major works were best-selling novels, not formal treatises, and she never wrote for the various respected philosophical journals (instead she had her own newsletter). Not to mention that Rand and her close friends formed a very strange cult-like group (one tenet of this group being that "Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived"), and any self-respecting fan of Objectivism must shove this aside. And she's not very well respected among the literary community because her novels were poorly written (or so I've heard).

It seems that your reply got lost in this thread. You are of course right, those are the main reasons that Objectivism is rejected.

I dont like every part of Ayn Rand's philosophy but I still think she deserves some respect. When reading Nietzsche for examples, there's always lots of things I dont agree on. Ayn Rand makes far more valid points IMO.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I would call an absolute a universal truth. When I say "Reality is existence" I mean reality is what is. The state of reality doesn't enter into it.

Well, why must this absolute truth exist? Do you have any shread of "proof"? Is it perhaps some form of "educated guess"? If it's neither then it's Mysticism.

Are saying that in an absolute reality, nothing would ever change?

I would see the absolute as something unchanging. Absolute reality would also be something unchanging, but not in the usual sense (either change over "something" or the degree of change over the degree of change of "something"... - you can make an analogy with mathematical derivates {some forms lead to constants, others don't} )

You didn't answer what would you do if you are wrong (hypothetically speaking ).

Yes, that's true. But we have stubborn brains. I doubt we'll ever accept that we would be unable to comprehend the true nature of things.

There's religion for the people who are ready to give up on reason.

It's not about acceptance or rejection, it's about belief and non-belief. "Working hypotheses" instead of "abolute truths"...

 

[Rhymes]

So you say something can exist and not be reality? Define "exist" and "reality", please.

For me : Existence = anything made out of matter.
Reality = any existing thing that I can or have the potential to interract with.

For me, an existing entity that I cannot interact with isn't part of reality.

Semantics. Nothing about the nature of the tree or the nature of the tree's fall is changed by the presence or absence of an observer.

But do you agree that without an observer, the sound doesn't exist? Without vision, our concept of the tree doesn't exist either, there is only a bunch of molecules interracting with each other.
(Just realised that the use of the word exist in this sentence doesn't have the same meaning as my definition, but you get what I mean.......)

 

[newfangle]

@newfangle

Do you define yourself as an Objectivist or objectivist. From what I can tell, the latter is a weak/negative version of the first.

Well, I hate semantics but here it is: Objectivism refers specifically to the philosophy as dictated by Rand. There are no deviations or weak versions. You simply are an Oist, or are not.

I, of course, am not. I think "o"bjectivist generally refers to people that have agreed with most of it, but have deviated in some way. I tend to regard it as an unabashed pursuit of truth. As such, if you were to argue about say, an alternative to objective reality, I'd be happy to hear you out. I'm not concerned about dogma of any sort, but rather what I can do to maximise knowledge and understanding.

I've personally came to the realization that it's an OK philosophy, and perhaps more honest than most (the "o" variant at least).

According to my definition of "o" variant, its perhaps the most honest philosophy.

Perhaps you care to re-state your premises (as I have a feeling they have changed a bit over time)...

My premises remain much the same, the only difference being an openess to other premises. To be honest I've been so busy with school that philosophy has become a rare pastime for me.

Cheers.