8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

   Ian's statement that objectivism's tenants are a leap of faith; what do you think?  Can you smart kids discuss this so that I can wrap my head around the different opinions on the matter.

[Evil Muppet]

Ayn Rand was a butt ugly baboon. 

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Ian's off base since he's never been able to make a single sentence of his own ideas stick. First and foremost, Randism is based on Aristotleanism, so it can be said to be more or less in league with Thomism and other Aristotle-based philosophical traditions. Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights. Which is why I call myself a Post-Randian/Objectivist

[Rob from AR]

Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights.

I am really pretty new to liberty but I would like to take a stab at the "keen difference between governance and the state" Please, tell me if I am missing something here.

I can see a distinction where a single individual can 'govern' his own personal life, liberty and property to not be exceeded by real opportunities and limitations. I think it is impossible for one individual to inflict coercive action against oneself.

The opposite is true in reference to collectives, 'the state' or 'governance' is by definition an outside force (outside of you personally).  If 'it' acts upon your life, liberty or property against your will, you are being coerced against.

Otherwise you are 'with the force' or a 'voluntary member of the collective' and you are not necessarily being governed but are actually acting in concert with others, these others being referred to as 'state' or 'government.' This applies even if you have arranged to have a directorship over some aspect of your life, liberty or property.  

The moment any collective acts against your life, liberty or property without your consent, you are being coerced against.  

I do not see that human rights are more inherently propagated by collectives than by individuals. In fact, I would argue that on the whole, collectives are historically the greatest enemy of life, liberty and property.  In part, due to their multiplied ability to amass violent power.

~~~My Take~~~

A coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.

I think the best we can arrive at is a non-compulsorily (freely opt-in only) collective of individuals protecting their own and collectively the lives, liberty and property of others.

The only distinction being that this collective must be a collective that you can opt-in or out of without violent force from the other collective members to join or for retribution for leaving the collective.  

An obligatory, compulsorily collective is a group you did not or cannot opt-in or out of.

A "coercive system" cannot possibly be necessary for propagating human rights because a 'coercive system' would be a obligatory collective by it's very definition. Because if the collective dictates that "reality will be this way" and you are forced to reflect that reality, your conformity with the collective makes you a obligatory, compulsorily member and "part of the system."  

Thus, a coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.

Or, maybe I am just sleepy and my mind is fuddled..going to bed...=-)

P. S. I am going to listen to the podcast tomorrow...hehe.

[Alex Libman 15]

Objectivism is based on proven economic observations.

Anarcho-Capitalism isn't.  Yet.

[Terror Australis]

Self government ceases to exist the moment two people or more decide they want your money for themselves.

[TimeLady Victorious]

ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

[Manuel_OKelly]

Ian's argument that Objectivism requires a leap of faith, and therefore isn't true by it's own philosophy simply isn't true. I think he was reacting to the atheism that tends to go along with Objectivism. He says that trusting in only what you perceive around you is a leap of faith. However comparing this to the leap of faith required to believe that an invisible man in the sky created us from his beneficent will, and how do we know this? A feeling, a feeling that we have in all places, our hearts, is a kind of cast iron pot calling the shiny kettle black. In fact objectivists don't even have that much faith in our perception, or rather we realize it has limits. Otherwise why would we use scientific instruments, computers, and other items that enhance our senses? Instead we start on a scale that's much more intellectual then just our perception, we start with logic, that identity A is identity A and if it is True, then it will always be true in context of all of our other concepts, identities, and perceptions (natural or technological). Holding illogical conflicting concepts and wrong precepts (truths that seem self evident) is the ultimate sin morally in Objectivism. If you believe an invisible man lives in the sky forever, that he is beneficent, and that he is all-powerful and all-knowing, then there better not be any unhappiness in the world and no mistakes on his part.

So yes, Ian's argument does not represent an attack on Objectivism, because it would entirely miss the point. It's instead an argument against atheism. (Hopefully without putting words in his mouth) He is saying that because atheists can't prove there isn't a creator, that religions are just as valid as atheism. However, he is not a Christian, Muslim, or even a buddhist. He doesn't believe in any of the thousands of faiths he probably hasn't even had contact with. He fails to realize that he is already an atheist on so many different religions, but true atheists just go one more. If anything that argument only holds for the binary question of whether there is a creator spirit (Yes or No). So I would say Atheism holds 50% of that probability sphere because it doesn't assume a complex set of behavior pleases a diety only that there isn't one, and all the religions share the other 50%. Imagine a gigantic venn diagram, not just three dimensional but multi-dimensional.

[mikehz]

Ian was simply taking a conclusion (reality exists) from a brief article and then ignoring all of the comprehensive arguments leading up to that conclusion. If you do NOT subscribe to the notion of objective reality, then you are a subjectivist, believing instead that realty changes to suit the beliefs of the individual. Once this happens, no further philosophical discussion becomes possible, since anything goes!

An objective reality exists. However, our interpretation of that reality is subjective, and open to many errors. Rand held that reason was the best tool for distinguishing what was true from what was false when describing reality.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

I still want Ian to stand in front of a truck and say it's not real while it runs him over.

[Evil Muppet]

ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

Yes.  So true. 

[fatcat]

Which is why I call myself a Post-Randian/Objectivist

this

[Manuel_OKelly]

ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

Yes.  So true. 

The philosophy she followed strove to be the opposite of that though. She should have had a logical reason for every personal judgement she made. Each judgement should have been morally good in that it was beneficial to her and those she loved. Someone who is self righteous is an asshole because their morality operates outside the norm, often illogically hurting people. However if she was tearing someone down, I think that if you listened to her arguments you might agree with her.

[John Shaw]

Objectivism -

Core
          Metaphysics - Awesome

          Epistemology - Awesome


Secondary
         Ethics - Not the best

         Politics - Kind broken

         Aesthetics - Not too shabby.

[TimeLady Victorious]

ayn rand was a self-righteous cunt

Yes.  So true. 

The philosophy she followed strove to be the opposite of that though. She should have had a logical reason for every personal judgement she made. Each judgement should have been morally good in that it was beneficial to her and those she loved. Someone who is self righteous is an asshole because their morality operates outside the norm, often illogically hurting people. However if she was tearing someone down, I think that if you listened to her arguments you might agree with her.

she and nathaniel branden were the two most moral people on the planet so it was right for her to have an affair with him

totally not like it was all a justification for her to get some young cock