Anti-Objectivism

[DReaver13]

Hi, I am still desperately searching for flaws in objectivism. I have been debating on capitalist paradise for about a month now and they claim that objectivism is infallible.

Please take the time to read the beginnings of my own argument at my website DarkReavers.co.uk (http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/articles_everything.htm).

I have used some ideas put forward by ComradeRed within my theory, and have altered them to fit with my theory, and I must thank him for giving me those ideas in the first place.

My theory is still in the very early stages. I need comments!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Have a look at the thread titled Geist in their Philosophy forum. Anywhere else I would have won the debate but since I don't play by their direct A is A rules I can't particapate.

Objectivism is far from flawless, I'll get you some good sources. Don't worry about it, if objectivism was of any use we would all be Randroids by now.

[DReaver13]

I have read your debate. Well done on there I know it's damn tough to criticize even the smallest of things about their philosophy. Still, if you'd gather some relevant material against objectivism i'd appreciate it, i'm running out of ideas that are from my mind alone, though I have had quite a lot! (as you would see if you browsed the anti-capitalism / philosophy sections of their board.

I call upon everyone here though, to make a collective and focused effort to find every possible argument against objectivism, after all, that's what communism is about isn't it? A combined effort?

C'mon people, let's see what we can come up with!!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Why are you so bothered, objectivism isn't a big movement or anything?

There is hardly a huge Randroid following that can equal the leftist movement.
Objectivism is dismissed by thinking outside of this statement, everything is as it is and the world cannot contradict itself yet man can blah blah blah.

Rand isn't even considered a philosopher by the way, there are no courses on Rand or anything, its a small cultish movement.

[DReaver13]

I see, but I have been arguing and arguing, and still I cannot undermine them. If you suggest "A might not be A" then they ban you etc.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Thats what happened to me although I left because I was c'cival'.

You see the flaw is that they can only argue in one sphere.

In epistomology their entire argument is based on a very shaky foundation of accepting outright that reality is objective and thats it.

[DReaver13]

Yeah you can find flaws outside of their 'sphere', but I want to find flaws within it.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You won't be able to, it's just logic, and if you can't find contradictions then you havent a chance.

The thing is to either show how weak their idea of objective morality is or else questions the extension into economics and politics, thats the weak link.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:07 AM
Hi, I am still desperately searching for flaws in objectivism. I have been debating on capitalist paradise for about a month now and they claim that objectivism is infallible.

Please take the time to read the beginnings of my own argument at my website DarkReavers.co.uk (http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/articles_everything.htm).

I have used some ideas put forward by ComradeRed within my theory, and have altered them to fit with my theory, and I must thank him for giving me those ideas in the first place.

My theory is still in the very early stages. I need comments!
Why waste time debatting morals? It wont lead anywere, cause we and the objectivists are on a totaly different planes. Objectivism is founded on a few moral axioms, not reality. I say, skip debatting objectivism and do something that could accually lead anywere instead.

[DReaver13]

Why waste time debatting morals? It wont lead anywere, cause we and the objectivists are on a totaly different planes. Objectivism is founded on a few moral axioms, not reality. I say, skip debatting objectivism and do something that could accually lead anywere instead.

Since capitalism is founded on objectivism, and capitalism is the direct opposite of communism, what else is there to fight against?

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:42 AM

Since capitalism is founded on objectivism, and capitalism is the direct opposite of communism, what else is there to fight against?
Capitalism is not founded on objectivism. Capitalism was old when Ayn Rand was an infant.

The objectivist dont even now what capitalism is, (look att www.capitalism.org, its prove them to know nothing about capitalism and history) instead of studying reality to determin what capitalism is, they determin what capitalism is after what they like capitalism to be.

And really...objectivism? I dont know if it is popular in the US, but here in Sweden there are like 50 objectivists (if so many) in total, and their "leader" is a 62 years old baby.

Objectivism is like a religion, it is almost impossible to prove them wrong in a debate, just because they wont budge, they have their axioms and those are absolutly truth and cannot be questioned. Only reality will prove them wrong,
until then. Let them continue, it is them who suffer from this, not us.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well said, I think some people get a shock when they first come across Randroids, they come under the impression that they are infallible and that there is actually more than a thousenf of them worldwide.

[DReaver13]

Yes I was quite shocked.

"Randriods" seems quite a fitting term though, since they seem quite emotionless and cold.

Also :

http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/10362.jpeg

Something scares me about her.
Something strikes me as a little inhuman.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

She is an android, she has to be.

[DReaver13]

They are also very unified in their beliefs. Do they think all humans should just be a homogenous lump of robots who trade with eachother? (yet claim to be all about individuality).

They also seem to evade various sciences. They reject Einstein's theory of relativity, and the fact that humans have emotions. They block out these emotions with rationality. "He's dying, but i'm not, so there's no need to feel bad."

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well they do want everybody to be like robots, hence their nickname of Randroids.

They ignore all developments, try some post-modernism on their ideas and watch them dodge or else simply dismiss postmodernism as tripe. Evaders I tell you.

[DReaver13]

I have come across a very good article. It gives me a whole new perspective on the subject.

Shrugging Off Ayn Rand (http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/shrugging.htm)

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:41 PM
Yes I was quite shocked.

"Randriods" seems quite a fitting term though, since they seem quite emotionless and cold.

Also :

http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/10362.jpeg

Something scares me about her.
Something strikes me as a little inhuman.
You know, if you just focus on her face, she looks like a man. (in that picture at least) That could be what it is.

[Monty Cantsin]

join up on geist http://www.talkphilosophy.org/ its pretty good. lots of people to disagree with.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Hehe, nice plug man. But seriously plenty of objectivists for you guys to go at.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I read an interesting book about Libertarianism (most of it applies to Objectivism) recently, I don't remember what it was called but the author made an interesting point.

Their ideology is justified by the supposed existence of "self-evident" rights; liberty, freedom, private property ect. but these "self evident truths" allow them to dismiss things that would also seem self evident. For example Nozic (I think that's his name) claimed that free health care was equivilent to a barber being forced to give haircuts to people based on need rather than ability to pay which is "obviously ridiculous." This example could equaly be used to argue in favour of free haircuts since it's "obviously ridiculous" that people should recieve health care based on ability to pay. The point is that it's a contradiction to use "self evident" rights as a basis to argue against other seemingly "self evident" rights.

P.S. I don't think I explained this very well but the football is about to start so I'm in a hurry.

[DaCuBaN]

Good point! Makes perfect sense to me...
The summary basically is that 'self evident truth' is an oxymoron.