Objectivists?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:37 am

Iambiguous,

You had been accusing me of being an 'objectivist' regularly then off, on, off ...
I am NOT an objectivist [philosophical].

What is your definition of an objectivist?

Here is a list of 'objectivist' standpoint;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism

Objectivism, or Objectivist, may refer to:
Any standpoint that stresses objectivity, including:

Objectivity (philosophy), the conviction that reality is mind-independent

Logical objectivism, the conviction that the rules of logic are mind-independent
Moral objectivism, the view that some ethics are absolute

Objectivism (Ayn Rand), a philosophical system created by Ayn Rand that declares real knowledge to be metaphysically objective

The Objectivist movement, a movement formed by followers and students of Rand's philosophy

The Objectivist Party, an American political party espousing Rand's philosophy

The Objectivism (poetry), a group of Modernist writers who emerged in the 1930s


Any one has views on the above, i.e. who is an objectivist.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:48 am

Everyone is an objectivist to him. He thinks that if you have an opinion about something and you state it without qualifying it as just your opinion, that you're an objectivist. He feels that it's a certainty that the answer to any given question is entangled in personal politics and opinions and that any judgement of what's right or wrong is only valid within the context of someone's personal view, and that all personal views are equal.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25202
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:55 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Any one has views on the above, i.e. who is an objectivist.
He means that you believe you can objectively determine Good and Bad, moral and immoral, ethical and not ethical.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivists?

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:38 pm

One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition of objectivist better than most.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10631
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:16 pm

phyllo wrote:One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition of objectivist better than most.

Yes, though I can see where he has been misled by the term. Iambiguous uses it his own way. On the other hand he does explain what he means, over and over, and I noticed that Prismatic would say he was not an objectivist, while clearly taking objectivist stands in response to Iambiguous. And yes, his moral judgments are rampant.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:17 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition of objectivist better than most.

Yes, though I can see where he has been misled by the term. Iambiguous uses it his own way. On the other hand he does explain what he means, over and over, and I noticed that Prismatic would say he was not an objectivist, while clearly taking objectivist stands in response to Iambiguous. And yes, his moral judgments are rampant.


The only objectivist that is to considered for philosophical deliberation is this one;

Objectivity (philosophy), the conviction that reality is mind-independent


I have never agreed reality is mind-independent. Therefore I cannot be an objectivist in the philosophical sense.

I think Iambiguous should explain clearly what he meant by 'objectivist' other than in the general philosophical sense.

As for morality, I do not deal with objective moral laws on a ontological basis but merely introduced them with justifications and groundings as a guide.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:01 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:The only objectivist that is to considered for philosophical deliberation is this one;

Objectivity (philosophy), the conviction that reality is mind-independent


As I said above, he uses it in a specific way. He makes it pretty clear what he means. Are you an objectivist in Iambiguous' sense of the term?

And notice that when saying The only objectivist that is to considered for philosophical deliberation is this one;
you are implicitly saying there is a mind independent reality.


I have never agreed reality is mind-independent. Therefore I cannot be an objectivist in the philosophical sense.
There are a few philosophical senses of the term. His is a shorthand for objective moralist.

I think Iambiguous should explain clearly what he meant by 'objectivist' other than in the general philosophical sense.
My God, if anyone has repeatedly explained what they mean by a term, he has done this. I also did it in my first post in this thread. Someone who believes one can, or they can at least, determine what is objectively good and moral.

As for morality, I do not deal with objective moral laws on a ontological basis but merely introduced them with justifications and groundings as a guide.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:35 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Iambiguous,

You had been accusing me of being an 'objectivist' regularly then off, on, off ...
I am NOT an objectivist [philosophical].

What is your definition of an objectivist?


See, there's the problem right there. You want a definition. And, sure, for some words a definition works fine. After all, the word being defined encompasses an objective thing and the definition simply tells us what that thing is.

And it is that thing for all of us. The most common example being "bachelor". A bachelor is defined as what he in fact is, an unmarried man.

But "objectivism" as it pertains to value judgments in the is/ought world is [from my point of view] less amenable to definition. Instead, I try to impart what it means to me as an existential contraption.

This:

An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].

The font for this sort of thinking being embedded in one or another God, Reason, ideology, deontology and/or nature.

And, as Phyllo notes above, "One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition meaning of objectivist better than most."

Okay, you demur. How so?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:50 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:Everyone is an objectivist to him. He thinks that if you have an opinion about something and you state it without qualifying it as just your opinion, that you're an objectivist. He feels that it's a certainty that the answer to any given question is entangled in personal politics and opinions and that any judgement of what's right or wrong is only valid within the context of someone's personal view, and that all personal views are equal.


Once again Mr "What Are You Doing?" Reasonable pops into a thread in order to "nail" me.

To note that he utterly misconstrues my own understanding of these relationships is ever and always beside the point. Or so it seems.

Indeed, let him choose a set of behaviors in which there are conflicting moral/political narratives, and we can discuss our respective takes on "objectivism" more, say, substantively?

Now watch him disappear from the thread altogether. Or will this actually be the exception?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:14 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Iambiguous,

You had been accusing me of being an 'objectivist' regularly then off, on, off ...
I am NOT an objectivist [philosophical].

What is your definition of an objectivist?


See, there's the problem right there. You want a definition. And, sure, for some words a definition works fine. After all, the word being defined encompasses an objective thing and the definition simply tells us what that thing is.

And it is that thing for all of us. The most common example being "bachelor". A bachelor is defined as what he in fact is, an unmarried man.

But "objectivism" as it pertains to value judgments in the is/ought world is [from my point of view] less amenable to definition. Instead, I try to impart what it means to me as an existential contraption.

This:

An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].

The font for this sort of thinking being embedded in one or another God, Reason, ideology, deontology and/or nature.

And, as Phyllo notes above, "One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition meaning of objectivist better than most."

Okay, you demur. How so?

Btw, one is insulting one's own intelligence if one merely go with the mob [Phyllo and others] without applying rational and critical thinking.

If you do not give any specific definition for a term, then the default meaning is the typical and common definition.
Since we are in a philosophical forum, the normal understood definitions of objectivity and objectivist are these;

Objectivity [objectivist] is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. -wiki


Objectivity (philosophy), the conviction that reality is mind-independent. -wiki


The next meaning of objectivist is this one;

Objectivism's [objectivist] [(Ayn Rand)] central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally. -wiki


The first one above is the generally understood meaning of 'objectivist' and if your intention is the second, then you need to qualify.

I can understand one can always create a term and provide a definition for it. If you want to do so, you should at least maintain some intellectual integrity and reasonableness.

But in your case, your meaning [below] of an "objectivist" is way off from the above typical definition within the philosophical community.

    Iambiguous:An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a [b]clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].[/b]

In fact what you are describing is that of a "dualist" and dualism in general, and in particular to the above, moral dualism;

Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two")[1] denotes the state of two parts. The term dualism was originally coined to denote co-eternal[clarification needed] binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been more generalized in other usages to indicate a system which contains two essential parts. -wiki


Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented.


I rely on the concept of 'dualism' depending on the contexts. In most cases in connection with dualistic elements, I always refer to the term 'complementarity' and 'continuum' to reconcile two extremes.

However there is no way I am an objectivist as per the above typical definitions within the philosophical community.

As for your definition of 'what is an objectivist', it is way off from the typical definition. I suggest you abandon such a term for your purpose as above.

If I am not mistaken I think Barrett did say something about 'objective' which is not in his favor - I have to read his book again.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:13 am

iambiguous wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:Everyone is an objectivist to him. He thinks that if you have an opinion about something and you state it without qualifying it as just your opinion, that you're an objectivist. He feels that it's a certainty that the answer to any given question is entangled in personal politics and opinions and that any judgement of what's right or wrong is only valid within the context of someone's personal view, and that all personal views are equal.


Once again Mr "What Are You Doing?" Reasonable pops into a thread in order to "nail" me.

To note that he utterly misconstrues my own understanding of these relationships is ever and always beside the point. Or so it seems.

Indeed, let him choose a set of behaviors in which there are conflicting moral/political narratives, and we can discuss our respective takes on "objectivism" more, say, substantively?

Now watch him disappear from the thread altogether. Or will this actually be the exception?


Iambiguous, we meet again (objective)

Is it good or bad to say that it's objective to say that we meet again?

Thus you lose.

Seriously ... this is my post for all of ILP forever to iambiguous ...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Concordant v2 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:26 am

I'm a little confused. It sounds like Iambigous could be defined as an objectivist. It also seems (to me) that one could have an objectivist thought process on one topic and utilize a different thought mechanism on another. Life is fluid and so are opinions. There doesn't need to be an over riding concept of interpretation when dealing with these types of ideas. Ill read through the comments again. Maybe Ill come to a different conclusion.
Concordant v2
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:22 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:48 am

iambiguous wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:Everyone is an objectivist to him. He thinks that if you have an opinion about something and you state it without qualifying it as just your opinion, that you're an objectivist. He feels that it's a certainty that the answer to any given question is entangled in personal politics and opinions and that any judgement of what's right or wrong is only valid within the context of someone's personal view, and that all personal views are equal.


Once again Mr "What Are You Doing?" Reasonable pops into a thread in order to "nail" me.

To note that he utterly misconstrues my own understanding of these relationships is ever and always beside the point. Or so it seems.

Indeed, let him choose a set of behaviors in which there are conflicting moral/political narratives, and we can discuss our respective takes on "objectivism" more, say, substantively?

Now watch him disappear from the thread altogether. Or will this actually be the exception?


I think the exception occurs on the rare occasion that someone actually continues talking to you.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25202
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:07 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:Everyone is an objectivist to him. He thinks that if you have an opinion about something and you state it without qualifying it as just your opinion, that you're an objectivist. He feels that it's a certainty that the answer to any given question is entangled in personal politics and opinions and that any judgement of what's right or wrong is only valid within the context of someone's personal view, and that all personal views are equal.


Once again Mr "What Are You Doing?" Reasonable pops into a thread in order to "nail" me.

To note that he utterly misconstrues my own understanding of these relationships is ever and always beside the point. Or so it seems.

Indeed, let him choose a set of behaviors in which there are conflicting moral/political narratives, and we can discuss our respective takes on "objectivism" more, say, substantively?

Now watch him disappear from the thread altogether. Or will this actually be the exception?


I think the exception occurs on the rare occasion that someone actually continues talking to you.


Note to others:

I'll let you decide...

Does this or does this not constitute a substantive contribution to the discussion of objectivism.

Now watch him disappear from the thread altogether.

You know, if we're lucky. :lol: :wink: :lol: :wink: :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:54 am

I think that I characterized your view all too well and that now you're butthurt about it and will revert back to your autistic repeating of yourself.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25202
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:57 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:I think the exception occurs on the rare occasion that someone actually continues talking to you.
I agree with you on this.
After a few posts it is so obvious most people will note Iambiguous is caught in a very strong whirlpool [mental] and the most smart move is to give up.

In this particular whirlpool, I see some light for Iambiguous to get out, thus the continual postings but there is no way I will jump into the water to get him out. Rather I have been suggesting to Iambiguous use his own effort take a deep breath feel the weak spot of the whirlpool itself where one can swim off at a tangent.

Jump to 22:00 onwards
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:If you do not give any specific definition for a term, then the default meaning is the typical and common definition.

He did this in response to you at least once and I think more than that. I gave a fair shorthand description in this thread. You are now informed about how he uses to term. You could then answer him if you are an objectivist in his sense of the term.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:33 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:If you do not give any specific definition for a term, then the default meaning is the typical and common definition.

He did this in response to you at least once and I think more than that. I gave a fair shorthand description in this thread. You are now informed about how he uses to term. You could then answer him if you are an objectivist in his sense of the term.
I do not agree with his definition of 'objectivist', i.e.

    Iambiguous: An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].

The above is a wrong definition of 'what is objectivist' within philosophy, note my point:
In fact what you are describing is that of a "dualist" and dualism-in-general, and in particular to the above, moral dualism;


I am not a philosophical objectivist.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:44 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:If you do not give any specific definition for a term, then the default meaning is the typical and common definition.

He did this in response to you at least once and I think more than that. I gave a fair shorthand description in this thread. You are now informed about how he uses to term. You could then answer him if you are an objectivist in his sense of the term.
I do not agree with his definition of 'objectivist', i.e.

    Iambiguous: An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].

The above is a wrong definition of 'what is objectivist' within philosophy, note my point:
In fact what you are describing is that of a "dualist" and dualism-in-general, and in particular to the above, moral dualism;


I am not a philosophical objectivist.
Yes, I agree with your sense of the common usage of the term in philosophy. Peachy keen. I obviously understood that, that is a dead horse. I was saying, now you know, he has already told you, his threads which you participated in explain it nearly ad infinitum. In any case, now you know what he means. So you can then answer the question of whether you believe there are objective morals, that one can determine what is good/moral behavior and what is not objectively or do you believe it is all subjective or that in any case there is no way to know?
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:59 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].

The font for this sort of thinking being embedded in one or another God, Reason, ideology, deontology and/or nature.

And, as Phyllo notes above, "One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition meaning of objectivist better than most."

Okay, you demur. How so?


Btw, one is insulting one's own intelligence if one merely go with the mob [Phyllo and others] without applying rational and critical thinking.

If you do not give any specific definition for a term, then the default meaning is the typical and common definition.


Okay, but more to the point [mine] you completely ignore [yet again] the opportunity to explain to us how, given my own understanding of objectivist above, you are not one of them. Instead [as per usual], you yank the discussion straight back up onto the skyhooks.

Technically, in other words, my meaning is not in sync with what Will Durant's "epistemologists" regard as the one and the only correct manner in which to define the word.

That way you can avoid altogether bringing any of this "serious philosophy" out into the world of actual human interactions.

Prismatic567 wrote: Since we are in a philosophical forum, the normal understood definitions of objectivity and objectivist are these;

Objectivity [objectivist] is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. -wiki


Consider:

Joan had an abortion. And this is true despite any particular "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of sentient subjects". There are no "one of us" folks who merely believe that she had an abortion, and "one of them" folks who merely believe that she had not. Instead, it is able to be demonstrated that in fact she had an abortion.

Now, all you have to do here is to shift the discussion from the fact of the abortion in the either/or world to the morality of the abortion in the is/ought world.

So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral? And are there or are there not folks in the "one of us" crowd who will insist that it is moral and folks in the "one of them" crowd who will insist it is immoral?

And, sure, perhaps, as it pertains to the either/or world, there is only one answer that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to share.

Here, however, all I can do is to note the extent to which, when I consider the conflicting goods, I become entangled in my dilemma. And then to ask those who insist that, morally, it is either one or the other, to explain to me how they are not entangled in it. Here and now. Not in some distant furture.

Instead, for you, it is straight back up into the epistemological stratosphere of "dualism".

Yet another term to define to those folks outside the abortion clinic.
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:08 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:I think that I characterized your view all too well and that now you're butthurt about it and will revert back to your autistic repeating of yourself.


Well, I was wrong. He didn't disappear from the thread altogether. Instead, he has been reduced down [yet again] to retorting. To huffing and puffing. To name-calling.

And in the philosophy forum no less!

Still, if he's not embarrassed when I point this out, I'm not embarrassed to keep doing so. :banana-linedance:

[note to mr reasonable:
perhaps it might be less embarrassing for you if you did leave the thread]
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:02 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
An objectivist is someone who argues that right and wrong, good and bad behaviors can be differentiated such that a clear distinction can be made between "one of us" [who behave rationally and morally] and "one of them" [who behave irrationally and immorally].

The font for this sort of thinking being embedded in one or another God, Reason, ideology, deontology and/or nature.

And, as Phyllo notes above, "One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig's definition meaning of objectivist better than most."

Okay, you demur. How so?


Btw, one is insulting one's own intelligence if one merely go with the mob [Phyllo and others] without applying rational and critical thinking.

If you do not give any specific definition for a term, then the default meaning is the typical and common definition.


Okay, but more to the point [mine] you completely ignore [yet again] the opportunity to explain to us how, given my own understanding of objectivist above, you are not one of them. Instead [as per usual], you yank the discussion straight back up onto the skyhooks.

Technically, in other words, my meaning is not in sync with what Will Durant's "epistemologists" regard as the one and the only correct manner in which to define the word.

That way you can avoid altogether bringing any of this "serious philosophy" out into the world of actual human interactions.
I have already explained many times why I am not a philosophical objectivist.

Note the definition of a philosophical objectivist in relation to philosophical objectivity;

"Objectivity (philosophy), the conviction that reality is mind-independent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism

I don't believe that reality is mind-independent, therefore I am not an objectivist.
I believe reality is mind-interdependent to the extent the mind is the co-creator of reality.

Also, note the other associated definition of philosophical objectivist below.

Prismatic567 wrote: Since we are in a philosophical forum, the normal understood definitions of objectivity and objectivist are these;

Objectivity [objectivist] is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. -wiki


Consider:

Joan had an abortion. And this is true despite any particular "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of sentient subjects". There are no "one of us" folks who merely believe that she had an abortion, and "one of them" folks who merely believe that she had not. Instead, it is able to be demonstrated that in fact she had an abortion.

Now, all you have to do here is to shift the discussion from the fact of the abortion in the either/or world to the morality of the abortion in the is/ought world.

So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral? And are there or are there not folks in the "one of us" crowd who will insist that it is moral and folks in the "one of them" crowd who will insist it is immoral?

And, sure, perhaps, as it pertains to the either/or world, there is only one answer that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to share.

Here, however, all I can do is to note the extent to which, when I consider the conflicting goods, I become entangled in my dilemma. And then to ask those who insist that, morally, it is either one or the other, to explain to me how they are not entangled in it. Here and now. Not in some distant furture.

Instead, for you, it is straight back up into the epistemological stratosphere of "dualism".

Yet another term to define to those folks outside the abortion clinic.


You seem to be stuck in only this;
Ambiguous: So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral?

Have you wonder the possibility of a position that is indifferent to the above either/or stance, i.e. the Middle-Way?
In this case one do not 'cling' to a position of either abortion is moral, or abortion is immoral.
This does not mean the person pretend the 'decision to abort or not to abort' do not exist at present. In a situation [at present, not future] where a 'decision to abort or not to abort' arises, the person will act optimally and depending on the whole conditions, the person will accept whatever is the optimal position without any moral guilt.

The reality is, at present there are the pro-life and the pro-choice groups and each is dogmatically [psychologically] stuck with their beliefs. As with Heidegger, these respective groups are thrown into and emerged out of their own and collective history. To change them for the better one will have to deconstruct their history and reconstruct their psyche so they can act effectively.

While at present most humans has to weigh the 'decision to abort or not to abort' what I proposed [in some other posts] for the future is a Framework and System to ensure there is Zero abortion. If there is any rare situation where abortion has to be done, it will not be an issue to any one and the public.

In this particular dilemma, I suggest you shift [if you can or force yourself] into a higher and more efficient gear of complementarity and set aside to free yourself psychologically from the hardcore dualistic either/or and is/ought world.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:27 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:You seem to be stuck in only this;
Ambiguous: So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral?

Have you wonder the possibility of a position that is indifferent to the above either/or stance, i.e. the Middle-Way?


Indeed. Can we come to a conclusion about the rightness or the wrongness of any particular abortion in the way that we can come to a conclusion about whether the abortion actually did in fact occur.

You seem of the opinion [belief] that we can. How? By accepting all of the asumptions that you make in one or another of your intellectual contraptions. And then "in the future" rational men and women will have either embraced them and abortion will no longer exist as a problem or fools will still think like I and others do and the war will rage on.

Hell, there may not even be the need for abortion at all "in the future".

Sorry, given that you make almost no attempt to really address the points I raise here...

Joan had an abortion. And this is true despite any particular "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of sentient subjects". There are no "one of us" folks who merely believe that she had an abortion, and "one of them" folks who merely believe that she had not. Instead, it is able to be demonstrated that in fact she had an abortion.

Now, all you have to do here is to shift the discussion from the fact of the abortion in the either/or world to the morality of the abortion in the is/ought world.

So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral? And are there or are there not folks in the "one of us" crowd who will insist that it is moral and folks in the "one of them" crowd who will insist it is immoral?

And, sure, perhaps, as it pertains to the either/or world, there is only one answer that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to share.

Here, however, all I can do is to note the extent to which, when I consider the conflicting goods, I become entangled in my dilemma. And then to ask those who insist that, morally, it is either one or the other, to explain to me how they are not entangled in it. Here and now. Not in some distant future.


...that's as close as I can come to figuring out what it is exactly that you are arguing.

Prismatic567 wrote:The reality is, at present there are the pro-life and the pro-choice groups and each is dogmatically [psychologically] stuck with their beliefs. As with Heidegger, these respective groups are thrown into and emerged out of their own and collective history. To change them for the better one will have to deconstruct their history and reconstruct their psyche so they can act effectively.


Well, another possible reality is that you are just as dogmatically insistent that how you view all of this is the optimal or the only rational manner in which it can be viewed. That, for psychological comfort and consolation, it is important to you to believe that you have pinned this all down "epistemologically". And that these intellectual assumptions of yours are now totally in sync with that which you construe to be "effective".

And only when I [and others] are willing to "shift" into a higher gear [yours] is there any hope that we might become effective too.

Unless of course you're wrong.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:13 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:You seem to be stuck in only this;
Ambiguous: So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral?

Have you wonder the possibility of a position that is indifferent to the above either/or stance, i.e. the Middle-Way?


Indeed. Can we come to a conclusion about the rightness or the wrongness of any particular abortion in the way that we can come to a conclusion about whether the abortion actually did in fact occur.
Unless you are thinking in some strange perspectives, the question of whether abortion did in fact occur can be objectively determined, i.e.
    1. Pregnancy is proven medically
    2. The pregnant person deliberately took steps to get rid of her pregnancy.
    3. Subsequently it is medically proven, the women is no more pregnant.

In the above case it is confirmed medically/scientifically an abortion had occurred.

As for 'the rightness or the wrongness of any particular abortion' this is a subjective matter since it is a matter of individual[s] beliefs as such we cannot impose any objective absolute ruling on whether abortion is absolutely right or wrong. Even if laws that abortion is illegal is imposed, such laws cannot prevent abortion from happening 'underground'.

This is why I am suggesting we philosophize on the issue to find solutions that will prevent unwanted pregnancies from arising at source. Why are you against this?

You seem of the opinion [belief] that we can. How? By accepting all of the assumptions that you make in one or another of your intellectual contraptions. And then "in the future" rational men and women will have either embraced them and abortion will no longer exist as a problem or fools will still think like I and others do and the war will rage on.
Hell, there may not even be the need for abortion at all "in the future".
Note I am not a fool who is banking on blind optimism.
As I had stated I am forecasting based on positive trends that had stretched throughout the history of mankind and based on such a trend what is hoped is likely to actualize in various degrees in the future.

I stated we can forecast with optimism we can prevent unwanted pregnancies with the Vision - Zero Abortion! [in 50, 75. 100 or > years] and humanity will take all the necessary steps to achieve such a vision.
This is like Kennedy's vision - "humans can step on the moon within X years" and humans has achieved that.
A vision of 'Zero Unwanted Pregnancies' is tougher but not impossible.
Point is we must deliberate plans and implementation from now toward the future to achieve that vision.

Your problem as I had stated is your knowledge base is too narrow and shallow and that include knowledge of your own self. If you don't improve on this, the credibility of your views will be very low and unfortunate for that you will suffer mentally for it.

Sorry, given that you make almost no attempt to really address the points I raise here...

Joan had an abortion.
And this is true despite any particular "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of sentient subjects". There are no "one of us" folks who merely believe that she had an abortion, and "one of them" folks who merely believe that she had not. Instead, it is able to be demonstrated that in fact she had an abortion.
If it is a fact she has an abortion, what is the issue then? Shun, punish or kill her??
As I had stated this is a spilt milk scenario so why cry over spilt milk.
If this is a case, then this is no more an abortion problem, but a spilt milk problem.
Those who want to cry over spilt milk should be advised to see a psychologist to deal with particular problem and not the problem of abortion.

Now, all you have to do here is to shift the discussion from the fact of the abortion in the either/or world to the morality of the abortion in the is/ought world.
To be effectively philosophically I have to shift from the crying-over-spilt-milk to the morality issue re abortion to a Zero Abortion vision in the future so there is no opportunity for anyone to cry over spilt-milk related to the issue of abortion.
This shift is a wiser move than brooding and ruminating on spilt milk.

So, in the is/ought world, is the abortion in fact moral or in fact immoral? And are there or are there not folks in the "one of us" crowd who will insist that it is moral and folks in the "one of them" crowd who will insist it is immoral?
The reality is there will be groups of people who belief abortion is immoral while other groups will agree with abortion [not because they think it is moral] within various degrees of justifications.

Because there is always dualism [pro or against] within human nature, it will be difficult to expect ALL humans to agree to either abortion is immoral or permissible. Therefore the more optimal and effective solution is prevention of unwanted pregnancies through various very effective means which are possible in the future.

And, sure, perhaps, as it pertains to the either/or world, there is only one answer that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to share.
Btw, are you familiar with lateral thinking [Edward De Bono] which is different from the either/or vertical thinking.
Note my proposal to shift from either/or abortion is right or wrong to a vision of no unwanted pregnancies - so no issue of abortion in the future which is very possible given the existing trends.

Here, however, all I can do is to note the extent to which, when I consider the conflicting goods, I become entangled in my dilemma. And then to ask those who insist that, morally, it is either one or the other, to explain to me how they are not entangled in it. Here and now. Not in some distant future.

...that's as close as I can come to figuring out what it is exactly that you are arguing.
Note the following scenario re abortion.

1. Decision to Abort or Not
An individual pregnant person, couple, the spouse alone, the family, relative are deliberating on whether a pregnant women should or should not go for an abortion.
This is a very difficult situation because all parties are embedded with very diverse psychological states. Some will agree and some will not agree to the abortion proposal.
So the final act will depend on the might of the authority [law], influence of the kins, society, religion, etc.
Or the pregnant women may just decide herself and do the abortion secretly on her own.
The fact is on the whole within humanity, there will be abortions [legal and illegal].

Because the psychology underlying the abortion issue to so complicated and complex, the optimal solution is to take the direction of a vision -"Zero Unwanted Pregnancy within X Years"

2. Abortion is Performed
If the abortion is already done [legally or illegally] it is already a spilt-milk situation.
Anyone [including the one who had the abortion] who cry over a spilt-milk situation is philosophically and psychologically immatured.
If this is a persistent problem the person should consult a psychologist or other means to psycho-analyze the dilemma.

3. Deliberating the Morality of Abortion
Even if a person has been involved in 1 or 2 above, the issue of deliberating the Morality of Abortion should be an independent issue of morality i.e. Philosophy of Morality.
There will be various views on abortion, i.e. pro-life or pro-choice.
But the optimal solution to the above has to be the prevention of unwanted pregnancies so there is no issue of abortion.


Prismatic567 wrote:The reality is, at present there are the pro-life and the pro-choice groups and each is dogmatically [psychologically] stuck with their beliefs. As with Heidegger, these respective groups are thrown into and emerged out of their own and collective history. To change them for the better one will have to deconstruct their history and reconstruct their psyche so they can act effectively.


Well, another possible reality is that you are just as dogmatically insistent that how you view all of this is the optimal or the only rational manner in which it can be viewed. That, for psychological comfort and consolation, it is important to you to believe that you have pinned this all down "epistemologically". And that these intellectual assumptions of yours are now totally in sync with that which you construe to be "effective".

And only when I [and others] are willing to "shift" into a higher gear [yours] is there any hope that we might become effective too.

Unless of course you're wrong.
From my perspective re what you have posted the difference between you are me is your views are based on a database that is too shallow and narrow.

It may be possible what I posted is related to psychological comfort and consolation but what I have posted, it is evident my views are based on much wider and deeper database than yours.

Btw, my motivation of my posting on this issue is not to push my views [my focus is on God is an Impossibility and the Evil of I-s-l-a-m]. Why I am posting is because of some degree of empathy for your dilemma with an opportunity to refresh some philosophical knowledge. If you think I am pushing my views for my personal psychological reasons, then I will stop posting [actually I am trying hard to extricate my self from your lost cause discussion].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:37 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Indeed. Can we come to a conclusion about the rightness or the wrongness of any particular abortion in the way that we can come to a conclusion about whether the abortion actually did in fact occur.

Unless you are thinking in some strange perspectives, the question of whether abortion did in fact occur can be objectively determined, i.e.
    1. Pregnancy is proven medically
    2. The pregnant person deliberately took steps to get rid of her pregnancy.
    3. Subsequently it is medically proven, the women is no more pregnant.

In the above case it is confirmed medically/scientifically an abortion had occurred.


That's precisely my point of course. A particular abortion can either be demonstrated to have in fact occured or it cannot. Things get tricky here only when we factor in the possibility of a reality embedded in a Sim world or in some demonic cartesen dream. Or in solipsism of some sort.

Still, even the fact of an abortion may not be demonstrable. Jane may have become pregnant, told no one and induced the abortion herself. Thus even regarding the either/or world, a God must be invented. Only He is omniscient. Nothing escapes him. But then here we stumble into the conundrum that revolves around squaring an omniscient God with human autonomy.

Prismatic567 wrote: As for 'the rightness or the wrongness of any particular abortion' this is a subjective matter since it is a matter of individual[s] beliefs as such we cannot impose any objective absolute ruling on whether abortion is absolutely right or wrong. Even if laws that abortion is illegal is imposed, such laws cannot prevent abortion from happening 'underground'.

This is why I am suggesting we philosophize on the issue to find solutions that will prevent unwanted pregnancies from arising at source. Why are you against this?


Yes, if, "in the future" we come up with a way to eliminate all unwanted pregnancies, there would be no conflicting goods.

That still leaves your philosophical constructs "here and now" able to demonstrate how we might possibly get to there from here. In other words, aside from it all being crystal clear "in your head".

But let me get this straight...

Are you arguing that with regard to the conflicting goods embedded in such things as gun control, the role of government, animal rights, sport hunting, conscription, human sexuality, just war etc., philosophers are not able to derive "absolute objective" moral "rulings"? That they are only able to construct arguments that make the conflicting goods themselves here go away?

Can you cite just one example of how this might actually be accomplished "in reality"?

Prismatic567 wrote: Your problem as I had stated is your knowledge base is too narrow and shallow and that include knowledge of your own self. If you don't improve on this, the credibility of your views will be very low and unfortunate for that you will suffer mentally for it.


And your problem [from my frame of mind] is that only when others come to embrace your own "knowledge base" will they be able to construct a sense of certainty about these things.

It's a problem, from my point of view, because that is basically what all of the other objectivists assure us in turn. We suffer because we don't think like they do. And they don't suffer because, well, how they think is in sync with the most comforting, consoling manner in which one can think about a world bursting at the seams with the grim, grueling consequences of conflicting goods.

If they suffer at all it is because they just can't seem to convince all of the other objectivists [let alone folks like me] to jettison their own transcending font [God, ideology, deontology etc,] and embrace the One True Path. In your case, "the progressive Middle-Way".

Sorry, given that you make almost no attempt to really address the points I raise here...

Joan had an abortion.
And this is true despite any particular "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of sentient subjects". There are no "one of us" folks who merely believe that she had an abortion, and "one of them" folks who merely believe that she had not. Instead, it is able to be demonstrated that in fact she had an abortion.


Prismatic567 wrote: If it is a fact she has an abortion, what is the issue then? Shun, punish or kill her??
As I had stated this is a spilt milk scenario so why cry over spilt milk.
If this is a case, then this is no more an abortion problem, but a spilt milk problem.
Those who want to cry over spilt milk should be advised to see a psychologist to deal with particular problem and not the problem of abortion.


Again, one can only imagine you standing before a woman who has been shunned or punished and explaining the import of "spilt milk" here. Or her family if she had been put to death.

Her problem of course is in being foolish enough not to have been born "in the future" where unwanted pregnancies simply won't exist.

Prismatic567 wrote:The reality is, at present there are the pro-life and the pro-choice groups and each is dogmatically [psychologically] stuck with their beliefs. As with Heidegger, these respective groups are thrown into and emerged out of their own and collective history. To change them for the better one will have to deconstruct their history and reconstruct their psyche so they can act effectively.


Well, another possible reality is that you are just as dogmatically insistent that how you view all of this is the optimal or the only rational manner in which it can be viewed. That, for psychological comfort and consolation, it is important to you to believe that you have pinned this all down "epistemologically". And that these intellectual assumptions of yours are now totally in sync with that which you construe to be "effective".

And only when I [and others] are willing to "shift" into a higher gear [yours] is there any hope that we might become effective too.

Unless of course you're wrong.


Prismatic567 wrote: From my perspective re what you have posted the difference between you a[nd] me is your views are based on a database that is too shallow and narrow.

It may be possible what I posted is related to psychological comfort and consolation but what I have posted, it is evident my views are based on much wider and deeper database than yours.


Exactly! And that is precisely what all of the folks who have constructed didactic intellectual contraptions like yours insist. Only they will insist it of you too. Yes, you're on the right track that a deeper and wider database does in fact exist. You just haven't figured yet that it is theirs not yours.

It is this psychological component that, above all else, they avoid confronting. I suspect that subconsciously they don't even care if their own narrative is the right one. What is of far greater importance is that the right one does in fact exist.

Otherwise, my own dilemma beckons. And there is not much objectivists won't do to avoid that. And I know this in having once been one of them myself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24669
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]