Objectivists?

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;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism

Any one has views on the above, i.e. who is an objectivist.

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.

He means that you believe you can objectively determine Good and Bad, moral and immoral, ethical and not ethical.

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;

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.

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?

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?

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;

The next meaning of objectivist is this one;

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 clear distinction can be made between “one of us” [who behave rationally and morally] and “one of them” [who behave irrationally and immorally].

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

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.

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 …

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.

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. :laughing: :wink: :laughing: :wink: :laughing:

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.

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
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOx-z5YS1aE[/youtube]

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:

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?

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.

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.