Well, to the extent that this…
One particularly surreal aspect of this is that even though there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times completely contradictory moral and political and theological and philosophical narratives, it never stops the next generation of objectivists from insisting that you either become “one of us” or you are WRONG!!!
…is applicable to you with regard to your own value judgments then the shoe does fit.
Here is the dictionary definition of objective:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectiveAnd this from SEP regarding the word “object”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/Now, imagine if everytime we used the word “objective” or “subjective” or “object” or “subject” here we had to square our point with these two sources.
Then we would move on to the word “communicate” and “idea” and “exist”.
Come on, my point is this…
We think we know this or that about something in our head. We claim to believe this or that is true or false about it.
Here about Turd.
But what are we in fact able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to know or to believe about Turd.
Was he in fact an objectivist or are we really only discussing the manner in which we have come existentially to understand the meaning of that word here and now “in our head”?
Can we square our point with the dictionary, with the SEP? Can the dictionary and the SEP be utilized to pin down what is in fact true and false about Turd. About his own particular moral and political narrative? About ours?
All thoughts and words are “in our head”. Unless you mean to say something more specific and important, then it does not require repeating.
You’re not going to be able to demonstrate anything unless you are clear and precise about the meaning of the words being used. To cast doubt on the meaning of words and the usefulness of words is counterproductive.
For capitalists the word freedom revolves market exchanges. For Communists freedom revolves around a planned economy. And both sides have explanations for that.
So, what is the clear and precise philosophical meaning of the word “freedom” such that this dispute can be resolved once and for all?
What exactly are you trying to convey by saying that Turd is or is not an objectivist? What’s the significance of that label in this particular case? Is it important to “pin it down”?
I’m not saying that turd is an objectivist objectively. I’m only noting that to the extent that he fits into my own subjective understanding of the word objectivist here and now, “I” think that he is one.
I never deny that my own arguments here are in turn existential contraptions.
And the significance of that is always seen by me in a particular context. Suppose Carleas walks away from ILP and Turd becomes the new administrator. How long would I last here?
What’s crucial then is the extent to which those who are moral and political objectivists are able to acquire actual power in any given human community.
Given that in my experience many political objectivists are [psychologically] also authoritarians, it will always be their way or the highway. Only instead of predicating their power/policies on might makes right, it revolves instead around their own rendition of right makes might.
You know, like the Communists insisted.
Okay, but what claim is being made about what person or thing in what context?
You make the claim, you choose the context.
"The Earth is an oblate spheroid. "
Why should I consider that to be a subjective claim?
The first thing you do of course is to steer clear entirely of the is/ought world.
Instead, your example revolves around the either/or world.
Let’s define the meaning of the words “oblate spheroid”: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid
Now, is this understanding of it true for all rational men and women? Any particular man or woman [as subjects] may argue either yes or no. But: Is it able to be demonstrated that in fact the earth is an oblate speroid – given the intertwining of these words [in the English language] and the world we live in.
And who argues that the earth ought not to have been an oblate spheroid? That nature fucked up in making it one.