Objectivists?

phyllo · February 5, 2018, 2:38pm

One has to admit that Prismatic fits Iambig’s definition of objectivist better than most.

Karpel_Tunnel · February 5, 2018, 7:16pm

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.

Prismatic567 · February 6, 2018, 8:17am

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.

Karpel_Tunnel · February 6, 2018, 12:01pm

Prismatic567:

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.

iambiguous · February 6, 2018, 5:35pm

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?

iambiguous · February 6, 2018, 5:50pm

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?

Prismatic567 · February 7, 2018, 3:14am

iambiguous:

Prismatic567:

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;

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 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.

Ecmandu · February 7, 2018, 4:13am

iambiguous:

Mr Reasonable:

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 …

Concordant_v2 · February 7, 2018, 4:26am

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.

Mr_Reasonable · February 7, 2018, 4:48am

iambiguous:

Mr Reasonable:

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.

iambiguous · February 7, 2018, 5:07am

Mr Reasonable:

iambiguous:

Mr Reasonable:

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.

Mr_Reasonable · February 7, 2018, 5:54am

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.

Prismatic567 · February 7, 2018, 6:57am

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]

Karpel_Tunnel · February 7, 2018, 3:06pm

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.

Prismatic567 · February 8, 2018, 12:33am

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.

Karpel_Tunnel · February 8, 2018, 9:44am

Prismatic567:

Karpel Tunnel:

Prismatic567:

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?

iambiguous · February 9, 2018, 6:59pm

Prismatic567:

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 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.

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.

iambiguous · February 9, 2018, 7:08pm

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.

[size=50][note to mr reasonable:
perhaps it might be less embarrassing for you if you did leave the thread][/size]

Prismatic567 · February 10, 2018, 1:02am

iambiguous:

Prismatic567:

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 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”
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:

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.

iambiguous · February 11, 2018, 7:27pm

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…

[b]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.[/b]

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

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.