Talk:Objectivism/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From 66.176.46.28:

I feel I owe the wiki community an appology for my rash and almost childish edit of the Obj. Phil. page last December. I have recently included a comment above the Criticism section suggesting the readers to consider that the criticisms contain certain logical fallacies. Again, I appologise for my previously immature actions and I hope the recent edit is acceptable.

- psygnisfive at yahoo dot com; psygnisfive through aim

Major Edit

I just did a major edit on the page. I didn't address the factual error previously mentioned (it seemed perfectly Randian to me, although I don't recall reading that exact quote either. I'll do a Google search on it later.)

I also invited a few fellow students of Objectivism to clarify some of the rest of it. It appears a lot of the work here has been done by critics of Objectivism. While that's fine for purposes of NPOV, students of Objectivism, in my experience, usually know a lot more about the topic than the critics.

Edit: I can't find any match for the disputed quote other than the Wikipedia itself. It sounds Randian enough, but I'm taking it out until it can be verified. Philip L. Welch Feb. 15, 2004

I've been editing this page even more extensively, with Michael Hardy's help and clarification (thank you). I think all conflicts between my edits and his are resolved. Philwelch 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't get too far into the article and will have to read it more thouroughly later, but in the section -Mind and Body- There is a snippet after the description which states: Objectivism does not comment on or posit an explanation for the metaphysics of how the mind and body interact.

However, in the above paragraph the first line states: Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, holding that the mind and body are an integrated whole. This seems like a pretty clear statement to me. The follow-up snippet seems like an idle debunking comment that belongs in the criticisms section if anywhere.

I added both sections. They don't contradict: Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, holding that the mind and body are an integrated whole, but it doesn't get into the specific metaphysical descriptions of how that works. You see, the main problem with mind-body dualism is figuring out how an immaterial mind can really interact with and influence a material body, and how sense data from the material body goes to the immaterial mind. While Objectivism holds that this mind and body are an integrated whole, it doesn't comment on how specifically, for instance, material and immaterial things can interact, if they can, or which parts are strictly material and immaterial. You can feel free to clarify that, but I consider myself a pretty serious student of Objectivism, and I added both statements, not expecting them to contradict. Philwelch 19:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Objectivism as a cult" section

In my opinion this entire section should be deleted on NPOV grounds. To begin with, "cult" is a loaded word that implies a value judgment. Secondly and most importantly, all the criticisms that appear in this section represent personal feelings and opinions about Objectivism (Nathaniel Branden's POV is no more valid here than anyone else's). Lastly, many of these feelings have to do with the interpersonal dynamics between Ayn Rand and those who follow her philosophy - they don't have much to do with Objectivism itself.

I'd also like to note that the perceived contradiction between following Ayn Rand's words dogmatically and the rational, individualist pursuit of truth on one's own have already been covered more than adequately in the introduction.

For these reasons, I'm deleting the section. Ubernetizen 21:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The section as was was probably NPOV. But Cult has sufficient meaning as to warrant a Wikipedia entry of its own, and not have its mere use banned. The cultlike nature (or not) of the Objectivist movement certainly has as much to do with it as Scientology has to do with the Church of Scientology, and there's no reason to make them separate articles if they're both quite short. - David Gerard 22:41, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think "cult" is misused here. To describe a system of thought as a cult is to use the term in a pejorative sense. This is different than talking about the perception of Ayn Rand as a cult leader or of a specific organization as possessing characteristics of a cult. In my experience, there is no such thing as "cult-ish ideas" (e.g., the cult of pragmatism or of Aristotelian logic), except when someone is seeking to cast aspersions. Ubernetizen 04:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read the cult article, did you? In any case, it was clearly talking about the organisation, not the ideas; it just didn't do it very well. - David Gerard 12:33, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

What organization?? Rand's philosophy is not an organization; various different organizations have espoused it, often disagreeing among each other about what they consider important matters. Michael Hardy 23:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the sentence in the introduction that reads: "Young people whose knowledge of philosophy comes primarily from her writings, under the emotional influence of her novels, sometimes are thought to behave like religious fanatics, and are sometimes pejoratively called "Randroids."" should also be removed, on the grounds that it is both unnecessary (has no bearing on the philosophy itself) and - though carefully couched in terms of what is "sometimes thought" to be the case - it smacks heavily of bias. Imagine applying this statement ("...are thought to behave like religious fanatics", etc.) to the article about Republicans or Democrats, for example. People can and should reach that judgment for themselves, without prodding.

I'm also moving the Nathaniel Branden criticism from the introduction to the appropriate section for criticisms. Ubernetizen 20:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The following paragraph as it appears in the article is utter nonsense and should be removed or altered:

"Objectivism also holds that all forms of religious ethics are literally immoral due to their inherent contradictions with Objectivist ethics. Critics hold that this line of reasoning is an assault on all non-Objectivist forms of ethics, and as claim that Objectivist ethics are the beginning and end of all ethics."

Octothorn 04:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"In particular, Objectivism has been largely silent on the possibility that a rational agent may fulfill his or her own well-being by directly seeking the well-being of another"

No it hasn't. Objectivism directly recognizes that other people can be in and of themselves a value, often a greater value than anything else. Philwelch 01:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Scottryan seems to be adding a bunch of information mainly about how each particular part of Objectivism agrees or disagrees with other given philosophers. This is kind of silly and unnecessary. As you see above, he also added a somewhat erroneous statement, and skewed the POV. Upon fixing his edits he proceeded to start an edit war. Well, Scottryan, let's leave it as is and discuss it here.

Happy to discuss it as you like, but apart from possible POV issues in the presentation I don't think there's a lot of question about the point itself.

According to Objectivist ethics, an agent is supposed to be the sole beneficiary of his/her own actions, and although other people may benefit from the action, their benefit is not the _direct_ goal of the action. As I noted in my earlier edit, David Kelley has addressed this very point and tried to give an Objectivist account of benevolence that fills what he sees as a major gap in its ethics. Rephrase it, rewrite it, whatever, but it's a legitimate point.

Kelley's "benevolence" as far as I can tell just emphasizes the fact that you're supposed to value others. Rand defines happiness as the state of consciousness that arises from achieving one's values. She also states that one can value another human being, and their happiness and values. The strongest form of this is love. Under Objectivism, if I valued you, I could undertake direct actions that benefited you, because, since your happiness and your life are a value to me, by benefiting you I have achieved some of my values and attained happiness. Rand also stated that it is ethical to die for another person if that person was so valuable to you that you would be incapable of happiness without them. She states this numerous times. Philwelch 01:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also don't see why you've removed my introductory account of the origin of the name 'Objectivism'. The name is indeed based on Rand's trichotomy 'intrinsic/subjective/objective'; I think this trichotomy is fundamental to Rand's outlook and should be mentioned fairly early on. I don't think I had any POV problems in my phrasing of the point, but if you disagree, I think the proper thing to do is to edit them, not to remove them.

I suspect much of the (my) difficulty here is simply that I'm trying to add to what's already there rather than edit it. I think the original article needs some editing for completeness and accuracy before _anything_ else. So if I spend any more time on this entry, that's where I'll plan to start.

As for the so-called 'edit war', what actually happened was that you saved an edit of your own while I was working on the page. I got a message to that effect when I tried to save one of my own updates. So before saving my edit, I merged your additions into the text (at least I didn't deliberately miss any; sorry if I overlooked something). Then I looked at the parts you'd excised, disagreed that they needed to be removed, but adjusted the phrasing of a couple of them to meet your criticism of the POV (apparently successfully, since you didn't remove those parts when you returned later). After that I haven't so much as touched a single one of your changes. So much for the 'edit war'. Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but it wasn't deliberate.

Scottryan 14:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, by way of illustrating what I think this entry needs, I've done some expanding of the first section on "metaphysics". Have a look and see what you think. I've stuck entirely to exposition and been as careful as I can not to "load" any terms with any non-neutral POV. I've made no other changes anywhere else except to remove the notes referring me to this page.

I think something similar needs to be done with each of the later sections as well, but for the time being I'll refrain from doing it.

Comments?

Scottryan 15:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And here, for reference, is the passage I had previously added explaining the significance of the name "Objectivism":

Objectivism takes its name from Rand's formulation of a trichotomy among the "intrinsic", the "subjective", and the "objective". According to Rand, neither concepts nor values are "intrinsic" to external or extramental reality, but neither are they merely "subjective" (by which Rand means "arbitrary" rather than "subject-dependent"). Rather, Rand contends that (when properly formed) they are objective in the sense that they meet the peculiar needs of human cognition: concepts meet the need for cognitive economy, and values meet the need for guidance in making decisions that genuinely promote survival and well-being.

I still don't see any POV problems in my formulation here and therefore don't know why it was removed. But at any rate I think an explanation along these lines -- whether with my phrasing or not -- should appear somewhere fairly early in the entry.

Scottryan 15:37, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having heard no objections, I've just done a major upgrade on the 'epistemology' section. I also put the 'trichotomy' section back in and made some minor adjustments to the bit about the mind-body dichotomy.

Scottryan 20:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, your edits were left mostly untouched this time, but for a little reformatting. I'm going to ask a couple people to look at it later, but it looks okay to me. Thanks for expanding the epistemology section. Philwelch 02:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just did likewise with the 'ethics' section (and, of course, had previously done so with the 'metaphysics' section). Since you made your edits while I was working on that section, I was careful to preserve them in my merge. (I also tweaked the phrasing in the opening paragraph a bit.)

I suppose I don't have any strong opinion about where to put that initial paragraph on the 'trichotomy' -- but is there some reason you think it doesn't belong in the 'tenets' section?

Yeah, I figured that was an explanation for the name of the philosophy so it belonged better in the beginning. Also, the rationale for why it's called "Objectivism" isn't really part of the philosophy itself in my view, it's kind of a metaphilosophical bit. It doesn't particularly classify as a tenet of Objectivism. Philwelch 09:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You've persuaded me. Scottryan 17:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(By the way, the texts you adjusted in the 'politics' section weren't mine. Just FYI.)

Scottryan 02:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two remarks on your corrections:

"(To make such an assertion, it is said, relies upon the validity of the senses in order for the assertion to be understood by others.)"

This isn't Rand's (actually Branden's) argument. Their argument is that the speaker couldn't have _acquired_ any such knowledge other than through sensory perception and is therefore committing a stolen-concept fallacy.

OK. Philwelch 09:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Animals can grasp both sensation (i.e. the raw sensory data) as well as perception (the ability to identify any particular concrete)."

This isn't really how Objectivism distinguishes between sensation and perception. For Rand, a "percept" is a group of sensations automatically retained by the mind; sensations as such, she says, aren't retained.

Scottryan 02:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. Philwelch 09:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I finally had a few minutes to sit down and rewrite the section on political theory. I excised a few short bits and changed the section heading to reflect the fact that Objectivism speaks not of "natural" but of "individual" rights.

Here are the bits I cut out, in case somebody wants to try to figure out a way to reinsert them:

If self versus others is a false alternative, so too is the question of the individual versus society. The individual good and the social good are in harmony. " the interests of the mind are one, no matter what the degree of intelligence, among men who desire to work and don't seek or expect the unearned." (from Atlas Shrugged)

People are unfree to the extent that they are forced to do what they would not choose for themselves. As all governmental action is based on using force to this end, it is necessary to limit the scope of government action exclusively to the protection of individual rights, with no restrictions on individual freedom. This is the most significant impact of the non-aggression principle, as it would condemn almost all government actions including taxation. (Rand posits a voluntary form of funding the government as the only just way to support the government. She does not explain how this can specifically be done, considering voluntary funding of government an "advanced issue".)

Politically, people can exercise their rights however they please, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others (it should be noted that the only rights recognized by objectivism are "negative rights" - the right not to be murdered, for example, as opposed to the "positive right" of having your life guaranteed). Objectivists claim that the only means of violating another's rights is by the initiation of physical force.

I think I'd like to see the point about negative rights worked in there somewhere, but with this proviso: Rand does suggest (at one point in "The Ethics of Emergencies") that we do have a positive obligation to maintain a society in which individual rights are respected. (The other excised bits repeat points I made in the part I wrote anew.)

I may get around to making that change myself, or I may not. At any rate, as far as I'm personally concerned, the expository portions of this page are in pretty good shape now.

Scottryan 22:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've folded the section of 'Objectivist terminology' into the preceding sections, because I think it makes better sense to define these terms on the fly in their proper context. The only 'Objectivist phrase' I haven't thus incorporated is 'Check your premises'.

Here's the part I cut:

=== Objectivist Terminology ===

For the purposes of Objectivism, many terms and phrases have been coined or more precisely defined in order to better clarify Objectivism and benefit discussion of it.

==== Sacrifice ====

Objectivism defines sacrifice in an ethical context as a net loss, as opposed to merely a loss of one thing in order to gain another thing. For instance, a mother who doesn't purchase something for herself in favor of purchasing food for her child is not sacrificing her needs, because she values the child more than she values anything else she could have purchased. This definition differs from more common definitions; for instance, in chess, one often "sacrifices" a certain piece to gain a tactical advantage, and in baseball, one often hits a "sacrifice bunt" or a "sacrifice fly" to advance runners on base in exchange for an out. Objectivists do not view these as true "sacrifices" in the philosophical sense of the term, but merely as acts of trading a lesser value for a greater value for what is metaphorically termed "profit".

==== Evasion ====

Evasion is the deliberate refusal to grasp a concept or to correctly complete a logical evaluation. When one "evades", one essentially refuses to hear reason and deliberately shuts his mind off so that his preexisting belief system is not challenged. George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-four describes his concept of "crimestop", which is the prevention of "thoughtcrime" by what Objectivists would call evasion. Objectivists disagree on when one can be certain one has committed evasion, but all agree that it is a serious crime.

==== Concrete-bound ====

The term Concrete-bound means to have a poor understanding of concepts qua concepts in favor of being "bound" to the particular concretes. It is considered a fallacy by Objectivists. One who is concrete-bound does not deal well with abstract concepts and fails to grasp analogies. This is commonly a form of evasion.

==== "Check your premises" ====

A constant phrase in Rand's Atlas Shrugged, "Check your premises" is shorthand for, "Whenever you reach a contradiction, check the premises that led to that contradiction and you will invariably find that one of them is false."

==== Fallacy of the stolen concept ====

Objectivism uses the phrase "stolen concept fallacy" to designate the use of a concept in conjunction with a denial of the concept's genetic roots. For example, as noted above, Objectivism contends that the concept of "value" presupposes the concept of "life", so that it would be illicit to speak of values apart from the context of living beings.

==== Context-dropping ====

Objectivism holds that concepts are applicable only within a certain scope, and to attempt to apply a concept outside its scope is to "drop context".

Scottryan 11:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following chunk from the "criticisms" section since I allude to this dispute in the "politics" section:

Many anarcho-capitalists who are otherwise in agreement with Rand claim there is a contradiction between the non-aggression principle and a monopoly of government. If a second government attempted to operate within the realm of an existing government, how could the preexisting government maintain that monopoly without the initiation of force?

Objectivists respond that perhaps such anarcho-capitalists misunderstand the coercive effects of current governments, and should start imagining a world where seccession is permitted by individuals, and to begin thinking of government as a service provider. With privately held property, governments must seek permission to enforce human rights over particular geographic regions, we call this democracy. Property owners who do not agree with a particular government should be permitted to secede and create their own rights-protecting government for their own land area. If such a move is successful, more individuals can easily join the new government. This arrangement is not a coercive monopoly, since the government may be freely selected by and for each property owner. However voluntary seccession of individual property owners is not permitted by current governments, which does constitute coercive monopoly.

Scottryan 22:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Section

We lost the criticism in the last paragraph. It either has to be made explicit or be cut - I suspect there are editors familiar with the source and willing to make that chunk explicit? --Karbinski (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is this sentence under "Metaphysics": "Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not)...

I don't want to delete that parenthetic clause without knowing the intent of the author. According to Peikoff, "Just as a concept cannot mean existents apart from their identity, so it cannot mean identities apart from that which exists. Existence is Identity."

In other words, how can "existence exists" pertain to something that does not exist? Another way of putting it is this: Only existents exist, (which I think she actually said somewhere.) She did say this in Galt's speech: "To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." "Existence exists" cannot be applied to that which is non-existent. Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting the criticism section with: "Rand's philosophy has been the object of criticism by prominent intellectuals" is obviously opinion based and biased. What defines a "prominent intellectual"? Stating the critics name and position (possibly title, degree, awards...) will provide the reader with enough information to decide where they are prominent, or posses any intellect. Linux Gang * (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

Nozick's criticism

Given that Rand/Peikoff are not silent on the choice to live, and in fact in OPAR and Viable Values, considerable space is devoted to this topic, should Nozick's criticism - ["[Rand] needs to explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values."] - go without response? The way I read the criticism, it is saying Objectivism has no answer to something which OPAR actually does respond to in detail. Any comments? — BRIAN0918 • 2010-02-26 04:57Z

Unless a source directly responds to Nozick by name, describing its arguments as a response to Nozick would be an inappropriate synthesis of material. I don't believe either Peikoff or Smith does this. (Smith does mention Nozick in all three of her books, but never as a direct response to his criticisms of Rand, as far as I recall.) In general, we should be cautious about turning a criticism section into a point/counterpoint debate. The article does mention that there is academic debate about Objectivism's metaethics, and a couple of sources are cited. I don't know that an encyclopedia article needs to say much more than that, although perhaps some additional sources could be cited. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the desire to avoid a point-counterpoint style, but if the criticism section is going to list any specifics, then that should certainly open it up to a response on those specifics. In this case, whether or not they actually respond to Nozick by name, they do respond on the topic for which Nozick claims they are silent. I can agree that it would be synthesis if it said, "Smith responds to Nozick that X", but do not agree that it would be if it said, "however, chapter X of OPAR/VV references this topic", or something to that effect. What do you think? — BRIAN0918 • 2010-02-27 23:46Z

It would still by synthesis if worded like that. You could just state the position and reference chapter X of OPAR/VV (qualifying it as from LP and/or Smith), then introduce the criticism referencing Nozick. Karbinski (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)