From: http://forum.skeptic.za.org/other/favorite-character/msg21672/#msg21672
I don’t subscribe to any one belief system, but I do find some valuable insights in objectivism (even though some adherents can verge on cultism). You, hovewer, seem to have a strong opinion about it, and from the dismissive nature of the post I assume a very bad one. Do you mind to elaborate?
Oh dear not at all BoogieMonster,
I think I totally misrepresented myself, I was actually trying to portray being gleeful. I am interested in Objectivism.
I do find Rational Skepticism also has much to offer me. Skeptics in general are more interested in science whereas Objectivists in general are more interested with philosophy and politics. Oh yes any Objectivist reading this board will probably beg to differ.
Both offer different ways of thinking which keep me from being dogmatic.
Regards,
Superman
All good, I was being skeptical of humour it would seem. 0:)
Objectivism, clearly illustrates the power of ideas. It is a philosophy that I feel I need in my life right now and it is helping me a hell of a lot. You may not agree with everything that Ayn Rand says but when you understand why you grow and can see your own blind spots. I think the best of her books to start with is ‘Philosophy who needs it’ but most people start with Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is her Magnum Opus. My favorite concepts right now are Rational Selfishness and the Law of Non-Contradiction.
I don’t have much of a beef with the whole of Objectivism, and like I said, find lots of “ways of looking at things” in there that make absolute sense to me. To my mind, it’s one of the most “well formed” belief systems out there. But it is still a belief system. In the end you believe the individualist morality is superior to others, capitalism is the only true answer, objective reality truly exists, our senses are accurate, etc. I find myself constantly pitting pure capitalist ideals vs. semi-socialist ones in my mind. I don’t think there’s a clear-cut answer as to what wins, since pure capitalism does seem to necessarily lead to the economic enslavement of the working class. While it is very liberating for the individual in being able to “compete” to the top, it does seem to tread on whoever “cannot compete”. FOR ME, finding myself in the cushy seats of the “above average” then, it’s very attractive. But that is pure personal bias.
The trick here (IMHO) is to realise that raising the capability of society as a whole necessarily increases the level at which one needs to compete in order to stand out above the masses. This is all supply-and-demand after all. So raising the bar universally does not necessarily mean an increase in living standard. So under pure capitalism you “damn” the working class as a group to (semi or complete)poverty even though you allow bright individuals in that group to “rise above the fray”. So, even to a working class person the ideals of Rand can be liberating, but only to a select group of individuals. To the group as a whole, raising income under it is impossible.
Objectivism is dismissive of this. It’s morality states that those who are average don’t DESERVE a high standard of living due to personal flaws. But then paradoxically Rand almost “confesses” to this by painting the characters of her books as people with EXTRAORDINARY gifts. Implying that living up to her standards is not within reach of most people. To me this is a huge contradiction. It’s either the “fault” of the average for being average, in which case they could be morally “to blame” for their fate. Or they simply are not imbued with super human gifts, and it’s not their fault. But under the morality of Objectivism they “deserve” their suffrage all the same. Even worse, these “downtrodden” (depending on how you view this term under objectivism) people then go and do the EXACT thing she espouses: They act in their immediate self-interest and become unionists, lobby government to control big business, demand healthcare and social grants, etc. These things may not strictly be in their RATIONAL self interest in an objective framework. But they are things these people do with selfish motives.
… and then the other side of my mind pipes up and says…
Yeah but industrialism has bestowed such great gifts on people from all walks of life. Over time capitalism has spawned innovations that at first seemed destined for “the rich elite” only, but over time has filtered down to the common man. Cars, Airlines, Computers… In the always-competing world things that may at first seem exclusive go on to enrich and “raise the standard of living” of everyone. A net win!
… But then you have the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, which inevitably leads to revolution/disruption of the entire civilization. Possibly bringing it down in a cycle of golden and dark ages. Also this causes (in the real world) a complete disregard for the environment by those seeking profit. Even Rand dismisses environmentalism outright in Atlas. This seems on the surface to be held in check by the rule of “rational self interest”. Wherein RATIONAL self-interest eventually drives the individual to act in an environmentally friendly way due to self-preservation. However from what I’ve read, this is not what Rand had in mind. She thought smoke stacks were beautiful.
… and so on and so forth. I spend a lot of time thinking in circles about it and I look VERY skeptically at anyone proclaiming to have the “one right answer”.
Feel free to contradict anything I’ve said here, I do often.
@Boogie Monster, Wow, I never had such a quick response to a reply I posted ever! You do address some things that have been forming in the back of my mind, at least started. When you emphasize belief so much it seems that Objectivism is some kind of cult. It is not a cult just a philosophy. One very awesome Objectivist friend of mine has always stressed for me saying ‘learn to think for yourself ’.
My only problem in making everything in life subjective (i.e. a belief) is the loss of certainty. If everything is subjective then everybody is right or wrong. Even humanitarianism is right or perhaps wrongs, who knows since everything is subjective. And nobody can really prove anything.
Ultimately what I like about Rational Self-Interest is being certain that I have the ethical right to apply mind to whatever I rationally observe is of my highest value.
In Objectivism, and I still have so much to learn, I think the idea is that the innovation of entrepreneurs will ultimately lead to lifting up the living standard of the working class. More business will require more workers and better pay for workers by increasing the demand for them. I still have to read Ayn Rand’s ‘Capitalism: the unknown ideal’ It is sitting there in my bookshelf but I have not yet come round to reading it. Right now you definitely have a much better knowledge of Objectivism than I have. And you definitely gave me a lot to think about and I am grateful for that.
Well let’s break that record…
Absolutely one should think for oneself, which is why I have all these uncertainties! 
My only problem in making everything in life subjective (i.e. a belief) is the loss of certainty. If everything is subjective then everybody is right or wrong.
I’m not saying everything in life is subjective at all. But we do have a lot of things we necessarily need to “believe” since we don’t really have enough information to empirically state that the position is true, and as you state, we can’t exactly go through life thinking every position can be true. So we pick sides based on limited knowledge. What is important though is that we adjust our views should we be proven wrong. Seek out that knowledeg, and always question what we “know”. Even if it means we conclude we’re still in the right.
Oh yes, another thing that I like about Objectivism is that it has an Archenemy the infamous Immanuel Kant. It would be interesting to know your thoughts about him. I myself have stumbled upon another man I think Ayn Rand would fiercely dislike even more than Kant himself i.e. John N. Gray the author of ‘Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals’ I was just browsing through his book this weekend and I thought to myself, “Ayn Rand would think to herself Kant was a saint compared to John N.Gray” >:D >:D >:D
And also
I was reading your post again Boogie Monster and thinking if you say that you must believe that objective reality truly exists then aren’t you then saying that everything is subjective. Is that not a contradiction. Just saying to be the devils advocate you did say something like that you do contradict yourself. Wish you didn’t now since this makes it a hollow victory if I am right.
Edit “well perhaps victory is too strong a word but you know what I mean.”
Heh, I do believe that objective reality exists. But I can see why someone would classify that as a belief rather than provable fact. In my mind, the fact that I believe reality is objective is a practical approach to reality based on my observations and experiences. I’m of the firm opinion that anyone that doesn’t think reality is objective is mistaken.
I haven’t read much Kant, but the synopses I’ve read lead me to believe we’d be at odds. Specifically that he seemed to reject the idea that man can observe reality itself, and instead that reality is only formed within the confines of our mind. Once again, I see me own approach to reality as more pragmatic rather than dogmatic or theoretical.
In my view, IF man is subject to an illusion after-all, the very fact that he is subject to that illusion is immaterial to his existence, action, and all practical concerns. To me the point is moot. Let’s say that I bought the “brain in a vat” argument (I don’t, I don’t think it’s impossible, but highly unlikely, like say, God), then I would have to admit that:
This is why it’s immaterial to me. I cannot escape, I can never know anything else than this reality. (Reminder: This is according to how I interpret “brain in the vat” theory.), IF I could escape this reality, it would not be out of my own action or volition.
So, in that case I must necessarily take a fatalistic point of view. I cannot escape, there is nothing I can do, I must resign myself to experiencing this reality and this reality only, for it is the only one I’ll ever know. I will cease, and then it’ll be over. So I may as well live my life as if this reality is entirely objective, If I don’t I may miss my only opportunity to experience ANY reality. So if we return to Kant’s view, I think this still holds, it MAY be true, I cannot refute it. But if it were, it’d change nothing.
Please, please would you read this, I sincerely think this does tie in nicely with this post and objective reality:
Edit Ps this is not an appeal to authority. I just though it is an interesting article.
a. All theories need to be an accurate description of reality
My brother once said to me ‘It is true in theory but not in practice’ I nearly fell of my seat. I went on to discuss with him that since there are so many crap theories out there most people come to the conclusion that ‘It is true in theory but not in practice. Theories need to be an accurate description of reality. I once came across a thought experiment that went sometime like this ‘If there two omnipotent gods…’ I started entertaining the idea until the though hit me. In order to take this seriously I have to suspend reality and take seriously the idea that god exists. I have already spent a lot of time concluding that god does not exist why I should break my head over this. Perhaps my time would be better spent contemplating biology, economics or something that has purpose. This ‘brain in the vat’ thought experiment is interesting but is not based in reality. ‘that a mad scientist, machine or other entity might remove a person’s brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives.’ – wiki. Could this happen in reality, well I do not think it would happen any time soon. It is interesting but doesn’t it have a false premise if I have to suspend reality.
b. The ‘brain in the vat’ theory wants you to suspend reality.
c. The ‘brain in the vat’ theory want you to suspend reality and is thus not an accurate theory.
What do you guys think I am not that good at it.
How can you make conclusions of anything if it is not based on reality and has not purpose.
Hope you enjoy. ;D
The point of the brain-in-the-vat thought experiment is (i) that the thing we normally call “reality” could itself be fabricated, (ii) that there could be an altogether very different reality behind the fabricated one, (iii) that there is no conceivable way for us to discover it, and (iv) that our best course of action is to behave as if the fabricated reality is truly real because in every possible way, the fabricated reality is the only reality available to us. Think along the lines of the Matrix movies’ basic precepts here. The fabricated reality would include, say, the “knowledge” that we can’t yet construct a supercomputer powerful and sophisticated enough to simulate nerve and synaptic impulses so that we experience a complete and (mostly) coherent reality because that “knowledge” is part of the “reality” you are being made to experience.
It’s an intriguing bit of navel-gazing that dodges Occam’s Razor, and is at the same level of ultimate pointlessness as, for example, Last Tuesdayism/Omphalos and all-out solipsism. Each one raises the possibility that there is a higher level of reality (super-reality, meta-reality — pick your own label) that we know nothing substantial about and in fact can only speculate on.
'Luthon64
This is a subject relating to Metaphysics. Ultimately the danger for me debating this in a skeptics forum is getting banned. I should focus on Rational Skepticism and grow from there. I don’t want to seen as a troll and this could easily become an argument not a debate.
I don’t think anyone gets banned here. Which reminds me–whatever happened to Telly? Has he given up and gone away?
Telly lurks…
You are ignoring a temporal aspect of this. Usually you have a hypothesis and test it against reality, once you’re satisfied it’s at least true for all conditions you thought or knew to test, perhaps make a prediction and test that, you can probably go from calling it a hypothesis to calling it a theory since you think it models reality. However at some later time you may realise that your theory doesn’t hold for a certain condition found in reality, at which point you have to either adjust or discard your theory based on your observation of reality. Nobody said that to be called a “theory” (there’s a clue in the name), it has to be an absolute representation of objective reality. To put this crudely, it’s merely our current opinion of how reality operates, and is absolutely open to being INaccurate and subject to revision. Usually theories are simply “the best we’ve got”, and can’t always tell us WHY something is so. Just that it is so.
My brother once said to me ‘It is true in theory but not in practice’ I nearly fell of my seat.
This is usually a nice way of saying “No the world doesn’t work the way you think brother”. What people mean by this is, if I suspend reality for a moment, and only take into account the conditions you’ve created in your theoretical context, then logically I can deduce that your assertion is true. But if we bust open that closed system you’ve created and let in the real world, with all kinds of complex interaction so numerous that our minds just cannot contemplate them… then it’s possible to not be true.
I mean, in theory, I’ll be sitting here tomorrow morning. In practise I could die in my sleep tonight from a satellite falling through my roof and I won’t be sitting here. Thus the theory explains what I expect to happen. And if I’m here tomorrow it’ll hold. But the real world is more complex and there’s no way for me to account for everything that could happen in the next 24h. Thus the reality MAY not match the theory, but probably will. That doesn’t mean it’s a shitty theory; in all likelihood I will be here and the theory is sound. If you take into account the trillions and trillions of interactions of matter happening in and around you every second… you should realise it is fundamentally impossible to accurately model reality. Some illustrate this with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. To accurately (as in absolutely) model reality you’d need all the matter in the universe to store the information about all the matter in the universe. It’s impossible to model a system completely from within that system.
This ‘brain in the vat’ thought experiment is interesting but is not based in reality.
You can’t prove that assertion any more than I can. Think about this. Suspend your disbelief for a second and just imagine… you are a brain in a vat. You have no clue that you are a brain in a vat, everything you experience is a simulation. How would you prove you aren’t one? You presuppose the argument is invalid because it’s not “part of reality”, but the entire point of the conversation is that “reality” may be an illusion, and you have no way of knowing. None, zero, zip. You can’t invalidate a statement about the nature of reality by using the rules of that same reality. If those rules are an illusion, so is your argument!
well I do not think it would happen any time soon.
Well that’s subject to your interpretation of “soon”. Brains of rats are already being hooked up to computers all the time to simulate (very simple) inputs and check how their brains respond. I don’t think on a “human history” time scale we’re far from creating alternate realities for our brains to experience. Perhaps not as vivid or complex as our own reality, but far we are not. Anyway, the argument here is that you do not know whether it’s happening to you this very second. That’s Kant’s view, that the reality you experience is not the actual, true reality. You see a “filtered version” of the true reality. That’s what I’m trying to illustrate.
Please don’t think I take this seriously. This is merely me using logic operating in a closed framework of our design to show that Kant’s argument is futile and pointless. Not that I can prove him wrong, I don’t think anyone can prove him wrong. But in so far as it’s utterly pointless even if he’s right.
How can you make conclusions of anything if it is not based on reality and has not purpose.
Exactly. Hey, you brought up Kant.
Ultimately the danger for me debating this in a skeptics forum is getting banned.
Oh please I haven’t had as stimulating a conversation in a long time. I’ve been over this logic many times but still, this isn’t exactly fodder for the local braai. The forum gets boring when everyone just agrees. I doubt you’d ever be banned for being questioning on a skeptic forum. It is kind of the point, I do believe no idea is beyond criticism. There is a point where people are flogging a dead horse, and one could get tired of re-stating the same argument over-and-over to idiots. But dude you are so far from that… I mean damn, arguing debating with teleo was like trying to hold water in a colander. This is debate, and is stimulating, such is welcomed (by me anyway).
ps. I type really fast sorry for the wall of text, it’s a weakness of mine.
I don’t mean to derail the thread but leaving this kind of looseness standing helps nobody towards better understanding.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems (there are two, not one) are applicable to axiomatic formal systems that are at least sufficiently complex to subsume arithmetic only. The theorems are decidedly not a statement about not knowing enough to describe the universe accurately; instead, they show (provably) that the truth or falsity of certain other theorems of any such axiomatic formal system cannot in principle be demonstrated. These undecidable propositions are properly undecidable. In particular, a formal system that is consistent (i.e. strictly non-self-contradictory) cannot be proved to be so using only that system’s axioms.
The universe does not look anything like an axiomatic formal system, so ham-fistedly invoking Gödel’s incompleteness theorems in contemplating reality is as misapplied and annoying as all those quacks’ invocation of quantum mechanics to “explain” their modalities.
'Luthon64
I didn’t think that one would fly. Godels theorems (damnit, I even looked it up to get the ö, and I knew there’s two) are about formal math, on which I am no expert. I’ve read a lot of comparisons that went like above, but I wouldn’t know enough to say they’re accurate or not. Although a parallel did seem to exist in my mind. But,
ham-fistedly invoking Gödel’s incompleteness theorems in contemplating reality is as misapplied and annoying as all those quacks’ invocation of quantum mechanics to “explain” their modalities.
I didn’t think it was THAT bad. Doubly noted!