Just some few things that are wrong in Objectivism

Some things that are wrong with the basics of Objectivism.
This is a response to Sw33tLiberty's call for criticism. She didn't reply to my message to her which contained all these points and she blocked my comments to her video, but I hope this can help someone else. Reason is important and it is how we manage to deal with nature. The funny thing is that I'm NOT an Objectivist BECAUSE I believe that it serves people to be reasonable. There are more reasonable people to listen to than Rand.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Objectivism
• Ayn
• Rand
• philosophy
• cult
• criticism
• critics
• argument
• proof
• atlas
• shrugged
• fountainhead
• branden
• john
• galt

[Avidcomp]

I know I can read the title of this clip, but after that it's a dark with faint stars to another dimension, so that's what is real to me and that's my truth so it must be real and I can't be an objectivist like I thought I was.

[MrNormlguy]

in short to my serious critique of your lesson here is that being objective and adopting ayn rands philosophy is not synonymous, if it were then she would be synonymous with Plato. objectivty is an epistemology not a philosophy. even the brightest man will be wrong from time to time, this includes Einstein, Aristotle, Heidegger, or Rand. The point is simply this being objective means acknowledging the universe is bigger then just your point of view

[MrNormlguy]

as a person whom has gone through a troubled child hood of psychiatry and medication many years ago this I can tell you is a lie about Mr. Ellis a person who seeks the opinion of others is not an individual but a relativist. relativity is based on subjectivity because you only know one perspective or a few in this case the world of doctors you are "subject" to. this is not an objectivist reality

[MrNormlguy]

in regards to tara smith I do not know her but based on your statement here I will say this as an objectivist, I agree that she is wrong. because obviously children in there innocence are not amoral but assume good this is based on trust, and at what point is that broken? this is where we define the loss of innocence. as a child you do not know much of the world you are totally subjective. to a child her parents are the universe they are god. at some point you must chose your own identity

[MrNormlguy]

here in ethics you speak about your "personal" experience, doesn't that make your point of view subjective? are you certain you have ALL the facts? Animals do exist to survive as they know it, not to survive for themselves but for there genetic lineage. and through that process we evolve through strength. this is a natural law, but we have free will so we can judge who we want to live and how they live, this is where we must be moral. without free will this conversation would not exist

[MrNormlguy]

Aristotle suggested the potential of things. what came first the chicken or the egg? it would be the egg, the potential is the chicken, it could easily become breakfast, perhaps its evolutionary time has come and it becomes something not chicken but "like" chicken, but this is not free will, but determination to survive. but humans are different, you and i are made of the same "stuff" (matter) and yet I am not you in anyway. other then we have free will. there is an assumption of objectivism

[MrNormlguy]

our sense can deceive us, if our entire knowledge of the known world was dampened by external sources or internal logic then we approach fantasy or subjectivity. when we begin to look beyond our selves and compare our experiences with other experiences and other people, we expand our view. this is key to objectivity (see descartes) in Free will is another concept that you either believe you have or you dont. any action based on reason is a product of free will. I should sleep but I choose not

[MrNormlguy]

ok in 1.1 here about existence, the loop theory is an axiom but not a truth, the point of being objective is changing your perception to test this axiom. the looping logic is the cop-out the ability to deny existence is based on assumptions about its axiom such as I can say UFOs dont exist. or I can say aliens dont exist, they are not synonymous for a ufo can be a plane but no one can prove that ufos are alien. experience is based on your subjective analysis, whether it is reality or not ...

[notadirector]

In Ethics, I think you take the specific instead of the general. You say animals exist to reproduce, not survive, but isn't reproduction a means to survival by allowing species to adapt to its environment through evolution?