[LadyAttis]

Well I'm new here so I best introduce myself. I'm Attis, a fellow objectivist. I've been studying it for quite some time. Along with other influential egoistic view points; Max Stirner, Locke and etc. I must say I'm glad to find another good objectivist forum. Some sorta die off during finals being it seems a good sum of us are college students lol! ^__^

If you have any questions, ask me.

-- Bridget

[jedymastyr]

welcome! You're a college student--so what are you studying?

[LadyAttis]

jedymastyr, on Nov 25 2004, 02:37 AM, said:

welcome!  You're a college student--so what are you studying?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right now I'm studying CompSci. I'm going to go back to physics a little bit to work on quantum computers. I think they'll become more relevent very soon. Especially with AI.

-- Bridget

[BurgessLau]

LadyAttis, on Nov 24 2004, 09:46 PM, said:

Well I'm new here so I best introduce myself. I'm Attis, a fellow objectivist.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ayn Rand developed her philosophy and named it Objectivism. An Objectivist is a person who has studied at least the fundamentals of her philosophy and agrees with all aspects of her philosophy that he has studied.

I don't know what an "objectivist" is. What do you mean by that term?

[Zeus]

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 06:49 AM, said:

Ayn Rand developed her philosophy and named it Objectivism. An Objectivist is a person who has studied at least the fundamentals of her philosophy and agrees with all aspects of her philosophy that he has studied.

I don't know what an "objectivist" is. What do you mean by that term?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Laughlin is right.

Still, I want to point out that a person may be "objectivist," in the sense that he has an objective epistemology -- which, of course, translates into an Objectivist epistemology (an unceasing mental oscillation between concretes and abstractions in the formulation of actionable principles, whilst keeping context and hierarchy).

An Objectivist is someone who explicitly accepts and practices an objectivist (the Objectivist) epistemology.

Leonard Peikoff, on OPAR, pg. 150, said:

Ayn Rand is the first philosopher to identify the differences separating an intrinsicist, a subjectivist, and an objectivist approach to epistemology.

[BurgessLau]

Zeus, on Nov 25 2004, 08:29 AM, said:

[...] a person may be "objectivist," in the sense that he has an objective epistemology -- which, of course, translates into an Objectivist epistemology (an unceasing mental oscillation between concretes and abstractions in the formulation of actionable principles, whilst keeping context and hierarchy).

An Objectivist is someone who explicitly accepts and practices an objectivist (the Objectivist) epistemology.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for the valuable reference to OPAR, p. 150 -- which I had forgotten. I have learned from part of what you have said.

For discussion, I would like to point out what I see as errors or pitfalls in some of your comments.

First, you are saying that an "objectivist" is one who has an objective epistemology, that is, an epistemology which (in my words) produces ideas that have a certain relationship to the facts of reality, a logical relationship. (Your summary -- "an unceasing mental oscillation between concretes and abstractions in the formulation of actionable principles, whilst keeping context and hierarchy" -- is very apt.) I can agree with this definition of "objectivist" in this epistemological context.

I do not agree that anyone who has an objective epistemology (an explicit theory of how we know things) necessarily would have an Objectivist epistemology. The latter is a particular formulation of some areas of epistemology by one objective person, Ayn Rand.

Another equally objective philosopher -- if there were such today -- might formulate an equally objective epistemology that might cover different ground. Though equally objective, the two philosophers would have two different general theories of how we know things (epistemology). Of course, the theories would inevitably overlap, but they need not cover all the same subjects and certainly not in equal depth in each area. (For example, Ayn Rand has little to say about theory of propositions or theory of theories, because her revolutionary accomplishment is her theory of concepts.)

Second, if an "objectivist" is someone who holds a theory of objective epistemology, that fact says nothing about that person's metaphysics, ethics, politics, or esthetics. If his philosophy is inconsistent (for example, severing his epistemology from his ethics), he could have a wildly mystical ethics. I have met scientists like this: They advocate objectivity for the study of facts (sciences), and then fall back on revelation as a source of values (ethics)

So, an "objectivist" is not necessarily an Objectivist, that is, one who agrees with Ayn Rand's whole philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.

In other words, objective, objectivist and Objectivist are not fully synonyms, although in certain uses and in certain contexts they are certainly compatible.

Objective people existed long before Ayn Rand, and today one can be objective without knowing about Objectivism. What Ayn Rand -- a philosophical genius -- has done is formulate a whole philosophy centered around that core concept.

Also, one needs to keep in mind the distinction between "objective" (a concept of method) and "correct" (a concept of result). There can be many slip-ups in the process of reaching a conclusion. Two are errors in knowledge (for example, insufficient knowledge) and innocent errors in logic (especially in induction, the least developed area of logic).

This is my first attempt at trying to formulate this view. (Zeus, you are the first to take the bait I have repeatedly cast onto the waters, so to speak.)

I look forward to more discussion.

P. S. -- Bridget, sorry for hijacking your thread! This is the way threads work sometimes. They bounce around, but that doesn't mean they aren't productive.

[DavidOdden]

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 06:49 AM, said:

I don't know what an "objectivist" is.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It refers to a view of meaning that George Lakoff disparages in his book "Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things", which isn't Objectivism but might have some accidental connection to Objectivism (stemming from the root word "objective"). It refers, in probability, to the belief that probabilities are real. And it refers to a group of modernist poets including Basil Bunting and Charles Reznikoff from the earlier part of the previous century. Conceivably, it's like the relationship between having a Catholic philosophy and a catholic philosophy. Whereas lakoff doesn't capitalize "objectivist", the poets do. I think it's always contextually clear what sense of Objectivist is being used, since here when we talk about Objectivists, we don't mean Charles Reznikoff (admittedly I don't read aesthetics threads all that much, but U doubt there is confusion there). If there are any Randian Objectivist poets, then you would have to say something like "Jones is an Objectivist poet, in the sense of Rand's Objectivist philosophy".

[LadyAttis]

I'm just too lazy to type the o in caps. But I also read from other sources like Max Stirner and John Locke. So I'm not a strict adherent to anything but Reason.

-- Bridget

[LadyAttis]

I have a question to why a person named Bearster2 on the irc chat banned me? I'm not really going to keep posting if people ban me just because they don't get a few physics in QM.

-- Bridget

[Betsy]

LadyAttis, on Nov 26 2004, 12:48 PM, said:

I have a question to why a person named Bearster2 on the irc chat banned me? I'm not really going to keep posting if people ban me just because they don't get a few physics in QM. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ASK BEARSTER.

When Bearster banned my husband Stephen Speicher (a long-time, knowledgeable, and well-respected Objectivist on this forum and elsewhere) he said it was because:

1) Stephen used the word "just" and "the word 'just' conceals an
alterior (sic) motive" according to Bearster.

2) When Bearster asked Stephen which Objectivist books he had read, Stephen replied "pretty much everything" -- which is true. At that point, Bearster concluded he was a lying troll because:

"I can recall scores of trolls over the years who have claimed they've
read everything Rand wrote, and who either:
1) lied
2) read two novels"

I am not making this up. Read Bearster's entire reply at http://tinyurl.com/6p3xk and links to information about other Objectivists banned from the channel at http://www.dismuke.org/ircissues.html.

[GreedyCapitalist]

I asked LadyAttis if she had a transcript and she replied:

Quote

Nah, I just was being an asshat. But he seems anal when claiming that QM sets a primacy on consciousness...

I’m not sure what being an “asshat” involves, but it’s not tolerated here either.

[Patrick N.]

GreedyCapitalist, on Nov 26 2004, 02:15 PM, said:

I asked LadyAttis if she had a transcript and she replied:

I’m not sure what being an “asshat” involves, but it’s not tolerated here either.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.urbandict...php?term=asshat

[LadyAttis]

Still he really set me off with the reference that Quantum Mechanics puts primacy on consciousness. It never does, unless you believe Niels Bohr's unscientific CI paper. >.< And Bohm's 'Holomovement', which neither are accepted as scientific. o.O

-- Bridget

[stephen_speicher]

LadyAttis, on Nov 26 2004, 12:48 PM, said:

I have a question to why a person named Bearster2 on the irc chat banned me? I'm not really going to keep posting if people ban me just because they don't get a few physics in QM.

-- Bridget
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I know "Bearster," who is actually Keith Weiner, owns that channel and can do whatever he wants with it, but he has no special privileges about what is posted here or who should be banned on this forum. Also, do not judge this forum and the people here by whatever went on at that irc channel.

[LadyAttis]

NP, I should've kept my mouth shut around him after he asked me to do some stupid quiz that was loaded against anyone that read Kelley's work and etc. o_O I think he had like a hatred complex or somethin.

-- Bridget

[stephen_speicher]

LadyAttis, on Nov 26 2004, 06:32 PM, said:

NP, I should've kept my mouth shut around him after he asked me to do some stupid quiz that was loaded against anyone that read Kelley's work and etc. o_O I think he had like a hatred complex or somethin.

Permit me to give you a friendly word of advice. I have nothing to do with setting policy on this forum, but my observation, after posting here for about seven months, is that the forum is mostly ARI-affiliated, and Libertarians, Kelleyites, etc. are allowed as long as they are respectful and do not bash Ayn Rand, Objectivism, ARI, or Objectivists in general. Best you should just focus on ideas and facts and leave the psychology of others alone.

[Zeus]

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

Thank you for the valuable reference to OPAR, p. 150 -- which I had forgotten. I have learned from part of what you have said.

Thank you for your fidelity to reality. [I want to say, in passing, that I have read your book, The Aristotle Adventure and enjoyed it very much. Although I am not a historian, I think it may be safe to posit that your work there may well be the very first time that anyone, anywhere, has shown, by explicitly tracing the relevant historical figures and institutions, how Aristotle's epistemology was accepted and utilized by Galileo, i.e., how inductive logic unites ancient and modern physics.]

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

First, you are saying that an "objectivist" is one who has an objective epistemology, that is, an epistemology which (in my words) produces ideas that have a certain relationship to the facts of reality, a logical relationship. (Your summary -- "an unceasing mental oscillation between concretes and abstractions in the formulation of actionable principles, whilst keeping context and hierarchy" -- is very apt.) I can agree with this definition of "objectivist" in this epistemological context.

I do not agree that anyone who has an objective epistemology (an explicit theory of how we know things) necessarily would have an Objectivist epistemology. The latter is a particular formulation of some areas of epistemology by one objective person, Ayn Rand.

I agree with you that there is no such thing as "an objectivist," if that is used to refer to an individual (in any context). What I did say was that a person can be "objectivist." I did not mean "an objectivist." The small "o" here serves to obliterate Miss Rand's property rights. For "empiricism" and "rationalism," however, there were no claims on these concepts -- which makes sense, for neither of these schools' philosophers subscribe(d) in full to egoism. Auguste Comte, who coined "altruism," performed the most unselfish deed, indeed.

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

   
Second, if an "objectivist" is someone who holds a theory of objective epistemology, that fact says nothing about that person's metaphysics, ethics, politics, or esthetics. If his philosophy is inconsistent (for example, severing his epistemology from his ethics), he could have a wildly mystical ethics. I have met scientists like this: They advocate objectivity for the study of facts (sciences), and then fall back on revelation as a source of values (ethics)

I agree with this, which is why I wrote that anyone who claims to be objective today must necessarily be an Objectivist. Prior to Ayn Rand, a fact-based writer could be a Christopher Hitchens, a rather objective fellow who is, however, wrong on some important issues.

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

 
So, an "objectivist" is not necessarily an Objectivist, that is, one who agrees with Ayn Rand's whole philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.

I would amend this to read: "So, being "objectivist" was not necessarily being an Objectivist, that is, one who agrees with Ayn Rand's whole philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics." Then, I'd add: being "objectivist" would mean applying an objective approach to ideas in ALL facets of one's life - to all of objective reality.

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

 
In other words, objective, objectivist and Objectivist are not fully synonyms, although in certain uses and in certain contexts they are certainly compatible.

I agree entirely.

BurgessLau, on Nov 25 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

 
Also, one needs to keep in mind the distinction between "objective" (a concept of method) and "correct" (a concept of result). There can be many slip-ups in the process of reaching a conclusion. Two are errors in knowledge (for example, insufficient knowledge) and innocent errors in logic (especially in induction, the least developed area of logic).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a very interesting formulation you've made here. This very issue has been at the forefront of my mind for months but remained unnamed till now. I think this is the true test of an Objectivist, and of a person's objectivity: understanding this distinction. Which is why I do not consider simply agreeing with Ayn Rand's conclusions (while I agree now with a great many of them) the mark of objectivity.

[stephen_speicher]

Zeus, on Nov 26 2004, 08:01 PM, said:

[I want to say, in passing, that I have read your book, The Aristotle Adventure and enjoyed it very much.  Although I am not a historian, I think it may be safe to posit that your work there may well be the very first time that anyone, anywhere, has shown, by explicitly tracing the relevant historical figures and institutions, how Aristotle's epistemology was accepted and utilized by Galileo, i.e., how inductive logic unites ancient and modern physics.]

With all due respect to Burgess -- and, I must admit I have not read his book, but this statement of yours has piqued my interest and I will order a copy now -- this is a theme that certainly has been touched on before. For a prime example I refer you to John Herman Randall, Jr's classic paper, "The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 177-206, April 1940, and to the references therein. (Incidentally, as much as I enjoyed Randall's book on Aristotle {reviewed by Ayn Rand}, I personally think of this paper by Randall as his greatest work.)

[Zeus]

stephen_speicher, on Nov 26 2004, 09:23 PM, said:

With all due respect to Burgess -- and, I must admit I have not read his book, but this statement of yours has piqued my interest and I will order a copy now -- this is a theme that certainly has been touched on before. For a prime example I refer you to John Herman Randall, Jr's classic paper, "The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 177-206, April 1940, and to the references therein. (Incidentally, as much as I enjoyed Randall's book on Aristotle {reviewed by Ayn Rand}, I personally think of this paper by Randall as his greatest work.)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for the reference, Mr. Speicher. I will follow-up on your recommendation.

[BurgessLau]

stephen_speicher, on Nov 26 2004, 08:23 PM, said:

For a prime example I refer you to John Herman Randall, Jr's classic paper, "The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 177-206, April 1940, and to the references therein.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cite Randall's The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science, 1961, and his The Career of Philosophy (Vol. I), 1962, but not the journal article. I vaguely remember that at least one of the books drew in part on the research Randall did for the much earlier journal article.

The Aristotle Adventure is not a history of science, philosophy of science, or philosophy. It is an accounting of how Aristotle's books got from his time to the Renaissance, Galileo in particular. It covers 2000 years of history in 200 pages, and it is thus an introduction ("Guide") to the individuals involved in the Greek, Latin, and Arabic streams. Its intended audience is very young intellectuals and general readers interested in intellectual history. Others may benefit.

My main interest is the social side of intellectual history: What intellectuals did about their beliefs. One thing they did was act to preserve and disseminate the books they valued.