4 ms·

Annnnd we've finally arrived at the classic liberal. I'm dumb, crazy, and there's something wrong with me. Why should your argument only apply to her and not yo

by arkis22 10y ago

Annnnd we've finally arrived at the classic liberal. I'm dumb, crazy, and there's something wrong with me. Why should your argument only apply to her and not you? You've listed no counter examples. Thank you, you too.

goalieca 10y ago
A few clicks into Google and I found many scholarly critiques on her work as well objectivism in general. There seems to be consensus on rejecting this philosophy. Basically, it has no supporters in the academic community.
- arkis22 10y ago
  There are scholarly critiques on everything. No philisophy is perfect. Capitalism and Socialism obviously have their scholarly critiques. Atlas Shrugged is a novel which happens to contain Ayn Rand's philosophy. You can learn from it or not. I think there's some truth to all kinds philosophy, you just need to be discerning. An analogy to this would be: "you can't seriously be a Christian. No academic thinks the Bible really happened." I can still learn from the Bible, or the Church, even if it's all a lie. If you're looking for a scholarly consensus on the "one true universal philosphy" you're going to be waiting awhile.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Objectivism, as a philosophy, was never really offered up to the academic community; when studied, it has been largely been found to be inconsistent and incoherent, as a work of philosophy, by the community. Googling "objectivism critique" makes for good reading. That's not to say that there's nothing useful in objectivism, but as a work of philosophy it's weak in some ways that could be shored up, and weak in other ways that could not. Of course, Ayn Rand went the pop philosophy route, publishing novels and leading a weird tiny cult more than trying to address critiques of her work.
    - arkis22 10y ago
      I have read critique's and found their logic and understanding lacking. The same way they find my logic and understanding lacking. Both sides are echo chambers because neither side can prove anything. Philosophy is wild like that. The only thing you can do is think for yourself.
      - Frondo 10y ago
        You're free to dismiss the philosophical critiques of objectivism as "they're an echo chamber"-- it's a free country, for now, at least. I do think it's interesting that the defenders of objectivism here are so confident, where mainstream philosophers really tend to be pretty humble. The way I read it, mainstream philosophers know their ideas will either stand on their own, or get built on by the next generation for something bigger and better. Kinda like, most scientists I've ever known were pretty humble. Rare is it to meet a philosopher who's as confident in their stuff as the objectivist defenders here, and never ever have I met a philosopher or scientist who's dismissed critiques as "they're an echo chamber". I dunno. I'd like to see an objectivist embrace that kind of humility and see where it takes them. (My guess is, it takes them straight out of objectivism entirely, which is why you don't see anyone like that.)
        arkis22 10y ago
        Except I didn't dismiss the philosophical critiques of objectivism as an echo chamber. I critiqued them as lacking logic and understanding. I said both sides are an echo chamber. I can sit here and give you my reasons, and then you can give me your reasons, and then I can say what problems I have with yours, and you can say your problem with mine. At the end of the day if we disagree then we're both just repeating our reasons and not convincing each other. An inconclusive echo chamber. Philosophy. If you look up the word humble, it means having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance. I'm not arguing about my importance though am I? I'm arguing about an opinion on an independent issue I feel correct in, just like you. Only I'm using reason instead of insulting your character.
        10y ago

by arkis22 10y ago

goalieca 10y ago

A few clicks into Google and I found many scholarly critiques on her work as well objectivism in general. There seems to be consensus on rejecting this philosophy. Basically, it has no supporters in the academic community.

arkis22 10y ago
There are scholarly critiques on everything. No philisophy is perfect. Capitalism and Socialism obviously have their scholarly critiques. Atlas Shrugged is a novel which happens to contain Ayn Rand's philosophy. You can learn from it or not. I think there's some truth to all kinds philosophy, you just need to be discerning. An analogy to this would be: "you can't seriously be a Christian. No academic thinks the Bible really happened." I can still learn from the Bible, or the Church, even if it's all a lie. If you're looking for a scholarly consensus on the "one true universal philosphy" you're going to be waiting awhile.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Objectivism, as a philosophy, was never really offered up to the academic community; when studied, it has been largely been found to be inconsistent and incoherent, as a work of philosophy, by the community. Googling "objectivism critique" makes for good reading. That's not to say that there's nothing useful in objectivism, but as a work of philosophy it's weak in some ways that could be shored up, and weak in other ways that could not. Of course, Ayn Rand went the pop philosophy route, publishing novels and leading a weird tiny cult more than trying to address critiques of her work.
  - arkis22 10y ago
    I have read critique's and found their logic and understanding lacking. The same way they find my logic and understanding lacking. Both sides are echo chambers because neither side can prove anything. Philosophy is wild like that. The only thing you can do is think for yourself.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      You're free to dismiss the philosophical critiques of objectivism as "they're an echo chamber"-- it's a free country, for now, at least. I do think it's interesting that the defenders of objectivism here are so confident, where mainstream philosophers really tend to be pretty humble. The way I read it, mainstream philosophers know their ideas will either stand on their own, or get built on by the next generation for something bigger and better. Kinda like, most scientists I've ever known were pretty humble. Rare is it to meet a philosopher who's as confident in their stuff as the objectivist defenders here, and never ever have I met a philosopher or scientist who's dismissed critiques as "they're an echo chamber". I dunno. I'd like to see an objectivist embrace that kind of humility and see where it takes them. (My guess is, it takes them straight out of objectivism entirely, which is why you don't see anyone like that.)
      - arkis22 10y ago
        Except I didn't dismiss the philosophical critiques of objectivism as an echo chamber. I critiqued them as lacking logic and understanding. I said both sides are an echo chamber. I can sit here and give you my reasons, and then you can give me your reasons, and then I can say what problems I have with yours, and you can say your problem with mine. At the end of the day if we disagree then we're both just repeating our reasons and not convincing each other. An inconclusive echo chamber. Philosophy. If you look up the word humble, it means having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance. I'm not arguing about my importance though am I? I'm arguing about an opinion on an independent issue I feel correct in, just like you. Only I'm using reason instead of insulting your character.
        10y ago