3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    That's reeeeally not how critical discussions work, and I think I'm seeing the problem here. You can find lots of critiques of objectivism based on some inconsistency in its flaws or premises; what you can't find much of is objectivists addressing or resolving those critiques. You can only find them dismissing them ("lacking logic and understanding"), as you've done. Where adherents of some mainstream philosophy are faced with critiques, they usually try to resolve them to strengthen the philosophy or, if it can't be resolved, discard the philosophy. You just don't really see that happening with objectivism. There's no "echo chamber" here, mainstream philosophy evaluated your stuff long ago and moved on. As for taking a lack of humility as an insult, why on earth would that be an insult or bother you? You're right, aren't you? Objectivism is the best philosophy, isn't it? Why would you need to be humble?
    - arkis22 10y ago
      You have a strange definition of critical discussions if you don't think people bring up their points and criticize other's viewpoints. I'm sorry, but I can't include complete philosophical essays about Objectivism, its criticism, and my rebuttal in these comments to justify my logic for you. I'm sure if you really wanted to you could find people that could address these critiques. I don't think you want to. If I disprove assumptions (the flaws or premises in objectivism), I have already disproved the conclusion. I have not proven myself correct, but I have shown the conclusion to be incorrect. That's just logic. You're saying objectivism excludes humility? Silly, Objectivism doesn't mean you should be a tool. Ironically, that suggests a lack of understanding in your critique.

by arkis22 10y ago

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.
- Frondo 10y ago
  That's reeeeally not how critical discussions work, and I think I'm seeing the problem here. You can find lots of critiques of objectivism based on some inconsistency in its flaws or premises; what you can't find much of is objectivists addressing or resolving those critiques. You can only find them dismissing them ("lacking logic and understanding"), as you've done. Where adherents of some mainstream philosophy are faced with critiques, they usually try to resolve them to strengthen the philosophy or, if it can't be resolved, discard the philosophy. You just don't really see that happening with objectivism. There's no "echo chamber" here, mainstream philosophy evaluated your stuff long ago and moved on. As for taking a lack of humility as an insult, why on earth would that be an insult or bother you? You're right, aren't you? Objectivism is the best philosophy, isn't it? Why would you need to be humble?
  - arkis22 10y ago
    You have a strange definition of critical discussions if you don't think people bring up their points and criticize other's viewpoints. I'm sorry, but I can't include complete philosophical essays about Objectivism, its criticism, and my rebuttal in these comments to justify my logic for you. I'm sure if you really wanted to you could find people that could address these critiques. I don't think you want to. If I disprove assumptions (the flaws or premises in objectivism), I have already disproved the conclusion. I have not proven myself correct, but I have shown the conclusion to be incorrect. That's just logic. You're saying objectivism excludes humility? Silly, Objectivism doesn't mean you should be a tool. Ironically, that suggests a lack of understanding in your critique.