2 ms·

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 a

by 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

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.