Ayn Rand–The Author People Love to Hate

[Chris]

People can 'hold' whatever philosophy or belief they want, whether Objectivism, Progressivism, or that the earth is flat.

The reality that Objectivism is more or less debunked both logically and scientifically won't change some from continuing to believe what they want for purely emotional reasons though. Why things that are, factually speaking, settled - like Objectivism's falsehood - continue to be 'debated' is beyond me, but c'este la vie.

Reality? Whose? Yours? You just argue for the sake of arguing, you have no meaningful purpose. Let me know when you debunk Objectivism.


BTW, I'm not an objectivist.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Reality? Whose? Yours? You just argue for the sake of arguing, you have no meaningful purpose. Let me know when you debunk Objectivism.


BTW, I'm not an objectivist.

That's fine, I'll restate what I said before about 2 of the "4 points" of Objectivism simply being wrong or unscientific:

1. Reason is the only means of perceiving reality

This is untrue. Humans and other animals are born with pre-encoded genetic instincts and understandings which do not come from "reasoning" (e.x. as mentioned, ants are born with the instinctive knowledge to create mounds complete with irrigation and plumbing systems despite not having a human neocortex).

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others

This is pseudo-scientific, since "man", "individuals", "others", etc have no scientifically objective existence, they are simply constructs or definitions, since everything can be defined as either a "part" or "whole" depending on perspective.

A human can be defined either as an "individual person", or as a collection of living organs and cells, likewise a country can be defined either as either a "collective of many citizens", or "one individual nation".

The only way for an "individual" to have an objective existence would be for it to a fundamental or irreducible entity which can't be broken down into more parts (e.x. an electron). Since human's physical selves can be broken into more living parts (e.x. organs, skin cells, etc), human "individuality" likewise does not exist objectively.

[Chris]

That's fine, I'll restate what I said before about 2 of the "4 points" of Objectivism simply being wrong or unscientific:

1. Reason is the only means of perceiving reality

This is untrue. Humans and other animals are born with pre-encoded genetic instincts and understandings which do not come from "reasoning" (e.x. as mentioned, ants are born with the instinctive knowledge to create mounds complete with irrigation and plumbing systems despite not having a human neocortex).

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others

This is pseudo-scientific, since "man", "individuals", "others", etc have no scientifically objective existence, they are simply constructs or definitions, since everything can be defined as either a "part" or "whole" depending on perspective.

A human can be defined either as an "individual person", or as a collection of living organs and cells, likewise a country can be defined either as either a "collective of many citizens", or "one individual nation".

The only way for an "individual" to have an objective existence would be for it to a fundamental or irreducible entity which can't be broken down into more parts (e.x. an electron). Since human's physical selves can be broken into more living parts (e.x. organs, skin cells, etc), human "individuality" likewise does not exist objectively.

Already commented on that in a previous post.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

One could also categorize a cell as a collection of nucleus and cytoplasm and membrane, or a nucleus a collection of chromosomes and a nucleolus. Going the other route one coould categorize an indivdual human being as a part of a collective or society, and that society a part of mammals, and so on.

Your argument seems to be with meaning itself.

That's the point, individuality is a mental perspective or definition. The only way for individuality to have an inherent existence would be for the self to be indivisible into smaller parts.

Already commented on that in a previous post.

You didn't comment on the statement that reason is the only basis for perceiving reality. That seems to contradict the fact that creatures (including humans) have in-born instincts, such as mating instincts, hive instincts in ants, etc, which don't come from "reasoning" (as in conscious thought), unless the definition of reasoning is being stretched into something broader than it usually refers.

[Chris]

That's the point, individuality is a mental perspective or definition. The only way for individuality to have an inherent existence would be for the self to be indivisible into smaller parts.


You didn't comment on the statement that reason is the only basis for perceiving reality. That seems to contradict the fact that creatures (including humans) have in-born instincts, such as mating instincts, hive instincts in ants, etc, which don't come from "reasoning" (as in conscious thought), unless the definition of reasoning is being stretched into something broader than it usually refers.

Face it, you have no point. I have demonstrated that.

I commented on it. Go back and read. Instinct and reason are two different things. Rand is talking about using reason to make choices, to design plans, to carry out plans. You're the one stretching things.