Asimov wrote:Evangelion wrote:
Objectivism is a joke. I know of no serious academic or philosopher who takes it seriously, and no leading research university which considers it worthy of specialisation or study. I studied philosophy at university (Bachelor of Arts: Major in Religious studies; Minor in Philosophy), and covered many different schools of philosophical thought. Objectivism was not one of them; it wasn't even mentioned in passing.
So?
So I am surprised that an obviously intelligent person such as yourself has chosen to adopt it as his personal worldview.
Could you elaborate as to what it doesn't offer? Since you seem to be so well-versed in the apparent irrelevance of Objectivism.
I never claimed that it doesn't offer anything. I am sure that it offers some sort of emotional and/or intellectual benefit to those who embrace it - just as Christianity does.
In any case, it's impossible to prove a negative. That's a logical fallacy - as you would have known if you had studied philosophy.
That's a matter of opinion.
No, it is a matter of
fact. Objectivism is so small and insignificant that it constitutes little more than a private club. It has had no discernable impact on history or society.
Her writings are turgid, verbose, and laughable; her propositions woefully argued. She distorts her sources, she hardly ever references her quotes, she throws sweeping generalisations into a half-baked mixture of unsupported assertions and unproven premises, and her fiction is interspersed with scenes of violent sex (possibly inspired by personal experiences within her various failed relationships - one of which was with a married man).
Again, care to support any of those premises?
Firstly, these are not premises. A premise is the foundation of an argument; these are criticisms in the form of allegations. And yes, I can support all of them.
Secondly - read her work! (
Have you read any of it?) Failing that, visit the Website to which I've posted a link, and read other people's critiques of Objectivism.
Hey, I'll even do you a favour and quote some of them in my next post.
Rand was a pseudo-philosophical poseur who created a club for egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs and called it "Objectivism". It is not a serious worldview; it is merely populist pap for lassaiz-faire capitalists.
Insults now?
What insults? Who am I insulting?
I can recommend
this site. It contains many excellent critiques of Objectivism (though there are a few dead links here and there). Please read it with an open mind; a difficult task for an Objectivist, I know. But please, do try.
More insults?
Again, who exactly, am I insulting - and how?
I would have thought that a person of your obvious intelligence would be more inclined to existentialism (which in my opinion is the most intellectually honest philosophical position for an athiest).
A matter of opinion again.
Well, obviously!
Your acceptance of Objectivism is as disappointing as it is baffling.
Well so far I've read 4 or 5 paragraphs of you insulting me.
Oh really? Where did I insult you? Please quote the exact words with which I allegedly insulted you.
For someone who is quick to belittle Christianity, you seem remarkably sensitive to any criticism of your own beliefs.
If you care to actually point out any flaws I'll be happy to discuss them with you.
I posted a link to a site containing some excellent discussions and critiques of Objectivism and Rand's work. If you don't want to read them, that's your business.
However, I must point out that it doesn't look very good when an atheist comes onto a Christian forum to criticise Christianity, but refuses to accept any criticisms of his own worldview. That's a classic case of hypocrisy.
As an atheist and debating opponent, you have just lost all credibility with me.