Asimov wrote:Evangelion wrote: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.
I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I asked you to elaborate on what it doesn't offer
Asking me to elaborate on what it
doesn't offer,
is asking me to prove a negative!
The burden of proof lies with you. What are the benefits of Objectivism? What does it have to offer?
since Objectivism speaks of intellectualism, sociology, philosphy, and economy as well as ethics and aesthetics and politics.
Irrelevant. Just because Objectivism "speaks of" intellectualism, sociology, philosphy, economy, ethics, aesthetics and politics doesn't mean that it actually
offers anything in these fields. I could "speak of" these subjects until the cows came home, but unless I could also offer something objective, meaningful, substantial, positive and life-changing in each area, I wouldn't have achieved anything.
You did claim it has nothing to offer intellectually, and now you're saying that it might have something to offer intellectually. Stick to your stance.
On reflection, I decided that it might offer some emotional and/or intellectual benefit, in the same way that Christianity offers emotional and/or intellectual benefit to Christians. This is not the same as rejecting my entire position on Objectivism.
In any case, I am at liberty to change my mind - am I not?
Randian Objectivism is small and insignificant but the philosophies that Objectivism encompasses are huge.
Irrelevant. The philosophies that most worldviews encompass are huge. But so what? Unless the philosophy itself is huge, there will be little impact on the rest of the world.
If you're speaking specifically of Rands philophy, sure, it's small. What does that matter, though?
See above.
Rand didn't develop her philosophy until the 20th Century, which is small blip in the course of human history. Even Christianity didn't take off right away as a widespread belief system.
Irrelevant. I can name three other philosophies developed in the 20th Century which have had a massive impact on the entire world: Socialism, Communism and Facism. Objectivism doesn't even come close to the stature of these systems.
What insults? Who am I insulting?
Wow, calling people who adhere to Objectivist principles egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs is not an insult?
I said it was a world-view
for egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs. I didn't actually claim that you are one. I do not reject the possibility that some Objectivists are not egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs.
So I haven't actually insulted you.
Again, who exactly, am I insulting - and how?
And then insinuating that Objectivists are close-minded in a broad brush-stroke stereotype.
I speak on the basis of personal experience with other Objectivists I have known personally (one of whom was a member of my former university's Philosophy Society). If it's a stereotype, it is one I have reached after interaction with Objectivists themselves.
If you wish to remove that bad impression, this is your chance.
Are you going to accuse black people of being useless thieves next and then be surprised that people consider those insults?
Please, don't talk nonsense. Try to remain... objective.
For someone who is quick to belittle Christianity, you seem remarkably sensitive to any criticism of your own beliefs.
Did I speak of being offended?
Well, you certainly gave that impression with your frequent accusations that I had insulted you. Are you now saying that you were
not offended, and that I have
not insulted you?
Please, stick to your stance.
An entire post of vitriol gives me nothing to discuss with you about Objectivism.
LOL, you call this "vitriol"?
What an incredible over-reaction.
Instead, you rant on with no questions, no room to discuss, you just offer you "criticisms" on it and then expect me to do something about it, hoping to change my mind to the obviously more suitable position of existentialism. Without of course supporting why existentialism is superior.
What gives you the idea that I was hoping to change your mind to existentialism? That seems an incredible leap of logic, particularly since I am not an existentialist myself. I wasn't trying to change your mind; I was merely giving you my opinion of Objectivism, after which I posted some criticisms of it at your request. Please, don't presuppose my motives. At the very least, it is disingenuous; at the very most, it is extremely dishonest.
I believe that Existentialism is superior due to its intellectual honestly. Existentialism simply states that life has no meaning except that which we create for ourselves, by the actions we choose.
I read a few of the links, and I disagreed with a number of points. I'm not going to argue with a website and if you have a favourite criticism then by all means post it in your own words and we can discuss.
My favourite criticism is that its most important premises are utterly unprovable.
Take, for example, Objectivism's stance on individual rights. Rand argues that only individuals have rights (why only individuals?), and that the most fundamental of these is the right to life.
But on what basis does she make this claim, and why should we accept it? We cannot prove it from reason, from nature, from science, from mathematics, from philosophy, or any of the other conceptual tools at our disposal. It is merely an optimistic idea which Rand borrowed from Rousseau (who first proposed the doctrine of "natural rights").
It is, in fact, nothing more than an article of faith.
I see...so, ignoring my:
"If you care to actually point out any flaws I'll be happy to discuss them with you."
I'm apparently close-minded and hypocritical.
I didn't claim that you were unwilling to discuss it. I was simply commenting on your strong reaction to criticism, which at first appeared to prelude any possibility of discussion.
Who says I don't accept any criticism of my belief? I don't accept it because you haven't supported it. Of course, I haven't read your proceeding replies.
By "accept", I did not mean "embrace"; I meant "tolerate". But you seem to have come round a little, so that's OK.
As an atheist and debating opponent, you have just lost all credibility with me.
Aww, I'm crushed that you would think that. For someone who didn't offer a debate about objectivism and link-dumps, I don't care.
Aww, what a great guy!