You could use the mental exercise.

Nick

angler vampire
hungry for a bite
he feeds out hooks and lines
fishing for his ego

To Scott DeSalvo;

"Real life is not systematic. Pretty philosophies go out the window when we deal with people in the street"

In essence, Objectivists might most easily identify your objection as another way of saying "Well, that might be true in theory, but not in practice."

Close but not quite. Yes, Objectivists say that there is no contradiction between the rational and the practical, but it is not always that easy. If it were, Rand would not have denounced pragmatism as she did. In her novels, there is no disagreement between rational men. When Dagny ends up with Galt, none of her other lovers object. This was very ideal. It didn’t happen like that in Rand’s real life, did it? Objectivists, themselves, object to the systematic philosophies of Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Marx. According to Kelley, Objectivism is not supposed to be a rationalistic system where everything is derived deductively from axioms. He criticizes Peikoff for saying things like one should see laissez-faire capitalism in A is A, and that one is immoral if he or she denies it. Kelley says Objectivism is more like an edifice than a rationalistic system. However, an edifice, where pieces fit exactly, has some of the same problems as do systems. People tend to reject pieces of information which don’t fit, but those pieces might still be true. The coherence theory of truth is not fool-proof. I addressed this in the first part of my Alice in Objectivist Land series.

I comes down to fundamentals. Either you agree that there is a knowable objective reality, or you do not. Please answer that question, because I need to know your simple answer to that question.

The simple answer is yes, there is a knowable objective reality. However, within those generalizable parameters, there is room for humans to create reality, to participate in the creation of their natures, their essences. They are the subjects which make objects of all that isn’t them. They are limited in this by objective reality, but they are more than just passive pieces of clay shaped and molded by external forces over which they have no control. They have no control over fixed laws of logic and nature, but they do have some control over their goals. They have free-will. It is their subject, for itself, status which allows this.

Assuming that the answer is yes, I guess I would say that there are many unintegrated philosophies that do not do much to help you whether on the street in an ivory tower.

True, but systematic philosophies tend to confine one. It is like living by a doctrine rather than by one’s own judgment.

Objectivism IS integrated, but that doesn't mean it answers every question for you without your applying your values, context, and reason to a given situation. I mean, it explains the standard of value, the means of evaluating.

However, there are some situations which escape evaluation by reason and integrated philosophies, as I discussed with wmgreen. There are times when we face multiple options where consequences are equal or unknown. We just have to choose. And, second, the only criterion for validating knowledge in Objectivism is 1. acceptance of the axiomatic concepts and 2. agreement with prior knowledge derived from those axioms. So, it is like saying, believe what you want as long as you agree with me.

To JoeM;

"Are Objectivists afraid to face a life without such devices? Can they admit that life is absurd, that there is no pre-existing meaning or purpose for man, that man is truly free to put his own meaning into the world?"

I'm assuming your're coming from the existential,
Sarte/Kafka viewpoint here. Is this correct?

Yes, mostly Sartre, although I have read Kafka extensively also.

But why do you equate the idea of a non-pre-existing meaning or purpose with absurdity? Without a conscious being to make that judgement, things "just are." A rock "just is." Matter "just is." People can be absurd, sure. People can give absurd meanings to existence. But existence as absured intrinsically? I mean, I'm not going to turn into a beetle upon awakening...

“Dr. P read a quote by Peikoff which said Sartre held that the world is absurd, can you explain that?” asked Dr. K.

“Absurdism in Existentialism is the realization that there is no reason for our existence.” said Alice, “We find ourselves here. We didn’t ask to be here. Yes, we are special in that nobody else is exactly like us. We are individuals. However, the world would go on just fine without us. People die every day. We would like to think it matters that we exist, at least to ourselves and some other people, but we must also understand that, in the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t. We are both special and not special. It’s a paradox. It’s a contradiction. It is A is both A and not A, but it is still true.”

bis bald,

Nick

"Are Objectivists afraid to face a life without such devices? Can they admit that life is absurd, that there is no pre-existing meaning or purpose for man, that man is truly free to put his own meaning into the world?"

I'm assuming your're coming from the existential, Sarte/Kafka viewpoint here. Is this correct? But why do you equate the idea of a non-pre-existing meaning or purpose with absurdity? Without a conscious being to make that judgement, things "just are." A rock "just is." Matter "just is." People can be absurd, sure. People can give absurd meanings to existence. But existence as absured intrinsically? I mean, I'm not going to turn into a beetle upon awakening...

"Real life is not systematic. Pretty philosophies go out the window when we deal with people in the street"

In essence, Objectivists might most easily identify your objection as another way of saying "Well, that might be true in theory, but not in practice."

I comes down to fundamentals. Either you agree that there is a knowable objective reality, or you do not. Please answer that question, because I need to know your simple answer to that question.

Assuming that the answer is yes, I guess I would say that there are many unintegrated philosophies that do not do much to help you whether on the street in an ivory tower.

Objectivism IS integrated, but that doesn't mean it answers every question for you without your applying your values, context, and reason to a given situation. I mean, it explains the standard of value, the means of evaluating.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

What is this getting anybody on either side of the debate? I'll give Nick one point, there certainly is a lot of "absurdity" going on. The Tower of Babel will never be complete.

responding to a post without reading it and then admitting that you haven't read it because it is a waste of time for you exposes you as an idiot who would rather waste time with mindless and childish insults, the kind I've become exhausted with in high school years.

Objectivists are supposed to value reason and evidence, yet there is very little of that used against people with whom they disagree.

You haven't read my posts. Therefore, you don't know what is in them. You have your pre-conceived ideas, and you will continue to be happy with them, as any willfully ignorant bigot would.

BTW, Objectivism is not equivalent with science. You should have learned that in high school, but you were probably willfully ignorant.

bis bald,

Nick

You don't raise new point. Most of what you talk about is stuff that I'd become exhausted with in high school years before I discovered Objectivism.

Your kind of reason treats as willfull ignorance not wanting to read the particular mangling of science of each trufer I encounter. There may in fact be some good worthy arguements against Objectivism. If I think you'd found one you'd know.

Right now you just sound like the mental masturbation artists I knew in high school.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Join the ranks of the willfully ignorant on this board.

Nick

And now I'm glad I didn't, that would be a few minutes of my life I'd miss too much since I'd never get them back.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

They're about pointless if they're not. It's a simple question of do you want to perform excercises in mental masturbation and word games, or do you want to understand how you should live your life.

Did you actually read my post? Or, are you just responding to the question in my title? My point was that systematic philosophies are just word games, putting ideas together like in jigsaw puzzels, and they don't help much when we need them for things like living life. Real life is not systematic. Pretty philosophies go out the window when we deal with people in the street.

bis bald,

Nick

They're about pointless if they're not. It's a simple question of do you want to perform excercises in mental masturbation and word games, or do you want to understand how you should live your life.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

a philosophy should be integrated both with your observations of reality and indeed all other concepts you hold as true.

In other words, if I don't hold it to be true, then it isn't true. Isn't this circular and self-confirming?

BTW, I have read IOTE. It is this that I am challenging.

bis bald,

Nick

A philosophy must be integrated if it is to correspond to reality and you want to use it. Since contradictions don't exist in reality (the law of identity) and knowledge is formed from concepts that at their base come from observations about reality (see IOTE), a philosophy should be integrated both with your observations of reality and indeed all other concepts you hold as true.

Wm