cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) (03/22/88)
I've heard mention of 'Objectivism' in several postings, but no explanation. What is it? If it is the 'Objectivist' philosophy with respect to morality, being, existance etc, then it is about the most non-individual thing in existance ( To be mildly unfair to the objective philosophers, they basically say there is only one truth wrt ethics/aesthetics/existance etc, and usually claim to have access to it). Is it something else you refer to? Please enlighten me. Chris Preist.
cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) (03/25/88)
Thanks, Tim, your little essay was quite helpful, though it still hasn't cleared up some of my confusion. Basically, my question is, is the 'Objectivism' you talk of the same as the 'objectivism' in the objective/relative/subjective reality trichotomy, as debated by various philosophers over the past few centuries? Perhaps the easiest way to find out would be to read some Rand. Could you reference a short accessible work by her, for me to taste? Also, could you tell me when she was (is?) alive? Cheers, Chris Preist.
paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) (03/27/88)
In article <5430003@otter.hple.hp.com> cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist): >Basically, my question is, is the 'Objectivism' you talk of the same as >the 'objectivism' in the objective/relative/subjective reality trichotomy, >as debated by various philosophers over the past few centuries? That you are even aware of the objective/subjective/intrinsic trichotomy has almost got to be due to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, since, frankly, Aristotle hasn't written anything in a long time :-). So, yes. >Perhaps the easiest way to find out would be to read some Rand. Could >you reference a short accessible work by her, for me to taste? Also, could >you tell me when she was (is?) alive? I don't have the B.Branden biography handy right now, but I think Rand was born in 1902 or 1903, and died in 1981. As for a short accessible work, I can recommend "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", a collection of her essays. She was also an incredible fiction writer; I always suggest "Atlas Shrugged" to those interested in finding out about Rand's world view; however, Atlas is by no means "short" even though it is quite readable. To sample her fiction, you may want to try "The Early Ayn Rand," a collection of short stories from her pre-fame days. -- Paul A Vixie Esq paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net {uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul San Francisco, (415) 647-7023
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/27/88)
In article <5430003@otter.hple.hp.com> cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) writes: >Basically, my question is, is the 'Objectivism' you talk of the same as >the 'objectivism' in the objective/relative/subjective reality trichotomy, >as debated by various philosophers over the past few centuries? Ah, it seems I misunderstood your original post. Sorry. It seemed at first to be another one of the "other people do this, so you can't do this and still be allowed to post on this newsgroup" posts. I don't know much about philosophy, but I'm quite sure that Rand falls in the "objective" side of the "objective/relative/subjective" reality trichotomy. On the other hand, she emphasizes the need for the individual to do his own reasoning, rather than blindly take someone else's word about the nature of "objective" reality. >Perhaps the easiest way to find out would be to read some Rand. Could >you reference a short accessible work by her, for me to taste? Also, could >you tell me when she was (is?) alive? Ayn Rand first promoted her philosophies in fictional works, the notable ones being "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead". After "Atlas Shrugged", she wrote only nonfiction. If you want to try to get to the heart of the matter without wading through thousands of pages of fictional stuff, read her book "The New Intellectual" (or maybe "For The New Intellectual"), which summarizes the relevant parts. If you want something shorter, just read John Galt's speach at the end of the book. Rand died in 1982. Her reasoning usually sounds more like browbeating than reasoning, but her conclusions about how people should live seem more workable to me than how lots of people actually live, so I find it interesting. -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) (04/05/88)
Interesting... One of you says no, and the other, yes! Well, I shall have to read myself, and find out. By the way, Aristotle may not have written anything, but others have. I found out about the trichotomy through the works of Kant, Kierkegaard, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Russell, Popper, Sartre, Haack, Quine, and of course, our dear friend Plato. Rand isn't the only philosopher in existance, you know! :-) Thanks for the details you gave, and also to the kind person who sent a longer reading list over email. I tried to reply, but suffered from rubber letter syndrome. I shall probably be back in a month or so, to give you my verdict on Rand.. (Dont worry, just :-)!!!) Chris
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/10/88)
In article <5430005@otter.hple.hp.com> cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) writes: > >By the way, Aristotle may not have written anything, but others have. I found >out about the trichotomy through the works of Kant, Kierkegaard, Ayer, >Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Russell, Popper, Sartre, Haack, Quine, and of >course, our dear friend Plato. Rand isn't the only philosopher in existance, >you know! :-) Yes, but according to Rand, all of these guys are wimps (except Aristotle and perhaps St. Augustine). The problem is that most of those folks who are so big on Rand have not attempted to read any of the above and take Rand's word that they are full of it. Rand particularly does Kant an injustice and this alone made me decide she was the one who was "full of it." She is also credited with describing Zen Buddism as "...a philosophy of barefoot savages who scratch at the earth for food." -- "To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." - Robert Sheckley pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).
seshadri@hpindda.HP.COM (Raghu Seshadri) (04/12/88)
/ hpindda:alt.individualism / pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) / 10:03 pm Apr 9, 1988 / -She is also credited with describing Zen Buddism as "...a philosophy of barefoot -savages who scratch at the earth for food." Thanks for this quote, Philip. I have only read one of Rand's ravings but this quote is in character. If only all anti-humanists were equally explicit, we could figure them out without having to wade through the immense mass of peurile froth. RS
paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) (04/14/88)
In <5430005@otter.hple.hp.com> cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) writes: >Interesting... One of you says no, and the other, yes! Well, I shall have to >read myself, and find out. I wish more people would. Noone is to be trusted in passing judgement on philosophical ideas, except oneself. >By the way, Aristotle may not have written anything, but others have. I found >out about the trichotomy through the works of Kant, Kierkegaard, Ayer, >Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Russell, Popper, Sartre, Haack, Quine, and of >course, our dear friend Plato. Rand isn't the only philosopher in existance, >you know! :-) Yeah, I know :-). I knew (and I was quickly told) that I would catch some flak for that comment ... but I had a few other things to say about it and I thought I'd try to make the discussion run for a few iterations, without me puking forth a huge load of verbiage all at once. Of the philosophers you named, I am unfamiliar with the ideas of Kierk., Ayer, Popper, Haack, and Quine. Of the rest, *none* of them formulated the (objective,subjective,intrinsic)/(whatever,you-want,to-call-it) trichotomy in quite the same way Aristotle (and later, Rand) did. And, certainly, none of those I recognize fall on the side of the objective. Skeptics and mystics, the lot of them. Plato chief among the mystics, I might add. Aristotle, as his student, inherited some of it -- but he was the _first_ philosopher in history to come out on the side of objective reality, and Rand was one of the _last_ (so far), other than _her_ pupils and various quasi-original Aristotelian (sp?) scholars presently making non-waves in the philosphical community. So you see that my earlier comment, teasing though it was, was motivated by a (small, I admit) battery of actual facts :-). >I shall probably be back in a month or so, to give you my verdict on Rand.. A month? After a month, I was strongly intrigued. After several years, I'm still not an expert. I hope your policy on verdicts is a flexible one... -- Paul A Vixie Esq paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net {uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul San Francisco, (415) 647-7023
dstalder@gmuvax2 (Darren Stalder) (04/15/88)
>She is also credited with describing Zen Buddism as "...a philosophy >of barefoot savages who scratch at the earth for food." Could you give me a reference for this so I can 'prove' it to someone should they ask?? -- Torin/Darren Stalder/Wolf Blessed Internet: dstalder@gmuvax2.gmu.edu Be! Bitnet: dstalder@gmuvax ATTnet: 1-703-352-8124 Hail uucp: multiverse!uunet!pyrdc!gmu90x!dstalder Eris! Snail: PO Box 405/Fairfax, VA 22030/USA DISCLAIMER: I have enough problems getting credit what I do do for work, much less this stuff.
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/17/88)
In article <864@vixie.UUCP> paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) writes: >I wish more people would. Noone is to be trusted in passing judgement on >philosophical ideas, except oneself. I might add that you take your own advice here. It is obvious to me that your notions of what modern philosophy is all about come from Rands own books. I am not trying to flame you, but anyone who would make statements like the ones below is on unfamiliar ground. >Of the philosophers you named, I am unfamiliar with the ideas of Kierk., >Ayer, Popper, Haack, and Quine. Of the rest, *none* of them formulated the >(objective,subjective,intrinsic)/(whatever,you-want,to-call-it) trichotomy >in quite the same way Aristotle (and later, Rand) did. And, certainly, none >of those I recognize fall on the side of the objective. Skeptics and mystics, >the lot of them. Plato chief among the mystics, I might add. Aristotle, as >his student, inherited some of it -- but he was the _first_ philosopher in >history to come out on the side of objective reality, and Rand was one of >the _last_ (so far), other than _her_ pupils and various quasi-original >Aristotelian (sp?) scholars presently making non-waves in the philosphical >community. This is what I mean. I will focus for a minute on Kant, since Rand's slander of him is one of her most ignorant deeds. Kant is diffinitely not a mystic. If he is a skeptic, he is skeptical of sloppy metaphysical speculations common in his day. Kant's philosophical system was part of the reaction by modern philosophy against the epistemological straightjacket of Plato and Aristotle. This reaction began with Decarte. Prior to it, all philosophy had to begin with an appeal to these authorities. I would also like to suggest that you review Aristotle again. There seems to be much you have missed. Again, I am not interested in flames. I am not trying to claim any sort of intellectual superiority. Most of these guys are a bitch to read, and almost impossible outside of the context of a classroom or study group. Part of Rand's appeal is due to the fact that she is accessible- one does not have to have a background in philosophy to understand her. Nonetheless, as she stirs your interest in this stuff, find some friends and take on, even if only for critical evaluation, some of these "Great Books."
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/17/88)
In article <963@gmu90x.UUCP> dstalder@gmuvax2 (Darren Stalder) writes: >>She is also credited with describing Zen Buddism as "...a philosophy >>of barefoot savages who scratch at the earth for food." > >Could you give me a reference for this so I can 'prove' it to someone >should they ask?? >-- I believe it comes from "For the New Intellectual," I will try to find it and give you a more exact citation. Unfortuantely, none of Rand's non-fictional works have an index, so it means skimming through it to find that one phrase. I did write it down, as it struck me as a good summation of the polemic that characterizes her "critique" of modern philosophy. As I have said, perhaps she might get someone to read Kant or Plato, to see if she is right. Unfortunately, I have found none of her supporters her have done that. Pity. > Torin/Darren Stalder/Wolf >Blessed Internet: dstalder@gmuvax2.gmu.edu > Be! Bitnet: dstalder@gmuvax > ATTnet: 1-703-352-8124 > Hail uucp: multiverse!uunet!pyrdc!gmu90x!dstalder > Eris! Snail: PO Box 405/Fairfax, VA 22030/USA >DISCLAIMER: I have enough problems getting credit what I do do for > work, much less this stuff.