Talk:Objectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism article.

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Ath
Objectivism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia.
For more information and how you can help click Show →
Archive
Archives
  • 1, 2, 3, 4
  • 5, 6, 7, 8

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I propose this tag be removed. I've read through the entire archive of talk, and it appears that user gagnon has presented literally nothing besides his own opinion as a basis for his disagreement with the term "philosophy," against multiple reputable citations referring to it as a philosophy. Please present something beyond your own original work or concede removal of the tag. Pusher robot 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, there have been sources given that say she isn't a philosopher. We've had them here before, though I think someone deleted at least one of them. And please look at the other Rand-related talk pages; this is a multi-article spanning controversy. -- LGagnon 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me at least a link to where such sources have been presented? It's only reasonable to request that if you want to dispute NPOV on this article, you present some argument on this article's discussion page. Pusher robot 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ayn Rand and Talk:Atlas Shrugged have most of the discussion. -- LGagnon 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I scanned those pages but found no such sources. Would you be kind enough to reproduce them here? Pusher robot 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother, he will yell, scream, and throw a tantrum until he gets his way, the best way to deal with him (as I found out several weeks ago) is to stop dealing with him altogether. The Fading Light 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I for one think the whole "not a philosopher" part is about as weak as you can get. I first encountered Rand's work in an Intro to Philosophy course at UMASS in 1992. Objectivism was covered in a part of the textbook "About Philosophy" 5th edition by Robert Paul Wolf. Given that Rand held that most of the academic philosophers held positions in direct oposition to her views, it's hardly surprising that using them as a jury to determine whether she is really a philosopher is going to have a odd result. One can conceive all sorts of twisted arguemtns to assert any position. It's called spin. I thinks it's important for NPOV to include the parts on this article about controversies such as cultism, but this particular argument is silly. Ethan a dawe 12:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Ethan Dawe

WP:NPA says cut it out. -- LGagnon 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
LGagnon, truth is always a defense against the charge of personal attacks. Just a heads-up. MrVoluntarist 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not, especially when it's done in an incivil manner. And, might I add, you just made one yourself. -- LGagnon 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I said that truth is always a defense against the charge of personal attacks. And some of the true things about your posting history are necessarily going to sound incivil, but that says more about your posting history than malice on the part of other contributors. MrVoluntarist 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think the POV tag should stay (but for reasons other than LGagnon's). Britannica calls her a philosopher, as does my computer dictionary. Ethics classes at my school, Duke, use her books, and there is even an entire course devoted to Objectivism. LaszloWalrus 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the tag should stay? Pusher robot 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the criticism is unbalanced and weasel-y. LaszloWalrus 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag as the issue at hand was Rand being called a "philosopher." That really has no merit. I'm open to hearing other reason for npov to be restored. Ethan a dawe 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

[edit] Hilarity

Am I the only one who has noticed that Wikipedia and Objectivism are incompatible? Objectivism is based on doing what you want independent of others. Wikipedia is based on working together to create a source of knowledge for the use of all. This is why all the Randian pages are in constant turmoil, a conflict of ideologies. lol. Finite 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Your comment "Objectivism is based on doing what you want independent of others." Is innacurate. Objectivism is based on reality. And the part about "doing what you want" smacks of hedonism, which is not in accordance with Objectivism. Objectivism is about RATIONAL self interest. Wikipedia and Objectivism are NOT incompatible. IF an Objectivists finds value in wikipedia, spending time working on it is pursuing that value. Ethan a dawe 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

Just as a matter of curiosity: are you saying that participation in wikipedia would be inconsistent with hedonism, but O-ism isn't hedonism. Or are you saying that participation in wiki is consistent with hedonism too, since a hedonist can take his pleasure anywhere he/she finds it, including pleasure in co-operative endeavors? In the latter case, it doesn't matter whether or to what extent hedonism and O-ism differ, if they both endorse wiki-writing for roughly the same reason.
I'll try to be even more specific about my question, though. I read in your graf above at least two claims (1) that O-ists can and do consistently wiki, and (2) that the reason why O-ists wiki has a connection to the differences between their own views and those of hedonists. I'm happy to take your word for (1) but I'm confused about (2). Why couldn't hedoists "pursue that value" too? And if they could, why is the above paragraph supposed to involve "la differance"? --Christofurio 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Christofurio, my point had nothing to do with hedonists working on wiki. My point was that the comment that was made "Objectivism is based on doing what you want independent of others" is in error. Objectivism is not BASED on that. Also I comment that the statement seemes to suggest Objectivists do whatever they feel like doing disregarding others. That could be seen as hedonism, or several other things. I wanted to clariy that that was incorrect. As far as your break down of my "claims" (1) Sure (2) No, not at all. The reason an Objectivist would wiki is the same reason anyone would, because they value it. The poster who made the intial comment thinks editing on wiki and Objectivism are incompatible. That is false. Did this answer your question? Ethan a dawe 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to make a separate section for your reply; the standard is to keep a single discussion within one section. -- LGagnon 03:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm still unclear why you brought up hedonism at all then? You said that what finite said "smacks of hedonism" but ... so what? --Christofurio 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I brought up hedonsim because Objectivism is often mistaken for being the same as hedonism. The statement about "doing what you want independant of others" could be seen as hedonism, or also several other ethical systems. There is a great deal of confusion about this and it's often used innacurately to deride Objectivism.
Okay. Simply as a piece of advice then. In communicating about controversial and abstract matters, it is best to be clear about transitions, and not to write paragraphs that address in a mixed up way very different controversies. The moon is a satellite of the earth. The whole idea of paragraph structure is built upon distinction among topics.
And yes, I realize you haven't been discussing the moon that was my point. That sentence makes the above paragraph problematic. --Christofurio 13:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Finite's comments show that most of the anti-Objectivists trying to de-neutralize these articles have no idea what Objectivism really is. The Objectivist ethics states that each individual should indeed live pursuing his own selfish interests without coercion from others. However, "doing what you want independent of others" is not an accurate portrayl; you may want to cut your throat or jump off a cliff, but that doesn't advance your own self-interest. That which is in one's self-interest must be rationally and objectively identified. As far as cooperation goes, Objectivism states that all human relationships should be peaceful and voluntary; the difference between Objectivism's understanding of cooperation and any collectivist version is that the latter points a gun at your head and forces your submission. If Wikipedia is something you value and you want its articles to be accurate, then it would be in your self-interest to cooperate voluntarily with others to improve it.

So it's rational hedonism. Still hedonism. -Sammy D.
Sorry Sammy, you are incorrect.Ethan a dawe 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You describe collectivism as "putting a gun to your head" and in a rant about people giving false descriptions of something. Nice one. I think the Randists have just as many problems with understanding what they are talking about than anyone else. -- LGagnon 01:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, LGagnon, that is what collectivism is. It is the subjugation of the individual to society, the negation of individual rights in the name of "the common good." In a collectivist society, an individual's thought and work are proscribed and dictate by the state; his property belongs to "the community" and he has no right to exist for himself. It doesn't matter to what degree collectivism exists; the genocide of Nazi Germany was totally consistent with the principle of collectivism.

You know what, Sammy, you are wrong. Hedonism is defined as "the ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good." This is totally different from the rational egoism Ayn Rand advocated, which states that each individual should live for his own self interest and be the proper beneficiary of his own actions. A hedonist, for example, will find pleasure in taking drugs, but a rational egoist, knowing that drugs are detrimental to his own self interest, will abhor them. --24.220.246.20

Alright, let me clarify: It's just as bad as hedonism. Sure, the buzzword motivation is different, but if an "egoist" feels that s/he'd rather have this topic sing the praises of Ayn Rand then s/he would do it. More importantly, s/he would do it without any moral objections to using the most finely sliced bullshit possible. This is why I don't trust objectivists with the writing of this article (Not to say that they shouldn't participate, just that people should keep them in check.) - Sammy D.

Hedonism and egoism differ in that a hedonist will engage in any act that gives him pleasure regardless of the effects it will have on him in the long run, while an egoist will do only that which he rationally determines to be in his long term self interest. I'm sorry to say that anyone who thinks that Objectivism upholds hedonism has never read a single thing written by Ayn Rand.

"Bullshit." Sammy, I find your use of that word in reference to edits made by Objectivists to be offensive. Either way, I still don't understand how you can confuse rational egoism, which, let me state again, says that each individual should live pursuing his own rational self interest, with hedonism, which says that a person should engage in an activity which enhances his pleasure regardless of the effects it has on his long-term self-interest. Egoism says that human relationships are good, but should be voluntary and mutually-beneficial; if a person values Wikipedia, then it would be in his self-interest to work with others in improving it. --24.220.246.20
Sorry, I'm not gonna mince words here. And I'm not confusing them. What I'm saying is that when it comes to working as a collective, and attempting to reduce bias especially, hedonism and rational egoism are equally dangerous. Given a "rational" reason (which is such a flawed term. No human is ever really rational, especiall in their desires) egoists would quickly screw anyone they're working with over. If they are given a rational reason for turning this article into propaganda, they will do it. It pushes their own self-interest, and it doesn't hurt them at all. Rationally, if one wanted to spread the good word of Ayn Rand, there'd be few better places to start than Wikipedia. -Sammy D.
I disagree strongly that "no human is ever really rational." Rationality, a profound virtue is the acceptance of reason as one's only means of perceiving reality and gaining knowledge. While it is true most people do not live rational lives, the fact remains that it is possible. A rational egoist determines which course of action is best suited to his self interest by observing the facts of reality and his own nature. With regard to the Wikipedia article on Ayn Rand, even saying that the Objectivist editors are biased is, in itself, biased and subjective. Just to refresh your memory about some of the things anti-Objectivists have done: first, some wanted to insert Anton LeVay's name into the article, which is simply ridiculous. Then, they tried to remove any and all references to her as a philosopher, claiming that no academic philosopher has ever taken her seriously (which, to use your word Sammy, is bullshit.) Now they know they can't do that (because it's not true), so they tried labeling her a "lay philosopher." I'm really curious as to what they will do next, because their hatred of Ayn Rand the person is so frustrating that they can't be dealt with.
You failed to address my main point. Both times, infact. So I'm going to simply state my main gripe so that you don't have any fodder to avoid it with. Objectivists, if they were interested in singing the praises of their chosen philosophy on a supposedly non-biased website, would have nothing at all to compel them otherwise. They would also feel no compunction against using the most twisted logic to support their claims. Their moral standard says nothing about being honest to anyone but yourself, and the call of "rational self interest" practically demands that they take the measures necessary to establish their philosophy as dominant.
There. That's it. If you somehow manage to find a tangent you can ride off on, my beliefs will only be confirmed. I will address your points after you address mine. - Sammy D.
This is actually quite hilarious because all you have done is show that you have never read a single book by Ayn Rand.
Can you show me where Ayn Rand said that one should only be honest to oneself? Objectivism does not say that; honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and has no value, and to try to obtain any value through fraud is to raise one's victims to a position higher than reality. Since the sustenance of human life requires an unbreached committment to the facts of reality and their objective analysis, it is moral to be honest. Honesty is a life-sustaining virtue.
How does this relate to Wikipedia? An Objectivist couldn't add a biased statement such as "Ayn Rand was the world's greatest philosopher" because Wikipedia is not his personal property, and he needs to abide by the rules imposed by the encyclopedia's founders and administrators (I'm sure even you are familiar with Objectivism's stance toward property which is not one's own). But to claim that the Objectivists have been making the biased statements is wrong. We're not the ones going from saying that Ayn Rand was not a philosopher to saying that she was a philosopher, but only a "lay philosopher."
I'm also still interested in hearing an elaboration of your claim that no person is ever "truly" rational. --24.220.246.20
Nice to see this argument isn't dead. I don't think people are ever completely rational. Rational beings concern themselves with the physical present and the future. With what's necessary to their survival and comfort. While we're gabbing on a website over a philosophy that was founded by someone I'd venture to say none of us ever met we could be working, or studying, or doing something far more productive than bickering over an encyclopedia entry that'll never settle. Hell, a truly rational person wouldn't even concern themselves with philosophies when they could just do what works and not think anything more about it. But we're sentient beings who concern ourselves with the theoretics attached to philosophy. Any concern with this site already shows that you're pretty illogical (and if you can't see the logic behind that, pretend for a sec that the society and culture we've set up doesn't mean anything.) What's dangerous about Objectivists is that they assume they ARE rational. They remove the critical and human self-doubt that keeps people in check. Without it, any selfish impulse is free to mask itself as reasonable. I'm not saying Objectivists purposely lie, just that following the philosophy to begin with requires some level of self-deception.
'Course the problem is that I'm trying to convince someone that they habitually lie to themselves...
But you're right, I was kinda talking out of my ass in that last post (In the sense that I haven't read any of her books besides Anthem, which is what inspired me to never read anything of hers for a while.) But most of my arguments on Ayn Rand've been based on things I've read about her, her philosophy, and the actions of people who believe in her philosophy. There's a lot of them where I live, and most of them have been complete asshats who had the remarkable ability to proclaim vast amounts of bunk as completely rational, so long as it suited their needs ("I should be completely free to sleep with as many people as I want! That's what freedom is!" or "It's okay that my house could house two more families. Obviously if they don't have one of their own, they didn't have the will to deserve it.") Perhaps that doesn't disqualify her philosophy, but definitely makes the contributions of her followers suspect.
Now, as for your problems that I promised to address ages ago... You're right, not calling her a philosopher is "bullshit." But if Anton LeVay mentioned Ayn Rand, he's famous enough to be mentioned. Cringe all you want, no one wants to be connected to the guy, but if it's the truth it oughta be mentioned (assuming it is the truth, and knowing LeVay's penchant for name-dropping, I wouldn't doubt it.) And while the anti-Objectivist here have been pretty shameful, that's not what we're debating here, now is it? I don't think they're a whole lot better than the Objectivists here, but I guess that's what happens around subjects this controversial. -Sammy D.

You say that humans shouldn't concern themselves with philosophic inquiry and abstract principles because they should "just do what works and not think anything more about it." This is, however, utterly false. Whether or not one has an explicitly defined philosophy one adheres to, everyone has a philosophy. Is reality an objective absolute and is nature governed by absolute laws? Or is the universe an illusion and an unknowable flux? Can man attain absolute knowledge of his environment? Or can he hold no idea with any certainty? Is the good that which advances man's life and happiness? Or is it the sacrifice of one's values to others? Every one has positions on this issues, and the way an individual will go about living his life will depend on the answers he gives to those question. Ayn Rand showed that philosophy is not an academic pasttime or a needless study; philosophy serves a very practical purpose. Without philosophy, people would be unable to deal with the universe, distinguish truth from falsehood, and pursue the good. The philosophy you advocate (Pragmatism, which essentially says we should "do what works and not think anything more about it") is utterly false and denies the efficacy and necessity of reason. Without reason, man cannot gain knowledge.

So you list Anthem as the only work by Ayn Rand that you've seriously read. And then you proceed to attack Objectivism "based on things I've read about her, her philosophy, and the actions of people who believe in her philosophy." So what if she was an eccentric woman who expelled people from her personal circle? So what if she had an affair or was very harsh with people? These things do not effect the truth of her philosophy. Don't spend your time attacking Ayn Rand; if you want to criticize her and her philosophy, read what she wrote. Study her theory of concept formation and knowledge; understand her metaphysical conclusions; learn about her theory of value and her understanding that it is virtuous to be selfish; realize that her defense of capitalism is based on moral, not practical grounds. Read her works! Then presume to criticize her.

"I should be completely free to sleep with as many people as I want! That's what freedom is!" or "It's okay that my house could house two more families. Obviously if they don't have one of their own, they didn't have the will to deserve it."

Ayn Rand would say that it certainly isn't moral to sleep with as many people as one wants, but since doing so would not violate any one's rights, neither the government nor a private individual could prevent a person from doing so. Likewise, no one's misfortunes or handicaps can be considered a mortgage on another person's life and property; if a houseowner doesn't want to share his property with others, that is his absolute right to do so and no one can interfere with his decision.

By the way, I don't think I always act rationally, and no Objectivist I know does either. Don't make stereotypical remarks such as those. --24.220.246.20

[edit] Mis-link

The link to moral in the second paragraph goes to the words use in in reference to storytelling, it should probably go to morality.

[edit] Libertarianism to be moved

Objectivism defined in terms of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and Libertarianism? I would move it to the responses section, but that would not be accurate (although less construed than the sub-topics current placement). Perhaps a section entitled: Enemies of Objectivism?

It does not belong under politics as it does not contribute to answering the question: what political principles are advocated within Objectivism?

[edit] External Links removed

Now isn’t that odd? Almost every other Wikipedia entry has an External Links section, yet suddenly that for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) disappears. And when did it disappear? Right after a link to “ARI Watch” http://ariwatch.com was added to the list.

Like killing everyone in a village in order to get one resistance fighter.

So the question here is: Why was External Links removed?

[edit] Acceptance by mainstream philosophy

What is the best way to state that Objectivism isn't really accepted by most of mainstream philosophy? While it shouldn't say "most academic philosophers", what's the best way to state this? I can't think of another way to say "some" that would encompass a larger portion of philosphers. What about "many"?--Dylan Lake 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The best way to do this is to describe its audience. it appeals most to teen males, people with certain psychological issues, etc. etc.... ;) or whatever is, in fact verifiable. --Buridan 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been sources that claim she gets her audience mainly from impressionable teens. I know we had one cited in one article about her, but I can't seem to find it. -- LGagnon 02:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
For the love of God, could you please stop saying that there are references somewhere out there and actually put some up? I haven't seen you post one direct reference, even when you're under direct criticism for lacking sources. - Sammy D.

Hey, not sure where I should suggest this, but it seems to me in the fifth "paragraph" down in the "Criticism of Ayn Rand’s reading of the history of philosophy" section the words "logically consistent" from the fourth sentence should be changed to "globally applicable" or something similar as it is arguable that "logically consistent" means the same thing as "universalizable." --Aducknamedjoe

The honest way to put it would be that Objectivism and mainstream philosophy have largely been in opposition. — DAGwyn 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] refs problem

hi! I notice the references is mis-formatted and it's uneditable to lil ole me (Kissedsmiley 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Fixed. I think I broke this cleaning up an edit the other day.Ethan a dawe 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Commas go before the period. There are two mistakes in the second sentence alone. Please fix this.

He or She is correct about this grammar issue. I fixed the ones mentioned but I'm sure it carries on throughout the article. I'll try and clean these up later, or other can do it before thenEthan a dawe 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan a. DaweEthan a dawe 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I have moved Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Objectivism as this is the proper title. Objectivism generally means Ayn Rand's philosophy. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to move this back but I will try. You have hijacked the word "objectivism." I just checked the latest Merriam-Webster on line - nothing to do with Ayn Rand. I describe her description of her own ideas (hardly a philosophy) as: "Be objective - look at it my way." Carrionluggage 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys have managed to completely lose the "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" article. That now redirects to the "Objectivism" disambiguation page, and the link therein has now become self-referential. I don't know how to fix this. — DAGwyn 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I also note that Carrionluggage doesn't seem to understand Ayn Rand's ideas (which definitely constitute a distinct and unique philosophy). However, the disambiguation page seems to be appropriate given that the Wikipedia lookup doesn't distinguish between big-O Objectivism and little-o objectivism.
I have restored the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article and talk page material which Madhava blanked. Madhava is a new editor whom I presume was acting in good faith. The current arrangment of Objectivism being a disambig has consensus support, and discussion should of course generally be held BEFORE making any changes to article titles. --Matthew Humphreys 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for not letting the title or entry point be changed willy-nilly.
I understand her ideas pretty well. I saw The Fountainhead in 1949, read the book of that title as well as most of her other works in the early 1960's. One ought to realise that a lot of her moral and social opinion were an extreme reaction to Communism, from which she had escaped. But George Orwell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Mikhail Bulgakov wrote better, and most analytic philosophers thought better. Rand's appeal is to down-and-outers, losers who feel almost beyond help or hope. She tells them "stand up, you can do it" (and sometimes that their failures are because they tried, like Atlas, to carry other's burdens on their shoulders.) It is all dressed up with a lot of pap about "existence" but Objectivism's virtue is as a pick-me-up to these people. For understanding existence see Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason, or Bertrand Russell or C._I._Lewis, or Ludwig_Wittgenstein or Hans_Reichenbach. Rand did not understand or did not heed Kant's argument for the Categorical Imperative, perhaps because responsibility towards others had been so misused by the Communists. Kant is virtually a saint, Rand a shrill organizer and apologist for those who wish to ignore debt to society. Carrionluggage 05:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Carrion, You are incorrect on many levels here. Rand's appeal is to people who want live their lives in accordance with reality. The part about appealing to mostly down and out losers...where is your evidence on this? As far as "debt to society goes, what do you mean? What debt, to whom, and why? Do you have any substantial arguemnts or are you just posting this to insult people?Ethan a dawe 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Ethan_a_Dawe14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I got enthusiastic in the 1960's, until I talked with a few people. I then noted that they appeared to be right - those who had recommended the book were - say - not far along the ladder of success, and it gave them hope. So far as the "debt to society" - the arguments for the Categorical Imperative prove that we should take care of others. You can see much of the argument in that heading in Wikipedia. Perhaps most "Objectivists" would not ignore a Kitty Genovese being murdered outside their window, but the "philosophy" seems to say one is free to ignore this kind of thing (depends how firmly and finally an emulater of Atlas shrugging shrugs, I guess). Maybe my remarks are dated a bit and are historical. It is possible that originally "Objectivism" appealed to those who had little and felt forced by the mores of society to help a poorer person or a lost child - it made them free to walk away. Today the base has no doubt spread. It does pay to look at what she says, however, to see if it is pap or not. For example, (from the Wikipedia article): "Objectivism maintains that which exists does not exist because one thinks it exists; it simply exists." Now, that's not a big contribution to human thought, I'd hazard; only the solipsists ever argued otherwise, and they are pretty much ancient history. The Solpisist position was later discussed by some substantial philosophers, but mainly for contrast or completeness. Next look at this section (below) and compare to the analyses of H._H._Price (the article is short but his books are pithy). The section of more pap:

"Rand's answer is that the axioms can be validated by using sense perception. One determines that existence exists merely by seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, or hearing something that exists. That our senses are being activated, proves to us that there is something that exists. Validating that consciousness exists rests on sense information as well, by noting that one is aware of sensations. Likewise for validating the law of identity; one validates this by seeing or touching a thing and noting that any entity has particular attributes or characteristics that distinguishes it from other entities, and thereby realizing that that is what makes a thing what it is. This leads one to recognize that a thing cannot be of a nature that is contrary to its nature or it would be something else (or A=A). Rand believes that individuals already hold these axioms implicitly, but that it is helpful to make them explicit to avoid philosophical errors. According to Peikoff, if individuals "[lack] explicit identification of this knowledge [of the axioms], they have no way to adhere to the axioms, consistently and typically fall into some form of contradicting the self-evident, as in the various magical word views, which (implicitly) deny the law of identity" or philosophers "who reject the self-evident as the base of knowledge, and who then repudiate all three of the basic axioms.." To see it's pap, you have to read H. H. Price or Wittgenstein or Carnap or Reichenbach or C._S._Pierce. They reasoned it all out - Rand spews out her beliefs with little context or defense. And yes, I do have a better reason than to insult people - it is to direct readers to better reading. Rand never recovered from her experiences with Communism, which color her approach. Carrionluggage 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double disambiguation

There are currently both an Objectivism dab page and an Objectivism (disambiguation) dab page. This needs to be fixed. Dekimasu 11:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/b/j/Talk%7EObjectivism_84f5.html"