Re: Etymology

General Discussion

Etymology

nick0011 05-01-2009, 1:39 PM

Objectivism derives its name from the idea that both knowledge and values are objective: neither intrinsic nor subjective. According to Rand, concepts and values are not intrinsic to external reality, nor are they created by the thoughts one has. Rather, valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind."^[3]

Rand chose Objectivism as the name of her philosophy, saying her ideal term to label a philosophy based on the primacy of existence, Existentialism, had already been taken.^[4] The word is capitalized to distinguish it from other philosophical positions to which the term "objectivism" has been applied.

==========================

nick

=========================

New York Drug Treatment Centers-New York Drug Treatment Centers

Re: Etymology

galtsgulcher 05-02-2009, 2:14 AM
Hi Nick,

Being more experiencially oriented than intellectual, my experience of moral values is that they are as impersonally objective as electricity.

Neither the nature or behavior of electricity are determined by what I think or feel about it. Nor are its properties the least bit affected by any of the intellectual theories or transient emotional reactions I might have about it.

It just is what it is and it does what it does ~completely~ obedient to objective physical laws.

So ~if~ I am able to understand the completely objective principles which govern its behavior... I can stake my life 100% on that understanding.

Greg

Re: Etymology

slacker00 05-04-2009, 1:26 PM
I'd be careful about staking my life 100% based on my understanding of anything. Understanding is can be prone to errors. Even in my career discipline of math & engineering, I wouldn't stake my life on my ability to solve a relatively simple math or engineering problem. I realize there are some people that must make life & death decisions based on their understanding, but they do realize they are in the business of making life & death decisions. There is no objective computational perfection to the human mind. The human mind is great, but it is by no means a perfect machine in any respect. I think sometimes Rand exaggerates man's intellectual perfection while ignoring man's everyday mistakes.

Re: Etymology

galtsgulcher 05-04-2009, 7:58 PM
(slacker wrote...)
"I'd be careful about staking my life 100% based on my understanding of anything."

I have no problems with staking my life...

... whenever the understanding comes from direct immediate physical personal observation...

...rather than from theory driven intellectual activity.

I don't trust my mind any more than you do... ; )

Take Care,

Greg

Re: Etymology

slacker00 05-09-2009, 7:39 PM
Hey Greg,

I guess I'm just risk-averse. I value my life, maybe too much, if that makes any sense.

I'm just saying, it's not unusual for any mind to make mistakes at any time. I think Rand is too quick to draw a line in the sand about too many things, one of which is speaking in absolutes. Rand puts a lot of faith in objective sensation, experiencing reality with the senses. But, it's a proven fact in psychology that there are all kinds of perceptual illusions. Pick up any intro to psychology textbook. I was a psych major for a while, and it's amazing how fragile the human mind is with even the simplest of visual images, for example. There's the classic old woman versus young woman example, which is objectively correct?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html

Much of what Rand puts the most stock into extends way beyond simple human experience. It's really more in the realm of philosophy of science. I mean, I accept the fact that atoms exist, but I've never seen one, personally, with my naked eye. Nobody has. Take almost any everyday fact, such as the daily news. It cannot be objectively verified by every individual, it has to be taken with a certain amount of faith and understanding, even context. We deal in a reality with a lot of incomplete information. It's not quite as simple as just opening our eyes and experiencing the world, using reason to make something of it all.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I'm trying to isolate the fact that Rand seemed simplistic about some things. There's more going on than she acknowledged or maybe she simply didn't even understand.