Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies

Diskusjon om liberalistisk ideologi, slik som klassisk liberalisme og libertarianisme.

Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies

Innlegg hytteteppe 04 Jun 2012, 13:24

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... /9560.html

"Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies
Posted by Stephan Kinsella on December 20, 2005 02:52 PM

As noted previously, Objectivists often use cliched and oddly stilted pet Objectivist terms and turns of phrase, such as "moral subjectivism". I've long found these and other Objectivist tendencies to be amusing, or silly, including: psycho-epistemology (she sure has a nice set of psycho-epistemology!); over-use of "altruism"; overkill on the "Kant is the ultimate evil" thing; over-use of--em-dashes--and italics; "second-handers"; over-use of "qua"; boorish, in-your-face insistence on using "man" as much as possible to represent both genders; saying, "Observe: " at the beginning of a sentence; the classic "whim-worshipper"; Frank is my "top value"; "stolen-concept fallacy"; and, one of my favorites, "blank-out". This whole dour, humorless, serioso, robotic cult of personality has arisen around her.

The more I read Objectivists trot out their ridiculous stock phrases, the more I realize this aspect of the philosophy is really inapplicable to the real world. Who talks like that? Who even thinks like that? Who goes around talking about "psycho-epistemology" or saying their husband is their "top value"? What the hell is a "top value"? Jeez. In my view, this cliched, robotic reasoning is useless and off-putting.

Last but not least, is the Objectivists' habit of O-So-Officially "Breaking" with people. In my experience, people tend to drift apart if they no longer like each other or find other interests more compelling. There is no official moment of "breaking". But not for Objectivist. They act as if there is some official record book of relationships (which squares with the Objectivists' obsession over having an Official Final Authority to settle disputes--can't have the messy unpredictability of a private market solution); and the act of "breaking" implies that the status of your personal relationships are so important to others you have to Officially Notify them of it. Give me a break.

Lo and behold, it turns out that this Objectivist chick Diana Hsieh recently felt the need to do the same thing: she "officially" recants her previous criticisms of the orthodox Ayn Rand Institute, and "breaks" with David Kelley's The Objectivist Center. Jeez H. In a post entitled, appropriately enough, A Public Statement, she writes:

Some of you may wonder why I am disassociating myself from TOC in such a public fashion, rather than merely drifting away in private discontent like so many others over the years.


No, I don't wonder--it's b/c it's common among Objectivists to "announce" their "decision" to "break" with someone in such a serioso fashion.

For these and other reasons, I am pained by the end of my ten year relationship with IOS/TOC.


Okay, hereby noted; will the Official Secretary of Rational Relationships please record in the Official Record Book of Official Relationships that Ms. Hsieh has Officially Broken with IOS/TOC.

Egads. This chick used to be anti-ARI; now she has switched, and Officially Denounces her pre-ARI work as "pseudoscholarship."

Objectivists are not even worth taking seriously if they continue to trot out these weird, robotic phrases and engage in these bizarre habits.

BTW, lest people think I am just bashing Objectivists indiscriminately, let me say I believe I am actually an Objectivist if you go by the short summary of her views, on politics, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I just don't go for the dour, humorless, robotic cult of personality that has arisen around her. And you know what, I don't even feel guilty about it--the face without pain or fear or guilt, and all that, ha ha. "
Brukerens avatar
hytteteppe
 
Innlegg: 368
Registrert: 26 Jan 2009, 17:00

Re: Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 04 Jun 2012, 15:09

Noen vil også si at Shakespeare er en dårlig forfatter fordi ingen snakker slik som mennneske i hans skuespill gjør.

Men til det overstående kan man f.eks. si følgende (fra aynrand.org):

Most people, if asked to list the subjects that are of most practical significance to human life, might name medicine, computer science, engineering, physics, or even political science. But few would name philosophy, which is regarded as an esoteric subject, good for little more than debating unanswerable questions on college campuses or in coffee shops. When it comes to living one’s life in the real world and dealing with real issues, it is commonly thought, philosophy is irrelevant.

Ayn Rand’s view is the exact opposite. To her, philosophy is a subject of tremendous practical power.

The science of philosophy studies the fundamentals of human thought and action. It asks and answers questions such as: What kind of world do I live in? Do I control my own destiny? What do I know? Can I prove it? What is the good? Should I be selfish and pursue my own interests, or should I devote myself to serving God or other people?

There is no escape from these questions, Ayn Rand held. One cannot operate without some conception, correct or incorrect, consciously thought out or inchoate, of the nature of the world one lives in, of how to come to conclusions about it, and of how to act properly in it. The answers one accepts to these questions determine the basic course of one’s life. The answers that dominate in a culture determine the basic direction of that culture. Art, sex, friendship, politics, economics, law, business, science, history—every aspect of one’s life and every aspect of the culture are, she argued, shaped by philosophic ideas.

The power and inescapability of philosophy is a theme that runs through Ayn Rand’s fiction and nonfiction writings. To learn more about her unique perspective on philosophy, the three best works to start with are Atlas Shrugged, For the New Intellectual, and Philosophy: Who Needs It.




The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.

by Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies

Innlegg Rekkart_ 04 Jun 2012, 15:35

hytteteppe skrev:http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/9560.html
As noted previously, Objectivists often use cliched and oddly stilted pet Objectivist terms and turns of phrase, such as "moral subjectivism". I've long found these and other Objectivist tendencies to be amusing, or silly, including: psycho-epistemology (she sure has a nice set of psycho-epistemology!); over-use of "altruism"; overkill on the "Kant is the ultimate evil" thing; over-use of--em-dashes--and italics; "second-handers"; over-use of "qua"; boorish, in-your-face insistence on using "man" as much as possible to represent both genders; saying, "Observe: " at the beginning of a sentence; the classic "whim-worshipper"; Frank is my "top value"; "stolen-concept fallacy"; and, one of my favorites, "blank-out". This whole dour, humorless, serioso, robotic cult of personality has arisen around her.


Kan være enig i at enkelte Objektivister bruker noen av disse uttrykkene litt for mye, men det gjelder stort sett "amatører" som skriver på blogger og lignende. Hvis du f.eks. hører et foredrag av Yaron Brook eller noen av de andre prominente Objektivistene så er dette overhodet ikke tilfellet.

hytteteppe skrev:
What the hell is a "top value"?


Det er vel selvforklarende? Ser ærlig talt ikke problemet med dette utsagnet fra Ayn Rand.


hytteteppe skrev:
They act as if there is some official record book of relationships


Facebook? :wink:

hytteteppe skrev:
BTW, lest people think I am just bashing Objectivists indiscriminately, let me say I believe I am actually an Objectivist if you go by the short summary of her views, on politics, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I just don't go for the dour, humorless, robotic cult of personality that has arisen around her. And you know what, I don't even feel guilty about it--the face without pain or fear or guilt, and all that, ha ha. "


Nuvel. Kinsella er anarkist, anti-IP og har en rekke andre fundamentale uenigheter med Objektivismen.
Rekkart_
 
Innlegg: 367
Registrert: 11 Jan 2005, 13:07
Bosted: Sydney, Australia

Re: Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies

Innlegg Onarki 05 Jun 2012, 00:39

Jeg diskuterte med Stephen Kinsella for et par år siden, og -- for å si det litt diplomatisk -- han imponerte meg ikke. Han hadde den ufyselige kombinasjonen av å være ekstremt arrogant og nedlatende og å samtidig være blottet for resonneringsevne. Du kan lese diskusjonen min med han her:


http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20367.aspx
Onarki
 
Innlegg: 2249
Registrert: 03 Apr 2005, 14:13

Re: Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 05 Jun 2012, 05:28

Onarki skrev:...-- han imponerte meg ikke. Han hadde den ufyselige kombinasjonen av å være ekstremt arrogant og nedlatende og å samtidig være blottet for resonneringsevne. ...



Med andre ord en typisk venstreintellektuell.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07


Gå til Liberalistisk ideologi

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 3 gjester

cron