Objectivism

ahh i see... thanks a lot.

but it seems like a very closed minded way of seeing the world.

Reply 4

well, its pretty hard to avoid. You're saying there are many ways to view the world. Are you saying that it is an objective fact that there is more than one way to view the world? OR perhaps the view that there is only one way to view the world is just as valid as your open minded way?
As you can see it's difficult to deny objectivism without being objectivist yourself

Reply 5

lady_daisychain

OP

yea hahaha i see your point. but i stand my ground, i'd rather b a little objective (i.e when denying the value of objectivity) than being very objective (and believing in the principles of objectivity). ooo my heads starting to spin..all this objectivity...

Reply 6

Che!

11

To be objective is to not live. Life is about lots of different experiences and ideas....something which one cannot achieve with an objective mindset. In fact, one would find it rather difficult to function well in society with such an "etat d'esprit".

Reply 7

Calvin

well, its pretty hard to avoid. You're saying there are many ways to view the world. Are you saying that it is an objective fact that there is more than one way to view the world? OR perhaps the view that there is only one way to view the world is just as valid as your open minded way?
As you can see it's difficult to deny objectivism without being objectivist yourself

You can do it if you distinguish between claiming that there are many valid ways to view the world and denying that there is only one valid way.

Reply 8

schrodingerscat

che_guevara

To be objective is to not live. Life is about lots of different experiences and ideas....something which one cannot achieve with an objective mindset. In fact, one would find it rather difficult to function well in society with such an "etat d'esprit".

Rubbish. You simply cannot deny that there ARE some objective facts. We just dont know what they are. It might be, as Calvin says, that realtivism is the case, in which case that would be an objective fact.

If you believe totally in relativism, THAT is an empty life... for what have you got to live for? There is no 'good' or 'just' or 'enjoyable' way to live as 'good' and 'enjoyable' and 'just' are meaningless, conveying no objective meaning... they dont refer to anything but themselves as all is relative.

Trouble is, we dont know what is objectively true or objectively good, and as soon as one settles on a single 'way' then the 'closed mindedness' seeps in - which (as Nazi Germany and ROman Catholicisms ban on contraception have proved) is often very dangerous. It IS possible to be open-minded and believe in objective morals and values, as long as you are open-minded about what those morals are until ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of truth (for example, I am almost absolutely certain that to raise taxes on the super-rich to fund research for an AIDs vaccine would be an objectively good action for any government to take; however this would form just one part of the whole objective truth).

Therefore... to assume knowledge of objective truth is firstly highly dnagerous and secondly seemingly impossible to verify. Yet to completly deny some kind of objectivity is (1) totally contradictory to human intuitions (2) seemingly illogical as, if relativism is assumed, then that becomes objective; and (3) it is to empty living of all meaning, as all is relative and constructed.

Reply 9

wanderer

You can do it if you distinguish between claiming that there are many valid ways to view the world and denying that there is only one valid way.

I see what you're trying to do but I'm not sure you can avoid the two being equivalent.

There exists and X and there exists a Y such that X and Y are both ways to view the world.

That is there is at least two ways to view the world.

Vs

There exists at least one way to view the world but its not the case there is only one way.

Or essentially there is more than one way to view the world. Or Just that there are at least two ways.

Reply 10

Calvin

I see what you're trying to do but I'm not sure you can avoid the two being equivalent.

There exists and X and there exists a Y such that X and Y are both ways to view the world.

That is there is at least two ways to view the world.

Vs

There exists at least one way to view the world but its not the case there is only one way.

Or essentially there is more than one way to view the world. Or Just that there are at least two ways.

Well, if you truly want to avoid objectivism you have to deny the 'there exists at least one way to view the world' part. Then you deny any statement put forward as objective truth as groundless.

Reply 11

So there is no way to view the world?

Reply 12

Calvin

So there is no way to view the world?

There may be ways to view the world. Or there may not.

Reply 13

Is that an objective truth? :p:

Reply 14

Calvin

Is that an objective truth? :p:

No, its a statement of uncertainty.

Reply 15

wanderer

No, its a statement of uncertainty.

It's a disjunction, you may be uncertain but the statement is not. Just because you don't know whether its A or B doesn't mean the statement isn't saying (A or B) and thus claiming objectivity.
If you add a 'not objective' clause to every statement you make to avoid objectivism you only force the requirement to add another 'not objective' clause to every clause you added last time. If you want to say nothing say nothing, but I'm not sure you can get away with saying you've said nothing.

Reply 16

samba

6

che_guevara

To be objective is to not live. Life is about lots of different experiences and ideas....something which one cannot achieve with an objective mindset. In fact, one would find it rather difficult to function well in society with such an "etat d'esprit".

Herodotus, St Augustus, Plato, Aristotle Kant, Hegel, Heidigger and a host of others would disagree :/

Reply 17

an Siarach

15

lady_daisychain

what is objectivism?

One of the most obnoxious users to have graced TSR.

Reply 18

lady_daisychain

OP