Onkar Ghate & Yaron Discuss Objectivism Closed/Open; Fact/Value: Moral Sanction

Subscribe to ARI’s KZbin channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/

[@simonphuket7782]

It’s a valid debate on a particular subject chosen by these 2 legitimate Objectivist’s organisations, not sure how “open mindedness” comes into play, it was not the topic of the debate. Craig Biddle won, he had the better arguments and was the intellectual powerhouse! Hicks is pretentious but there’s no proof of him being a fraud. I actually watched your discussion before I saw the debate, I found that your discussion had no relevance to the chosen subject of this debate, and I wonder, what is your purpose? To smear these 2 organisations? The debate on the chosen subject was instructive. If, ARI, wanted to be part of it, then they should have asked to join. Craig won, because he was better prepared and seemed to have a deeper command of Objectivism i.e. “he did philosophy better”.

[@jocr1971]

on closed/open...can works which delve into much greater detail be considered objectivism. for example, a book going into great detail of say the topic of direct perception. or the full economic details of capitalism.

[@BARRIE-Chgo]

How so - more than Don Watkins book on capitalism - I personally like closed - In my life libertarians seem to care more about money than people - maybe you are different

[@drstrangelove09]

Wait, I am missing something, at 39:44-ish Onkar seems to say essentially what Onkar criticized Hicks for saying...?

[@ameyer1970]

Ayn Rand specifically said that there are some things that philosophy has no real position on.

[@dougpridgen9682]

And what conclusion do you draw from that?

[@jacksonstone246]

@@dougpridgen9682what philosophical position does Christianity have on pooping and farting? Is it necessary to have an integrated theory of pooping and farting to have a complete philosophical position?

[@lauraowens172]

The park is Natural Bridge, Virginia.

[@BARRIE-Chgo]

I prefer closed since they are the only one with values

[@bingbong3643]

I would like to see Hicks and Yaron discuss this. Or even Hicks and Onkar.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Yaron and Onkar won't sanction evil.

[@drstrangelove09]

@@micchaelsanders6286 evil?

[@tennoio1392]

So much patience for those annoying people. I wonder if any explanation after "Fact and value" has any impact.

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

In fundamentals, the difference between the positions is based in conceptualization methodology. I looked it up and plan on reading more. Apparently there are several methods of encoding information into our thoughts. Reason is an umbrella term for hundreds of variations of interacting with reality. Ayn Rand developed one such method at the exclusion of all others. Are people who encode information differently wrong, mistaken, different, or evil? Should we tolerate variety? This will become a critical topic as A.I. becomes more dominant. A.I. does not have sense perceptions, and cannot conceptualize knowledge using the Essentialist method.

[@tennoio1392]

This sounds wrong. We don't "encode information into thoughts". Unless you use that cumbersome phrase to describe concept formation. And we always form concepts one way.

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

@@tennoio1392 KZbin is deleting my comment because I am trying to link an article. Anyhow, look up 'categories of conceptualization.' The widely known types are called prototype theory, exemplar theory, essentialism, network theory, and theory-theory.

[@sybo59]

@@justifiably_stupid4998 Your comment has nothing to do with “open” vs closed Objectivism. It’s this simple: If you think Rand was wrong on some essential point and that you have an innovation based on her philosophy, it’s not Objectivism.

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

@@sybo59 If you have ever heard anyone describe an idelogy as a type of something or a strain of an original, then you are listening to someone who encodes information as an exemplar or as a prototype. "Neo-Marxism is a strain of Marxism, of which Leninist-Marxism and Leninist-Stalinism are different types." Rand would say that it is all just a hodge-podge of contradictions, frozen abstractions, and packaged deals. Either Marxism means collectivistic altruism or it means nothing at all. Stalin was a nihilist brute and Mao was a pragmatist. An essentialist cannot comprehend variation within categories.

[@dougpridgen9682]

The fact that by Rand’s own judgment, nobody understood her philosophy better than Dr. Peikoff, is a question that never came up. I really didn’t appreciate the tongue in cheek pot shot Biddle took at ARI by implying dogmatism. Other than that I agreed with Biddle much more than Hicks.

[@vinoverita]

Perhaps someone can give me some insight on how Objectivists view the discipline of philosophy. All knowledge is knowledge of reality. Knowledge is propositional and thus constructed of concepts. If a proposition accurately describes some aspect of reality it has the property of truth. This principle applies to those propositions that accurately describe the biology of living organisms or the nature of the cosmos. But we don’t name biology or cosmology after the person who originally made the correct conceptual and propositional identification about a particular aspect of reality. His or her find simply gets subsumed under biology or cosmology. And the same principle applies to all future discoveries. On what logical principle is it any different when it comes to philosophical propositions that accurately describe some aspect of reality and man’s relationship to it?

[@drstrangelove09]

I guess that I do not truly understand or I'm trying to avoid. Seems to me that debating is a good thing even when one of the people is advocating an evil thing... I need to think about it more though. It seems like the motivation/intension of the person presenting the "evil" side is important. (Seems like Onkar even said that...?)

[@jocr1971]

debate as a spectator sport is not the same as debating for the purpose of actually convincing an opponent to take up your position. the common debate format is not meant to convince either presenter of the other side. if two people are just presenting juxtaposed positions for theatrics sake then you're giving credence to your oponents view that it is worthy to be discussed.

[@drstrangelove09]

@@jocr1971 1. seems orthogonal to what I said 2. I don't think that I agree

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

Truth:Toleration vs Fact:Value. Is the possible disagreement that Rand believed conceptualization is a volitional act worthy of judgment (same as evasion), compared to others who believe volition only occurs during focused action? So, Rand would judge a young boy as evil if he believes teamwork is a substitution for an independent mind, but others would judge what actions the boy chooses to take based on his thoughts. Does this mean that Rand believed in thought crimes? What room did Rand leave for trial and error, learning from mistakes over time?

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

@@markvictor8776 should a person be judged on thoughts or actions?

[@maryahhaidery7986]

@@justifiably_stupid4998 This is an excellent question. Each person is unique, complicated. and dynamic. They can and do often change and evolve over time. Also, we never have complete access to their thoughts or motives - often they themselves don’t. The mind is not a rational machine - it’s a “rationalizing” machine. I think we would all be better served if we limited our judgements to ideas, motives and actions *instead* of judging the person who we might believe holds a particular idea or commits a particular action at any one point in time.

[@sankaranunni1607]

the answer is not in the details. ayn rand herself had said that an objectivist is not one who is always invariably right. it means someone who believes in reason, and the power of cognition, and makes no compromises on their application. the boy believing in teamwork is not per se evil. have you read the portion in atlas shrugged where fransisco and rearden work side by side to plug the gap in a smelter?

[@giobd]

​@@sankaranunni1607 "Ayn Rand herself had said that an Objectivist is not one who is always invariably right" Do you remember where?

[@sankaranunni1607]

@@giobd no. i could research and find the exact words she used. she has said words to the effect that being reasonable does not mean being always right. or that a reasonable man never makes a mistake. she did not categorize humanity to two sections where one - reasonable - is always right and the other always wrong. she has articulated in her books - and talks perhaps - that men are diverse, with divers abilities. is rearden an unreasonable man because he could not work out what fransisco could? or dagny for that matter? or fransisco because he needed john galt to spell things out for him?

[@KRGruner]

Rand was wrong, period dot. Just read "The Secret of Our Success" by Joseph Henrich. Human reason by itself is NOT how we succeed, not even close. Pretty obvious why Objectivism remains a fringe "philosophy."

[@sankaranunni1607]

you know i have always wondered about this. objectivism may be a "fringe philosophy". but look around you, and determine for yourself how many lives by its mottos, or at least hold those mottos as sacrosant. and look around again and see how many live by altruism even if they vouch by it.

[@KRGruner]

@@sankaranunni1607 Altruism is irrelevant. It's a side-show. If you can't even figure that out, no hope... Bottom line is Rand failed to see human society as a complex adaptive system, and that these systems are NOT rationally constructed (nor could they be even in theory). She had no clue about evolution and self-ordering complexity. Enough said...

[@sankaranunni1607]

@@KRGruner so, how do you propose that we live? randomly? with no certainty who will behave in what way at what time? how do you co-relate evolution and complexity with objectivism? how did you even arrive at your conclusions without reason and cognition?

[@KRGruner]

@@sankaranunni1607 The opposite of Objectivism is not randomness. Do you not even understand THAT much? Jeez... And yes, I arrived at my conclusion using SOME reason and a lot of cognition, but mostly on the shoulders of the giants that preceded me, as summarized in my CULTURE! Indeed, my reason and cognition are what tells me Rand is wrong. She does not understand how most knowledge is arrived at by trial and error (evolutionary processes). Just read the freakin' book then get back to me.

[@sankaranunni1607]

@@KRGruner as far as i know objectivism postulates that reason should be the supreme guiding principle that informs human actions. thanks for saying that you used some reason yourself. wonder how the giants before you came to any conclusions at all so that you can rely on them to guide you in your actions. does trial and error preclude reason? the very term "trial and error" assumes that you can use your reason to conclude that certain actions are not of benefit and are willing to modify them - using reason?