Objectivism: I don't like it.

[Serogan]

Objectivism(sp?) is impossible, as I see it. It says there are objective, inarguable truths. A simple example of an objective truth would be a physical fact of an object, something directly measurable. But even this seemingly objective thing, perhaps the length of a desk, is subject to things like the accuracy of the measuring device, depth perception/vision distortion, and the unit used. However, take away the subjectivity caused by errors such as these, and you still don't have an objective truth. For instance, the length of the desk changes depending on the angle you look at it. You could argue that the desk isn't in fact changing, only your view of it is, but this can only be proven by returning to normal position (such as, standing right in front of the desk) to view it. And in fact, the only way to prove the desk has length is through our measurements, our perceptions. So if our perceptions change, the desk in fact does change, because it only definitely exists according to our perceptions.  

[naive melody]

Serogan

Objectivism(sp?) is impossible, as I see it. It says there are objective, inarguable truths. A simple example of an objective truth would be a physical fact of an object, something directly measurable. But even this seemingly objective thing, perhaps the length of a desk, is subject to things like the accuracy of the measuring device, depth perception/vision distortion, and the unit used. However, take away the subjectivity caused by errors such as these, and you still don't have an objective truth. For instance, the length of the desk changes depending on the angle you look at it. You could argue that the desk isn't in fact changing, only your view of it is, but this can only be proven by returning to normal position (such as, standing right in front of the desk) to view it. And in fact, the only way to prove the desk has length is through our measurements, our perceptions. So if our perceptions change, the desk in fact does change, because it only definitely exists according to our perceptions.

Basically, in reference to quantum physics, objectivism is impossible.

..And yet at the same time, you kind of have to wonder if objectivism can be true for some individuals due to perception..  

[Wuyabi]

I'm just gonna repost what I said in intelligent cogitation here:

I do not post in this guild often. This is largely because I am fearful of stating my view on the outlook that this guild holds most dear: Objectivism.
I disagree with it, and heartily at that. This article by feminist gamer mightyponygirl explains why I find it distasteful better than I ever could:

http://www.mightyponygirl.com/feminist_gamers/?p=296

I'm also gonna ask you the question that mightponygirl posits...in a society where everyone is "creative," and everyone who dubs themselves as such considers themselves special, and above criticism... and, most importantly, above menial work...who is supposed to do the dirty, but needed, jobs, like cleaning the toilets? Not you or I, certainly. Someone "beneath us." But who are you or I to decide such things?
We, as human beings, have no right to do so.
And theirein lies the key. In a society where everyone is special, no one is. I say this to you: We are not special, nor are we beneath others who are "better than us." We are simply us, and we contribute to our society in a myriad of essential ways.  

[Wuyabi]

Oh, yeah, there's this, too: http://xkcd.com/32/  

[Miss Rupa]

The reason I don't like it is because you can't aid other people in their lives... I.e. giving gifts to people.  

[bluecherry]

False. There are numerous occasions even in Rand's fiction where some of the heroes of the story give gifts.

 

[Wuyabi]

http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/

Here's another thing, for you guys.

And another point:

Yes, there are objective truths, and altruism as defined by Comte is impossible and insane, but people's subjective perceptions change how we see the world around us. The structure of DNA was discovered in a dream.

Objectvists maintain that all aspects of religion are inherently damaging, but, while I certainly don't believe that every religious rule, commandment, or law makes sense (Leviticus is full of more nonsense than anything else) the biblical prohibition against incest has a basis in science, and, though geneticism as a science could not have been conceived of in ancient times, the outcome of ignoring that prohibition was most certainly physically observable when Jewish lawmakers saw the increasing insanity in each generation of their former Egyptian slaveowner kings and queens, many of whom married their own siblings.  

[Wuyabi]

One last thing before I go. I tend to babble too much, but others have put it better than I ever could:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=11372286&postcount=341

Of course, if you disagree with me, you could always head here.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/?guild_id=12114