Disputatio:Obiectivismus

Obiectivismus fuit pagina mensis Februarii 2011.

Rafael have you really seen her last name declined in print somewhere?--Ioscius ^(disp) 15:43, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I only just noticed this message. And actually stopped by to reply to a comment by Harrissimo on the same topic. In fact, I have not seen it in print declined that way except in an essay I wrote myself on a related topic last year. I just didn't know how to render: "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" any better than by "Obiectivismus: Philosophia Ayn Randis". By the way I just an email to the Ayn Rand institute to see if they have a policy on how to decline Ayn Rand's name in foreign languages that decline names. But I wouldn't hold my breath awaiting a reply.--Rafaelgarcia 22:34, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about it and I don't think the following alternative using "eius" wouldn't be bad: "Obiectivismus: Philosophia eius Ayn Rand". And it would allow us to stick to the rule of not declining surnames unless they are attested as declinable.--Rafaelgarcia 12:59, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)

There's always calling her Alisa for declining purposes, Rafael...--Ioscius ^(disp) 01:50, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I know, I've thought of that. However the problem is that Alissa Rosenbaum was her name in Russia which then she legally changed to Ayn Rand (unrelated to Alissa) shortly after she came to the US. Ayn was her dad's nickname for her, apparently. Thus, I think it would be inappropriate to use Alissa.--Rafaelgarcia 02:26, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism

I must say Ayn Rand is a new acquaintance to me. My first, superficial, impression is that, as a philosopher, she was one of those with a political agenda as strong as, say, Lenin, though at the other extremity of the political pole. Be that as it might, what I'm most concerned with now is the term Objectivism. I'm sure the readers would be grateful for a clearer definition of this term: What is the Randian Objectivism all about? Notice that "objective" or "objecitivist" must not be part of the definiens of "objectivism". What is the "perspectiva obiectivistica" supposed to mean? It isn't my primary purpose here to criticise your Latin, but the following sentence, even if it were written in English, isn't too easy to understand: "Secundum Obiectivismum, scientia non est intrinsica (=?), totaliter experimentalis (experientialis?), nec subiectiva, sola in mente, sed obiectiva, et de realitate et secundum methodum a animo libenter electam." What "scientia obiectiva" brings into my mind is Karl Popper's Objective knowledge, but something whispers in my ears that this isn't the right tack to follow. And what is "methodus ... libenter electa"? Well, I guess what I'm out for is asking what makes Rand's system "Objectivist". --Neander 04:57, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Popper's term "Objective knowledge" so I will have to get back to you on that. A litteral translation of my sentence would be : "According to Objectivism, knowldge is not instrinsic (naturalis? nativus?), wholly experimental, nor subjective, wholly in the mind, but objective, both concerning reality and (obtained) according to a method freely chosen by the mind." The method chosen is logic. THe description is defective, I admit and must be fixed.See below--Rafaelgarcia 22:57, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

As I say above, not even English helps here too much. Does the 'non-intrinsicness of knowledge' claim imply the empiricist tabula rasa position according to which a human being is born with no innate cognitive structures? What about reason? Does Objectivism hold that human beings are born without reason? If so, it would seem that humans obtain the reason(ing faculty) from experience (or what does "wholly experimental" mean?). Metaphysically, Rand appears to side with the realist position which holds that reality consists in and of objects which exist independently of the knowing subject. While this is a rather common-sense position, her approach to the epistemological problem looks rather idiosyncratic: "knowledge is ... (obtained) according to a method freely chosen by the mind." At least this is the point you should make clearer. How free is the mind supposed to be? If the mind is totally free, doesn't that lead to solipsism? Peikoff's (below) "final authority" denial seems to imply a denial of superrationality, which would mean that, basically, there is no way of telling a rational action from an irrational one. Sorry for posing so many questions. What I'm primarily concerned with is trying to get a grip on the system you're describing. --Neander 01:32, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I only just saw this question. I realize the ideas may not be very clearly conveyed and I appreciate the feedback very much. Objectivism addresses the nature of government and rights, advocating capitalism and individual rights, but it is not particularly about politics. Rand writes:

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. ...This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

The name "Objectivism" was specifically chosen by Rand for her philosophy. According to Peikoff, the choice of the name "Objectivism" was drawn from Rand's concept of "objectivity", which Rand explains the following way:

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final "authority" in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one's own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second." (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html )

--Rafaelgarcia 22:43, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Neander: you are not the first to notice that. In fact many claim that Objectivisim is a conscious attempt at creating a philosophy exactly opposite to communism. Though I believe that Objectivists themselves find that characterization ... um, objectionable. --Iustinus 23:11, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

In terms of essential views of man, reason, government and economics, yes they are exact opposites, but Communism and Objectivism also do agree on many other things that may be considered fundamental. Some Objectivists in the US are active as Democrats and Republicans, but most Objectivists I know are apolitical. A Objectivist philosopher friend of mine Andrew Bernstein, recently wrote an amazing book "The Capitalist Manifesto" which is a real eye opener.--Rafaelgarcia 00:30, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Is it really possible, for a human being (except feral children such as Genie), to be apolitical? --Neander 01:44, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

By apolitical I mean "not participating in elections or political parties". For example, I do not. We all enjoy criticizing and laughing at politicians, however. :) --Rafaelgarcia 02:26, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't characterise myself as an apolitical person, although I've stayed at home every now and then. There are a lot of channels of political influence other than political broiler parties. --Neander 03:59, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Moving ahead

It's not my purpose to raise a Rand-rant. But in doing philosophy, one has to be very watchful for nuances of language use. When writing in Latin, this may be an extremely difficult task. It seems to me that here and there your Latin may need some polishing, but unless a prospective emendator has a rather clear understanding of what is being described, it may be that nobody can be of much help. Let me take the second paragraph of the intro. Here you're presenting quite a lot of claims:

Obiectivismus sustinet realitatem separatam a mente esse, omnem hominem per sensus suos in contacto hac realitate esse, homines per mensuras omittendas ideas validas formare et scientiam a perceptione acquirere, causam vitae propriae moralem esse beatudinem rationalem propriam persequendam, unicum systema sociale hac moralitate congruentem capitalismum esse, atque veram artis causam esse scientiam aestimationesque in formam tractabilem convertere.

First, it behooves to be more pedagogical (see below). Second, it'd be desirable to align the intro thematically with the chapters to follow. - Instead of "sustinet" I'd suggest "contendit" (if you're presenting the claims of Objectivism). I've made a few changes more or less at haphazard (but they're scarcely sufficient):

Obiectivismus contendit

1. realitatem separatam a mente exsistere,
2. omnes homines per sensus huic realitati conecti,
3. homines mensuris omissis ideas validas formare et scientiam perceptione acquirere,
4. causam vitae propriae moralem esse beatudinem rationalem propriam persequendam,

The intended meaning is "the moral purpose of one's own life is the pursuit of one's own rational happiness".I'll see if I can improve it. Maybe "propositum" would be less ambiguous for "purpose".--Rafaelgarcia 21:11, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)

1. unicum systema sociale cum hac moralitate congruentem capitalismum esse, atque
2. veram artis causam esse scientiam aestimationesque in formam tractabilem convertere.

ad 1: exsistere may be clearer here than the existential esse.

ad 2: Contactus may be too physical in character. Maybe it's better to use the verb conectere (conecti is pass.inf.).

ad 3: "per mensuras omittendas": this 'omission' needs a definition; it seems to me that conceptualisations require that the 'omission' has been done - hence the ablative absolute mensuris omissis.

ad 4: I fail to understand this sentence.

ad 5: as this isn't a philosophical claim, I'd suggest you postpone it.

Rand believed "the only moral social system consistent with this morality is capitalism"--Rafaelgarcia 03:12, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Rand, like Kant, considered aethetics an important branch of philosophy (although she did not include aethetics in her brief "Objectivism standing on one foot" summary.)--Rafaelgarcia 03:12, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

--Neander 02:50, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

De "independentia"

Rafael ait: "libertas-->independentia; liberty/political independence is not a moral virtue; in latin independentia primarily means this moral concept, intellectual non-dependency."—Oh. OK, if that's what you want: but classically, independentia seems not to be a word; it's not in any of my classical dictionaries (Cassell's, White's, Ainsworth's). For 'independency', Ainsworth's gives summa potestas, libertas suo arbitratu agendi ; for 'independent', nemini subiectus; suis viribus innitens; sui juris ; for 'independently', cum summa libertate. IacobusAmor 13:18, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Non of these examples refers to the moral concept of independence. They all refer to legal or political independence--Rafaelgarcia 14:20, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Apparently independence in this sense was not a concept golden age Romans had. They conceived of political freedom and being of one's own right (sui iuris) but they didn't have a word for a free man sui iuris giving up his responsibility for exercising independent thought. I guess if we didn't have the medieval word independens for this, we would have to say something like "of one's own thought", e.g.: independent man = homo suae sententiae, homo suae sententiae innixus, homo neminis cogitationi innixus; independence = virtus propiae sententiae innitendi--Rafaelgarcia 14:11, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Put it in a different way, a person must be free "summa libertate" before he can give up his independence or exercise it. Neither homo liber dependens, nor homo liber independens is a contradiction in terms. --Rafaelgarcia 14:18, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)