24

Philosophy On One Foot-The Basics of Objectivism by Ayn Rand

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
89 comments | Share | Flag

During the last week, we've had 2 or 3 posts related to Conservatism vs Objectivism. I ran into this brief reply by Ayn Rand when she was asked if she could explain her philosophy while standing on one foot.

Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:

" 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."

That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    :D Well said...and as a response to their 'demands', that's when the caricature of 'Rumpelstiltskin' pops in my head.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I use this answer with evolution.
    Q: Do you believe in evolution
    A; No, I understand evolution, just as a I do not believe in gravity, I understand it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is good, but I think a little bit overly complicated.

    The reason this is important is that you may think you are having a discussion about Politics and the person you are talking to is talking about Ethics. For instance, you may be talking about censorship and they say eliminating someone comments on your website is censorship. You are talking about politics and you counter that you are not the government and neither is your website so it is impossible for you to violate their 1st amendment rights. They are talking ethics and believe that all opinions are equally valid and they look at you like your are a martian and claim you are to the right of Attila the Hun.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    somewhere on that page with the outline is a icon button for copying..I didn't find it myself at first.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you, k. That is perfect. I did a screen shot and will print it to keep.
    I am pretty sure I tend to get confused about these concepts because so many people use confusing language to express them, thinking, I am sure, that it makes them seem more intelligent. Well, maybe to themselves, anyway.
    I do appreciate this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 4 months ago
    As a scientist I am guided more by understanding than belief. Belief is the acceptance of a statement as fact based strictly on the vigor of the argument. Belief does not require proof or an experimental validation. It follows that belief is stronger than contradictory facts. Belief is, therefore, purely subjective and illogical. Understanding, however, is quite another matter. I was asked if I "believe" that two plus two makes four. My answer is NO! But because I understand the rules and properties of mathematics I know WHY two plus two makes four. It strikes me that appreciating the difference between belief and understanding is at the core of Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
    The only place that can be done is by having one foot in the center and the other foot only as far as one can stretch it without moving the foot that is firmly planted in the center. For many of us it's the Constitution. For too damn many others it's the center of the left with Plato, Adolf, Lenin, and the Progressives.

    I had not seen this description before but it made instant perfect sense.

    Sadly the bulk of one former tied to the center philosophically and politically group the, Republicans, are now the right wing of the left learning how to do stiff arm salutes and say We Serve The Party...starting with Rand and Cruz and finishing with Clinton and Sanders.

    Ahh well....

    It is possible to straddle the center and have one foot left and one right or one foot barely touching the center and the other going in one and one only direction - and by my way of thinking perfectly acceptable but one step further puts you in some other systems center and one may no longer claim the rights privileges and responsibilities of the Constitution with it's associated philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
    Many of us who would not consider ourselves to be Objectivists nonetheless agree with Rand's points in your timely link, Zenphamy. What is it that separates those of us who agree with Rand's basic tenets yet are not non-Objectivists from Objectivists? a) a difference in the perception of reality; b) a different current or past reality; c) unresolved contradictions; d) unknown contradictions; e) differences in how to deal with those with Rand's basic tenets; f) combinations of a through e; g) other? If you would like, I will post this as a separate thread, but for now, I think it is appropriate here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ok! Flow chart! here it is from Kat (whom I do not know but I think is well done): http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...

    Dale has put together two outlines for talks. This is one of them. Moving between the 4 (some argue 5) platforms of a philosophy should be practiced. I notice that it is the most often contradiction in here. Most recently, between Ethics and Politics.having this handy chart helps , I think.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, Rand was exceptional in her ability to use not only the written word, but as well extemporaneous English words to explain the most difficult of subjects and topics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Metaphysics meaning of things that are real.

    Epistemology meaning definitions

    Morals depend on the first two.

    Can't get much shorter than that.

    That's all three of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 4 months ago
    Excellent post. I had not seen it before. Thanks for the post, Zen. I get confused by words like epistemology and metaphysics. I liked these brief definitions.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo