Objectivism(MGTOW) vs Subjectivism and Intrinsicism

[SpaceCowboyMGTOWParticipant 8]

Hi Guys,

I would like to apport my two cents with an article from “objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com”, dealing with the subjects of  Subjectivism (Represented by Feminists), Intrinsicism (Religionists) and Objectivism (MGTOW):

“Subjectivism holds that truth, in effect, resides only in the mind. For a subjectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another. (Kant (by implication), Wittgenstein, James, Sartre, etc.) “Truth” amounts to whatever one believes, and there is no such thing as “knowledge” of reality; only some sort of “experience” inside one’s own mind.

 

<span style=”font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.625;”>Intrinsicism holds that truth resides disembodied out in the world. Typically, intrinsicists hold that all people have to do is somehow “open their hearts to God,” or “pay attention to their intuitions,” or “open their minds to the light of truth,” and the “external truth” will infallibly push its way in. If the truth is already “out there,” then there’s no reason to think that any special processing is required to reach it; one merely has to absorb it. (Plato, Aristotle (partially, in regard to essences), Apostle Paul, Augustine, etc.) For an intrinsicist, conceptual knowledge is whatever external truths one happens to have absorbed. A particular statement is “true” for everyone, whether they have any evidence or not. (And it’s an arbitrarily answerable question whether various people can be held responsible for not grasping all the “floating truth” out there.) (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>1</span>)</span>

 

Objectivism holds that truth and falsehood are aspects of conceptual knowledge. Truth (and perceptual knowledge) is a relationship between a consciousness and reality. Truth is reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of logic.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement cannot be true for one person and false for another, (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>2</span>) but it can be arbitrary for one person and either true or false for another. People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)

 

There is much more to be said about this topic, and I recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff, for more.

 

—–

 

(1) To be clear, most modern, intellectual intrinsicists (and many such subjectivists) go to great pains to cloak their theory of knowledge in the appearance of reasoning from observation. They use the language of natural science and the formalism of deductive arguments. But this is all rationalization or inconsistency, because, for intrinsicists, the ultimate basis of “knowledge” is just to “feel the [allegedly external] truth.” For subjectivists, whatever their pretenses about subjectivism being necessitated by objective science, that self-contradiction wipes out objectivity on their part, and they thus imply that there’s no such thing as knowledge of reality. (What distinguishes knowledge of reality from fantasy is that knowledge is objective.)

 

(2) So long as the statement actually has matching referents in both cases. The same words referring to different people aren’t actually the same statement, because the words have different referents in each context.”

 

 

 

 

[John DoeParticipant 743]

uhh….what is your argument?  Or is this a lesson?

[SpaceCowboyMGTOWParticipant 8]

@john Doe:

I only show reality as it is

MGTOW Observe reality, react to reality and adapt to reality. Ultimately, by “obeying Nature they command it” and create their ow reality. All of our actions are rooted in Observation, Reality and Reason, unlike females, leftists and religionists.

Females are Subjectivist, they act always on a whim, whatever the random gina tingle of the day, no sense of direction or clear goals.

Religionist are intrinsicist, they say: Obey the word of that god who incarnated a pigeon who got a virgin pregnant. He cares about YOU. Really?
They say: kill those infidels and you will f~~~ 72 virgins in a paradise. Some individuals who like to f~~~ goats under US drone surveillance believe them.

Leftists are both Subjectivists and Intrinsicists, theirs is both a mental psychotic disorder (caused by genetic decay I think) and adoration tho the State and Society as gods. So they kinda live in a theocracy.

MGTOW observes the reality for what it is and doesn’t allow moochers and parasites to bring him down or blur his view of the facts. we are Objectivists, we act in conformance with the Laws of Nature and the Universe. And this why at the end we will triumph.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Uhh….I am confused still are you arguing for something or stating something.    To argue for or against any one of the above let alone all three would require me to write a book.  F~~~ that.

<span class=”bbp-breadcrumb-current”>Objectivism, Subjectivism, Intrinsicism are all bulls~~~.  Putting a name over an abstract thought, which would qualify as all three, does not make it any more or less real than a unicorn.</span>

Because you feel objectivism is the “way of truth” I will delve into that subject first.

Truth is <span style=”font-family: Thread-00000ed4-Id-0000006b;”>reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness</span>. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of <span style=”color: #005cab;”>logic</span>.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement cannot be true for one person and false for another, (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>2</span>) but it can be <span style=”color: #005cab;”>arbitrary</span> for one person and either true or false for another. People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)

Your above statement is not logical or ill-logical. It is just a statement.  An abstract thought.  It is not embodied in the world and is subject to belief.  It is intrinsicist in nature.

Or because it resides in the mind, I can say it is subjective.    Anyhow your argument for objectivism is not objective.

 

 

 

 

[SpaceCowboyMGTOWParticipant 8]

Evidently you are either dishonest or  didn’t understand a single sentence of the the above. That makes me think: you are either a troll or the product of the feminized, Kantian and Marxist American education system. I’m inclined to think the latter.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

You posted in the philosophy forum buddy.  So let me see what you argument is.  I will test it.  I never sided with any of the above three, I just pointed out that your statement is contradictory.

Your response is not very logical, just emotional.  I thought you were an objectivist?

[DybbukParticipant 182]

MGTOW aren’t necessarily objectivist. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing the lifestyle that they do. So…fire away with your intellectual-sounding insults for daring to disagree with you.  LOL

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Are we bringing Marxism up?  I’ll argue against that too.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Dybbuk:  It is very difficult to argue with emotionally charged men of faith, don’t upset him to much.

 

[SpaceCowboyMGTOWParticipant 8]

Evidently john, you are a Millenial

Let me state clearly one thing: All of you commenting here have it all wrong. You are not talking Real Philosophy here, but the feminized version of Philosophy, thats it:

Guy shouts random thoughts => Girl says: Wow, I like his “Philosophy”!

This s how most of you here are talking about Philosophy. What WOMEN understand by “Philosophy”

But Real, Grownup, Cultured Men know one thing: you are full of s~~~.

Because Real Philosophy deals with with 5 Normative Branches:

1 Metaphysics

2 Epistemology

3 Ethics

4 Politics

5 Aesthetics

So if in your talking about Philosophy you don’t talk about any of these Normative branches, you are full of s~~~.

Objectivism, Subjectivism and Intrinsicism in my post all relate to Epistemology, so bad you are ignorant and totally missed it.

So to compensate for your poor education, I highly recommend you to put down the Xbox and start reading non-fiction books like grownups do.

Civilization may depend on it.

And it doesn’t help that NOBODY commenting here has related to the topic but instead were moved to comment only when they smelled dispute, like gossiping old women. I expected to deal with real, successful and intelligent men here and maybe doing business with worthy individuals, but I’m starting to think I’m looking in vain here.

[DybbukParticipant 182]

“…I’m Objectivist Rob Lowe, and I have cable…”

[KeymasterKeymaster]

OK stop. Whoah there, cowboy. Retract your f~~~ing claws for a second.

So if in your talking about Philosophy you don’t talk about any of these Normative branches, you are full of s~~~.

Before you start discussing “branches” and calling anyone who doesn’t approach your branches of philosophy the same way you do “full of s~~~”, allow me to first direct you to the concept of ABSOLUTE VS RELATIVE TRUTH. Do you have any idea how many people can’t (and won’t) even get their heads around that?

That’s philosophy broken down to it’s most basic concept.

+90% of the f~~~ing world still believes in some kid of “god”. But do you walk into a church on Sunday and start telling everyone who goes there that they are full of s~~~? Some people still don’t even know (or care!) if the world is round or flat. Don’t believe it? See below.

Calling anyone here “full of s~~~” is belligerent and you can look forward to minimizing your replies that way. If that satisfies you and makes you feel good because nobody is willing engage in that kind of horses~~~, then by all means, knock yourself out. And while you’re doing that, remind yourself at least 95% of the planet are complete f~~~ing idiots:

Now before you start pretending everyone here is “full of s~~~” and not f~~~ing qualified to discuss philosophy… Did you call up THE VIEW and tell all 5 members on that panel, and the entire studio audience (who didn’t even boo that stupid fat bitch off the stage) that they are full of s~~~???? Because there is not one single member of MGTOW.com who doesn’t know the shape of the world and thinks it is f~~~ing flat. Not one. That’s a goddamn guarantee.

So, if you have that much of a problem with people who are full of s~~~….
take the f~~~ing battle where it REALLY belongs.

All of the women on the view deserve to be homeless.
Hows that for a philosophy.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Soul ManParticipant 1856]

Here’s some objective truth…

Jump off a 10 story building and gravity’s reality will transform you in to a runny puddle of goo.

Get married and then she pulls the pin on you because she’s “not happy” and the reality of our western legal system will leave a smoldering crater where your asshole used to be.

I have found, on the whole, that life is a spectrum of gray open to subjective interpretation.  However, there are also very black/white objective areas of life.  Don’t ignore the objective realities of this world.  They can be hazardous to your health.  YMMV

HISTORY...learn from it, memorize it, DON'T repeat it...

[DybbukParticipant 182]

I expected to deal with real, successful and intelligent men here and maybe doing business with worthy individuals, but I’m starting to think I’m looking in vain here.

Nope, just us whim-worshipers here.

[…Spectator 1165]

Here’s some objective truth…

 

Jump off a 10 story building and gravity’s reality will transform you in to a runny puddle of goo.

 

Get married and then she pulls the pin on you because she’s “not happy” and the reality of our western legal system will leave a smoldering crater where your asshole used to be.

I have found, on the whole, that life is a spectrum of gray open to subjective interpretation.  However, there are also very black/white objective areas of life.  Don’t ignore the objective realities of this world.  They can be hazardous to your health. “Soul Man.” That’s right muthas!!

[SpaceCowboyMGTOWParticipant 8]

@keymaster:

Maybe I’ve been a bit on the hard side with him, but remember he was the first to say the definitions of Obectivism, Subjectivism and Intrinsicism were bulls~~~. Ignorance is one thing, but ignorance and arrogance is something I cannot tolerate in any way. So those who kill by the sword, perish by the sword.

About Absolutes, Objectivism upholds certain very specific absolutes and regards all absolutes (and all concepts of any kind) as dependent on their contexts for their meaning and validity. CONTEXT is the buzzword here. In some contexts, the same event or situation or object can be absolute, in others it becomes shade of grey. Another intelligent poster had it right here: Put your uninsulated hand in a napalm flame and it will burn. Run towards the front of a truck in the highway and you are smashed.
Marry a ex-carousel rider and your are busted years later. All examples of Absolutes, in their proper context.

Unfortunately the Modern education system is deeply rooted in Platonic and Kant tenets, negating the validity of the senses and the possibility of certainty and all of that BS that is now trendy, except for those who produce.

I have not invented the Normative branches of Philosophy. this has its roots in Aristotle, in fact Objectivism is Aristotle’s Philosophy but corrected and improved. I of course don’t see Objectivism as a “closed” system, I think it can be improved upon given the new data received by current scientific research.

When you look at your Smartphone, stand sure that the microprocessor inside who runs your Apps is based on Boolean Logic, originated by the eminent Mathematician George Boole, who based his logic in guess what? Aristotelian logic.

Next years a bunch of very disruptive technologies are about to arise in the realm or Artificial Intelligence, that will make your jaw drop. All of them are based in Objectivist Philosophy.

Also some Objectivists at MIT are dispensing with the bulls~~~ of Copenhagen School and its interpretation o Quantum Physics. Some guy has applied Objectivist Philosophy to the problem and discovered that there is no “duality particle-wave”, because it violates the Law of Identity. A leaf canot be all green and all red at the same time, this is basic common sense but modern physicists were fonder of diving in nonsense. All is waves.

[Anonymous 42]

Here’s some of my philosophy in a different light……

Racisum in MGTOW, I’d like to kick this ball of s~~~ down the field if I may….
I am not a racist unless you’re looking at gin’0”media bulls~~~! In MGTOW we are MEN FIRST, and assholes second. My skin is white, but the color of my mind is MAN, not WOMAN, and sure as f~~~ not MANGINA!

Here in MGTOW a black man can cloak himself as a white man, a white man can cloak himself as black man, we don’t know the difference! MGTOW men can be in the KKK, or in the black-panthers, no difference to me, A mans skin color has nothing to do with the color of his mind. The only color I see is BLUE and RED!

[rainydaykidParticipant 42]

Objectivism, if you are speaking of the crazy bulls~~~ Ayn Rand variety?

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Objectivism, if you are speaking of the crazy bulls~~~ Ayn Rand variety?

You missed the argument from a week or two ago.  Half of it was deleted during a forum glitch.

[Qbeck01Participant 57]

Subjectivism is incoherent
The subjectivist thesis: “No statement is objectively true for everyone”, is self-contradictory.
If the person making this statement believes it to be objectively true, He’s contradicting himself.
Unintelligible-
To “believe” a statement is to think that the statement is more true than it’s opposite. So if one says, “I believe X, but X is no more true than it’s opposite”, one is misusing the word “believe”.
Contrary to fact.
If subjectivism were true, science would be impossible. No hypothesis could be tested, because it couldn’t be proved false. No one could be wrong about anything.

As to John Doe, Don’t waist your time. He just spews word salads at you; he’s incapable of comprehension.

[Author]

Posts