h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

LDT thank you for that blinkered rant.

I have said nothing that could be construed as negative about the article or Objectivism, indeed I have been positive about the writing and tried to explain how my thoughts have arisen.

Those who defend a stance by maintaining that those who hold an opposing view (which I have not said I do) are generally labelled as fascists.

And you're right, my name is well put, thats why I chose it, however do not mistake disorganised as unread, uneducated, or unknowing.

From the Peer Review advice page:

<>

OK - well, I'm educated: (6 years training in academic philosophy)
and I'm a layman - (I want to understand what is said here)

But I have completely failed to understand anything from this entry.
Maybe its just ME - but I don't think so, and here's why, in terms of the writing as communication:

"Reality" is undefined (isn't lying part of reality?).

How to "conform" to reality is unexplained.

Why that helps survival is unexplained.

It is assumed, but not explained, how the 'honest man' does not 'require' others to survive.

It is not explained why this is a good thing.

It is asserted but not explained that 'egoism' is 'remaining true to that which exists'

<> How can anything be an absolute within a context?

The moral principle of honesty, as described in the final paragraph appears to contradict everything that was said before.

If the purpose of this entry is only to explain to those who already understand, then its educative value is minimal. If it is here to inform the educated layman, than much more explanation and definition is required than has been given here - IMHO.

Dear LDT and Allan,

I'm very disappointed with your last message, which I think is unworthy of you both.

If you have a view, you should be prepared to defend it. If people don't understand, you should be able to clarify it. That's if you're a philosopher, of course. Rather than a dogmatist.

The suggestion that I am "incompetent" to handle issues of political philosophy is just laughable - sorry.

Otto

Allan LDT well...

I'm sorry you both feel so by our honest queries. Insulting the critics of the Entry is hardly an appropriate response.

If you had bothered to ask I think you'd find that most of the comments have been made by people who do know what they're talking about (FYI I have a philosophy degree, and my dissertation was on the morality of deception)

My first comment was that I thought the entry well-written (though this was mostly the grammar and formatting). I also have no problem with Entries I disagree with going into the Guide. My other queries have principally been to draw your attention to other aspects of lying, in the hope that, as the 'experts' in Objectivism, you will be able to explain how they can be accommodated, and give a more encompassing and balanced Entry.

Please try to adopt a approach to PR and count to ten before being offensive - generally people are not trying to throw at you (even if you do feel or ), but have genuine concerns about helping you improve the entry.

Pimms

This post has been removed.

Allan, have you ever studied any philosophy other than Randism?

I have looked at Subjectivism and Marxism, but found them both absolutely irrational. Then I found Objectivism, and my world lit up.

Allan -

Please read, and attempt to act on, A901838 A Guide to Netiquette on h2g2.

in particular:
> Feel free to disagree, but never make personal attacks on the person that you are disagreeing with. It just makes a bad situation worse and can even undermine any point you're trying to make.

> If someone misunderstands you, try to assume it's your fault, not theirs. Try to be clear and patient.

You are making it very difficult to discuss your Entry dispassionately

Pimms

*sucks lollipop*

OK, I think I get it now.

If you're honest, you get to eat and sleep all by yourself.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Oh, and putting the whole
'you have a brain smaller than a chicken'
thing to one side -

I didn't actually ask quite a few of those questions on your list...

e.g.

<<-"What is reality." You been in Academic Philosophy for six years and you can't define reality>>

I never asked "What is reality?" - I have my own definition, thanks - actually I have lots of them, but - I was asking you for *your* definition.

Well, I wasn't even doing that - I was suggesting that including your definition might help your article.

The above is also the case for:

<<"How do you conform to reality?">>. .
<<"What helps survival"?>>


Ah, now this one:

<<-"Why does the honest man not require others to survive"? Well, this question and the one above it are tied in their level of stupidity. The honest man does not require others to survive because he conforms to reality.>>

So, the honest man doesn't need others to survive because - by your own definition - he eats, finds shelter, and sleeps ok. That's great news. I will start being honest tomorrow, and then I can stop paying the rent.

Actually, this sounds rather like: The honest man doesn't need others to survive, because ... wait for it ... he doesn't need others to survive. That would be a circular argument right there - but, oh, let's not bring philosophy into this, shall we?


<<"Why is it a good thing to not require require others to survive"? Wow, I really have never seen a question beat this one in its naked idiocy. It makes one more independent.>>

OK, but I hope the honest man never needs to call a doctor.


<<-"Why is egoism remaining true to that which exists"? I am not even going to bother answering this - it should be clear to anyone older than about 4 now.>>

Well, sorry to be thick, but this is not exactly earth shatteringly clear. I could ask a five year old, but I think I might sound a bit foolish. All I was asking for was a bit of clarification... but it seems I have touched a raw nerve there. Sorry to make you so defensive, but if you want to disclose an answer for me, please do.


Now - this is a very nice one to end with.

<>

Can I write that down?

Allan, given that (by your own admission) you have looked at only three philosophies, don't you think that you ought to be a little less dismissive (and a lot less insulting) of people who have looked at rather more?

A few points to ponder:

First of all an "evil" person does not feel that they are evil (in most cases). For example Hitler (very evil in my opinion) considered himself a world savior.

Objectivist learning is usually with odds in the realm of quantum theory. Which means that the Objectivist's point of view is skewed, therefore you cannot have honesty. Because If you do not know all of the facts, which most of us never do, the Objectivist is in a point of lockdown; they can not go on because they do not have the facts, ad ad infinitum.

Honesty is a perception just as knowing red is red (a rose by any . . .)

I don't know what all the heat was about since the entry is now hidden...

Is Allan still around and is he willing to work on this further? Otherwise, I reckon it'll be just about ready for removal from PR...


- Jimi X

Well, strictly speaking it's not yet eligible for either the Flea Market or back-to-entry unless Allan says that he has no further interest in it, although if it's hidden, and Allan decides to do no further work on it, I guess it needs to be sent back to entry

The entry isn't hidden, only a couple of Allan and LDT's replies. While Allan hasn't apparently been contributing to h2g2 for a few weeks, his friend LDT has - I'd suggest a query/request for action went to him.

This could be sharpened up by linking to the recent entry on why people lie A996942, with the Objectivist stance clearly contrasted with those of the other philosophies discussed.

Pimms

17 hours ago it *was* but now it's not...

Off to read

There are a couple of really good h2g2 Edited Entries on Honesty/Lying that you might want to check out...

'Tatemae' and 'Honne' in Japanese Society - A571565

and

Why People Lie - A996942

I reckon the first one will show you how to go about this entry better. You've got the basic ideas down here, but for an entry of this type, I really feel it needs to be more descriptive and illustrative.

Also you've got a few typos:
'Some lie for tack [tact]; for example they might say: "your[you're] not ugly" to someone who is ugly...'

But I think there is the foundation (pardon the pun) for a fine entry here. But it needs a bit more flesh on them bones.


- Jimi X

Now I'm no big city Philosopher, but...

". An object gained- any object- by irrational means immediately loses any evaluative standing because it clashes with reality"

is it true that this statement roughly means that stolen goods are worthless, because they "clash with reality"? If I steal a hammer then, that hammer will no longer be useful because it is stolen? Is that really taken an "objective" look at the situation?

Any thoughts?

Objectivists (as they call like to call themselves) think that "reality" is simple and neutral, and can be discovered simply and straightforwardly. As Hakon says, this doesn't accord with modern scientific thinking, nor with much of everyday experience. What we perceive is at least partially determined by what we know, and any attempt to describe what we see is interpretation, which brings in personal knowledge.

They further think that a bizzare moral code according to which it is immoral to give money to charity (because it is said to be form of "self sacrifice") is directly inferrable from "reality". Quite how this bit of the argument is supposed to go, I've absolutely no idea. I've never found any "objectivist" who can explain it to me, and I don't think that this entry does either.

I'm no Objectivist, but I've read enough of Rand's work to take a guess at the alleged immorality of charity...

If I've got it right, the Self is the most important thing in this philosophy - creating works of art not to please others but to please oneself. Think of the Rush song 'Anthem' - "I know they've always told you, selfishness was wrong. But it was for me, not you, that I came to write this song."

In an Objectivist society, each Self would work to his best abilities to please himself and be rewarded based on that good work. Charity is a form of reward for those 'unable' or 'unwilling' to work to their best abilities and encourages the propagation of this 'unability' or 'unwillingness'.



But like I said, I'm not an Objectivist myself - just a guy who has read some of Ayn Rand's books so I've probably got it all bass-akwards.

==============

That little diversion into speculative philosophy aside, I *do* hope the author comes back and reads my comments. With a little work, I'm pretty sure this entry could be steered toward the Edited Guide in the manner of the first link that I provided earlier.


- X