@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher From what fact, or set of facts did Rand derive that conclusion?

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher 🤡

The main problem with Objectivism, summed up in one tweet:

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher I suggest you try reading something outside Randian library. There are other books out there - some are really good! I will once again suggest that you begin with this one;

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher Let me put in terms you might understand; There is no supreme moral will, or judge, or framework ‘out there’ for us to discover. We shall have to do the hard work of inventing our moral ideas ourselves. ‘Reality’ plays the role of ‘God’ in the religion of Ayn Rand.

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher Yes, that is a popular way to worship death.

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher There is no such thing as a “perceptual proof”.

No I’m not. I’m just not accepting Rands idiosyncratic explanations of certain concepts and ideas 🙂 Again, people *can choose* to value things that are antithetical to Rands definition of human flourishing. Also, man *can be* rational, if he (for whatever reason) decides to. In either case, the moral theories that lead him to choose one path or another (or to switch paths or whatever) begin as moral conjectures. They cannot - for purely logical reasons - be deduced from facts or any kind.

This is 🥜 If it actually happens, it will provide infinite ammunition to anti-semitic propagandists everywhere.

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher Your use of the term ‘rationalization’ above is nonsensical. What I summarized above is basic logic, which Rand, and I suppose you, value. Also, see the post below;

The first part there is correct, but the second isn’t. Some people worship death. You and I and Ayn Rand can think that these people are wrong to do so, and we can explain in great detail why we think that is the case, but those explanations - for the reasons I listed above - cannot have been deduced from empirical data / observation statements. That is logically impossible. So no objective morality. We can, however, distinguish between *rational* and *irrational* moral frameworks - meaning, frameworks that do, or do not allow critical discussion and revision of moral concepts and theories.

It is impossible to derive explanatory statements from observation statements, so no induction, or inductive concept formation. All theories (whether scientific or moral) begin as conjectured solutions to epistemic problems, (i.e. apparent gaps or deficiencies in our existing knowledge). Furthermore, there is an infinite number of logically possible explanations for every observation statement, so no empirical validation, or justification (whether absolute or probabilistic) of conjectured explanations. Since a single (true) counter-instance of a theory would falsify it, empirical refutation is at least possible in principle. And there is no ‘solution to the is-ought problem’. You cannot derive values from facts, or vice versa. Any moral framework necessarily begins with a subjective choice - in Rands case, to make ‘life’ the central value in her moral philosophy. Rand was an interesting figure, and I like some of her ideas (mainly in the moral domain), but her epistemology is false.

@MatjazLeonardis Governmental consultant

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher No, I actually laughed. Your responses are unhinged.

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher Yes, Karl Popper - big name among fans of authoritarian philosophy. You’re not really doing good PR for objectivism here. You can find stuff I’ve written myself via my profile.

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher Read the first two Chapters in this book (pay special attention to the arguments on page 42) - . Then go back to Rand’s account of induction and concept formation, and see if you won’t perceive them in a new light.

@StardreamersxYz @ToKTeacher I am not an objectivist. Rand’s epistemology crumbles at the slightest critical scrutiny.

USAID currently playing the role of ”they” in loony Republican conspiracy land.