Objectivism - Archimedean Point Philosophy?

[Azathoth]

Do “Objectivists” actually believe they have reached some Archimedean Point of true objectivity in their perception of reality? If not, why a name that at least gives the impression of objectivity to others?

Personally, the self-label “Objectivist” always struck me as more than a little egotistical and/or pretentious, particularly because it is a self-awarded title, but maybe I misunderstand why that term is used so I thought I’d ask.

[Only_Humean]

@Azathoth

Do “Objectivists” actually believe they have reached some Archimedean Point of true objectivity in their perception of reality? If not, why a name that at least gives the impression of objectivity to others?

Personally, the self-label “Objectivist” always struck me as more than a little egotistical and/or pretentious, particularly because it is a self-awarded title, but maybe I misunderstand why that term is used so I thought I’d ask.

I’m no expert, but I believe the name was chosen because the philosophy holds that there is an objective reality, to be discovered by the mind, rather than that it is a creation of the human mind.

Metaphysical realism has been around a long time, it’s pretty much the default ‘common sense’ position assumed by most people. Objectivism is pretty much specifically Rand’s take on it, as I understand.

[amor_fati]

The so-called Archimedean Point, at least in the way I understand the possibility of such a thing, has more to do with the objective perception of oneself in relation to reality (self-transparency), rather than some objective perception of reality as such.

[statiktech]

@Azathoth

Do “Objectivists” actually believe they have reached some Archimedean Point of true objectivity in their perception of reality?

Archimedian Point is a hypothetical view of a thing it its totality. While I take it that Objectivism dismisses any distinction between Phenomena and Noumena, I don’t think they claim any complete understanding of objective reality, in its totality (but perhaps that such knowledge is possible).

If not, why a name that at least gives the impression of objectivity to others?

Because objectivity is the primary interest. O_H explained it pretty well.

Objectivity does not necessarily hold that all properties of an object are perceptible or understandable, only that objects exist independent of the mind.

Personally, the self-label “Objectivist” always struck me as more than a little egotistical and/or pretentious, particularly because it is a self-awarded title, but maybe I misunderstand why that term is used so I thought I’d ask.

Indeed. Objectivism has never sat quite right with me, and I’m not much a fan of Ayn Rand either. However, I think her point was to convey the notion that reality exists as we perceive it – all experiences are objectively ‘real’. Objectivism always kind of seemed like an ‘easy out’ to me; a philosophy of convenience and practicality that allows nearly anything to be explained away. So my initial inclinations were not far off from your own. The added emphasis on individualism (and Capitalism) is what solidified Objectivism as egoistic and pretentious, to me at least.

[Dairdo]

Objectivism derives its name from the conception of knowledge and values as “objective,” rather than as “intrinsic” or “subjective.” According to Rand, neither concepts nor values are “intrinsic” to external reality, but neither are they merely “subjective” (by which Rand means “arbitrary” or “created by [one’s] feelings, desires, ‘intuitions,’ or whims”). Rather, properly formed concepts and values are objective in the sense that they meet the specific (cognitive and/or biocentric) needs of the individual human person. Valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, “determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man’s mind.”

This was what she, and Objectivists today, refer to as their epistemological trichotomy - distinct from the false dichotomy of only “objective” or “subjective”.

Shrug. This is a little above my current ability to adequately chew and debate intelligently. However, I believe it boils down to the fact that Rand named her philosophy according to her identification that human life as the standard, and reason - a human’s ability to employ logic - are necessary in determining the morality of human action.

[Azathoth]

Thanks, all, for the input!

Actually - I think I’ve discovered the confusion I was perceiving and it’s not in “Objectivist” philosophy, which seems as coherent as any codified philosophy, though I do think the name contributes to the confusion. Apparently Rand’s views were objectivist regarding the physical world, but essentially relativist regarding moral and ethical theory. This mix of objectivism and relativism is what confused me, because it’s not morally objectivist as was traditional Platonic thinking (which essentially regarded moral “objects” the same way Rand regarded physical “objects”) and I kept wondering how she could call her thinking “objectivist” when her moral philosophy seemed to embody such relativistic thinking and knowing that there is such a thing as a philosophy of moral objectivism or formalism.

Though I still strongly doubt the practical value of pure objectivism as a useful approach to the physical world, since no experience of or interaction with reality can ever be through anything but our own, human sense-data (a la Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism), I think this understanding of the division between the objectivistic and relativistic aspects of Objectivism would have helped me in dealing with an extremely difficult Randian professor of mine way back in the day^_^

[Remster]

@Azathoth

Do “Objectivists” actually believe they have reached some Archimedean Point of true objectivity in their perception of reality? If not, why a name that at least gives the impression of objectivity to others?

Personally, the self-label “Objectivist” always struck me as more than a little egotistical and/or pretentious, particularly because it is a self-awarded title, but maybe I misunderstand why that term is used so I thought I’d ask.

I’m going to throw my hat into the ring too. Although ‘objectivism’ is multiply ambiguous, in one of its senses it’s synonymous with ‘realism’. ‘Realism’ is the more common term in general metaphysics, while ‘objectivism’ tends to be reserved for realism in metaethics.