Proof-read Please

[Asimov]

Currently I'm not interested in discussion regarding the veracity of this, but I would like some proof-reading if any of you guys have the time to invest.

 

Just criticism in structure, grammar, word usage and such. If possible I would appreciate any suggestions.

 

Thanks in advance.

In order to establish an idea of objectivism, one must accept that there are certain axioms inherent in reality that provides us with a foundation from which we can build upon. Before we get down to actually stating these axioms, let us first define what is meant by objectivism and the philosophy’s which it is the opposite of.

 

Objectivism encompasses:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

2. Epistemology: Reason

3. Ethics: Self-interest

4. Politics: Capitalism

 

In a short summary, objectivism is the philosophy that a mind-independent reality exists in which individuals are in contact with through sensory-perception. Through the individuals’ sensory-perception, we can gain knowledge by processing data we receive using reason, which is also known as “non-contradictory identification”. Objectivism also promotes the idea of ‘rational self-interest’, stating that our moral purpose is the pursuit of individual happiness. Subsequently, Objectivism also promotes that the only moral social system that it is compatible with is a free-trade economy, or laissez-faire capitalism.

 

Was that short?

 

There are three main tenets of Objectivism, which are considered the axioms of Objectivism:

 

1. Existence exists.

2. Consciousness Exists.

3. Existence is Identity.

 

The statement ‘existence exists’ is the axiomatic statement that “something exists”. An axiom is something self-evident that cannot be coherently denied, because any statement against such a proposition supposes its truth. (1) Is considered axiomatic because in denying that something exists, we are confirming that something exists. Anything that perceives that which exists is considered a consciousness. In corollary with (1), (2) states that because we perceive (1) we have a consciousness. In a final conclusion, anything that exists has set properties and characteristics that define it. This is known as the Law of Identity (for example: A=A).

 

These three tenets define the metaphysical aspects of Objectivism. A subset of these three axioms is the Law of Causality, which proposes in correlation to the Law of Identity that things act in accordance with their nature (identity).

 

So far we’ve gone over the metaphysical aspects of Objectivist Philosophy and how it applies externally to the world. The next step would then be how we as humans can use Objectivism in order to obtain knowledge. Epistemology is the study of how we know things. According to Objectivism our perceptions tell us that existence exists, however, unless we turn those percepts into concepts we can never know anything. Conceptualization in the form of knowing what exists happens through the process of establishing a distinction between valid concepts and invalid concepts through the use of our reasoning capabilities. The only properly formed concepts are the product of reason.

 

Objectivism is a rejection of the use of faith or emotionalism as a means of gaining knowledge. This is not to say that we should reject our emotions, but the assertion that emotion’s are part of our reality and not a way to become aware of reality. While many people may take up arms against this contention, the position is supported in that ‘emotion’ is not one of our senses as human beings, as well as specific logical fallacies target emotionalism as being invalid arguments to make.

 

As an ethical philosophy, Objectivism is in direct opposition to an altruistic view. Objectivist views regarding the concept of “rational self-interest” hold sway here, where the pursuit of ones own personal self-interests is of chief concern. To quote Rand “To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of life: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem”. According to this ethical idea, each individual is responsible for the achievement of his or her own rational self-interests. While critics may respond with the contention that there is no order or morality in this, we must look at the distinction between rational self-interest and hedonistic selfish-selfishness-without-a-self.

 

Rational self-interest is a promotion of the concept “that which promotes the concept of human life” while the hedonistic selfish view is the concept of “that which I value” or “that which we value”. Such a concept is logically fallacious and leads to “mob-rule” of what is moral and what is not moral. To quote Rand again:

 

“Man (the individual) is an end in himself and not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

 

As stated in the beginning of our examination of objectivist ethics, it was established that Objectivism is in conflict with altruism. Altruism is defined as the moral obligation to live for the sake of others. This is not an idea that is against helping others in need, however the action must be a voluntary one and not done out of coercion or physical force. Such a thing would be an immoral action and against the ideas of individualism.

 

Political standpoints are a subset of ethics, according to Objectivism, and should be based solely off of an ethical idea. In regards to human rights, which is defined as “a moral principle that both defines and sanctions a human being's freedom of action in a social or societal context”, it is asserted that only individuals have rights and the idea of a “collective right” is non-existent. The basic idea of the natural right that a human fundamentally has would be the right to make and act on one’s own independent and rational judgement, taking into account one’s own self-interest of course. Since human individuals must be able to make such choices in order to survive, it can be stated in short that human beings have a right to life.

 

This does not mean that individuals have the independent right to life; that is, no other individual is morally obligated to protect another individuals right to life, which would be an altruistic action. What it does mean is that humans have the right to further their own lives. In direct correlation with this right to life, humans can be said to also have the right to property. By property, one could say the fruits of ones own labor.

 

Since conceptual beings that use the foundation of reason as their source of gaining knowledge, we can recognize that respecting other people’s rights is a rational idea to hold. Directly, it cannot be said that other peoples rights of any importance to the individual. Rationally, respecting other people’s rights is of utmost value to the individual and can help further their own life through such a respect. In a material or emotional sense, viewing others as trading partners where both parties benefit is where the value of such respect comes into play.

 

Thus, the only true economic policy where this idea can flourish would be laissez-faire capitalism. This type of system would render all property privately owned and the rights of all individuals would be upheld in the most consistent fashion. Due to this, separation of state and economics is entirely necessary. Any type of governmental control or regulation would reduce laissez-faire capitalism to a socialistic ideal.

 

While critics of this type of capitalism might view it as harsh and in similarity to “social evolution” or “survival of the fittest”, objectivists view LF Capitalism as beneficiary to all of society. The best and most creative will flourish at no expense or sacrifice to others while simultaneously benefiting everyone. Creative achievement is only quelled where there is regulation and control.

 

Finally, based on all said premises of the political standpoints of objectivism, we must conclude that all relationships can only rationally be voluntary and mutual. As a result of all of these, government plays the role of retaliation against those who would seek to incur the use of retaliation: Criminals and the threat of external societies.

 

Objectivism provides a rational basis with which human individuals may flourish as a society and should only be considered the most rational way to progress as a society. Anything else is a subjugation of individuality and reason. Furthermore, the idea of rational self-interest is of utmost importance to the human individual. It establishes the value that one places on one’s own life, and the right to further that life. The moral obligation to sacrifice ones life for the appeasement of others is considered evil and devoid of reason. Since the foundation of all objectivism is reason, and is defined as the conceptualization of our perceptions of reality, all topics within the idea of Objectivist Philosophy are the product of the reasoning and rational mind.

[pandora]

In order to establish an idea of objectivism, one must accept that there are certain axioms inherent in reality that provide us with a foundation from which we can build upon. Before we state these axioms, let us first define what is meant by objectivism.

 

There's your first paragraph.. I'll let others continue.

 

Changes I made:

 

"provides" to "provide" because the subject is plural

 

I skimmed the rest of the essay, and you don't clarify when you begin speaking of these "opposite philosophies," you merely state which worldviews are in opposition... so I would state specifically which ones you will be discussing in your thesis paragraph. I just took it out for now, and you can insert it at the appropriate point opnce you figure out what you want to do. As is, everything after "objectivism" is awkward... philosophy is philosophies in the plural, not "philosophy's" and you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition unless you're a poet and can get away with it.

 

Also, I'm not so sure you should be capitalizing "Objective Philosophy." It's not a proper or widely known name. Usually, philosophical theories are undercase, unless it is named after someone, and then of course, you would capitalize it... such as "Pascal's wager." For an example of something that more like your thingie here, "secular humanism" is not capitalized.

 

Otherwise, it looks good... I'll leave it up to others to edit it a little at a time.

[Asimov]

In order to establish an idea of objectivism, one must accept that there are certain axioms inherent in reality that provide us with a foundation from which we can build upon. Before we state these axioms, let us first define what is meant by objectivism.

 

There's your first paragraph.. I'll let others continue.

 

Changes I made:

 

"provides" to "provide" because the subject is plural

 

I skimmed the rest of the essay, and you don't clarify when you begin speaking of these "opposite philosophies," you merely state which worldviews are in opposition... so I would state specifically which ones you will be discussing in your thesis paragraph. I just took it out for now, and you can insert it at the appropriate point opnce you figure out what you want to do. As is, everything after "objectivism" is awkward... philosophy is philosophies in the plural, not "philosophy's" and you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition unless you're a poet and can get away with it.

 

Also, I'm not so sure you should be capitalizing "Objective Philosophy." It's not a proper or widely known name. Usually, philosophical theories are undercase, unless it is named after someone, and then of course, you would capitalize it... such as "Pascal's wager." For an example of something that more like your thingie here, "secular humanism" is not capitalized.

 

Otherwise, it looks good... I'll leave it up to others to edit it a little at a time.

 

It's not really an essay, pandora, and not meant for school. I just want to make it coherent and little sharper. Thanks for the advice, I'll make the changes!

[pandora]

Sure it's an essay. The term essay doesn't apply only to short things you write for a class... it's anything short where the author is trying to convince the reader of something.... that cats are good pets, or that god doesn't exist. It wasn't meant to be a put-down.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Since conceptual beings that use the foundation of reason as their source of gaining knowledge, we can recognize that respecting other people’s rights is a rational idea to hold.

 

peoples rights

 

Hell, dump it in word, guy! ;-)

[Amethyst]

I agree with Pandora so far. Also...

 

In order to establish an idea of objectivism, one must accept that there are certain axioms inherent in reality that provides us with a foundation from which we can build upon.

 

That should probably be provide since axioms is plural and it refers to them.

 

Before we get down to actually stating these axioms, let us first define what is meant by objectivism and the philosophy’s which it is the opposite of.

 

I think you mean philosophies here.

 

In a short summary, objectivism is the philosophy that a mind-independent reality exists in which individuals are in contact with through sensory-perception. Through the individuals’ sensory-perception, we can gain knowledge by processing data we receive using reason, which is also known as “non-contradictory identification”. Objectivism also promotes the idea of ‘rational self-interest’, stating that our moral purpose is the pursuit of individual happiness. Subsequently, Objectivism also promotes that the only moral social system that it is compatible with is a free-trade economy, or laissez-faire capitalism.

 

You should probably be consistent with your capitalization of objectivism here.

 

Was that short?

 

No.

 

There are three main tenets of Objectivism, which are considered the axioms of Objectivism:

 

1. Existence exists.

2. Consciousness Exists.

3. Existence is Identity.

 

Either capitalize or don't capitalize, take your pick.

 

An axiom is something self-evident that cannot be coherently denied, because any statement against such a proposition supposes its truth.

Do you mean it's as in it is or its posessive? It's for it is has an apostrophe while the other doesn't (at least in American English).

 

More to come...

[Amethyst]

The basic idea of the natural right that a human fundamentally has would be the right to make and act on one’s own independent and rational judgement, taking into account one’s own self-interest of course.

 

You might want to reword this. It's a tad confusing and is really passive in a grammatical sense, IMHO.

 

By property, one could say the fruits of ones own labor.

 

That should be one's.

 

Since conceptual beings that use the foundation of reason as their source of gaining knowledge, we can recognize that respecting other people’s rights is a rational idea to hold.

 

That is unnecessary here.

 

Directly, it cannot be said that other peoples rights of any importance to the individual.

 

Perhaps others' rights? In any case, people's needs an apostrophe.

 

Rationally, respecting other people’s rights is of utmost value to the individual and can help further their own lifethrough such a respect.

 

If you cut that phrase, this might flow better.

 

The moral obligation to sacrifice ones life for the appeasement of others is considered evil and devoid of reason.

 

One's needs an apostrophe.

 

Overall, I think this is a well-written essay. I hope this helps.

[Asimov]

Cool, thanks. Word sucks, it doesn't catch any of this.

[thunderbolt]

I am also looking for someone to proof read short essays for me from time to time. I am willing to pay for it, and I know I make many mistakes since my native language is not English. I proof read my own stuff about seven times before I post it, but I never have that feeling that all my grammar tools caught everything, and I often catch myself editing even after posting it.

 

Anyone, please send me a PM with rates.

Thanks!

[jjacksonRIAB]

I am also looking for someone to proof read short essays for me from time to time. I am willing to pay for it, and I know I make many mistakes since my native language is not English. I proof read my own stuff about seven times before I post it, but I never have that feeling that all my grammar tools caught everything, and I often catch myself editing even after posting it.

 

Anyone, please send me a PM with rates.

Thanks!

 

What is your native language, if I may ask?

[Fweethawt]

I am also looking for someone to proof read short essays for me from time to time. I am willing to pay for it, and I know I make many mistakes since my native language is not English. I proof read my own stuff about seven times before I post it, but I never have that feeling that all my grammar tools caught everything, and I often catch myself editing even after posting it.

 

Anyone, please send me a PM with rates.

Thanks!

Unless she does something else nowadays, the last I knew, Reach does her own freelance editing and has several years of its practice under her belt.

 

However, at this point in time it wouldn't be a good idea to contact her concerning this. You'll probably have to wait until she starts coming around here (ExC) a little more often.

[duderonomy]

Asimov,

 

Uummnnn. I have no idea what you said.

 

Why some of you are so patient with my ramblings on this board, I have no idea!

 

Anyway, I wondered about this:

 

 

"1. Existence exists.

2. Consciousness Exists.

3. Existence is Identity.

 

The statement ‘existence exists’ is the axiomatic statement that “something exists”. An axiom is something self-evident that cannot be coherently denied, because any statement against such a proposition supposes its truth. (1) Is considered axiomatic because in denying that something exists, we are confirming that something exists. Anything that perceives that which exists is considered a consciousness. In corollary with (1), (2) states that because we perceive (1) we have a consciousness. In a final conclusion, anything that exists has set properties and characteristics that define it. This is known as the Law of Identity (for example: A=A)."

 

I'm not sure why, but something didn't seem right in the sentence "In corollary with....a conciousness."

 

Maybe it should be "In corollary with '(1)', (2) states that", or In corollary with (1); (2) states that"

 

Or maybe the original 1,2, and 3 of this point aren't in parenthesis and the others' are?

 

I don't know, because I'm nowhere near as good at this stuff as I was twenty years ago.

 

[Asuryan]

Objectivism is a rejection of the use of faith or emotionalism as a means of gaining knowledge. This is not to say that we should reject our emotions, but the assertion that emotion's are

 

 

 

Hey Asimov!

 

My native language isn't English, either, but I think I've managed to spot this one:

 

I think that "Emotion's are" should be changed to "Emotions are". From Noun singular + verb singular + verb plural to noun plural + verb plural.

 

 

 

Really nice essay by the way, congratulations