Lets talk about objectivism

Sure seems like a selfish, nasty philosophy to me. Rands writting isnt even very good. She fleshes out her heros and makes the characters she doesnt like paper thin. Any hippie objectivists out there? Talk to me.

 

What don't you like about it.


If you look for it there's something about it that makes sense, focus on that rather than what you don't like.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

It is difficult to fulfill your request [that we talk to you] when you are so vague. You have to be specific if you are going to mention words like objectivism, or subjectivism, relativism, realism, etc. because most of those terms have been so widely accepted by an ignorant public. Alls I’m saying is that it would facilitate discussion if you wrote out a definition that we can all agree upon and a few reasons why it is selfish and nasty. As for Rand’s tendency to beef up her ‘hero’ and slaughter her ‘foe’ with seeming ease, well that is nothing new or exclusive.

When you say objectivism are you referring to the idea that moral claims are made true or false by features of the world, and whose truth or falsity does not depend on whether or not anyone believes them to be true or false?

Or are you speaking of Ayn Rand’s defense of ethical egoism? The word changes meaning when the ‘o’ is capitalized. I am going to assume you wish to discuss this.

In that case here are the basics of her Objectivism (taken directly from her website @ www.aynrand.org)

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Now it is on you to tell us what you disagree with and why.

 

Rand's philosophy contradicts itself. Note:


"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." (emphasis added)

In other words, one individual's existence for his own sake should not interfere with that of another. However:

"The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

What if one's "rational self-interest" and "happiness" can only be achieved at the expense of another? I find it difficult to believe that Rand never took note of this; notice how carefully chosen her words are: I suspect that she was aware of it, but tried to deny, both to herself and others.

As an interesting side note, G. K. Chesterton once said, "To preach anything is to give it away... To preach egoism is to practice altruism."

 

Yes it is. Keep in mind that I have done a grave injustice to the philosophy and philosopher by giving such a bare and simple overview of the main arguments and key themes. Don’t disregard Rand because of what you have read here. Go and buy her stuff. It is much deeper and complete than it may seem.

I am unsure of what you mean when you say that man is an integral part of reality. Instead of guessing I will not make a comment on it until you [and only if you wish to] explain that seemingly simple sentence.

Might I rephrase your argument as follows?

1. The only way we can know anything is through the biological faculties of the human brain, including reason, emotions and intelligence.
2. Facts are subject to change or revision because our knowledge of the world is incomplete
3. Therefore facts must be considered objective and subjective.

If that is not what you meant than disregard the next little bit.

There are a few things that need to be cleared up a bit. I start with the conclusion and your use of ‘objective’. I am not sure that it follows from your premises that facts could be considered objective at all. [For ease of conversation by the term objective I mean ‘made true or false by features of the world, and whose truth or falsity does not depend on whether or not anyone believes or knows them to be true or false’. And by subjective I mean ‘made true or false by features of human thought or belief’]. If facts depend on our understanding and knowledge of them then they are not objective.

I suppose [and perhaps a better Rand specialist might do better than I here] that Rand would respond that there exists something before your act of perceiving and understanding and knowing. When the ‘facts change’, as you might reason, it is not the reality [the object of your perception] changing but how you perceive it that changes.

Is this to suggest [a type of] emotivism? Maybe not. I need a little more from you on the role of emotions as a guide to action.

I would argue that emotions could not be counted on as sufficient providers of knowledge because they can be irrational. Take the hypothetical situation of me being deathly terrified of heights as an example of the irrationality of emotions. Suppose I have a job interview on the top floor of a high office building. If I were guided by emotion I would flee in terror at the thought. Even though there is no tangible danger, hence no reason to be afraid. I would miss my shot at a better chance to support a family because of an emotion.

I would agree with Rand that reason should be considered over emotion only because, when used properly, reason will override emotion and let me do something or know something more than would be allowed by emotion alone.

This isn’t to disregard emotion as a way of knowing the world. Only to disregard emotion as the best way.

Keep in mind what is explained in Rand’s next point, "men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." Having each person be an end in himself does not eliminate consideration or respect for or interaction with others. It is a daily occurrence that the pursuit of rational self interest means putting the other over the self.

I am no real advocate of Rand, but I think this is how one might respond. Perhaps if there are some real Objectivists out there they might take a shot at some of these arguments against them.

Don’t hold your breath though, as one of the most common attacks on Objectivism is that all of its proponents talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

 

It depends on what type of interference you mean. If you mean that one man should not take the liberties of another through making him a slave than yes. To the other extreme, if you mean by ‘interfere’ something along the lines of ‘interact’ than I must disagree.

You have to provide an example of how a rational self-interest can ‘only’ be achieved at the expense of another.

Rand might answer that if happiness through rational self-interest results in harm to another than

a) you are not happy as you have committed an immoral act.

or

b) Self-interest is a much different thing when the word ‘rational’ is removed as its precursor. You probably haven’t acted in rational self-interest but irrational self-interest.


It is that carefully placed ‘rational’ that sticks out most to me.

That is how I think she might respond. But again, I don’t really know anything.

 

Thank you all for providing ideas and insight here. My access to her books at present is limited...nonexistent. I have been looking for information on the net however. I started reading The Fountainhead about a year ago and didnt like it (thought it was bad literature and the philosophy seemed in direct opposition to the foundation of my own ethos) so I jumped to the the back and read what the author had to say about her own philosophy. Near as I can tell and oversimplify she is all about "What is good for me is good." She seems to promote the idea of self attainment without recognizing the interconnectedness of all things. It is one thing to be, get, and do all you can but without recognizing your obligation as an integrated part of humanity seems kinda yucky.

Any idea can be perverted into a defense for our actions. But in my personal experience, the Objectivists I have come into contact with have been cruel and manipulative to a degree that would make Charles Manson queasy. Their approach has been something of a "my way or the highway attitude" and are able to exist beyond the realm of ethical reproach because in Raynd's universe no one owes anbody anything. These attitudes can make an Objectivist look strong, independent ect. but are they really?

Perhaps it is Raynd's ideas concerning community and collaboration that bug me most. She clearly states that colaboration is balderdash. I do not have the access to her books so I can't quote but I remember her saying that nothing great is the work of colaborative effort and that colaboration dilutes great ideas. Sort of, a camel is a horse drawn by committee, sort of thing.

Thanks again for your ideas.

 

Oh God! I spelled her name wrong...Ayn Rand. Always wonder where she puts that funky "Y."

 

I'll just add this in: thought (rationality) and emotion cannot be seperated. You can be purely logical, like some people are due to damage to the emotional centers of the brain, but then you can hardly make decisions. These people will sit for hours going over pros and cons of whether to have a chicken sandwich for lunch, and I'm being completely serious.

There is no dichotomy between thought and emotion, at least not in normal brains. The two influence each other in a natural healthy way. It is how the human mind operates.

And in response to:

One can easilly make harmful decisions in a purely self interested, logical way. That's why logic can be considered "cold." Example off the top of my head: I am in need of food, because I am starving. Everyone else is starving, but this child over there has found a bit of food. To live, I must attack him and take the food. If I don't do it, I am more likely to die. So though logic, I do it, and eat to live to see another day, while the child dies. Another example is in the movie I Robot, where the robot saves will smith's character while letting the kid drown, when a human with real emotions might disregard logic and save the child even if they have statistically less chance of survival. He says "even if it;s only 30 chance...that's still someone's baby" That's an emotional conclusion but is it wrong?

At any rate, without emotions, one couldn't even make the decision to take that kids food, because either you'd feel bad about it and decide not to do it, or you'd develop feelings of anger or jealousy for the kid because he has food and you don't, so you'd disregard his crying and you'd take it. Either way, the decision is based on more than pure cold logic.

 

Trippin are you taking the role of the objectivist or is that your opinion?

 

I am not entirely sure that an Objectivist would have any problem accepting that. If man is a part than an independent existence is suggested. Man, as a part of reality, must have his own existence and it should follow that every other part of reality must exist independently of any other part.

With the lack of objectivity of man’s interaction with nature, I have to disagree. Let us take as an example of man’s interaction with nature, the kicking of a rock. Every time a human swiftly kicks a rock without a shoe on it will hurt his toe. If we are to say that there is nothing objective about this action and reaction than we are forced to accept the potential for a rock to become soft. Then it would not hurt to kick a rock. I say we are forced to accept that potential because of the principle you gave later in your post ...

Suppose that there were some seemingly conclusive observation out there that made everyone think it beyond a doubt that rocks were not hard but soft, would you feel comfortable swiftly kicking the next one you see? It is because of the constant flux of human knowledge that you will have reason to kick a rock if it were ‘discovered’ that rocks were soft but it is the objectiveness of your interaction with nature that will keep you from doing so. There are no brain states, no strong enough emotion, no cognitive function at all of the human mind that can change the properties of a rock outside of the skull. We can not merely think and change the laws of nature.

This confuses me. You have attributed some level of objectiveness so you can not logically say that it changes when new human observations are made. Something can’t be objective and change when we learn something else about it. That is impossible except if we are to change the definition of objective. If you are going to conclude with saying the objective is subjective than you negate any objective fact of the rock on any objective level.

I don’t know how you account for that "one objective level" outside of that discontinuity.

Pretty hefty stuff. I am going to start at the very beginning and work my way down. With some luck I may be able to resolve some problems quickly. First things first.

 

I wonder if you would be good enough to lay out an argument [premise premise conc] for your relativism?

Otherwise we will only be running around in circles.

 

From my limited exposure to Ayn Rand, I came up with two main principles of Objectivism.

1.) selfishness is a virtue, so long as you are not inflicting harm on others.
In other words, if everyone went out into the world, and looked out for their own self first, we wouldn't need systems of welfare, etc. To a large degree, I think that is true. She does not seem to be condemning charity, but rather condemning the notion that charity is a virtue. I do not necessarily disagree with her there either. If you can afford to and so desire to provide charity, that is fine, but it doesn't make you better than anyone else.

2.) A true capitalist economy should in theory regulate itself. If I was price gouging on baby formula, I would go out of business. If I polluted more than my competition, I would lose business, etc, etc.
This part I have more trouble with. In theory, I think she is correct, but this requires highly sophisticated, educated, and discriminating consumers. I don't think this would work in the USA today. At the same time, I think that over-regulation of the "free-market" in this country does not always serve consumers best either.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not very knowledgable about Ayn Rand at all, or Objectivism. I just began studying this philosophy. These are my interpretations of the little bit I have read, and could be completely wrong.