Ayn Rand's Objectivism

[Marla_Singer]

From what I've read, the reason they think it is perfectly objective is because they have this set of two or three axioms which they believe are infallibly correct, because any attempt to contradict them fufills them.

I can't remember all of them, but one of them is "Existence exists." The way that they attempt to prove this as infallible is through this exercise:

person A: Existence does not exist.

person B: I can't acknowledge what you say then, because you don't exist to say it.

A: Well of course I exist to say existence doesn't exist, I obviously just did.

B: See, existence does exist!

Is that the level of reflexion ? Then it's even worse than I believed. The guy drinking beer everyday in the bar where I buy my ciggies have told things which were deeper than that. At least he has understood what means the sentence "cogito ergo sum".

 

[The Last Conformist]

And there lies the value. Who else would dare say: "The State, the Church, your parents - are lying to you. Selflishness is OK. Nothing is worth dying for..."

Needless to say, people who tell you everyone else is lying should be put on ignore immediately. Not doing that is what makes people end up in things like Aum Shinrikyo.

 

[Perfection]

True Love also embodies egoism:

You fall in love with a person because you regard him or her as a value...

Isn't that saying that a person has value despite it not being you?

That seems rather contradictory to the notion of egoism.

That's brilliantly summarized. I have nothing to add.

Thanks, I just kinda thought it was funny though that you went ahead and added anyways.

No way! I was just anticipating the responses from the forum objectivists. I tend to agree with your's and narz's opinion, but I'm thinking we'll hear an objectivist argue what I did at some point in this thread.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but I had to be sure. Just checkin'.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Isn't that saying that a person has value despite it not being you?

That seems rather contradictory to the notion of egoism.

Nah, it's saying you value a lover the same way you value a spoon (assuming you put a high value on spoons). I'd say it's contrary to the notion of 'love', but it's certainly egoistic.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Isn't that saying that a person has value despite it not being you?

That seems rather contradictory to the notion of egoism.

Rand doesn't say 'value is the self', but that 'value is an objective principle'. I don't agree to that, but do remember that you don't just love anyone you encounter; there are standards, even though superficial and so there are expectations and 'things' expected in return.

 

[WillJ]

Here's my old thread on the subject, if you're interested. (Not everything I say there I still agree with.)

I read the book that Perfection mentioned, and I agree with Shermer that Objectivism (big O) is a full-fledged cult that worships Ayn Rand. But objectivists (small o) that feel free to disagree with Rand at times---newfangle is one, or at least was once one---can be perfectly reasonable people.

While Objectivism's value of reason and its other "basics" (its epistemology and metaphysics) are admirable, its ethics and politics start getting messy.

One problem: Donating to charity, for example, can supposedly be in your self-interest if it makes you feel good. "Self-interest" as Objectivists describe it is thus a useless term. If I don't act in my self-interest, what the hell am I doing?

TLC pointed out another problem: If I'm supposed to be so concerned about my self-interest, why should I limit myself by being concerned with others' rights to liberty and property? Sure, in many cases respecting those rights is in my interest, but in other cases it's not. (And even if I could never think of a case where it weren't, it still wouldn't make sense to think of rights as rules instead of suggestions.)

Another problem: If I'm a nice little Objectivist that believes my self-interest is the highest good, why should I go around telling people to act in their self-interest? Why shouldn't I tell them to bow down before me? (I guess, going back to problem number 1, the WillJ slaves would actually still be acting in their self-interest. ) (Objectivists sometimes respond to this with misunderstandings of Adam Smith's principle of the market's invisible hand.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

I read the book that Perfection mentioned, and I agree with Shermer that Objectivism (big O) is a full-fledged cult that worships Ayn Rand.

Is that the same piece that is/was on Shermer's webpage? Called "The Unlikeliest Cult", I believe.

 

[Perfection]

Then, objectivists must explain why the value in humans are purely egoistic. It seems that utility to self is not the only componant of love.

I get the impression that objectivists just push around compassion yet never address it head on.

 

[WillJ]

Is that the same piece that is/was on Shermer's webpage? Called "The Unlikeliest Cult", I believe.

I never looked at his webpage, but unless he wrote two different things and gave them the same title, yes.

 

[Taliesin]

There's also the game theory experiments which prove that humans are hardwired to put social values like fairness and justice ahead of pure self-interest. That's kind of awkward for an objectivist to explain.

 

[De Lorimier]

I don't know well Ayn Rand's character, the only thing I've seen was her bashing Canada as being irrelevant, some rants which were certainly not objective in anyway.

You're thinking of Ann Coulter, a politicial commentator from the right known for her hypocrisy and demagoguery. She's also known in many circles as "the devil".
Ayn Rand was best known for her philosophy of Objectivism and her novels.

 

[newfangle]

How many people here that have made absolute judgements about Objectivism (yes, big 'O') have actually read some of the literature? Non-fiction literature that is. Like most controversial philosophies, Objectivism is constantly attacked with ridiculous character assisinations ("Rand had a problem with homosexuality, therefore all Objectivists do!") and not-so-ridiculous-but-still-incorrect strawmen.

For those that actually wish to debate with people that actually consider themselves Objectivism, I strongly urge you to post some sort of question thread at here or at least search it for a question that has most certainly been asked.

I have distanced myself from Objectivism for some time now (and I do consider myself an objectivist, which is just an overly pendantic euphimism for 'truth-searcher'), but I still consider it infinitely more rational and plausible than half the crap you all believe in.

That being said, there is no denying that Rand's work was of great importance. It is extremely rare to come across a philosopher that attempts to offer a unified theory of all philosophy. It's funny when physicists try to do it, they earn praise. When a philosopher tries, they are dismissed as a wacko.

Oh, and anyone that thinks that Oism is about capitalism and selfishness is just plain wrong. There is much more to it. Its epistemic theory is the largest part, and IMHO it offers some of the strongest arguments in that particular subfield of philosophy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How many people here that have made absolute judgements about Objectivism (yes, big 'O') have actually read some of the literature?

Assuming that's a non-rhetorical question, I've read excerpts of Rand and Piekoff (sp?), as well as the webpage of a guy whose name escapes me, but at least in his own opinion is a big name in Objectivism.

I have distanced myself from Objectivism for some time now (and I do consider myself an objectivist, which is just an overly pendantic euphimism for 'truth-searcher'), but I still consider it infinitely more rational and plausible than half the crap you all believe in.

Please examplify something I believe in that is infinitely more irrational and implausible than Randism.

That being said, there is no denying that Rand's work was of great importance. It is extremely rare to come across a philosopher that attempts to offer a unified theory of all philosophy. It's funny when physicists try to do it, they earn praise. When a philosopher tries, they are dismissed as a wacko.

I believe I could find rather a few modern philosophers who'd say Rand's work was of no particular importance. Anyway, Rand isn't dismissed as a wacko for her ambition, but because what she produced is perceived to fall far short of the promise. When a physicist proposes a unified theory that doesn't actually work, they earn little praise.

 

[LordRahl]

That's brilliantly summarized. I have nothing to add.

I don't know well Ayn Rand's character, the only thing I've seen was her bashing Canada as being irrelevant, some rants which were certainly not objective in anyway.

In the short description of the objectivist "philosophy" Lord Rahl has posted in his first post, there's already a contradiction. Indeed, how can we be objective while seeing everything according to our own selfishness. That seems as a pathetic attempt to objectivize our own hypocrisy.

Pathetic is what I would call posting before getting your facts straight - any sources on Ayn Rand bashing Canada? Didn't think so...

 

[Perfection]

Pathetic is what I would call posting before getting your facts straight - any sources on Ayn Rand bashing Canada? Didn't think so...

Pathetic is what I call posting that singles out the poor soul that was confused by who you were talking about (Marla was thinking Ann Coulter) instead of responding to the plenty of very well put arguements.

 

[newfangle]

Assuming that's a non-rhetorical question, I've read excerpts of Rand and Piekoff (sp?), as well as the webpage of a guy whose name escapes me, but at least in his own opinion is a big name in Objectivism.

Do you think excerpts of Kant and Hume gives you a clear picture of their philosphies?

Please examplify something I believe in that is infinitely more irrational and implausible than Randism.

Jeez, I said half. You probably belong to the upper half.

I believe I could find rather a few modern philosophers who'd say Rand's work was of no particular importance. Anyway, Rand isn't dismissed as a wacko for her ambition, but because what she produced is perceived to fall far short of the promise. When a physicist proposes a unified theory that doesn't actually work, they earn little praise.

What promise would that be? She presented a philosophy, and defended it until her deathbed. She claimed that reason was the only tool we have to pursue this sort of thing. Regardless of the conclusions drawn, what is so bad about this?

 

[Perfection]

Jeez, I said half. You probably belong to the upper half.

Could you give us an example in the lower half?

Am I in the lower half?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Do you think excerpts of Kant and Hume gives you a clear picture of their philosphies?

Not of their philosophies as a whole, but that doesn't mean I can't point out apparent contradictions in the bits I have read. Re: individual rights vs egoism, I've repeatedly asked self-professed Objectivists how Rand cleared up that one, yet never got an explanation, so I'm assuming she never did. If you know other, I'm all ears.

Jeez, I said half. You probably belong to the upper half.

I think you got your qualifiers the wrong way round then - you said half of what we all believe, not all what half of us believe, or similar.

What promise would that be? She presented a philosophy, and defended it until her deathbed. She claimed that reason was the only tool we have to pursue this sort of thing. Regardless of the conclusions drawn, what is so bad about this?

When you present a unified theory of all philosophy, there's the implied promise it's a good theory. In the opinion of a great many philosophers, Rand's isn't.

 

[LordRahl]

Isn't that saying that a person has value despite it not being you?

That seems rather contradictory to the notion of egoism.

I don't quite see, why the notion of egoism should prevent one from claiming other people have value? Could you elaborate?

 

[LordRahl]

For those that actually wish to debate with people that actually consider themselves Objectivism, I strongly urge you to post some sort of question thread at here or at least search it for a question that has most certainly been asked.

Thanks for the link - I just may switch forums for good