Ayn Rand's Objectivism

[newfangle]

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.

I presume she would assert that it is never in one's interest to violate rights. It's the typical 'why shouldn't a starving man steal' case. The link I provided will certainly lead to discussions of many versions of this problem.

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.

Oops, how careless of me.

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.

Of course it is your perogative to harbor such an opinon.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Your lack of experience with women is showing.

 

[Perfection]

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

Because with egoism value is dependant on self utility.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I presume she would assert that it is never in one's interest to violate rights. It's the typical 'why shouldn't a starving man steal' case. The link I provided will certainly lead to discussions of many versions of this problem.

I may head over there and ask about it again some day when I've not got quite as bad conscience about idling away my time at the computer as today.

 

[Narz]

Actually, if she is true to her doctrine, she would strive to become one. Too bad you can't get a piece of that action
( *cough* hippie *cough* )

I probably could if I wanted to but I'd rather go for a girl who's evolved beyond such a shallow and reactionary philosophy and feels secure enough within herself (and trusting of her own inner wisdom in choosing a fellow such as myself ) to give love without obsessing about results and "what's in it for me".

As for the hippie thing, I don't really consider myself a hippie in the least though I ususally won't argue the term with folks. I admit to having a love for nature and animals and being conscious (as much as possible) in my consumption and lifestyle. I often find that many people use the term in a derogatory sense (as in thinking hippies are stupid idealists with no sense of reality).

Actually, I think it is those who are aware of their own health and that of our planer (even that phrase "our planet" draws a smirk from many, I imagine, but that's what it is) who are balanced enough mentally and emotionally to function in the world and be heard who will help steer humanity from the path of destruction to one of sustainablity.

The objectivst (and ultra-conservative) may claim he is being logical in putting economic/industrial goals and personal pleasure above all else but he is actually being short sighted and foolish.

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..." And despite going overboard, she makes her case. Atlas Shrugged is in a way funny by the means it makes (some) socialists foam at the mouth

Right. It's good Aphex, and was valueble to me at the time I read it (in fact, if I could go back I would have read it at a younger age) however ultimately it is still shallow and flawed. Name me one objectivist who truly puts reason first. Reason is pretty puny compared to emotion. Even those who pursue logical answers in their chosen field only do so because of passion and no one wise would ever claim objectivity. It's an impossible ideal.

If I were to compare Objectivism to a developmental stage of a human being I think I'd have to go with the "terrible two's."

 

[Fifty]

I agree with WillJ's statement that self-interest as Objectivists seem to use it is either plain wrong (when you consider things like the experiments Taliesin cites) or a useless term if you consider "everything anybody does" to be an act of self-interest.

 

[LordRahl]

Because with egoism value is dependant on self utility.

Which is exactly what the original quote refers to:

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

They're valuable to your self.

 

[Perfection]

I believe that value is partially independant of self-utility

 

[LordRahl]

oops wrong thread

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I probably could if I wanted to but I'd rather go for a girl who's evolved beyond such a shallow and reactionary philosophy and feels secure enough within herself (and trusting of her own inner wisdom in choosing a fellow such as myself ) to give love without obsessing about results and "what's in it for me".

It's not a "what's in it for me" case. Do you love someone 'just because' or due (at least partly) to what they are. Rand goes to say love is simply (mutual) acknowledgement of value, that can materialize or not as sex (I was actually wondering why, in Atlas, if Rearden, Galt and D'Anconia truly love each other, why are they not getting at each other -- oh my sinful mind )

Right. It's good Aphex, and was valueble to me at the time I read it (in fact, if I could go back I would have read it at a younger age) however ultimately it is still shallow and flawed. Name me one objectivist who truly puts reason first. Reason is pretty puny compared to emotion. Even those who pursue logical answers in their chosen field only do so because of passion and no one wise would ever claim objectivity. It's an impossible ideal.

The funny thing is that you can't deny reason and expect to use a 'reasonable' argument in its place. Rand was one of those who pointed this out, that you can't escape logic ('the attempt to reverse the rule of causality'), what I would call 'whishfull thinking' leads inexorably to human suffering.

 

[Narz]

It's not a "what's in it for me" case. Do you love someone 'just because' or due (at least partly) to what they are. Rand goes to say love is simply (mutual) acknowledgement of value, that can materialize or not as sex (I was actually wondering why, in Atlas, if Rearden, Galt and D'Anconia truly love each other, why are they not getting at each other -- oh my sinful mind )

I dunno, maybe they didn't want to fulfill their desires because they feared they'd be disappointed. I can't really comment because I've never read Atlas, only the Fountainhead and We The Living.

The funny thing is that you can't deny reason and expect to use a 'reasonable' argument in its place. Rand was one of those who pointed this out, that you can't escape logic ('the attempt to reverse the rule of causality'), what I would call 'whishfull thinking' leads inexorably to human suffering.

I don't deny reason. I think Rand espoused alot of 'wishful thinking' herself (about human nature and our ability to think and act from reason and not emotion). From what I've read about her, she wasn't a very chipper lady herself. So if her goal was to become fulfilled and happy thru her philosophy she certainly doesn't seem to have done a very good job. I, in the spirit of logic, try to judge as best I can on results and Ayn's folks just don't seem to have gotten them. While I've admitedly never met a hardcore objectivist face to face I get the feeling from talking to them online that they're not the cheeriest and most together bunch of folks I can think of (no offense meant to anyone, all I can say is that thinking in objectivist terms didn't make me happy).

 

[newfangle]

"everything anybody does" to be an act of self-interest.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that Objectivism does not regard that as a definition of self-interest.

There are many instances where people sacrifice higher values for lower ones, which is (by definition of self interest according to Oism) a refusal to act in one's own interest.

An excellent example is a physician in the most recent episode of House that treats TB patients in Africa. Without spoiling the episode, Objectivism would regard this person as remarkably unethical.

Now, that being said, I would say that the common sticking point, at least with the ethics, of Objectivism is the paradox of self interest. I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that this is a trivial matter. But, to accept any other ethical structure besides self interest necessarily results in self-immolation IMHO. Since I want to live, I accept self interest as the only valid means by which I can do so.

So my current viewpoint is as follows: yes, it may not be 100% sound, but it is better than everything else I've seen (the ethics that is, I regard the rest of the philosophy as fairly consistent and I don't really enjoy thinking about metaphysics and epistemology anymore).

 

[WillJ]

I can say with a high degree of certainty that Objectivism does not regard that as a definition of self-interest.

There are many instances where people sacrifice higher values for lower ones, which is (by definition of self interest according to Oism) a refusal to act in one's own interest.

An excellent example is a physician in the most recent episode of House that treats TB patients in Africa. Without spoiling the episode, Objectivism would regard this person as remarkably unethical.

Now, that being said, I would say that the common sticking point, at least with the ethics, of Objectivism is the paradox of self interest. I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that this is a trivial matter. But, to accept any other ethical structure besides self interest necessarily results in self-immolation IMHO. Since I want to live, I accept self interest as the only valid means by which I can do so.

So my current viewpoint is as follows: yes, it may not be 100% sound, but it is better than everything else I've seen (the ethics that is, I regard the rest of the philosophy as fairly consistent and I don't really enjoy thinking about metaphysics and epistemology anymore).

Well since you've got me curious, could you spoil the episode and put it in spoiler brackets?

 

[newfangle]

I started writing a synopsis and then realized there are far to many wicked 'Housisms' in this episode. I highly recommend grabbing it on a file sharing program.

 

[TastySheriff]

This is why im not a card-carrying libertarian. I agree with about 95% of the objectivist doctrine, and yet i cant stand the company of other objectivists.

The reason i agree with objectivism is not because i believe humans are not capable of completely selfless acts, its because i have never had the opportunity to perform a completely selfless act, and i dont think that such opportunities appear more than a few times in a lifetime. 99.99% of the times people act to benefit themselves, either directly or indirectly. You give a man a fish, you feel satisfied that you helped someone out. You teach a man to fish, and you feel even more satisfied cause you know youll never have to give him another fish. But yeah, i just thought yall would like to hear my opinion.

 

[LordRahl]

You give a man a fish, you feel satisfied that you helped someone out. You teach a man to fish, and you feel even more satisfied cause you know youll never have to give him another fish.

...You give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for his fish...

 

[TastySheriff]

hehe, god one rahl

 

[Narz]

...You give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for his fish...

Heh heh, prayers can't hurt but action is the best religion.

 

[WillJ]

I started writing a synopsis and then realized there are far to many wicked 'Housisms' in this episode. I highly recommend grabbing it on a file sharing program.

Bah, that always takes too long... Not to mention my moral qualms with it.

Oh, and to kinda drift off-subject, House never looked that good on the commercials for it. Maybe I should give it a chance...

 

[Ayatollah So]

Hey, as long as we're using fiction to illustrate philosophical points, try Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. All about the occasional conflict (hint: it really is a conflict) between rights-respect and self-interest.

OK, now let's say something nice. Rand's best quip, about knowledge-denying epistemologists: "They say that because you have eyes, you cannot see." [Not an exact quote, just from memory] Tendentious, but oh so true.