Objectivism--what part do we disagree with?

[Finder]

Here is a description of the philosophy of objectivism put forward by Ayn Rand and her views on other subjects.

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

1) 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.

Copyright ã 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

Her thoughts on abortion:

What was Ayn Rand's view on abortion?
Excerpt from "Of Living Death" in The Objectivist, October 1968:
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

On Religion:

"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy."

From a 1964 interview in Playboy magazine:
Playboy: "Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?"
Rand: "Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy."

[xchrom]

1. these two primarily --

''1) 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.''

the first is just insane and is an indication of a truly broken human being.

and the second? -- well, no man is an island unto himself.
mankind would not have gotten where is his without an innate cooperative sensibility -- and to enhance that sensibility -- humans will even sacrifice them selves for others.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. One truly broken human being at your service.

What, besides reason, would you suggest as a means of perceiving reality or arriving at knowledge?

I do agree with you that 3) is foolish, though.

[xchrom]

58. without emotion to propel you forward

your reason would be as innate and serviceable as a rock heavier than you can lift.

[smirkymonkey]

79. Instinct.

We are, after all, Animals. It's just that many of us have lost touch with such instinctual ways of knowing, favoring only what our "reasoning" minds can tell us.

Personally, my "rationality" has often gotten me into trouble whereas my instinct has never failed me.

[Finder]

31. Explain why you think the first is insane...What besides reason...

are we supposed to interpret reality by?

[xchrom]

56. you also interpret your world emotionally.

that's part of what we are -- we are more than reason -- just like we are more than eyes -- or what ever.

[Zhade]

53. You are saying atheists are insane and broken.

That is bigoted.

[xchrom]

55. no, you're saying i said that.

[Random_Australian]

54. Eh? In what way is the first 'just insane'?

It happens to be the way I live.

Choose your answer carefully.

[xchrom]

57. sigh -- do you have emotions?

if you do then you use your emotions to find your way through this world every bit as much as your reason.

if you were reason alone -- you wouldn't EVER be motivated to from A to B.

[Random_Australian]

59. Wrong, wrong, WRONG person to say that to!

I have had, over time, a lot of difficulty with the ability and inability to feel emotion.

However, saying that emotions are unreasonable seems rather odd to me - often we use them to do difficult tasks with more information than we are consciously aware of.

I am motivated by my reason... I cannot see why I would not be.

However, this is now about emotion, which I don't really get.

Well, I do, most of it, however I'm still missing bits. I'll be normal soon though - I have not yet learned some social re-enforcers and I don't know how to miss people, but I am getting there.

However, I won't be able to get you so I find myself unable to argue further here.

I'll watch.

We humans are fascinating creatures.
When such thing as fascination exists, of course.

[xchrom]

60. you cannot be motivated by reason.

that's emotion.

emotions are not ''unreasonable'' -- but they are not reason.

i don't know what your paticulars are -- but you are more than the sum of your parts -- otherwise -- why talk to you?
even by computer?

[Random_Australian]

62. Sum vs. parts is independent of desire to socially interact, I would have

thought.

For motivation by reason, I will add that I do not refer to the feeling of bieng motivated, more the actual 'rousing and getting a task done' aspect.

One may do it purely from reason like this:

1) Beforehand, one must work out some idea of who one wants to be.

2) Then, assess the world for the need of some task to be done.

3) Then decide if and when to do task.

4) When task needs doing, simply move ones arms and legs in the desired manner. Care should be taken with social interaction.

That is how one gets something done by reason.

[xchrom]

63. without emotion -- you would do

none of that.

you would simply -- well -- not move.

you would be insensate.

you are not an automaton.

[Random_Australian]

64. Why is this, I ask?

I have put forth a mechanism by which I would move from reason.

Why would I not move? Do my arms work solely based upon electric signals? Can one not move ones arm without an 'arm-moving' emotion?

However, I will add that I was never completely without emotion. It just went back to basics.

Please tell me the flaw in the four steps that I outlined.

[xchrom]

65. there's no flaw.

but that's the ''mystery'' isn't it?

seeing a tiger -- there's no reason to fear it -- not that you can put together with out experience.{although -- i would also argue there are primal emotions when faced by certain things that we never need experience with}

but even then -- without fear to motivate you -- you may not be able to motivate your feet and arms to do what is necessary to save you.

or -- when confronted by extraordinary beauty -- you gasp -- momentarily undone -- before your brain sets in and takes it apart -- but the best moment was that ''unknown'' savoring you were doing before being motivated to examine it.

[Random_Australian]

67. Fear from tiger has been produced by the sum of heuristics and

the physiological basis for emotion.

I am unaware of the source of beauty, however it seems likely that it works upon interpretation of emotion sets.

Might I point out that if a tiger leaps at you, you move your arms and legs BEFORE you feel any emotion. However, we remember a strong association with fear and those movements.

Also, remember that one withdraws one's hand from a flame before one feels pain.

The big downside of not feeling anything is that while some stimuli appear novel, I don't gasp, and it does not really look beautiful. A pity. But that is behind me now.

Before I lay my head down to sleep (It will soon be Tuesday here) I will remark that a lot of what I am saying can be explained simply if one thinks of emotional based processing as the same as rational based processing, which it appears to be.

That is all.

Good night.
Sweet dreams.

[Finder]

69. Fight or flight is actually a hormonal reaction...

as far as your example of the tiger. Knowledge of the danger is what prompts us to take action.

[xchrom]

70. so is a baby's shyness -- however

that shyness reaction in many babies goes far beyond the hormonal.

the same with fight or flight.

[Finder]

72. Babies are shy? I don't agree or know what that has to do with...

reason vs emotion.

[xchrom]

73. at a certain age babies or toddlers will become shy around strangers.

while not absolutely universal -- what response is -- many show extremes of this behavior.

it becomes evident that it is more than an hormonal reaction.

this shyness is believed to have been with us for many thousands of years developed because of kidnappings in our early development.

it's an appropriate emotional response to an uncertain situation for a baby/toddler.

that's all.

[Finder]

75. I get it...you are talking about attachment...

which is natural but has nothing to do with adults using reason. Nobody expects a 1 or 2yo to use reason.

[xchrom]

76. indeed. but i am saying that a whole person

must be both.

and the development of both are parallel in humans -- and for a good reason.

[Finder]

77. I personally see emotion as being irrational in most cases...

of course I mean emotions like anger, sorrow, love, fear which often lead to illogical actions.

Compassion, empathy, etc are not emotions per se and I assume those are what you are referring to.

[xchrom]

87. no that's not what i'm referring to --

a person must have ALL those emotions in the right mix to be whole.

[Finder]

88. But decision making does not require emotion is my point. n/t

[xchrom]

89. and yes it does is mine. n/t

[JVS]

2. a does not equal a!

[datasuspect]

3. you lost me at "1) Reality exists as an objective absolute . . . "

absolutist thinkers are part of the problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. We may be "part of the problem", but we're also right.

It may be the case that reality is just a shared hallucination, but even then it appears to be a consistent hallucination, so there are still statements about it that are true and false.

When I say "This stone is heavier than that one", and you say "no it isn't", then I should always take into account the possibility that I am wrong and you are right, so in that sense absolutism is bad, but, crucially, at least one of us must be objectively wrong. There *are* absolutes, one should just always be slightly cagey about assuming one knows what they are (this is one of the reasons I'm studying to be a mathematician).

[datasuspect]

30. uh, okay

"reality" or that which is apprehended, understood, or comprehended by consciousness is wholly dependent on individual perception, this is something entirely different from mathematical fact.

please get your categories straight.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. That's a very sweeping and very meaningless statement.

There is not one scrap of evidence that reality is in any way dependent on perception. It may be that when a tree falls in a forest it doesn't make a sound, but that it does is completely consistent with all observed evidence, and is by far the more natural conclusion.

Even if you look at a wall through blue spectacles, it still won't turn blue.

[datasuspect]

40. it's meaningless because you say so?

oh jeez, i'm gonna need a big grain of salt for that one.

so are you saying we ALL share the same perception and that reality is exactly the same for all of us?

when you speak of "reality" what are specifically referring to?

i don't think we are properly circumscribing the subject here.

i think you are confusing "reality" as a perceptible phenomenon with actual facts.

[Phx_Dem]

91. the heisenburg principal says your wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. A lay understanding of quantum physics is *worthless*.

I've actually taken a few university courses in the maths underlying quantum physics. That didn't get me anywhere near understanding it, but it did give me a good enough grasp of it to make it clear that all the non-physicists who think they do are completely and utterly wrong, and unless I very much miss my guess you're no quantum physicist - in this case my guess it you're confusing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle with the observer effect.

There is nothing special about observation; it's just not possible without collapsing the waveform of a particle. It's entirely possible to collapse a waveform without a sentient being observing it.

It is not that observation specifically changes reality, it's that observation is impossible without performing an example of a type of action that does. Observation is nothing special; reality is.

[datasuspect]

38. put more simply

you seem to think either/or is the only possible configuration. sometimes it can be both/and.

dichotomous thinking is the hallmark of the authoritarian mindset. black and white thinkers are more susceptible to things like cults and fundamentalism.

it you want to align yourself with that, more power to ya'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. No!

Two mutually contradictory statements are *never* and/both.

Trying to appear profound by denying the obvious is a very common, and very dangerous mental pitfall.

[datasuspect]

47. i can see your line of thought

and there is nothing profound in what i said, merely a bald statement of fact, but thanks for the compliment!

and i'm not denying anything either. i concede the existence of dichotomous thinking, and i illustrated its obvious pitfalls. i just allow for greater mental development.

but the world does open up once you consider the world that exists beyond either/or thinking.

[smirkymonkey]

82. There are a lot of either/or thinkers here these days.

I completely agree with what you said, either/or (black/white) thinking seems to be one of the hallmarks of conservatism. So many people think that THEIR personal view of things is UNIVERSAL REALITY. Most liberals understand that opinions and viewponts are just that - opinions and viewponts - and that there are as many "truths" as their are people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. No, there's only one truth.

Sure, there are are all sorts of subjective issues, to which "true" and "false" are not applicable, but on any objective question of fact there is one, and only one, true answer.

I don't think that my personal point of view is universal reality; I *do* think that my personal point of view on factual matters is universal reality except in those cases where I am wrong, and that it is objectively false in those cases.

[smirkymonkey]

96. Can you prove it? The problem is, human beings have many

different truths, who is anyone to say that theirs is the one truth - can you see how much trouble this mindset has caused? Unless you are saying that "the truth" is unkowable, then I could see your point. However, I believe that it's kind of like death - nobody really knows until you get there and even then, it may all be another illusion.

I believe "truth" is located in the mind, rather than "out there." I don't believe there can be any such concept of truth without consciousness. However, we are both just giving our opinions.

[EstimatedProphet]

78. You just hit upon the main problem with Objectivist practice

Objectivists believe that facts are absolute. They also believe that, since they see themselves as being reasonable, they know these facts and are correct in the judgements they make from them. Therefore, since they are correct, if you disagree with them you are incorrect. If you are incorrect there must be a reason, and since the fact is true regardless, and you must be interpreting it in the same way as they are, they draw the conclusion that you refuse to see the fact. Using your example, this strategy breaks down to an arguement very often like this:

Objectivist: This stone is heavier."
You: "No, this stone is heavier."
Objectivist: "LIAR!"

It doesn't matter whether you may, perhaps, be able to get a better grip on the second stone, and therefore it doesn't seem as heavy as the first. Objectivists believe that all facts are true no matter what, and they define what a fact is by their opinions. They will then every time draw the conclusion that if you don't agree with them, it isn't because of a difference of opinion, it is because you are intellectually dishonest about what is clearly a fact. In practice, Objectivism becomes a way for people to demean anyone they disagree with, and never admit to being wrong. It's impossible to have a productive discussion with someone who claims that you are lying because you disagree with them.

[smirkymonkey]

83. Objectivism: My Opinion is the Universal Truth.

Great post, btw. :thumbsup:

[EstimatedProphet]

84. Thank you

What I wrote BTW is the main reason I can't stand to talk to Objectivists. It's like arguing with a 3 year old - if you don't agree with them they throw a tantrum.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. No.

Objectivism: My opinion is either universally true (if I'm right) or universally false (if not). It says something about the consequences of being right or wrong, not about whether you are or not. I've gone into more detail in post 93.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. You've misunderstood, I think.

"Objectivists believe that facts are absolute."

True.

"They also believe that, since they see themselves as being reasonable, they know these facts and are correct in the judgements they make from them. Therefore, since they are correct, if you disagree with them you are incorrect."

Not true. One of the key points of being reasonable is taking into account the possibility that you may be wrong.

"Objectivist: This stone is heavier."
You: "No, this stone is heavier."
Objectivist: "LIAR!""

It's very easy to refute someone if you're allowed to write their lines for them. The typical response of a real objectivist response will be to produce evidence that one stone is heavier than the other; the same as anyone else's response. Where objectivists differ from some others is in the assertion that they are either right or wrong; some people (posters 38 or 82, for example) argue that in some sense both stones can simultaneously be heavier, or neither can, because reality is not absolute, and *that* is what objectivists disagree with.

Objectivism is the belief that those of your beliefs that you're correct about are absolutely true, and the rest are absolutely false; it doesn't say anything about how much you're correct or incorrect about.

[smirkymonkey]

80. Exactly - I don't believe there is an objective reality, simply

perceptions of what reality is. I also don't agree with number two (I believe reason, instinct and emotion all come into play when influencing behavior,) and only partially agree with 3 in that I believe we do not exist for anyone else's "purpose" - meaning no individual is on this earth solely for the use and benefit of another individual - but that altruism is a natural outgrowth of a fully developed and self-actualized psyche. When I am free of the strictures and restraints of other's plans for me, I feel more able to love and care for others. When I am feeling unduly oppressed and used by others, no such good will toward others enters my mind.

[sweetheart]

4. its slightly subtle

Reality does not exist independent of the observer. Modern physics has fancy theories that explain this simple thing. It
should be rather obvious to any philosopher of any sort... if you are not existing to percieve it, then no matter what you
believe, you are not existing to validate any existance, and the detached objectivity of rand is lie.

Reason involves thought, which involves the rational mind, and not the deeper and wiser profound intutition, so i would
personally disagree that rational mind is somehow superior to "knowing". I find the latter wholly more real.

Every person is not a "thought", and not individual, nor collective, but part of a greater complext whole that does
not take to simplistic rationalization on behalf of mankind to their importance. Enlightenment is the only thing worth
anything in human life... rand is dead, not enlightened, and her opinions are crap.

For point number 4, rand fell victem to the populist fallacy that a political system can be separated from an economic
system, that democratic republics and laisse faire capitalism must go totether, or all she's endorsing is unelected
autocracy and feudal rulership of worthy barons who are annointed by god, and not the electorate.

No, i'm not an objectivist at all, what makes you think 'we' are?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. You've fundamentally misunderstood the physics, I think

As well as the philosophy.

Reality *does* exist independently of the the observer, it's just that any way to observe an event will automatically change it.

Even if every sentient being in the universe were to die, it would still go on existing.

Intuition can be used to inform reason, but you will note that to justify your preference for the former over the latter you resorted to reason. Intuition is a form of input, but the only way to process that input is with reason.

Reason also has the big advantage that it's transferable. If you make a decision through reason, and I ask you why, you can set it out and I can duplicate it. If you just say "I have a hunch", then I can't have that same hunch.

I have no quarrel with intuitive hunches, but they're a very different thing to reason, not an alternative to it.

[sweetheart]

42. How do *you* prove that

"Even if every sentient being in the universe were to die, it would still go on existing."

As much as it sounds good, it is an unfounded assertion.

When *you* pass, it all passes. There is no other. I don't agree, and your religious view
is no more provable than mine.... as both of us will wait 'til death to discover and then
we will both cease to exist, and our argument will be forgotten.

I say, that when you've finished rationalizeing, you achieve "knowledge" as in "i get it".
and this knowledge is a state of being, not movement... not rationalizing but the end product.

Reason is the whim of intution, just ask any man to rationalize why they should stay
prime minister...

[sendero]

5. A simple minded philosophy..

.. for simple minded people. Anyone who doesn't understand the fatal flaws in this "philosophy" isn't going to no matter how many words are wasted on them.

I notice a sharp dropping off of folks who believe in this crap as a function of age. Even the thick eventually get told by life that they are full of it. :)

I don't mean to sound personal, but I find this "philosophy", and the political version, Libertarianism, to be plain offensive.

[Igel]

15. Does this mean that if you're born not understanding

the fatal flaws, you'll never understand them?

I knew many dems were precocious, but *that* precocious ... wow.

Or is it a matter of faith or emotion?

[sendero]

17. No...

.. as I said, my anecdotal experiences have been that few people into middle age or so still believe this crap. So, there's always hope.

[eallen]

6. Let's begin with the fallacy that her beliefs derive from those premises.

She wants to believe that. But it would send any logician into a gale of laughter.

[leftofthedial]

7. I agree with #1

half of #2

I completely reject #3 and #4.

[Taverner]

8. 4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.

I personally am a anarcho-socialist.

[orpupilofnature57]

28. If there was a way to assure corporations couldn't infiltrate the Govt

Laissez-fairer would be the way.

[Taverner]

33. Ah but this is impossible

Hence the need for organic socialism

[Finder]

36. Separation of economics and state is mentioned as a goal. n/t

[rogerashton]

9. Marxism is no less objectivist. More so.

1) Items 1-3 are of a quite different character than 4. On the whole 4 conflicts with the first three, since 4 is purely an assertion of (subjective) opinion.

2) Marxists would also affirm 1-3, (3 being nothing more than humanism, of which Marxism is an expression). Marxists also defend the labor theory of value on objectivist grounds, briefly that labor time is the only objective constituent of value.

3) Therefore, Marxism, unlikle Randianism, is consistent objectivism.

4) This is not to say that Marxism is correct. Experience, the source of any knowledge of objects, is itself subjective, and values are wholly subjective.

[aikoaiko]

10. A little bit of overlap for me.

1. Reality: I'm more of a pragmatist and social constructionist on knowing reality. If their is an objective reality, I don't know if it can ever be known as such because we can only talk about reality. But clearly some talk about reality seems to be more useful than others.

2. Reason only path to knowledge of reality: eh, emotions figure in prominently.

3. Every man is an end in himself: Sure, but others' right to self-interest and happiness stops at my nose (to paraphrase).

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. I think she assumes too much about a laissez-faire capitalism -- especially that there wouldn't be coercion other than physical force.

[joemurphy]

11. Laissez-faire capitalism for starters.

Rand and her libertarian buddies ignore history.

<http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html>

"Markets are very good at some things, like deciding what to produce and distributing it. But unrestricted markets don't produce general prosperity, and lawless business can and will abuse its power. Examples can be multiplied ad nauseam: read some history -- or the newspaper.

Since natural resources are accounted as free gains and pollution isn't counted against the bottom line, business on its own will grab resources and pollute till an environment is destroyed.

The food business, on its own, will put filth in our food and lie about what it's made of. The few industries which are exceptions to food and drug laws (e.g. providers of alcohol and supplements) fight hard to stay that way. The food industry resists even providing information to consumers.

Business will lock minorities out of jobs and refuse to serve them, or serve them only in degrading ways.

Business will create unsafe goods, endanger workers, profiteer in times of crisis, use violence to prevent unionization-- and spend millions on politicians who will remove the people's right to limit these abuses.

Thanks to the libertarian business climate, companies are happily moving jobs abroad, lowering wages, worsening working conditions.

The same libertarian climate encourages narcissists to pay themselves handsomely while ruling incompetently, and leads to false accounting, insider trading, and corruption.

Businesses create monopolies and cartels when they can manage it; and the first thing monopolies do is raise prices.

Businesses can create bureaucracies as impenetrable and money-wasting as any government. (The worst I've ever had to deal with are health insurers. And no, it's not "government regulation" that makes them that way; insurers have an interest in making the claims process as difficult as possible.)

State-controlled media are vile; but business-controlled media are hardly better, especially given the consolidation of major media. Democracy needs a diversity of voices, and we're moving instead toward domination of the airwaves by a few conglomerates.

The poor are ill-served even for basic services: they pay more for food; they pay through the nose for rotten apartments; they can't get loans even if they can get bank accounts; if they can get a job it's ill paid, with no health benefits. Poor areas are also highly polluted (in ways that cause massive health problems), while lacking such services as movie theaters."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. #2 makes a virtue of selfishness

Civilization depends on people subordinating their wishes to the common good, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the society.

A society in which people thought ONLY of themselves would be a hellhole, a law of the jungle type place in which anyone could claim the right to do anything to further his or her "happiness."

In addition, as anyone who has observed bratty children knows, people who get their own way all the time aren't happy. They want more and more and are never satisfied.

Once your basic needs are met, happiness is more about learning to appreciate what you have, being in community with other people, and doing satisfying work that matches your talents.

[sendero]

14. When it comes to ..

... the "law of the jungle" literally, I'll find Libertarian/Objectist douchebags, put a bullet between their eyes and take their shit.

Because literally, that's pretty close to what they are advocating.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. There is no 2); do you mean the second 1), or 3)?

3) makes more sense in context, in which case I agree with you.

[RoyGBiv]

13. All of it ...

I'll add that one cannot deconstruct philosophical principles into bullet points and actually understand those principles. The first principle mentioned here is a perfect example. Does reality exist as an objective absolute?

If so, prove it.

And now, after this attempt to prove it, we have a complete library of books and pamplets, none of which prove anything one way or the other, which in itself undermines the concept of objective absolutes.

Ayn Rand's notion of objectivism is not philosophy. It's dogma.

[jwirr]

16. For me the problem is with 3 & 4. She talks about reality but

then pretends that in the real world everyone has an equal chance to get ahead. She is totally ignoring the various illnesses that exist in our world and effect our fellow humans in adverse ways. So when she says it is everyone out for themselves she is condemning those people. Even if for instance they are victims of capitalism through such things as pollutants used to create products.

[Wiley50]

35. Agree. But you left out Legacy

How can we be equal when some are born with it

ie: Smirkzilla

Everyone doesn't have an equal chance to get ahead.
Some are born on third base.

[Finder]

39. I agree with you here. n/t

[Wiley50]

44. Thx, was begining to think that we lost you, Finder n/t

[Finder]

51. I am not an objectivist, but I do see the positives when comparing...

it to others. I also see her philosophy in action around me--not that I agree with it.

[CollegeDUer]

18. EVERY part (let me explain)!

And you know why? Anything good or rational that can be found in the objectivist ideology can be found in much larger quantity in other more sane and human ideologies.

[Finder]

41. I agree much of the philosophy is not unique. n/t

[zeemike]

19. I wanted to make a long rebuttal to this

But others did it so well I need not bother.
but I will say that her form of capitalism has a fatal flaw that should be obvious to all in todays world, and that is that the ruthless and greedy always rise to the top, and when they get there they never relinquish power, and have no morals that would prohibit them from the use of force.

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. #3 ... Rand never adequately explained why people have kids

If she had understood nurturing, she'd probably have had a happier personal life.

[Igel]

23. Selfishness, no doubt.

To continue your genes, your family, your influence and outlook.

One can often defend things that one identifies with. Defending the group is selfishness.

Not my view, or at least not original with me (I've seen too many academics go pale with fury and hate when their pet theory was dinged). Just one that I heard a couple of decades back.

[G2099]

21. There must be Balance between Individuality and the Collective

Extreme individuality or extreme collectivism is no good for society. There must be a balance between the two.

Some things in history were invented by individuals and some things have come into existence through "collective effort." What bridge or skyscraper do you know of that was created by just "one individual"? - None.

[Igel]

22. (3) is my big problem.

(4) can handle itself. I'd take issue with (2) (your second #1), but see no point in it. Unlike some, I accept (1); I constantly wonder why those about to be hit by a tsunami or other disaster don't "socially construct" some reality in which they're sunning themselves on a beach in Tahiti, or those starving or dying from disease don't do likewise. Reality kills. But I digress ...

First, the word 'moral' is a problem, and opens a can of worms that Rand never closes, and doesn't always address.

Rand is reacting to Marxism-Leninism, in which the state and the group are the only entities of value. One works not for reward, but for work's sake, knowing the group is aided. Not a horrible view, except that there's a kick to the belief: One *must* work to aid the group, and one must accept that the group is of greater importance. As defined by some group of people in Moscow. I think it's a heinous system, as do many others. Those benefiting and wielding power in it--or who think they'd benefit or wield power--tended to not denounce it as much as I did.

Chrisianity (and other religions) offers an alternative view: That living for a goal and purpose outside yourself is the highest virtue. Rand considered evangelical Xians to be loons, because she thought Paul's contingency was the actual state of affairs: If this is all there is, we (Christians) are the most wretched of people. (1) and (2) entail accepting "this is all there is." But at least it was voluntary, for the time being (or forever, if you believe this is all there is).

Many dems are torn between the two views: Help people, but whether it's voluntary or forced is an issue.

[EstimatedProphet]

81. Hmmm...

I constantly wonder why those about to be hit by a tsunami or other disaster don't "socially construct" some reality in which they're sunning themselves on a beach in Tahiti, or those starving or dying from disease don't do likewise.

How do you know some of them don't?

:)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Numbers 1) and 1) are perfect sense.

Squishy thinking in any guise is bad.

Numbers 3 and 4 are nothing to do with 1) and 1) (I presume one of those was meant to be a 2?) and are, I think, wrong - the basis of morality is *un*selfishness, doing things to make other people's lives better, so 3 is about as wrong as it's possible to be; 4 is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of government.

I mostly agree with her about abortion, although I'd substitute "self-aware" for "born" - I think third-trimester foetus's do have some rights, by virtue of being self-aware.

I largely agree with her views on religion.

[Finder]

49. Oops, too late to edit...

I agree with many of the points as you do but find it interesting that some "toss the baby out with the bathwater"(so to say)without real reason.

[orpupilofnature57]

25. 'Anthem' and ' The Fountainhead ' were great so was Sartre's 'No Exit'

Both were part of existentialism .

[ComerPerro]

32. If only more conservatives believed fully in number 3, especially

But they don't.

Conservatives believe that sacrifice should only go upward.

That is, the only people they should sacrifice any part of themselves to is someone of higher status (aka the rich).

And the only people who should, in turn, sacrifice to them is those lower than they are (aka, the poor and minorities of any kind)

[smirkymonkey]

86. That was my issue with number 3 - in that I agreed that we do not

exist SOLELY for the purpose of any other individual (too much potential for abuse, as seen in rampant capitalism - "your worth is determined by how much you contribute to my net worth" type of thinking.)

[MoseyWalker]

43. It starts to go south right here

"Reality exists as an objective absolute"

It doesn't, at least in my view. So. The rest doesn't matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Her pseudo "philosophy" smacks of Social Darwnism.

Or, to put it in more simple terms: "Greed is good".

She relegates humankind to a role similar to that of mindless organisms that seek only to feed themselves and are slaves to a supposed "reality" that obviates all emotions that don't conform to that "reality" such as compassion, courage, love, anger, fear, cowardice and all the rest that make us human.

Under the rubric of her "rationalism", it is perfectly "moral" to watch your neighbor (or child, or spouse, or friend, or, anyone else) starve to death while you glut yourself, because that's the "nature of things".

Her opinion of "laissez-faire" capitalism is childish, at best, denying the obvious fact that those who accumulate wealth wield power that needn't rely on "physical force" to achieve it's ends of accumulating more wealth and power.
The idea that "trade" is a "free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit" is belied in every labor contract negotiation, strike, lockout, unemployment line, or the millions of people dying of malnutrition and it's related diseases.

Her "morality" is that of a 3 year old stealing the bottle from an infant.

[JHB]

48. "Ivory tower ideology" vs. reality

I generally characterize myself as a "left libertarian", so I'm sympathetic to parts of Objectivist theory, but it always seemed to boil down to putting a rationalist veneer over a basic "screw everybody but me" amorality.

In particular:

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Yes, but one needs to remember that our perception of reality can vary (due to a variety of sources, including feelings, wishes, etc.), and the means to establish the real facts are not always available in every situation.

It should also not be interpreted to mean that feelings, hopes, etc. are unimportant in human societies.

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.

In theory, I might agree. Science, in essence, is applied reason, and can be characterized as a means of getting around all the ways we humans have of kidding ourselves and finding out what's really going on. In practice, however, it must be remembered that some of humanity's worst atrocities have stemmed from rational actions proceeding from irrational assumptions. In most cases knowledge is insufficient for actions to proceed soully from reason.

Furthurmore, the statement negates itself: survival predates reason, so to flatly declare it the "basic means of survival" is innacurate.

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.

Extremist hogwash. While the integrity of the individual must be maintained, the above statement is more fitting to sea turtles than human beings (and even there, the turtles put themselves at risk to lay eggs on shore). Society must have controls to prevent it from running roughshod over the rights of individuals, but individuals are part of a society that requires some level of "sacrifice" to maintain.

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.

That's a utopian ideal. History instead shows that it is mixed, regulated capitalism, with strong
anti-monopolist controls and "socialistic" "safety net" provisions is what actually produces those benefits.

[blogslut]

50. Can't get past number three.

Never could. Never will.

What a selfish and unenlightened woman. Poor thing never quite made it to the top of Maslow's pyramid did she?

[Finder]

52. Funny you mention that...I see similarity in her philo and Maslow's...

Hierarchy as far as society goes.

[Armstead]

61. It's immature mental masturbation -- And it's naive

The problem with Rand is that she is simply an apologist for selfishness. And her philosophy is just a convoluted and overly complicated way of saying something that is somplistic and naive.

Rand is simply a materislistic version of fundamentalists.

Maybe there is an objective, absolute realty. Maybe not. Or maybe there is, but it is constantly shifting.

In either case, we humans will never know it. There is an immense mystery at the core of everything. To claim that "reason" can determine "absolute reality" is just stupid.

The fact that we humans do not know what "absolute reality" is, is the only absolute. None of us know for certain. We can only believe.

At some point, any belief system or philosophy requires a leap of faith, and acceptance of a core of unknowable mystery. One can take the leap in the direction of religion and spirituality or in the direction of athiesm and utter materialism. But in either case, IT IS ALWAYS a leap of faith.

Rand and her fellow objectivists would be more tolerable if they would sipy admit that they don't know the answers, and are merely trying to do the best they can -- just like the rest of us.

[Finder]

68. I think reality IS absolute, however there are many different perspectives

of reality.(some based on emotion) The various perspectives do not change reality though.

[skids]

66. 2, 3, and 4.

2) Because instinct is not reason, and is often correct in areas where formalized reason is myopic in scope.

3) Because the "nor sacrificing others to himself" is a complete afterthought, thrown in to merely candy coat and innoculate an utterly selfish perspective. Man chooses his own meaning, which can simply be experiencing life, or can be making a mark on the world, or whatnot. It isn't mandatory to have an ends other than self-interest, but claiming that it is wrong to do so is just an obfuscated form of victim-blaming to exhonerate oneself from feeling the need to help those who have given to others to their detriment. While there is much to be said about wisdom, in practice nobody bats 100 at it, and being accepting of that fact is what makes us civilized.

and 4) Because the term is code for "disallowing unified interest groups from excercising power unless they have money" the tool to which end is a worship of certain principles and elevation of certain rights that are more easily excercised by the oligarchy over the equally valent rights whose utility is mainly to those not born into wealth. (Unless you intend to extend democratic government systems at all levels equal status as the vaunted companies and traders that are worshipped, in which case the whole "laissez-faire" term comes into conflict with itself and the ideal embodied in that entire term evaporates into a meaningless sequence of syllables.)

[TheFriedPiper]

71. her views on economics are fucked, but her views on religion are

spot on



Religion is the antithesis to reason and accurate information.

[EstimatedProphet]

74. I think I disagree with all of them

1) Facts are facts, yes, but the problem comes in when people try to agree on just what is a fact. Even the most basic facts are often disputed. People often see what they want to see, regardless of what is there.

2) Reason is a great thing, but it is not the infallible structure that Objectivists make it, because it can often lead from the same statements to widely different conclusions. Besides, if everyone were guided by reason they wouldn't become Objectivists.

3) Man should exist for his own sake. However, this rigid statement leaves no room for compromise or cooperation. How does a country protect itself from invasion, for example, if every person in it only is willing to defend themselves? Should everyone have their own nuclear weapon, or tank, or artillery? Clearly not - this is an unworkable situation, and one that is far more dangerous ofr day-to-day function than the situation it represents.

4) The worship of laissez-faire capitalism is so absurd it's hard to take seriously. It allows for nothing. If a person owns a factory, the contracts with factory workers are by definition collective. The owner simply won't have the time to make individual contracts with workers, and individually supervise them. This is one of the arguments that led to the idea of collective bargaining, since the owner has collective bargaining status, the workers deserve the same right.

Objectivism as a philosophy is untenable and rejected by just about everyone but Objectivists. The only reason it has a following anymore is because the internet by its nature allows for crackpottery.

[redherring]

85. The third one is just selfish

Humans can be altruistic, you know.

[kineneb]

90. #3 is a bit harsh

And is also selfish. Helping others is also worthy, and makes a better, more kindly world.

As to #1, the universe exists just fine without us. It is our observations that change the equation: see the writings on Schroedinger's Cat.

#4 has never been tried, and in actuality would probably never work, just like pure Marxism.

The position on abortion is the same as mine: if the fetus cannot live independent of the incubator (mother) then it has no rights as an individual.

[Crunchy Frog]

97. Pretty much all of it, it looks like.

#1, agree mostly with the caveat that while reality itself exists independently of humans experience of it, that doesn't mean that it's possible for our knowledge of that reality to be unaffected by our own prisms through which we view it.

#2, disagree. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that reason is the dominant way in which humans perceive reality or guide their actions. It also does not seem to be very tied to survival, otherwise there would have been very strong selective pressure for it and we would be a very different animal than the one that we are. In my experience, most of the people who claim that their interpretations of reality are correct because they are based on "reason" or "rationality", are simply using elaborate systems of rationalization dressed up in rational sounding arguements, to back conclusions that they have reached by less than rational means. I tend to be extra wary of people who claim that they possess the "truth" based on reasoning.

#3, disagree. In a social species like ourselves, where we live in an interdependent society, each individual can be seen as both an end and a means at the same time. I don't believe anyone on this board can get through life without treating other people as means to their own ends. That's what the waitress, the doctor, the auto-mechanic are. You are also a means to them...to make money. It seems to me that that is pretty much the basis for any kind market exchange system. Indeed, this view of Rand's seems to be utterly incompatible with her stated belief in said market system.

I can't imagine any kind of moral system in which one's own happiness and self-interest is the highest moral value. I can see where she might have propounded such a view simply for its shock value, but can't think of any other basis for it.

#4, disagree. This "ideal" system is probably every bit as unworkable as any other "ideal" system. I simply don't believe in "ideal" systems. Alot of blood has been spilled in attempts to create systems that should theoretically be "ideal" but somehow they always seem to end up coming up against the realities of human nature.

It looks like I pretty much disagree with just about every aspect of objectivism.

[Odin2005]

98. #1 is like "No, Duh," the rest are crap.

Of course Reality exists independently of the mind and can be objectively studied, That's the basis of Empiricism and modern science.

2. Humans are not rational animals, the notionm of humanity as a totally rational being died as a reasonable concept in the fires of the first world war. Reason is the only source of knowledge but it definitely doesn't totally guide our actions.

3. is rationalization of one's selfishness used by libertarians, a mindset that is a symptom of a degenerating society.

4. is just a typical libertarian idealization of capitalism, not what capitalism really is.