A criticism of Objectivism

Post Reply New Topic

Im not going to discuss the obvious aspects of Objectivism, how it strives for a society where the few wealthy step over homeless people on their way to work.

Instead, I find it funny that the Ayn Rand Institute and Randroids all engage in an odd kind of hero-worship of the woman, with Leonard Peikoff lading the syncophant brigade. They fail to think for themsleves, regurgitating the womans arguments.

Ironic isnt it.

'Tis a cult.

The only difference is that those who enter politics are obliged to feign Christian beliefs.

The taxes paid by the "wealthy" are what keep the homeless alive.

ruveyn

Businesses run by the "wealthy" are what keep the economy alive.

Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism's central tenets are that:

• Reality exists independent of consciousness.
• Human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception.
• One can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic.
• The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or "rational self-interest").
• The only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism.
• The role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form - a work of art - that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

Nowhere in the Basic Tenets of Objectivity is there any mention of "how it strives for a society where the few wealthy step over homeless people on their way to work".

This has long been a criticism about Rand and her followers even amongst people the sympathize with her beliefs. Murray Rothbard actually wrote a short play about this called "Mozart Was a Red" that you'd probably enjoy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

Not quite a fair criticism. And there's actually a heretical sect within the larger sphere of Objectivism that Pope Peikoff long-ago excommunicated.

http://www.atlassociety.org/open_object ... vid_kelley

FWIW, I think it is slowly fading away, but then again so is orthodox Objectivism of the sort Peikoff personified.

I might like this group, I enjoy The Fountainhead and We the Living and love her ethics on a personal level, just not as a social system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_Li ... ed_edition

She made some pretty funky changes between the first edition of We, the Living, in 1936, and its reissue in the 1950s. .. I guess she changed her mind for the better, but, still...

Rand misspent her talent by becoming a Den Mother to a bunch of neurotics. Some of her harsh judgments of our society were right on the mark, but by misdirecting her energies she made little difference to the society she justly chastised.

ruveyn

It do:
[*] The only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism. ("Full respect of individual rights" and "laissez-faire capitalism" are oxymoron by the way.)

Many poor boys have become rich. Thomas Edison, Edward Land, Stephen Jobs for example. laissez-faire capitalism is affords the best opportunities to bright young people who are smart and energetic.

While pure capitalism does not exist anywhere there are and have been some pretty good approximations to it. In the present, Hong Kong is a good example. In the U.S the 19 th century was our most capitalistic century. Men like Andrew Carnegie, a scots lad came to the the U.S. with the clothes on his back and a dollar in his pocket. He became one of the first billionares when a dollar was worth 1/20 of an ounce of .9999 fine gold.

ruveyn

"Full respect of individual rights" and "laissez-faire capitalism" are not mutually exclusive. By taking a laissez-faire attitude toward capitalism, there are few laws to inhibit anyone from becoming wealthy. By regulating every aspect of commerce, only the oligarchs in charge of the State become wealthy.

Does it matter? The Pythagorean theorem is not in Euclid's postulates, but it follows from them. An incompatibility between full respect for individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism would not follow deductively in the same way, but it missing from the basic tenets doesn't prevent it from following inductively.


That doesn't prevent there being factors other than laws than inhibit most people from becoming wealthy. And is acquisition of wealth the only or even the most important individual right?

Anyway, if the basic tenets conflict with reality, conclusions derived from them become suspect. And this one is dubious:

That depends on perception and memory accurately reflecting reality. There's plenty of data to the contrary. That makes the next tenet dubious:

The next one is a value judgement. People don't have to agree with it.

Is this here supposed to be a postulate or a conclusion that follows from what went before?

If it's a postulate, I need to see relevant data before deciding whether I agree, and I need to know which individual rights are supposed to be embodied laissez-faire capitalism. If it's a conclusion, I am not obliged to accept it, because I reject three of the tenets from which it is supposed to follow.

Individual cases are mere anecdotes. In a world where random stuff happens, they mean very little. You need more quantitative data. A measure of social mobility averages out much of the random variation.


That is testable. Define a measure of how closely an economic system approaches laissez-faire capitalism. Define a measure of social mobility. Collect the data, correlate the two. Do you know where I can find such data?

After reading The Fountainhead (loved it) I read the bit in the back of the book about Ayn and her Objectivism philosophy. The part I took issue with was that she believed perception is everything, but that the metaphysical does not exist. I'd love to be able to debate this particular point with her, as I believe she merely couldn't perceive the metaphysical and therefor discounted all things metaphysical as nonsense that doesn't exist. Even perception has a perspective, and hers was limited to what she was able to perceive & know to be real, and thus she excluded the possibility that others may have a different perspective on the existence of the metaphysical due to their differing abilities to perceive it. And I know this to be true due to things I've perceived I'd gladly share with Ayn if she were still around. It might just persuade her to change her stance on these things, and if not, ah well - whatever - she knew what she knew to be real, as do I, and each of us due to our own perspectives & perceptions.

I'm not seeing the "criticism of Objectivism" promised by the topic title.