Objections to Objectivism

But we depend on the reason and effort of the generations that came before us. Korzybski stresses this factor in "Manhood of Humanity." I find much of Any Rand's philosophy noble, but I think it's dangerously utopian. Negative freedom will always be seductive, but isn't the world too small? Isn't technology too potent now for that? We have to consider national relationships, and not just individual relationships, in my opinion. A group needs a cohesion beyond the regard for property rights.

Also, Rand strikes me as way too reductionist in regards to religion. She thought that Kant, of all people, was the great enemy of mankind. Yes, there is a pure core buried in her philosophy, and I was once quite attracted to it, but is it workable? She herself had a dictatorial personality, in my opinion. She was probably more like Stalin than she wanted to know. Sure, wear a dollar sign, call out the hypocrisy and resentment that motivates the lazy to drag down the creative. I agree with this. But one must keep an eye out for the real world, which in my opinion is more complex and difficult than her perhaps oversimplified philosophy.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 03:35 PM ----------



I am quite sympathetic to this ethic in the main. But what about birth?

Another question is this: can we sincerely set no bounds on the ownership of land or communication technology and expect it all to run smoothly? Can nations neglect investment in high-tech self-defense? Does free trade ultimately sabotage the nation as a whole, for the profit of a few? I feel a certain amount of Social Darwinism in Rand, and I can't embrace it.

@ Reconstructo

That we depend on the reason and effort of the generations that came before us does not contradict the quoted statement. Those values have been purchased and paid for by the perpetual chain of exchanges of the reason and effort of those who followed - down to and including those existing today.

---------------------

What is most dangerous, is calling Objectivism utopian without demonstrating your claim. It is the gossip and hearsay of the blogosphere, but no one ever bothers to provide any substance to support it. Feel free to be the first!

---------------------

To summarize your general criticism, "it is good in theory, but probably not so good in practice."

It is imperative to rid oneself of this notion. A theory that is not good in practice is NOT a good theory. The error is a classic example of the false alternative of the mind-body dichotomy in which ideas are regarded as independent of (and therefore useless in) reality "as it really is."

If you have in mind a theory of Rand that would be unworkable, you must name it and give some indication of why it would not work. But in that you must be extremely careful, because her politics derives in an unbroken logical chain from her ethics, which rests on her metaphysics and epistemology. So the word "practical" needs to accommodate more than just ending an immediate crisis or achieving wished for results. The practical must still sustain the logical chain of premises that will prove it to be consistent with the nature of man.

Example: The individual's moral imperative to retain control over his own applications of reason and effort plus the fact that physical force is the only way to prevent that is the basis for demanding of a society the defense of individual rights - the guarantee that all human interrelationships shall be voluntary.

When the Objectivist applies that moral principle to government, he demands that it be financed without resorting to taxation. The question "how would it work?" is interesting, but not relevant to the principle's validity. Taxation cannot be implemented without extracting involuntary exchanges of values by the threat of physical force. As such, taxation is inherently immoral, and nothing that is immoral may be regarded as "practical."

So it would be futile to criticize her radical capitalism on the grounds that non-coercive financing of government would be impractical, because the only possible alternative, non-coercive financing methods, is moral and therefore practical.

I agree, but I was trying to be polite. Let me rephrase. I find much beauty in her ethic, but am suspicious of its application.

What about birth is not clear?


Yes.


No


No


Feelings are suitable grounds for getting out of the way of an oncoming car or a growling dog. They are insufficient grounds for long term decisions about whether ideas are valid or not.

There is not a shred of Social Darwinism in Objectivism.

"Reason as man's only absolute." Well, what is reason? I started a thread on that once and no one could agree on what reason was. I do think that "man is a heroic being." This is my favorite part of Rand.

The way she attacked Kant was not, in my mind, very sophisticated. You might expect me to present some case on the matter, but it's honestly not worth the trouble to me, precisely because she is no longer that fascinating to me. Maybe I should have just stayed out of the conversation. I intend know disrespect. I chimed in because I think I'm one of the few forum members who ever really liked Ayn Rand. For the most part, I don't think she's taken seriously. I'm not saying that that discredits her. I just wanted to praise what I see as her virtues, even if I am also critical. I found the Virtue of Selfishness very moving, once. I agree with much of her Aesthetic theory. I haven't closely studied her epistemology because her attack on Kant was alienating. It struck me as comically paranoid. Kant loved science. Also Rands furious distrust of everything mystic strikes me as reductive.

Does she really think ethics can be founded on nothing but Reason? Why should the selfish individual, with no afterlife, not seize an opportunity to profitably violate the law? I have an answer, but it's not based only on "reason." I agree with Schopenhauer that reason is the tool of the heart. Sure, we can note that this is dangerous in many ways, but it does seem true. We tend to believe what we want to, or what best serves us. This is why I think that an abstraction like "reason" is insufficient to ground an ethic.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 04:34 PM ----------



Perhaps not explicitly, but I can't help but see the similarity. If we utterly reject welfare, etc., and enforce unlimited property rights, that entails that certain unfortunates will dependent upon charity. Not all poverty is the result of sloth. Some are born healthier than others. Also, mechanization can make human labor obsolete. How does one live off the land if the land is already owned? And also we have only a fiat currency. Perhaps Rand wuld object to this, and with good reason.

We (Objectivists) all were. The task of grasping the extent of her achievement is monumental and requires years of working through its applications and debating it with others and re-applying it and ....

I have been an Objectivist for 43 years, and looking back on those years, I count my most numerous failures to be my attempts to prove her wrong! Only a smidgen of that statement is hyperbole. What is most astounding are the multitude of cross-applications of single principles in multiple branches of knowledge, fields of endeavor, and everyday situations that give one's mind an unparalleled overview.

"Should I put my mother in a nursing home?"

"Should I loan my brother 2000 dollars, even though I really can't afford it? But he's getting evicted..."

"Should I study to become an accountant, when I'm happy cutting grass?"

"Should I endure this terrible cancer, or end my life on my own terms?"

Feelings are the only reason that thinking matters to us. Values are founded on "feelings."

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 04:38 PM ----------



I respect your passion and intelligence. And I'm glad to have you at the forum. Even if we disagree, I hope to respectfully:) disagree.

I thought it was strange when Roark raped the virgin Domnique. Or maybe it wasn't rape but it came pretty close to the line. There is a similar scene in Atlas between John Galt and Dagney Tagert. But such scenes are likely commonplace in trashy romance novels. However, most trashy romance novels don't claim to be philosophical.

I guess that's not really an objection to objectivism. Just because Rand liked it rough doesn't mean her philosophy is flawed.

Of course there can be economic coercion, and one may not always be able to "walk away" from an offered exchange. As the land may be owned by someone else, there may literally be no where to go, and no way to get there even if it existed in some remote region.

Tell us, in the modern world, where we are to walk if we don't like any of the exchanges on hand? It is clear that there is no alternative to making some deal with someone, so there isn't the freedom that you pretend exists.

Reason: AynRand Lexicon

When you get a grip on what reason is, you will understand her position on Kant and mysticism.


No. She thinks reason is the only means we have to formulate a moral code. Her ethics is founded on specific facts about the universal nature of human beings.



Because such an act implicitly voids his own right to life, to name one reason. In the broader context, the act violates every virtue necessary to the achievement of a successful human life: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. Therefore a selfish individual should not profit from violations of law, because that is not a selfish act in the long run.



There you go with your mind/body fallacy again ...



Mankind is immanently capable to solve all such problems. Under no circumstances may any solution involve the use of physical force or threat thereof by any one or more human beings against another. That eliminates all of the expedient solutions you now condone on the grounds that a person's need can constitute in and of itself a claim on the life of another - a position you cannot substantiate.


By exchanging the product of his reason and effort with those who do own the land.



A radical capitalist government has but one task: to remove force from human interrelationships. Creation and control of currency is not a proper government function, nor is anything else that has been or that you can imagine that does not involve guaranteeing that all human interrelationships shall be voluntary.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 06:20 PM ----------


Precisely the opposite is true: feelings are not a source of values, they are a consequence of values deliberately or passively adopted.

If I have an unpleasant experience with broccoli as a child, I might choose not to eat it again and again and again. I adopt the conclusion that broccoli is bad and thereafter I have negative feelings about it every time I encounter it.

Later in life I take an interest in my health and learn that broccoli can make an important contribution to my health. The more I read about it the less I hate it. One day, I order it at a restaurant and manage to eat it without throwing up. The next week, I buy some at the grocery and look up some recipe's on the internet that seem like a preparation I could really like. The more I do this the more often I eat it.

Broccoli is now my no.1 favorite vegetable and just to think of it makes me feel good.

My feelings are consequences of my judgments. They are the conduit between my mind and my actions that motivate spontaneous choices of action that are consistent with the sum of my judgments regarding the action at hand when there is not time to deliberate.

No one thinks with their heart.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 06:35 PM ----------



You are confusing undue influence with physical force. The phrase "economic coercion" is a self contradiction. The word "economic" refers only to the voluntary exchange of values among men. If an exchange of values is coerced, it is not an economic exchange. But to be a coerced exchange you must be able to show that it was involuntary and effected by an act of physical force or the threat thereof. Undue influences like need do not involve physical force.

Also to "walk away" means to abstain from accepting, it has nothing to do with one's geographical location. If you own no land, you will walk and travel and live on the land of those who want some of the product of your reason and effort. What owner of roads or stores or parks or whatever would exclude anyone. On the contrary, they will compete to get you onto their land to buy their products.

That is just a hint at the logistics, but it is not relevant to the morality of the issue. You have to learn that first comes the principles that define the morality of our interrelationships because morality is the one thing that is beneficial to all men at all times. The moral principle you have not accepted in your example is that need is no claim on the life of another. And life for anyone involves the production of values by the application of reason to effort in the service of that life. So no solution that rests on the notion that need is a claim on the values others have created or acquired in a voluntary exchange may be regarded as moral or practical.

based off what i've read about her ideas of government,.....

the government is not the ruler of the people but the servant,

the only rights it has are rights delegated by the people, and

"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law......"

based off that, i agree with her. i don't see anything wrong with that.

Eh there, my friend. This is a condescending tone often found in Ayn Rand herself. There is always the danger of "reason" being used as others use "Jesus," as an emotional word used to justify contempt for other human beings. "Reason" is something I highly value, but "reason" is still an abstraction. There are as many claims to Reason as there are to God, and yet humans continue to disagree on crucial issues.

If you feel you are in on the secret or the method, so do your opponents, the mystics. And while I think the truer religious types are the opposite of hateful, there are plenty of believers out there who are ready to condescend to your "reason."

It's because I've been guilty myself of showing contempt to others that I can answer you politely and sincerely on this issue. I'm not the cowardly type. I know how to engage in dialectical warfare. But I can assure you it's a lost cause. No one is ever persuaded by insults or contempt. In fact, you do your cause or position harm and only harm by coming off that way.

If I sounded rude in some of my earlier posts on this thread, I apologize. I wrestle with a tendency toward arrogance. I wish you well. If we can talk to each other eye to eye, human to human, with respect, I will discuss this issue with you. I think Ayn Rand had valuable things to say, even if I disagree with her on points.

How you do digress ...

"to get a grip on" an idea or definition means no more than "to understand." I used that colloquial expression to acknowledge your struggle confessed here:



I gave you a link to some material illuminating Rand's views of what reason is to help you understand her position on Kant and mysticism. The accompanying sentence you quote above was no more than a statement of fact. A statement of fact can be false, and if you think it is, rebut it. But statements about facts cannot be insults. And simultaneously, indignation does not constitute a rebuttal - ever.



The particular arrogance you fell prey to in this comment was to assume that my comment was about you and not about the task of understanding the logical chain from reason to Rand to Kant and mysticism.

Objectivism is a body of ideas that stand or fall on their own merit. Anytime you attempt in a discussion about those ideas to convert it to be about you or your opponent or even Rand, you flag an inability to deal with abstract ideas, whether that is the case, or not.

So, now that you have read the page on Reason in the Ayn Rand Lexicon, what about it do you not understand or not agree with?

All of it. :poke-eye:

1. Transactions are never free but by metaphor...they depend on an entire net of contingent elements, so its pointless to continue on that demagogical approach...
   
2. Nevertheless exploitation, if balanced
3. "Jusnaturalism" is the basis of State foundation, and the basis of Social Species operative process...could not be simpler !
   
4. Debating were State should end or start is relative to the concrete objective physical Reality surrounding the LAW demand, the background...
   

Man, you are coming off as a pretentious self-righteous --have a wonderful evening, sir!