Objections of Randian Objectivism

Bill wrote:

That cult stuff is laughable.

You never saw some of the characters who came to her lectures. They were the "true believer" types. I think that any philosophy or movement has its share of people who are looking for something to cling to. Her absolutist attitude was very seductive to young people looking for a meaning in life, and someone strong to follow.

I would say though, that the vast majority of the people were an intelligent, thinking lot.

0 Replies

I haven't read Rand since 1964. My shipmate mistook me for a kindred spirit when he became an objectivist. I read a few of her works and was momentarily intrigued, but soon concluded that Rand's teachings, followed to the letter, lead to elitism and ultimate subjugation of the poorer classes. I no longer recall the fine points of her thought, or my full reasons for rejecting it. My shipmate had his head so high in the clouds, judging most everyone as worthy or unworthy, planning an imaginary city built by Objectivism. He told me, "You would be welcome in my city."
I began spouting some beatnik poetry at him and he shortly began avoiding me.

0 Replies

Of that, I have no doubt, Phoenix. Pity, a lot of people judge her work by judging some of those true believers, not unlike the way people judge the Muslim faith or Christianity by the crazies. I don't credit/fault her one iota for such people. Sheeple-nuts will find something to obsess about regardless and religion is usually a better obsession than whatever preceded it. If they find Objectivism instead; so much the better.

Rufio, the comparison of NT and Atlas is ringing Déjà vu in my head. Didn't we discuss the similarities once before?

Edgar, that's a funny story. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

My shipmate had his head so high in the clouds, judging most everyone as worthy or unworthy, planning an imaginary city built by Objectivism. He told me, "You would be welcome in my city."

It is that sort of person that gave Objectivism a bad name.

Edgarblythe wrote:

I read a few of her works and was momentarily intrigued, but soon concluded that Rand's teachings, followed to the letter, lead to elitism and ultimate subjugation of the poorer classes.

How did you come to THAT conclusion? Rand realized that not everyone was brilliant and capable of doing important things in life. She recognized that the "average Joe" can be just as much an Objectivist as the wunderkind. The character of "Eddie Willers" in "Atlas Shrugged" brings home that point.

The thing that I realized, early on, is that people who do great things in life, help me in MY life. I do not begrudge the achievements of other people. I understand that I benefit.

0 Replies

Just happened to find an interesting treatise on Eddie Willers. In Cliff's notes, no less!

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-7,pageNum-94.html

Quote:

Eddie's character demonstrates the difference between intelligence and rationality. Intelligence is intellectual ability, whereas rationality is a method. Intelligence is a capacity for understanding, but rationality is a means of using one's mind.

0 Replies

Maybe we discussed it before. I still don't know any of the similarities, so it probably didn't stick in my head.

Quote:

The thing that I realized, early on, is that people who do great things in life, help me in MY life. I do not begrudge the achievements of other people. I understand that I benefit.

Ahh, if only that were true. I read Atlas and it changed the way I saw things, and then I read some postmodern anthropologists and it changed me again. Too much of what we do and who we hurt is unfortunately rather unconscious.

0 Replies

Rufio wrote:

Too much of what we do and who we hurt is unfortunately rather unconscious.

Let's explore this example. A woman knows that the career that she wants is in a city that is across the country. She moves, to follow her dream. Her mother is hurt and angry that her daughter moved away. She is upset that she will rarely see her grandchildren.

Did the woman "hurt" her mother? I say, "no". She did what she wanted to do, based on her own judgment. If her mother is hurt, that is the mother's problem. Should the daughter give up her dream, because she thinks that her mother would be upset by her decision?

What do you think?

0 Replies

Was Eddie Willers ever invited to Galt's Gulch? I don't think so... so I guess a nut might think that only the great ones belong in his utopian city, too... but that would be a nutty interpretation because Galt's Gulch was, by design, a hideout from the looters, not the general population.

0 Replies

Bill- I don't think he was. His fate was vague. It is true that the great ones, as you put it, wanted to remove themselves from the people who were sapping them.

Earlier, you had mentioned Bill Gates. He is reviled by so many people. It would be very interesting if Bill and Company decided that they did not want to be the butt of such hostility, and closed up shop. Then, you would first hear the screaming, of how we were all left "high and dry"!

0 Replies

Bill- I don't think he was. His fate was vague. It is true that the great ones, as you put it, wanted to remove themselves from the people who were sapping them.

Earlier, you had mentioned Bill Gates. He is reviled by so many people. It would be very interesting if Bill and Company decided that they did not want to be the butt of such hostility, and closed up shop. Then, you would first hear the screaming, of how we were all left "high and dry"!

0 Replies

It's not a matter of what should she do. It's a matter of, she wants to move away, to get a better job and a better life, but she also might not want her mother to be upset, in the same way that you don't want your children to go hungry. So it's not just her mother's problem.

Anyway, it may not be conscious hurting, but as a result of your actions, something bad happened to someone else. If a company fires all their employees and hires ones from India that work for cheaper, they aren't intentionally hurting anyone, and they're probably going to do everyone a favor in the end since we can all buy their stuff for cheaper now, but they've also put a ton of able-bodied people out of work because of nothing they did. It's not intentional, but was it right that that happened to those people? How does objectivism work for them? I think it's a nice idea, but only in theory.

Bill, it kind of disturbed me also that Eddie wasn't really treated as one of the "heroes" in that book. There was also quite a bit of elitism in the Fountainhead that it could have been without, IMO.

0 Replies

Rufio wrote:

If a company fires all their employees and hires ones from India that work for cheaper, they aren't intentionally hurting anyone, and they're probably going to do everyone a favor in the end since we can all buy their stuff for cheaper now, but they've also put a ton of able-bodied people out of work because of nothing they did.

Where is it written that a person is entitled to a particular job, in perpetuity? If a firm can find a better way to do business, are they obliged to keep people who will hinder the growth of the business?

Over the years, as tastes and times change, people have had to adapt to new circumstances. What did the blacksmiths do, when automobiles supplanted horses and buggies? Would you suggest that Ford should not have made his cars, so that the blacksmiths could keep their jobs? If you think about it, your example is not that much different.

0 Replies

The only hinderance is their insistance that they are worth more than minimum wage. They could well be worth much more. What would have happened if Reardan had gotten laid off, when he was working a job like that in the ancient past? He'd never have gotten where he did, in all probability. In a way, Ford unbalanced things a little bit too - put people who were good at something out of a job while giving jobs to people who were merely good at working an assembly line. Who might have been able to gain real skills and get better-paying jobs, had the jobs been available. It's exactly the changing times and circumstances that are what make Objectivism an unlikely solution.

0 Replies

Yes Phoenix, it would be a riot watching the handwringers change their tune if the giants like Gates called it quits. Laughing

Rufio: Elitism is the wrong word. Atlas was originally slated to be named the "The Strike" because of all the captains of industry going on strike. The Fountainhead was loosely based on Frank Lloyd Wright. These are some pretty elite folks, so it wouldn't be realistic to cast them as ordinary. When the ideal you're pushing is "each according to his ability"; the cream will rise to the top... but let's be honest: Regardless of the ideal they will anyway. The big difference is when you cast off the burdens of "each according to his need" thoughts; there is nothing to feel guilty about for being elite. That truth had to be told, whether it hurts the Eddie Willers's or not.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

The only hinderance is their insistance that they are worth more than minimum wage. They could well be worth much more. What would have happened if Reardan had gotten laid off, when he was working a job like that in the ancient past? He'd never have gotten where he did, in all probability. In a way, Ford unbalanced things a little bit too - put people who were good at something out of a job while giving jobs to people who were merely good at working an assembly line. Who might have been able to gain real skills and get better-paying jobs, had the jobs been available. It's exactly the changing times and circumstances that are what make Objectivism an unlikely solution.

In an objectivist world, a guy like Hank would never be laid off as he is too valuable. Even if he were, a guy like Hank lands on his feet.

Jobs moving to India makes it tougher on Americans to find work, yes... by making it easier for other human beings to find work. That is an insane issue for anyone who considers him or herself liberal, benevolent or even mildly interested in helping the human race to take issue with. Those folks in New Delhi need any job they can get a hell of a lot worse than people in middle U.S.A. do. Restricting trade to protect "high paying" jobs is an obscenity if you look at both sides of the coin. If American's need unfair trade restrictions to maintain their superiority than they don't deserve to keep it anyway.

Ps. One of the better episodes of Dennis Miller will be showing at 12:00 Eastern time.

0 Replies

Before I go on with my critique, thanks for the welcome Very Happy

Quote:

Talk about a contradiction.

Not liking her philosophy and condemning it as evil are two different things. :wink:

Quote:

I don't think you understand what Rand means by selfish. I'm extremely selfish but I'm also as charitable as the next guy, I just view it a little differently. I don't give because you tell me you need it and I don't owe anybody anything. I give because I think people need help and it makes me feel better about me to do so. The deed is the same, and the reasoning isn't much different, but I've made a rational choice to help because I'd like to live in a world where everyone does.

It's Rand who did not understand the traditional meaning of selfish. If that is what she means, then it is self-interest and not "selfish". Selfishness to the ordinary person means doing what one wants without considering the other person involved, and taking advantage of others.
Even some objectivists would note that.

You say that giving people in need makes you feel better. I would say that if you only base your decision upon that alone, then that is more emotional than it is rational.

Yes, you use a form of reasoning to carry out your action but the basis behind your action is not rational. Objectivists claim that people know the truth by means of reason and hold it as the highest value, yet the basis behind their ethics does not have reason as its basis.

Quote:

If you listen to the church or your government or any other societal group out there you'll hear them tell you you should use your time and effort and the money you earn for the good of society. If you ever stop to think of how they view society it is generally them, first and foremost, and then everybody except you.

If that is so, then they have a misconception about society because as I see it, society includes EVERYONE.

Quote:

The most demanding persons are generally those who produce the least. Bill Gates is demonized as some kind of a monster by some. Strange treatment for the single greatest philanthropist on planet earth today, isn't it? Society thinks they're entitled to his wealth, with no recognition that it wouldn't exist without his effort.

And that defend the Randian argument how?

Quote:

Rand simply recognized the truth of selfishness in human beings. The Pope's house is every bit as grand as the President's and they're both in the same league as Mr. Bill Gates'. The difference is; that Bill Gates earned his.

Again, note the difference between self-interest and selfishness. I would not say that human beings are selfish. The psychological top point in human moral development is objective morality. Also, a mother who cares very much for her child is acting without selfishness as she is considerate of another person. The case that altruism exist diminishes the argument that people are all selfish.

Quote:

Now let's look at who should really be the role model, shall we? The United States Government is run by committees of do-gooders who've volunteered to represent society and mostly produce nothing. They live like royalty at the public's expense and look down their noses at the commoners in similar fashion. Meanwhile, it is the most wasteful entity humankind has ever known. World famous it is for overpaying and for underachieving. The church claims to have the morality of the human race in its philosophy yet the child molesting priests have created an ugly stain not bested since witch burning was abolished. They too live the high life at the public's expense. Now take a peak over at the selfish man; Bill Gates. His business is as successful as any before it, operates at a perpetual profit and I don't recall ever hearing about him doing anything heinous to children or anyone else. Furthermore, he's created countless thousands of jobs that have fed millions of mouths and he donates millions more on top of that. Hmmm. Somehow the selfish man doesn't seem so bad to me.

Generally politicians are hardly people's rolemodel :wink: . The priests and politicians you described ARE THE SELFISH PEOPLE no matter how much they try to rationalize their irrational actions. Rolling Eyes

Do you think they do the bad stuffs that they did for others? When a priest molests a child he is not being selfless, but is being selfish.

You have tried to present situations where you show your so-called selfish people in good light, however I have never seen any of you Randians to consider of situations where ignorant selfish people can be troublesome.

Let's take an example from history shall we? Hoover believed in complete Laissez-faire that even during the Great Depression when people are IN NEED OF HELP. Surely a selfish person would not help the other people given that their well being is secured. However, Keynes provide an economical argument: "spend the money". Roosevelt applied the principle and although his new deal did not significantly help the people, they were better off. If the government is selfish, then there would be an oppressive society as we have seen in the monarchies and dictatorships of the past.

0 Replies

One more thing. The rational ethical thing to do, in my opinion at least, is to act for everyone with "everyone" in consideration.

0 Replies

One more thing. The rational ethical thing to do, in my opinion at least, is to act for everyone with "everyone" in consideration. It is the rational middle ground between egoism and altruism. Peace. :wink:

0 Replies

Maybe in the objectivist world, Bill. But we don't live in an objectivist world. It doesn't matter if you have revolutionary ideas here. If someone hires you to sweep floors in a movie theater, you're worth just as much as everyone else who sweeps floors in a movie theater. It doesn't matter. There's no level playing field, because everyone else got there first. As a personal philosophy, Objectivism is a nice idea. As a social one, it's a nice fairy tale.

0 Replies

Ray, if you found that many things to disagree with in a single post, we're not likely to find common ground. Suffice to say, I disagree. :wink:

Rufio, what are you referencing with your last post. I'm not following you. Hank? Hank lands on his feet in the real world too. Go getters generally do.

0 Replies

Objections of Randian Objectivism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know