• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Objectivism debated seriously

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

acriticalcookie

Junior Member
As an objectivist, I've noticed that most people just laugh at Ayn Rand, however, I was wondering, what are your thoughts on objectivism as a philosophy? Is altruism/collectivism evil? Do men need to be rationally selfish individuals?
 
I don't know what an objectivist is. Probably a person who has hijacked a word. I would think though, that altruistic collectivism is rational self interest.
 
What little I've read about it leads me to believe that Objectivism is an extreme case of begging the question.
Per Wiki
Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, consciousness, and identity.[11] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[12] As Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff argued, Rand's argument for axioms "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[13]
Click to expand...

Those are ridiculous statements. Rand may define an axiom as a teacup, but that does not make it so. An axiom is an irreducible statement on which other arguments rely. That does not make it knowledge. Further Peikoff states that her axioms aren't proof and so it's not possible to attack them, then claims they are "a basis of knowledge and thus inescapable". Again no. That they are a basis for a position is absolutely true, but that's not what he says. He claims "knowledge" which he cannot have access to.

It's a house of cards built upon a shaky table of validation by self reference.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
What little I've read about it leads me to believe that Objectivism is an extreme case of begging the question.
Per Wiki


Those are ridiculous statements. Rand may define an axiom as a teacup, but that does not make it so. An axiom is an irreducible statement on which other arguments rely. That does not make it knowledge. Further Peikoff states that her axioms aren't proof and so it's not possible to attack them, then claims they are "a basis of knowledge and thus inescapable". Again no. That they are a basis for a position is absolutely true, but that's not what he says. He claims "knowledge" which he cannot have access to.

It's a house of cards built upon a shaky table of validation by self reference.
Click to expand...

I always wound up with everything I tried to find truth in, with some basic unexamined assumption. Only in Zen did I find a teaching that claimed to have no place to hang ones hat or place ones foot, that could begin only with an empty tea cup. Saved my life.
 
I think the flaw in Randian objectivism is to suppose that people at large are capable of acting with rational self-interest all the time. I'll happily stipulate the world would be a better place if it were true that they could, but I don't think one could rationally claim that they can.
 
Objectivism in my opinion is as much a flawed utopian ideal that only works in some sort of bizzaro world as pure Communism is.

There are situations in the real world that neither can properly address.




....
 
Balance truly is the answer.
in the conflict of the benefit of the individual vs the benefit of society as a whole, one must understand they are symbiosis in nature.

When the entire society is better as a whole, that is to the benefit of every individual, and whenever society is worse as a whole, that is to the detriment of the individual.
The strong must strengthen the weak, for the weak weaken the strong. However when the society itself becomes too much the center of value itself, all the individuals weaken in mediocrity.

However, what benefits society also is detrimental to the individual, and what is beneficial to the individual is detrimental to the individual. When the strong become too strong, they divert and hoard resources which are necessary for the weak. And when the weak become too weak, there is often a criminal undercurrent of self preservation built on preying on the rest of society.

These things will always be in conflict, and a balance between self and community must be found and maintained to the benefit of all.
 
acriticalcookie said:
As an objectivist, I've noticed that most people just laugh at Ayn Rand, however, I was wondering, what are your thoughts on objectivism as a philosophy? Is altruism/collectivism evil? Do men need to be rationally selfish individuals?
Click to expand...

IME, Objectivism is usually used by assholes to defend their asshole behavior.

Is Altruism evil?

Think about what you're asking, is doing good evil? Unless we're redefining altruism or evil into something that isn't their accepted definition then Altruism can't be evil.

Do men need to be rationally selfish individuals?

NO! Men do need to be rational, but think about rational selfishness and bring it to it's natural conclusion. When people argue about rational selfishness they assume that they'll be be the bullies on top, but there can only be so many people on top, and unless you currently have that power, then you ain't going to be top bully. If you're someone's slave, it's in the slave-owner's rational best-interest to exploit you as much as possible. And you can't do a thing about it because your slave-owner has all the power. And there is no selfishly rational reason for him not to treat you like shit.

Let's look at pollution or something like using up resources and apply rationally selfish thought. Let's say Global warming is real, but by the time Earth is ruined I'll be dead. Why should I do anything to prevent Global Warming? The earth being destroyed happens far in the future and doesn't affect me at all. The tragedy of the commons is another example of where rational selfishness's fails. Lets say there is miles and miles of timber out there. I can cut tree's down and in a hundred years all the trees will be gone. I probably won't live for another 100 years, so why not cut down all the trees?

The problem with Rational Selfishism is that it gets rid of all morals, replacing it with the only rule being "don't get caught". If I can cheat and not get caught then why shouldn't I? If I can break the rules and not get caught why not break the rules?
 
Her ideas about Morals seems to be where the wheels fall off her Philosophy. It seems like the pure Relativism that Theists usually assume Atheists adhere to, which is entirely incorrect for many reasons, but that's another discussion.

The idea that Morals stem from an Individuals pursuit of (rational)self-interest isn't something a Society can exist around. There has to be a component to the Moral system that includes those around the Individual, to prevent Individuals from violating other Individuals Interests. At the very least.

Disclaimer: My understanding of Objectivism consists of 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia, so....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top