Objectiveism is built on false premises.

[eric922]

I haven't read it all, so I could be wrong, but I've read and listened to some excepts from John Galt's final speech, and it seems to me there are a lot of holes in it. For starters the idea that all of the most intelligent and creative men in history have been motivated by greed is a lie. Eisenstein for example was a socialist as was Orwell. Did Newton strive for wealth? No, he sought understanding but wealth and power were not his aim. Also the idea that if the wealthy just left and society would collapse is laughable. If they all decided to "Go Galt" the world would keep turning, because those who truly create real progress are not interested in wealth for wealth's sake. Think of the physicist who spends his days in a laboratory trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, he does not seek wealth, but knowledge. As for industry, I'm sure the workers, the real Atlases, will be fine without giving their money to CEOs. Also, who the real do these "Galters" think buys their products and supplies them with food and other necessities?

[ComradeMan]

I haven't read it all,

So you can't be objective.
:rolleyes:

[graymouser]

The false premise of objectivism is that human life is best served by egoism, when man is actually by nature a social animal. By failing to recognize this, Rand's egoism actually creates a philosophy which is aggressively antisocial, indeed downright sociopathic - one cannot read Roark in The Fountainhead or the glee of the tobacco-smoking, dollar-loving denizens of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged without feeling a palpable hatred of society.

Rand was really just a sort of mediocre vulgarizer of certain aspects of Nietzsche, as much as she and her imitators want to deny it. Her current popularity is due to the fact that the ruling class really is downright sociopathic today and so her ideas have a certain currency with them and their would-be hangers-on.

[danyboy27]

Indeed, i just finished listening the science program on cbc radio and one of their pieces was about the in-law and the evolution of man.

One of the determining factor of our evolution is the bond we created with groups of people who wherent in our initial family, those bond favorised the sharing of multiples ideas and helped the evolution and the survival of the mankind.

[Sadena Meti]

Indeed, i just finished listening the science program on cbc radio and one of their pieces was about the in-law and the evolution of man.

One of the determining factor of our evolution is the bond we created with groups of people who weren't in our initial family, those bond favoritized the sharing of multiples ideas and helped the evolution and the survival of the mankind.

This is part of in-group / out-group evolution, which goes back to early primates, and has been so well documented in Chimpanzees by Jane Goodall. Within the in-group, a chimp learns to separate grain from sand. It then spreads through the in-group. One chimp defects to an out-group, and slowly teaches them the trick. This is an actual documented case on some island.

[Sadena Meti]

Did Newton strive for wealth? No, he sought understanding but wealth and power were not his aim.

First, it's objectivism, though I'll let that slide because you won't find it in every dictionary. I just get peeved at people that don't use while-typing spell check, especially for the title.

Second, onto Newton. Newton was a fan of wealth, and he devoted years of his life to countering counterfeiting! He set records for the number of arrests he made. Weird but true.

[Purple]

The way I see it, the 'egoism' part of Objectivism, as mostly dicated by Ayn Rand, is more or less a 'Theory of Everything', whereas it is completely useless because it can be applied to anything. For example, if a person would join a communist party, egoists might argue that the only reason why a person would join a communist party is because of the self-gratification derived from it. However, a Marxist(or neo-Marxist) might argue that it manifest a desire on the side of the worker to join in the fight against the owners of the means of production, etc.

However, I would credit the neo-Marxists to draw Marxism away from the "Theory of Everything" paradigm, and into something more tangible.

[Ocean Seal]

Objectivism is not based on false premises, it is based on no premises. I will award "thanks" points to the first person who can actually find me anything which marks the relevant science behind objectivism or the libertarian capitalist philosophy.

[Imposter Marxist]

Objectivism is not based on false premises, it is based on no premises. I will award "thanks" points to the first person who can actually find me anything which marks the relevant science behind objectivism or the libertarian capitalist philosophy.


Not to mention they deny the law of relativity. :D

[Rooster]

I had a relationship with a ranroid years ago. Ah... good times. Nothing like a good argument. She claimed all sorts of stupid shit even when evidence shows other wise. One thing that she claimed was that slaves built the pyriamds. Like you know, in the movies. Whips and all that. She carried around a small Ayn Rand book with her at all times. Well she did until I threw it into a river. Crazy person. I used to trip her up all the time by making her secretly agree to existenialist ideas (even when she claimed she was very much opposed to them). I personally think she had some deep seated father issues causing some sort of inferiority complex. But what do I know?

[Bud Struggle]

The false premise of objectivism is that human life is best served by egoism, when man is actually by nature a social animal.

I don't think either of those premises are correct. Man is whatever he becomes when he thrown into any particular situation. Man is social when he is confronted by a nation or a Community or a society.

There is nothing "natural" to that state.

[RED DAVE]

I wrote this many years ago, and I posted it in one form or another every once in awhile. Apologies of you've read it. By the way, I notice no one around here has mentioned the movie version of "Atlas Shrugged," which just came out. Probably, we should take up a collection to send some one to see it and then send the on a well-deserved vacation somewhere pleasant. From all accounts, it's as bad as one would expect it to be.

Anyway:


Sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s two similar books were published. One was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and the other was Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by John Cleland. The former is an immensely long (I think it's longer than War and Peace), silly book by a crack-pot, philosopher-novelist. The latter is a late-Enlightenment picaresque dirty novel more commonly known as Fanny Hill.

Both are stroke books. Both appeal to the feverish sensibilities of 17-year-old males and not very sophisticated ones at that. (Sophisticated guys back then were reading Crime and Punishment and de Sade's novels.) Anyone who takes Ayn Rand's book (or the rest of her work) seriously is still engaging in a wank, whether political, philosophical, literary or economic (this last variety is currently quite popular, endless porn on the Internet notwithstanding). Anyone using Cleland's book for what it was obvious written for is engaged in an honest act.

For readers much past 17, neither book has much merit. But both are good for some kind of a jerk-off, should you choose to indulge. I confess to have wasted a few hours when I was young and foolish trying to read Atlas Shrugged. Its style places it somewhere around the average woman's magazine fiction of its day such as appeared in Woman's Home Companion. I gave it up after about page 25. Fanny Hill was a more constant companion when I was still too uptight to approach the opposite sex.

No one has ever taken Cleland's book seriously (although any book banned for 200 years can't be all bad). But, incredibly, people did and do take Ayn Rand so. I saw her once at NYU, about 1962. She was a shrill, unfortunately mean-looking woman (her photographs don't do her justice: she looked like the Wicked Witch of the West's ugly sister). She was not well received politically when she dismissed the Civil Rights Movement as a violation of the right of employers to discriminate!

Nor was her fervent advocacy of the cause of some GE executives just jailed for price fixing on a massive scale received with much sympathy, nor was her complicity with McCarthyism, which was noted by speakers from the floor. A few months later her boy-toy Nathaniel Branden made an appearance. He was better looking, but his presentation of the philosophy of Objectivism didn't exactly set off fireworks.

Nowadays, Rand's various works are somewhat the rage. As long as self-indulgence, selfishness, racism and other neat stuff is popular, Rand will be read. How can you argue with Alan Greenspan's favorite scribe? Bill Gates probably has a copy of Atlas Shrugged by his bed like Stalin had a copy of Machiavelli.

Me, if I want to go that route I prefer Fanny Hill.RED DAVE

[Rooster]

Objectivism just reminds me of scientology for some reason.

[RED DAVE]

Objectivism just reminds me of scientology for some reason.http://www.revleft.com/vb/read-and-lol-t132824/index.html?p=1718186&highlight=wicked+witch#post1718186

RED DAVE

[Bud Struggle]

Objectivism just reminds me of scientology for some reason.

And Trotskyism.

[RED DAVE]

And Trotskyism.April Fools Day was three weeks ago. Why are you still being a fool?

The truth:

THE FLOATING HEAD OF AYN RAND (http://www.saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/ayn_rand/)

RED DAVE

[Rooster]

And Trotskyism.

Nuh-uh, oh no you di'in't!

[MattShizzle]

Rand was a lunatic. I minored in Philosophy and one of the professors assigned one of her writings. He apologised the next day and said it was just "a rant." Objectivism is a terrible idea. Libertarians tend to like her. I tend to agree with them on most non-economic issues but STRONGLY disagree with them on economic issues.

[RGacky3]

Talk to Libertarians or Randians long enough and you'll realize most of them have serious contempt issues and adoration of power to a point that it almost would be a psycological problem.

[MattShizzle]

I've heard some of them say even the police, fire companies and roads should be privatized. These of the sort of people who are fine with there being a few people who can afford anything they want, a somewhat larger group who are relatively comfortable, while most people are very poor and some even starve. They pretty much have the idea "why should that me my problem?" That borders on sociopathic.

[Sadena Meti]

I've heard some of them say even the police, fire companies and roads should be privatized. These of the sort of people who are fine with there being a few people who can afford anything they want, a somewhat larger group who are relatively comfortable, while most people are very poor and some even starve. They pretty much have the idea "why should that me my problem?" That borders on sociopathic.

Police have been privatized. Armed security forces for gated communities allowed to use lethal force.

Fire departments were originally privatized, in the United States at least. Sometimes they were no better than gangs, extorting money from the building owner before they would put out the blaze (which they usually didn't anyway).

Roads, roads, hmm... well, in England they are selling off the toll gates on a number of the bridges in London in order to quick raise cash. That is effectively privatizing them. Tolls are nothing new, but they usually go to the state. Now a private company can say "Pay up or you can't use the Seven Bridge." The bridge being something the people payed for in the first place.

[RGacky3]

They pretty much have the idea "why should that me my problem?" That borders on sociopathic.

To which I say, then why should anyone care about your "property rights"?

[RED DAVE]

I tend to agree with them on most non-economic issues ... .:confused:

RED DAVE

[MattShizzle]

I mean things like what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business. I'm talking about the ones who aren't just pure right wingers using the name for whatever reason. IE I'm pro-choice, anti-religious, against laws restricting speech, pornography, etc. In other words I'm on the political left on virtually every issue.

[Tim Finnegan]

The false premise of objectivism is that human life is best served by egoism, when man is actually by nature a social animal. By failing to recognize this, Rand's egoism actually creates a philosophy which is aggressively antisocial, indeed downright sociopathic - one cannot read Roark in The Fountainhead or the glee of the tobacco-smoking, dollar-loving denizens of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged without feeling a palpable hatred of society.
Wait, what? :confused:

[La Comédie Noire]

Wait, what? :confused:

If you ever have the misfortune of reading Ayn Rand you'll find someone lights up a cigarette every five minutes.

[RED DAVE]

Apparently the latest Randoid movie, Atlas Shit, is going nowhere at the box office. About6 $2 million in two weeks.

RED DAVE

[graymouser]

Wait, what? :confused:
Ha, yeah. In Atlas Shrugged the description of John Galt's cigarettes (with gold dollar signs on them - no joke!) are almost pornographic in their love of tobacco. Smoking may have killed Ayn Rand, but she damn well enjoyed every last coffin nail. More hilarity here (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged/Things#Cigarettes_with_Gold_Dollar_Sign). It always struck me as a sign of her phenomenal short-sightedness.

[MattShizzle]

iirc Rand once heaped praise on a child rapist/killer. She was a real piece of work.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ha, yeah. In Atlas Shrugged the description of John Galt's cigarettes (with gold dollar signs on them - no joke!) are almost pornographic in their love of tobacco. Smoking may have killed Ayn Rand, but she damn well enjoyed every last coffin nail. More hilarity here (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged/Things#Cigarettes_with_Gold_Dollar_Sign). It always struck me as a sign of her phenomenal short-sightedness.
Heh, it says that Rand used cigarettes to symbolise capitalism. There's an inadvertent truth to that, I think. ;)

[MattShizzle]

One causes cancer, the other is a cancer.

[RGacky3]

One HUGE false premis that Objectivism is built on is the fact that property rights are natural, that people just respect property rights naturally, which is the whole damn basis of capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

Apparently the latest Randoid movie, Atlas Shit, is going nowhere at the box office. About6 $2 million in two weeks.

RED DAVE

Great Job, Movie Critics: ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Producer Scrapping Plans For Pt. 2 & 3, Blames Reviews (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/great_job_movie_critics_atlas_shrugged_producer_sc rapping_plans_for_pt._2_3/)

[Nunt]

I haven't read it all, so I could be wrong, but I've read and listened to some excepts from John Galt's final speech, and it seems to me there are a lot of holes in it. For starters the idea that all of the most intelligent and creative men in history have been motivated by greed is a lie. Eisenstein for example was a socialist as was Orwell. Did Newton strive for wealth? No, he sought understanding but wealth and power were not his aim. Also the idea that if the wealthy just left and society would collapse is laughable. If they all decided to "Go Galt" the world would keep turning, because those who truly create real progress are not interested in wealth for wealth's sake. Think of the physicist who spends his days in a laboratory trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, he does not seek wealth, but knowledge. As for industry, I'm sure the workers, the real Atlases, will be fine without giving their money to CEOs. Also, who the real do these "Galters" think buys their products and supplies them with food and other necessities?
Have you noticed that you started your argument by saying "not everyone is motivated by greed" but then later you are arguing that "not everyone is motivated by a thirst for wealth".

Those are of course not the same thing. The physicist can be motivated by a search for understanding, care nothing for money and still be greedy. You can be greedy for many things: money, power, understanding, being liked etc. I think Rand uses a very broad definition of greed. You are greedy when you do something you like, when you obtain the things that you value. Such a broad definition of greed includes some things that we normally would not label as greedy. For example: "a mother that starves herself to feed her child because she values the life of the child more than her own", is still greedy. She is greedy because she obtains what she values most i.e. the life of her child. In daily discourse most people would probably label this behavior as unselfish, so I can understand your confusing. But if you really want to understand what Rand meant, you should use this broad definition of greed/selfishness.

Also Rand never says that people are always greedy. People can (claim to be) selfless. It would be a waste of time for Rand to write a book that people should be greedy when she assumes that by definition everyone is greedy. What she does try to do is argue that being selfish is not wrong. That the value of what you have accomplished is not dimished by the fact that you enjoyed the act yourself. For example: Some people may say: "you helped a homeless guy, but you only did it to feel better about yourself, so you didnt do a good thing", Rand would say: "You enjoyed helping a homeless guy, so it is a good thing"


The false premise of objectivism is that human life is best served by egoism, when man is actually by nature a social animal.
You could also say: man is by nature a social animal, so he likes/needs/values social interaction with others. Social interaction is in his best interest. A selfish individual would try to make friends, be nice to them. Following your own nature is a selfish act. Of course, you should again use the broad interpretation of selfishness I have explained above. Stabbing a friend in the back for money would not be a selfish/greedy act for me, because I prefer having a friend over some money.



The way I see it, the 'egoism' part of Objectivism, as mostly dicated by Ayn Rand, is more or less a 'Theory of Everything', whereas it is completely useless because it can be applied to anything. For example, if a person would join a communist party, egoists might argue that the only reason why a person would join a communist party is because of the self-gratification derived from it. However, a Marxist(or neo-Marxist) might argue that it manifest a desire on the side of the worker to join in the fight against the owners of the means of production, etc.

However, I would credit the neo-Marxists to draw Marxism away from the "Theory of Everything" paradigm, and into something more tangible.
I agree. Rands definition of selfishness could be applied to most (if not all) human behavior. But I don't think that that makes her ideas useless. Because she does more than just describe human behavior. She tries to create a moral theory i.e. how we should value human behavior. If someone does something because he likes doing it, than the fact that he himself values that action makes the action valuable. She contrasts this with the idea that: "you can only create value if you do something not for yourself, but for someone else."



One HUGE false premis that Objectivism is built on is the fact that property rights are natural, that people just respect property rights naturally, which is the whole damn basis of capitalism.
You are right to say that Objectivism assumes natural rights. But you then continue to say that natural rights are automatically respected. Those are of course not the same. No objectivist believes that natural rights are automatically respected. The whole reason to write books such as Atlas Shrugged is because natural rights are frequently violated.

Natural rights can be violated, but they can't be taken away. For example, if we assume that the right to live is a natural right. Then murder can still be committed. But we can say to the murderer: "you have violated someone's rights, your actions are morally wrong". If the right to live was not a natural right, but a right granted by an instititution, e.g. the government, who can also take away that right. If the government takes away your right to live and then kills you. Then nobody's rights were violated. The government did not do something wrong and we could not condemn the action.


Okay, this was my first post on this forum. And it is quite a lenghty one, put more effort in it than I wouldve liked. Being a member of an opposing ideology, I do hope my reception here will not be too hostile. I have quoted some people here and disagreed with them. I have learned from experience that this may sometimes come across harshly, however no such meaning was intended. A friendly hello to you all.

[#FF0000]

Rand would say: "You enjoyed helping a homeless guy, so it is a good thing"

I don't think so, to be totally honest. She pretty clearly stated in some interviews that "the weak are not worthy of love". Helping a homeless person would be an evil thing in her mind.

Anyway, I think the biggest problem most people (not just us!) have with Rand's philosophy is her use of the word "selfish" or "greedy". We don't have a problem with saying people are self-interested (In our view, working people should act in their own self-interest and overthrow the ruling class!), but there's a difference between being self-interested and being concerned with one's personal or individual desires to the point where it's self-destructive or actually harmful to others.

[Rooster]

I don't think so, to be totally honest. She pretty clearly stated in some interviews that "the weak are not worthy of love". Helping a homeless person would be an evil thing in her mind.

Anyway, I think the biggest problem most people (not just us!) have with Rand's philosophy is her use of the word "selfish" or "greedy". We don't have a problem with saying people are self-interested (In our view, working people should act in their own self-interest and overthrow the ruling class!), but there's a difference between being self-interested and being concerned with one's personal or individual desires to the point where it's self-destructive or actually harmful to others.

I'm sure everything that Rand wrote about was supposed to be diametrically opposed to everything that Lenin (and communists) believed in. No matter what. Leading it to contradictions and blind spots to Rand's own personal grudge against being kicked out of Russia.

[Nunt]

I don't think so, to be totally honest. She pretty clearly stated in some interviews that "the weak are not worthy of love". Helping a homeless person would be an evil thing in her mind.
Depends on how you define weak. I think if you really believe that the homeless guy deserves help, if you think his life is valuable even if he is homeless, then helping him serves your values, and should be a good thing according to Objectivism.

This is how I interpret Rand anyway. We can't ask her anymore. If she indeed believed what you say, then I would disagree with her.


Anyway, I think the biggest problem most people (not just us!) have with Rand's philosophy is her use of the word "selfish" or "greedy". We don't have a problem with saying people are self-interested (In our view, working people should act in their own self-interest and overthrow the ruling class!), but there's a difference between being self-interested and being concerned with one's personal or individual desires to the point where it's self-destructive or actually harmful to others. It's ok if your behavior is harmful to others as long as you don't violate your natural rights. So you can be selfish by starting a competing company, that would harm the other guys, but thats ok. You can be selfish by stealing someones money, that would not be ok. So there is a line between the actions you can and can't take.

I would agree that its probably better to use 'in your own self interest' rather than selfish. Because the term selfish gives the idea that it is always against the self interest of others. Which is of course not the case. If you have common interests you can work together towards that goal. But thats just semantics.

Even your people's revolution harms someone. You could call the people selfish because in their revolution they are destructive and harmful to the ruling class. But I guess thats ok. So you would agree that not all self interested behavior that is harmful for someone else is wrong?

[RED DAVE]

Following your own nature is a selfish act.Only if you have a definition of selfishness so broad as to be meaningless.

...


Rands definition of selfishness could be applied to most (if not all) human behavior.And therefore, it's meaningless.


But I don't thinkThat's right; you don't think.


that that makes her ideas useless.If you enjoy self-centeredness, sadism and a lack of caring for other people, she's very useful.


Because she does more than just describe human behavior.She sure as shit did. She established a racist, right-wing milieu that persists to the day.


She tries to create a moral theory i.e. how we should value human behavior. If someone does something because he likes doing it, than the fact that he himself values that action makes the action valuable.So, I guess, if I torture a child to death, because I like doing it, it's valuable.

By the way, Rand herself idealizes a murderer who tortured a young girl to death.


She contrasts this with the idea that: "you can only create value if you do something not for yourself, but for someone else."So she was a dumb shit and didn't understand normal human motivation. She was also a nicotine and speed junky.


You are right to say that Objectivism assumes natural rights.Which is a completely indefensible belief.

But you then continue to say that natural rights are automatically respected. Those are of course not the same. No objectivist believes that natural rights are automatically respected. The whole reason to write books such as Atlas Shrugged is because natural rights are frequently violated.[/quote]Nothing "natural" can, by definition be violated, unless you have the dumb idea that huamnith is not "natural."


Natural rights can be violated, but they can't be taken away.Of course they can be taken away. Any dictatorship routinely deprives people ov almoswt all of their rights.


For example, if we assume that the right to live is a natural right. Then murder can still be committed. But we can say to the murderer: "you have violated someone's rights, your actions are morally wrong". If the right to live was not a natural right, but a right granted by an instititution, e.g. the government, who can also take away that right.Happens all the time.


If the government takes away your right to live and then kills you. Then nobody's rights were violated. The government did not do something wrong and we could not condemn the action.You are completely muddling the concept of rights. Rights are a function of society, not nature, if nature is defined as "the physical world in the absence of humanity."

As society changes, so do rights. The struggle for rights is the struggle of mankind for freedom. For Rand, at base, there was only one right: the right to fuck someone else over if you can get away for it.


Okay, this was my first post on this forum.Better luck next time.


And it is quite a lenghty one, put more effort in it than I wouldve liked.Well, then, I guess, in your terms, you violated your own self interest.


Being a member of an opposing ideology, I do hope my reception here will not be too hostile.did you expect a hug. You people have just inflicted "Atlas Shrugged" on mankind.


I have quoted some people here and disagreed with them. I have learned from experience that this may sometimes come across harshly, however no such meaning was intended. A friendly hello to you all.Hi.

RED DAVE

[#FF0000]

did you expect a hug. You people have just inflicted "Atlas Shrugged" on mankind.

Let's not pin this on him. Nunt just seems like a libertarian. No need to lump him in with them.

[Nunt]

Stupid of me to expect anything else than a line by line dissection of my post telling me how stupid and wrong I am. I can see that I am not welcome here. I will respect your wishes and not return to this forum again. No point in continuing a "You're wrong! No you're wrong!" conversation.

[RED DAVE]

Stupid of me to expect anything else than a line by line dissection of my post telling me how stupid and wrong I am. I can see that I am not welcome here. I will respect your wishes and not return to this forum again. No point in continuing a "You're wrong! No you're wrong!" conversation.Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, cry baby.

RED DAVE

[RGacky3]

You are right to say that Objectivism assumes natural rights. But you then continue to say that natural rights are automatically respected. Those are of course not the same. No objectivist believes that natural rights are automatically respected. The whole reason to write books such as Atlas Shrugged is because natural rights are frequently violated.

Natural rights can be violated, but they can't be taken away. For example, if we assume that the right to live is a natural right. Then murder can still be committed. But we can say to the murderer: "you have violated someone's rights, your actions are morally wrong". If the right to live was not a natural right, but a right granted by an instititution, e.g. the government, who can also take away that right. If the government takes away your right to live and then kills you. Then nobody's rights were violated. The government did not do something wrong and we could not condemn the action.


Okay, this was my first post on this forum. And it is quite a lenghty one, put more effort in it than I wouldve liked. Being a member of an opposing ideology, I do hope my reception here will not be too hostile. I have quoted some people here and disagreed with them. I have learned from experience that this may sometimes come across harshly, however no such meaning was intended. A friendly hello to you all.

yeah, but how is capitalist property a "natural right?" thats something that you enforce, on other people.