Rand

[elijahcraig]

What critiques can you present of this, I think, idiotic mode of thought?

This is taken from an “Essentials of Objectivism” at http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html


Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:

“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”

The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:

Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.



Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Esthetics
“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself — not as a means to any further end.”

Look at some of the topics on this page for an example of the idiocy of the Randian mode of thought:

http://www.aynrand.org/

[Shredder]

Actually, that excerpt made Rand seem more appealing than what I've ever read of her before, and moreover, than what I've read of her followers.

It's still full of errors and contradictions, and, as with most arguments in favor of capitalism, ultimately requires me to put blind faith into the idea that the market is magically better than a planned economy that mimics it at worst.

My favorite bit of nonsense is the "human nature" part. It basically makes no sense at all, but from what I gather it is assuming that man is a being of "volitional consciousness" and thus can choose what he wants to be simply by choosing to be it. Thus, if I want to be an elephant in a parade, then I will become an elephant in a parade. Naturally, the entire segment explains nothing, since it can't explain the origin of this "volitional consciousness," this "human nature," and only defines it with more undefined terms.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:24 AM
What critiques can you present of this, I think, idiotic mode of thought?

Ok:


Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

This can sound very Marxist.
Anyway, the idea is not very complete: what happens if the reality we "perceive" is biased, or is not the whole reality? If we take a look at people discussing we will notice that it seems this existance exists: "people have different ideas and percieve the world on a different way". If the objectinazis agree that this is real, then it means that they are wrong because of the fact that people percieve a different reality, and they can only change this by saying that the others are "evading reality" and only they are right, which will mean that either they are biased, or that they think that only what they see is right, or that they are the ones evading that people's senses have told them one thing. But, as they aren't objectivists, then they are surely worng! This is stupid and contradictory.
And if they disagree, it means they can't see that people have different ideas, so the ones that are mistaken are themselves! And they can't explain why such a thing as this internet forums exist, at least without showing that they are close-minded or that they only recognize as the truth what they feel.


Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

I don't really have a problem with this excepting for what I mentioned above. Plus I do think this people is very "mysticist" and have too much faith in their views and "reasoning".


Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

That's a very stupid justification which attemps to make man look like some God who can do everything he wants, and ignores poverty and nature. It looks like a stupid attemp to justify capitalism. It's as stupid as thinking that a person who was born without legs can walk, which would contradict what they said above. But they will claim that "objective nature and reason makes us know he can't", which would go against the part where they reject determinism because it is "the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)". It comes back to the original point, so it doesnt really let us know "reality by our reasoning". It seems the objectnazis reject many facts of the "objective reality" or think about them as "beatable by human nature", thus they contradict themselves. They first argue that "Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality", but then think that by "making choices" you can "determines your life and character.” :rolleyes:


Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

I think Ayn Rand is imposing us capitalism: "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." I think this rejects the fact the people might enjoy helping other people because it makes them feel good about themselves and maybe because it makes them productive/happy/entertained/etc. That might be on one of the "altruist"'s "self interest". And there would be no point for helping others if it doesnt help or benefit the one giving help in some way.


Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

That's crap. It denies the existance of anarchism, it ignores that capitalism is not the only system where people can "must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit", it thinks that people "have rights", but it ignores the fact that those rights should be given "by society", which is a different thing that the state. Plus rights should be equal to everyone, so then how can they explain that many humans are born with almost nothing but others do and for some reason they are "exceptional successful entrepeneurs that worked hard"? "Government intervention and socialist policies"????? This looks to me as just another attemp of justifying capitalism, but the one who claims that by "freeing the markets" people become rich all of a sudden. It's a ridiculously flawed "philosophy" that thinks that it is the answer to every single question, and ignores that the answers this people gives is biased and only limited to what THEY feel, reason, etc., as if they became some kind of god all of a sudden, after reading "the fountainshit" (a boring, long book i couldn't end reading where although there are some things I agree with, the rest is very boring).


The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence.

The purpose of art is representing something that doesn't necessarilly concretizes the artist's fundamental view of existence".

There's a lot to criticize. I think they have some good ideas anyway, but to claim that objectivism is the answer to everything, as they seem to suggest, that's exagerating.