Ayn Rand

[Field Marshal]

http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/video_io.html

I was talking to my friend, who believes in objectivism as being the most liberal of all philosophies and what not. But from other people I have heard that Objectivism is as fascist as it gets. I watched the two videos (you have to register, just fake it) and I wanted to know what you guys think. Is Ayn Rand's theory obsolete, or is it the future, and what do you think of this philosophy?

[Valkyrie]

Selfish, self-centered, egotism-- obsolete? Not as yet my friend. Ayn Rand is bad news. Good thing she's dead.

[TheDerminator]

Ayn Rand:
"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

Nope, reality is subjectively determined. It is the complex eccentric development of society.

The latter is reflected in uneven development and in a large variety of cultures through out the world.

" 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival."

Reason? Who's reason? Consciousness is the appropiate word, and which form of consciousness is the question!

"3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Dreadful stuff. An extreme individualistic interpretation of Kant's dictum that people are ends not just a means.
We must as individuals possess a social responsibility, and this is not a "sacrifice" but an extension of our freedom, because it is this possession of social responsibility which guarantees freedoms for all, and not just a select.
Rand makes the lowest selfish pursuit the highest "moral" pursuit. Immoral philosophy rather than moral philosophy.
" 4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

I'll crack the jokes!
The "rights" are the select exploitative rights of a select. It is possible to become part of that select, but it is not the right of the poor to be a member of the select. "Just because it is a right does not make it right"! - Willian Saffire.

The "trade" is a one-side trade for the benifit of the BORGS and for those other capable of becoming traders.

The policeman protects the rights of the select, against the rights of the mass majority in the world who do not belong to that select.

Rand is a "free-marketeer" hence the complete separation of the State from economics.

The market isn't running the military! It will take all the hand outs it can get from the government on that level!

Not even Tory's in the UK would try to get re-elected by replacing the British Welfare State with the American model. They will take bits piece meal, that more acceptable, but they know the British have long memories, and what occured in Britain before WWII is not going go down be acceptable to the electorate in some upgraded form.

The large majority in the United States have swallowed to the tripe of Rand wholesale, but in Britain it is the stuff the Tories are only able to soft sell at this point in time.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff and a summation of his Summary on "Objectivism"

"The base of Objectivism is explicit: [He quotes Rand] "Existence exists — and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

Not always the case as El Che would rightly point out, sometimes perceptions deceive consciousness. It is not perceptions which create judgement values, but rather judgement values in consciousness give us an understanding of what is mediated by our perceptions.

"Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance."

This is more or less correct, but it is not Rand, it is Descartes! I think therefore, I am. Any consciousness proves existence! The less correct bit, is the statement "Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception" Nope, El Che would have a field day with this bottom drawer stuff. How can U say that of a perception which does not exist, and some people do not possess some functional perception organs. It would be better to say perception requires conscious existence, but it is only a trite truism.

"...Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing’s actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is."

It is simplistic. Some events contain the necessary chance, and all chance has its own causation. Who's law of causuality? Sure as hell is not mine! Sounds like they made it up as they went along!

A things actions? No chance? No room for accident creating actions. Absolute tripe. Dogma. Why the hell not? What it is, is the effect of an accident becoming a cause in itself and producing other effects.
She sees a simple cause -> effect relationship. Ought to be the realm of management fishbone diagrams, not the realm of philosophy!

" Men learn from others, they build on the work of their predecessors, they achieve by cooperation feats that would be impossible on a desert island. But all such social relationships require the exercise of the human faculty of cognition; they depend on the solitary individual, “solitary” in the primary, inner sense of the term, the sense of a man facing reality firsthand, seeking not to crucify himself on the cross of others or to accept their word as an act of faith, but to understand, to connect, to know."

An extremely individualistic interpretation of the role of the individual in history. Rand supersedes the social being with the primacy of the "solitary" thinker. We are isolated in our own consciousness, but the primacy is in our historical grounding. It determines the level of our consciousness. We are not born in a timeless vacuum.

There is some primacy, but this is only in relation to invention, and that is the sphere where the individual contributes most to the development of human culture, but it is still invention in a specific historical epoch.

"Man’s mind requires selfishness, and so does his life in every aspect: a living organism has to be the beneficiary of its own actions. It has to pursue specific objects — for itself, for its own sake and survival. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss; achievement, not renunciation; self-preservation, not self-sacrifice. Man can choose to value and pursue self-immolation, but he cannot survive or prosper by such a method."

More dreadful stuff! The justification for being a selfish bastard!
Only its own sake, only its own survival. Don't give a fuck for everyone else, is the essence. The gaining of values? These crap values? All depends on what the fucking values are. No loss in loss these crummy values!

Achieve what? Achieve evil! Renunciate what? Renunciate ethical humanity in socialist philosophy? No, they never considered that one!

Self-preservation? At who's loss?

Self-sacrifice? Never heard of Jesus Christ on the cross these bastards! Oops, they have, just thought he was a sucker!

Man can choose?

On what basis? Self-immolation might be an earner for a family!

Returning to Rand the "Essentials of Objectivism"

Metaphysics

"Objective Reality = Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" = Humans slave to nature, selfish survival of the fittest = fascistic social Darwinism.

"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"

Mostly erroneous: forms of human consciousness are apart of reality, and help create the conditions of reality. There is no "objective reality" only subjective historical development. We create objectification of reality in conscious analytical methodology.

Facts are facts? I would want to hear Rands version of the facts! There is a grain of truth, and that is U cannot argue with the objective truth, though El Che wrongly denies the possibility of the latter.

Epistemology

"Reason = You can’t eat your cake and have it, too."
= Tell it to the the "underclass" in the United States! = Absolute lie!

"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)."

On what basis? The faculty is purely subjective, if it possess no objective methodology in order to objectify reality and Rand does not. The "reason" is a fait accompli reason without method. Is the method sad symbolic logic?

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."
Pol Pot and Hitler? Choice? On what basis is the choice derived?

“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).

It is all down to the individual! All your fault that U are a loser you stupid ****! Sell that one prime time! Oops they all ready have! Party political broadcasts for reactionary parties!

Ethics

"Self-interest = Man is an end for himself" = It is okay to be a selfish ****! = No ethics!

"Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action." Being a proper selfish bastard!

"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). Just a conscious selfish brute instead! That's more like it!

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. "
Purpose is being a selfish bastard, reason is to make money and support the ruling class. Self-esteem = making it!

"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"

All that selfish **** stuff straight from the horses ass of philosophy! Great fucking ethos!

Politics

Capitalism = Give me liberty or give me death = Die U poor scum as soon as possible! = The Death of Liberty!

"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."

Just vote to deny liberty, because we control the concensus!

"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 capitalis"
The bastards fought tooth and nail for that "right"!

"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.”
Read between the lines. Protect property rights with the State! Protect the rigths of the BORGS to exploit! Use physical force if necessary to protect!

"Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism [fascism was a BORG creation, when the going got tough for the bastards] or socialism [has never existed]. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” [no bleeding heart liberals need apply] notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth [fucking outrageous demand that! Redistribute wealth to the poor? Fucking unethical!].

Aesthetics

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments."
Durp! Metaphysical objective art! Just what will they think up next?

"The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence."
Block of concrete entilted the "Room" = possible Turner prize for art!
"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"
Just being a selfish bastard! There's her definition of a "new" man! What great fucking purpose! Who would have thought of that one? Maybe a neanderthal!

Field Marshall,

Obsolete? No my friend. This is the heart of the BORG mind set, and even liberals and labour politicians take some of it on board. It is the myth of the self-reliant human being taken to its logical extreme.

What is its future? Death.

What do I think of this philosophy? It is inherently evil.

Paris, good thing she is dead?

To paraphrase a poem:

She may be gone,
but all the maggots bred in her live on!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[vox]

It seems like I trot this out every few months:

Crticisms of Objectivism (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html). It's part of the larger Critiques of Libertarianism site, which is also very good.

vox

[deadpool 52]

She became a real Nazi later in her life, however the key objector of aesthetics.

[libereco]

shes laughed at by philosophers everywhere for her faulty arguments anyway.

[Nickademus]

wow its like all my old threads from last year have been taken up by other human beings....weird

[El Che]

This "objectvism" is urtter rubbish, amatuers...

[I Bow 4 Che]

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING HER UP!I read Anthem awhile ago and i realized what a fucking right-winged ***** she is!!! read a copy of my essay on how "capitalism is the only moral economic system" BAHAHAHAH! a direct quote! shes a *****