Objectivism - Is It Flawed?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

Its fundamental flaw is that it’s utterly unoriginal – Nietzsche Lite for Americans.

‘Objectivism’ is naïve, sophomoric, reactionary, and anachronistic – predicated on an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

‘Objectivism’ is anathema to a free and democratic society and the right of the people to pursue sound, responsible governance through the political process – particularly necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies beneficial to a modern industrialized society – and through the judicial process to safeguard citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's was every man for himself.

Survival of the fittest. No matter what is done, it ALWAYS comes back to that. Nature is too strong to beat

Nonsense.

Social Darwinism is just as devoid of worth and merit as ‘objectivism.’

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

More Like a Bubblehead Than a Fountainhead

It deifies sick, self-obsessed Greedhead parasites. It is ironic that Rand chose Atlas, who was a pre-intelligence hulk supporting a jungle world in which mankind would have soon gone extinct. Her autistic utopia is a mirror image of Stalinism: Reversed from Left to Right, but just as ugly.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's Hers was every man for himself.

Survival of the fittest. No matter what is done, it ALWAYS comes back to that. Nature is too strong to beat

Preach Loudly Enough and You Can Get Away With Practicing the Opposite

Survival of the Fatherest. Allowing birth privileges makes competition meaningless and its winners pre-ordained.

 

[alang1216]

Most animals work together at some level, but there are always leaders. When society tried to make everyone equal, it weakens

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

 

[Czernobog]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

The problem with Rand's [philosophy is that, politically, it assumes facts not in evidence - specifically that, given the opportunity Corporate owners practice enlightened self-interest. In other words, they will take the time to take a "long view" of profits, giving up instant gratification, in order to ensure long term self sufficiency. by doing so, they not only make themselves stronger, but strengthen the society as a whole.

The problem is, that's not generally how they behave. They are incapable of looking beyond the bottom line of the next quarter. They want it all, and they want it all now, and they don't care how they get it, or what the long term effects of their behaviour will be. Morally, and culturally I rather agree with Rand. Politically, she had far to much faith in capitalists to do what was necessary for the economy, the society, and themselves to survive.

 

[Bonzi]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's Hers was every man for himself.

Survival of the fittest. No matter what is done, it ALWAYS comes back to that. Nature is too strong to beat

Preach Loudly Enough and You Can Get Away With Practicing the Opposite

Survival of the Fatherest. Allowing birth privileges makes competition meaningless and its winners pre-ordained.

Not everyone can be a winner. This works in nature for a reason.

 

[Bonzi]

Most animals work together at some level, but there are always leaders. When society tried to make everyone equal, it weakens

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Equal start in what way?

 

[alang1216]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's Hers was every man for himself.

Survival of the fittest. No matter what is done, it ALWAYS comes back to that. Nature is too strong to beat

Preach Loudly Enough and You Can Get Away With Practicing the Opposite

Survival of the Fatherest. Allowing birth privileges makes competition meaningless and its winners pre-ordained.

Not everyone can be a winner. This works in nature for a reason.

Just as not every culture will survive. How many have disappeared? Probably most. Certainly any of the peaceful ones.

 

[alang1216]

Most animals work together at some level, but there are always leaders. When society tried to make everyone equal, it weakens

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Equal start in what way?

I'd say a good education and health care at minimum. Maybe mentoring and life skills too if the parents aren't up to it.

 

[Bonzi]

Most animals work together at some level, but there are always leaders. When society tried to make everyone equal, it weakens

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Equal start in what way?

I'd say a good education and health care at minimum. Maybe mentoring and life skills too if the parents aren't up to it.

Public education is available to everyone. Health care too.
As for the latter, well, even kids from wealthy parents don't get much of that.....

 

[Bonzi]

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

This is one area that is problematic for me. "Self Responsibility" - if our primary concern is for ourselves and keeping ourselves alive, what happens to firefighters? police officers? service men? Of course, I think her philosophy really is that we should all do what makes us productive and feel good about ourselves, so, perhaps, these people ENJOY "living on the edge", just not sure entirely what her thought process was on this in that regard....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Hahaha...that's a good one. Starts out the same...so, just how in the world do you propose that happens?
Let me guess....(example)...a successful person running their own business makes $1 million a year...let's tax $900,000 of that, and give it to people who make less so their kids can have an "equal start".
When will this idiotic thinking ever die?

 

[alang1216]

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

This is one area that is problematic for me. "Self Responsibility" - if our primary concern is for ourselves and keeping ourselves alive, what happens to firefighters? police officers? service men? Of course, I think her philosophy really is that we should all do what makes us productive and feel good about ourselves, so, perhaps, these people ENJOY "living on the edge", just not sure entirely what her thought process was on this in that regard....

We all have to balance what is in our own interest vs the interests of others, family, job, neighbors, etc. 'Rational self-interest' has a place but it is not the only interest, it is a spectrum. Stock brokers are on one end and teachers on the other but we need both.

 

[alang1216]

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Hahaha...that's a good one. Starts out the same...so, just how in the world do you propose that happens?
Let me guess....(example)...a successful person running their own business makes $1 million a year...let's tax $900,000 of that, and give it to people who make less so their kids can have an "equal start".
When will this idiotic thinking ever die?

As Bonzi pointed out, we already have food, education, and health programs for kids. I would make sure they are robust and well-funded and available to all kids. No child should be punished for the sins of the father. I don't think we need a 90% tax rate to pay for that.

I would keep the estate tax and maybe make it even stronger. If your child can't get a good start in life with only a $5 million nest egg, well they need to get out of the way and let others take over. We don't need a nobility.

 

[Picaro]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

'Rationalism' is a fiction; it doesn't exist in real life, as opposed to 'rationaizing' whatever one wants to do, more like mindless self-indulgence' than true rational thinking and behavior. You might be interested in F.A. Hayek's criticisms of 'rationalism'; he is also an atheist and a 'free market' philosopher, but rejects 'rationalism' as a valid concept, and does so very well. Try The Fatal Conceit for just one of his commentaries on how and why it is seriously flawed as a meme. His observation that social evolution more resembles Lamarckism and how traditions make progress possible and stabilize society is not always a bad thing, and in fact necessary for progress, not the other way around. So far the big winner in social evolution has been the Christian influenced ones, by a long shot. It is the root source of modern 'liberalism' and 'equality', human rights, etc.; the rest have failed for a variety of reasons, mostly precisely because they are based on selfishness and nihilism.

As for 'science' being a model of objectivity and morality, that is a fiction; it never achieves those ideals, and is easily made to conform to political forces, not the other way around. What is useful about science is its context in society built on traditions that more or less work.


“….how did the dominance of Christianity affect the knowledge of, and attitudes towards nature? The standard answer, developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and widely propagated in the twentieth, maintains that Christianity presented serious obstacles to the advancement of science and, indeed, sent the scientific enterprise into a tailspin from which it did not recover for more than a thousand years. The truth, as we shall see, is far different and much more complicated.

One charge frequently leveled against the Church is that it was broadly anti-intellectual – that the leaders of the church preferred faith to reason and ignorance to education. In fact, this is a considerable distortion…Christians quickly recognized that if the Bible was to be read, literacy would have to be encouraged; and in the long run Christianity became the major patron of European education and a major borrower from the Classical intellectual tradition. Naturally enough, the kind and level of education and intellectual effort favored by the Church Fathers that which supported the mission of the Church as they perceived it….whether this represents a blow against the scientific enterprise or modest, but welcome, support for it depends largely on the attitudes and expectations that one brings to the question. If we compare the early church with a modern research university or the National Science Foundation, the church will prove to have failed abysmally as a supporter of science and natural philosophy. But such a comparison is obviously unfair. If, instead, we compare the support given to the study of nature by the early church with support available from any other contemporary social institution, it will become clear that the church was one of the major patrons – perhaps the major patron – of scientific learning. Its patronage may have been limited and selective, but limited and selected patronage is better than no patronage at all. But a critic to view the early church as an obstacle to scientific progress might argue that the handmaiden status accorded natural philosophy is inconsistent with the existence of genuine science. True science, this critic would maintain, cannot be the handmaiden of anything, but must process total autonomy; consequently, the “disciplined” science that Augustine sought is no science at all. The appropriate response is that totally autonomous science is an attractive ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. Many of the most important developments in the history of science have been produced by people committed not to autonomous science, but to science in the service of some ideology, social program, or practical end; for much of its history, the question has not been whether science will function as handmaiden, but which mistress it will serve.”

--David C. Lindberg The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 pg.149-51


“The contribution of the religious culture of the early Middle Ages to the scientific movement was thus one of preservation and transmission. The monasteries served as the transmitters of literacy and a thin version of the Classical tradition(including science or natural philosophy) through a period when literacy and scholarship were severely threatened. Without them, Western Europe would not have more science, but less.”

--ibid. pg.157

"It was not the case that the dominance of the lay and clerical aristocracy had a merely negative, inhibiting effect on the field of technology, in some areas it needs and tastes favoured a certain progress. The clergy and above all the monks were obliged to have few contacts as possible with the outside world, including economic relations, and above all they desired to be freed from material tasks to have time for the Opus Dei and for properly spiritual occupations (offices and prayers), and for their work of charity, which obliged them to provide for the economic needs not only of their numerous familia but also for the poor and of wandering beggars by distributing foodstuff. This encouraged them to develop equipment of a certain technical standard. If one is looking for the earliest mills, water mills, or for the progress in farming techniques, one often sees the religious orders in the vanguard. It was not a coincidence if here during the early Middle Ages men attributed the invention of the watermill to a saint who introduced it into a region, for example St. Orens of Auch who had a mill setup at St. Gabriel on the Durancole in the 6th century….As we have seen, the Church encouraged improvements in the measurement of time for the needs of ecclesiastical computation. The building of churches – the first great buildings of the Middle Ages – gave a stimulus to technical progress, not only in building techniques, but also in the tools used, in methods of transportation, and in the auxiliary skills such as glasswork.”

--Jacques Le Goff Medieval Civilization 400-1500 pg. 198

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674005368/701-0978999-8521903&tag=

The Sun in the Church by J.L. Heilbron is a provocative work of scholarship that challenges long-held views of the relationship between science and Christianity. Heilbron's main point is simple enough: "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions." Despite the persecution of Galileo, Heilbron notes, the Church actively supported mathematical and astronomical research--often designing cathedrals that could also function as observatories--in order to set the precise date of Easter (a crucial endeavor for maintaining the unity of the Church). Heilbron's fluid, engaging style brings his detailed reconstructions of 16th- and 17th-century Church politics to life. And his argument that scientific knowledge was deemed both morally neutral and politically useful during the Reformation and beyond yields an unusually interesting, complex, and human understanding of Catholicism in the early Modern period. --Michael Joseph Gross

“Taken as a whole, the history of the Middle Ages after the ruin in the West of the ancient civilization is one of progress, progress in society, government, order and organization, laws, the development of human faculties, of rational thought, of knowledge and experience, of art and culture.”
--C.W. Previte-Ortor The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History vol.2 “The 12th Century to the Renaissance”

“The Catholic Church long stood condemned as the enemy of enlightenment, with the alleged suppressions of Copernicus and Galileo as Exhibit A. More recent historians, however, have pointed to evidence of Church attitudes and policies of a quite different coloration. Lynn White asserted that Christian theology actually gave the Middle Ages a fiat for technology: “man shares in great measure God’s transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to paganism and Asia’s religions…not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.”
--Frances and Joseph Gies Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages pg. 4-5

This cite sums it up:

But a critic to view the early church as an obstacle to scientific progress might argue that the handmaiden status accorded natural philosophy is inconsistent with the existence of genuine science. True science, this critic would maintain, cannot be the handmaiden of anything, but must process total autonomy; consequently, the “disciplined” science that Augustine sought is no science at all. The appropriate response is that totally autonomous science is an attractive ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. Many of the most important developments in the history of science have been produced by people committed not to autonomous science, but to science in the service of some ideology, social program, or practical end; for much of its history, the question has not been whether science will function as handmaiden, but which mistress it will serve.”

--David C. Lindberg The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 pg.149-51

 

[iamwhatiseem]

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Hahaha...that's a good one. Starts out the same...so, just how in the world do you propose that happens?
Let me guess....(example)...a successful person running their own business makes $1 million a year...let's tax $900,000 of that, and give it to people who make less so their kids can have an "equal start".
When will this idiotic thinking ever die?

As Bonzi pointed out, we already have food, education, and health programs for kids. I would make sure they are robust and well-funded and available to all kids. No child should be punished for the sins of the father. I don't think we need a 90% tax rate to pay for that.

I would keep the estate tax and maybe make it even stronger. If your child can't get a good start in life with only a $5 million nest egg, well they need to get out of the way and let others take over. We don't need a nobility.

Okay....give me one example, just one. Where any style of communism works. Just one.
You don't think there are poor in France? There are and plenty of them. You don't think there is nobility in China? Russia? Venezuela? Vietnam? The old Soviet Union? Cuba?

 

[Picaro]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's was every man for himself.

Survival of the fittest. No matter what is done, it ALWAYS comes back to that. Nature is too strong to beat

She pegged survival of the fittest at the level of the individual and I think she was wrong. While true for animals, for man it is the society/culture that struggles to survive and not the individual. We are social animals and that means we are in it together so helping every individual contribute as much as they are able is in the best interests of the society.

Most animals work together at some level, but there are always leaders. When society tried to make everyone equal, it weakens

Equal opportunity provides a much broader base of people from which leaders can be produced, same for any other category of needs. It increases competition.

 

[alang1216]

Okay....give me one example, just one. Where any style of communism works. Just one.

You need to learn the difference between communism and socialism. We don't live in a totalitarian state so why compare us to one?

We in the US live happily live in a socialist country but countries in Europe are even more so. If you visit Europe you'll see that their systems generally work. No system is perfect but they work.

You don't think there is nobility in China? Russia? Venezuela? Vietnam? The old Soviet Union? Cuba?

I like to think our bar should be a little higher than the countries you list.

 

[alang1216]

One charge frequently leveled against the Church is that it was broadly anti-intellectual – that the leaders of the church preferred faith to reason and ignorance to education. In fact, this is a considerable distortion…Christians quickly recognized that if the Bible was to be read, literacy would have to be encouraged; and in the long run Christianity became the major patron of European education and a major borrower from the Classical intellectual tradition.

I think this is a bit of a historical rewrite. The Church was not a monolithic structure but had many, often contradictory parts. In the Middle ages it was pretty much the only institution that offered an education. If you wanted an education you needed to be a priest or other Church official. Not everyone who joined the Church shared it's theology but they did get an education.

Education of the general population was not a Church goal. They kept the services in Latin to give it an aura of mystery and the priest would tell you what it said, to the best of his ability anyway. Probably varied greatly.