Ex-Objectivist-Age: Thread of compromise, pragmatism, reason
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
speculawyer
Member
I read several of the Ayn Rand books way back in college. They had no effect on me. I just though they were marginally interesting novels. Of course that was long before they became these foundational books for the conservative movement.
I read the first 564574643 pages of Atlas Shrugged, the premise was interesting and some secondary characters were kinda complex despite Rand's best efforts to turn them into caricatures (Her stand-in's brother & wife ,the syndicate leader and Rearden during the last third), but then the protagonist crashed on some secret valley, put on her servant dress and things turned into a horrible shitty telenovela with a douchy new male lead so the author could justify being a misogynist cheating piece of shit. So yeah, fuck Ayn Rand.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
The type of egotism prescribed by Rand is ultimately self-defeating because it never tolerates dissension in others; Rand may have preached self-determination, but she also built a sort of cult around herself and was hell-bent on controlling everyone in it.
I went through an Objectivist phase around age 17.
I think what she was basically saying was this: Average workers are just average workers. They don't make society better on their own; they just work with what they're given. The fact that their productivity is higher than average workers in the 3rd world is due entirely to the higher amount of capital (which includes education and training) that is used to augment their labor hours, and not due to any inherent qualities on their part.
Every development that actually moved society forward came from a person of genius. Without these people, none of us would have anything more than a subsistence living, and so we should be grateful to these titans of industry, because we need them more than they need us.
That's how I understand her thesis.
The problem with this ideology, aside from its complete moral failure, is that it fails to consider how innovations are stacked on top of each other over time. The person who invented the bow, the person who invented the plow, these people freed others to invent other things, which freed people in the next generation to invent still other things, and so on.
Sure, someone like Hank Rearden could invent a new alloy that allows for previously impossible feats of engineering, but he couldn't have done that if not for the countless generations who came before him and built a society where he didn't have to hunt deer in the forest, but could devote his time to the study of metallurgy.
Thus her entire philosophy falls apart. No one, no matter how smart, could achieve anything great if not for the societal foundation that's been built up over thousands of years. And this means that it's in our best interests to have the healthiest, best-educated, and most stable society possible, because who knows what that poor kid down the street with a junkie mother might be capable of as an adult if we don't just leave him to fall through the cracks.
I think what she was basically saying was this: Average workers are just average workers. They don't make society better on their own; they just work with what they're given. The fact that their productivity is higher than average workers in the 3rd world is due entirely to the higher amount of capital (which includes education and training) that is used to augment their labor hours, and not due to any inherent qualities on their part.
Every development that actually moved society forward came from a person of genius. Without these people, none of us would have anything more than a subsistence living, and so we should be grateful to these titans of industry, because we need them more than they need us.
That's how I understand her thesis.
The problem with this ideology, aside from its complete moral failure, is that it fails to consider how innovations are stacked on top of each other over time. The person who invented the bow, the person who invented the plow, these people freed others to invent other things, which freed people in the next generation to invent still other things, and so on.
Sure, someone like Hank Rearden could invent a new alloy that allows for previously impossible feats of engineering, but he couldn't have done that if not for the countless generations who came before him and built a society where he didn't have to hunt deer in the forest, but could devote his time to the study of metallurgy.
Thus her entire philosophy falls apart. No one, no matter how smart, could achieve anything great if not for the societal foundation that's been built up over thousands of years. And this means that it's in our best interests to have the healthiest, best-educated, and most stable society possible, because who knows what that poor kid down the street with a junkie mother might be capable of as an adult if we don't just leave him to fall through the cracks.
Mortrialus
Banned
My problem with this is that any knowledge of science history will tell you that a lot of the most important discoveries were literally discovered by accident.
It strikes me that objectivism is the domain of high functioning psychopaths and autistic people.
People that have problems in emotional development, that never quite come to grasp the complexities and intuitive nature of empathy, that oh-so important element of human congress.
Without empathy, without the ability to see the world from the perspective of another, to be blinkered, myopic, believing that your frame of reference is the frame of reference, that you stand alone in society... is the kind of mental madness from which objectivism and randian philosophy in general spawns.
People that have problems in emotional development, that never quite come to grasp the complexities and intuitive nature of empathy, that oh-so important element of human congress.
Without empathy, without the ability to see the world from the perspective of another, to be blinkered, myopic, believing that your frame of reference is the frame of reference, that you stand alone in society... is the kind of mental madness from which objectivism and randian philosophy in general spawns.
Too bad, in my opinion. You just need to look at our current parties to see there is not one who is for individualism. And it shows well in the tone and content of everyone's arguments. Even our Constitution is highly socialist/collectivist and it boggles my mind how we even have a serious Communist party.
I am an Objectivist to the core. Sorry Socialist-Gaf, you know nothing about Objectivism as a Philosophy and it shows in your arguments.
I still love all of you though, for the selfish pleasure that is being a GAFfer
travisbickle
Member
Too bad, in my opinion. You just need to look at our current parties to see there is not one who is for individualism. And it shows well in the tone and content of everyone's arguments. Even our Constitution is highly socialist/collectivist and it boggles my mind how we even have a serious Communist party.
I am an Objectivist to the core. Sorry Socialist-Gaf, you know nothing about Objectivism as a Philosophy and it shows in your arguments.
I still love all of you though, for the selfish pleasure that is being a GAFfer
Ha. Thanks for the help.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
Too bad, in my opinion. You just need to look at our current parties to see there is not one who is for individualism. And it shows well in the tone and content of everyone's arguments. Even our Constitution is highly socialist/collectivist and it boggles my mind how we even have a serious Communist party.
I am an Objectivist to the core. Sorry Socialist-Gaf, you know nothing about Objectivism as a Philosophy and it shows in your arguments.
I still love all of you though, for the selfish pleasure that is being a GAFfer
by all means, enlighten us!
I know, classic bait and switch, but you really expect me to spend my time here going through all of it? There's like 5 non-fiction books that go over it.
I could recommend, not even the book but the essay that 'enlightened me': "Objectivist Ethics" (it's the lead essay on her book The Virtue of Selfishness). Even if in the end you don't agree with, at least you will understand the reason behind it and not the superficial "Selfishness is cool" and all of that that people seem to get out of reading Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivist's selfishness isn't the same as Nietzsche's one. I think that's what almost everyone seems to get wrong.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
i guess i would expect if an "incorrect" interpretation of objectivism were so blatantly incorrect then it would be more simple than "read 5 nonfiction books" to explain why that interpretation were so blatantly incorrect.
That wasn't what I was implying, and I think it obvious when I recommended one essay that in my opinion would end many of the errors that people usually made concerning Objectivism, namely about what it is meant by rational selfishness.
I don't expect anyone to read X many books because I say so, that would be ridiculous.
I guess if I could recommend a video summary of it it would be this (but only as a summary, not as validation or proof of it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoAKer8lfds
travisbickle
Member
Here's a documentary series by Adam Curtis, "All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace". The series is about "how humans have been colonised by the computers they've built."
The first part talks a lot of Ayn Rand, because of how much influence she had on Alan Greenspan and the "Californian ideology".
My favourite line in it
If you like Adam Curtis's documentary style I'd recommend the "Century of the Self" among others.
DirtRiver I think you are being very obtuse to think that others here don't have an understanding of objectivism.
The first part talks a lot of Ayn Rand, because of how much influence she had on Alan Greenspan and the "Californian ideology".
My favourite line in it
when one of Ayn Rand's collective says if she "had a button she could press to make Ayn Rand happy" she would have pressed it, Adam Curtis retorts "but that's altruism" to which she replies "I know and I'm not proud of it..."
If you like Adam Curtis's documentary style I'd recommend the "Century of the Self" among others.
DirtRiver I think you are being very obtuse to think that others here don't have an understanding of objectivism.
CornBurrito
Member
Does it happen to be the same selfishness that Adam Smith talked about? Where acting entirely in self interest supposedly helps everyone, and thus is inherently altruistic?
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I don't think that Smith tried to dress up self-interest in anything so noble as altruism; just that it was to everyone's advantage, through the division of labor, that the individual acts in the preservation of the self.
Myke Greywolf
Ambassador of Goodwill
This is quite dismissive and patronizing, in my opinion. Not very nice.I am an Objectivist to the core. Sorry Socialist-Gaf, you know nothing about Objectivism as a Philosophy and it shows in your arguments.
I still love all of you though, for the selfish pleasure that is being a GAFfer
Mortrialus
Banned
Another interesting thing about Ayn Rand is that she didn't believe in evolution. People who've spoken to her about it say something about it made her uncomfortable. You see a disbelief in evolution among a lot of Rand's fanbase, Ron and Rand Paul come to mind. There are quite a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. I don't understand why this is. I wonder if it's because it challenges the "Humans are gods" thinking of humanity that Ayn Rand preached, or the biological and genetic components to altruism
Omegasquash
Member
Too bad, in my opinion. You just need to look at our current parties to see there is not one who is for individualism. And it shows well in the tone and content of everyone's arguments. Even our Constitution is highly socialist/collectivist and it boggles my mind how we even have a serious Communist party.
I am an Objectivist to the core. Sorry Socialist-Gaf, you know nothing about Objectivism as a Philosophy and it shows in your arguments.
I still love all of you though, for the selfish pleasure that is being a GAFfer
Avatar quote?
Another major discrepancy in Rand's life as compared to her philosophy was her attitude towards emotions. She has quotes like these:
"A rational man knowsor makes it a point to discoverthe source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them."
But then in a fit of emotional jealousy she forces an objectivist institue that was promoting her ideas, the Nathaniel Branden institute, to disband.
"A rational man knowsor makes it a point to discoverthe source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them."
But then in a fit of emotional jealousy she forces an objectivist institue that was promoting her ideas, the Nathaniel Branden institute, to disband.
Woah, back up. Not that I agree or disagree with your argument, but I think clarifying this is in order. Psychopaths are characterized by a lack of empathy (aka: they dont care). Autistics are characterized by a lack of cognitive understanding of human behavior, predominantly body language (aka: they can care, but only if they realize what's going on in the first place). That is a very very huge difference, especially in the context of this discussion.
Sociopath might be a more accurate term.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I honestly didn't get Fountainhead. The dude in the movie complains about lack of creativity, and conforming to the general population's taste in what they want/do not want, yet when you look at real world, there is a lot of creativity.
It strikes me that people that adhere to the philosophy of objectivism are a combination of people that don't care about others and those that don't quite understand what's going on in the first place.
Like... Sheldon from The Big Bang theory would strike me as an objectivist, but he's also obviously autistic much more than he is a psychopath.
But in either case, I specify high functioning to mean that they're not at the beck and calls of their respective mental impairements... for want of a more elegant way to put it.
This makes me think... a solid rebuttal against objectivism and the caricatures spawned by Rand's writings (and by extension, implicit beliefs embedded into modern culture) would make a good movie/documentary.
Like it would be ripe for sweeping emotionality + sound logic, thrashing at something of a soft target.
One scene could be an excerpt with the guy complaining about lack of creativity, then the following scenes would be video-montage trawling through creativity apparent in the world.
I've never seen anyone mentioning Ayn Rand or one of her books in any other places than the internet. It seems to me that, outside of the US, no one ever heard of her (I suspect much of the same can be said about her philosophy)
Omegasquash
Member
It's called "I don't want to contribute to your well being but you damn well should contribute to mine."
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Good.
ConfusingJazz
Member
I can't be the only one that is bemused when an objectivist uses the Internet, right?
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Here's something else I don't get. Found this off a website:
Okay, fine. A business owner shuts down one of his plants. He feels bad for laying off dozens of employees, but reason tells him it's for the "better".
But this part:
Isn't this a decision made based on emotion instead of reason? If one of your family members murdered someone and you protected them by lying to the police, then that's not reasonal at all. You lied because he/she is a member of your family.
Okay, fine. A business owner shuts down one of his plants. He feels bad for laying off dozens of employees, but reason tells him it's for the "better".
But this part:
Isn't this a decision made based on emotion instead of reason? If one of your family members murdered someone and you protected them by lying to the police, then that's not reasonal at all. You lied because he/she is a member of your family.
Fair enough. I just have a thing against when people seemingly conflate the two.
freenudemacusers
Member
Nope.
You can make an argument based on reason for lying to the police to protect your family. If you believe that your family will help you a lot and they're valuable assets to protect, and you think the risk/reward is worthwhile when balanced against lying to the police, then by all means.
"Lying is always wrong" is an emotional statement. If you're going purely on reason, the short-term benefit gained by lying has to be balanced against many other factors like expected consequences and others' opinions of you.
The government is made of individuals so it's pointless to say that the government provides healthcare and not individuals. And last time I checked it's the medical industry that provides healthcare, not government.
You'll also never see an Objectivist being against the Military as the objectivist view of the government is that it's only purpose is to protect individual rights. Objectivists are not Anarchists (although you'll probably see many objectivist arguments given by libertarian-anarchists).
What about the right to not go bankrupt because of a medical ailment outside of your control?
That's a misappropriation of the term 'right'. A right is a principle that defines a man's freedom of action in a social context. It only pertains to action. You have individual rights, which is the same as to say that you have the right to your own life and you can live the way you see fit, both free from force and coercion. Force is the only way someone can violate your rights, and you can violate other's rights, which is why I believe that the only true purpose of government is to protect individual rights.
So for example, you have a right for the pursuit of healthcare (note the 'pursuit', which is an action) but not a right for healthcare because it implies that no matter what the context is, you have a right for someone's else service for which that someone else can't object too, i.e, you have a right to force someone else to do something for you, which is a violation of that someone else's right to life (and was also called slavery not too long ago).
It is another different issue whether government recognizes individual rights or not.
Further clarification so that people don't think I am a sociopath/autistic/lunatic/brute/*insert insult here*: This isn't to say that I don't want people to be able to afford healthcare, and you would be the lunatic here if you imply it, but if we are going to discuss whether healthcare would be cheaper or not under a free market or a government controlled market we would have to discuss economics which is another different conundrum.
By using the term in that way you are saying then that a child cannot have a right to a good education but on the other hand does have the right to 'pursue' a good eduction?
Agreed this is off topic but the US has the most free market version of healthcare among developed nations and also the most expensive healthcare.
There are no 'natural rights' to been a human being outside of the ones we carve out for ourselves.
If we can make a case for something to be extended to all members of our society, then it's a right. It's not that complicated.
The child's parents have a right to give their child the education they see fit. Whether it is good or not rests on the parents decision. To be honest child rights are somewhat fuzzy to me because the child isn't yet a fully developed human and has to rely on its parents or guardians, but the principle is still the same, you have no right to someone's services.
Child rights are one of the areas where objectivist thought struggles. Children cannot act for themselves and their development and future potential are completely dependent on the services they receive. I mean your words "Parents have a right to give their child the education they see fit" are not consistent with the rest of what you're saying. I think you meant to say "Parents have a right to PURSUE an education for their child that they see fit". Pursuing something and actually getting it are completely different of course.
Where's the equality of opportunity then for a child who has parents that can't afford a good education and a child that has parents that can? Research shows that the first few years are the most important for a child's future potential and your principle leaves them on completely unequal footing.
JeTmAn81
Member
Sounds like somebody's never read The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind!
Seriously, it sounds like these guys consider children to be property of their parents rather than individuals unto themselves.
- Status