Objections to Objectivism
So I read Ayn Rand's "Anthem" on Sunday (it is Monday now, technically) and it is a good book, and I don't know why more people don't classify it as one of the great dystopian novels. Maybe because it is a novella, at fewer than 100 pages? But still, it's pretty good. The writing is all biblical-like, even though Rand didn't believe in God or anything like unto the concept, and the ideas are interesting. It can be read in a couple of hours, so I recommend you all go out and read it. Ask me if you want to borrow a copy.
In the back of that copy that I would let you borrow, though, is a description and summary of Ayn Rand's homespun philosophy, "Objectivism." I really got a good grasp of what it is she's saying with it, but at the same time, I had some (pun intended) objections to it. It is not flawless philosophy, and here are some of the things I didn't think were necessarily logical, some errors in reasoning, if you will (these were written shortly after finishing "Anthem" and are more like notes than diagrammed sentences):
-where do feelings of compassion and empathy come from?
-the metaphysical beliefs of objectivists are sound, but the conclusion they draw from these beliefs are not — I’ll try and put this simply: Rand says the world exists independent of man’s perception of it — and thus, for some strange reason, she says there is no such thing as the supernatural. But how can she know this if she’s only relying on her own perception of reality? The supernatural may exist independent of her own or our perception. Thus it either is or is not, and believing in the absolutism of the physical world does not discount either line of thought.
-it seems, after reviewing the basic tenets of her philosophy, Rand believes we are all, or all should be, animals. Allow me to explain: Rand believes in 1) survival of the fittest, laissez-faire capitalism and so forth, and 2) that we should focus only on our own happiness and ignore any altruistic instincts we have. Such is the behavior of animals.
-logistical error (I couldn’t think of a better word for it): what if one person living in Rand’s ideal society decided that what made them happiest was to better the lives of others? What if that was how they found fulfillment in their own life?
Some good things about Objectivism, even if they contradict the overall philosophy:
-the belief in an absolute world that exists independent of perception, that truth is truth no matter what spin you put on it
-the belief that it is choice and reason that sets man apart, that makes him special
-the belief that man’s ultimate purpose is to be happy
-the rejection of collectivism and fascism as viable political or economic systems
If you want to know more about Objectivism than you already do, search around the internetz for a second or two and you're bound to find something. Or (if you are weak in regard to the internetz) just ask me, and I'll tell you. Or you can borrow my book that Uncle Eric gave me.
As you can tell I'm getting pretty into this Ayn Rand thing. I think I'm going to be reading Atlas Shrugged next? Hm. Sounds like an okay plan.
-SALVARE
In the back of that copy that I would let you borrow, though, is a description and summary of Ayn Rand's homespun philosophy, "Objectivism." I really got a good grasp of what it is she's saying with it, but at the same time, I had some (pun intended) objections to it. It is not flawless philosophy, and here are some of the things I didn't think were necessarily logical, some errors in reasoning, if you will (these were written shortly after finishing "Anthem" and are more like notes than diagrammed sentences):
-where do feelings of compassion and empathy come from?
-the metaphysical beliefs of objectivists are sound, but the conclusion they draw from these beliefs are not — I’ll try and put this simply: Rand says the world exists independent of man’s perception of it — and thus, for some strange reason, she says there is no such thing as the supernatural. But how can she know this if she’s only relying on her own perception of reality? The supernatural may exist independent of her own or our perception. Thus it either is or is not, and believing in the absolutism of the physical world does not discount either line of thought.
-it seems, after reviewing the basic tenets of her philosophy, Rand believes we are all, or all should be, animals. Allow me to explain: Rand believes in 1) survival of the fittest, laissez-faire capitalism and so forth, and 2) that we should focus only on our own happiness and ignore any altruistic instincts we have. Such is the behavior of animals.
-logistical error (I couldn’t think of a better word for it): what if one person living in Rand’s ideal society decided that what made them happiest was to better the lives of others? What if that was how they found fulfillment in their own life?
Some good things about Objectivism, even if they contradict the overall philosophy:
-the belief in an absolute world that exists independent of perception, that truth is truth no matter what spin you put on it
-the belief that it is choice and reason that sets man apart, that makes him special
-the belief that man’s ultimate purpose is to be happy
-the rejection of collectivism and fascism as viable political or economic systems
If you want to know more about Objectivism than you already do, search around the internetz for a second or two and you're bound to find something. Or (if you are weak in regard to the internetz) just ask me, and I'll tell you. Or you can borrow my book that Uncle Eric gave me.
As you can tell I'm getting pretty into this Ayn Rand thing. I think I'm going to be reading Atlas Shrugged next? Hm. Sounds like an okay plan.
-SALVARE
posted by Neal at
1:49 AM
1 Comments:
A response to your objections from someone who has studied Objectivism for a while...
"-where do feelings of compassion and empathy come from?"
This is something you can't get just from Anthem or a brief summary of the philosophy, and it's also not an objection so much as a question. Check here
for some of her writings on the source of emotions.
"-the metaphysical beliefs of objectivists are sound, but the conclusion they draw from these beliefs are not — I’ll try and put this simply: Rand says the world exists independent of man’s perception of it — and thus, for some strange reason, she says there is no such thing as the supernatural. But how can she know this if she’s only relying on her own perception of reality? The supernatural may exist independent of her own or our perception. Thus it either is or is not, and believing in the absolutism of the physical world does not discount either line of thought."
Objectivism has (at least) two objections to accepting the supernatural. The first is that "natural" means that which exists, so for something to be supernatural it would have to be outside of existence, i.e. not exist. The second is an epistemological, not a metaphysical, objection to the idea. To accept the idea/possibility of the supernatural is to contemplate the arbitrary, which is an epistemological error.
"-it seems, after reviewing the basic tenets of her philosophy, Rand believes we are all, or all should be, animals. Allow me to explain: Rand believes in 1) survival of the fittest, laissez-faire capitalism and so forth, and 2) that we should focus only on our own happiness and ignore any altruistic instincts we have. Such is the behavior of animals."
I have multiple objections to this objection. First, to say "such is the behavior of animals" is almost meaningless as an evaluation: animals eat, so to eat is the behavior of animals, but animals viciously attack each other, so to viciously attack each other is the behavior of animals. Second, I challenge you to show me the animal who practices any form of laissez-faire capitalism. Third, Objectivism's conception of rational egoism and rights does not equate to "survival of the fittest". Fourth, your mention of "altruistic instincts" begs the question of whether or not humans have those instincts, or any instincts at all. Finally, you offer no argument against Miss Rand's conception of ethics, nor do you show the arguments she used to support it.
"-logistical error (I couldn’t think of a better word for it): what if one person living in Rand’s ideal society decided that what made them happiest was to better the lives of others? What if that was how they found fulfillment in their own life?"
This objection stems from a misunderstanding of the basis of Rand's ethics. The standard of Objectivist morality is not "what makes me happiest", rather it's "what is in my rational, long-term self interest". As you will see if/when you read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Miss Rand does argue that those who devote their lives to serving others are never truly happy, but that is a secondary consequence, not a primary.
Finally, I have one question regarding your praise of Miss Rand's rejection of collectivism (of which fascism is but a variant): If you are against laissez-faire capitalism (which you seem to be, as it is "the behavior of animals), and you are against collectivism, what is left?
Please don't take this comment as an attack but rather as an attempt at correcting errors. I understand that you are just getting into this, and I'm just trying to make sure that you understand, and ultimately reject or accept, Miss Rand's actual philosophy, and not a misunderstanding of it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home