Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 04-07-2002, 06:54 PM

I've been struggling with this for a while, what are the differences between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and objectivism in regards to ethics and epistemology?

This question came about in reaction to a webpage I was reading that clearly is biased to Rand's Objectivism. It's called The Importance of Philosophy.

<a href="http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/" target="_blank">http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/</a>

Ender · 04-07-2002, 07:21 PM

Randian Objectivism has very little in common with objectivism- given that it is a hodge-podge of empiricism and rationalism with an arbitrary definition of reason.

objectivism is, primarily the study of the truth that there are things independent of the observing subject. objective truths are independent of subjective inclinations- wishes or beliefs.

that website is an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy, so your confusion is legit.

~WiGGiN~
((edited to add the 3rd paragraph))

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Bill · 04-07-2002, 07:57 PM

The <a href="http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html" target="_blank">Meta-Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a> links to <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/" target="_blank">The Ism Book</a> for the following definition of objectivism:

Quote:

Objectivism (Idea in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics) � The term 'objectivism' refers to the idea that reality exists outside of the mind and that existents retain their identity no matter what human beings or other conscious creatures think or feel about it (colloquially captured in the phrase "wishing doesn't make it so"). While the most fundamental objectivism is metaphysical (with important corollaries in epistemology), it is not uncommon to speak of moral objectivism (the idea that there are objective standards in ethical matters). The concept is less frequently encountered in discussions of aesthetics or politics. Historically, the term was a less common word for metaphysical <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/R.html#Realism" target="_blank">realism</a> or even for <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/I.html#Intrinsicism" target="_blank">intrinsicism</a>, in opposition to <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/S.html#Subjectivism" target="_blank">subjectivism</a>. In the twentieth century, the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand appropriated the term as the name for her philosophy (defined here under <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/R.html#Randianism" target="_blank">Randianism</a>). However, there have been other objectivist thinkers even in the recent past, such as the logician and philosopher Kurt Godel, who once said: "It is by viewing together a number of facts that we come to believe in objectivism. Philosophy consists of pointing things out rather than arguments." {References from <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/C.html#Conceptualism" target="_blank">conceptualism</a>, <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/I.html#Individualism" target="_blank">individualism</a>, <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/I.html#Intrinsicism" target="_blank">intrinsicism</a>, <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/R.html#Randianism" target="_blank">Randianism</a>, <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/R.html#Realism" target="_blank">realism</a>, <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/R.html#Relativism" target="_blank">relativism</a>, and <a href="http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/S.html#Subjectivism" target="_blank">subjectivism</a>.}

So it is that most professional philosophers place Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in a category which is substantially separate from what is normally labeled objectivism by philosophers. If you work your way through the links given above, you will hopefully come to an understanding of the key distinctions.

I hope that this helps you out!

== Bill

Sojourner553 · 04-07-2002, 10:20 PM

Probably more than you wanted to know about the history of Ayn Rand here (a negative write up):

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RAND.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RAND.TXT</a>

also:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ender · 04-07-2002, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:Probably more than you wanted to know about the history of Ayn Rand here (a negative write up): <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RAND.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RAND.TXT</a>

Good link- useful, up till where the writer predictably miscaricatures Nietzsche as a Nazi and equates his evolutionary thinking with Lamarck.

~WiGGiN~

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

pug846 · 04-08-2002, 12:03 AM

Wow! I learned quite a few interesting tidbits about Nietzsche there!

Quote:

Nietzsche held the Romantic outlook that certain individuals possess a "Will to power"-- a vital energy that encompasses the desire to achieve one's full potential in life.

I never realized that only certain individuals posses a will to power.

Quote:

Like Nietzsche, Ayn Rand identified the philosopher Immanuel Kant as her intellectual arch-enemy.

Nietzsche certainly didn�t have much love for Kant, but Kant as his �arch-enemy?� Socrates? Socrates? Bueller? Bueller?

Quote:

Whereas Nietzsche's philosophies had supported the Nazi Aryan drive for supremacy�

*sigh* No comment�

Love Nietzsche or hate Nietzsche, I really don�t care. But for the love of Christ, at least hate what Nietzsche wrote and not a caricature of his thought. Hint: If you think there is a Nietzsche-Nazi link, you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

phaedrus · 04-08-2002, 12:26 AM

Rand is a fiction writer and not a philosopher in the academic sense

Detached9 · 04-08-2002, 10:26 AM

... and I'm still lost. For instance, I believe there is an objective reality independent of our minds, but I'm not sure if we have found any objective truths yet. The only objective truth I can think up is, something thinks, therefore, something is. In other words, I can't doubt my own minds existence. If my mind were being deceived, then at least I know my mind does exist.

Does this mean I am an objectivist, Objectivist, subjectivist, relativist, or other?

How does Randian Objectivism's believing "reason is absolute" (objectively true) in understanding an objective reality differ from an objectivists belief that truth is independent of one's mind? What would an Objectivist say that a objectivist wouldn't in a given situation? Could you give me an example of what both of them would say in regards to a certain situation?

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Blake · 04-08-2002, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Detached9:
... and I'm still lost. For instance, I believe there is an objective reality independent of our minds, but I'm not sure if we have found any objective truths yet. The only objective truth I can think up is, something thinks, therefore, something is. In other words, I can't doubt my own minds existence. If my mind were being deceived, then at least I know my mind does exist.

Does this mean I am an objectivist or an Objectivist?

For now, you're an objectivist. (If you were to start discoursing on the virtues of selfishness and the need for a pure capitalism, then you'd be sounding like an Objectivist.)

Quote:

How does Randian Objectivism's believing "reason is absolute" (objectively true) in understanding an objective reality differ from an objectivists point of view? What would an Objectivist say that a ojectivist wouldn't in a given situation? Give me an example?

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ][/QB]

Well, for one thing, I suppose it would be possible (though I don't know of an example) for an objectivist not to admit the supremacy of reason. At least, I don't see anything from the definition that Bill the Administrator posted that would require an objectivist to assert the absoluteness (whatever exactly that entails) of reason.

Example: An Objectivist might say, "Pure capitalism is the only sensible scheme of human social relations," whereas an objectivist might reply, "Capital does not objectively exist."

Blake

Detached9 · 04-08-2002, 11:06 AM

If you were to start discoursing on the virtues of selfishness and the need for a pure capitalism, then you'd be sounding like an Objectivist

Does this mean that a Randian Objectivist is still an objectivist, just also emphasizes "the virtue of selfishness and the need for a pure capitalism"?

I can't say I am entirely an objectivist, for I do believe that our minds play a large role in how we understand the world. Maybe something that I consider to be true is actually true independent of others minds, but I'm not sure. All I am sure of is the existence of my mind. That I consider to be objectively true. I also don't believe in an objective morality, so I'm not sure if I really am an objectivist.

I'm not sure what I am anymore. I'm confused, there we go.

04-07-2002, 06:54 PM	#1
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Randian Objectivism vrs Objectivism I've been struggling with this for a while, what are the differences between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and objectivism in regards to ethics and epistemology? This question came about in reaction to a webpage I was reading that clearly is biased to Rand's Objectivism. It's called The Importance of Philosophy. <a href="http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/" target="_blank">http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2002, 07:21 PM	#2
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	Randian Objectivism has very little in common with objectivism- given that it is a hodge-podge of empiricism and rationalism with an arbitrary definition of reason. objectivism is, primarily the study of the truth that there are things independent of the observing subject. objective truths are independent of subjective inclinations- wishes or beliefs. that website is an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy, so your confusion is legit. ~WiGGiN~ ((edited to add the 3rd paragraph)) [ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

04-07-2002, 10:20 PM	#4
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Probably more than you wanted to know about the history of Ayn Rand here (a negative write up): <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RAND.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/RAND.TXT</a> also: <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a> [ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

04-08-2002, 12:26 AM	#7
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Rand is a fiction writer and not a philosopher in the academic sense

04-08-2002, 10:26 AM	#8
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	... and I'm still lost. For instance, I believe there is an objective reality independent of our minds, but I'm not sure if we have found any objective truths yet. The only objective truth I can think up is, something thinks, therefore, something is. In other words, I can't doubt my own minds existence. If my mind were being deceived, then at least I know my mind does exist. Does this mean I am an objectivist, Objectivist, subjectivist, relativist, or other? How does Randian Objectivism's believing "reason is absolute" (objectively true) in understanding an objective reality differ from an objectivists belief that truth is independent of one's mind? What would an Objectivist say that a objectivist wouldn't in a given situation? Could you give me an example of what both of them would say in regards to a certain situation? [ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

04-08-2002, 11:06 AM	#10
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	If you were to start discoursing on the virtues of selfishness and the need for a pure capitalism, then you'd be sounding like an Objectivist Does this mean that a Randian Objectivist is still an objectivist, just also emphasizes "the virtue of selfishness and the need for a pure capitalism"? I can't say I am entirely an objectivist, for I do believe that our minds play a large role in how we understand the world. Maybe something that I consider to be true is actually true independent of others minds, but I'm not sure. All I am sure of is the existence of my mind. That I consider to be objectively true. I also don't believe in an objective morality, so I'm not sure if I really am an objectivist. I'm not sure what I am anymore. I'm confused, there we go.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.