pariah

Hope this is the right forum...it _does_ say objectivism in the description!

Anyway I remember a previous topic in the "media pop cultrue" forum about Rand...everyone seemed to hate her for some reason. While I certainly don't see her as an influential philosopher (I have heard people refer to her as a cold war relic and cant say I disagree), and agree that she is a terrible writer...what is so wrong with elitist capitalism?

That is, when the company rises to the top b/c of their product. I don't see that disliking microsoft for its buisiness practices disagrees with objectivist philosophy for example...M$ essentially held a gun to the head of its competitors in many cases, when they had an inferior product.

Anyways, what is so wrong with it?

Dominus Paradoxum

That would be 'objectivism' with a small 'o', in paticular debates concerning the objectivity of moral values. This thread really belongs in the Philosophy forum.

See: http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/book_promotion.html for a book that deals with the problems of Objectivist epistemology and ethics.

pariah

Hmm I think you are right...a mod should move it soon.

Well, I wasn't really looking for a book; more like something I could talk about right now...it seems you have read it. Maybe you could tell me what some of its key points against Objectivism are?

Blake

It's overly reductionist & simplistic, and informed by an overdetermined bias against communism based on Rand's experienced dislikes as opposed to any systematic analysis of capitalism vs. communism's objective merits.

That's a short version, based on nothing more than my single readings of *The Fountainhead* & *We the Living*--and disturbing personal encounters with Objectivists. YMMV; nonetheless, if you have anything approaching a full experience of life, I think you'll find Objectivism singularly unsatisfying.

pariah

It may be simplistic, like I said I do not find it to be a groundbreaking philosophy at all. In fact I agree with you about being reductionist. And it is true that she fails to make a systematic comparison of capitalism and socialism...

But I fail to see anything wrong with elitist capitalism, which seems to be the basis of Rands philosophy (based on my readings of Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged). So maybe this is not why people dislike Rand, but because they consider her a charlatan with no real philosophy?

Also, can you elaborate on the "disturbing personal encounters"?

Clutch

What's especially irksome about Rand and Randians is not the sophomoric doctrine itself. What gets up people's noses is the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Rand's uninformed, lame, but vitriolic critiques of great philosophers and other views tend to appeal to the ignorant, turning their lack of knowledge into a virtue: Hey, good thing I didn't read Kant or Hume or Marx, because look how stupid they are!

As I wrote on another thread: More than the anemic content of her positive views, this is what annoys people.

Alonzo Fyfe

Let me start with what I see are the two basic foundational flaws in Ayn Rand's objectivism.

First, a violation of the "is/ought" distinction. "Man is a rational animal, therefore man ought to be rational." As philosophers have recognized since the 1700s, you can't get to ought from is as easily as this (and some say 'not at all').

Second, it confuses value-as-means with value-as-end. One of its most common arguments is that because life is useful no matter what else one might value, that life has intrinsic value (independent of whatever else one must value).

These are just the most significant.

And, by the way, I speak from somebody who was very much a part of the Ayn Rand culture when I was in high school and college. Then I asked one of my fellow Randians, "This is so obvious, but obviously a lot of people don't agree with it. Can you point me to something that explains, perhaps, why they do not?"

He pointed me to an article about the is/ought problem mentioned above. I read the article, went back to the Randian material, and saw the error sitting there as bold as can be with absolutely no attempt by Rand and her followers to address it.

For this and other reasons, I gave up on Objectivism and went, instead, for some form of utilitarianism.

BDS

Alonzo's "is/ought" point is well taken. For example Rand thinks man SHOULD follow the path of "enlightened self-interest" because it is natural for him to do so. Of course it is not. Like all mammals, humans (women in particular) routinely sacrifice self-interest and scarce resources to nurture others.

JERDOG

OH I see.
Obviously you have never read, " The Objectivist Ethics" By Ayn Rand where she SPECIFICLY addresses Humes argument on is/ought.

So much for your credibility of being well read on Objectivism.

JERDOG

"Yea I read the back cover of Atlas Shrugged once and I say that Objectivism is bunk!"