Objectivism

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[Industrial Enigmatics]

Doesn't it therefore suggest that all these assumptions are false if people discover a way to maximize personal benefit at the expense of social/public/common good?

If your saying that Objectivist economic/social structures fail because people are inherently self centered and selfish most of the time then yes, Ayn Rand's naive outlook that the elite would be resourceful, intelligent, industrious and moral at the same time is something akin to an epic fail in the philisophical circle.

On the one hand I can imagine that in the world she specifed she imagined companies built around enterpreneuring individuals, like Henry Ford for example, an unpleasent person by all accords but he built cars cheap enough for virtually anyone to afford them; mostly so he could sell more of them but his actions had a benefit for society as a whole. Also, assuming that companies were governed by the starry eyesd creators of them, we wouldn't be in a world where companies are directed by executive selfabsorbed egotists who simply pursue the forever elusive profit margin.

Look at Virgin for example, is a wonderful do-good-enterpreuneering company. And why? Because good old Richard is still using his determination and vision to strive forwards whilst letting executives do the simple maintainance as opposed to actual decision making.

Ultimatly however Ayn Rands philosophy has too many faults to work effectivly, hence why i'm an Objectivist, but I subscribe to my own ideas which take this into account. I call it Moral Objectivism, essentially Objectivist economics but supplemented by the concept that a society would have deveoped enough as a whole to be moral and of sound social values.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

On the contrary, I would. Intelligent, logically thinking people who are in touch with reality do not give Ayn Rand's theories the time of day.

Although, they make for good stories.

Pardon? I consider myself logical and intelligent and it was Ayn Rand who introduced me to the interesting system of Objectivism.

Consequently however I never paid any attention to her meta-physical and philisophical ramblings, instead I focused on her social and economic views, took them as my own principels and applied a moral and system of social values to complement it in order for it to work.

On it's own Ayn Rands economic system wouldn't work. And her philosophy is just meh.

[Treznor]

Doesn't it therefore suggest that all these assumptions are false if people discover a way to maximize personal benefit at the expense of social/public/common good?

If your saying that Objectivist economic/social structures fail because people are inherently self centered and selfish most of the time then yes, Ayn Rand's naive outlook that the elite would be resourceful, intelligent, industrious and moral at the same time is something akin to an epic fail in the philisophical circle.

On the one hand I can imagine that in the world she specifed she imagined companies built around enterpreneuring individuals, like Henry Ford for example, an unpleasent person by all accords but he built cars cheap enough for virtually anyone to afford them; mostly so he could sell more of them but his actions had a benefit for society as a whole. Also, assuming that companies were governed by the starry eyesd creators of them, we wouldn't be in a world where companies are directed by executive selfabsorbed egotists who simply pursue the forever elusive profit margin.

Look at Virgin for example, is a wonderful do-good-enterpreuneering company. And why? Because good old Richard is still using his determination and vision to strive forwards whilst letting executives do the simple maintainance as opposed to actual decision making.

Ultimatly however Ayn Rands philosophy has too many faults to work effectivly, hence why i'm an Objectivist, but I subscribe to my own ideas which take this into account. I call it Moral Objectivism, essentially Objectivist economics but supplemented by the concept that a society would have deveoped enough as a whole to be moral and of sound social values.

So you're arguing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Ford was a historical son-of-a-bitch, begrudging every penny he paid his workers so he could make the cheapest cars possible. He's also famous for such quotes as "You can have one of my cars in any color you want -- as long as it's black." But because he ultimately made cars affordable for the middle class, it outweighs the moral problem of treating his workers as poorly as he could get away with.

This is why I can't get behind Objectivism. "I got mine. Fuck you."

[Kamsaki]

Pardon? I consider myself logical and intelligent and it was Ayn Rand who introduced me to the interesting system of Objectivism.

Consequently however I never paid any attention to her meta-physical and philisophical ramblings, instead I focused on her social and economic views, took them as my own principels and applied a moral and system of social values to complement it in order for it to work.

On it's own Ayn Rands economic system wouldn't work. And her philosophy is just meh.

Wait, you took its conclusions and rejected its premises? How does that work? How do you justify her views on the absent state and free market capitalism if not on the basis by which she does it? And given that you're rejecting the "objective" claim to truth that Rand is through her underlying metaphysics, is it really Objectivism at all?

[Vittos Ordination]

Thus everything a man is, he is necessarily - basically, it's Leibniz superessentialism. Consequently, everything he does, he does according to what he is as an individuated being, and his rights, as understood through a sort of Hegelian idea of functional capacity, extend to the ability to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

The problem is not her reasoning, as such. It's actually an interesting analysis of a legitimate consequence of adopting Leibniz's ideas on modality and Hegelian rights as the realisation of the self-actualisation of the will. The problem is that in using a superessentialist approach, she's vulnerable to its weaknesses - namely, its consequences of the erosion of free will and the failure of empiricism as factually productive, and the philosophical weakness of the idea of essential properties and De Re Modality as raised by Quine.

It's worth noting, though, that even given these weaknesses, Rand may be able to survive this by relying on a Leibniz supposition. If, as Leibniz thinks, this really is the best of all possible worlds, then Rand's enlightened self-interest is in fact entirely appropriate. Given that, the most moral action we could possibly take is that which the world would have us do through our built-in personal inclinations. However, this is a very pessimistic view of human potential. As Sartre is more than happy to point out, what makes humans special is precisely their ability to overcome their biology and decide their essence for themselves, and if the best we can do is what is dictated to us by our being-in-the-world, then why do we even bother to exist?

Even though it might be possible, I'm not prepared to accept that humans are at the pinnacle of our achievement when we follow our base biological impulses, and I think this is quite an important intuition.

I doubt Rand would accept the blow to her epistemology, but she could have acknowledged that the degradation of free will and empiricism is not particularly harmful to a formulation of rights. Considering we are dealing in metaphysics here, one can effectively divorce our understanding of rights from our understanding of reality. One can argue that there are basically two worlds, one physical and real, the other a superceding conceptual world based in the rules of our understanding.

Basically, we MUST understand ourselves as free actors. It is not possible to fathom the opposite.

It is possible to recognize that one's metaphysical position eliminates the possibility of free will, but then retreat to the conceptual world.

Rights and ethics exist only according understanding of the world, if we are automatons in the real world, you can simply respond "Who cares?"

[Industrial Enigmatics]

So you're arguing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Ford was a historical son-of-a-bitch, begrudging every penny he paid his workers so he could make the cheapest cars possible. He's also famous for such quotes as "You can have one of my cars in any color you want -- as long as it's black." But because he ultimately made cars affordable for the middle class, it outweighs the moral problem of treating his workers as poorly as he could get away with.

No... not quite, although I see what your getting at. I'm saying that by allowing industrious individuals to essentially do what they want withen an economic market they can improve society as a whole through what you would view as selfish reasons. Henry Ford as you said being the typical examples, but if every company every buissness, and every job, was like Henry Fords, then yes people would be paid practically nothing, but advanced and somewhat futuristic cars like the Ford Model T would cost next to nothing so it kind of balances out; assuming everything operated in a 100% laissex faire system, which obviously fails due to government taxes and regulations and so on.

This is why I can't get behind Objectivism. "I got mine. Fuck you."

I lol'd

Yes i know what you mean by that, it's the ideaology of the selfish. Hence why I have my own adjusted Moral Objectivist system. I'll agree with you that it is a selfish system, and it is indeed non-workable. But it isn't unsalavagable I believe.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The main problem that I have with objectivism is, like most absolutist moral systems, it utterly lacks any pragmatism. Also, like ALL absolute moral systems, it can be broken with a carefully crafted scenario.

I did have a problem with the fact that it sought both objective morality and objective aesthetics, but I'm currently working on a way to make both somewhat objective myself, and I think I might actually get it to work.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

Pardon? I consider myself logical and intelligent and it was Ayn Rand who introduced me to the interesting system of Objectivism.

Consequently however I never paid any attention to her meta-physical and philisophical ramblings, instead I focused on her social and economic views, took them as my own principels and applied a moral and system of social values to complement it in order for it to work.

On it's own Ayn Rands economic system wouldn't work. And her philosophy is just meh.

Wait, you took its conclusions and rejected its premises? How does that work? How do you justify her views on the absent state and free market capitalism if not on the basis by which she does it? And given that you're rejecting the "objective" claim to truth that Rand is through her underlying metaphysics, is it really Objectivism at all?

From what i'm aware she developed her economic principels before her meta-physical ramblings.

Like Dawkins scientific literature before his religious nut-job crusade.

In anycase, Ayn Rand's outline for an Objectivst economic system were more or less correct in my view. At first I was simply an Objectivst, "all hail an anarchist laissez faire state!" I would cry to the heavens before I went to bed. But eventually I realised that the economic system would not work with complementing safe guards. In my case I consider these safe guards to either be an educated and moral populace with social values and integrity to ensure that proud honourable economic competition continues, or a night-watchman state to ensure that education continues soundly on and keeps law and order whilst people go about their buissness unhindered.

You could say that after adopting her philosophy and agreeing with her conclusions I then went back through her explanations and either disagreed with them and fixed them or rejected them entirely.

So no, I don't subscribe to Objectivism, I subscribe to my own brand of Moral Objectivism.

[Capitalistliberals]

On the contrary, I would. Intelligent, logically thinking people who are in touch with reality do not give Ayn Rand's theories the time of day.

Although, they make for good stories.

Pardon? I consider myself logical and intelligent and it was Ayn Rand who introduced me to the interesting system of Objectivism.

Consequently however I never paid any attention to her meta-physical and philisophical ramblings, instead I focused on her social and economic views, took them as my own principels and applied a moral and system of social values to complement it in order for it to work.

On it's own Ayn Rands economic system wouldn't work. And her philosophy is just meh.

Objectivism is a god awful economic justification for capitalism, I am a hardore libertarian, but if you want real economic theory then you need to read real economists who know what their talking about and don't use metaphoric strawmen as justfications for their theory, Read hayek or mises for real insights into individualism. The only thing that objectivism does well is that it comes to the correct ends on metaphysics of truth, besides that its useless

[Treznor]

So you're arguing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Ford was a historical son-of-a-bitch, begrudging every penny he paid his workers so he could make the cheapest cars possible. He's also famous for such quotes as "You can have one of my cars in any color you want -- as long as it's black." But because he ultimately made cars affordable for the middle class, it outweighs the moral problem of treating his workers as poorly as he could get away with.

No... not quite, although I see what your getting at. I'm saying that by allowing industrious individuals to essentially do what they want withen an economic market they can improve society as a whole through what you would view as selfish reasons. Henry Ford as you said being the typical examples, but if every company every buissness, and every job, was like Henry Fords, then yes people would be paid practically nothing, but advanced and somewhat futuristic cars like the Ford Model T would cost next to nothing so it kind of balances out; assuming everything operated in a 100% laissex faire system, which obviously fails due to government taxes and regulations and so on.

This is why I can't get behind Objectivism. "I got mine. Fuck you."

I lol'd

Yes i know what you mean by that, it's the ideaology of the selfish. Hence why I have my own adjusted Moral Objectivist system. I'll agree with you that it is a selfish system, and it is indeed non-workable. But it isn't unsalavagable I believe.

I think I see. You're after the Free Market Fairy: everything will magically balance out eventually if we just let industrial individuals like Henry Ford to do business as they wish, even though people will periodically suffer for it. You know what this most reminds me of? A Dickens novel. Wealth and production are concentrated in the hands of the elite, it's exceedingly hard to join those ranks, and while it's cheap to live (bread for a penny, after all) life is also pretty cheap. Working conditions are brutal, hours are long and if you get hurt on the job or sick from unrelated circumstances, you're SOL.

Yeah. "I got mine. Fuck you." I'll pass.

[Tech-gnosis]

Considering we are dealing in metaphysics here, one can effectively divorce our understanding of rights from our understanding of reality. One can argue that there are basically two worlds, one physical and real, the other a superceding conceptual world based in the rules of our understanding.

I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of Objectivism. Rights are supposed to logically follow from our understanding of the world.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

On the contrary, I would. Intelligent, logically thinking people who are in touch with reality do not give Ayn Rand's theories the time of day.

Although, they make for good stories.

Pardon? I consider myself logical and intelligent and it was Ayn Rand who introduced me to the interesting system of Objectivism.

Consequently however I never paid any attention to her meta-physical and philisophical ramblings, instead I focused on her social and economic views, took them as my own principels and applied a moral and system of social values to complement it in order for it to work.

On it's own Ayn Rands economic system wouldn't work. And her philosophy is just meh.

Objectivism is a god awful economic justification for capitalism, I am a hardore libertarian, but if you want real economic theory then you need to read real economists who know what their talking about and don't use metaphoric strawmen as justfications for their theory, Read hayek or mises for real insights into individualism. The only thing that objectivism does well is that it comes to the correct ends on metaphysics of truth, besides that its useless

It's very rare that I say this to someone but I didn't understand a word of what you just said there.

From what I can gather however, Objectivism is a garbled mix of meta-physical ramblings, economic rules and sociology. It's so all over the place that it's not taken seriously. I'm more ocncerned with the social benefits that an Objectivist system could have in terms of technological advancement provided a society is moral enough to govern themselves.

[Mereshka]

Well, first off, I'd like to agree with the majority of the people here in saying that Bluth does a spectacuarly bad job of defending Objectivism. Almost makes me ashamed that I follow it. To a certain degree anyways. It has its problems, most definetly, but I'd like to see a way of thinking that doesn't. The great thing about it though, as it invites one, in my mind at least, to alter it as they see fit. I base this on Rand's belief that reason should be ones only way of acquiring information. Note she doesn't say Atlas Shrugged, or herself but reason. There is a great deal about the philosophy that doesn't seem rational to me, so by her own words, I shouldn't follow those particular parts of Objectivism.

As said, I don't agree with everything she says, but there are several things that appeal to me, mainly the Individualism aspect, and the whole A=A business. Of course, the former may be because I'm at heart a rather selfish sort of person. Also, I've seen here many people state that Objectivism states that the individual comes before the many. I wouldn't say this is nesscesarily true. The way I've always looked at it, is that, noone else has a right to my life or possesions, regardless of their need. If a group of homeless people wanted me to turn my house, which I've worked and paid for myself, into a shelter for the needy, I'd say no right off the bat. But thats just me.

[Mushet]

I don't need to look it up I read Atlas Shrugged

[Industrial Enigmatics]

I think I see. You're after the Free Market Fairy: everything will magically balance out eventually if we just let industrial individuals like Henry Ford to do business as they wish, even though people will periodically suffer for it. You know what this most reminds me of? A Dickens novel. Wealth and production are concentrated in the hands of the elite, it's exceedingly hard to join those ranks, and while it's cheap to live (bread for a penny, after all) life is also pretty cheap. Working conditions are brutal, hours are long and if you get hurt on the job or sick from unrelated circumstances, you're SOL.

Yeah. "I got mine. Fuck you." I'll pass.

Perhaps, but you forget that not only would social conditions improve over time with technological advances and corporatiosn trying to bring out something better to undercut their competition at the same price, that even the lowest worker could enjoy the standard of living akin to that of todays middle class citizen. Couple technological improvements with working processes and you'd have a cleaner and safer working environment, even if it's for the sake of efficeincy as opposed to health and safety concerns.

Either way, feel free to dismiss my claims or not, after all, it's impossible for me to fully communicate my ideas and concepts over this through a rough debate.

[Capitalistliberals]

On the contrary, I would. Intelligent, logically thinking people who are in touch with reality do not give Ayn Rand's theories the time of day.

Although, they make for good stories.

Pardon? I consider myself logical and intelligent and it was Ayn Rand who introduced me to the interesting system of Objectivism.

Consequently however I never paid any attention to her meta-physical and philisophical ramblings, instead I focused on her social and economic views, took them as my own principels and applied a moral and system of social values to complement it in order for it to work.

On it's own Ayn Rands economic system wouldn't work. And her philosophy is just meh.

Objectivism is a god awful economic justification for capitalism, I am a hardore libertarian, but if you want real economic theory then you need to read real economists who know what their talking about and don't use metaphoric strawmen as justfications for their theory, Read hayek or mises for real insights into individualism. The only thing that objectivism does well is that it comes to the correct ends on metaphysics of truth, besides that its useless

It's very rare that I say this to someone but I didn't understand a word of what you just said there.

From what I can gather however, Objectivism is a garbled mix of meta-physical ramblings, economic rules and sociology. It's so all over the place that it's not taken seriously. I'm more ocncerned with the social benefits that an Objectivist system could have in terms of technological advancement provided a society is moral enough to govern themselves.

My point was it sux as an economic justification, and that there are better authors for indvidual power.

[Risottia]

Why has it become fashionable and acceptable to mock the proponents of objectivism on here?

Because the proponents of objectivism here resort to circular logic, postulating what they are supposed to prove instead.
And also because objectivism is totally ludicrous, and totally out of touch with reality. The only possible link it has with objectivity is the name.

the argument was sufficient to be acceptable to an old poster that I respect a whole lot more than any of the people I have seen posting this A=A bullshit.

Which is a thing the most vocal proponents of objectivism here used to do a lot, and as if it were the ultimate trump-all argument. That's why it has become a recurring joke.

It seems if you actually understood the subject and dismissed it on an acceptable level, you wouldn't resort to mocking it.

What "seems" to you is quite immaterial.
The thing is that objectivism is such a bad excuse for a philosophical system, that it doesn't deserve much of my time. So I mock their mock-philosophy back, thanks to my superior dialectics and logics.

Now say it ain't so, and I will reply "it is so because I said that". There, trumped.

[Treznor]

I think I see. You're after the Free Market Fairy: everything will magically balance out eventually if we just let industrial individuals like Henry Ford to do business as they wish, even though people will periodically suffer for it. You know what this most reminds me of? A Dickens novel. Wealth and production are concentrated in the hands of the elite, it's exceedingly hard to join those ranks, and while it's cheap to live (bread for a penny, after all) life is also pretty cheap. Working conditions are brutal, hours are long and if you get hurt on the job or sick from unrelated circumstances, you're SOL.

Yeah. "I got mine. Fuck you." I'll pass.

Perhaps, but you forget that not only would social conditions improve over time with technological advances and corporatiosn trying to bring out something better to undercut their competition at the same price, that even the lowest worker could enjoy the standard of living akin to that of todays middle class citizen. Couple technological improvements with working processes and you'd have a cleaner and safer working environment, even if it's for the sake of efficeincy as opposed to health and safety concerns.

Either way, feel free to dismiss my claims or not, after all, it's impossible for me to fully communicate my ideas and concepts over this through a rough debate.

Again, that sounds like a lovely idea. Unfortunately, we're not seeing this trend. Remove the fetters from the elite in how they do business, and they hoard luxuries for themselves. The poor and middle class? They're on their own.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[Vittos Ordination]

Considering we are dealing in metaphysics here, one can effectively divorce our understanding of rights from our understanding of reality. One can argue that there are basically two worlds, one physical and real, the other a superceding conceptual world based in the rules of our understanding.

I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of Objectivism. Rights are supposed to logically follow from our understanding of the world.

Right, right.

It is funny cause I am borrowing this from a marxist socialist.

[Industrial Enigmatics]

Again, that sounds like a lovely idea. Unfortunately, we're not seeing this trend. Remove the fetters from the elite in how they do business, and they hoard luxuries for themselves. The poor and middle class? They're on their own.

On the contrary, they would not, as corporations would strive for the most possible profit with the least possible responsibility. They would also be the most powerful entities, effectively becoming a new government. A scary thought. The only thing I detest more than government is business. And if the latter becomes the former, I shudder to think of the world humanity would inherit.

As I've said, like all philosophy it's unlikely, and my philosophy revolves around society being moralistic. So we may as well leave it here.

[Tech-gnosis]

Considering we are dealing in metaphysics here, one can effectively divorce our understanding of rights from our understanding of reality. One can argue that there are basically two worlds, one physical and real, the other a superceding conceptual world based in the rules of our understanding.

I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of Objectivism. Rights are supposed to logically follow from our understanding of the world.

Right, right.

It is funny cause I am borrowing this from a marxist socialist.

Kant was a marxist socialist?

[Vittos Ordination]

Considering we are dealing in metaphysics here, one can effectively divorce our understanding of rights from our understanding of reality. One can argue that there are basically two worlds, one physical and real, the other a superceding conceptual world based in the rules of our understanding.

I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of Objectivism. Rights are supposed to logically follow from our understanding of the world.

Right, right.

It is funny cause I am borrowing this from a marxist socialist.

Kant was a marxist socialist?

Jurgen Habermas

[Tech-gnosis]

Jurgen Habermas

Habermas was heavily influenced by Kant.