#567: Objecting to Objectivism

[webmdave]

Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser. Objecting to Objectivism. Russell talks about Ayn Rand's objectivism and some of its problems.

 

View the full article

[mahjong]

Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser. Objecting to Objectivism. Russell talks about Ayn Rand's objectivism and some of its problems.

 

View the full article

 

 

Dave- Did you intend this to take us to the live radio program?

[webmdave]

Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser. Objecting to Objectivism. Russell talks about Ayn Rand's objectivism and some of its problems.

 

View the full article

 

 

Dave- Did you intend this to take us to the live radio program?

 

 

It's a recorded podcast of their live show. It's not actually live.

[Ouroboros]

They were alive when they recorded it.

[Asimov]

Well la-dee-da. Guess I'll have to see what this is about.

 

Most of the time the objections to Objectivism are in a few main camps:

 

1) I hate Ayn Rand for reason x, therefore Objectivism is stupid and Objectivists are mindless robots.

2) Ayn Rand was a terrible writer, therefore Objectivism is stupid and Objectivists are mindless robots.

3) Ayn Rand says selfishness is a virtue, therefore Objectivists think its ok to do anything as long as it benefits themselves, therefore Objectivism is stupid.

4) Ayn Rand is stupid.

5) I hate Objectivists....why? Because.

 

See how they're all interrelated as meaningless diatribes of bullshit?

[Asimov]

So, I listened to the Podcast.

 

I don't really understand what his objections to Objectivism actually were, it seemed like his main points of contention rested on the fact that his source was a Newsletter from 1962 that was outlining the main aspects of Objectivism, and because they didn't go into detail about why this is so, Rand is clearly just asserting without making any connections.

 

I also don't really know exactly why he thinks that Objectivism is irrational, because the Podcast wasn't very well thought-out. He didn't provide much ammo against the philosophy, beyond some of the callers accusing Objectivists of being cultish and irrational...which may be true in some cases, but I guess I missed the memo when stereotyping became a valid argument.

 

Interesting, they agreed with the foundations of Rand's philosophy, but then didn't seem to understand the connection between her foundations and the application of it....maybe because they have never read any of her other works beyond Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? It's not that hard of a philosophy to grasp.

 

I wasn't impressed, to say the least.

[Vigile]

I'm getting ready to listen to the podcast, so we'll see if my views change.

 

Initially, my problems/concerns with objectivism are twofold:

 

First, it appears to me to be a paradigm that its followers adopt. Paradigms are common and often necessary for traversing the complex nature of life, but they must be recognized and not relied upon as absolutes. The paradigm of objectivism appears to me to simplify complex issues and provides its followers with black and white positions. This is no different from any other religion.

 

My second concern is that objectivism seems to discount empathy. Viewing the world in a series of right vs wrong eliminates the need for human empathy. However, most systems of morality are built on empathy; and necessarily so since morality is the rules we create that help us live amongst one another. Empathy is complex, as are considerations that apply to it. Right and wrong more often than not comes down to individual circumstances, not cookie cutter rules blindly applied.

[Asimov]

First, it appears to me to be a paradigm that its followers adopt. Paradigms are common and often necessary for traversing the complex nature of life, but they must be recognized and not relied upon as absolutes. The paradigm of objectivism appears to me to simplify complex issues and provides its followers with black and white positions. This is no different from any other religion.

 

I can see how one could see that, but that is not necessarily a knock against Objectivism itself, but against people who would blindly accept a statement.

I think Rand has a fairly solid foundation and she explains herself very well. Things that she might not have explained well were later expounded upon by Leonard Peikoff. I guess I personally don't appreciate the accusation (not directly from you, Vigile), that I rigidly adhere to the principles set about in Objectivism based on whim.

 

I recognize that the principles aren't absolutes, they can't be, really, because they are premises of a worldview that one must choose to recognize.

 

My second concern is that objectivism seems to discount empathy. Viewing the world in a series of right vs wrong eliminates the need for human empathy. However, most systems of morality are built on empathy; and necessarily so since morality is the rules we create that help us live amongst one another. Empathy is complex, as are considerations that apply to it.

 

I don't think it discounts empathy, nor does it view the world in a series of right vs wrong. If you could provide an example of why you think that it would be helpful. Empathy and emotion allow us to form strong bonds with other human beings. Human relationships is one of the basic concepts in Objectivist society, so I would doubt that it is discounted. It is more of not allowing ones emotions to take control of ones reasoning processes or allow ones emotions to blind-side you and allow other people to take advantage of you.

 

Right and wrong more often than not comes down to individual circumstances, not cookie cutter rules blindly applied.

 

Of course, and I don't think that Rand makes any cookie-cutter rules.