A critique of Objectivism

[andywide1]

I've been trying to "poke holes" in Miss Rand's ideas for years, as a good scientist should, and cannot. Does anyone know of a reasonable attempt? Is there a book that comes close?

[glibber]

Plenty attempts have been made but most are quite shoddy. The problem being Rand wrote outside and against the Academia so not many philosophers, scientists, sociologists, theologians, (etc) have written replies. As well when they make replies they tend to be very specific in what aspect is critiqued - some like Walker in the "Ayn Rand Cult" attacked her and Objectivism as one would attack a group of people (power struggles and the like), others like the blog "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" focus on how Objectivism interacts with other disciplines (its reading of History, Religion etc) as well as its internal consistency. Another layer of disagreement can be found in groups and ideologies linked to but competing with Objectivism as expressed by Peikoff - David Kelley at The Atlas Society is the biggest one currently but other individuals like Nathaniel Branden have material online as well.

The gap between Peikoff and his opponents is wide, their reading of Rand, the nature of evil and relationship to those outside Objectivism is not bridgeable. Through the publication of "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" the conflict exists on a personal level (dissecting the stories of the Branden's and making evaluations about them and their philosophy based on it), on a political level (in relation to Libertarianism), and on a philosophical level (the "Mind/Body Dichotomy" etc).

My own opinion on reading Rand, Peikoff, Kelley and others is that Peikoff represents most closely what Rand left us as a legacy. Moral Judgment, understanding "proper definitions" of philosophical ideas and her view of the World is best scene in Peikoff and the ARI so I would consider that the true Objectivism during your study.

Edited March 16, 2008 by glibber

[DavidOdden]

I've been trying to "poke holes" in Miss Rand's ideas for years, as a good scientist should, and cannot.

Why? Or maybe it's that I think you're wrong that a good scientist should "poke holes". Can you defend that practice?

[DragonMaci]

I've been trying to "poke holes" in Miss Rand's ideas for years, as a good scientist should, and cannot. Does anyone know of a reasonable attempt? Is there a book that comes close?

What I'd like to know is:

1. Why do you want to poke holes in Rand's ideas? Is it because you think a good scientists should? Do you think that if you don't you'll be a bad scientist? Being a good or bad scientists is about whether or not your scientific theories match reality, not whether or not you poke holes in Rand's ideas.

2. Why do you think a good scientists should? If you think they should I suggest that you are working from a faulty premise about what makes a good scientist. See above.

I realise I may of doubled up a little of what DavidOdden said, but I am not sure if he was asking no. 1 or no. 2, so I asked both just in case. Also, I wanted to add my own comments to each question.

[Benpercent]

Does anyone know of a reasonable attempt? Is there a book that comes close?

I would think it would be wonderful if there was such a thing. You can come by reasonable attempts, but there are three main problems:

1. The Brandens: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have proven to be the absolute worse false friends of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Rand and the Brandens worked together for a few years (you can even find some of Nathaniel's essays in The Virtue of Selfishness [TVOS]), but later it was revealed that he was lying and was against Objectivism, but his objections amounted to evasion.

The single greatest hinderment came when a biography came out about the Branden's time with Ayn Rand. It painted her in a bad light, going everywhere from saying she was an emotional wreck her entire life and that she has had affairs. The one problem though: Ayn Rand broke off relations with the Brandens after they were revealed to be lying, so the vast majority (if not all) of the biography is a lie. Nonetheless the lies still exist today and are used in the majority of ad hominid attacks against Ayn Rand.

2. Confusion: When a reasonable attempt to refute Objectivism comes, it usually goes by a flawed understanding. So not only do many critics buy the Branden's lies, but they just don't seem to understand.

Take for instance a link to an essay that was posted here a few months ago that criticized Objectivist epistemology. Now in logic, like math, if you screw up somewhere in the beginning then the whole equation collapses. The worst thing about that is that it means that the horse was dead before it even left the gate. In this particular essay, when the author put together a syllogism (two premise argument), he used proper names, which are explicitly stated in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE) NOT to be concepts because they don't represent a unit. As you can see, after that there was no need to chase after the carriage.

3. Arbitrary dismissals: If you've read Philosophy: Who Needs It (PWNI), you'll see why philosophy is so important a subject that everyone should study and understand. Philosophy these days is more popular thanks to Ayn Rand. The problem with philosophy, usually, is that it is taught as something very detached from life (or day-to-day thinking) and people, unless they're hardcore about it, usually don't engage in philosophy much further than college. So that means if they were poisoned in college, they're poisoned for life.

Because of Ayn Rand's popularity and popularization of philosophy, many critics have dismissed as a passing popular phenomena or cult leader. The cult leader label is because she was popular while she was still alive, whereas most philosophers in history were either widely uninfluential, completely ignored for their philosophical works (Hume died known as a history intellectual; it took until Immanuel Kant's objection to his writings for him to be known as a philosopher), disrespected (Socrates was killed for being annoying), or isolated to the ivory tower.

It's a stupid objection, but popular nonetheless, which is ironic.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

...... in the majority of ad hominid attacks against Ayn Rand.

you've done this a number of times.

I am pretty sure you mean "ad hominem." (A "hominid" is any human or the relatively recent ancestors like H. erectus or A. afarensis. Lately though the anthropologists use "hominin" instead for some reason.)

[Benpercent]

you've done this a number of times.

Do you mean my misspelling or that I have used the fallacy?

I am pretty sure you mean "ad hominem." (A "hominid" is any human or the relatively recent ancestors like H. erectus or A. afarensis. Lately though the anthropologists use "hominin" instead for some reason.)

Yes, I do. What confused me is when I typed it into a word processor and it marked it as misspelled, and offered "hominid" as a choice. Irritating when your vocabulary is bigger than the program's. It probably gets jealous and tries to screw me up offering up these false choices.

[themadkat]

1. The Brandens: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have proven to be the absolute worse false friends of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Rand and the Brandens worked together for a few years (you can even find some of Nathaniel's essays in The Virtue of Selfishness [TVOS]), but later it was revealed that he was lying and was against Objectivism, but his objections amounted to evasion.

The single greatest hinderment came when a biography came out about the Branden's time with Ayn Rand. It painted her in a bad light, going everywhere from saying she was an emotional wreck her entire life and that she has had affairs. The one problem though: Ayn Rand broke off relations with the Brandens after they were revealed to be lying, so the vast majority (if not all) of the biography is a lie. Nonetheless the lies still exist today and are used in the majority of ad hominid attacks against Ayn Rand.

I have to confess I've never understood this. I've read Barbara Branden's book in its entirety and I have no idea why so many Objectivists say it painted her in a bad light. I thought it was a very affectionate portrait and that it was obvious from reading it that even after all the things which transpired between them that Barbara still displays an obvious love of Rand. Also, what is the evidence for saying that the majority of the biography is a lie? I'm certain there are some inaccuracies in it, for example I know that Ms. Rand's name has nothing to do with a typewriter, but don't you think that many more of the people interviewed in the book would have taken serious exception to being used to mislead, especially considering who they were? Anyway, she clearly had an affair with Nathaniel. Nowhere in the book does it suggest she had any other affair. Far from showing her being an emotional wreck, I thought the book showed her to be dealing with some very difficult realities as best she could. I have no idea why some people need to feel like Rand was perfect. Neither she nor anyone else will ever be perfect. If you think about it, perfection is not even possible to humans, so like omniscience or omnipotence it is no proper standard by which to judge someone. Besides, whatever Ms. Rand's personal flaws may have been, they have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of her philosophy, which depends exclusively on the content of that philosophy and its relation to reality.

I really do think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of Rand's biography is a lie, unless you can show me some evidence of such.

[Mammon]

I have no idea why some people need to feel like Rand was perfect. Neither she nor anyone else will ever be perfect.

Isn't perfection the standard of Objectivism? What do you mean by perfect, kat?

[KendallJ]

I really do think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of Rand's biography is a lie, unless you can show me some evidence of such.

I think it would be really good to read PARC.

To make "nice" claims about someone is not to verify the truthfulness of them, nor to wash clean the writer's intent. One can still say seemingly nice things and still be a self-serving liar. The question is not whether or not Barbara has a compassionate view of Rand's struggle or that she admits that Rand struggled. It is rather did she characterize Rand's struggle correctly at all.

[Benpercent]

I was going to post a more lengthy response, but Kendall made most of it more concise for me.

Anyway, she clearly had an affair with Nathaniel.

How so?

Besides, whatever Ms. Rand's personal flaws may have been, they have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of her philosophy, which depends exclusively on the content of that philosophy and its relation to reality.

I agree with you entirely on this point, but the thing is with the Brandens is that it has created a gigantic hurdle for Objectivism. Problem is that people DO often place much importance on the personal life or subconscious on the messenger when considering if they want to listen to the message at all, even though they shouldn't.

Because of the Brandens, a mention of Ayn Rand's name might only get you a "oh, she was crazy" and a topic change. An ad hominem and refusal of a hearing.

Besides, truth is of significant value anyhow.

I really do think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of Rand's biography is a lie, unless you can show me some evidence of such.

If I recall the particular decade correctly, it says in the preface of VOS that Ayn Rand broke off her connection with the Brandens somewhere in the 60's (the year 1967 keeps flashing in my mind), but Barbara Branden has made mention in her biography what Rand was like "to the end of her days."

That's over thirty years of untruth.

Isn't perfection the standard of Objectivism? What do you mean by perfect, kat?

Exactly. I've heard the word "perfect" thrown around far too often lately, without any standard given. If I had to give my standard, I would say it would entail complete morality and striving to reach one's potential.

[Mammon]

Exactly. I've heard the word "perfect" thrown around far too often lately, without any standard given. If I had to give my standard, I would say it would entail complete morality and striving to reach one's potential.

Well, I prefer to wait until kat clarifies what she means before I say anything else on it. I think "perfection" also has to do with how clearly you view reality.

[JMartins]

This is a site dedicated to discrediting Objectivism. I haven't read through it all myself, so if anyone decides to do so and finds any interesting criticism, please post it here. They make some interesting points against Leonard Peikoff, though I can be certain that they're based on truth. http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/index.html

[KendallJ]

They make some interesting points against Leonard Peikoff,

Which ones are those. i.e., which ones do you think are interesting?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Do you mean my misspelling or that I have used the fallacy?

I meant the mis-spelling ("ad hominid" instead of "ad hominem", to save others from having backscroll for context).

One more germane point...

Besides, whatever Ms. Rand's personal flaws may have been, they have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of her philosophy, which depends exclusively on the content of that philosophy and its relation to reality.

I tend to agree that Objectivism should not be judged by the personal flaws of Ayn Rand.

Unfortunately, she herself invited this by her claim that she was a living exemplar of her philosophy. (I can't remember exactly where; it was an afterword to one of the novels I think.) This gave any nominally credible source on her life (such as someone who was a close associate for years) a way to tear it down by telling lies or halftruths or what-have-you about her life. This is exactly what has in fact happened.

[Tenure]

Surely anyone who holds an integrated conception of the philosophy of Objectivism and who tries to practice the virtues of it the best they can, is therefore an exemplar of the philosophy. Most of all, if they do slip up, and sometimes fail to be honest or hold an irrational premise due to emotional reasons, then they are an exemplar of one of the most fundamental points of Objectivism: that men are volitional, and have to make a conscious effort to act morally.

I don't think Ayn Rand ever said that she was the ideal, since ideals are there as guidance for action, but I do think I remember her saying that if one wanted proof that the world she talked about was achievable, that they only needed to look at her life. I definitely remember that Peikoff said that Rand wasn't a perfectly post-Gulch Dagny, or post-Cortlandt Dominique, but instead that she was the kind of person, due to her philosophy, who could create such characters, because they reflected those virtues which she held deeply within her and practiced throughly.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Tenure

[softwareNerd]

[Rand] herself invited this by her claim that she was a living exemplar of her philosophy. (I can't remember exactly where; it was an afterword to one of the novels I think.)

At the end of "Atlas Shrugged" is an "About the Author" section where Rand says: I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books.

However, the same section also closes on this note: I trust that nobody will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written -- and published -- is my proof that they do.

In other words, Rand did not say that she's the only one who lives by her philosophy, but also that there are other men who do so too. Who are these men who are like Galt, Dagny, Frisco and Rearden?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

At the end of "Atlas Shrugged" is an "About the Author" section where Rand says: I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books.

However, the same section also closes on this note: I trust that nobody will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written -- and published -- is my proof that they do.

In other words, Rand did not say that she's the only one who lives by her philosophy, but also that there are other men who do so too. Who are these men who are like Galt, Dagny, Frisco and Rearden?

Ah, yes. Thank you for finding that.

My point being that that statement left her open to charges that imperfections in her life were due to imperfections in her philosophy.

I'd also like to know who those others are.

[SpiralTheorist]

Just a guess, but I'd suspect that Rand's statement was in part a reference to Archibald Ogden, who literally put his job at Bobbs-Merrill on the line line to get The Fountainhead published. I have no reason to believe she thought he was a full-blown hero, but she certainly seemed to think he was a man of first-handed intelligence and integrity. You can see him referenced more than a few times in Letters of Ayn Rand.

My point being that that statement left her open to charges that imperfections in her life were due to imperfections in her philosophy.

It's a bit more complicated than that, isn't it? I mean, what sort of imperfections are we talking about? Did Rand make a bad decision (I think so, more than once), or did she make an immoral decision (have yet to see it)? Would either of those imply that her philosophy is in some respect false? Would either even provide evidence for it? Has anyone who has claimed that Rand's personal life in some way implies her philosophy is unlivable ever provided anything like an argument for it?

[KendallJ]

My point being that that statement left her open to charges that imperfections in her life were due to imperfections in her philosophy.

I don't think that this statement left her open to anything. Do you think she thought there were imperfections in her life? By what standard do you think so? They are only imperfections by someone else's standard of morality. Or do you think they were imperfections by hers. That is, do you think her affair was a breach of her morality or an intellectually honest mistake, (which would not be such by her standard)?

Those who are going to quibble that Rand doesn't live by their morality would find reason to do so, regardless of what she actually said.

Edited March 22, 2008 by KendallJ

[Dr. Radiaki]

As an aside, I know that I find it useful to find a critique on any given subject so I can put any claims to the test with my own research and compare them to the arguments made by proponents.

[Ifat Glassman]

I've been trying to "poke holes" in Miss Rand's ideas for years, as a good scientist should, and cannot. Does anyone know of a reasonable attempt? Is there a book that comes close?

Why? Or maybe it's that I think you're wrong that a good scientist should "poke holes". Can you defend that practice?

I think that a good way to learn and integrate a subject is by trying to "poke holes" in it. It leads to interesting questions and encourages critical thinking.

However, such approach can only be effective if you have enough knowledge already. If you want to learn trigonometry, trying to see if you can find contradictions as soon as you know what sin(x) means is ineffective.

On another note, I think great many people (non-Objectivists) are eager to find a hole in Objectivism not for the sake of gaining knowledge, but for the sake of proving how smart they are. This is also the reason why their criticism has such poor quality: they are not interested in actual knowledge, instead they are interested in proving superiority.

The more problematic a person's self-esteem is, the harder they will cling to trying to disprove Rand (which means cling to irrationality).

It looks pretty ugly (something of the style "I will lie to myself, to you, and cling to everything, at all costs - I will not think logically or look at facts. If I admit you're right it's gonna kill me").

[DavidOdden]

I think that a good way to learn and integrate a subject is by trying to "poke holes" in it. It leads to interesting questions and encourages critical thinking.

That's just restating the conclusion. I do not fully understand the nature of "poking holes" in a subject, so I don't understand why it would be a good thing to do. In particular, I would not think that mindless vandalism is the last form of intellectual effort that a scientist should engage in. Although maybe this is part of the method of neo-emergent science.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I don't think that this statement left her open to anything. Do you think she thought there were imperfections in her life? By what standard do you think so? They are only imperfections by someone else's standard of morality. Or do you think they were imperfections by hers. That is, do you think her affair was a breach of her morality or an intellectually honest mistake, (which would not be such by her standard)?

I think that they would argue that the affair was in fact consistent with her philosophy and that it was a disaster. Now for the sneaky part--many anti-Objectivists who take this tack will then claim that this is a problem with all affairs and that a philosophy that condones affairs is therefore wrongheaded.

The argument being: Person A holds and propounds Philosophy O. Person A claims to follow Philosophy O consistently. Person A made a huge mistake. Since Person A claims to be following Philosophy O, the mistake was a logical outcome of following Philosophy O. Therefore Philosophy O is a bad guide to how to live one's life.

Mind you I do not agree with this! But that is the argument that has been presented to me (by Christians trying to contrast it with the alleged positive results of following (their conception of) Christianity). This happened about ten years ago; today I could probably have made some intelligent response; back then I could not.

As an aside, would the affair have been a mistake if Branden hadn't turned out to be a deceitful, underhanded, manipulating weasel? (My apologies to weasels and any related species that might feel insulted by association.) My observation has been that "open" marriages tend to be very, very tricky.

Those who are going to quibble that Rand doesn't live by their morality would find reason to do so, regardless of what she actually said.

Not really what they were trying to do--they were trying to discredit Objectivism through some sort of reducto ad clusterf***, if I may coin a phrase.

[DragonMaci]

reducto ad clusterf***, if I may coin a phrase.

As far as I am concerned you may, but what does it mean?