Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

B is B

Regulars
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by B is B

  1. And this prevents you from answering my questions for what reason?
  2. I apologize for my "tone" but I can think of no other way to express my thoughts and criticisms of Objectivism. I'm sorry if this is being perceived as threatening, and it makes me question the intellectual honesty of anyone that views a dissenting opinion as dangerous. That's a very dangerous path, not keeping in accordance with reason and self-interest. So, can anyone answer the question?
  3. That's a good excuse to not deal with questions you have no answers for.
  4. I've read Rand for over 17 years. I own ALL of her works and collections, and most of the Objectivist "canon." Once you get past the novels you'll see what I'm talking about.
  5. I'm only stating my opinion on Objectivism's mixed message, which I find to be self-defeating. However, I'm willing to be disproved. Maybe I just imagined hundreds and thousands of pages of Rand railing about the degeneracy of hippies, communists, Kennedy, educators, Russia, musicians, Democrats, Republicans, authors, philosophers, students, Reagan, Libertarians, Kant, and virtually every other facet of the world. What I'm saying is for a philosophy espousing "the achievement of man" there is an awful lot of time being spent on the negative topics, identify enemies, denouncing everything but a lot less on the great achievement of man. Take for example the essay "Apollo and Dionysus" where Rand compares and contrasts the moon landings to Woodstock in 1969--a few scant pages are devoted to this amazing achievement of mankind's reason, and pages upon pages are spent 'wallowing in the mud' hurling invectives at the hippies at Woodstock. Are you telling me you never noticed this? Is this the first time you ever considered how often Rand spent writing on negative subject versus positive ones? She seemed obsessed with the "dark" side of existence, which is certainly contradictory considering what her stated ideals were. So, can anyone account for this?
  6. Perhaps I didn't explain it well, my point is that Ayn Rand's stance on Kant is very easy for a beginning Objectivist to understand. She puts Kant on a pedestal and labels him "Satan"--the archenemy of reason and destroyer of western civilization due to his sacrifice of reason to mysticism, and subjugation of morals to altruism. Within the same stroke, she puts Aristotle on another pedestal, labels him "Savior" and thus sets up a simple to understand duality and dichotomy which is treated as uncontested truth by all students of Objectivism. Very simple to understand. Very dramatic. It's almost like a novel (coincidence isn't it?). That's my point. Sorry if I didn't explain it clearly.
  7. So, stating that I am not a hardcore, orthodox Objectivist but am familiar with its ideas, is equivalent to "walking into a stranger's house and taking a crap on the living room floor?" Wow. And to top it off, more name calling. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm gathering--if I don't believe every last sentence of Objectivist thought I am "morally bankrupt." If I ask questions about Objectivism that could have a negative implication I am "intellectually impotent." Do you realize that this is the exact manner in which the most devout mystic defends their religion? Don't deal with inquiries--label them with an insulting name to undermine their credibility. Don't allow anyone to question the dogma--brand them as immoral imbeciles, or say they "don't understand" the real meaning. I want to know--when you use the same techniques to evade inquiry as a mystic, altruist or collectivist--what makes you superior to them? I'm sorry, but admittance to your little group isn't worth sacrificing my own value judgements. I'd think, as Objectivists you'd understand that implicitly if not explicitly.
  8. All philosophies of note eventually resonates into the political arena in one form or another. Objectivism, with its clear political implications stemming from its value systems of ethics and morality, is a perfect candidate for political action. Apples and apples. While ideas do influence other ideas, I think that Rand employed a number of fallacies in her "Kantian construction" which is taken as holy scripture by Objectivists. For one, it is reductionist and over simplified, and fails to take into account the polar opposites of the different philosophers; one cannot make an argument by selectively choosing what points to pay attention to and ignore when making these types of claims. Secondly, she employs a "slippery slope" logical fallacy correlating the ideas of Kant (and before him--Plato) to the ideas of other thinkers. Ultimately, it cannot be definitively proven who influenced who unless the author specifically states their influence on their work--to do so is fallacious and complete supposition, which makes for flimsy arguments. Finally, while I am certainly no Kantian by any stretch, much of his explicit meaning is improperly quoted out of context and then used by Rand to create her ponderous construct. I have read "The Ominous Parallels." I have owned it since 1991. While much of the premises are true, I think that Hitlers intellectual development is vastly simplified in the work. Hitler was *NO* intellectual by any means, most of his ideas originated from racist pamphlets he collected in Vienna, Wagnerian opera librettos, and western novels. To suggest a DIRECT link is absurd--Hitler never read Kant, nor Hegel, nor Schopenauer, nor Nietzsche or any of the 19th century German thinkers. Sure, the ideas were floating around in Germany but the personal philosophy of Adolph Hitler was unique to the man, and a collection of his particular passions, lack of education and quirks. In no way was Hitler indicative of the typical German philosophy--he represented the fringe elements. So no, I'm not convinced that Kant is the root of all evil. While fun to quote, and easy to understand for the beginner, to put the entire blame for the corruption of western society on a single man is laughable. Tenets of collectivism, altruism and mysticism permeate the work of the founding fathers--it was in the culture, it always was in the culture. There wasn't a "stab in the back" of reason by Kant at the eleventh hour when rationality was about to win over mysticism. That's just a fable invented by Rand. I'm saying after it was adopted by the state by Constantine, but I'll concede on this as the ideas had been floating around for some time prior to this. I had some contact with ARI in the 90's but I felt they were too cultish for my tastes. Sorry, but that's how they struck me. It was like talking to a bunch of Scientologists.
  9. I just wanted people to know my experiences with Objectivism, that I am familiar with Ayn Rand's works (all of them--novels, philosophies and more) as well as most of the work of her leading or former advocates (Binswanger, Peikoff, Branden). I myself personally found a number of faults with her system--as is my right as a free thinking individual expected to make up their own mind, and allegedly not to be attacked for it. After all, I haven't attacked anyone on this thread for accepting elements of her philosophy that I reject. Anyways, I did not want to detour this thread with their discussion because I had another topic in mind, one that is more important than my quibbles with the full application of her philosophy. I'll put this one on the table though, and please don't confuse this with "attitude"; I like the ideas and principles of Objectivism (although not all the application or misapplication)--I don't really care for most Objectivists. I see *most* if not all of the evils of collectivism at work within the Objectivist organizations, and by extension, through many of its followers. I have a big problem with this. Does that make any sense? Also related to this--some of the situations I have posited that would face an Objectivist government have been somewhat laughed at, however consider some of the difficulties within Objectivism itself: 1.) The disastrous Nathaniel Branden affair and his resulting ostracism which continues to this day. In some circles you don't even want to mention his name. 2.) The (debatable) cronyism of Leonard Peikoff--never a central figure to Objectivism--as the "intellectual heir" of Objectivism because he was the last man standing at Ayn's death. 3.) The huge Libertarian versus Objectivist war that has raged 30 years or so. 4.) The litigation among noted Objectivists (Binswanger/Peikoff). 5.) The ARI fighting with pretty much every other group/institute purporting to explore Objectivism. That is a *LOT* on infighting by people that are supposed to be the fountainheads of achievement and reason! It stands to reason that an Objectivist society would be like *ALL* other society's and have many, many competing interests... now extend that into the business world worth trillions of dollars of market value. Thought should be put on this. In my opinion Objectivism's message is positive, but the tone negative. Objectivists tend to follow the example of their 'leader', Ayn Rand, and resort to argumentative polemics, spend all their energy attacking their enemies and so-called enemies, rather than BUILDING SOMETHING. Objectivism does have a bit of a nihilist streak permeating the whole of the philosophy--it's fascination with the decay of society, the virulent hatred of its enemies as "destroyers of the world", denunciations of every politician, philosophical idea or movement that is not its own (because it has none), the insistence that when one makes a factual error they are actually "immoral"... all of this together yields a very negative philosophy which I believe is at the root of the entire movement's sterility. My opinion is if you want to win "hearts and minds" you don't denounce someone as an immoral idiot for endorsing Marxism--you show them how much better things would be in an Objectivist society. Instead of spending time infuriating our intellectual enemies, spend time achieving to a degree that the root and cause cannot be ignored. When someone poses a question to how your philosophy would deal with a particular situation you respect the person for giving you the opportunity to speak in an open forum about your ideas--you don't ridicule their question and take on superior airs, or cast moral judgements. However, much of these things seem to be ingrained into most Objectivists--and you wonder why people run the other way when you start talking about ideas! You wonder why Objectivism doesn't spread or why the philosophy isn't taken seriously? If you truly valued the ideas and wanted to see them implemented in reality I think you'd be asking these same questions. Or not.
  10. That's all fine and dandy if you are an island unto yourself. However, we are impacted by the laws, statutes and philosophies of the world, and many of those are antithetical to the principles of Objectivism. At what point does Objectivism move from impacting individual lives to impacting the world? Let's face it, what Objectivist doesn't want to rid the world of altruism, collectivism and mysticism? Why haven't we managed to combat it yet? In fact, why haven't we even thrown the first punch? And ridicule, while snarky and cute to the "in crowd" around here (collectivist much?) may score points, it fails to address any of my basic points. To tell you the truth, attacks on the person--which are VERY popular in Objectivism and Rand's chief mode of argument--reek of intellectual impotence to me. Address the issue and make your points. There is no need to be uncivil even if there is disagreement among principles or premises. Thank you. That would be interesting to see for a number of different philosophies to see what falls where. I'm going to put my bets that Protestants have the highest incomes, however. For them making money is a religious experience.
  11. You are stating that Objectivism has only had 50 years--how could it possibly have made a major difference in such a short period of time? -However, Marxism though took less than 50 years to incite communist revolution in Russia. It took less than 100 to spread to all corners of the globe. -The deconstructionist theorists of the 60's took less than 30 years to become the default method of literary criticism in the academic world, and influence a majority of our intellectuals. -Christianity spread to pagan Rome in about 50 years once formerly adopted as state religion. -Nazism took about 12 years to infect all of Germany. Followers of its principles changed the world forever within 25 years. -The philosophies of the founding fathers of the USA were achieved within their lifetime. -Both Plato and Aristotle changed Greek society within their lifetimes. Anyways, does anyone have an opinion or additional information. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I fail to see any impact of Objectivism in our politics, our culture, our lives. I'm also wondering if anyone has any ideas for how to move things forward?
  12. What is so difficult about applying the principles and philosophy of Objectivism to these scenarios? Why the evasion? Why the blank out? Why the refusal to answer? Why the ad hominen attacks? Although situations like these may seem as if they are arbitrary constructs, I can guarantee you that situations like these (and worse) would occur. You'd have to naive to assume that individuals wouldn't "game" the market--it happens *all* the time, often if just by default to compete in the same price range within the market. You assume that there would not be conflicts in values among the different players of the society, where the one thing that is guaranteed in reality are going to be many. Ayn Rand spoke about the 'ethics of emergencies' and how those situations are divorced from everyday reality and one cannot base or judge a philosophy upon those ideas. However, emergencies happen every day. Sorry to rain on the parade about how "hunky dory" an Objectivist society would be, but it would be a gross act of self-deception and evasion to not consider scenarios such as this. For further example: What would be the legal system's stance or repeat felony offenders? Would there be an age of legal consent for sexual relations, and if so--what would be that age? If all property within the Objectivist nation was private, what would happen if I decided to let a foreign military set up an intelligence gathering facility on my property? (For which I charge them money of course.) Would the Objectivist nation have its own intelligence gathering apparatus--would that fall under the role of military? Would they have a foreign intelligence unit similar to the CIA, and if so, what would be their charter of operation and use? Ayn Rand stated that "rogue" states that didn't value the rights of its citizens were freely open to attack. Who would be the determining body in a legal sense for this type of action? Could you apply the same philosophical justification that Rand does towards rogue states to individuals within the society? Thus, if an individual fails to respect the individual rights of other citizens are they open to violent physical attack by any citizen? What would be the legal framework for these types of actions? In an Objectivist society who takes the responsibility for building and maintaining the roads, bridges and freeways? If not the government, how would a private enterprise be able to charge for roadway usage in a manner that doesn't involve a toll booth every other block? Are the sewer systems also to be privatized? These are just some of the issues off the top of my head. These aren't "emergency" situations, these are serious legal and administrative issues that need to be talked about and discussed for solutions within an Objectivist society. Some of them are not easily waved away by saying "...by the free market" like the oft-quoted answer-response Rand applied to her enemies: "somehow.... no answer is given." Some of you have said that Objectivism is a philosophy, NOT a political party. However, when you start talking about nation building politics and the legal framework of such a society becomes extremely important. The other aspect is that if a philosophy cannot be applied to real life--what good is it? Objectivism claims to be the only philosophy that can be rationally applied to real life--so where is the application? The people on this website seem unwilling or unable to apply their own principles to simple questions posed on the Internet through the tactics of evasion and intellectual blank out. I mean, shouldn't you INVITE questions to how Objectivism would make the world a better place? Every socialist I ever met practically does back flips if you ask them how their philosophy would work in reality (or how they think it would work). What's the hang up here? What I'm saying, and a problem I've always had with Objectivism as a "movement", is they talk tough and end up taking no action in any arena except the occasional student hall debate or coffee house rant. Ask yourself this--how rational are you really if you have to resort to name calling? Just answer the questions. Be civil.
  13. However, you have to ask yourself this--what good is having a particular philosophy if it doesn't have application during an emergency? I think you should answer his question instead of evading it.
  14. Okay, to play devil's advocate I have a few scenarios. I am curious to how they would be handled in an Objectivist society. SCENARIO ONE The Objectivist society is invaded by a neighboring militant collectivist country whose state-funded army is five times the size of the Objectivists'. Large sums of money--billions of dollars--are required in extremely short notice to combat the invading force. Meanwhile, because of the sudden warfare, the economy suffers a major downturn as a result of lost production, changes in the desirability of many goods, eliminating billions of dollars of wealth because of the market drop. In short order, the cost of many raw materials such as fuel and steel, are going to skyrocket because of the increased demand on the market needed for a massive military buildup. What would be the proper Objectivist course of action for this scenario? Would you really believe that, having lost untold amounts of wealth, that a sufficient amount of money, labor and raw materials could be raised on a solely voluntary basis? SCENARIO TWO Three major corporations build automobiles in the Objectivist country. In order to maximize profitability, they decide to streamline their business models. First off, they all agree to reduce their advertising budgets to roughly half their previous spending--all three companies pledge to spend the same amount; less advertising for each company results in less expenses and therefore more profit for all. Secondly, they agree to price their vehicles identically--but they roughly double the price to what the market can afford, resulting in more profitability. Third, they agree to equally lower the quality of their automobiles, making them less expensive to manufacture and also increasing their profitability. Now, the owners of these three automotive companies have relationships with all the major banking and financial institutions, as they not only handle their banking and investment portfolios for the corporation, but also make great business by providing loans to prospective automobile owners for purchasing these vehicles. Through these mutually beneficial business dealings the bank profits hundreds of millions of dollars a year or more. Since the automotive companies are now producing less advertised, poorer quality vehicles that are more expensive, they are open to competition. In an Objectivist society how would one open a competing business in this scenario? Here are some of the problems: the cost to start an automotive company is measured in billions of dollars of start up capital. The banks are probably not going to finance your business because they would potentially (very likely) lose their lucrative loan/investment business with the automotive companies (to do so would be anti-Objectivist--not acting on their own self-interest) on an unproven business. If your new auto company is unable to secure a business relationship with a financing company they may not be able to offer credit, potentially making it impossible for a consumer to purchase your vehicles. What's to stop the three major corporations from temporarily lowering their prices so low that, while they take a loss, they drive you out of business because their massive reserves of money made from when they were monopolizing the market, while you have only a small reserve as a new business? SCENARIO THREE A man is tired of his job as a janitor, because the market value for his skills are very low and he is paid very little. He decides to start a new business performing abortions out of his home. His price is half that of his competition so he quickly finds trade among young women with poor incomes. However, because he lacks any experience, education or training in the medical field a number of patients become sick and one dies as a result of an infection. If taken to court, the janitor claims that the women were not forced to seek out his services and they were duly counseled about the dangers of the procedure. In fact, he had a contract form that all patients were required to sign indicating they were aware of the dangers of the operation. How would this scenario be handled in an Objectivist society? Would an Objectivist society find the need to regulate professions such as medicine, architecture, engineering and so forth? If so, how is this in accordance with a purely "laissez faire" government?
  15. First off, a little about myself that may shed some light on my question and this thread: I am deeply familiar with Objectivism and many years ago considered myself a strong follower of a majority of Rand's ideas. However, numerous inconsistencies contained within the philosophy and the "sense of life" of the movement turned me away from becoming an orthodox Objectivist. Ultimately, I consider myself influenced by her work, and the work of her spiritual mentor Aristotle, rather than a hardcore Objectivist due to these contradictions. (I realize that even saying contradictions exist in Objectivism to hard line followers is probably considered "troll bait", and that is why I am unwilling to address or discuss them at this time--please do not ask me to elaborate.) I believe she had many valid ideas, and I'm grateful for what I've learned through them, and think her life was overall a remarkable achievement. However.... Is Objectivism effective? When I ask if Objectivism is effective what I mean to say is--how has Objectivism made the world a better place? Because I don't see any kind of impact whatsoever; not culturally, not aesthetically, not intellectually, not morally and not politically. I don't see how Objectivism has been the "antidote" for collectivism, altruism or mysticism as was promised almost 50 years ago by Ayn Rand. Objectivism hasn't, to my estimation, made a dent in any of the three 'big evils' facing us today. Collectivism runs rampant, from the violence of gangs, to the hordes of big business looters taking advantage of 'old boy' networks and political pull, to school shootings (merely a minority collective taking violence upon a larger collective) and so forth. Altruism remains the default and unassailable moral code of the world, alone and uncontested. Mysticism is the primary, and often only, form of cognition practiced by almost everyone you meet. What has Objectivism done to change this? I don't see any major players in ANY field of endeavor whatsoever influenced by or espousing Objectivist ideals. Not a single billionaire or innovator comes to mind that points to Ayn Rand and says--"this is where I got my inspiration from!" I see no artists, film makers or musicians espousing Objectivist ideals either. I can think of no scientists or thinkers that are open Objectivists. No politicians or leaders of any national prominence come to mind, although I guess you could go out on a limb and point at a few Libertarians (unless you're a devout Objectivist and recall her opinion of Libertarians, and thus avoid on general principle). If there is some influence out there, mostly among a few conservative authors--whose books are usually carried by only Second Renaissance Press, I'm not seeing much of an impact. So, to rephrase my question, has Objectivism failed? If not, where's the influence? From my viewpoint the only thing I see Objectivism producing are more people interested in quoting line and verse of what Ayn Rand said, thought or did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe if you've been around Objectivist thought for more than a few years you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. (My personal term for these types are Objectivist Sycophants.) What is it about Objectivism that; a.) makes it difficult to be accepted en masse, and b.) what is it about Objectivism that seems to prevent its adherents from their own achievements? Actually, let me adjust my question into a statement: Objectivism has not succeeded. I think this is beyond argument, one only has to look out at the world around us and the political and economic situations to realize Objectivism is failing miserably. I am very perplexed to why, if her philosophy is so great, has Objectivism failed? Let's look at it this way: According to Ayn Rand man is a rational being. According to Ayn Rand man's only method of cognition and survival is reason. According to Ayn Rand man acts in their own self-interest for their survival. According to Ayn Rand Objectivism is the only rational philosophy. Therefore it should follow that if all the above statements are true Objectivism would be readily adopted by man with arms wide open. Obviously, this isn't happening. So... honestly, how effective is Objectivism outside of a novel and in the real world?
×
×
  • Create New...