Search the Community

In general, I've found empirical psychological studies to be far more practical than most Objectivist ideas. They are simply impractical and cannot be workably used by anyone. Its part of the reason why Objectivism has failed to spread beyond a dedicated fanbase (arguably a cult). Indeed, some studies findings seem to contradict Objectivist ideas about ethics (honesty for example). A few points: 1) I particularly find the Objectivist argument for "productiveness" weak. For example, there is no real or practical reason why a man or woman who inherits a billion dollars should not spend a life of leisure, traveling and/or philanthropy. 2) The ancient Epicureans were far more successful at spreading their philosophy (and getting people to adopt it) than Objectivists. Why is that? Even Christianity has been hugely successful in comparison to Objectivism. 3) My belief is that in the so called "marketplace of ideas" similar to the marketplace for material goods, the "best products" largely win out, this is because they are superior to previous "products" or current offerings on the marketplace. ^ In that respect, Objectivism has had a poor showing in the market. Its not hard to see why. Show me a happy and successful Objectivist (if they exist) and I'll show you 10 happy and successful non-objectivists. EDIT: I'll add a fourth point. 4) The objectivist ethical concept of "honesty" is contradicted by the empirical evidence. http://web.psych.uto...20Revisited.pdf ftp://ftp.iza.org/Re...aper/dp4285.pdf Prove me wrong on all points.