Brief Criticism of Objectivism

Questions about Objectivism
1

In order to seek the most Objective Truth it is necessary to constantly check an idea against the proof of Reality. That is a basic Objectivist concept. We must keep in mind though, that Reality stretches through space and time, and therefore an arbitrary sample can result in bias.

I have come to one J’accuse that inspired me to post this: Objectivism wants to have the cake, and eat it too.

I perceived this back when I was debating Religion in this forum. I kept trying to make the point that religion has been either unavoidable, useful, or both.

I believe that Reason is a double-edged sword. Or that Human Intelligence is, and Reason is its positive edge.

When we consider humankind from a pre-historic as well as historic perspective, that is, humans as we are biologically, we’ll find that that we are the first species achieve such high level of sentience. Our breakthrough as a species, is through the specialization of the brain, and hand, not any other feature, and just as we rejoice with them we have to bear the consequences.

One of those consequences is the need of mysticism at some level:

Only the nihilist - which defeats the purpose - can live without magic -> religion -> philosophy. Chose according to time and space - but all serve the same purpose, granted with different results.

It is said that “faith moves mountains”, and in the bible what we call an Atheist is named a “fool”.

It has been proven that faith, as in an optimistic worldview, does achieve marvels,

I can’t think of an early Civilization without religion, and I hear how Steve Jobs recommends believing in something, no matter what, as a tip for success.

Well I guess I’d be a fool not to use such a powerful tool.

In Objectivist Philosophy, just as in latter Monotheistic religions, good and evil are clearly distinct embodied maybe in what Ayn Rand called the predisposition towards either a benign or malignant universe.

That is the small, maybe insignificant booby-trap in Objectivism. When it comes down to it, one has to rely on the same spiritual battle between good and evil, and have faith in oneself, the market, and the Sanctity of one excellent, yet human intellectual.

It would be I asking for a free-meal if I tried to refute Objectivism on the basis that it was conceived by a human, but anybody who has been “touched” by Atlas Shrugged, and all her bibliography, can, if rational, properly identify the faith-based element in Objectivism.

Ironically, my categorization of Objectivism as a Religion, doesn’t debunk it, all the contrary, it elevates it.

Or I could just say that I’m using relativism to compare religion and philosophy; but seeing how many other philosophies are much more mystical than some religions, it is a moot point.

“If you only understand things one way you don’t understand it at all”

2

Um, no. You do not take Objectivism on faith, you think about each of the tenets, all of the steps in its construction, and if you agree you can “adopt” it as a philosophy. Taking anything on faith is antithetical to even the most basic and rudimentary concepts of Objectivism. The benevolent universe premise is basically just the idea that, to quote Doc Brown from Back to the Future, “If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything [that’s possible]”. You can survive, and thrive, if you simply think rationally, at least in general (barring random disasters). You don’t have to have a battle of good and evil, Objectivism doesn’t have that at all. There is no devil, no God. There’s just people, and those who are bad and those who are morally good. Saying having even the idea of good and evil makes you somehow religious or someone with faith is absurd on the face of it.

You may say “well to me ‘faith’ means simply believing something to be true” in which case, sure, you have to have “faith” in the various things you mention. But that isn’t the definition of faith. Faith is believing something is true for no reason, or contrary to reason, believing something without thinking, without questioning, simply accepting the truth of something. That is nowhere in Objectivism, or any interpretation of Objectivism, or any possible variant of Objectivism. Objectivism is based on reason (I personally think Rationalism or something like that would have been a better name if it hadn’t already been adopted by another, irrational, philosophy). There is no room in reason for even the slightest shred of faith. Add a dash of faith, and you might as well close your eyes and run around, hoping you don’t jump in front of a car or hit a wall head first.

3

There is no devil, no God. There’s just people, and those who are bad and those who are morally good. Saying having even the idea of good and evil makes you somehow religious or someone with faith is absurd on the face of it.

Religion existed before the idea of good an evil. That duality was an advance in religion, just as religion was a huge advance from magic, and philosophy is to religion.

I agree with all you say, but you are (as other people in past religion threads) simply overlooking my statement:

Reason or intelligence is a double-edged sword.

Animals don’t have religion, nor reason. We have both and I have a hint that they are somehow related. Peikoff’s DIM hypothesis might be a good explanation.

4

In Objectivist Philosophy, just as in latter Monotheistic religions, good and evil are clearly distinct embodied maybe in what Ayn Rand called the predisposition towards either a benign or malignant universe.

I was trying to figure out if you had a point; I don’t know if this is a “point” but it at least seems to be a central claim of yours. So could you please explain what the heck you are talking about? Literally, without any metaphors?

5

I’d like to throw out one more metaphoric statement: I sometimes believe Objectivism is a proselytizing reformed version of certain aspects of Judaism. Much like Marxism was (the latter according to Hannah Arendt).

I am stating that, just as Kant, and then Marx, updated religion to the industrial age, Ayn Rand did the same for the post-industrial age, or the climax-industrial age, and the beginning of the information age. The latter is characterized by value of the free-thinking mind, and the lack of value of physical labor. Objectivism provides the layman with spiritual or psychological support for these last generations, and without intending it, it has created somewhat of a dogmatic worship around Ayn Rands figure. I believe those are ominous parallels to religion.

6

I’d like to throw out one more metaphoric statement: I sometimes believe Objectivism is a proselytizing reformed version of certain aspects of Judaism.

FYI, it is not.