The criticisms of Objectivism, questioning the validity of it as a philosophy, are they in any way justified? As in, since reason is the main tenet in Objectivism (Probably the only tenet), are the criticisms of Objectivism (whatever they may be) valid in any way? Or is Objectivism by and far a sound ideology?
It would really help if you specified some particular criticism or criticisms. As asked, a simple answer of “no” wil probably not tell you what you are actually seeking to learn.
What do you know of Objectivism and the criticisms of which you inquire? What does your reasoning tell you?
It would really help if you specified some particular criticism or criticisms. As asked, a simple answer of “no” wil probably not tell you what you are actually seeking to learn.
What do you know of Objectivism and the criticisms of which you inquire? What does your reasoning tell you?
My reasoning tells me that Objectivism is sound. But something I don’t get is, if Objectivism is so obvious that a 16 year old like me can grasp it, why isn’t it popular and widespread? I know the popularity of an idea does not indicate truth, but I did some searching on the internet on ‘‘Criticisms of Objectivist’’ and though I cannot comprehend much of the jargon they used, especially in relation to the criticism of the Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology, I wondered if there was something I’m missing. Because Objectivism is so logical and so obvious in my mind, and I cannot understand why anyone would fault it, much less self proclaimed ‘‘philosophers’’ with credentials.
I am sorry for being vague, I hope I’ve clarified a bit of what I meant by my question.
Peikoff answers this perfectly in a lecture on the ARI website. I think it is called ‘Why one must act on principle’ and he talks all about how most men shun ‘simple’ answers. If it’s simple, it must be missing vital data. Peikoff explains, that if there is ‘missing data’, that an Objectivist must then simply ask what vital data has been overlooked. The critic then may point to, say, the issue of polygamous relationships, and ask the Objectivist to explain that in accordance with Romantic Love - ignoring the fact that this isn’t an argument against the entire system, but a question of details. I have yet to discover one critic who has made a good attempt at criticising the axioms - although some try to dismiss it as being ‘tautological’.
The thing is, the act of ‘simplification’, properly used, is just another term for ‘concept formation’. It’s the taking of a large number of referents, and integrating them into a coherent whole. A certain type of person - call him the Subjectivist or the Post-Modernist - wishes to destroy his own conceptual faculty, and to take down everyone elses with it. He wants to claim that things cannot be simplified, that the world is, fundamentally, beyond man’s comprehension.
This is not to say all critics of Objectivism will use this argument, but your observation, that Objectivism is ‘simple’, is very correct, but it will be used against you, if you decide to go looking up criticisms of Objectivism. Hence Objectivists are often called arrogant or naive, or even: pseudo-philosophical. Those who despise Objectivism cannot accept that something so seemingly complex as man’s nature, can be shrunk down and understood in a fixed, conceptual form.
But something I don’t get is, if Objectivism is so obvious that a 16 year old like me can grasp it, why isn’t it popular and widespread?
Because the popularity of an idea does not indicate truth.
I cannot comprehend much of the jargon they used, especially in relation to the criticism of the Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology, I wondered if there was something I’m missing.
You’re faced with an idea that you can comprehend, and a set of ideas that you can’t comprehend. At best, that argues that the other ideas are poorly presented. You shouldn’t give credence to an argument that can’t be understood. Of course if you want to understand the argument for an opposing view, such as epistemological nihilism, you should search for a knowledgeable advocate of that view (though I don’t know where exactly to direct your attention – some place like PyrrhoFans.net, I suppose).
Because Objectivism is so logical and so obvious in my mind, and I cannot understand why anyone would fault it, much less self proclaimed ‘‘philosophers’’ with credentials.
There are very few real credentialed philosophers who have taken on a methodical attack of Rand’s philosophy. The attacks generally come from amateurs and they appear in blogs and the like. Even Huemer limits his attacks to an unprofessional outlet. You are appealing to a version of argumentum ad vericundiam, where the assumption is that we should accept the conclusions of a “self-proclaimed philosopher” who has an unspecified credential, simply because they are self-proclaimed philosophers with credentials. I am a philsopher and I have credentials, and I’m telling you that should not believe them. Now you have to deal with the ensuing paradox.
If you now accept that you should not automatically believe everything that you read, and hopefully will nevertheless believe something that you read (that is, I’m not trying to turn you into a nihilist), the matter reduces to the question “When should you believe what you read?”. If you understand the Objectivist theory of knowledge (about integrating and differentiating the perceptually axiomatic into conceptually-based conclusions), you will see that the basis for judging the validity of a statement is its relationship to reality. If a statement has no discernible relationship to reality, it is not valid. So if the criticisms that you’re read don’t make sense, there is a reason for that – they are not valid, they are not grounded in reality.
The criticisms of Objectivism, questioning the validity of it as a philosophy, are they in any way justified?
No. Without exception, every criticism I’ve ever read of Objectivism either fails to understand it (often grossly fails), or is childishly dishonest. Of course, you really can’t just take my word for it so if you want to know this for yourself you’re going to have to come to understand the matter well enough to be able to evaluate things for yourself.
My reasoning tells me that Objectivism is sound. But something I don’t get is, if Objectivism is so obvious that a 16 year old like me can grasp it, why isn’t it popular and widespread?
It’s not obvious. It may seem obvious once you’ve read the ideas, but that’s only once you’ve read the ideas. At your age, you have a lot of thinking to do. You have to vet the philosophy against reality and other ideas to clarify it and validate it in your own mind. As Inspector says, only you can do that.
I know the popularity of an idea does not indicate truth, but I did some searching on the internet on ‘‘Criticisms of Objectivist’’ and though I cannot comprehend much of the jargon they used, especially in relation to the criticism of the Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology, I wondered if there was something I’m missing. Because Objectivism is so logical and so obvious in my mind, and I cannot understand why anyone would fault it, much less self proclaimed ‘‘philosophers’’ with credentials.
Hey, listen, Objectivism is a radical philosophy that challenges conventional wisdom. From a historical perspective, the philosophy is very young. It’s only starting out in the world in comparison to the ideas of Hume, Plato, et.al. Lots of people disagree with it for various reasons.
I ran into this criticism: it is collorary to the first question I asked in this forum. Abeit describing free will as “libertarian”, it is by far the most sound critisism I found. Can you explain me what’s wrong with it, 'cos I’m totally noob in metaphysics compared to you guys 
Lex, I suggest you start a new topic, or find an existing topic that addresses free-will. That would be better than having an omnibus, “objections” topic. Let’s handle each topic separately. That way each individual thread remains more useful as a source that someone can be pointed to later.