• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Everything Wrong with Objectivism

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Greetings all! It’s been a while since I’ve been online, but I’m excited to become active once again.

I’m not sure how Ayn Rand fares in these waters. It seems like something adolescents and young adults would be more prone to study. I’ve only recently become hip to all the hype. My research has been exclusively online. I thought about reading Atlas Shrugged, but by the time I got around to a book store, I was also shrugging. I ended up buying a road atlas instead. No joke, I thought it would be more useful to my career goals.

So let’s get into it. I want this to be an interactive conversation, so let’s take it one pillar of philosophy at a time. I find that each one becomes more flawed than the previous, slowly diluting the whole worldview into nonsense. Let’s look at metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

Metaphysics: reality is objective and independent of human consciousness. This is something I can get on board with. I do believe that reality exists regardless of what we happen to think, feel, or believe about it. The whole scientific enterprise seems to be about discovering and understanding this objective reality.

However, it starts to lose me whenever it denies the subjective realm. I see reality as both objective and subjective, like two sides to the same coin. Objectivism rejects this and claims dogmatically that we have direct absolute knowledge of objective reality through our sensory-perception. No further questions needed. It seems to be all downhill from here.

Any thoughts? Counter-arguments? Where are my diehard Objectivists at?

Personally I'm ok with these concepts,
Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity,

However IMO, our connection to an object reality via our perceptions isn't a reliable basis for objectivity.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Completely off topic (sorry) but I really like your avatar. But courage fan, me.
:D

Also, I do actually care about my grandparents and worry about how the world’s monsters are out to get them. Like they’re not prepared for this world of scams and egoism. Everybody please help your grandparents. I’m not joking... we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for them. Gratitude is the basis for any rational morality. Start there.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Personally I'm ok with these concepts,
Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity,

However IMO, our connection to an object reality via our perceptions isn't a reliable basis for objectivity.

Agreed. Furthermore, it reveals another inconsistency within the philosophy. Rationality is virtue over emotions and yet happiness is the goal?

Most every ancient and modern philosophy is flawed for this same reason. It’s false advertising.

When has perfect individual happiness been both natural and ethical?

Never. It’s an inversion of the utopian ideal.

Happiness is only ever real when shared.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Jumping a bit ahead... spoiler alert... egoism is a poor substitute for morality. To be moral means to think about others beyond yourself: how should I treat others? How can I live well with other people? How can we share happiness together?

These are all rational questions that begin with the fact that we wouldn’t be alive or relatively healthy without the aid of our parents or grandparents or community... whomever helped you ‘not die’ and succeed. Gratitude is the basis of any rational morality and disproves Objectivism.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Personally I'm ok with these concepts,
Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity

Personally, I’m not okay with these concepts. Although I do value positive emotions like happiness and productivity as a practical goal, it’s not logically consistent with the metaphysics and epistemology, as I’m sure you’re aware.

What makes a hero?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Also, I do actually care about my grandparents and worry about how the world’s monsters are out to get them. Like they’re not prepared for this world of scams and egoism. Everybody please help your grandparents. I’m not joking... we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for them. Gratitude is the basis for any rational morality. Start there.
Well I never knew my grandparents. But sure. The philosophy of courage is a very good one.

Also I’m a huge fan of the 90s cartoons as well.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
I'm not casting stones. It's just that when I come across Ayn's name, Nathaniel's comes to mind too.

I don’t care about stones.. bring on more stones. Every formal philosophy fails just like every religion fails... no surprise to the observer. Just pay attention
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Well I never knew my grandparents. But sure. The philosophy of courage is a very good one.

Also I’m a huge fan of the 90s cartoons as well.

I am sorry that you never personally knew your grandparents. I am fortunate in that regard.

Do you doubt that they existed? Don’t we all live because our grandparents existed?

Any old OG knows he got to where he is because of help from those that came before him.

Gratitude is the basis of any rational morality. Any other explanation is nonsense. It’s not religious or philosophical... it’s rational.

Take care of your grandparents and parents, just like they’ve taken care of you. Excuse me, I have moral work to do.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I am sorry that you never personally knew your grandparents. I am fortunate in that regard.

Do you doubt that they existed? Don’t we all live because our grandparents existed?

Any old OG knows he got to where he is because of help from those that came before him.

Gratitude is the basis of any rational morality. Any other explanation is nonsense. It’s not religious or philosophical... it’s rational.

Take care of your grandparents and parents, just like they’ve taken care of you. Excuse me, I have moral work to do.
Ahh, can’t miss what you’ve never had. My father was very old when he had me. So I only heard stories of his parents. My maternal grandmother died well before I came onto the scene. My maternal grandfather (tata-Ji) lived in Fiji so I only saw him a few times before he died and I was very little.

I agree with your treatise. Gratitude towards the parents (or relevant caregivers.) They gave me life, raised me up, how could I hope to pay that back?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Personally, I’m not okay with these concepts. Although I do value positive emotions like happiness and productivity as a practical goal, it’s not logically consistent with the metaphysics and epistemology, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Not really, maybe there is a discussion there?

What makes a hero?
Overcoming adversity.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Agreed. Furthermore, it reveals another inconsistency within the philosophy. Rationality is over emotions and yet happiness is the goal?

Most every ancient and modern philosophy is flawed for this same reason. It’s false advertising.

When has perfect individual happiness been both natural and ethical?

Never. It’s an inversion of the utopian ideal.

Happiness is only ever real when shared.

Then shared happiness is part of being happy. In these case emotion, happiness, is the virtue. Seeking happiness is a rational pursuit.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
First, read the book. it's actually very interesting, even inspiring.
That said, a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, competitive society is not one I'd want to live in. Life need not be a zero sum game. Co-operation can benefit everyone.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I do actually care about my grandparents and worry about how the world’s monsters are out to get them. Like they’re not prepared for this world of scams and egoism. Everybody please help your grandparents.
It's not just grandparents that they are out to get. Everybody please help us all from those monsters.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
egoism is a poor substitute for morality. To be moral means to think about others beyond yourself: how should I treat others? How can I live well with other people? How can we share happiness together?
Yes, I agree. Those who only care for themselves are moral monsters or psychopaths or sociopaths or something. Hopefully we are smart enough to not elect such as these to positions of political power.

And those who do elect such as these, they are certainly doing so for their own selfish reasons, to improve their situation, with no regard for the suffering caused to others. This disproves objectivism.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Then shared happiness is part of being happy. In these case emotion, happiness, is the virtue. Seeking happiness is a rational pursuit.
Positive emotions, pleasant feelings, happy thoughts -- these are good things. But we mustn't harm others in obtaining them. Perhaps better to ourselves suffer than to harm someone else? I doubt Ayn Rand (or our selfish tyrant political leaders) would agree.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Gratitude is the basis of any rational morality.

Is that a quote from someone or did you come up with that on your own? I ask because It rings true, regardless where it came from, but I like to source a quote if and where I can for as long as I can remember the source.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I’m not sure how Ayn Rand fares in these waters.
I love Ayn Rand. I love all (many?) of the philosophers. I like stretching my brain.

Do I agree with everything they say? Of course not; who does? But they have good points to consider...
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, competitive society is not one I'd want to live in. Life need not be a zero sum game. Co-operation can benefit everyone.
Don't we have this kind of dog-eat-dog society?

A good transaction is one in which both gain, not one in which I gain and you totally lose. Sadly, some (many?) of our politicians don't share this opinion. (Even my actual dogs are better behaved, savage as they are.)
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
competitive society is not one I'd want to live in

The almost seductive lure of competitive enterprise (e.g. playing chess, cards, verbal arm-wrestling here, in RF, and individual and team strength/wit/skill-testing activities for material and non-material rewards) was great fun in the days when I could actually "win" just often enough to keep me interested. Now-a-days, fading memory, wit, and strength diminishes the "fun" feature, and competition exhausts me more quickly than I'd like. That may be why my "ignore" list currently grows longer more quickly.
 
Top