Everything Wrong with Objectivism

[Revoltingest]

Hey! Watch it.
I resemble that.

I sense imminent eye poking & pie throwing.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Self sufficiency with cooperation (the voluntary
kind) is the primary message I got from Rand.
That's how business works best.

She's a Rorschach test....some see what
they hate, while others see what they like.

 

[PureX]

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.

One; this is not a proper definition of metaphysics, and two; human cognition is as much a part of reality as anything else is. In fact, "reality" itself is a conceptual paradigm being generated within the human mind: based on our very limited existential experience, and our very generous imaginations.

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.

The confusion is as much the result of inarticulate linguistics, as anything else. We unfortunately do not linguistically designate the difference between "reality" as a cognitive experience, and "reality" as an existential phenomena that extends far beyond human cognition. And because we do not linguistically delineate the difference, we tend to confuse and conflate them in our minds (and visa versa), and in our conversations.

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

I do agree that subjectivism and objectivism are both cognitive phenomena. Which ultimately make them both "subjective" phenomena in that they are both the result of the same "subjective" condition (the human mind). So there is no "objective reality" except as a concept in the subjective human concept-generator that we call 'the mind'.

The 'realm of the metaphysical', then, to me, refers to that aspect of existence pertaining to it's ability to perceive itself (through the physical emergence of consciousness).

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Only the aberrational think causing harm to others will make themselves happy.

 

[Straw Dog]

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?

Perhaps it’s impossible to pay it back, and so the rational alternative becomes to pay it forward.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

I don’t know that any specific emotion equals virtue or that seeking happiness directly is rational. It appears that we developed in order to survive and flourish in accordance with nature, which involves both positive and negative emotions.

 

[Straw Dog]

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.

It came in a moment of inspiration, but I don’t claim to be original. No doubt I was inspired by many influences as we all are. I guess the ‘source’ is as simple as that which came before us, sustains us, and strengthens us to live forward.

 

[Straw Dog]

The 'realm of the metaphysical', then, to me, refers to that aspect of existence pertaining to it's ability to perceive itself (through the physical emergence of consciousness).

I’m not sure that I follow your thinking, but let us investigate.

If there is indeed a particular point in space-time which constitutes the physical emergence of consciousness, then there must be a period of pre-emergence in contrast.. a time of non-consciousness. An aspect of reality which does not depend upon human consciousness must therefore be objective and independent.

 

[PureX]

I’m not sure that I follow your thinking, but let us investigate.

If there is indeed a particular point in space-time which constitutes the physical emergence of consciousness, then there must be a period of pre-emergence in contrast.. a time of non-consciousness. An aspect of reality which does not depend upon human consciousness must therefore be objective and independent.

Not necessarily. Physical existence is ordered; controlled. Chance plays a role, but does not rule, as the possibilities it provides are limited. Those limits dictate 'what is', and 'what is not', including what we experience as consciousness. But we have no knowledge of the origin of those limits. So we cannot say that existence "must have been" unconscious prior to the physical manifestation of consciousness as we humans experience it.

 

[Straw Dog]

So we cannot say that existence "must have been" unconscious prior to the physical manifestation of consciousness as we humans experience it.

Yes, I can see what you mean. Perhaps we cannot say for certain that there is an objective independent reality. Maybe we swim in the stream of consciousness and live within our perspectives, like fish in water. I just find it practical to assume there is a real context in contrast.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I can see what you mean. Perhaps we cannot say for certain that there is an objective independent reality. Maybe we swim in the stream of consciousness and live within our perspectives, like fish in water. I just find it practical to assume there is a real context in contrast.

I'm thinking mostly of the possibility that energy, matter, space-time, and their relational arrangements are themselves a physical expression of some sort of universal/metaphysical consciousness.

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm thinking mostly of the possibility that energy, matter, space-time, and their relational arrangements are themselves a physical expression of some sort of universal/metaphysical consciousness.

Within my limited perspective, three points come to mind. First, the nature of some sort of vague ultimate metaphysical consciousness is beyond my human comprehension. Secondly, it doesn’t seem to make a practical difference when it comes to living well as an ordinary person. Lastly, even if the nature of absolute reality is metaphysical consciousness, it would still constitute objective reality or the real context in my definitions, in so far as it doesn’t depend upon human consciousness. It is what it is regardless of what we happen to think, feel, or believe about it.

The ultimate nature of consciousness itself and the possibility of universal/ metaphysical forms is an intriguing topic and beyond the scope of this thread, but I would be interested in discussing it further on another thread with you and others.

It seems the topic of everything wrong with Objectivism as a philoshocal dogma has run its course in the absence of any challenges in favor of it and the general consensus among those who have replied, unless I missed a diehard Objectivist somewhere.

 

[PureX]

Within my limited perspective, three points come to mind. First, the nature of some sort of vague ultimate metaphysical consciousness is beyond my human comprehension. Secondly, it doesn’t seem to make a practical difference when it comes to living well as an ordinary person. Lastly, even if the nature of absolute reality is metaphysical consciousness, it would still constitute objective reality or the real context in my definitions, in so far as it doesn’t depend upon human consciousness. It is what it is regardless of what we happen to think, feel, or believe about it.

The ultimate nature of consciousness itself and the possibility of universal/ metaphysical forms is an intriguing topic and beyond the scope of this thread, but I would be interested in discussing it further on another thread with you and others.

It seems the topic of everything wrong with Objectivism as a philoshocal dogma has run its course in the absence of any challenges in favor of it and the general consensus among those who have replied, unless I missed a diehard Objectivist somewhere.

The fact that "objective reality" is a conceptual invention created by the human consciousness that it supposedly exists beyond is logically incoherent. It's like saying, "what I can't see must exist because I can't see it".

As to universal consciousness, I agree with your observations, but would add that the nature of existence as we experience it, exhibits order. And order implies design (intelligence and purpose). It is in part why so many humans presume this to be the case in the form of "God". This in itself is certainly not 'proof' of any sort of conscious intelligence, but it does beg the question, and then leave open that possibility. And it's a question and a possibility that a great many humans seem to find useful to contemplate and then to actively trust in, throughout the course of their lives. And I can understand how and why this would be so, because there are logical and predictable positive results to be gained from such an endeavor, regardless of whether such a universal consciousness exists, or not.

 

[Straw Dog]

As to universal consciousness, I agree with your observations, but would add that the nature of existence as we experience it, exhibits order. And order implies design (intelligence and purpose). It is in part why so many humans presume this to be the case in the form of "God". This in itself is certainly not 'proof' of any sort of conscious intelligence, but it does beg the question, and then leave open that possibility. And it's a question and a possibility that a great many humans seem to find useful to contemplate and then to actively trust in, throughout the course of their lives. And I can understand how and why this would be so, because there are logical and predictable positive results to be gained from such an endeavor, regardless of whether such a universal consciousness exists, or not.

Existence as we experience it... ‘order’ itself is a human construct. What appears to be order to us might not appear as order to other living creatures. Sometimes I see order, sometimes I see chaos. I don’t see a singular intelligent design in my experience.

I can respect the fact that such beliefs may make a practical difference in some people’s lives. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Straw Dog]

If there is no objective reality or real context outside of human consciousness, and everything is subjective, then how can you claim that your experience is right and my experience is wrong?

Is reality just a popularity contest?

Or is it just like our opinion, man?

 

[Straw Dog]

Self sufficiency with cooperation (the voluntary
kind) is the primary message I got from Rand.
That's how business works best.

Self-motivation and voluntary cooperation are some good aspects we can take away from her work. I don’t really believe in total self-sacrifice or naive altruism either. There’s a pragmatic middle way.

I agree with a tempered capitalist system and mixed economics. The flaw in objectivism is treating it as a political theory rather than an economic theory.

 

[PureX]

Existence as we experience it... ‘order’ itself is a human construct. What appears to be order to us might not appear as order to other living creatures. Sometimes I see order, sometimes I see chaos. I don’t see a singular intelligent design in my experience.

I can respect the fact that such beliefs may make a practical difference in some people’s lives. Different strokes for different folks.

By order I meant that chaos alone cannot produce anything but chaos. There has to be limitation within the chaos for anything but chaos to occur. It's not about you or I seeing order. It's about the logical necessity of it being imposed in the form of limitation. And it is the nature of those limitations that then determined what has occurred. What we call 'existence'.

And it's not just "some people's lives". The vast majority of human beings, throughout time, have used the idea of God/gods to help them find meaning and purpose within their experience of being. Just because you may not be one of them does not negate the significance of this phenomenon.

 

[Straw Dog]

And it's not just "some people's lives". The vast majority of human beings, throughout time, have used the idea of God/gods to help them find meaning and purpose within their experience of being. Just because you may not be one of them does not negate the significance of this phenomenon.

Fair points...thanks for challenging this perspective. Perhaps I’ve spent too much time in Rand Land and need to return to my pragmatist roots.

There is more than one meaningful way to conceptualize the world and I understand that theological and mystical notions have helped many people throughout history build coherent belief systems, even if many of them are unverifiable.

Science is more about effectively explaining and predicting phenomena rather than describing ‘objective reality’, so I should just drop that dichotomy in favor of explanations and predictions that are useful-to-believe.

 

[PureX]

Fair points...thanks for challenging this perspective. Perhaps I’ve spent too much time in Rand Land and need to return to my pragmatist roots.

There is more than one meaningful way to conceptualize the world and I understand that theological and mystical notions have helped many people throughout history build coherent belief systems, even if many of them are unverifiable.

I don't think it's ultimately about building coherent belief systems. I think it's about determining how to respond to our own fear of unknowing. How to imagine a positive solution, and then trust that by acting accordingly, that solution will eventually manifest.

Science is more about effectively explaining and predicting phenomena rather than describing ‘objective reality’, so I should just drop that dichotomy in favor of explanations and predictions that are useful-to-believe.

In the end, it's pretty much what we all do. I call it living by faith, because there is so much that we don't know that we can't even guess at how much we don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Self-motivation and voluntary cooperation are some good aspects we can take away from her work. I don’t really believe in total self-sacrifice or naive altruism either. There’s a pragmatic middle way.

I agree with a tempered capitalist system and mixed economics. The flaw in objectivism is treating it as a political theory rather than an economic theory.

Objectivism is like other economic & social paths...they're
functional or not depending upon the individual.