Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Rational or not?

[ImprobableJoe]

My objections to Objectivism are based on... Objectivism. I'm not going to go to deeply into it, since nearly ever idea of Ayn Rand is wrong, misguided, and/or actively evil, and I don't have my whole life to devote to deconstructing this nonsense every time it comes up.

The problems start with the principles of Objectivism and spiral outwards. It is sort of like the Kalam Cosmological Argument that William Lane Craig is such a huge fan of. Going to the source:

Metaphysics

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are,and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural,and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

Fair enough, but already not quite right. Since we interact with reality, we do in some sense create it. Reality is not static, and the world is not encased in amber. Things the way they are can actually be changed into things the way we would prefer them. This seemingly slight flaw or quibble over semantics becomes hugely important later.

Epistemology

"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Here, Rand elevates reason to a faculty of godlike capability. Not only can reason lead to knowledge of reality, it does so with such perfect clarity that skepticism can also be rejected. There's a second semantic "quibble" with the definition of skepticism, and seems to be leading towards an intentional fallacy in the next section.

Human Nature

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

This one is just garbage from start to finish. We're not particularly rational 100% of the time, any more than we're able to be 100% certain of the results of our observations and reason. Further, the claim of absolute certainty is now joined by a claim of absolute control over outcomes(which contradicts the earlier assertion that we don't create reality). Here's the beginning of the philosophy that starts leading into the sort of pathological selfishness that makes Objectivists unfit for human civilization.

Ethics

"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man,i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man,every man,is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism,the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Here's where the shit starts to drown the truly objective reader, and the fallacy is most openly stated. Up to this point, Rand has been engaging in "cargo cult philosophy" of the same sort of as William Lane Craig: it follows the form, but carries none of the substance. With this step, probably because Rand lacked the emotional capacity for ethics and couldn't manage to fake it the way she faked her way through previous sections, Rand makes the most obviously illogical leap of faith yet. Here she claims that reason(a perfect ability according to her) was the only proper basis for behavior. Then, out of thin air she asserts that altruism is wrong and bad and stands against reason. There's no display of really reasoning her way to this point, she just makes the declaration.

Remember those earlier "quibbles" I had? They are the closest thing to reasoning her way to narcissistic sociopathy as a virtue that she displays, in that she's worked a bunch of hidden assumptions into her ideas. What seems clumsy or slightly poorly worded is actually a clever way to hide a bunch of ideas that are required to make Objectivism work, but are plaining false if stated outright. Here's the short list:

• Reality cannot be changed or altered. We observe reality, we don't create it.
• Reason and observation can give a person a perfect understanding of reality, with no room for doubt or questioning.
• We choose the outcomes of our lives, with no interference from outside forces such as bad luck, genetics, political situations, and especially other people.
• Therefore, being a narcissistic sociopath is the most rational decision.

Well, sure, once you've made those other claims! If reality can't be changed, you can't help anyone anyways so why bother? If we're all capable of perfect reason and perfect control over our situations, then no one needs our help anyways, because aren't they choosing to suffer by not being a rational as us? And since Rand came to these conclusions through "reason" it is irrational and even impossible to be skeptical of the conclusions!

There's more... but I hope it is fair to say that I reject Objectivism because I have actually read it and find it objectionable from a logical standpoint, not only because Ayn Rand was a shitty human being.

 

[creativesoul]

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Conflating between automatic and innate. Presupposes that values are contingent upon knowledge and judgments upon ideas.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both.

False. Blank slates don't do anything.

The mechanisms are, in fact, automatic. Void of belief/knowledge about the world at birth, primal thought can only use emotion combined with experience when both are in their infancy. Therefore the emotional content, specifically how it has been processed by the individual largely determines the cognitive framework, directly influences the foundation, as it were. Confuses memory of emotional states with causation of.

 

[televator]

The focus of Objectivism is morality. . .

Perhaps this one:

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both.

I really can't agree with what this implies. People aren't blank slates "behaviorally" and I don't think it even applies to new born humans. There are some rudimentary instincts and/or emotions that determine our mental state. The emotional bond between a mother and child for example... Furthermore,I don't think objective morality in all aspects can be easily and accurately deduced by a single individual's "cognitive faculty". People are ultimately fooling themselves to think that they are absolutely certain in their unclouded vision of morality, because it's actually not as objective as they think it is. Don't get me wrong, I think it's possible to obtain objectivity on many issues at the human scale, but the way Rand seems to go about deducing it (as the quote implies) is just wrong from from the get go.

 

[creativesoul]

The "elementary" question is this...

If one claims to have priveleged knowledge of human behavior/nature, and Rand did, then someone tell me...

How could she possibly be a "shitty" judge of character if her methodology(philosophy) was accurate? Does that not make the methodology being used to conclude just as shitty? Her philosophy is shit. Pure rationalization and projection.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The "elementary" question is this...

If one claims to have priveleged knowledge of human behavior/nature, and Rand did, then someone tell me...

How could she possibly be a "shitty" judge of character if her methodology(philosophy) was accurate? Does that not make the methodology being used to conclude just as shitty? Her philosophy is shit. Pure rationalization and projection.

Umm... Ok? Yes? No?

 

[dav37777777]

ayn rand is only one of the most rational writers you will ever find. dont listen to what these guys say about ayn rand. just trust me on this one.

 

[creativesoul]

C'mon Joe, it's not that difficult to understand. Valid method produces valid results. True premises cannot logically lead to false conclusions. Being a shitty judge of character means exactly what regarding her thinking about people(morality)???

She draws wrongful conclusions.

Of course I'm presupposing that she follows her own philosophy. I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true. Therefore, it is a safe presupposition.

Simply put...

Morality is always about behavioral expectation, either regarding oneself or others. If she ws a shitty judge of character it clearly showsthat her moral standard of measure(her philosophy) is inept. If one is a good judge of character, then we can safely assume that one has an accurate mental grasp on human behavior(expectations).

 

[DepricatedZero]

Joe, since you broke it down to four primary points I'm going to address your conclusions and snip out most of your text for simplicity.

• Reality cannot be changed or altered. We observe reality, we don't create it.
• Reason and observation can give a person a perfect understanding of reality, with no room for doubt or questioning.
• We choose the outcomes of our lives, with no interference from outside forces such as bad luck, genetics, political situations, and especially other people.
• Therefore, being a narcissistic sociopath is the most rational decision.

Point 1: Reality cannot be changed or altered. We observe reality, we don't create it.
I get the feeling you know better and are misinterpreting this on purpose. She never says that what exists in reality cannot be changed, simply that the fact of reality cannot be changed. More importantly, when she says "the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." she doesn't mean that man cannot affect what exists, but that man cannot change the truth of reality. I'll think on finding a better way to explain the distinction here. Basically, reality simply means what is true while you're throwing in what is malleable. The vicissitudes of existence are a fact of reality, and the point of her statement is to acknowledge such facts. Your interpretation as such is a perversion of her intent - that only by understanding and accepting reality as it is can man build upon it. We do not create reality, we create within the bounds of reality.

Point 2: Reason and observation can give a person a perfect understanding of reality, with no room for doubt or questioning.
Peikoff might reject skepticism, I don't know. Certainly not Rand though, the entirety of her ideals are built on the concept of questioning everything and thinking for yourself. . .

Point 3: We choose the outcomes of our lives, with no interference from outside forces such as bad luck, genetics, political situations, and especially other people.
I agree with this to an extent. Living where I do in town and encountering some of my roommate's coworkers, I've encountered a good number who want to claim that forces beyond their control are keeping them down. Unfortunately, the only thing keeping them down is themselves. I think, in that context, this is true. However, I do disagree with it on the larger scale, where it simply isn't true for the majority of people. Fortunately, it wasn't Rand who said that Objectivism rejects the influence of outside forces - at least in your source. I'm not aware of her saying it anywhere, except to say that often those who cry foul of fate are using it as a tool to steal.

Point 4: Therefore, being a narcissistic sociopath is the most rational decision.
Actually, Rand herself doesn't mention altruism at all in your source. The author of the page (likely Peikoff) did. You'll notice the punctuation in your quotes. You're interpreting "Help your uncle Jack, off his horse" as "Help your uncle Jack off his horse" in this case. You're attempting to discredit what Rand has said, by Peikoff's inane conclusions. As I said earlier, Peikoff is an enormous fucking tool. In all likelihood, Rand is rolling in her grave at the shit he's tried to craft of her ideas. Yes, it's mangled, but in this instance not by Rand. Her conclusion is simply that it is not moral for one man to live for the sake of another. Yes, she condemns altruism by the same premise, but she also upholds altruism in other forms and by other names.

There's more... but I hope it is fair to say that I reject Objectivism because I have actually read it and find it objectionable from a logical standpoint, not only because Ayn Rand was a shitty human being.

You're free to reject it, thank you for the detailed explanation of why you do.

More generally, on the topic of tabula rasa, I'll point you to Avicenna. The idea is far and away not exclusive to Ayn Rand.

The "elementary" question is this...

If one claims to have priveleged knowledge of human behavior/nature, and Rand did, then someone tell me...

How could she possibly be a "shitty" judge of character if her methodology(philosophy) was accurate? Does that not make the methodology being used to conclude just as shitty? Her philosophy is shit. Pure rationalization and projectio

Where does Rand claim to have privileged knowledge of human behavior? This is a new one.

Her philosophy has nothing to do with judging character, and everything to do with judging yourself. It's not about knowing other people, it's about knowing who you are. That's how she can be a shitty judge of character, and it's a red herring because it has absolutely nothing to do with thinking for yourself. More importantly, it's a commentary about Peikoff, not about Rand. Peikoff seemed like a good heir to her, but he's abandoned Rand entirely and attempted to form some sort of dogmatic pseudoreligion out of her - which is terribly sad. It could be hero worship, but I don't think she honestly thought Peikoff would act as he does now. I believe she thought better of him, and he's let her down. It's a specific instance, not a generalization.

 

[creativesoul]

Morality has nothing to do with judging character?

:?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Morality has nothing to do with judging character?

:?

No.

You may judge based on morality, but morality is not about judging character. Morality is about right and wrong. I may judge an action wrong, even if it isn't immoral. I may judge an action good, even if it's morally reprehensible.

Rand presents normative ethics, rather than a strict moral yardstick.

 

[creativesoul]

Please... briefly study entailment through google or something, and then...

Read, qoute, and respond directly to my last reply directed at IJoe.

Morality *is* always about behavioral expectation. That includes normative, prescriptive, and meta ethical...

Do you need a syllogism?

 

[creativesoul]

...morality is not about judging character. Morality is about right and wrong. I may judge an action wrong, even if it isn't immoral. I may judge an action good, even if it's morally reprehensible.

If this necessarily follows from Rand, it proves the point CLEARLY.

If one can judge any action "good" that *IS* morally reprehensible then you(they) have no idea what "good" even means!

Case closed.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Please... briefly study entailment through google or something, and then...

Read, qoute, and respond directly to my last reply directed at IJoe.

Morality *is* always about behavioral expectation. That includes normative, prescriptive, and meta ethical...

Do you need a syllogism?

I don't see what entailment has to do with this, assuming you mean the linguistic concept. If there's another form in behavioral psychology then I'm not aware of it. Unless you mean to actually suggest that Rand didn't believe her ideals had merit (as I believe in X entails I believe X is true).

There's one problem. Morality isn't about expected behavior in others. It's about determining proper behavior based on precepts of right and wrong. While it provides a method by which to measure others, it by far is not the only or even the best method. Judging others based on how they conform to your morality is the domain of the fundamentalist. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church judges based solely on morality. This form of character judgment ignores potentiality entirely.

Morality is the domain of determining your own behavior, and only addresses behavior of others insofar as identifying right and wrong.

More important and on point: I don't think she was a bad judge of character, it was a turn of phrase about a particular person. I think she sorely misjudged a couple people, but I also think those people changed drastically after her death. This is why the comment that she was a bad judge of character(about Peikoff specifically) is irrelevant to the pros and cons of her ideals.

 

[DepricatedZero]

If one can judge any action "good" that *IS* morally reprehensible then you(they) have no idea what "good" even means!

That doesn't follow from Rand. I think murder is morally reprehensible. I think it can be good to kill in the case of self-defense, though. This is what we call "morally gray."

 

[TheMaw]

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, it was very interesting, but the tenets of the Objectivism are philosophically flawed. I could go into all of them, but I won't unless asked (it's a long type and unless someone shows interest I won't bother)

I will just point out that her "axiom" is flawed.

This is taken from the objectivist website.

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are,and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural,and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand writes that the "axiom" (I'll use that term lightly) is that 'Existence Exists"...in other words A is A, Facts are Facts etc. This is simply a tautology, a repetition of words. She might as well state that 1=1 and that in no way can provide adequate information in which to base a philosophy on. She states that tautologies exist. Whoop-de-do.

She rejects the supernatural but her rejection does not imply that the supernatural does not exist. I am that I am is a tautology as well so her reasoning is poor.

 

[Zetetic]

I thought Atlas Shrugged was a great fantasy novel, like Lord of the Rings but the heroes are engineers and Scandinavian pirates.

As a philosophy I think it's an interesting thing to consider but should never be your only ethical guideline. My main takeaway from AS was that you should never be ashamed of your accomplishments.

As a suggestion for socio-economic policy I think it's about as realistic as Marxism, and a good bit less humane.

This gives a sufficiently accurate take of the matter: http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

This one is just garbage from start to finish. We're not particularly rational 100% of the time, any more than we're able to be 100% certain of the results of our observations and reason. Further, the claim of absolute certainty is now joined by a claim of absolute control over outcomes(which contradicts the earlier assertion that we don't create reality). Here's the beginning of the philosophy that starts leading into the sort of pathological selfishness that makes Objectivists unfit for human civilization.

My understanding of this when I read her standalone philosophical treatises is not so much that people are rational 100% of the time, but that rationality is unique to humans, whereas not much else is... Also as far as the statement that reason is our only window onto reality and only means of gaining knowledge, it's not to say that we only perceive reality in rational ways, but to say that what we perceive without rationality is never real. When our perceptions are colored by prejudice or emotion, then we will have a perception of reality which is wrong, and therefore not representative of reality. She would class supposed knowledge gleaned this way as actually self-inflicted delusions rather than knowledge. The only ideas worthy of certainty are those attained with perfect flawless rationality.

I think the thing that makes her take a wrong turn is this notion that our reasoning faculties were the primary key to our survival as a species, which of course is wrong, as we know. It wasn't the populations that had the smartest, most rational individuals that persisted any more than it was the populations that had the strongest, most athletic individuals. It was those who used their reasoning faculties and strengths in functionally cooperative ways throughout a group who had the best chances of survival. And this was the case not only for humans, but for pretty much any social animal from ants to wolves. I'm not sure where she gets this idea that absolutely no part of one's self-interest could ever be served through altruism, either. One would have to apply a very shallow analysis of the self-serving value of an action.