Why is Objectivism so maligned?

[Gestahl]

So, I was reading up on some Ayn Rand the other day, and how she is not taken seriously by most philosophers.

What is so abhorrent and silly about her philosophy? Her ideas seem no more farcical or outlandish than those on the complete opposite side of the scale.

Can some of the more seasoned and well-versed in philosophy describe why the philosophy is so rejected? As a libertarian, I find that just like every other philosopher, she starts out with good concepts, but when taken to the logical extreme, look entirely silly and vacuous.

 

[Upchurch]

I'll admit to not being overly familiar with Objectivism. So, after reading your post, I looked it up.

Looking here, it seems that most criticism of Objectivism comes from Rand's rejection of other philosophies. But that's just one source. *shrug*

 

[Gestahl]

I'll admit to not being overly familiar with Objectivism. So, after reading your post, I looked it up.

Looking here, it seems that most criticism of Objectivism comes from Rand's rejection of other philosophies. But that's just one source. *shrug*

I think it might also have something to do with the fact that she was quite dogmatic and rabid in her characterizations and critique of other philosophies... she was famous for being quite the vitriolic speaker.

However, despite assurances from the philosophically learned, I have never been exposed to systematic critique of her thoughts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What is so abhorrent and silly about her philosophy? Her ideas seem no more farcical or outlandish than those on the complete opposite side of the scale.

Her ideas are "no more farcical and outlandish" than Maoism, say? And therefore no more abhorrent and silly?

As to what's wrong with her, look at this:

Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equalled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism?

This combines factual inaccuracy, the straw man, and a quite amazing feat of self-contradiction, to arrive at a nauseating conclusion.

Maligned? Only by people too lazy to make a real effort and vilify her.

 

[crimresearch]

Take your pick:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Well, the above link really is quite exhaustive but the easiest way to put it is that Objectivism is mostly ignored because Ayn Rand was so bad at philosophy that most philosophers don't consider her a philosopher any more than they consider, say, Deepak Chopra a philosopher.

Philosophy, remember, is built around two basic goals: understanding with great detail (and using words that reflect that - which is to say with great specificity), and careful stringent arguments. It's easy to read, say, things like Berkeley (or summaries or overall positions) and have trouble seeing why Objectivism is somehow less valid. But that's precisely because (when reading summaries) you're missing the important bits, or (when reading, again, Berkeley) it's often hard to see the real beauty of it (1) out of context and (2) without working through it in far greater detail than most people are willing to. Ayn Rand, essentially, posed a lot of very bad arguments (very, very, very bad ones in fact) - and also generally appeared not to have any interesting insights into the issues she was writing about. If she had had good arguments (but no interesting insights), or if she had had interesting insights but bad arguments there's a decent chance she would be studied by philosophers - but since she lacked both there's really no reason for philosophers to study her.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If she had had good arguments (but no interesting insights), or if she had had interesting insights but bad arguments there's a decent chance she would be studied by philosophers - but since she lacked both there's really no reason for philosophers to study her.

One big beef philosophers have with Rand is that she blows off Hume's tenet that "an is doesn't mean an ought". She was a utopian idealist more than a philosopher, full of ideas of how things ought to be, but no real examination of how things really are.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

I don't know if that's entirely true - though she certainly did blow it off. A better way to put it might be that it was the blowing off of Hume's argument that annoys them, rather than the rejection of the conclusion. Or, even more accurately, what appeared to be the complete ignorance of the argument. Or... and here I'm just picking nits. Well, I was doing that above too - the point is that it's specifically the blowing off that annoys them, not what she's blowing off.

And I should note that it's not like philosophers just go along with the 'can't get an ought from an is' thing as a matter of principle. Anscombe has a wonderful bit in "Modern Moral Philosophy" where she argues that Hume was quite wrong about it all (in an interesting way), and I actually have an entire book on my shelf at home filled with arguments one way or the other on the issue.

 

[Piscivore]

I went through a period of fascination with Rand in my first years of college. It was Rush that did it. I can't say I remember much about her teachings other than the fact I gave up on her because she insisted there were moral absolutes, which did not at all jibe even with my then-limited experience.

ETA: I still like "Anthem", though.

 

[Renfield]

Her ideas are "no more farcical and outlandish" than Maoism, say? And therefore no more abhorrent and silly?

As to what's wrong with her, look at this: This combines factual inaccuracy, the straw man, and a quite amazing feat of self-contradiction, to arrive at a nauseating conclusion.

Maligned? Only by people too lazy to make a real effort and vilify her.

Well said.

That is all.

 

[Gestahl]

Take your pick:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

I get a 404.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I read a few forums, Objectivism is like the flu and it's flu season again. Discussions have been popping up in forums where I have never seen it before. Did I miss some Rand memorial on TV?

Always fasciating how these epdemics get started.

 

[Gestahl]

Her ideas are "no more farcical and outlandish" than Maoism, say? And therefore no more abhorrent and silly?

As to what's wrong with her, look at this: This combines factual inaccuracy, the straw man, and a quite amazing feat of self-contradiction, to arrive at a nauseating conclusion.

Maligned? Only by people too lazy to make a real effort and vilify her.

Like I said, she starts with good concepts, and carries them dogmatically to an absurd-sounding conclusion.

Kant's categorical imperative is equally vacuous and insipid when critically examined, IMO.

 

[Gestahl]

I read a few forums, Objectivism is like the flu and it's flu season again. Discussions have been popping up in forums where I have never seen it before. Did I miss some Rand memorial on TV?

Always fasciating how these epdemics get started.

Really? Interesting... I just decided that I should read her works, if only to give my mind an exercise in bulls*** detection. I was aware of the general dismissal of her, but I wanted some good counterpoints to keep in mind as I read.

 

[Gestahl]

One big beef philosophers have with Rand is that she blows off Hume's tenet that "an is doesn't mean an ought". She was a utopian idealist more than a philosopher, full of ideas of how things ought to be, but no real examination of how things really are.

But, see, there is the issue. That argument does seem facile to me. If one has a goal, and one has facts about the operation of reality, then one has oughts in the form of action to bring about that goal. For every person, the ultimate goal is self-survival and self-interest, or there is no person (they die, or are completely ineffective). And that is an objective fact. And I can't seem to argue against that.

 

[FreeChile]

In saying that there is a subjective world, we are implying the existence of an objective world. The usual start is to look at a table. We think each of us sees something different. The response would be

“The table is not an object at all.

The very fact that you recognize the table as a table is the issue. It does not matter, as the philosophers seem to think, that you and I have slightly different views of the chair and so interpret it differently. Neither does it matter whether the chair is there when I leave the room. The philosophers go on and on about this. It is absurd. You view and experience things from a different viewpoint than others, that's all. You think that you are having a subjective experience of an objective thing. There is nothing there, only your relative, experiential data, your "truth". There is no such thing as objective truth at all. There is nothing which exists "outside" or independent of our minds.”

The usual response is “Even for someone else? Is the existence of someone else dependent upon my mental activity?”

“Since I assume that "I" exist, others also exist. But I am questioning this. Do I have any way of experiencing the fact of my existence? I really have no way of finding out whether I am alive or dead.

I could go to a doctor who will examine me, take my temperature, my pulse, my blood pressure, and he will tell me everything is normal. In this sense you're a living, animate being in contradistinction to the inanimate objects around you. But you have actually no way of experiencing for yourself and by yourself the fact that you are a living being.”

The usual response is “Of course you can: you cut yourself, you bleed and experience pain.”

“Yes, but there are two things. There is the body which feels the pain and the knowledge telling you, "This is blood," "This is pain," "This is the cessation of pain." There is pain, but there is no one there who feels the pain. There is nobody who is talking now.

I am not making a mystical statement when I say such a thing. Talking is a mechanical thing, like a tape recorder. Your questions draw out certain responses automatically. Whatever that is here comes out, that's all. Because you are asking questions, the answers are already there.”

 

[rharbers]

I think Objectivism is not taken seriously because it is just too simple. "A is A", existance exists, and reality is the same for everyone. I once heard someone say that it is "Sophmoric".

 

[Bikewer]

I used to subscribe to an Objectivist discussion group, mainly because they had some decent back-and-forth on a variety of other subjects.
I looked at one contemporary site which had an overview of the ideas, and didn't see a lot there that a humanist would argue with.
But then, humanism is a rather idealistic notion as well...

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Kant's categorical imperative is equally vacuous and insipid when critically examined, IMO.

Um, and you have critically examined the categorical imperative and how it's deduced from the nature of practical reason?

Frankly, no, no it isn't. And this brings out the point that I made much earlier, which is that it's sometimes hard to see the difference between Rand and other philosophers if all you have is the basic intro-philosophy level summaries of what they've said. That doesn't mean there isn't a substantial different, though.

But, see, there is the issue. That argument does seem facile to me. If one has a goal, and one has facts about the operation of reality, then one has oughts in the form of action to bring about that goal. For every person, the ultimate goal is self-survival and self-interest, or there is no person (they die, or are completely ineffective). And that is an objective fact. And I can't seem to argue against that.

And why ought one to pursue their own survival or self interest? Even if it is a fact that they do so - or even do so necessarily that doesn't show much about whether or not they ought to. Specifically, it doesn't unless you allow in some other premises. You can't, in other words, deduce that you ought to p from premises that don't themselves contain some form of an ought statement - even if that's as minimal as "you ought to do what advances your own interests". Basically though, yes, if one has facts and a goal then one can deduce, possibly, an ought statement - because that's the sort of statement a statement of a goal is as well. The argument, however, was directed at the notion of deducing an ought from an is.

I think you would do well to actually read Hume carefully before dismissing his argument as facile - it's a fairly significant one and liable to be misconstrued.

What really confuses me, though, is that above you sound like you're saying that the only real sort of oughts there are are instrumental oughts (if one has goal x and means y are the means to x then one ought to y) - but these are precisely all that Hume allowed for. In fact, it was his entire picture of how reasoning worked in the first place. So I'm really entirely unsure of what you're disagreeing with at all.

 

[Beerina]

> Neither does it matter whether the chair is there when I leave the room.

Of course it's there. People keep food in refrigerators because the food and the bacteria that would spoil it "are still there" when they leave the room.

Gosh!