Discussion [Philosophy] Objectivism

I want us to discuss a particular philosophical system that I discovered recently. The merits, demerits and such.

Objectivism was founded by Ayn Rand.

To elucidate, Objectivism is a philosophical movement that proposes that reality exists, independent of what fucks we give about it. It isn't made up entirely of qualia(subjective experiences), and we can't wish or think reality away. It proposes, that objective knowledge can be attained through perception and the application of logic.

From a moral perspective, objectivism focuses on self-interest. It preaches the virtue of selfishness. It holds, that it is ethical to act in one's own self interest. "rational self interest" or ethical egoism.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government; government shouldn't interfere with the market, it supports a free market.

 

It may help if you include a concise definition, since most people cbf looking things up for a forum post

 

FUCK IT START THE FIRE!

 

I was on phone, I was switching to PC so, I can get the material from the net.

 

@Dragon God yes I have to admit, I am. I like the numbers and stuff. I am not a buddha like @Zheya , sadly...

 

Objectivism should barely qualify as a philosophy. Ayn Rand couldn't hack it as an actual philosopher so she wrote some awful books. Even if we ignore how horrible Ayn Rand was as a person and how she used objectivism to justify all her awful actions, we could dissect exactly why objectivism is a terrible philosophy. I don't feel like doing that right now. So here's a funny quote.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

so long story short it means we do what we feel is right based of the knowledge accumatllated via sense and there put a purpose and value and some such or something desu~

 

All those words, it makes my head crying.

 

Objectivism only works for rich, smart people.

So I am against it because I think empathy is a valuable human trait.

You can also just google "franz kiekeben rand" for a better written (and longer) explanation for why she is wrong.

 

#discrimination desu~

 

Anyone seen my head I cant find it?

 

From what I read, she started out as an author. Following Atlas Shrugged, she quit writing and became a philosopher. Atlas Shrugged marked Rand's switch from literature to philosophy.

 

Now I'm no philosopher, but I'd say the demerits are:
1. You're encouraging anarchy
2. Most believers would be self-centered pieces of shits
3. To deny subjectivity is to deny any possibility of being wrong (aka being a know-it-all)
4. "selective reproduction" sounds a lot like ignoring everything that doesn't suit your own little bubble-view of the world (this phrasing is awkward, even for an internet forum...I'd appreciate any suggestions for rewording)

 

This a serious school of thought?If every human only lives for himself,then we would never have been where we are.If the sentry wanted to live for himself and not sacrificed his life,would the public survive?While humans NEED to be selfish at times,they also have to understand that living for oneself..is being Robinson Crusoe. You will live a dull and monotonous life. Unless you come upon Friday.In which case,you are all in for slavery~

 

1. How?
2. It is not wrong to be self-centered. Infact, I'll argue that it is rational to do so.
3. Objectivism, merely holds that the universe exists. There are concrete facts irrespective of what fucks we give about them. It is useful. As Rand herself said, Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. You might as well claim that aether exists, but just like subjectivism, it is irrelevant, because it isn't useful. Objectivismj is useful.
4. I don't recall mentioning selective reproduction.

 

You create a false dichotomy, between individual self-interest and group self interest. The interest of the individual overlaps in a lot of the cases with the interest of the group.

Being objectivist, does not preclude the opportunity for cooperation, au contraire, it advocates cooperation.

 

Simplified, Objectivism is enforced Sociopathy. Wherein people with emotions other than greed and self fulfillment are seen as mentally diseased at best and people to be manipulated at worst. If -everyone- followed the objectivist screed then people would murder each other in the streets over a nickel, while all the money landed in the hands of the ultra-rich because only they and those they hired as soldiers would have any resources.

Also, because no objectivist is happy with anything less than the option of "All" when it comes to resources, by definition of the movement (Which is really more of a code of ethics, or lack thereof than a philosophy, there is no philosophical component to it) these ultra rich people would be constantly trying to slaughter away the armies of their opponents to claim dominion over the entire world, while the soldiers themselves constantly backstabbed and betrayed literally everyone around them for the slightest advancement.

Also of note is the often ignored portion of objectivism that when boiled down basically states that helping people is inherently wrong, to the point of just showing basic human kindness being shown as evil, and doing evil to those around you being seen as good, presumably because it will somehow force them to rely on themselves, the justification for it is kind of nonexistant.

Objectivism, at its core, stems from Rand's utter rejection of her Russian roots, and it seems that she took capitalism to its absolute maximum possibility as a concept purely to get as far away as she could from the concept of communism. Effectively, the entire philosophy stems from one person's trauma, and is a coping mechanism to distance herself from said trauma.

I'm going back to eating dragons. Objectivist "philosophy" enrages me because it enforces the already extreme gap between the rich and the poor as an absolute, a fundamental part of existance that is required rather than created intentionally by humans.

 

Amusingly, if certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics do in fact scale up indefinitely (which every indication says they do) then there's absolutely no way for us to actually sense the objective reality of the universe. We can hypothesize it, but by definition everything, even the planet itself, is a subjective reality.
Of course, everyone on the planet is well and truly entangled so every person you meet (and indeed pretty much every macro-scale object) is guaranteed to be sensing the same subjective reality that you are, because it's literally impossible to not do that.

Objectivism also makes a rather dangerous assumption; that is that every person's greatest possible personal happiness can only be achieved in a social system that demonstrate full and equal rights. Given that no social system actually demonstrates that, this is one hell of a leap of faith to take. Furthermore it is fairly easy to prove that at least some people gain happiness from causing suffering to others, such people are literally incompatible with standard Objectivist philosophy; because from their point of view fucking over everyone else is in fact how they achieve their rational self-interest.
If you remove that assumption then Objectivism is little more than saying 'reality is real for everyone.' Which isn't really saying anything much.

Objectivism would make a lot more sense if people were computers and functioned purely on a rational level. The objective reality however is that people absolutely do not function like that, making Objectivism a fun thought experiment for a hypothetical utopia populated entirely by Good People, but has little practical use in and of itself in the world.

 

I am no philosopher but I, say jack philosophy. Everyone is a philosopher of their own. Everyone has their own ideas and theories about living and etc. so, why should I live by another person's philosophy.
But there may be people with whom my philosophy coincides, largely or slightly.

 

I find this to have many merits and demerits.
Merits I can find would include that it brings upon those who believe it a sense of individuality as they are actively working for themselves and what they want... on the other hand however, humans can be said to, when put to their own devices, gone astray from a sense of morality and ethics. Should one object to all social boundaries and unwritten laws, one would quickly find themselves in a world of torment caused by the misgivings of those around them. Though a true objectivist may be able to brush aways these nary thoughts in their search for self-pleasure, humans are hardwired to work together and for social company. Should one become ostracized from this social company, they would soon find themselves to be less human as they are no longer seen as one by their peers in which they used to belong to. It can be thought that through the act of selecting only what benefits you and not others, you can be seen as less human, and to show animalistic tendencies like that of those who lord over their own territory, defending it from outside invaders. It is in this train of thought in which one can find themselves to have stopped being part of the collective, and become part of the minority. A person whom does not follow the laid down trends and walks their own path, be it destructive or beneficial. Though I will not preach of the superiorities of objectivism, I will say that it is like communism. Done correctly, it will lead to widespread happiness and progress, but done incorrectly like how it has since time immemorial, and all we will find are historical examples of pain and suffering.

Spoiler

BUT HEY THATS JUST A THEORY!!! A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION THEORY!!!! THANKS FOR READING!!! XD (I totally stole this from game theory, but to be fair, it is both a parody, and a joke)