What do you think about the Objectivist philosophy?

Question

I am an Objectivist, myself. I have found that few people have ever heard of it. Most of the people I have found that know of it are Libertarians.

Answer 1

I think it is one of the most overlooked systematic philosophical approaches in the 20th Century. I think it is great because it really gives a solid systematic approach to problems of ethics, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology. I tend to think Objectivist aesthetics are fantastic when it comes to art (the realization of Romantic Realism as a new art movement is a fantastic offshoot of O-ist aesthetics) , but tend towards the undefined (or poorly defined) when it came to theories of music which Ayn Rand herself acknowledged as incomplete and needing more work.

Ever since I was a kid I never understood how liberals could insist that everyone deserves a hand out and would put their grubby little paws into your pocketbooks to make sure that ideology became reality. I also never understood how conservatives could get the economics of individualism correct ..but insist that they have the right to stick their grubby little paws into a person's private life or personal moral domain. I always thought that both parties got it wrong on a big level because they ignored the right of individual autonomy. I never understood how such ideological incongruity could exist until I started reading some Objectvist literature which accurately roots the problems in bad metaphysics and correspondingly nonsensical epistemology.

As far as a novelist goes, I think Rand did a phenomenal job in some parts of her works (I'm a big fan of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and WTL), but she could have used an editor to cut away some of the posturing and proselytizing.
It annoys me when a book starts preaching at me and Rand succumbs to this annoyance many times in her writing. I understand the purpose of delivering philsophic ideals through an artistic medium (in this case, literature) and her novels have been a wonderful way (and the primary way) for people to get aquainted with her ideas. However, Rand repeats ideas and concepts many many many times over within the courses of her novels and that gets on my nerves much in the same way that I think Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series would be one of the best ever if he just got a decent editor! I think the fact that a decent chunk of her philosophy is shown explicity through her literature makes her philosophy a bit more polarizing than it would have to be. I say that because a lot of people I have ran into discount the brilliant ideas inside due to the wild fluctuations in quality that her fiction writings can have. One second you have this beautifully illustrated landscape of events spreading outward with great detail and wonderful clarity...and then you have a frickin' 60 page speech by a main character (I'm referencing Atlas Shrugged here) preachin' to everyone. That is really unfortunate in my book because I think so many philsophers don't even come close to approaching Ayn Rand's level of clarity, depth, common sense, etc.

Objectivism has this status as a philosophical "hot potato" which it really doesn't deserve (and the author certainly didn't ask for). If you can look past some of that crap, you can find a really productive and worthwhile philosophy.

Here are some of the issues that all to often cloud serious debate of Objectivism:

1) The Libertarian party.
The Libertarian party is such a giant mess of contradictory philosophical approaches because Objectivism and Ayn Rand often get tarred by association since a giant chunk of political Libertarians give nods to Rand explicitly or outright steal her work, don't give her credit, and then completely reinterpret it.

2) The "C" word.

Many detractors tar the whole philosophy as a "cult" when Objectivist philosophy is completely diametrically opposed to that kind of behavior. Even assuming that Ayn Rand's inner circle functioned as a cult ran by a crazy power hungry woman (a claim I find pretty proposterous considering the sources of all of those allegations ) .that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to say about the actual philosophy itself. Yet, accusations still fly that Objectivism is nothing more than a glorified cult. That annoys me quite a bit. The fact that Ayn Rand's abilities as a fiction writer and personal drama between her and her lover caused such a great philosophy to be pretty much ignored by mainstream academia is really atrocious in my book.

3) Overzealous newbies.
Unfortunately, I have seen a decent number of people calling themselves "Objectivists" act very arrogantly and mean spirited towards "outsiders." I have also seen *some* of them treat Rand as some sort of a prophet or infallible which frankly...lends credence to the accusation of "cult like" behavior and also turns genuinely individualistic people away from the movement or social interaction within the movement which can be really unfortunate. Objectivists can be their own worst enemy here. However, the large chunk of Objectivists I have met have been some of the most intelligent, well read, and happy people I have ever come across. As with any group, it depends on the individuals and you can't really generalize about a group in particular.

4) Open vs. Closed

Another sticky issue involving Objectivism is the fact that other groups (like The Center for Objectivist Studies) claim to represent Ayn Rand or her ideas and in fact...do not.
Objectivism is a closed system and was designed that way. A lot of people have a problem with that, but it exists for a reason and serves an important function. The fact that a decent chunk of people disagree with that and have formed separate and opposed philosophical movements under the umbrella of "Objectivism" is another problem within the movement itself that clouds actual discussion of the philosophical ideas in play within her writings.


If you are wondering why I even bothered to mention all of these issues, I did so because a lot of newbies to Objectivism have no idea about the heat they will get for name dropping Ayn Rand in academic forums (which all to often skew towards the liberal side) or some of the completely bogus crap they will have to wade through to actually get to a decent discussion of the ideas in play. I figure any discussion of the actual philosophy (initiated by someone like yourself who seems legitimately interested) warrants a warning of such obsucring issues.
The sooner you actually look into the actual philosophy as well as the nonsense a lot of detractors say, the more efficient your future discussions will actually be because you will be better equipped to weed through the junk.

I'm really interested in hearing what YOU think about Objectivism. Hit me up in a private message or add some details to your question.

On a side note....
Btw...if you aren't familiar with the Sword of Truth series (I referenced it above) it is a famous fantasy series written by an admirer of Ayn Rand. I would really recommend picking up the first book, "Wizard's First Rule" as it is a fantastic book. I'm almost never read fantasy books, but the Sword of Truth series is a big exception to that that I would recommend to fans of Ayn Rand's work.

Answer 2

Ayn Rand was a superb observer of the human contition--and she asked some very important questions. However, there are three weaknesses in her philosophy that, so far, her followers have chosen to ignore--and until they do, the philosophy isn't going to be viable:
1) The form of capitalism she spoke of no longer exists--it's termed "proprietary capitalism." However, in themodern economy, large corporations are not run by owners, but by managers--and that creats a fundamental rift between Rand's vision and the reality, namely the concept of the owner-producer simply does not apply.
2) Although Rand was aware of the effects, particularly on children (see her esay "The Comprachicos:), of social influences, she did not deal with them in her philosophical writings in any effective way. In her novels, this is okay--that wasn't central to the story. But in trying to address the very real problems in society, ignoring these issues isn't adequate. For example, you cannot simply assert that a person is entirely accountable for their success or failure when you are dealing with a society (as she was) in which women and minorities were arbitrarly excluded from access to resouces (jobs, education)--nor can you ignore the effects of those factors. And don't jump on that--the point isn't the specific example. Rand deplored those practices--which is to her credit. But she chose to dismiss their effects, which is not.
3) Rand's philosophy is badly marred by an intolerance for dissent. Contrary to her frequent assertions, not everyone who disagrees with some of what she had to say is/was doing so for immoral reasons. And her cheif intellctual failing was her refusal to listen to dissent. And unfortunaately, it's the one failing her followers most often adopt.

At the same time, Objectivism has muh to offer. It does hold the promise for eventually becoming a strong and well grounded philosophy that coult provide a powerful arguement for individualism and individual rights--but that promise cannot rest merely on the beginning Rand made. She is not a prophet, nor was she infallible. And her followers would do much better to recognize that--and set to work doing the very thing she most strongly advocated--subjecting her work to the most rigorous and disciplined rational analysis and inquiry possible.

Answer 3

Hokum

Answer 4

I recently started reading about objectivism and I find it very interesting.

Answer 5

I think your just trying to be too cool for the room.