Is Rand's Objectivism flawed? If so, why?

Question

I find Rand's philosophy interesting intellectually speaking but not pragmatic when confronted with real life situations.

What do you think?

Answer 1

The flaw that comes to mind is that her rejection for subjectivism fails the notion that subjects persist and there is no human mind outside of its self, subjectivity.

'In her early life, Rand admired the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, and did share "Nietzsche's reverence for human potential and his loathing of Christianity and the philosophy of Immanuel Kant,"[33] but eventually became critical, seeing his philosophy as emphasizing emotion over reason and subjective interpretation of reality over actual reality.[33] '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Nietzsche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand


But subjectivism is active reality and is actual. Error or not, ignoring subjectivity would be a dis-affirming sociological error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism#Subjectivism_in_probability

To be applicable, probability must be objective if it is to be used. The other possibility is incoherence which in and of its self is not the subjective totality.

Answer 2

From what little I've taken from her work, Objectivism was obviously the end product of a childhood geared up to be spoiled and pampered, ruined by the mean, mean proletariat. It eventually seems to come down to the primacy of the individual, but the problem is that no man is an island. There is not a person alive who can boast that they've never accepted help from 'the masses', and to take that help, then pretend that you never needed it and are superior to those who helped you simply because you refuse to return the favor is absurd.