Debate Topic: Objectivism.

[Iuvenalis]

But anyhow, it all boils down to Original Sin.  That is why I am a free market advocate, because you can't give man power.  He will eventually destroy everything.

 

You don't see how one could consider free-markets as the ultimate expression of power given to man (as opposed to planned economies where all that power is held by the state)??

[James02]

I don't know what you mean by an "expression of power" or "State".  There is no such thing as a "State".  There are rulers in the State and officials.  You are forced to deal with these people in a planned economy.  Since original Sin exists, you will be trapped in a bad situation where they hold the gun and you get to polish their shoes for them.  Don't like it?  You either starve or get shot.

In a competitive economy, you have multiple choices.  If someone is especially ruled by Original Sin, being lazy or unethical, or whatever, you can deal with a competitor.  The whole "monopoly" argument is a myth.  Just open your local phone book and look up "plumber" to prove it wrong.

As for government, we used to have the 10th amendment, and no central taxing or central bank.  So a business or citizen had over 40 States to pick from.  This acted as a natural check against Original Sin.  If a State got corrupt, or started some Utopian crap, you could move.  Everyone knew this, so Original Sin was kept in check.  That is why the Progressives were obsessed with destroying the 10th amendment, and instituting the Federal income tax, along with a Central Bank to make loans to the Central Government.

One recent example.  Various funds and pensions bought GM bonds before the bankruptcy.  It acted more like equity, than a bond.  Basically these funds had time, so they were really buying into the GM company post-bankruptcy by purchasing the bonds.  Along came the State, and Original Sin.  Read some of the reports.  The "State" threatened to sick the IRS on these funds and pensions, as well as the SEC, and the Pension regulators.  Basically the fund managers were threatened with 30 years in the sodomite rape rooms of our Federal prisons unless they agreed to relinguish their rights.  So you tell me, is this a good thing?  Do you like living in a system like this, where your rights depend on whether the State official is in a good mood or not?

It is funny, but Rand got this 180 degrees backwards.  Read "Politics of Bad Faith", "Radical Son", and "The American Progressives" if you want to learn more.

[Belloc]

But anyhow, it all boils down to Original Sin.  That is why I am a free market advocate, because you can't give man power.  He will eventually destroy everything.

 

You don't see how one could consider free-markets as the ultimate expression of power given to man (as opposed to planned economies where all that power is held by the state)??

his comment makes no sense, whether in hands of Govt (socialism) or a few monopolists (capitalism) or a "free market"-whatever taht is-it is all in hands of men, whether several, a few or one.....Distributism seeks to disperse power, property widely, so that one one group can dominate, in line s/subsidiarity (they go hand-hand)......

Both socialism and capitalism depend on man's policing himself to be good.......with nothing to keep him in check when he is not......

This fact is lost on James02  and his allies at fe, who seem to pop up whenever teh discussion of economics seurfaces (some time, test this out-look at moy economic or related posts, see how quick they come out on some or all of them).....

[Anastasia]

No, socialism requires state policing of goodness, but since their definition of good means "obedient to our political authority", it is useless for promoting virtue. Which is the whole point; government power cannot be trusted to promote virtue; they should be allowed as little authority as is absolutely necessary.
 In an aside, distributism also requires state policing of their version of what is good: if you are not keeping up your property or producing what the distributist state has ordered you to produce, you are punished. But the reason a free market is so called is because it does not involve the state. Saying "we want to disperse power" means nothing when you start out with one completely powerful authority ( the distributist state) because that power will not be given up to the people. The only real solution is to not allow the government much power in the first place.

[James02]

his comment makes no sense, whether in hands of Govt (socialism) or a few monopolists (capitalism) or a "free market"-whatever taht is-it is all in hands of men, whether several, a few or one.....Distributism seeks to disperse power, property widely, so that one one group can dominate, in line s/subsidiarity (they go hand-hand)......

I will be charitable and assume you don't understand Distributism and aren't purposefully trying to mislead folks.

The Distributist State will be controlled by a group of "guilds" (in Russia they were called "soviets").  Let's contrast the two systems.  Right now, if you want a plumber, you open up your phone book, and you have 20 choices to pick from.  (Quick aside, notice the failure of the distributist theory already, a "strong" plumber didn't monopolize the plumbing industry.)  You will probably ask around with your friends and find out which ones give quality service and a good price.  You will then pick the one that you consider the best value.

Now in the Distributist State, the plumbers will form a monopoly called a "guild".  However, it is much worse than a private monopoly.  It will be a state sponsored monopoly, backed up by the violent powers of the State. ( Such a guild, a State sponsored monopoly, already exists.  It is called the Federal Reserve.)  So when you open your phone book, you will only see one entry "Plumbers' Guild".  Think the price is too high?  Tough luck.  Don't like the service?  File a complaint with the guild (oops, your plumber's Dad is the guild president.  Oops, sorry about that broken window.).  Want to be a plumber?  Well, you might have to pay the guild president a little grease money to get in.  Want to become a plumber on your own?  The black Suburbans show up with Fed plates and haul you away for breaking the economic laws.  Welcome to the rape room of the Fed prison.

What happens if you get bad service in a free market?  You get a different plumber, and the bad plumber quickly goes out of business because of his bad reputation.  In fact, you won't get bad service.  The plumber knows he depends on his reputation, so he will fix the problem for free.

Which system do you want to live under?  Which system does a better job at holding Original Sin in check?

[Norbert]

Heh, James 02 has defined my pro-capitalism arguments better than I could in my absence. 

[James02]

You don't see how one could consider free-markets as the ultimate expression of power given to man (as opposed to planned economies where all that power is held by the state)??

Here's what our government does: "Rattner (Obama official) allegedly told at least 2 non-TARP Chrysler creditors: "Who the f**k do you think you're dealing with? We'll have the IRS audit your fund. Every one of your employees. Your investors. Then we will have the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through your books looking for anything and everything and nothing we find to destroy you with."

The LAST thing we need is more power given to the State.

[Antonius Block]

Can you give the gist of Rand's arguments? I'm interested in the objective/ subjective dynamic in philosophy and theology, and would happily play uneducated devil's advocate in a debate!

Well, these aren't her arguments, but this is the main framework of her philosophy:

   1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
   2. Epistemology: Reason
   3. Ethics: Self-interest
   4. Politics: Capitalism

You can find these fleshed out a bit more here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

I tend to think of it more like this: Objectivism = (Aristotle + Nietzsche + laissez-faire) X (crazy + stupid)
You've heard of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (appeal to force)? I think of Rand's writing and argumentative style as "argumentum cum baculo" (argument with the stick). I.e. it's as if she feels that if she beats you over the head hard enough, and yells at you loud enough, through enough pages of stylistic dreck, eventually you'll agree with her. And it often works!

I really recommend not going down this black hole. Reading Rand in high school screwed up my head good for a long time, even after I realized it was all wrong. A friend of mine once expressed it best, I think: "Ayn Rand wrote books for adults that are today read by school kids. C.S. Lewis wrote books for children that are today studied by adults."

OK, having mentioned logical fallacies, I do recognize that almost all of my criticisms of Rand are ad hominem. Obviously, you should read her if you really want to, but I'd stick with Aristotle, Nietzsche, Adam Smith... people actually worth taking seriously.

EDIT: I should have written "A.R. wrote books for adults that are today read primarily by school kids...".

[Walty]

I know so little about Rand.  I've studied, to some extent, many of the important ancient and modern philosophers, but I haven't quite gotten to her yet.

My major question, and perhaps this is unanswerable in anything short of 500 pages, is how could she hold an objective view on physical and metaphysical reality while still holding to self-centered ethics?

[Antonius Block]

I know so little about Rand.  I've studied, to some extent, many of the important ancient and modern philosophers, but I haven't quite gotten to her yet.

To call Rand even a marginally important modern philosopher would be a major exaggeration. Political influence she's had, but her philosophical influence has been next to nothing.

My major question, and perhaps this is unanswerable in anything short of 500 pages, is how could she hold an objective view on physical and metaphysical reality while still holding to self-centered ethics?

*Deep breath as I prepare to type a 500 page resonse* ...or not.
Quick answer: All living things seek their own self-interest: plants to survive and reproduce, animals to do the same as well as to flee pain and pursue pleasure. Humans are basically the same, they just have to use reason to do it. Rand doesn't seem to care much for reproduction, because childcare requires self-sacrifice (although date-rape by steely eyed capitalist overmen is no problem).

Further thoughts:
An important thing to remember is that Rand considered herself an Aristotelian. Aristotle's ethics are indeed self-centered: the most basic ethical question is not so much "What should I do" or "What is the Good", but "What is the best possible human life?" He holds that the proper aim of ethics is eudaimonia, often translated "happiness"  and interpreted as "flourishing." Why eudaimonia? Well, basically because that's what everyone says they want most in life, and it's the only thing desirable for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else.

Rand, I think, adopts these basic principles. She rattles on about the dignity and necessity of survival of man qua (as distinct from, say, man qua brute). But, she seems to define happiness, and man, very narrowly. Aristotle would argue that the soul is improved, and acting in accord with human excellence, when it exercises the virtues of impartial generosity or magnanimity. Rand argues that such practices deform the soul and prevent man from becoming most fully who he ought to be. Her short essay "The Objectivist Ethics" is a "good" place to start. 

Instead, read some of the better contemporary neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicists. I especially like Philippa Foot's "Natural Goodness" and Rosalind Hursthouse's "On Virtue Ethics" (I think they're wrong, but they're wrong for interesting reasons). The field was kicked off by (the Catholic!) Alisdair MacIntyre's book "Beyond Virtue," though I have not read it.

[Walty]

I know so little about Rand.  I've studied, to some extent, many of the important ancient and modern philosophers, but I haven't quite gotten to her yet.

To call Rand even a marginally important modern philosopher would be a major exaggeration. Political influence she's had, but her philosophical influence has been next to nothing.

My major question, and perhaps this is unanswerable in anything short of 500 pages, is how could she hold an objective view on physical and metaphysical reality while still holding to self-centered ethics?

*Deep breath as I prepare to type a 500 page resonse* ...or not.
Quick answer: All living things seek their own self-interest: plants to survive and reproduce, animals to do the same as well as to flee pain and pursue pleasure. Humans are basically the same, they just have to use reason to do it. Rand doesn't seem to care much for reproduction, because childcare requires self-sacrifice (although date-rape by steely eyed capitalist overmen is no problem).

Further thoughts:
An important thing to remember is that Rand considered herself an Aristotelian. Aristotle's ethics are indeed self-centered: the most basic ethical question is not so much "What should I do" or "What is the Good", but "What is the best possible human life?" He holds that the proper aim of ethics is eudaimonia, often translated "happiness"  and interpreted as "flourishing." Why eudaimonia? Well, basically because that's what everyone says they want most in life, and it's the only thing desirable for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else.

Rand, I think, adopts these basic principles. She rattles on about the dignity and necessity of survival of man qua (as distinct from, say, man qua brute). But, she seems to define happiness, and man, very narrowly. Aristotle would argue that the soul is improved, and acting in accord with human excellence, when it exercises the virtues of impartial generosity or magnanimity. Rand argues that such practices deform the soul and prevent man from becoming most fully who he ought to be. Her short essay "The Objectivist Ethics" is a "good" place to start. 

Instead, read some of the better contemporary neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicists. I especially like Philippa Foot's "Natural Goodness" and Rosalind Hursthouse's "On Virtue Ethics" (I think they're wrong, but they're wrong for interesting reasons). The field was kicked off by (the Catholic!) Alisdair MacIntyre's book "Beyond Virtue," though I have not read it.

Thanks for the reply Antonius.  I understood that that was her view on ethics, but what is her view on metaphysics?  Is there a God and if so can we objectively define and unite ourselves to His nature?  This obviously is not Rand's belief, but then her "objectivism" is nothing but the purest subjectivism.


EDITED TO ADD:  Perhaps you should start a thread on The Seventh Seal as well.  I've had some good discussions about exactly what Bergman is saying with that film.

[Antonius Block]

EDITED TO ADD:  Perhaps you should start a thread on The Seventh Seal as well.  I've had some good discussions about exactly what Bergman is saying with that film.

Excellent suggestion! I'll have to watch the movie again, it's been a few years. But hopefully I'll start one soon. If you preempt me on this one, let me know!

I'm thinking out a response to your above questions because I think it's an interesting topic to think about and I do so little philosophy of any kind these days . I haven't had much time, and it's kind of a slippery topic, too.

[spera]

My grandfather was obsessed with The Fountainhead. It's a good book/movie.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of life is totally incompatible with the Image of God as a Loving Father...I honestly feel sorry for her. She had children, but only out of self-interest and I can't imagine having a parent who objected to and resented children being dependent on their parents. Her hostility to the Church and Atheism could possibly be attributed to this view. I'd like that poem...'can you hear what I am not saying?'

I have this picture on my Facebook. I love The Simpsons! lol


Antonius, I love your penguin!

[James02]

Ayn Rand's philosophy of life is totally incompatible with the Image of God as a Loving Father..

Very true.  She completely rejected the idea of Original Sin.  So she was 180 degrees completely wrong in her explanations.

However, she thoroughly understood the utopian mindset and the evils of powerful government.  Her ability to describe the socialist and fascist, and how they think, was a huge contribution to society.  It is somewhat paradoxical that she saw and predicted so much evil in this world, and yet didn't believe that man was a fallen race.  That was her big failing, her inability to connect the dots.

It is also ironic that utopians also reject Original Sin.  So the core premise of the utopian, and their bitter enemy, Rand, is the same.