wait wait wait, what is...

[theeulogist]

...Objectivism???

Good question, glad you asked. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. (1905-1982) She said, of her philosophy: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with production achievement as his noblest activity and reason as his only absolute."

Asked to explain her philosophy while standing on one foot she answered: "1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-Interest
4. Politics: Capitalism."

The basic principles of the philosophy can be summarized as follows:

Metaphysics: Reality, the external world exists independant of our conciousness, or of any observers knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires, or fears. Objective reality, rests on the axiom that existence exists. This axiom is also known as the Law of Identity, A is A. This means that existence exists, and that it is the task of man's conciousness, his mind, his reason, to PERCIEVE it not to create it. For this reason, Objectivism rejects any beliefe in the supernatural.

Epistemology: Reason is fully competant to KNOW the facts of reality. (this should not be construed to mean that we know all the facts of reality NOW, but rather that reality is KNOWABLE to reason) Reason, our conceptual faculty, is the means by which we identify and integrate the information provided by our senses. Reason is mans ONLY means of acquiring knowledge. For this reason Objectivism rejects mysticism, the acceptance of faith as a tool of cognition, and skepticism, the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible.

Human Nature: Man is rational. Reason, has man's only means of gaining knowledge, is his basic survival tool. Never the less, the use of this faculty is dependant totally upon his volitional choice. Man must choose to think, and only by making that choice can he properly survive qua man. The existence natual to man is that of a rational being, not of an irrational, unthinking, animal. Man's volition means that he is not a victim of circumstances beyond his control, such as as God, fate, up-bringing genes, economic conditions, etc. Man is not evil by nature, nor is he good by nature. He has no natural tendancy toward either. His morality or "goodness" is dependant totally on his choice, and by extension, his reason.

Ethics: Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to actoin. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man- i.e., that which is necessary for man's survival as a rational being, NOT for his momentary existence as a mindless brute. (Remember, man's nature is that of a rational being, not an animal) Man's basic virtue is Rationality, and his three fundamental values are reason, purpose, and self-esteem. EVERY man is an end in himself, no a means to the ends of others; he must live for his onw sake, neither sacrificing himself for others, nor others for himself. He must work for his own RATIONAL self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as his highest moral purpose. For this reason, Objectivism rejects any form of altruism, the claim that morlaity consists of living for others or for socieity.

Politico-economics: The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values form others by means of physical force-i.e. no man or group has the right ot INITIATE the use of physical force, or it's corallory-fraud, agains others. Men have the right to use force ONLY in self-defense and ONLY against those who initiate it's use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value by mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that prohibits force and fraud from human relationships is lassiez-faire capitalism. Capitalisim is based on individiual rights, including propery rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect. That is, to protect men from those who would initiate the use of force or fraud. For this reason Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as facism, communism, or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate and redistribute wealth.

I'm sure you've got questions, and I certainly want to be as informative as I can, so please ask.

 

[Blackguard_]

I do not see how the politics and ethics reconcile. For example if if say, commiting armed robbery gets you happiness whether through the money or the thrill of it, and you rationally thought you could get away with it, therby advancing your self-interest and preserving yourself as a rational being.

It seems she just declares the non-agression principle to be true, as I do not see how it follows from self-interest/happiness as the moral principle.

 

[Patzak]

Hmm, her first three points (metaphysics, epistemology, human nature) seem very similar to Kant's philosophy. I have a problem with the last two - it seems they shouldn't be differentiated into ethics and politico-economics. As I see it, the principle of selfishness alone cannot constitute a useful system of ethics - if these are to be based on reason alone and if the rational thing to do is take care of one's own interests, the result is a very non-ethical society. That's why Rand has to introduce a second concept, but the introduction of a "don't force anything on others" clause seems plainly irrational. So I'd agree with Blackguard_, the non-agression principle looks like a correction pulled out of thin air in order to make the selfishness work.

 

[Moros]

What is objectivism? Garbage. Ayn Rand's "philosophy" stems less from noble altruism and more from her own experience as an oppressed Jew in the Soviet Union and her politics and economic "theories" from the same. She was a reactionary, and no more insightful than any other.

 

[PKJ]

You're not gonna go very far with Ayn Rand.

 

[Crusader05]

What is objectivism? Garbage. Ayn Rand's "philosophy" stems less from noble altruism and more from her own experience as an oppressed Jew in the Soviet Union and her politics and economic "theories" from the same. She was a reactionary, and no more insightful than any other.

I agree, Objectivism isn't its own philosophy, its a conglomeration of several real philosophies, reved up with reactionary convervatism and capitalism. And besides, "The Virtue of Selfishness", come on!

 

[theeulogist]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

For starters, I've gone QUITE far with rand and objectivism.

Moving on,

I do not see how the politics and ethics reconcile. For example if if say, commiting armed robbery gets you happiness whether through the money or the thrill of it, and you rationally thought you could get away with it, therby advancing your self-interest and preserving yourself as a rational being.

It seems she just declares the non-agression principle to be true, as I do not see how it follows from self-interest/happiness as the moral principle.

I guess you missed the part where I said NOT HIS MOMENTARY EXISTENCE AS A MINDLESS ANIMAL. Maybe the part where I said that the philosophy holds PRODUCTIVE ACHEIVEMENT as it's noblest activity? The politics and the ethics most DEFINATELY reconcile, because the ethics hold that man should act acourding to his own RATIONAL self interest.

It is not in ones rational self-interest infringe on the rights of another, because it is an abdication of his reasoning mind, and an adoption of animalistic action. Men cannot survive as animals, their primary tool of survival is different from that of an animal. An animals survives via instinct, but man's survival REQUIRES reason. Reason says that MY life is my own, and that you life is not mine. If I commit any action contrary to that axiom, the law of identity, then i'm abdicating my basic tool of survival. Such action cannot be justified as being "in my rational self-interest." For this reason, the ONLY political system that fits, and the only one that works (name one SUCCESSFUL socialist nation) is lassiez-faire capitalism, because it holds individual rights in the highest reguard, as does our faculty of reason.

Altruism? Noble? That's laughable. Name an altruistic action.

Hmm... occurs to me that it is through SELFISH action that ALL of our values are acheived... yup, i'd call that a virtue.

 

[bob135]

First of all, could you list out all of the assumptions that your philosophy makes, just so I can differentiate unjustified/self-evident assumptions from those that you can supposedly justify with previous assumptions?

This means that existence exists, and that it is the task of man's conciousness, his mind, his reason, to PERCIEVE it not to create it. For this reason, Objectivism rejects any beliefe in the supernatural.

How can you really reject the supernatural? Isn't it a somewhat bold claim to say that everything is within the realm of scientific or empirical understanding? How does rejection of the supernatural follow from acceptance of existence?

Reason is fully competant to KNOW the facts of reality. (this should not be construed to mean that we know all the facts of reality NOW, but rather that reality is KNOWABLE to reason) Reason, our conceptual faculty, is the means by which we identify and integrate the information provided by our senses. Reason is mans ONLY means of acquiring knowledge. For this reason Objectivism rejects mysticism, the acceptance of faith as a tool of cognition, and skepticism, the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible.

What is reason? What is reality? How do we escape the fact that our brain, which governs "reason" is simply a collection of cells and chemicals, and thus subject to the same restrictions. How can we say that we have any real "knowledge?" On what basis do you reject Skepticism and the idea that we might never know anything? Do you just assume that reason works? Is this supposed to be self-evident?

Man must choose to think, and only by making that choice can he properly survive qua man. The existence natual to man is that of a rational being, not of an irrational, unthinking, animal. Man's volition means that he is not a victim of circumstances beyond his control, such as as God, fate, up-bringing genes, economic conditions, etc.

Where does reason come from? Monkeys don't have reason, and we do? Is this just a fine line that is drawn between us and monkeys, or are we somehow "special?" Are you claiming that man is free from circumstances beyond his control, such as the chemical reactions that go on in his brain, which are bound by all of the laws of physics? Doesn't this require a supernatural free will?

Ethics: Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to actoin. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man- i.e., that which is necessary for man's survival as a rational being, NOT for his momentary existence as a mindless brute. (Remember, man's nature is that of a rational being, not an animal) Man's basic virtue is Rationality, and his three fundamental values are reason, purpose, and self-esteem. EVERY man is an end in himself, no a means to the ends of others; he must live for his onw sake, neither sacrificing himself for others, nor others for himself. He must work for his own RATIONAL self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as his highest moral purpose.

What does reason tell us about ethics? Is it reasonable to make assumptions? Is it reasonable to have desires? Does reason tell us anything about how to act if we aren't given an assumption to begin with? How do we get from statements like "man is" to things like "man ought to?" Whats going on???

The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values form others by means of physical force-i.e. no man or group has the right ot INITIATE the use of physical force, or it's corallory-fraud, agains others. Men have the right to use force ONLY in self-defense and ONLY against those who initiate it's use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value by mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that prohibits force and fraud from human relationships is lassiez-faire capitalism. Capitalisim is based on individiual rights, including propery rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect. That is, to protect men from those who would initiate the use of force or fraud.

Who said I have no right to do this or that? Why is it rational to listen to them? Why is it rational to only kill in self defense? If you accept the premise that killing in self defense is ok, can't you arguably kill anyone in self defense since they could kill you? On the other hand, could you arguably kill nobody, since you can't predict the future, and thus have no way of knowing if they will actually kill you until they do?


This philosophy sounds like a nice idea, and certainly goes well with capitalism, but sometimes it seems like you are pulling rabbits out of a hat with your arguments. I'm just really lost.

 

[Blackguard_]

I guess you missed the part where I said NOT HIS MOMENTARY EXISTENCE AS A MINDLESS ANIMAL.

So, any otherwise rational action that violates the non-agression principle is delcared animalistic?

Maybe the part where I said that the philosophy holds PRODUCTIVE ACHEIVEMENT as it's noblest activity?

Where is this said? This really is an ad hoc philosophy isn't it?

The politics and the ethics most DEFINATELY reconcile, because the ethics hold that man should act acourding to his own RATIONAL self interest.

And robbing banks with a certain risk of failure is somehow less rational than starting a business with the same risk of failure?

How does the non-agression principle follow from self-interest? It might be in your best interest in a certain situation to follow non-agression, but it isn't always the case.

It is not in ones rational self-interest infringe on the rights of another, because it is an abdication of his reasoning mind, and an adoption of animalistic action.

How is infringing on others an abidication of reason? If I use reason to come up with a plan to profit from infringing on others and get away with it, how is that abdicating reason?

Men cannot survive as animals, their primary tool of survival is different from that of an animal. An animals survives via instinct, but man's survival REQUIRES reason.

Right, animals don't commit bank hesits becasue it requires reason to think of a good plan to get away with it.

Reason says that MY life is my own, and that you life is not mine.

Reason says you might have the power to take my life.

If I commit any action contrary to that axiom, the law of identity, then i'm abdicating my basic tool of survival.

And infringing on others destroys your identity how? You haven't even established that stealing is wrong, so why is it wrong to steal someone's life in your self-interest?

Isn't regarding the rights of others altruism? I mean, you may end up sacrificing profit becasue you regarded someones 'rights' and didn't act.

For this reason, the ONLY political system that fits, and the only one that works (name one SUCCESSFUL socialist nation) is lassiez-faire capitalism, because it holds individual rights in the highest reguard, as does our faculty of reason.

maybe reagrding the rights of others is reasonable, but it is not always in your self interest to do so. If I can profit from and get away with infringing on others, it is not reasonable to reagrd their rights, but if I can't profit or am afraid of reprisal for infringing on someone it is reasonable to respect their rights.

Altruism? Noble? That's laughable. Name an altruistic action.

Why bother? you 'll just make up some selfish motive for everything. Sumeone who jumps on a grenade was really just trying to be a hero and make themselves look good, Mother Theresa just wanted Goodness points, etc.

 

[MidnightBlue]

You're not gonna go very far with Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand makes good reading for adolescents who are beginning to assert their individuality, but she has no place in philosophy or in adult thinking.

 

[theeulogist]

I'm gonna go from the bottom up if you guys don't mind.

I'm an adult thinker. I'm an objectivist. I'm certainly not an asolescent, and my individuality doesn't need to be "asserted" it's self-evident.

Skipping merrily up the page:

So, any otherwise rational action that violates the non-agression principle is delcared animalistic?

No, any action that violates the principle of non-initation of the use of force is irrational. By way of explanation, i'll go down the line from the primary right to life to the end.

Law of identity says that my life is MINE and that your life is yours. It would be in direct contradiction of that law for me to make any claim, including the claim to end your life, on your life. It's not mine. The law of identity doesn't allow for this form of contradiction. My life is My life, Your life is Your life. My life IS NOT your life, and your life IS NOT my life. The law of identity, when applied to a persons life, says, "My life is My life and cannot be non-My life." Non-my life would be any life that is not MINE, which of course would be yours (you know who you are. LOL.)

How do you define whose life is whos? Well the only person capable of living your life is you, and the only person capable of living my life is me. The life that you live is YOUR life, the life that I live is MY life.

Okay, so building off of that absolute, which is the law of identity we can determine that since the only life I have a right to is my own, then any claim on the life of another is a contradiction of what IS. Contradictions do not exist. If you arrive at a contradiction, then you should check your premises, one of them is wrong.

Premise #1: Law of identity
Premise #2: Your life is mine.

Conclusion: I can kill you- Contradiction. I have a flawed premise. I know that the law of identity is an absolute, and that it says that A is A and cannot be non-A, so Premise #1 isn't flawed. Premise #2 though, says that A is non-A and CAN be non-A. That is a contradiction of a basic axiom of existence. THERE is my flawed premise. THERE is where my action becomes irrrational.

Where is this said? This really is an ad hoc philosophy isn't it?

oi vey!! *reaches up into his first post and pulls down the first full paragraph*

Good question, glad you asked. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. (1905-1982) She said, of her philosophy: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with production achievement as his noblest activity and reason as his only absolute."

I expect a three page apology on my desk before class tomorrow. J/K.

And robbing banks with a certain risk of failure is somehow less rational than starting a business with the same risk of failure?

How does the non-agression principle follow from self-interest? It might be in your best interest in a certain situation to follow non-agression, but it isn't always the case.

I'll refer you back to that long reply dealing with your first question, and then I'll add this. My property is My property and cannot be non-my property. If my money is in that bank, then it is not yours. You have no right to what is not yours. The only way that my property can become your property is by mutual consent. It's my property, so I can do with it as I please, and that includes disposing of it in any manner i please, such as a consenting trade. I cannot, though, dispose of YOUR property, because it is YOURS and not mine. Again, law of Identity.

THEREFORE, it is not rational to rob a bank. That takes care of the rational part, now lets have a gander at the self-interest part.

Money is given it's value based on the production of goods and services that it can purchase. If I attempt to reverse the law of causality, and get the value without the production, the effect without the cause, then I break down the cause. For instance, If I rob a bank, and use up all of that money, then I have to go rob another bank, and I use up all of that money, and so forth and so on. Because of this action, the producers of the world are unable to purchase material, because their money is gone. Without material, the production stops. Without production, the value of the money is gone. The cause of the money's value is production. Without it, the money is worthless green paper and metal coinage. It's the same as the process by which a parasite maintains it's existence. It sucks one victim dry, and then moves to the next, eventually, if not stopped, the parasite will have drained all the avaliable victims, and will be unable to continue it's existence. All such parasitic "looting and mooching" results in the same effect. By attempting to get the effect without the cause, you destroy both. It is not in my rational self-interest to rob the farmer who feeds my town of his harvest. Without his harvest, he makes no money, without his money he buys no seeds, without seeds he grows no food, without food I die. My rational self-interest is that which promotes my continued existence qua man, not that which promotes my momentary existence. It is not in my rational self-interest to destroy the source of my wealth. Robbing a bank is a means by which that is done.

As for business risks, there are ways of limiting risk. But we can save that for another time.

How is infringing on others an abidication of reason? If I use reason to come up with a plan to profit from infringing on others and get away with it, how is that abdicating reason?

Reason says that My rights are My rights and cannot be non-My rights. Any action contrary to that basic absolute is an abdication of reason. Contradictions do not exist. To believe a contradiction, such as the one you are implying, that YOUR rights are MINE to infringe upon, is to abdicate your faculty of reason.

Right, animals don't commit bank hesits becasue it requires reason to think of a good plan to get away with it.

Animals act for their momentary survival. So do the criminals robbing a bank. Animals don't have the capacity to think for the long term, criminals refuse to use the capacity to think past the moment. A starving animal on an island see's a bowl of food and eats it all. A starving human on an island finds a bowl of food and MAY eat it all or he MAY use his faculty of reason and ration the food, in order to maintain his existence. That first kind of man, the one who acts animalistically, is the bank robber.

Reason says you might have the power to take my life.

Through my faculty of reason I know that I have no RIGHT to your life.

And infringing on others destroys your identity how? You haven't even established that stealing is wrong, so why is it wrong to steal someone's life in your self-interest?

Isn't regarding the rights of others altruism? I mean, you may end up sacrificing profit becasue you regarded someones 'rights' and didn't act.

Infringing on others is an abdication of my basic tool of survival, because it is an action that is contradictory to what IS, the law of identity. When I abdicate reason by accepting a contradiction, then I not only hurt the one i'm infringing upon, I hurt myself, by destroying my basic tool of survival. As long as I live the life appropriate to a parasite, the end effect will be the same as that of a parasite. I will eventually run out of victims, and then I will die, all because of my abdication of reason, the tool that tells me that my life must be sustained by MY self-generated self-sustained action.

And no, it's not altruistic. It's the absolute most selfish thing you'll ever do, because you do it to maintain YOUR OWN existence. <skipping one real quick> You were only half right. There is no sense in naming an altruistic action, because none exists. I'm not going to make up selfish ends for every action, i'm simply going to tell you that all action requires choice, and all choice is the answer to one question, What do I want? Mother Theresa commited every action she ever commited because it's what she wanted to do. Either because it made her happy, or because it was better than the alternative. Altruism, or selfless-ness is a contradiction in terms. Selfless implies the absence of a self to make a choice. No choice can come from a non-entity.

maybe reagrding the rights of others is reasonable, but it is not always in your self interest to do so. If I can profit from and get away with infringing on others, it is not reasonable to reagrd their rights, but if I can't profit or am afraid of reprisal for infringing on someone it is reasonable to respect their rights.

I think I've answered that pretty thoroughly already.

I'll try and hit the other post tomorrow. Thanx for tossing in your 2 cents everyone.

 

[Blackguard_]

Ok, so if I understand properly, Objectivism is Anarcho-Capitalism (property rights and self-ownership) combined with Ethical Egoism(that everyone acting selfishly generates the most happiness/a form of Utilitarianism)?

 

[bob135]

A few more questions about the recent post:
Does the law of identity make slavery impossible, or can life be transferred through legal contracts?

Who decides who owns property? Whoever they are, can they just make arbitrary property transfers by redefining "your property? Similarly, who determines who has rights? Whoever they are, can they just arbitrarily take away rights by redefining "your rights?

You are saying that property cannot be tranferred. That means that no matter how irrational you are, you can't transfer it. Does this mean that I can't rob a bank?

With money, I'm pretty sure the value of money comes from A) some gold backing or B) people's faith in a government's industrial power. Money is only worth something because everyone says it is. If you steal from one producer, the money isn't really "used up." It simply moves from one person to another. It is a transaction between two parties.

I think you are using faulty logic with the claim that because something is or isn't in your self interest, it also is or isn't in the groups self interest, respectively, and vice versa. Unless this is an unjustified or "self-evident" assumption that I am simply supposed to accept, it needs some more explanation. If you have ever heard of a Nash Equilibrium, there are many situations where individuals acting in their self interest result in a sub-optimal group situation, as in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

[Patzak]

Law of identity says that my life is MINE and that your life is yours. It would be in direct contradiction of that law for me to make any claim, including the claim to end your life, on your life. It's not mine. The law of identity doesn't allow for this form of contradiction. My life is My life, Your life is Your life. My life IS NOT your life, and your life IS NOT my life. The law of identity, when applied to a persons life, says, "My life is My life and cannot be non-My life." Non-my life would be any life that is not MINE, which of course would be yours (you know who you are. LOL.)

How do you define whose life is whos? Well the only person capable of living your life is you, and the only person capable of living my life is me. The life that you live is YOUR life, the life that I live is MY life.

Okay, so building off of that absolute, which is the law of identity we can determine that since the only life I have a right to is my own, then any claim on the life of another is a contradiction of what IS. Contradictions do not exist. If you arrive at a contradiction, then you should check your premises, one of them is wrong.

Premise #1: Law of identity
Premise #2: Your life is mine.

Conclusion: I can kill you- Contradiction. I have a flawed premise. I know that the law of identity is an absolute, and that it says that A is A and cannot be non-A, so Premise #1 isn't flawed. Premise #2 though, says that A is non-A and CAN be non-A. That is a contradiction of a basic axiom of existence. THERE is my flawed premise. THERE is where my action becomes irrrational.

This seems a very selective application of what you call the "law of identity". If you wanted to apply it in such a way and do it rationally, you would also have to include examples such as:

Object A is on the table.
Therefore object A is NOT on the floor.
(now I want to put it on the floor - BUT!) LAW OF IDENTITY.
Object A cannot be on the table and NOT on the table.
So there.

Another thing. The whole "law of identity" thing is a bit confusing to me. Something being A and non-A was never supposed to be merely irrational, it's supposed to be impossible (discounting the quantum stuff). Sure, stating A and non-A is irrational. Doing A and non-A is not - if you manage to pull it off, it apparently doesn't violate the law of identity.

 

[bob135]

I think the Law of Identity only applies to people. Tables and other non-people can't own things.

 

[EricIncredible]

Ok, so if I understand properly, Objectivism is Anarcho-Capitalism (property rights and self-ownership)

Laissez faire capitalism (this may be the same as Anarcho-Capitalism, I'm not familiar with that term). The government's purpose is only to protect its people's rights. (This includes raising a militia, police, courts, etc)

combined with Ethical Egoism(that everyone acting selfishly generates the most happiness/a form of Utilitarianism)?

John Hospers calls it Rational Egoism. I'm not sure if Rand ever classified it as a certain type of egoism. Objectivism holds that everyone acting selfishly creates the most happiness - but this is an effect and not part of the justification. The goal of Objectivism isn't to make the most happy (or the most happiness) as with Utilitarianism.

 

[EricIncredible]

Object A is on the table.
Therefore object A is NOT on the floor.
(now I want to put it on the floor - BUT!) LAW OF IDENTITY.
Object A cannot be on the table and NOT on the table.

-at the same time.

Object A can be on the table. It can be not on the table. But it can't be on the table and not on the table at the same time.

 

[Patzak]

-at the same time.

Object A can be on the table. It can be not on the table. But it can't be on the table and not on the table at the same time.

Well, yes, which is why I don't see a contradiction in stealing.

 

[bob135]

Where did theeulogist go? Can someone answer my questions?