Objectivism
jnimhaoileoin
Posts: 2,682
Any adherents or believers in Objectivism here? I've only recently stumbled across this philosophy via Mark Pellegrino and have found myself fascinated by it. I guess conversing with him just opened up my mind to a whole bunch of possibilities that genuinely never even occurred to me. I think I've been guilty of simply accepting the world order as it is, in the sense that I had a very fixed idea of how society should be and how governments should function. Naturally, being Irish, my perspective would be very different to that of an American like Mark, particularly in terms of how I see my government and our police force. I'm quite taken with the basic tenet of objectivism though, the notion of personal freedom and the idea that you should be free to live your life as you see fit as long as you cause no harm to others. Key to this would be an extremely limited role for government, namely the enforcement of law and order, with all other 'public services' being provided by either charities or private organisations.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around such notions and figure out what I think about it all but it's certainly caught my imagination. I can't remember the last time I got so excited and engaged in a political or philosophical conversation, rather than jaded and exasperated
I'd be interested to know if people think that Objectivism is actually a feasible and realistic philosophy? If not, where do you see the main issues?
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around such notions and figure out what I think about it all but it's certainly caught my imagination. I can't remember the last time I got so excited and engaged in a political or philosophical conversation, rather than jaded and exasperated
I'd be interested to know if people think that Objectivism is actually a feasible and realistic philosophy? If not, where do you see the main issues?
0
Comments
I cannot say I am an objectivist but agree with many of the basic tenants.
Interested to see if there are others here that work to live their lives in this fashion.
I'm not sure I could envisage a society with no system of social welfare though, or one solely reliant on private charities to help the poorest people. The idea of drastically reducing or even eliminating tax seems idealistic at best if not downright delusional. It's all well and good to assume altruism would fund what charity is needed but in a society based on self-absorption this seems highly optimistic
Sorry for the ramble. I have a PDF with a section on Objectivism which I could send you if you'd like.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
I'm a big Sci-Fi fan so suspension of disbelief has never been an issue for me but a lot of people don't get it. The thing that's a huge problem for me is the way privilege gets handled - I can't be me and be okay with it, BUT the problem is, I am okay with it because I'm reading it as fiction. I know better than to get that confused with reality. But a lot of people don't know better so they ruin it for everyone.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Obviously this is a quick & dirty synopsis. But I've focused on the "nonsense" cuz there's a LOT of flaws in the story but the social inequality stuff is the worst. I mean there's a LOT more about steel and trains and energy sources and infidelity and sex but that's like the "story" story this stuff is the "message" part of the story. Now to me, a fictionalized society in which that shit happens is no more or less ludicrous than this woman knowing how to fly a random plane by herself. But there are people who read it and go "yea that's how our society is now" and then they put Fox news on and complain about immigrants for a little while before making sure Obama didn't sneak in and take their guns while they were watching tv.
I think everyone who's ever worked somewhere where they were better at handling something than their co-workers knows what it feels like to feel like you're being punished for being competent. But this book makes it more of a societal thing. And in doing so it completely ignores the privilege of these competent people. Totally ignores the systemic poverty and racism in our real society that disadvantages so many people. So socio-economic inequality in that sense is never addressed. Racism is never addressed. It mostly focuses on the upper class from what I can recall do the entire story speaking for an entire society basically ignores the majority of it. This unfortunately is in fact the worldview that some people in our society have. None of the structural disadvantages I've mentioned actually exist, "poor people are poor cuz they're lazy moochers, everyone has the same opportunities, if they wanted to they could lift themselves out of poverty by working hard. They are just lazy."
Since I haven't studied her or her philosophy I don't know if that was really her belief or the message she intended with that story. But that is how it's been interpreted by at least some people. To me, yea, it's nonsense. But I watch cartoons, you know?
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Objectivism is a philosophical system that was developed by Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand said this:
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."
* Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"
Sorry, and I truly don't mean to offend, but I have no interest in Rand's philosophy nor her racism, genocidal tendencies or support of continental conquest.
In the interest of being a bit more educated on the subject, I found this description:
Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility. Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason. Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/
Like most any philosophy, there are things that I find useful and things not so attractive. From what I know of it, Rand's basic philosophy focuses too much on self interest, capitalism, money and the individual for my tastes. I'm more interested in the welfare of the whole, the community, the tribe and equity and generosity. Rand appeals more to the "A" type person. I don't off-hand hate all "A" types, but that's just not who I am.
He had that ginormous (to me) paperback Atlas Shrugged. He advocated it so hard at the time and it seemed that at the time everyone was reading it.
The look of the book was so obtrusive I never picked it up.
Never have I heard it talked about in an open concept until this thread.
edit - I could not be myself without this adlib
PJF, that chart cracked me up, LOL!
It's possible I just skipped over it.
Considering the size of the book as we know it, makes me wonder what it looked like BEFORE it got to her editor eh?
Is "objectivism" and "egoism" the same thing? I found that pdf I offered to share abd they're actually calling it egoism, but I swear I remember the printed edition had it called objectivism
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
I am all for a good huge dose of reason, but I am not at all taken by egocentric self-interest, and i tend to pretty much despise anyone who is.
I've spent most of my career working either at nonprofit organizations or government agencies. I'm what some people would call a do-gooder. I'll agree that people go into the so-called helping professions for a variety of reasons, some of them selfish. But unless you're going to be a doctor or a nurse, most of these positions don't pay all that well. I like to work on problems, understanding how things happen, learning what changes can be made. My job allows me to do those things, so I like it a lot. I suppose you could call that my self-interest but I call it job satisfaction. Most helping professionals aren't trying to save the world. Neither am I. I work on things that I can accomplish and also try to take care of myself and my family. Not that I'm the perfect example of altruism, but I can say that I've known many people who are natural helpers and caregivers without any great concern for how they'll benefit.
To the OP, I'm not at all familiar with Objectivism and I've never read Ayn Rand. But your description reminds me of the Reagan-Bush (the elder) era. The whole Mo(u)rning in America outlook that would supposedly keep government out of our everyday lives and allow charities and faith organizations to take care of all the social problems. That's not very practical in execution, at least in a large country like the U.S. Financial resources and populations vary from region to region and would make it very difficult for a hodge podge of organizations to take care of other services. Also, when businesses take over government services, I tend to think they do an even worse job of it and have very little accountability. I don't know if Objectivism would work more easily in a smaller country such as Ireland.