Steve, stance on Ayn Rand's objectivism?

[Plato]

I notice you include some books by Ayn Rand in your reading list. As you know, her objectivism states selfishness to be the foundational virtue from which all values stem. The only philosopher who has taken any interest in Rand's philosophy is Robert Nozick and he dismisses her whole argument as begging the question, because to justify it you would have to explain why one would rather not be dead (and thus have no values).

This hit me like the proverbial slap to the face with a wet fish...

Why I'm so perplexed by this
1) It seems so easy to dismiss her whole ethical philosophy and the fact that only one credible philosopher has taken any interest suggests something is wrong with it.
2) At the same time I agree with Rand- I can't see how any ethical philosophy could stem from anything but selfishness.

How would you respond to this criticism by Nozick? To all logicians out there: Is it possible to rationally justify why one would rather live selfishly than be dead?

[Jennihul]

You must have missed something in your post. I'm not quite getting the gist. I'm definitely alive, selfish and generous at the same time and a fan of Rand's writing and not sure who the Nozick person is.

Basically I'm saying "huh?"

Jennifer

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Plato

How would you respond to this criticism by Nozick? To all logicians out there: Is it possible to rationally justify why one would rather live selfishly than be dead?

First you have to assume that there is such a thing as self. And then you have to assume that there is no life after death.

Next you have to assume that there is some reason why we would bother to seek rational justifications for anything. As opposed to simply not bothering (for example, we wouldn't bother about rational justifications, if we were dead).

Therefore another question arises - Is it possible to rationally justify why we would rather discuss your questions, than just be dead?

Suddenly we see the beginning of an inescapable loop. The above merely begs another question:

Is it possible to rationally justify why we would rather discuss the above question, rather than just be dead?

And so on. Thus all questions ultimately lead to the beginninglessness of karma.

Huh?

[Plato]

To Jennifer:
Robert Nozick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He makes a correct logical point. Philosophy demands justification of all claims. Rand says she has an objective morality i.e. grounded in an undeniably true maxim. However Nozick undermines Rand's maxim by pointing out that if it is not possible to justify why being alive is better than being dead, then any theory which assumes it is a circular argument.

Saying "obviously I prefer being alive" does not constitute a justification. That IS the circular argument. Nozick is not saying that Rand's theory is definately untrue. He is saying it cannot be justified logically and is therefore meaningless. If it was a mathematical equation Rand's theory would eventually boil down to X=X. It proves nothing.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

First you have to assume that there is such a thing as self. And then you have to assume that there is no life after death.

Next you have to assume that there is some reason why we would bother to seek rational justifications for anything. As opposed to simply not bothering (for example, we wouldn't bother about rational justifications, if we were dead).

Therefore another question arises - Is it possible to rationally justify why we would rather discuss your questions, than just be dead?

Suddenly we see the beginning of an inescapable loop. The above merely begs another question:

Is it possible to rationally justify why we would rather discuss the above question, rather than just be dead?

And so on. Thus all questions ultimately lead to the beginninglessness of karma.

Huh?

Hahaha. Yes, damn philosophy! Unfortunately philosophy is the search for truth, hence proof is required.

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by Plato

I notice you include some books by Ayn Rand in your reading list. As you know, her objectivism states selfishness to be the foundational virtue from which all values stem. The only philosopher who has taken any interest in Rand's philosophy is Robert Nozick and he dismisses her whole argument as begging the question, because to justify it you would have to explain why one would rather not be dead (and thus have no values).

This hit me like the proverbial slap to the face with a wet fish...

Why I'm so perplexed by this
1) It seems so easy to dismiss her whole ethical philosophy and the fact that only one credible philosopher has taken any interest suggests something is wrong with it.
2) At the same time I agree with Rand- I can't see how any ethical philosophy could stem from anything but selfishness.

How would you respond to this criticism by Nozick? To all logicians out there: Is it possible to rationally justify why one would rather live selfishly than be dead?

Have you actually read her books?

[Steve Pavlina]

Like other philosophical viewpoints, objectivism is a lens through which you can view reality. You don't need to prove it; trying to prove a lens makes no sense. You can simply pick it up and use it to explore how it works.

Objectivity itself is a lens, so any philosophy that tries to prove anything objectively is building its entire argument within the scope of that lens... piling everything on top on an unprovable assumption. Within the objective lens you can prove certain things, but such proofs have no meaning outside that lens and therefore cannot be considered fundamental truths. Objective proofs are merely observations of the properties of the objective lens.

As far as lenses go, I think objectivism is a fairly interesting one, worthy of being included in our philosophical toolkit. Objectivism can't be proven objectively because objectivism doesn't fall completely within the scope of the objective lens; objectivism has both objective and subjective aspects.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You don't need to prove it; trying to prove a lens makes no sense. You can simply pick it up and use it to explore how it works.

If you try to prove a lens, you will want to look at it. This leads you to the necessity of proving your eyes.

Which will lead you to, say, gently touching them with your fingers. This leads you to the necessity of proving your fingers.

Finally you will realise that all your sensory data can only be proven by your own mental interpretation of those perceptions.

Which leads you to the necessity of proving your own consciousness. You then have to turn your consciousness upon itself, that is, you need to use your own consciousness to study your own consciousness.

This is known as meditation. Taken far enough, it leads you to conclude that reality is illusion.

That includes the self. And life. And death. (Not to mention all the "others", who "exist" only because the "self" exists).

So Nozick's argument, and Rand's own theory, become meaningless.

Consciousness is all there is.

Huh?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Consciousness is all there is.

Absolutely.

The next step after that is to realize that you can use lenses to explore consciousness itself. Everything you see (even if you consider it illusion) is a projection of consciousness.

[Plato]

Acting Like Godot: I see that and I agree. However, I am talking about within the realms of philosophy.

I hate to appeal to authority but why don't the philosophical community give objectivism any credit? It suggests to me there is something fundamentally incoherent in it.

[Sam988]

I think that if there is one philosophical school of thought that i'm the most into, it's certainly objectivism. The more an individual/community/country adopts objectivist values, the further it will go, in my point of view. It's the basic principle of "everyone on his own, do the most and the better you can, and measure no efforts to get where you want to go". If every individual in a community adopts this philosophy, prosperity will follow.

[Fullcrum]

I agree with Steve - Objectivism is just another lens. The question I ask is not how proveable it is, but rather how I can use it's ideas for best advantage (how to determine what's of best advantage, and of best advantage to whom, I'll leave that to another debate). Suffice to say, after such qualitifications, I find Objectivism to be an extremely effective philosophy because it equates one's acts of creation and work as a projection of the self. This can only happen if one takes full responsibility for oneself and one's creations.

Her philosophy also supports possessing core values and standing by them no matter what. This is illustrated time and time again in her two most known novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as the characters assert their own values and individual power over conformity.

Basically, I find that this philosophy puts you in a position where you offer value to the world instead of leaching it into a Black Hole to fill your self-esteem void.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Plato

I hate to appeal to authority but why don't the philosophical community give objectivism any credit? It suggests to me there is something fundamentally incoherent in it.

Heh, this is the wrong place to go argue that something is bad simply because no "authority" person endorses it.

[Jennihul]

Some days I am so happy my right brain dominates....


Jennifer

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you try to prove a lens, you will want to look at it. This leads you to the necessity of proving your eyes.

Which will lead you to, say, gently touching them with your fingers. This leads you to the necessity of proving your fingers.

Finally you will realise that all your sensory data can only be proven by your own mental interpretation of those perceptions.

Which leads you to the necessity of proving your own consciousness. You then have to turn your consciousness upon itself, that is, you need to use your own consciousness to study your own consciousness.

This is known as meditation. Taken far enough, it leads you to conclude that reality is illusion.

That includes the self. And life. And death. (Not to mention all the "others", who "exist" only because the "self" exists).

So Nozick's argument, and Rand's own theory, become meaningless.

Consciousness is all there is.

Huh?

I enjoyed reading this ALG. Thanks.

[Niki]

I don't think reality is an illusion, I think reality as we see it is an illusion.

Peace

[Plato]

My main problem with Ayn Rands metaethics is her assertion about living in alignment with what is supposedly our purpose in life. With our purpose in life being derived from what makes us happy.

However she commits the "Ought from Is" fallacy here. Basically you can't say what somebody ought to do, based on a set of fact statements. In this case, just because something makes you happy doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. This is the biggest problem to overcome if we want to agree with Ayn Rand.

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Some days I am so happy my right brain dominates....


Jennifer

Yeah, I see your point. I wouldn't care if I didn't actually agree with everything Ayn Rand has to say! I'm gonna poke it repeatedly to see if it all unravels before I adopt any of it into my mindset.

Originally Posted by seeker5

Heh, this is the wrong place to go argue that something is bad simply because no "authority" person endorses it.

Lollercaust

Originally Posted by Niki

I don't think reality is an illusion, I think reality as we see it is an illusion.

Peace

Then you agree with Ayn Rand at least to some degree .

[seeker5]

Plato,

To re-iterate what someone else asked, have you actually read Ayn Rand's books Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead? Or are you just reading what people wrote about Ayn Rand?

[Plato]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Plato,

To re-iterate what someone else asked, have you actually read Ayn Rand's books Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead? Or are you just reading what people wrote about Ayn Rand?

"JUST" reading what other people wrote about her? You say that as if it undermines my points? If you think I am misrepresenting her please tell me how?

Note: I started this thread for the purpose of logical arguments and to see if anybody can justify Rand's standpoints. I'm not here to trample on the cult of Ayn Rand, I'm here to find out if she is credible as a philosopher.

Steve gave me an overview of objectivism which I'd already heard though I appreciate it anyway. At the moment I see no good reason to agree with her apart from the fact that all her conclusions are in agreement with my instincts.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Plato

"JUST" reading what other people wrote about her? You say that as if it undermines my points?

I'm saying if you want a better understanding you should read her books in addition to reading what other people say about her.

Edit: Otherwise, you're asking us to do your homework for you. You're asking us to explain Ayn's Rand philosophy without you bothering to actually read her words.

[Steve Pavlina]

Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are two books definitely worth reading. The technology in those stories is a bit dated -- the society of Atlas Shrugged is based on railroads and manufacturing -- but the main points are very interesting and worthy of consideration.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by seeker5

I'm saying if you want a better understanding you should read her books in addition to reading what other people say about her.

Edit: Otherwise, you're asking us to do your homework for you. You're asking us to explain Ayn's Rand philosophy without you bothering to actually read her words.

What I'm asking everyone to do is join me in dialectical debate, which I take to be the highest form of learning. I took the name Plato for a reason. Actually, that's a lie- it was because Socrates was taken but whatever.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Atlas Shrugged and The Fou