What are some of the problems with Objectivism?
i don’t know what objectivism is in any detail (outside of the usa, i don’t think people pay much attention to ayn rand), but you might find it useful to look at the more modern research in economics and behavioural sciences which focus on sociality, lack of information, etc (i’m currently reading gintis’s “game theory evolving”, which looks like it will discuss this).
It’s also based on a tautology, A=A, which proves nothing. This doesn’t seem to be a problem to me. Reflexivity is often an important part of mathematical proof…. I’m not sure why it couldn’t be a part of philosophical. Objectivism, individualism and capitalism are moral, and collectivist socialism is not. Rand’s on her best ground with a philosophy that has a good deal to offer individuals making choices about how to live their lives. She’s much weaker commenting on societies as a whole, and more fully, how societies ought to be. Even under a set of ideas consistent with Rand, capitalism has its troubles. The assumption that participation in a capatilist system is voluntary (or that participation in a cooperative system is not) is not correct — and it’s certainly not correct that you get to set the terms on which you start your involvement with either. Personal success in either system depends on choices and negotiation from a starting point.
I think in a loose sense the philosophy doesn’t “resonate” with most people. There is a strict sense of self-reliance and the belief that The Market will take care of many of the previous issues that have been left up to government [like environmental protection stuff, social safety net stuff, food and health protections etc] which I think doesn’t ring true for people who have, especially lately, become very very disillusioned with free market capitalism of late. It’s also not popular with people who require some sort of social safety net services, like the disabled, or even people who require expensive medicine to stay alive and/or healthy. If you can’t afford care or services, the only option is to hope that some benevolent philanthropist will come along and start up charities to take care of you. I’d prefer not to have to rely on charities. I don’t mind spending tax dollars to spread some of that assistance around in general, sure in specifics I have some beefs with taxes. Objectivi
By and large, I consider myself to be an Objectivist…with some qualifications. The single largest “hole” in Objectivism (IMO) is what appears to be a serious lack of humor. I revel in humor…puns, jokes, gags, magazines, sitcoms, etc…and while I understand that some Objectivists believe humor to be anti-rational, I disagree. Apparently, Rand believed that the “punch line” of a joke was nothing more (or less) than a cruel and unnecessary twist, leaving the “rational” listener with no firm footing. I believe that aspect to be one of humor’s best qualities. Besides, humor can do so much to not only entertain, but to relieve tension, explain things, and make life interesting. Having aired my chief complaint about Objectivism (or, more accurately, Rand-ism), I believe principally in the fundamental tenets of Objectivism, which hold that reason is absolute, faith & mysticism are sub-human, man is (should be) a heroic being, and productivity, achievement, and trade are ideals to be aspir
Objectivism, individualism and capitalism are moral, and collectivist socialism is not. In defense of this statement, I think what’s meant is that libertarianism/objectivism/etc. are derived from pure moral principles sans compromise (theft is wrong therefore we shouldn’t take taxes, end of story) while socialism and its many variants are based on pragmatic goals (theft is bad but if we didn’t have taxes people would starve in the gutter, therefore we should have taxes).
