![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeasti seem to be encountering objectivist philosophy a fair bit lately, and after reading a piece entitled "What is Objectivism?" (from which all the following quotes are taken), i decided it was time to write a brief critique of Objectivist philosophy.
i think it's fairly trivial to assert that thoughts can and do affect reality: people's thoughts are a significant driver of people's behaviour, and people's behaviour alters reality. Having said that, i feel it's likely that the intent of this statement is to reject the possibility of thoughts interacting with reality without a physical intermediary (e.g. through telekinesis). It may be that such things are not in fact possible, but personally, i prefer to keep an open mind. Especially given that the fundamental nature of the universe / multiverse is something that's still very much under discussion.
The problem with this is: what constitutes 'rational' self-interest? What is 'rational' to one person is not necessarily 'rational' to another, because different people have different life experiences and knowledge. The premises that one starts with can affect one's conclusions.
Further, what if the pursuit of one's happiness can best be served by inflicting harm on another person? For example, what if a person will only be happy if they inherit their parents' fortune, but this will only occur if all one's older siblings are dead? Should this person therefore kill their older siblings in order to secure the inheritance, and therefore their happiness? Without additional frameworks - whether they be ethical, moral, or legal - it seems that the objectivist approach is a recipe for encouraging what many people would regard as unpleasant behaviour.
It has also been a helpful notion that has caused a great deal of amity in the world. Altruistic behaviour can, and in fact does, result in positive outcomes all around the world every day. (Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Ten thousand acts of kindness" discusses this at length.) To deny this is, to me, absurd. To dismiss altruism on the basis that it regularly (but certainly not always) produces negative outcomes is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is altruism itself the cause of negative outcomes, or are those negative outcomes the result of altruism being coupled with specific ideas (e.g. that it's noble to die in the pursuit of preserving the 'purity' of one's 'race')?
A plethora of critiques of capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are available elsewhere, so the only thing i'll say about this is: capitalism may well be the best economic system we have available to us, but that doesn't mean it's ideal. (To give but one example: it can be cheaper - and therefore more 'rational' - to work employees to death and draw new employees from the large pool of the unemployed, rather than taking care of the health of one's employees.) Capitalism may merely be the best option from a set of poor options.
In summary, objectivism seems to me to be to be a rather naïve philosophy which apparently ignores substantial amounts of historical and contemporary data, and which seems to require additional ethical, moral and legal frameworks in order to produce reasonable outcomes.
Objectivism is based on the premise that existence exists and is common to all conscious individuals independtly of what anyone think it is. As such it rejects such notions as Subjectivism (that reality is subjective to any individual), and mysticism (that thoughts can alter reality).
i think it's fairly trivial to assert that thoughts can and do affect reality: people's thoughts are a significant driver of people's behaviour, and people's behaviour alters reality. Having said that, i feel it's likely that the intent of this statement is to reject the possibility of thoughts interacting with reality without a physical intermediary (e.g. through telekinesis). It may be that such things are not in fact possible, but personally, i prefer to keep an open mind. Especially given that the fundamental nature of the universe / multiverse is something that's still very much under discussion.
One of the central themes of the Objectivism is that the conscious individual is an end to himself, and should strive to fullfill his own happiness and well-being. It demonstrates that by acting out of their rational self-interest , individuals best benefit others as well.
The problem with this is: what constitutes 'rational' self-interest? What is 'rational' to one person is not necessarily 'rational' to another, because different people have different life experiences and knowledge. The premises that one starts with can affect one's conclusions.
Further, what if the pursuit of one's happiness can best be served by inflicting harm on another person? For example, what if a person will only be happy if they inherit their parents' fortune, but this will only occur if all one's older siblings are dead? Should this person therefore kill their older siblings in order to secure the inheritance, and therefore their happiness? Without additional frameworks - whether they be ethical, moral, or legal - it seems that the objectivist approach is a recipe for encouraging what many people would regard as unpleasant behaviour.
Similarily it believes that Altruism (advocating the must to contribute to an external cause) is a harmful notion that one has to reject from within and without. Objectivism does not oppose individuals voluntarily contributing time, effort, or other resources to further the well-being of others. However, it demonstrates that claiming that you are only worthy of living if you help an external cause (the poor, your country, your religion, etc) is a harmful notion that has caused a great deal of strife in the world.
It has also been a helpful notion that has caused a great deal of amity in the world. Altruistic behaviour can, and in fact does, result in positive outcomes all around the world every day. (Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Ten thousand acts of kindness" discusses this at length.) To deny this is, to me, absurd. To dismiss altruism on the basis that it regularly (but certainly not always) produces negative outcomes is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is altruism itself the cause of negative outcomes, or are those negative outcomes the result of altruism being coupled with specific ideas (e.g. that it's noble to die in the pursuit of preserving the 'purity' of one's 'race')?
Objectivism Support Capitalism as the ideal way of running a country and vows for Laissez-Faire Capitalism, as the ultimate form of it.
A plethora of critiques of capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are available elsewhere, so the only thing i'll say about this is: capitalism may well be the best economic system we have available to us, but that doesn't mean it's ideal. (To give but one example: it can be cheaper - and therefore more 'rational' - to work employees to death and draw new employees from the large pool of the unemployed, rather than taking care of the health of one's employees.) Capitalism may merely be the best option from a set of poor options.
In summary, objectivism seems to me to be to be a rather naïve philosophy which apparently ignores substantial amounts of historical and contemporary data, and which seems to require additional ethical, moral and legal frameworks in order to produce reasonable outcomes.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-23 17:57 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-24 14:18 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-24 17:54 (UTC)Is okay. Probably shouldn't have!