Tim’s link to Andrej Bauer’s primer on Objectivism reminded me that the cartoon Rand of our zeitgest dreams was never put to better use than by the astounding artificially intelligent replicated personas of Forum 2000. Here AI Andrej discusses the axiom of identity with AI Ayn. Also try here, and here.
That Reason’s so-called Rand-O-Rama failed to acknowledge Forum 2000 shows the editorial staff to be so overoccupied with working obscure song lyrics into the titles of blog posts, outsider art, waxing lyrical about New Jersey, and generally kpeping nihilism fresh, that they neglected to touch on the ubiquity of Rand’s spirit in the bygone heyday of the information superhighway.
My favorite Ayn Rand SOMAD quote from Forum 2000 has to be the classic “A is A, I am right, you are wrong, qua qua qua qua qua qua qua” which she uttered when asked for a concise summary of Objectivism.
A story, then a request:
Only 2 years ago I was a self described “libertarian” although the only literature I had ever read on the subject was by Larry Elder. In other words, I was hugely ignorant. As is apparantly quite common, I then discovered Ayn Rand and became the radical libertarian I am today. For a while I think I could have properly labled a “randroid” as I tended to display all of their charactoristics. Recently, however, I have been seduced by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard and others and I have become a “realized” libertarian, I understand that Rand is just a piece of the puzzle, and not the whole thing.
Nonetheless, I am still not entirely sure where and how Rand’s philosophy goes wrong. I can think of a few instances, such as her insistance on the presence of a state for moral purposes. But the problems with objectivism I can see are only in the details, not in the larger, more sweeping conclusions. Rand divided objectivism into 4 parts (lets ignore asthetics), objective reality, reason, egoism, capitalism. What is wrong with any of these? What is wrong with Rand’s version of any of these? Why do people, including many libertarians continue to put her “philosophy” in quotes as if it is meaningless shit? Can somebody please point me, by way of hyperlink, to some articles or blog posts addressing the flaws in objectivism?
I admit, that for the most part, I still buy objectivism. And I am not an idiot. So I take some offense when people refer to objectivism as philosophy appropriate to teenagers only without substantiating that statement. I am 25, and very much would like to join the ranks of the grown-up libertarians, so somebody please push me in the right direction, please.
podraza,
David Friedman pretty much destroys the Objectivist derivation of value here.
For a lengthy and thorough critique of Objectivism, try Michael Huemer.
And if that’s not enough for you, the Objectivism Reference Center always has more.
Micha,
my thanks for the links. I have read some of David Friedman before and found him quite compelling.
micha, thanks for the links.
Micha,
I’ll do some of the reading above you pointed out above but I have to admit that I’m really in the same boat of as Podraza. My question is: Has the plethora of libertarians that denounce Rand’s philosophy as something that only a teenager could embrace done all this reading? or is it really that self-evident that Objectivism is riddled with errors? I don’t think it is. I get the feeling that many reject the whole philosophy as they fear they will be labeled as part of a cult. Also, as mentioned above Rand’s outbursts are not something people want to be associated with.
I know you and Will are very knowledgeable about this stuff and I’d love to see a concise essay by one of you regarding this topic. I just finished Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty, but in Part 1 of the book, The Value of Freedom, I don’t feel he was as clear with his definitions as Rand. I was several times left with the feeling “well if you can justify X… then what’s to stop you from justifying something clearly wrong like Y” . Hey… maybe I don’t have the brain power for this stuff but if that’s true put it in layman’s terms for me and spell it out step by step.
About a year ago I had the opportunity of having dinner with Milton Friedman which was quite an experience. Over the dinner the subject of Objectivism came up to which he replied that he and his son David didn’t consider it a matter of serious study. His main problem seemed to be that if A = A then there is no room for disagreement, which led to intolerance. Mises’ praxeology was similar in some senses and also led to this his intolerance for other’s opinions. Now at the time I had this genius Nobel Prize winning economist in front of me who had studied this stuff way more than I had, and I sat there just trying to digest what he had said as we moved on to discussing “We the Living” but truthfully to this day it has never really made sense. It seems you can reach different conclusions about what “A” is if one or both parties does not have all the facts in front of them.
My focus in life is geared more towards economics but my general understanding of Objectivism seems like a good base for a philosophy in general. George Reisman, an Objectivist, who studied under both Rand and Mises has been a huge influence for me in economics so that has helped me shape my view of the world as well. I’ve also corresponded with David Henderson about these issues, but he too has been heavily influenced by Rand and tended to agree with me. While I understand there might be faults in her philosophy I can’t understand why everyone seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water? Can you offer your opinion or should I just start plowing through stuff like Huemer’s essay. Thanks in advance…
Peter, It’s by no means self-evident that there are errors in Objectivism. I started to write a series that brings out some of these errors.
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/archives/2004/08/first_letter_to.html
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/archives/2004/08/second_letter_t.html
I started a third one on the Objectivist Ethics, but lost it in the gears of moveable type.
I should say that I think most of Huemer’s essay is idiosyncratic, and doesn’t really hit Rand where she lives.
I’ve only read parts of Huemer’s essay, so I can say whether or not I agree with it in whole. Friedman’s little piece, on the other hand, is excellent, and without some extreme revisionist interpretation of Rand’s arguments, Friedman pretty much lays to rest to the whole notion of objective value.
Of course, the problem with these kinds of criticisms is that you’ll always have reasonable Objectivists like Roderick Long or Chris Matthew Sciabarra who are able to save certain aspects of Rand; for example, by interpreting her in a more Aristotelian light, where her concern is human flourishing and not purely selfishness and survival. Objectivism means different things to different people and it’s not clear which interpretation one needs to refute before one has successfully refuted Objectivism.
Micha & Will-
Thanks guys for your responses. Don’t know if you are still checking this thread but thought I’d give a short reply. I must point out this is really not my turf, and I know you both are extremely well versed in this stuff, but overall your critiques still don’t completely square with me.
Micha-
Friedman’s essay doesn’t “lay to rest” the whole idea of objective value for me. Maybe I’m oversimplifying but the idea that life should be your standard of value doesn’t implode because a male mantis is eaten by it’s female partner or that women choose to have children even though this lessens their chances of survival. I agree that there are other things at play here, instincts play a role in our actions, but this doesn’t turn the premise on its head. I feel like he is picking apart the details and not dealing with the broader issue.
Will-
In the first letter I really feel the burden of proof is on you here. I admit that to me free will is near axiomatic. Now does that mean the determinism is false? No, but it doesn’t mean it is true either. Again, instincts and evolution have an important role in influencing our choices but that doesn’t lead me to even think about whether determinism exists. I don’t see the proof for it so why even think about it?
In the second letter I agree with much in the letter. It reminded me somewhat of Branden’s essay “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” ( http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html ). But for me these critiques show ways to improve upon the philosophy instead of destroying it.
Now it’s quite possible that you are reading this and thinking “He’s completely missing the point I was making”. If that’s the case you have to understand that the simplicity is what is so appealing about Objectivism. Rereading the Branden article above he does a great job summing up what I for one have taken from Rand. That is:
Those principles make sense and that is the appeal of Rand. In all the reading I’ve done it’s never been self-evident that any of these points are completely invalid. I’m not someone who thinks every sentence out of Rand’s mouth is some gold-standard to live by, but I think Podraza says it well above: “the problems with objectivism I can see are only in the details, not in the larger, more sweeping conclusions.”
My favorite Ayn Rand SOMAD quote from Forum 2000 has to be the classic “A is A, I am right, you are wrong, qua qua qua qua qua qua qua” which she uttered when asked for a concise summary of Objectivism.
A story, then a request:
Only 2 years ago I was a self described “libertarian” although the only literature I had ever read on the subject was by Larry Elder. In other words, I was hugely ignorant. As is apparantly quite common, I then discovered Ayn Rand and became the radical libertarian I am today. For a while I think I could have properly labled a “randroid” as I tended to display all of their charactoristics. Recently, however, I have been seduced by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard and others and I have become a “realized” libertarian, I understand that Rand is just a piece of the puzzle, and not the whole thing.
Nonetheless, I am still not entirely sure where and how Rand’s philosophy goes wrong. I can think of a few instances, such as her insistance on the presence of a state for moral purposes. But the problems with objectivism I can see are only in the details, not in the larger, more sweeping conclusions. Rand divided objectivism into 4 parts (lets ignore asthetics), objective reality, reason, egoism, capitalism. What is wrong with any of these? What is wrong with Rand’s version of any of these? Why do people, including many libertarians continue to put her “philosophy” in quotes as if it is meaningless shit? Can somebody please point me, by way of hyperlink, to some articles or blog posts addressing the flaws in objectivism?
I admit, that for the most part, I still buy objectivism. And I am not an idiot. So I take some offense when people refer to objectivism as philosophy appropriate to teenagers only without substantiating that statement. I am 25, and very much would like to join the ranks of the grown-up libertarians, so somebody please push me in the right direction, please.
podraza,
David Friedman pretty much destroys the Objectivist derivation of value here.
For a lengthy and thorough critique of Objectivism, try Michael Huemer.
And if that’s not enough for you, the Objectivism Reference Center always has more.
Micha,
my thanks for the links. I have read some of David Friedman before and found him quite compelling.
micha, thanks for the links.
Micha,
I’ll do some of the reading above you pointed out above but I have to admit that I’m really in the same boat of as Podraza. My question is: Has the plethora of libertarians that denounce Rand’s philosophy as something that only a teenager could embrace done all this reading? or is it really that self-evident that Objectivism is riddled with errors? I don’t think it is. I get the feeling that many reject the whole philosophy as they fear they will be labeled as part of a cult. Also, as mentioned above Rand’s outbursts are not something people want to be associated with.
I know you and Will are very knowledgeable about this stuff and I’d love to see a concise essay by one of you regarding this topic. I just finished Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty, but in Part 1 of the book, The Value of Freedom, I don’t feel he was as clear with his definitions as Rand. I was several times left with the feeling “well if you can justify X… then what’s to stop you from justifying something clearly wrong like Y” . Hey… maybe I don’t have the brain power for this stuff but if that’s true put it in layman’s terms for me and spell it out step by step.
About a year ago I had the opportunity of having dinner with Milton Friedman which was quite an experience. Over the dinner the subject of Objectivism came up to which he replied that he and his son David didn’t consider it a matter of serious study. His main problem seemed to be that if A = A then there is no room for disagreement, which led to intolerance. Mises’ praxeology was similar in some senses and also led to this his intolerance for other’s opinions. Now at the time I had this genius Nobel Prize winning economist in front of me who had studied this stuff way more than I had, and I sat there just trying to digest what he had said as we moved on to discussing “We the Living” but truthfully to this day it has never really made sense. It seems you can reach different conclusions about what “A” is if one or both parties does not have all the facts in front of them.
My focus in life is geared more towards economics but my general understanding of Objectivism seems like a good base for a philosophy in general. George Reisman, an Objectivist, who studied under both Rand and Mises has been a huge influence for me in economics so that has helped me shape my view of the world as well. I’ve also corresponded with David Henderson about these issues, but he too has been heavily influenced by Rand and tended to agree with me. While I understand there might be faults in her philosophy I can’t understand why everyone seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water? Can you offer your opinion or should I just start plowing through stuff like Huemer’s essay. Thanks in advance…
Peter, It’s by no means self-evident that there are errors in Objectivism. I started to write a series that brings out some of these errors.
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/archives/2004/08/first_letter_to.html
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/archives/2004/08/second_letter_t.html
I started a third one on the Objectivist Ethics, but lost it in the gears of moveable type.
I should say that I think most of Huemer’s essay is idiosyncratic, and doesn’t really hit Rand where she lives.
I’ve only read parts of Huemer’s essay, so I can say whether or not I agree with it in whole. Friedman’s little piece, on the other hand, is excellent, and without some extreme revisionist interpretation of Rand’s arguments, Friedman pretty much lays to rest to the whole notion of objective value.
Of course, the problem with these kinds of criticisms is that you’ll always have reasonable Objectivists like Roderick Long or Chris Matthew Sciabarra who are able to save certain aspects of Rand; for example, by interpreting her in a more Aristotelian light, where her concern is human flourishing and not purely selfishness and survival. Objectivism means different things to different people and it’s not clear which interpretation one needs to refute before one has successfully refuted Objectivism.
Micha & Will-
Thanks guys for your responses. Don’t know if you are still checking this thread but thought I’d give a short reply. I must point out this is really not my turf, and I know you both are extremely well versed in this stuff, but overall your critiques still don’t completely square with me.
Micha-
Friedman’s essay doesn’t “lay to rest” the whole idea of objective value for me. Maybe I’m oversimplifying but the idea that life should be your standard of value doesn’t implode because a male mantis is eaten by it’s female partner or that women choose to have children even though this lessens their chances of survival. I agree that there are other things at play here, instincts play a role in our actions, but this doesn’t turn the premise on its head. I feel like he is picking apart the details and not dealing with the broader issue.
Will-
In the first letter I really feel the burden of proof is on you here. I admit that to me free will is near axiomatic. Now does that mean the determinism is false? No, but it doesn’t mean it is true either. Again, instincts and evolution have an important role in influencing our choices but that doesn’t lead me to even think about whether determinism exists. I don’t see the proof for it so why even think about it?
In the second letter I agree with much in the letter. It reminded me somewhat of Branden’s essay “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” ( http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html ). But for me these critiques show ways to improve upon the philosophy instead of destroying it.
Now it’s quite possible that you are reading this and thinking “He’s completely missing the point I was making”. If that’s the case you have to understand that the simplicity is what is so appealing about Objectivism. Rereading the Branden article above he does a great job summing up what I for one have taken from Rand. That is:
Those principles make sense and that is the appeal of Rand. In all the reading I’ve done it’s never been self-evident that any of these points are completely invalid. I’m not someone who thinks every sentence out of Rand’s mouth is some gold-standard to live by, but I think Podraza says it well above: “the problems with objectivism I can see are only in the details, not in the larger, more sweeping conclusions.”