Hi All...
I'm relatively new to the list, and haven't posted much. I have little
formal training in philosophy, but I'm quite interested in both philosophy
and the MoQ and I've read a lot of relevant material.
Anyhow, on to my subject:
I've come across Objectivism repeatedly over the past few years (back in
high school, I was president of the Philosophy Club, an fun albeit pretty
unknowledgeable group, and it was advocated by more than a few people). My
roommate and best friend holds a strong claim to being the "cold-hearted
objectivist bastard," although in reality, he's usually a swell guy. So
yesterday I figured I'd find some material on Objectivism, which I never
really cared for, but admittedly knew little about. What I found was worse
than I expected... i took down some notes from what i read (all from essays
off of www.aynrand.org), and here are just a few percieved problems with
objectivism i found:
1. Objectivism is strongly based in Objective Reality, which seems to me
to be both unprovable and unnecessary. The very definition of Objectivism
is founded in the faulty S/O, split. Objectivists seem to retaliate
strongly against subjective reality, but they see the only alternative as
objective reality. This also requires a leap of faith, but that's more
difficult to see if you've grown up in SOM and have made that leap all your
life. Objectivism seems to be based on this leap, rather than being
empirically based.
2. Objectivism both embraces a clear-cut, objective reality, while denying
determinism. Within the confines of the objectivist outlook, free will
doesn't seem to make any sense, but nevertheless they hold it to be one of
their most important tenets. Also, there is emphasis on the "Law of
Casality" which says that a things actions are determined by its nature.
But isn't this a deterministic statement? And doesn't modern science
reject this view?
3. There is a lot of talk about terms such as happiness, self-interest,
"things," etc... but these things aren't (as far as I've read) very well
defined concepts. It seems that the pillars objectivism stands on are
neither well-defined (which would be okay if it weren't for the following
fact) nor well-understood.
4. Even though Objectivism seems based on these great leaps of faith, it
denies faith to the extreme, trashes any sort of "mystic." Not only does
this contradict itself, but it also seems to contradict a great amount of
human experience that the MoQ accepts. Also, it seems to me that to
objectivists, mystic = religious nut. Their definition of mystic seems to
be a faulty one that can easily be turned to an object of derision.
I could go on and on... things such as equating good with factual truth,
that sort of thing... But I'll save that for now. I'm sorry if this is
something that has already been beaten around, but a cursory look at the
archives didn't show any lengthy topics on objectivism... also, I'm sure
I'm preaching to the choir here, but nevertheless, its something I'd like
to address... Objectivism seems to be a very illogical and awful
metaphysical system, and I'd like to be able to explain this to some of my
objectivist friends... they've reacted poorly to attacks in the past and
they've also reacted poorly to my underwhelming explanations of the MoQ.
Ciao,
Matt
* -the hanged man- email: thehangedman@death-star.com *
* web: http://thehangedman.digitaldriveway.com AIM: THM42 *
* BBS: telnet://solace.digitaldriveway.com ICQ: 10933909 *
* "Every day is a good day" -Zen Proverb *
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST