What's wrong with Objectivism? Why is it so universally rejected as a guiding philosophy?

What's wrong with Objectivism? Why is it so universally rejected as a guiding philosophy?

I guess it makes sense to outline what Objectivism is to head off any confusion early:

>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this

>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality

>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest

>Capitalism is the only social system consistent with this world view, and which allows individuals to pursue it

>No person is entitled to another's labor or property

>The collective does not take precedence over the individual

>mutually beneficial trade is superior to sacrifice

Argument 1: Objectivism's selfishness promotes vice, dishonesty, fraud, etc.

Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.

Argument 2: Capitalism exploits many for the gain of a few

Rebuttal: Some people get richer than others, but if everyone gets richer that shouldn't matter to you. If someone gets poorer, then it wasn't mutually beneficial trade.

Nothing. The only people who get assmad about Objectivism are those clouded by their feels.

There's nothing wrong with objectivism. It's just that objectivism is the philosophy of the 1%, the top dawgs, the creme-de-la-creme, so the plebs will never understand it and will always rally against it.

All the hate against Atlas Shrugged only affirms its message.

arguing "objectively" over abstract truths divides the community.

Why is an individual required to sacrifice his destiny for the good of the "community"?

Anthem is Ayn Rand's best book

read Evola

because it's a fantasy

do you really think people need guidance to act in their own self-interest?

>community

My phone says you're a faggot, faggot.

No, but I think we as a society - because of our historical roots in Christianity - value sacrifice of self over the exaltation of self. Objectivism challenges that not only is it not wrong to pursue your rational self interest, it is moral.

Today, we vilify wealth creators and idolize sacrificers. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

...

>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
One of the problems with economics, and politics in general, is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough to distinguish between long-term and short-term self-interest. And even when they are, they often lack the willpower to prioritise long-term self-interest.

Hence why this rebuttal isn't foolproof.
>Argument 1: Objectivism's selfishness promotes vice, dishonesty, fraud, etc.
>Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.

Most people aren't rational or intelligent enough to truly benefit from Objectivism and Capitalism.

It's too elitist. It breeds an intense fear that you aren't worthy and will become chaff.

...

...

This pretty much. Wealth "inequality" doesn't really matter if the poor live a good lifestyle and the rich live an exponentially better one. Who cares what the level of inequality is as long as the bottom is doing great for themselves

>Implying that "sacrificing your destiny" and "goo of the community" are mutually exclusive

>women
>philosophy

but I could also say
>jews
>philosophy

>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
OK so I make a company and exploit uneducated fools and desperate single mothers, use my money to lobby for whatever I just want, mainly more money while not giving a single fuck about anyone else. I impregnate a lot of women then leave them alone with my children because I don't care about them and don't feel any regret and parenting wouldn't make me happy. I also start manipulating stock exchanges then buy up small banks. YOLO.

by your jewish prophet's (welfare be upon her) doctrine, George Soros is a good man, right? He just persued his long term self interest and happiness. Just like Shillary and Obongo

There's nothing wrong with it. Calling people selfish is not a good argument. I'm not an Objectivist, but it's worth pointing out that if you think it's more idiotic than any other philosophy you've got blinders on. Plenty of people who think Objectivism is trash unironically think socialism is a good idea.

The fact that it looks like all other Jewish intellectual cults should be an alarm bell. Extreme logical rigidity based on arbitrary principles, heavy psychologization of opponents and dissent (her clique had psychoanalysis counseling similar like Freud), autistic misunderstanding of human nature, etc.

>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
Sure

>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
Individual human reason is overrated. Collective knowledge and tradition exist because the sum total workings of the universe are too vast for one person to know and the division of labor is a division of knowledge. Sometimes you just have to trust the group as a calculated risk.

>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
>mutually beneficial trade is superior to sacrifice
Human behavior is evolutionarily selected for group survival not individual survival or happiness. In a sense that's mutual but it still doesn't really mesh with Rand's atomized hyper individualism. Her definition of altruism and sacrifice are weird and confusing and they don't help matters here either.

>No person is entitled to another's labor or property
I wish I save some of those Stirner images because they would work great here. Property is a good idea but natural rights don't exist. It's a social construct that would vanish if people stopped believing in it.

You don't think that, over time, strategies for more effectively pursuing self interest rationally would arise and gain traction in a society that embraced Objectivism? Debt is an obscure concept that even large groups of poorly educated people have learned over the centuries, for example. So is the religious concept of charity. Why wouldn't people eventually adopt better strategies over time, especially if they were held accountable for all their decisions and kept the proceeds and consequences of them?

no

>xploit uneducated fools and desperate single mothers, use my money to lobby for whatever I just want, mainly more money while not giving a single fuck about anyone else. I impregnate a lot of women then

See rebuttals 1 and 2

doesnt objectivism actually mean "not relativism"

why does it have to refer to ayn rand capitilism?

Because stormfags like to blame Jews for everything in typical kangz fashion (they want a socialistic system) and Ayn Rand was Jewish.

>individual reason is overrated
I don't agree. Objectivism doesn't suppose you live on an island without other people, it claims the best method of human interaction is mutually beneficial trade and respect of property. We can pursue the universe together, I just don't want to be coerced into doing it your way, we have to agree and trade.

>group survival over individual
see above, we can trade and work together, just without coercion. Don't force people in your tribe to help, appeal to them for help.

>property is a construct
it's a product of labor, which is real. If you dismiss it, you remove any incentive for humans to create

here you go

The problem is you're ignoring the truth of things.

Of course it would be great if everyone were rational actors behaving in their self-interest so that nobody could get screwed over because they would be aware of when they were getting cheated.

But a large number of people aren't rational, and I doubt there's anything we can do to change that. Moreover when a single person gains enough power it becomes impossible to compete with them. They can sway Congress to legislate you out of existence.

You also didn't address his perhaps most critical point, are people like George Soros and the Clintons really what you want humanity to aspire to? Because they certainly seem to embody the philosophy.

>They can sway Congress to legislate you out of existence
>Soros and Clintons are ideal objectivists

I think youre the one ignoring the truth desu senpai

>large numbers of people aren't rational
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that if people pursued reason actively they can grow to become more rational over time. Science as a discipline and method of thought has taken root and flourished despite human biases against it, why can't reason?

>Soros and Clinton
see rebuttal 1

Assuming they exploit for personal gain, they are not being rationally objective. Mutually beneficial trade and a wealthy, flourishing society are beneficial to everyone, myself included. I don't have to screw you to advance, and if I do I make enemies that will bite me later.

Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk seem like better models, though none is perfect.

My only issue with the philosophy is its high focus on individualism and the self serving life style that comes from this.

I personally think the individual is important, however what's better for the collective and the collectives future/preservation takes higher importance.

Example:Sacrifice the few to save the many
Or
Sometimes an individual can do more for society than a number of people making their death for said individual justified.

I like to look at what's better for the many which will ultimately be better for the individual.

I certainly like some of the aspects of Objectivism such as logic>emotion, however differ in its biggest aspect.

Still worth looking in to in my opinion though, you can disagree.

Over time? Sure. Problem is, how much time are we talking? Because until all members of a society would adopt those strategies spontaneously, you would effectively witness that society cannibalising itself over and over again, often at the risk of total societal collapse. Eventually, if that society manages to survive, a stable situation might be reached, but in the mean time, it may have missed out on a lot of progress because of internal conflict and instability.
I'd rather have a bit of collectivism right now to keep the dumb masses in line than have to risk societal collapse in the hopes of one day having a society where all people can spontaneously make rational choices.

Which happens now anyway

Are you too simpleminded to understand "unite and conquer"?
Of course you are, you're too busy whining about its opposite to reflect.

What is with this "coercion" meme? There's no reason why we should take people's volition seriously as some kind of religious principle. At the end of that road lies only narcissistic hyper individualism and maladaptive behavior that will quickly be rectified and removed from the gene pool by more collective oriented groups.

What sort of activity constitutes labor and how much is required to make something property? This is arbitrary. See the Stirner memes.

>self serving lifestyle
this is addressed in the OP. Why is pursuing your individual destiny bad if it doesn't harm others?

Why is it ok for Athens to vote to kill Socrates? Should popular vote or the dictator's decree determine what the "good" of the collective is, and therefore justify coercion against others?

Yes, and it's bad enough already. We don't need it to get worse.

>collective groups beat individual ones
Last I checked, more individual societies were wealthier, healthier, and more powerful than collective ones.

Very good point user.

This all just sounds like a rehash of Frederic Bastiat.

Did (((Ayn Rand))) just rip off Bastiat?

It isn't bad to pursue ones self destiny if it's harmless or even beneficial to society, however prioritizing that can lead to degradation of society and perhaps the individual if the individual is given more priority than that of society.

Objectivism is not what I follow as it prioritized what I regard as a secondary and therefore will not get my approval, however like I said some of its aspects are good.

Also self serving can vary from different things wether it be degenerate or education, it depends on what the individual is pursuing for them self.

In regards to Socrates his death is only called for if it is objectively best for his society. I'm not just talking a dictators decision or a majority's opinion, I mean what is comparatively better.

>Science as a discipline and method of thought has taken root and flourished despite human biases against it

And it's currently being subverted and corrupted to be a mockery of what it once was.


>Mutually beneficial trade and a wealthy, flourishing society are beneficial to everyone, myself included. I don't have to screw you to advance, and if I do I make enemies that will bite me later.

Honestly it seems you're relying on twisted semantics and denial. If Clinton becomes president tell me how all the enemies (many of which she had assassinated) have come back to bite her in the ass. Tell me what Soros is suffering for his dirty tactics. If anything it seems they have benefited immensely from their tactics and the only retribution they will ever face would be if there is some sort of afterlife where you are held accountable (which objectivism rejects).

While I agree that a wealthy flourishing society is better for all of us, oftentimes screwing a person over for individual gain is better for that individual since the amount it disrupts society is so small that it doesn't even come close to coming back to him.

No, individualism and hedonism are luxuries that we engage in once society has advanced to a certain point where we can tolerate them. I don't think people would call the early colonialist industrial societies or historically advanced societies such as China "individualist" by any means. Even the US was never anywhere near what Randians would consider acceptable. It's a rather modern meme.

I just can't bring myself to agree with the idea that other people matter more than I do, and therefore I have to surrender my time, labor, life, and property for them. Why was I born inferior that this is ok?

Ayn Rand was autistic

>writes story about trains
>good characters have sharp angular features which appeal to the autist
>bad characters have rounded features
>very basic characters that all pretty much had the same personalities and no depth to them other than the contents of their speech

honestly sometimes I found it a struggle to figure who which character was saying what because it was lacking the "he said she said" kind of stuff, and all the characters spoke like fucking autists. And her characters made no real sense. I reckon Ayn Rand was on the autist spectrum because she clearly didn't understand people

>Science
Even if that's true, which I don't necessarily agree with, it is evidence that humans can change the way they think over time.

>Clinton and Soros
This is a decent point, I'll have to think on this. I do think they would have been better off had they pursued their goals legitimately, but if they end up on top of the pile having successfully knifed everyone else in the back then what does it matter? All I can say is that it seems more rational to me to strengthen society than to destroy it, but I admit that's an incomplete answer.

Yea her writing was shit but if you had trouble figuring who was saying what, you might not be ready for atlas shrugged m80

I have a rebutal to objectivism. In the book written by Ayn Rand called "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" Rand states that Gold or another limited item should be the currency used by people. Because there is only so much gold that means if one person is getting richer another must be getting poorer.

All non-objectivist authors are shit. Rand didn't fuck around on details she got right to the point.

The problem with objectivism is the same as it is with all political philosophies. As a theory, they all have merit. But they don't take into account the insurmountable corruption that human beings bring to the equation. If you think capitalism is "mutually beneficial" you need to have your head checked.

America is the most individualist society in the world, barring some isolated outliers. It has generated more wealth and innovation in its lifespan than any other society. West Europe comes next, then Asia, then everyone else. The scale slides down with individualism, and I would suppose that is because people are more motivated and industrious when they are free to live for themselves instead of for others.

Yes, all these societies could be more individualistic, and I would argue that would have helped them achieve even greater wealth.

pls get your head red

Social species dominate the planet; Individualist species are slowly being wiped out. The evolutionary arms race was won by collectivists. Individualism is an evolutionary dead end.

Libertarianism is a way for Jews to protect themselves from state genocide.

>lifts 2 billion people out of poverty in one century
>highest production, industry, and standard of living for all classes of people in all societies ever
>not mutually beneficial

ok

>Yea her writing was shit

80 page monologue.

It really is all you need to say to prove that she's a terrible author.

Name the social species currently dominating the planet

If you aren't Ayn Rand you are a terrible author. She is the only author I read because everyone else is total shit.

>All I can say is that it seems more rational to me to strengthen society than to destroy it

I agree. But it seems to be a sort of prisoner's dilemma.

you're a fucking idiot. It was the biggest rambling book of all time. John Galt's speech was the outline of Objectivism and it went for 80 fucking pages. The whole book was rambling and nonsense that could have been confined to something far smaller. If anything, Objectivists and people in this spectrum love epic bullshit of grandeur. Take Stefan Molymeme for example. He makes 40 minute fucking youtube cliips on topics he could cover in 5 minutes. They're all full of themselves and full of shit

I could follow the book fine buddy, just I had to re-read some sections to follow precisely who was saying what because Ayn Rand was too autistic for character development. Whatever you think of the ideology, it is some of the crappiest writing I have ever come across

Not all people are created equal.

Some people are inherently more valuable than others, this applies to everyone. You may not be able to come to terms with it, but I am.

In this I say Logic>Emotion.

This is my truth and belief. You can disagree, but I shall always look to the individual (myself included) second for the betterment of all to progress and evolve through time.

>Doesn't read other authors
>Claims other authors are shit

Of course you're a leaf.

I'm not interesting in how good she is at writing, I am interested in her arguments.

>Why was I born inferior that this is ok?
What do you mean?

>muh capitalism is evil meme

Seriously I was walking with my friend on campus and someone had a table set up talking about pro capitalism and he basically said "lol is he trying to be inflamatory"
I told him I agree with that guy at the table and he just smirked at me and was like "well lets agree to disagree" like I was a retard or something

I follow the based jew shapiros advice and just dont argue with them unless they make an explicit effort to ask me.

I've read them before but I hate them because they aren't Ayn Rand

you're a fucking idiot. It was the biggest rambling book of all time. John Galt's speech was the outline of Objectivism and it went for 80 fucking pages. The whole book was rambling and nonsense that could have been confined to something far smaller. If anything, Objectivists and people in this spectrum love epic bullshit of grandeur. Take Stefan Molymeme for example. He makes 40 minute fucking youtube cliips on topics he could cover in 5 minutes. They're all full of themselves and full of shit
We are full of ourselves because we are better

I do accept that some are better than others, and I don;t believe this is an excuse to cut down those exceptional people in the name of the good of others. The people who are most capable aren't born with yolks on their necks.

>denies reality

Call yourself an "objectivist"?

>Can't even quote properly
>Certain of his superiority

Can we just ban Canada already?

I reject the notion that because I have property, skill, or gifts I am required to sacrifice them to the betterment of the society at large. That implies I am worth less than the people I am forced to provide for.

You should always expect these threads to tangent off to talk about her writing ability.

I'm impressed you've had this much discussion of the philosophy in fact. Oftentimes all I need to do is say

>80 page monologue

And that's enough to derail an Ayn Rand thread.

I'm not following your argument. If you are saying that humans are the dominant species, I would agree and point out that the most individualist human societies also possess the lion's share of the wealth and prosperity.

If you mean that collectivist societies are winning the arms race, I challenged you to point out which society, since all collectivism societies are failures.

For me this is the true distinction between left wing and right wing. Left wing is egalitarian and right wing is acceptance of hierarchy. So social systems with castes are right wing and social systems aiming for homogenous societies are left wing.

Canadains are superior because we take in immigrants and absorb there culture and economy making us stronger

I wish there was a way to filter out posts from particular countries. Canadians are the worst

But the existence of trade makes a hierarchy meaningless. The word implies that one person is above, and therefore exploiting another. That's just not true.

Your theory is incapable of explaining basically all of human history. Centralizing of political power and forcing people to give up many of their rights was equivalent to advancement most of history, which is why despotic regimes such as China, the Ottomans, the various Persian States, the European colonial powers, etc. were the pinnacle of civilization in their times and drove society forward technologically. There was no individualism to be found then. The US itself thrived and prospered under a government that was heavily protectionist, implicitly white nationalist, and with heavily restricted franchise. Also, our centralization of government into the Fed and our aggressive entry into the politics and wars of Europe in the twentieth century was part of what secured our position at the top. If we had been more individualist we would be irrelevant.

There is a rising tide intellectually in the west. Simplistically, one of the main tenants of this intellectual change is the stupidity of altruism, or that altruism needs to be curtailed or logically focused towards something more excellent than muh humanity or muh equality.

I have disagreements with Objectivism, but, perhaps especially on a social level, Ayn Rand was a huge influence on that change of perception towards altruism. And for that, she is not invalid.

But this individualism shit needs to die OP. Its poison in our veins.

>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness
If this was true then man would not have been made to die.
Thus man's purpose is necessarily spiritual in nature.

>inb4 no objective purpose
Hey I didn't make any more presuppositions than OP

You can believe that, however with the fact that some are more important than others I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to "cut down" those who are less valuable if it is what is nessecary for the collective to continue at its best rather than appeal to only ones interest and suggest it's of equal worth to all others.

A quote that I like very much that applies to my belief is
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

Prioritizing only ones interest above the collective if it is damaging to society is something that can hurt many and therefore Objectivism can't gain my favoring.

>what's wrong with objectivism?
Subjective values which render objectivity subjectivity.

Ayn Rand lead a large group of objectivits with her boyfriend, who were making head way in a political movement.

He slept with other women, they got frustrated/mad at each other, she excommunicated him from their party, party split, and it never took off.

There is no better example for a failure of objectivity right there.

In order for an ideological system to work, it must be from top to bottom:
>1. Absolute Truth
>2. Objective Truth
>3. Subjective Truth

Because what ever truth is on top, descends to the one immediately bellow it.

Anarchy is not freedom because it is rife with coercion, not freedom. You can't build because someone with a club will take it. Despotic regimes reduced the clubs to one person - the state. Capitalism and personal property flourish when society has no clubs at all, and property rights are respected.

The US thrived when people were permitted to the fullest extent to pursue wealth and keep it absent government intervention. Are white people "better" than others? Perhaps, if they are a category are full of people who are smarter and more industrious. It's not the race element that makes them that way, it's the way they think and work. This does not discredit Objectivism.

I think the idea is that you start from the presupposition that there is no objective purpose to life. Moving from that leads you to the conclusion that we must create our own purpose. Which leads to the conclusion that most people will choose making themselves happy.

Which all seems pretty reasonable, but I choose enlightenment over happiness so I think you're still correct.

If you accept that some people are more important than others and are superior then you'd have to accept the implication that you are worth less than some or a multitude of people.

One should sacrifice of it could lead to betterment of more UNLESS you are more important than the other individuals.

No subjective values steangthens objectivity

But at least you aren't an idiot like that Aussie autist in this thread.

>You can't build because someone with a club will take it.
That is why you have a bigger club.

>Wealth "inequality" doesn't really matter if the poor live a good lifestyle and the rich live an exponentially better one.

This. Like when Thatcher called out that Lib Dem. "He would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich."

> No person is entitled to another's labor or property

Good luck enforcing your imaginary property rights without a well-funded government, though.

Look at all of the logical and wholesome things that the left and "intellectuals" and SJW's attack now. OF COURSE a book as powerful and poignant as Atlas Shrugged will be attacked. There's your answer. The majority of the books critics are the very looters the book describes.

I'm not sure people understand what I said. Some people are just objectively better, that's genetics, happenstance, what have you. I have no problem with this. The problem I have is that people use the existence of this inequality to justify coercion against those who are better, to effectively yolk them to carts and make them pull everyone else. That, to me, is evil.

>Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.
It is generally true, but what if in a situation where you CAN make some quick gain and you know it won't bite you back?

Also, mostly, honesty is very good if everyone else is doing it, but whether you're being honest yourself might or might not matter depending on the nature of your trade.

Also, Rand's presentation is fairly absent of any idea of redemption. So I guess, if you're already an ubermensch with no flaw and divine inspiration, good for you, but I'm not. Meanwhile I'll pursue a philosophy that leaves room for my own self-improvement, otherwise why bother?

Government exists to prevent coercion. It establishes order and a justice system. Objectivists and Libertarians are not anarchists, they just want the role of government focused on this one thing.

Ayn Rand is a horrible author and only Lolborgtarians and conservashits like her

like every Canadian you're fucking shit at shitposting. Canadian tier posting

This man has probably read Hayek and is my conservative nigga.

But if the rich are getting richer they must be getting the money from the non-rich.

>I'm not following your argument. If you are saying that humans are the dominant species

I'm "saying" the truth: social species dominate the planet. Solitary individualist species are becoming extinct, they are an evolutionary dead end.

Altruism trumps selfishness in the natural world. A group dominated by individualists cannot compete with a group dominated by altruists.

This is just the way the World works.

>All I can say is that it seems more rational to me to strengthen society than to destroy it, but I admit that's an incomplete answer.

It's simple physics that entropy favors destruction and chaos over order. It is easier to destroy than to make. Man is a fundamentally rational creature, yes? He understands this basic truth, from the dumbest to the smartest.

However, man is a fundamentally social creature. He measures his own wealth not in a truly objective manner, but in a comparative manner.

A man alone is neither poor nor rich, he simply is. A man in society however, has a place in that society, and the ambitious man wishes to be as close the the apex of the social power pyramid as possible.

A smart man of society realizes that after a certain point it takes less energy to cut his competition an inch shorter than grow another himself. Sure, you still want to grow, but growth in power becomes more relative rather than concrete after a point.

The difference in actual, tangible wealth between 50 billion and 51 billion dollars cannot be measured in simple luxuries... but in the exercise of power over peers. At this point it becomes reasonable to cut the loosen the strings of the economy a little and watch some of your peers freefall. After all, you're a 'clever man', and you knew when and where to hold on.

>market is a zero sum game

>dismissing philosophical argument because of style of prose

into the trash

Ayn Rand is the only good author. All others are shit and should not be taken seriously.

You're not good at shitposting for an Aussie.