Objectivism Doesn't Make Sense

The title of this thread might be a little strong. After all, I really don't know much about Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I've never read any of her books, never studied her philosophy in school, and all my knowledge on the matter comes either second hand or from the web. In fact, the only reason I started researching Objectivism, not too long ago, is because of Rand's, for lack of a better word, hatred of Kant. Since I'll be going to grad school for Kant scholarship next fall, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about and whether there was anything to it. But I really don't think that the title is too strong because I just can't make heads or tails of Objectivism. This might be my own fault because I just don't understand it, but I don't think so. Here's my problem:

As I understand it, Objectivism is deduced from a set of three axioms. Fair enough; it's a good place to start. These axioms are as follows:

(1) Primacy of existence.

(2) a = a. (Necessarily true identity relation).

(3) All consciousness is consciousness of something. (Intentionality?)

Now, the first problem is that axioms are propositions, which means they are sentences, and "Primacy of existence" is not a sentence. So, the first thing to do is to put (1) into propositional form. I found one website that puts (1) in propositional form as:

(1) Everything is what it is.

But, then, how does (1) differ from (2)? Anyway, let's put this aside and move on. The next thing to do is to show that the axioms are self-evidently true, and I'll grant that. After all, I've never seen an object that is not identical with itself. (3) is trickier, but I'll assume that Rand uses the word "something" in the loosest sense possible, so as to include non-existent objects. In which case, I have no problem granting its self-evidence.

Here's where the real problems begin. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU DERIVE A SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY THAT CAN, REPUTEDLY, SOLVE ALL PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THESE THREE AXIOMS? Another problem: as I understand it, Rand is an empiricist, meaning that all knowledge comes from experience. But if the axioms are self-evidently true, which they have to be or else they're not axioms, and Objectivism is derived from the axioms, then what use would empirical knowledge be? Let's leave that question aside, at least for now, and move on to the first one, the one in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Let's try to derive causation from the axioms. That shouldn't be too hard, and causation is certainly fair game in philosophy. Rand apparently defines "causation" (she uses the term "causality," which I'll take to be synonymous) as follows:

"[C]ausality is the law of identity applied to action."

But wait, the term "action" is nowhere used in the three axioms. So, how can causation be derived from the law of identity, "a = a?" How can causation be reduced to identity? After all, two objects are identity only if they have the very same properties (identity of indiscernibles). Let's say that billiard ball, A, collides with billiard ball, B. When A strikes B, B moves. What does the relation between A and B, a causal relation, have to do with identity, since A and B are obviously distinct objects. Let's make it even simpler. Remember when B moved across the pool table? Well, let's say that B was at rest at time, t, and had moved one foot to the left at time, s. The relational properties of B, both spatial and temporal, changed from t to s. Now, B at s is obvious the same B it was at t. But how can we get this out of the law of identity, without reference to time or causation? I'm serious, if anyone has an answer, I'd like to hear it.

Let's try something even simpler. Let's try to reduce the sequence of ordinal numbers from 1 to some arbitrary numbers, say, 4, to the three axioms. The foundations of arithmetic and the concept of number are certainly fair game for philosophy. We are even lucky enough to already have a set of axioms in place that will allow us to generate such a sequence, the Peano Axioms. So, all we have to do is reduce the Peano Axioms to the Rand Axioms (good luck).

Let's try this one first, "Every natural number a has a successor, denoted by Sa or a'. Great, let's say that the value of a is 1. Well, 1 is what it is, and 1 = 1, and when I'm thinking about 1, I'm thinking about 1, and.... Gee, for the life of me, I can't get 2 out of it. Why do you suppose that is? Well, it's because the Peano Axioms are axioms, which means they are irreducible. They just can't get any simpler.

Please, if there are any Objectivists out there, or if I have terribly misrepresented Rand's views, tell me. I want to take this stuff seriously, but right now Objectivism just seems like an advertising ploy to sell trashy romance novels.

 

If you want some good reading, then read her "Objectivist Epistemology". You'll have to read it twice like I did. It's a precious conglomeration of complete nonsense.

This is the 3 axioms I've seen attributed to her:

• Existence exists.
• Consciousness exists
• Existence is Identity.

I don't care for her philosophy at all. If you read her and know a little bit about philosophy, then you come to the quick realization that either she knows very little or is purposely misrepresenting other's view in order to attack them. I go with the latter.

Anyway, I find her philosophy to be nothing more than an atheist revelation.

 

doesn't antiobjectivism make even less? or is this some kind of munkyfiddles with names and words?

=^^=
.../\...

 

30 years ago I read The Fountainhead and a couple of books by Nathaniel Branden, a disciple of Rand's.

Her philosophy is really nothing but an atheistic/materialistic, social Darwinist, me-first manifesto...it seems to me to be the idealistic product of a person who had never really lived or matured.

Interesting...those three axioms are essential in eastern spiritual thought, as well. Rand didn't see their relevance beyond the material world.

 

I might check out that "Objectivist Epistemology" book. I know that Rand is mostly read for his ethics and political philosophy, neither of which I'm terribly interested in. So, I'd probably find he epistemology more interesting.

I'm leaning towards the latter. Not being an Objectivist does not entail disbelief in an objective reality. I know that Rand tries to pin that on Kant, and it's just false. Objectivism is just the name of her philosophy. You don't need to be an Objectivist to be an objectivist, if you catch my drift.

Now, I'm starting to get interested in her arguments for atheism. Does anyone know them? So, far I've only been able to find Objectivist arguments against some traditional arguments for the existence of God: Aquinas' five ways and Pascal's wager, which is fine because all those arguments are fallacious. But refutations of those arguments don't disprove the existence of God.

I actually just came across this site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html
Haven's had a chance to read it yet, though.

 

Well, I've started to look over that website I linked on my last post. It's pretty bad. Actually, it's really bad. Here's a snippit:
Just so you know what's going on, here's the introduction:

Dr. A- never actually says anything, and we go straight the Objectivist's arguments:

I think underestimated the scope of the primacy of existence axiom. It apparently means a lot more than "Everything that exists, exists." It seems to imply that we can't think of non-existent objects, that we never dream or hallucinate, and that people can't make things, like this chair for example.

It gets worse:

And it goes on like that for a long while.

Does anyone actually think that this is a good argument? I mean, just intuitively, doesn't it seem like there's a gap? If anyone actually thinks they can defend it, I'll come up with some counters.

No, I don't think the title of this thread is unjustified; this is just a lot of garbage.

 

Here is a good debate about Objectivist Ethics:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79755

By "good", I mean the Objectivist really gets his/her ass handed to them.

 

in other words, more fanatics setting up straw dogs to masterbate with and attempt to discredit any interjection of common sense into questions of belief.

monkyfiddles with words.

i've yet to see in this thread any good reason i should go and try and look up what is (here in) being intended by the use of the term "objectivist".

=^^=
.../\...

 

please....dont comment on something you dont know anything about........

 

Who is that directed at? Are you an Objectivist?

 

it was pointed at whoever said that.....

and iv still yet to see a valid argument aginst objectivism in this post....thus far

 

The perfect criticism of Objectivism written by someone else on a different board:

Her Epistemic theory is non-epistemic, so it's actually impossible to criticize.

Her ethics is solely founded on the concept that life is the ultimate value (more specifically, a particular individual's life is the ultimate value to that same particular individual). This is quite easily demostratabley false: A scientist gives me the option of immortality. The catch is that, while I would be alive, I would "live" in a small tube in a semi-concious state. If life was my ultimate value, then I must take the scientist up on his offer. Merely being alive is not an ultimate value. Her assertion also ignores small group ethical behavior, which we have evolved from. The group has now been dwindled down to immediate family in most cases. The evolutionary compulsion to lay down one's life for one's group's survival is primal and also contradicts her "ultimate value".

Let's see what other "sage" conclusions she came to: homosexuals are immoral and corrupt (no real argument, she just didn't like them); females were psychologically inferior to men; it's ok to deny African-Americans work based solely on the color of their skin. She's quite the gem.

 

PLEASE!!!!!....explain yourself....im here to learn

NO....rational self interest is the main point of objectivist ethics

Irrelevant

 

Well, what about the argument that you can't derive the law of causality as a general principle from the three axioms, or that you can't derive the Peano axioms from the three axioms? What about the just plain bad arguments on http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html ? What about the debate on http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79755 where the Objectivist, conclusively, gets destroyed? Surely these should be very troubling for a proponent of Objectivism?

 

in philosophy this is deceiving : a=a .


philosophy is made of and through language and is made
alive in sharing the essence of meaning .

in essence :
a equals a
and
a does not equal a

because a is any idea . it might be an idea wild like a joker . rand proposes a concreteness of language , but anyone can subvert that into spoons .

 

a cornerstone of the debate

this does NOT!!! suggest life is the ultimate value

im not going to read all that.....

im not even going to read some of it.....

i know as well as anyone else that has actually read any of rands books that their are several problems with her work.....

it just bothers me to see someone bashing on a somewhat acceptable theory when they cant even grasps its concepts.....and the rest of their opinions are someone elses......

this thread is starting to sound like it belongs in a mainstream religion forum

 

Nice responses. I would like to see bigger fonts, more bolding, and more underlining.

 

Actually it does.

 

I take it that you've never dealt with an Objectivist before. Tell them to prove that Aristotle said a=a and have them document in what text. Then sit back and watch the whirlwind (hint: it doesn't exist in any of his surviving texts). It's always amusing.

 

still no explanations....

i wont waste my time....