After reading the critique of Objectivism by Rothbard, I am finding myself at odds with the Objectivist movement. Are there any Objectivists within this group?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Too many.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Too many.
Not that many.
liberty student: GilesStratton: Too many. Not that many.
One is too many, in all seriousness, there's a fair few around here with some objectivist influences.
Well I'm about to read Radicals for Capitalism by Doherty and I hear that he is a critic of Rand also.
Laughing Man: After reading the critique of Objectivism by Rothbard, I am finding myself at odds with the Objectivist movement. Are there any Objectivists within this group?
What's the appeal? Emotionalism, on behalf of those who have read her novels and are then unable differentiate between fiction and reality.
Conza88:Emotionalism, on behalf of those who have read her novels and are then unable differentiate between fiction and reality.
I think there are some who do fall pray to this event, they say things like 'What would John Galt do?' or 'Who is John Galt?'
Laughing Man: Well I'm about to read Radicals for Capitalism by Doherty and I hear that he is a critic of Rand also.
Joe Salerno wrote a review of that book, as did another Austrian (I'm at a loss for who though), from what I've heard you'd best be careful, he's not entirely honest throughout the book, especially in regards to Rothbard.
GilesStratton:One is too many, in all seriousness, there's a fair few around here with some objectivist influences.
I've got Objectivist influences. I don't see how anyone can read The Fountainhead and not be influenced.
Because it's poor literature?
GilesStratton:Because it's poor literature?
Is it? I thought it was great fiction, and particularly good capitalist fiction.
It's not great fiction, at all. Great fiction would be Lord of the Rings by Tolkien or Heart of Darkness by Conrad or All Quiet on the Western Front.
And poor fiction would be Keynes' General Theory and Bernanke's Essays on the Great Depression.
I'm a big fan of Atlas Shrugged, and agree with the basic tenets of Objectivism. While I have some Objectivist leanings, I don't call myself one because:
1) I'm not a kool-aid drinker, and Objectivists are far too cult like and ideologically lockstep for me. I don't think every line Rand ever wrote was gospel, and don't need anyone else to tell me what my opinion is on something.
2) Most contemporary Objectivists are hard-core warmongers (despite the fact that Rand was a non-interventionist).
3) Objectivists cling to the State myth that has been long since refuted.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton:It's not great fiction, at all.
Give it a read. I'll agree that Atlas Shrugged is overrated but The Fountainhead really resonated with me.
GilesStratton:Great fiction would be Lord of the Rings by Tolkien or Heart of Darkness by Conrad or All Quiet on the Western Front.
I'm a Frank Herbert's Dune sorta guy. I can understand the attraction of dwarves and hobgoblins to a guy wearing a crown tho....
And?
liberty student:I'm a Frank Herbert's Dune sorta guy. I can understand the attraction of dwarves and hobgoblins to a guy wearing a crown tho....
Tolkien was a Christian anarchist, it's understandable that I agree with him. Not to mention, he can actually write.
GilesStratton:Tolkien was a Christian anarchist, it's understandable that I agree with him. Not to mention, he can actually write.
The same open mindedness you preach about economists might be well served on the front of literature.
I enjoy The Fountainhead because it is a fantastic critique on the mentality of collectivism, the strategy that allows it to become pervasive, and those who would push a collectivist agenda from the top. The bad guys in AS are much less ideological than the bad guy in FH. And I think most of us would agree that collectivism relies on ideologically based consent more so than thuggish force.
Not to mention that Howard Roark is an anti-hero, an unattractive guy whose moral compass never wavers, whereas Dagny Taggart is Rand, and thus uber heroic even when she's doing misguided stuff.
GilesStratton:Tolkien was a Christian anarchist,
Laughing Man: Conza88:Emotionalism, on behalf of those who have read her novels and are then unable differentiate between fiction and reality. I think there are some who do fall pray to this event, they say things like 'What would John Galt do?' or 'Who is John Galt?'
The novels are great for introducing those who normally wouldn't be interested in reading non-fiction on the free market philosophy.
They are good starting points, the problem lies with the people who then go on and stay focused only on Rand or Objectivism.
Like with Milton Friedman, good for some people - but if you completely follow him until the end on all positions = monetarist...
Several good starting points for different people, but all needs to end with the Austrian School.
Juan: GilesStratton:Tolkien was a Christian anarchist, Actually if judged by his works he was a pagan monarchist, a conservative, and a green of sorts. His books are good but don't have much to do with libertarianism, except for the pagan thing.
Juan, Tolkien's Roman Catholicism influenced the Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion far more than paganism ever did. While his pagan influences dictate the aesthetics, and feel of the works, his Catholicism dicates the themes.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
liberty student: GilesStratton:Because it's poor literature? Is it? I thought it was great fiction, and particularly good capitalist fiction.
I've always thought of Rand as an average to slightly above average novelist. As a philosopher, she's an average to slightly above average novelist.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
laminustacitus:...his Catholicism dicates the themes.
JackCuyler:I've always thought of Rand as an average to slightly above average novelist. As a philosopher, she's an average to slightly above average novelist.
Touche.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And poor fiction would be Keynes' General Theory and Bernanke's Essays on the Great Depression.
WIN +100
Schools are labour camps.
eliotn: Knight_of_BAAWA:And poor fiction would be Keynes' General Theory and Bernanke's Essays on the Great Depression. WIN +100
Yea that comment pretty much won the whole topic.
Topic over due to Knights +12 intelligence.
The actual problem of Objectivism is that it is a closed system when it, like any other philosophy, should be an open and growing one. I personally am much closer to David Kelley's brand of Neo-objectivism. Their cultish factionalism is also an issue, as is their inconsistency in sticking to their own principles. I don't think there's much wrong with the philosophy itself. And as for Rand's fiction, I like it - if others don't, that's their problem. I'd recommend people read Sciabarra's book on Rand if they want to have a vociferous opinion on her, to comprehend the depth of her thought, rather than just casually dismiss her as a hack.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan: laminustacitus:...his Catholicism dicates the themes. I fail to see how ? Tolkien's fictional world strikes me as clearly pagan. There's no god but several god-like powers none of which really has the upper hand. Which Roman Catholic themes do you think the LOTR deals with ?
Christians are permitted to use metaphor too.
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/12/03/tolkien_lewis/index.html
Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia were both strongly metaphorical to the Christian theme. Or, maybe the christian theme and other literature share the fundamental building blocks of good plot development.
Can you link it? I would like to read it, I do like Objectivism on a few points and have read some of Rand's work, the problem I find many have with Rand's work is rooted basically in the sentiment that you display here (likely unintentionally), "I read this and now I am at odds."
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Catholic themes include the theme of sacrifice, that evil can only dement and destroy what has already been created good, and the fact that the elves' state of melancholy, and exile is a direct result of their rebellion against the court of Valar in order to pursue Morgoth into Middle Earth.
Even Tolkien referred to them as "fundamentaly religious, and Catholic."
is it pagan? is it christian? is there a common ground?
http://www.pocm.info/
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
It is but one must keep in mind how strongly much of its mythos is influenced by norse mythology.
Some things that genuinely appeal to me about objectivism:
1. It (at least seeks) to correct the error in traditional moral philosophy of categorically separating morality from self-interest.
2. I believe that Rand's critique of mainstream libertarianism actually has some merit - the movement is muddled and confused, lacking any comprehensive and sound underlying philosophy.
3. Despite her apparent hatred of libertarians, her influence on modern American libertarianism is undeniable.
4. Her critique of deontology is illuminating; altough Neitzsche could have told you more or less the same thing in a different way.
5. Like all thick forms of libertarianism, Objectivism involves a more systematic and broad palette of values than just the NAP and property rights.
6. I share her views on the moral-practical dichotomy.
Some things that I dislike about objectivism:
1. As someone mentioned already, it's a closed system, perhaps with the exception of David Kelly's version and a variety of "objectivish" or "post-objectivist" philosophers.
2. Objectivism has always involved a quirky implied psychology and many objectivists in my experience are horrible armchair psychologizers.
3. I think that her attempt to get around the is-ought issue is insufficient.
4. As a political philosophy, it has no real opposition to centralization built into it - I've had Objectivists tell me that they would not principally oppose a global government if it was an objectivist one.
5. Hardline Objectivists of the Piekoff variety are worse than your average neocon on foreign policy issues. They also rabidly support IP.
6. When they debate against anarchism, Objectivists tend to fall back on fairly predictable statist dogmas that contradicts other elements of their own political philosophy.
7. I've always considered Rand's views on aesthetics to be bonkers.
I am not an objectivist, but I do like Ayn Rand.
Hmmm....would one less make you step down from your throne.....?
I think there would be appeal in here justifications, or creation, of the morality of the capitalist sytem. I think far too many Objectivists are warmongers and the current owner of the Rand estate (i.e. Leonard Peikoff) is pretty much takes a Neoconservative stance on foreign policy issues.
I like a lot of what Ayn Rand says but I still think Objectivism is...too strong. That being said, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are two of my favorite books.
There is indeed a God in Tolkiens universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eru_Il%C3%BAvatar
The wizards and more powerful beings are pretty similar to angels in their being, differing ranks, and functions.
I'm honestly not familiar enough with explicitly catholic dogma to give extensive commentary of catholic themes within the LOTR but parts of the Silmarrilion most notably could be shown as metaphor for the fall of lucifer (in Melkor) who became Satan (who became Morgoth).