Is objectivism idealistic, or the world around us makes it look like it is?

Objectivism is just mean-spiritedness put through the wash of ideology and idealism.

I'm an Objectivist, and I'm a heck of a nice guy, if I do say so myself. Enlighten yourself, Gregg, before you go around smearing people you don't know.

Ayn Rand was a beautiful spirit.

America is not capitalist. Our government gives huge sums to corporations. Also, the civil liberties that Ayn Rand defends are indeed being taken from us. She knew that we would always be exploited via sentimental appeals to the common good. Look behind the mask. Ayn Rand loved the Bill of Rights and so do I. Washington D.C. uses the Bill of Rights for toilet paper.

The real question is one of the society versus the individual. Objectivism makes a powerful argument on behalf of the individual, but from my reading of The Fountainhead it simply goes too far: dismissing the society entirely to me seems just counterproductive. Humans are social creatures and we live in groups. Reconciling that with our individual wishes, dreams and desires is at the core of living in the modern world.

On a personal level, Objectivism frees us from enslavement of opinions and standards of our peers... but, if we're not careful, at a great cost. Howard Roarke is a genius but he's not a particularly easy guy to be around.

On a political level, individualism is great but are we really against food stamps and anti-poverty programs? Never mind public education, environmental protection laws, etc. In this regard, I feel objectivism is a strong-willed but flawed ideology, if only because it doesn't acknowledge any middle ground.

With all due respect, Joe, you can't have a full understanding of the philosophy on an explicit level just by reading The Fountainhead. Have you read other books by Rand, in particular her non-fiction works which explain the details and principles of O'ism? (E.g., Philosophy: Who Needs It, or The Virtue of Selfishness.) Just so you know, I've read them all multiple times, and have been a "student of Objectivism" for almost twenty years now.

That people gain values from other people, and that our lives would be far less prosperous and enjoyable were we each just surviving alone on desert islands, is specifically acknowledged by Rand, and in fact embraced by her. She realizes that the society of others only multiplies and magnifies the capability of men to create values.

There is absolutely nothing "anti-social" about Rand's ideas. Rather, as you alluded to, her concern is largely (though not entirely) with freeing men from unjust bondage to one another, especially with regard to the largely self-imposed bondage of religious and/or secular altruism (the idea that an individual owes his existence to "the greater good", or "the less fortunate" - there is in fact no such debt). She figured out that the vast majority of people do not grasp on a fundamental level the implications of the ideas and values they accept. They don't see the contradictions which always (and necessarily) lead to the same sorts of conflicts, both internal and social, time after time after time.

And to answer your direct questions, yes, "we" Objectivists (I dare speak for all of us on these points) are most definitely against food stamps and anti-poverty programs when they are forced upon us by the government. That's slavery. If a person wants to be charitable, they are always free to be so in a free society, and that is their right (on a side note, some people claim that Rand was against charity in principle, but that is false). But for a gov't (or anyone else) to literally rob people via taxation in order to give away their money to "charitable" causes as the gov't sees fit, is nothing other than robbery/slavery.

There truly is no middle-ground between freedom and coercion. Either a man is free to own and direct himself and his actions, or someone else is "free" to coerce him to do things against his will. There can be no middle-ground there without making some men slaves to others.

Smearing objectivists as mean-spirited means the reader didn't read the book. One of the truths Ayn Rand stresses is that without economic freedom there is no freedom. I've been an objectivist since I was a teenager and have seen my daughter thru two liver transplants and I also volunteer to promote organ donation. No one would call me mean-spirited, but they might call me a wonderful mother. Those without an argument throw mud.

Since this is a discussion concerning "Objectivism", perhaps a definition from Rand herself would be helpful:

"Metaphysics: objective reality
Epistemology: reason
ethics: self-interest
Politics: Capitalism"

"1. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
2. You can't eat your cake and have it, too
3. Man is an end in himself (this is oddly Kantian, a philosopher she despised)
4. Give me liberty or give me death"

- Rand, The Voice of Reason;Introducing Objectivism,New American Library, 1988

Note: Based on the premise that there is an objective reality, we must use reason to survive/exist within that reality. Reason dictates that intentional choices create a kind of freedom that is only hindered by the reality that we live in. Self-interest becomes the mainstay ethic because each individual has the freedom to choose within a single objective reality that we must adhere to. Given these premises, the reasonable political/economic philosophy is one in which upholds individual freedoms; hence, a pure form of capitalism is created. Going backwards, limiting capitalism limits self-interest, which limits rationality (forcing mysticism in her terms), which goes against an objective reality.

First off, I'm no student of philosophy, I'm only 17. But what I took away from Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead is a worldview in which there's a small group of people that are smart, capable, and hard-working, and the rest of humanity is a parasite on them. Isn't that the premise of Atlas Shrugged? True, this isn't necessarily her complete philosophy, but I do think that she advocates a society of complete reason. Objectivity. I don't think any human society can do that, as our emotions are tied up in almost everything we do. In my view, there should be a balance between reason and emotion, with neither completly dominating.

Objectivism is a species of social Darwinism as advocated by Herbert Spencer. Desirabilty has an emotional component, so whether this proposed system appeals to you depends on your own psychological makeup and your personal feelings about other people. In other words, there's a subjective element to determining what counts as reason.

To the extent that it's a philosophy, Objectivism is very weak and mostly derivative. No philosophical system is immune from criticism. But because most Objectivists have little interest in any philosophy outside their own, it's more accurate to think of Objectivism as a worldview.

I cannot speak for Atlas Shrugged, but it's safe to say that The Fountainhead is literature, not philosophy. Many of Ayn Rand's ideas appear only obliquely or not at all in this book, and it presents no systematic philosophy. So to me, it is incorrect to classify the novel as philosophy or to think that a fully elaborated philosophical system has emerged from its pages.

Tyler:
You state: Objectivism is a species of social Darwinism as advocated by Herbert Spencer.
I think this is a strawman argument. Social Darwinism has no metaphysic, no epistemology, no ethic, and no politic. It is what is called descriptive concept of society, not a prescriptive philosophy. Furthermore, Ayn Rand was primarily a philosopher; Herbert Spencer was a sociologist and was not proposing social Darwinism, but simply describing what he considered as a reality.
You state: “Desirabilty has an emotional component, so whether this proposed system appeals to you depends on your own psychological makeup and your personal feelings about other people. In other words, there's a subjective element to determining what counts as reason.”
This sort of thinking was exactly what Rand was against. Desire is solely an emotional stance (based on happiness). Rand’s metaphysic is that there is an objective reality. The appeal that we might or might not have to that reality is of no consequence, i.e. our psychological makeup and personal feelings have absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality. Furthermore, you are right: there is a “subjective element to reasoning”. In fact, reasoning is totally subjective, but it the type of reasoning (rational or emotional) and the relationship between that reasoning that changes the quality of that reasoning. Rand’s (and my) stance is that reasoning must relate to an objective reality in a truthful way.

You state: To the extent that it's a philosophy, Objectivism is very weak and mostly derivative. No philosophical system is immune from criticism. But because most Objectivists have little interest in any philosophy outside their own, it's more accurate to think of Objectivism as a worldview.
To say that “Objectivism is very weak and derivative” is an opinion, one in which you are certainly entitled to. But again, I believe that you are relying upon emotional appeals rather than rational argumentation, a point that Rand in fact makes about the nature of most societies. You are right that “no philosophical system is immune from criticism”; that, in fact, is the nature of philosophy. But, criticism based on emotional appeals have no relationship to objective reality, no relationship to rational thought, no relationship to any useable moral, and no relationship to a utilitarian politic. As far as your comment that “Objectivism is a world view”, I don’t understand exactly what you mean. What is a “world view”?

You state: I cannot speak for Atlas Shrugged, but it's safe to say that The Fountainhead is literature, not philosophy. Many of Ayn Rand's ideas appear only obliquely or not at all in this book, and it presents no systematic philosophy. So to me, it is incorrect to classify the novel as philosophy or to think that a fully elaborated philosophical system has emerged from its pages.

Here, I believe that you are right: Literature is typically not philosophical by nature. But one counterexample can be used with F. Nietzsche. He is a philosopher that makes use of literary forms and style. However, as a novel, the author (Ayn Rand) claims, The Fountainhead draws from her philosophy. I do believe that a novel can have an underlying ethic, for example, and as such can make a philosophical statement, such as Rand’s novels do.
Mark

Hi Mark --

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter, but your post here is a bit long. Perhaps a better approach would be to discuss this in detail in the Atheist group, where a dedicated thread can take up the points you mention one by one. I'll be glad to explain there how I arrived at my thoughts on this matter. The group has at least one Ayn Rand supporter who might want to participate as well.

Hi Tyler:
I'd be interested in the group. Lead the way!
thnx.
m

Hi Mark -- There's a link to the group at the bottom of my profile.