Indeed. But, on the plus side, at least the protagonists in her imaginary world are upstanding citizens who strive to create improvement in the world. Compare that to some of the baser elements in the ET community who use her "philosophy" to justify the shameless price gouging of victims of misfortune: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55042&perpage=6&pagenumber=5 Admittedly, extremists can pervert just about any doctrine to suit their purpose. However, it makes it so much easier when you start with an extreme philosophy.
There is nothing really wrong with her "Philosophy" imo, it is her ethics that are highly questionable. Perhaps you do not distinquish between the two. nitro
If that is the extent of the argument, then I would have to disagree. I'm not sure Rand was knowingly and intentionally "ethically challenged." It seems to me that she thought her philosophy would improve the world. Therefore, I am either on the fence or willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (on a good day) on the matter of her ethics. Apparently, she believed that everyone would benefit in the end if only they subscribed to her philosophy as presented. However, I agree with Ricter who correctly pointed out the matter of unintended consequences and the fact that Rand evidently did not make allowances for them. The ideal world she envisions is one filled with decent, upstanding citizens. Although she speaks of the virtues of selfishness and so on, you will note that the protagonists in her novel are righteous folk. Unfortunately, there is a sizeable element among us who will interpret Rand's ideals far beyond the scope of her intentions (think WorldCom, Enron, etc., ad infinitum). You need look no further than the cast of characters here at ET to find some people who genuinely but erroneously believe that they are Rand devotees: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55042&perpage=6&pagenumber=1 Therefore, I think that her philosophy is flawed because, as I noted in an earlier post to this thread, it is not workable in the real world for the same reason that Marx's philosophy would not work. Both premises overlook human nature in one way or another. So I will be a nice guy and conclude that Rand was probably well-intentioned but hopelessly naive. Because there is a sizeable contingent of malevolence in this world, I think that the free reign she proposed would cause us to eventually revert to the laws of the jungle. I doubt that this was her intention. Consequently, nitro, my conclusion is the exact opposite of yours.
Many of the greatest traders of all time are objectivists, Mr. Thunder Dog. What is it that you don't understand? Michael
I suggest that instead of trying to discover the problems or falsity of Objectivism on ET, where my guess is that one in a thousand people have read more than two books on Philosophy, is to go to alt.philosophy newsgroup and read what students and professional Philosophers have to say about it. In response to your question/remarks, here is a good place to start: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html There are many links embedded within that link that may interest you. nitro
I think the simplest evaluation of the practicality of Rand's philosophy is to examine the economics writer of her Objectivist Newsletter in the early 1960s. In his later life, did he uphold the idea that noone has the right to take what's yours 'for society' That nobody has the right to exert undue influence in your choices 'for society'? (her writer was Alan Greenspan) If her ideas couldnt even influnce the guy who wrote her newsletters, really what good are they?????
Thank you for the interesting link. I will have a closer look at it when time permits. However, please note that my critique of objectivism as a viable, workable philosophy was drawn quite independently of ET. I try to do my own thinking. I merely used a few convenient examples from ET to illustrate what I consider to be the philosophy's flaws when introduced to the real world. The real world is the arena in which any philosophy or economic model must pass muster, otherwise it is little more than a pipe dream. I don't think that Rand's dream, as intended, is any more workable than Marx's, for the simple reason that both overlook a large component of human nature, which tends to operate beyond the scope of both dreamers' rather narrow scripts. Both "models" collapse under the weight of their own faulty assumptions.