Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.09 AVERAGE
3.09 AVERAGE
Note: Objectivism is deeply anti-Christianity, and anti-religion in general. You should not trust a politician that claims that he is both a Christian and a believer in the philosophies of Ayn Rand. He does not understand either Christianity or Objectivism, or possibly both, or he's a huge liar.
That said, this book isn't really what it sounds like. It's a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathanial Branden that are not pro-heathenism per se. Rand and Branden try to explain how the philosophy of objectivism is that individuals need to think through their own rational system of morals and ethics. That's a good start. The problem is that a lot of the points in Rand's essays are either not logically sound or based on incorrect premises. (And I was pretty bored by Branden's sycophantic essays.) It's like swimming through mud.
For one thing, Rand refers a great deal to biological examples, and she repeatedly gets biology wrong. Obviously, she's not a biological scientist, and we know more today about biology than in the 1960s, but she premises her ethics arguments on the natural world- and her basis is incorrect. She believes that living creatures are driven primarily by continuing to live- that life (and the avoidance of pain) is the fundamental value of the natural world. That's only sort of true. The natural world is more driven by reproduction which means that animals regularly act on behalf of other related animals. Even on a cellular level there's the theory now that mitochondria used to be a separate free-living organism that combined with other organisms (endosymbiosis theory). Her idea that humans are emotionally and ethically tabula rasa when they are born isn't scientifically supported either. These are just a few examples, she gets a number of her points about science and animals either factually wrong or logically wrong. It reminds me of the absurd co-opting of evolutionary principals for political "Social Darwinism" nonsense.
As for her logical failures, (though I'm sure that some American Republicans agree with her) she makes no rational distinction between armed robbery, confiscation of all your property in a communist system, and taxation. She makes no distinction between altruism generally and complete self-sacrifice. Her views on love collapse into such total nonsense that arguing against them would require an entire treatise. She also incorrectly predicted many of the results of capitalism so this makes her arguments for unhindered capitalism look obviously foolish.
I do appreciate her condemnation of people's failure to engage in the pursuit of knowledge and reason. I also enjoyed her condemnation of communism.
That said, this book isn't really what it sounds like. It's a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathanial Branden that are not pro-heathenism per se. Rand and Branden try to explain how the philosophy of objectivism is that individuals need to think through their own rational system of morals and ethics. That's a good start. The problem is that a lot of the points in Rand's essays are either not logically sound or based on incorrect premises. (And I was pretty bored by Branden's sycophantic essays.) It's like swimming through mud.
For one thing, Rand refers a great deal to biological examples, and she repeatedly gets biology wrong. Obviously, she's not a biological scientist, and we know more today about biology than in the 1960s, but she premises her ethics arguments on the natural world- and her basis is incorrect. She believes that living creatures are driven primarily by continuing to live- that life (and the avoidance of pain) is the fundamental value of the natural world. That's only sort of true. The natural world is more driven by reproduction which means that animals regularly act on behalf of other related animals. Even on a cellular level there's the theory now that mitochondria used to be a separate free-living organism that combined with other organisms (endosymbiosis theory). Her idea that humans are emotionally and ethically tabula rasa when they are born isn't scientifically supported either. These are just a few examples, she gets a number of her points about science and animals either factually wrong or logically wrong. It reminds me of the absurd co-opting of evolutionary principals for political "Social Darwinism" nonsense.
As for her logical failures, (though I'm sure that some American Republicans agree with her) she makes no rational distinction between armed robbery, confiscation of all your property in a communist system, and taxation. She makes no distinction between altruism generally and complete self-sacrifice. Her views on love collapse into such total nonsense that arguing against them would require an entire treatise. She also incorrectly predicted many of the results of capitalism so this makes her arguments for unhindered capitalism look obviously foolish.
I do appreciate her condemnation of people's failure to engage in the pursuit of knowledge and reason. I also enjoyed her condemnation of communism.
There are lots of issues with this collection of essays. Not the least of which is the way the classic is/ought distinction is discarded within the first ten pages of the book.
It takes some hubris to dismiss a problem that has plagued philosophers for millennia. Furthermore, the way its dismissed amounts to little more than an argument from nature. So much for owing anything to Aristotle.
But that leads us to the next issue: the way Ayn Rand removes humanity from its natural context.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing from an anatural stance (see aforementioned argument from nature), but the way Miss. Rand goes about it is an outright denial of Man's naturalistic context. Arguing any philosophy out of this point takes skill and careful argumentation. Neither of which are displayed by Rand.
Third issue is the general mischaracterization of Rand's ideological opponents, pretty much amounting to sheer strawmaning. Something which is only made worse by the prevalent, unknown "other" that is said ideological opponents, since almost non of the opponents are named or cited. And the ones that are named are understood poorly and non of their actual work is quoted or referenced.
Fourth issue is the assumption that humans only affect one another through voluntary means or through illegitimate coercion. This dichotomy is not argued for, nor does it seem like a reasonable thing to assume. Humans aren't solitary islands that only meet once the parties agree to do so. We all affect each other through more or less direct means all the time.
Fifth, and last, issue is that it bases its deontological approach to ethics on an increasingly diffuse notion of "reason". There's no justification as to what reason is, why reason is objective nor if reason is a subject onto itself.
It's a part of a larger negation of meta-philosophical questions and just one step on Ayn Rand's removal of objectivism from the larger pantheon of philosophy and ideas. For an outsider, this mainly reads as an inability to engage with the larger ideological zeitgeist, rather than rejection of the need to engage. Essentially, Ayn Rand wants to define objectivism only in reference to itself, simply because anything else would lead to its destruction.
It takes some hubris to dismiss a problem that has plagued philosophers for millennia. Furthermore, the way its dismissed amounts to little more than an argument from nature. So much for owing anything to Aristotle.
But that leads us to the next issue: the way Ayn Rand removes humanity from its natural context.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing from an anatural stance (see aforementioned argument from nature), but the way Miss. Rand goes about it is an outright denial of Man's naturalistic context. Arguing any philosophy out of this point takes skill and careful argumentation. Neither of which are displayed by Rand.
Third issue is the general mischaracterization of Rand's ideological opponents, pretty much amounting to sheer strawmaning. Something which is only made worse by the prevalent, unknown "other" that is said ideological opponents, since almost non of the opponents are named or cited. And the ones that are named are understood poorly and non of their actual work is quoted or referenced.
Fourth issue is the assumption that humans only affect one another through voluntary means or through illegitimate coercion. This dichotomy is not argued for, nor does it seem like a reasonable thing to assume. Humans aren't solitary islands that only meet once the parties agree to do so. We all affect each other through more or less direct means all the time.
Fifth, and last, issue is that it bases its deontological approach to ethics on an increasingly diffuse notion of "reason". There's no justification as to what reason is, why reason is objective nor if reason is a subject onto itself.
It's a part of a larger negation of meta-philosophical questions and just one step on Ayn Rand's removal of objectivism from the larger pantheon of philosophy and ideas. For an outsider, this mainly reads as an inability to engage with the larger ideological zeitgeist, rather than rejection of the need to engage. Essentially, Ayn Rand wants to define objectivism only in reference to itself, simply because anything else would lead to its destruction.
This book was basically a series of bullshit essays by both Ayn Rand and [a:Nathaniel Branden|1333|Nathaniel Branden|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1193554452p2/1333.jpg]. I found it amazing that these people could have all the same opinions as I do, such as slavery, racism, and crime are bad, yet come to completely different conclusions about why people do bad things or how we should go about fixing them. Rand's opinion is that the world has become an evil hellish place because of liberals, altruists, and socialism. And a truly capitalist society with true free trade, is the only way to make the world better again. And if you want my opinion on this, just completely reverse the meaning of the words in the last two sentences.
I'm really glad I read this though. It was a group read pick for the Altruism theme over at Bookish and I wanted to read it as an opposing opinion to my other pick for this theme, [b:The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness|7994650|The Price of Altruism George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness|Oren Harman|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1286281459s/7994650.jpg|12488437].
I'm really glad I read this though. It was a group read pick for the Altruism theme over at Bookish and I wanted to read it as an opposing opinion to my other pick for this theme, [b:The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness|7994650|The Price of Altruism George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness|Oren Harman|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1286281459s/7994650.jpg|12488437].