[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

[jademunky]

A fair point, but it wasn't just abilities for the main characters. The main guy was the scion of the two most powerful wizard families on the planet, and the main female was the most feared engineered magical weapon in that world. A little more monarchial 'divine right' than Atlas Shrugged would be comfortable with I think.

The dude was also a prophecised messianic chosen-one as well. Like any good Randian protagonist.

 

[warmachine]

Objectivism is regarded as naive because it can't handle basic problems and Rand largely claimed they're not really problems. Consider the Tragedy of the Commons. Rand probably claimed everything's privately owned, so there's no commons. Alas, no one owns the sea or the fish in them, so anyone can fish as much as they like. Until fishing areas become over-fished and crash. Randians would probably claim it's in no one's rational self-interest to crash fishing stocks. Never mind someone over-fishing to make as much short term profit as possible then walking away, this happened with Atlantic northwest cod in the 90's anyway and still hasn't recovered. Because lots of people are irrational, selfish assholes and a political philosophy that doesn't take into account pervasive irrationality is a joke.

 

[Marik2]

I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.




Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

From what I remember, he was smuggling Rapture tech and bringing bibles to the city.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Randian philosophies don't work because it's impossible to structure a society around everyone being a selfish dirtbag. Only a small percentage of people can be selfish dirtbags until society breaks down completely. People who follow Ayn Rand don't understand that they can only take advantage of their philosophy if no one else does, and if everyone follows their philosophy then it won't work.

Imagine a line at a grocery store. Someone cuts in line. The person who cut in line would be a Randian, they're too important to waste their time with your stupid social norms. Everyone in line grumbles and is annoyed, but the line continues moving.

Now imagine if everyone is a Randian and everyone wants to cut to the front of the line. Does the line move? Nope. If everyone is constantly trying to cut to the front of the line then no one ever gets to pay for their groceries and leave.

Any philosophy that completely stops working if too many people adopt it is a bullshit philosophy.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

 

[Seanchaidh]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

 

[TrulyBritish]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

 

[Seanchaidh]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

 

[Trunkage]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

There's an economist called Russ Roberts at Stanford. He commonly met CEOs that profess to love Capitalism but, somehow, always find some proof that their particular business should receive an exemption Capitalism ravages.

 

[Seanchaidh]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

So Rapture was run like a capitalist enterprise, then?

Sort of, yeah. One of the basic themes of the game was that for all of Ryan's talk about free expression and not being held back by the state/morals/whatever, the man was only really comfortable with a civilisation that followed his rules. I seem to remember there being some kind of post who had been writing subversive anti-ryan songs or something in Rapture. Calling her a dangerous parasite, Ryan had his secret police murder her. And as mentioned by others in this thread, when objectivism got in the way of Ryan's power, he was happy to ignore it to shore up his own interests. Which by the sounds of it, wasn't all that different from what Rand herself did.

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

There's an economist called Russ Roberts at Stanford. He commonly met CEOs that profess to love Capitalism but, somehow, always find some proof that their particular business should receive an exemption Capitalism ravages.

And, naturally, their particular business is what they have control of and what they lobby the government about (or in the absence of government, it would be the primary sphere over which their "security service" enforces their will). This is why you'll never see a "pure" capitalism that measures up to the expectations of its ideology for anything more than a moment in time, if even that: it's neither in the interest of the mass of people nor a particularly expedient way for the ruling class to pursue their aims. Why compete when you can collude and/or monopolize? Why bargain when you can enforce? Why deal with market distribution when you can simply own all the moving parts? Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.

 

[Trunkage]

Ideologies that celebrate capitalism are typically only useful to capitalists when others believe them. They exist to justify existing inequality, not guide the actions of the ruling class. In much the same way, the divine right of kings and the great chain of being was of no particular help to monarchs except insofar as their subjects believed it made their rule legitimate. Ruling classes start to have problems when they believe their own bullshit.

There's an economist called Russ Roberts at Stanford. He commonly met CEOs that profess to love Capitalism but, somehow, always find some proof that their particular business should receive an exemption Capitalism ravages.[/quote]

And, naturally, their particular business is what they have control of and what they lobby the government about (or in the absence of government, it would be the primary sphere over which their "security service" enforces their will). This is why you'll never see a "pure" capitalism that measures up to the expectations of its ideology for anything more than a moment in time, if even that: it's neither in the interest of the mass of people nor a particularly expedient way for the ruling class to pursue their aims. Why compete when you can collude and/or monopolize? Why bargain when you can enforce? Why deal with market distribution when you can simply own all the moving parts? Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.[/quote] What's that quote about Communism going against human nature? Same applies to Capitalism. Once you realise how Utopian Capitalists are, i.e. almost as bad as Marx, you can never go back

 

[Agema]

Capitalists will violate the constraints of capitalist ideology because it is both in their interests and within their power; they will rig the system because they can.

The fundamental tension is that what we generally mean by a "capitalist" is a businessman or investor, who has the primary goal of making money rather than enacting mode idealised capitalism. Your average ideological capitalist who will see capitalism as the highest principle will be an economist, philosopher, politician or some other form of ideologue who isn't first and foremost in the business of making money. The former type of capitalist, obviously, wants to cherry pick capitalism when it's useful to them and sponge off the state or rig the system when it's useful to them. And that former variety, because they've got the money and money is power, speak loudest.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

I think you've hit the main problem already.

Who is a "special and talented" person? Or, more importantly, how can we know who is a special and talented person?

Because Rand primarily wrote novels, she can mostly avoid answering this question, because the situation she presents us with are so black and white that it's always obvious who the special and exceptional people are. Rand's novels are essentially all superhero stories about enlightened supermen inventing magical technology using only the power of their superior brains. If they succeed, it's always becuase they deserve to. They did everything themselves, created things themselves. There are no inconvenient questions about how they were educated, or how they had the money and time to waste inventing things rather than getting a real job. They pop into existence at the beginning of the novel fully formed and with everything they need to go and be #special and #talented.

But that's not actually how capitalism works.

In the real world, noone is born special and talented. Real people require a lot of help getting to the point where their talents are great enough to be recognized. They have to be educated, they need time to practice and develop. They need to be kept healthy both physically and emotionally. Even as adults, once they are coming into their talents, they need a community to support them. Real architects do not just create a personal style from thin air, they study and build on the work of other architects and movements. Real material scientists do not single handedly create wonder-metal in their basements one day while also managing their own company, they are usually one small part of a much bigger operation, as well as a scientific community. In the real world, becoming an architect or material scientist isn't a matter of just having abstract "talent". You need to have the money and the time to develop. You need people to do the work of training you, and if you don't have those things.. well.. hope you like flipping burgers.

Rand uses fiction to present us with a world where not only does individualism and egoism work, but they also just coincidentally happen to be perfectly expressed by unregulated capitalism. We don't see the Howard Roarks or Hank Reardens who ended up flipping burgers, and thus we can pretend they don't exist. In the real world, however, they do.

If you want a philosopher who talks about conformity and egoism, but actually has something interesting to say about the state of modernity and the danger of nihilism which makes that belief in egoism justified, read Nietzsche. If you're a rich white dude looking for validation that the system you live in and the advantages you've been accorded are no less than you deserve and that the smelly poors just aren't as special or talented as you are, read Rand, and keep dreaming..

Masters require slaves.
Slaves do not require masters.
Who is stronger?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

It's really not the philosophy itself, but rather, what comes with it ... change.

People are afraid of change, even if it serves to be harmless. Because change can dramatically impact someone's way of living comfortably, or thinking, or their control on their own reality. Basically, if it's not in the norm and isn't universally accepted, it can be taken into a negative aspect.

As for the actual substance in the philosophy we're talking about? It could also do with the fact people abuse when in power. That's kind of why society, whether it's a democracy, communism, anything ... humanity and free will complicates things all the time. Even those in charge aren't going to always follow their own principles, hence why corruption happens.

More specifically, people are adverse to change when it means a worse lifestyle or lower standards. Change has many faces since it, well, changes from person to person.

But yeah, human nature?s tendency is to seek power and control as an unfortunate side effect of the desire for security and comfort.

The Buddhist monks pretty much have it right, by simply disregarding all that fluff and being more in tune with the natural world.

 

[warmachine]

I could be misremembering this but for an author who claims her philosophy is ultra-rational, the heroes in Atlas Shrugged did irrational things, such as the heroine's dismissal of Rearden Metal's long term safety concerns. She states she's seen the tests but, as a new material, there are no long term tests. No further justification, such as an acceptable risk, especially with chronic steel shortages, just that she's seen test results that can only be short term.

Also, Hank Rearden runs into an infamous pirate, who gives him money equivalent to all his income tax. Never mind how the government is supposed to maintain a defensive army without tax revenue, Rearden states he'll rat on the pirate the first chance he gets, then the police walk in looking for said pirate in the vicinity and Rearden states he hasn't seen any pirate, even claiming the pirate is his bodyguard. Never mind the police not recognising the man they're hunting, Rearden changes his mind with no explanation.

Now, everyone makes mistakes but, for what's supposed to be a philosophical essay, they're big mistakes. Never mind the technology pulled out the ass dimension, or the ability to create a persistent 'Who is John Galt?' meme but not take over, or an entire working class incapable of doing their own job, Rand can't claim she's ultra-rational.

 

[Agema]

But yeah, human nature?s tendency is to seek power and control as an unfortunate side effect of the desire for security and comfort.

The Buddhist monks pretty much have it right, by simply disregarding all that fluff and being more in tune with the natural world.

My feeling from over the years is that if you choose to measure yourself by external factors (achievement, wealth, power, etc.) chances are you're going to be less happy. Imagine a teacher - if he or she should to measure their success by the grades of their students, the are always hostage to their students, circumstances and fate. That teacher might be better seeking reward in the process of teaching, or "did I do the best job I could have teaching these students".

However, I'm not sure the people who run society particularly like this sort of thinking. I suspect a lot of people who climb to the top are extremely interested in external reward (even if it is ultimately an illusory joy that can never fill the black hole of need in their psyche). It was seeking that validation that gave them the ambition to get there. From their lofty perch, they then set the example for others and pass their external validations onto everyone else in the form of demands, targets and so on.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 19 at my dad's suggestion. He didn't give me a reason why I should read it or what I should think of it; I think I must have expressed some dissatisfaction with the way America worked, and he said "here, read this and think about it." I should ask him now what his purpose was in doing that...

Anyway, I thought at the time that it was a fascinating examination of the weaknesses of socialism and the virtue of selfishness. Now, I was an angsty 19 year old loner who always thought I was somehow better than most people because I was smart and unconcerned with popular pursuits, i.e., making friends, getting drunk at parties, having sex, etc. I gravitated toward the concept that everyone should have what they deserve. Those who are willing to work harder should have more; those who want to screw around and have fun should be left at the bottom. It sounded fair to me. Everyone gets back what they put in, and working for your own betterment results in a lot of better people.

Getting older gradually disabused me of those simplistic ideas, and also the attitude that I was inherently better than other people and thus deserved to be selfish. But what I really want to add to this thread is something I haven't seen mentioned yet, and constitutes another flaw in Objectivist ideology: the premise that motivated self-interest is good for society is based on the unspoken assumption that everyone actually knows what their own self-interest is.

When I really decided that Objectivism wasn't reasonable was when I realized that people are short-sighted and easily distracted, and can't always tell what they need and what is good for them. If I feel like eating deep-fried Oreos for dinner is a good idea and do that all the time because, hey, I'm an Objectivist and I should do what's best for me, eventually it will turn out that doing that was NOT best for me and I will be a sick, unhealthy drain on society. People make bad, foolish, destructive decisions all the time with the intention of helping themselves, but because we are so often irrational and reactionary and impulsive, our selfishness hurts not only others but ourselves as well. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

So exactly our world right now?...

 

[Agema]

When I really decided that Objectivism wasn't reasonable was when I realized that people are short-sighted and easily distracted, and can't always tell what they need and what is good for them. If I feel like eating deep-fried Oreos for dinner is a good idea and do that all the time because, hey, I'm an Objectivist and I should do what's best for me, eventually it will turn out that doing that was NOT best for me and I will be a sick, unhealthy drain on society. People make bad, foolish, destructive decisions all the time with the intention of helping themselves, but because we are so often irrational and reactionary and impulsive, our selfishness hurts not only others but ourselves as well. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

Yes, you've identified another major problem with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not understand human nature and psychology. In fact, her one-time intellectual heir, Nathaniel Branden, eventually went his separate way in large part because he was a psychologist, and realised Objectivism had incompatibities with how he understood humans to be.

Rand argues that humans are intrinsically rational creatures. She's just dead wrong - so we know from neuroscience and psychology. But my experience of Objectivists is that because they believe Objectivism is irrefutable logical proof, that trumps science [footnote]I once had an argument with an Objectivist who said dogs must not have volition irrespective of what animal behaviour experiments show, because Rand said they don't and that's that.[/footnote]. So where Objectivist reasoning and science come into conflict, Objectivism wins. Personally, I say when your reasoning parts company with observable reality, your reasoning is at fault. We know that the portion of the human brain dedicated to conscious thought is relatively small and with modest processing power, and there's plenty evidence that it's often not the driver, but a passenger in our thoughts. The unconscious mind makes a decision, and the conscious mind pops along shortly after to try to make sense of it. And that's even without going into all sorts of cognitive biases we're probably not aware of, never mind the simple fact of sometimes just being wrong. At best, Objectivism should argue we should strive to maximise rational thinking (and perhaps some Objectivist-lite types have taken that route), but it goes much further, erroneously.

And whilst we're on Atlas Shrugged:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old?s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I find that quote particularly apt, because the aforementioned Branden, after his exile from the Rand cult, spent plenty of time giving therapy to (ex-?)Objectivists who found themselves unhappy and frustrated because they couldn't live up to the unrealistic expectations.

 

[Trunkage]

. Trying to build a society on self-interest motives would only lead to a civilization of self-destructive fools making themselves fat and stupid because it feels good.

So exactly our world right now?...

Well, we have a bunch of laws and regulations to try and curb this self-destruction. But a lot of leaders will be corrupt and make laws that are self-destructive.

Lastly, no one can predict everything. Even if you had the most perfect laws, doesn't mean someone won't find a loophole