I agree about finding an easy way to debate this if you are willing. I am. I would find it interesting to see how you came to your conclusions.
So let me try and present my general objection. None of this is intended to be personal.
One thing that separates a follower from a thinker, is if one get upset with attacks on their philosophy or mentors. For myself, you can attack anyone or anything I say and it will not affect me at all. To me they are just ideas and all flawed. The best we humans can do is identify bits and pieces of the larger reality
Even the greatest thinkers jsut have bits and pieces of the truth. so for Rand to claim she has figured out a total system of truth is silly.
Science does not believe in any objective reality. Everything is relative. Just put on a pair of rose colored glasses and see how things look differently. And I never found even one great thinker that is considered to have a total package of understanding. That is impossible.
I have found many great, leading edge, thinkers like Plato, Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell Aldous Huxley (heck all the Huxleys-lol) and all any of them have are great ideas.
But the ONLY place I find people who think they know it all, are in religions or cults.
Below I will address some of your points. My comments will begin and end with << >>
<<The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics Objective Reality - << there is no objective reality>>
Epistemology Reason - << her logic breaks down right here when you say on the one hand "nature must be obeyed and then say man is an end in himself"
<<The nature of man is as a social animal. In ancient times, a man alone was killed by the wild animals. Only a man in a tribe could survive. To be banished from the tribe usually meant death>>
Ethics Self-interest << So you would not have helped the people being slaughtered by Hitler?>> I would have risked my life to do so.
Politics Capitalism - << I am a Keynsian-lol.
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” << We can command nature quite easily>> Nature may tell me to kill, but I can decide not to.
2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” <<don't even know what that means?>>
3. “Man is an end in himself.” << Man is a pack animal>>
4. “Give me liberty or give me death.” <<Liberty is a relative concpet>> Should we not have stop lights for cars?
One last point for now. You state
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
<<In quantum physics, test after test (double slit experiment) has proven beond a doubt that the observation of the individual affects whatever they observe and maybe even the entire universe. And that one can never know anything for sure.
This was the biggest debate of the last century. Einstein said "god does not play dice with the universe", and the quantum folks proved not only does god play dice with the universe, but he does it in the dark"
Einstein condeded in the end.>>
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co. |
