Caltrops - Biohazard: Code Veronica





	[quote name="Senor Barborito MetaFilter Post"]Sure. Off the top of my head, here are Objectivism's three primary flaws: 1) Assumption of an objective morality 2) Assumption that all economic transactions are zero-sum 3) Assumption of free will posted by Ryvar at 5:35 PM PST on January 20 [1 favorite] The most damning thing about Ayn Rand's philosophy is the way it appears in Atlas Shrugged. In that book, people are absolutely divided into two groups - the "men of the mind", and the "looters." All the achievers are impossibly competent, perfectly selfish one-dimensional caricatures all of whom possess extraordinary powers of creation and invention. All the looters are barely-sentient subhumans of no worth, no ability, and no motivations save base greed. [Spoiler] As an example of ridiculous these portraits become, at the end of Atlas Shrugged the looters - while torturing the protagonist - must rely upon him to fix their torture device for them which he does willingly in order to demonstrate both personal and ideological superiority. The primary problem with this viewpoint is that the stark contrast between the two groups paints an unrealistic and ultimately childish view of humanity. People come in all shades, and to despise charity so utterly speaks of an inability to empathize. Station is not determined by personal capability alone but rather a combination of factors including the events of one's life that are beyond control. The philosophy of Objectivism rests firmly on the position that all economic situations are zero-sum - that is, that one person's gain is another's loss. This denies the very real principle of (forgive the buzzword) synergy, in which multiple parties all receive a return beyond their expenditure of resources in a joint venture. The final major error in her philosophy is the ultimate denial of any interest other than self-interest being possible. Neither party in Atlas Shrugged demonstrates motivation outside of personal greed. For some reason this is 'noble' in the hands of the "men of the mind" but ignoble in the looters'. One would assume the reasoning here is that the "men of the mind" express their greed in what they create, whereas the "looters" express their greed in what they allow to decay. Collaboration for the true betterment of the whole is flatly ignored in favor of a choice between the false opposites presented in the book. This points towards Rand's childhood in Russia - supposedly the inspiration for her extreme anti-collectivist views - and the long-standing corruption inherent in the government of that country. I'm all for reason and atheism, but self-interest as the only possible greatest good is a cannard - as is the blanket assumption of free will. posted by Ryvar at 12:27 PM PST on October 7[/quote]