Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on

Objectivism

Overview
Objectivism
Criticism

Principles
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Aesthetics

Further reading
Ayn Rand
On philosophy
Bibliography

Special Topics
On libertarianism
On homosexuality
Neo-Objectivism

Groups
The movement
Ayn Rand Institute
The Atlas Society
Branden Institute
The Collective
This box: view • talk • edit
Main article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has received much criticism from academic philosophers and other intellectuals. This article summarizes some of the criticisms of Objectivism.

The Objectivist movement has also been criticized, but this article focuses on the philosophy itself.

Contents

[edit] Background

Rand was very critical of the state of the academic fields of art, literature, and philosophy, and in return, her ideas have been largely ignored or harshly criticized by academics. Objectivism has been called "fiercely anti-academic,"[1] a collection of "non-mainstream philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.[2]

[edit] History of philosophy

In the title essay of an early compendium of her philosophical writing, For the New Intellectual,[3] Rand severely criticised much of the work of historical philosophers, including Plato, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Herbert Spencer. On numerous occasions she decried what she saw as the irrationality of the contemporary profession of academic philosophy. In her later book, Philosophy: Who Needs It,[4] she repeated and enlarged upon her criticisms of Kant, and also accused political theorist John Rawls of gross philosophical errors.

Rand has been accused of misinterpreting the works of many of the philosophers that she criticized.[5] In particular, there has been controversy over whether Rand's descriptions of Kant's ideas and motives were accurate.[6] According to Fred Seddon, author of Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy, Nathaniel Branden stated that she never read any of Kant's works.[7]

[edit] The Problem of Universals

Rand's claim to have solved the problem of universals has been disputed by critics. Scott Ryan asserts that Rand has misapprehended the problem; that the genuine problem of universals is an ontological issue regarding whether attributes are identically present in diverse contexts. Ryan claims there are exactly two answers: realism, which posits that some universals do exist, and nominalism, which claims they do not. Ryan says that no third way is possible, and Rand's discussion of concept-formation, which she proposed as her answer in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology[8], does not address this question.[9]

[edit] Theoretical content

Objectivism holds that reality exists independent from consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to.[10]

Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas, and Atlas Shrugged in particular, as sophomoric, preachy, and unoriginal,[11] and they have marginalized her philosophy.[12]

A notable exception to the general lack of attention paid to Rand in academic philosophy is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection, Socratic Puzzles..[13] Nozick is sympathetic to Rand's political conclusions, but does not think her arguments justify them. In particular, his essay criticizes her foundational argument in ethics—laid out most explicitly in her book The Virtue of Selfishness[14]—which claims that one's own life is, for each individual, the ultimate value because it makes all other values possible. Nozick says that to make this argument sound one needs to explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and thus having no values. Thus, he argues, her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is essentially an instance of begging the question. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory.

Louis P. Pojman claims that some of Objectivism's central claims are demonstrably false.[15]

[edit] Relevance

Raymond Boisvert, a philosophy professor at Siena College in Loudonville, has opined that Rand's theories are out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life.[16]

[edit] Cultism

Murray Rothbard[17], Jeff Walker[18] and Michael Shermer [19][20] have argued that Objectivism's claim "that there are objective truths and realities, particularly in the moral realm dealing with values"[20] contributes to manifestations of cultism that they found within the Objectivist movement, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrine and extreme adulation of the founder.

However, in response to one fan who had offered her cult-like allegiance, Rand declared, "A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult".[21] Rand's close associate, Mary Ann Sures, remarked:[22]

"Some critics have tried to turn her certainty into a desire on her part to be an authority in the bad sense, and they accuse her of be­ing dogmatic, of demand­ing unques­tion­ing agreement and blind loyalty. They have tried, but none successfully, to make her into the leader of a cult, and followers of her phi­los­o­phy into cultists who accept without think­ing everyth­ing she says. This is a most unjust accusa­tion; it’s real­ly perverse. Unques­tion­ing agreement is precise­ly what Ayn Rand did not want. She wanted you to think and act independently, not to accept conclusions because she said so, but because you reached them by us­ing your mind in an independent and firsthand manner. She was adamant about it: your conclusions should result from your observa­tions of reality and your think­ing, not hers. Now, she could help you along in that process, and, as we all know, she did. But she never wanted you to substitute her mind for yours."

[edit] Psychological criticism

Psychologists Albert Ellis and Nathaniel Branden have argued that adherence to Objectivism can result in hazardous psychological effects. They state that there are beneficial psychological effects as well, but that the potential hazards outweigh the benefits.[23][24]

[edit] References

  1. ^ McLemee, Scott (September 1999). The Heirs Of Ayn Rand: Has Objectivism Gone Subjective?. Retrieved on 2007-07-20.
  2. ^ Harvey, Benjamin. "Ayn Rand at 100: An 'ism' struts its stuff", Rutland Herald, 2005-05-15. Retrieved on 2007-07-20. 
  3. ^ Rand, Ayn (1961). "For the New Intellectual". Random House. 
  4. ^ Rand, Ayn (1982). "Philosophy: Who Needs It". Bobbs Merrill. ISBN 0-6725-2725-1. 
  5. ^ Seddon, Fred. Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy, University Press of America (2003), ISBN 0-7618-2308-5
  6. ^ Walsh, George (Fall 2000). "Ayn Rand and the Metaphysics of Kant". Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 2 (1). 
  7. ^ Seddon, Fred. Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy, University Press of America (2003), ISBN 0-7618-2308-5
  8. ^ Rand, Ayn (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded 2nd Edition. ISBN 0-452-01030-6. 
  9. ^ Ryan, Scott. Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality", Writers Club Press (2003), ISBN 0-595-26733-5
  10. ^ Peikoff, Leonard (1993). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Meridian. ISBN 978-0452011014. 
  11. ^ Tisdale, Sara Dabney (August 13), “A Celebration of Self”, U.S. News & World Report: p. 72 .
  12. ^ Karlin, Rick (August 26), “Ayn Rand Followers Push on Objectivists Reflect the Philosophy Found in 'The Fountainhead'”, The Times Union (Albany, NY): p. C1 .
  13. ^ Nozick, Robert, "On the Randian Argument," in Socratic Puzzles, Harvard University Press, 1997, pp. 249-264
  14. ^ Rand, Ayn (1964). "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism". New American Library.  With additional articles by Nathaniel Branden.
  15. ^ Louis P. Pojman, "Egoism and Altruism: A Critique of Ayn Rand," in The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, ed. Louis P. Pojman, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 580-587.
  16. ^ Karlin, Rick (August 26), “Ayn Rand Followers Push on Objectivists Reflect the Philosophy Found in 'The Fountainhead'”, The Times Union (Albany, NY): p. C1 .
  17. ^ Rothbard, Murray. "The sociology of the Ayn Rand cult.". Retrieved on 2006-03-31.
  18. ^ Walker, Jeff (1999). The Ayn Rand Cult. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0-8126-9390-6
  19. ^ Shermer, Michael. "The Unlikeliest Cult in History". Retrieved on 2006-03-30. Originally published in Skeptic vol. 2, no. 2, 1993, pp. 74-81.
  20. ^ a b Hudgins, Ed. "Out of Step: TNI's Interview with Michael Shermer". Originally published in The New Individualist vol. 10, nos. 1-2, 2007
  21. ^ Rand, Ayn Letters, p. 592 Letter dated December 10, 1961, Plume (1997), ISBN 0-452-27404-4, as cited in "Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ: Did Rand organize a cult?". Retrieved on 2006-06-25.
  22. ^ Sures, Mary Ann."Facets of Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Certainty". Retrieved on 2008-03-28.
  23. ^ Ellis, Albert. Is Objectivism a Religion? Lyle Stuart, New York 1968.
  24. ^ Branden, Nathaniel. "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.". Retrieved on 2008-04-08. Journal of Humanistic Psychology v.24, no. 4, pp.39-64.

See also the bibliography of work on Objectivism.

[edit] External links