Objectivism's fatal paradox

[cmdr_zoom]

One who attempts to actually practice Objectivism, rather than merely examine or admire it as a theoretical construct, must believe in something quite remarkable: a completely rational, objective, and unsentimental human being who holds no counterfactual beliefs (for example, "cigarettes are good for you" and its close relative "I'm not an addict"). Such perfect beings have never existed outside of fiction and myth, and anyone who believes themselves an example of the type is a victim of self-delusion.

A practicing Objectivist, then, is guilty of one of that philosophy's cardinal sins: of seeing the world as they wish it to be, rather than how it truly is. A is A, for suitable values of a.

How sad: yet another promising -ism broken on the rocks of how humans actually behave. (Very few make it past those treacherous shoals.)

Comments

[silrayan.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I don't know all the details about it yet, but I'm reading The Fountainhead right now and, as much as I like the book, I'm finding it difficult to understand how someone can actually LIVE by Objectivism.

so...

[sinapus.livejournal.com]

...do they vanish in a puff of logic after being told that?

Re: so...

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

Usually I have to beat them over the head with a wrench (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioshock) first.

[pyromaniac-ks.livejournal.com]

Alas, true. Most philosophies, strive though they might for an ideal, find the reality of humanity an insurmountable barrier.

Even this aside, Objectivism fails fairly badly at the first hurdle by assuming that you can operate based on an objective view of the truth, whatever this may be. This is inadvisable in a philosophical system, as noone is still entirely sure how to define a true fact yet in a manner that can't be immediately undermined by any number of sceptical (or otherwise) arguments. The tripartite definition is generally commonly accepted one, but this has, ah, somewhat loose wording, that opens it up to all kinds of problems. (For some fun with this, go look up the Gettier problem)

As appealing as the idea of Reason being capable of dealing with any problem is ([insert Snow Crash joke here]), it just falls down when it runs into reality.

There is, of course, an argument that The Ideal Objectivist is just that, an Ideal, and therefore by definition unattainable. The Point being to strive to reach it. I don't really like this argument very much, myself. But I recognise that it's a good way of reconciling the philosophy with reality. (Although this is true of most philosophies)

So yeah. Overall, not particularly impressed. Might merit further reading, but I'm not converting any time soon.

(Existentialism: It works, bitches.)