My take down of the take down. I'm in bold, because I'm selfish like that. The numbering is off too, but I'm too lazy and self-righteous to fix it. You'll figure it out.
Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn’t work. Neither does a command-economy under a dictatorship, but try telling that to Kim Jung Il. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy. And, which, pray tell, political-economic system is not a utopian fantasy? Socialism? Mercantilism Communism? Fascism? They all strive for perfection, don't they? Some just suck at it more than others, which is the whole point of # 4 “The ideal political-economic system is Laissez-faire capitalism.” Its the ideal, see, because it doesn't suck as bad as all the others. And like all utopias, it cannot actually exist. Oh, ok, it's like unicorn poo. Therefore, as a philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it gets implemented in the real world, with all the real world’s inherent inconsistencies. Wait, you just said it cannot actually exist. Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession. The Mirriam-Webster's dictionary defines Laisses-faire as “a doctorine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum for maintenance of peace and property rights.” Is that what system we were under when we were led by Greenspan? During that time, did we really have NO governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum of peace....yada, yada yada? Isn't it at all possible government intervention and regulation had just a teensy weensy bit to do with the recession, too? Nah, course not. If only we had resisted the utopian fantasy of Laissez-faire and followed Greece and most of western Europe down the socialist path we could have avoided all this recession business like they have, right? What's that you say? Greece is screwed? Well, how in the world did that happen?
Reason has real-world limitations. While I’m all for valuing reason over superstition, the notion that one can use reason without emotion is science fiction. No, reason without emotion is science. You'll just have to trust me on this one. Maybe that works on the planet Vulcan, but human beings swim in a vast ocean of emotion. Emotion governs the “why” behind every exercise of reason, determining our choices of interest and intention. In the real world, people use reason as a way to buttress what their emotions desire. No, that's called making excuses or rationalizing, not reason.
Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case. Regardless of what you think of her philosophy and writing, Rand’s personal life was a complete shambles. She became involved in an adulterous affair with a disciple (a “reasonable” decision on her part, of course), and then went all “old bat of out hell” when he made the “reasonable” decision to start boinking some younger woman. The resulting emotional pyrotechnics were a perfect example of the impotence of Objectivism as a life creed. Nice ad hominem.
Her philosophy is devoid of gratitude. While individualism has some value, Objectivism largely discounts the fact the every successful person stands on the shoulders of those who have come before. In addition, success always involves an element of luck, often consisting of having had the luck to be born into a rich family with plenty of connections. Success devoid of gratitude and the noblesse oblige to help others brings out the worst in people. Ok.
Reality is NOT an objective absolute. There’s no way to tell whether reality is objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively. While it could be argued that the consensus of multiple subjective realities equals objective reality, the exact same logic would also assign objective reality to Jung’s archetypes, which appear inside every human being’s dreams. In any case, measuring something changes the thing measured, so simply perceiving “reality” changes the nature of reality. Therefore, so it can’t be absolute. What the hell is this guy talking about?
Howard Roark was a lousy architect. If Roark (the hero of Rand’s book The Fountainhead) wanted his “vision” to be his alone, he had no business getting other people to bankroll it. Instead, he should have done something like the Watts Towers, where he’d be responsible for every part of the project, including its construction. Large scale architecture is a collaborative venture that involves satisfying the desires and needs of the client. Good architects are expert at managing client expectations and working through creative differences. I haven't read The Fountainhead (or Atlas Shrugged) so I'm not familiar with Roark's professionalism. I do, however, know a little bit about the construction world, and I know that architects are usually in charge of the design of a project, not the construction of it. General Contractors are usually responsible for the actual construction. Funny enough, state licensing and regulations often determine who does what job.
Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears. Facts don't usually trump feelings, wishes, etc, but it can't hurt to subscribe to a philosophy that suggests we consider the facts and try to base decisions on them. As any sales professional knows, when dealing with human beings, facts ALWAYS run a distant fifth. That’s particularly true when dealing with people who are operating under the fantasy that their decisions are based upon “fact.” I've made decisions based on facts before. Some of them weren't the easiest choices, but they turned out to the best choices. Facts! Don't knock em till you try em. Emotion trumps reason every time, and nobody is easier to influence emotionally than those who are so unaware of that their emotions that they think they’re making “reasonable” decisions. How does any of this make Rand “dead wrong”?
Every man does NOT exist for his own sake. Careful, atheists won't like where you're going with this one. While Rand believed that pursuit of one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own happiness is his life’s moral purpose, the scientific fact is that man evolved as a communal creature, with bonds of family and community being tightly tied to health, happiness, longevity, and pretty much everything that makes life pleasurable. If communal bonds lead to health, happiness..and everything that makes life pleasurable then being a communal creature still serves ones own self-interest, does it not? Objectivism thus runs counter to demonstrable scientific fact.
Reading Rand creates instant jackasses. Obviously, this guy's read a lot of Rand. Anyone who’s been subjected to a friend who suddenly “discovers” Rand knows that reading her works causes people to act like selfish idiots. I “discovered” Rand in my Ethics class, but whatever. They combine a patina of “reason” over a self-righteous justification of whatever their “id” are we talking about Freud now? Man, this guy jumps around. happens to want at the time and then insist that they’re just pursuing their own self-interest. They also become incredibly boring, about on the level of a newly converted Scientologist. Dude, you're so cool. You're nothing like those Rand fans.
Rand is the CEOs’ favorite philosopher. Most CEOs already have CEO disease, which the medical profession defines as “the enlargement of the sphincter so that it covers the entire body, creating an overwhelming itch that can only be calmed by the frequent osculation of underlings.” Let’s face it: if there was ever an human ilk who don’t need a philosophy that drives them to be even more selfish, it’s the overpaid and overpampered CEOs of the world. Jealous much?
No comments:
Post a Comment