Owing to time constraints and hard keyboard this is just a short speculative post.
I am also biased against indiviualism, which shows.
Writings of Ayn Rand exert a tremenous influence on popular discourse. One of USP that is advertised by the adherents of objectivism is that it resolves the dilemma behind ethics and morality without invoking the God, yet is that the case ?
The main premise or assumption behind objectivism is phenomenan of existence as self-evident.
Yet existence is closely related with awareness. Therefore as far as objectivism, faculty of self awarness is given and any inquiry on it as unnecessary. This is in contradiction of reason deduction and hence it completely bypasses the first requirement for philosophy. At this point I am convinced that objectivism lacks the merit.
However as Ayn Rand wrote
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"
Considering reason to be a folly, is it possible that objectivism to be source of civilization.
There are two primary assertions of objectivism.
1. The noblest goal of a man is creation.
2. The advancement of civilization is marked by its commitment to indiviualism.
Problem with thiese assertions is that for Ayn Rand creation had any meaning in context of capitalism, that is material production. And yet it is far from obvious (infact it is in direct contradiction of history), that the pursuit of wealth is the sole underlying motive behind civilization. Similarly it is far from clear that self interest can alone account for transactions in a stable society.
Therefore objectivism as a system firmly belonging to atheism doesn't provide the sufficient answers.
Sunday, October 22, 2006