Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent_Grey
no no, I obviously wasn't suggesting they were quotes, but they are the inevitable result of ascribing to her phillosophy. She only showcases how her approach works in situations where it is already a given. If you start applying her phillosophy to more down-to-earth aspects of modern living, you come across some rather disturbing conclusions about how you should view the world:
Believing that everybody with a functioning mind will agree with you.
Believing that anybody who doesn't agree with you must consequently not have a functioning mind.
Believing that some people are inherently better than others.
Believing that these people are allowed to rule and "create" with no restrictions whatsoever.
Believing that some people are inherently worse than others.
Believing that the best thing those can do other than idly sitting around is being serfs to the better people.
Believing that everything that has not been created by humans is free for unlimited consumption by everyone.
Now, to put the burden of proof back on your understanding of Objectivism/Altruistic Egoism, what about Ayn Rand phillosophy shows that she disagreed with these conclusions?
|
She didn't give a damn who agreed with whom. Only that those who disagree with you don't impose their views onto yours. I might be of the opinion that if you disagree with me, you don't have a functioning mind, but I can't DO anything about that.
There was no "inherent superiority" implied in her philosophy. She thought that the best situation would be when people recognize talent and don't try to argue with results. Her whole philosophy is that if I am a competent teacher, a bureaucrat shouldn't come in and try to tell me how to teach, especially when I am already showing success. If I show some success, but am not wholly successful (for instance, there's a teacher who regularly outperforms me), then it should be another teacher that I emulate, not a bureaucrat. Perhaps that means that the bureaucrat should recognize my "inherent superiority," but only in the arena of teaching. Similarly, I wouldn't try to outshine the bureaucrat in navigating the bureaucracy, not if he is consistently successful at it. If that's recognizing my "inherent inferiority," so be it; it's only in that particular arena. Furthermore, even "inherently superior" people do NOT have the right to enslave "inherently inferior" people. However, the inferior do not have the right to place demands on the superior, either.
The whole serf idea is patently ridiculous. Rand believed that everyone should be entitled to enter into a working relationship with anyone of their choosing. In her ideal world, competent people would prefer to work with and for other competent people. In her ideal world, the boss would be more competent than those who work under him/her. What a revolutionary idea! That the ladder of success is populated according to MERIT!
The whole idea of unlimited consumption of natural resources is where you have a point. She lamely tried, in one of her books, to predict that by the time some resources run out, innovative humans WILL have invented alternative sources. Well, that may or may not happen. It's the one time that I thought she was unreasonably optimistic. I think, in the name of
rational self-interest, we should conserve resources as much as possible.