|
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
I agree with you on this point, which is why I've diverged from Ayn Rand's ideas on economics and government.
I think we're pretty much in full agreement on the actual ideas, but we disagree on some definitions.
Objectivist metaphysics: basically, "reality exists independent of your perception and wishes". This is the bedrock of all the rest of her philosophy system. If you don't agree with this, the rest of the discussion isn't worth having.
Objectivist epistemology: Building on her metaphysical premises, this defines how people sense, perceive, and interact with reality and thought. There is an entire book on this topic, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, (it's dense but really interesting). The point of the book is that by perceiving reality and using our minds (especially logic and concepts), we can get to know reality. And knowing reality gives you control, as long as you follow the rules of reality ("nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed").
Objectivist morality: Building on the metaphysics and epistemology, she then defines the ideals that people should strive for. Which is summed up by "rational self-interest".
Her moral philosophy is stated as ideals, a personal code that you should try to live up to. But humans aren't perfect, so you also have to recognize that you're going to make mistakes, you're going to act irrationally sometimes, and sometimes even your concept of reality is wrong.
In our discussion, you're talking more about the study of human behavior/nature (and I agree with your observations). But just because people can act irrationally doesn't mean that they can't have goals to be less irrational.
Yeah, I agree.
|