Political Idealism, Time to Give Up?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Political Idealism, Time to Give Up? » Political Idealism, Time to Give Up?

Political Idealism, Time to Give Up?

Political Idealism, Time to Give Up?

theidleantichrist
The Idle Anti-Christ

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:23 AM: Subject: Political Idealism, Time to Give Up?	#1
I first picked up Ayn Rand’s more famous novel, “Atlas Shrugged” after finding a link between it and a video-game I’d been particularly obsessed with at the time called “Bioshock”. Waiting for it to arrive by post, I read endless overviews and reviews of the book over the net, and before I’d held it in my hands, I was in love with it already. It seemed to make sense – Rand was developing a moral framework that could be reached not through the commandment of an invisible God or common sense, but the immutable power of reason and this was instantly attractive to me. The problem of drawing the “Ought” from the “Is” had really destroyed any idea of an objective morality for me, and this was exactly what I’d been looking for. But, the more I read – the more I became interested with other aspects of her philosophy (I’m sure plenty of you are going to shun me for even daring to claim that she was a philosopher), namely, political philosophy. She seemed to be urging that (just like John Galt) if the Collectivists and Communists could just be a little more rational, and a little less tolerant of those that use physical force to impose unjust regulations, we could quite easily transform the planet into a global utopia. This really began to appeal to me. I did lots of research into Objectivism, into the virtue of selfishness, Aristotle’s principle of logic and felt genuinely inspired. But recently – hence me even committing this message to the web, my interest is dwindling. People often criticise Rand for her use of rhetoric to ‘persuade’ the reader, rather than just releasing a philosophical theory via the usual channels. But to be brutally honest, philosophy is generally incredibly elitist and new ideas are only ever truly appreciated (most of the time) by academics and intellectuals. I personally feel as though Rand was trying to bridge the gap between the many that really don’t care for abstract thought, and the more intellectual proportion of the population. Nevertheless – as I said, my interest is dwindling. It’s very rare that any kind of philosophical work that is published ever makes much of an impact on the public domain. Their objection is usually that philosophy changes very little, and while I’ve been defending it against this, in a lot of cases it can be said to be true. Rand’s vision of an anarcho-capitalist utopia is completely incompatible with today’s political systems since the shift seems near to impossible, much like Plato’s Republic. Should we abandon the beautiful ideals of political philosophers, and be returning to more realist perspective?
_____________________ Dare to know

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:49 AM:	#2
Idealism is an idea in title therefore as Marx said there is a difference of theory and practice. However realist perspectives (left and right) are influenced by some extent in such ideologies such as Marxism, in which they do accept a power divide. I for one agree with philosophers such as Michel Foucault who build upon Marxism but only to the extent that there is a power divide and that it can be overcome if you wish to do so. Therefore the real power divide lies in yourself, do you become determined and become a capitalist/bourgeoisie member or stay within the proletariat? We cannot just give up on idealism, most of our modern day philosophy is on ideas, even utilitarianism at one point and still is to some extent idealism as even though there is a greatest happiness for a great number, its not everyone is it? Realism is just accepted one feels because people amongst the proletariat simply give up and accept the power divide when in their right mind cold have changed thier future to be in a more powerful position.
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/07/08 - 09:42 AM:	#3
theidleantichrist wrote: I first picked up Ayn Rand’s more famous novel, “Atlas Shrugged” Fantastic. That's where you begin for an introduction to Objectivism. theidleantichrist wrote: But recently �" hence me even committing this message to the web, my interest is dwindling. People often criticise Rand for her use of rhetoric to ‘persuade’ the reader, rather than just releasing a philosophical theory via the usual channels. But to be brutally honest, philosophy is generally incredibly elitist and new ideas are only ever truly appreciated (most of the time) by academics and intellectuals. I personally feel as though Rand was trying to bridge the gap between the many that really don’t care for abstract thought, and the more intellectual proportion of the population. I spent years in the philosophy department of a large university. I'm not being dramatic when I say that I felt dirty at the end of the day. The "usual channels" you speak of, typically consist of twenty-page papers, outlining histories of theories and critiquing them to the point that the original argument is lost in the confusion. These papers emphasize footnotes and citations more than they emphasize the ideas and content. Philosophy, now, is not about making claims and justifying them. Ever since Wittgenstein, the purpose of philosophy has been to analyze and viciously criticize. Academic philosophy is a sterile, lifeless chore. Philosophy instructors are crabby old crustaceans who draw on their own arrogant elitism to reject any constructive ideas. They chastized Rand for despising them and their unproductive work. She saw the uselessness of expressing one's ideas in these settings and trying to explain them to academics who are good at memorizing, but not particularly well-suited for thinking. She put her philosophy in a narrative form, which offended academic philosophers even more because it demonstrated her ability not only to reason, but to write fiction and craft a damn good story or two. Rand developed her philosophy, not to bridge any gaps, but to appeal to those that the elitism in academic philosophy cannot: those who need philosophy most, the ordinary man or woman, who needed a source for morality and a belief system. theidleantichrist wrote: Nevertheless," as I said, my interest is dwindling. It’s very rare that any kind of philosophical work that is published ever makes much of an impact on the public domain. Not really true. In 1991, a survey showed that Atlas Shrugged has made the largest impact on American people's lives second only to the Bible. Atlas Shrugged has been a massive publishing success for more than half a century. However, in today's world, where I would expect her philosophy to be flourishing, I rarely find someone who has actually heard of Ayn Rand or read her material. The difference, as I see it, is more foundational: that one does not need the fifty years of academic philosophical experience to make truly great headway in examining philosophical concepts. theidleantichrist wrote: Their objection is usually that philosophy changes very little, and while I’ve been defending it against this, in a lot of cases it can be said to be true. Rand’s vision of an anarcho-capitalist utopia is completely incompatible with today’s political systems since the shift seems near to impossible, much like Plato’s Republic. Should we abandon the beautiful ideals of political philosophers, and be returning to more realist perspective? Well, first off, Rand was a minarchist completely against anarcho-capitalism, which was developed by one of her more intellectually vicious critics, Murray Rothbard. I personally adopt anarcho-capitalism, as I believe it to be the only system compatible with Objectivist metaphysics and ethics and my own personal libertarianism. But the apparent utopian vision of anarcho-capitalism is actually very much misplaced. Anarcho-capitalism is very much practical as long as it is not half-assed. Anarcho-capitalism is the replacement of government with corporations and everything, thus, runs upon competition. The only reason today's political systems could be considered "realistic" is simply because people are unwilling to change them, or to take the risk on such a radical change. Anarcho-capitalism has the potential to be the greatest application of political theory in history. Yet, the unwillingness to change reflects a certain kind of ignorance on the part of all human beings. They perceive things as being "the best of all worlds", when the current states of affairs could actually be much, much better. (Don't listen to the communist)
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

HalcyonGlaze
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/07/08 - 04:00 PM:	#4
I find that really odd, somebody who is a fan of Ayn Rand, yet an Anarcho-Capitalist. I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, and I pretty much hate Rand. Rothbard though...he's the man. So is Milton Friedman (both the modern incarnation, and the great Economist who was his father, although I don't think the latter was Anarchist).

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:05 PM:	#5
HalcyonGlaze wrote: I find that really odd, somebody who is a fan of Ayn Rand, yet an Anarcho-Capitalist. I reconcile my anarcho-capitalism with Objectivism with the arguments presented by Roy Childs in his "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand", an attempt to show Ayn Rand that free market capitalism is the only system compatible with Objectivist ideals. I also find that Rand's minarchism and arguments about the necessity of government are inadequate in certain ways, which Childs touches upon in his article. http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.h...
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

indigenous
thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: sub-tropic island
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/07/08 - 09:54 PM:	#6
A couple of years ago, I fell into a thread in the Philosophy of Politics group titled "Communism", which I sort of turned into a debate of "radical capitalism" without mentioning that it was the politics of Ayn Rand. I sometimes enjoy seeing how people view this subject when I rob them of the opportunity to deluge the discussion with their uninformed bigotry against her. If you are interested, they are here, or search members for "indigenous" and click on the 48 posts link. I warn you, though, due to the great distance of the minds of my opponents from any understanding of capitalism, they can be frightfully tedious. But it can be very beneficial to read the same ideas presented by different writers who agree but have a different relationship to the ideas http://forums.philosophyforums.com/search.php?whi... And here is a blog thread with some Randian primers on determinism, politics, values, etc. under the name Michael M. http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1842 I am a radical capitalist, and agree with Rand's condemnation of The Rational Animal's anarcho-capitalism. And, while I would dearly love to expound on that, I have a speech to prepare for the 17th and shouldn't be writing this now. So for the time being, I will just urge you to dig deeper into Rand's non-fiction works. I was fortunate to have discovered Objectivism in 1966 and took all of the tape lecture courses available then. I have lived by that philosophy for 42 years and never cease to be amazed at the breadth and depth of understanding of complex and disparate issues I can muster since she showed me how to organize my mind. In your post, you make a common error. Youth always wants to change the whole world today. Youths who discover Rand run to the ramparts. Much later they learn that history is a slowpoke. If you persist, however, you will soon realize that the first and greatest benefit of a rational philosophy is not what it can do for your country, but rather what it can do for you. Objectivism provides you with the means to live a rational life in an irrational world. It provides a confident mind and a serene stomach. Having said that I can assure you that Objectivism is spreading faster now than it was at the peak of Rand's fame in the mid-60's. Atlas Shrugged was a failure on publication, but as it was read over the subsequent years it grew steadily in its readership and influence, and that has not stopped. Her books have now sold over 25 million copies. Since 2002, the Ayn Rand Institute gives copies of her books free on request to high school teachers who want to use it in their classes, and over 400,000 copies are now being requested each year. Furthermore, the film of Atlas Shrugged is finally going into production with Angelina Jolie playing Dagny Taggart. The blogs will be swamped with discussions in 2010 and beyond. I recently subscribed to a Google Alert for the words "Ayn Rand" and "Objectivism". Google notifies me of a dozen blogs and forums every day that are discussing Rand. Do not underestimate this. And when you read the web content on her, be careful. Watch how her supporters fill their posts with ideas -- and accompany them with explanations and substantiation. Watch how her detractors fill their posts with ad hominems and unsubstantiated assertions, with jokes and insults, with foul mouthed juvenilia (even if they are old and allegedly mature). There is a perpetual race on to be the first on record to prove that something she said or did was wrong. It is becoming fashionable among minds frozen in puberty to say, "I was a big fan of Rand when I was in High School, but I know better now." The academics are the most frantic of all, as Objectivism has just now begun to crack the ivied walls letting some of those long daggers of sunlight pierce the empty halls of philosophy departments on the other side. Their favorite cheap shot is to call her dogmatic. Of course, none of them have read enough to know that she disliked the word Randian because it had connotations of "follower" as opposed to her preferred "student". She stressed the fact that to merely agree with a philosophy was not enough. You had to be able to validate your agreement on your own. The accusation is most often a cover to hide the fact that the accuser cannot distinguish between rational certainty and mystical dogma. Many young people read Rand in their early years and drift away. That is understandable. They have much less time and less interest in heady subjects when they have jobs and families to tend to. Not everyone is compulsive about understanding every nook and cranny of politics, ethics, and art. But if you have questions still of import to your life, you will not find elsewhere the razor-sharp reasoning in clear and straightforward prose you will find in Rand's writings.

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/08/08 - 06:12 AM:	#7
HalcyonGlaze wrote: I find that really odd, somebody who is a fan of Ayn Rand, yet an Anarcho-Capitalist. I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, and I pretty much hate Rand. Rothbard though...he's the man. So is Milton Friedman (both the modern incarnation, and the great Economist who was his father, although I don't think the latter was Anarchist). You pretty much hate everything! haha
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.