A collection of articles clarifying–and refuting–Objectivism.
Objectivists are hardheaded and difficult to penetrate. I have some experience, however. Dismantling ideologues doesn’t usually come from a detail by detail hashing out of the actual ideology. Usually it comes in how dense the ideologues are, such as the widespread view that communism may sound good in theory but doesn’t work–and its adherents keep wanting to give it “more chances.” It’s similar, in my experience with Objectivism. I offer a 1-2-3 punch: throw them offguard preattentively, show an intolerance for their bullshit, and show you fully understand their argument and ideology. Any persuasion of new ideas can only come after this.
Masks are the new Jesus. It allows abusers and dirt bags to claim moral authority. You can beat your wife and kids, borrow with no intention of paying it back, and eat into morbid obesity–but hey, you wear a mask or love the big J! Masks give narcissistic abusers a new moral club.
When humans figured out how to trace paternity, women were shackled and eugenics started. Objectivism marches on with this controlling view
It’s every conversation I have with Objectivists. They get to make all the claims they want: women are lazy, parasitical, X is ugly, whatever. If you call them narcissistic, insulting, abusive, or misogynistic, they bury you instantly as irrational, angry, and making ad hominems. They however weren’t insulting anyone. They are just stating FACTS.
Thanks, Ayn! Who would look out for the bankers and against glorification of the working man otherwise?
Rand calls American women, as a whole, “cocktail-party-chasing cohorts.” This blog is very short. Honestly, if you can’t see the misogyny, I can’t help you.
A few thoughts on specific topics related to Objectivism, based on, er, “questions” (more like flaming hot accusations) I’ve received on social media. However. Don’t expect any Objectivist to acknowledge the actual Objectivist positions that I challenge. See the main page of Ex Objectivist for direct quotes from Rand, for those unwilling to look them up themselves.
People often think education is the one place Objectivism is strong. I argue it’s the place where it’s the worst. The explicit Objectivist view is to take a child born “blank” and “transform” him into a person fit for adult life. I challenge this most thoroughly. Children are designed well. They don’t need “transformed.”
A growing list of book, articles, and systems of ideas that directly challenge or are superior to Objectivist thought.
Objectivists think they have all the answers to the major, pressing life problems. But like all ideologies, it’s just a thought system that fails to satisfactorily answer the life problems it says it solves. It just turns into a system of ever expanding rules, domination, and control. As with all poor thought systems, it is in its blind spots that you can dismantle it.
Objectivism is based on the premise that we can’t trust our inner “whims.” As such, we need a disciplining ethics to tame our inner world. But Rat Park experiment counters this. When rats are caged, indeed, they choose cocaine over water to the point of death. But when left to be free in “Rat Park,” where they can roam, play, and have sex, they chose water over cocaine. Freedom is a condition of human mental health and success. Always. Uncompromisingly.
As most, including Objectivists themselves, don’t understand Ayn Rand’s view on emotions, I made this 5-part video series on The Objectivist View on Emotions. Each video is less than one-minute. Refute them.
When you get someone telling you “Nuh uh!” even though you said essentially what they then said, you are dealing with a narcissist. They filter out 80-90% of reality. So they aren’t listening to a word you said. And I get this treatment from Objectivists constantly.
Any time I’ve tried to explain myself to Objectivists, they start word arguing with me. They won’t read any of what I wrote because I used the term “blank” instead of “blank slate” or “tabula rasa.” It’s the same, over and over. Then they accuse ME of being “unable to handle criticism.” It is the sign of an ideologue: they need control over words. And THEY get words wrong. Rand’s definition of “value” was not the dictionary definition and she weights it towards her philosophy of scarcity and the need for productivity. When you deal with people who want militant control over words, you are dealing with an ideologue. Because they effectively shut down language, they cannot be penetrated. And they are hellbent on promoting their ideology. Ideologies are the scourge of humanity.
Since Cro Magnon man, humans have been using fear to scare people away from natural resources. It’s no different now. This is how tyranny wins: some made-up boogey man, be it appeasing the rain Gods or God in general, forcing other citizens to literally dance. Only a strong herd immunity against fear will do to stop tyranny. And Objectivism, which says freedom is contextual, doesn’t do that.
There is often confusion over Rand’s views on self defense. But there need not be. Her view was clear: you have the right to self defense, but you must delegate it to the government. As is usual, tyrants–and this position is as tyrannical as it gets–come waving the flag of freedom. Read the article for exact quotes from Rand.
Amber was an Objectivist for 10 years until she realized it was failing her. Now she writes about this narcissistic ideology to warn others. No one has refuted her; Objectivists dismiss her immediately and start their smear campaigns. See Towards Liberalism: A Challenge to Objectivist Ethics. We are not born with an emotional blank slate. And this matters profoundly.