Please disprove Objectivism/Ayn Rand.?

Question

Logically, of course.

Answer 1

Objectivism is a Cartesian type of framing:

1.  Existence is.

2.  Existence is non-contradictory.

3.  Existence is individualized.

4.  Existence permits accurate scientific/engineering sensibility.

5.  Existence permits consciousness.

All of these are self-evident, save for #2, which is correct per the law of noncontradiction, but implies and imports non-dialectical continuity--which properly is Eternal Self-existence, or Godly Being--as the temporally-false cornerstone of Rand's individualism.  This would be a point of error, of illogic, and is also the anti-Marxian position of Objectivism's reductive bourgeois materialism.

She and Objectivism polarize somewhat from Hobbes' notion of rational social contract, and more especially from Rawls' notion of social justice as fairness.

For Rand, government exists to perpetuate peace and individual freedom, and provide for adjudication of disputes.  This Hobbes would agree with; Rawls would make a finer argument for various redresses of alleged social iniquities--yet these could logically be justified under the "adjudication of disputes" rubric of Objectivism, iff the merit of justice's claims in such case were so realized.

So, there is not too much to dispute or disprove, at such a general level.  Further, Maslowian, Kierkegaardian, and other awarenesses of God find room in the "Existence is" notion as "I-Thou," "I Am that I Am," and so forth.  Objectivism's atheism is merely a psychologistic preference of Rand's, not a logical necessity.  However, at this general level, there is little to "object" to in "Objectivism."  The psychological preferences of Objectivists for reductive scientism and libertarian types of individualist valuation are just that--psychological preferences.

"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov.

Answer 2

well i disagree with her axioms so i mean... that pretty much kicks everything in the behind. I don't know how to argue about an axiom. Either its true or its not, and I don't think hers are. At least one of them isn't. Objectivism claims there is an objective reality that exists apart from the consciousness... that seems to be a leap of faith to me.

Answer 3

how dare you say that to me on my question. Carma is all i say to you.

Answer 4

She starts from a definition of consciousness that takes intentionality as given. Intentionality in this context means to be conscious is to be conscious of something. Since the experience of pure consciousness, an experience characterized as devoid of not only content but even a space/time manifold within which content could emerge, is reported world wide and throughout time, and has much evidence in the scientific literature to back it up, her definition is empirically wrong, and objectivism falls apart.