Quote:
Originally Posted by ljmoo42
She may have been biased, but that does that mean she is wrong? Admittedly, like any radical idealogy, her exact methods probably arent practicable in the real world, but we should strive to get as close to them as possible, while eliminating some of the more dangerous things in her beliefs (aka, laissez-faire capitalism).
|
By no means am I trying to suggest that she was 'wrong'. I'm simply trying to point out that it's often difficult to understand WHAT someone is trying to say if you don't know WHERE they're coming from. What their context is.
She was a Russian Jew. And as such had pretty much the whole deck stacked against her. That she was allowed to leave Russia and that she survived is nearly miraculous, and a blessing for those of us who like to read (and think n stuff).
While I admire many of the ideas she supports, like individual liberty, there are two principle problems I have with Objectivism.
First, as you stated, laissez-faire capitalism has too many flaws to be universally aplicable.
Second, reason. Reason is a wonderful tool, perhaps the single greatest ability we humans have. But it is not the end all be all. It cannot answer all our questions. For example: love is not reasonable nor is it objective but it'd be hard to find anyone who would deny the benefits that love can bring. Of course, it can also bring suffering and mysery, like any emotion. but my point is, reason ALONE isn't the answer.
I think she was definitely on to something and I've been intrigued by her writings since I discovered her in highschool. I just think there's a few areas where she goes astray. And I think that her experiences in Soviet Russia had a lot to do with that.