Opinions of Ayn Rand's Philosophy
- Thread starter Mungbean
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ayn rand philosophy
And there doesn’t have to be pure altruism, in fact my own belief is that there should be a health balance of altruism and looking out for one’s own self.
It’s that society in general is moving away from being altruistic and into what I consider an unhealthy unbalance of selfishness and greed.
Greed and self-centeredness is becoming more and more acceptable as ways to behave in society and it is more and more commonplace for someone doing an altruistic deed to be ridiculed or at the very least asked “why are you bothering?”.
I find that incredibly sad.
That's how nature works. It's only humans that do this all or nothing crap. That is where Rand goes wrong in her absolutism - she tried to base it on natural reason, but natural reason shows that well being entails doing what works in a given scenario, not following some constructed absolute ethical principle. She bases her reasoning on the requirement to live but if you look at the best survivors in the world, their methods are a mix - some are altruistic some times, and some are not.
So I'm an undergraduate philosophy/psychology major, and I will be honest. Ayn Rand is a bit of a joke in the philosophy world. There are many problems with her philosophies (of which I have only second hand knowledge). I had several classes with (and consider myself good friends of) someone at my university who started a club for Ayn Rand. I also had several other friends who read her novels, but few found them particularly illuminating. That being said, most found them entertaining. I've heard she is a good writer.
I am familiar with her concept of ethics: the ethical egoist perspective. There are fundamental flaws in this perspective that I can describe if you wish, or you can find them in this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#2. This position was explored in two of my classes (one in ethics, and one in meta-ethics).
Beyond that, I am aware that she described a complete philosophy (includes a metaphysics, epistemology, ethical position, and political system), but am not aware of the philosophies she laid out. I am more than willing to explore some of her points and contrast them, with you, to other views in philosophy. Otherwise, if you are interested, I did find this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philospohy on Ayn Rand's philosophy (plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand).
I like Ayn Rand. She was wonderful. She was a clear thinker who valued liberty, like the Founding Fathers.
I understand her philosophy like this: I am the only owner of me and no one has the right to sacrifice me or bound me by law into servitude for the "greater good." Over-simplified, maybe, but it captures the most important parts, I think.
Some consider this selfish. Not being bound by law to serve and sacrifice yourself for others - through taxation or being drafted, for example - is considered selfish. So it's a common belief then that to be free (from these burdens and more generally) is to be selfish. If that's the case then I am happily selfish. I should have a choice; I should be able to decide whether or not I want to make a sacrifice for another or serve the "greater good." That it is the law that I must sacrifice for others (who could very well believe the opposite of what I believe) is an injustice. I simply want to be free. Is that unreasonable?
I think most believe we have a duty to our fellow humans. I do not believe this. We are all individuals. We each have our own beliefs, dreams and desires. I have no duty to serve the beliefs, dreams and desires of another.
I understand her philosophy like this: I am the only owner of me and no one has the right to sacrifice me or bound me by law into servitude for the "greater good." Over-simplified, maybe, but it captures the most important parts, I think.
Some consider this selfish. Not being bound by law to serve and sacrifice yourself for others - through taxation or being drafted, for example - is considered selfish. So it's a common belief then that to be free (from these burdens and more generally) is to be selfish. If that's the case then I am happily selfish. I should have a choice; I should be able to decide whether or not I want to make a sacrifice for another or serve the "greater good." That it is the law that I must sacrifice for others (who could very well believe the opposite of what I believe) is an injustice. I simply want to be free. Is that unreasonable?
I think most believe we have a duty to our fellow humans. I do not believe this. We are all individuals. We each have our own beliefs, dreams and desires. I have no duty to serve the beliefs, dreams and desires of another.
Last edited:
She laid out the importance of Objectivism: the philosophy which states that Enlightenment thinkers that argued rational thought was the key to unlocking the objective facts about the world around us. Human beings have direct contact with reality through the perception of our sensory and brain function, and that we collect objective knowledge from perception through the process of forming concepts based on logic. Idiots which I mentioned in my original reply to this thread (namely Cultural Marxists and Post-Modernists) would be happy to take away the views of the Enlightenment (views which I think should be defended) and replace them with pseudo-intellectual views of subjectivity; that of denying the existence of truth and empiricism; of hating ones own culture and values and attempting to plunge these great ideas down the Orwellian memory hole and creating a wannabe-altruistic world of robotic slaves devoid of individual liberty, critical thinking and individual ownership. I think Ayn Rand, like myself, supported the views of the Enlightenment which too many twitter mobs and University campus unions wish to constantly ridicule and/or censor in order to allude a new culture of self-loathing and emotively-charged argument based on anti-logic.
No one is advocating pure altruism, if that is even possible.
Nor does it seem like anyone wants that at all.
If you don’t want to pay taxes, then you should not receive the benefits provided by them.
This has been tried by several small rural towns here in the US, where they decided that they didn’t want to pay for the fire department anymore.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/...pray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.Vnw3YUtGHB0
(Just like the hypocrite herself who received Medicare benefits as she died to help pay her extravagant medical costs for her smoking like a chimney - which was something else she denied was even bad for you)
This is the negative consequences of swinging too far away from being altruistic.
It’s like Dogman’s article…do you save someone if it means getting your sleeve wet…or course you do, because otherwise you’re just an asshole.
And please tell me what we are going to do with all the elderly, handicapped, and mentally challenged people according to Ayn Rand?
Tell me, what were her thoughts about them?
Last edited:
Here…I’ll post it so you don’t have to look it up -
Awesome world…let’s build that one!
All rational thought (which I have nothing against) and NO altruism (then just go live in a cabin in the woods totally self-sufficient) unless it’s self-serving.
Rad.
Awesome world…let’s build that one!
All rational thought (which I have nothing against) and NO altruism (then just go live in a cabin in the woods totally self-sufficient) unless it’s self-serving.
Rad.
Last edited:
As for the fire department, those who wanted service would contribute to the existence of a fire department and those who did not want service would not. It would be a voluntary exchange. Straightforward.
As for the handicapped and mentally challenged, if there are "altruistic" people left in society they will be still taken care of, no? I doubt the transition from our current system to a laissez-faire capitalism would magically purge every altruist from society. Altruists would still be around to, um, selfishly love the handicapped and mentally challenged.
As for elders, I don't think people are so cold as to simply let them die. Personally, I have a lot of selfish love for my mother. Elders who were awful to their children, however, might be let go. Who can say? Or maybe the altruists would look after them as well? Altruists would be busy; that's for sure.
Also, I am an asshole. Who cares? I love who I love and I don't care about the rest. Well, I like some people too. I suppose that's a kind of care.
Last edited:
There are volunteer fire departments, I never denied that.
I’m speaking of living in a society where you pay your taxes and live by the laws of the society in order for all people in said society to live happily.
Do you have any clue what people used to do with the mentally handicapped and challenged?
They threw them in “snake pits” until Kennedy closed them all, except, there was no where for them to go…so they live on the streets or are in prison for the most part.
Besides advocating Rand’s view of selfishness, directly conflicts with those people who have every right to NOT take care of the sick, or mentally challenged.
You advocate for yourself without putting yourself in the shoes of another and realizing they have every right to not give a shit either, you assume that there will be enough good altruistically natured people to take care of them all including you, I disagree.
Go online and look at any nursing home in your town and I will bet you that they are hiring caregivers.
You have every right to be or act like an “asshole” should you so wish…no one if forcing you to care or care about anyone else and no one is forcing anyone else to give a flying fuck about you or your own.
That’s a sad state of being IMO, but we’re all entitled to our own opinion and values.
Enjoy.
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]
I know you like Hitchens very much, so here is a clip of his view on Rand.
Her books - “a work of super-arrogation” is his own description.
[video=youtube;4wYR6e9Z6es]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4wYR6e9Z6es[/video]
I know you like Hitchens very much, so here is a clip of his view on Rand.
Her books - “a work of super-arrogation” is his own description.
[video=youtube;4wYR6e9Z6es]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4wYR6e9Z6es[/video]
She stole the term objectivism from philosophy, and changed its meaning. Objectivism, in both ethics and philosophy of science, referrers to some things existence as separate from the perceiver (the perception). The thing exists of itself.
In reading the part that I bolded, I certainly disagree. Our sensory perception simply is not connected to our conscious mind, let alone logical framework....simply as a claim in psychology. If our brain necessarily formed objectively correct understandings of the world using a logically driven framework, then delusions, dreams, or childhood faults couldn't form. I'm probably just misunderstanding this intention, but our minds aren't naturally logical. A part of our mind attempts to function logically, but it still fails miserably. Any use of a heuristic demonstrates this. We are terrible at judging probabilities because our minds don't function, at base, in logic.
To the part that I italicized, assuming I have not misunderstood (which I probably have), it is a false dichotomy. It is not either Ayn Rand's Objectivism or, to quote you, "denying the existence of truth and empiricism; of hating ones own culture and values". There are many views, for example that suggested by Kant, that supply a complete philosophy, but perhaps step away from empiricism. However, most would not claim to be an empiricist. They make such extreme claims about the nature of reality (as described by the Vienna Circle), and they even start the entire position as a contradiction! Consider the following quote from the Stanford article about the base of empiricist thought:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/
This leads to significant claims about the nature of reality. That aside, this statement, from which logical empiricism is derived, is itself untestable, and so meaningless (by its own definition)! It is self defeating!
To the part I underlined, this is a borderline hostile attitude to modern philosophical thought. However, the many directions of philosophy today dismiss this claim. I don't see why you think that philosophers use antilogic while Ayn Rand, with her novels full of false dichotomies and straw man arguments (second hand descriptions from a friend who's opinion I greatly respect), has valid arguments. I don't even remember seeing any formalized arguments from her writtings (not a strong claim, to be honest, so feel free to describe some of them if you are familiar).
All I know is the way that rational self interest is redefined by the logical egoist equates its definition to brute action rather than self interested action. By assuming the non-existence of altruism and conflating the psychological "reason" and philosophical "reason", the logical egoist allows a thinker to reframe all notions of reasoned action to self interested action. It doesn't matter for intentions or reasons, priority based, real, or otherwise. All that matters is that there is some artificial self interested direction that can be described to explain "reason" for action. Never mind if it has the power to drive the action itself.
EDIT: I just reread that last paragraph, and it has a lot of philosophical baggage in it. I'm not sure how familiar people are with the philosophies here, so I will unpack this paragraph a bit. I'm meaning that the logical egoist conflates (confuses) the philosophical "reason" (which could mean cause or justification or logic behind action) and the psychological "reason)" (which usually means the intentions behind an action, but can mean a causal description). Further, the position assumes the lack of altruistic behavior. There is no justification for this point beyond saying they can explain all action without altruistic behavior. The trick here is that in talking of reasons, if you conflate the meaning of the term "reason" then you can switch between description types (as I will call it). This means you can provide a self-interested description in all cases by simply being creative. That is what I meant by an artificial description. Because of this, it does not mean much that one can explain all action without altruism because the explanations are flawed.
I don't know if this was necessary to point out, but I was bored and did so anyway, lol.
Last edited:
This does not disprove anything I said regarding Objectivism. I never said I agreed with every single philosophy that Rand proposed, nor does it mean I have to agree with everything Hitchens said just because I admire him so much. Besides, I do happen to agree with Hitchens that any sort of Cult needs to he stamped out before it gets too extreme, and the cult of Rand did annoy many people, but it seems to have been snuffed out of the mainstream and replaced with even worse philosophies by SJWs. Hitchens obviously read her very strange novels and viewed some of her more disagreeable views as what they were: selfishness. But these are not the views I referred to; merely the importance of individualism and logic. You fell into the trap of absolutes: that I have to agree to every point that they made, despite me only discussing the points of individualism and objectivism. Your obsession with altruism doesn't prove that I or anyone that agrees with SOME of Rand's views is self-centred or selfish. I do care about people, I just choose not to care about idiots on forums or strangers that live off of the tax payer.
Last edited:
Rand excels at using her highly idiosyncratic lexicon to make some fairly common sense conclusions sound much more profound and controversial than they should be.
Her conclusions usually make sense within her closed system of thought, but it is a huge error to think that they apply to words like love, altruism, or sacrifice used in their vernacular sense rather than the technical meanings that she made up. Ayn Rand did not make mistakes applying these terms in the real world as do many of her folowers, but she still did sometimes.
(Her definition of Altruism actually is the proper one, as coined by the crazy French founder of Positivism Auguste Comte. She was right to attack that notion as evil, but almost no one ever uses the term in that sense today and none of her arguments about it pertain at all to the vernacular sense. What she calls love is simply approbation. She think that "loving your enemies" means agreeing with them that you really ought to be harmed, rather than wishing them well in a way that could lead to peace between you. What she calls sacrifice is simply a waste. Historically sacrifice always meant setting aside someone of value in service of or in order to demonstrate a much higher value, but she defines sacrifice as giving up something more highly values for something less valued.)
She constantly attacked other people (especially libertarians) for plagiarizing her work, ignoring the fact that they were actually borrowing from other authors who published their (often greatly superior) arguments a century or more before Rand was born.
I am inclined to think that there is much that is good and original in Ayn Rand's work, but that nothing that is good in it is original and nothing original to her is good.
Her conclusions usually make sense within her closed system of thought, but it is a huge error to think that they apply to words like love, altruism, or sacrifice used in their vernacular sense rather than the technical meanings that she made up. Ayn Rand did not make mistakes applying these terms in the real world as do many of her folowers, but she still did sometimes.
(Her definition of Altruism actually is the proper one, as coined by the crazy French founder of Positivism Auguste Comte. She was right to attack that notion as evil, but almost no one ever uses the term in that sense today and none of her arguments about it pertain at all to the vernacular sense. What she calls love is simply approbation. She think that "loving your enemies" means agreeing with them that you really ought to be harmed, rather than wishing them well in a way that could lead to peace between you. What she calls sacrifice is simply a waste. Historically sacrifice always meant setting aside someone of value in service of or in order to demonstrate a much higher value, but she defines sacrifice as giving up something more highly values for something less valued.)
She constantly attacked other people (especially libertarians) for plagiarizing her work, ignoring the fact that they were actually borrowing from other authors who published their (often greatly superior) arguments a century or more before Rand was born.
I am inclined to think that there is much that is good and original in Ayn Rand's work, but that nothing that is good in it is original and nothing original to her is good.
Right now, they just take yo shit till the bill is paid!
(and/or put you in jail, usually dependent on their attitude and lengths gone to avoid paying them)
I fell into what trap?
I never assumed that about you.
I thought you would be interested in what your own personal Jebus had to say.
It is actually you who fell into whatever trap you say I did because you assumed a whole bunch of shit about me…I’ve said several times now that pure altruism is not the goal but that a more balanced approach to society is probably the best neither too selfish and egotistical (while maintaining a healthy dose of Capitalism for the right wing) nor too altruistic where it becomes something like Communism.
“your obsession with altruism”
MY obsession with nothing….her supposed “logic” is flawed.
You obviously didn’t read or failed to even address the paper that Dogman cited that ruins her supposed “logic"
Also, I never inferred that you or anyone else I was talking to was personally self-centered or egotistical or an asshole….people took what I said and applied it to themselves then acted hurt by it.
(Do tell…who are these “idiots on forums”?)
EDIT: Also, this thread isn’t about “Objectivism” in the classical sense, it’s about Ayn Rand’s version of it which is not the same thing.
Last edited: