Opinions of Ayn Rand's Philosophy

[CindyLou]

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.)

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.

Great post. I agree.

Words are important and words like selfishness, love, greed and charity do not need to be properly understood or embraced as virtuous with anyone else except with Ayn but she wants to redefine them in her own system. It's for no reason. Maybe she was socially backwards, I don't know. Something is off. I think she wanted to be controversial more than she cared about her philosophy being anything other than something that was discussed by the type of people that ran in her social circles.

 

[JGirl]

Ayn Rand is a good author. beyond that, i have no real opinion on her philosophies, as they are very black and white and the world just doesn't work that way

 

[0utofth3b0x]

I didn't watch the video attached to this post originally, so I may be coming from an ignorant standpoint. I responded to the subject, really. I'm very familiar with Anthem, where we see a man in a rigid nazi-esque society that suppresses individuality become aware of his ego. On the other hand, 1984 depicts a man in a culture that could be described as nearly identical to present day America (I say because I haven't experienced immersion in another country) who tries to get involved in a movement to free the masses but ends up a subdued old drunk. What I see in 1984 is so dauntingly realistic that it causes me anxiety, so I've taken to studying the themes presented in the novel as a point of near desperation. I don't think people appear to pay much attention to the fact that, at least in the US, people are little more than machines. I've sort of shaped my life around that awareness. The dystopia in Anthem is, perhaps, the next level of extreme oppression. It doesn't strike me as realistic. But, again, I should have watched the video before commenting in order to be certain I was saying anything relevant.

 

[Elegant Winter]

I didn't watch the video attached to this post originally, so I may be coming from an ignorant standpoint. I responded to the subject, really. I'm very familiar with Anthem, where we see a man in a rigid nazi-esque society that suppresses individuality become aware of his ego. On the other hand, 1984 depicts a man in a culture that could be described as nearly identical to present day America (I say because I haven't experienced immersion in another country) who tries to get involved in a movement to free the masses but ends up a subdued old drunk. What I see in 1984 is so dauntingly realistic that it causes me anxiety, so I've taken to studying the themes presented in the novel as a point of near desperation. I don't think people appear to pay much attention to the fact that, at least in the US, people are little more than machines. I've sort of shaped my life around that awareness. The dystopia in Anthem is, perhaps, the next level of extreme oppression. It doesn't strike me as realistic. But, again, I should have watched the video before commenting in order to be certain I was saying anything relevant.

Little more than machines? Are you talking about the politically correct crowd? Or do you mean more generally? I think a lot of people are naturally somewhat like automatons.

 

[0utofth3b0x]

Little more than machines? Are you talking about the politically correct crowd? Or do you mean more generally? I think a lot of people are naturally somewhat like automatons.

I think the masses are very robotic. You think that's a natural state? You could be right, it would explain why so few people care or even notice how enslaved they seem. It would explain why brains seem to shut down around me, I've never grasped seemingly obvious concepts- like money lust and follow the leader.

 

[Elegant Winter]

I think the masses are very robotic. You think that's a natural state? You could be right, it would explain why so few people care or even notice how enslaved they seem. It would explain why brains seem to shut down around me, I've never grasped seemingly obvious concepts- like money lust and follow the leader.

Well, I think anyone who doesn't deeply consider and truly value who they are, what they feel and what they desire in life is susceptible to a machine-like existence. Also, I think the "follow the leader" mentality that you mentioned is a large part of it.

 

[0utofth3b0x]

Well, I think anyone who doesn't deeply consider and truly value who they are, what they feel and what they desire in life is susceptible to a machine-like existence. Also, I think the "follow the leader" mentality that you mentioned is a large part of it.

Do you think there are people who just naturally don't consider or value their own Self? Or has the world become a place where that depth of thought is dangerous for its role in depression and suicide? I think life is much easier for the mechanical drones who function well in an enslaved society. Thinkers suffer the most, as far as I can tell.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

To the OP

Any Rand just rips off some of Aristotle, taking what is succinct and organised, making it vague and wordsome.

She gives me the shits big-time for pretending that she is doing something more than putting a topical spin on Aristotle.

 

[dogman6126]

To the OP

Any Rand just rips off some of Aristotle, taking what is succinct and organised, making it vague and wordsome.

She gives me the shits big-time for pretending that she is doing something more than putting a topical spin on Aristotle.

I don't know about her other philosophies, but this certainly isn't true for her ethics. Aristotle was a virtue ethicist, and Ayn Rand was a logical egoist. These are fundamentally different positions.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't know about her other philosophies, but this certainly isn't true for her ethics. Aristotle was a virtue ethicist, and Ayn Rand was a logical egoist. These are fundamentally different positions.

Not exactly. Aristotle views every deliberate action as being pursued for some perceived good. "Good" here means, some benefit for the acting agent. However, he holds that there is a definite hierarchy of goods - and that virtue (in part) involves pursuing higher goods, and lower goods only as a means to higher goods. Eg. He sees intoxication as unvirtuous, because it detracts from the higher good of clarity of mind.

It is true that Aristotle does not directly deal with egoism, he simply presumes it. Even altruistic acts in Aristotle are understood to be motivated by the perceived good/virtue/benefit of altruism itself, especially in respect of friends. "Virtue is its own reward."

There was much scholarship in the early 90's dealing with the subject of the implicit egoism in Aristotle. I only have a surface familiarity with it, as my work at the time was not academically related, but the growing consensus was that Aristotle did not have a theory of egoism, as you find in Rand, but that he simply assumed that every agent acts for what it perceives to be good for itself.

 

[dogman6126]

Not exactly. Aristotle views every deliberate action as being pursued for some perceived good. "Good" here means, some benefit for the acting agent. However, he holds that there is a definite hierarchy of goods - and that virtue (in part) involves pursuing higher goods, and lower goods only as a means to higher goods. Eg. He sees intoxication as unvirtuous, because it detracts from the higher good of clarity of mind.

It is true that Aristotle does not directly deal with egoism, he simply presumes it. Even altruistic acts in Aristotle are understood to be motivated by the perceived good/virtue/benefit of altruism itself, especially in respect of friends. "Virtue is its own reward."

There was much scholarship in the early 90's dealing with the subject of the implicit egoism in Aristotle. I only have a surface familiarity with it, as my work at the time was not academically related, but the growing consensus was that Aristotle did not have a theory of egoism, as you find in Rand, but that he simply assumed that every agent acts for what it perceives to be good for itself.

In my opinion, the quote "Virtue is its own reward" does separate Aristotle from the egoist perspective, but here we are only debating classifications. Even if Aristotle did have a self-interested action underpinning his theory of virtues, each position has a completely different meta-ethical framework, and can have very different responses to ethical questions. To Aristotle, the good action is determined by the measure of an action against that demanded by the applicable virtue. To Rand, the good action sis determined by that action's success in achieving one's self interest. To Aristotle, the value is in the virtuous action itself (intrinsic), while Rand suggests that the value is in the results of the action (extrinsic). I don't even know if Rand offers an account of where the value is. This is just my guess. This is not a good answer at all even as it doesn't answer the important questions "what is value" not how we know it or what is the valuable thing is. To say it differently, how does value show up. As I understand it, Rand would deny Aristotle's answer, that the value exists as a part of the natural world, all of itself (virtues).

Even if Aristotle has a flavor of self interested virtues, his entire framework is fundamentally different from Rand's.

 

[Rcs6r]

I think she was a very smart individual, but her philosophy is flawed. No man is an island, but under her philosophy it would seem that the individual is of the utmost importance, which is simply not the case. If every man was out for his/herself, society would fall apart.

 

[MsTeller]

I am a passionate Objectivist and believe almost devoutly in Rand's work and philosophy. Because of this I am very happy and surprised to find this thread here. I agree that there are people working very very hard to discredit her views (and others like them) because these views are threatening to the socialist "utopia" they want to live in-and of course make others work for and pay for! Surprisingly, many of these people describe themselves as Feeling types. As an INFJ, I can not imagine my own values being reflected in any type of belief system that negates the freedom and dignity of the individual.

Luckily, much of this negative attention is having the opposite effect it is intended to. The efforts to trash Rand is motivating a lot more people to look her up and read her books! In turn, those who actually read her books find that a lot of the statements used against Rand and Objectivists are absolutely false. Never did she actually discourage voluntary cooperation between individuals. In fact, voluntary social contracts are one of the highest forms of rational self-interest and joint cooperation. When Rand spoke against altruism she was referring to the type of forced charity that uses guilt or involuntary duty to "motivate" individuals to live for the sake of others.

 

[dogman6126]

I am a passionate Objectivist and believe almost devoutly in Rand's work and philosophy. Because of this I am very happy and surprised to find this thread here. I agree that there are people working very very hard to discredit her views (and others like them) because these views are threatening to the socialist "utopia" they want to live in-and of course make others work for and pay for! Surprisingly, many of these people describe themselves as Feeling types. As an INFJ, I can not imagine my own values being reflected in any type of belief system that negates the freedom and dignity of the individual.

Luckily, much of this negative attention is having the opposite effect it is intended to. The efforts to trash Rand is motivating a lot more people to look her up and read her books! In turn, those who actually read her books find that a lot of the statements used against Rand and Objectivists are absolutely false. Never did she actually discourage voluntary cooperation between individuals. In fact, voluntary social contracts are one of the highest forms of rational self-interest and joint cooperation. When Rand spoke against altruism she was referring to the type of forced charity that uses guilt or involuntary duty to "motivate" individuals to live for the sake of others.

The part I bolded here is one of the problems my friends have with Ayn Rand's work, and something I see common in her proponents. I think it is an artifact of the system. It is not either Ayn Rand's philosophies or, to quote you, a "socialist utopia". To give but one example, anarchism. Alternatively, some kinds of monarchies can form that respect the individual even above the ruler (constitutional monarchies). Even socialism doesn't necessarily deny the "freedom and dignity of the individual". Perhaps it takes society as a whole as having higher value than the individual, a socialist might argue that such a state can only be had in virtue of the freedoms and wills of the individuals that make up the state. While some historically socialist and, more commonly, communist nations have denied the freedoms of the individual, it is not inherent to the system (as I understand it). It is more incidental. However, I am not a socialist or communist, and have not studied political philosophy much at all. It is probably my weakest area of philosophy, lol.

I hear from many Rand proponents that what she meant wasn't really altruism or selfishness or even action or reason. In response, I say, well then why did she call it that? As having read several philosophers, I recognize the need for some jargon occasionally (Kant's noumenal world, or Aristotle's four kinds of causes), but there's a difference between today's scholars trying to clarify what was actually meant by the author and today's scholars trying to salvage a failed system. I'm not denying that she had some relevant points. For example, there is something to be said that people, in acting, do act for self interested reasons at least some of the time. People in such cases even may have moral reasons for acting in such a way. However, it is to big a jump to say that all moral actions are by self interested reasons.

 

[dogman6126]

I think she was a very smart individual, but her philosophy is flawed. No man is an island, but under her philosophy it would seem that the individual is of the utmost importance, which is simply not the case. If every man was out for his/herself, society would fall apart.

Not necessarily. It might be that it is in one's self interest to act in conformity with the rules of society. Rand isn't the first to describe such an idea. Hobbes' Leviathan offers a similar idea: that people must act according to the social contract or the sovereign will "fix it", lol. Been a while since I learned about Hobbes, so I'll have to look that up if you want much better detail

 

[sprinkles]

The part I bolded here is one of the problems my friends have with Ayn Rand's work, and something I see common in her proponents. I think it is an artifact of the system. It is not either Ayn Rand's philosophies or, to quote you, a "socialist utopia". To give but one example, anarchism. Alternatively, some kinds of monarchies can form that respect the individual even above the ruler (constitutional monarchies). Even socialism doesn't necessarily deny the "freedom and dignity of the individual". Perhaps it takes society as a whole as having higher value than the individual, a socialist might argue that such a state can only be had in virtue of the freedoms and wills of the individuals that make up the state. While some historically socialist and, more commonly, communist nations have denied the freedoms of the individual, it is not inherent to the system (as I understand it). It is more incidental. However, I am not a socialist or communist, and have not studied political philosophy much at all. It is probably my weakest area of philosophy, lol.

This is true, but I'm finding truths to be more useless by the minute.

I hear from many Rand proponents that what she meant wasn't really altruism or selfishness or even action or reason. In response, I say, well then why did she call it that? As having read several philosophers, I recognize the need for some jargon occasionally (Kant's noumenal world, or Aristotle's four kinds of causes), but there's a difference between today's scholars trying to clarify what was actually meant by the author and today's scholars trying to salvage a failed system. I'm not denying that she had some relevant points. For example, there is something to be said that people, in acting, do act for self interested reasons at least some of the time. People in such cases even may have moral reasons for acting in such a way. However, it is to big a jump to say that all moral actions are by self interested reasons.

Who is to say that actions need be moral? Hell, who is to say that things need be rational?

I see no rational proofs, just a lot of "because I said so." The only rational conclusion is for man to look out for himself? Says who?? Sounds made up to me!

 

[sprinkles]

Also note that majority contracts can still brutalize people. Collectives have weight by presence. People use legal force by buying property and land all the time.

Property rights can easily be passive aggressive. Even if you have "voluntary options" on paper you cannot use them without actualized mobility. Buying up essential land and commodities allows the owner to present a Hobson's choice in many cases - which is to say "take it my way or not at all."

 

[dogman6126]

This is true, but I'm finding truths to be more useless by the minute.



Who is to say that actions need be moral? Hell, who is to say that things need be rational?

I see no rational proofs, just a lot of "because I said so." The only rational conclusion is for man to look out for himself? Says who?? Sounds made up to me!

Oh sprinkles, your skeptic is showing! Lol jk

You're exactly right to question why actions need be moral or rational. As far as I know, Rand doesn't have an answer to this question. I know a common answer is that, at least for rationality, the measure of rationality is a matter of fact, not a question of need. It is a fact that action x is rational, and action y is not. Whether you ought to act rationally, well, that's another question. I'd imagine that you can assume the universe is such that logic is true. From here, we can build a system that connects intentional action to this fundamental component of the universe. So, rationality becomes a matter of fact and not choice. I know that Korsgaard makes a similar attempt for morality in her constitutivist framework.

EDIT: Although, it is fundamentally different because she cannot simply say that the universe has a fundamentally moral component. Then one is subject to a heap (as opposed to a pile? HA! philosophy joke, sorry ) of realist naturalist objections. For example, if the value is out there in the world (as argued by Aristotle) then where is it? Why does our physics not talk about it as a brute fact like gravity or matter or energy? Instead, she must develop it (construct it) from other fundamental systems.

She says that we do not choose to be moral or not. We cannot "opt out" of the game of morality. We are necessarily a part of the game of morality. Sure, you can question the game from outside the game (separate from the individual, she is an anti-realist [sees morality as mind dependent]), and it will make no sense. However, we are necessarily a part of that game, and subject to its rules. Notice also that I said a part of the game rather than subject to the game or playing the game. In Enoch's Agency Shmagency: Why Normativity Won't Come from What Is Constitutive of Action, he makes the point that if we are players of the game, then we can still question why play the game in any certain way at all (why be good as opposed to bad, or rational as opposed to irrational). However, that would work if we were merely subject to the game. If we are a part of the game, we truly constitute morality itself, then we don't have a choice in playing the game, or in being subject to its measure of good and bad. We may still choose to be bad, but it is with the understanding that we are doing wrong. Which is what we want.

Sorry, I might have gone a bit off topic there, and might have been unintelligible. It's past 1:00 here, and I'm way to tired to be talking like this, lol. If I'm not making sense, ask me to clarify, and I'll response later. Sorry!

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

We cannot opt out of other people having morals. We cannot opt out of people thinking there are rules. But thinking that being necessarily in the game makes the game valid is circular reasoning.

 

[dogman6126]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

We cannot opt out of other people having morals. We cannot opt out of people thinking there are rules. But thinking that being necessarily in the game makes the game valid is circular reasoning.

The validity or soundness or consistency of the game is derived from logic, not our relation to the game. Our necessary relation to the game makes us subject to it, and explains why questions like "where is the value out in the world" unintelligible questions. You won't see morality among the atoms. You have to recognize an agent.