Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Rational or not?

[Virtueman1]

I recently found this author who claims to be an advocate of reason yet is impopular, or at least have been, among academics who advocate the very same thing. Why is that?

Since I intend to find out I must ask you what is your opinion on Ayn Rand and her reasoning in philosophy?

Before you start bashing her to the ground as many do, be sure not to base your accusations on misunderstandings about her statements. I find it all too common that people hate her because they assume she said something that in fact she never did. I think any criticism should at least come with some explanation of why she was wrong if anyone is going to gain any further understanding from this thread.

 

[lrkun]

I recently found this author who claims to be an advocate of reason yet is impopular, or at least have been, among academics who advocate the very same thing. Why is that?

Since I intend to find out I must ask you what is your opinion on Ayn Rand and her reasoning in philosophy?

Before you start bashing her to the ground as many do, be sure not to base your accusations on misunderstandings about her statements. I find it all too common that people hate her because they assume she said something that in fact she never did. I think any criticism should at least come with some explanation of why she was wrong if anyone is going to gain any further understanding from this thread.

Do you mean this Ayn Rand?

 

[Prolescum]

Do you mean this Ayn Rand?

Obviously, LRKun.

I don't care a jot about her and her so-called rational self-interest. I won't say any more because she and her short-sighted philosophy angers me; I can already feel a hulk coming on.

 

[lrkun]

I hold a contrary opinion with respect to her. I believe that people are made to be of help to another, not only for the interest of the self.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I thought Atlas Shrugged was a great fantasy novel, like Lord of the Rings but the heroes are engineers and Scandinavian pirates.

As a philosophy I think it's an interesting thing to consider but should never be your only ethical guideline. My main takeaway from AS was that you should never be ashamed of your accomplishments.

As a suggestion for socio-economic policy I think it's about as realistic as Marxism, and a good bit less humane.

 

[televator]

While I agree that we all have a sense of the self that we indulge in to varying degrees, I also believe that it isn't the only thing present in our nature. I've read how altruistic behavior, has been evolutionarily selected and proven itself beneficial in many species including humans. So, I tend to think people who dwell solely on "the self" are being completely irrational. They dogmatically ignore, not only an aspect of human nature, but of the natural process of evolution as well. I can't help but think such people are just as detrimental/regressive toward social progress, evolution, and longevity as evangelical creationists are in that sense.

 

[Aught3]

I don't like objectivism. It seems to me that many, if not most, of the world's problems are caused by selfishness. To suggest more self-interest is the solution doesn't seem to be a very rational solution.

 

[creativesoul]

Rand is sh*t. Capitalists sometimes love 'er though. At least the ones looking to validate their own greed and blatant disregard of fellow humans...

 

[theyounghistorian77]

I've always found this website to be useful when dealing with the types

in my opinion, ive always considered Leonard Peikoff to be the more insane of the two. maybe this is why.



"Peikoff, deriving all his intellectual inspiration from the corrupted sources of Rand's quasi-leftist view of human nature, is not fit to give advice on any important question of social policy [or History for that matter. My addition.]. Lacking any knowledge of the fundamentals of realpolitik, his proposals can only serve to distract the individual from confronting the real problems at issue. Randian idealism about human nature and morality is incapable of providing guidance in a world that is far different than either Rand or Peikoff imagines it to be. By following it in their own lives, Rand and Peikoff have brought ignominy and ruin upon themselves and their cause. We should all be wary of taking advice from anyone inspired by such polluted intellectual currents" - from http://www.jrnyquist.com/peikoff's_genocidal_campaign.htm

 

[televator]

Wow...O'Reily looks sane and rational next to that guy! :shock: First time I've seen a full on, modern, self proclaimed, Objectivist. I knew it was a mad man's philosophy, but somehow that guy still manages to amaze me.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Peikoff is an enormous tool.

For those who dislike Rand, I ask: why?

I don't care a jot about her and her so-called rational self-interest. I won't say any more because she and her short-sighted philosophy angers me; I can already feel a hulk coming on.

Explain? I'm curious why you feel such anger towards self-interest...

I like Ayn Rand, personally. However, tools like Peikoff are the reason I firmly say that I'm not an Objectivist. I might align myself with them marginally in the sense that I believe in the principals of the ideology. Unfortunately, the whole topic is riddled with cognitive bias and logical fallacies on both sides of the fence. I can tell from reading this thread alone that the only person so far who's truly read Atlas Shrugged was RichardMNixon, and he seems to have gotten the point of it.

Anthem was what lead me away from religion, it was the kick in the balls to my theism. Rand has been good for me. I picked up the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged after, read those, along with the Virtue of Selfishness. Rand presented an ideal, as was compared to Marx earlier. I would say even that she defined the opposite end of the spectrum from Marx.

But it appears that the only thing anyone here has understood about Objectivism is that it sees selfishness as a virtue - likely having never read any of her works. You've disregarded 95% of the ideology, and likely misunderstood the other 5%.

So let me explain Objectivism, and give it fair representation.

The first, and perhaps biggest, point that Rand makes is this: Think for yourself. So I ask, why would anyone here object to this as an ideal? This is the meaning of Objectivism, the very core of what the ideal revolves around. In it's most simplistic form, Objectivism simply means "Think for yourself." Everything, literally everything, stems from this one principal.

The second point it makes is to try and see the world objectively, the source of the name. This means settings aside emotional baggage and bias, and accepting that what is, is. This is often touted as "A is A." The best way to make sure that your understanding is correct and unbiased, is to step back and remove bias and try to see objectively.

The third point is that it is despicable to not think for yourself. People not thinking for themselves is the source of all misery, in the end. It lets the leeches of society bypass a person's rational process and destroy them for their own gain.

There's also some serious confusion, perhaps due to the writing style, as to what is "expected" what is "ideal" and what is "evil." It doesn't advocate the sort of petty greed and selfishness supposed by some of the comments here, but unfortunately it does draw a crowd who seem to think that it does. There are a few major difference between the common perception of Objectivism, and Objectivism.

To better explain this I'm going to respond to points in earlier posts.

I've read how altruistic behavior, has been evolutionarily selected and proven itself beneficial in many species including humans. So, I tend to think people who dwell solely on "the self" are being completely irrational. They dogmatically ignore, not only an aspect of human nature, but of the natural process of evolution as well. I can't help but think such people are just as detrimental/regressive toward social progress, evolution, and longevity as evangelical creationists are in that sense.

Yes, people who dwell solely on the self are evil, and are painted that way in Rand's works. Likewise, so are people who dwell solely on altruism. The realistic goal is to strike a balance, and that's what Rand supports in her writing. This is overlooked, because she hates the word altruism, but in reality she simply draws a line in the sand and defines another form of altruism: selfish altruism. Selfish altruism is an altruistic act which lies in accordance with the values of the actor, such as when Dagny gives a job to the hobo on her train. She sees the word altruism as a vile evil because it's often used to describe self-destructive altruism, the "give god the first portion of your income" altruism.

I think it's unrealistic to say that altruism cannot be selfish. I think it's true that many people don't think of themselves when acting altruistically, but I think they derive pleasure from such acts. Priests, for instance, who give and give and never ask or take, don't proselytize or witness, who are genuinely nice and giving people - they take pleasure in being that person, it makes them happy with who they are, and that makes it selfish in its own way. I'm a very altruistic person, for instance, but I acknowledge that I do it because I enjoy it. I'm proud of the causes I donate to, for instance.

I hold a contrary opinion with respect to her. I believe that people are made to be of help to another, not only for the interest of the self.

That isn't contrary to her.

Contrary to her would be the belief that some are meant to slave and suffer so that others don't have to work or think.

I don't like objectivism. It seems to me that many, if not most, of the world's problems are caused by selfishness. To suggest more self-interest is the solution doesn't seem to be a very rational solution.

You're conflating selfishness with avarice. The acts of the avaricious are reprehensible - as an example, BP neglecting the shut-off valve for their pump, was an act of avarice(insatiable desire for wealth) rather than selfishness(acting in a manner that benefits ones self). The selfish action would have been to make sure the shut-off valve was there so that what happened, wouldn't have - it would have saved millions in the long run.

The avaricious leeches on society often cite Rand as validating their greed. She doesn't. Anyone who has actually read her works will understand this. Unfortunately, the minority who have read and understood are overshadowed by the loud majority who have skimmed and justified.

The harm caused by selfishness that you cite isn't self-interest, it's avarice. Avarice is not selfish, it is self-destructive. It requires thought evasion. This and Envy are the most notable traits in her villains - James Taggart is a selfish man, sure, but he's avaricious and envious: he ignores self-preservation for the instant gratification of a couple grand gained.

There's an interesting bit by Ayn Rand I'll post. The following is taken from http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/envy-hatred_of_the_good_for_being_the_good.html

Today, we live in the Age of Envy.

"Envy" is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify.

Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves . . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.

This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree . . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one's own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.

If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.

The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues.

To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one's automatized response to values is hatred.

In the end, Objectivism has little to do with self-gain, and everything to do with self-knowledge. It is about understanding your values - which vary from person to person.

Ignore Peikoff. He's a fucking tool and makes those of us who have actually spent the brain power understanding Rand look bad. Ayn Rand had some good ideas, and they're worth analysing, but she was a real shitty judge of character. Leonard Peikoff and the Communist Greenspan are just a couple examples.

 

[creativesoul]

Depricated wrote:

For those who dislike Rand, I ask: why?

She misses the boat. Every argument I read of her 'objectivism' is shit.

but she was a real shitty judge of character...

Telling... isn't it?

 

[DepricatedZero]

She misses the boat. Every argument I read of her 'objectivism' is shit.

I challenge you to back up this statement.

Telling... isn't it?

Only as telling as your lack of comprehension is of your own beliefs.

 

[creativesoul]

Hmmm, holding the insufficiently grounded wrongful presupposition(s) aside...

Offer any argument of hers, and I'll pick it apart for you.

You could begin with her premisses, or jump right into her full-fledged Objectfuscation. Your choice. Brace yourself.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I tend to avoid arguing with Objectivists for the same reason I tend avoid arguing with people that really love 2001: A Space Odyssey (not to disparage people who enjoy the film), or that Gareth guy:

They give you the strong impression that, because you disagree with them, you must be an unlettered cretin, or woefully naive and idealistic. There's nothing I hate quite so much as the accusation, "you just don't understand;" its irritating even when true, but doubly so otherwise.

That said, if your an Objectivist that can get through a debate without succumbing to this, more power to you.

 

[Aught3]

Thanks for the clarifying post DZ (not so impressed with the follow up :evil: )

On the first and second points of objectivism, I think most people here would agree with them. But we don't need to turn to objectivism to find these principles. They have been well known and put into practice by freethinkers and rationalists for centuries. The virtue of selfishness it something new and controversial which is probably why it gets the most attention.

 

[televator]

Multifaceted discussions are a bitch to draw out on forums so I'll address my portion directly, but I'll touch up on another thing.

I've read how altruistic behavior, has been evolutionarily selected and proven itself beneficial in many species including humans. So, I tend to think people who dwell solely on "the self" are being completely irrational. They dogmatically ignore, not only an aspect of human nature, but of the natural process of evolution as well. I can't help but think such people are just as detrimental/regressive toward social progress, evolution, and longevity as evangelical creationists are in that sense.

Yes, people who dwell solely on the self are evil, and are painted that way in Rand's works. Likewise, so are people who dwell solely on altruism. The realistic goal is to strike a balance, and that's what Rand supports in her writing. This is overlooked, because she hates the word altruism, but in reality she simply draws a line in the sand and defines another form of altruism: selfish altruism. Selfish altruism is an altruistic act which lies in accordance with the values of the actor, such as when Dagny gives a job to the hobo on her train. She sees the word altruism as a vile evil because it's often used to describe self-destructive altruism, the "give god the first portion of your income" altruism.

I think it's unrealistic to say that altruism cannot be selfish. I think it's true that many people don't think of themselves when acting altruistically, but I think they derive pleasure from such acts. Priests, for instance, who give and give and never ask or take, don't proselytize or witness, who are genuinely nice and giving people - they take pleasure in being that person, it makes them happy with who they are, and that makes it selfish in its own way. I'm a very altruistic person, for instance, but I acknowledge that I do it because I enjoy it. I'm proud of the causes I donate to, for instance.

I don't think I know enough about Rand herself to pass judgment on her either way. Now, I do think that Altruistic behavior can be a means to self gratification a lot of times, but I think it's a bit dubious to make self gratification the focal point or catalyst for justifying one's behavior. There are times where the "right" choice is not conducive to one's own well being or at least to one's own ego. Many people also tend to care more for instant gratification rather than consider the long term positive or negative outcomes of their choices. I guess what it comes down to is that unconditional "feelgoodism" tends to degrade into a subjective and inconsistent outlook, thus becoming unreliable and unsustainable when applied on a grand scale. Gratification can ideally be the consequence of good deeds, but it should not be the exclusive motivation or compass of all your decisions as everyone has different ideas of "gratifying incentives."

The assessment of the strict "give god/government the first portion unconditionally" type of altruism I can agree with, as that crosses the line into a totalitarian mindset. However, it's just as bad to react extremely toward it and villainize the whole concept completely. Society is ultimately a social mechanism (Tautology lulz. I know, but amazing how some folks don't think about it like that until it is in the form of a metaphor.) and we do each surrender things to it for the benefits it bears in return. Safety, stability, relative freedom, and equal rights -- I think as long as we are granted these items in fair manner, all is well. Granted, that is obviously not something we have today in the US, but that's another conversation...

 

[DepricatedZero]

snip

Absolutely. This is partly why I don't call myself an objectivist, because I'm not by the strict definition, though I agree on several points.

There are forms of self-destructive altruism, such as throwing oneself on a grenade. In the case of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, it's clearly not motivated by self-interest in the sense of self preservation. However, it is easily self-interest in the sense that it is motivated by the person's values. Sometimes, you suffer or even die for your values.

Ayn Rand was an idealogue, and as such everything was presented as starkly black and white - this is just rhetoric. Reading through her writings though, and her notes, it's clear she intended to present the best-case with an optimistic view of humanity. Since Atlas Shrugged was meant as a construction of Objectivism, let me present the most important character, which represented what she believed real men aught to be. No, not John Galt - John Galt was the ideal man. Eddie Willers is the real man, and that was the point of his character. He understood Galt, had lunch with Galt regularly, admired what Galt stood for, and applied those ideals with balance. Eddie Willers is the star of the show.

(not so impressed with the follow up :evil: )

It was a match to the grade school 'rhetoric' of "telling, isn't it"

On the first and second points of objectivism, I think most people here would agree with them. But we don't need to turn to objectivism to find these principles. They have been well known and put into practice by freethinkers and rationalists for centuries. The virtue of selfishness it something new and controversial which is probably why it gets the most attention.

By far Ayn Rand wasn't the first to put it down. She was the first to put it to me in a way I understood, though, which has some significance. Does restating a concept and including it in an explanation suddenly make a concept bad? As far as I can tell, anyone railing against Objectivism is railing against Free Thought.

Also, the use of the word Selfishness is meant to stir the pot, naturally. By far, she did not use it in the traditional "share your toys, don't be selfish" sense. Unfortunately, that's all people hear.

Offer any argument of hers, and I'll pick it apart for you.

Have at:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

 

[creativesoul]

Oooops...



You got me there. I do not argue from ought to is, nor from is to ought.

How about an argument of hers which is not a 'moral' one? You know, one that has 'firmer' ground. I don't play in the moral belief sandbox. I like the munkey bars tho.

 

[DepricatedZero]

The focus of Objectivism is morality. . .

Perhaps this one:

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both.