Ayn Rand

[The Rev]

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged over the last couple of months (my second time reading Ayn Rand's classic novel), and I'm just blown away by her insights. I'm also a pretty big fan of Nathaniel Branden, who I think compliments and, in many ways, completes Rand's philosophy in a way that makes it more human.

How many of you are familiar with her work? I know she is a controversial artist, so I posted this here in the heap. What are your thoughts?

:vebo:

The Rev

[WonderRandy]

I've read most of her writings, altho it was several years ago. I was profoundly influenced by Atlas Shrugged most of all.

[WonderRandy]

However, I'm not sure I still agree with her philosophy. it leaves no room for magic, spirituality, or mysticism, and these are important elements in my version of reality...

[vladthedog]

I feel very torn over her. Back in school I wrote my semester philosophy paper on her and her work, so I've read almost everything she's written. The first time i read atlas shrugged was over the course of maybe 2 or 3 days... i absolutely loved it then. I've been wanting to read it again, to see how i still feel about it.

Many of the basic concepts I agree to a certain extent. I love her characters strong will (although I hate how black & white she makes the characters... the characters representing her ideals are strong and powerful, the characters representing the antithesis of her ideals are weak-minded and have no backbone). I really liked the idea of a group of people pulling out of society. I don't have a problem working for "my own." But at the same time, I'm not much of a capitalist, and I do feel that there are many people out there that NEED handout's of sorts. Granted, most are in that situation from stupidity, but no matter how they ended up in their situation, it pains me to see people suffer.

I took many of her ideas and actually formulated a theory on how God itself was a selfish being, and "selfishness" does not = bad... (I was going to a christian college at the time.. you can just guess how that went over....) In the english language it has a negative stigma, but at its core, there are "good" selfish reactions, and "bad" selfish reactions.

But again, this was years ago. I feel my personal philosophy has really grown since those "youthful days" and am curious how i would react to her writing. I'm actually going back to school in the spring to finish my philosophy degree after years of being lazy, so i'm trying to read all the major philosophers (at least to me) again before january so i'll be back on track.

[ebola]

note that I am speaking from what I've read of Ayn Rand's philosophical and political treatises and not her art.

my hesitations about Ayn Rand's philosophy:

1. altruism is evil and anti-man.

No. Altruists derive satisfaction from their altruism, so there is really no pure self-destructive altrusism of the sort that Rand describes.

2. through the use of reason, we can discern the objective patterns of the universe and derive the singular truth.

I disagree with this ontology and I think it is the source of a lot of Randist arrogance ("if you disagree, you must be irrational.")

3. The only good is one man's pleasure. Therefore, the moral is to work in self-interest.

This does not work on a systemic level. It is not necessarily so that all individuals working for their own good will in turn create the greatest possible aggregate good.

4. The primary person to person relation is that of trader.

I disagree. This creates an artificial picture of society as the aggregation of atomized individuals. Rather than beginning as traders, human beings begin in social relations...the primary relation being that of cooperative labor.

This relates to Rand's major fallacty that she overlooks cooperative solutions to mutual problems as rational activity.

5. Capitalism rewards those with innovative ideas, for these ideas are the source of wealth, not laboring activity.

This is not true. If it were the case, we would see a wealth of scientists driving rolls royces. Instead, under capitalism, the system rewards those who begin with capital and those who trade their capital shrewdly, rather than those who carry out any really useful task.

[epski]

I've read a couple of her monolithic novels, and found them profoundly moving and fascinating, but they ultimately didn't define any outlook of mine. I think a lot of what she wrote was self-serving. She was very easily influenced by money and power, IMHO.

[MollyGoat]

I just can't stand that Ayn Rand! /clever poem

But seriously. I think objectivism is an abhorrent philosophy, but I've never read any Rand other than excerpts from her more philosophical writings. I'm semi-interested in the novels, but most people I've heard tell about them say they're poorly written...

[Ryan McReynolds]

I like that Ayn Rand is a materialist and an atheist, for I am as well. However, I find her actual philosophy and politics distasteful. As a philosophical utilitarian and a progressive/socialist/liberal-type, that is not surprising.

[vladthedog]

I just can't stand that Ayn Rand! /clever poem

But seriously. I think objectivism is an abhorrent philosophy, but I've never read any Rand other than excerpts from her more philosophical writings. I'm semi-interested in the novels, but most people I've heard tell about them say they're poorly written...

they aren't as eloquent as some authors, but when i first started reading atlas shrugged it was for the artistic side rather than the philosophical side. I really enjoyed it as a novel itself.

on (kind of) a side note... has anyone read The Illuminatus! Trilogy? The first time I read it I hadn't read any ayn rand yet, but I've read it twice since then and there is a lot of "poking fun" at ayn rand... very funny stuff :)

[epski]

I found the novels quite involving, and I empathized quite a bit with Howard Rourke in The Fountainhead, which I suppose is one thing that makes the philosophy she's pushing more intriguing initially. Fortunately, Atlas Shrugged is such lunacy that it's easy to dismiss the philosophy and enjoy the ride.

[schu]

note that I am speaking from what I've read of Ayn Rand's philosophical and political treatises and not her art.

my hesitations about Ayn Rand's philosophy:

1. altruism is evil and anti-man.

No. Altruists derive satisfaction from their altruism, so there is really no pure self-destructive altrusism of the sort that Rand describes.

I don't think that altruism exists..i think thats sort of what you said , but i don't think they take satisfaction from altruism because i dont think one can be altruistic

"Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."

[Sevenseas]

Why should altruism not be defined as a tendency to derive pleasure from helping others?

[schu]

Why should altruism not be defined as a tendency to derive pleasure from helping others?


one of the main parts of the definition has always been "unselfish" or "selfless" so i find it hard to understand how we jump to that one

how is the selflessness not a main component of altruism?

i think we have words already for those who tend to enjoy helping others

[Sevenseas]

one of the main parts of the definition has always been "unselfish" so i find it hard to understand how we jump to that one

I would say that it is implicitly understood that 'pleasure' and 'unselfish' don't exclude each other.

[renaissancesun]

Scholorship anyone?

The Ayn Rand institute has a writing contest every year with some sholarship money for prizes.

I read Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged and liked them, in spite of the stilted and sometimes melodramatic behavior of the characters but I don't agree with all of her philosophy. It seems distorted and contradictory sometimes to me, in some way, though I have a hard time putting a finger on it.

I tend to think in more "grey" ways about some things and I don't think I am wrong for doing so, although according to her to think "grey" is evil.

Sunny

[The Rev]

I agree that Ayn Rand's philosophy is a bit rigid and out of touch at times. I think that's why I like Nathaniel Branden's work so well. He is a psychologist, but was also a pupil of Rand's, and has adopted her philosophy in a way that makes it more relevent to actual human nature. For example, the things he says about the effects of denial on self-esteem are incredible. When you read his work along with hers, her ideas (which make up 90% of what Branden talks about) fit much more recognizably into day to day situations, and one's life. I really didn't get as much from Rand before I read Branden.

Check out his book, Honoring the Self and you'll see what I mean.

:think:

The Rev

[Rebel Girl]

I have read several Ayn Rand novels, I especially love Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and Capatalism: The Unknown Ideal. Some of her philosophy's I agree with, others I do not. Anthem I really enjoyed for it's prose like writing and the underlying theme of self relazation. (sp?) Promethus and Gaea see themselves as more than number 578973 or whatever and having feelings and emotions and things, which resonated with me alot. I cant say that I agree with alot of the stuff she said in Capatalism though.

[ebola]

>>Why should altruism not be defined as a tendency to derive pleasure from helping others?>>

Because if we do so, Rand's criticism of altruism falls on its face. Of course, I'm likely arguing against a straw-person Rand-zombie.

ebola

[catmandu]

The following links will perhaps give some insight into the kind of thinking Rand's philosophy leads to:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/Search?query=animal+rights&inc=10

A list of articles published by the Ayn Rand Institute regarding animal rights. Sample titles: Animal Rights and the New Man Haters; The Terror of "Animal Rights"; The Evil of Animal "Rights"

A list of articles regarding environmentalism:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/Search?query=environmentalism&inc=10

Sample Title: On Earth Day, Remember: If Environmentalism Succeeds, It Will Make Human Life Impossible

[glamboy]

I LOVE Ayn Rand!!!! The Anthem was by far, my favorite. The topic of objectivism is great :D
*~GLAMBOY~*

[ebola]

>>The following links will perhaps give some insight into the kind of thinking Rand's philosophy leads to:>>

man...i think that philosophers working from even a Randist framework can do much better than that. I'd like to think that in a different universe I could. :)

ebola

[schu]

I would say that it is implicitly understood that 'pleasure' and 'unselfish' don't exclude each other.

i don't think it means the same thing if you change the definition in that way....

and that is certainly not the way it is commonly used..it is commonly used to describe selflessness, which i think does not exist

for the record..i am not arguing this from the standpoint that says that if a person benefits from helping others that their action is less important, i just think its important to identify that we gain something from everything we do and that while i dont think we do anything selflessly, i dont see anything wrong with that, you can still choose to what degree you want to "put yourself out" for someone else..but you do it because you feel it is necessary, not selflessly, if you hadn't already determined it was a worthy action you wouldn't take it

to me it sounds great that a person derives pleasure from helping another person but i dont think that describes altruism..and i think this puts Rand to rest as well because it can be very beneficial to a person to help another in need

[Breathe]

Anthem was lovely.

[The Rev]

Selfishness and selflessness seem to be rather vaguely defined. In Atlas Shrugged, during his 80 page speech, John Galt states that the problem is one where the giver does not make the decision out of his/her own desires. For example, he says that for a mother to feed her children, rather than indulge some personal desire, is not a personal sacrifice, because she values her child more than her own desires. The same could be said of a selfless act like saving an animal, or helping a person stranded on the road. If you want to, and it makes you feel good, then it's not against Rand's philosophy. It's when a person makes a moral demand on you, stating that you owe him/her because you are one of the haves, and s/he is one of the have-nots, that you have a moral problem. No man has the right to make another responsible for him, IOW.

Altruism, as Rand saw it, was a problem that resulted from people sacrificing their best for people who did not deserve it, out of guilt, or misguided morality. Her belief was that each of us should be an end in ourselves, and to serve our own happiness was our highest moral purpose. It makes me happy to live (and eat) compassionately. It is not against reason, according to any of Rand's arguments, either.

I hope that clears up a few things, and maybe adds some fuel to the intellectual fire. (I really like this site. It's true, BTW. Veg*n's are more prone to thinking than the average. *takes a deep, satisfying breath and smiles* )

:D

The Rev