Ayn Rand's Objectivism

[LordRahl]

The first time I heard about Objectivism was after reading a book written by an author who was its firm supporter. What I found amazing about that philosophy is that it completely agreed with my worldview - on virtually every major issue. I have yet to find any other philosophy that makes so much sense to me.

Objectivism is defined as:

a philosophical system founded by Ayn Rand, being one of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events. The five central concepts of Objectivism are objectivity, reason, rational self-interest, libertarianism and romantic realism.

Objectivism on Atheism:

"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy." [Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965]

Objectivism on Abortion:

"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).
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

 

[Perfection]

I'm not much for objectivism. In my limited experience with it, it seems rely to heavily on egoism and ignores the importance of compassion and selflessness.

Also, it tries to assert itself as an objective truth when in reality, it's just another subjective philosophical system.

 

[LordRahl]

I'm not much for objectivism. In my limited experience with it, it seems rely to heavily on egoism and ignores the importance of compassion and selflessness.

Also, it tries to assert itself as an objective truth when in reality, it's just another subjective philosophical system.

We are inherently egoistic beings. Even mother Theresa was doing all her charitable work, to get her reward in Heaven... Not to mention capitalism, which you have to admit is infinitely better than communism.

 

[Perfection]

We are inherently egoistic beings. Even mother Theresa was doing all her charitable work, to get her reward in Heaven...

No, we aren't just inherently egoistic beings. We're compassionate beings too. I do indeed have a genuine care of others. I think, that we all do. Compassion is a vital part of humanity, to deny that is to deny a part of oneself.

 

[Narz]

I agree with Perf, while I did find a couple of Rand's books enlightening there is a middle ground between her and the system she is rebelling against. At the end of the day, love and compassion make the world go round. I don't think anyone can look in the mirror at the end of the day and say that don't care about giving and recieving love. Achievement is good, not getting caught up in guilt and "put others first" dogma is good, not seeing oneself as a weak, imperfect being is good but ultimately pure selfishness is inadaquete. To me, the answers is to seeing the universe and oneself as parts of the same whole. How can you feel threatened by the world if your world is your creation, all events life lessons you helped orchastrate to teach yourself life lessons.

Can you objectively prove that is not true? I doubt it. That's my philosophy and it works for me.

 

[Fifty]

I'm sure some objectivist will come and point out that love & compassion are a part of rational self-interest, because they garner you respect from society, etc.

They may also say that any activity that makes you feel good can be called an act of self-interest, and caring and compassion make people feel good (otherwise they would not do them).

 

[Perfection]

Ffity, do you condier yourself an objectivist?

I'm sure some objectivist will come and point out that love & compassion are a part of rational self-interest, because they garner you respect from society, etc.

Not always. It seems very independant of self-motives.

They may also say that any activity that makes you feel good can be called an act of self-interest, and caring and compassion make people feel good (otherwise they would not do them).

Is it morally justified because it makes us happy? Or are we happy because we do something that we view is morally justified?

I view the later to be true.

 

[De Lorimier]

I can't give you my impressions of objectivism and of Ayn Rand's work. All I can say is that naming a doctrine objectivism always struck me as bs to begin with. A set of beliefs is inherently subjective. I haven't read the books and I can't honestly comment on the subject more than that.

I can, however, talk to you about objectivists. I had the opportunity to meet a lot of those specimens on and off-line and I was left with a bitter feeling. Never before in my life have I been faced with such a pompous group of individuals. Objectivists not only know better than you, they are better than you. Their behavior is the one I expect from the religious conservatives, not people claiming to a new version of enlightenment. That's why I always had difficulties with them, I expect more from a so-called rational community.

 

[Perfection]

An interesting book I read on the topic was Micheal Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". One chapter called "the unlikelist cult" is on objectivism. He argues that the objectivists have acted in a way very similar to that of religious cults. In my limited experience with objectivists it has seemed to be true.

 

[Narz]

I'm sure some objectivist will come and point out that love & compassion are a part of rational self-interest, because they garner you respect from society, etc.

They may also say that any activity that makes you feel good can be called an act of self-interest, and caring and compassion make people feel good (otherwise they would not do them).

Ok, so your thesis is "love and compassion make people feel good" and also "alot of things make people feel good". That's fine by me. My point though is that perhaps love and compassion should perhaps be emphasized as the prefered method of achieving happiness over say heroin or getting drunk and fighting (which, one could argue are less likely to give happiness anyway though they would aviod the risks of intimacy, which people will go thru great lengths to aviod). For example would you want an objectivist girl as your girlfriend? IMO, she wouldn't be much good in bed (only thinking of herself). I'd rather have a proactive girl who viewed herself as great and viewed me as great. Her highest value being love she wouldn't try to make sure everything went her way, she'd just go with the flow and TRUST that I would love her back. See, there's a risk there, one that objectivists are unwilling to take. However, if they could truly trust their logic they'd realize that with love, you win, because eventually you will find one who loves you back and then you can give to her (him) fully without having to constantly be thinking in the back of your mind (what's in it for me, what's in it for me).

Just my opinion that constant self-obsession does not lead to happiness.

Been there, tried that. Trust me.

I had this quote as my sig for a long time : "It is the essence of man to find a suitable recipient for his love". I believe that truly. Only in giving what you were made to (have evolved to) give joyfully and without hesitation can you be truly happy (in other words, you have to do what you want rather than follow your society or family or friend or work prescriped "duty"). This is Rand's messege too really but she gets selfishness all caught up in the mix which turns off a lot of folks such as De Lorimier and even myself (though I try to be "objective" enough to see thru the BS to find the gold).

Anyway, again I think Objectivism is a reactionary philiosophy rallying against the worst of religion and politics (Soviet Communism) and she had a lot of great points in her books. However, in the end, her philosophy was inadquete. For me anyway.

 

[Narz]

By the way, I started a thread on the Apolyton forums a couple years ago that got over 300 replies. I can't seem to find it though.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If Randist Objectivism agrees perfectly with your worldview, you're in deep ****, dude ...

Randists are well-known as proponents of ethical egoism, but Rand herself was also a strong believer in individual rights. That's just one of the contradictions she never resolved.

 

[LordRahl]

True Love also embodies egoism:

You fall in love with a person because you regard him or her as a value, and because they contribute to your personal happiness. Now you couldn't fall in love with a person by saying: "You mean nothing to me, I don't care whether you live or die, but you need me, and therefore, I'm in love with you." If someone offered love of that kind, everyone would regard that as a deadly insult. That isn't love. Therefore, romantic love is a selfish emotion. It is the choice of a person as a great value and what you fall in love with is the same values, which you choose, embodied in another person. - Ayn Rand

 

[Aphex_Twin]

An interesting book I read on the topic was Micheal Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". One chapter called "the unlikelist cult" is on objectivism. He argues that the objectivists have acted in a way very similar to that of religious cults. In my limited experience with objectivists it has seemed to be true.

Concerning the cult-like characters of Objectivism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

Note however that the behaviour of those people is actually in contrast with their own philosophy (And Rothbard doesn't have these people to his heart ).


But I have to give it to (O)objectivists for being (at least in theory) responsive to rational thinking. A rarer thing these days

 

[Aphex_Twin]

For example would you want an objectivist girl as your girlfriend? IMO, she wouldn't be much good in bed (only thinking of herself).

Actually, if she is true to her doctrine, she would strive to become one. Too bad you can't get a piece of that action
( *cough* hippie *cough* )

Anyway, again I think Objectivism is a reactionary philiosophy rallying against the worst of religion and politics (Soviet Communism) and she had a lot of great points in her books. However, in the end, her philosophy was inadquete. For me anyway.

And there lies the value. Who else would dare say: "The State, the Church, your parents - are lying to you. Selflishness is OK. Nothing is worth dying for..." And despite going overboard, she makes her case. Atlas Shrugged is in a way funny by the means it makes (some) socialists foam at the mouth

 

[Shaihulud]

Never read her book, have been advised that it is not worth the time and life is too short to read poor books that are thick. Objectivism sounds nonsensical, do I have to analyse my actions and emotions? It is abit too mechanical and artificial to live your life based on such a philosophy.

You fall in love with a person because you regard him or her as a value, and because they contribute to your personal happiness.

Sometimes love brings pain instead of pleasure. Its one who you love that can bring the sharpest pain. An Objectivist might not be willing to risk such an unpleasant emotion to herself, instead more trusting some slob to "fall" in love with her before committing herself in a very tepid and shallow form of love.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm not much for objectivism. In my limited experience with it, it seems rely to heavily on egoism and ignores the importance of compassion and selflessness.

Also, it tries to assert itself as an objective truth when in reality, it's just another subjective philosophical system.

That's brilliantly summarized. I have nothing to add.

I don't know well Ayn Rand's character, the only thing I've seen was her bashing Canada as being irrelevant, some rants which were certainly not objective in anyway.

In the short description of the objectivist "philosophy" Lord Rahl has posted in his first post, there's already a contradiction. Indeed, how can we be objective while seeing everything according to our own selfishness. That seems as a pathetic attempt to objectivize our own hypocrisy.

 

[Fifty]

Ffity, do you condier yourself an objectivist?

No way! I was just anticipating the responses from the forum objectivists. I tend to agree with your's and narz's opinion, but I'm thinking we'll hear an objectivist argue what I did at some point in this thread.

 

[Marla_Singer]

care for others come from a feeling of empathy... which is inherently human. That comes from the fact people are not comfortable towards the misery of other people. That's the reason why people cry while watching movies for instance.

 

[Fifty]

I can't give you my impressions of objectivism and of Ayn Rand's work. All I can say is that naming a doctrine objectivism always struck me as bs to begin with. A set of beliefs is inherently subjective. I haven't read the books and I can't honestly comment on the subject more than that.

From what I've read, the reason they think it is perfectly objective is because they have this set of two or three axioms which they believe are infallibly correct, because any attempt to contradict them fufills them.

I can't remember all of them, but one of them is "Existence exists." The way that they attempt to prove this as infallible is through this exercise:

person A: Existence does not exist.

person B: I can't acknowledge what you say then, because you don't exist to say it.

A: Well of course I exist to say existence doesn't exist, I obviously just did.

B: See, existence does exist!