What did I just read? Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

[Old Hippy]

Ayn Rand vs. Jesus Christ: Choose only one

This is the ultimate irony in American political life right now, the conservatives who swear on a stack of Bibles that they worship Jesus Christ when they really bow down to the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the golden idol of the free market to be placed at the center of all other things. They preach of an American exceptionalism blessed by a Christian God, and call for America to be a shining city on a hill which can be an example to the entire world. Yet their exceptionalism isn't based on our country being moral the way Jesus would have understood it, but moral the way Rand and the Social Darwinists of the 1880s and '90s would have understood it: whoever gets rich deserves to be, and whoever is poor is a leech on society. Their vision of America is shining because of the gold the wealthy among us possess, not because our society as a whole is built on morality.

I thought the ultimate irony was

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”

for those who have no time to read her ... here is a summary

Link to video.

would you teach all your children this

 

[Leoreth]

I honestly don't have any idea how to count Randians... but rons little baby numbers over 8 million... slightly less than the trekkers cult I belive... tho apparently some trekkers are also Randians... but not it seems scientologists...

Rand's philosophy disagrees with almost everything Star Trek tries do stand for.

 

[Old Hippy]

Rand's philosophy disagrees with almost everything Star Trek tries do stand for.

could not agree more... in star wars terms its the dark side

 

[Traitorfish]

Egoism is just egotism with one letter removed.

Not really. Plenty of non-egotistical egoists and egotistical non-egoists- look at Tucker on the one hand, or Stalin on the other. The fact that they coincide in Rand isn't reason to oversimplify.

 

[Mise]

Objectivism is just terrible philosophy.

 

[Angst]

Objectivism is just terrible philosophy.

This is true, and that's the problem. I mean, Nietzsche is insane, but his thought system is applicable a lot of places and has influenced a lot of people due to his argumentative power.

Rand just talks a lot.

 

[Cutlass]

Objectivism is just terrible philosophy.

More to the point, I have yet to encounter an Objectivist that has an objective conception of reality.

 

[Kraznaya]

Objectivism is just terrible philosophy.

Objectively terrible?

 

[Traitorfish]

More to the point, I have yet to encounter an Objectivist that has an objective conception of reality.

I've yet to encounter a human being that has an objective conception of reality, so I can't fairly say they're unusual in that.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The irony being that her followers are as conformist as anyone can get, marching in lockstep with what they are told to believe.

Rand: You are all individuals!
Randroids, in lockstep unison: Yes, we are all individuals!

Spoiler :

Link to video.

In the unlikely event that someone doesn't get the reference

 

[Icaria909]

What are these good ideas, please? You were not very explicit in making the distinction between the good ones and the rest.

For example, one should take pleasure in self-improvement. For Rand, improving oneself is an end in itself. I personally believe that this should be true. For example, I like to study languages I will never use, simply because I like the feeling of improving myself.

Another example is that you should take pride in your work, regardless of how insignificant or important it is. If I am a garbage sweeper or an award winning scientist, I can take satisfaction in knowing that I am doing a good job.

She may draw many strange conclusions, but she does advocate some ideas that even the most anti-objectivists can find useful.

 

[JollyRoger]

How are either of those ideas revolutionary? They seem pretty run-of-the-mill to me.

 

[cegman]

How are either of those ideas revolutionary? They seem pretty run-of-the-mill to me.

I've seen a lot of local politicians that don't seem to understand those ideas. Just simple things like that are what kinda make her appealing until you look closely at the none basic stuff. That's where she misses.

I just watched the movie Atlas Shrugged the other day and was sitting there going this makes sense that makes sense that's common sense... then suddenly there were a couple of things that made me think that makes no sense at all. This is completely crazy.

 

[ParkCungHee]

tho apparently some trekkers are also Randians

everything.

She would say that you shouldn't make your lover the major part of your life though, because that breeds dependency and that prevents you from being self-sufficient.

You know, I don't recall Rand ever really subscribing to the self-sufficiency school of right wing lunacy, which I find infinitely preferable to her. I think she'd have found relatively quickly that she wouldn't have made the cut.

 

[Mise]

For example, one should take pleasure in self-improvement. For Rand, improving oneself is an end in itself. I personally believe that this should be true. For example, I like to study languages I will never use, simply because I like the feeling of improving myself.

Another example is that you should take pride in your work, regardless of how insignificant or important it is. If I am a garbage sweeper or an award winning scientist, I can take satisfaction in knowing that I am doing a good job.

She may draw many strange conclusions, but she does advocate some ideas that even the most anti-objectivists can find useful.

How are either of those ideas revolutionary? They seem pretty run-of-the-mill to me.

Yeah I don't see anything here hasn't been said by pretty much everyone, ever. Even the Unabomber's manifesto contains things with more or less universal appeal.

 

[Traitorfish]

Another example is that you should take pride in your work, regardless of how insignificant or important it is. If I am a garbage sweeper or an award winning scientist, I can take satisfaction in knowing that I am doing a good job.

She didn't really think that, though. Her theory of happiness is basically Aristotelian, the idea that a good life consists in the virtuous exercise of reason, and in her case this particularly meant creative activity. Rather by definition that excludes menial work like sweeping up garbage, who are precluded from pursuing authentic happiness, eudaimonia, in anything but their spare time- if such a thing even exists for menial labourers in Rand's capitalist utopia. By advocating the sort of division of labour encountered in late capitalist society, Rand knowingly condemns the majority of the population to live a life which she herself regards as hollow and pointless. It's a profoundly anti-egalitarian ideology, and she would have quite offended at the suggestion that it was otherwise.

 

[Icaria909]

She didn't really think that, though. Her theory of happiness is basically Aristotelian, the idea that a good life consists in the virtuous exercise of reason, and in her case this particularly meant creative activity. Rather by definition that excludes menial work like sweeping up garbage, who are precluded from pursuing authentic happiness, eudaimonia, in anything but their spare time- if such a thing even exists for menial labourers in Rand's capitalist utopia. By advocating the sort of division of labour encountered in late capitalist society, Rand knowingly condemns the majority of the population to live a life which she herself regards as hollow and pointless. It's a profoundly anti-egalitarian ideology, and she would have quite offended at the suggestion that it was otherwise.

I would have to disagree. In all of her works of fiction, she presents many workers in menial jobs as living her philosophy and leading happy, fulfilling lives. For example, in The Fountainhead, one of the construction workers (Mike) is shown to fully live an objectivist lifestyle without even having realized it. He works hard, is always wanting to improve how he works, and only values people who are competent at whatever they do (most prominently Roark).

In Atlas Shrugged, there is a scene when a young boy working on the train shares a moment with Dafney Taggart. She boards one of her trains and is lamenting how no one seems to know how to work anymore. Then she notices the boy working on her train whistling and doing his job competently and happily. Both the boy and Dafney then recognize in the other the greatest Objectivist value: A love of work.

While Rand does greatly value creative activity, she by no means claims it is the only way to happiness. What makes an activity worthwhile for Rand is when one is happy to work hard, enjoy one's work, and hope to improve oneself by doing that job. Rand only really despises people in jobs where one is forced to work these jobs, hates the job, or is just doing it because they are too lazy to find a more suitable job (this applies to not only manual labor but to every job).

How are either of those ideas revolutionary? They seem pretty run-of-the-mill to me.

I tried to pick some of her ideas that everyone would probably agree with to emphasize that not all her ideas are bad. Her most revolutionary ideas are pretty out there. At that point, some people may find value in her teachings, others may not.

I just watched the movie Atlas Shrugged the other day and was sitting there going this makes sense that makes sense that's common sense... then suddenly there were a couple of things that made me think that makes no sense at all. This is completely crazy.

Yeah the movie was horrible and does not do a good job of explaining the characters motivations. You just have to bite the bullet and actually read the story.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would have to disagree. In all of her works of fiction, she presents many workers in menial jobs as living her philosophy and leading happy, fulfilling lives. For example, in The Fountainhead, one of the construction workers (Mike) is shown to fully live an objectivist lifestyle without even having realized it. He works hard, is always wanting to improve how he works, and only values people who are competent at whatever they do (most prominently Roark).

In Atlas Shrugged, there is a scene when a young boy working on the train shares a moment with Dafney Taggart. She boards one of her trains and is lamenting how no one seems to know how to work anymore. Then she notices the boy working on her train whistling and doing his job competently and happily. Both the boy and Dafney then recognize in the other the greatest Objectivist value: A love of work.

While Rand does greatly value creative activity, she by no means claims it is the only way to happiness. What makes an activity worthwhile for Rand is when one is happy to work hard, enjoy one's work, and hope to improve oneself by doing that job. Rand only really despises people in jobs where one is forced to work these jobs, hates the job, or is just doing it because they are too lazy to find a more suitable job (this applies to not only manual labor but to every job).

Really? Huh, then I guess she's just a blinkered idealist who doesn't actually know how the modern workplace functions.


The lesson to be learned, I suppose, is that if you actually deign to give Rand any credit whatsoever, she'll prove you wrong. Mark it well, civpeeps.

 

[Antilogic]

I don't want to defend objectivism, but I hope the people making criticisms have a.) read her books and b.) have studied her philosophy. I say this because she redefines a lot of common terms and they form the foundation of her philosophy and if you don't know these definitions, then her philosophy will sound ridiculous.

For which philosophy is this not true? Every philosophical tract has some sort of dictionary section where they talk about what the words they are using mean--to take opposing philosophies, Rawls means something particular when he says "difference principle" and Marx means something particular when he uses "exploitation" (a common term, but having a more specific mathematical calculation behind it) or "socially-necessary abstract labor time" (or whatever that long term is).

 

[Murky]

There has never been and will likely never be a successful model of objectivism except in fantasy. There are adherents but they are a subculture that is dwindling instead of growing. The most popular among them is Ron Paul, but he has no real chance of being President.