Objectivism - Ayn Rand's philosophy

[mrblonde77]

So after reading The Fountainhead I read a little about Objectivism

From a 2 page explanation in the back of The Fountainhead (online here)

Originally Posted by Essentials of Objectivism

Ayn Rand named her philosophy "Objectivism" and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
"You can't eat your cake and have it, too."
"Man is an end in himself."
"Give me liberty or give me death."

The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:

Metaphysics
"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

Epistemology
"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

Ethics
"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Politics
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force - i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Esthetics
"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." The purpose of art is to concretize the artist's fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as "Romantic Realism": "I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth." The goal of Ayn Rand's novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: "My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d'Anconia as an end in himself - not as a means to any further end."

What do you guys agree with/disagree with. I loved in the book how it talks about selfishness and how it's a virtue, not a vice as modern society portrays. Selfishness or egotism has become synonymous with things like greed, and other borderline "immoral" vices, but that's really only one side of the coin. If you've read the book, Howard Roark is a pretty morally upright person, and he acts 100% on his ego. And he's not greedy, whereas Wynand is - but Roark is more selfish and more self centered than Wynand. I guess the point is egotism is good as long as you don't exploit other people - and if you do exploit other people, you're not really being an egoist because you're worrying about other people.

Request: Religious people please stay away - this isn't for you.

[enevitable]

I don't have quite the time to discuss this in detail, but from an ethical and moral viewpoint: Ayn Rand is an absolute pig.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by enevitable

I don't have quite the time to discuss this in detail, but from an ethical and moral viewpoint: Ayn Rand is an absolute pig.

Please reply when you have the time, I'm really interested in why you think she's a pig. The goal of her philosophy and each part is for man to be happy. That's what it's really all about - happiness. Have you read any of her books? I've only read The Fountainhead so if you've read any others (like Atlas Shrugged, which I can't wait to read over the summer) I won't be able to discuss specific examples, but you are certainly welcome to use them. I also plan on reading Anthem sometime.

[enevitable]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Please reply when you have the time, I'm really interested in why you think she's a pig. The goal of her philosophy and each part is for man to be happy. That's what it's really all about - happiness. Have you read any of her books? I've only read The Fountainhead so if you've read any others (like Atlas Shrugged, which I can't wait to read over the summer) I won't be able to discuss specific examples, but you are certainly welcome to use them. I also plan on reading Anthem sometime.

Alright I'm back from eating so I'll respond now.

Personally I've read Atlas Shurgged, Anthem, and Fountainhead, and honestly the only one I could stand out of the three was The Fountainhead.

First off, Objectivism is an incredibly selfish ethical viewpoint. It takes any and all value away from utilitarianism and turns it into nothing more then a self furthering process. However, that isn't to say that some of the views of objectivism aren't valid, it just isn't a very good ethical theory on which to decide one's actions.

Another problem with Rand, is that she insinuates that all man thinks this way. This is not true, a lot of mankind doesn't think about themselves first, they think about the others around them when making ethical decisions.

I wish I could give a better argument for you, but truth is I'm sick and I need to pass out for a while. I'm sure that someone else can carry on a much more coherent discussion with you, In the mean time, have you read Roy Child's letter to Rand? (http://isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html)

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by enevitable

Alright I'm back from eating so I'll respond now.

Personally I've read Atlas Shurgged, Anthem, and Fountainhead, and honestly the only one I could stand out of the three was The Fountainhead.

First off, Objectivism is an incredibly selfish ethical viewpoint. It takes any and all value away from utilitarianism and turns it into nothing more then a self furthering process. However, that isn't to say that some of the views of objectivism aren't valid, it just isn't a very good ethical theory on which to decide one's actions.

Another problem with Rand, is that she insinuates that all man thinks this way. This is not true, a lot of mankind doesn't think about themselves first, they think about the others around them when making ethical decisions.

I wish I could give a better argument for you, but truth is I'm sick and I need to pass out for a while. I'm sure that someone else can carry on a much more coherent discussion with you, In the mean time, have you read Roy Child's letter to Rand? (http://isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html)

Thanks for the more in depth reply, I appreciate it. I don't think Ayn Rand insinuates that all man thinks this way, rather the opposite. Her letter at the beginning of my copy of The Fountainhead shows she doesn't. Rather she claims all men ought to think this way, and the reason she wrote these books was to show men how they ought to act. Objectivism is just her life philosophy that she wishes or thinks everyone ought to follow.

I do struggle with the idea that men should be so self dependent though. In her ideas of the ego, it's kinda saying to all out reject society and be your own one-man universe. With Howard Roark in The Fountainhead he cannot collaborate with others and rejects any collaborative product as bad. I'm a big computer nerd, and have been an avid supporter of OSS such as Linux, Open Office, etc. These programs show what the collaborative process can produce and how beneficial it can be - and objectivism says this is bad? That's where I don't agree with Objectivism.

[enevitable]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Thanks for the more in depth reply, I appreciate it. I don't think Ayn Rand insinuates that all man thinks this way, rather the opposite. Her letter at the beginning of my copy of The Fountainhead shows she doesn't. Rather she claims all men ought to think this way, and the reason she wrote these books was to show men how they ought to act. Objectivism is just her life philosophy that she wishes or thinks everyone ought to follow.

I do struggle with the idea that men should be so self dependent though. In her ideas of the ego, it's kinda saying to all out reject society and be your own one-man universe. With Howard Roark in The Fountainhead he cannot collaborate with others and rejects any collaborative product as bad. I'm a big computer nerd, and have been an avid supporter of OSS such as Linux, Open Office, etc. These programs show what the collaborative process can produce and how beneficial it can be - and objectivism says this is bad? That's where I don't agree with Objectivism.

Again, I wish I could have formulated a better response for you, but all these drugs are killing me. I do agree with your linux and open source example, thats one way in which objectivism falls short. One of the big problems I see with objectivism is that I don't believe it to be a very accurate theory to guide ones actions by. See with utilitarianism we look at the communities happiness. With objectivism we look at one persons happiness.

But personally I don't nescecarily agree with utilitarianism either, its too bulky, too time consuming, too.... some other adjective I can't quite describe. I myself consider myself sort of a Kantian. The second categorical imperative is quite overarching, easy to discern ones actions, and overall has the greatest scope of implementation.

However I don't think we can base our ethical decisions on one theory alone, I think it's important to take multiple theories into account before reaching a decision.

By the way, how come we never discuss Kant on these boards? We need less christian babble, and more philosophical debate.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by enevitable

Again, I wish I could have formulated a better response for you, but all these drugs are killing me. I do agree with your linux and open source example, thats one way in which objectivism falls short. One of the big problems I see with objectivism is that I don't believe it to be a very accurate theory to guide ones actions by. See with utilitarianism we look at the communities happiness. With objectivism we look at one persons happiness.

But what good is the overall happiness of your community if you yourself aren't happy? Isn't that the point of life - to be happy? Fuck the rest, you gotta be happy!

Originally Posted by enevitable

However I don't think we can base our ethical decisions on one theory alone, I think it's important to take multiple theories into account before reaching a decision.

Probably a good statement, but I think it's fun to try to wrap everything into one philosophy. I know it's probably an impossible task, but eh, it's sorta fun to try. I guess the reason it's impossible is because there are so many different types of situations - too many possible circumstances

Originally Posted by enevitable

By the way, how come we never discuss Kant on these boards? We need less christian babble, and more philosophical debate.

PLEASE start a topic! I've never heard about it, but I'm sure it sounds good. I completely agree and that's what I was saying in my "Call to Intellectuals." A call to people like you who I can actually learn something from, rather than try to teach 2+2=4 to a bunch of fucking kindergarteners.

[Smokinscientist]

Originally Posted by enevitable

Again, I wish I could have formulated a better response for you, but all these drugs are killing me. I do agree with your linux and open source example, thats one way in which objectivism falls short. One of the big problems I see with objectivism is that I don't believe it to be a very accurate theory to guide ones actions by. See with utilitarianism we look at the communities happiness. With objectivism we look at one persons happiness.

I'd see those two as independent. I think we have both a personal and societal happiness. I think we thrive to be both a better person, and a better member of society, in two separate branches.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Request: Religious people please stay away - this isn't for you.

Did you mean that you "object" to a spiritual person's presence?

[seahag]

ayn rand is a fascist.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by seahag

ayn rand is a fascist.

So is Stalin.

[seahag]

yes but stalin was a socialist fascist who helped defeat the most famous fascist's in history. the post-nazi world is terrifying to think about, had they succeeded. ayn rand on the other was a praised fascista.

[Androgenicx]

I followed objectivist philosophy for about a year on my own before even reading her work, and then for a year longer after reading some of her work.

Worst years of my life. I had a perpetual sense of self-worth and delusions of grandeur, but I was completely anti-social and joined the highest order of known misanthropy.

When I returned to my roots in mysticism, spirituality, and in the perennial philosophies, I realized the incredible folly of this philosophy. Transcedance is achieved through complete loss of self and ego, causing one to return to the eternal and only true consciousness. Ayn Rand's, and all other stark individualist philosophies, all cause a great increase in the person's sense of ego, which is perfectly counter-productive to achieving self actualization.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

I followed objectivist philosophy for about a year on my own before even reading her work, and then for a year longer after reading some of her work.

Worst years of my life. I had a perpetual sense of self-worth and delusions of grandeur, but I was completely anti-social and joined the highest order of known misanthropy.

When I returned to my roots in mysticism, spirituality, and in the perennial philosophies, I realized the incredible folly of this philosophy. Transcedance is achieved through complete loss of self and ego, causing one to return to the eternal and only true consciousness. Ayn Rand's, and all other stark individualist philosophies, all cause a great increase in the person's sense of ego, which is perfectly counter-productive to achieving self actualization.

Well, you know, if you don't go all the way Objective at least once, how could you really be Enlightened to its perspective, and also to people with it?

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Did you mean that you "object" to a spiritual person's presence?

No. I say what I mean, and I mean what say.

Originally Posted by shehag

ayn rand is a fascist.

Feel free to elaborate when you make accusations.