erraticwisdom

Comments

1. A concise definition of “objectivism”
   
   the anti- “philosophy” of the loveless heart

   John

   Oct 15, 06:56 AM #
2. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is an oversimplified view of the world and human nature, but her points are valid when diluted and worthy of recieving. Her treatises stand out as some of the most notable commentary of the last century.

   John Lambert

   Oct 24, 01:22 AM #

3. There is a lot of good in Rand’s philosophy, that her bluntness, frankness, and delight in tweaking the noses of “popular truths” make many readers recoil in horror and utter denial. Even such statements as “good is good and bad is bad” are rejected by lots of people!

   However, Rand made a few basic errors. As she wrote so often in Atlas Shrugged, “check your premises.”

   One of her premises was “man is a rational animal.” She took this description or categorization of an existing entity, man, as though it were the definition of man that preceded and created man. Thus she denies that there is anything “animal” about man, and creates a hero, John Galt, who is as much a bloodless ghost of reason as he is a man.

   She also considered the world itself to be a function of her own near-mathematical definitions in a similar way.

   Here she moved closer to Kant and Plato, two of her main evil philosophers — and this led her in social practice to build social circles that resembled Stalinist circles where her followers would be regularly purged after being psychoanalyzed by Rand or, more often, Nathaniel Branden, and forced to confess publicly their “errors of thought” just like in Stalinist show trials.

   And then there were the Brandens, Barbara and Nathaniel, who were heroes, and near-perfect beings — until they were villains and guilty of the most serious “errors” and “betrayals.”

   Really, the irony is heartbreaking.

   The best study of this is Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand which also contains a lot of biographical information on Rand. (Rand had intended seemingly that Barbara write an official bio before the big Break.) Second would be Nathaniel Branden’s Judgment Day which, though seeming a bit self-serving to my taste, and a bit pompous, gives us the only eye-witness account of those bedroom encounters between Nathaniel and Rand that we are ever going to get.

   All that said, any reader can, if he keeps these caveats in mind, gain a lot from a study of Objectivism.

   Also, it must be noted that in the years since Rand’s death, Objectivism has split into the Leonard Peikoff camp, the “official” Rand-worshiping Objectivism, and that espoused by David Kelly (Think that’s his name) whose work is the only current hope that the philosophy will live on in anything other than a cult dedicated to one thinker.

   pond

   Jan 29, 10:00 AM #

4. Let’s go point by point here.

   [quote]However, the attractive nature of her writing can be justified by her own philosophy which dictates that her personal, monetary profit is one of her biggest goals. Therefore, a beautifully written, controversial novel would certainly help to achieve this end. This part of her philosophy gives rise to many other questions including the merit of the remainder of her ideas. In the same way that the industrialists are selling products, Rand is selling the product of her mind for her own profit. If Rand did not want to publicize her ideas other than to make money through book sales, what is the purpose of debating her philosophy?[/quote]

   Yes, a beautifully written novel will make her money. The horror.

   Rand is selling the product of her mind? If you are getting paid of this you are too. Does that make it invalid? Just because an industrialist makes a product to make money doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

   Rand did want to publicize her ideas other than to make money. A quote from page 120 of [u]Ayn Rand Answers[/u] says, in response to the question, “Is it your obligation to try to reform society?” she states, “It’s not my obligation, it’s my choice. Why do I choose to try? If I want a society in which my rights are respected and I am free to pursue my happiness, I cannot push onto others the job of establishing such a society. If I can contribute to its establishment, I should do so.”
   She wanted something more than money, it just so happens that what she wanted was also in her rational self interest.

   [quote]Another point reiterated throughout the novel is about the uselessness of charity. Compassion, sympathy, and working for the common good are all seen as products of human weakness, but I believe that the opposite is true. It is Rand who is showing the weakness by not believing that she can make a difference. Even while glorifying the superhuman individuals, she ridicules another character (an industrialist’s brother) that is collecting money for a charity. If Rand truly believed in the power of an individual mind, all of the industrialists would become amazing givers, organizing the biggest and most superlative walk-a-thons in history. Rand is so bent against giving in all forms that she neglects to notice that charity can be a viable investment if one has to look at it from an entrepreneurial standpoint.[/quote]

   Rand does not say charity, compassion, or any such other emotions are weaknesses. She says that they should not be compulsory. Rand is not showing weakness by saying she can’t reform. She is trying to reform. The reformations are in her rational self interest though. Not all profit is monetary. Rand ridicules the brother for collecting charity because he is collecting charity from one of the people he opposes. This act, as I’m sure you may agree, is corrupt to the core. Also, the charities are mainly directed towards the downfall of his brother’s company. The protagonists in Rand’s novel do not give their money to charity because they, correctly, believe that it will not help people in the long run. Rand said, “Only the man who doesn’t need it is fit to inherit wealth”. Her premise is that people who need it will squander it. This has been proved to be true time and again. You give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for life.

   [quote]Also, the very premise of the novel is a testament to the weakness of the Prime Movers (describing the leading industrialists). The best minds in the country go on strike, abandoning their prized businesses and leaving to a utopia of intelligence because of a few regulations set by the government. Rather than applying their brilliance to a new medium of politics, the Prime Movers decide to leave the country to die and then spread their utopia into the remainder of the country. However, Rand’s writing is so convincing and realistic that the reader finds themselves ridiculing the childish thoughts of charity and angered at the unjust laws that are passed limiting the extent that railroads can gouge prices.[/quote]

   This is the part where your true hostility towards Rand shines through. The blatant mis-guiding of anyone who reads this essay is quite apparent in this paragraph.

   So, let me set the context. The prime movers live in a world and nation that has been reduced to near intellectual rubble. People believe what they read. The true producers and “Prime Movers” are few and far between. Far less than the psuedo-intellectuals who control the government under collectivism.

   The “few regulations” are laws that forbid anyone from owning more than one company and, amongst other, freeze all earnings and spendings for everybody forcing everyone to spend and earn the exact amount of money they did the previous year. The proclaimed purpose of these laws, as said by the villains in this book, were to create laws that no one could follow. This is because guilty people are easily ruled while innocent ones are not. The act of withdrawing from society was a rejection of said guilt. Now, if you would rather represent these as laws to restrict business owners from price gouging, I would say that you need to re-read (perhaps read) the book.

   As for the long paragraph of your essay about literary devices Rand used to make her philosophy more attractive, you are correct. Rand did everything possible to make her philosophy look correct. You are doing everything possible to make your debunking of her philosophy look correct. She’s just better at it.

   In any case, I see very little where your essay actually attempts to debunk her philosophy based on Rand’s past. I am not even so sure that is a valid reason to debunk her philosophy. You see, all her past means is that she has experienced collectivism and is therefore more qualified to speak of its virtues and vices.

   Francisco

   Jan 29, 08:34 PM #

5. tired

   sten

   Feb 21, 03:43 PM #

6. There is this interesting article by Nathaniel Branden regarding the question: Who can call himself an Objectivist? http://nathanielbranden.com/ess/ess05.html

   Ok, regarding the ridiculing of the charitable brother. That Ayn Rand didn’t think she could make a difference: Well, why should she care to? Her life priority is the furtherance of her interests. To take stock of the needs of the nameless mass of “the needy,” is to redirect one’s efforts away from its proper recipient, oneself. Why should Icarus not fly as high as he can to see the sun above the clouds? One would say, with proper altruist mentality, that his priority is to save everyone else. The truth is that we are all equals in this respect and we can elevate only ourselves. We don’t rise up to the top by clinging to the willfully incompetent. Very few people are worthy of charity, and many Intelligence is volitional. Success is volitional. In her own words “It does not matter that only a few… will grasp and achieve the full reality of man’s proper stature… The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me or The Fountainhead that they will betray: it is their own souls.” Don’t spend your life diverting your life’s energies on some vague concept of “the needy.” If you regard anyone as needy, you necessarily do not respect them as equally competent. I would question your idea of “the needy.” The “needy” do not exist nearly to the extent that many would like them to. I maintain that the charitable intellectual loves to see mediocrity… They are Tooheys.

   Respect can only be earned. If it is gifted away, it is pity. I maintain that many “charitable” personalities are actually contemptuous of their fellow man. No one can be held guilty for not gifting away his respect. Do we need anyone’s respect besides our own? Do we want to extort the respect of any Randist by moral threat? Recall that the “good” is defined by morality. You cannot dole judgments without exposing your own morality. Ayn Rand was right, that many charitable personalities are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and the writer of this article is one of them. Your self esteem is such that you want as many people squirming in the mire as you can get, you want to encourage the stagnation of men, you want there to be more and more needy, because a society of equals is too terrible for you to imagine.

   I do not hold to everything she said, but when she was right, boy was she right. Note that this strong defense of egoism only occurred after the moral threat against it. I defend anyone’s right to give all that they want for whatever reason he chooses, and I would not threaten him as evil for it. Would I respect him? That would depend. I myself might occasionally contribute to some cause or another. The collectivist mentality holds that man’s achievement can not be measured by the grandiose achievements of any group he associates with. Honestly, that is part of the same issue. Man cannot rise above the mire as a group. He alone is the only one who can accomplish this, since life is an individual experience.

   In terms of compromise for the sake of social acceptance: I don’t see the point of compromising on this issue without betraying myself. I know altruism is wrong, and I know that anyone who would defend altruism is attacking me morally. I have the right to exist without reference to any other person, and for the sake of myself without concern for anyone else’s position. That is not morally wrong. This is the point.

   Eduardo

   Jun 10, 08:24 PM #

7. Now now, Eduardo, I wouldnt call them Toohey’s. That gives them the distinction of being competent and malicious, of which they are neither. James Taggart would be a more accurate analogy.

   On the same note, I don’t venture to psychologize the specifics of someone’s personality such as to say that the author wants everyone to squirm in the mire, possible as it may be. I would say that it is more likely that he thinks that the mire is the only place man is capable of being, therefore tries to convince himself of its morality.

   I also don’t think that discounting the origin of the philosophy (where the idea for the philosophy came from) is any more valid than an Ad Hominem attack. Especially not for someone who advocates LSD as a means to philosophic thought.

   BrutalCapitalist

   Jun 12, 11:01 AM #

8. An interesting website on objectivist ideology is:
   http://objectivism101.com/
   I just wanted to say though that the majority of argument’s against Rand’s philosophy, like charity being good, are based on irrational religious beliefs with no grounding on reason.

   Anti-altruism

   Oct 27, 10:03 PM #

9. I think you misunderstand Rand’s stance on charity. She does not think being charitable or self-sacrificing is a virtue. However individuals are free to give money to charities or non-profit organizations if they feel they are gaining some value by doing so. She herself for example supported the education of her niece who she thought deserved it. One might for example want to give money to special needs schools to help children who might otherwise not be able to help themselves. Charity is not forbidden in Objectivism. It does however contest that idea that charity , – esp. charity for the sake of charity and not as the means to some other end on the part of the giver, is a moral virtue.

   Narayan

   Oct 24, 09:21 AM #

10. I am the caregiver of a severely disabled, legally blind man who is in a wheelchair. My husband’s disability is due to Multiple Sclerosis. He did not ask to be crippled. He was a highly productive man, a union ironworker, a paid screenwriter, a rock climber who scaled tall peaks. Now his rock climbing days are over. To be productive, he founded a charity which delivers gifts to children in the hospital. My husband is a paragon of altruism and unselfishness. I met him when he was already in his wheelchair, and was attracted by his strength of character and ability to rise above his challenges. When I read Ayn Rand’s writings, in particular her disdain for altruism, compassion and charity, it makes me furious. It seems apparent that she never had to assume a caregiver/nurturer role during her lifetime. How does her philosophy take into account the care of people such as my husband? Thank goodness there are people who have compassion, such as caregivers – they are sorely needed in this hard world. And did Ms. Rand ever consider what it means to be a parent? The role of raising of babies and children, who come into this world not as fully formed adults but as dependent beings, requires unlimited reserves of compassion and unselfishness. Ayn Rand’s ideology seems to mercilessly leave vast numbers of unfortunates out in the cold. Her “survival of the fittest” social darwinism seems downright cruel and inhumane to me. What are we to do with the elderly of our society, who because of illness are unable to care for themselves? The mentally ill? What about the malnourished third world poor?
    I’m not a church-going Christian, but I think I prefer Jesus Christ’s altruistic Golden Rule (love your fellow man) as a life philosophy than the supremely self-serving and selfish Randian “Objectivity”.

    Patty Cifra

    Oct 27, 11:44 PM #