Objectivism - 2006/06/07 04:48I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. -John Galt
What do atheists/agnostics (even Christians, if they exist) here think of that statement? It's the philosophy that I run my life by, how about you?
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Tesseract
User Karma: 3
Re:Objectivism - 2006/06/07 08:56I agree with that statement by John Galt. I try to live my life that way.
I hate being asked to be responsible for someone else's actions.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
flib
User Karma: 1
Re:Objectivism - 2006/06/07 14:41Are you asking if we agree with this statement from Atlas Shrugged, or if we agree with the philosophy of Objectivism? I have very different answers for those two questions.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2006/06/08 02:41Let's start with John Galt. Do you agree with that statement.
Now, do you agree with Objectivism? Why/Who not?
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
flib
User Karma: 1
Re:Objectivism - 2006/06/08 13:27Sure, I agree with that statement. Even when I exhibit altruism, I do so for my own reasons.
I'm not an expert on Rand's philosophy, but I read Atlas Shruggged and For The New Intellectual earlier this year, and I have a few thoughts on the subject.
I agree with many of Rand's views. She did a wonderful job of illustrating the problems of communism, postmodernism, and moral relativism. I agree with her views on God. I'm as eager as anyone to burn the strawman that she builds in Atlas Shrugged.
But then she makes the leap of assuming that if communism is bad, the polar opposite of communism must be good. She constructs an anarcho-capitalist utopia that runs like clockwork because of the morally perfect people who run it. In the real world, this would fail for the same reason communism fails - because people are not morally perfect.
There's a lot more that I could say, but I don't really have time right now. It's obvious to me that Rand is a binary thinker. If one social extreme is bad, the other social extreme must be good. Her characters are either corrupt and evil, or heroically stoic and impeccable in their character. Binary thinking is a sign of intellectual mediocrity.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2006/06/08 17:58If you do it for your own reasons, it is selfish not altruistic.
Rand was against anarcho-capitalism. She wanted a limited government to protect our individual freedoms. She knew anarcho-capitalism would degrade into gang warfare without the protection of a government.
Binary thinking is a sign of intellectual mediocrity.
I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree that Rand was a binary thinker. (I also think that statement is a dangerous bromide because it does not encourage idealism. I think idealism is the only way to pursue truth. Truth in itself is an ideal.) She criticized communism based on what she thought was human nature. Communism was basically completely against the human nature (rational selfishness) that she believed in. If you read her writing you will find that her fiction was written to show the extremes, in order to illustrate different points about her philosophy. She recognizes that all people are not morally perfect, but I think she covers her bases with the philosophy as a whole.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
flib
User Karma: 1
Re:Objectivism - 2006/06/09 00:36If you do it for your own reasons, it is selfish not altruistic.
I'll buy that. Substitute whatever word means "helping others without expectation of reciprocation" for "altruism" in my last post.
Rand was against anarcho-capitalism. She wanted a limited government to protect our individual freedoms. She knew anarcho-capitalism would degrade into gang warfare without the protection of a government.
I was under the impression that she was for private security for defense, but I could certainly be wrong. I also thought she was strongly against initiating military agression, which is a hallmark of anarcho-capitalist thinking, but again, I could be wrong. Is it more correct to say that she is laissez-faire capitalist?
Binary thinking is a sign of intellectual mediocrity.
I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree that Rand was a binary thinker.
I can't know how her thought process worked, she may very well have painted her characters in black-and-white in order to get her point across to a public that she saw as dense. Surely you must admit that the main characters in Atlas Shrugged were characatures - either purely virtuous or purely vicious.
(I also think that statement is a dangerous bromide because it does not encourage idealism. I think idealism is the only way to pursue truth. Truth in itself is an ideal.)
But truth is often (more often than not?) found in the middle of two extremes. Sometimes not; sometimes an extreme position is right on the money, but not often.
As far as idealism is concerned, I strive for it in my own actions. But if someone forms their political views for an ideal world, their politics will fail in this one.
She criticized communism based on what she thought was human nature. Communism was basically completely against the human nature (rational selfishness) that she believed in.
Indeed, and I agree with her wholeheartedly about that.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Guruite
User Karma: 1
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 02:00I agree with that statement ^ by Galt.
I personally think that Ayn Rand was very right on many (most) things. Although she seemed to go off on assumptions about psychology.
I think that Peikoff is somewhat wrong on his harsh stances, and that Kelly has a more correct view. I view Objectivism as an open system, as closing the doors of change is almost always bad for an Idea or Belief.
However, I have read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and I agree with everything in it (I believe..)
I personally identify myself as a Libertarian, I think that disliking association with the word 'libertarian' is a little silly.
However, I could be wrong on this.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Roark
User Karma: 3
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 09:47If you're wondering whether I'm a Rand fan or not, just consult my user name. However, there are some problems with Rand's application of her philosophy, if not necessarily the philosophy itself. I think Nathaniel Branden got it right when he pointed out the psychological danger of Rand's ideas. I particularly enjoy his anecdote about encountering a lot a men who are troubled by the fact that "my wife's not Dagny," to which the reply is, of course, "you're not John Galt." You can read his primary essay on the subject here: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles.php?tPath=2# It's called "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand." The point about objectivism encouraging repression is particularly salient.
My biggest problem with discussions like these (and most discussions about Rand's pesonal failings) is that it misses the forest for the trees. I was once sitting at an information table for my college's objectivist club (which I co-founded), and some guy came up to me all smugly and said "wasn't Rand homophobic?" The answer is almost certainly yes...she made a few tepid statements decrying homosexuality but was mostly mute on the subject. But if that's the only fact that you have in your head about Rand, and you just unsheath it whenever confronted with her philosophy, then you're missing out on something immense, inspiring, and valuable, even if flawed in a few particulars.
Rand's view of art is what bothers me the most. I think it encourages a simplistic and single-minded approach to expression. I see no reason why abstract expressionism or surrealism can be just as inspiring and life-affirming, if done well, as romanticism is. David Lynch's "Eraserhead" would almost certainly turn Rand's stomach, but to me it's beautiful and that's all that it takes for me to see value in it.
There's a big ramble for you all...I have to go now!
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 10:31I haven't read too much Branden yet. My girlfriend seems to like his works and we have discussed the psychological effect of Objectivism on those who did not always adhere to the philosophy. Mainly I have heard that he accepts those who make philosophical errors and trusts in their humanity to correct that error through logic, where Rand would have just condemned anyone who thought differently than her.
I agree with Rand on everything except the way she condemned non-Objectivists without considering that they may just not know better. Now, someone who consciously follows a philosophy like socialism, being fully away of all alternatives... I have no pity on their souls.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 11:44I tried to read "The Fountainhead" in high school. I found the characters to be unnervingly strange. I couldn't understand why anybody did anything. They didn't seem like real people. I got halfway through the book and just decided that I didn't want to continue.
But I am interested in philosophy and have looked up a lot of information on Objectivism. I do agree with the the idea that individuals are important, and so I would generally agree with the quote.
Does anybody here agree with Ayn Rand completely and unequivocally though? I feel that any fully fledged philosophy of life is bound to be wrong to at least some extent, and probably more than a small amount.
There are some areas that I disagree on. For example, I agree that government should not get too big and bloated. But I don't believe in full laissez-faire capitalism. I think that there are times that the government really needs to step in.
Of course, the question of where to draw the line in that case is a whole other heated discussion.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 12:04I tried to read "The Fountainhead" in high school. I found the characters to be unnervingly strange. I couldn't understand why anybody did anything. They didn't seem like real people. I got halfway through the book and just decided that I didn't want to continue.
Rand romanticized her characters in a unique way. No one is truly like Howard Roark or John Galt, but they are figures to aspire to.
I agree with Rand's philosophy fully. Now, that doesn't mean I agree with Rand fully. What she states in Atlas Shrugged, OPAR and her other works, I have never disagreed with. What she says with her actions and attitudes is where I sometimes (rarely) disagree.
But I don't believe in full laissez-faire capitalism.
I want to correct the common misconception about Objectivism's support of laissez-faire capitalism. Basically Rand said that a business should be free to do what it pleases and Individual rights should be protected by the government. This means that businesses would be unregulated BUT responsible for any individual rights that they violated. I hate it when people discredit Objectivism solely on its support of laissez-faire capitalism, because there is more to it than just support of the classic amoral laissez-faire capitalism. There is still protection of rights, just a lack of regulation of business. Add morality (objective) to the equation and laissez-faire capitalism works perfectly.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 12:27maf wrote: I want to correct the common misconception about Objectivism's support of laissez-faire capitalism. Basically Rand said that a business should be free to do what it pleases and Individual rights should be protected by the government. This means that businesses would be unregulated BUT responsible for any individual rights that they violated. I hate it when people discredit Objectivism solely on its support of laissez-faire capitalism, because there is more to it than just support of the classic amoral laissez-faire capitalism. There is still protection of rights, just a lack of regulation of business. Add morality (objective) to the equation and laissez-faire capitalism works perfectly.
I understand that. I wasn't actually talking about businesses encroaching on individual rights. I just think a good point can be made that historically governments have been able to achieve positive results for it's citizens through regulations where businesses weren't motivated to make those changes on their own.
And I know that's a whole can of worms right there, the question of "where does it stop" is a really tricky thing. But who ever said it was supposed to be easy, right?
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 13:24I have never heard a good argument for any sort of business regulation.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 15:10maf wrote: I have never heard a good argument for any sort of business regulation.
There are good arguments for most things under the sun. (with the exception of the weird pseudo-science stuff)
Of course, what you mean by "never heard a good argument" is really that you've never heard an argument that's convinced you.
That's a perfectly reasonable position, but it doesn't mean the same thing.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
