The legacy of Ayn Rand

[doc benway]

I found this article to be interesting as it reflects the dark side of objectivist philosophy.

While it is a brutally effective and internally consistent philosophy, I've always felt it was missing something important.

This article fleshes out those concerns.

I don't doubt some will find flaws in the arguments presented but the lack of heart and the lack of compassion at the core of Rand's world view cannot be denied, IMO.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/clinical-psychologist-explains-how-ayn-rand-helped-turn-the-us-into-a-selfish-and-greedy-nation/

[Apech]

Steve,

 

Is this aimed at anyone in particular?

[RiverSnake]

Ideas are powerful things. You can look at a society and understand how the culture ebbs and flows based on the dominant/ruling ideas. Harmonious ideas lead to harmonious societies.

[bax44]

I participated in what would become a locked thread the other day where Rand was used as the prime example in an argument.

Ive always had a hard time with Rand-and mostly the last few years when thinking about her philosophy.

I did truly enjoy Atlas shrugged and to  a lesser extent the fountainhead-they certainly entertained me-and A lot of the ideas made reasonable sense for sure,but upon finishing them something seemed..off.

 

Well I think Ive figured out why, at least in my case. Under her type of construct Id probably be dead or on the streets. I have a chronic illness and without getting too specific the help Ive received has enabled me to get through a lot of the roughest of it and am finally starting to heal. I suppose this is me being a selfish objectivist in a way  but for me, life and reality has shown me that her philosophy would be untenable. The importance of not buying into these philosophies(created by another human, to  me this is always huge to remember) hook line and sinker can leave you with huge blind spots and more than likely put you in a new prison you thought you escaped.

 

edited for grammar

Edited August 18, 2016 by bax44

[ralis]

Steve,

 

Is this aimed at anyone in particular?

 

Does the person in question name start with K by any chance?  Although, I could be wrong.

[bax44]

I don't know if the OP aimed it at Karl. Karl certainly references Rand quite a bit and doesn't seem to question her at all. IMO Karl does bring a lot to the forum Ive been grateful to read, so its nothing at all personal.

 

But Im glad Steve started the thread, Its important to question these things.

Edited August 18, 2016 by bax44

[ralis]

I don't know if the OP aimed it at Karl. Karl certainly references Rand quite a bit and doesn't seem to question her at all. IMO Karl does bring a lot to the forum Ive been grateful to read, so its nothing at all personal.

 

But Im glad Steve started the thread, Its important to question these things.

 

Karl brings nothing but dangerous worn out rhetoric in regards to Neoliberalism.

[Karl]

I found this article to be interesting as it reflects the dark side of objectivist philosophy.

While it is a brutally effective and internally consistent philosophy, I've always felt it was missing something important.

This article fleshes out those concerns.

I don't doubt some will find flaws in the arguments presented but the lack of heart and the lack of compassion at the core of Rand's world view cannot be denied, IMO.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/clinical-psychologist-explains-how-ayn-rand-helped-turn-the-us-into-a-selfish-and-greedy-nation/

I'm going to have to write a rebuttal by the looks of things-more bloody work. :-) I will need to do this properly with footnotes and all so it's will be necessary to transfer to a PC and take some time to ensure the points are covered. Contrary to what you may think, I welcome an opportunity to set the record straight. I had read the article previously, it's wrong, but, hey, even so called objectivist get objectivism wrong so that isn't a surprise.

[Karl]

I don't know if the OP aimed it at Karl. Karl certainly references Rand quite a bit and doesn't seem to question her at all. IMO Karl does bring a lot to the forum Ive been grateful to read, so its nothing at all personal.

 

But Im glad Steve started the thread, Its important to question these things.

Totally correct. Rand would have said so her self in a most emphatic way.

[Karl]

Karl brings nothing but dangerous worn out rhetoric in regards to Neoliberalism.

Yes, but what's for tea ? :-)

[ralis]

This thread belongs in the pit! This will just be another Neoliberal rant dominated by Karl.

[Karl]

This thread belongs in the pit! This will just be another Neoliberal rant dominated by Karl.

Is this all you can do, constantly try to shut down subjects you don't like ? Well dude, welcome to the real world where you can't have your cake and eat it, or get everything you want. You have the option of using the ignore button.

 

As I've said many times I'm not a Neo-liberal, this is emotive name calling. Ralis stamps his feet because he couldn't get someone else banned, or a thread stopped because you didn't personally approve it. Get over it, or move onto another thread where you can feel all happy and approving.

[Karl]

I can't offer a rebuttal because I can't find the argument. It's an ad hom hatchet job. Where's the philosophical argument ? I was expecting something with real meat and potatoes.

 

One need only read Atlas Shrugged to see that today's USA was just as Rand predicted. Few listened to her philosophy, fewer understood it and it can only be a handful that follow it. Alan Greenspan ended up as head of the Fed-an institution that fits every kind of evil Rand stood against. Peikoff (L) her heir, was asked repeatedly about Greenspans defection. After much time he answered that Rand had seen flaws in Greenspan and Peikoff very early on. Peikoff said Greenspan was a brilliant man, truly brilliant, but that he had eventually been sucked into the Washington machine. Rand had said that Peikoffs flaw was his lack of practicality (which he has worked hard to improve), but Greenspan had a moral flaw, he didn't fully understand or accept the ethical dimension of objectivism and this was why he gradually lost touch with it.

 

So, maybe it could be said that one of her brightest acolytes eventially became part of the very system Rand had so strenuously rejected through objectivism. That's really all I can dig out of it with regard fact. I have no idea of Rand's relationship with her husband and I see no relevance in it. I don't cling to Rand, or worship her as some kind of perfect human being, she did her best like the rest of us, she had faults, she made errors of judgement and her opinions were not necessarily anything to do with objectivism. I know little of her personal life, it's of no concern to me.

 

You have to at least attempt to seperate things. I didn't know Mozart, Beethoven, Van Gough, Issac Newton, Aristotle or a host of others who contributed great works to the world. They could quite possibly been murdering, thieving, raving loonies, but their work stands, so does Rand's.

[doc benway]

Steve,

 

Is this aimed at anyone in particular?

 

 

Does the person in question name start with K by any chance?  Although, I could be wrong.

 

I did not "aim" this post at anyone although I had no doubt that Karl would address it.

Rand's ideas are espoused here by a number of members, although Karl is clearly the most prolific and orthodox.

This post is about Rand, not Karl.

 

I happened across the article this morning by chance and I think it points up a critical flaw in Rand's philosophy that has always made me uncomfortable with her view.

I think others could benefit from the perspective offered in this article.

 

I have no interest in debating or defending the author but I freely acknowledge that I agree with his points. 

This thread only needs to head to the pit if the participants are unable to discuss the subject matter in a dispassionate and respectful manner.

Enjoy!

[Karl]

I did not "aim" this post at anyone although I had no doubt that Karl would address it.

Rand's ideas are espoused here by a number of members, although Karl is clearly the most prolific and orthodox.

This post is about Rand, not Karl.

 

I happened across the article this morning by chance and I think it points up a critical flaw in Rand's philosophy that has always made me uncomfortable with her view.

I think others could benefit from the perspective offered in this article.

 

I have no interest in debating or defending the author but I freely acknowledge that I agree with his points. 

This thread only needs to head to the pit if the participants are unable to discuss the subject matter in a dispassionate and respectful manner.

Enjoy!

Can you explain what you think is the critical flaw Steve ? I'm struggling to see anything that represents an argument within the text. I will gladly answer if you will pick specifics and then I can address them. I started on a long piece which began with the obvious use of a 'clinical psychologist' employed to discredit the mad old bint with crazy ideas. She is dangerous crazy comrade, take her to the Gulag.

 

She certainly didn't promote greed. I can answer to rational selfishness, but it's easier just to post the entire thing from the Rand Lexicon, then, any parts within it I can answer more fully ?

 

I'm keen to answer but I can only see that it would be swapping ad Homs with the author.

[dwai]

I found this article to be interesting as it reflects the dark side of objectivist philosophy.

While it is a brutally effective and internally consistent philosophy, I've always felt it was missing something important.

This article fleshes out those concerns.

I don't doubt some will find flaws in the arguments presented but the lack of heart and the lack of compassion at the core of Rand's world view cannot be denied, IMO.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/clinical-psychologist-explains-how-ayn-rand-helped-turn-the-us-into-a-selfish-and-greedy-nation/

 

Ayn Rand's objectivism is immature and impractical. Add to that it is brutally lacking in compassion or empathy. In my teenage I had devoured Rand's books (fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged). Objectivism had such a negative and nasty effect on my psyche, that had I not discovered Richard Bach at the same time, I would have been permanently damaged mentally...

:\

[Karl]

Ayn Rand's objectivism is immature and impractical. Add to that it is brutally lacking in compassion or empathy. In my teenage I had devoured Rand's books (fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged). Objectivism had such a negative and nasty effect on my psyche, that had I not discovered Richard Bach at the same time, I would have been permanently damaged mentally...

:\

It should be said at this point that I also read Atlas Shrugged and it made no impact on me. Indeed I believe the idea of a 'Galts Gulch' is fantasy, but then the book isn't the actual philosophy, but a simplistic illustration of it. It was too lengthy IMO and needed cutting as a novel, yet now I see what it really was. In a similar way the Bible was impractical, but it was taken up by millions.

 

Compassion and empathy are only available to those who are free to give them. The philosophy isn't about how to give compassion and empathy, but the values, principles and actions that give the best chance of having the capacity to affording those things. It doesn't lay down what should be done, but what must necessarily be done.

 

I always use the analogy of the passenger jet oxygen masks. The steward reminds passengers to 'put on their masks before helping children, spouse or other passengers'. It's obvious, you must first be alive and then free to give others assistance. If we are not free in mind/ body, or we are dead, then those things become irrelevant. At best we are forced to act as an authority commands us- such was the case in the worlds worst tyrannies that shepherded humans to death camps, at worst we are the recipient of a long prison sentence/a bullet in the back of the head if we refuse to comply.

 

What is impractical ? Why don't the airlines force us to ignore ourselves, to act altruistically, look after others first, be unselfishly. That's because if everybody is acting altruistically, there is a great likelihood that the result would be an aircraft full of unconscious or dead passengers.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Karl

[Chang]

As regards  Ayn Rand and Objectivism I cannot really see the point in argument, 

 

Objectivism and the philosophy of rational self- interest is simply plain common sense for those who have eyes that see and ears that hear. For those who lack these senses then it is virtually impossible to make them understand.

 

It is all very sad but in a world beset with the simpering nastiness of Socialism and humanity hugging Liberalism what can one do.

 

This forum, being a microcosm of our world, makes sensible debate on this subject impossible. This has been amply demonstrated by the snide remarks aimed at a forum member by the usual suspects.

 

Viva revolution, viva Corbynista’s and viva Zapate – the latter in praise of his magnificent moustache.

[Geof Nanto]

Is there anything new in these ideas of Rand’s?  For those with some interest in history it’s worth examining the prominent philosophies of ancient China that arose during the turbulent times of the Warring States period; specifically, Yangism, Confucianism, Mohism and Daoism.  

 

Yangism

Yangism (Chinese: 杨朱学派; pinyin: Yángzhūxuépài) was a philosophical school founded by Yang Zhu, existent during the Warring States period (475 BCE - 221 BCE), that believed that human actions are and should be based on self-interest. The school has been described by sinologists as an early form of psychological and ethical egoism. The main focus of the Yangists was on the concept of xing, or human nature, a term later incorporated by Mencius into Confucianism.

 

"What Yang Zhu was for was self. If by plucking one hair he might benefit the whole world, he would not do it."  — Mencius on Yang Zhu, Mengzi (4th century BC)

 

Yangism has been described as a form of psychological and ethical egoism. The Yangist philosophers believed in the importance of maintaining self-interest through "keeping one's nature intact, protecting one's uniqueness, and not letting the body be tied by other things." Disagreeing with the Confucian virtues of li (propriety), ren (humaneness), and yi (righteousness) and the Legalist virtue of fa (law), the Yangists saw wei wo, or "everything for myself," as the only virtue necessary for self-cultivation. Individual pleasure is considered desirable, like in hedonism, but not at the expense of the health of individual. The Yangists saw individual well-being as the prime purpose of life, and considered anything that hindered that well-being immoral and unnecessary.

 

The main focus of the Yangists was on the concept of xing, or human nature, a term later incorporated by Mencius into Confucianism. The xing, according to sinologist A. C. Graham, is a person's "proper course of development" in life. Individuals can only rationally care for their own xing, and should not naively have to support the xing of other people, even if it means opposing the emperor. In this sense, Yangism is a "direct attack" on Confucianism, by implying that the power of the emperor, defended in Confucianism, is baseless and destructive, and that state intervention is morally flawed.

 

The Confucian philosopher Mencius depicts Yangism as the direct opposite of Mohism, while Mohism promotes the idea of universal love and impartial caring, the Yangists acted only "for themselves," rejecting the altruism of Mohism. He criticized the Yangists as selfish, ignoring the duty of serving the public and caring only for personal concerns. Mencius saw Confucianism as the "Middle Way" between Mohism and Yangism.

Mencius incorporated the Yangist concept of xing into his own philosophy. Some sinologists have argued that Yangism influenced Taoism, and can be seen as a "precursor" to later Taoist beliefs.

 

(From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangism)

Edited August 18, 2016 by Yueya

[Aetherous]

Rational self interest for the purpose of effective altruism would be a great thing.

[Karl]

They took no notice of objectivism in the 1950s, they haven't changed their minds in the interceding period. They did take notice of Marx and millions upon millions died and suffered terrible deprivations, history does not convince people that this was evil and makes a philosophy no one cares about the focus of its full hatred :-/

 

Very few seem to grasp the simple fact that there are two options, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, or sacrifice and misery. It's a binary choice and we are always on the way towards one or the other. The biggest fantasy is believing that there can ever be a middle way. Freedom or sacrifice, people should weigh them carefully.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

As regards  Ayn Rand and Objectivism I cannot really see the point in argument, 

 

Objectivism and the philosophy of rational self- interest is simply plain common sense for those who have eyes that see and ears that hear. For those who lack these senses then it is virtually impossible to make them understand.

 

It is all very sad but in a world beset with the simpering nastiness of Socialism and humanity hugging Liberalism what can one do.

 

This forum, being a microcosm of our world, makes sensible debate on this subject impossible. This has been amply demonstrated by the snide remarks aimed at a forum member by the usual suspects.

 

Viva revolution, viva Corbynista’s and viva Zapate – the latter in praise of his magnificent moustache.

You forgot viva Che Guevara. (In his time, he was known as "El Muerto" by people whose grandchildren now wear t-shirts bearing his face.)

[Karl]

Rational self interest for the purpose of effective altruism would be a great thing.

'The purpose of'

'Altruism'

 

Both of these things mean human sacrifice. Rational self interest hold that a mans life is an end in itself. That people act as traders who give value for value. This allows for acts of kindness and charitable giving, but those things cannot be the purpose of rational selfishness.

[Aetherous]

'The purpose of'

'Altruism'

 

Both of these things mean human sacrifice. Rational self interest hold that a mans life is an end in itself. That people act as traders who give value for value. This allows for acts of kindness and charitable giving, but those things cannot be the purpose of rational selfishness.

 

So what would a child sitting next to you trade that's of value, once you have your own oxygen mask on?

[Boy]

Coming from a strict socialist upbringing I only dared approaching Rand in my thirties(!). It was like coming home. The article is a childish hit piece, but I have no interest in explaining or even discussing the common sense (thanks Chang!) of objectivism anymore. To me the foundation is dead simple. I actually don't understand why otherwise intelligent people won't get it.