Objectivism and Ayn Rand

  • Thread starter Thread starter MVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MVH

Guest
Hello all. I visit the forums on a pretty regular basis but I don’t post very often (usually just lurk). I have been recently reading up on a philosophical (if you want to call it that) system known as Objectivism. In a nut shell, objectivism was started by Ayn Rand, and the primary beliefs of an Objectivist is:


  1. *]The most important goal for an individual is to live a life that promotes rational self interest (this is our only moral obligation).
    *]Laissez-faire capitalism is the only correct economic system that would allow an individual to maximize their potential (all other systems are imperfect or ‘evil’)
    *]God does not exist.
    *]A is A (something is what it is).
    More info on Objectivism can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
    or you can go to the Ayn Rand Institute for more.

    I have known about Any Rand for several years, and I have read her most important book – ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Has anyone here ever read about Objectivism or met anyone calling themselves an Objectivist? I think a lot of it is colored by Ayn Rand’s experiences as a child – she was born in Russia and has seen the Communist Revolution. I think she made a few insightful points to consider (I stress very few); however, I think her system is a twisted version of reality based on traumatic experiences of seeing the rise of the Soviet Union. I also believe a significant portion of her philosophy is also colored by Nietzsche’s thought despite her objection to that charge (I think this was discussed in the linked article).

    I began this research on Objectivism based on their stance on abortion. I believe that an Objectivist’s support of abortion rights is a contradiction of what they stand for. Their view is that an unwanted pregnancy would impair the mother’s right to lead a rationally self interested life if she kept the baby, and the logical choice is to abort the unwanted child. I find it stupifying that they would hold this position since it would violate the right of the baby to lead his/her own rationally self interested life, and that it falls into Nietzsche’s belief that the weak should be sacrificed by the strong in order to improve life (considering Any Rand abhorred Nietzsche for his eschewing rationalism as the highest ideal in favor of hedonism).

    Anyways, I thought this would be an interesting subject to discuss.

    Mods, please move if you feel this topic better fits somewhere else.
 
I had a brief run in with objectivism myself (thank God that it was brief!) but I know many who hold the view point.

Objectivism is libertarianism at its worst, especially in economics. Objectivism opposes any kind of charity or altruism, whether in our personal life or in business.

Ayn Rand teaches us that we are to love ourselves only, and not our neighbor, and certainly not God.

This is quite different from the Christian message, and she recognized it. Yes, we are to love ourselves, but we love ourselves to Heaven by loving God! And we love our neighbors by loving them to Heaven to glorify God!

Objectivism is a poison. There aren’t too many who describe themselves as “objectivists” but all too many follow it or tend towards it. I think the faithful Catholics who dislike Republicans dislike them because they can often go too Randian, particularly in economics.
 
I dated a fallen away Catholic in college who had adopted atheism and “enlighted self interest” as he called it. I was not Catholic at the time, a lukewarm Protestant in fact.

What I can tell you is this philosophy is a selfish one, and those embracing it are extremely self absorbed. He used it to be manipulative and rationalize all sorts of bad behavior-- because it was in “his” interest. He had a few friends also intrigued with Rand and they were the same way.

Run far away from this philosophy and people who embrace it
 
The wiki article doesn’t say anything about a connection to Nietzsche; rather it notes her criticism of him. I don’t see much in the way of similarities between the two either. Nietzsche had nothing against charity or compassion, and promoted not mere self-interest but interest in general – Zarathustra realized he was worthless as a self-interested hermit, and could only realize his own potential by coming out into the world as a preacher. ‘God is dead’ is also somewhat different from ‘there is no God’.

Have you read Also Sprach Zarathustra? It’s a good place to start with Nietzsche and covers a lot of his philosophy. I’d recommend the Kaufmann translation.
 
I think she is a brilliant writer, Atlas Shrugged is one of my top five favorite novels of all time, I’ve read it three times.

I think her idea of Objectivism is flawed and, frankly, a selfish and childish view of the world.

But it does not stop me from enjoying her work.

~Liza
 
If you look at the statements of belief of the satanic church they all revolve around self-love and self-interest above all else. Think about that the next time somone tells you that Ayn Rand is their favorite political philosopher. :bigyikes:
 
lizaanne said:
I think she is a brilliant writer, Atlas Shrugged is one of my top five favorite novels of all time, I’ve read it three times.

I think her idea of Objectivism is flawed and, frankly, a selfish and childish view of the world.

But it does not stop me from enjoying her work.

~Liza
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Atlas Shrugged is a favorite of mine but Objectivism lived out is wanting.
 
I was an Objectivist for a time in college and in my early adult life. I used to think it was a perfect system. But Ayn’s support of abortion rights never sat well with me and I never embraced the idea. Looking back on it (going on ten years now), I’m thinking that barrier was the Holy Spirit keeping me from harm.

Her definition of selfishness is intriguing though. Essentially it’s a provocative term, but yes, her ethics system discourages willy-nilly alms giving. Selfishness to her was probably better stated as clearly knowing your values. If you value your wife more than a stranger, than it is in your self-interest (selfish behavior) to help your wife in trouble rather than the stranger. She would abhor a man offering money or food to a stranger on the street while his wife and children starved.

This obviously contradicts with the Gospel story of the poor woman giving all she had as an offering in the temple, which Jesus called more, in its dearth than even a large sum of money from a rich person (Lk 21:1-4). It’s this matter of faith that Ayn also despised – that the poor woman had faith she and her family would be taken care of by God, and that earthly ‘riches’ weren’t the source of happiness.

In truth, this aspect of faith and the structuring of one’s own values contrary to what reason might tell you (i.e., God on top, family second) was hard for me to accept again. Who doesn’t struggle with faith initially?

It’s no surprise then that Ayn named, along with force, faith as the main destroyer of the modern world.

The only aspect of Objectivism that I admire to this day is its search for objective truth. It’s probably my admiration of that that brought me back into the Church, where there is not a search for the truth, but where truth actually is.
 
One of my favorite lines from Atlas Shrugged…

“It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.”
 
Mirdath,
I have read only a little of Nietzsche. I have read some of his work “On The Genealogy of Morals” where he distinguishes master morality with slave morality and good vs. bad conscience. It has been awhile since I read this book – I still have the book from my undergraduate days (On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, which was edited by Walter Kaufmann). I believe this is where I came across his concept of sacrificing the weak to benefit the strong (although I may have picked this concept up reading elsewhere!).

The example of Objectivist beliefs that, in my opinion, looks like an example of sacrificing a weak person to satisfy the needs of a strong person is abortion. I don’t doubt that Ayn Rand put together a system of thought that is largely grounded in Enlightenment Philosophy (rationalism). However, I still believe that there are tenets of ‘satisfying your urges’ that are not grounded purely in reason. Her stance on abortion is an example of that, in my opinion.

I’m and engineer by training, but have been becoming more interested in philosophy recently. I do want to read a lot more of Nietzsche’s works – along with other philosophers – to compare and contrast the views of the classical, rationalists, empiricists, existentialists among others. I believe the Catholic Church has a rich tradition of philosophy as part of the deposit of faith that I want to read as well. A lot of this philosophy can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
Another thing I find interesting about Objectivism is the competing factions within the philosophy that argue on whether they have a “closed cannon” or an “open cannon”. Ayn Rand though her system should be closed, and you had to either accept her beliefs entirely in order to call yourself an Objectivist. If the information in the Wiki article is accurate concerning her successor, she originally appointed Nathaniel Branden as her heir but later “excommunicated” him from her philosophy after a falling out (they used to be lovers, assuming this is accurate). She later appoints a new successor – Leonard Piekoff – who basically parrots whatever Rand thought.

I can’t help but think of Piekoff as the Eddie Villers to Rand’s alter ego aka Dagney Taggart.
 
I’ve read a good bit of Nietzsche and I can’t remember coming across that. It’s been a while though – but I think the example of Zarathustra rather more telling, as it was his masterpiece. In his other works he often comes across as basically a highly literate internet troll, deliberately shocking the reader in order to make a point (much like a more subtle Jonathan Swift).
 
MVH said:
*]God does not exist.
Click to expand...
I would dispute the idea that you have to be athiest to be a practitioner of Objectivism.

Certainly to be “Randian” one would have to be an athiest, but that’s only if you agree with Rand’s ideas on what is and is not truly Objectivist.

For example: Rand believed that abortion was a non-issue in that the mothers shouldn’t let the fetuses burden their lives if they didn’t want them to. Whilst I myself am no fan of the idea of parenthood, I find that such an outlook blatantly violates her anti-second hander principle, which is a cornerstone for Objectivism. To sustain a healthy and accountable lifestyle, one cannot use someone else as a conduit for their own personal gain. Killing an unborn child is doing the exact opposite of that. Therefore, I am not Randian even if I am Objectivist.

If anything, I’d think that Rand would despise the idea of having athiesm as a philisophical requirement since it would apply a kind of anti-dogma to her beliefs. Her distaste for spirituality was due to her view that organized religion helped the socialist movement manufacture self-depricating zombies. She would criticize the mindsets that were birthed by these elements. As a result, it seems as though she lumped belief in God with the stagnation of self-sacrifice because it worked as a catalyst for some individuals.

At the same time however, she had a very profound satire attached to the people whose lives revolved around self-sacrifice, for the sake of religious philosophies, in that they were only doing it for the sake of their souls. This definitely rung true with me since I couldn’t say my contrition is totally perfect.

I’m a Catholic whose primary concern throughout life is the well-being of his soul. Therefore, whatever I do throughout life is always dependent on how well it will mesh with my spiritually centered philosophy. Before I even discovered Rand, I had always considered my lifestyle of helping others not for the people I help but for my own well-being first and foremost. When I first read Rand’s the Fountainhead, I was pleasantly shocked to see her describe my exact viewpoint when she argued that even Christians have inherently egoist habits (as does everyone else). She used Ellsworth Toohey to make the point that I was selfish on the count that I do everything for the sake of my soul. Like-wise, such things can be attributed to the primary character of the book, Howard Roark, who was selfishly consumed by his desire to make buildings that refrained from emulating previous styles. There’s also Toohey’s niece who selfishly worked at homeless shelters and wards for sick children for the sake of want rather than necessity (before she was brain-washed into a worldview that would cause her to approach it impersonally).

More to point: Ayn Rand doesn’t use the word “selfishness” in the same vein that anyone else does. As I said, it’s a satirical footnote that Rand uses to best make her point about the nebulousness of being selfish as opposed to being selfless. What she does is extrapolate the definition of “selfishness” and shows us that it’s taken for granted and, in reality, more utilitarian than was previously perceived by popular culture–Which is so perverted by the idea of self-sacrifice simply because it’s fashionable.

Anywho, Randian Selfishness doesn’t necessarily lead one away from God (as most would have you believe), and philosophically speaking, Objectivism all on its own (without Rand commentary) doesn’t seem to be contradicted by the idea of a God (at least not Christ) since we realize that we have free will anyway.
 
Objectivism is one of those philosophies that seems to cover and be applicable to everything, but a closer look reveals that it succeeds in this by drawing a tiny circle of logic and leaving most ordinary human desires, ambitions, habits, decencies, and affections outside the circle. It, and many forms of libertarianism, remind me of Chesterton’s observation that crazy people are seldom illogical–they’ve got logic to burn, in fact: what they tend to lack are things like a sense of proportion, sense of humour, common charity, and all the hundreds of illogical little sanities that temper and humanize our reason. Randians aren’t necessarily crazy, of course, but their attempts at rationally applying a short laundry list of Objectivist tenets to all of human experience betray a philosophy that is perfect only by virtue of its constriction. Like many a nutcase, they tend to have minds that are sharp, agile, and quick-working, but unspeakably limited. I’m reminded of a rat trapped in a coffee can, humming along at top speed, in circles both flawless and miniscule.

A side note: I knew a guy who would do a hilarious impersonation of the headmaster at an Objectivist kindergarten: “Look to your left. Look to your right. One of you will not be here this March.”
 
MVH said:
I have known about Any Rand for several years, and I have read her most important book – ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Has anyone here ever read about Objectivism or met anyone calling themselves an Objectivist? I think a lot of it is colored by Ayn Rand’s experiences as a child – she was born in Russia and has seen the Communist Revolution. I think she made a few insightful points to consider (I stress very few); however, I think her system is a twisted version of reality based on traumatic experiences of seeing the rise of the Soviet Union. I also believe a significant portion of her philosophy is also colored by Nietzsche’s thought despite her objection to that charge (I think this was discussed in the linked article).

I began this research on Objectivism based on their stance on abortion. I believe that an Objectivist’s support of abortion rights is a contradiction of what they stand for. Their view is that an unwanted pregnancy would impair the mother’s right to lead a rationally self interested life if she kept the baby, and the logical choice is to abort the unwanted child. I find it stupifying that they would hold this position since it would violate the right of the baby to lead his/her own rationally self interested life, and that it falls into Nietzsche’s belief that the weak should be sacrificed by the strong in order to improve life (considering Any Rand abhorred Nietzsche for his eschewing rationalism as the highest ideal in favor of hedonism).
Click to expand...
I did a paper in a college philosophy course where I pointed out how Nietzsche did influence Rand, despite her own claims of despising Nietzsche.

Although I never was an objectivist, for a high school AP political science course, I took the objectivist side in a debate on the ecomony and the welfare system. I won the debate just based on the research I did. I was able to successfully defend a position I did not actually hold myself.
 
lak611 said:
I did a paper in a college philosophy course where I pointed out how Nietzsche did influence Rand, despite her own claims of despising Nietzsche.
Click to expand...
Could you summarize the main points? I do not see how Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly as expressed in Zarathustra, would be anything other than antithetical to an Objectivist stance.
 
MVH said:
Hello all. I visit the forums on a pretty regular basis but I don’t post very often (usually just lurk). I have been recently reading up on a philosophical (if you want to call it that) system known as Objectivism. In a nut shell, objectivism was started by Ayn Rand, and the primary beliefs of an Objectivist is:

  1. *]The most important goal for an individual is to live a life that promotes rational self interest (this is our only moral obligation).
    *]Laissez-faire capitalism is the only correct economic system that would allow an individual to maximize their potential (all other systems are imperfect or ‘evil’)
    *]God does not exist.
    *]A is A (something is what it is).
    More info on Objectivism can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
    or you can go to the Ayn Rand Institute for more.

    I have known about Any Rand for several years, and I have read her most important book – ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Has anyone here ever read about Objectivism or met anyone calling themselves an Objectivist? I think a lot of it is colored by Ayn Rand’s experiences as a child – she was born in Russia and has seen the Communist Revolution. I think she made a few insightful points to consider (I stress very few); however, I think her system is a twisted version of reality based on traumatic experiences of seeing the rise of the Soviet Union. I also believe a significant portion of her philosophy is also colored by Nietzsche’s thought despite her objection to that charge (I think this was discussed in the linked article).

    I began this research on Objectivism based on their stance on abortion. I believe that an Objectivist’s support of abortion rights is a contradiction of what they stand for. Their view is that an unwanted pregnancy would impair the mother’s right to lead a rationally self interested life if she kept the baby, and the logical choice is to abort the unwanted child. I find it stupifying that they would hold this position since it would violate the right of the baby to lead his/her own rationally self interested life, and that it falls into Nietzsche’s belief that the weak should be sacrificed by the strong in order to improve life (considering Any Rand abhorred Nietzsche for his eschewing rationalism as the highest ideal in favor of hedonism).

    Anyways, I thought this would be an interesting subject to discuss.

    Mods, please move if you feel this topic better fits somewhere else.
Click to expand...

  1. Karl Keating wrote a lengthy chapter entitled “Ayn Rand v. Catholicism” in his book, Nothing But The Truth. He concludes the chapter as follows:

    “Ayn Rand may be dead, but her bad ideas have not gone to the grave with her. Buyer beware.”

    Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
This thread was very informative. Recently a caller to a national radio show, claimed that Ayn Rand converted to Roman Catholicism, on her death bed. The caller claimed they we so informed by her priest. I am not sure that there is any way to confirm that, but a google only got me here. My interest in that question was a bit alleviated by the dialogue, but I will note that the limits of logic are part of the perspectivism that Nietszche may have been demonstrating and Ayn Rand may have been allocating. Fittingly sourced if one searches “James” under a priori and Pariah as there is a trinity or ge oh me try of faith and works.

Pariah: “As the body without the soul is dead, faith without acts is also dead.” James -2:26
a priori: “It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.” Atlas Shrugged
OOPS: “Thus spoke” banned Mirdath So I will subsitute Le Cracquere’s circles and Chesterton.

Please note: No disrespect to the trinity. That is why I did not capitalize it. Which is a linguistic point, not just an avoidance ploy. I do not believe Nietszche said “God is Dead” or meant it. A character said it to demonstrate that if you looked at the works and faith in the world, one might conclude so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top