Objectivism Questions

[SaAcDelacro1x]

Hello! This is Jean-Therese Delacroix.

I’ve been reading Anthem by Ayn Rand lately not only due to teacher requirements but trying to critique it as I develop my own Christian philosophy (please don’t ask – it’s still in the works). However, when I read about objectivism, it seems to me that this “egoism” or “rational self-interest” through reason alone doesn’t make any sense.

This is because I think that, in a sense, religion is in our “rational self-interest”, to put it in the words of Rand. That is, it is “selfish” in the sense that we (at first) believe that it is for the sake of our spiritual survival and well-being that then comes to fulfillment through love for each other and of God. Is this logical – and even a truly Christian counter-argument? (I have a funny feeling that it might not be, but I should give it a shot, right? )

I’d like to know. Thanks.

 

[Julian0404]

Ayn Rand is not the person to pursue an understanding of a Christian Philosophy, and you are correct in realizing that her “objectivism” is way off base from Christianity. Ayn Rand held that “every man is an end unto himself . . no sacrificing for others…pursuit of ones own rational self interest . . . happiness. . . is the Highest Moral Purpose”. This was one of 5 pillars of her objectivism.
And Jesus said, “there is no greater love than this to lay down one’s life down for another” - paraphrase. Quite a difference from Ayn.

If you are looking to form a personal Christian philosophy, start with some basics, i.e. Truth. Go to www.thereasonforourhope.org and get Father Larry Richards CD on Truth.

 

[Oreoracle]

Haha, maybe this is the one thing most atheists and Christians can agree on: Rand had no idea what she was talking about.

Most of the persuasive power of Rand’s position and similar positions was/is derived from base fearmongering and the confidence gained from belittling other positions (compare this to the security felt when one feels that they’re part of an enlightened group). Most of the overall power was derived instead from the wanton convictions of her supporters, these people being crazed capitalists who championed the “I deserve, you deserve” philosophies.

Always, she would assert two ultimatums intended to scare you into embracing her positions. The first of these was held by her to be the root of Objectivism. She would compare the choice between her ethical systems and others to the choice between life and death. It was clear that “death” to her was not the cessation of life, but the misuse of it, as it is quite obvious that hardly anyone has to be competitive or even competent to survive in this world. Her other omnipresent scare tactic was to conjure up an extreme example of collectivism to show how “evil” it is, while simultaneously failing to mention what happens when we put too much stock into individualism (rights become personal excuses to be irresponsible instead of tools for public happiness).

In the end, her influence was fairly inconsequential, and her philosophy is riddled with so many fallacies and childish taunts that many colleges don’t teach it in their curriculums.

 

[Oreoracle]

This is because I think that, in a sense, religion is in our “rational self-interest”, to put it in the words of Rand. That is, it is “selfish” in the sense that we (at first) believe that it is for the sake of our spiritual survival and well-being that then comes to fulfillment through love for each other and of God. Is this logical – and even a truly Christian counter-argument? (I have a funny feeling that it might not be, but I should give it a shot, right? )

I’d like to know. Thanks.

As for your question, I think Rand makes it clear in her other works (see The Virtue of Selfishness and Peikoff’s summaries for more info) that she believes rationality and faith are mutually exclusive; she holds that if we allow a portion of our beliefs to be based on anything but knowledge then we might as well not have knowledge. In other words, if even one speck of your belief system isn’t rational (based on sufficient evidence and used to attain her desired ends), she would have you toss the entire thing because she declares it all to be garbage. It’s abundantly evident that she and her followers dislike religious folks.

 

[SaAcDelacro1x]

Okay. I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Oops.

Here’s my real question:

Is taking on the banner of religion – any religion/approach to God – for our own spiritual survival (which is a reason why some people convert) “selfish” technically speaking? And is it a sinful kind of selfishness? Or is it the good kind of selfishness that Rand proposes in The Virtue of Selfishness?

(All of this is under the assumption that, somehow, religion became empirically rational as Rand would want it and thus my Randian approach isn’t rendered invalid.)

 

[SaAcDelacro1x]

Haha, maybe this is the one thing most atheists and Christians can agree on: Rand had no idea what she was talking about.

In the end, her influence was fairly inconsequential, and her philosophy is riddled with so many fallacies and childish taunts that many colleges don’t teach it in their curriculums.

To that extent, I do agree with what you just said! Having annotated almost everything in Anthem, the themes of mystical (although individualistic) love keep on coming back again and again in opposition to the false mysticism of the collective! And considering that Rand herself was against mysticism, this is a great contradiction that she makes in her book, whether she was conscious of it or not.

For that would be saying that there is no such thing as mysticism – as long as it’s not the “mysticism” of nature and love as she attempts to portray in the book. (So much for that, right? )

Unfortunately, my school district has said that this was one of the recommended books to do a study on in terms of its literary and artistic philosophy. And considering that this has gone on for years, it saddens me to hear that no one knows about how colleges are rejecting due to her naive fallacies and philosophical positions (and hearing it from an agnostic just gives it more credence! :clapping!

Indeed, having read the introduction by Peikoff, she herself said that it was in reaction to Communism. And it seems that hers was a overreactionary philosophy to Communism – just what I had suspected it from the beginning when I first read it in 9th grade English. But I wonder, though, why haven’t both religious and secular people given their concerns about the book’s fragile attempts on philosophical themes in terms of distributing it to younger ages (maybe not ban it, but at least just voice their concerns that this is not a necessarily good intro to teaching philosophy in literature)?

Why doesn’t anybody recommend Camus or Sartre instead? Or maybe something along the lines of Hesse or Nietzsche? I don’t know . . . maybe actually get an actual philosopher’s works in order to introduce philosophy in literature? :banghead:

But that’s a personal problem, I guess.

 

[Oreoracle]

Okay. I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Oops.

Here’s my real question:

Is taking on the banner of religion – any religion/approach to God – for our own spiritual survival (which is a reason why some people convert) “selfish” technically speaking? And is it a sinful kind of selfishness? Or is it the good kind of selfishness that Rand proposes in The Virtue of Selfishness?

I don’t think I can help you there, since I obviously don’t believe in sins! But I will assert that every conscious action of a person was caused by their desire to fulfill a preference of theirs. If this is true, and I think you’ll find it to be true after considering your own actions, then even altruistic actions are performed because you’ve come to prefer helping others. Acting to please yourself by satisfying your preferences is, I dare say, selfish. Since this understanding of our actions (psychological hedonism) renders polar opposites such as narcissism and altruism to be caused by the very same thing, we find that there’s really no such thing as “unselfish.” We are ourselves, and we always act to attain whatever we perceive to be the ideal circumstances, even if that entails sacrificing for others. This makes selfishness altogether unavoidable, no? Whether one kind is “good” and another “bad” is up to you. As you might expect by now, I would say that “good selfishness” is the inclination to satisfy preferences that involve pleasing others (I’m a utilitarian, in case you haven’t guessed). Rand would disagree drastically.

(All of this is under the assumption that, somehow, religion became empirically rational as Rand would want it and thus my Randian approach isn’t rendered invalid.)

But there lies the problem with your question: if religious doctrine is founded on the results of empirical observation, and not faith, then how can we rightly call the doctrine religious? If your spirituality is based on evidence, then Rand might approve (though she would be itching to call it something other than “spiritual”), but if faith is your motivation, she certainly wouldn’t.

 

[angelsdefendus]

Preface: I was once enamored by Rand prior to my own Religious understanding was solidified.

I think the biggest problem that Rand has is that she is a GREAT fiction writer and a poor philosopher.

So many people take her fiction which is GOOD and extrapolate it to her philosophy. Thinking they are equivalent in their development is a bad basis for critique.

I think that the posters original statement is right one, in the Christianity is in our own rational self interest. Not only that, but Rand’s philosophy of egoism, could have been reconciled with personalism/phenomenology had she only been willing to develop her ideas with some acceptance of Christian belief. I do know, that she wrote in direct objection to the idea of totalitarian socialist ideas… which, again because her philosophy is poor… simply was an inverse of those ideas within the same construct/framework.

 

[Hunho]

Is taking on the banner of religion – any religion/approach to God – for our own spiritual survival (which is a reason why some people convert) “selfish” technically speaking? And is it a sinful kind of selfishness? Or is it the good kind of selfishness that Rand proposes in The Virtue of Selfishness?

(All of this is under the assumption that, somehow, religion became empirically rational as Rand would want it and thus my Randian approach isn’t rendered invalid.)

Check out Peter Kreeft. He’s a contemporary philosopher and Catholic apologist. He teaches in the philosophy department at Boston College and has written several books on philosophy and on apologetics. His website is peterkreeft.com/. Two of his books on philosophy that I can recommend are Philosophy 101 by Socrates and Socrates Meets Jesus. You might also try his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (which he coauthored with Ronald Tacelli).

 

[ikimbrell]

Okay. I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Oops.

Here’s my real question:

Is taking on the banner of religion – any religion/approach to God – for our own spiritual survival (which is a reason why some people convert) “selfish” technically speaking? And is it a sinful kind of selfishness? Or is it the good kind of selfishness that Rand proposes in The Virtue of Selfishness?

(All of this is under the assumption that, somehow, religion became empirically rational as Rand would want it and thus my Randian approach isn’t rendered invalid.)

---

I think your insight is brilliant. I finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the second time recently and came to the same conclusion as you. I would feel comfortable defending that Christianity seems to jive with some of Rand’s “core” values. Jesus does not ask us to follow him in exchange for nothing. In exchange we receive eternal happiness with him. Seems like a good trade to me. The fact that most of his parables are about trade and business also buys me comfort in the idea that Jesus and Rand may have agreed on quite a bit.

Because of Rand’s hate of communism, I feel comfortable forgiving her use of the word “selfish” and replacing it with “self interest”. I do not think her characters were so much selfish, as they were focused on their ultimate self interest. In fact the heroes built railroads for others, invented machines for others, grew food for others, gave loans to others, and created jobs for others. And always for those weaker than themselves. The villians succeeded in hurting others. It would seem to me that our Christianity would label the characters the same way.

Rand rejects cohersion and embraces free will. Free will is one of the major gifts from God, so again, Rand seems to jive with Christianity. The fact that the Bible starts the whole story about our relationship with God by explaining how the gift of free will functions (Adam, Eve, Snake, Forbidden Fruit), also buys me comfort that there is less conflict between Rand and Jesus than custom and rumor suggests.

The idea that the government should make us work half the year for others by the cohersive force of the government in place of free will seems like something Christianity should reject. The Bible rejects slavery all over the place. And Rand’s claim that using cohersion to force one to provide for another is a form of slavery, seems like a bullet proof arguement to me.

I think Rand is a brilliant philosopher. Claims that she is a bad philosopher always seem ad hoc and without any explanation. I have never seen a critique of Objectivism that seems to come even close to summarizing her proposed framework for ethics correctly. Maybe it’s out there, but I have not seen it.

There is an interview with Rand by Phil Donahue on YouTube. She is obviously not a fan of Christianity, but she makes it clear that her philosophy does not conclude that Christianity is necessarily unethical. More like a “waste of time” in her eyes. Which means even Rand does not conclude that she knows why the two views of the world are necessarily 100% mutually exclusive.

Fun fact, what was Ayn Rand’s favorite painting? Salvador Dalí’s Crucifixion

Thank you for posting and proposing this idea.

 

[Leela]

---

I think your insight is brilliant. I finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the second time recently and came to the same conclusion as you. I would feel comfortable defending that Christianity seems to jive with some of Rand’s “core” values. Jesus does not ask us to follow him in exchange for nothing. In exchange we receive eternal happiness with him. Seems like a good trade to me. The fact that most of his parables are about trade and business also buys me comfort in the idea that Jesus and Rand may have agreed on quite a bit.

Because of Rand’s hate of communism, I feel comfortable forgiving her use of the word “selfish” and replacing it with “self interest”. I do not think her characters were so much selfish, as they were focused on their ultimate self interest. In fact the heroes built railroads for others, invented machines for others, grew food for others, gave loans to others, and created jobs for others. And always for those weaker than themselves. The villians succeeded in hurting others. It would seem to me that our Christianity would label the characters the same way.

Rand rejects cohersion and embraces free will. Free will is one of the major gifts from God, so again, Rand seems to jive with Christianity. The fact that the Bible starts the whole story about our relationship with God by explaining how the gift of free will functions (Adam, Eve, Snake, Forbidden Fruit), also buys me comfort that there is less conflict between Rand and Jesus than custom and rumor suggests.

The idea that the government should make us work half the year for others by the cohersive force of the government in place of free will seems like something Christianity should reject. The Bible rejects slavery all over the place. And Rand’s claim that using cohersion to force one to provide for another is a form of slavery, seems like a bullet proof arguement to me.

I think Rand is a brilliant philosopher. Claims that she is a bad philosopher always seem ad hoc and without any explanation. I have never seen a critique of Objectivism that seems to come even close to summarizing her proposed framework for ethics correctly. Maybe it’s out there, but I have not seen it.

There is an interview with Rand by Phil Donahue on YouTube. She is obviously not a fan of Christianity, but she makes it clear that her philosophy does not conclude that Christianity is necessarily unethical. More like a “waste of time” in her eyes. Which means even Rand does not conclude that she knows why the two views of the world are necessarily 100% mutually exclusive.

Fun fact, what was Ayn Rand’s favorite painting? Salvador Dalí’s Crucifixion

Thank you for posting and proposing this idea.

Nice analysis. My only quibble is with “The Bible rejects slavery all over the place.” It is a shame that the Bible doesn’t reject it or we wouldn’t have needed teh Civil War.

But certainly modern Christianity rejects slavery, and this is an important point of agreement between Objectivism and Christianity.

 

[Reprobus]

I have been told that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was built largely on the works of Max Stirner. He was the first Egoist, and the youngest of the Young Hegelians. His book The Ego and Its Own is rather a fun read. I have been told also that Rand was very much influenced by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.

Non serviam was Stirner’s motto. ‘I will not serve.’ I have heard that these are the words Lucifer spoke, the words that saw him cast into hell. In relation to God, they are a sin. In relation to the ‘natural’ idols of Hegel and Marx they are a virtue. These ‘natural’ idols may also be known as Plato’s Forms, or Ideals. Make no sacrifice to pagan idols. Stirner went almost that far. Stirner correctly identified various idols as harmful (or nonsensical), and (like Aristotle before him) sought to limit the harm of it by seeking in philosophy only that which was beneficial to his Self. Hence egoism and the idolatry of the Self. It is less wrong than making sacrifices to Society or The People, but it is still wrong.

The idolatry of Self has a weakness, and it is our own weakness. Hence Zarathustra and his Superman, or in Classical terms, Manicheism. We can overcome all other idols with our self. But to overcome ourselves?

 

[Biggie]

Hello! This is Jean-Therese Delacroix.

I’ve been reading Anthem by Ayn Rand lately not only due to teacher requirements but trying to critique it as I develop my own Christian philosophy (please don’t ask – it’s still in the works). However, when I read about objectivism, it seems to me that this “egoism” or “rational self-interest” through reason alone doesn’t make any sense.

This is because I think that, in a sense, religion is in our “rational self-interest”, to put it in the words of Rand. That is, it is “selfish” in the sense that we (at first) believe that it is for the sake of our spiritual survival and well-being that then comes to fulfillment through love for each other and of God. Is this logical – and even a truly Christian counter-argument? (I have a funny feeling that it might not be, but I should give it a shot, right? )

I’d like to know. Thanks.

Let me bait the hook a little. I don’t know enough about Rand to discuss her work. But if I understand you, you are seeing an issue between rational self-interest ( may I say utility?) and faith ( which presumes altruism ). I would propose that the being, using his reason, is able to co-opt faith in order to achieve rational ends, and that this is an abuse of reason.

Faith may properly have rationally useful byproducts, but the aim of faith should not be that which is useful rationally. The proper application of reason is to discover the will of God. Then in faith ( love of God ) the being follows God’s discovered will, even if the intermediate end appears to be irrational. While we can depend on God’s will to be rational, we cannot count on it to appeal to human reason. How about that?

 

[RobNY]

Okay. I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Oops.

Here’s my real question:

Is taking on the banner of religion – any religion/approach to God – for our own spiritual survival (which is a reason why some people convert) “selfish” technically speaking? And is it a sinful kind of selfishness? Or is it the good kind of selfishness that Rand proposes in The Virtue of Selfishness?

(All of this is under the assumption that, somehow, religion became empirically rational as Rand would want it and thus my Randian approach isn’t rendered invalid.)

Friend,

Self-love is taken in two senses. Aristotle is careful to distinguish these two senses.

If you’ve never read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, you should do so. It is far more timeless than anything Rand ever wrote.

But for now, take a look at chapter 8 of book IX.

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.9.ix.html

The question is, whether a man should love himself most?

---

The answer, of course, is that right action is always motivated by self-love. It is self-love because it seeks the good of one’s self. There is nothing wrong with seeking the good for oneself-- to do otherwise would be, well, evil. But it is not self-love in the base Randian sense. For what is truly ‘best’ is holiness and virtue, and to assign oneself what is best does not mean to exclude or lessen others in any way. Virtue is not a limited resource.

Remember that Jesus tells us to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Indeed, love of friends, Aristotle says, is like love of another self. There’s a lot to be said in favor of an ethics which understands the proper place of self-love. But you can get this from Aristotle in a reasonable form, without having to drink the Randian kool-aid.

 

[geometer]

Hello! This is Jean-Therese Delacroix.

I’ve been reading Anthem by Ayn Rand lately not only due to teacher requirements but trying to critique it as I develop my own Christian philosophy (please don’t ask – it’s still in the works). However, when I read about objectivism, it seems to me that this “egoism” or “rational self-interest” through reason alone doesn’t make any sense.

This is because I think that, in a sense, religion is in our “rational self-interest”, to put it in the words of Rand. That is, it is “selfish” in the sense that we (at first) believe that it is for the sake of our spiritual survival and well-being that then comes to fulfillment through love for each other and of God. Is this logical – and even a truly Christian counter-argument? (I have a funny feeling that it might not be, but I should give it a shot, right? )

I’d like to know. Thanks.

Boy did you waste your money. You mean to say that the philosophy school of your university is wasting your time with the science fiction of Ayn Rand?

 

[tonyrey]

I have been told that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was built largely on the works of Max Stirner. He was the first Egoist, and the youngest of the Young Hegelians. His book The Ego and Its Own is rather a fun read. I have been told also that Rand was very much influenced by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.

Non serviam was Stirner’s motto. ‘I will not serve.’ I have heard that these are the words Lucifer spoke, the words that saw him cast into hell. In relation to God, they are a sin. In relation to the ‘natural’ idols of Hegel and Marx they are a virtue. These ‘natural’ idols may also be known as Plato’s Forms, or Ideals. Make no sacrifice to pagan idols. Stirner went almost that far. Stirner correctly identified various idols as harmful (or nonsensical), and (like Aristotle before him) sought to limit the harm of it by seeking in philosophy only that which was beneficial to his Self. Hence egoism and the idolatry of the Self. It is less wrong than making sacrifices to Society or The People, but it is still wrong.

The idolatry of Self has a weakness, and it is our own weakness. Hence Zarathustra and his Superman, or in Classical terms, Manicheism. We can overcome all other idols with our self. But to overcome ourselves?

An excellent analysis. Your question is the one we need to answer. How can we overcome ourselves? Only by going** beyond** the Golden Rule. The principle of equality embodied in “Love Your Neighbour as yourself” is not enough because it is the bare minimum. It can easily be distorted by restricting the term “neighbour” to anyone who does not meet **our **requirements. Jesus extended it to everyone who is in need of our help by telling us to love our enemies. They may not need material help but they certainly need spiritual help! It is only with the love He demonstrated in the folly of the Cross that we can really overcome ourselves by loving others more than ourselves! That is quite different from rational self-interest from the point of view of life on earth. If we take the next life into account it is in our rational self-interest to love everyone - as our heavenly Father does - but it is obviously madness in the eyes of those who stake everything on this life. Why? Because it is only after we die that we reap what we sow and obtain exactly what we deserve…