Understanding Ayn Rand's Philosophy

  • Thread starter Thread starter simple_soul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

simple_soul

Guest
*Hello everyone,
I was wondering if you all could help me understand something. I was reading a couple of threads that were talking about Ayn Rand and her philosophy and got a little lost trying to understand it. Some people who posted there did not have anything good to say about it. I have read two of her books, the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I found them both to have helped me understand God and my relationship with Him and with everyone else better. Granted it has been almost twenty years since I read them so I may not be remembering them well. My question is this, could someone please explain the basics of her philosophy for me and the reason you believe it is either good or bad? It might help me to understand more clearly what I do or do not understand well…please keep it as simple and basic as possible… thank you in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut…
 
she basically believes that successful captains of industry are entirely good while the rest of humanity is a sniveling pile of refuse with big time jealousy problems. somehow, attractive female groupies of the top industrialists are fine by her too.
 
I know next to nothing about Ayn Rand … but I’m quite certain she’s an atheist and said that any claims about God (including “God exists”) must be rejected because any claim about the supernatural, since it is not perceivable by the senses, are “arbitrary” and “meaningless” (or something along those lines). So, in other words, she was an atheist and believed all religion was irrational.

To her credit, she liked Aristotle, and tried using him to support her “Objectivist” philosophy.

I wish I could tell you more … but that is all I got.
 
Read “Anthem” to get a good idea about Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or should I say religion, of “Objectivism.” All she’s really doing is taking Adam Smith’s justification for a free-market economy and applying it to all phases of life. It’s basically a “hooray for me and to heck with everybody else” approach to life. It’s useful to a degree in business but completely antithetical to Christ’s teachings in other areas.
 
PPeterson said:
she basically believes that successful captains of industry are entirely good while the rest of humanity is a sniveling pile of refuse with big time jealousy problems. somehow, attractive female groupies of the top industrialists are fine by her too.
Click to expand...
*Dear PPeterson,

Thank you for responding and I pray I am not getting in over my head here in trying to explain how what I got out of her books is a little different than what you have posted up here.

I do not recall, in what I have read of her work, that she believes successful captains of industry are entirely good. Actually from what I recall some of the supposed successful people where ones that sold their talents and their dreams/vocations down the river for the success others said they should have. And I guess from the rest of what you are saying it leads me to ask myself one question. Am I a sniveling pile of refuse with big time jealousy problems? In other words do I whine and complain about my crosses or do I accept my cross and God’s grace to carry it without being jealous of other people and how much easier they may or may not have it.

This is some of what I got out of her two books I read. Did I put my own twist on it and read something into it that is just not there? Or could this really be what she is trying to say?

Please let me know if you need me to clarify anything,
Thank you again for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Areopagite said:
I know next to nothing about Ayn Rand … but I’m quite certain she’s an atheist and said that any claims about God (including “God exists”) must be rejected because any claim about the supernatural, since it is not perceivable by the senses, are “arbitrary” and “meaningless” (or something along those lines). So, in other words, she was an atheist and believed all religion was irrational.

To her credit, she liked Aristotle, and tried using him to support her “Objectivist” philosophy.

I wish I could tell you more … but that is all I got.
Click to expand...
*Dear Areopagite,

Thank you also for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I myself know next to nothing about Aristotle so maybe what I am getting out of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is more in line with Aristotle’s but then I would have to question why Ayn Rand liked him so much. Questioning this makes me question just how much of an atheist she really was.

I am not sure that I see anything wrong with the “Objectivity” philosophy or “objetivism” as Karmaria put it. I do pray that I am not getting in over my head here in trying to explain myself but God willing I will do my best.

I looked up the word Objective it is the following: Any of various theories asserting the objective phenomena over subjective experience. An ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.
This lead me to Realism so I looked it up and it is the following: concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary. A doctrine that universals exist outside the mind. the concept that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality.

Reading these two definitions leads me to understand that God is a unitary reality and that He does and is the only one that exists independently outside of our mind and that He is subjective to nothing. And that all moral good rests in Him and is an object of His but is not subjective to anything. In other words Truth is Truth.

Does this make any sense?
Please help me to understand it better if it does or does not,
Thank you in advance for your time and I will try to follow along.
 
Karmartia said:
Read “Anthem” to get a good idea about Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or should I say religion, of “Objectivism.” All she’s really doing is taking Adam Smith’s justification for a free-market economy and applying it to all phases of life. It’s basically a “hooray for me and to heck with everybody else” approach to life. It’s useful to a degree in business but completely antithetical to Christ’s teachings in other areas.
Click to expand...
*Dear Karmartia,

Thank you for your suggestion and (name removed by moderator)ut. I will have to try and get my hands on the book you mentioned because I really do not quite see what is wrong with “Objectivism.” I did post what I believe objectivism is in my response to Areopagite. so to save myself from having to repost it I will refer you to it.
 
simple_soul said:
Thank you also for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I myself know next to nothing about Aristotle so maybe what I am getting out of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is more in line with Aristotle’s but then I would have to question why Ayn Rand liked him so much. Questioning this makes me question just how much of an atheist she really was.
Click to expand...
Well, everyone, whether atheist, agnostic, heretic, etc, has some part of the truth. Aristotle is sometimes likened to a materialist because his writings are “less mystical sounding” than Plato’s, for example. Those atheists who recognize Aristotle’s wisdom try to then use Aristotle against religion. But Aristotle definitely believed in immaterial realities, and atheists never successfully explain away that fact but conveniently ignore it.
simple_soul said:
I am not sure that I see anything wrong with the “Objectivity” philosophy or “objetivism” as Karmaria put it. I do pray that I am not getting in over my head here in trying to explain myself but God willing I will do my best.

I looked up the word Objective it is the following: Any of various theories asserting the objective phenomena over subjective experience. An ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.

This lead me to Realism so I looked it up and it is the following: concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary. A doctrine that universals exist outside the mind. the concept that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality.

Reading these two definitions leads me to understand that God is a unitary reality and that He does and is the only one that exists independently outside of our mind and that He is subjective to nothing. And that all moral good rests in Him and is an object of His but is not subjective to anything. In other words Truth is Truth.
Click to expand...
“Objectivity” is a legitimate philosophical concept. But Rand came up with a particular philosophy called “Objectivism” (named after “Objectivity” of course) that she claimed flowed from the idea of objectivity … but her philosophy illegitimately denied a lot of things … like God.

Now, once again, I know next to nothing about Ayn Rand … that’s pretty much all I can say confidently.
 
Areopagite said:
“Objectivity” is a legitimate philosophical concept. But Rand came up with a particular philosophy called “Objectivism” (named after “Objectivity” of course) that she claimed flowed from the idea of objectivity … but her philosophy illegitimately denied a lot of things … like God.
Click to expand...
*Dear Areopagite,

This, what I have bolded, is what I believe I do not understand. How did her philosophy illegitimately deny a lot of things…like God… and whatever a lot of things are.*
 
simple_soul said:
*Dear Areopagite,

This, what I have bolded, is what I believe I do not understand. How* did her philosophy illegitimately deny a lot of things…like God… and whatever a lot of things are.
Click to expand...
Well, the one interview I saw of her, it appeared that one of her central doctrines was “If something cannot be proven, you should not believe it.”

She argued that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove God exists. Putting aside the subject whether one can, in fact, prove God exists … she was then told, “Well actually you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist” to which she replied something like, “That’s pointless, because you can’t prove a negative … so the rational position to take is that God doesn’t exist.”

Now what the heck does that mean? Now, assuming you “can’t prove a negative”, it doesn’t follow that denying the existence of God is more rational … unless you do so as mere opinion or belief … not as some if you think it’s some rationally-sanctioned … thing.

But furthermore, the idea that “You can’t prove a negative” is completely false. Anyone with any shred of logical training knows that it’s wrong. Such statements like “There are no unicorns in my basement” … “No square circles exist” … “No purple monkey has ever asked me out on a date” are all negative statements and can all be proven false. Even Aristotle would agree with me.

She also said in the interview that faith is intrinsically opposed to reason. She says this because she thinks anything that can’t be proven (like faith) should not be believed. However, there are things which Aristotle mentioned that cannot be proven but must be believed … such as principle of non-contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason, etc. You must accept these on faith therefore, since they cannot be proved.

Hopefully, I haven’t misrepresented what Rand believed … once again, I just saw one interview on her.

Also, to the moderators … please don’t ban me for mentioning atheism!:o I was just critiquing Ayn Rand’s general way of thinking.
 
Areopagite said:
Well, the one interview I saw of her, it appeared that one of her central doctrines was “If something cannot be proven, you should not believe it.”

She argued that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove God exists. Putting aside the subject whether one can, in fact, prove God exists … she was then told, “Well actually you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist” to which she replied something like, “That’s pointless, because you can’t prove a negative … so the rational position to take is that God doesn’t exist.”

Now what the heck does that mean? Now, assuming you “can’t prove a negative”, it doesn’t follow that denying the existence of God is more rational … unless you do so as mere opinion or belief … not as some if you think it’s some rationally-sanctioned … thing.

But furthermore, the idea that “You can’t prove a negative” is completely false. Anyone with any shred of logical training knows that it’s wrong. Such statements like “There are no unicorns in my basement” … “No square circles exist” … “No purple monkey has ever asked me out on a date” are all negative statements and can all be proven false. Even Aristotle would agree with me.

She also said in the interview that faith is intrinsically opposed to reason. She says this because she thinks anything that can’t be proven (like faith) should not be believed. However, there are things which Aristotle mentioned that cannot be proven but must be believed … such as principle of non-contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason, etc. You must accept these on faith therefore, since they cannot be proved.

Hopefully, I haven’t misrepresented what Rand believed … once again, I just saw one interview on her.

Also, to the moderators … please don’t ban me for mentioning atheism!:o I was just critiquing Ayn Rand’s general way of thinking.
Click to expand...
*Dear Areopagite,

Thank you, This might be a good place for me to start. I was wondering if you might remember the source of the interview and where I might find it?
 
Areopagite said:
I found it on YouTube:

youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ&feature=related
Click to expand...
*Dear Areopagite,

Thank you for the link. I listened to the clips a couple of times and there are a few things I do not get. To start with, at 1:03 in the first clip an audience member asks Ayn Rand “How can you be against God?” Ayn Rand’s response is “I am against those who conceive that idea.” this would lead me to believe that she is not against God she is against those who conceive the idea that she is against God. Do you know what she means by that statement?

One of the other things I am not sure on that may help me to understand her philosophy more clearly is: do we believe that God exists or do we know that He is?
 
simple_soul said:
I listened to the clips a couple of times and there are a few things I do not get. To start with, at 1:03 in the first clip an audience member asks Ayn Rand “How can you be against God?” Ayn Rand’s response is “I am against those who conceive that idea.” this would lead me to believe that she is not against God she is against those who conceive the idea that she is against God. Do you know what she means by that statement?
Click to expand...
She definitely claims she is against God because she says so herself a few seconds before that comment, when she says, “I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason.” When she said “I am against those who conceive that idea” … “that idea” is referring to “the idea that God exists.” Thus, she is saying that “I am against those who conceive the idea that God exists.” I’m quite sure that is what she means.
simple_soul said:
One of the other things I am not sure on that may help me to understand her philosophy more clearly is: do we believe that God exists or do we know that He is?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. It depends what you mean by this. Could you possibly explain the difference between these two statements?
 
Areopagite said:
She definitely claims she is against God because she says so herself a few seconds before that comment, when she says, “I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason.” When she said “I am against those who conceive that idea” … “that idea” is referring to “the idea that God exists.” Thus, she is saying that “I am against those who conceive the idea that God exists.” I’m quite sure that is what she means.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure as you are. My understanding is that the “idea” refers to the question being asked. Not what was stated after. But hey I have been wrong before. As for her reason for being against God, are you saying God wants us to destroy reason?
Areopagite said:
Interesting question. It depends what you mean by this. Could you possibly explain the difference between these two statements?
Click to expand...
*I am trying to understand the difference so far this is what I have come up with.

Exist: from latin** exsistere **to come into being.
1 a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
b: to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions.

With this understanding of the definition I can not say that God exists.

Is: “to be” - that is all the definition is that I could understand so I looked up “be.”

Be: To have an objective existence.
Have reality or actuality to equal in meaning- have the same connotation as.

Now my understanding of objective is by definition the following: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. If I take this definition and look at our relationship with God this is what I get: we are the object of God’s thought and we can not exist independently of Him.

If my understanding of “exist” and “is” are correct then neither in my understanding describes how I understand God. How would you describe Him? *
 
simple_soul said:
I am not so sure as you are. My understanding is that the “idea” refers to the question being asked.
Click to expand...
It does seem that way, and if that is what she meant, then she contradicts herself because right before she said, “I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason.” So, if you’re right, then she contradicted herself.

I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t contradict herself and with “that idea” was referring to “that God exists.” That’s what my intuition told me that she was saying.

But maybe I’m wrong. In any case, it is a little ambiguous when she said “that idea.” But the thing is … she DID say “I am against God” and so there you go.
simple_soul said:
Not what was stated after. But hey I have been wrong before. As for her reason for being against God, are you saying God wants us to destroy reason?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that, but she is claiming that to believe in God is to destroy reason. That is because she believes that one can only believe in God by faith. And she says to have faith in anything is unreasonable … that to have faith is to destroy reason. Hence, by her logic, she believes that to believe in God is to go against (a.k.a. destroy) reason.

I, of course, disagree with her. I don’t think faith is unreasonable.
simple_soul said:
I am trying to understand the difference so far this is what I have come up with.

Exist: from latin** exsistere **to come into being.
1 a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
b: to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions.

With this understanding of the definition I can not say that God exists.
Click to expand...
This is very deep. I would agree with you 100%. God does not exist if “exist” means “to come into being” … because of course God always had being.
simple_soul said:
Is: “to be” - that is all the definition is that I could understand so I looked up “be.”

Be: To have an objective existence.
Have reality or actuality to equal in meaning- have the same connotation as.

Now my understanding of objective is by definition the following: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. If I take this definition and look at our relationship with God this is what I get: we are the object of God’s thought and we can not exist independently of Him.
Click to expand...
In this way, I would say “God is” would be more correct to say rather than “God exists.” However, sometimes “exist” is used to mean the same thing as “is” in which case it would also be true to say “God exists.”
simple_soul said:
If my understanding of “exist” and “is” are correct then neither in my understanding describes how I understand God.
Click to expand...
Could you rephrase that?
simple_soul said:
How would you describe Him?
Click to expand...
Well, one way that I would describe Him is … God is all being.

Maybe I have to go into what I mean by that.
 
Areopagite said:
It does seem that way, and if that is what she meant, then she contradicts herself because right before she said, “I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason.” So, if you’re right, then she contradicted herself.

I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t contradict herself and with “that idea” was referring to “that God exists.” That’s what my intuition told me that she was saying.

But maybe I’m wrong. In any case, it is a little ambiguous when she said “that idea.” But the thing is … she DID say “I am against God” and so there you go.

I’m not saying that, but she is claiming that to believe in God is to destroy reason. That is because she believes that one can only believe in God by faith. And she says to have faith in anything is unreasonable … that to have faith is to destroy reason. Hence, by her logic, she believes that to believe in God is to go against (a.k.a. destroy) reason.

I, of course, disagree with her. I don’t think faith is unreasonable.
Click to expand...
OK, I will leave this one alone for now because I find the other part of our conversation much more constructive. But, just so that you know I do hear what you are saying.
Areopagite said:
This is very deep. I would agree with you 100%. God does not exist if “exist” means “to come into being” … because of course God always had being.
Click to expand...
OK, maybe there is hope for me yet…😃
Areopagite said:
In this way, I would say “God is” would be more correct to say rather than “God exists.” However, sometimes “exist” is used to mean the same thing as “is” in which case it would also be true to say “God exists.”
Click to expand...
When I first asked you about referring to God as “is” I thought so too. But, look at the definitions again:

Is: “to be” - that is all the definition is that I could understand so I looked up “be.”

Be: To have an objective existence.
Have reality or actuality to equal in meaning- have the same connotation as.

Now my understanding of objective is by definition the following: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. If I take this definition and look at our relationship with God this is what I get: we are the object of God’s thought and we can not exist independently of Him.

It is my understanding that God is independent of our thought. So this is why I do not believe I can even use “is” as a way to describe Him.
Areopagite said:
Well, one way that I would describe Him is … God is all being.

Maybe I have to go into what I mean by that.
Click to expand...
If you do not mind please do. I am off for some shut-eye for now. Will check in the AM.
 
simple_soul said:
When I first asked you about referring to God as “is” I thought so too. But, look at the definitions again:
Click to expand...
Is: “to be” - that is all the definition is that I could understand so I looked up “be.”

Be: To have an objective existence.
Have reality or actuality to equal in meaning- have the same connotation as.

Now my understanding of objective is by definition the following: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. If I take this definition and look at our relationship with God this is what I get: we are the object of God’s thought and we can not exist independently of Him.

It is my understanding that God is independent of our thought. So this is why I do not believe I can even use “is” as a way to describe Him.

Oh, I see what you’re saying. Yes, it is true that God does not merely have objective existence … if “objective existence” simply means “existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.”

The thing is, basic metaphysical words like “is” and “to be” cannot technically be defined because they are so basic. The definitions of the dictionaries try and give some kind of idea of what they partly have to do with sometimes. There are of course different ways that “is” is used … and different ways “exist” can be used … and it’s possible to talk about those different ways (in fact, that’s what metaphysics is for), but existence in general, without considering its different kinds, is so basic that it cannot be defined … it’s just intuited. If I may ask, is there something exactly you’re trying to figure out about God’s being?
simple_soul said:
If you do not mind please do.
Click to expand...
So, I said that “God is all being.” Well, the short answer I’ll give now is this:

Anything that can exist is called a “being.” Some beings actually exist and some do not actually exist (but potentially exist). Some beings have more being than others. For example, you could say that an animal has more being than a plant, because an animal has senses, whereas a plant does not. God has (or is) all being. He has within Himself all that can exist. When He creates something, he gives that thing a limited amount of His own being. Hence, all the things we see are limited amounts of the perfections that came out of God’s infinite perfections. Anything that can exist can be found in God.

Well, that was probably very confusing. But that’s the short answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top