What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand?

[avant-garde]

Objectivism- http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-408-FAQ_is_Objectivism.aspx

 

[JoeDawg]

Cult of personality.

 

[Anticitizen]

Knowing Rand's heritage and past, her writings and philosophies - a direct rebuttal of authoritarianism/socialism - make perfect sense, in context. In describing a sort of fundamental reality of human nature it is lacking, but still useful.

Loved The Fountainhead. I read it as a novel of fiction, knowing nothing beforehand of her philosophies or history. It's just a darn good yarn. Never made it through Atlas Shrugged despite several attempts.

 

[robertm]

Knowing Rand's heritage and past, her writings and philosophies - a direct rebuttal of authoritarianism/socialism - make perfect sense, in context. In describing a sort of fundamental reality of human nature it is lacking, but still useful.

Loved The Fountainhead. I read it as a novel of fiction, knowing nothing beforehand of her philosophies or history. It's just a darn good yarn. Never made it through Atlas Shrugged despite several attempts.

Yeah I agree with you here. I read and thoroughly enjoyed several of her books (including Atlas Shrugged ) back in high school before really learning anything about her.

Though she makes some good thoughtful points, she really does comes across as a nut-job in some of her public appearances. The question and answer session of this interview is particularly strange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FzGFytGBDN8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FzGFytGBDN8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[celebrei]

I consider Rand's work to be pseudophilosophy, and quite frankly, her system of morals is destructive and flawed, it is only one step behind from the power fantasies of an invalid, and her sophomoric reasons for hating Kantian epistemology is truly embarrassing imho.

 

[octelcogopod]

I consider Rand's work to be pseudophilosophy, and quite frankly, her system of morals is destructive and flawed, it is only one step behind from the power fantasies of an invalid

Can you explain this some more?

I think Rand nailed it perfectly how man is alone and must make choices based on egoism all the time, both small things and big things in life.
Her philosophy is really quite obvious in a way, it explains many things that are maybe not well known, but still clear as day once put on paper.

Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

I don't think she is claiming that people should be selfish to the extent that it hurts other people, it is rather a realistic view of how man is selfish by default by his very existence.
We must take care of ourselves.

 

[celebrei]

egoism is exactly the problem of Rand's philosophy, much like Heidegger's ontology on the superimposition of the power of man, not only that, Objectivism begs the question "Is one's life the ultimate value of ethics? what of altruism then? Is selfless concern for the welfare of others truly "unethical" or "less ethical" in Objectivism's view? what of giving one's life for the lives of others? is it truly irrational and unethical then? Rand does not fully address this dilemma in her ethical system, in Atlas Shrugged, every person who has done acts of charity are portrayed in a negative light. Also the implications of Objectivism's view that reality is independent of consciousness, how then does this answer the hard problems of consciousness? why awareness of sensory information exist at all? Objectivism's implications on the philosophy of mind does not in any way address this sort of problems, it just assumes the existence of reality independent of consciousness as true, that's why I consider Rand's philosophy as both half-baked and confusing.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Rand is to philosophy as Ramanujan is to mathematics. L. Peikoff is to Rand's Objectivism as G. H. Hardy is to Ramanujan's mathematical conjectures. Argumentation on Randianism without a qualified defense is just argumentative. We need Peikoff.

An assertion tautologically true is trivial. A=A An assertion not falsifiable is not scientific, thus supernatural and unlikely 'objective'.

 

[robertm]

Objectivism begs the question "Is one's life the ultimate value of ethics?

Could you rephrase this so as to be more clear as to what exactly it is you are saying?

I'm fairly certain that life is a prerequisite of ethics...

what of altruism then? Is selfless concern for the welfare of others truly "unethical" or "less ethical" in Objectivism's view? what of giving one's life for the lives of others

I think that the point is to say that the concept of 'self-less-ness' is flawed. That in normal human interaction, self-ish-ness is unavoidable. That self-sacrificial acts are indeed self-ish.

And we've known for quite some time that altruism arises from group cohesion. It is often observed to be greatly in the interest of the individual to behave in an altruistic manner when interacting with the community.

Also the implications of Objectivism's view that reality is independent of consciousness, how then does this answer the hard problems of consciousness?

I... don't... think... that it does... Why do you feel as if it should?

Objectivism is a philosophy, ultimately just a silly game we play. In serious discourse the difficult and worthwhile questions are left to science.

Do you know of a philosophy that does satisfactorily answer the hard problems of consciousness?

why awareness of sensory information exist at all?

Again, awareness is a property of brains. Gushy jiggly organs. Any meaningful progress on this question can only be expected to come from scientific investigation.

Objectivism's implications on the philosophy of mind does not in any way address this sort of problems, it just assumes the existence of reality independent of consciousness as true, that's why I consider Rand's philosophy as both half-baked and confusing.

What we have managed to discern about the workings of reality, demands that we accept it's independence of conciousness. It is awareness that is dependent upon consciousness; which is itself an emergent property of biology, which is actually highly complex chemistry, which is of course really complicated physics, which is our attempt at a detailed description of reality. Not the other way round. The entire enterprise of science works on the fact that observation and experimentation are relative only in the Einsteinian sense of the word.

You are sounding awfully solipsistic here. I mean, even babies eventually figure out that when they cover their eyes, the minds around them still are capable of discovering their presence. Which, of course, is the other basis of ethics: empathy.

Not that I am one to jump on the Rand 'wagon, but I do think she made some noteworthy observations on the human condition.

 

[JoeDawg]

Not that I am one to jump on the Rand 'wagon, but I do think she made some noteworthy observations on the human condition.

She stated what she considered obvious, in a very shallow and unreflective way, then called her beliefs: self-evident to any rational person; and then labelled anyone who questioned or disagreed with her, as dishonest, irrational and ignorant.

That's not philosophy, anymore than Scientology is science.

 

[celebrei]

She stated what she considered obvious, in a very shallow and unreflective way, then called her beliefs: self-evident to any rational person; and then labelled anyone who questioned or disagreed with her, as dishonest, irrational and ignorant.

That's not philosophy, anymore than Scientology is science.

my thoughts exactly

 

[celebrei]

I think that the point is to say that the concept of 'self-less-ness' is flawed. That in normal human interaction, self-ish-ness is unavoidable. That self-sacrificial acts are indeed self-ish

.

Assuming that was true, then are we to forgo altruistic acts for the sake of only self-interest? Objectivism teaches that all acts of selflessness are to be avoided, as I have said, the main problem of Rand's philosophy is its' superimposition of the importance of the "self" rejecting altruistic acts as unethical/ less ethical which is wrong

Objectivism is a philosophy, ultimately just a silly game we play. In serious discourse the difficult and worthwhile questions are left to science.

professional philosophy is not a "silly game" and to assume that "worthwhile questions are left to science" is just plain scientism and hubris

Do you know of a philosophy that does satisfactorily answer the hard problems of consciousness?

Not philosophy, but science, has neuroscience been able to explain the subjective aspects of consciousness? not even close.

What we have managed to discern about the workings of reality, demands that we accept it's independence of conciousness. It is awareness that is dependent upon consciousness; which is itself an emergent property of biology, which is actually highly complex chemistry, which is of course really complicated physics, which is our attempt at a detailed description of reality. Not the other way round. The entire enterprise of science works on the fact that observation and experimentation are relative only in the Einsteinian sense of the word.

Those who insist on a scientific attempt to answer the subjective aspect of consciousness are making a categorical error, the objective of science is to validate statements that are epistemically objective, but are not ontologically objective, all conscious experiences are ontologically subjective, they are experienced subjectively, for a doctor who diagnosed a patient with back pain is an objective fact of medical science, the pain itself is ontologically subjective, to have an objective and scientific account of consciousness is absurd and impossible, conscious experiences are irreducible to physical states, where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality.

 

[JoeDawg]

You are sounding awfully solipsistic here.

Understanding the problems inherent in subjective experience, which Rand either didn't understand or chose to ignore, is not the same as advocating for the non-existense of external reality.

In philosophy, dealing with solipsism is very important to any epistemology.
It has only very rarely been claimed to be a valid ontological theory.
Attacking the former, as being equivalent to the latter, is purely a strawman argument.

And Rand's books are full of strawmen, with regards to politics, economics and philosophy.

She wrote pulp novels for a juvenile audience, full of standard teen angst issues about individuality and identity. On that level, she was a success.

There are very good reasons she is not considered a serious writer or philosopher.

 

[noblegas]

egoism is exactly the problem of Rand's philosophy, much like Heidegger's ontolo
gy on the superimposition of the power of man, not only that, Objectivism begs the question "Is one's life the ultimate value of ethics? what of altruism then? Is selfless concern for the welfare of others truly "unethical" or "less ethical" in Objectivism's view?

I don't think she was virulent against the act of altriusm as many people have claimed on this forum. I think that she had a big issue with altruism when it involved the person perpuatating the act of charity to make large sacrifices from himself as indicated by these two quotes here:

. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

,

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html. So she definitely did not completely abhor charity giving, she believe that it should be applied in certain circumstances and that that people should not be naturally obligated to be charitable simply because of their large source of wealth.

what of giving one's life for the lives of others? is it truly irrational and unethical then?

If there is a large risk that you could lose your life, I think it would be unethical to sacrifice your own life for the lives of strangers that you do not place large value on. why would it be moral to risked your own life for others but in every other circumstance in your life, you don't make big sacrifices . You don't sacrifice your want for wanting to buy a house in order to buy houses for people who could not afford to buy a house . Hear is a scenario you should considered : If you were in a situation where you could stop two planes with terrorists who took thirty total strangers hostage and a second plane consisted of your wife and kid being held hostage by terrorists, it is pretty obvious that you would choose to save the people that you value more and that would for most people be the plane with the wife and kid and Objectivism permits this sort of behavior . Also, if their were minimal self-sacrifice involved , ayn rand would not object to saving the hostage on the plane. More quotes on self sacrifice by ayn rand.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

 

[noblegas]

Understanding the problems inherent in subjective experience, which Rand either didn't understand or chose to ignore, is not the same as advocating for the non-existense of external reality.

In philosophy, dealing with solipsism is very important to any epistemology.
It has only very rarely been claimed to be a valid ontological theory.
Attacking the former, as being equivalent to the latter, is purely a strawman argument.

And Rand's books are full of strawmen, with regards to politics, economics and philosophy.

She wrote pulp novels for a juvenile audience, full of standard teen angst issues about individuality and identity. On that level, she was a success.

Teen angst issues? I don't think you read any her novels because all of the characters were well beyond their teen years and none of themes presented in her books are about teen angst issues at all. She had to write a novel because she was not accepted by the philoshophers community and therefore could not get her work published in philosopher journals just like the anarcho capitalist philosopher murray rothbard had to send his philosophy writings to think tanks because his ideas were not accepted by economists at most universities. Those not mean he was an incompetent economist or that his ideas were rooted in crackpottery.

There are very good reasons she is not considered a serious writer or philosopher.

I gave you reasons why she is not considered a philosopher. I want to ask you who is considered a serious writer and who is not. Her books one of the most influential books of the 20th century and they are today. She was a serious writer to somebody.

 

[JoeDawg]

Teen angst issues?

Yes. Compare Dagney Taggart from Atlas Shrugged... and Bella from Twilight. Same issues.

Her books one of the most influential books of the 20th century and they are today.

If you can make it through her awful prose, I'm guessing it would have an influence on you.

She was a serious writer to somebody.

So is Stephanie Meyer, that doesn't say much.

 

[noblegas]

Yes. Compare Dagney Taggart from Atlas Shrugged... and Bella from Twilight. Same issues.

Please. Bella is about as comparable to Dagney Taggart in the realm of character and personality as is a fresh apple and a piece of iron are comparable in taste. Dagney and Bella are not even in the same ballpark.

So is Stephanie Meyer, that doesn't say much.

who or what self-elected literary officials defines who work serious writing? Many so called literary critics gave praise Catcher in the rye and called it "critically acclaimed" . But when I read the book, it look like I was reading some thirteen year old kid's journal. The journal of some angsty teen should not be considerec critically acclaimed . Sure both Stephanie Meyer and Ayn rand are influential writers, but Stephanie's meyer's books were popular for the same reason Justin Bieber is popular as a "musician". Because they were "entertaining" to their broad fanbase of teens and tweenr. But ayn rand, inspired many entrepreneurs, philosopher thinkers and how much value you place on individualism versus the collective. I would say she is just as influential in the same way that US civil rights leaders convinced americans, mainly white americans, that jim crow and racism were immoral . Thats how much effect I think she had on americans.

 

[JoeDawg]

Many so called literary critics gave praise Catcher in the rye and called it "critically acclaimed" . But when I read the book, it look like I was reading some thirteen year old kid's journal.

That's the saddest thing I've heard in a while. Sorry for your loss.

 

[Anticitizen]

She stated what she considered obvious, in a very shallow and unreflective way, then called her beliefs: self-evident to any rational person; and then labelled anyone who questioned or disagreed with her, as dishonest, irrational and ignorant.

That's not philosophy, anymore than Scientology is science.

I'd just like to point out that none of the above makes her wrong.

We all behave that way. We consider our own beliefs self-evident to any rational person, and label anyone else dishonest, irrational and/or ignorant. And some of us are correct.

 

[Max Faust]

She wrote pulp novels for a juvenile audience, full of standard teen angst issues about individuality and identity. On that level, she was a success.

Indeed.

My personal opinion about Ayn Rand is that she's the most toxic waste-product to come out of Russia since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. What the latter did for Germany, the former did for America. Neither of them in any direct way, however, but both of them by influencing the "personal convictions" of people who would later come into positions of power.

Sorry for the bluntness, but you have to be a moron to consider Ayn Rand a philosopher.

 

[kote]

Real philosophers laugh at Ayn Rand. Google "site:leiterreports.typepad.com ayn rand"

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/now-heres-a-tough-poll-to-answer.html
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/11/nietzsche-and-ayn-rand-a-brief-comment.html
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/a-political-philosopher-on-teaching-ayn-rand.html
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/11/someone-even-less-fond-of-ayn-rand-than-i-am.html
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/bl...nessman-thinks-hack-philosopher-ayn-rand.html

etc etc

Now here's a tough poll to answer!

I wouldn't know whom to vote for myself. Think of this as asking: which of these folks brings the most disrepute on to our discipline by being associated with it?

...

A FINAL UPDATE (MARCH 14): So, with some 1500 votes cast, it's Ayn Rand by a landslide (75% of the vote), following by Derrida (21%), and then Strauss (4%). Of course, it would be nice if the media just stopped referring to any of them as philosophers. For Rand: "novelist" or perhaps "libertarian crank." For Derrida: "literary theorist." For Strauss: "political science professor" or "well-known academic cult leader."

 

[Agent M27]

Indeed.

My personal opinion about Ayn Rand is that she's the most toxic waste-product to come out of Russia since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. What the latter did for Germany, the former did for America. Neither of them in any direct way, however, but both of them by influencing the "personal convictions" of people who would later come into positions of power.

Sorry for the bluntness, but you have to be a moron to consider Ayn Rand a philosopher.

What exactly is "toxic" about Ayn Rands writings and philosophy? I pressume when you say toxic you are referring to her positions on altruism. The word selfish-ness takes on a poor conotation in this context but it is the most accurate word to describe her point: Why is one persons self interest more "valuable" than another? In reality there is no such thing, we are all individuals with no one having more "value" than the next. This may sound like a strawman but when put in a room with another person with whom you have no relationship, and in this room there is only enough resources for one to survive (pretend there is no way of sharing the resources), why is it moraly acceptable to sacrafice yourself so that the other person is able to live? This is not virtuous but mearly a means for the sacraficial person to feel compassion for another human. Granted this is a highly hypothetical situation but it strikes in the heart of collectivism and its flaw. If this is not what you meant by toxic please let us know.

Joe

 

[Max Faust]

What exactly is "toxic" about Ayn Rands writings and philosophy?

Specifically, the consequences of her ideas.

Look - I compared her to H.P. Blavatsky. Why don't you look her up and do the comparative mathematics yourself? I'm not here to tutor anybody. The problem with either of these ladies is that their mysticism and mythology represent a toxic meme complex which ultimately manifests in organised violence. Just check the facts.

And... it's a bit of a stretch to call Mrs. Rands infantile drivel "philosophy".

 

[kote]

The OP asked a reasonable question, but the question has been answered. Philosophers don't consider Rand to be a philosopher.

Calling Rand's writings philosophy is like calling creationism biology.

Ask scientists if they consider creationism to be "toxic," and you'll get a sense of how the word applies here to philosophy. Sure, biology and creationism attempt to address the same issue, but one is science and one is not. Rand may be writing about similar things to some philosophers, but it's not philosophy.

 

[kote]

To put it another way, if you turned in something that looked like it was written by Rand for Philosophy 101, you'd fail the course.

 

[JoeDawg]

I'd just like to point out that none of the above makes her wrong.

Actually, it really does. Since her 'opinions' were completely subjective and unsupported.
Her claims to objectivity are ludicrous and self-contradicting.
One doesn't need to argue against Rand, her arguments implode all by themselves.

We all behave that way.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Anticitizen]

Being 'self-contradictory' is a different argument than the one you presented, which was:

"She stated what she considered obvious, in a very shallow and unreflective way, then called her beliefs: self-evident to any rational person; and then labelled anyone who questioned or disagreed with her, as dishonest, irrational and ignorant.."

...which any person can and usually does do, whether they are right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that you (and most others here) are basically participating in straw man arguments and argumentum ad hominem. Don't feel bad; most people do when it comes to Rand. I don't know if anyone else in history can regularly conjure up as much vitriol as Ayn Rand.

I'm not here to defend Rand or her opinions. I read The Fountainhead and enjoyed it, and recognize her for what she is: a refugee from early Communist Russia who emigrated to the United States and greatly preferred what she saw here. She wrote a lot of books about her personal philosophy and opinons, and that's what they are, personal philosophy and opinions. She never once ran for political office or tried to coerce her opinions on others. The level of emotionalism her opinons raise in others rather boggles me. Disclaimer: I also read and rather enjoyed The Communist Manifesto as a teenager but I didn't subscribe to that, either.

 

[JoeDawg]

...which any person can and usually does do, whether they are right or wrong.

She didn't claim it was 'just her opinion', she claimed her opinions were objective fact, when they were clearly without such basis.
Thus the contradiction.
Lots of people have opinions... and don't claim that those opinions objective fact.
Making unsupported claims is irrational... and she claimed to be rational.

 

[Anticitizen]

In my opinion, it is objective fact that it is her opinion that her opinions are objective fact :)

 

[dacruick]

I brought home Atlas Shrugged from my girlfriend's house. Brought it on my way to work to read a couple times. I'm on page 30 or something, what a dense writing style. Not to mention the book being huge. But I think she's a fantastic writer, maybe currently above my reading level. But my dad finished it in a couple of weeks.

 

[Max Faust]

The level of emotionalism her opinons raise in others rather boggles me.

If for instance you consider just one simple fact of consequence, which is that Alan Greenspan deregulated the finance markets because he was a believer in Ayn Rand "philosophy" of laissez-fare capitalism, you will see how her ideas have manifested as toxic principles of "evil" (in the sense that they have quite directly lead to tangible misery for millions of people). Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had been wrong for 40 years, however, which is quite remarkable - but it doesn't change the facts of consequence that his Rand-based irresponsibility had lead to.

Earlier in this thread, I compared Mrs. Rand to H.P. Blavatsky, which I believe is appropriate. Mrs. Blavatsky's writings on "the origin of races" were to inspire a young Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels whose magazine "Ostara" was avidly collected by a young Adolf Hitler. The torch was passed on. The toxic ideas moved up within the abstract food-chain. Later, of course, they manifested as industrial scale mass-murder. And it's relatively easy to trace the "philosophical" foundations of that back to Mrs. Blavatsky's ideas.

 

[calculusrocks]

If for instance you consider just one simple fact of consequence, which is that Alan Greenspan deregulated the finance markets because he was a believer in Ayn Rand "philosophy" of laissez-fare capitalism, you will see how her ideas have manifested as toxic principles of "evil" (in the sense that they have quite directly lead to tangible misery for millions of people). Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had been wrong for 40 years, however, which is quite remarkable - but it doesn't change the facts of consequence that his Rand-based irresponsibility had lead to.

Alan Greenspan has nothing to do with free markets, just free money! He kept interest rates artificially too low for too long, price fixing! He'll say anything to shift the blame off his own blunders.

Earlier in this thread, I compared Mrs. Rand to H.P. Blavatsky, which I believe is appropriate. Mrs. Blavatsky's writings on "the origin of races" were to inspire a young Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels whose magazine "Ostara" was avidly collected by a young Adolf Hitler. The torch was passed on. The toxic ideas moved up within the abstract food-chain. Later, of course, they manifested as industrial scale mass-murder. And it's relatively easy to trace the "philosophical" foundations of that back to Mrs. Blavatsky's ideas.

At least you don't deny your ad hominems as others do. You wear them proudly. This is of the second variety, ad hominem by association.

 

[Max Faust]

you don't deny your ad hominems

I find it a little difficult to formulate my thoughts on Ayn Rand (as is the title of the thread) without actually stating what they are (as stated, that she's the most toxic waste-product to come out of Russia since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). In this context, "ad hominem" would be something more akin to what *you* are doing, which is to evaluate my opinions against a comparative standard of political correctness. The OP explicitly asks for my thoughts on Ayn Rand. Not my thoughts on the other participants in this debate, which I prefer to keep to myself.

 

[calculusrocks]

I find it a little difficult to formulate my thoughts on Ayn Rand (as is the title of the thread) without actually stating what they are (as stated, that she's the most toxic waste-product to come out of Russia since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). In this context, "ad hominem" would be something more akin to what *you* are doing, which is to evaluate my opinions against a comparative standard of political correctness. The OP explicitly asks for my thoughts on Ayn Rand. Not my thoughts on the other participants in this debate, which I prefer to keep to myself.

Fair enough, so long as it's your opinion.

 

[Max Faust]

Fair enough, so long as it's your opinion.

Don't get too cocky there, Barbie.

You're not making any stand of your own, so WTF is it you are debating?

 

[calculusrocks]

Don't get too cocky there, Barbie.

You're not making any stand of your own, so WTF is it you are debating?

All Ayn Rand really wrote about in Atlas Shrugged was how competition and mutual free exchange brought about harmony and the best in human beings. You didn't give thoughts on Objectivism as asked by the OP.

 

[jreelawg]

Basically, what you believe to be true, is true, in this type of philosophy. Being selfless or being selfish, for selfish or unselfish reasoning is a choice.

But, when speaking in terms of absolute truth, outside, of a self sustained bubble, it is your contribution which is the ultimate truth of your existence.

The more you base your view from a self created and iscolated bubble of egotism, the further you are from the actual truth, which exists independent of you.

So in my view, "illumination", per se, comes from complete selflessness.

Like in another post a person made a point that our cells die and are replaced, so are human beings in the world. And in a way we make up a system which works on a larger scale much like a single organism, and so is this true of all things from particles to galaxies.

And "illumination" per se, is not something you obtain for selfish reasons. It is something you default to when you let truth penetrate your bubble, because it exists.

 

[Max Faust]

. You didn't give thoughts on Objectivism as asked by the OP.

Yes I did. I consider it to be retarded.
Calling that nonsense philosophy is like calling Mickey Mouse a political activist.

 

[brainstorm]

The Virtue of Selfishness is the only Ayn Rand book I've read and I thought it was fantastic.

How many people do you know that can stand to admit the egoism they experience in performing altruism? Who as a kid, or maybe as an adult too, hasn't fantasized about how much praise you'd get at your funeral for giving your life for some cause? It is shameful to admit it because there is some deep hypocrisy there. How can you be truly concerned for the person(s) you're sacrificing yourself for if you're fixated on how good it's going to make you look?

Rand's philosophy is liberating because it not only legitimates selfishness but even encourages it. The point is that within the culture of altruism-virtue/selfishness-vice, egoism gets repressed and festers in a swollen state. Expressing ego and selfishness can actually be therapeutic and allow for the possibility of truly loving others, instead of doing so out of self-aggrandizement.

The expression that self-love is the basis for loving others is resonant with this, I think. By learning to accept and love your self(ishness) and ego(ism) instead of feeling fear and shame for it, you are more likely to be able to accept and love others in being just as fallible and human as you are. At that point, ethical respect and treatment of others goes beyond the abstraction of synthetic altruism. You can actually get back in touch with a natural sense of empathy instead of just performing it to appear as a good person to others.

 

[jreelawg]

The Virtue of Selfishness is the only Ayn Rand book I've read and I thought it was fantastic.

How many people do you know that can stand to admit the egoism they experience in performing altruism? Who as a kid, or maybe as an adult too, hasn't fantasized about how much praise you'd get at your funeral for giving your life for some cause? It is shameful to admit it because there is some deep hypocrisy there. How can you be truly concerned for the person(s) you're sacrificing yourself for if you're fixated on how good it's going to make you look?

But this is a childhood view. You know very little as a child. It is usually only by your old age where you understand what selflessness truly is. Ayn, bases her philosophy off of a shallow presumption of human understanding and discourages you from ever finding it.

 

[brainstorm]

She didn't claim it was 'just her opinion', she claimed her opinions were objective fact, when they were clearly without such basis.
Thus the contradiction.
Lots of people have opinions... and don't claim that those opinions objective fact.
Making unsupported claims is irrational... and she claimed to be rational.

I think she eschewed the idea of expressing humility by qualifying herself as less than objective, but this is just a guess.

I would also guess that she understood quite well the impossibility of transcending subjectivity, but I think it was more important to her to make unabashed knowledge claims than to try to buy credibility by humbly admitting weaknesses, which is somewhat contradictory in the first place isn't it?

 

[brainstorm]

It is usually only by your old age where you understand what selflessness truly is.

Can you explain what you mean by this, and "what selfishness truly is" iyo?

 

[jreelawg]

Can you explain what you mean by this, and "what selfishness truly is" iyo?

Selflessness is when you dream of the good you sacrificed yourself for without imagining or caring about others praising you. When you get off your high horse of self importance and pop the bubble of egoism surrounding you, and see things for what they really are rather than what makes you most comfortable.

 

[brainstorm]

Selflessness is when you dream of the good you sacrificed yourself for without imagining or caring about others praising you. When you get off your high horse of self importance and pop the bubble of egoism surrounding you, and see things for what they really are rather than what makes you most comfortable.

Well put. But why call it "selfless" since you say yourself that you get more joy from the good you sacrifice yourself for than from whatever it is you are sacrificing? Maybe the wisdom of experience you're referring to is the ability to recognize that selflessness and selfishness need not be mutually exclusive.

When people are "getting off their high horse" as a response to social critique, or otherwise avoiding egoism or exhibiting humility, isn't it usually a response to criticism and fear for how they will be regarded for their arrogance? That is an ego-response, even if it may lead to socially beneficial behavior. If such a thing as true altruism exists, then that isn't it, because as long as a person is engaged in altruism as a response to ego-conditioning, they are not giving freely.

An openly self-centered person who sacrifices or otherwise does something that benefits someone else is truly giving. As long as someone is avoiding self-centeredness, their actions are a response to a desire for social approval, which is ultimately a selfish motive.

What's more, I think that when people become socialized to anti-egoism, they are always in competition with others for who can be the least egoistic. So the people they help become little more than objects to them. Their recipients could be selfless, selfish, or egoistic and all they would think about is how needy that person is because it builds up their sense that helping them is a good thing. How can a person be selfless if they can't relate to those they are helping on the same level as they relate to themselves?

edit: I just realized this is a moot discussion because we're discussing what constitutes selfishness or selflessness, which in itself is about the status of the giver instead of the ethics of how to live well (for self and/or others).

 

[jreelawg]

It gets confusing, I think it's best to have a healthy balance of selfishness and selflessness.

I thought the movie seven pounds was interesting. He had to choose carefully who he should give his organs to based on what kind of person they were. And so through him lived on people he saw fit to deserve life, but he could only help seven people.

We are limited to who we can help. Ideally, you would be the type of person who you deem as worthy as those you would choose to help. And it is probably best to strive to be that person.

 

[brainstorm]

It gets confusing, I think it's best to have a healthy balance of selfishness and selflessness.

I thought the movie seven pounds was interesting. He had to choose carefully who he should give his organs to based on what kind of person they were. And so through him lived on people he saw fit to deserve life, but he could only help seven people.

We are limited to who we can help. Ideally, you would be the type of person who you deem as worthy as those you would choose to help. And it is probably best to strive to be that person.

I tend to avoid looking at helping others in zero-sum terms. Yes there are situations like organ-donation where you have a limited amount of resources to give before you destroy yourself in the process, but if you look at all giving this way, you're always going to see helping others as a liability in some way or another.

The way I avoid this zero-sum logic is by thinking in terms of self-help and self-care. Ideally, when a person has learned how to care for themselves, they can teach that to others so they too can care for themselves.

Self-care is an infinitely abundant resource. When you are stretching yourself to care for and help others, you can wear yourself thin. The more people you take care of, the less care you can give to each person, and you wear yourself out in the process.

If you can care for yourself, why can't others? People will tell you that if you have the ability to care for yourself it is a luxury or privilege based on your economic status or the fact that you're not sick or disabled, etc. That is not true. Every individual, no matter what obstacles they face, has the ability to stand strong and to identify with strength in others. As the saying goes, "not handicapped but handicapable."

Interestingly, when people figure out how to overcome the victim role, they become so happy. They realize that they were basically socialized into focussing on their suffering or victimization because it gave them social power. When they realize that it actually makes them feel better to focus on their strengths and positive experiences than the negativity in their lives, a weight is lifted.

I'm not trying to preach to put down people who complain about suffering, because Lord knows they've paid dearly for the right to. I'm just giving an example of how self-care goes beyond just yourself. Ironically, once needy people begin to feel strong - they actually can feel empowered by teaching others as well. I think this is because they realize that giving is all about empowering themselves, and they feel the right to be selfish in that they've paid for it with suffering.

I think the people who have it hardest sometimes are those who haven't endured suffering, because they have a harder time granting themselves the right to care for themselves.