What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand?

[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.