Objectivism - The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

[sevin]

Any Rand's book Atlas Shrugged is what got me interested in philosophy in the first place. I've read a lot of different books on philosophy since then, but Ayn Rand's philosophy still makes more sense to me than any of the others (though I definitely don't agree with her on everything). For those who aren't familiar with Objectivism, or for those who think they are but aren't, here is the most concise overview she ever wrote:



"At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics, Objective Reality.
2. Epistemology, Reason.
3. Ethics, Self-interest.
4. Politics, Capitalism.

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

--Ayn Rand

[nayjevin]

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.


My political mentor re-words this concept as:

'each to act in enlightened, long-term self interest'.

This wording, in my mind, resolves the fallacy that 'selfishness' is inherently bad.

Acts that serve to satisfy short-term desires do not serve to satisfy 'enlightened, long-term self interest'.

For instance, eating a cookie is awesome but not good in the long run.

[ScoutsHonor]

Any Rand's book Atlas Shrugged is what got me interested in philosophy in the first place. I've read a lot of different books on philosophy since then, but Ayn Rand's philosophy still makes more sense to me than any of the others (though I definitely don't agree with her on everything). For those who aren't familiar with Objectivism, or for those who think they are but aren't, here is the most concise overview she ever wrote:



"At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics, Objective Reality.
2. Epistemology, Reason.
3. Ethics, Self-interest.
4. Politics, Capitalism.

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

--Ayn Rand

Wow. To me, this thread is just like receiving a wonderful birthday present.

It should be more than interesting :)

Thanks for starting it.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256056755&sr=8-2

[UnReconstructed]

I'm taking an ethics class and we talked about Objectivism once. The book, Pojman, states that in Objectivism, people are either 100% altruistic or 100% egoist and that there is no in between.

I don't know. I've never read Rand but being 100% this or that sounds collective.

[RedStripe]

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256056755&sr=8-2

The author of that book, Leonard Peikoff, does a great job of illustrating the dangers of an absolutist approach to moral philosophy in this clip, which I'm sure has been posted here before:

YouTube - Leonard Peikoff Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw)

For the record, I have yet to complete Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. I have read Anthem and have a decent understanding of Rand's philosophy, but I don't claim to be extremely well-versed on Objectivism.

My main problem with Rand comes in the last and supposedly least important aspect of her philosophy: politics. Basically, to me, Rand comes off as an apologist for big business and her philosophy is extremely prone to distortion and abuse (as illustrated in the above TV clip).

The claim that large corporations and the wealthy are an "oppressed minority" is just flat-out laughable. Reaching such an absurd conclusion, starting with the premise that the use of force or compulsion is an immoral way to achieve one's self-interest, is only possible if one fails to consistently apply the premise or if one is ignorant of history. Rand's lack of consistency also appears in her defense of the state, as well as her defense of intellectual property (although the latter topic is more legitimately contested on ethical grounds).

Finally, from my own personal experience, many Objectivists are close-minded and obnoxious. In attempting to erect a framework of black-and-white morality in a grayscale world, they end up butting heads with the very reality they worship as fixed and immutable. They've been labeled "Randroids" for a reason.

I say the following to qualify my critique. Rand has had a positive impact on many people, myself included. Her books have opened many minds to the philosophical questions of morality and ethics, and have lead many people to libertarianism. She made strong and passionate arguments for individualism, and undermined the use of collectivism as a political ploy. These are all great things, and her philosophy is worth understanding to be sure.

[Brian4Liberty]

Basically, to me, Rand comes off as an apologist for big business and her philosophy is extremely prone to distortion and abuse (as illustrated in the above TV clip).

The claim that large corporations and the wealthy are an "oppressed minority" is just flat-out laughable.

Agreed.

If you read Peikoff's book on Objectivism, you will see it's flaws. One of them is the ability to justify anything, as your video clip illustrates. Like you said, Rand opened many people's eyes to some basic issues, but in the end, she became the leader of a twisted little cult that gave us Peikoff and Alan Greenspan.

[sevin]

I'm taking an ethics class and we talked about Objectivism once. The book, Pojman, states that in Objectivism, people are either 100% altruistic or 100% egoist and that there is no in between.

I don't know. I've never read Rand but being 100% this or that sounds collective.

Well, this is one of my problems with Rand. She is totally unable to see the spectrum. But her no-compromise attitude doesn't change the fact that egosim is a good thing.


The author of that book, Leonard Peikoff, does a great job of illustrating the dangers of an absolutist approach to moral philosophy in this clip, which I'm sure has been posted here before:

YouTube - Leonard Peikoff Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw)


Yes, Peikoff is a huge disappointment to me. If Iran officially declared war on the U.S. and tried to invade, of course we would have a right to defend ourselves and take any means necessary to win. However, I don't think he has any idea what's really going on over there, and he's obviously pretty biased. I don't think he follows objectivism consistently.



My main problem with Rand comes in the last and supposedly least important aspect of her philosophy: politics. Basically, to me, Rand comes off as an apologist for big business and her philosophy is extremely prone to distortion and abuse (as illustrated in the above TV clip).

The claim that large corporations and the wealthy are an "oppressed minority" is just flat-out laughable.

The oppression of big business would be a problem if big businesses were unfairly taxed and hurt by the government. However, that is not the case in this the U.S. where many corporations are in bed with the government.

Ayn Rand would definitely have been against this marriage of Wall St. and the U.S. government. I think the reason she seems so inconsistent at times is because she spent all her time writing her books and not enough time following current events. She, like Peikoff, didn't seem to understand what was really going on the world.



Finally, from my own personal experience, many Objectivists are close-minded and obnoxious. In attempting to erect a framework of black-and-white morality in a grayscale world, they end up butting heads with the very reality they worship as fixed and immutable. They've been labeled "Randroids" for a reason.

Sad but true. This is because of the attitude of the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged. It's one of the best books ever written, but the protagonists don't show any empathy or compassion. If you give to the poor and that makes you feel good, that's an example of egoism, not altruism. Ayn Rand seemed to assume that just because someone wants to help the less fortunate, they must be altruistic.

Like I said, I definitely don't agree with everything Rand said, but I do agree with the core principles of her philosophy. What's sad is that her interpretation of her own philosophy was often marred by personal bias, and she didn't even know it.

I think it's important that people study and learn from Objectivism, though. Just don't take everything she ever said as gospel. Use your own brain while studying it and you'll find it very rewarding.

[ScoutsHonor]

I'm taking an ethics class and we talked about Objectivism once. The book, Pojman, states that in Objectivism, people are either 100% altruistic or 100% egoist and that there is no in between.

I don't know. I've never read Rand but being 100% this or that sounds collective.

You've been greatly misled. :(

Probably the best way to understand Ayn Rand is by first reading one of her novels. To me the best by far, her masterpiece, is "Atlas Shrugged." It's the only
adventure-mystery-romance novel I've ever read that served up a major philosophy so *innocently*. ;-)

[ScoutsHonor]

Agreed.

If you read Peikoff's book on Objectivism, you will see it's flaws. One of them is the ability to justify anything, as your video clip illustrates. Like you said, Rand opened many people's eyes to some basic issues, but in the end, she became the leader of a twisted little cult that gave us Peikoff and Alan Greenspan.

I agree, with regard to Peikoff. He does Rand and Objectivism a great disservice by claiming to represent them/it. He doesn't.

[ScoutsHonor]

Agreed.

If you read Peikoff's book on Objectivism, you will see it's flaws. One of them is the ability to justify anything, as your video clip illustrates. Like you said, Rand opened many people's eyes to some basic issues, but in the end, she became the leader of a twisted little cult that gave us Peikoff and Alan Greenspan.

No, he left the group very early on, going on to become a living example of a Randian villain. She would have been horrified, I believe.

[ClayTrainor]

I have a lot of respect for Ayn as a person, and a philosopher. She's a bit too militaristic for me, and I do have a few disagreements with her on a couple issues.

I don't think the Ayn Rand Institute is doing a very good job of representing her views, and I think Ayn Rand would probably be a Ron Paul fan if she were alive today. I don't think she'd justify invading Iran, with your tax dollars...

[heavenlyboy34]

In another forum I visited, left liberals were using Greenspan as an example of the "failure" of Objectivism/libertarianism. I suspect this may become a trend, so be weary of Obamabots trying to hijack Rand's philosophy.

[ClayTrainor]

In another forum I visited, left liberals were using Greenspan as an example of the "failure" of Objectivism/libertarianism. I suspect this may become a trend, so be weary of Obamabots trying to hijack Rand's philosophy.

haha... classic Straw man... Straw man's are so easy to deconstruct and hammer down... bring 'em on :cool:

[angelatc]

There's a new Rand biography out. Here are some libertarianesque lawyers writing about it:

http://volokh.com/2009/10/22/assessing-ayn-rands-legacy-an-utterly-intolerant-and-dogmatic-person-who-did-a-great-deal-of-good/

http://volokh.com/2009/10/22/ayn-rands-contributions/

[sevin]

In another forum I visited, left liberals were using Greenspan as an example of the "failure" of Objectivism/libertarianism.

That pisses me off. I hate it when people criticize things they don't understand.



I don't think the Ayn Rand Institute is doing a very good job of representing her views, and I think Ayn Rand would probably be a Ron Paul fan if she were alive today. I don't think she'd justify invading Iran, with your tax dollars...

Agreed. I don't think she would want to invade Iran and I think she would be disappointed with Peikoff.

I'm not sure what she would think about Ron Paul. No doubt she'd like him more than anyone else who ran for president, but wouldn't like that he believes in god. I don't think Ron Paul would ever do this, but she'd be worried about his beliefs influencing him in a bad way (like when Bush said, "God wants me to invade Iraq" or something like that).

[LibertyEagle]

Wasn't Ayn Rand in favor of military interventionism around the world?

[Diogenese_]

Any Rand's book Atlas Shrugged

1. Metaphysics, Objective Reality.

Metaphysics and Objective Reality are two parallel lines - they do not meet unless one is impelled by personal metaphysical beliefs or perceptions to change temporal reality.

Objective Reality doesn't exist other than in the pure sciences because perceptions of individuals are so warped by their own ego and perceptions.

[Theocrat]

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a religion of selfishness.

[sevin]

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a religion of selfishness.

Of course it's about selfishness. And there's nothing wrong with selfishness. I wouldn't call it a religion, though, as a religion is a set of beliefs that someone holds onto without any reason or evidence to back them up.


Wasn't Ayn Rand in favor of military interventionism around the world?

No, she was against interventionism. She says, "The government . . . uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders."

[Feenix566]

Lobbying the government for bailouts and special favors is an act of self-interest, too.

[sevin]

Lobbying the government for bailouts and special favors is an act of self-interest, too.

By leeching off of taxpayers. Her idea is that self-interest is moral until it involves taking from others.

[Pennsylvania]

By leeching off of taxpayers. Her idea is that self-interest is moral until it involves taking from others.

Unless it's used to fund courts.

[sevin]

Unless it's used to fund courts.

Well obviously. How else do you stop people from leeching off each other? Of course there has to be an exception for courts to protect people's property and enforce contracts. Ayn Rand was a minarchist.

[Pennsylvania]

Well obviously. How else do you stop people from leeching off each other? Of course there has to be an exception for courts to protect people's property and enforce contracts. Ayn Rand was a minarchist.

Do the ends justify the means?

[Todd]

Of course it's about selfishness. And there's nothing wrong with selfishness. I wouldn't call it a religion, though, as a religion is a set of beliefs that someone holds onto without any reason or evidence to back them up.


Sure it's a religion.
Sorry to disagree, but C.S. Lewis tome "Mere Christianity" kinda proved that whole thought wrong. His rationale approach to why he "believes" has validity and wasn't based on faith.

[sevin]

Do the ends justify the means?

I don't want this thread to turn into a debate between anarchists and minarchists. But in this case, Yes, they do. That doesn't mean I think the ends always justify the means.


Sure it's a religion.
Sorry to disagree, but C.S. Lewis tome "Mere Christianity" kinda proved that whole thought wrong. His rationale approach to why he "believes" has validity and wasn't based on faith.

I've read Mere Christianity. It's an interesting book, but he doesn't prove anything. I think most Christians will agree that religion is about faith. The bible even says so.

[Todd]

I've read Mere Christianity. It's an interesting book, but he doesn't prove anything. I think most Christians will agree that religion is about faith. The bible even says so.

But that's my point. Ayn Rand doesn't PROVE anything either. Lewis's book simply tries to look at it beyond fiath. That's all I'm saying

Look, I like Ayn Rand a whole lot. Don't know many here that don't understand the impact Atlas Shrugged has had on liberty philosophy.

But a religion can be as much about ANY blind devotion to some cause as it can be about faith in something. Just because Objectivism is as close as we come to some Vulcan Logic philosophy doesn't mean every principle is all sound either.

We agree religon especially Christianity is based on faith. I concede that.

[Brian4Liberty]

In another forum I visited, left liberals were using Greenspan as an example of the "failure" of Objectivism/libertarianism. I suspect this may become a trend, so be weary of Obamabots trying to hijack Rand's philosophy.

Did Greenspan:

- take the job to intentionally screw it up?
- was he corrupted by the power?
- did he completely change his philosophy?
- did the real world crush his idealism?
- other?

[sevin]

But that's my point. Ayn Rand doesn't PROVE anything either. Lewis's book simply tries to look at it beyond fiath. That's all I'm saying

Look, I like Ayn Rand a whole lot. Don't know many here that don't understand the impact Atlas Shrugged has had on liberty philosophy.

But a religion can be as much about ANY blind devotion to some cause as it can be about faith in something. Just because Objectivism is as close as we come to some Vulcan Logic philosophy doesn't mean every principle is all sound either.

We agree religon especially Christianity is based on faith. I concede that.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. Unfortunately a lot of people, overcome by the emotions invoked in them by Atlas Shrugged, become so devoted to her philosophy that they turn it into a religion.

This is why there was a split in the Objectivist movement. You have the Randians of the Ayn Rand Institute (who follow Rand's work blindly as if she were a prophet) led by Leonard Peikoff. Then you have the Objectivists of The Atlas Society, led by David Kelley. Nathaniel Branden is also associated with them.

It's crazy. Anyway, I like The Atlas Society better as they're open to modifying objectivist principles if new information or progress is made.


Did Greenspan:

- take the job to intentionally screw it up?
- was he corrupted by the power?
- did he completely change his philosophy?
- did the real world crush his idealism?
- other?

I think he knows better. Even in recent years he has said he still agrees with his essay Gold and Economic Freedom (http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html) (written in the 60's). Personally, I think he was corrupted by power.

[berrybunches]

No, she was against interventionism. She says, "The government . . . uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders."

Actually I read a quote of hers once that said it is the duty of civilized countries to help the "savages" through force or whatever means available. not exact quote but you get the drift.

[ScoutsHonor]

Actually I read a quote of hers once that said it is the duty of civilized countries to help the "savages" through force or whatever means available. not exact quote but you get the drift.

Pardon me if I doubt that you ever read any such idiotic message anywhere, or think that you are just here to try to smear a great author.

[sevin]

There seems to be a lot of confusion on what rights are according to Objectivsts. This should clear things up. It's an essay called Man's Rights from her book, The Virtue of Selfishness.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights


If one wishes to advocate a free society—that is, capitalism—one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”

“Rights” are a moral concept-the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others-the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.

Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience—on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”

This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first—”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god—the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens—the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome—the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages—the absolute monarchy of France—the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia—the gas chambers of Nazi Germany—the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.

All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics-and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.

The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.

The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)

There's more at the link.

[sevin]

:)

[nayjevin]

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)

thanks!

[ScoutsHonor]

Thanks, sevin!

:)

[ScoutsHonor]

[/URL][url]http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/ayn_rand/index.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema1 (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/ayn_rand/index.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema1)

[nayjevin]

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/ayn_rand/index.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema1


Ayn Rand's two most famous novels "The Fountainhead" (1943) and "Atlas Shrugged" (1957) are among the greatest word-of-mouth hits in American publishing. Both were scorned by the critics when they came out, went on to become enormous best-sellers, and to this day sell tens of thousands of copies annually. "Atlas Shrugged," Rand's magnum opus, is sometimes said to be the second-most influential book in American thought, {1}next only to the Bible.{1}

The reason for the books' success probably has less to do with their novelistic merits, or lack of them, than with the way they package in fictional form a philosophy Rand called Objectivism, {1}which in effect turned the Judeo-Christian system on its head.{1} In Rand's view, {2}selfishness was good and altruism was evil,{2} and the welfare of society was always subordinate to the self-interest of individuals, {3}especially superior ones. {3} In some ways, {4}Objectivism is an extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism{4}, a view that Rand came to naturally.

She was born in Russia in 1905, lived through the Russian Revolution, and by the time she emigrated to America, in 1926, {5}determined to reinvent herself, she wanted no part of anything that resembled a state-run system.{5} She sometimes wore a gold brooch shaped like a dollar sign, and the dollar sign is also the final image in "Atlas Shrugged," {6}a novel in which liberals and humanitarians{6} are ruinously taking over the world while the intellectual elite, led by the genius industrialist John Galt, {7}hunker down{7} in Colorado.

For a while in the '60s, {8}Objectivism had almost cult status{8} on some American campuses. Much of the {8}fervor{8} dwindled after Rand’s death in 1982, but the books continue to be rediscovered and passed from one {8}initiate{8} to another. Among the many people influenced by Rand are Camille Paglia, Hugh Hefner, Alan Greenspan and Angelina Jolie. -- Charles McGrath, Sept. 13, 2007.
{1} Carefully crafted to alienate the Christian reader. Propaganda: determine how to viably segment the target audience, and pit one against the other as a mode of control.

{2} not true to Rand, as I understand it. She saw altruism as a selfish act, done ultimately for the feeling it brings to the giver. I see it a beautiful thing that one is rewarded naturally for giving, by a feeling of righteousness. It encourages so called 'selfless' acts (which are actually selfish, but in a good way)

{3} crafted to make Rand appear elitist. She was so incredibly smart that the insecure are likely to feel that way anyway, and only need a small push from the author.

{4} having successfully divided readers of the article with the aforementioned statements, this statement works to demonize laissez faire capitalism to the segment of readers who fall for the trap - going so far as to paint it 'extreme'

{5} Paints Rand as a confused immigrant, taking a possibly good idea to the extreme. Insinuates to reader that the proper stance is less extreme than hers.

{6} Another divide and conquer technique. Paints Rand the enemy of liberals and humanitarians. Only works with liberals and those who don't understand selfishness is not inherently bad.

{7} For those readers who now see her an enemy of liberals, this gratuitous phrase calls in imagery of the right wing extremists they so love to hate.

{8} Writer getting blatant with the propagandized imagery.

[ScoutsHonor]

Ayn Rand's two most famous novels "The Fountainhead" (1943) and "Atlas Shrugged" (1957) are among the greatest word-of-mouth hits in American publishing. Both were scorned by the critics when they came out, went on to become enormous best-sellers, and to this day sell tens of thousands of copies annually. "Atlas Shrugged," Rand's magnum opus, is sometimes said to be the second-most influential book in American thought, {1}next only to the Bible.{1}

The reason for the books' success probably has less to do with their novelistic merits, or lack of them, than with the way they package in fictional form a philosophy Rand called Objectivism, {1}which in effect turned the Judeo-Christian system on its head.{1} In Rand's view, {2}selfishness was good and altruism was evil,{2} and the welfare of society was always subordinate to the self-interest of individuals, {3}especially superior ones. {3} In some ways, {4}Objectivism is an extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism{4}, a view that Rand came to naturally.

She was born in Russia in 1905, lived through the Russian Revolution, and by the time she emigrated to America, in 1926, {5}determined to reinvent herself, she wanted no part of anything that resembled a state-run system.{5} She sometimes wore a gold brooch shaped like a dollar sign, and the dollar sign is also the final image in "Atlas Shrugged," {6}a novel in which liberals and humanitarians{6} are ruinously taking over the world while the intellectual elite, led by the genius industrialist John Galt, {7}hunker down{7} in Colorado.

For a while in the '60s, {8}Objectivism had almost cult status{8} on some American campuses. Much of the {8}fervor{8} dwindled after Rand’s death in 1982, but the books continue to be rediscovered and passed from one {8}initiate{8} to another. Among the many people influenced by Rand are Camille Paglia, Hugh Hefner, Alan Greenspan and Angelina Jolie. -- Charles McGrath, Sept. 13, 2007.

What a piece of work!
☻{1} Carefully crafted to alienate the Christian reader. Propaganda: determine how to viable segment the target audience, and pit one against the other as a mode of control.
(1) Agree; excite any simmering religious resentments.
☻{2} not true to Rand, as I understand it. She saw altruism as a selfish act, done ultimately for the feeling it brings to the giver. I see it a beautiful thing that one is rewarded naturally for giving, by a feeling of righteousness. It encourages so called 'selfless' acts (which are actually selfish, but in a good way)
2) You're right, she said one's reward was the pleasure one got from helping that which/who one valued, i.e. a selfish reward. http://mail.google.com/mail/e/332
☻{3} crafted to make Rand appear elitist. She was so incredibly smart that the insecure are likely to feel that way anyway, and only need a small push from the author.
3) An *astute* observation.:) A good opportunity for "who does she think she is, humph?."

Yes, she was incredibly smart-it gives me chills to think of her intellectual accomplishments. This may surprise you, but I put her in a class with Aristotle (whom she admired so much), except I think she was smarter. ;) (Not kidding, tho.)
☻{4} having successfully divided readers of the article with the aforementioned statements, this statement works to demonize laissez faire capitalism to the segment of readers who fall for the trap - going so far as to paint it 'extreme'
4) [sniff!] Extreme= S C A R Y.
☻{5} Paints Rand as a confused immigrant, taking a possibly good idea to the extreme. Insinuates to reader that the proper stance is less extreme than hers.
5) Check! :) (Also, seems like she's one of those nutty 'fanatics.')
☻{6} Another divide and conquer technique. Paints Rand the enemy of liberals and humanitarians. Only works with liberals and those who don't understand selfishness is not inherently bad.
6) I agree. Also note the intellectual-envy issue being raised again. And use of the word (anti-) "humanitarian", which is dishonest in this context. She was just not an altruist, as we know.
☻{7} For those readers who now see her an enemy of liberals, this gratuitous phrase calls in imagery of the right wing extremists they so love to hate.
☻{8} Writer getting blatant with the propagandized imagery.
8) Words like "cult" status, "initiate" "fervor" - words "loaded" to evoke negative stereotypes.

Thanks for this brilliant critique. I enjoyed it very much.

I can see YOU don't need any help navigating the Matrix.<bg>

Please write again.
(j/k)

Better yet, let's just keep this thread alive. :)

SH

[sevin]

Yea, damn good analysis, nayjevin. One of the things that has always interested me is the idea that, like you said, you can be selfish in a good way. And this is where most people misunderstand Objectivist ethics.

If you give money to someone or to a cause that actually deserves it, then you get a good feeling out of it. You're doing it out of selfishness.

People can say, "Oh, you only give because it makes you feel good," but I don't want to meet the person who gives without feeling good about it.

[Joe3113]

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

Mozart Was a Red (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5404826610265339909)

[sevin]

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)


Not all Objectivists are Randians.

[Joe3113]

Did Greenspan:

- take the job to intentionally screw it up?
- was he corrupted by the power?
- did he completely change his philosophy?
- did the real world crush his idealism?
- other?

Guess who called it before everyone else? And told it like it was going to be.

Alan Greenspan: A Minority Report by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard192.html)

THE FREE MARKET, Volume 5, Number 8 - August 1987

[Joe3113]

Not all Objectivists are Randians.

Yes, but they are all apart of a closed system.

Objectivism: (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11558.aspx#263194)

* A philosophy covering ethics, politics, metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics.
* Its ethics are rational egoism.
* It supports a minimal, or "night-watchman", state.
* It supports state monopolies on money, the legitimate use of force i.e. the police, the military, and intelligence-gathering agencies, land, and legal systems.
* It sees truth as always objective - nothing is ever subjective. Reason alone can attain truth.
* War is okay provided the state declaring war is rational, and the other state is irrational.
* Ayn Rand refused to associate with either religious people or the contemporary political left.
* She hated the Libertarian Party, accusing them of plagiarising her ideas.
* She contributed absolutely nothing to economics, and instead defended corporate capitalism in the name of the free market.

Rothbardian libertarianism:

* A set of economic doctrines and an ethical theory applied to the real world. Not an all-encompassing world-view.
* Austrian School of economics.
* Anarchist.
* Ethics - natural rights/liberal natural law.
* No monopolies on anything.
* Influenced by religious philosophers and economists e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and the School of Salamanca. Rothbard was not a militant atheist like Rand.
* Some things as subjective. An individual's hierarchy of preferences cannot be objectively correct or false.
* Rothbard associated with the anti-war, anti-corporate left in the late sixties and early seventies.
* Anti-war.
* Pro-Libertarian Party. Rothbard saw it as a legitimate vehicle for advancing liberty.
* Anti-corporatist.

Ayn Rand was basically a very vulgar classical liberal, whereas Murray Rothbard was probably the greatest anarchist thinker of all time."

[sevin]

Yes, but they are all apart of a closed system.


No. After Ayn Rand died, her two of her biggest intellectual heirs were David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff. David Kelley believed that Objectivism should be an open system, as it itself says one must change his premises when presented with new information. Of course, Kelley was kicked out of the movement, but it caused Objectivists to split into two groups. Those who think of it as an open system started The Atlas Society (http://www.objectivistcenter.org). The Randians, on the other hand, formed the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org). I believe it should be an open system, just as science is open in case new evidence ever contradicts old theories, and I certainly don't agree with everything Rand said.

[Joe3113]

No. After Ayn Rand died, her two of her biggest intellectual heirs were David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff. David Kelley believed that Objectivism should be an open system, as it itself says one must change his premises when presented with new information. Of course, Kelley was kicked out of the movement, but it caused Objectivists to split into two groups. Those who think of it as an open system started The Atlas Society (http://www.objectivistcenter.org). The Randians, on the other hand, formed the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org). I believe it should be an open system, just as science is open in case new evidence ever contradicts old theories, and I certainly don't agree with everything Rand said.

"The main problem (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11558.aspx#263222) with Rand is how The Peikoff School / Era of Objectivism has white-washed her legacy with his obvious Neo-Con flavored rhetoric, while claiming that they are the main 'canon' versus all other interpretations. They can make nicely modern book covers for her books, I admit, but I see little else good coming from them.

Other people who were shunted out of the "mainline" Rand narrative were typically people who did not buy into the Piekoff nonsense, had different interpretations of Rand (in some cases, more canon interpretations), & who realized the incredibly stupidity of basing one's entire view of Objectivism from works of Rand's fiction (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged).

The main offspring branches I speak of are The Nethaniel Braden Split, The Kelley School (or the 'open system' of Objectivism, vs. the 'closed system' of the ARI & Peikoff), & POP (Post Objectivism).

AFAIK, Rand gave subtle but relevant criticism from deriving such an understanding of her philosophy from her purely fictional works in, ironically, her books "The Art of Fiction" & "The Art of Non-Fiction" (however, it's been a while since I read both of these, as well as Rand in general).

As introductions or as high brow relevant intellectual entertainment, I'm sure the fictional works did their purposes, but sometimes it feels like the Piekoff branch just replaced The Bible with her books & called it a day in the critical thinking department :\

Admittedly, Rand had her own quirks, including being a rather pompous intellectual & trying to ascribe art with an objective philosophy (which while probably an interesting read on one's own preference elitism, fails miserably in the supposed goal), just as any other human does, so I would still say the best understand of Rand can be derived from one critically analyzing all interpretations (specifically her own), & keeping them in context that she wasn't & never will be, perfect."

[nayjevin]

so I would still say the best understand of Rand can be derived from one critically analyzing all interpretations (specifically her own), & keeping them in context that she wasn't & never will be, perfect."

great wisdom in them thar words.

[malkusm]

Just throwing this out there - to whoever said (earlier in this thread) that Rand was an apologist for big business and that she didn't follow current events:

I am about 75% through reading her collection of essays on capitalism ("Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"). She clearly has a lot of historical perspective on the fallacies about capitalism, the propaganda pushed by statists, etc....AS WELL AS a tremendous knowledge of the current political structure (as of the time she wrote it).

In her essay, "The New Fascism: Rule By Consensus," Rand correctly identifies the source of disdain for big business, and states that businesses are at fault for going along with the system to gain unsustainable, arbitrary favors:

"A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls -- with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws -- no principles to limit the power of government. The only principle of a mixed economy -- which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged -- is that no one's interests are safe, everyone's interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system -- or, more precisely, anti-system -- breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self-preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting -- and draining -- the productive elements of the country.

...

Neither President Johnson nor any of today's prominent groups would advocate the socialization of industry. Like his modern predecessors in office, Mr. Johnson knows that businessmen are the milch-cows of a mixed economy, and he does not want to destroy them, he wants them to prosper and to feed his welfare projects (which the next election requires), while they, the businessmen, are eating out of his hand, as they seem to be anxiously eager to do. The business lobby is certain to get its fair share of influence and of recognition -- just like the labor lobby or the farm lobby or the lobby of any "major segment" -- on his own terms. He will be particularly adept at the task of creating and encouraging the type of businessmen whom I call "the aristocracy of pull."

[ScoutsHonor]

Great post! Thanks very much for clearing up some serious misconceptions about Ayn Rand's credentials.

P.S. I also own many of Rand's original essays. Her scholarship and breadth of understanding shine through brightly...

[sevin]

"A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls -- with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws -- no principles to limit the power of government. The only principle of a mixed economy -- which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged -- is that no one's interests are safe, everyone's interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system -- or, more precisely, anti-system -- breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self-preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting -- and draining -- the productive elements of the country.

Thanks! I haven't read that essay since before I became aware of Ron Paul and the current economic mess. I can see her prediction about a possible collapse into dictatorship is about to come true. :(