A Rand Rant

[elder999]

So, I read Atlas Shrugged a very long time ago. I recently reread it, and I still don’t get that people actually take this clearly dysfunctional ***** so seriously.

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. His own happiness is man’s only moral purpose, but only his own virtue can achieve it…Life is the reward of virtue- and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.
Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy- a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your won destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but using your mind’s fullest power.
Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seek nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.
The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trade…A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved."
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

I mean, I get it-libertarianism, laissez faire capitalism, self-determination. Sure.

But a complete rejection of altruism? Just for starters, how do all those conservative, tea-partiers who happen to be fundamentalist Christians reconcile Rand’s objectivism with the teachings of Jesus?

Because, from where I’m sitting, you can’t.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man [sic] as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."-Ayn Rand

”Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." –Jesus.

Rand condemns the giving or receiving of gifts.Altruism-the giving or receiving of that which she sees as “undeserved” is condemned as immoral.

(Unless, of course, it was-rather famously-for her own medical care. )

She saw anything that required a person to live for something other than themselves as immoral.

Of course, Rand was an atheist, so she knew that her objectivism was incompatible with Jesus, and didn’t care too much, but what about all those tea partiers? What about Sarah “pray for protection from witchcraft” Palin? :lol:

And, Jesus aside, I don’t think that many of her ideas about human nature match the scientific and historical evidence. I mean, I’m guessing she was a selfish *****, and needed to philosophize a justification for that selfishness. Didn’t work too well, though-while she probably tried to exercise a hyper-rational, objectivist control over her own life, the results speak for themselves: pointless extramarital affairs, a broken political movement, estrangement from friends, financial ruin, and poor health.

I can understand her being anti-Communist, but I think she took her glorification of capitalism and individuality a little too far. The truly "heroic man" is one who gives, rather than one who seeks only his own happiness and self-actualization-he seeks to aid his fellow man in attaining what he has.

(And, hey, all you Rand fans, you do know, dontcha, that her writing kinda sucked? :lol

 

[Bruno@MT]

She saw an opportunity to market a book at an easy audience. Political extremists have already shut down their critical thinking processes. As long as what they read meshes with their political views, it doesn't have to make sense.

Take Palin's 'death panels' speech.
Everyone who actually bothered to inform himself knew it was a blatant lie, meant only to rile up people who were still waffling at the edge of the right wing / moderates. The fact that she actually gave that speach meant she is a) stupid or b) dishonest. Yet many right wingers still worship her. Not because she makes sense or is a good politician, but because what she says meshes with their ideals.

Different example: christian fundies fighting against sex-ed of their children and preaching 'abstinence only'. the fact that it does not solve the problem of teen pregancies or prevents them from having early sex (it actually seems to work counter productive) does not matter to them. Sex-ed is not the solution they want (nevermind that it seems to be the most effective). Rather than solve the problem, they want to agree with the solution.

Extremist opinions will always find an audience. Not because they make sense, but because there are extremists who want to be told things they want to hear.

 

[Cryozombie]

Some of her Ideas on Capitalism were solid, but for the most part she was a bit of a Nutter, and took them to extremes.

And Is it any surprise that Anton LeVay based many of the ideas in his Satanic Bible on her self-worshiping Philiosophies? (among others)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I liked some of her other books better, such as "For the New Intellectual" and "The Virtue of Selfishness."

One of the concepts she believed in which I think I grokked was the concept of selfishness from her perspective.

We tend to have a concept of selfishness which we equate to greediness. Placing our needs above all others with no other purpose in mind and not just desiring to serve ourselves, but desiring to exclude others. To 'have it all' in other words.

However, it is selfishness that teaches us to put our own oxygen mask on before assisting others in an aircraft emergency. In other words, we can help no one until we first see to our own survival.

She also taught that there is no external moral imperative because morals are human functions. The only moral that nature teaches is survival, and that in a limited, self-serving way. But nature can be stupid, too; survival of the individual can be useless when the individual cannot reproduce, or cannot find food, or cannot exist in the environment created or modified. This relies upon the morals we human have created as semi-shared values. She did not say to be amoral or immoral; but rather to recognize that our obligations to others, our kind, our progeny, and our future are within us to recognize or not as we choose; and not imposed from without by Nature or Nature's God.

Want to be altruistic? Be altruistic. But recognize that this is because you desire to be so, not because the universe wills it so.

In this, I see parallels with Theosophy and Aleister Crowley's statement that "Do what thou wilt." This statement, by the way, was later twisted slightly by the Wiccans into "An it harm none, do as though shalt."

I have not met many people from traditional Western Christian backgrounds who have not objected vehemently to the concept of 'Do what thou wilt'. They see it as a form of anarchy, in which everyone simply does whatever they feel like doing in a destructive self-absorbed miasma of anarchic hatred. Rather, it means if you feel like sending your mother a Mother's Day card, do it. Just don't do it because society pressures you to do it, or because you think God wants you to do it. Do it as part of your own will, or don't do it and don't feel badly about it.

And what hardly anyone notices is that the second commandment of Thelema is "Love is the law, love under Will." This, for me at least, requires serious cogitation. I still haven't processed that one sentence to the fullest extent I'd like to.

One can apply Rand and Crowley's thoughts on selfishness to self-defense, too. One can hardly provide for the safety of one's family and loved ones until one first provides for one's own self-defense. Once you're dead, you can no longer protect anyone. The first imperative, then, is to remain alive yourself. It is the highest imperative; which contradicts noble notions about sacrificing oneself for others.

I haven't talked about it much on MT or anywhere. It usually ends in angry words. I have remained bemused over the years that so many people are so thoroughly seduced by outside alien concepts regarding morality, and so violently convinced that selfishness, of and by itself, is a bad thing.

 

[Sukerkin]

It does rather depend on how 'selfishness' is defined, Bill, as you most eloquently pointed out in your post above.

I haven't got time to go into this in detail (as I need to get back to work) but selfishness as an instinct for survival is one aspect of a person that is innate, just as are a drive to altrusim and cooperation.

All three are necessary in order to survive and flourish as an individual and as a social grouping.

On top of those are built social constructs that work to reinforce the most useful traits for the group as a whole, for, in the end, any given individual is not as important as the survival of the group.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It does rather depend on how 'selfishness' is defined, Bill, as you most eloquently pointed out in your post above.

I haven't got time to go into this in detail (as I need to get back to work) but selfishness as an instinct for survival is one aspect of a person that is innate, just as are a drive to altrusim and cooperation.

All three are necessary in order to survive and flourish as an individual and as a social grouping.

On top of those are built social constructs that work to reinforce the most useful traits for the group as a whole, for, in the end, any given individual is not as important as the survival of the group.

But I must order my priorities, mustn't I? My first priority must be own survival, else I cannot assist society to survive. Therefore, placing the good of society above my own survival is not rational. First the one, then the other.

Many are shocked by this thought. But in the end, most people actually behave this way, even if they have been conditioned to see it as evil.

 

[crushing]

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man [sic] as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."-Ayn Rand

If one derives happiness from being altruistic, then altruism is not incompatible with this statement. Altruism is Peter helping Paul of his own free will and because he is happy to do so. Altruism is not done at the point of a gun by an expensive middle man.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If one derives happiness from being altruistic, then altruism is not incompatible with this statement. Altruism is Peter helping Paul of his own free will and because he is happy to do so. Altruism is not done at the point of a gun by an expensive middle man.

Actually, Rand rejected altruism completely, but in the sense that the word itself was defined. People tend to use the word 'altruism' to mean being kind, generous, and loving towards others. In fact, the word itself refers to the moral obligation to live one's life for others. Rand stated that there is no such obligation; and in fact, that the very notion of altruism requires one to reject the notions of kindness, generosity, and loving behavior. If one is doing such things because one ought, then it is not by Will that they are doing it, and it is thus rendered valueless.

Rand's belief was that if one wants to give to the poor because (as you said) it gives you happiness, or because you rationally see the value of supporting those who cannot (yet) support themselves (in the rational belief that they will produce and support society at some future date), then you are in fact giving for the right reasons; because you want to, and because you rationally see the value in it.

The very notion of 'altruism' in the original sense defined by the man who coined the term is anathema to Objectivism; it literally means giving because one should live for others.

 

[Bruno@MT]

If one derives happiness from being altruistic, then altruism is not incompatible with this statement. Altruism is Peter helping Paul of his own free will and because he is happy to do so. Altruism is not done at the point of a gun by an expensive middle man.

Altruism can happen out of compassion, not because it makes me happy.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Never read it and don't plan on reading it but based on Elder's post...I'm not sure that a Buddhist would agree with Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.... and you know this post has absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic and I'm OK with that

 

[Archangel M]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Altruism can happen out of compassion, not because it makes me happy.

One of the reasons (IMHO) that Rand is so often disliked is because people fail to grasp her understanding and use of the language. She used the term 'altruism' as it was meant to be used, not as people have come to use it:

http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/

Altruism
1. Loving others as oneself. 2. Behaviour that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. 3. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others [Italian: altrui others] French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the word altruisme (with meaning 3) in 1851, and two years later it entered the English language as altruism. Many considered his ethical system - in which the only moral acts were those intended to promote the happiness of others - rather extreme, so meaning 1 evolved.

 

[Empty Hands]

I have remained bemused over the years that so many people are so thoroughly seduced by outside alien concepts regarding morality, and so violently convinced that selfishness, of and by itself, is a bad thing.

I'm not sure why you would be. What you describe above is the general basis of your religion and most others.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Since you brought this subject up, I figured I'd necro a thread I started a long time ago, found_here. Looking back on it....good gods, but I've been on this forum a long time. :boing2:

 

[Empty Hands]

Of course, Rand was an atheist, so she knew that her objectivism was incompatible with Jesus, and didn’t care too much, but what about all those tea partiers? What about Sarah “pray for protection from witchcraft” Palin? :lol:

You are right about all of it. Despite all the flaws though, the reason that Rand remains so popular, especially among the wealthy and powerful, is that she tells them what they want to hear. She provides a philosophical justification for what they already want to do anyway. She also provides a means to ease cognitive dissonance and reduce potential distress over the treatment of those beneath you, by re-labeling them the "looters" and "moochers", and casting the exploitative as the heroes of the story.

There must be a reason after all that wealthy, powerful people like Alan Greenspan became such disciples, or why governmental leaders like Paul Ryan or Clarence Thomas are enamored of her to such a degree that they require their staff to read her works. It isn't because of the high quality of the story writing in Atlas Shrugged.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
Although it goes far beyond conservatism.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not sure why you would be. What you describe above is the general basis of your religion and most others.

I can balance the two and compartmentalize where I must and remain amazed that others cannot. It's like dealing with evolution and creation. I can entertain both without offending my sensibilities. Not rationalize them, mind you, but entertain the concepts of both.

 

[Touch Of Death]

So, I read Atlas Shrugged a very long time ago. I recently reread it, and I still don’t get that people actually take this clearly dysfunctional ***** so seriously.



I mean, I get it-libertarianism, laissez faire capitalism, self-determination. Sure.

But a complete rejection of altruism? Just for starters, how do all those conservative, tea-partiers who happen to be fundamentalist Christians reconcile Rand’s objectivism with the teachings of Jesus?

Because, from where I’m sitting, you can’t.





Rand condemns the giving or receiving of gifts.Altruism-the giving or receiving of that which she sees as “undeserved” is condemned as immoral.

(Unless, of course, it was-rather famously-for her own medical care. )

She saw anything that required a person to live for something other than themselves as immoral.

Of course, Rand was an atheist, so she knew that her objectivism was incompatible with Jesus, and didn’t care too much, but what about all those tea partiers? What about Sarah “pray for protection from witchcraft” Palin? :lol:

And, Jesus aside, I don’t think that many of her ideas about human nature match the scientific and historical evidence. I mean, I’m guessing she was a selfish *****, and needed to philosophize a justification for that selfishness. Didn’t work too well, though-while she probably tried to exercise a hyper-rational, objectivist control over her own life, the results speak for themselves: pointless extramarital affairs, a broken political movement, estrangement from friends, financial ruin, and poor health.

I can understand her being anti-Communist, but I think she took her glorification of capitalism and individuality a little too far. The truly "heroic man" is one who gives, rather than one who seeks only his own happiness and self-actualization-he seeks to aid his fellow man in attaining what he has.

(And, hey, all you Rand fans, you do know, dontcha, that her writing kinda sucked? :lol

I only read "Anthem" but I did see an interview with her and she doesn't reject altruism; however, if it keeps people in a state of dependence, I see her point. I didn't read the Big ones, but she seemed level headed to me.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Consider that no act is completely selfless.
Sean

 

[crushing]

I've seen a blogger from an article Mr. Mattocks posted recently try that same type of line when actually, competent workers at all levels were celebrated and very valuable to their companies. The competent workers are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged. That idea of providing value for value is likely why the story is recommended reading for staff.

The looters and moochers were those people that want to get something for nothing; people gaming the system and especially goverment connections for advantage. The looters and moochers were wealthy corporate tycoons, celebrities, and socialites that used their connections and influenced government decisions that help gain them advantage over competitors in the marketplace or to advance their own agendas.

This may be why the book is not recommended for reading by the ultra-wealthy and the real powerbrokers. People that can smash Thomas and Paul Ryan like little bugs if they wanted to moveon to doing something like that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People have been imprinted and seem unable to shake off their programming. This will perpetually lead to not understanding what Rand was saying. How can one object to her ideas if one doesn't actually understand what they are?

Selfish means (to her) to be primarily concerned about one's self. This is common sense; it is an imperative in nature. From this basic concept, she builds other more complex theories about how people in society ought to interact, and how they *do* interact. I find many of her thoughts to be more interesting from that standpoint, to be honest. I enjoy uncovering what appear to be actual motivations behind certain behaviors as opposed to what we might otherwise suppose.

However, as long as one reads the word 'selfish' to mean 'evil', communication is not possible. And that is the meme most of us have been imprinted with. If I'm selfish, it means (to most) that I want what you have and I want you to have nothing.

Consider the word. 'Self' meaning me, and 'ish' meaning pertaining to the subject - me. 'Selfish' just means 'about me'. It says nothing about you, nothing about how I choose to interact with you, nothing about how I feel, what or whom I love, my generosity, or anything else. It means of or pertaining to me. Rand stated that the real virtue was recognizing that our primary responsibility was to ourselves; everything else we are and do builds on that basic concept.

Those who criticize Rand often do so (as in this thread, IMHO) on the basis of the words she uses and the meanings they themselves assign to them; they do not wrestle with her concepts and ideas, but simply take issue with certain words such as 'selfish' and reject the rest out-of-hand. To me, this is frustrating; it makes it hard to have a conversation about Rand without emotion and rancor. I suspect she may have intended it; it excludes people who think on the surface from the conversation.