Hello all.
Ayn Rand was mentioned in a thread recently locked. I’m totally unfamiliar with her work. Can someone tell me about it please?
And no, I can’t go to the bookshop and buy her stuff right now.
Here’s a link that explains Objectivism in Rand’s words: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.html
Rand says, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.â€
First, to me, nature will always be in control, you cannot command nature ever, you can only endure its forces or enjoy its magnificance.
Rand says, “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.â€
Second, what’s this really supposed to mean I wonder? If I have cake to eat, don’t I already have it? And if it means that I still want to be in posession of the cake I already ate, then that doesn’t mean anything. All it means is that our needs and wants and desires keep changing, SO, isn’t this precisely where feeling or desire comes in, where is objectivism?
Rand says, “Man is an end in himself.â€
Third, if this were true, then every man could be an island, but the fact is that, “no man is an island.” We can only live in relationships and survive only that way, as such, sometimes we will use people or things or concepts, like I’m using Google right now for personal research, hehehe! and sometimes people will use us. The only difference is that we must learn where to draw the line. As soon as it comes to over-riding another’s rights, we cross that line. Because ask yourself this question, if “man is an end in himself” then, how can our happiness be dependent on others and theirs on us? Logically, man cannot be “an end in himself” or life would have no meaning at all.
Rand says, “Give me liberty or give me death.â€
Fourth, why do I have to make the choice? If I don’t have liberty, I’ll strive for it just like a slave might. By liberty Rand means having reason and individuality. But in life we mostly need a heart to make decisions. In fact, if the world perceives you as very brilliant, I have seen that many can turn against you because they fear you in some way and so will ‘violently oppose’ all that you say. So you see a comment like above does not make any sense. It does not make sense because in life we do not need reason and individuality to be our primary guides, feeling or subjectivity will do and will do better than the above two.
Rand says, “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.”
Fifth, I thought we perceive reality by our senses that our emotions dictate. And if reason was the only guide to action and not desire or emotions as well then who would be ambitious any more, people would just be content because reasonably those who have enough would be satisfied with that, but the fact is that ambition does exist and so reason cannot be the only guide to action, desire and emotions are too. Whatever… 
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason his only absolute.” Ayn Rand
Really? Does Rand not understand that our greatest achievements come from our failings or our very weaknesses, that’s where our real strength lies, in our weakness? And by the way why would anybody draw an absolute like this, that of “man as a heroic being.” We don’t have to nor are required to prove our worth or greatness to anybody. We can be weak or strong, it’s our business entirely, nobody elses and as such no one should define us as weak or strong.
If reason and individuality are the platforms for liberty, where is emotion? Where does any subjectivity come in here if objectivism becomes the philosophy of life as it is the Randians’. As far as I know, life is all about emotion of one kind or another, which means that most of life is all about subjectivity, being subjective. Objectivity is there playing only a small part, and that too is only because so we don’t really make a very big blunder, otherwise, most of all decisions we should make from the heart. If I made all decisions using reason, I could not be happy. That’s a fact of life. Remember the quote, “the heart has reasons, which reason does not understand.” It is so true! Now, someone needs to tell the Randians that since life is all about emotions and therefore primarily subjective, being objective or having a philosophy of objectivism would be kinda not “rational.” Hehehe! That’s kinda funny! Whatever…Now I’m not suggesting that we not be objective, but objectivity in life is only needed to a very small extent. More than that and life won’t be happy.
Adam, dont let Beenajain’s comments dissuade you from finding out about Ayn Rand yourself, because it would be unfortunate if you allowed someone that obviously has an extremely strong bias against Rand from keeping you from making your own conclusions. I have fallen into that trap many times in my life, and if I hadnt I would have discovered certain writers, philosophers, and composers sooner than I did. Ironically though Ayn Rand played a part in this to a certain degree, for it was her words and philosophy that kept me from enjoying Arnold Schoenberg, and other serialists, along with Nietzche, both whom I now regard under a brighter light than Rand.
To make some comments on your comments BeenaJain, it seems to me that the fundamental difference that you have with Rand, and objectivity, is her idealism. Ayn saw the world as ultimately understandable, through the use of objective reality. In this way there was no mystery that could not be solved, through an insoluble individual will. As I understand it subjectivity amounted to a kind of cowardice in her mind, for through subjectivity one can find an excuse for anything. I detected some form of this in your post. You even went so far as to say that humanities weakness is actually our strength, and to be honest I dont exactly know what it is you mean by that. And what are these “greatest achievements” that were born out of “weakness” and mans failings or folly. Is it some kind of love you are alluding to? I f you respond please eloborate, because as I already said, i don’t understand exactly what it is you mean.
[Quote]
If reason and individuality are the platforms for liberty, where is emotion?
Emotion is where it usually is, in the same place it has always been, but it is now sculpted and controlled by the ideals of a greater awareness. In a way it 's goal is the overcoming of the weakness that society places upon the individual. Her philosophy was extremely stratified in it’s concern and conception of people. Man is not equal, nor should it be an ideal to think this way, for the greatest achievments of man come from performing the most difficult tasks, which in no way lead to weakness.
You misunderstand Ayn Rand, but it is most likely an inner necessary instinct that makes her so vile to you. I do not pretend to be a “Randian” and if I ever was those days are long behind me, but I still cannot allow someone who perceives rand in a irrational way to speak as if she was speaking “the truth”
You should just read Ayn Rand yourself Adam and come to your own conclusions.
Archimedes was rather upset that he could not figure out how to find the volume of a non symetrical complex object until he plopped in the tub to cool off and saw the water rise.
Nary a love sonnet has been written out of objective morals.
Do you think Salvador Dali cared much what you thought of his works? He knew it was genius because he saw genius in it.
And this shows the problem with man as a hero. For man to be a hero, one has to admire man. Who is admiring man? Man? You? Me?
An issue is that Rand takes the world on face value and leaves it at that. She does not sufficiently contend with skeptical or idealist values, but instead writes them off as silly, childish, and lunacy. As a result, she is contradicting HERSELF. Since she herself finds such problems as ohhh, I dunno, solipsism to be one unworthy of mentioning, she isn’t using objective reasoning. As a result, her very epistomological and metaphysical stance undermines her ethical stance.
When one finds fault in Ayn Rand, they’re not the ones who must defend her work. She is. Unfortunately, she does not like to defend her work. Instead, she surrounded herself by like minded individuals all her life, individuals who helped fund and create the Ayn Rand Institute and various other organizations that promote her macro-paradigms without promoting the basic premise… that man is able to rationally solve any problem.
Her objective reasoning is flawed in one key factor. This is moral dilemas. How does Ayn Rand attack the concept of moral dilemas? She merely states that nothing is ever really a moral dilema. She says that if man was thinking rationally 100% of the time then all dilemas would eliminate themselves as they just do not exist.
Now, being a scientific person and a rationalist philosopher myself, I want some proof of this. However, Rand doesn’t really provide it at all. Instead she uses weak and watered down examples of how a few particular moral dilemas are circumvented using her objective morals, but she does not prove definitively (or even inductively) that there are no real rational opposing equalities. She fails this test, and therefore, contradicts her own philosophy… crossing over from a rationalist to a dogmatist.
To most, it seems obvious that when she makes her most axiomatic claim, “Existence exists,” she’s also saying, “What doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist.” However, when you take such issues as modern science… evidence that are both mathematical and experimental, we’re starting to build a view of existence where what exists to us here only exists NOW, and what doesn’t exist may exist LATER, and that through other realms that directly impact us (namely, apparent causation R5), we can say that what doesn’t exist but could exist does exist. As a result her entire “take life on face value” stance is comprimised as that which is impossible here is possible elsewhere that also exists in a different causal realm. This means that you have no clue what will ever happen next, EVER, and so remaining objective is futile. Instead, we, as humans, must work on a probability based ethical system. This being the case, our RELATIVE PERSPECTIVE skews the RELATIVE PROBABILITIES such that ethics will NOT be objectively the same from one person to the next. Even if one does what they think to be objectively correct in a given situation, it’s still could be wrong in the bigger picture. As such, Rand is a dreamer who is imagining a perfect world of robots who not only function as perfect probability machines, but also can predict the future.
Ayn Rand had one objective with her objectivist philosophy. Ayn Rand’s objective was to make money. Mission accomplished.
Adam,
Since you don’t have access to books, but you have access to the net, so go to a search engine like google, msn, yahoo, geocities, excite, angelfire, etc., and read about Rand on the net itself, there is plenty there for you to read. And I do recommend that you do that, for the simple reason that even though I say that objectivity in life is needed only to a small extent, it does not mean that we cannot put that little objectivity combined with a lot of subjectivity to arrive at good solutions and the right answers. But using only objectivity when life overall is mostly subjective, I’m not sure how anyone can be successful in life in terms of happiness. So, do go to those wearch engines and find stuff on Ayn Rand and come to your own conclusions. And MOST OF ALL, since you started this thread, don’t forget to post your own view on Rand and the Randians here.
Rafajafar,
You said to me, “You misunderstand Ayn Rand, but it is most likely an inner necessary instinct that makes her so vile to you.”
I was just commenting on Rand and why I disagree with her “objectivist” philosophy and the clear grounds on which I do so. But if you are going to use such words for me like I find Rand “vile,” when you are the one saying that, there is no point in discussing anything with you, alright? I refuse to answer any question you have raised to me.
But if you are going to use such words for me like I find Rand “vile,” when you are the one saying that,
Actually BeenaJain it was I that said those words. There is no reason for someone to be falsely accused. I used the word vile because of the tone of your comments, and apparently I misinterepted the way that you actually feel. I apologize for using the word. I assumed too much, and dint explain myself well. I still request you to explain what it is you meant by “our greatest achievements come from our failings or our very weaknesses” because I dont understand what you mean.
And Rafajafar, I cant defend Rand and I dont want. A lot of what you say wrings true, especially the 1st couple of your opening remarks, concerning aesthetics. The creation of art the expirience of it’s value. Rand’s romanticism, and the hero worship it creates, if interpreted through her system of valuation or judgement, forms a tyrannical system in which all art is either pronounced to be right or wrong, acceptable or useless. You are right to say that she ultimately undermines herself through the narrowness of her own perceived necessity, for it disqualifies the expansiveness of variation, by heralding only one brand, heroic romanticism. And as for the rest you make sense.
I didnt write that. Concordant did.
Concordant:
Correct. No Randian or person attempting to defend Rand has a good leg to stand on. She built her house on rotted stilts and the ocean of reality is washing it away.
Rafajafar,
Even as I was writing, I knew something was amiss and that I should look into it, but I didn’t. I’m so sorry Rafajafar, I sincerely apologize for the mistake I made.
concordant,
When I said that our greatest achievements come from our very failings or weaknesses, I meant in terms of philosophy. I believe that it’s strife or hardships or struggle perhaps emotional, that gives rise to philosophers and so philosophy. And because of philosophy there is science and because of science there is progress and because of progress life can be more comfortable and interesting! And the reason we go through struggle is because perhaps we love or feel too much about someone or something. So, we’re given to disappointment and so our failing of loving too much results in achievement of another kind. Whatever…
Well that makes sense BeenaJain, and if nothing else came of this, I now at least know why there is almost a complete consensus in philosphy forums, in regards opinions of Ayn Rand.
What finite limitations shall we place upon philosophy next?
I don’t necessarily agree with Rand, but I think some of the criticisms are very hypocritical.
There are no limitations with philosophy. Contending that Rand has some preferential protocol to adhere to is way too limiting in my opinion.
I do find a few things Rand has to say of interess, just like many other philosophers. There are also things I disagree with. However, I think some are throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of bias.
What bias?
I presented an argument against her claims.
Everyone says, “Give her a chance, she has good things to say,” yet I haven’t heard a single “good thing” to this very day. Enigma, if you would like to form a counter argument and display some reasons why I shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, I’d be willing to listen.
We all have our biases. I think it quite clear to me that “good” philosophy is really nothing more than what is similar to our own.
As for Rand, there are certainly things regarding her philosophy that I reject and there are things I find comprehensible. I can relate to her views on religion in which she looks at religion as an early form of philosopy and the importance she places on reason.
Can I find things I question? Sure, as with every other philosopher.
Also, I think Rand is pretty darn honest in regards to being “me first.” Heck yeah Rand was all about getting profit. That IS her philosophy. She is a strong advocate of getting profit.
Rand is a selfish, greedy, Godless, Utopian driven bitch that glorifies reason. What’s not to like? 
Jeeezuus! I agree with you BeenaJain. If man Rand is right, Man is a rational being. Take one look at the world, and it becomes obvious that this is not so. Man is as least as much “guided” to action by his Emotions than his Reason. I don’t like Ayn Rand.
- Kristian
RAND NEVER EVER EVER SAID WE PERCEIVE THROUGH SENSES THAT EMOTIONS DICTATE!
WHAT SHE MEANS IS THAT REASON IS THE FACULTY THAT INTERGERATES OBJECTIVE IDEAS.
THE INTERGRATION OF WHAT WE SENSE IS CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT (SOME OF US USE REASON HERE, NOT YOU).
FROM CONCEPTS WE DEVELOP A FULLY INTERGRATED AND CONSISTANT SYSTEM OF KNOWLEDGE, FROM WHICH, WE SUBSTANTIATE OUR VALUES. IT IS FROM WHAT WE VALUE THAT WE GET EMOTIONS, NOT THE OTHERWAY AROUND!
You need to learn more before you go off making no sense at all. You are doing what Rand would hate most “context dropping” (you took her ideas out of context, she deserves to support her own ideas and not have you butcher them). Her ideas are better that they are handled by someone who knows objectivism.[/u][/b][/i]
RAFAJAFAR! I THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE JOINED THE TERRORIST AGAINST THE US BY NOW. YOU COWARD!
Who said you could post here again, objectivist?
Still cannot fight my arguments with reason, so you use ad hominem attacks…
And you call yourself an objectivist??