The "Return" of Ayn Rand?
I was reading in The Week about how sales of Ayn Rand's books are experiencing another spike as they have been known to do in times of leftish leanings of the federal government. I have dipped briefly in the poisonous waters of her Objectivism and so of course such news is chilling to my soul.
The philosophy is based on the synthesis of an ( Read more... )
The philosophy is based on the synthesis of an ( Read more... )
Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. You're absolutely right, I've never talked to a real live Objectivist, and I haven't even read more than one of Rand's books, and I could definitely be accused of a superficial understanding of Objectivism, and I'm glad to hear from somebody who thinks I have it totally wrong. If this school of thought is really experiencing a resurgence as various news stories have claimed, I better get on a good reading list (I'll start with your buddy Peikoff).
I think you are also suffering from a problem of oversimplification in your evaluation of my point of view. I'm not asking the question Peikoff attacks at the end of your comments. I'm asking the question Peikoff hints at as he hedges his insistence that Objectivists are morally obligated to help people: "...if you know no evil about a person and no sacrifice is involved then..." In my view, true service to others involves self-sacrifice. This is what justifies my slipping into claims that the Objectivist rejects service to others, on the basis of the quote at the top of this comment (which I suppose I shouldn't have done without this qualification, but this is an LJ and not a scholarly paper).
My beef with what I know of Objectivism so far is that by it, you justify not living for the sake of others by an insistence that nobody has ever lived or will live for you. I think this claim is a myth, one that no human being is qualified to make. You contradict the zero-sum assumption that I can't get ahead without putting you behind by postulating an ideal circumstance in which all things are completely equal and, given the same resources, I just happen to get further than you. I argue that in the real world (where no starting lines are ever completely equal anyway) you can also trace back the abilities and tendencies that I have that allowed me to get further than you and translate them into opportunities had by me to develop these abilities and tendencies that were lost by somebody else. The only way I can morally justify enjoyment of my own successes is to acknowledge that I attained them with the help and sacrifice of others, and that I adopt a policy of doing the same and sacrificing for others whenever the opportunity presents itself to me. In other words, I always give back some of what I get, because the way I see it, it is not mine to keep in the first place.
I suspect that's what Objectivism boils down to, trying to make a claim of ownership on stuff that isn't yours, because of a fear that if you don't somebody else will... that if you sacrifice for somebody else you won't get the same in return. But so what? What is so damn scary about coming out a little behind if you've increased the happiness of others by it? I just don't get it.
But of course, I only think that because I haven't done my reading yet.
Reply
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics
There is also an online lexicon with quotes from all the books on over 200 subjects -- a great reference and overview.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/
Pressed for time at the moment, I will try to answer your concerns expressed in your reply when I can.
Reply
Sam Walton was the richest man in America when he died. He did more to raise the standard of living of America's poorest than all of the government programs and charities that existed during his lifetime. Self sacrifice is the poorest benefactor of all and degrading to the beneficiary to boot.
In an Objectivist style radical capitalist system in which all coercion by physical force is removed from human interaction and exchanges of values, the only way to acquire wealth is to offer ever greater values for ever lower prices. It is greed in the good sense of the word - the quest for earned wealth - in such a society that creates the most wealth for those least able to fend for themselves.
-----------------
"My beef with what I know of Objectivism so far is that by it, you justify not living for the sake of others by an insistence that nobody has ever lived or will live for you.
You never read anything like that by Rand or any Objectivist, so I suspect you have fallen prey to blogosphere hearsay. The quote from Atlas Shrugged at the top of your reply certainly does not say that. It says that consistency demands that claiming the right to live for one's own sake entails the obligation to grant the same right to all others.
---------------
"I always give back some of what I get, because the way I see it, it is not mine to keep in the first place."
Note for the record that this is an entirely selfish act.
---------------
"I suspect that's what Objectivism boils down to, trying to make a claim of ownership on stuff that isn't yours, because of a fear that if you don't somebody else will...
This is exactly the opposite of what Objectivism boils down to. Our ethics is based on a definition of the fundamental nature of human beings. As a result, every rule and right that we hold applicable to ourselves is ipso facto applicable equally to all other human beings.
Reply
Just based on your attitude and approach in responding to some of my points, you seem to think that the only way I could have arrived at some of my conclusions is to have them given to me by other people. This is not the case; I read The Fountainhead for the first time in high school (back before blogs existed!) having heard only that in it Ayn Rand paints a picture of the ideal man according to Objectivism. I didn't know what Objectivism was and I didn't have any value judgments about it at all going into it, but I did read the book with a critical eye. When I quote Rand and say what I think it means, that is just what it looks like to one thoughtful person (I don't think it's too conceited to call myself that) encountering it for the first time. It's not an unexamined assertion of received wisdom.
In future you'll have better luck battling these views if you keep in mind that they may be original and not necessarily "spoon-fed". There are legitimate criticisms of Objectivism, as of any philosophical scheme, and they need to be dealt with as such and not dismissed out of hand as incoherent. Raging against what you perceive as naive recycled pabulum might feel good, but it won't convince anybody who thinks they have a good reason for saying it.
Reply
Leave a comment