Ayn Rand is known for her views on Capitalism and Objectivism. Others are natural rights and what she describes as the virtue of "selfishness". This word isn't used in the conventional sense of serving one's own self-interests while disregarding others. Where disregarding others isn't considered a part of serving one's own self-interests. It is defined as one who looks after their own self-interests in a rational way. As I understand it, it seems consistent with capitalistic and Libertarian ideals of individual rights of freedom and property, which some like Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard justified under the weak concept of "natural rights". The problem with this is that any deviation from that standard or ideal will be labeled a "freak of nature" whether good or bad. This also highlights one of the problems with free speech and any other kind of freedom. Take altruism as one example of a practice that does not fit comfortably under her belief system: Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, ix). http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx/ So where does this leave our military heroes and those who fight for the good of the country? She sells altruism as something to reject. What a bitch she must have been.
Nicholas1m7: What do you think of the following quote? "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
We love extremes. Either a person is a hero or a pariah. Ayn Rand must be demon or angel. Couldn't it just be that she might have been right about some of the things, some of the times? I for one am a big fan of Ayn Rand. She was a great writer, and had great insight into a great many things. ~String
The problem with Ayn Rand is that you have to read her work carefully and think deeply to understand it. A lot of her ideas were described in a paper back: "Capitalism, The Unknonw Ideal." I happen to think highly of her ideas and believe that they could be the basis for a wonderful culture. I also doubt that they will ever be the basis of a culture. It is too easy to knock her ideas with short quips and too hard to understand them.
We must think for ourselves, but play well with others. Ayn Rand was on point with the former, but wayward on the latter. Still, playing well with others should never be your first allegiance.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. She was simply looking for honesty. Trying to pry the veil of hypocracy that conceals our true motives. Behind every apparently altuistic action is a selfish motive. Consider people donating to charity. A truly selfless act would be to donate to things you hate. A black guy donating to the KKK. Or a pro-lifer donating to an abortion clinic. But people don't do that. They donate to causes they support because they believe in those causes and investing in them brings them pleasure. Or perhaps the donation merely makes them look good. And military heros? Is it truly selfless to defend one's own country? To defend one's own land? Of course not. It's noble, it's brave, it's praiseworthy, but it's not selfless. It's fighting for what you believe in. It's fighting for the lives of your friends, your family, and yourself.
Right, but that's not what Ayn Rand's philosophy agrees with. Her interpretation of things would seem to be that if your own land isn't threatened, then there is no reason to fight. because fighting for someone else's land and gaining no real benefit from putting yourself at risk is basically self-abdication of the worst kind in her eyes. Do you really think that some farm boy from Oklahoma who joined the marines after the attacks on 9/11 and now finds himself fighting in Iraq is really fighting for any type of material gain for himself? of course not. He might possibly be fighting for some half-assed attempt to promote "freedom" or "democracy", although his role in actually spreading those ideas is cast in much doubt at this point. So, basically you're only fighting a war for yourself if youre fighting a defensive war or one that actually has a very good likelihood of succeeding in a way that materially benefits you personally somehow. Any American war after WWII seems to not meet this qualification. In Ayn Rand's hopelessly idealistic world, people only act collectively out of common self-interest, and then dissolve their relationships once the shared goal has been acheived. Read any chapter of Atlas Shrugged and you will see this in action. In her world, a person like George Bush would never attack Iraq either, he would just ignore Sadaam Hussein because he was a relatively minor threat to any US interest. So Ayn Rand's actual ideology exists in a reality-free vacuum and can't even sort of be applied to the complex and often morally ambiguous world that we live in now.
Ayn Rand specifically said that a free country is justified in attacking a dictatorship at any time because such a nation is illegitimate by its very nature. By no means were free nations obligated to depose dictators, but whenever they felt it suited their interests, she supported it. Now, as a caveat, she strongly opposed the draft and said that a free nation should not fight a war if it can not get enough of its citizens to volunteer to fight it. You're confusing Objectivism with Libertarianism.
Gawd how I miss the wisdome of Rand. I shall reread her greats starting this month. I am SO an objectivsit. ~String
It's been a long time since I've read any of her works, but I'm pretty sure I've read them all. Right now my seventeen year old son is reading Atlas Shrugged.
I'm sorry, but Objectivism is so much an Anarchist Union. Individualism loses its meaning in a collective. Rand's works should be a personal discovery, not a recruiting poster.
This is because altruism only really works with other altruists. A group of altruists will not need self-support because they have the support of each other. They will not need self respect because they have respect from everyone. Justice is easier to come by and co-existence is natural and peaceful. I think Ayn Rand overlooks this.
Lord Hillyer: Rand was not a brilliant prose writer, in as much as she was not the match of any of say...the 19th century greats, but her stories are more appealing than most 20th century writers, both in content and quality. But then again, I cannot stand to read barely anything published after 1920.
side greeting: yo Prince James whats poppin bro? Just thought Id send my shout outs. I gots to drop one for my man Lord Hillyer RESPECK! Like how you guys do... when you stay true to the crew! Btw, too bad sciforums lacking nuff o de gals dem knowhasay? Peace! Speck! EDIT: AND I JUST SO NOTICED THAT I HAPPENED TO HIT 1000 POSTS!!! MY FUCK I CANT BELIE DIS! BALLLLIN! NICK.
