Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[Mister Agenda]

"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."

Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

Look at what she practised. For Rand free love was a-ok, as long as she was snagging other women's partners. Once the men deserted her for other women then unfaithfulness became a bad thing again.

For years she railed against the idea of having the safety net of social security, not saying that people abusing it were wrong but that the whole system was stealing food out of the "makers'" mouths, yet when she fell on hard times, then social security suddenly became a-ok.

Even her fiction is impregnated with this immoral self regard. She talks about the "makers" in Atlas Shrugged as if those at the top running companies are the only ones doing any work or making anything of value (protip 1; in real life if you've made it to boardroom level, nine times out of ten your time working long hours is long past, if you ever had to. Protip 2; most of the "makers" she talks about would, in real life, have inherited their wealth never having to do anything to become rich) forgetting completely the fact that in an industrialised society most of the work done (and most of the value added to an economy) is done by blue collar industrial workers not top level management or owners. Her fiction implies that the top level people would do fine without anybody else around, forgetting about the farmers, the miners, loggers, the factory floor workers, servants and all the myriad other jobs that make the products and provide the services they use. To her mind anybody below very upper middle class was, at best, an automaton to be exploited until they gave out. Her philosophy pretty much demanded that the majority of people be kept in a stage of slavery or serfdom.

In some ways, she was an awful woman. However, her heroes largely didn't inherit their wealth, they created it. I'm not sure what many people having inherited their wealth has to do with Ayn Rand, she was not an admirer of inherited wealth. In her novel, blue collar workers are held in high regard, they are part of the revolution in Atlas Shrugged. Honest labor was a virtue in her book (literally).

I find it awkward to have to continually correct criticisms of her. Why is it so  hard to criticize her for what she actually said instead of a strawman notion about it? I realize not everyone has read her work, but I would think those who haven't would be a little more shy in expounding on it. I've read pretty much everything she's written and wound up not agreeing with her on fundamental issues. She was bitter and extreme and ironically formed a cult of personality around herself; she had a very unseemly at least half admiration for a killer, and didn't comprehend that the kind of people she was portraying as heroes had elements of sociopathy.

But she didn't regard 'the people at the top' as the only makers, didn't hold ordinary hard-working people as lowly or unnecessary or objects of exploitation. She saw productive work itself as a virtuous endeavor. She was for good wages and working conditions...but she thought that those arise naturally from increased productivity and voluntary negotiations between workers and owners. She wrote Atlas Shrugged in 1957, when the economy was humming and wages were rising. Almost sixty years later we can see that it doesn't always play out that way. She was wrong, but she wasn't for exploiting the working class. Mao was wrong for encouraging a high birth rate that contributed to famine that led to millions of people starving to death; but if you said Mao encouraged people to have children so they could starve to death later, I would have to disagree. That's what this conversation is like to me. I'm not a big fan of Mao, but he did not set out to starve his own people to death. I'm not a big fan of Rand, but she did not regard workers as robots to be exploited, she thought they had a dignity that surpassed bureaucrats and those who lived off the wealth of their predecessors. But following her misguided suggested policies (to the very limited extend that they were followed) was not good for labor in the long run.

[Mister Agenda]

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."

Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

As with every philosophy/ideology, it might work in a perfect world where everybody's toeing the line. But humans are individuals, and there's more.

How can the heir of a large fortune claim to have earned what they own? The only thing going for them is the coincidence of birth. How can someone working two or three jobs and barely scratch a living, not desire the so called unearned? They aren't in that situation by choice but because noone grants them their place in society, which would collapse if they weren't there to do their jobs. So, I go even as far as to claim that the ones working two or three jobs for a pittance are more important than the heir, when it comes to humanity.

You seem to be reading a lot into that quote that isn't there. Like inheritance being earned and the proceeds from three jobs being unearned. Rand would have agreed with your final statement.

[thesummerqueen]

Erm...Maybe Galt earned his way to the top, but Dagny and that other schmuck - Francisco or whatever the hell his name was - definitely inherited their wealth.

I don't remember Hank's origin story. It's been a while since I read the book.

I do remember that the guy I made the mistake of continuing to shtupp despite finding out he had a Rand fetish did so because he totally identified with Hank for having a harpy wife. Which is hilarious because neither one of them did anything to mitigate their unhappiness except to, in Hank's case, cheat with a 'better' woman and in this dude's case, make me his emotional whipping post for his own immaturity during his divorce.

You know what my real problem with it is? That in her fiction, and presumably her non-fiction, she becomes the arbiter of what emotions or actions are noble. So Galt fucking the world over is totally okay, instead of him, I don't know, using that prodigious brain to make it better. But individual characters clearly suffering psychological reactions to possible shitty upbringings? Fuck them. Ayn had a "trash it all, fuck you I'm out" mentality. There's no compassion, no seeking to understand. Total post hoc justification for shitty things. Let's go back to the cheating example: Hank should have divorced that woman if he wasn't happy. Clearly she wasn't either but no thought is given to her. In a real novel, her wish to, I don't know, maybe be part of his life and not have a constantly absent husband might have been considered. Instead it's totally okay for him to fuck Dagny and heap all kinds of gifts on her solely because Dagny is a better person by Ayn's standards, therefore the cheating is justified.

Newsflash: no matter how you swing it, cheating is wrong. I've been there - I've been involved in it, and I've been cheated on. And I can tell you that no matter how you nuance it out, it's still shitty. You can't justify it, even if you can explain it.

If the novel weren't meant to justify her beliefs, I'd just ignore it as an exploration of incredibly flawed people. The Magicians trilogy does that brilliantly. But instead, it's clearly a self-gratifying overly-long peek into what she thought her life should be.

I can swallow some of it as an extreme reaction to failed communism, but only a sliver of it. The rest is just horseshit.

[CapnAwesome]

In some ways, she was an awful woman. However, her heroes largely didn't inherit their wealth, they created it. I'm not sure what many people having inherited their wealth has to do with Ayn Rand, she was not an admirer of inherited wealth. In her novel, blue collar workers are held in high regard, they are part of the revolution in Atlas Shrugged. Honest labor was a virtue in her book (literally).

I find it awkward to have to continually correct criticisms of her. Why is it so  hard to criticize her for what she actually said instead of a strawman notions about it? I realize not everyone has read her work, but I would think those who haven't would be a little more shy in expounding on it. I've read pretty much everything she's written and wound up not agreeing with her on fundamental issues. She was bitter and extreme and ironically formed a cult of personality around herself; she had a very unseemly at least half admiration for a killer, and didn't comprehend that the kind of people she was portraying as heroes had elements of sociopathy.

But she didn't regard 'the people at the top' as the only makers, didn't hold ordinary hard-working people as lowly or unnecessary or objects of exploitation. She saw productive work itself as a virtuous endeavor. She was for good wages and working conditions...but she thought that those arise naturally from increased productivity and voluntary negotiations between workers and owners. She wrote Atlas Shrugged in 1957, when the economy was humming and wages were rising. Almost sixty years later we can see that it doesn't always play out that way. She was wrong, but she wasn't for exploiting the working class. Mao was wrong for encouraging a high birth rate that contributed to famine that led to millions of people starving to death; but if you said Mao encouraged people to have children so they could starve to death later, I would have to disagree. That's what this conversation is like to me. I'm not a big fan of Mao, but he did not set out to starve his own people to death. I'm not a big fan of Rand, but she did not regard workers as robots to be exploited, she thought they had a dignity that surpassed bureaucrats and those who lived off the wealth of their predecessors. But following her misguided suggested policies (to the very limited extend that they were followed) was not good for labor in the long run.

Yeah, I agree so much. So many criticisms of Ayn Rand are attacks on her personal life (who's personal life is without flaws?) and strawmanning of her philosophy. This is despite the fact that there is so so so much of her philosophy that is easy to criticize in it's own right and not the strawman version of it that most people have. I think mostly the reason that people do so is because it's easy. It's far easier to criticize a strawrand, then it is to read Atlas Shrugged, which I personally found to be extremely dull and tedious.

[GUBU]

In some ways, she was an awful woman. However, her heroes largely didn't inherit their wealth, they created it. I'm not sure what many people having inherited their wealth has to do with Ayn Rand, she was not an admirer of inherited wealth. In her novel, blue collar workers are held in high regard, they are part of the revolution in Atlas Shrugged. Honest labor was a virtue in her book (literally).

I find it awkward to have to continually correct criticisms of her. Why is it so  hard to criticize her for what she actually said instead of a strawman notions about it? I realize not everyone has read her work, but I would think those who haven't would be a little more shy in expounding on it. I've read pretty much everything she's written and wound up not agreeing with her on fundamental issues. She was bitter and extreme and ironically formed a cult of personality around herself; she had a very unseemly at least half admiration for a killer, and didn't comprehend that the kind of people she was portraying as heroes had elements of sociopathy.

But she didn't regard 'the people at the top' as the only makers, didn't hold ordinary hard-working people as lowly or unnecessary or objects of exploitation. She saw productive work itself as a virtuous endeavor. She was for good wages and working conditions...but she thought that those arise naturally from increased productivity and voluntary negotiations between workers and owners. She wrote Atlas Shrugged in 1957, when the economy was humming and wages were rising. Almost sixty years later we can see that it doesn't always play out that way. She was wrong, but she wasn't for exploiting the working class. Mao was wrong for encouraging a high birth rate that contributed to famine that led to millions of people starving to death; but if you said Mao encouraged people to have children so they could starve to death later, I would have to disagree. That's what this conversation is like to me. I'm not a big fan of Mao, but he did not set out to starve his own people to death. I'm not a big fan of Rand, but she did not regard workers as robots to be exploited, she thought they had a dignity that surpassed bureaucrats and those who lived off the wealth of their predecessors. But following her misguided suggested policies (to the very limited extend that they were followed) was not good for labor in the long run.

Yeah, I agree so much. So many criticisms of Ayn Rand are attacks on her personal life (who's personal life is without flaws?) and strawmanning of her philosophy. This is despite the fact that there is so so so much of her philosophy that is easy to criticize in it's own right and not the strawman version of it that most people have. I think mostly the reason that people do so is because it's easy. It's far easier to criticize a strawrand, then it is to read Atlas Shrugged, which I personally found to be extremely dull and tedious.

But her way of living stemmed precisely from her philosophy, of "fuck you, I got mine". She used her ideas about "enlightened self interest" and altruism being a false good to justify her own shittiness an immorality. To her, any action was justified as long as the right person was doing it, and if you weren't the right person your best option was to knuckle down, work harder, eat and earn less and be more of a doornat.

You cannot strawman a "philosophy" which is a rationalisation for unbounded greed.

[bennyboy]

I'm gonna say one of the arguably dumbest thing ever.

Is it possible that these great lifestyle improvements are a detriment to our ability to live a full life? With no struggle is no glory, nay? With no adversity is no pride of accomplishment?

[GUBU]

I'm gonna say one of the arguably dumbest thing ever.

Is it possible that these great lifestyle improvements are a detriment to our ability to live a full life?  With no struggle is no glory, nay?  With no adversity is no pride of accomplishment?

I'll respond with an SFDebris video:

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/d435.php

Enjoy

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm gonna say one of the arguably dumbest thing ever.

Is it possible that these great lifestyle improvements are a detriment to our ability to live a full life?  With no struggle is no glory, nay?  With no adversity is no pride of accomplishment?

Possible, but not likely.  That we've seen vast lifestyle improvements hasn't changed the fact that we struggle, that we face adversity.  The field changes, the games the same.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, I agree so much. So many criticisms of Ayn Rand are attacks on her personal life (who's personal life is without flaws?) and strawmanning of her philosophy. This is despite the fact that there is so so so much of her philosophy that is easy to criticize in it's own right and not the strawman version of it that most people have. I think mostly the reason that people do so is because it's easy. It's far easier to criticize a strawrand, then it is to read Atlas Shrugged, which I personally found to be extremely dull and tedious.

But her way of living stemmed precisely from her philosophy, of "fuck you, I got mine". She used her ideas about "enlightened self interest" and altruism being a false good to justify her own shittiness an immorality. To her, any action was justified as long as the right person was doing it, and if you weren't the right person your best option was to knuckle down, work harder, eat and earn less and be more of a doornat.

You cannot strawman a "philosophy" which is a rationalisation for unbounded greed.

What? You can strawman any philosophy. Strawman is just misportrayal of something to make it easier to argue against, which you just did by the way. Which people do to Rand constantly. Also many philosophers, probably all of them have personal problems of one nature or another. Big deal. Attack the philosophy as it is. That's easy enough. Attacking a person for not being perfect or for being an asshole is lazy. You can easily do with the same with Marx, say that his philosophy stems from his personal ability to not manage money. Like with Ayn Rand, that's the lazy way out.

[bennyboy]

I'm gonna say one of the arguably dumbest thing ever.

Is it possible that these great lifestyle improvements are a detriment to our ability to live a full life?  With no struggle is no glory, nay?  With no adversity is no pride of accomplishment?

Possible, but not likely.  That we've seen vast lifestyle improvements hasn't changed the fact that we struggle, that we face adversity.  The field changes, the games the same.

Actually, I think it's that we have such a strong instinct for adversity that we project onto non-adverse circumstances.  I've seen people rage-- I mean fucking go off the handle-- because someone cut in line at Starbuck's, or left a shopping cart in the middle of the aisle and wandered away.

I don't think this kind of adversity will bring out the best in life, though.  The need to develop technology to fight off or conquer that next city state, or to put food on the table, might.  And interestingly, in most of history, Rand's ideas would have been largely a "no duh!" to the power class.