Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[Edwardo Piet]

Objectivism is horseshit.

The scientific evidence supports empathy and altruism. Only 1 in a 100 of people are psychopathic.

[robvalue]

I agree, the only people who I can imagine needing such strict guidance are people who don't have empathy. For everyone else, it's often over-thinking it.

Whether morality is even at stake for someone with no empathy is up for debate. I'd prefer to call such a person amoral.

[abaris]

I agree, the only people who I can imagine needing such strict guidance are people who don't have empathy.

Ayn Rand's so called philosophy is social Darwinism in a nutshell. If you're strong enough, take it, and damn the rest. Let them rot in the streets.

Granted, she was very young and fresh in from Russia, but in the 20ies, she stopped just short of open admiration for William Hickman, who was a child killer. A real man, that's what she called him. Just because he took what he wanted.

[robvalue]

It's sounding more and more like she was without empathy then.

[bennyboy]

It's sounding more and more like she was without empathy then.

I think that's too simple.  She took the philosophical position that empathy is a weakness of character, that decisions should be made purely rationally and without regard to human emotion.  Specifically, she felt that capable people should maximize their capability in following their own great ambitions, without regard to those who might depend on her or be less capable.

It's basically a capitalist view on Machiavelli, I think.  And I wouldn't argue that she's necessarily wrong in this sense.  I just think that obviously many rich and powerful people in the US base their opinions and behaviors on her work, and that the result DOESN'T WORK out well, for them or for the nation.

[abaris]

I think that's too simple.  She took the philosophical position that empathy is a weakness of character, that decisions should be made purely rationally and without regard to human emotion.  Specifically, she felt that capable people should maximize their capability in following their own great ambitions, without regard to those who might depend on her or be less capable.

All well and good, but I think you're aware she was calling objectivism a closed philosophy. Meaning, it's not open for debate. Of course I can subscribe to reason being my guide. I try to do that every day in my decision making. Following ones ambitions, fine by me. However personal freedom ends where others get hurt and I cannot subscribe to disregarding others, just because they seem to be less capable. By who's standards anyway? It would be a sociopaths world when everyone would subscribe to Rand's whole package. And that's what a closed philosophy means. Take it or leave it, but don't change it.

[chimp3]

I think she was sexually frustrated. All the imagery of skyscapers, hero figures, and trains going through tunnels. She was also addicted to amphetamines which are known to reduce empathy.
I do appreciate her stance on atheism and her going on T.V. in the "70s and calling believers irrational and insane.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rand skipped important steps, like a theory of universals to ground her notions about human nature. For example, she claims that the essential nature of Man is his rationality. What is the metaphysical status of an essense? She doesn't say. That is just one example.

She gives libertarians a bad name because libertarianism is a legal theory based on the fundamental principle that everyone owns their life. It has nothing to do with 'me first'.

[abaris]

She gives libertarians a bad name because libertarianism is a legal theory based on the fundamental principle that everyone owns their life. It has nothing to do with 'me first'.

Far as I know, Rand never claimed to speak for libertarians.

[Mister Agenda]

I recently discoved Ayn Rand and learned about her philosphical views. I found it extremely interesting. The idea that "altruism is immoral" completel goes against all my previous ideas and intuitions, and therefore is quite an uncomfortable idea to entertain, but when I pushed through and read more about what she meant by it, it makes a lot of sense to me. To put it in my own words, she argues that people should not sacrifice themselves for other people if it does not fit with their own needs, because it is equal to suicide. If you help someone, do it because you have a need to do so, not because you think you should do that because you want to be a good person. You are responsible for your own life, and your own happiness. This sounds very healthy to me. I want people around me to live like this, I want my loved ones taking good care of themselves. Most people also have a need to take care of the people around them and to connect with them,  so I don't think that this philosophy leads to people to live self centred lives. It is very counter-intuitive, but it makes sense to me.

What do you think? Do I describe her philosophy well? Is there a flaw in this reasoning? Has this philosophy impacted your ideas as well?

An important thing to remember about Objectivism is that she, as philosophers are wont to do, is using some words in a non-standard way. It's okay, because she's explicit about what she means, but it makes her extremely easy to take out of context. Even in context she has some problems.

By 'altruism' she means helping others in a self-sacrificing way in return for nothing, even the satisfaction of helping others. That's not too far off from the dictionary definition of 'disinterested or selfless concern for the well-being of others'. Naturally she's not going to think much of anything that smacks of abnegation of self. She's talking about a kind of false charity motivated by guilt and/or shame rather than genuinely wanting to do it. Think of Rearden in Atlas Shrugged writing checks for charities that don't want to be associated with him because he's an 'evil industrialist' because it's 'what he is supposed to do'. If he were donating to a cause he believed in because he wanted to further its agenda or live in a world where that charity is well-supported, he would not have been committing a 'Randian sin'.  

By 'selfishness' she means 'enlightened self interest', which is particularly confusing because selfishness ordinarily means helping yourself without regard to others and enlightened self interest in realizing that you can help yourself by helping others.

You seem to understand her pretty well. Her key error was not exactly her fault, since the research had not yet been done, but it turns out that we have innate drives to compassion, empathy, and even self-sacrifice that aren't easily resolved as merely weaknesses that make us susceptible to 'the looters'. Even guilt and shame are part of our heritage as a social species and they played a role in our survival to this point. To at least some degree, the ideal Randian hero was a sociopath.