Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[Thumpalumpacus]

My views about Objectivism aren't related to my views on a fulfilling life.

I would enjoy a clarification on your views of objectivism.

Feel free to reread my first post in this thread, then.

[Silver]

I would enjoy a clarification on your views of objectivism.

Feel free to reread my first post in this thread, then.

Thank you for making it easy for me. Oh, crap, I'm being too subjective.

[Silver]

This one?

I don't think it comports with reality very well, that out altruism has evolutionary antecedents. Furthermore the idea that it equates to "suicide" is a fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Feel free to reread my first post in this thread, then.

Thank you for making it easy for me. Oh, crap, I'm being too subjective.

I bet that sounded witty ... before you pressed send.

[Silver]

I bet that sounded witty ... before you pressed send.

Even afterwards it was.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now that's funny!

[bennyboy]

My views about Objectivism aren't related to my views on a fulfilling life. That's another assumption you might want to drop.

How could they not be? I'm sincerely curious, since Objectivism is a world view, i.e. it is about how people should live their lives.

I agreed with your original evolutionary point, and about how Rand's views aren't in accord with reality. The particular reality that I feel they are not in accord with is that I think fulfillment and satisfaction isn't a zero-sum game: it's not necessary to take from others in order to fully enjoy, and in fact social interactions are a big part of fully living life as a human being. In fact, I'd almost say that an unwillingness to interact positively with others would represent a partial suicide-- of that which is most human in oneself, since we are a social species.

Maybe you could elaborate more on your original point? I honestly thought we'd be in agreement on the OP.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My views about Objectivism aren't related to my views on a fulfilling life. That's another assumption you might want to drop.

How could they not be?  I'm sincerely curious, since Objectivism is a world view, i.e. it is about how people should live their lives.

That's a fair criticism.

I think that personal fulfillment is not necessarily tied to this or that philosophical doctrine, but rather, the events inside one's life which inspire that sort of feeling. So while Objectivism is indeed a worldview, because of its deep concern with economics and justice (and injustice) it seems to me less about achieving personal self-fulfillment than about presenting and justifying Rand's ideas on society at large. She indeed appeals to fulfillment as an engine for achieving a prosperous society, but assumes (I think) that material reward is fulfilling.

Having run the gamut from upper-middle class to desperately poor in my own life, I don't have the same attachment running between material comfort and self-fulfillment. Like you, I found some pretty happy times even in my poverty. Where I disagree is your idea that fulfillment is generally the same for all. As SQ said, comfort cetainly aids in finding fulfillment (shades of Maslow's Hierarchy here), but it in no way ensures it. And to answer your reply to her (and presumably to me as well), I certainly think the approach to fulfillment in life is ultimately subjective -- that my solution may not work for you, or that Ayn's may not work for many others. We're all free to offer opinions on the matter precisely because it is subjective.

I agreed with your original evolutionary point, and about how Rand's views aren't in accord with reality.  The particular reality that I feel they are not in accord with is that I think fulfillment and satisfaction isn't a zero-sum game: it's not necessary to take from others in order to fully enjoy, and in fact social interactions are a big part of fully living life as a human being.  In fact, I'd almost say that an unwillingness to interact positively with others would represent a partial suicide-- of that which is most human in oneself, since we are a social species.

That too is a fair criticism, this time of her position. And we're certainly in agreement on this point that you've laid out so clearly.

Maybe you could elaborate more on your original point?  I honestly thought we'd be in agreement on the OP.

My original point regarding evolutionary antecedents is a nod to evolutionary psychology -- because we evolved in a dangerous environment that involved teamwork and altruism, individuals who weren't suchlike were less likely to engage in personal relations which could aid their own survival in difficult times ... meaning that such attitudes would be selected against. In a phrase, it doesn't take into account human nature (ironically enough, the same criticism I have of the communism that Rand completely detested).

[Pat Mustard]

How do you strawman "fuck you, I've got mine", then? I'd like to know.

That IS a strawman.

So her philosophy as is demonstrated by both her fiction and her way of life is a strawman of her philosophy? Again, how do you strawman "fuck you, I got mine"?

You cannot make Rand's ideas more simplistic than she made them herself.

[abaris]

it's not necessary to take from others in order to fully enjoy, and in fact social interactions are a big part of fully living life as a human being.

I never thought I would rush to Rand's defense at some time. But that's not what she said. It's not take from others, it's don't bother with the welbeing of others. Which isn't that much better in my opinion, but yet, a crucial difference. It's not actively making other lives miserable, it's just that you shouldn't care if others are miserable.

It doesn't, and it shouldn't work, since we are a social species, and I for one take enjoyment in helping others. With whatever little I can contribute. The absence of empathy, as Rand seems to strive for, provides for a very empty and purely materialistic existence.