For Ayn Rand fans, there likely are a few here, the following might be interesting

Status
Not open for further replies.
RaggedClaws:

I guess that first there's gotta be an agreement about the basic definition of "reality".

"This may be true, though other philosophers have hypothesized that there's no way to even know whether objective reality exists since we are trapped in subjectively perceiving bodies."

Stand in front of a gun muzzle when somebody pulls trigger. That'll do for "objective reality". It's not just understandable, its results are predictable. And the tummy-ache is not at all subjective.

:), Art
 
This may be true, though other philosophers have hypothesized that there's no way to even know whether objective reality exists since we are trapped in subjectively perceiving bodies. How does Ms. Rand answer this challenge? She doesn't. I guess we have to take it on faith (oh wait, she doesn't have any of that since it's not rational).
Click to expand...
I believe it was Philip K. Dick who said something to the effect of "reality is that which continues to exist regardless of whether or not you believe it." After all, I think that if a tiger is gnawing on my thigh one can objectively state that there is, indeed, a tiger gnawing on my thigh and perhaps I should do something about it. Heck, you could probably even get a consensus from a group that being eaten by a tiger is a genuinely bad thing. As for those philosophers who hypothesize that objective reality can't be known, I have come to the general conclusion that they're too busy splitting philosophical hairs to offer something actually useful in one's everyday life.

Why exactly? Why is the pursuit of his own rational self-interest morally better than balancing the pursuit of rational self-interest with the interest of others?
Click to expand...
Because there is fundamentally no need to "balance" one's own rational interest with that of others. Pursuing your own rational self-interest allows others to pursue their own lives rather than being forced to help you or being exploited by you.
If you were late for a very important meeting and you saw a old woman with a cane fall into the street, would you stop and help her up, help her home even? Even if it made you miss your meeting? Where's the rational self-interest in helping the old lady? Which action do you think is more "moral" (stepping over her or helping her)? Something doesn't jive here.
Click to expand...
Evidently you've not read "The Virtue of Selfishness." In that book Rand offers a better theoretical scenario and solution. Her scenario involves sacrificing one's life for a loved one. If you would not want to live in a world devoid of that loved one, if letting them die would cause you no end of grief, then sacrificing yourself for their life is not philosophically inconsistent with Objectivism. Likewise, if old ladies falling down in the street causes you to be unhappy then there is nothing wrong with helping them up, even if it means you are late to your meeting.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism...
Click to expand...
Hunh? Where does this come from? How the heck does this follow from accepting an objective reality? How does rational self-interest being the highest moral purpose of life follow from accepting an objective reality? They don't. Nothing is ever tied together. For someone that deifies reason, she's sorely lacking in formal logic.
Click to expand...
yes, actually, they do. Rand claimed to have derived some of this from the natural world. A form of life will generally act to preserve its continued existence*. In other words, animals will act in their own self-interest. Man, being one form of life will do likewise. However, since humans possess the ability to think rationally they should also recognize that other humans have just as much right to exist as they do and that it is in their rational self-interest to allow others to continue to exist.
Rand's observations about laissez-faire capitalism derive from this mindset. It was her belief that laissez-faire capitalism was the one system that allows humans to live a life of rational self-interest. After all, in a laissez-fair system one is free to engage or refrain from interacting in any given transaction. Capitalism is founded on the principle that two parties can enter into a deal and both will come out better off. Personally, I think she's right, and it boggles my mind that there are people who don't see this as being blatantly self-evident.


*Rand claimed all animals. Not being a naturalist, I don't think she was aware of say, the mating habits of the Praying Mantis. For the sake of argument, allow us to limit the statement to mammals.

Accusations of being a Randroid in 5...4...3..
 
Last edited:
However, since humans possess the ability to think rationally they should also recognize that other humans have just as much right to exist as they do and that it is in their rational self-interest to allow others to continue to exist.
Click to expand...
That's all fine and good - assuming that those other humans think the same way.

How does Rand reconcile that with reality? Does a murderer have as much right to live as one who doesn't? Based on the philosophy espoused above it seems Rand would/must believe that even locking up the murderer to remove the threat would be wrong.

I'm no philosopher so some please reconcile the seeming conflict noted above.
 
The people who think Atlas Shrugged was too long probably think the same of Unintended Consequences.
Click to expand...
What point, exactly, were you trying to make?
I happen to think they were both lousy novels. No, let me rephrase that. I happen to think they were both political polemics wrapped in lousy novels. While I may have agreed with a few of the political-philosophical points along the way, that doesn't change my assessment of either work as a novel.
 
I did like the bunnies. Rand saw the thuggery masked as Soviet goverment up close and personal; of course she didn't have a high opinion of patriotic ideas identified with government.

I discovered Rand when I was a freshman in college. When my mother learned I had joined a discussion group of Rand's philosophy, she thought I was going communist because all she knew about Rand was that she was a Russian (this was in 1966, dead center of the Cold War).

Point is, mom didn't have enough facts--just 1 she didn't like. I think many opponents of "Objectivism" are disturbed by 1 particular fact---the realization on some level that objectivism's idea of rational self-interest and patriotism are mutually exclusive.

Think about it: a president says we must initiate a war. The president's wishes define what is patriotism. Patriotic young men go into combat for patriotic ideals. We were patriotically serving our country, the whole world even, when we went to Iraq and destroyed those huge WMD stockpiles.

In 1939, the chancellor of the Third Reich sent Germany's patriotic young men off to war. Imagine the world today if all the young Wermacht troops had said "well, I think I'll stay home with my woman and not worry about Czechoslovakia".

Albert Einstein, generally conceded to be a pretty smart fellow, got out of Germany when the getting was good. He wore a button that displayed "2%". This came from someone's estimate that if just 2% of patriotic young men refused to fight, there would be no more war.

Concerning offense and defense on a personal level, the recognized idea in many US states is that self-defense is accepted, you can even get a concealed weapons permit to enhance this ability. Offense is bad, you can't attack, all forms of attack are illegal. Objectively, this should work on an international level too.

This is just my opinion based on what I consider to be rational self-interest; I realize that 99%+ of US citizens disagree with my opinion and hold antithetical opinions of their own. I think this is the greatest country to live in; I can state my opinion without being dragged off to a concentration camp.

I submit that we must distinguish that defenders are righteous, attackers are probably not. That quote "If you can read this in English, thank a soldier" is definitely true when the alternative would have been German or Russian. But there was never a possibility that the other language would have been Vietnamese or Farsi.

Another famous quote "molon labe", dear to many on this forum, is also related to the situation of a righteous defense against an evil attack.
 
Last edited:
"Where's the self interest in helping an old lady?"-The highest form of compensation:that which I give myself.
"You will have everything society can give a man........... And I-I will take what nobody can give a man,except himself.I will have built Cortlandt."
Howard Roark to Peter Keating in 'The Fountainhead'
 
rational self-interest and patriotism are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Any Rand was a pretty big fan of the US, but for rational reasons. So am I.
The president's wishes define what is patriotism.
Click to expand...
If that's how you define patriotism, than sure, it doesn't work. But rational self-interest doesn't proscribe a healthy respect for the principles on which a country was founded, and a willingness to protect them, and the country.
 
Not necessarily. Any Rand was a pretty big fan of the US, but for rational reasons. So am I.
Click to expand...

Love is not rational and niether is loyalty nor patriotism. Here is a quote from a writer I respect multitudes more than Ms. Rand.

Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing -- say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her. - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
 
Here's the abridged version which to my failing memory covers the whole thing in about 2 pages (and could be edited down further except for retaining a bunch of Ayn's wordy descriptions). Enjoy! ;)

Abridged Atlas Shrugged
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

roo_ster
  • Locked
Libertarian Party=Ideological Chum Bucket of Two-Party System
2 3
Replies
55
Views
1K
Don Gwinn
D
F
  • Locked
Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gun Fight
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
zastros
Z
W
  • Locked
John Hospers endorses Bush
Replies
5
Views
467
wasrjoe
W
D
  • Locked
Libertarians staging a political invasion
Replies
0
Views
603
Drizzt
D
A
  • Locked
seen at Reason.com (Reason magazine), the following might interest some
Replies
13
Views
1K
Tyrannosaurus
T
Back
Top