Ayn Rand: The way everybody feels, except more consciously. I feel that it is terrible, that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until, and unless, all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected. It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality.

Rand is entirely correct here.

You have offered no counter argument to her point (if indeed you get her point).

Ayn Rand: I object to the idea that the people have the right to vote on everything.

Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. Democracy gave America and the world Donald Trump.

What exactly are you trying to criticize? Are you merely wheeling out the usual cry from the herd that Democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and any criticism of socialism necessitates social cruelty or gas chambers and such.

WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? I hear only the usual grunting of from the herd!

Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. Nietzsche has said the same thing over and over again..... Are you suggesting that she has some secret sinister cruel intent for humanity?

Rand is calling for independence and subsequently FREEDOM, as opposed to the continued manufacture of social dependence and personal paralysis.
M

Ayn Rand: I object to the idea that the people have the right to vote on everything.

Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. Democracy gave America and the world Donald Trump. — Marcus de Brun

That was not Ayn Rand's point in her interview with Mike Wallace.

He pointed out to her that people voted for progressive socialist ideals and she objects to that. Voting for Trump is the complete reverse of that trend.

As far as I am aware there was no way to prevent people for voting for Trump. If people should be allowed to vote there is no limit to what they should be allowed to vote on. Political parties tend to outline their policies in a manifesto and you vote for a package.

If you oppose a political parties ideals and conduct you have the chance to vote them out next election.

In the same interview Ayn said: "The whole people elects. There is nothing wrong with the democratic process in politics

There is no alternative to democracy she just wants to prevent people from using it when the will of the people goes against her selfish desires and dogmas even if that means she frustrates the will of the majority. Indeed that is extremely selfish.

A political decision is always going to upset someone or negatively effect someone and that is unavoidable it is not cause for military intervention.

I feel that it is terrible, that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until, and unless, all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected. It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality.

Rand is entirely correct here. — Marcus de Brun

Based on what evidence? What was she referring to?

How does she know that reversing and rejecting welfare state conceptions would prevent whatever disaster she was referring to.

The countries with the most comprehensive welfare states are among the most wealthy in the world.

I pointed out early on in the thread how Stephen Hawking was kept alive by the NHS but some Americans believed that he was treated in America and would have been left to die by our welfare state. That is typical of the level of debate I see in America.

unless, all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected. It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality. — Marcus de Brun

Rand is entirely correct here. — Marcus de Brun

The counter-argument is every advanced social democratic welfare state. Is Denmark a disaster? Is Norway a disaster? Seeing as they are richer with higher indicators in life quality on just about every measure than the much more Randian U.S., I would say not only is she wrong, but she's wildly, hopelessly, wrong.

So, Altruism: 1, Social Darwinism: 0

Anyway, I suggest you Google some information on the advanced welfare states as you seem to be completely unaware not only of their wealth, and high quality of life, but of their very existence (absent any other explanation for your support of Rand's obviously absurd claim above).

Is this a discussion of Rand or Social welfare states? I happen to live in one and am very fond of socialism. Rand's criticism of socialism runs a little deeper and is deserving of a little thought.

She is on the one hand being accused of not being an "official" philosopher and in the same breath being accused of being a Political Philosopher which she is certainly not.

Rand is respect worthy because she offers philosophical guidance in the interaction between the individual and society, not inverse, vis the role of society in regulating the individual and cultivating his/her dependence upon the state.

She points to the failure of socialism to foster intellectual independence and personal freedom. Freedom in the truly American or Thoreauian sense is her objective, not the end of socialism. She is perfectly correct to call for the revision of socialism when it impinges upon freedom of the Howard Roark variety.

The new socialism and collectivism is the internet, fashion, fad and collective thought EG the usual Rand bashing that goes on among all the official philosophers.

M

WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? I hear only the usual grunting of from the herd! — Marcus de Brun

I did an extensive criticism here of her claim that "The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action"

I find Ayn Rand makes a lot of false claims in her work or claims she does not support or that are easily questioned.

For example in "The Virtue Ethics" she says:

"The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action"

For a start this, is causally implausible it is unlikely that what is good for us and what is pleasurable would be the same thing because that would be bizarre coincidence.
We know this isn't the case, because of cases of addiction and obesity and excess leading to ill health which are pleasure seeking activities.

There are lots of actions that are good for us that are not pleasurable.It is rather displeasure that causes us to improve our condition pleasure can lead to complacency and sloth or obesity. Painful physical exertion or surgeries can lead to improved health.

People who don't experience any pain are in more physical danger than people who don't experience pleasure as is recorded in cases of people with congenital pain defect. So it is pain avoidance rather than pleasure seeking that aids survival and flourishing.

"CIP is an extremely dangerous condition.[1] It is common for people with the condition to die in childhood due to injuries or illnesses going unnoticed"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

Then there are Depressive Realism findings where depressed people on average make more realistic judgements than happy people. — Andrew4Handel

Is this a discussion of Rand or Social welfare states? — Marcus de Brun

Well, it's a conversation about the worth about her ideas, I suppose. And I'm restricting myself here to criticizing this one. Anyway, your response above is much more qualified than she's "entirely correct".

She points to the failure of socialism to foster intellectual independence and personal freedom. Freedom in the truly American or Thoreauian sense is her objective, not the end of socialism. She is perfectly correct to call for the revision of socialism when it impinges upon freedom of the Howard Roark variety. — Marcus de Brun

And that's much more qualified than what she said. I can only go on the quote given.

I happen to live in one and am very fond of socialism. — Marcus de Brun

Sounds good to me but I suspect Rand is doing somersaults in her... tomb? :)

"The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action" — Andrew4Handel

In a general sense she is entirely true and this is the cornerstone of Epicurean philosophy.

M

And that's much more qualified than what she said. I can only go on the quote given. — Baden

If one reads the Fountainhead, Rand's notional construct of what freedom means is typified in the persona of the protagonist (Roark) Who lives for pleasure in the intellectual or deeper Epicurean sense.

This is the type of approach that validates much of Thoreau's thought, and much of Nietzsche's thought.

M

In a general sense she is entirely true and this is the cornerstone of Epicurean philosophy. — Marcus de Brun

That is just a bald statement. I gave evidence why she is not true.

What is your counter argument or counter evidence.

Here is another dubious statement from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness"

She says"An organisms life depends on two factors: The material or fuel which it needs from the outside,and the action of it's own body, the action of using that fuel properly"

What she fails to mention is that humans equally rely on cooperation and depend on others. At the very least for the first 7+ years of childhood and I doubt many children around this age could survive unaided without learning some survival techniques from the humans. Humans need to learn how to talk, how to hunt and make a shelter. They don't just come out of the womb fending for themselves.

Parents cannot just be selfish and focus on their own survival if they want their genes to be carried on to another generation. Self sacrifice to some extent is written into the human mode of survival.

There are many different ways that organisms survive not just one mode of survival and some organisms die soon after reproduction or eat their mate, other species are highly cooperative. There are parasitic relationships and symbiotic relationships. Nevertheless following any one model like a law is making the Naturalistic Fallacy. If you use nature to justify a course of action you can justify anything because everything happens in nature.

I would be pretty concerned, however, if he were suddenly in charge of the Fed and felt inspired to make decisions about monetary policy based on his exclusive dedication to Pirsig's philosophy. — John Doe

More concerned than you are about the people who currently make such decisions? :fear: :smile: :wink:

:razz:

I'm just alluding to the influence Rand has had on certain people who have run the Fed. Just look what happened when the last Rand-inspired Fed chair took over (worst financial collapse since the Great Depression) versus, say, Janet Yellen, who was inspired by a serious thinker like Keynes. I mean, we can debate the relative merits of Keynes in the context of a conversation about great economic thinkers, but even if you disagree with him you ought to recognize that someone can manage things competently and intelligently if they're engaging with his thought. Things get pretty scary pretty fast if someone is making decisions on economic policy based on a lifetime spent engaging with e.g. L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy.

I've not read Rand, but if this quotation is a representative example of the kind of thing she takes as given:

An organisms life depends on two factors: The material or fuel which it needs from the outside,and the action of it's own body, the action of using that fuel properly

then she is no philosopher. A philosopher would examine the assumptions that lie behind this kind of remark, including, but not limited to, what "life" and specifically "human life" actually is. A philosopher would not just assume that it is true. Perhaps in the work you quoted she goes on to unpack the premise (rather than its consequences)? If not, she appears to have in mind a definition of life as "automotive energy consumption with self-replication" but even if that is a definition it's the kind of limited definition that makes sense only when you are trying to research into the strictly biochemical/biophysical (i.e. not philosophical) question "How might life on Earth have begun?" not when you are trying to answer the question "How should a human being live?"

Rand is entirely correct here. — Marcus de Brun

Oh, my mistake. Everyone who doesn't entirely agree with her on that one is obviously mistaken.

Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. — Marcus de Brun

Unlike Rand, in the eyes of her disciple. :starstruck:

WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? — Marcus de Brun

Sorry, can you speak up a little? I didn't quite catch that.

[

quote="S;210179"]Rand is entirely correct here. — Marcus de Brun


Oh, my mistake. Everyone who doesn't entirely agree with her on that one is obviously mistaken.

Rand is completely correct here. Democracy is not perfect. — Marcus de Brun


Unlike Rand, in the eyes of her disciple. :starstruck:

WHERE OR WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM? — Marcus de Brun


Sorry, can you speak up a little? I didn't quite catch that.[/quote]


S

What exactly are you trying to say with all of this 'poo poo'

Have you a point to make .....or are you working out some issues?


Would be great to know where all the anti-Rand sentiment is REALLY coming from?? I notice that the latest erudite critique of her work comes from a philosopher who has never even read Rand, but is wise enough to assume that she is no philosopher ??????

Are we here for philosophy or therapy or Kindergarten?

M

I think the issue here has extended beyond any anti-Rand sentiment. The issue has morphed into the more general issue of fanaticism, with you as the unwitting proponent.

I suppose the most important contribution that Rand has made to contemporary Philosophy is her assertion of the supremacy of independent thought. What she means by independent thought is the private capacity to evaluate social externals in as independent a manner as possible, ie outside of the collective thinking of ones relevant social groupings.

An extension of Rand's thinking would lead to a rejection of fashion and fad, a rejection of the collective thought that is promulgated via social media and the internet, and a move towards a more independent intellectual social and cultural self reliance.

I suspect that the catastrophic end point of 'collectivization' that Rand warned of is certainly upon us in that Capitalism is 'collective' in its function and the dissemination of material 'branded' products, its dependence upon 'fashion' and other collective-thought modalities. Self reliance and intellectual independence is the antithesis of Capitalism and indeed Capitalism is the primary evil that confronts both the individual, and the species.

I doubt if Rand is considered as an architect and yet her philosophy has had a profound and lasting affect upon architecture, not many philosophers can claim as extensive an influence upon another field of human endeavor.

Whether one likes it or not 'objectivism' (old or new) is a Philosophy in its own right, and Rand may be found at it's contemporary 'fountainhead'. It is not surprising that the collective view here should be anti-Rand, and it is perhaps equally unsurprising that Rand's views are in essence anti-collective.

I love her... and when I go to heaven, if the Muslims are right and polygamy is the moral order of the day.... then I will ask her to be one of my many wives.

XXX to Ayn.

She was wrong about pleasure equaling right course of action and you have failed to refute my criticism of her nor attempted to do so.

If pleasure equalled right course of actions that would validate any action as long as any pleasure was involved.

See Laughing at Auschwitz for pictures of happy Nazis. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/laughing-at-auschwitz-1942/

Take into consideration that Ayn said, "The achievements of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose."

So not helping others, being nice,caring for the sick, dying and needy or caring for ones own children then.

One may dislike her opinions, but to say she was not a philosopher makes little sense. After all, are her views really any worse than the gibberish from the likes of Kant, Marx, and others who we can now do without and not miss a beat?

After all, are her views really any worse than the gibberish from the likes of Kant, Marx, — LD Saunders

Do you really think Kant and Marx predominantly wrote "gibberish"?

Take into consideration that Ayn said, "The achievements of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose."

As with most philosophical assertions this is one that you actually agree with yourself. Your apparent disagreement arises out of your apparent interpretation of the assertion.

If we take the view that ones own happiness is entirely dependent upon ones own degree of self understanding ... in Philosophical parlance knowing oneself is the primary motive for an intellectual and even an intelligently led life.

If you read the pamphlet 'The soul of man Under Socialism' by Oscar Wilde,

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

Here you will encounter the view (often referenced by Zizek) that : 'Charity degrades and demoralizes 'It is immoral to treat the ills caused by private property by private property itself'

https://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g

The sentiment and idea here is inherent to Rand's justified rejection of extreme Socialism.

Independence in the sense that Rand speaks of, is a pure essential independence that includes a rejection of dependence upon the accumulation of material wealth and superfluity as a means of self expression, success or self identity. Rand's protagonists place no real value upon the accumulation of private property; they are independent of it. Rand's genius is that she creates the uncompromising alternative of a celebration of the self, as a counter argument to the success that is associated with material wealth.

This rejection of the material, is far purer and more philosophically sound that the current notion that there is no moral consequence to the accumulation of personal wealth, and that one can then do 'good things' with ones wealth in spite of the evil that is con-sequenced by the generation of that private wealth.

Instead Rand offers the real wealth that arises out of an uncompromising worship of the self... this entails a rejection of wealth and the evil that it entails. A worship of the self in the Rand sense would rid the world of much of the medical (lifestyle) and psychological (depressive) pathologies that socialism must sustains and ultimately foster.

It is the worship of wealth as opposed to the self, that creates both the need and space for the type of socialism that Rand rightly criticizes. The biggest killers in the western world are lifestyle related diseases that are a consequence of depression and unhappiness, and a sense of failure; that are themselves a consequence of a deficiency of self knowledge and self love in the deeper philosophical and or intellectual sense. These feelings and destructive tendencies are the antithesis of self worship and self understanding as Rand depicts these ideals in her characters.

To assert that Rand is against the notion that society should provide wheel chairs for the handicapped and food for the starving... simply represents a fundamental misunderstanding of her work.

Independent people in the Rand sense are not necessarily wealthy (at the expense of others) but rather are independent of the mass psychogenic lure of wealth that most of us are enamored by.

Her's is an example of the type of Philosophy that Nietzsche pleads for... a philosophy of the future,..... it is before its time.

Hopefully she has met the master in the nether world and the two of them are making sweet love and lots of intelligent objectivist babies together.


M

As with most philosophical assertions this is one that you actually agree with yourself. — Marcus de Brun

How? I would prefer to have a sad life but see poverty end in my lifetime. I don't value my own happiness above all other moral concerns by any other stretch of the imagination.

I don't see the value you of happiness with no source or justification that could be induced by medication or recreational drugs.

I value equality as more moral than individual happiness. There is nothing wrong with individual happiness but I don't see it as a coherent measure for ethics.

In fact I think collective happiness is more mark of the moral.

Rand's genius is that she creates the uncompromising alternative of a celebration of the self, as a counter argument to the success that is associated with material wealth. — Marcus de Brun

Where is your evidence of this? The pursuit of wealth is based on self love.

Your are just giving propaganda for her over what she actually says and not quoting her or any of her own arguments.
Self worship is isolating when you have to live in societies and cooperate and rely on others and be concerned about their ethical treatment as well as your own. Caring about yourself and others is not mutually exclusive.

I see no natural reason for self love or justification for any teleological account of nature in which nature can guide our values or is benevolent towards us. She fails to justify going from "is to ought" coherently and just makes brief statements about it that we are just supposed to accept.

The fundamental feature of life is reproduction which is not selfish in terms of caring about oneself alone. You have to expend energy to create a new generation and rear young or you will just be the last human standing making life go extinct and lose any value. You have to be willing to endanger yourself for your vulnerable offspring or risk them dying prematurely.
Even if a parent has a child as a self indulgence (which maybe the majority case) they don't know what will happen and what they might have to sacrifice for the child to survive.
Self centeredness and excess self love is the anathema to healthy parenting.

Rand's genius is that she creates the uncompromising alternative of a celebration of the self, as a counter argument to the success that is associated with material wealth.
— Marcus de Brun

Where is your evidence of this? The pursuit of wealth is based on self love. — Andrew4Handel

I am assumng from this question that you have not read much Rand. Another poster here on this forum has offered an opinion on Rand and never read anything written by her!

If (as it seems) you are unfamiliar with her work then you might start with The Fountainhead. The protagonist Roark elucidates Rands notion of selfishness quite succinctly with the addition of many all too human personal flaws.

Roark in Rands portrayal is not a materialist and indeed has little interest in money or material wealth. His antagonists in the form of Touhey or Keating are devoted to material and populist 'wealth'.

You assert that the pursuit of wealth is based upon self love, this statement declares that you have missed Rands meaning entirely. Even outside of objectivism the pursuit of wealth is NOT based upon self love, it is based upon self loathing and an amelioration to that self loathing through a worship of wealth in that it can afford the creation of an alternative wealthy fashionable self.

The love of wealth is the veil of self loathing.. It is not self love which requires only; love and a self.... and perhaps a few modest philosophically valid possessions... nothing more.

I think you need to read Rand or at least read her more thoroughly.

M

The love of wealth is the veil of self loathing. — Marcus de Brun

If Ayn didn't love wealth why did she characterise people as looters and parasites if they tried to redistribute wealth from the wealthy?
She associates people having control over their wealth with person integrity.

Here is more from "The virtue of Selfishness"

"If a man who is passionately in love with his wife, spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a "sacrifice" for her sake, not his, and that it makes no difference to him personally whether she lives or dies."

"But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money saving the lives of ten other women, none of who meant anything to him-as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice."

There is lots that could be said about this and her pathology and chronic lack of empathy. But what is interesting is her absurd concern with the man spending his money exactly how he wants, even to the point of letting ten women die over one woman. In reality he could pay for cancer research that would aid his wife and others as opposed to the strawmen Rand likes to present.

She also claims later in this passage that the man is only keeping his wife alive because of his desire for her which is suggesting she has no intrinsic value and that she is at his mercy, if he fell out of love with her he could let her die. So essentially the mans ego and wealth is more important the objective suffering of anyone else. Frightening stuff.

Only a psychopath would think it a sacrifice to take excess money off a wealthy person to save many lives. She has gone from opposing the idea of dying for someone else ( a true sacrifice) to considering any loss of personal wealth as a sacrifice.

Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. — Marcus de Brun

Nope. Not at all. Thoreau wanted an empowered individual through the means of democratic rule. The idea that altruism was antithetical to progress would never have been accepted by an admirer of Hinduism and Bhouddism.

Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. — Marcus de Brun


"Nope. Not at all. Thoreau wanted an empowered individual through the means of democratic rule. The idea that altruism was antithetical to progress would never have been accepted by an admirer of Hinduism and Bhouddism."


OK lets examine the facts here and see if your 'nope' has any basis.

Firstly what is it that Rand has stated that Thoreau would or would not agree with:

RAND:

"It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality."


Now as we are speaking in General terms of Rand and Thoreau we should ascertain what is the sentiment or meaning behind Rand's words HERE.

Rand is talking about COMPLETE socialism and complete COLLECTIVISM , by this she means extreme socialism and NOT ALL socialist values or political socialist exigencies such as caring for the sick, clean water, policing education... none of these institutions can survive outside of some form of socialism where the majority are compelled to contribute towards the maintenance of the state and the welfare of all citizens.

Rand is talking about COMPLETE socialism. Nowhere in Rand's philosophy will you find her asserting the belief that handicapped people should be deprived of wheelchairs and the sick should be left to die in pain etc. In not denying this reality, Rand has LIMITED socialist leanings like any moral human being.

When socialism becomes extreme and provides for ALL of mans needs, man has little to do himself and little to live for himself, and as such has a very limited potential for self actualization and or the identity-construction that are essential to personal happiness and mental health.

Socialism in giving a man a fish, rather than teaching him how to fish.. dis-empowers and fosters individulal dependence which is the opposite to the self effective independence that is at the core of Rand's philosophy AND Thoreau's Philosophy. In this sense complete socialism results in near complete paralysis of the individual, which is akin to stating that Complete Socialism is completely destructive and is part of the reason that mega socialist projects often result in mega failures, and actually deprive the recipients of freedom.

NOW what does Thoreau say about freedom. Here is an example:

“I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of. Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?”

Here Thoreau is talking about enslavement to the Capitalist social system, yet the concept of slavery to the established system is complete in both ideologies (but for slightly different reasoning's). Complete capitalism and complete socialism effect the same form of individual paralysis and enslavement.

Both Rand and Thoreau's antidote to this enslavement or paralysis is INDEPENDENCE. Thoreau offers the beauty of nature and self reliance as the counter compensation to Capitalism (the alternative non money reward)

Rand offers the release of individual potential and the joy of self expression as her counter to both Capitalism and COMPLETE socialism. She identifies BOTH as the enemy, but her focus is upon the collective, as the immediate threat to the individual.

Both capitalism and socialism/collectivism have corrupted and destroyed the American Dream, because each in their own way have destroyed individual freedom.



M

If any one wants to read a thorough refutation of everything Rand said in her facile and risible essay "The Objectivist Ethics"

You can find one here:

http://www.owl232.net/papers/rand5.htm

It just depends on the answer to this question:

"Who is a philosopher?"