Objectivism (philosophy)

[Milk-Drops]

since there isn't a philosophy section, I would beckon a guess that this forum will hVe to suffice. I have been reading the essays of Ayn Rand as of late and find them really interesting when compared to other Atheist writings such as those by Karl Marx and Fredrik Nietche.

Ayn Rand takes the concept of selfishness d explains the difference between negative and positive selfishness and her own views against the concepts of altruism. At first glance Objectivism seems to share a lot of similarities with Nihilism, as in both reject mysticism. However nihilism is about establishing power above others and no defined authority. Objectivism is more centered around the integrity of human life and respect for the individual. It is very similar in the economic concept of capitalism but unlike capitalism everyone isn't defined by their economic worth, but are considered equals. One is only lesser then a man if one demands others sacrifice themselves purely for the benefit of the singular man or other people. The philosophy is based around the concept that the act of putting other people ahead of yourself issss wrong. unless the people have a direct value. Such as loved ones, family, friends, etc. The case is that no one should be forced or expected to work on behalf of others unless they choose to.


I'm not trying to convince anyone that this philosophy is right. I'm just wanting to know other people's thoughts about the philosophy.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Interesting. I like learning about philosophies.
I personally believe in loving others in the same manner I love myself, and esteeming others better than myself, as the Bible says. On the other hand, I do agree with the last sentence in the paragraph explaining the philosophy, since I highly value individual freedom and maybe the golden rule is involved there, too.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Interesting. I like learning about philosophies.
I personally believe in loving others in the same manner I love myself, and esteeming others better than myself, as the Bible says. On the other hand, I do agree with the last sentence in the paragraph explaining the philosophy, since I highly value individual freedom and maybe the golden rule is involved there, too.

From what I understand of Rand's writings, Rand is for helping other, but not sacrifice. When Rand is talking about sacrifice, she means giving up your value or something you value for lesser value. This would mean don't waste money helping others if there is no returned gratitude or value. Rand does point out that respect for others and treating them as equals is important, but there is no way for a person to not form a hierarchy and give privilege to others. So I don't think Rand's concepts would jive to well with Christianity that sees everyone equal in front of God no matter what. Its a fascinating read.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

One is only lesser then a man if one demands others sacrifice themselves purely for the benefit of the singular man or other people. The philosophy is based around the concept that the act of putting other people ahead of yourself issss wrong. unless the people have a direct value.

But this is what is so entirely wrong with fallen man. Perhaps it defines fallen man--only doing good when it benefits the one doing good...and using his own standard of what is beneficial to make that decision.

 

[Claudya]

Not too happy with a philosophy that almost condemns altruism.
Anyway, since that philosophy seems to be an antithesis to collectivist ideas I would guess many Americans would agree with her, regardless of religion.

 

[jeff77]

If someone only helps someone else if it benefits them in some way then it wouldn't be a selfless act. So I don't understand where Rand is coming from on being selfless.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Not too happy with a philosophy that almost condemns altruism.
Anyway, since that philosophy seems to be an antithesis to collectivist ideas I would guess many Americans would agree with her, regardless of religion.

its actually an outright refutation of altruism. Not to mention Rand is against relgion.

 

[agua.]

Hi Milk Drops,

Jesus taught to help and love people regardless of their status or value. Actually I think there was an onus upon helping those who couldn't reciprocate and He demonstrated this to the extreme on the Cross.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Not too happy with a philosophy that almost condemns altruism.

Man is so corrupt that even his altruism is selfishly motivated. IOW, there really is no such thing as true altruism in fallen man. Altruism has to have it's roots in faith in God for it to be a true altruism.

Anyway, since that philosophy seems to be an antithesis to collectivist ideas I would guess many Americans would agree with her, regardless of religion.

Well, Mitt Romney would say 47% of Americans would agree with her.

The political right in America does not understand that while her ideas are good, her greed is chiseling the ground out from under her.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If someone only helps someone else if it benefits them in some way then it wouldn't be a selfless act. So I don't understand where Rand is coming from on being selfless.

Just to clarify, If you mean 'if someone ONLY helps someone else BECAUSE it benefits them in some way then it wouldn't be a selfless act', then I'd agree.

We have to be careful, though. Self interest is not categorically ungodly. It's important to look after our own interests, as well as the interests of others:

"3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (Philippians 2:3 NASB)

How we do that, and why, is what determines whether our 'self interest' is ungodly or not. That is an examination that each one of us has to perform on ourselves every moment of every day.

Love for others is defined in the Bible as 'doing no harm to your neighbor' (Romans 13:10). It's important that we not become a burden to others by not taking care of ourselves as we should. That is one way how we obey the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself'. And, conversely, it's important that we not trample down and destroy our neighbor in the pursuit of our own legitimate self interests.

America, it seems, is (re)writing the book on how to do harm to others in the pursuit of personal interest, and how to become a burden to others, all at the same time, and in the long run, how to harm a society as a whole. And what we'll get as a result is a godless, 'altruistic' system of government imposed on us as a reward for that careless, godless indulgence of--and contempt for--our freedoms. God giveth, and he taketh away.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

its actually an outright refutation of altruism. Not to mention Rand is against relgion.

Apparently it's a philosophy of 'just leave me alone'.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi Milk Drops,

Jesus taught to help and love people regardless of their status or value. Actually I think there was an onus upon helping those who couldn't reciprocate and He demonstrated this to the extreme on the Cross.

From what I gathered from Rand's philosophy is that helping others is a good thing. Helping other's in itself isn't demonized. Rand takes the position that no one should feel direct obligation to "sacrifice" their life or skills for others unless they do so willingly. Rand's position is more about societal force on a person rather then a dogmatic statement that we shouldn't help others. Rand formed this philosophy when under the Soviet Union and saw what people can be manipulated to "help" others do. That is why Rand points out that it is why Rand despised Altruism when it functions.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Apparently it's a philosophy of 'just leave me alone'.

In many aspects yes, but its also a respect for those that wish to better themselves and for those that wish to not fall into parasitism. parasitism is where a person willfully allows themselves to live off of others grandeur, merit, or work.

The philosophy is more of a moral version of Capitalism.

 

[Mike S]

I've for a long time been interested in Rand's Objectivism. It started at least 50 years ago when I first read Atlas Shrugged. As difficult as it was for a 17 year old to read that tome, I really liked the emphasis on limited government and personal responsibility. Yes, even at the young age, I was drawn to conservative political ideas.

My problems with Objectivism have to do with

1. Rand's awful personality and private life.
2.. What I see as un-Christian attitude toward service and self-sacrifice.

As I've grown older and more strong in my faith I feel we are called to emulate Jesus' life of humility, service and sacrifice, so I really can't fully embrace Objectivism as a philosophy. But, I consider myself politically a classical liberal with strong libertarian. I know that's an awkward kind of label, but it's as close as I can get. So, there are obviously parts of Objectivism that still appeal to me, but not the emotional disconnect that Rand demonstrated.

 

[agua.]

From what I gathered from Rand's philosophy is that helping others is a good thing. Helping other's in itself isn't demonized. Rand takes the position that no one should feel direct obligation to "sacrifice" their life or skills for others unless they do so willingly. Rand's position is more about societal force on a person rather then a dogmatic statement that we shouldn't help others. Rand formed this philosophy when under the Soviet Union and saw what people can be manipulated to "help" others do. That is why Rand points out that it is why Rand despised Altruism when it functions.

Ah ok. I suppose the difference between Rand's philosophy and Jesus' teachings is that Jesus said that the onus is upon us to willingly be charitable. It should be our nature if we love God and neighbour. I understand why an atheist would adhere to Rand's philosophy though and many people follow it today ( without knowing Rand ).

 

[Hatuey]

I've for a long time been interested in Rand's Objectivism. It started at least 50 years ago when I first read Atlas Shrugged. As difficult as it was for a 17 year old to read that tome, I really liked the emphasis on limited government and personal responsibility. Yes, even at the young age, I was drawn to conservative political ideas.

My problems with Objectivism have to do with

1. Rand's awful personality and private life.
2.. What I see as un-Christian attitude toward service and self-sacrifice.

As I've grown older and more strong in my faith I feel we are called to emulate Jesus' life of humility, service and sacrifice, so I really can't fully embrace Objectivism as a philosophy. But, I consider myself politically a classical liberal with strong libertarian. I know that's an awkward kind of label, but it's as close as I can get. So, there are obviously parts of Objectivism that still appeal to me, but not the emotional disconnect that Rand demonstrated.

Why would you consider a person's private life and personality when attempting to determine whether the philosophy that they enjoyed has any merit? Also, I think Rand would agree with me that there is no ONE "Christian attitude toward service and self-sacrifice." The debates on Christian attitudes and self-sacrifice on this forum and in other Christian communities proves that. So, for some Christians, perhaps Objectivism does match their spirituality.

If you were pressed to do so, could you define god's behavior as following Objectivism?

 

[Mike S]

Why would you consider a person's private life and personality when attempting to determine whether the philosophy that they enjoyed has any merit? Also, I think Rand would agree with me that there is no ONE "Christian attitude toward service and self-sacrifice." The debates on Christian attitudes and self-sacrifice on this forum and in other Christian communities proves that. So, for some Christians, perhaps Objectivism does match their spirituality.

If you were pressed to do so, could you define god's behavior as following Objectivism?

No.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Why would you consider a person's private life and personality when attempting to determine whether the philosophy that they enjoyed has any merit? Also, I think Rand would agree with me that there is no ONE "Christian attitude toward service and self-sacrifice." The debates on Christian attitudes and self-sacrifice on this forum and in other Christian communities proves that. So, for some Christians, perhaps Objectivism does match their spirituality.

If you were pressed to do so, could you define god's behavior as following Objectivism?

Objectivism in itself rejects any spiritual or supernatural entity or existence. Rand considers religion of any kind a form of ignoring reality. She detested Christianity because it goes against her ideals of anti Altruism.

 

[Hatuey]

Objectivism in itself rejects any spiritual or supernatural entity or existence. Rand considers religion of any kind a form of ignoring reality. She detested Christianity because it goes against her ideals of anti Altruism.

I am not sure how that reply should affect my earlier ideas? Sorry

 

[Milk-Drops]

I am not sure how that reply should affect my earlier ideas? Sorry

God wouldn't follow Objectivist principles because objectivism completely rejects the concept of dieties, divine intervention, needing a messiah, etc. Objectivism is about the pursuit of a man or men an the "Objective" truth that life devoted to one's own improvement without sacrifice or compromise. Its basically against Jesus's teachings of devotion and giving up everything for god. Sacrifice is a big no no to objectivism unless its done for equal value.