Can some explain Ayn Rand's Objectivism simply?

Vivara

I've started reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I was under the impression that it was "just" a novel until a read up a bit about it.

The thing is, I can't get my head around any of the explanations of her philosophy of objectivism on the net. They all go right past me.

Would anyone care to give a very simple explanation of objectivism to me? The kind of explanation that say, I could use when explaining what the book is about to someone in a passing conversation? I know that's a big ask, but all I want is to sound like I actually have a clue!

V.

Sulla Felix

It's been a while, but what I took away from her writing was: Do what you want. Don't feel obliged by other people to do what they want you to.

Now, on the surface, it's just selfishness, but she never said, for example, giving to charity was a bad thing, just that making people feel guilty for not giving was bad. If giving money away makes you feel good, then do it. If it doesn't, then don't. Ditto for pretty much anything.

Vivara

Sulla Felix wrote: »

It's been a while, but what I took away from her writing was: Do what you want. Don't feel obliged by other people to do what they want you to.

Now, on the surface, it's just selfishness, but she never said, for example, giving to charity was a bad thing, just that making people feel guilty for not giving was bad. If giving money away makes you feel good, then do it. If it doesn't, then don't. Ditto for pretty much anything.

Well that is without doubt the simplest explanation I've gotten so far. Thanks. This describes what she meant in one fell swoop, and she kind of did so herself in this quote:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

But could you explain what is meant by the following, courtesy of Wikipedia, in the same way as if I was to explain it to someone else?

Objectivism's central tenets are that:

1. reality exists independent of consciousness
2. that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
3. that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

The first one, well I think I have that... Rand herself described it as this:

Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

Is this not what say, um, your typical scientist believes? This is not some way out there stuff in today's world is it? I mean I believe that reality exists independently of consciousness.

Again, the second point... that doesn't seem so strange. Human beings do have direct contact with reality through sense perception.

And the last point, that seems fairly standard to me, too, right? Science believes that we can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, right?

Or am I simplifying things too much?

Black Swan

Please see Ayn Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a comprehensive description of her philosophy, objectivism, as well as an interpretation of her novel Atlas Shrugged.

Rand explains her Objectivism in her first television interview from 1959, which can be seen below. She doesn't offer a comprehensive explanation, but it's quite a clear one, at least. An entertaining interview, too.

krd

Vivara wrote: »

The thing is, I can't get my head around any of the explanations of her philosophy of objectivism on the net. They all go right past me.

When it boils down to it, it's selfishness, and really nothing else. According to Rand, selfishness is good, because it is "rational", selflessness is bad, because it is "irrational".

Collectivism is bad, unless it's rich people getting together, to pool their power, wealth and influence.

In Rand's ideology, the wealthy are the oppressed. They carry the world on their shoulders. So, when Atlas Shrugs, the selfish (sorry, rational) wealthy people, vanish with their power and money to build a society of "rational" people, and the world, (at least the fantasy world of Rand's imagination), collapses.

It's hard to make sense of what Rand is about, because it's mostly nonsense. She was the kind of twisted old lady, who wanted you to chip in and pay for police to protect her, but she didn't want to throw a penny towards educating your children. Why would she?...That would be irrational....She didn't need schools, she just needed the police.

Rand is also soliphistic - a believer that reality only exists in the imagination of the subject. But she can also be peculiarly moralistic.

Followers of Rand tend to be deeply unpleasant people with no redeeming features.

An amusing twist is this American thing of Objectivist Christians - like Ron Paul. They believe the values of Chrisitianity (charity, all that kind of stuff) is to be applied selfishly, and not meant for external consumption - Christianity in one person.

Deeply unpleasant people, with absolutely no redeeming features.

None, whatsoeveah.

Vivara

Thanks guys, especially krd. That's exactly the kind of explanation I wanted... not a single other place — no encyclopaedia or philosophy site — actually got to the crux of what she was about: selfishness.

That's perfect!

Black Swan

Ayn Rand's perspective was a bit more complicated than mere selfishness. If you read other fictional works by Ayn Rand besides Atlas Shrugged, you will find that in addition to her valuing selfishness (i.e., the pursuit of self-interest), she also was a strong proponent of individualism (i.e., individual freedoms). This latter value of hers was exemplified in Anthem, a short fictional parody of about 100 pages.

Her notion of individualism was not without criticism. For example, both works suffer in varying degrees from a paternalistic world view. The Golden One in Anthem completely subordinated herself to the visionary male leader she called The Unconquered, while at the same time stereotypically being more interested in frivolous material things (e.g., jewelry, etc.). Further, it could be said that The Golden One traded her former collective master for The Unconquered master; i.e., complete self-interest and individualism was for males, not females in Anthem.

In marked contrast to The Golden One, the leading female character Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged exemplified strong self-interest and individualism for womankind, but fell short of equality with mankind, subordinating herself to visionary John Galt.

In summary, Ayn Rand's objectivism was more complex, with several attributes in addition to selfishness that could be discussed here.

A Primal Nut

Was she selfish in the evolutionary sense? I mean, I understand we evolved to be unselfish as long as it benefited us. Being generally unselfish helped us to make friends, have relationships, share food, etc which means that human beings evolved to be mostly unselfish to each other because it benefited the selfish genes.

For example, if someone was unselfish in the cave man days, and shared their food, then the people they shared with would share with them when they didn't have food. Whereas if someone was selfish and didn't share the food, they would starve when they didn't have any food themselves.

For a modern day example, I don't see Social Welfare as completely unselfish, because there is always a part of working, healthy people that themselves think they might need social welfare one day.

However, Ayn Rand's argument that she wouldn't pay before other people's education (despite the benefits for society as a whole, including her) suggests she purely thought of herself at that point in time, rather than how human beings actually evolved to be unselfish in other to benefit themselves (and their gene line).

Cannibal Ox

Vivara wrote:

Again, the second point... that doesn't seem so strange. Human beings do have direct contact with reality through sense perception.

It'd be more accurate to say that perception mediates contact with the world, or, even better, mediates what it's capable of perceiving, which isn't all that much. Which makes a mess of point 1 because it's contingent on point 2*.

Because if there is an objective reality then we'd have to provide a proof it exists, and if, following Rand, the only way to prove it was through perception, then that perception necessarily has to have direct contact with reality to prove its existence.

If it doesn't, then it can't. And it doesn't, so it can't. So point 1 would only conjecture, which'd make nonsense of the overall point she's trying to make, that we can know everything because we're great. It's hokum.

*Which is not a great way to make an argument in the first place.

Black Swan

krd wrote: »

In Rand's ideology, the wealthy are the oppressed. They carry the world on their shoulders. So, when Atlas Shrugs, the selfish (sorry, rational) wealthy people, vanish with their power and money to build a society of "rational" people, and the world, (at least the fantasy world of Rand's imagination), collapses.

There was a novel assumption in Rand's objectivism (e.g., in both Atlas Shrugged and Anthem) that the rational interests of the self-interested (i.e., selfish) would be harmonious if they were to "Shrug" and escape to a place isolated from all those that did not subscribe to their value system. In addition to the pursuit of self-interest, Rand also was a strong proponent of individualism as a value.

To what extent was there a potential for conflict between people holding these two values: two or more strong proponents of self-interest fighting over their individualistic claim for limited resources? The Enchanted Forest or Atlantis may not be harmonious enclaves of strongly self-interested, individualistic persons idealistically portrayed by Rand; rather they could be a war zone of conflict between strong willed competitors, especially when their individualistic visions varied and were in conflict.

Another related problem. In both Anthem and Atlas Shrugged there appeared to be some subordination between self-interested members (The Golden One to The Unconquered in Anthem, and Dagny Taggart to John Galt in Atlas Shrugged), which flies in the face of both values: the strong pursuit of self-interest and individualism.

There is another variation on this potential for conflict that makes Rand's objectivism problematic. Max Weber suggested the potential for conflict between instrumental rational (e.g., means-ends rationality, or the claimed objective rationality by Rand) and value rational (pursuit of self-interest and individualism) actions in Economy and Society. At times instrumental and value rational could be in harmony, at other times in conflict. This raises the question: Do the value driven ends always justify the instrumentally rational means?

Ingo23

Hi Vivara,

Adam Curtis' documentary 'All watched over by machines of loving grace' deals in part with Rand and the effects her ideas had on American society

krd

Ingo23 wrote: »

Adam Curtis' documentary 'All watched over by machines of loving grace' deals in part with Rand and the effects her ideas had on American society

I don't think Rand's ideas had much impact on American society. Her writings just gave mollycoddled selfish people an "intellectual" validation - "Look, someone has written a book.....I'm not selfish, twisted and nasty...I'm rational"

But the strange thing about Rand....And there's lots of funny things with Ayn....it the kind of mediocrity, who gains material comforts and success through their social class, and their "soft skills", is precisely the kind of mediocrity she despised.

In the Fountainhead - an interesting read - her hero is Roark. Whereas, the vast majority of comfortable middle-class people, and fans of Ayn, are Keatings.

It's hard to know how twisted Ayn was. Because Keating is your typical materially successful middle-class wanker. It's someone like Keating, who will and does, end up running university philosophy departments. Whereas the Roark is cast out. An outcast - a loser.

Roark is an individualistic stoic. A noble ascetic. But the reality of our world, is it's a world of ****. And the loudest voices you hear chanting "I am John Galt" are these selfish ****.

Rand wouldn't be taken seriously as a philosopher (and she really isn't) if it wasn't for her weird popularity.

krd

Black Swan wrote: »

In marked contrast to The Golden One, the leading female character Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged exemplified strong self-interest and individualism for womankind, but fell short of equality with mankind, subordinating herself to visionary John Galt.

You mean the way Ayn has Dagny raped?

You know something, it's possible that Ayn learned to have success in life, by stopping being a grumpy individualist and giving people what they want. If a powerful man, can give you something, by allowing yourself to be raped by them. Then if you're rational, you have to weigh these things up, dontcha.

Or how you should rationalise something if it happened, and helped your career.

Valmont

Black Swan wrote: »

This raises the question: Do the value driven ends always justify the instrumentally rational means?

Great post, Black Swan, this last point here is where I became stuck with objectivism. I believe Rand may have maintained that the value-driven ends themselves should be the product of rationality, but I'm not sure how that could work.

krd:
This is the Philosophy forum where high quality discussion is both required and demanded. If you're unable to post without continually referring to the followers of Rand as "deeply unpleasant people," for example, or without using such words as "****," then don't post at all. Your contributions are both welcome and insightful, but, please, less of the off-hand insulting remarks and low quality language. Thank you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The cogito. Are we trapped in a Cartesian Cinema, or does an external reality exist. Rand goes for nihilistic solipsism.

In her epistemology, Rand was just as unswerving: She argued that the only legitimate way to know what we know is through the exercise of reason,

And what if your reasoning is flawed. Or some kind of Cartesian demon trickery is at play.

Rand believed that only a society of free individuals pursuing their rational self-interest could be ethically consistent with her metaphysics and epistemology.

Rational self-interest would be paying taxes to provide government services; like police, prisons, armies. Rand isn't against any of that. She's happy for a little collectivism when it suits her.

Once we had purged religion, superstition, emotionalism, and other irrational falsehoods, she believed, the human mind could no longer be held subservient to the tribe, the king, the Church, or society.

She's very optimistic here. The reality is most people who replace superstitions with rational "science", just cover their old superstitions with a new veil. Like South American's superimposed catholic saints over the gods of their old religions - like in Santeria. All the old dreads and hopes are still there. The same promise of salvation and the same fear of an apocalypse brought on by the sins of man. When you hear anyone speak of science in tones of religious reverence - it is religion.

Rational individuals had a moral right to freedom

Rand, wonderfully flits from nihilistic solipsism to moralist. How can you have morality if you believe all society exists in the imagination of one person. Or is it like typically selfish people, you'd just like the morals that suit you.

— it was those who would force them to labor on behalf of others, steal their private property on behalf of "society," or otherwise deny them the ability to pursue their own rational self-interest who were behaving unethically.

John Kenneth Galbraith "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

Under western capitalism the confiscation is a little more mystified. But it's confiscation all the same. In capitalism your not as likely to be reward for your labour as your social class, social connections, and social skills (which aren't really skills in the hard sense - it's more about 'fitting in'). Sounds like some kind of socialism, don't it. It is a kind of socialism. But don't worry, under totalitarian communism - precisely the same cats would be getting the same cream.

Through ethics, Rand extended her commitment to objectivity and reason to an economic and political framework of free markets, private property, and limited government — although it's noteworthy that Rand refused to call herself a libertarian and remained at odds with many libertarians throughout her life.

"The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office." Ayn Rand.

You have to admit, that she had a point there.

She differed from figures like Rothbard in believing rationality to be a necessary prerequisite to freedom. In her view, one could not merely set an irrational, superstitious, emotionally-driven, and herd-oriented people free and hope that all would turn out well — without the philosophical underpinnings of objectivism and reason, she seemed to believe, loosing the chains of collectivism would result only in chaos, followed by the eventual restoration of some new authoritarian, collectivist, or theocratic tyranny.

Yes, the herd cannot be trusted with freedom.

This is partly why, in Atlas Shrugged, she deems only a small elite worthy of attaining true freedom.

And for the irrational, superstitious, emotionally-driven, herd, some new authoritarian, collectivist, or even theocratic tyranny (hey can't live without their old superstitions they must be given new ones), governed by the small elite worthy of attaining true freedom. Like Lenin's cadres. The inner party.

Rand's philosophy made her an ardent opponent of the self-sacrifice and self-abnegation that she saw at the root of both traditional religion and the modern welfare state.

She consistently argued that the left's "morality" was not morality at all, but rather a concerted effort to control others by destroying rationality (humankind's highest faculty) and replacing it with sentimentalism and collectivistic altruism.

This is where her real appeal is. She tells selfish people that there is something wholesome in their selfishness. The sneering fat sneak who's spent his life stuffing his face and feeling guilty about it, is suddenly redeemed - they weren't being "selfish" they were being "rational". And it's the people who aren't selfish are the bad people.

Looking at photos of people at demonstrations with the Ayn Rand slogans on T-shirts and placards, they always have that funny twisted nasty look on their faces. I'd get in trouble for posting them here - but they are ugly, aren't they.

Okay, that sounds like a gratuitous comment. But it's a notable fact.

To say that this has hardly endeared her to the political left would be the understatement of the century.

She doesn't endear herself to the right either. The American Republicans have seen themselves over run by the loonies. It's their own fault for courting them. And it's a very strange and long story. But you can't hope to govern if your party is riddled with racists, sociopaths, misanthropes and loons. How can you be Randian, when you have a powerful section of your base clamouring for an end to teaching evolution in schools. And it's not just evolution - these people believe physics is the work of the devil too - as it says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when the bible says it's just 9 thousand.

The Republicans blew the last election. They would have had it in the bag had it not been for the crazies. Latinos are mostly conservative and Catholic. All the Republicans had to do to win the election was not alienate them. The Republicans even lost the Florida Cuban vote - who are traditionally very right-wing.

Aesthetics also deserves notable mention as part of her philosophical system. For Rand, art was one of the highest expressions of an individual's free will, and so it occupies an important place in her writing.

that art should serve any collectivistic purpose — indeed, she saw notions of "public art" or "national literature" as travesties.

I agree with her there - the vast majority of works of public art are travesties.

Art did not exist to glorify the collective or the state, she maintained; it existed only as the expression of an individual artist's free mind.

What if the artist is a twee middle-class girl, who doesn't really know what she's at. She creates conceptual art with no concepts. She's unaware of her own ideology - she is unaware of her function though she performs the role beautifully. She is the ideology. There is no art.

"The myth of the strong black woman is the other side of the coin of the myth of the beautiful dumb blonde. The white man turned the white woman into a weak-minded, weak-bodied, delicate freak, a sex pot, and placed her on a pedestal; he turned the black woman into a strong self-reliant Amazon and deposited her in his kitchen..." Eldridge Cleaver.


She smiles; blankly, she is "nice", there is no anger, there is no meaning, she is an empty vessel waiting to be filled. She is the object. The weak-minded, weak-bodied, delicate freak.

Art is actually the highest expression of ideology. And most contemporary art is more a function than an expression of the dominant ideology. And the dominant ideology is wealthy middle-class people are worthy because they have some intrinsic higher value - so for the art to do its' function, it must be so devoid of meaning, it must bamboozle them for a moment - then their "higher value" kicks in and they project something. And it helps if a twee middle-class girl has produced the "work". It doesn't have to be a girl - but the twee genteelness must be there. This is a reason Irish art is nearly unexceptionally awful. Picasso had his Guernica, and throughout the troubles not a single Irish artist - bar the mural painters of the North - made single comment.

Ultimately, Rand's is a philosophical vision, but not a democratic one. She simply didn't see most people as being intellectually and philosophically prepared to embrace her worldview — and so it's remarkable that her books have had such enduring popular appeal.

You could say the same for Christianity. Ron Paul - who is a bible basher - named his son after her. She'd despise Paul on so many levels - it would be hilarious if she were alive to hear her spit.

Her enduring appeal is she tells selfish people it's okay to be selfish. She erases the cognitive dissonance of guilt. And they don't read anything past that. I found Rand's writing tough going - she's as clunky as a hippopotamus.

The Randian Christians are the most interesting case. They don't want to give up their churches, for cultural reasons, and that they want to live forever in outer space or wherever. But the Christian' values give them a crisis - they're selfish - they know this is definitely not an admirable trait in Christianity - it's what you go to hell for. They see a world around them that conflicts with their Christian "values" but they are the beneficiaries of this world and they can't bring themselves to even giving a little of it up - so much for Christian anti-materialism. So they're both al a carte from Christianity and Rand. It's good to pray to god and go to heaven - and it's fine to be selfish.

There isn't anything admirable in selfishness - there never is.

This is why they erect monuments to honour the unknown soldiers. And they don't erect ones to honour those who took 'personal responsibility and cared for their lives', by staying home and eating themselves into a wheelchair.

Black Swan

krd wrote: »

Looking at photos of people at demonstrations with the Ayn Rand slogans on T-shirts and placards, they always have that funny twisted nasty look on their faces. I'd get in trouble for posting them here - but they are ugly, aren't they.

Okay, that sounds like a gratuitous comment. But it's a notable fact.

MOD WARNING:
Please be advised that such sweeping derogatory comments as "they always have that funny twisted nasty look on their faces" and "they are ugly, aren't they" were trollish, and detracted from an otherwise well made argument, and will not be tolerated now or in the future. Given that you had recently received an in-thread warning above, and obviously ignored that mod instruction, you will be officially warned.

krd

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD WARNING:
Please be advised that such sweeping derogatory comments as "they always have that funny twisted nasty look on their faces" and "they are ugly, aren't they" were trollish, and detracted from an otherwise well made argument, and will not be tolerated now or in the future. Given that you had recently received an in-thread warning above, and obviously ignored that mod instruction, you will be officially warned.

Okay, I really botched that.

There is an important point - but I do not have enough of an understanding of it to make that point. Something that is important in the "popularity" of Ayn Rand - something that is not necessarily anything to do with her philosophy but something, some kind of narrative that people have latched onto.

The people with the placards and the T-shirts...These are not intellectuals who've sat down, read the books and thought this the whole way through. Those snarls - are some kind of cognitive dissonance - fear and loathing. Ayn may have been crazy as a fox - but these cats are crazy with the fear.

There's something more to "Get your goddamn guberment hands off medicare" than stupidity. There is a Cartesian demon here. There's a lot going on - all the rabble rousers had to suggest was Obamacare mean the deconstruction of Medicare...And they believed it. The "I am John Galt" placards are just some part of that crazy narrative.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. " Voltaire.