Who agrees with Ayn Rand? And why or why not?

Question

To sum up her philosophy she said:

"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."

Is she completely right? Completely wrong? Or just half right and half wrong? What do you think is lacking if any?

Cazort, thanks for the very well stated answer. I would agree that reason is not the only means of knowledge, and I also agree with your point against laissez faire capitalism. But how did you manage to say that Rand encouraged exploitation when she specifically said that individuals have no right to live at another's expense? Don't you think her followers are just misinterpreting her? Besides, if they are merely followers, aren't they actually the second hand thinkers that Rand's books criticize?

Mike: you will be happy to know then that towards the end of Atlas Shrugged, in John Galt's speech, he explained that the altruism he is speaking against is not "The mother letting her starve to feed her child", but "The mother letting her child starve to feed the child of another."

The most common misconception of Rand is that she prohibits kindness. What she does not want you to sacrifice is your values for that of the values of another.

I'm certainly enjoying these thoughts, and everybody has made some interisting comments. I hope I can get more by keeping the question open. :-)

Answer 1

I myself do not necessarily agree with Ayn Rand's Egoistic Philosophy; but there are situations in which her philosophy can be appreciated. It's just that it does not necessarily have to be practiced physically.

One of her point is that the most important thing in the world is 'self.' When you look around today's busy world, there is a sense in which we have become selfless. (Marx might put it as alienation of labor.) For example if you work from morning until night like a drone, it really makes you wonder what is so important about the work, doesn't it? I think you can find that sort of a case in everyday life. Sometimes it is important to embrance yourself and acknoledge the importance of yourself.

I cannot push that aspect to the point of universal egoism. I do not think Mother Theresa was a psychological hedonistic egoist. There are cases in which the importance of other(s) can outweight the importance of yourself at least from your own perception. For example, if you were to chose either you die or your beloved child dies; granted that you do not have a hatrid towards your child, you would probably choose the former.

I partially agree with her view; but I do not seriously put her philosophy into practice. One thing I say is that no human goes with a single standard. Meaning, there are always conflicting standards by which we live. So Ayn Rand cannot be completely right or completely wrong; and by the same token, no ethical philosophy can be completely write or wrong. My view at least.

Answer 2

Too utilitarian for my likes.
I only got through half of 'Atlas Shrugged', only read through part of the Ayn Rand site on the net, but something just does not ring true in what I've read.

If everyone went by her philosophy and we simply calculated our own interest above anything else, it would be a much more rational, predictable and probably more efficient world. Studying economics, this model of behavior is known as 'homo-economicus'.

It would also be one of selfishness, coldness and boredom. What about the imaginative, playful, whimsical nature of man? What about the idea of helpfulness and charity fostering better relations between people, communities and societies? In Ayn Rands world would such largess always have an expectation on it? Wouldn't that expectation sour the milk?

Perhaps my interpretation is ill-informed, but from what little I gathered, I saw many short-comings to her approach.

Peace

----------------------------------------------
Just an edit notice... put in the term homoeconomicus with a dash in it (kinda like homo-sapiens, etc) but our orwellian big bro seems to be a little touchy... was not swearing, I swear.

Peace

Answer 3

I very strongly disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is hard to put into words why, but it is the basis of the sum of my personal experiences, reflections, reading of various philosophical systems, etc.

"Reason" is not a sufficient foundation for a philosophy for a number of reasons. I am a mathematician, and we are experts at building complex theories starting with axioms and deriving interesting conclusions from them using logic and reason. But there are two points here: (1) you need to decide what "axioms" to accept, and some of these are difficult to answer. For example, in the abortion debate, do you believe that a human life begins at conception? Or do you believe that a human life begins at birth? These two views cannot be proven or disproven, you simply must accept one or the other (or neither!). But accepting one over the other leads to fundamentally conclusions about the ethics and morality of abortion. And it may be impossible to ever resolve these questions.

There's a second problem: (2) Reason may be a way to logically think through things: to critically assess truths, but it is often not the way we discover these truths in the first place. Often, people make the deepest realizations through using their intuition, aspects of their mind that give them flashes of understanding, often without firm logic behind their thoughts. Emotion too can be a way leading towards truth.

---

I also think there are serious problems with Ayn Rand's attitude towards the pursuit of one's own happiness as the "moral purpose" of life. It is based very strongly on a specific, western notion of individualism and the self that not all cultures accept. To force this individualistic view onto other cultures can actually be a very violent act -- it certainly has been throughout history as western civilization engaged in colonialism and slavery in order to "tame the savages" of races of people who did not subscribe to these western ideals.

Is individualism the only way? Ayn Rand's philosophy glorifies people who are selfish, and it can be used to justify and encourage people who make life decisions that exploit others for their own personal gain. If you really embrace this philosophy, it implies that selfishness is "morally superior" to altruism. Even though I know that this was never her original intention, it is a very dangerous road that it is easy to go down if you embrace her philosophy.

---

Perhaps the best way to assess the effectiveness of a philosophy is to look at the followers of that philosophy. There are groups of people who call themselves "Objectivists" who dedicate their lifes to Ayn Rand's philosophy. I have known some of these people and attended some of their meetings, and I personally found them racist, classist, and homophobic to the point of being outright hateful towards people who were different from themselves.

Another objection to Ayn Rand's philosphy that I have is how it is so strongly tied to Capitalism, particularly laissez faire capitalism, to the point of glorifying it blindly and ignoring its flaws. I think Capitalism is an amazing and productive structure for an economy, but it is not perfect and it should not be glorified or embraced blindly.

---

There are so many philosophies out there. No one is perfect. However, I think that the better philosophies are ones that are less absolutistic--they do not rely exclusively on reason. I personally embrace a Christian worldview in which love is the central purpose and meaning of our lives. I think this view can lead us to a more productive, happy, and caring society. However, I do not hold absolutistic beliefs (I do not believe all other religions are wrong). I think any philosophy that asserts that it is the "best" or the "only true" philosophy without acknowledging others is very dangerous. I have often found that deep down, when you start investigating Ayn Rand, she seems to have this attitude that she is right and others who disagree with her are flat out wrong--this is the biggest red flag if there ever was one!

I hope this helps.

Answer 4

After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountain Head, I came to the conclusion that 1. Ayn Rand was a crazy person 2. she grew up poor but decided to be a champion for Upper class Snobbery and exclusivism 3. Ayn Rand was a grade- A -fascist.

The men she wrote about were no way Heroic. They were snobby nerds, who were only happy at their peak of selfishness.

Answer 5

Well, I'm not going to get into a lot of blah blah,

But I would rather see the world moving in the direction of Ayn Rand rather than bigger and bigger govt, whether it be a Bush or a Hugo Chavez!