In your own words please (I am not interested in stealing your ideas, I am simply looking to gather an informal survey of sorts on the state of human relations in the 21st century, if that makes any sense).
2007-03-26 08:06:16 · 6 answers · asked by alexandria_bonaparte 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Ayn Rand is brilliant, and I respect the practical basis of her philosophy, but ultimately objectivism is deeply and irreparably misguided. The problem starts with her most fundamental premise, namely, her belief that there is a mind-independent reality. This is true enough for the purposes of everyday life, but it is naïve and just plain wrong when asserted as sort of ultimate metaphysical truth. The simple fact of reality is that everything is interdependent, which means that there are no independent, substantial essences that endure from one moment to the next. Modern physics has given up on this objectivist view, and I believe that modern day philosophers should pretty much give up on it as well.
What "really exists" are processes, and these processes are NOT composed of individual, independently existing "little chunks of stuff." It is not at all clear that there are any "elemental units" in any ordinary sense of the term. Of course this brings up the obvious question: If there are no elemental units of reality, then what are the processes of reality composed of? This is difficult to say at the present time. We can say with a fairly high degree of confidence what the world is NOT made of, but most efforts to say what the world IS made of are highly speculative or mystical. In other words, we know that objectivism cannot be right, but there are lots of controversies concerning exactly what to put in its place. My own vote is for a version of holism in which reality as we know it arises every moment from the vacuum of empty space. I've already discussed this in several other answers, to I won't repeat it all here. You can check my profile if you want more details.
I also want to comment quickly on her ethical philosophy, which is based on the notion of "rational self-interest." This approach would actually work fairly well if it were adopted by enlightened people, but the objectivist's metaphysical commitment to mind-independent reality basically prevents enlightenment. What is enlightenment? It is many things, but the core of it is compassion. Ironically, if we could truly understand our self-interest, we would discover that compassion IS our ultimate self-interest, but in the context of the objectivist mind-set, this ultimate realization of self-interest is not likely to happen. Objectivism encourages (in fact it demands) a competitive "dog-eat-dog" world in which one only helps others if it rationally benefits one's own interests. To help someone just because it feels good to help them, or because one feels that the other person's life if of intrinsic value – well, this pretty much just makes objectivists sick and disgusted. In their view, such weak-minded attitudes threaten the integrity of the human race. I completely disagree. I think that compassion is the truest and ultimately the most powerful form of strength. I've discussed the nature and meaning of compassion in several other recent answers, so I won't belabor this point any more here.
Bottom line: Objectivism is naïve and dangerous. It masquerades as hard-core truth, but in reality it is grounded upon deep-seated illusions.
2007-03-26 10:05:25 · answer #1 · answered by eroticohio 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Philosophy and human morality and reasoning serve for creating a greater international, and a greater expertise of the arena. Beyond human reasoning not anything is honestly viewed correct or improper. We people have viewed many matters to be unmoral or inhuman as an try to supply all people a greater satisfactory of lifestyles. It's generally like we've got changed our morality by way of out time.
2016-09-05 16:46:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She says you should be self-interested and then makes political prescriptions. But if I'm self-interested then I will vote for universal health care, I will push for free education even in universities because all that helps me. If I'm self-interested then I don't care about her lofty ideals of right and wrong in the political arena and will just vote selfishly. It makes no sense to say "we should all be self-interested" and then say "therefore we need to do X, Y, and Z in politics and you should support this even if it hurts you."
2013-09-26 11:58:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Enjoy life. Don’t accept guilt trips unless you’ve actually done something wrong. Be constructive in whatever field of endeavour you undertake and strive to do your best. Respect other people who have confidence and respect in themselves. Hero worship. Value your loved ones and don’t waste time on fools or knaves. Laugh and be happy. Enjoy life.
2007-03-28 03:56:45 · answer #4 · answered by Edward Carson 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid to say that Rand is not one of my top authors and I think the lack of response is suggesting that it's not on the top of anyone else's list either.
2007-03-26 09:13:35 · answer #5 · answered by John B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She had a factual and practical outlook on life, she focused on life regardless of emtion. Only feel guilty when you have done something to deserve it, feel love when you have recieved it, take blame for things you created and not because you feel you have to.
2007-03-30 03:41:16 · answer #6 · answered by kissaled 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋