[Guest]

So, anyone got an opinion on Ayn Rynd?

[akaslickster]

So, anyone got an opinion on Ayn Rynd?

Yes. It is Rand. I believe to be a very good author. Fascinating.

[Yoruichi-san]

Wow...I did have an opinion, but it soon got lost in the sea of new thoughts that flood through my head each day...

I remember my friend was discussing The Fountainhead with me, and the idea that all self-sacrifice and altruism was bad, that to be a "hero" one must live only for his/her own happiness...which is totally contrary to my definition of "hero"

I have a saying: It's the villains that put the "super" and the self-sacrifice that puts the "hero" in Superhero.

I believe that to be a "hero" means to sacrifice oneself for the good of a larger group. I believe in the virtues of selflessness whereas Rand is a proponent of the virtue of selfishness...

Oh, yeah, and I was going to write "Randthem", which would have been my parody on "Anthem", where the Randthem is that everyone must exist only for their own happiness and any signs of altruism would be punished...hence making ppl have conflicts over everything, even trivial things, because all they cared about was what was good for them, and this led to anarchy and the tearing apart of civilization as we know it...hmmm...but it got lost in the ocean of story ideas that I have yet to write...

[Guest]

Wow...I did have an opinion, but it soon got lost in the sea of new thoughts that flood through my head each day...

I remember my friend was discussing The Fountainhead with me, and the idea that all self-sacrifice and altruism was bad, that to be a "hero" one must live only for his/her own happiness...which is totally contrary to my definition of "hero"

I have a saying: It's the villains that put the "super" and the self-sacrifice that puts the "hero" in Superhero.

I believe that to be a "hero" means to sacrifice oneself for the good of a larger group. I believe in the virtues of selflessness whereas Rand is a proponent of the virtue of selfishness...

Oh, yeah, and I was going to write "Randthem", which would have been my parody on "Anthem", where the Randthem is that everyone must exist only for their own happiness and any signs of altruism would be punished...hence making ppl have conflicts over everything, even trivial things, because all they cared about was what was good for them, and this led to anarchy and the tearing apart of civilization as we know it...hmmm...but it got lost in the ocean of story ideas that I have yet to write...

Surely altruism is a natural consequence of living for one's own happiness? Selfishness is a pretty short-sighted attempt at serving one's own interests. Not sure if this is what Rand proposes, since I haven't read anything by her, but having a quick glance at the Wikipedia article on her, it seems quite honest to acknowledge the pursuit of personal happiness as your goal. This does not rule out acts of altruism but merely acknowledges the selfish drives that underpin such acts.

Putting that distinction to the test, it would imply that a person should not die for their country, since that does not serve self-interest. Makes perfect sense to me. If other people want to die for my country that's their business, but I wouldn't and I wouldn't want anyone I love to do that either.

What if you had to die to save your child's life? That's tougher. There are cases where dying may be the thing which serves your personal interest best (such as if you had a very painful terminal illness), and this may be one of those cases.

But what you are talking about (conflicting over trivial things and destroying civilisation) is hardly in anybody's self-interest. I can't say whether this is fair comment on Rand but it seems like a overly simplistic view of that philosophy.

[Yoruichi-san]

But what you are talking about (conflicting over trivial things and destroying civilisation) is hardly in anybody's self-interest. I can't say whether this is fair comment on Rand but it seems like a overly simplistic view of that philosophy.

It wasn't a comment, it was explaining my story idea for "Randthem", which would be a parody of "Anthem" (by Rand). "Anthem" took civilization to one extreme, and I'm simply taking the opposite extreme that "Anthem" did in my parody...

Edit:

Oh, and from Wikipedia:

Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial.

From what I know, she is against altruism...

Edit2:

And I understand the argument behind Objectivism, but I don't agree with it. And I don't feel a necessity to explain both sides of the argument in order to make my point...since I was just sharing some ideas I had...

Edited September 26, 2008 by Yoruichi-san

[akaslickster]

I suppose we are speaking of Rand and not Rynd. My pals have bragged about her books and, I can't sit down long enough to read one. I am sure she is all that and then some. One of these days I will read her best novel. :-)

[Guest]

It wasn't a comment, it was explaining my story idea for "Randthem", which would be a parody of "Anthem" (by Rand). "Anthem" took civilization to one extreme, and I'm simply taking the opposite extreme that "Anthem" did in my parody...

Sorry, thought that was your opinion on objectivism

Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial.

From what I know, she is against altruism...

Well, I must admit I know next to nothing about Rand, but the philosophy of objectivism has some appeal to me so I'll play devil's advocate here. When talking about altruism you could consider it as a type of behaviour (mostly commendable), a moral directive (a fact of human nature) or a philosophical doctrine.

Considering the latter, if we consciously adopt the principle of doing good for others without concern for ourselves as a goal in life, it seems to me that there is a fundamental lie there. Why adopt such a principle? Because we want to? Because we think we'll go to heaven if we do? In any case the motivations are self-serving. To me altruism works as an outcome rather than a doctrine. Perhaps it's only the ethical doctrine of altruism that Rand rejects.

And I understand the argument behind Objectivism, but I don't agree with it. And I don't feel a necessity to explain both sides of the argument in order to make my point...since I was just sharing some ideas I had...

No problem This is just me arguing with anybody about anything...

[itachi-san]

I remember my friend was discussing The Fountainhead with me, and the idea that all self-sacrifice and altruism was bad, that to be a "hero" one must live only for his/her own happiness...which is totally contrary to my definition of "hero"

According to the dictionary "hero" can be interpreted as either:

1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal

I haven't read any of her books, but that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for the discussion so I'll add my 2 cents. I wouldn't make the distinction frankly. I think that a hero can be anybody who acts selfishly or altruistically, but on such a grandiose scale that others admire that person. Typically, the word hero has (at least recently) been associated with altruism, but personally I can see it fitting both sides.

I think for her to go against the grain and argue that it is only in selfishness that one becomes a hero is unnecessary though. It sounds to me like she was trying to make a point that really didn't need to be made. There's also the whole debate over whether or not everything we do is selfish, even if one were to jump on a grenade and save others' lives. Even though that is indeed 'self-sacrifice', the person who jumped on the grenade 'wanted' to do so and the ones who survived (at least slightly less so) 'wanted' to give up their life, assuming they had the same amount of time to think about the action. So who is the hero if any? The one who sacrificed everything so quickly or the ones who chose to preserve their life?

[Yoruichi-san]

Sorry, thought that was your opinion on objectivism

Well, I must admit I know next to nothing about Rand, but the philosophy of objectivism has some appeal to me so I'll play devil's advocate here. When talking about altruism you could consider it as a type of behaviour (mostly commendable), a moral directive (a fact of human nature) or a philosophical doctrine.

Considering the latter, if we consciously adopt the principle of doing good for others without concern for ourselves as a goal in life, it seems to me that there is a fundamental lie there. Why adopt such a principle? Because we want to? Because we think we'll go to heaven if we do? In any case the motivations are self-serving. To me altruism works as an outcome rather than a doctrine. Perhaps it's only the ethical doctrine of altruism that Rand rejects.

No problem This is just me arguing with anybody about anything...

I'm not religious, I don't believe in trying to do good deeds so that I can go to heaven or anything. But I try to think on a larger scale, on what is good for the world as a whole. Which is why I don't like war...the victors may gain something but as a whole it's a negative-sum game (considering the losses of lives and resources), so it hurts the world as a whole. But Objectivism would say that if you thought you could win the war you should do it, because it would help you. Hence, I don't agree with it.

Also, from an objective standpoint, I think Objectivism works in theory, but the assumptions aren't practical. Basically, for Objectivism to work it requires that everyone be perfectly educated and perfectly rational, so that they are able to determine all the consequences of their decisions. It requires everyone to be game theory experts, and that is definitely not practically feasible...take the example of the financial crisis in the US right now...the ppl who got loans and the banks who were willing to give them were only thinking about what was good for themselves and couldn't or wouldn't rationally think about the long-term effects, and now the economy is screwed up.

[Guest]

I'm not religious, I don't believe in trying to do good deeds so that I can go to heaven or anything. But I try to think on a larger scale, on what is good for the world as a whole.

same here

Which is why I don't like war...the victors may gain something but as a whole it's a negative-sum game (considering the losses of lives and resources), so it hurts the world as a whole. But Objectivism would say that if you thought you could win the war you should do it, because it would help you. Hence, I don't agree with it.

We mustn't ignore morality though, you're talking only about personal material gain. I don't want to gain when the expense to others is greater, so such situations don't serve my personal interest.

Also, from an objective standpoint, I think Objectivism works in theory, but the assumptions aren't practical. Basically, for Objectivism to work it requires that everyone be perfectly educated and perfectly rational, so that they are able to determine all the consequences of their decisions.

Agreed, to some extent. You certainly need an awareness of the consequences of your actions. And I'd add to that, that it also requires people to recognise and acknowledge the value of their own morality. Then again, those less rational and less educated probably concern themselves less with philosophical 'isms anyway. I won't say it works in practice for everybody, but maybe it does for some.

[Guest]

I am so glad I started this topic. I really enjoy reading what you all think.

Personally, Ayn bugs the living crap out of me. I dont enjoy her books and havent been able to get through any of them.

I get too disgusted by her opinions and the story she creates.

My take is that she wants her cake and eat it too. If you are going to break the rules then just break them.

Dont come up with some self serving theory about how its ok to break the rules that everyone else lives by.

If we all, or most of us, lived by the rule of doing what serves us best then the world would cease to function.

Oh wait, that is what happened with the mortgage 'crater'. Everyone involved from people getting to giving loans

knew what they were getting into.

[Guest]

I guess I'll chime in with a little Rand trivia. I haven't read any of her books and what I do know is primarily from Wikipedia, but one thing that I thought was interesting is a video game called "Bioshock" that came out last year. According to the creator, the main villain, Andrew Ryan, was based on the philosophies of Ayn Rand (hence the similarities in name) and the game tries to examine what would happen to a society that follows Objectivism to the nth degree. It's a pretty creepy game (and pretty violent too, though that may not be a direct result of Ayn Rand's ideas. ) But putting the ideas expressed in the game alongside what Wikipedia says, the events in the game do not seem too much of an extrapolation of her views. I wouldn't say that its a game I really liked, but I thought it was interesting to see how they shaped the game around this philosophy and took it to what seems the logical (if extreme) conclusion. (Suffice to say the game designers rejected Objectivism as short-sighted and narrow-minded, considering that they created an extreme dystopia to represent it. )

[Yoruichi-san]

same here

We mustn't ignore morality though, you're talking only about personal material gain. I don't want to gain when the expense to others is greater, so such situations don't serve my personal interest.

Agreed, to some extent. You certainly need an awareness of the consequences of your actions. And I'd add to that, that it also requires people to recognise and acknowledge the value of their own morality. Then again, those less rational and less educated probably concern themselves less with philosophical 'isms anyway. I won't say it works in practice for everybody, but maybe it does for some.

I see what you mean, but your stance is a modified version of Objectivism. The pure form of Objectivism that Rand was so instrumental in creating rejects all morality as unproductive (we were trained to feel good about being "good" by our environment, but that is not inherently beneficial to our own selves). And personally, since I'm not religious, I don't believe in absolute good or evil or that we should have moralities based on what others tell us (mostly religious others). I may have my own system of beliefs that could be classified as "morality" but I certainly don't expect everyone else to share my views. When I argue against something, I go by what I know to be true, not some changed or modified form of it.

I guess I'll chime in with a little Rand trivia. I haven't read any of her books and what I do know is primarily from Wikipedia, but one thing that I thought was interesting is a video game called "Bioshock" that came out last year. According to the creator, the main villain, Andrew Ryan, was based on the philosophies of Ayn Rand (hence the similarities in name) and the game tries to examine what would happen to a society that follows Objectivism to the nth degree. It's a pretty creepy game (and pretty violent too, though that may not be a direct result of Ayn Rand's ideas. ) But putting the ideas expressed in the game alongside what Wikipedia says, the events in the game do not seem too much of an extrapolation of her views. I wouldn't say that its a game I really liked, but I thought it was interesting to see how they shaped the game around this philosophy and took it to what seems the logical (if extreme) conclusion. (Suffice to say the game designers rejected Objectivism as short-sighted and narrow-minded, considering that they created an extreme dystopia to represent it. )

Nooooooooo....they stole my story idea!!! <_<

;P

[Guest]

I see what you mean, but your stance is a modified version of Objectivism. The pure form of Objectivism that Rand was so instrumental in creating rejects all morality as unproductive

Well, if dog-eat-dog mentality is required for Objectivism then I'd have to agree it is unworkable and daft. Dang. Leaves me without a philosophical doctrine (not that I'd know what to do with one if I had one). I could be a Humanist except I'm not sold on the idea of universal morality, morality is clearly a personal thing. Ism's, eh? Who needs them?