Thursday, March 13, 2008

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, "rational individualism" . Paschal's comment.

Paschal’s comment on the talk by Dave Peck to my HRM 304 class, 3/4/08

Dr. Peck used part of his time Tuesday evening to quote from Rand’s novel. I was sure that he would ask you to critique her views after briefly explaining “false premise” in logic, but he did not. When one proposes a specific point of view to any group without criticism or inviting criticism we can suppose the support for that view. Knowing his shaman background, I chose to ask him to talk about it, as I knew you would probably never ever meet another “shaman in training” type of person.

In the dialogue from Rand that Dr. Peck read, Rand is critiquing the point of view that “money, or the use of money is bad, wrong or evil.” The problem with that argument is that she begins with an erroneous premise assigned to her protagonist. setting this point of view up as a Straw Man, easily defeated. It is simply not true that Money, or the use of money is bad. Money is simply a thing, a method of exchange. The use of any thing cannot be wrong in itself,

Because her premise is erroneous, therefore her entire arguement is false. Further comments below taken from "Critique of Objectivism." googled.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is fairly summarized as "rational individualism.". Altho widely read via her two novels, Fountainhead and Atlast Shrugged, she is easily dismissed by most philosophers as simplistic, shallow, self-contradictory and mean-spirited tripe, a kind of barnyard ethics.

In her glorification of rugged individuals, she proposes no conflict of interest between rational persons, an obvious oversight. The paen to Self interest can take no account of social issues such as racism and feminism. Greed is good is the logical outcome. The frequency of self-justification is not recognised. Rand's ethics are subjectivist, not objectivist, in reality. She endorses atheism and has no concept of the common good.

By glorifying human existence and reason, she has no way to move from IS to OUGHT, to morality. Rand's view of human nature does not correspond with that of scientists, builders, scholars or anyone inreality. It is certainly opposed to Christianity, as it is a form of atheistic materialism, recognising no truth from any of the Wisdom traditions.

We can summarize Rand’s ethics as "Go For it, because this one life is all you got." She cannot and does not propose a moral code based on the absolute value of human life. Her followers have been accused of endorsing the Holocaust, war against terrorists and other such. You can find pages of many critiques of the inadquacey of her philosophy.

Rand is the deluded rational ego, alienated from mystic insight into ego's distortions
from Ego strengthening vs. ego transcendence by Michael Hoffman http://www.egodeath.com/rushrand.htm#xtocid26513

Rand is a philosophical hack. How can you critique someone who is so rabid as to refuse reading other people? In response to an interviewer who asked her at one point: "Have you read 'X' author?", she said: "No, because X is trash, and what's more, I will NEVER read X because of this".

Rand is dogmatically closed-minded about religion, and mysticism. Just because she has seen mysticism (views of the transcendent, or of faith) used in ways she politically disagrees with, she dismisses all of mysticism and any possibility that there might be any truth in it. Peart is very aware of this crucial ignorance in Rand's attitude toward the ego, which is a major factor in his interest about Rand. She is so absolutely, blindly in love with the ego, and so untainted by any degree of awareness of mystic transcendence of the ego, that she, and not the enlightenment philosophers, is the most appropriate representative of the development of the ego to the extreme height of delusion. She so absolutely rejects all forms of religion and even mysticism, that she becomes a symbol of confident delusion and gullibility in the semi-illusion of the ego. She, not the enlightenment philosophers, becomes the absolute ego -- to whom Peart issues a grave warning of impending doom in "Bastille Day", "No One at the Bridge", "The Body Electric", "The Enemy Within", and many other songs.

Can you now be more alert to word, theory of practice arising from this philosophy? In a few words, how?

9 Comments:

At 1:41 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

In a way I can be alert to her word, but that does not mean that I do agree with it. I have different views from her word as far as religion and why were put here on this earth. I know that I believe that I serve God and that he put me on this earth to help others as much as I can and live by his word. I am somewhat confused by a lot of her philosophy and I am not interested in what she believes.

 
At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do understand her philosophy, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I am a Southern Baptist and I choose to believe what my religion follows. I am not in agreeance with her whole philosophy.

Tammy Davis

 
At 5:31 PM, Blogger Monica said...

I understand what she is saying about money being evil but I don't agree with it. I don't agree with her philosophy. I have my own religious views and our views clash when it comes to her view of money. SO overall I don't feel that I agree with her or her view.

 
At 10:45 PM, Blogger Autumn said...

Maybe I'm just slow but the entire time Dr. Peck was reading from that book I was totally lost! I understand that she thought money was evil and that spending money was evil. I'm still not sure why...

I am one of those people who have their own views on life and religion. I will share them with you when prevoked. I will always listen to someone elses view. It helps me understand that person better. I will never put down someone who has different views than mine. I would love to be treated with that same respect.

 
At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot understand her rationalization at all. I am almost guilty of being the same as her in that I don't even want to read her work if she is atheist. When I read or learn about people like this I wonder what in their life caused them to be this way? Is it that they just think this way no matter what their upbringing. Does a single life experience make them believe what the believe? I understand and appreciate diversity. My religion and faith are so important to me, it's hard for me to understand her thinking. I think she felt others were "intolerable." This in itself shows that she had no appreciation for those of faith, knowledge, or learning.

Valerie Carr

 
At 10:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is an idea long taught to economist that what is good for the individual is not good for the group, this holds true in many facets of modern life.

 
At 9:52 PM, Blogger Stephenie Gardner said...

Although I feel that I am a very open-minded individual I can not grasp Ayn Rands philosophy's. Above all things I am a Christian first, because of my strong beliefs in my Lord and Savior I find myself not even being able to read about her opinions.

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

No I can not relate to her in this respect. It appears that she has totatlly shunned anything against her way of thinking and therefore passing judgement to a large degree on those not folling her particular path. I am a person of to each there own in many facets of life. You as an individual have to make decisions that you have to live with. All we can do is hold true to wha is in our hearts, what we believe, and at the end of the day what is making us better human beings.

Lamont R. Brown

 
At 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read and enjoyed Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school then revisited them in my 30's. My second read found Rand's "objectivism" very empty. There is, however, a counter-culture that markets free-love -and much more - under the guise of "open mindedness" which certainly balks at any restrictive conduct associated with God. In fact, while media might show social disdain to a polygamist offshoot of Mormanism in Texas -and actually take the children from their mothers and place them in foster care; consensual acts of perversion among adults is not only encouraged as rational but protected by law. I suppose if folks believe this is all there is they should "eat, drink and be merry..."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home