Objectivism

[Mike Windu]

I wanted to make this thread in the swamp, but I knew a philosophical debate was coming, so I stuck it here

 

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, contains 3 tenets

 

* advocacy of rational selfishness

*rejection of altruism and collectivism

*advocacy of privacy and laissez-faire capitalism

 

 

How many of you agree with these tenets? I think she's on target with the rational selfishness, but the total rejection of altruism is, in my opinion, idiotic. It's not wrong to help others, even at the sacrifice of your self. I suppose the key to her rejection of altruism, would be this, taken from an interview of her in the 1950-70 somethings.

 

Host(forgot his name): Now, why altruism? Is it wrong to help others?

Rand: No. But when you sacrifice yourself to save another person, it is altruistic, and evil.

Host: But what's so wrong about sacrifice?

Rand: What's wrong with suicide?

 

As you can see, Rand is a true advocate of the rational selfishness.

 

Discuss away!

[El Sitherino]

Rand was a loon.

 

sorry.

[Mike Windu]

No reason to be sorry. I think the same thing.

 

But she does make some valid points.

 

Why should man repress himself for being good?

[El Sitherino]

Yeah, she makes valid points. But she's still a loon. What she wanted really was ultimate conformity. She was a cult leader and nothing else. Not to mention her ideas were totally naive.

[stingerhs]

the ultimate selfishness. i'll just make the assumption that she would have frowned heavily on body guard work and the secret service.

 

to be honest, her philosophies would cause far more problems than solutions. sure everyone could be happy, but what happens whenever someone else's selfishness gets in the way of yours??? do you pull out a 12-gauge and assert yourself??? quite frankly, that kind of philosophy, if applied to the general population, would lead to anarchy.

[Leper Messiah]

well i dont think the theory stands up, a good way to test the morality of this theory is with Immanuel Kant's catagorical imperitive, a principle of which is that if you take any moral theory and see whether it can be applied properly to everyone in society you can see whether or not the theory is moral or not (a very rough explanation, but hey ) if you put this theory in that kind of analysis you find that it cannot stand up because if nobody helped each other society would not be workable, it could not exist in the form that we know it.

[Spider AL]

She had some interesting ideas, but she was confused as regards the definition of the word "altruism". She believed that altruism was total selflessness, that is a TOTAL lack of regard for the self, and that that was amoral and disloyal to the self. But that definition is self-serving and inaccurate. Rich coming from a woman who (correctly) idolized reason and logic.

 

Her P.O.V. would tend to imply that an act which causes damage to oneself is negative. I'd cite Nietzsche in response. "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." We must rip muscle open in order to build it up stronger, and we must sacrifice pride to gain humility. The latter is more damaging to the ego than the former is to the body. It's also more worthy.

 

And her position that capitalism is the ideal societal template... laughable.

 

Yes, in many ways she was a rambling loon.

 

quite frankly, that kind of philosophy, if applied to the general population, would lead to anarchy.

It doesn't matter whether a philosophy has a negative effect on society or not. It doesn't mean that the philosophy is amoral. "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Krishnamurti