Ayn Rand

[Hilarion]

My position on the subject of Rand has changed (needless to say I still disagree with her philosophy).
-VB

[Elfdude]

Odd how much of your post I agree with and how strongly I oppose other points in it.

First, yes Ayn Rand and her brand of philosophy is highly immoral and wrong relative to modern day society. Her particular flavor of objectivism was colored by her own satanistic values and selfishism.

Second, the correlation you make between Ayn Rand, Atheism and immorality is weak at best.

Third, you're guilty of cherry picking far worse than atheists are. Yes we ignore religions original contributions but only because we believe that modern methods are better. Ayn rand was strongly backed up by game theory but limited by the simple fact that humans cannot surpass their biological limitations without working together. The corporation is a fabulous invention that allows individuals to achieve massive amounts of profit by working together. The difficulties with corporations and their corruption comes not for the inherent evil capitalism but from the unrecognized need for law to advance as fast as the body it governs. Corporations were established with relatively few laws governing them giving them massive amounts of power that has only slightly been chipped away in recent years. Regulation as powerful as those its regulates is the hallmark ideal of socialism thus Ayn Rand could hardly be called reasonable or logical and her own values of selfishness conflict directly with her worship of the corporation.

Fourth, Ayn Rand's claim of logic and reason are perpetuated by right wing propaganda and Ayn Rand herself. No scientist will look at Ayn Rand's philosophies and not be able to find logical inconsistencies rendering your entire argument moot.

Fifth, Ayn Rand is a great example of faith based decision making. At some point early on she decided capitalism was the best. At some point early on she became a satanist. At some point early on the virtues of selfishness were instilled in her and the virtues of selflessness were muted. She designed an argument, a very elaborate argument, to support her initial conclusion. This would be called agenda driven science and is ipso facto not science at all but part of the domain of pseudo science. Pseudo means literally fake.

So no, your argument that she's unethical is valid but your conclusion about theism and atheism is extraordinarily flawed.

[Hilarion]

Objectivism preaches selfishness and religion preaches selflessness. Therefore, true Objectivists must be atheists. I thought that was a fair conclusion to make. I don't claim atheists to be immoral any more than I do hermits. I had intended to debate Objectivism. The morality of atheism is a subject that needs its own thread!

[Elfdude]

Objectivism preaches selfishness and religion preaches selflessness. Therefore, true Objectivists must be atheists. I thought that was a fair conclusion to make. I don't claim atheists to be immoral any more than I do hermits.

Selflessness does not come from religion. It is a reasonable and logical conclusive that can be arrived to objectively. Do not confuse randian objectiveism with the meaning of objectivity. Objectivism is anything but objective. Faith based beliefs are the basis of objectivism not evidence based beliefs. Thus it would be improper to call an objectivist an atheist because the two philosophies contradict each other. Most of Ayn Rand's philosophies are known for blatant and ignored contradictions. I think Ayn Rand would've gone mostly unknown in recent years if she hadn't become the conservative party's figurehead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

The first link represents the understood definition of objectivism which is far different from Rand's version. The second represents Ayn Rand's satanism inspired objectivism. The third provides more information on Ayn Rand herself.

This is similar to the Social Darwinism, and Theory of Evolution confusion. Darwinism != scientific. Randian Objectivism != objective.

[Fiyenyaa]

Objectivism preaches selfishness and religion preaches selflessness. Therefore, true Objectivists must be atheists. I thought that was a fair conclusion to make. I don't claim atheists to be immoral any more than I do hermits. I had intended to debate Objectivism. The morality of atheism is a subject that needs its own thread!

You do realise that Humanism is a far, far more popular ethical ideology than Objectivism amongst the irreligious, don't you?
Objectivism may say that religion is an un-needed concept, but it then adds to this belief with a load of immoral and selfish doctrines that anyone rational can see is not good for either the individual or society at large.

There can be wrong and right without resorting to godless and godly.

Why thank you, Monarchist, for sharing a lovely note of sanity with us all there.

[Hilarion]

Nevertheless selflessness is a central creed of religion, and incompatible with the central creed of Objectivism. And opposed to Objectivists as though I am, it seems fanciful to suppose they are all devil-worshippers. Unless you mean to suggest Objectivism is a religion in itself... which is actually also quite fanciful.

[Desperado †]

Nevertheless selflessness is a central creed of religion, and incompatible with the central creed of Objectivism.

Not at all. Define religion.

[Elfdude]

Randian Objectivism is based on Satanism. I don't know how to say it plainer than that. You evidently are confusing objectivity with Randian Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy. It however is a philosophy based off of inductive reasoning rather than deductive (objective) reasoning. Thus it is a faith based belief system every bit as poisonous as similiar faith based philosophies expounded upon by religions. You're idea that the central creed of religion is selflessness is hardly substantiated, in other words proof that religion is selflessness? or your entire conclusion is invalid.

[Hilarion]

Randian Objectivism is based on Satanism. I don't know how to say it plainer than that. You evidently are confusing objectivity with Randian Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy. It however is a philosophy based off of inductive reasoning rather than deductive (objective) reasoning. Thus it is a faith based belief system every bit as poisonous as similiar faith based philosophies expounded upon by religions. You're idea that the central creed of religion is selflessness is hardly substantiated, in other words proof that religion is selflessness? or your entire conclusion is invalid.

Atheism is not necessarily the rejection of faith but the rejection of any supernatural deity/higher being as preached by religion, and Objectivists reject "every 'spiritual' dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence." As for the central creed of religion being selflessness... well, since you seem to be fine with Wikipedia as a source I'll use it here:

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others.

Most, if not all, of the world's religions promote altruism as a very important moral value. Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Sikhism, etc, place particular emphasis on altruistic morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Thanks for the comments Monarchist and Fiyenyaa... Unfortunately I'm short on time so I'll have to wait until this afternoon to read/respond to them. My apologies!

[Elfdude]

Atheism is not necessarily the rejection of faith but the rejection of any supernatural deity/higher being as preached by religion, and Objectivists reject "every 'spiritual' dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence." As for the central creed of religion being selflessness... well, since you seem to be fine with Wikipedia as a source I'll use it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Thanks for the comments Monarchist and Fiyenyaa... Unfortunately I'm short on time so I'll have to wait until this afternoon to read/respond to them. My apologies!

Haha. Wow. I linked you to wikipedia to provide you with accurate information concerning your extreme disregard for the realities of what you were attempting to debate. I should've guessed the attempt was only earnestly trying to hide your real attack of atheism with the correlation to Ayn Rand's philosophy. I was not using wikipedia to provide you with the definition of a word nor the subjective interpretations of that word. Randian Objectivism refers to an established philosophy, Objectivity refers to an alternate established philosophy.

As for there not existing Objectivist theists, that's kind of like saying there's no evolution supporting Christians isn't it? I would define someone who a truly a christian as someone who follows the letter of the biblical law to the letter (as stated within the bible) but whether I tell christians that they're not christian or not they'll still swear by the Christian establishment. Similarly even though Randian philosophy is ripped from satanism huge numbers of conservative Christian fundamentalists in the US are swearing by her philosophy because it offers one of the few encouraging words for capitalism and Fox is capitalizing on the fear of socialism and Obama. This is surprising given the fact Randian philosophy strongly encourages atheism and satanism derived philosophies.

Altruism in a religious context is guided by laws which tell you who to be altruistic to and who you don't have to be altruistic to. Altruism guided by secular deductive moral constructs is universal and equal. The modern standard of equality for all comes not from religiosity but from the application of morality based on empathy and compassion to all. While you personally may choose to find altruism to be your central religious tenet I can assure you even that isn't something Christians can agree upon. So the question is this, is a philosophy ripped from theism divorced and from it's original context a credible representation of what happens when you divorce a concept of theism or a credible representation of another immoral theist philosophy?

[chilon]

Randian Objectivism is based on Satanism. I don't know how to say it plainer than that.

This is the reverse if you are implying Anton LaVey "Satanism" as Rand published around WWII well before Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible of the 1960s.

Rand was an influence on LaVey but a bigger influence was Ragnar Redbeard's "Might Makes Right". Satanism, Redbeard essentially argues social darwinism.

[Monarchist]

...your conclusion about theism and atheism is extraordinarily flawed.

Well, la-dee-da. Isn't it a very charming conversation you lead! Why must everything be so extreme?

I have never once read Rand, but I've seen interviews with her. As she explained her philosophy, I became increasingly perturbed by it. Everything she claimed was a bizarre Nietzsche-Schopenhauer cynical mythology about mankind. There is nothing of merit in her system, apart from its love for and love of Capitalism, in my opinion.

She advocated, I believe, that altruism is entirely false, as it is based in the greed motive (in this case, the incentive to be seen as good, kind, etc.), and thus not a truly kind motive. "The religious are only altruistic so they can benefit from Heaven", "the rich are only altruists so they can improve their public image", and so on. Of course, this is all true... but so what? Rand is working from the position that psychology and reasoning for a good deed are as important as the deed itself, which is a perfidious and horrid idea. Why should it be of concern what the charitable man's purpose was in giving alms? The fact that he gave alms is entirely more significant than the fact that he gave alms to make himself look good. What of the man who plans to rob everyone of everything they have, but in the process he screws up and does an incalculable good for the people he was attempting to aid? What about the scientist who invents a miracle drug that aids millions of people, all so the scientist in question can earn a Nobel Prize? The goodness or altruism of an action is not invalidated by the selfishness of the motive! Likewise, an evil action (accident or otherwise) is not to be lessened in its evil simply because the perpetrator was "just trying to do good".

I think there is a greater difference between Left-wing ideas and Right-wing ideas than there is between Atheist ideas and Christian ideas. Atheists can be Left or Right, but Left cannot be Right, and Right cannot be Left. Only one side can intermingle with the other two, but the political side always wins out; for example, a Left-wing Jew has more differences between himself and a Right-wing Jew than he does between himself and a Left-wing Christian! Politics trumps it, no matter atheist or religious. Since that is obviously and observably the case, the atheism or theism of the matter is not even a question, nor is it material. The fact is that Rand's putrid belief in "Self-esteem" is Left-wing, as silly as it is, and yet her idea of economics is Right-wing (though it is based in a Left-wing ideology).

There can be wrong and right without resorting to godless and godly.

Nevertheless selflessness is a central creed of religion, and incompatible with the central creed of Objectivism. And opposed to Objectivists as though I am, it seems fanciful to suppose they are all devil-worshippers. Unless you mean to suggest Objectivism is a religion in itself... which is actually also quite fanciful.

There can be no such thing as selflessness, for in this case religious selflessness is really just a wish for reward. Naturally, I diverge with Rand here in that I believe it's a good thing.

[Arch-hereticK]

There can be wrong and right without resorting to godless and godly.

Stop being sane, it is very confusing.

[Enemy of the State]

I must say Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead did have a have a great effect on me. However the fanaticism of her followers drove me off eventually. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She believed self-sacrifice was wrong but supported America going around the world spreading her ideas through force. War is a product of altruism, but strangely she had no quarrel with it. Also she denounced anarchism while claiming to support the non-agression principle. I like most of her ideas, but Murray Rothbard is certainly better.

[Denny Crane!]

I must say Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead did have a have a great effect on me. However the fanaticism of her followers drove me off eventually. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She believed self-sacrifice was wrong but supported America going around the world spreading her ideas through force. War is a product of altruism, but strangely she had no quarrel with it. Also she denounced anarchism while claiming to support the non-agression principle. I like most of her ideas, but Murray Rothbard is certainly better.

Yes there was always something inherently contradictory in her ideas. Like she was tetering on the edge, almost in reach of it then it slipped out of her grasp.

[BNS]

I must say Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead did have a have a great effect on me. However the fanaticism of her followers drove me off eventually. Ayn Rand was a hypocrite. She believed self-sacrifice was wrong but supported America going around the world spreading her ideas through force. War is a product of altruism, but strangely she had no quarrel with it. Also she denounced anarchism while claiming to support the non-agression principle. I like most of her ideas, but Murray Rothbard is certainly better.

She cemented my libertarian views. However the cultist like following she encouraged in her disciples turned me off. That and her stringent view of feelings and sanctioning of certain acts of coercion especially in the name of IP. That aside she has some pretty powerful essays. Rothbard I learned was once a part of her circle and he made this satirical play when he defected. It sums up my sentiments quite well.

[Augment]

I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.
--------------

What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?' A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '

[Denny Crane!]

I've seen very few topics discussing Objectivism here, and even fewer online questioning its principles, and so I decided to write an essay of my position on the subject. For the benefit of the reader I'll divide this essay into sections. Please feel free to comment!

Introduction

In today's Western culture there is a new philosophy which has been particularly advocated by those atheistic and supercilious upper-middle class teenagers; self-proclaimed intellectuals who loudly denounce Obama's Reign of Socialism while walking between classes. I say 'new' not because it was recently conceived (it is impossible for any philosophy to be original), but because it has recently seen a resurgence of support. And, in fact, those same students growing in number ironically proclaim the so-called "Virtue of Selfishness" as though it were the Second Coming of Christ.

Ok I am immediately detecting a whiff of supercilious faux-intellectualism.

You are making an outright attack on a group, a group you characterise anecdotally. This doesn't have any place in a debate beyond portraying yourself in a very bad light with this unseemly attack. Dress it up as pretty as you like it is still supercilious and specious.

Their philosophy, of course, is Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Why is it growing in popularity?

Is it growing? How do you know this? More tripe I'm afraid.

Because it is a radically Capitalistic philosophy, it is a Materialistic philosophy, and it is an Egotistic philosophy.

It is egotistic but then so are many others, Buddhism is.

And, as always, the philosophy correlates to the society and culture. A hundred years ago, Rand would have been laughed off by any sane person. A thousand years ago, she undoubtedly would have been burned at the stake. Today, she is celebrated by many as the champion and defender of American values.

Proponents of democracy or anti slavery movements would have been laughed at and quite possibly executed in any vile manner you care to name.

Wow slogging through your introduction was hard work, and I feel like I need a shower after bathing in your vitriol.

But I am not writing this essay to rant about our culture, or to make the impression that I am anti-Capitalist. I am a strong proponent of Capitalism as an economic theory. Yet Objectivists attempt to extend the most radical elements of Capitalism to the realm of ethics, and it is here they are most in the wrong.

Ayn Rand and Objectivist Ethics

Ayn Rand, a Russian-American author who lived from 1905 to 1982, gained prominence through her two novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. To make a long story short, she developed a philosophy summarized by herself as "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." In other words, the interest and success of the individual takes precedence over everything else.

Yet it's the summary of her position on ethics and morality, spoken through her protagonist John Galt, to which I will direct my attention and criticism:

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."

'Morality of reason' in itself seems to be an oxymoron. Rand defines 'reason' as "one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Every individual must use their own reasoning or rationality to survive and succeed. How can morality, which pertains to the ethical difference between right and wrong, be dictated by reason, which even by Rand's own description is wholly subjective? Morality exists to provide society with a set of standards for behavior regardless of individual thinking or reasoning. Rand's 'morality of reason' is another term for moral anarchy. Moral anarchy leads to the collapse of structured society. And the world is turned upside down.

Morality is the tool by which humans are able to interact. Intelligence is our special dividing factor between animals and ourselves, the roots of our morality are based in instinct and defined by reason. That is why it is not an oxymoron. How would you know right and wrong without reason? Or do you somehow pick your morals and ethics from a 'good' book, but then people do that but use their reason to contextualise passages and dismiss others. That is why we aren't stoning people to death in the west.

Moral anarchy? Utter nonsense, you have led yourself a bit wide on this one with little justification.

'Reason' by Rand's definition is inherently selfish and incompatible with altruism. Her second value, Purpose, is complemented by her virtue of productiveness, which in turn is succeeded by ambition. The third value Self-esteem encompasses integrity and pride. All of these values and 'virtues' are fundamentally selfish, fundamentally antisocial, and fundamentally primitive.

Objectivism: The Caveman's Philosophy

Many of the modern world's commonly accepted vices were, at one point in history, virtues. And visa versa. When Rand says that selfishness, pride, and ambition are virtues, she may be using creative or unique logic, but she is not using original logic. Were primitive men caught in a time warp and land in the modern age, they would no doubt be quite comfortable with the themes of Atlas Shrugged and Rand's philosophy. That is, the Virtue of Selfishness, that "kill or be killed" mentality. To primitive man, our vices of selfishness and pride and ambition really were virtues, because they helped to ensure survival.

She certainly wouldn't be out of place 2500 years ago around Buddhism, or around epicurean philosophy or stoicism. These 'selfish' philosophies recognise that the beginning of all human interactions.

If you think that there is such a conflict between 'selfishness' and 'morality' then I would suggest sitting down with some ancient Greek philosophers, the study of morality and human nature might provide some insight and show you that you are battling a polar opposites that don't exist.

Aristotle addressed this problem by showing how the apparent conflict between selfishness and morality was a sham conflict. Selfishness is only morally bad in a small sphere of goods. These goods are material goods for which there is a limited supply and therefore competition. Selfishness with regard to these goods is bad because it interferes with the virtue of justice. Since the hoi polloi believe that these goods are the only real goods, they claim that selfishness is bad.

However, the virtuous agent is selfish for higher goods, especially virtue itself. Virtue is noble, and the noble soul seeks out virtue before any material good. In fact, the virtuous agent wishes to be just because it is greater than any material good. The virtuous agent will happily and selfishly sacrifice material goods for the good of justice. The hoi polloi believe he or she is acting unselfishly, but virtuous people will realise that this act is in fact selfish. This is not the vicious selfishness that leads to injustice, however, but a noble selfishness that desires virtue.

As such, Aristotle claims that the division between selfishness and morality only makes sense when one believes material goods are the only real goods. Once one realises there are other goods, selfishness will not be a threat to virtue. Instead, true selfishness will be the sign of virtue, as the truly virtuous agent will value virtue above all things

So then what happened between the age of the primitive man and the age of the modern man to cause this reversal? Well, societal structure happened. Civilization happened. Mankind realized it could achieve more under organized society. This organized society united, not divided people: it was social at its core. As a result, they had to recognize their primitive and antisocial virtues of selfishness and pride and ambition as vices, and restrain them to a socially acceptable extent. Objectivists despise this restraint and attempt to reverse that recognition; that is, to embrace those primitive virtues. They wish (whether they are aware of it or not) to reverse the development of society and dismantle it at its very foundations. To this effect, we find they are little more than masked societal anarchists.

Whoa whoa are you insane? You think that mankind made collective decisions under a collective consciousness because it could achieve more? Mankind realised this? When did they realise this? Is it in the history books where we all came together for a collective discussion?

They had to recognise the age old values of selfishness and restrain them? Really, were they doing that when adopting slavery and raping colonies of value and resources? When they were subjecting and devaluing black people, killing millions of people and denying others the ability to participate in society?


Society has been about the maintenance of power and influence, and the protection of that power and influence up until very recently when that mantle was passed from vast concentrations of power to more dispersed groups of influence within business and government.

Objectivism and the Church

The curbing of the primitive virtues and the development of society was encouraged and enforced by organized religion from the very beginning. We can observe a relatively early example of this encouragement in the four cardinal virtues introduced by Plato and espoused by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. These virtues include temperance, prudence, fortitude, and justice: all of which oppose the selfishness of Objectivism. The advocacy of similar virtues are present in every significant organized religion. It is no great surprise, then, that Objectivists must be atheists!

Yes organised religion has such wonderful values...supporting nazis, paedophiles and spreading AIDs for the win eh...

You are clearly winning hearts and minds here. I don't even like Ayn Rands writing but god damn if I'm not tempted to convert to rabid fundamental randism after reading this.

Throughout pre-modern history, religion set the standard for the progress of mankind, all the time denouncing the primitive virtues. Objectivists conveniently ignore this fact by pointing to the martyrs of science during the modern period. They claim to despise theists because instead of first gathering evidence and next presenting theories, they first present theories and next gather evidence (i.e., cherry-picking). But if Objectivists ignore history to support their philosophy, are they not equally guilty of this?

Conclusion

Objectivism, then, is a philosophy fit for atheists, for anarchists, for hermits, and for hypocrites. As a theory it collapses upon itself. Its followers claim to be guided by reason, but in truth they are guided by something very far from it. Objectivism truly is a caveman's philosophy and its ethical principles something to be discarded with a laugh, lest it be praised.

Thanks for reading this far, and I do appreciate any comments.

-Viscount Bolingbroke

Hilarious bolded part....

In conclusion this is a man who defends organised religion. I'll leave it for the rest of the forum to really pick up particularly on the first opening salvos how this man masked a bucket full of vitriol and irrationality in an essay format. I am not fooled.

[Hilarion]

So I am not making many friends among the atheists and Libertarians? Oh, damn . But I do mean no offense to either party.

Is it growing? How do you know this? More tripe I'm afraid.

It is growing, sir. The liberal politics of the Obama administration and the weakening of the Republican Party has only encouraged its growth. Objectivists in the United States often are, I believe, estranged members of the American right-wing who wish to distance themselves from the Republican Party; members who perceive that party as turning away from the fundamental roots of American conservatism and Capitalism (in this way not unlike Libertarianism...though I may draw criticism from this comparison ). If you're looking for solid evidence of growth to support this, I might direct you to Google Trends:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From this graph it is evident that interest in Ayn Rand was rekindled during 2008 and especially 2009. The news reference volume shows a similar upward trend since 2004.

I also found a few articles about the 'Rand Revival' (ranked in chronological order):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...al_100227.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ged-us-economy
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=407357
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/27/uns...solicited.html

I can do further research if you're still not satisfied.

It is egotistic but then so are many others, Buddhism is.

Many others, including Buddhism, advocate humility over egotism. The Dhammapada says: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves." Of course, you probably know more about Buddhism than I, so I would be willing to concede this point if you made a persuasive argument to the contrary.

Proponents of democracy or anti slavery movements would have been laughed at and quite possibly executed in any vile manner you care to name.

Wow slogging through your introduction was hard work, and I feel like I need a shower after bathing in your vitriol.

While I do believe democracy is a defective form of government, I intended merely to demonstrate how philosophers like Rand are characteristic of their times and culture, and that this fact does not make their philosophy any more valid. In other words, just because something is new (as per my definition supplied in the OP) doesn't make it credible any more than it makes it wrong.

Morality is the tool by which humans are able to interact. Intelligence is our special dividing factor between animals and ourselves, the roots of our morality are based in instinct and defined by reason. That is why it is not an oxymoron. How would you know right and wrong without reason? Or do you somehow pick your morals and ethics from a 'good' book, but then people do that but use their reason to contextualise passages and dismiss others. That is why we aren't stoning people to death in the west.

Moral anarchy? Utter nonsense, you have led yourself a bit wide on this one with little justification.

Morality is originally derived from general social principles. The individual then uses their own independent reasoning in the application of these instilled principles. So yes, reason plays a role, but it is subservient to society. Basically, reason is the executive branch and society the legislative branch of morality. Rand, on the other hand, believes that we would be better off overthrowing these general social principles, or the fundamental basis for morality, in the name of individual interest and reasoning.

She certainly wouldn't be out of place 2500 years ago around Buddhism, or around epicurean philosophy or stoicism. These 'selfish' philosophies recognise that the beginning of all human interactions.

If you think that there is such a conflict between 'selfishness' and 'morality' then I would suggest sitting down with some ancient Greek philosophers, the study of morality and human nature might provide some insight and show you that you are battling a polar opposites that don't exist.

Rand's selfishness is different from moderate or ordinary selfishness. Any sane person can recognize the benefits or even necessity of selfishness in moderation, that is, restrained from the absolutes of Objectivism and primitive man.

Whoa whoa are you insane? You think that mankind made collective decisions under a collective consciousness because it could achieve more? Mankind realised this? When did they realise this? Is it in the history books where we all came together for a collective discussion?

They had to recognise the age old values of selfishness and restrain them? Really, were they doing that when adopting slavery and raping colonies of value and resources? When they were subjecting and devaluing black people, killing millions of people and denying others the ability to participate in society?

Society has been about the maintenance of power and influence, and the protection of that power and influence up until very recently when that mantle was passed from vast concentrations of power to more dispersed groups of influence within business and government.

They realised this because nature forced them to realise it. Those who did not realise the necessity of cooperation and sociability were killed. Natural selection! Man learned through this way to cooperate with others, so instead of starving to death trying to hunt a single deer when food was scarce, he employed the assistance of others in hunting a herd of deer, which helped ensure the survival of all.

As Timothy Leary points out, war is a product of altruism. So the very fact that people were killing and enslaving others proves that their selfishness was curbed to an extent that war would be possible. Of course this does not make it acceptable, but on the other hand the restraint of the primitive virtues allows for the existence of civilization.

Lastly, while power and influence is necessary for the maintenance of society, so is cooperation, and again sociability.

Yes organised religion has such wonderful values...supporting nazis, paedophiles and spreading AIDs for the win eh...

You are clearly winning hearts and minds here. I don't even like Ayn Rands writing but god damn if I'm not tempted to convert to rabid fundamental randism after reading this.

Who said what about vitriol?

Hilarious bolded part....

Well, there is often humor in reality. This is a thread about Objectivism not religion or history, but I'd be interested to hear how you deny that religion has benefited the progress of society during the past thousands of years. The Dark Ages would have been much darker if not for the Church, and the Islamic Golden Age saw the Middle East become the center of the world, to give two basic examples.

Haha. Wow. I linked you to wikipedia to provide you with accurate information concerning your extreme disregard for the realities of what you were attempting to debate. I should've guessed the attempt was only earnestly trying to hide your real attack of atheism with the correlation to Ayn Rand's philosophy. I was not using wikipedia to provide you with the definition of a word nor the subjective interpretations of that word.

Could you please clarify? How much more proof do you want that altruism is central to religion? Do I have to cite every place in the Bible or Qur'an or Tanakh which advocates altruism, or will you spare me that?

As for there not existing Objectivist theists, that's kind of like saying there's no evolution supporting Christians isn't it? I would define someone who a truly a christian as someone who follows the letter of the biblical law to the letter (as stated within the bible) but whether I tell christians that they're not christian or not they'll still swear by the Christian establishment. Similarly even though Randian philosophy is ripped from satanism huge numbers of conservative Christian fundamentalists in the US are swearing by her philosophy because it offers one of the few encouraging words for capitalism and Fox is capitalizing on the fear of socialism and Obama. This is surprising given the fact Randian philosophy strongly encourages atheism and satanism derived philosophies.

Well no, someone who follows the Bible to the letter can not also believe in evolution. Or Objectivism. Christian fundamentalists who are swearing by all of Rand's philosophy are either not Christian fundamentalists or don't understand Rand's philosophy. I'm personally inclined to think it's both.

[Denny Crane!]

So I am not making many friends among the atheists and Libertarians? Oh, damn . But I do mean no offense to either party.

You certainly meant offence to Rand advocates in the first part of your post, if it was not your intent then your unconscious and your consciousness are not walking the same path.

It is growing, sir. The liberal politics of the Obama administration and the weakening of the Republican Party has only encouraged its growth. Objectivists in the United States often are, I believe, estranged members of the American right-wing who wish to distance themselves from the Republican Party; members who perceive that party as turning away from the fundamental roots of American conservatism and Capitalism (in this way not unlike Libertarianism...though I may draw criticism from this comparison ). If you're looking for solid evidence of growth to support this, I might direct you to Google Trends:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From this graph it is evident that interest in Ayn Rand was rekindled during 2008 and especially 2009. The news reference volume shows a similar upward trend since 2004.

I also found a few articles about the 'Rand Revival' (ranked in chronological order):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...al_100227.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ged-us-economy
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=407357
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/27/uns...solicited.html

I can do further research if you're still not satisfied.

Merely reactionary trends towards a government inclined to move towards more big government. I'm pleased that there is some research behind your thinking, but I wouldn't read to much into it.

I could just as easily say there has been an explosion of interest and growth in keynsian thought, but again this is reactionary trends based on the global crisis and the use of keynsian methods. This both brings people in to advocate keynsian who wouldn't normally think to comment on it, and soon won't be doing so again once it has died down and similarly attracts people towards purer capitalism as a reaction to keynsian.

Many others, including Buddhism, advocate humility over egotism. The Dhammapada says: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves." Of course, you probably know more about Buddhism than I, so I would be willing to concede this point if you made a persuasive argument to the contrary.

Buddhist morality, its way of life is based around positive actions bring positive effects upon the mind and moving one closer to perfect mental health. Rational self interest, much like the epicureans advocated selfishness, but rational self interest leads to contribution towards others.

There is one author who stated that there are 6 basic human needs (an interpretation of maslows hierarchy of needs) which are certainty, variety, significance, connection, growth and contribution. The first four are basic needs, but the last two are what is necessary for self actualisation and fulfillment.

What is that I'm saying? That selfishness leads to altruism.

While I do believe democracy is a defective form of government, I intended merely to demonstrate how philosophers like Rand are characteristic of their times and culture, and that this fact does not make their philosophy any more valid. In other words, just because something is new (as per my definition supplied in the OP) doesn't make it credible any more than it makes it wrong.

Just like something like democracy being invoked and lasting for a century doesn't make it more valid than any other philosophy. Things are only valid if they are testable.

Would it help if I noted that the Ayn Rand fans I know like her work but view it as inherently flawed? That doesn't remove value from it. Show me a perfect piece of work? Plato is respected yet a vast proportion of his work was utter bollocks, I mean really big piles of steaming turd. It moved the arguments forward, it was useful and I find value in his work where I can.

Morality is originally derived from general social principles. The individual then uses their own independent reasoning in the application of these instilled principles. So yes, reason plays a role, but it is subservient to society. Basically, reason is the executive branch and society the legislative branch of morality. Rand, on the other hand, believes that we would be better off overthrowing these general social principles, or the fundamental basis for morality, in the name of individual interest and reasoning.

It cannot be subservient to society. For one thing it assumes to much of the collective conscious or relies on the government which is corrupt. Morality must be testable, inherent and unreliant upon the shifting whims of a government that might turn around and want to murder 6 million jews. Which of course morality is, it is inherent in human beings.

Can I ask something, and tell me if you don't believe that morality is inherent after this, do you want to rape a baby? Is it society conditioning you not to? Or is it just instinctual, just like you do not murder people randomly, and we view undue agression as abhorrent unless we are conditioned to believe otherwise.

Rand's selfishness is different from moderate or ordinary selfishness. Any sane person can recognize the benefits or even necessity of selfishness in moderation, that is, restrained from the absolutes of Objectivism and primitive man.

Okay hang up your hat on this whole analogy between Rands selfishness and primitive man as it is baseless and you didn't even begin to prove such an assertion, I effectively dismissed your argument about it and you've now fractured it into moderated selfishness and objective selfishness.

Now for you to mistakenly believe this about Rand leads me to believe that you haven't read her work. If you had you would know that she makes the distinction between the way she uses the word selfishness and the way it is typically used to describe a regard for ones welfare to the disregard of the welfare of the others (ref. essay The Virtue of Selfishness)

You arrived at this caveman analogy, of a selfish brute who doesn't care for the consequences of his actions or the welfare of their fellow man, friends and family in the pursuit of desire - satisfaction falsely without reference to Rand's work.

Had you cared to read and reference her work you would see that she does not describe this behaviour as virtuous. She rejected describing whim satisfaction as selfishness as it assumes that morality is rooted in altruism (it isn't) and that it would conflict with the idea of objective morality and ethics. The evidence for this is clear in later psychological findings that all humans need key things in their life in order to be both psychologically healthy and happy.

Once again I draw on the epicurean and buddhist ideas of morality and self interest that can be seen in Rands work as well that rational self interest does not conform to your populist image of selfishness. The traits you try to ascribe in your analogy is not compatible with her work. Because we are social animals, we need to feel there is justice and benevolence in our lives to feel fulfilled and happy. Acts of brutishness or irrational whim fulfillment or movement away from cultivating healthy social bonds and community contribution stems from pyschological problems or conditioning and isn't the sign of someone who is
rationally self interested.

To fully understand selfishness in the frame of objectivist ethics it is necessary to understand how she viewed values, that there is true value in actions that benefit both yourself and others and that there is a harmony of human interests.

Rand writes, "Altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice"


Your trouble with Rand is not her ethics, it is either with not reading it or not understanding it. Especially the context and references regarding the language she uses to approach her ideas.

They realised this because nature forced them to realise it. Those who did not realise the necessity of cooperation and sociability were killed. Natural selection! Man learned through this way to cooperate with others, so instead of starving to death trying to hunt a single deer when food was scarce, he employed the assistance of others in hunting a herd of deer, which helped ensure the survival of all.

As Timothy Leary points out, war is a product of altruism. So the very fact that people were killing and enslaving others proves that their selfishness was curbed to an extent that war would be possible. Of course this does not make it acceptable, but on the other hand the restraint of the primitive virtues allows for the existence of civilization.

Lastly, while power and influence is necessary for the maintenance of society, so is cooperation, and again sociability.

The existence of civilisation just exists. Not because of any particular restraint, it has been shown that nothing is restrained.

You conceptualise man as a beast held in chains by society. This is false, both scientifically and abstractly. We are pack animals, our instincts are to build communities not destroy them. The hierarchies you attribute to restraining us were imposed upon and have evolved.

There are no primitive values, please point me to the research that makes you believe this.

Who said what about vitriol?

Not vitriol it is fact.

Well, there is often humor in reality. This is a thread about Objectivism not religion or history, but I'd be interested to hear how you deny that religion has benefited the progress of society during the past thousands of years. The Dark Ages would have been much darker if not for the Church, and the Islamic Golden Age saw the Middle East become the center of the world, to give two basic examples.

The dark age was largely dark because of the church. They had positions of supreme power in society and at a grass roots level. They used this power to restrict education and terrorise the peasants. This power in society continued into the enlightenment. Every scientist up until then was by default religious because to be an atheist risked execution. The Islamic Golden age was notable because they were so liberal, this is what allowed science and philosophy to prosper. There was little repression and war in comparison to Europe. Religion wasn't a factor in these times in encouraging development except for the fact that it was itself deeply integrated and in posession of power influence and wealth. If it hadn't of done something it would have been a miracle it just so happened that some men of influence within the church did some good work before the enlightenment when they weren't burning people at the stake.