Randian Philosophy
I have read a few Rand books recently and have had a few friend ask about what I have gleaned from the venture. So I took to trying to define her philosophy. I have avoided reading any formal outlines of her philosophy as to try and think it through myself.
That being said I need help overcoming a circular definition. Here is my description of a Randian view of goodness:
The problem emerges from my description of values, wealth and happiness. Man values things that bring him wealth, wealth brings him happiness because it allows him to more freely pursue his values?
Any hints at how to modify my formulation as to solve for this circular logic?
I understand her philosophy is quite controversial so lets stick to defining her objective claims and avoid critiquing it.
That being said I need help overcoming a circular definition. Here is my description of a Randian view of goodness:
Goodness
Goodness is universally subjective. When a decision is made on how to act there is one factor that determines its goodness: how well does that action conform to the agent's values? Action is guided by thought, thought is guided by values, values are generated based on promoting one’s wealth, and wealth is generated in order to promote one’s happiness.
Thought
The ability to think is what constitutes life. Freedom to think is a basic right. It is man’s duty to critically think and leverage judgement as he navigates life. Straying from this is moving away from life and toward death. Thought without action is cowardice and is actively reducing one’s potential wealth and therefore one’s potential happiness. Thought is used to make values manifest in action.
Values
Values are the guidelines for action. Man values any means to generate wealth or increase his capacity to generate wealth. Values are fundamental to life and their targets scale with wealth. The target of man’s values differ greatly when wealth is non-existent than when wealth is grand. However, if one cares to live his adherence to his values remains constant.
Wealth
Wealth is the quantifier of a man’s fitness and morality. Wealth is one’s means to survive. Wealth is one’s means to flourish. Wealth is one’s means to happiness.
Happiness
Happiness is one’s ability to freely pursue his values.
The problem emerges from my description of values, wealth and happiness. Man values things that bring him wealth, wealth brings him happiness because it allows him to more freely pursue his values?
Any hints at how to modify my formulation as to solve for this circular logic?
I understand her philosophy is quite controversial so lets stick to defining her objective claims and avoid critiquing it.
Comments (41)
She was too poor to do anything. So she sees money as the first cause, and capitalism as the bringer of money.
Freedom is predicated on the idea that there is more good in people than bad. So a society based on freedom will be successful. Freedom doesn't need perfection to win, it only needs 51% goodness.
I read one once, but I have almost completely recovered. There is still hope for you, but try not to talk about it so much.
Rand is not a popular philosopher here on the forum. You may have trouble getting a helpful response, for example:
Quoting unenlightened
I have read three of her books, all fiction - "Atlas Shrugged," "The Fountainhead," and "Anthem." All are badly written. I find the philosophy woven into the story distasteful, unconvincing. I have also read a bit about her philosophy and life. For me, a little bit of illogical reasoning is the least of her problems. I think her complete misunderstanding of and contempt for human values is hard to get past.
Sorry I can't help. Welcome to the forum.
Quoting OscarTheGrouch
Back to square one. The problem lies in those descriptions of happiness, values, and wealth, respectively.
Quoting OscarTheGrouch
Happiness leads to values. Values lead to wealth. Wealth leads to happiness. Happiness leads to values. Thus we have a vicious circle.
Edit: I'm pretty sure I got the ordering wrong. But at least you get the idea.
Re you response to @OscarTheGrouch
I strongly disagree with your statement about the requirement to follow the OP. For that reason, I copied it to the Shoutbox and asked the moderators to respond.
Thanks.
Is it a vicious circle or is it a merry-go-round? :D
Is there a chance you can expound a bit on this?
A few questions I can think of immediately:
:lol: I like a lot of what Rand said but she’s very simplistic indeed. Imagine equating with values and happiness with wealth creation. No wonder she was a capitalist. That and a negative experience in Russia, I suppose. What a pity.
Again, way too simple and formulaic. This is far from how we function as human beings most of the time — it rarely happens, if at all.
Where exactly are these quotes from? Please cite the source.
I was just working with the information you gave me in the OP. I am not an expert philosopher who can give you professional advice. I thought it could be useful to order these sentences in that way. Perhaps you don't think it's useful, that's fine.
Quoting OscarTheGrouch
It's a lot of work to answer these questions. I wish I could help you.
Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.
p.s. my initial post should probably be modified so that GOODNESS is a main heading and thought, values, etc are sub headings
Objectivism is attractive to me given the current state of the world. It is empowering to internalize some of her concepts like: "money being a manifestation of ones best efforts", "action without thought is mindlessness, and thought without action is hypocritical", "celebration is for those who have earned it", etc.. Objectivism has empowered my individuality. It has helped me organize my thoughts and default to reason whenever I feel overwhelmed or exhausted.
This is me explaining a bit of what I have gained from objectivism not as a defense of it but as a statement about why I have appreciated my first foray into philosophy. I understand many of you may think of objectivism as blasphemy so please give me the next logical step in my philosophical journey. I would greatly appreciate thoughtful recommendations on texts to begin reading.
Well, I think there are better uses of your time, but by all means try to understand it if you would like to do so. As to wisdom, I think you'll find that much of her thought is derivative, especially of Aristotle, and in the nature of a reaction against communism as it came to develop. One can be an individual without being wealthy and primarily concerned with self-gratification or glorification.
SO the test will be what Oscar does next - read more widely and wisely, or join the Republicans or Liberals.
Nah, she had some thought provoking stuff. Who talked about the ins and outs of victim blaming before her?
I've always preferred Aristotle to Plato, if only because Aristotle was less mystical, less totalitarian.
Also, can't help with the OP. I did delve into her at some point. The only thing that stuck was a teleological basis for her ethics (which is Aristotlean). Apparently she missed Darwin as proof a teleological basis is wrong.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I also recall she was very negative about Kant. Turned out she never read him though. So there's the lies too.
She would want everyone to say (and fully mean) simultaneously: "I'm on board; pull up the lifeline."
She might argue that the reason that is impossible now-a-days is because of coddling, hand outs, and subscribing to another person's reasoning over one's own reasoning.
Do the pre-Socratics and then Plato, then Aristotle. The SEP is a good introduction, or Wikipedia.
I like audible books. I'm listening to The Road to Serfdom.
Objectivism is useless, especially as a starting point for a "philosophically journey", as Ayn Rand had an exceptionally naïve grasp on philosophical questions and concerns, and the shallow understanding of socio-economic conditions of Capitalism that she voraciously advocated. This is in part stemming from the fact that she wasn't well read. She likely didn't venture far from Aristotle and Nietzsche and had a poor grasp of both.
Statements like "money being a manifestation of ones best efforts", "action without thought is mindlessness, and thought without action is hypocritical", "celebration is for those who have earned it" etc. read like platitudes from a self-help book, rather than serious philosophical concepts.
I do suppose that Objectivism can sound attractive because in some ways it is reflective of the state of the world, and I mean that in a very dire sense.
Saying objectivism is useless is aggressive and dismissive. Although, I can see what you are getting at.
I find this quote meaningful. It makes a lot of sense to me.
I find the state of the world is closer to the opposite of what is prescribed by Objectivism rather than reflective of it.
The approach of coddling state and incentivizing avoiding individual critical thought and reason is what I see. Two core evils of Objectivism.
:smirk:
Quoting frank
Freddy Zarathustra e.g. resentment, slave morality, decadence ...
:up:
Quoting OscarTheGrouch
Not at all.
If and when, Oscar, you learn to recognize the difference between what Plato et al calls "philosophy" and "sophistry", then you will be able to judge for Ayn Rand's writings for yourself.
lol just going to throw my hands up at this one
I haven’t read the formalised version of her philosophy, but I can accept what I’ve heard about it not being very good based on some of the stuff she has Roark say in The Fountainhead; but I enjoyed the literary account she gives of her beliefs in that book a lot and I think she gets people right. The vast majority are what she calls “second-handers”: people who derive themselves from others (and so the animus Rand so commonly gets makes complete sense). And I agree with her that it’s better to do things that help people, for selfish reasons, as opposed to doing things solely to help people, and poisoning yourself in the ways she depicts (i.e. Catherine learning to look down on those she helps, finding herself in competition with other helpers, and losing herself to the role fabricated for her).
This seems like a place for reasoned discourse. It will help me learn about, and adjust my points of view.
It seems that within the first world sharp corners are being rounded. The results of our endeavors are minimized while personal and emotional issues are becoming a focal point. We expect that the wonderful conditions we enjoy will persist without high standards of existence.
In other words, value is being placed on how we feel about our actions and actions done onto us, versus the effects of those actions on us and the world we live in.
To reduce that a bit further: values are shifting to what seems to be rather than what is.
I am trying to explain myself. These words are rather raw.
I whole heartedly look forward to your response.
What makes Roark so attractive to some young males is that the theme of rugged individualism and the virtues of a pure meritocracy provide cover for the desire to be accepted by a particular group on the basis of what Veblen referred to as the display of conspicuous consumption. The dominance of Roark over women reflects how participation in the group translates the role of beauty. For example:
The futility of the 'kept' woman finding purpose through work is not a bug but a feature for Roark, it makes the forced sex hotter as a kind of degradation of worth. Rand makes the fantasy even hotter by suggesting that such a result is secretly what is wanted.
Time for me to hit the shower....
You should read the lengthy speech she gives her "John Galt" character in Atlas Shrugged. If you enjoy being lectured on the "virtue" of selfishness you'll be thrilled by that seemingly endless monologue appearing at the end of the book. That novel has amusing passages, though. I particularly liked the fact that the flag of the preposterously rich and brilliant renegades she dreamed up proudly displayed a dollar sign ($).
I don’t actually like Roark, or Dominique or Wynand. I think the rape scene is perverse and I find the dialog between the three of them sickly. Henry Cameron seems to me a more poignant representation of the book’s values: sticks to himself and the purity of what he wants to contribute despite the loneliness and destitution that Roark never actually experiences.
Money and rough sex seemed important to Rand. There's another such scene in Atlas Shrugged. As you might expect, the woman being portrayed actually enjoyed being ravished. She apparently wanted a brave man, wanted a cave man, like in the old Joanie Sommers song about Johnny, but with more bruises involved, it seems.
I didn’t enjoy the monologues in The Fountainhead. I’ve heard Rand’s books described as pulp fiction and I expect that characterises them quite well (enjoyable for the most part but cheap at times). All the same, I think her insights into the nature of the herd and reasons why they behave and think as they do have a good amount of truth to them.
And the sex stuff, who knows. Maybe she was doing a DH Lawrence and writing out some fantasies of hers in the guise of something else.