[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

[SupahEwok]

I don't like her cuz I've read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and they are very poorly written, although I didn't know enough to know better when I was 19.

She also seems to have a sub/rape fetish. Comes through clear and strong in those books.

 

[BrawlMan]

Ayn Rand is a piece of shit.

She wrote love letters and expressed admiration for William Hickman, a career criminal who abducted, tortured, and dismembered a 12 year old girl, culminating in him leaving the kid's torso at her parent's doorstep.

This man was the Jesus figure of her fucked up religion.

That is fucked up. I knew she was whacked out, but this. This is just.....siiiicccckkkk.

 

[Saelune]

Wait, hold up. Are you all just accepting the premise of inherently more special and talented people being limited by morality and picking a side? You know you can reject that premise entirely, right?

I honestly am not sure what you are saying here.

 

[Nuuu]

I don't know much about this person, but I do know that the concept of "I'm actually really great, other people are only holding me down." is a very unhealthy philosophy, and is less "philosophy" and more thinly disguised narcissism.

 

[tstorm823]

Wait, hold up. Are you all just accepting the premise of inherently more special and talented people being limited by morality and picking a side? You know you can reject that premise entirely, right?

I honestly am not sure what you are saying here.

There are posts in here considering the situation where societal norms impede progress, particularly in the situation of some great genius being held back by moral standards. And people are talking about picking a side between the great genius and morality. I think there are a lot of problems with the premise of that dilemma that it's not even worth considering. I'm not sure there really a situation where societal values have held back progress, as though if we legalized murder we'd have cured cancer and conquered the solar system by now. That seems delusional to me. Also the notion of society just inherently making things worse reeks of that early liberal "nobel savage" nonsense. Second, on what do you judge the greatness of someone or something outside of the goodness they do? Can we even logically describe someone as great is they act unethically to succeed at what they're doing? Third, as the smartest person in history, I can confidently say that nobody is the special genius that deserves to throw off societies morals and do whatever they please.

So like, if the question is "if a nonexistent superhuman were put in the logically impossible situation of doing great things only through means deemed immoral the society that's supposed to perceive this person's greatness, would they be right to go forward with that?" And the answer's no, but the better answer is "why are we entertaining this hypothetical?"

 

[CrazyGirl17]

My biggest issue with Rand's philosophy is the rejection of altruism, which I feel goes against human nature.

Though that may be due to my own biases...

 

[Saelune]

Wait, hold up. Are you all just accepting the premise of inherently more special and talented people being limited by morality and picking a side? You know you can reject that premise entirely, right?

I honestly am not sure what you are saying here.

There are posts in here considering the situation where societal norms impede progress, particularly in the situation of some great genius being held back by moral standards. And people are talking about picking a side between the great genius and morality. I think there are a lot of problems with the premise of that dilemma that it's not even worth considering. I'm not sure there really a situation where societal values have held back progress, as though if we legalized murder we'd have cured cancer and conquered the solar system by now. That seems delusional to me. Also the notion of society just inherently making things worse reeks of that early liberal "nobel savage" nonsense. Second, on what do you judge the greatness of someone or something outside of the goodness they do? Can we even logically describe someone as great is they act unethically to succeed at what they're doing? Third, as the smartest person in history, I can confidently say that nobody is the special genius that deserves to throw off societies morals and do whatever they please.

So like, if the question is "if a nonexistent superhuman were put in the logically impossible situation of doing great things only through means deemed immoral the society that's supposed to perceive this person's greatness, would they be right to go forward with that?" And the answer's no, but the better answer is "why are we entertaining this hypothetical?"

Morality is a good thing. I do agree that 'just because society expects us' is a bad reason to do something, but because it is the right thing to do? That is a good reason to do something. I reject Ayn Rand's philosophy because it rejects morality for she believes it holds great people back.

Human testing is very regulated due to the ethics of experimenting on humans. If we removed those ethics, we could try far more extreme and radical experiments which could be what it takes to discover some amazing advancements in science and medicine, but it would require doing evil things. Maaaaaybe the lives saved would outweigh the lives lost, but it is not worth the moral compromise.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Ayn Rand philosophies are just narcissism trying to hide behind a veneer of intellectualism. The belief from whoever is spouting them that they are super-special, more super-special than the rest of the human race combined, and should be given everything they want because of how superior they are. Its just gross really

 

[Armadox]

Did you play Bioshock? Cause that game is basically 'What if Ayn Rand made her own paradise?'

Note: Ayn Rand = Andrew Ryan.

"I built 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."

I'd like to point out something. I'd like you to picture in your head yourself. Everything that is your physical form. The you that exists right here reading this. I want you to imagine all of your parts. Your hopes. Your dreams. Your secret thoughts. Now, I want you to read this next sentence multiple times: If we lived in an Ayn Randian society where there is no morals outside of the duty to one's own expression I would literally eat you. Now, when most bring up that as a concept, they usually mean it abstractly. like by stripping you of your financial ability through better investment, strong arming you via collecting on your debts until you have no choice but to slink back into the mud. Bigger fish consuming the small.

I do not mean that. I would, without a doubt, harvest your physical form and devour it. This unconstrained hedonistic expression let loose upon a pristine canvas in front of an audience of buyers as they watch the proceedings. This breaking of such a sacred taboo, gorging myself as the patterns emerge in reds, browns and sickly yellows as they drip upon the gesso. And why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I stand there in my blood soaked apron, knowing that those who are watching are experiencing a bouquet of dark emotions as I create a work of art that is as unique as you are. That what is you, cut and stretched over wood and sealed before being sold off as a macabre decoration, will live on beyond yourself.

Don't ask what would a world without limitations of social norms would look like. Because there are those who revel in chaos that would literally paint the town red.

 

[Trunkage]

Wait, hold up. Are you all just accepting the premise of inherently more special and talented people being limited by morality and picking a side? You know you can reject that premise entirely, right?

This. Also, cancelling murder is great irrelevant of how special and talented you are.

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

Also, Rand's decided to call her group the collective. Which... Like what? A bunch of individualist called themselves the opposite. She took her ideology and did what she wanted sexually and destroyed a bunch of marriages

Lastly, helping anyone is deem a morally repugnant act. They either help themselves or they should suffer. Wherever they are, they deserved it

 

[Hawki]

?A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.?

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, nor studied Objectivism, but from what I can tell, it's pretty much the opposite of the above sentiment.

...yeah, I'm going with Ghandi.

 

[Agema]

My biggest issue with Rand's philosophy is the rejection of altruism, which I feel goes against human nature.

Though that may be due to my own biases...

You have to be careful here, because Rand used a very strict definition of altruism, which is that it is a philosophical moral obligation to put others before oneself: you are immoral if you do not. However, when we think about altruism normally, we don't tend to think of it as a moral obligation. Altruism normally represents an attitude of concern and wishing the best for others; in terms of action an option where we might be a good person to put someone ahead of ourselves, but we're not necessarily a bad person if we don't, either.

Rand would argue that if it selfishly pleases you to and does not significantly harm yourself, help others if you want. Nevertheless, I would suggest the overall tone of Objectivism is very poorly suited and even hostile to the idea of helping others generally.

 

[Agema]

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

No, that's "The Fountainhead".

"Atlas Shrugged" is where some guy called John Galt creates a perpetual motion machine, then disappears off with all the rich and talented people in the USA to a secret valley ("Galt's Gulch") and leaves society to collapse because only the immoral, greedy, thieving, big state thickos are left to run the useless, bovine herds of the irrelevant masses. In the end they have to beg him and his pals to rescue them, and the USA is saved when they comes back and install a functioning (Objectivist) society.

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

 

[Agema]

There are posts in here considering the situation where societal norms impede progress, particularly in the situation of some great genius being held back by moral standards. And people are talking about picking a side between the great genius and morality. I think there are a lot of problems with the premise of that dilemma that it's not even worth considering. I'm not sure there really a situation where societal values have held back progress, as though if we legalized murder we'd have cured cancer and conquered the solar system by now. That seems delusional to me. Also the notion of society just inherently making things worse reeks of that early liberal "nobel savage" nonsense. Second, on what do you judge the greatness of someone or something outside of the goodness they do? Can we even logically describe someone as great is they act unethically to succeed at what they're doing? Third, as the smartest person in history, I can confidently say that nobody is the special genius that deserves to throw off societies morals and do whatever they please.

So like, if the question is "if a nonexistent superhuman were put in the logically impossible situation of doing great things only through means deemed immoral the society that's supposed to perceive this person's greatness, would they be right to go forward with that?" And the answer's no, but the better answer is "why are we entertaining this hypothetical?"

Like I said in an earlier post, Rand is basically copying Nietzsche here. The concept of the Nietzschean "ubermensch" ("superman") is someone who can throw off the shackles of society to become truly self actualised. I think Nietzsche suggested no such person has ever truly exemplified this, but some (he suggests Jesus as an example) were close, by strognly pursuing a radically different vision to the general morals of the time. Of course, he also viewed the resultant Christianity deriving from Jesus as the sort of stifling moral code of his day that a contemporaneous ubermensch should be inclined to break.

Nietzsche is tarred by his (somewhat unfair) association with later Naziism. Nietzsche was I think ultimately considerate of others and had a core of goodwill to humanity despite some of his iffier philosophical views. Unfortunately, when he died his estate fell into the hands of his sister who was a vicious, prejudiced, mean-spirited woman, and she controlled his writings to suit her view of the world, which the Nazis lapped up.

The ubermensch is not a terrible concept in many ways: society does need people who can shake things up and create "paradigm shifts" (as the trendy term goes). We can also consider even on a smaller scale that people should largely be able to pursue their own personal happiness without being crushed by society: I perceive that Nietzsche resented prejudice and ideologies that encouraged it. Nevertheless, there really is something about the concept of ubermensch that, in extremis, could countenance acts of terrible cruelty to others as the ubermensch asserts their Will. (This tending into his idea of "Will to Power", which is perhaps an uncomfortable view of human nature and the universe for many.)

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Wait, hold up. Are you all just accepting the premise of inherently more special and talented people being limited by morality and picking a side? You know you can reject that premise entirely, right?

This. Also, cancelling murder is great irrelevant of how special and talented you are.

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

Also, Rand's decided to call her group the collective. Which... Like what? A bunch of individualist called themselves the opposite. She took her ideology and did what she wanted sexually and destroyed a bunch of marriages

Lastly, helping anyone is deem a morally repugnant act. They either help themselves or they should suffer. Wherever they are, they deserved it

One, that was Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged was the one with the railroads and the capitalists going missing.

Two, yeah, even as someone who will admit to having my mind to go dark places about science and ethics, I still find Ayn Rand stupid. Social norms and morals are inherent to humanity itself in my mind. I also think she is misinterpreting the Ubermench ideology; it was meant to be an assertion of a person being moral based on their own experience instead of society, not a rejection of morality. (PS, i admit it's been ages since I've read up on that ideology, reprimand me if needed)

Honestly, it feels self indulgent. Like, the type of self indulgent that I would see in some anime and call out on.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

No, that's "The Fountainhead".

"Atlas Shrugged" is where some guy called John Galt creates a perpetual motion machine, then disappears off with all the rich and talented people in the USA to a secret valley ("Galt's Gulch") and leaves society to collapse because only the immoral, greedy, thieving, big state thickos are left to run the useless, bovine herds of the irrelevant masses. In the end they have to beg him and his pals to rescue them, and the USA is saved when they comes back and install a functioning (Objectivist) society.

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Wow, i couldn't read Atlas shurgged back in high school because it was a massive book but that summary was so bad, well the Futurama meme would work, IT GAVE ME CANCER

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Back when I was a liberal, and stupid, but I'm repeating myself, I always thought that Rand made some valid points. These days, after I've turned Red, I can't say I think so anymore. Claiming that acting out of self interest and nothing but self interest is, in the end, what's best for everyone is simply incorrect. It's a fantasy. Her ideology became popular as a counter thesis to communism. An ideology that claims that the individuals has no responsibility towards anyone other than themselves and that any kind of cooperation should only be done out of personal self interest. I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit ideology. I'm an individualist in many ways but outright denying that such a thing as "responsibility towards others" should exist is not an idea on which a society can function. I doubt it's even an idea on which an individual can survive long term.

To cut Rand some slack, I still think her ideology is one of the more benign ideologies on the right. Objectivism, for all its faults, at least doesn't promote genocide and mass deportations. As a matter of fact it utterly rejects ideas like racial or sexual discrimination, which makes it better than practically anything else rightists believe. But it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, if the rich collectively decided pack their stuff and fuck off to their little Fantasy Wakanda in the mountains somewhere I'd be the last to stop them but I don't think that's gonna work out for them.

I'm sorry Alisa, Lenin was right and you were wrong. The "looters" and "parasites" aren't the poor, but the rich.

 

[Agema]

To cut Rand some slack, I still think her ideology is one of the more benign ideologies on the right. Objectivism, for all its faults, at least doesn't promote genocide and mass deportations.

On the contrary, Ayn Rand happily justified the mass slaughter and dispossession of the native Americans. Her argument went that they were savages who had failed to build a civilised and advanced society and - crucially - settled lifestyles and property rights, in which case they deserved to be stripped of their land by force by more advanced (i.e. more reasoned and moral) Europeans.

I would also point out that to read her gleeful, lengthy description of the deaths of her ideological enemies in the train crash in Atlas Shrugged is to observe someone with plenty of lethal vindictiveness to spare. That's notphilosophy, of course, but it speaks to her attitude, and thus the attitudes Objectivists were supposed to hold (because no-one was allowed to disagree with her).

 

[jademunky]

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Or do. It has magic dominatrixes (and lots of em!) & is quite porny at times if you're into that kinda thing.

 

[09philj]

Rand was utterly short sighted. I'd generally consider myself to be acting in my own self interest most of the time, but it's often not to do with directly materially or sensually benefit myself. It is in my ultimate best interest to live in a society that is happier and more harmonious, and consistently acting to materially benefit myself will run counter to this ideal. Doing things which benefit other people for no immediate reward will, in theory, benefit me more in the long run, in a holistic way.