Objectivism: Do you give a rat's arse?

[VetLegion]

But I may as well use the opportunity. Harry, you seem to know about Rand. I am curious what is her original contribution to philosophy (if any). Individualism, selfishness, anarchism have all been argued for and against before her. So what did she actually contribute?

[Imran Siddiqui]

are usually required reading in high schools

Aroo? Hardly heard of anyone reading it in high school... at least from my generation.

[:) Smiley]

which high school did you go to?

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by VetLegion
But I may as well use the opportunity. Harry, you seem to know about Rand. I am curious what is her original contribution to philosophy (if any). Individualism, selfishness, anarchism have all been argued for and against before her. So what did she actually contribute?

I can't say there is a distinct, new contribution she has really made. Though, if anything, she has solidified the expression of "self". In fact, the personification of "self" and "selfishness" is basically what her writings are all about. Her philosophy, if you can call it that, advocates living life according to your own rules and not that of the group. It fosters pride in ones accomplishments without acknowledgement from others and seeks to brandish a way for an individual to become a self sustaining person. In short, her writing call others to make up their own minds, to not rely on society or strangers to guide our tastes.

Her philosophy also relishes in the joy of work. Her writings are almost Puritan in that the characters relish working hard, whether it be for a specific purpose or just to keep busy. There is also a strong respect for beauty derived by man and a sense of commune with life as all aspects of human living are sort of revealed to be honorable and strong. Take Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Talbert would rather be in the train yard with the engineers than up in the board room. She respects the coal men and the porters. She sees them playing an important part in running of the company. Individuals, but men and women working together for a common goal. Her writings reinforce the value of work, of individualism, and urge us to become greater than we are.

Now the reason why I'm talking about her "philosophy" and then her "writings" is because modern day objectivism focuses mainly on the expression of "self" rather than on her full works. The philosophical expression of "self" is stark in its reality, very jagged, and can be unforgiving. Basically it reflects capitalism and the stark realities of supply and demand. There is no helping hand in this philosophy.

In her writings we see a subtle difference. She advocates helping the poor, but inasmuch as giving them food, an education, and perhaps a job. Welfare is considered moot. Her way of thinking is that you have to work for something before you can reap the rewards. Also, we see in her writings a human experience which helps to flesh out her philosophy of "self". In her books "self" is made human and the edges are rounded off.

There's a lot more to Rand than people give her credit for. Her philosophy is just a rehash of old themes, but it has a spartan quality to it, almost Heinlein in face. Her ideas are a direct result and anti-thesis to socialism/communism and helped to create the modern day U.S. conservative philosophy.

[VetLegion]

Thanks.

Her writing must have been pretty good, for her to achieve such recognition.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Thanks.

Her writing must have been pretty good, for her to achieve such recognition.

There is some sort of quality in her writing that makes something click. I used it when I was involved in politics as a sort of motivator for myself.

[Last Conformist]

I've found arguing with Randists to be a frustrating experience, partly since they tend to redefine commonly undestood words, and partly because while acting like they've got all the answers, they often seem to have problems answering simple questions about their philosophy.

Case in point: I once spent a couple pages on CFC trying to get an Objectivist to answer yes or no as to whether Objectivism presupposes mind/matter dualism. The answer I eventually got was, yes, it does, which doesn't exactly boost my faith in Objectivism as the One True Philosophy.

(I did find a passage by Rand that seemed to confirm his answer, but I can't marshall a great lot of faith I'll get the same reply from the next self-proclaimed Randist I press on the point.)

[Arrian]

Aroo? Hardly heard of anyone reading it in high school... at least from my generation.

Seconded. I read her in highschool... not as required reading, but as something I picked up in the library. One of the elective "classes" seniors could take was a reading period. Most of the participants goofed off for 45 minutes. I read several of Rand's books, Asimov's robot stories and Foundations series, and a few other things I've forgotten.

-Arrian

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I've found arguing with Randists to be a frustrating experience, partly since they tend to redefine commonly undestood words, and partly because while acting like they've got all the answers, they often seem to have problems answering simple questions about their philosophy.

Case in point: I once spent a couple pages on CFC trying to get an Objectivist to answer yes or no as to whether Objectivism presupposes mind/matter dualism. The answer I eventually got was, yes, it does, which doesn't exactly boost my faith in Objectivism as the One True Philosophy.

(I did find a passage by Rand that seemed to confirm his answer, but I can't marshall a great lot of faith I'll get the same reply from the next self-proclaimed Randist I press on the point.)

Ehhhhh, well, as far as good and evil specifically go, no, objectivism doesn't really define either. Or at least Rand doesn't. I know little about what other thinkers are saying. You could probably make the case that the world, according to Rand, is made up of the Able and the Looters, which as far as her books go might as well be good and evil.

Actually yeah, your right, there is definately dualism. Atlas Shrugged specifically named the competing forces in the world.

[Last Conformist]

Er, I don't think you understand what sort of dualism I'm speaking about.

Mind/matter dualism is, at heart, the notion that mental phenomena cannot be reduced to matter and it's interactions (and that the material similarly cannot be reduced to the mental).

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Er, I don't think you understand what sort of dualism I'm speaking about.

Mind/matter dualism is, at heart, the notion that mental phenomena cannot be reduced to matter and it's interactions (and that the material similarly cannot be reduced to the mental).

You mean the interaction between Buddhist "atoms" of reality and real atoms?

[KrazyHorse]

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

[Agathon]

Recipe for Rand.

1. Take one dose of Nietzsche.

2. Remove all literary skill.

3. Remove all awareness of the history of philosophy.

4. Remove all taste.

5. Remove all understanding of art.

6. Remove all subtlety.

7. Add a love of money.

8. Add ridiculous and simplified politics.

Serve lukewarm in a 700 page book of turgid prose.

[BeBMan]

Nietzsche had literary skill you could remove?
*hides before Gepap sees that*

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Agathon
Recipe for Rand.

1. Take one dose of Nietzsche.

2. Remove all literary skill.

3. Remove all awareness of the history of philosophy.

4. Remove all taste.

5. Remove all understanding of art.

6. Remove all subtlety.

7. Add a love of money.

8. Add ridiculous and simplified politics.

Serve lukewarm in a 700 page book of turgid prose.

I'd agree with #1 and #8, but the others just mean you haven't read enough of her stuff.

#2 - She's not the best, but through the long winded rants she starts to convey the underlying meaning.

#3 - Her books weren't a thesis for some college class. Should she have quoted Aristotle? Oh wait, she did.

#4 - Opinions, opinions.

#5 - Depends, what kind of art?

#6 - You must have glossed over a lot.

#7 is just silly. Her characters are either dirt poor or end up giving up their money and power. Her fascination with Capitalism is derived out of her love for the freedom of choice, something she didn't see in her native Soviet Russia.