T Nation

Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophy for Living on Earth


#1

#2

Isn’t Ayn Rand the one who is always coupled with Hitler for philosophical views against humanity or something like that?


#3

I think folks who have a hard on for Ayn Rand are about as silly as folks who have a hard on for Marx.


#4

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Isn’t Ayn Rand the one who is always coupled with Hitler for philosophical views against humanity or something like that?[/quote]

I am not sure what you mean here. I am no fan of Hitler (I am Jewish), but it is clear from his writings, philosophy, economic and social policies, speeches, and actions, that what he put front and center, above all, was the welfare, expansion, and service to the white race, which consists of millions of people. Hence he was a socialist (not communist) and believed that every white person had an obligation to one another, friend, family member, or stranger, regardless of class. The other races could pretty much go to hell for all he was concerned, though he did form some alliances and mutual aims with some of their leaders.

Ayn Rand and Hitler couldn’t be anymore different. Rand thought people had no obligation to help anyone and that the concept of race was meaningless. Hitler was a collectivist and racist and Rand was an extreme individualist who if I recall correctly considered racism the greatest sin.

Just from he above video, though all in it seems reasonable and chipper and fuzzy, for someone who valued the concept of reality, Raynd was for sure ignorant to the reality of this usually hostile world. A CHILD or stupidly naive adult believes everyone will just mind their business, follow unwritten and just mutually understood rules, do as they please, and keep off the turf of others, and therefore we would need no government or a ridiculously lax government and that we don’t need a tax funded police force.


#5

[quote]magick wrote:
I think folks who have a hard on for Ayn Rand are about as silly as folks who have a hard on for Marx.[/quote]

I’m not about to defend Rand lovers as I’ve never read anything she put out. I was a collectivist about the time people typically read Rand, my youth.

That said, while sure they are two sides of the same coin, one is infinitely more dangerous than the other. Because one means give up any self identity and any autonomous control. That is not only physically dangerous, but emotionally and mentally too.


#6

I found from my limited reading of Rand that I disagreed with the premise of Objectivism because it seemed to consider self-destruction an unreasonable pursuit, and hinged many of it’s arguments upon this premise.

But, I feel that anything that gets people thinking about some manner of philosophy is a positive.


#7

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I found from my limited reading of Rand that I disagreed with the premise of Objectivism because it seemed to consider self-destruction an unreasonable pursuit, and hinged many of it’s arguments upon this premise.

[/quote]

That is an unreasonable pursuit in any philosophical “societal” model I can think of.

By unreasonable I mean, stupid and a poor choice. Not unreasonable as in “no one will do it”. Typically the person bent on self destruction has something going on that is outside the “norm” so to speak, and isn’t acting rationally.


#8

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Isn’t Ayn Rand the one who is always coupled with Hitler for philosophical views against humanity or something like that?[/quote]

She’s the one whom “liberals” want to package with Hitler and other baby-eaters because her ideas threaten their vaginafeelings.


#9

[quote]magick wrote:
I think folks who have a hard on for Ayn Rand are about as silly as folks who have a hard on for Marx.[/quote]

I think folks who take non-extremism to the extreme fail to grasp a certain contradiction.


#10

[quote]ENLIGHTENMENT wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Isn’t Ayn Rand the one who is always coupled with Hitler for philosophical views against humanity or something like that?[/quote]

She’s the one whom “liberals” want to package with Hitler and other baby-eaters because her ideas threaten their vaginafeelings. [/quote]

Gotta love the “You sound like Hitler” line thrown at anyone who disagrees with you on a political or social topic. :slight_smile:

Do people even realize Raynd was a Soviet Jewess, which would make her completely and inherently (one is born with a race and it can’t be changed) incompatible with Hitler and National Socialism?


#11

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That said, while sure they are two sides of the same coin, one is infinitely more dangerous than the other. Because one means give up any self identity and any autonomous control. That is not only physically dangerous, but emotionally and mentally too. [/quote]

I suggest you reread Marx. And Benjamin, while you’re at it. The constant “AAAAAAAAAARGH COMMUNISM MEANS HIVE MIND” is a bit tiresome.


#12

Let’s see whose views Hitlers’ are really consistent with:


#13

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That said, while sure they are two sides of the same coin, one is infinitely more dangerous than the other. Because one means give up any self identity and any autonomous control. That is not only physically dangerous, but emotionally and mentally too. [/quote]

I suggest you reread Marx. And Benjamin, while you’re at it. The constant “AAAAAAAAAARGH COMMUNISM MEANS HIVE MIND” is a bit tiresome.
[/quote]

I’m sure commies don’t have hivemind. Particularly the lowly non-ruling class (you know, the 99.9%) that get nothing but table scraps and are forced to work or otherwise rot in prison. I’m sure the people that risk life and limb to defect from Communist Utopias think differently.

But… Let’s review for shits and giggles because this could be a fun thread.

Self identity - “From each according to their ability to each according to their need” translates in the real world to “work in this fucking factory under any condition or we’ll shoot you and your family. Oh and government gets all the fruits of labor and capital.” There would be no opportunity to be an artist, or write novels unless the government okay’ed it. Well guess what happened if you were the only son of a farmer, you’re working that field, or they will shoot you and replace you with someone who will. But you’re not working too hard, there is no reward, so your countrymen will starve.

You’ll do approved things, say approved words, and suffer the wrath of the ruling class for daring to disobey.

Autonomy - Just lol. If one can’t do with one’s capital what they wish, but instead be controlled by the Ruling Few, oops I mean “the people” they have zero autonomy. You cannot have a collectivist society and have personal freedom, they are mutually exclusive ideas.

Physically dangerous - http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm
http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot
attached picture

I mean I could keep going but I don’t think anyone is going to argue

Mental and emotionally dangerous - Read up on what happens to prisoners and how captors break them… Then expand that over an entire population. You’ll end up with enough Stockholm Syndrome that murdering a couple million dissidents will actually be worth the effort.


#14

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]ENLIGHTENMENT wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Isn’t Ayn Rand the one who is always coupled with Hitler for philosophical views against humanity or something like that?[/quote]

She’s the one whom “liberals” want to package with Hitler and other baby-eaters because her ideas threaten their vaginafeelings. [/quote]

Gotta love the “You sound like Hitler” line thrown at anyone who disagrees with you on a political or social topic. :slight_smile:

Do people even realize Raynd was a Soviet Jewess, which would make her completely and inherently (one is born with a race and it can’t be changed) incompatible with Hitler and National Socialism? [/quote]

Rand abhorred any form of collectivism … she was (at least in theory and writing) a passionate rational individualist


#15

I hope you realise we’ve never had a communist nation state on this planet. Socialist or pseudo-socialist dictatorships (North Korea in particular calls itself socialist but really isn’t), sure.

Concerning your line about possession and individuality - do you mean to imply that owning things defines you?

Concerning the “no one every ran from capitalism” - people don’t run from a system per se. They run away from torture, war, starvation. Ever heard of Somalian refugees these days? Or Chileans in the seventies and eighties? Yeah, not exactly escaping from leftist governments.


#16

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I found from my limited reading of Rand that I disagreed with the premise of Objectivism because it seemed to consider self-destruction an unreasonable pursuit, and hinged many of it’s arguments upon this premise.

[/quote]

That is an unreasonable pursuit in any philosophical “societal” model I can think of.

By unreasonable I mean, stupid and a poor choice. Not unreasonable as in “no one will do it”. Typically the person bent on self destruction has something going on that is outside the “norm” so to speak, and isn’t acting rationally. [/quote]

I feel as though this is hinged upon the idea that living is worth pursuing or that the human race needs to perpetuate. It’s definitely the norm, as you’ve mentioned, but it also can significantly alter the discussion on morality.

But I’ve been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and that’s most likely my problem, haha.


#17

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
But I’ve been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and that’s most likely my problem, haha.
[/quote]

Nietzsche is always the problem :stuck_out_tongue:

(I googled “Nietzsche sucks”; I was expecting something else)


#18

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
I hope you realise we’ve never had a communist nation state on this planet. Socialist or pseudo-socialist dictatorships (North Korea in particular calls itself socialist but really isn’t), sure.[/quote]

“It’s going to actually work THIS time guys, I swear. It won’t instantly devolve into all that evil just like it has every single other time it was tried.”

No, government dictating what you do, what you say, where you work, who you love does…

sigh…

Of course it does define you. It isn’t the only way in which a person is defined, but you bet your ass what people CHOOSE to own is a reflection of how they are defined, and what they CHOOSE to do with what they own (which doesn’t exist in Utopia Commie Land) defines them.

That people right’s to own and do as they please, as long as they cause no harm to others, are protected defines a nation. Collectivists want to take away the protection of that right.

lol. You don’t want to play this numbers game and you know it. Pretty sure Russia, China, Cuba, NK, Vietnam and Cambodia are going to smoke the living shit out of any example you list.


#19

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
But I’ve been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, and that’s most likely my problem, haha.
[/quote]

Nietzsche is always the problem :stuck_out_tongue:

(I googled “Nietzsche sucks”; I was expecting something else)[/quote]

That poor kid…what a terrible name.

I honestly think I’m just addicted to the writing style. I carry around a paperback for whenever I have downtime, and the aphorisms are easy to digest in little chunks. Tried doing the same with Sartre, and I’d have to go back a bunch of times and re-read passages because I’d forget what I had read before.

And then I tried doing it with Camus and just about blew my brains out.


#20

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I found from my limited reading of Rand that I disagreed with the premise of Objectivism because it seemed to consider self-destruction an unreasonable pursuit, and hinged many of it’s arguments upon this premise.

[/quote]

That is an unreasonable pursuit in any philosophical “societal” model I can think of.

By unreasonable I mean, stupid and a poor choice. Not unreasonable as in “no one will do it”. Typically the person bent on self destruction has something going on that is outside the “norm” so to speak, and isn’t acting rationally. [/quote]

I feel as though this is hinged upon the idea that living is worth pursuing or that the human race needs to perpetuate. It’s definitely the norm, as you’ve mentioned, but it also can significantly alter the discussion on morality.

[/quote]

Well if living isn’t worth pursuing, and perpetuating the result of instinct, doesn’t that prove a God, at least in part?

I mean, someone can sit there say this all happened by random, from nothing, for nothing, and we developed reason and the mental capacity to have this conversation because of a cosmic dice roll with a straight face?

Please expand on the last part of your post.