Reddit reviews Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library)
We found 16 Reddit comments about Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Plume Books
Depends how serious of a study you want to make, and if there is any particular area you want to focus on. If you want it from start to finish, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.
Rand herself never laid everything out in one work. It is kind of all over the place. The Virtue of Selfishness is more on morality, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is more on economics.
The Ayn Rand Lexicon has excerpts by topic, and I think is available for free online somewhere.
The best option is almost certainly Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (aka OPAR), based on lectures Peikoff gave in the 70s with Rand's approval:
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/
The other major option is Nathaniel Branden's "The Vision of Ayn Rand", which is essentially a transcript of an earlier set of lectures Branden gave in the 60s, also with Rand's approval (and before Rand broke ties with Branden):
http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Ayn-Rand-Principles-Objectivism-ebook/dp/B00LV0FX2S/
Metaphysics
>The dual wave/particle nature of matter is something that Rand has trouble with.
Not so long as the duality is accounted for in a non-contradictory way. It's self-evident that you will never find both sides of a contradiction existing in reality. If you could, you would never be able to know anything about anything. I explain this point further here.
Epistemology
>Rand's epistemology posits a fundamentally knowable world, so much so that we can draw strong conclusions about ethics and politics from principles founded on literally any observation.
I think it's pretty clear that this was not Rand's view of how principles are derived and grounded. It certainly isn't Dr. Leonard Peikoff's view of the induction of ethical and political principles, and he studied under Rand for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, agrees with Rand on every philosophical principle she wrote on, (and some she never wrote on.)
An individual's conceptual knowledge is an integrated whole, with a network of relationships between the different concepts and propositions.
Inductions of principles are not made by any random observation, but by multiple, relevant observations that are then integrated with each other and with other concepts, by a certain method (inductive logic) ultimately forming a theory that explains the observations causally. There is a whole lecture course and a book extending Objectivist theories to the issue of induction.
>I think there is a very powerful case that the complexity of the real world is such that drawing universal conclusions from a tiny base of priors will lead you far astray.
As I mentioned earlier, Rand isn't basing principles on "a tiny base of priors," but on concepts and theories that rest on a large number of perceptions and observations. But I also want to emphasize that complexity does not preclude the derivation of principles. Issac Newton derived principles from a tremendously complex physical world. And these principles still work in the context (including the precision of measurement) in which they were derived, (i.e. when things are not too small, too large, or too fast.) (That is another thing about principles that Objectivism recognizes: they are contextual with respect to evidence. See: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.)
>She is also extremely uncharitable to Kant, who explores very similar ideas...
Not really similar, actually. Rand didn't take respresentationalism, or the causal theory of perception (in which external objects are the causes, but not the direct objects of perception) for granted as starting points. Nor did she make a distinction between "things-in-themselves" and "appearances," nor did she believe in the "synthetic a priori," nor did she posit that "objects must conform to our knowledge."
Rand was a direct realist (but not a "naive" one) about perception, and her philosophy goes on from there. (I recommend The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley. If you want a more in depth explanation of what's wrong at the root of Kant's epistemology, I recommend this post, especially my last couple of comments: A Critique of Kant on the Noumenal World / Phenomenal World Distinction (“Thing-in-Itself” vs “Appearance”).)
Ethics
>However, Rand's conception of human happiness seems at odds with what we see in actual human lives. The deep and lasting connections of love that form among people and the genuine sacrifice people will make for their loved ones are such a big part of human behavior that it pushes me away from Rand's philosophy here.
If this is supposed to be persuasive, you're relying on an argumentum ad populum. The fact that many people behave a certain way doesn't make it right.
Now, you might say that the great prevalence of certain behaviors in people makes theories that condemn that behavior, prima facie, counter-intuitive. But to oppose the theory on these grounds, in the face of solid philosophical argument, is succumbing to the ad populum fallacy.
I would also like to note, for clarity here, that a genuine sacrifice is one in which a person willfully does net damage to his ability to carry forward with life, when everything, including his mental (conceptual and healthy emotional) needs over the long term are taken into account. I must say that I doubt that genuine sacrifices are quite as common as you indicate.
Politics
>Interpersonal relations are maddeningly complex, and a political system which presupposes to answer nearly all questions from basic principles is going to fail to account for that complexity.
Again, complexity does not preclude principles. Things that are varied and disparate in perceptual reality can be organized and kept track of conceptually. Principles can be derived from them.
>The modern liberal democratic welfare state has in fact worked really well.
To what are you comparing it and what standard of measurement are you using?
Countries today that can be called "modern" in the sense of technology and prosperity appear to be so, largely to the extent that they have been good at respecting the principles of freedom (that is, individual rights: life, liberty and property.)
Welfare, (redistribution based on need) on the other hand, exists, not only in these prosperous countries, but also exists in abundance in places like Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, Haiti, and Somalia. (In these last two cases, the redistribution is in the form of international aid.)
This video shows the correlation between economic freedom and quality of life: Episode One: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life. Explanation of the causation can be found in works like Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto.
As Bono said,
>Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.
>In dealing with poverty here and around the world, welfare and foreign aid are a Band-Aid. Free enterprise is a cure.
>Entrepreneurship is the most sure way of development.
(Though I think that even calling welfare and foreign aid a "stop-gap" is giving them too much credit. I think it actually hinders economic progress by helping to insulate the county's people and--especially--leadership from the full consequences of their failure to uphold individual rights on principle.)
[Edit: Added the first sentence of the first response.]
Objectivism is true because, Reality exists and functions according to laws independent of our wishes and wants, laws like causality which give consequences to human actions, actions which are caused but not necessary, therefore there exist a code of behavior which if followed, will more likely lead to long term well being of rational individuals. This is Objective morality. If one studies, derives Objective morality, one will realize that it is not something that must be obeyed, but it is something that we can observe & deduce, like how we do science. Another consequence of Objective morality is the concept of individual rights i.e. "Freedoms which do not violate freedoms" of individuals. It is possible to deduce, that a government, i.e. An agency which has a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographical area, ought to protect "freedoms which do not violate freedoms" of individuals instead of imposing unchosen obligations.
You should read Atlas Shrugged because it explains Objectivism without using philosophical jargon.
A shorter read would be What is Objectivism? by Craig Biddle and TV Tropes Overview
If you like philosophical jargon, and abstract ideas, then read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
> Perhaps you'd care to disclose the particulars of the metaphysical pincicples that cash out capitalism, and what the rational/axiomatic justification is for accepting them, then?
This is a start - http://campus.aynrand.org/more/selected-full-essays/
I know I sound like a broken record but it really helps to read and grok before seeking out discussions or debates.
Finally, the ARI offers some decent academic courses on Objectivism.,
Have you read this?
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Rand-Library-Volume/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348193405&sr=8-1&keywords=ayn+rand+objectivism
I have a pretty big box filled with philosophy books that I bought when Borders closed two years ago. This is part of my little collection. I'm not particularly conservative, but I was a little interested. Do you read any other philosophers?
He's an objectivist who took it one step further to anarcho-capitalism. His reasoning appears sound to me. I've never seen anyone take down his reasoning, only make personal rhetorical attacks against him. I can see how people would think he is a cult of personality because he is charismatic. Yet being a man of reason I have to judge a man on his reasoning, not on my "feelings" about him.
If anyone is interested in the logical reasoning why the initiation of the use of force against others is unethical I'd recommend this primer http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-The-Philosophy-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
Hmmm, let's see.
On emotions, I can quote Peikoff in OPAR:
>Emotions play an essential role in human life, and in this role they must be felt, nourished, respected. Without such a faculty, men could not achieve happiness or even survival; they would experience no desire, no love, no fear, no motivation, no response to values. The epistemological point, however, remains unaffected: the role of emotions, though essential, is not the discovery of reality. One casts no aspersion on eating or breathing if one denies that they are means of cognition. The same applies to feeling.
>
>Objectivism is not against emotions, but emotionalism. Ayn Rand's concern is not to uphold stoicism or abet repression, but to identify a division of mental labor. There is nothing wrong with feeling that follows from an act of thought; this is the natural and proper human pattern. There is everything wrong with feeling that seeks to replace thought, by usurping its function.
Ayn Rand wrote about charity herself.
Objectivism is also not against children, either against having them or against taking care of them once you have had them.
Funny, I often brought this to school during my AP American History and AP Psychology class as well, er, in fact, all my classes when I was 16. That and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
The justifications you are interested in have been concealed from you in the following books: They were first presented in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(1979) and were further expanded in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand(1991).
Many contemporary Philosophers are continuing her work. Including Douglass B. Rassmusen, with his Groundwork for Rights
and Tara Smith with Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist.
The fact that you were previously unaware that this information existed does not discredit her Philosophy. That is what we call: The argument from personal incredulity.
Please elaborate. How is a moral code where man's life is the standard to determine that which is good or bad an improper starting point for a moral basis? Which other starting point would be preferable? Be specific.
People who follow Rand aren't suggesting that nobody before has thought out a system of morality. What many -myself included - have determined is that morality has historically determined by religious institutions like the Catholic Church, or political systems which did not recognize or uphold the concept of individual rights.
Because Rand is not recognized by a few prestigious, Ivy League institutions, she deserves no credibility?
Where by the same institutions would hold up a thinker like Kant- who offered to the world a secularized version of the Catholic Church code of morality- is recognized as an important thinker? I think your basis for objectivity and validity is flawed, especially when you rely on Ivory Tower thinkers to determine which philosophy is relevant or applicable rather than take the time and energy to think for yourself.
More over, have you ever actually read any of the more in depth works, exploring her philosophy? Or just cherry pick a few chapters from VoS and decide you don't agree?
Ask your BF to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4kAVRc68v0
And if he likes it, read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=objectivism&qid=1567360507&s=gateway&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
?
Objective means based on facts. Subjective means not based on facts.
The Is-Ought problem asks how do you get shoulds (or oughts) from facts. If you could solve that, you'd have an Objective morality. You'd have a morality based on facts.
There is great disagreement about about this. Is it even possible? If it is possible how do you do it?
I think the answer is as follows. You can get a morality based on facts if you base the morality on what kind of creature humans are. If a human chooses to live and live as a human, he should do certain things and live a certain way.
To get an understanding of what I mean, imagine that spiders had free will and could make choices like humans. If they could do that, they'd need a morality.
Imagine a spider that tried to live like a beaver. It tried to chew down trees to build a dam and a home. It would not be very successful. It would die pretty quickly.
Imagine a spider that tired to live like a lion. It chased gazelles across the plains looking for a meal. It too would not live very long.
Imagine yet another spider that sat around and did nothing. It wouldn't live very long either.
Now imagine a spider that lived like a spider. It built a web. It patiently waited for bugs to get trapped in the web. Etc. That spider would have a chance to live a full spider life.
So, in light of the above facts, a spider that wanted to live should do certain things. It should live as a spider lives. It should build a web. It should wait for bugs to get trapped in the web. Etc. So, with this example, I was able to get a list of shoulds from facts. I was able to get a morality for spiders based on facts.
By a similar but more complex process, you can get an objective morality for humans.
What I outlined above is essentially the answer given by the philosophy of Objectivism. If you want to read more about it, this a good book: http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-The-Philosophy-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
> You can judge people, but you're judging them by your standards (or your group's standards), not an absolute standard.
Such a judgement, absent a reference to reality as you insist it must be, is just irrelevant personal preference. George Washington = Stalin in this paradigm.
>In fact, the only places I've ever seen the idea of an absolute standard being defined is in religious texts.
May I suggest you look into Objectivism then.
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
and
The Virtue of Selfishness
are probably the most relevant.
Ayn Rand was a writer and philosopher. Objectivism is the philosophy.
I imagine you have never read the no-fiction about the philosophy or you are just dishonest.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540044626&sr=8-1&keywords=Objectivism%3A+the+Philosophy+of+Ayn+Rand