Ayn Rand from the horse's mouth (political/philosophical)

[Roxanne Appleby]

The philosophy of Objectivism gets kicked around a lot here. Ami offers a particular (and in many respects peculiar) interpretation of it. Since I've stated that I agree with many if not most of the principles of the original, Pure hardly responds to a post of mine on any subject without slipping in a snide reference to O'ism, relevent or not. ( )

So, I thought a little sample of the original might be of interest to one or two people. This bit is perhaps the core of the whole thing. It desribes the values by which everything else can be measured, and the objective virtues that flow from these.

The Morality of Reason

from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking—that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action—that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise—that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality—that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind—that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness.

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

"Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you <as_937> cannot fake existence—that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions—that, like a judge impervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to the wishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats against him—that courage and confidence are practical necessities, that courage is the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to truth, and confidence is the practical form of being true to one's own consciousness.

"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee—that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling—that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.

"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification—that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a totter above a hero—that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions—that to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement—that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit—and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.

"Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—<as_938> that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human—that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up—that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned—that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character—that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice—that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself—and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm not sure if this is accurate, but for my money the philosophical position that is most in conflict with Objectivism is Moral Relativism. Here's the start of the wiki article on that; there's a lot more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism.

Moral relativism from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article attempts to confine itself to discussion of relativism in morality and ethics. For other manifestations of relativism, see relativism.
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the foundation of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity.

Moral relativism differs from moral pluralism — which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs get violated. Moral relativism, in contrast, grants the possibility of moral judgments that do not accept such limits.

In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral absolutism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Pure]

roxanne, sweetie,

it's very hard for *anyone* to discuss a 1500 word exposition of a position (here, Objectivism) in a forum like this. that exposition contains dozens of claims, inferences, implications and alleged deductions; some are true and logical; some are unclear; some are confused; and some are illogical or false (to other than 'true believers').

presently, i'd guess it feels like someone's in an audience where a preacher wants to preach for an hour, then ask, "any questions?".

i will be happy NOT to say much, here, if you want to explain, but I'd say, pick a couple claims, clarify them for people and see what they say.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Dear Bonneted One:

I might like to partake in this, but before I decide would you please give your meaning, for the purpose of your thread, to:

Moral, then Morality

Virtue(s)

What is it you wish any to do if they wish to partake in this thread (what purpose do you have in mind for it)? Are you simply inviting comments about the whole, or just putting this out so others can see what all you and Pure disagree on (in which case this would be strictly between you and Pure)?

For definitions, I will go with ones Rand gives in the first post. As to why I posted these, probably some of both the reason's you suggest. And, just because I like putting these ideas in front of an audience, and some in that audience might be interested and possibly even attracted by them.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Liar]

One may not need reason to have self-esteem, simply an acceptance of person -- a habit of being that brings no conflict.

As an elocution geek and fan of brevity, I just wanted to butt in and say: Ooh, I like that.

Your words, or borrowed somewhere?

 

[cumallday]

And here I thought Ayn Rand had long since been discredited as a philosopher. Is she still taught in the halls of academe? Seriously, is she? A simple yes or no will suffice else I might shrug.

 

[Equinoxe]

And here I thought Ayn Rand had long since been discredited as a philosopher. Is she still taught in the halls of academe? Seriously, is she? A simple yes or no will suffice else I might shrug.

That's one word too many to be a simple yes or no question.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And here I thought Ayn Rand had long since been discredited as a philosopher. Is she still taught in the halls of academe? Seriously, is she? A simple yes or no will suffice else I might shrug.

Shrug away if you choose.

Who cares what is taught in the halls of academe, especially on fundamental issues like epistemology, metaphysics and ethics? They have in the past, do in the present and will in the future teach all kinds of wrongheaded and destuctive nonsense. I posted the original so people could read and think about it for themselves. Or shrug - it's a free country.

 

[Pure]

halls of academe,

the randians have had a little success in getting Rand's ideas included in some philosophy courses, in some places.

Rand institutes have funded some scholarly pursuits.

There is an "objectivism" interest group within the American Philosophical Association.

There are a handful of competent philsophers who consider themselves 'objectivist' in at least a loose sense. Leonard Peikoff is one of a minute number declaring allegiance to the whole kit and caboodle, and he is the official guardian of orthodoxy.

It might be mentioned that the usual thing is for a philosopher to agree with some PART of Rand's claims. Unfortunatley, as Roxanne has pointed out, orthodox Randists, like Catholics say that you MUST agree with all the dogmas, elso you aren't "Objectivist."

Hence some philosophers--a small number, probably <20 call themselves 'neo objectivists.'

Generally philosophers do not respect the quality of her argument or her proper acquaintance with relevant philsophical texts, including those she's influenced by, but does not acknowledge.
===

ON a given issue, Rand is often in agreement with some philosophers.

FOR example, Roxanne notwithstanding, a number of ethicists reject "moral relativism," and/or hold that there are "objective moral truths." BUT they would carefully define the terms involved.

FOR another example, a number of philosophers have placed "Reason" at the pinnacle of human powers, and at the center of ethics. BUT terms have been defined, arguments carefully made, etc. You cannot go too far with a speech from a character in a novel, which is what Roxanne posted; it could kick things off, but is NOT a philosophical piece, even at the level of an undergraduate paper. It has extensive reliance on rhetoric, more than logic.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[cumallday]

Shrug away if you choose.

Who cares what is taught in the halls of academe, especially on fundamental issues like epistemology, metaphysics and ethics? They have in the past, do in the present and will in the future teach all kinds of wrongheaded and destuctive nonsense. I posted the original so people could read and think about it for themselves. Or shrug - it's a free country.

I care what is taught in the halls of academe, though they are now largely and perversely in the business of credentialism.

 

[cumallday]

As an elocution geek and fan of brevity, I just wanted to butt in and say: Ooh, I like that.

Your words, or borrowed somewhere?

I may stray a little now and then, but I am also a fan of brevity.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

the randians have had a little success in getting Rand's ideas included in some philosophy courses, in some places.

Rand institutes have funded some scholarly pursuits.

There is an "objectivism" interest group within the American Philosophical Association.

There are a handful of competent philsophers who consider themselves 'objectivist' in at least a loose sense. Leonard Peikoff is one of a minute number declaring allegiance to the whole kit and caboodle, and he is the official guardian of orthodoxy . . .

I think that's a probably a fair description - you are obviously more cued into such matters than I. (Also, I would put "orthodoxy" in quotes, notwithstanding the fact that Peikoff and his associates do view it in exactly that way.) As far as a more philosophically rigorous explication, Peikoff's "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is widely regarded as such, although I can't speak from experience - my interest in philosophy per se doesn't run that deep. Sadly, Peikoff is also the leader of the wing of the O'ist "movement" (it doesn't really consider itself as such) that is the most close-minded and cult-like. Philosopher David Kelley is the leader of the more "open" wing. He has been "expelled" by Peikoff et all. (There seems to be nothing that libertarians and Objectivists like better than a good expulsion. )

 

[Pure]

question for mismused, or anyone.

about morals

Rand thought you could go a long way with a very few premises.

let me illustrate with reference to the long passage quoted.

1. Assume the purpose of human life is its continuance as such, i.e. not merely survival like a roach surviving on scraps from a garbage heap.

2. Assume that the greatest gift of "Man", i.e. humans, is their reason. Reason, roughly is that power by which human operate on their experience, forming concepts and following logic and reaching such truths as those we need to know to go about: wearing leather clothes, making brick houses, erecting skyscrapers, and constructing atomic bombs.

NOW: How do we get to any of the virtues Rand listed? Let's pick honesty. Given the above, can one deduce, i.e. prove to anyone, 'objectively' that we ought to deal with others only in an honest way? (e.g. don't defraud, make false promises, etc.)

I think one can see it's a BIG problem. Read the passage Roxanne posted and try to identify Rand's path, and a valid (logical) path to that conclusion.

 

[angela146]

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

If I understand this correctly (and I readily concede that I probably don't), Rand asserts that morality proceeds from one's "purpose," which, as stated here, is chosen by the individual.

If this is the case, that implies that each person has her/his own individual morality, since each can choose a distinct purpose.

Doesn't that make this philosophy relativistic?

"Objectivism," in the traditional philosophical sense of the word, implies that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of individual human opinion, having nothing to do with one's individual purpose.

"Relativism," again, in the traditional philosophical sense, implies that acts are right or wrong *only* in the *context* of the actor's purpose and perspective.

Please show me where I've gone wrong, cuz I'm confused.

 

[Pure]

hi angela,
see my previous post. in a word, the individualistic conclusion (for the realm of morality) does NOT follow according to Rand since all of us have the purpose of living*, and reason is our greatest gift.

of course one person can be an individual in his or her work; one becomes a dressmaker, and another works on an auto assembly line, or designs buildings. BUT s/he may not become a dishonest politician, used car sales-shyster, or con artist, or even a real estate agent or lawyer who "cuts corners" occasionally in the honesty dept.

*yes, it's in a sense, a choice, since you can kill yourself or drink yourself into a stupor, but the choice is dictated--as the only reasonable and reality based one-- if you make it according the principle of life (which only the dying or dead can "argue" against!)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If I understand this correctly (and I readily concede that I probably don't), Rand asserts that morality proceeds from one's "purpose," which, as stated here, is chosen by the individual.

If this is the case, that implies that each person has her/his own individual morality, since each can choose a distinct purpose.

Doesn't that make this philosophy relativistic?

"Objectivism," in the traditional philosophical sense of the word, implies that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of individual human opinion, having nothing to do with one's individual purpose.

"Relativism," again, in the traditional philosophical sense, implies that acts are right or wrong *only* in the *context* of the actor's purpose and perspective.

Please show me where I've gone wrong, cuz I'm confused.

Hi Angela!

The item below is not exactly on point, but is in the right direction. Also, I don't think the "objective" applies to each individual item in the sense you use it. More to the core premises from which all the details including values and virtues proceed, premises like existance exists, humans don't live by instincts like animals but must use their minds (their reason) to gain a living, etc.

Here's my response: A wise Objectivist philosopher I know offered this on a related matter, and I think it applies to your question:

"There are three ways to gain values from others: honest trade, robbing, or mooching. If you took the overall happiness, wealth, life satisfaction of these three groups, my bet is those who live by honest trade come out on top.

"Part of the reason for this is, one's character will be consistent. You can either cultivate honest virtues and get along with people that way, or dishonest ones, which will necessarily always be creating problems for you and everyone around you. People obviously do it because they think it's easier, but they are ignorant of the quality of the life they could have been living. All that behavior is just childishness at an adult level, and no more effective."

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[angela146]

The item below is not exactly on point, but is in the right direction. Also, I don't think the "objective" applies to each individual item in the sense you use it. More to the core premises from which all the details including values and virtues proceed, premises like existence exists, humans don't live by instincts like animals but must use their minds (their reason) to gain a living, etc.

OK...

I think I see part of my problem.

The word "objective" can mean:

Noun: a goal (as in "our objective is to liberate Paris")
Adjective: goal-oriented

or

Adjective: independent (as in "my objective opinion is...")

In the first sense, "objective morality" is goal-oriented. One behaves in a particular way because it is focused on one's objective.

In the second sense, "objective morality" is universal. One behaves in a particular way because there is an independent standard of morality that applies to all people and all situations.

So, Rand's "moral objectivism" would mean that ones morals are focused on the objective of living ones life in a particular way. This would be an Aristotelian-inspired philosophy.

Whereas, for other philosophers "moral objectivism" means that ones morals are based on some universal standard truth and justice. This would be more of a Platonist-inspired philosophy.

Am I getting any closer?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Mismused: “None knows the purpose of human life (taken to mean physical existence).”

You are speaking in some cosmological sense, and there is no reason to assume there is any purpose, from that point of view. For human beings, the point of view that makes sense is, what is the purpose of MY life. Answer: My own happiness.

Mismused: “Reason may, or may not, be our greatest gift. That is not yet proven.”

Reason is how human beings gather the stuff that makes life possible and worth living. We don’t do it by instinct like animals. We don’t do it by some vague “intuition,” although the illusion of “intuition” may be caused by processing extensive and detailed knowledge about very complex phenomena – “I intuit that the antelope will be at the water hole behind the row of ant mounds today – let’s go.” Or, “I intuit that that 3/8 inch bolt will be adequate to support this bridge – now let me do the equation to confirm.”

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK...

I think I see part of my problem.

The word "objective" can mean:

Noun: a goal (as in "our objective is to liberate Paris")
Adjective: goal-oriented

or

Adjective: independent (as in "my objective opinion is...")

In the first sense, "objective morality" is goal-oriented. One behaves in a particular way because it is focused on one's objective.

In the second sense, "objective morality" is universal. One behaves in a particular way because there is an independent standard of morality that applies to all people and all situations.

So, Rand's "moral objectivism" would mean that ones morals are focused on the objective of living ones life in a particular way. This would be an Aristotelian-inspired philosophy.

Whereas, for other philosophers "moral objectivism" means that ones morals are based on some universal standard truth and justice. This would be more of a Platonist-inspired philosophy.

Am I getting any closer?

I think so. Although Rand would say that the premise from which all else proceeds, "existance exists," is something like an independent, universal and objective fact. Being objective, this universal is unlike Plato's subjective (imaginary) "forms," or the religionist's "God." (I'm not a philosopher so it's very possible I've stated that in a manner that's filled with flaws.) Also, given that premise, and given the nature of human beings as a creature that can only live if she chooses to use her reason to do so (see my previous post), the focus becomes "the objective of living ones life in a particular way" - which is in a way that acheives one's purpose: one's own happiness.

(Gives dirty look to lurking Objectivist philosophers who are ROFLMAO.)

 

[angela146]

Mismused: “None knows the purpose of human life (taken to mean physical existence).”

You are speaking in some cosmological sense, and there is no reason to assume there is any purpose, from that point of view. For human beings, the point of view that makes sense is, what is the purpose of MY life. Answer: My own happiness.

From a hedonist perspective, perhaps that is "the" answer. But, again, that is up to the individual. For some, there is a greater purpose than one's own happiness, i.e. self-actualization: living one's live in service to others or as an artistic statement or whatever.

Mismused: “Reason may, or may not, be our greatest gift. That is not yet proven.”

Reason is how human beings gather the stuff that makes life possible and worth living. We don’t do it by instinct like animals.

I think we flatter ourselves when we say we don't act at least partially on instinct. Self-preservation, alleviating hunger, procreating, even walking are all instinctual in humans.

We don’t do it by some vague “intuition,” although the illusion of “intuition” may be caused by processing extensive and detailed knowledge about very complex phenomena – “I intuit that the antelope will be at the water hole behind the row of ant mounds today – let’s go.” Or, “I intuit that that 3/8 inch bolt will be adequate to support this bridge – now let me do the equation to confirm.”

I agree, at least to a point. "Intuition" is often the summation of less-than-conscious knowledge. The problem is that when one over-applies reasoning to a problem, one often looses the valuable insight that comes from the parts of the brain and parts of memory that are not accessable to reason.

The "primative" parts of the brain are a resource that are able to process and understand things that the reasoning centers of the brain are unaware of.

For example, pheremones. I might be aware that the person in front of me is hostile toward me (because my vomeronasal organ detects a pheremone from him). I might not know how I know it but I am quite sure of it at some level.

That knowledge isn't entirely subject to reason because it isn't accessable to the part of my brain that reasons. At some level, I have to accept the information and perhaps act on it despite not being able to analyze it. Otherwise I am shutting off a valuable part of my human ability.

It is only when reason is integrated fully with intuition, instinct - and some other abilities - that we fully able to use our human gifts.

 

[angela146]

Being objective, this universal is unlike Plato's subjective (imaginary) "forms," ...

Actually, it's the other way around. Plato saw the "forms" as universal truths to be discovered. Aristotle saw them as imaginary constructs of humans.