About Objectivism

Objectivist Center ^ | 2/2002

[RJCogburn]

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.

Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.

Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.

Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.

Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.

Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.

Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.

[B-Chan]

First, God is not a "cloud-walking bearded invisible guy." The reality is much more profound than that

Science is the process of making observations of the universe and drawing conclusions based upon those observations to create a coherent model of physical reality. We know from experience (=observation) that everything that exists came to exist -- in other words, every being is necessarily a contingent being, depending upon something outside itself for its existence. This is a universally observed fact: nothing just pops into existence; every Effect is preceded by a Cause. We agree that the Universe of space and time, matter and energy exists.Therefore, the universe is a contingent being -- it came to exist; it did not just pop into existence contrary to all observed fact. Since we observe that everything that exists came to exist through the agency of another entity outside of itself, we can only conclude that the Universe came to exist through an agency outside of itself. But since the universe consists of all the space and time, matter and energy that have ever existed or ever will exist, the Cause of the Universe must necessarily exist outside of space and time and in a form other than matter and energy. In other words, whatever Cause produced the Effect we perceive as the physical Universe must necessarily be eternal, immutable, immaterial, and omnipotent. "This," as St. Thomas Aquinas observed, "All men call God."

Otr, to look at it another way:

1. In every case, we observe that a work of art is created by an artist. No work of art simply pops into existence; every instance of creativity we see is the product of an intelligent creator external to and independent of itself.

2. The physical Universe, with its laws, order, and beauty -- and the human being especially -- is a work of art.

3. Therefore, the universe -- and the human being especially -- is the product of an intelligent Creator external to and independent of itself.

Materialist skeptics who challenge us to "prove" the existence of God are, in effect, asking us to demonstrate the existence of a entity whose reality men throughout all time and place have assumed is self-evident. One might as well challenge someone to prove that "redness" exists, that freedom exists, that oneself exists, that existence itself exists.

It's really quite simple. "Everything that exists was made by something outside itself; reality exists; therefore, reality was made by Something outside itself."

[betty boop]

Ms. Rand was wrong. She sounded right because she advocated freedom of thought, expression and ones control over ones activities. But she was wrong because she rejected the collective (the concept that the group is more important than the individual) with objectivism (the concept that the individual is more important than the group). Neither concept is true. However, what is true is that the individual finds within the group an identity and purpose. He finds within history lessons and debts that can never be repaid. Moreover, the individual discovers that in order to be fully human one must adopt some purpose larger than himself. This is why objectivism has failed and conservatism has not.

Sebastian, I strongly agree with your analysis. The only thing I would change is the word "collective." It's a loaded word these days, one that induces knee-jerk reactions because of its "emotional charge," owing to its proper association with truly collectivist/totalist systems. Put "society" in its place, and the meaning becomes clearer.

One of the problems I have with Ayn Rand is she utterly strips the human person out of his environment -- which is, of course, society. In doing that, she makes man an abstraction. She sets up a false dichotomy between the primacy of man or the primacy of society. This is not how the world words. This is not an "either/or" situation, but a "both" situation. The trick is to find the proper balance between the rights/needs of the individual, and the rights/needs of society. John Locke was aware of this problem, but Ms. Rand seems to overlook it altogether. (E.g., under Lockean contract theory, individuals "give up" certain rights in order to participate in civil society.)

I loved what you had to say about man finding "within history lessons and debts that can never be repaid." Ms. Rand will have none of that; she absolutizes and radicalizes reason, alleging it sufficient to answer all human problems. So the human past and its experience is largely irrelevant to her. In a certain way, she "ends history" just as rigorously as Marx and Hegel do.

Lastly, I think you are so right when you say that "the individual discovers that in order to be fully human one must adopt some purpose larger than himself." Ms. Rand finds man to be an end-in-himself. Therefore, he really owes little either to society, or to God -- the latter of which of course, as an atheist, Ms. Rand regards (as do Marx and Feuerbach, et al.) as pure, irrational superstition.

Great post!

[OWK]

By all means though, ignore documented evidence of the tyrannies and 1984 societies that _all_ atheist governments have become.

I certainly don't ignore it.

Not at all.

But the thing that separates brutal tyranny from benevolence, is not theism -vs- atheism.

It is subjugation of the rights of men -vs- respect for the rights of men.

There are plenty of theistic examples of subjugation and brutalization to go along with the atheistic ones.

Pretending otherwise, is silly.

[OWK]

1. In every case, we observe that a work of art is created by an artist. No work of art simply pops into existence; every instance of creativity we see is the product of an intelligent creator external to and independent of itself.

Your argument is self-defeating.

If God exists, he is clearly the most profoundly beautiful thing, ever to exist.

And as you already clearly stated... "No work of art simply pops into existence; every instance of creativity we see is the product of an intelligent creator external to and independent of itself".

So I must ask... Who created God?

And who created God's creator?

And who created God's creator's creator?

And who created God's creator's creator's creator?

And who created God's creator's creator's creator's creator?

And who created God's creator's creator's creator's creator's creator?

I think you get the point.

[OWK]

One of the problems I have with Ayn Rand is she utterly strips the human person out of his environment -- which is, of course, society.

Absolutely untrue.

(long time no see)

[OWK]

the failure of anyone to adhere to the kindness of religious morality in no way diminishes its excellence in furthering life and fostering happiness.

So was the slaughter of the little children of Ai, at the hand of Joshua, by the command of God, and example of the "kindness of religious morality" you espouse?

Is that an example of it's power to "further life"?

[Cultural Jihad]

If God exists, he is clearly the most profoundly beautiful thing, ever to exist.

Indeed. The Creator of beauty is much more beautiful than beauty itself. But God is not a 'thing.' Things have a beginning and an end. God has neither.

[Cultural Jihad]

The Owner of a thing has total control over the thing He creates. If you have any personal problems related to the right of property, then you'll just have to lump it, Lumpy. ;)

[conservonator]

• With regard to Ayn Rand's philosophy, there are those who understand her, and those who hate her.

• Some who hate Ayn Rand do understand her. They hate her for the same reason the cockroach hates the light.

• Ayn Rand made mistakes, and it's a good thing too. If she had corrected them, those who only hated her would have murdered her. The evil hate the good, the perfectly good, they kill.

IOW If you don't agree with me you're either stupid or evil...

[betty boop]

Absolutely untrue.

Hi OWK! Long time no see! WRT the above, why do you say this?

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[unspun]

Well, you're trying to tell me about what I consider to be no more real than a schizophrenic illusion. Oh well, you live in your world, I'll live in this one, and we'll wave when we see each other, alright? Between your cryptic fairy-land remarks and CJ's psychotic tail-chasing, you've managed to make this thread fairly nonsensical. But that's not surprising; chaotic people bring chaos because they hate logical order. I'm going to just pat you on the head and go talk to someone I consider a little more rational.

I can't help what you consider, A. In actuality, you may not be able to touch my head and continue to enjoy the full use of your hand, my FRiend.

Sorry to be curt, but this is a little like hanging out with junior high kids. Interesting for a moment or two, then wearisome.

Frankly, I like to admit my immaturity, especially compared to the One who is beyond maturity.

I also prefer not to deny what I have learned by all means including objective observation and reason. I will also fight against intellecual dishonesty, censorship, and tyranny.

[OWK]

The Owner of a thing has total control over the thing He creates.

So if he wants to command one of his creation (Say Joshua for example) to slit the throats of little babies (say the children of Ai for example)... then it's OK... cuz he's God.

Is that how it works?

[OWK]

WRT the above, why do you say this?

I guess I'd have to ask you the same question.

You made the assertion.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Objectivism is absolutely a superior philosophy and way of living - for superior people. Problem is, most people are morons. Objectivism doesn't work in practice for the same reason Libertarianism doesn't work in practice: there just aren't enough Hank Reardens to carry all the moral misfits on their coattails.

[Anamensis]

Well, don't make the mistake of confining yourself to just one choice...

LOL!

[OWK]

Things have a beginning and an end. God has neither.

But Bchan just stated emphatically that the universe is complex and beautiful (therefore necessitating a creator).

Isn't God beautiful and complex?

[Anamensis]

...the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive assertion.

Shhhh! We're not supposed to know that.

[Anamensis]

And let's not forget those heathen freeloaders who had the skin ripped off their backs (free of charge) by the Inquisitors in an effort to help them confess the love of Jesus.

Free of charge? I believe their property was confiscated by the Church, wasn't it? Hey, nothin's free, bub.

[Anamensis]

But the thing that separates brutal tyranny from benevolence, is not theism -vs- atheism. It is subjugation of the rights of men -vs- respect for the rights of men. There are plenty of theistic examples of subjugation and brutalization to go along with the atheistic ones.

(cough) Islam.