Replies

The thing about Rand's philosophy is that actually, it is fundamentally irrational.

For example, she named "The pursuit of his ... his own happiness" as one of the "highest moral purpose[s] of his life." It's not rational that a highly subjective mental/physical state should be the highest moral goal of a supposedly rational and objective philosophy.

And then there's her insistence that "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." This could only come from the pen of a woman who never had children.

One might be tempted to excuse her for that one on the basis of ignorance, except that she was apparently also strongly in favor of abortion -- which is just about the pinnacle of "sacrificing others to [herself]."

I long ago concluded that Rand's philosophy began with her atheism, and that everything else she wrote can only properly be understood on that basis. She wanted absolutes, but no God to enforce them.... the last 6 Commandments without the inconvenience of the first 4. And thus her insistence that reason and observation were sufficient to lead us to her "objective" philosophy.

If one accepts her premises, I suppose it's possible to reach her conclusions; but then, that's what insane people do, too: they draw painstakingly logical conclusions from initial conditions that have no contact with the real world. Rand's initial premises, while not necessarily "insane," nevertheless suffer from the flaw that they don't match the real world very well.

In many important respects, I think that Ayn Rand was actually a very childish person, who never moved beyond a childish insistence on getting her own way. No wonder she was irrational.

>>For example, she named "The pursuit of his ... his own happiness" as one of the "highest moral purpose[s] of his life." It's not rational that a highly subjective mental/physical state should be the highest moral goal of a supposedly rational and objective philosophy.<<

You are misunderstanding Objectivism.

It is only by accepting 'man's life' as one's primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness - not by taking 'happiness' as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. To take 'whatever makes one happy' as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one's emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by whims - by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know - is to turn oneself into a blind robot [...] This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism - in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. 'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard."

--The "Virtue of Selfishness," Chapter 1: The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand

Regards,

Ah the amateur philosopher/theologians come out to play.....

Happiness is a highly subjective state? Hell no. A healthy flourishing state of mind and body, self and world is objectively verifiable. Rand did consider introspection an objective means of validation, of objective thought turned inward. And if happiness is not the standard of morality - well that may be a Christian viewpoint, but it is profoundly anti-American and antilife.

And you have no evidence Rand's atheism was primary. She explicitly details why reason and reality are her givens, and that atheism is derived from that.

Ah the amateur philosopher/theologians come out to play.....

And you have no evidence Rand's atheism was primary. She explicitly details why reason and reality are her givens, and that atheism is derived from that.

“For example, she named ‘The pursuit of his ... his own happiness’ as one of the ‘highest moral purpose[s] of his life.’ It’s not rational that a highly subjective mental/physical state should be the highest moral goal of a supposedly rational and objective philosophy.”

If you knew anything about what Rand wrote, you would know that she never regarded any subjective experience a basis of what would make a human happy, and never recommended the direct pursuit of happiness in that sense. She despised it and called it, correctly, hedonism.

Take whatever you think is the highest moral goal of man. What will be the result of pursuing it—misery or happiness.

That’s what Rand meant, and very clearly articulated. Of course if you do not read her, you will never know that and you can continue ignorantly criticising what she never said.

Hank