Clear things up

[MLabreche]

I'm open to reading her work but please clear some possible misconceptions first.

1. Atlas Shrugged talks about very rich Americans that the governement wants to make a bit less rich with regulations and we're supposed to feel sorry for them.

2. Clear up these words from Ayn Rand:

"The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

3. Her philosophy is the result of trauma caused to her family by communists and doesn't have anything to do with our reality.

4. She thinks altruism is a form of slavery.

Thanks in advance.

[brian0918]

we're supposed to feel sorry for them.

No you're not. Her primary goal was not to make you feel sorry for them.

Clear up these words from Ayn Rand:

"The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

What, specifically, is unclear to you?

Her philosophy is the result of trauma caused to her family by communists and doesn't have anything to do with our reality.

That is an assertion. What evidence is there that it "doesn't have anything to do with our reality?"

She thinks altruism is a form of slavery.

Please cite the exact quote you are referencing, in order to provide the necessary context for clarification.

Edited March 28, 2011 by brian0918

[Dante]

I'm open to reading her work but please clear some possible misconceptions first.

The first step to clearing up any misconceptions about what she said is to read her work.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

You know this is pretty inflamatory, don't you? On the assumption that perhaps you are completely new to to this and don't realize it, and do not mean to be a troll, I will extend the benefit of the doubt--for now.

1--Have you actually *read* Atlas Shrugged? I gather you have not. In any case that is a caricature of what the book is about. There are very wealthy Americans in it all right (as well as an Argentinian), but their complaint is not that the government wants to make them a little less rich with regulation, but that the government is willing to make their lives *impossible* and in so doing, make everyone's life impossible. That's incomplete of course--I am not going to spoil the book (which is part mystery).

2--I'll let someone else take that, assuming someone else wants to take this on.

3--She certainly saw the effects of a diametrically opposed philosophy in early Soviet Russia. That's the reality that she addressed in "We The Living". As for her philosophy being disconnected from reality, that's a load of bullshit, to be quite honest--if you truly are starting at ground zero in your knowledge of Objectivism and that is what someone told you, you've been sold a bill of goods. (If you have already started learning, directly from Ayn Rand and other Objectivists, and this is the conclusion you have come to, I suggest you re-evaluate, because something didn't get through on the first go-around.) Objectivism is the only philosophy that looks at existence, and only existence, for its source material; all others at some point invoke mysterious other realms or dimensions or insist that there is no reality.

4--I wouldn't call altruism slavery precisely because its practiioners are volunteering to place themselves at the disposal of others, whereas with slavery one is forced to place oneself at the disposal of someone else. Objectivism requires that you live for your own benefit, not for the benefit of others. But (this is important!) under Objectivism you also cannot expect others to live for your benefit! The notion that either you use others or allow others to use you is a false dichotomy.

[2046]

First let me agree with Dante that it would seem that if your aim is to clear up misconceptions about some author's work, the first thing you would want to do is read that author's work.

1. It is true that the book does feature some rich people. It's also true that during the process of the story, some of these rich people are made less rich. However, it also features some poor people who are also make less rich in the story. It also features some poor people who are made rich and some rich people who are made even richer. Well now, which ones then should you feel sorry for and which ones should you not feel sorry for, and on what basis? The book is not about making you feel sorry for rich people. It actually has nothing to do with anyone's income level and nothing to do with making you feel sorry for anyone on any basis. It's actually about the collapse of the country into a fascist dictatorship, and the role of man's mind in his survival and happiness, so this question is way off the mark.

Secondly, you aren't really “supposed” to feel any one specific thing. What you feel is entirely dependent upon your personal value-judgments. If you love fascist dictatorships, then you might feel great about the suffering the rich and poor Americans alike are put through in the story. Or perhaps the book might change your perspective by demonstrating the practical and logically necessary consequences of your preferred policy to shackle the mind through the machinery of state coercion? Why not read it and find out?

2. I don't know what to clear up if I don't know what exactly is unclear to you. But if we paraphrase the idea expressed, it is clear that Rand judges Western civilization as superior to Arab and Muslim culture. She is saying that since Israel is a Western nation, it should be defended as opposed to the Arabs who attacked it. Does that help?

3. How would we make such a determination? There were plenty of other people victimized by the communists who escaped to America, but they didn't share the same politics of Rand. We would have to have some evidence of this assertion, so it seems rather assumptive and a convenient way to dismiss her thoughts for someone who has opposing political views.

Secondly, if one's theories are motivated by some emotional trauma, it does not follow that those are false theories. For example, I could be traumatized and motivated to study physics, but it does not follow that my theory about black holes and radiation is wrong and has nothing to do with reality because I was motivated by trauma.

Third, it cannot be denied that a lot of the ideas Rand put forth can be traced back through other historical thinkers. She had, of course, four or five original and important contributions that deserve a lot of study and examination. But it is hard to argue that since someone lived under communism and hated it, therefore her theories are just some kind of “knee-jerk” reaction to socialism and can be dismissed without argument, unless anyone who ever theorized about direct realism, rational egoism, natural rights, romantic realism, etc. all the way down to Aristotle can be dismissed as “result of trauma caused ... by communists and doesn't have anything to do with our reality.” Another misconception might be that Rand is merely a political thinker, but politics is actually a minor part of her philosophy.

4. Altruism is an ethical theory. Slavery is a kind of interaction between people. Ethical theories tell people what kind of actions they should take, including those actions involving other people. Altruism is an ethical theory used to justify all kinds of slavery, to Rand. But it sounds odd to state that “altruism is slavery,” in the same way it would be odd to say “the theory of relativity is rape.”

Edited March 28, 2011 by 2046

[Element]

Although the points have been made...

1. Atlas Shrugged is about certain rich people, intellectuals, and politicians embracing corrupt philosophies and destroying society buy that means, and some (a rare few) of the producing peoples resisting that. Jesus why do people think Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head are elitest? Elites are the main villains, not the "working class".

2. Islam, which the Arab world is dominate by, is a barbarian religion, and sadly enough it is still taken seriously, unlike Christianity in the west.

3. One doesn't follow from the other, you have to prove the philosophy wrong, you can't just say "Ayn Rand is x, there for here ideas are wrong". Apparently you do not understand how to avoid basic logical fallacies.

4. Read Confucius, in it he has this idea of Filial Piety, which is a really good example of altruism. It is also his idea of the basis for the ideal feudal system. Although the specific word slavery may be a slight stretch, it is quite easy to see why altruism leads to the oppression of people.

This guy is obviously a troll though, I doubt any of us will get a response.

[bluecherry]

We're open to having people post here looking to learn a bit more about Rand's works and ideas, but these people very often turn out to just be trolls, so I hope you can excuse the suspicious reactions by some here. Personally I don't think there is enough here to really incriminate you, the original poster here just yet.

For question two, a "civilized" society for Rand is largely a matter of how well it is or isn't characterized by respecting people's individual rights, in which case Israel has a far better track record. Why this is such a significant criteria that she applies to all societies everywhere is elaborated on and justified in her works.

For the last question, slavery requires force. Nothing about altruism technically requires force, so altruism is not slavery directly. However, altruism is regularly used to justify laws compelling some people work for others without their consent. Altruism may tend to lead to slavery or it may be said that it compels its followers to submit to living as a slave of others, having no other option but to see the meeting the needs of everybody and anybody everywhere and anywhere pretty much constantly, but still, it is not literally slavery by definition. The laws based on forcing compliance with altruism are not technically mandatory in altruism and if somebody chooses to follow altruism consistently and live like a slave, they did that to themselves.

[Marc K.]

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole . . . that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual . . . ."

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. . . . The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."

Figure out who said that and you'll have your answer to 4. Answer hidden below:

Adolf Hitler