Ayn Rand's philosophy vs Christian perspective, a look

Ayn Rand explained in an interview with Mike Wallace:

"First, my philosophy is based on the concept that reality exists as an objective absolute, that man's mind, reason, is his means of perceiving it.
...
I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality... namely, a morality not based on faith... but on reason, a morality which can be proved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.
...
by which I mean he has to hold reason as his only guide to action, and that he must live by the independent judgement of his own mind, that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, and that he must not force other people nor accept their right to force him, that each man must live as an end in himself, and follow his own rational self-interest.
...
I'm challenging the moral cause of altruism, the precept that man's moral duty is to live for others, that man must sacrifice himself to others, which is the present day morality.
...
What is self sacrifice? ... I consider it evil, and self-sacrifice is the precept that men needs to serve others... that his moral duty is to serve others, that is what most people believe today.
...
I say that man is entitled to his own happiness, and that he must achieve it himself, but that he cannot demand others give up their lives to make him happy, nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others."

Christ, every important moral leader in man's history has taught us that we should love one another. Why is this then in your mind immoral?

"It is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself.
It is more than immoral, it's impossible."

"I agree... [love] should be treated like a business deal, but every business has to have its own terms and its own kind of currency, and in love, the currency is virtue. You love them... for the values, the virtues which they have achieved in their own character. You don't love everyone indiscriminately, you love only those who deserve it."

And then if a man is weak, or a woman is weak, then she is beyond, he is beyond love?

"He certainly does not deserve it. He certainly is beyond. He can always correct it, and has free will. If a man wants love, he should correct his witnesses, or his flaws, and he may deserve it, but he cannot expect the unearned, easily in love nor in money, neither in matter nor spirit."

You have lived in our world, you recognize the fallibility of human beings, there are very few of us then in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love.

"Unfortunately yes, very few. But, it is open to everyone to make themselves worthy of it, and that is all that my morality offers them. A way to make them worthy of love, although that's not the primary motive."​

Although Rand's philosophy was apparently shaped in opposition to that of Communism, the philosophy is also diametrically opposed to Christianity on several points.

This philosophy tosses out faith in God, and relies instead entirely on the individual.
It tosses out the concept of unconditional love, and replaces it with love of the self, and conditional love for others only if they actually deserve it.
It tosses out Christ's saving, and instead goes back to a more rigid judgement one could say is analogous to that in the Jewish Law before Christ.

Ayn Rand goes on to say that undeserved love is impossible. That a human being must have cultivated the necessary virtue inside of themselves.

What Ayn Rand's view basically is, one could say, is a philosophy entirely logical, if there were no God.

The philosophy throws out Christian self-sacrifice. The Christian belief that Christ sacrificed himself because he loved mankind, to save sinners, and the clear teaching to be willing to sacrifice and serve others.

Ayn Rand's philosophy also seems to presuppose that reason cannot lead to faith, or does not consider that.
When she talks about reason, she is referring to that coming out of man's own mind, not coming from trust or reliance on the reason of another.

Her philosophy assumes that a personal morality must be provable, and seems to assume that man must be capable of determining what this objective morality is, and capable of following it.
It assumes that man has the wisdom, power, and spiritual strength to do all this on his own.
Which Christianity clearly teaches against.

 

Did she ever consider that serving others can lead to happiness, more than when we're selfishly grinding out our own desires?

 

I think her philosophy was primarily a reaction against Communism at the time (since she had left the Soviet Union).
And ironically it was probably influenced by the atheistic & materialistic aspects of Communism.

 

I disagree. If you get one chipmunk in a sticky trap, it's entire clan will get stuck, trying to save one of their own. Lemurs & lions, Bonobos & baboons, ants & elephants, dolphins, wasps, & wolves-- any creature that lives in a community, instinctively understands that its own fate is tied to that of the group; they all cooperate in the ways particular to their species, at times heroically, even self-sacrificingly, yet we have no reason to think any of them believe in a God. Rand's philosophy would be entirely logical, one could say, if we were leopards or spiders.

 

Okay, but you do realize that reasoning opens up the door for the validity of tribalism?

 

Elephants, dolphins, Bonobos & baboons don't reason?

 

I don't have any idea what you mean. The posing of your question seems completely asinine considering my statement.

 

Assuming you understand what, "asinine," means, explain why, after you suggested that the ability to reason might invalidate evolved behavior in an animal that has always been a communal creature--

---

my relisting some of the other communal creatures w/ which I'd originally grouped us, that are known to reason & yet have not abandoned their instinctive behavior, would be asinine?

Or, since there is no cogent way you could do that, how 'bout you name for me any communal animal that, upon gaining the power to reason, opted to discard its ancestral ways?


In other words-- to answer your question differently than the response you felt required an insult in reply (indicating that reasoning power is far from evenly distributed among the human population)-- NO, I don't, "realize that reasoning 'opens up the door for the validity of' tribalism," if that awkward & ungainly verbal construction of yours means that our power to reason depotentiates our tribal drives, & now it is nothing more than a matter of choice whether or not we continue being communal.

 

I did not. You seem to presuppose that reason would invalidate it, when it would not necessarily do so.

No, I did not specifically claim that was asinine. I just claimed that would fall under the category of tribalism.

I think maybe we may be misunderstanding each other.

Tribalism involves altruism to others within the group, but mostly only within the group. That would not necessarily include all members of the species. (In fact, in biology, usually it does not)

 

DEFinning replied:
explain why, after you suggested that the ability to reason might invalidate evolved behavior in an animal that has always been a communal creature--

Oh, listen to you! Sounding all scientific & reasonable. Well I've seen this ruse before: a poster puts forth an unintelligent comment (yours), is presented w/ an argument he cannot win on the merits, so decides to create a completely new script by denying & misrepresenting what the sincere poster had said. I leave it for others to judge if there was any, "presupposing," on my part. Here is the foregoing conversation:

And that brings us back to the top:

Yet now we are to believe, according to Kazenatsu, that I am presupposing that reasoning invalidates our evolved behavior?
To me, that's what is meant by Kazenatsu's (granted, very poorly worded) comment, "but you do realize reasoning opens up the door for the validity of tribalism?"

Actually, of course, on their face, his words suggest that the ability to reason makes tribalism
more valid. So I interpreted them in the only way his response would make sense as a rejoinder to my comment, that he was asking if I appreciated that, "the ability to reason opens up the door," to questioning "the validity of tribalism."

Perhaps Kazenatsu's definition of, "tribalism," is somehow quite different from, or even the very opposite of, the condition of living in a tribe. But since the whole point of my preceding post (beginning w/ the chipmunks) was that man is, by nature, tribal/communal, any alternate interpretation of tribalism is confusing, at best, & nonsensical, at worst. Maybe, if Kazentsu's puzzlement ("I don't have any idea what you mean...") is genuine & not a cheap, argumentative device, he somehow did not understand that I was including US, humans, with all those other communal creatures, as distinct from, animals like, "leopards or spiders," which are solitary.

Nevertheless we have Kazenatsu's ludicrously & insupportably false allegation, "you seem to presuppose that reason would invalidate it (i.e., our evolved tribal behavior)..."which is, to my mind, precisely what Kazenatsu meant in his reply, "but you do realize that reasoning opens up the door for the validity of tribalism?"

It's impossible for me to know what Kazenatsu is thinking if he fails to express it in a clear & intelligible fashion. But if he 1)understood my initial comment & 2)was not, himself, questioning the validity of tribalism, but felt that, "reasoning," supported it-- which would require a tortuously convoluted reinterpretation of his words-- then there would be no reason for his comment whatsoever, as it would be in line with my view; yet that would leave inexplicable his beginning w/ the word, "but," & ending with a question mark.

Therefore, though I have a feeling we have long since lost Kazenatsu's attention, the only logical conclusions are that either:

A) Kazenatsu did define, "tribalism," in some way other than that most applicable to the context, i.e., the mentality or physical state of living in a tribe; in which case the onus would fall upon Kaz to define the specific sense in which he is using it, not on me to read his mind.

B) Or he misunderstood my (lucid, if you ask me) argument, that there is no reason to believe that reasoning would invalidate our evolved social patterns (the exact opposite of how he now tries to represent my position). Here was the rest of my response, by the way:

** It should be noted that this discussion is centered upon Ayn Rand, in which the above interpretation of Kaz's argument would fit like a glove.

C) If we are not at this place due to Kaz's obscurity in expressing his meaning, or fecklessness in comprehension, the final possibility is disingenuous argument on Kazenatsu's part. If that is the case, I will not further waste my time trying to have a discussion w/ someone who's method is to change their position, or the other debater's, every time he gets in a tight spot, like a child.

 

I didn't mean that tribalism necessarily follows from reason, but was rather trying to express that reason is not necessarily connected to an altruism greater than tribalism.

In your argument, you seemed to be saying (as far as I could tell) that reason can lead to an unselfish altruism (more expansive than just tribalism), and so because of that, I was wrong to say that Ayn Rand's philosophy (of non-altruism) was logical if there was no God.

So you seemed to be injecting something else into this argument, saying that reason could justify altruism (greater than tribalism).
By my initial comment, I was just trying to say that is not necessarily so.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant.
I am not trying to claim that there is no way reason can justify altruism (greater than tribalism), I am just saying reason does not necessarily justify altruism.
There might be a connection (which is kind of a different topic), but there does not necessarily have to be one. Reason does not automatically imply this type of altruism.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is still logical (if there were no God), even though there could possibly be another philosophy of altruism that is also logical.

Does that clear up the confusion?

 

No, it does not. But I'm going to write this as if you were actually being sincere-- though, honestly, I find that hard to believe. I say this not as an assault of any kind but as an introduction to my explanation of the confusion.

In your latest response of 10 sentences, I count the word, "altruism," 8 times, including saying that I, "seemed to be saying... that reason can lead to an unselfish altruism..."
& that (I), "seemed to be injecting something else into this argument, saying that reason could justify altruism (greater than tribalism)."

I maintain that, considering that I did not use the word altruism once; & in your opening to this thread (which is what I initially replied to) you do not use the word altruism a single time-- out of 14 sentences-- nor did Ayn Rand or Mike Wallace, in an even longer section of that opening; as a rational human being, it should be obvious that YOU are the one, "injecting something else into this argument." And, just to avoid more confusion, that thing you are injecting, is the word, "altruism." Will you agree that is the case? And also that, since your interpretations of my meaning have been completely wrong, that it seems more reasonable for you to offer any further interpretations: 1) using, as much as possible, MY own words &; 2) ending those (so far, wild) guesses with a question mark?

This is why it seems to me you are trying to reframe your original argument somewhat, & to contort my very straight-forward answer to fit in your new, altruism-centric concept. Is that not a reasonable thing, under the aforementioned circumstances, for me to feel?

I was not thinking specifically about altruism in my answer (other than the few words, "...even self-sacrificingly..."). I've explained what I'd meant a couple of times, since. How can you: 1) still not understand its meaning? & 2) continue to inject, "altruism into your interpretation, when I never used the word?

Last time-- from your initial quotation, this is the part of Rand's philosophy I am responding to (& I'd maintain is, among your introductory remarks, the most central feature of that philosopy):

Which is why I see it as impractical: not because it eliminates god (& I would guess you're suggesting we couldn't do that); but because it calls for us to act only as INDIVIDUALS but we are a COMMUNAL being. Certainly, that discussion could evolve towards a criticism of our tribal nature; though it would be, in this thread about Ayn Rand (supposedly), a slight digression. Perhaps you should have made the thread specifically about "tribalism & altruism," if that's where your interests primarily lie.

Does that clarify anything for you?

 

It seems to me you are basically saying the same thing that I said you were saying, only in different words.

Yet you are disagreeing with what I said. That is why I made the observation that one of us may likely be misunderstanding the other.

If you don't agree with my interpretation of what you said, then how is what you are saying different from that? Maybe you could explain that?
I'm not talking about words or semantics, but meaning.

I don't understand what you mean if you are saying humans are communal beings, if you are not referring to altruism.

 

I just pointed out that what you said could just fall under the category of tribalism.

(by tribalism, I mean a limited form of altruism, or a limited form of communalism, specific and only within the group)

So your example is by no means evidence of any greater communalism, that would extend to all of humanity, or all members of a species.

That is all I was trying to say.


You then replied in this post:

I have no idea why you did that, or what you were trying to say here.

But I assume, since you brought that up in response to my post about tribalism, you were trying to say that animals who act in group-type ways has something to do with reason, and that you don't think that just falls under tribalism.

Since I had just brought up tribalism, and since you seemed to be disagreeing with me, I assume that somehow you thought your example would prove that there was something beyond tribalism?
But I don't see how what you said could show that.

I'll agree with you (if you want me too) that these animals can reason, and that they can act in communal (your word) ways.
But that seems to me that is still mostly just within the context of tribalism.

So what was the point of you bringing that up? What does it prove?

I agreed with you that (assuming no god) logic/reason can lead one to act in individually unselfish ways when it is in the selfish interest of a small group. (I didn't actually say that with those words, but that's what I meant by tribalism)

What type of "communalism" were you talking about? What did you mean by it.
Did you mean the same thing with the word "communalism" that I meant by using the word "tribalism"?

 

Well, I have to commend your persistence, at least, in trying to figure out where things went south, & from you finally explaining what you were trying to say, I can now see where the problem arose.

That is not how I interpreted your reply:

(I have to make this quick, because I hit, "post," accidently just now, so I only have 15 mins. & I'm unbelievably slow trying to type on my phone.)

"Reasoning opens up the door for the validity of tribalism," was supposed to translate to, *" the fact the human beings are communal by nature(i.e., "what just said"), **'could fall under the category of tribalism'?"[/QUOTE]

 

That, my friend, does not make sense, esp. if you are defining tribalism to equate with, "altruism." All you basically said after my pointing out that man's communal nature was not so easily dispensed as Rand would have us believe, was that, " being communal means we could be considered tribal?"

And the way you decided to phrase that unnecessary, really, statement was:

"Okay, but you do realize that reasoning opens up the door for the validity of tribalism?"

 

rand like so many other philosophers are guilty of reductionism / causal oversimplification fallacies.

 

I am happy to have a discussion w/ you Kazenatsu, but you will have to express yourself more clearly than as noted above, if there is going to be any point in trying to communicate; otherwise we will spend all of our time trying to figure out why we seem to be having 2 different conversations.

Can you see that the prima facie reading of your very first reply to me--

-- is not what you claim you were trying to say:

Note, however, how clearly you stated it there (above).

1) "(Being communal/What you said) could just fall under the category of tribalism."

VS.

2) "Okay, but you do realize that reasoning opens up the door for the validity of tribalism?"

As long as you see the difference between the clarity of, "1," and the confusingness of, "2," we can continue our conversation.
#2, actually, doesn't even make sense, as I mentioned earlier. After the phrase, "opens up the door for..." one expects either a noun, e.g., "looters," or, "rioting," or a verb, "questioning (the validity of tribalism)." But you are misusing that expression to substitute for some different verb, like, "establishes (the validity of tribalism)," or, "endorses..." May I ask you, so that I may be quicker to put my finger on future difficulties, is English your first language? I ask because you sound intelligent, & that would explain why there might be occasional problems w/ effectively transmitting your thought or comprehending mine.

A prophylactic for the former of those situations (communicating your ideas) would be to not be as concerned with sounding professorial: use the simplest phrasing that accomplishes the task. I'd also want to know if there is any potential language barrier so I don't mistakenly assume you are, like a couple of others I've dealt with on the Forum, just being an ass. Another thing that would help, in that regard, would be for you to try to refrain from using terms like, "asinine," to refer to my replies.

Lastly, let me apologize for the mess I made w/ unnecessarily redundant replies. I was just waking up (& dispelling the fog can take me a little time) and typing on my phone-- which I find awkward under the best conditions-- while still lying in bed (so mistakenly hit, "post reply," twice). Trying to use my phone as a computer is my, "challenge/handicap."

Talk to you soon.
DEFinning

 

I agree for it is plausible.

You can take the idea of the collective too damn far but also the idea of self interest too far as well.

Rand was a product of her time and geography. Her Philosophy' reflects a reaction against her early environment.

I assume she rejected the golden rule as expressed by Jesus h. Christ?

 

The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you."

Ayn Rand made an entry in her journal July 5, 1945. She contended that the Golden Rule was used in support of altruism. For example you must give out to charity because you want to be an object of charity yourself. The extension of this is you must sacrifice yourself to others because you want others to sacrifice themselves to you.

She held that the golden rule can work only in application to her morality: you do not sacrifice yourself to others and you do not wish them to sacrifice themselves to you.

As if out of "The Ethics of Emergencies" which had not yet been written, she continues by pointing out: You may want to be helped in an emergency or a catastrophe - but only in such cases. You consider such cases a calamity - not your normal and proper state of existence.

She concludes with the following: You do not wish to live as an object of charity - and you do not hand charity out to others.​

It sounds like she may have been able to carve out exceptions for emergencies.

 

I have no reason to think any life form isn't aware of a creator.. I can't tell if their consciousness includes a creator or not.

 

She over thunk some things IMO.

She basically promoted a very narcistic egocentric point of view.. As the highest good.

I never gave charity or help in order to get it myself. That would be what an ego driven person might do. Nor have I published the people I have helped..

Perhaps rand was a sociopath? No empathy nor sympathy. And no conscience?

 

A very subtle distinction, but I like it. (Though it's obviously nothing provable or disprovable).

 

Sometimes what cannot be proved or disproved is humbling.. And waters down arrogance. Lol

Sometimes I wonder if other life is delighting in its existence when it appears to be joyous? And what is the consciousness of my beloved golden retriever is when she seems so happy..

Or is our universe consciousness? Philosophical reductionist materialists like Dawkins say no! Yet that is but an assumption. That some confuse with scientific fact.

 

I do believe in a universal consciousness (perhaps numerous sub-consciousnesses, as well) and I also think that this is something science is-- slowly-- moving towards, "discovering." Or it may be more to the point to say that I think the tide is gradually beginning to turn against materialist reductionists (if I'm correct in thinking I have an idea of what you refer to).Though it does have a very long way to go before it gets there.

The first step, I feel I may see in (what remains of) my lifetime. That will be, as physicists delve more into the arcane particle & force interactions which govern the universe, & neurologists gain a greater appreciation of the brain, notice being taken of symmetries between the two.

And my hoped-for upshot of that, is nothing more than that science may become a little less fundamentalist, a little more open to possibilities & to broadening its base of things regarded as potentially worthy of consideration, & perhaps, even a little less arrogant.

If all that were to translate into science being in less of a rush to denounce & disregard things it has no real knowledge of, that would, though a small step, be a huge improvement.

That's only one scenario, of course. Other, new discoveries in Biology could have an impact on the science-community's shift in perspective (as would Extra-Terrestrials revealing themselves to the world). The future, ultimately, remains a mystery to us all.