Given I know that some of our readers and authors are fans of Ayn Rand in some way or another, (I personally haven't read any of her books) I thought I would post a trailer of a movie based on Atlas Shrugged. I guess this movie will not be playing everywhere (but will be here in Irvine since the Ayn Rand Institute is here) so if you want to see it you may have to be proactive. A list of locations the movie will be shown is here.
So if you are an Ayn Rand fan: enjoy! And if you stick around maybe you will be lucky someone will write another post on objectivism. We have enjoyed some of those in the past.
Ah, Ayn Rand. I'm not sure whether to say I'm a fan or not. I know philosophers mock her (though I don't pretend to fully understand why and a lot of it feels like elitism and tradition). I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged for what it was. As a novel it was not stellar, and as a declaration of philosophy it was not stellar. Nevertheless, it plays a very prominent role in shaping American opinions on the economy and gov't. And rightly so, IMHO. Capitalism and democracy has been the most successful social experiment in over a millenium, and it appears to me properly balances human ideals in the most optimal way we have seen.
Also, like QL42, I agree with Rand in attacking Christianity and other religions. However, like QL42, this doesn't make me an atheist either. I don't pretend to know anything about God but I leave the door open that there is a greater unifying force.
The arguments I've heard against her follow something like: 1. She's an atheist 2. She teaches greed and selfishness 3. She was not a trained philosopher.
None of which are particularly good arguments against her IMHO.
Yeah, those arguments against her don't amount to much. She might be dead wrong but if that's the best people have against her then they may need to try again.
Kant was the ultimate Platonist. If the history of western philosophy is Plato and all his footnotes, then Kant would be about half of the footnotes. The thing to keep in mind is Rand is a hard core Aristotelian which is diametrically opposed to Platonism. Hence she really, really, really doesn't like Kant. I think what made her not like Kant so much was, 1) he was so influential (some philosophers speak in terms of Kantian and non-Kantian philosophy as if those where the only choices) 2) Kant got it so wrong, this would not have been a problem except for #1, and 3) Kant did so much work only to have it be useless.
So it goes beyond the categorical imperative, though that is one thing that she might not like about him, it is instead the fundamental assumptions that Kant unknowingly puts as the foundation of his philosophy.
I should also point out that I have never actually read any of Ayn Rand's books. I read the chapter ("THE chapter") from Atlas Shrugged, the one where she gives her 60 pages of philosophy, and that was it. How's that, most people read her books and skip over the philosophy. I read her philosophy and skip over the rest of the book.
But I have read the books written by Leonard Peikoff, who was Rand's official spokesman and the one who actually wrote down all her ideas (he was also the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute).
I think movie would be very interesting to see as well as rereading the book: Atlas Shrugged. I have spent most of my free time reading about this since your post. I have few questions on objectivism, and one of them is:
If we need senses to define our objectivistic view, how do we know about completeness of our senses, that is, the senses are capable of detecting reality as it is, not create a subset of reality in each of us.
My second question: How do we define the verb "to sense"? And, at what lowest level of existence the sense begin.
I posted two questions for anyone who can expand on them. I repeat the questioons:
If we need senses to define our objectivistic view, how do we know about completeness of our senses, that is, the senses are capable of detecting reality as it is, not create a subset of reality in each of us.
My second question: How do we define the verb "to sense"? And, at what lowest level of existence the sense begins?
Sorry Ancient1, I wish I could answer. I've read Atlas Shrugged, but I'm definitely no trained philosopher. What that means is that I can give you the gist of what Rand was about, but am unable to clearly identify, compare, and contrast the nuances between what her philosophy and anyone else's mean.
I still struggle to understand the nuances of Platonism and Aristotelianism. I'm fascinated by philosophy but don't have time to do it justice.
Ah, Ayn Rand. I'm not sure whether to say I'm a fan or not. I know philosophers mock her (though I don't pretend to fully understand why and a lot of it feels like elitism and tradition). I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged for what it was. As a novel it was not stellar, and as a declaration of philosophy it was not stellar. Nevertheless, it plays a very prominent role in shaping American opinions on the economy and gov't. And rightly so, IMHO. Capitalism and democracy has been the most successful social experiment in over a millenium, and it appears to me properly balances human ideals in the most optimal way we have seen.
ReplyDeleteAlso, like QL42, I agree with Rand in attacking Christianity and other religions. However, like QL42, this doesn't make me an atheist either. I don't pretend to know anything about God but I leave the door open that there is a greater unifying force.
The arguments I've heard against her follow something like:
1. She's an atheist
2. She teaches greed and selfishness
3. She was not a trained philosopher.
None of which are particularly good arguments against her IMHO.
Thanks for the post.
Oh, and I'm totally bummed because I'll be in Chicago April 12-14 for a conference, but the dang movie premiers on April 15.
ReplyDeletejmb275,
ReplyDeleteYeah, those arguments against her don't amount to much. She might be dead wrong but if that's the best people have against her then they may need to try again.
Quantumleap42, I'd be interested in knowing what Ayn Rand has against Kant. His categorical imperative?
ReplyDeleteFirst a link to Wiki article on Objectivism (Ayn Rand):
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
I prefer Spirit and Matter; and, rest (the world, real and imagine) is anarchy.
Kant was the ultimate Platonist. If the history of western philosophy is Plato and all his footnotes, then Kant would be about half of the footnotes. The thing to keep in mind is Rand is a hard core Aristotelian which is diametrically opposed to Platonism. Hence she really, really, really doesn't like Kant. I think what made her not like Kant so much was, 1) he was so influential (some philosophers speak in terms of Kantian and non-Kantian philosophy as if those where the only choices) 2) Kant got it so wrong, this would not have been a problem except for #1, and 3) Kant did so much work only to have it be useless.
ReplyDeleteSo it goes beyond the categorical imperative, though that is one thing that she might not like about him, it is instead the fundamental assumptions that Kant unknowingly puts as the foundation of his philosophy.
I should also point out that I have never actually read any of Ayn Rand's books. I read the chapter ("THE chapter") from Atlas Shrugged, the one where she gives her 60 pages of philosophy, and that was it. How's that, most people read her books and skip over the philosophy. I read her philosophy and skip over the rest of the book.
ReplyDeleteBut I have read the books written by Leonard Peikoff, who was Rand's official spokesman and the one who actually wrote down all her ideas (he was also the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute).
JS,
ReplyDeleteI think movie would be very interesting to see as well as rereading the book: Atlas Shrugged. I have spent most of my free time reading about this since your post. I have few questions on objectivism, and one of them is:
If we need senses to define our objectivistic view, how do we know about completeness of our senses, that is, the senses are capable of detecting reality as it is, not create a subset of reality in each of us.
My second question: How do we define the verb "to sense"? And, at what lowest level of existence the sense begin.
I will hold the rest.
Ancient1,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I am not an expert enough on objectivism to answer these questions. Quantumleap42, may be able to address these questions though.
I posted two questions for anyone who can expand on them. I repeat the questioons:
ReplyDeleteIf we need senses to define our objectivistic view, how do we know about completeness of our senses, that is, the senses are capable of detecting reality as it is, not create a subset of reality in each of us.
My second question: How do we define the verb "to sense"? And, at what lowest level of existence the sense begins?
Sorry Ancient1, I wish I could answer. I've read Atlas Shrugged, but I'm definitely no trained philosopher. What that means is that I can give you the gist of what Rand was about, but am unable to clearly identify, compare, and contrast the nuances between what her philosophy and anyone else's mean.
ReplyDeleteI still struggle to understand the nuances of Platonism and Aristotelianism. I'm fascinated by philosophy but don't have time to do it justice.