Have so called "Objectivists" perverted Ayn Rand's teachings?
Posted by ScintiaSitPotentia 8 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
I know many Objectivists or self proclaimed individuals who suggest they truly study and understand her teachings, However their lack of reverence towards their fellow man is concerning. Rand even said. "Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man" We should hold respect for others and we should strive for our happiness. What is your view if any or I am being to idealistic?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
The goal is to study and accurately describe Reality. Pursue reality wherever it takes you, but don't close yourself off into a rigid mindset. That turns scientific study into mere zealotry and hero-worship. Rand's contributions to that study shouldn't be discounted or misrepresented, but Rand herself had no wish to be a deity.
A good example of this is your average liberal and his notion about his constitutional rights...he naturally assumes his "Rights" come from the constitution....they of course do not. It is even funnier to realize that the think they have rights that are not even discussed in the document.....not that any of them have ever actually read it!
My thoughts on reciprocity of respect is really a common public courtesy rather than an actual respect. I grew up in a rural area in which it was understood that you didn't knock another man's hat off, or 'dress him down' in public. But I'm not sure if that was reciprocity of respect or public courtesy.
As to responsibility, I came across this line in a story by A. Parra (y Figueredo) called "Totenbuch":
"Coercion is rationalized so that responsibility can be disclaimed." as Eichmann did.
Unless you respect yourself, you can not respect another.
Yes. Very good.
One small thing... hope I am not being pedantic... Respect has several connotations. I respect a rattle snake because of the danger, but I am loathe to grant respect to a human that shows me disrespect. :) That said, I do agree that one must not 'give' respect in order to receive it, as if it were some moral duty, even to the unearned. However, would you agree there is some value in the reciprocity of respect, ("Some, if not many, will counter that one must give respect in order to receive respect.") in proper connotation?
Regards,
O.A.
The acceptance of full responsibility for one’s own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it by surrendering to what they believe is the easy, automatic, unthinking safety of a morality of “duty.” They learn better, often when it is too late.
The disciple of causation faces life without inexplicable chains, unchosen burdens, impossible demands or supernatural threats. His metaphysical attitude and guiding moral principle can best be summed up by an old Spanish proverb: “God said: ‘Take what you want and pay for it.’” But to know one’s own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/res...
In discussions of selfishness (or self interest) she as well touches on the error of the cultural implantation of this concept of obligation/responsibility to others which encompasses as well the idea of a duty/responsibility of respect to others, and in general points out that any such feelings are anti-individual.
Some, if not many, will counter that one must give respect in order to receive respect. I totally reject that notion and more, that the search for respect is a worthwhile expenditure in life. I would argue that the only value of respect is that gained naturally from a life of Objectivist virtues and respect of self.
Sometimes the misrepresentation is due to ignorance or sloppiness, other times through deliberate action intended to fight against her ideas.
When I initially encountered Rand, it was through a friend who understood Objectivism. My approach was to ask him about the details. Or rather, about what I imagined to be the the details. He ultimately became disgusted with my second-hand approach and refused further questions. I was stuck having to read Rand's own words.
Anyone who is selling you a revised version of Rand's ideas is not supporting Rand. Anyone who is selling you amplifications of her ideas, or extensions into areas she addressed only lightly, should be examined "in the clear light of day" just as you would inspect second-hand machinery or leather goods. (We once bought some used carriage harness for our horses at night. Did not discover it was rotten until the following day, illuminated by sunshine.) Some rotten ideas look beautiful until you check your premises, and discover that you were deluding yourself.
My Objectivist approach to what your saying works for me. I bolster myself and my family so that I can contribute more to society. When I'm charitable it's with the accuracy of a cruise missile.
Those who aren't really Objectivists are easily led by men in costumes with guns. They like war. They are looking for the next government goodie, as long as their GOP officials are involved, of course.
I have said that part of the causes of delusional thinking in Nazi Germany was that the innate sense of propriety in the German people became an exaggerated sense of responsibility to others, and consequently to the state, under the influence of Kantian, Hegelian, and Marxist philosophies. And of course the philosophy of many others, including Nietzsche.
Europeans should not try to introspect.
Interesting that the philosophers I cited were German.