Throughout these first weeks of class, while learning about the philosophies of famous epistemologists, I am reminded of another more modern philosopher: Ayn Rand. For those unfamiliar with Rand, her books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, (both of which I’m attempting to read) laid the groundwork for the modern philosophy known as Objectivism.Her ideology was highly significant—influencing prominent Americans such as Alan Greenspan and Nathaniel Branden. Objectivism holds (in part) that “reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest.”
Rand’s writings portray the principles behind her philosophy, many of which are directly related to concepts previously introduced by certain philosophers discussed in class.Such similarities are evident upon comparing Objectivism to aspects of Hobbesianism and the philosophy of Descartes.For example, in Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes her ideology as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”This statement, as well as the one introduced in the first paragraph, portrays certain concepts formerly established by the aforementioned philosophers.
Firstly, the notion of morality as defined by one’s pursuit of happiness and self-interest is unmistakably Hobbesian.Hobbes proposes that the state of nature is inherently self-interested.Clearly, Rand agrees, and states not only that self-interest is an essential part of humanity, but that one’s furtherance of it defines morality.While (to my knowledge), Hobbes does not define moral worth in terms of selfishness, Rand is effectively in agreement with his claim that self-interest is psychologically imperative and the governing force behind human action.
Secondly, Rand claims that reason is humanity’s only absolute.Such a statement is reminiscent of Descartes’ method of hyperbolic doubt.Descartes states that there is no way of objectively knowing the nature of existence.As such, res cogitans must be utilized to determine the validity of existence.It alone, as an Archimedean Point, can prove the existence of itself—reason— and from there forward can be used to gauge the veracity of other concepts.Nevertheless, it stands that reason as derived from res cogitans is humanity’s only absolute truth.
While Objectivism is hugely different from the teachings of Hobbes, Descartes, and other European epistemologists, it is evident that Rand utilizes their philosophies as a means of crafting Objectivist thought.Given its influence, learning about Objectivism and the philosophies which influenced its formation can lead to a greater understanding of the modern world.
I can see perhaps the influence of someone like Hobbes on Rand. I mean this in a very negative fashion. Honestly, I prefer Hobbes' honest portrayal of men as wild beasts clambering for supremacy than Rand's musings. I've always seen objectivism as a critique of Marxism rather than something stemming from sources like the thinkers covered in our course. Anyway, good luck reading Rand. Personally, I can't stomach her on any level, and I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal by any means.
Rand claims to find a morality in Hobbes's self-interested man. She certainly draws a picture of man not far from that of Hobbes. I feel she errs, however, by following that self interest and capitalism are moral. Rand's morality seems a constructed defense of capitalism, rather than the framework that built it. I find she attempts to justify self-interest as moral because of the good it brings. However, I find the only defenses of capitalism utility and personal liberty. The first defense is a simple acceptance that self-interest allows man what he wills in a way contrived systems never could. The second is a similar respect of our limits, but instead the limits of our rights as free men. Rand brings morality into the discussion of the merits of self-interest and capitalism, an addition I find logically wanting and detrimental.
Objectivism is certainly a new topic to me, and it seems as though Rand has evidence to back up her claim, evidence that includes the opinion of Hobbes, as you stated. I have to agree with Will, though, and argue that striving toward self-interested goals, even if these goals do not hinder others in their attempts at fulfilling their own self-interested ideals, is not moral. Kant actually brings this argument up on page 37 of "Grounding for the metaphysics of Morals" and states that exclusively self-interested actions do not harmonize in the end and do not bring any advancement toward greater perfection, and, therefore, they are not moral, for they neglect the maintainence of humanity as a whole.
This is the class blog for Dr. J's Fall 2009 section of HUM 201: The Search for Values (Philosophy Track) at Rhodes College. This course will cover the historical period stretching from the Renaissance to the present, with a special emphasis on philosophical thinkers and texts.
I can see perhaps the influence of someone like Hobbes on Rand. I mean this in a very negative fashion. Honestly, I prefer Hobbes' honest portrayal of men as wild beasts clambering for supremacy than Rand's musings. I've always seen objectivism as a critique of Marxism rather than something stemming from sources like the thinkers covered in our course. Anyway, good luck reading Rand. Personally, I can't stomach her on any level, and I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal by any means.
ReplyDeleteRand claims to find a morality in Hobbes's self-interested man. She certainly draws a picture of man not far from that of Hobbes. I feel she errs, however, by following that self interest and capitalism are moral. Rand's morality seems a constructed defense of capitalism, rather than the framework that built it. I find she attempts to justify self-interest as moral because of the good it brings. However, I find the only defenses of capitalism utility and personal liberty. The first defense is a simple acceptance that self-interest allows man what he wills in a way contrived systems never could. The second is a similar respect of our limits, but instead the limits of our rights as free men. Rand brings morality into the discussion of the merits of self-interest and capitalism, an addition I find logically wanting and detrimental.
ReplyDeleteObjectivism is certainly a new topic to me, and it seems as though Rand has evidence to back up her claim, evidence that includes the opinion of Hobbes, as you stated. I have to agree with Will, though, and argue that striving toward self-interested goals, even if these goals do not hinder others in their attempts at fulfilling their own self-interested ideals, is not moral. Kant actually brings this argument up on page 37 of "Grounding for the metaphysics of Morals" and states that exclusively self-interested actions do not harmonize in the end and do not bring any advancement toward greater perfection, and, therefore, they are not moral, for they neglect the maintainence of humanity as a whole.
ReplyDelete