# Could someone briefly explain Ayn Rand's philosophy; objectivism?



## Jash Comstock (Mar 3, 2014)

I've read _Atlas Shrugged_ and would like to attempt _The Fountainhead_ soon, but before I do I would like a better understanding of what Objectivism is. Could someone briefly describe the main tenets of that philosophy?


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 3, 2014)

In a very short, crude way it is a philosophy that attempts to say something about human nature and what that says about economic/political structures. For Rand, people are greedy and only care about themselves. Therefore, our economic structure must be completely free to enable players to move about in the system without hindrance. It is a free market idea on steroids. It is completely anti-collectivist. In her philosophy, things will work for the best when the political and economic structure make people completely free. Allowing for a laissez-faire system ensures that the key players can move about freely and create the greatest possible wealth and living conditions for all. On this system everybody supposedly benefits from the individual greed and self-interest we all have. 

Therefore, in her philosophy, even in a system that is completely free market, the entrepreneurial big boys are what makes society great. That is, even in a system that taxes greatly, the state survives off those individuals that are so productive, the state enjoys their success because more revenues are brought in through taxation. Hence, for us to enjoy good living conditions and wealth, our society needs those John Galt types.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 3, 2014)




----------



## Jash Comstock (Mar 3, 2014)

So, would it be fair to say that it is a philosophy based on a true understanding of man's depravity, without the bright spot of the gospel?


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 3, 2014)

Only it misses out on the terrible consequences of that depravity.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 3, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> It is completely anti-collectivist. In her philosophy, things will work for the best when the political and economic structure make people completely free.



Governments do have a role to play though in her system. They are there to protect private property. Thus if one stole from his neighbour, the police could prosecute.


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 3, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > It is completely anti-collectivist. In her philosophy, things will work for the best when the political and economic structure make people completely free.
> ...



True. But the government's role in the rule of law is to ensure that the free market is respected, and that via property rights and what have you.


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 3, 2014)

Jash Comstock said:


> So, would it be fair to say that it is a philosophy based on a true understanding of man's depravity, without the bright spot of the gospel?



In some ways yes. But Ayn Rand was an atheist, and her understanding of depravity was off a bit. She did highlight some important reasons why collectivism would never work.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2014)

On the positive side, Rand's "philosophy" used the law of identity as a starting point. Reality was real. This was a good counter to the wishful-thinking crowd who believed that society and men in general could be improved by simply having them think positive thoughts and pass positive laws. That means that she held to the "primacy of existence" and rejected the "primacy of consciousness."

On this viewpoint (absolutism of reality), Rand placed the moral ground of man's identity and rights. Man has reason--it exists. Because of the existence of reason, man has the right to exercise his reason, and man's reason is the measure of all things. (Which has a hint of Biblical truth: Man was made to name and categorize creation--Gen. 2:19).

Primacy of consciousness implies that nature is whatever we want it to be, which is merely wishful thinking. Taken to an extreme, you end up with political systems like socialism, fascism, etc.

Rand believed that capitalism was the only reason-based economic system because it involved, at is most basic level, voluntary and reasoned bargains between (presumably) reasonable people. Any interference with that process from the outside (as would happen with market-control laws, etc.) were suspect because of the coercive nature of those controls. In other words, regulating a market was applying primacy of consciousness principles (wishful thinking) to reality.

There is a lot more to it than that, of course. Rand claimed to follow Aristotle, but there is no indication that she studied him very deeply. She had a great dislike for the "Church", but it is apparent that she only was addressing the Roman Catholic Church in her criticisms. She called priests members of the "witch doctor" class. I pretty much agree with her there. (As an aside, I often wonder what a meeting between Rand and Gordon Clark would have been like. He definitely spoke her language better than she did. They were contemporaries. She may have discovered that there is a completely foreign species she had never considered: a rational Christian).

On the negative side, she had nothing in her system to deal with the reality of the Fall. Sin was merely interfering with man's rights. Her novel heroes are all nearly perfectly rational. Her villains are those who fall short of being consistently rational. Sadly, she found no way to apply this great ideal to her personal life, and there is much written on her own very irrational and twisted lifestyle.

I often like to tell people that Ayn Rand led me to Christ. In a very real sense she did. Her book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology opened my eyes to the dangers of wishful thinking that had pervaded my own environment. She always hammered on "A is A", the law of identity. 

But, contrary to Rand, I noticed that A is A applied to me too: I had a strong sense that I could never measure up to the ideal of perfect reason. I could also see that no person I had ever run across could do that either. The problem was simple: Rand's ideal man did not exist, and never would exist. Yet her whole philosophy depended on it.

Well, my contemplations of a perfect man, in due course, reminded me of another system and truth claim. It involved Jesus Christ. It took quite a while from my perspective, but God connected the dots for me despite my resistance.


----------



## Jash Comstock (Mar 3, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> There is a lot more to it than that, of course. Rand claimed to follow Aristotle, but there is no indication that she studied him very deeply. She had a great dislike for the "Church", but it is apparent that she only was addressing the Roman Catholic Church in her criticisms. She called priests members of the "witch doctor" class. I pretty much agree with her there. (As an aside, I often wonder what a meeting between Rand and Gordon Clark would have been like. He definitely spoke her language better than she did. They were contemporaries. She may have discovered that there is a completely foreign species she had never considered: a rational Christian).



I am unfamiliar with Gordon Clark, where can I go to find out more about him? What are his major works?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2014)

Jash Comstock said:


> I am unfamiliar with Gordon Clark, where can I go to find out more about him? What are his major works?



Jash, before your time on the PB, we used to have Clark-Van Til battles. I don't want to stir that pot, but provide a couple of links below.

http://www.theopedia.com/Gordon_Clark

A Puritan's Mind » Introduction to the Writings of Dr. Gordon Clark – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

I like much of what Clark wrote, but, especially in his later years, he pushed some of his novel views to extremes many cannot tolerate.

I think his _Thales to Dewey _ is a nice survey on the history of philosophy, _Religion, Reason, and Revelation_ is profitable, as are his _Essays on Ethics and Politics_.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 3, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> I
> 
> Therefore, in her philosophy, even in a system that is completely free market, the entrepreneurial big boys are what makes society great. That is, even in a system that taxes greatly, the state survives off those individuals that are so productive, the state enjoys their success because more revenues are brought in through taxation. Hence, for us to enjoy good living conditions and wealth, our society needs those John Galt types.



Sort of like Enron and Countrywide ? What was his name, Bush's buddy, Kenny Boy ? A John Galt type. Glad they didn't get around to privatizing social security.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 3, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> On the positive side, Rand's "philosophy" used the law of identity as a starting point. Reality was real. This was a good counter to the wishful-thinking crowd who believed that society and men in general could be improved by simply having them think positive thoughts and pass positive laws. That means that she held to the "primacy of existence" and rejected the "primacy of consciousness."



Agreed. From a philosophical point of view she saw the problems with postmodernism. There are a couple of classic interviews with Ayn Rand on the Phil Donahue show in 1979 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPwJq9ybcE and 1980 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 4, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> > On the positive side, Rand's "philosophy" used the law of identity as a starting point. Reality was real. This was a good counter to the wishful-thinking crowd who believed that society and men in general could be improved by simply having them think positive thoughts and pass positive laws. That means that she held to the "primacy of existence" and rejected the "primacy of consciousness."
> ...



That's a keen observation Vic. It goes back to the subjective/phenomenological vs. objective view of reality. The continent, following Kant, Hegel, Hiedegger and others, certainly moved society in a destructive direction, tending toward the subjective. Oddly enough, those systems always bring about repressive political regimes, while the philosophy is supposed to be all about the freedom of the individual. What I do respect in Rand is a more rational approach in justifying the freedom of the individual in an objective sense. In the end, that creates a better subjective experience as well.


----------

