Ayn Rand is known for her controversial philosophy called objectivism. It says that real morality is not altruism but rather selfishness--to put one's own interests first above others. Ironically, until now, people fail to see its relevance even now that we live such life on social media. We may be out there browsing the internet, sharing inspirational stories or defending those bullied kids but such act show not an exact light of compassion or whatever it is supposed to be. That act of sharing those things rather become something people want others to base their opinions on about who they are.
That simple irony is enough to show the significance and timeliness of objectivism, but for you to digest it fully, let me break it down for you.
So helping others is not moral at all?
Ayn Rand indeed claimed altruism as immoral. She never liked the idea of asking others for help or extending a hand to those in need. As cruel as it may sound for most, she simply hated the idea that the privileged were as if obligated to help the poor, the weak. However, Rand justified her concept of morality through introducing objectivism as another and perhaps only way to perceive reality--that a person's only means to survive in this life where survival is obviously the reason why we eat, work, etc., thus it means that the objective reality is that since an individual's reason is what makes him or her alive, the highest prioritized or valued interest of each of us is self-interest. In this sense, Rand clarifies then that although she hates the concept of altruism, mentioning self-interest in a hierarchical position would only mean that such universally accepted morality is still there, just not the priority of the ideal moral person she had made in her mind.
Looking at Rand's philosophy without any prejudgment, what she simply meant to tell the world was that no one should suffer in his/her own life just because there is (and there really is) this seemingly moral code that tells us we should be of help to others despite being in need to fix ourselves first. You see, it happens all the time. Some often feel the need to do something for their friends so much so that they somehow have their finances and time compromised, later going through that conflict of loss in their part especially when the person offered the effort does not show gratitude the way they had expected.
It's funny because when that happens, drama might spark and the unreasonable is switched on--something Rand had always detested. Lovers, for instance have all these things going on--person 1 might ask person 2 to go with person 1 because he/she is relocating for a job, but person 2 knows he/she doesn't have a life there. Person 2 does it because he/she "loves" person 1, but sooner or later they would constantly fight because person 2 is having a hard time making her life out of the setup more favorable for person 1. Conflict basically arises.
A wise thought from Rand's book The Fountainhead opens one's eyes to the reality of what this much talked about love could only offer the two people in it.
In this excerpt from the book, the hero of the story, Howard Roark responds to Dominique Francon's suggesstion that she would leave her life with her husband, her writing career, her luxurious life, and live with Howard instead in a poor place just so she could be with him. At that time, Howard could not afford to live in a place like what Dominique, a socialite, is used to. That is why Howard then says these words to let her know that such sacrifice is not love--that it wouldn't make them any happier.
A lot of couples go through a lot of unnecessary conflicts rooting from sacrifices of the individual interest. See, the reality is that we ourselves choose to bring our lives in pain out of not accepting the reality that what matters most is our own interest. We try so hard to have that "good" image by being as generous as how a saint is expected to be--then we forget about our individuality, our right to our own choice. What Rand wants us to know is that we have our own brains to think and act the way that profits us and that there is no such thing as a collective brain dictating each individual what to do.
But Ayn Rand once said she wouldn't vote a woman as president...
The whole statement sounds really sexist. However, as being once a part of the hypersensitive feminism, I have come to realize that there are anthropological and psychological truths about women that such movement tries to shut down. There is nothing wrong with a mother who stays at home to raise great citizens, provide them adequate nutrition, attention, and care, yet somehow the feminist movement has set trends of women conquering so many fields, seemingly degrading the importance of a housewife. It's problematic, for we know how women have this unique sense of care-giving men do not equally possess. Let's face it, men have their neurologically and biologically proven unique strength when it comes to those things they have always been known of doing. Women are more in touch with emotions on the other hand, making them perfect to raise kids at home in a manner that they do not have psychological issues that could ruin them someday.
See, Rand believes in a sexual psychology that justifies her view that a woman would not want to be in such high position. Perhaps, she might be wrong, but looking at the undeniable science facts regarding a woman being in that position, we cannot really blame her for making that statement right there. Besides, when Hilary Clinton ran for presidency, her qualification people noisily bragged about the most was that she was a woman. We could not hear actual qualifications. People these days go for "Ooh it's gonna be the first! It's gonna be record-breaking!"
All I am saying is that there are women who feel degraded for being in touch with their femininity just because movements have claimed it's being vulnerable. Watch the video below and you'll see what I mean--that women are repeatedly told these days to conquer making them feel bad about their feminine interests...
Let us be reminded that female empowerment does not mean distributing female population in all fields they are not necessarily outstanding at. There is a need for balance too. However, of course, a woman is entitled to do what she wishes as long as a whole big population is not brought to suffering in such choice like a leadership role given out of the mere "It's breaking the double standard!"
Conclusion
Ayn Rand simply offers us the harsh truth we the human race has always refused to believe or accept. We all breathe for ourselves, yet we try to breathe for others when we are obviously not capable of it. Jean-Paul Sartre might have written ideas about transcendence that inspired a lot of people to do more than what they think they are currently capable of, but not once did he say that we should defy the truth Ayn Rand had always desired for people to see--that we are bound to have limits we cannot just break dramatically as opposed to what romantic literature and media feed us.
Rand wished we could look simply at life as one's OWN LIFE--that the pursuit of happiness is not about greed per se but of embracing one's own limits, flaws, ideas, thoughts, and space.
references
- Atlas Society
- The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Thanks. I think Objectivism is what the world needs more than ever. I know I have gained valuable inspiration, moral certainty and character strength reading Ayn Rand.
So nice to have someone in my comment section, a person who has also been inspired by this philosopher. It's true, the world needs to open their minds with this reality otherwise we'd be completely getting shitted on by our own shit.
DISCLAIMER: dropahead Curation Team does not necessarily share opinions expressed in this article, but find author's effort and/or contribution deserves better reward and visibility.
to maximize your curation rewards!
with SteemConnect
Do the above and we'll have more STEEM POWER to give YOU bigger rewards next time!
News from dropahead: Bye bye 25+ and 50+! Welcome 20+ 40+ and 60+!
Quality review from the dropahead Curation Team
According to our quality standards(1), your publication has reached an score of 85%.
Well said Gabriel García Marquez: "You learn to write by writing" Keep trying, you will soon achieve excellence!
(1) dropahead Witness' quality standards:
- Graphic relation to the text (Choice of images according to the text)
- Organization and coherence
- Personal sense of the text (Logic, complexity, understanding, what makes it interesting for the reader)
People are doing good things for their own good. Who would be altruistic if that would cause him pain? We are doing charity because it’s fulfilling us so it’s egoistic.
True. Charity is a profitable "non-profit". Our minds are programmed to be rewarded, thus the ego is always waiting to be fed just like what you probably think.
NICE! Pleasant read Gia, great insight and breakdown. You've made a fan out of me
Thank you! Means a lot!
Interesting read... you make some solid points
Thank you!
I started reading Ayn Rand at about 1970 and still have her books. I've always liked a lot of what she promulgates, but I do not like that she is so absolute in what we are allowed to do to be fair to ourselves. The needs of each person are different...anyway that has already been argued to death. I just wanted to add something I hardly ever see mentioned.
A study was made of animals, both domestic and in the wild. The study found that where animals are altruistic, they have increased their survival rate.
Animals are not altruistic, some may argue? In an experiment, a hungry chimp was offered a banana. It refused to eat until the person gave the other chimp a banana also.
You have seen the lioness who finds a wounded fox lying in the middle of a road? They eat foxes, yet she curled herself around it protectively and when the male dared to try and take the fox from her, she threatened him (lion males usually back off when threatened by a female - just as with our specie).
If you do a search and find I spoke the truth, ask yourself, how will such knowledge affect your theories?
Thanks for this insight. Well I stick to my point. As much as I love your examples about animals, I believe that we humans are not to be that compared to them for me to have them included in this argument. Altruism might really work for some people though, that's undeniable.
@OriginalWorks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @thegiamarcos to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
I just feel like helping people is the naturally correct thing to do. Nothing to do with feeling good about yourself, just helping people with what is easy for you to help them with.
Partially instinctively, yes.
Not really instincts imo. If it costs you almost nothing (like say the cost is it takes you a few seconds to a minute, at no monetary cost) to do something, then motivation does not have to factor in at all. When a stranger stops and asks me a question and I can answer, I do not feel good or proud helping them. If somebody needs to be calculative to the point that a bit of your time is a problem, then that seems like a bigger pretense than doing things to feel good in the first place. People just torture points to the extreme to set up these ideological frameworks...
You make a good point about that kind of help but the article refers to that help that could put one at risk that's why I kinda got lost in answering you back.. obviously that type of help you're saying isn't a problem. That's self-explanatory...
I mean that loses me back; nobody cares if anybody thinks it is too risky for another individual to go to Africa to serve people. Time, risk to one's health, the unknown, etc... So there would be nothing to argue there; the point is all altruism is immoral or there is no argument to be had. So the place you come from to easily point out how goofy that mindset is would be the smallest kinds of altruism.
Then to settle everything, let me just say the cliché "to each his own"
helping someone or somebody can be interpreted in several different ways. Following Ayn Rand theory you can help someone if that brings you some comfort, self satisfaction, or nirvana or some sort so then the question is morally did you help them or did you helped yourself? Also, in my opinion when you are helping someone either financially or physically you are allowing that person to rely on you. In certain societies I have witnessed these type of behaviors disables masses and cripples economy. I'm open to teaching a man how to fish but I will never fish for any man.
not everybody disbelieves or refuse to believe, its just not been thought to everyone also, every person seas the truth in a different way. no one is the same, we might have similar affections but we are all unique in our own way. don't you think?
To be honest it's ironic indeed how Rand promotes individualism as in to each his/her own for everyone to take as that only form of morality. She respects differences but she missed the point in differences between people's choices in giving and the lack thereof.
I am very impressed. Not a lot of people would tackle Objectivism and Ayn Rand.
I was a believer of Objectivism at what one point of my life. I found it align to my morales and ethics.
As the masses and student bodies of radical militants were rallying in Mendiola I would walk to them and ask them for solutions to what they are fighting for. Their cries of giving everything to the Filipino people and to release all political prisoners and let go of power was ridiculous and would only led to anarchy.
Their socialist rhetoric of equality and fairness was a facade to seizing power and yet if they had it they would be like Joker who said he was a dog chasing after a car but he wouldn't know what to do with it when they catch it.
I moved to the corporate world with the thinking that reason and being rational are to be expected and work output to be at optimal levels.
Management approved this mentality. American business is deeply rooted in Objectivism where the pursuit of one's happiness and wealth is the right of even man. That feelings especially of compassion and altruism are to shunned.
Here lies the problem. The quantifiable numbers are all in the green yet the motivation and feeling of safety were in red flags.
Then one day one person mustered enough courage to speak out. The way I was handling people was they felt expendable.
I changed and I discovered Simon Sinek. Hearing him talk about the Why, The Golden Circle and noblesse obligge of recognizing of the rights of a human being to be cared for, connection and altruism.
Rand has been shown to be so anti children, women and elderly who she regarded as a subspecies who could not take care of themselves and as such could not be the equal of man as the doer who must pursuit the highest ideal of working towards gaining his wants.
Objectivism naturally embraced by corporate America reared its head in justifying the greed of the banking industry, of corporate takeovers, of buying and stripping companies to sellable parts for profit all for the pursuit of one's interest.
Rand's inherent problem is not taking account that man is not just a creature of reason but also of emotions our most basic reason of deciding on something is how it makes us feel.
Rand's philosophy will have its allure in theory but when faced in the reality of life and society shows it cannot function.
I like this insight. I agree with your points though I remain an objectivist ;) haha
Thats the beauty of a discussion and i applaude you for your ideals and posts.
I couldnt stop reading and hopefully will be able to pick your brain again sometime.
Oh that is true!
Thank you! Well, I'm pretty active these days, so will definitely have more articles!
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/emma-goldman
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/voltairine-de-cleyre
The reason more people hear Ayn's name, rather than these two, is because ignorance is used to control us.
Why's that?
Because it works?
Was hoping you'd elaborate the ignorance part but yeah obviouslyyyy it works
Sorry, the ignorance is carefully planned by the folks setting the curriculum.
If you are not shown all the options it is much harder to choose them.
Just what I thought... True though
Congratulations @thegiamarcos! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThanks for dealing with the irrational, emotional (knee-jerk) reactions of those who are "triggered" upon simply hearing the name of the author. The only way to "judge" Rand's novels and non-fictional books is after cracking the covers and studying them (objectively, ha!). This is one of the more even-handed exposés and summaries on Objectivism and Ayn Rand that I've encountered here; glad to see someone posting such info on Steemit.