[INTJ] The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand's Objectivism and INTJ's

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Ahem..
Quote referring to rationals:
These types are basically Godless and evil. Their choice of "faith" should reflect that.

I find that mildly offensive.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Ayn Rand:
"They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."

utterly joyless chauvinist...

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

That quote about Native Americans is abominable. Especially to these Luddite ears

 

[Sarcasticus]

Religion and Type - An MBTI Perspective

I found this interesting, although the author seems to be rather bitter. The author seems to create numerous stereotypes.
Ahem..
Quote referring to rationals:
These types are basically Godless and evil. Their choice of "faith" should reflect that.

I find that mildly offensive.
-Interesting, none the less.

I think it's all meant to be tongue-in-cheek. That's how I read it, anyway.

 

[SquirrelTao]

One of these days a new philosopher is going to have to come around and completely recreate objectivism into a provisional philosophy so that it can coincide and evolve with science and mathematics.

What do you mean by "coincide and evolve with science and mathematics?

In other words, her axioms which she induced are irrelevant since they can neither be concisely proven nor disproven and are therefore as useful as a unicorn, unless they are accepted on faith. (like God)

Her axioms are "existence exists", "A is A" and "consciousness exists". Rand regarded it as being impossible to argue against any of these axioms without in the process using them. If you're arguing, you exist and you're conscious. If you're using words to argue, you're using words that assume the law of identity or "A is A". This is not exactly the same thing as religious faith. Quantum physics, Eastern thought and deconstruction would each have something to say about these axioms, but I think in everday life for most practical intents and purposes we have to accept them so as not to be psychotic.

So by enacting her new philosophy, she only managed to create a new religion which encompasses the values of the rational. But values in themselves are irrational. So her philosophy, if taken seriously, is a contradiction to itself.

When I took a logic class in college, rationality was defined as "making the best possible decision in light of the available information". But a goal is assumed. Goals have motives that are emotional, and they can't ultimately be justified without values. So I think I'm with you so far. But...

Rand actually recognized this. Her way around it was to say "man is the measure of all things". If I remember right, she had a lot to say about pleasure and pain, and life and death, in trying to ground values in the natural world to make them seem objective. She said that all it takes is not to be "anti-life", and then the rest follows.

Problems for this philosophy of values include the existence of masochists and the existence of people who hate life and try to escape the circle of death and rebirth (as they believe in it) by exiting into Nirvana.

For me, there are problems with totally repressing the "Dionysius" side of life and completley lionizing the "Apollo" side. For instance, I think it's important and healthy to accept the whole circle of life, which includes death. The problem, for me, is when death and life "intermingle" too much so that death poisons life. The poet Anne Sexton wrote, "Live or die, but don't poison life." When you analyze horror monsters, often what's horrifying about them is that they breach the boundary between life and death in some way. Think of vampires and mummies. (Even though lots of people are fascinated by vampires and love Ann Rice novels.)

 

[Kiddo]

What do you mean by "coincide and evolve with science and mathematics?

Her philosophy is built on certitude. Even science and mathematics are only provisionally certain.

Her axioms are "existence exists", "A is A" and "consciousness exists". Rand regarded it as being impossible to argue against any of these axioms without in the process using them. If you're arguing, you exist and you're conscious. If you're using words to argue, you're using words that assume the law of identity or "A is A". This is not exactly the same thing as religious faith. Quantum physics, Eastern thought and deconstruction would each have something to say about these axioms, but I think in everday life for most practical intents and purposes we have to accept them so as not to be psychotic.

The problem with her axioms is they assume that humans can percieve the objective (natural) universe as it is. As far as we know, concepts such as "existence," "identity,' and "consciousness" may simply be limited human perceptions, whereas the objective universe may exceed beyond what our senses and subsequent reasoning are capable of comprehending. She makes the rather fallacious argument that since they can't be argued against without using them, then they must be true. However, the flaw in that reasoning can be understood by acknowledging that just because we can't percieve something greater beyond what our senses and reasoning can comprehend, does not prove that something greater than our comprehension does not exist in the objective universe. I've been told that these very arguments are expressed in Kant's transcendental idealism.

Rand actually recognized this. Her way around it was to say "man is the measure of all things". If I remember right, she had a lot to say about pleasure and pain, and life and death, in trying to ground values in the natural world to make them seem objective. She said that all it takes is not to be "anti-life", and then the rest follows.

Trying to make values "seem objective" demonstrates Rand's lack of objectivity. I believe that old saying would be better stated as, "man is the measure of all things man is capable of comprehending."

 

[SquirrelTao]

Her philosophy is built on certitude. Even science and mathematics are only provisionally certain.

Yes, she was a system builder in an age when system building has gone out of fashion. Maybe the system builders have to be arrogant in order to do their thing. What if there were never any philosophical system builders ever again? Would that be a desirable thing?

The problem with her axioms is they assume that humans can percieve the objective (natural) universe as it is. As far as we know, concepts such as "existence," "identity,' and "consciousness" may simply be limited human perceptions, whereas the objective universe may exceed beyond what our senses and subsequent reasoning are capable of comprehending. She makes the rather fallacious argument that since they can't be argued against without using them, then they must be true. However, the flaw in that reasoning can be understood by acknowledging that just because we can't percieve something greater beyond what our senses and reasoning can comprehend, does not prove that something greater than our comprehension does not exist in the objective universe. I've been told that these very arguments are expressed in Kant's transcendental idealism.

And for this reason transcendental idealism has little to say about human rights that any politician will ever listen to.

Trying to make values "seem objective" demonstrates Rand's lack of objectivity. I believe that old saying would be better stated as, "man is the measure of all things man is capable of comprehending."

This rephrasing would soften Rand's philosophy. Would it significantly alter it for most practical intents and purposes in the realm of human action?

 

[Kiddo]

Yes, she was a system builder in an age when system building has gone out of fashion. Maybe the system builders have to be arrogant in order to do their thing. What if there were never any philosophical system builders ever again? Would that be a desirable thing?

System building is irrelevant to certitude. For example, the scientific method is a system, but it is designed so that anything "proven" by it can still be changed or even disproved as it is retested or new information is encountered. Once a system is accepted with certitude, it becomes an ideology, and therefore becomes impervious to being disproved or changed as new relevant information is discovered.

And for this reason transcendental idealism has little to say about human rights that any politician will ever listen to.

To be frank, I could care less what sophists consider "human rights." If I let people like Bush and Cheney determine my values, then I would probably shoot anyone who looked at me funny.

This rephrasing would soften Rand's philosophy. Would it significantly alter it for most practical intents and purposes in the realm of human action?

Such a rephrasing would have no impact whatsoever on Rand's philosophy because she believes humans are capable of comprehending all. In Rand's perspective, adding the words "of all things man is capable of comprehending" would be redundant.

 

[SquirrelTao]

System building is irrelevant to certitude. For example, the scientific method is a system, but it is designed so that anything "proven" by it can still be changed or even disproved as it is retested or new information is encountered. Once a system is accepted with certitude, it becomes an ideology, and therefore becomes impervious to being disproved or changed as new relevant information is discovered.

Yes, but plenty of scientists have had certitude. The individual can still have certitude. It's the collective process of peer review and other aspects of how the process of science works, as a social enterprise, that helps to keep science honest.

To be frank, I could care less what sophists consider "human rights." If I let people like Bush and Cheney determine my values, then I would probably shoot anyone who looked at me funny.

But Libertarians have been among the staunchest defenders of civil liberties against the Bush Cheney administration.

Such a rephrasing would have no impact whatsoever on Rand's philosophy because she believes humans are capable of comprehending all. In Rand's perspective, adding the words "of all things man is capable of comprehending" would be redundant.

I don't think it matters when it comes to such beliefs as individuals earning what they get in the workplace through creativity, merit, competence and productivity as opposed to kissing butt or currying political favor. This is partially, I imagine, what attracts some INTJs to novels such as The Fountainhead.

I think it does matter when you get into something like ecology, because then an anthropocentric belief like "man is the measure of all things" can pose obvious hindrances to persuading people to care about saving ecosystems or endangered species.

You're keeping this at a very abstract level. I think, with philosophy, any statement can seem good with certain examples and not so good with others.

I think Rand was not so bad in every context. In other contexts she could be horrific.

 

[Kiddo]

Yes, but plenty of scientists have had certitude. The individual can still have certitude. It's the collective process of peer review and other aspects of how the process of science works, as a social enterprise, that helps to keep science honest.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Scientists who practice certitude are fools. Science needs to be free to evolve and adapt, otherwise it is no longer science.

But Libertarians have been among the staunchest defenders of civil liberties against the Bush Cheney administration.

And I find most Libertarians are not Randists or Objectivists, so such an argument is irrelevant. Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand are usually advocates of her philosophy, but anyone who has ever encountered one knows they are fiercely opposed to authority, period.

I don't think it matters when it comes to such beliefs as individuals earning what they get in the workplace through creativity, merit, competence and productivity as opposed to kissing butt or currying political favor. This is partially, I imagine, what attracts some INTJs to novels such as The Fountainhead.

Politics is not a necessity, but a reality of human social interaction. As long as there are groups of people, the behaviors you suggested will continue regardless of rationality. And there are many ideals by which people could argue that the world should be like. I wish that everyone was treated equally and had the maximum amount of liberty possible, but such values are only indicative of what is important to me, and not what is actually possible in reality. Ayn Rand asserts that her values, which are values important to rationally minded people such as keeping what you earn, creativity, etc., should be the way the world is, but such thinking is impractical because not everyone shares the same values. Hence the subjective nature of values.

I think it does matter when you get into something like ecology, because then an anthropocentric belief like "man is the measure of all things" can pose obvious hindrances to persuading people to care about saving ecosystems or endangered species.

I disagree. Ecology is a measure and it has taught man much about his place in the world and his responsibilities to it. There is even a strong self preservation incentive since reducing biodiversity on this planet reduces its ability to support human life.

You're keeping this at a very abstract level. I think, with philosophy, any statement can seem good with certain examples and not so good with others.

My intention was to keep it as rational and practical as possible, because I have found that asserting value judgments is self defeating when discussing Ayn Rand.

I think Rand was not so bad in every context. In other contexts she could be horrific.

I believe Rand quite skillfully reasoned out the perfect philosophy for her particular set of values. But as I said before, values are subjective.

 

[SquirrelTao]

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Scientists who practice certitude are fools.

Maybe, but at times, fools have advanced science. In fact, fools have advanced every field. History is strewn with fools. In many ways, Aristotle was a fool by today's standards.

But my point was that an individual or even a school of thought can have certitude while the larger community of thinkers remains open. The certitude can exist within a larger, more open system. It can provoke thought and debate.

Science needs to be free to evolve and adapt, otherwise it is no longer science.

I don't think very many educated people would disagree with that statement.

And I find most Libertarians are not Randists or Objectivists, so such an argument is irrelevant.

I find most Libertarians I know online and offline have been influenced by Rand. Maybe we just know different Libertarians.

Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand are usually advocates of her philosophy, but anyone who has ever encountered one knows they are fiercely opposed to authority, period.

Cool.

Politics is not a necessity, but a reality of human social interaction. As long as there are groups of people, the behaviors you suggested will continue regardless of rationality. And there are many ideals by which people could argue that the world should be like. I wish that everyone was treated equally and had the maximum amount of liberty possible, but such values are only indicative of what is important to me, and not what is actually possible in reality. Ayn Rand asserts that her values, which are values important to rationally minded people such as keeping what you earn, creativity, etc., should be the way the world is, but such thinking is impractical because not everyone shares the same values. Hence the subjective nature of values.

I don't think I've anywhere disagreed about the subjective nature of values. I don't believe she succeeded in her goal of reuniting "is" and "ought". But I understand why she undertook the effort. Personally, nihilism bothers me as much as dogma.

I disagree. Ecology is a measure and it has taught man much about his place in the world and his responsibilities to it. There is even a strong self preservation incentive since reducing biodiversity on this planet reduces its ability to support human life.

This would lead to an interesting tangent. There is too much to debate.

My intention was to keep it as rational and practical as possible, because I have found that asserting value judgments is self defeating when discussing Ayn Rand.

Very objective of you.

I believe Rand quite skillfully reasoned out the perfect philosophy for her particular set of values. But as I said before, values are subjective.

It seems very important to you to repeatedly emphasize that values are subjective. May I ask why that is? Also, may I ask if you stand for any particular set of values, yourself? And if so, how do you reason them out? If not, then are you a nihilist?

 

[Kiddo]

Maybe, but at times, fools have advanced science. In fact, fools have advanced every field. History is strewn with fools. In many ways, Aristotle was a fool by today's standards.

But my point was that an individual or even a school of thought can have certitude while the larger community of thinkers remains open. The certitude can exist within a larger, more open system. It can provoke thought and debate.

Certainly. Some good examples are the Bible and the Qur'an.

I find most Libertarians I know online and offline have been influenced by Rand. Maybe we just know different Libertarians.

Rand spirred the right wing libertarian movement. However, most that I have encountered give her philosophy a provisional place in their thinking.

Cool.

If you think acting like an adolescent is cool.

I don't think I've anywhere disagreed about the subjective nature of values. I don't believe she succeeded in her goal of reuniting "is" and "ought". But I understand why she undertook the effort. Personally, nihilism bothers me as much as dogma.

Certitude of any degree is my mortal enemy. And my own personal certitude has long been the target of most people I encounter. Certitude exists to be challenged.

Very objective of you.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

It seems very important to you to repeatedly emphasize that values are subjective. May I ask why that is? Also, may I ask if you stand for any particular set of values, yourself? And if so, how do you reason them out? If not, then are you a nihilist?

I'm far from a nihilist. I've studied all four major ontological views and I found a little truth in each of them, so I sought to create my own understanding of the world. I came to the conclusion that there are two worlds. There is the natural (objective) world and there is the human (relative) world. I outlined my reasoning back in this old thread.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/128547-post25.html

I determined that values are inherently subjective in the natural world, but objective in the human world. No human being can exist without values without eventually going insane since they are essential to the ego, but values ultimately don't exist in the natural world. In fact all concepts are ultimately perceptions of human beings, and they only exist objectively in the human world, but become rather meaningless in the natural world. That does not negate the physical existence of what those concepts are based upon, merely the distinctions by which we define them.

The natural world and human world exist in a dualism, which if you have studied Taoism, I'm sure you are well aware of. The natural world provides the structure and the human world provides the function. Perhaps you are familiar with the old vase analogy.

Imagine a clay vase. What defines it as a vase and not a lump of clay? It has a structure, which contains an empty space. The vase isn't defined simply by the clay that makes it up, but also, the space within the clay. It's simultaneously defined by both existence and non existence.

Or phrased differently...

A vase is defined by both what makes it up, the clay, and what doesn't, the space within it. If the space wasn't there, it wouldn't be a vase. Therefore it is defined by both what exists (the clay) and what doesn't exist (the space). It is simultaneously defined objectively (the clay) and relativistically (the space).

As far as my political values, I value liberty and equality. Sadly these values are inherently in conflict in reality, and so a great deal of compromise is needed to obtain the greatest amount of each.

 

[DigitalMethod]

Maybe this should go in the... Philosophy and Spirituality... forum.

 

[SquirrelTao]

Hmmm, very interesting thoughts on values, Kiddo. If you started a thread in the philosophy section, I'd like to discuss this subject further.

 

[edwartica]

Heh, in a story I'm writing, I kind of let the phrase "Ayn Rand is a sick fuck" out of one of the main character's mouths on more than one occasion.

Seriously, I wish she could of been a bit more compassionate and understanding of viewpoints other than her own. I did immensely enjoy the fountainhead and anthem (never went into Atlas Shrugged - too scared, lol). Anthem was great to read alongside 1984 and Brave New World.

 

[htb]

Ayn Rand's oeuvre overturned her thesis.

Good libertarians note which precipice she fell off, and tread no further.

 

[pure_mercury]

Ayn Rand's oeuvre overturned her thesis.

Good libertarians note which precipice she fell off, and tread no further.

Rand really contributed little to my political and intellectual formation as a young person. Read her stuff after the fact, and never got into Objectivism. However, I do like Romantic Realism and Man as Hero concepts. But making up lists of "appropriate" films and music and books as she did with her circle of admirers, and declaring heretics to be "anti-life" is just so foreign to what libertarianism means to me, I couldn't stand to live like that.

 

[htb]

But making up lists of "appropriate" films and music and books as she did with her circle of admirers, and declaring heretics to be "anti-life" is just so foreign to what libertarianism means to me, I couldn't stand to live like that.

Yes. Rand decried tyranny but ended up inventing her own brand of authoritarianism. Read Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged when you have the time.

 

["?"]

I never heard of Ayn Rand until I started posting years ago. I scanned some of her work a few years ago...... gotta be an intuitive thing.

 

[Bear Warp]

When I was reading "The Fountainhead", I kept picturing Howard Roark as looking like Rick Astley. I'm aware that this post has no real value, and has little or nothing to do with Ayn Rand and/or her philosophy, but I felt I had to say it.

And away I go...