Ayn Rand

[Sentama Lin]

She's a terribly rugged individualist, the logical (and scary) offspring of Romantic thought. She's also a sexist b*tch. Yet this quotation makes me love her: [her] philosophy, in essence, is 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. She wants to idealise the individual and much of her philosophies (while I don't agree with all of it) is designed to help make-hero each individual man.

It's not really a discussion about her philosophies, but does anybody else have a love-hate relationship with this crazy b*tch?  

[Lobo-chan]

I don't know who you're talking about =x

*imagines Lin striking a heroic pose in front of some dramatic scenery (don't worry, it's not Castle Greyskull) and being all noble and such* ... Heehee whee  

[lazycommie]

Sorta. I disagree with her religious viewpoints, but the general sentiment involved I tend to agree with.  

[Sentama Lin]

You disagree on religion because she feels that because religion has no basis on reason (it has a basis on faith, which reason cannot comprehend) it has no place in the idealised man?  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

You disagree on religion because she feels that because religion has no basis on reason (it has a basis on faith, which reason cannot comprehend) it has no place in the idealised man?

Exactly. I tend to view faith(not even mattering what said faith is in) as having a place in the idealised man, as it gives said man something inward to focus his energies on when idle(and man must be idle at some points, or else he burns out and is entirely nonproductive), as well as a very effective tool of self-motivation to accomplish productive tasks when even reason falters.  

[Sentama Lin]

A lack of religion does not equate a lack of ethics and morals. Rand's Idealised Man, rather than relying on the ethics and morals granted by religion and faith, creates his own ethics and morals and philosophies and goals in order to work in his world. His drive comes from being at integrity with his own beliefs (ethics, morals, and philosophies) and making sure his beliefs are not compromised by the opinions of others.

One's energies can be focused on making the man true to his own ideals and what better self motivator than to be true to what you believe to be true and to make yourself a man who stays true to what his core beliefs are and to life in a way that fulfills one's ideals and goals without using another man (her theory of ethical selfishness)?  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

A lack of religion does not equate a lack of ethics and morals. Rand's Idealised Man, rather than relying on the ethics and morals granted by religion and faith, creates his own ethics and morals and philosophies and goals in order to work in his world. His drive comes from being at integrity with his own beliefs (ethics, morals, and philosophies) and making sure his beliefs are not compromised by the opinions of others.

One's energies can be focused on making the man true to his own ideals and what better self motivator than to be true to what you believe to be true and to make yourself a man who stays true to what his core beliefs are and to life in a way that fulfills one's ideals and goals without using another man (her theory of ethical selfishness)?

I didn't address morals or ethics, simply because I knew that already. I'm talking about using it as a method to be "true to what you believe is true". Religion is a very powerful motivator, if not the most powerful man has ever seen. Moreso than self-improvement or im some cases survival. Think of the fanatical suicide bomber. Now imagine someone who focuses on self improvement and productivity with the same fervor because it's part of their religious beliefs.

I'm not necessarily addressing organized religion, but rather it as a whole, both organized and (much more powerful) self-developed religious beliefs.  

[Sentama Lin]

What's the difference between self-developed "religions" and man forming one's own morals and ethics?

Religion is powerful because many people accept the moral and ethical code of a religion to be true without thinking. That is dangerous (as you've pointed out). That's why Rand does not like Religion. I don't feel that she would have problems with a self-developed "religion" unless there was some element in it not based on reason.

Just because religion is powerful does not make it correct and alright in the idealised man, because someone doing something in the name of religion is no longer doing it in the name of himself. Rand wants the idealised man to show that Man and his own Ethics is the person that is powerful and that is great and that is the hero, and nobody (religion or otherwise) has no right to wrongly influence (that is, tell a man what to do) what a Man decides to believe.  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

What's the difference between self-developed "religions" and man forming one's own morals and ethics?

Religion is powerful because many people accept the moral and ethical code of a religion to be true without thinking. That is dangerous (as you've pointed out). That's why Rand does not like Religion. I don't feel that she would have problems with a self-developed "religion" unless there was some element in it not based on reason.

Just because religion is powerful does not make it correct and alright in the idealised man, because someone doing something in the name of religion is no longer doing it in the name of himself. Rand wants the idealised man to show that Man and his own Ethics is the person that is powerful and that is great and that is the hero, and nobody (religion or otherwise) has no right to wrongly influence (that is, tell a man what to do) what a Man decides to believe.

Pretty much just that religion need not be rational, or have any grounding in reason or logic at all, provided that it is used as needed/desired. One could think that one's self-improvement will invariably lead to a productive and happy "afterlife", even though there is no way to prove or disprove it(it's solely a matter of faith).

Organized religion can vary from a positive(if it encourages the development of self-motivation and one's own concept of morals and ethics) or a negative(if it wrongly forces it's morals and ethics on Man).  

[Sentama Lin]

Regardless, the harm of religion is that it's all too easy for people to no longer create and develop their own ethics. They merely subscribe to the morals and ethics of their religion. While that provides a power for an individual (the collective group, the We, is a very powerful force), an individual who becomes powerful through the We is no longer glorifying and making himself look great because those beliefs are not his own (it's the property of all that believe it). Ignoring the faith aspect altogether (which is hard for most, if not all, religions), the only way Religion could work in Rand's idealised man is if the Religion encouraged the man to create his own values through man's own research and man's own reasoning.

I don't know. In this case (for my case and Rand's case) we need to agree to disagree. I have faith, but I do my best to not let faith cloud out reason. For example, I put more weight on (let's just say the goodness of same-gendered love) "this is hurting another man -- I won't do this because as a person who thinks in reason hurting another man is against my ethics" than "the religion that I subscribe to says, through faith, that G_d says that all same-gendered relationships are wrong. Ergo, you shouldn't do this because I have faith that G_d says this is wrong, even if you're hurting."

I don't know. In this case (for my case and Rand's case) we need to agree to disagree. I have faith in the fact that I am doing what I think is right -- not I have faith in G_d (or whatnot) and I think G_d is right.  

[lazycommie]

Sentama Lin

Regardless, the harm of religion is that it's all too easy for people to no longer create and develop their own ethics. They merely subscribe to the morals and ethics of their religion. While that provides a power for an individual (the collective group, the We, is a very powerful force), an individual who becomes powerful through the We is no longer glorifying and making himself look great because those beliefs are not his own (it's the property of all that believe it). Ignoring the faith aspect altogether (which is hard for most, if not all, religions), the only way Religion could work in Rand's idealised man is if the Religion encouraged the man to create his own values through man's own research and man's own reasoning.

I don't know. In this case (for my case and Rand's case) we need to agree to disagree. I have faith, but I do my best to not let faith cloud out reason. For example, I put more weight on (let's just say the goodness of same-gendered love) "this is hurting another man -- I won't do this because as a person who thinks in reason hurting another man is against my ethics" than "the religion that I subscribe to says, through faith, that G_d says that all same-gendered relationships are wrong. Ergo, you shouldn't do this because I have faith that G_d says this is wrong, even if you're hurting."

I don't know. In this case (for my case and Rand's case) we need to agree to disagree. I have faith in the fact that I am doing what I think is right -- not I have faith in G_d (or whatnot) and I think G_d is right.

That's misusing the tool, so to speak. Religion is oft misused.

Like I said, this is pretty much the part I disagree with Rand on.  

[Sentama Lin]

Religion (of any use) is not a tool of Rand's Idealised Man. He would not call his beliefs a Religion, nor will he try to persuade another Man to understand his beliefs.  

[YunieCookie]

Not that this has much to do with the discussion...  

[Omnileech]

rational egoism as the only proper guiding principle is pretty frightening when you think about it. Living for your own sake is a great way to leave yourself very alone if you're unwilling to sacrifice for say, a child, or a friend, or a lover.

Not to mention the idea that initiation of force is always immoral. Her ideas may sound nice but are completely impractical and realistically unlivable.  

[124-C]

Omnileech

rational egoism as the only proper guiding principle is pretty frightening when you think about it. Living for your own sake is a great way to leave yourself very alone if you're unwilling to sacrifice for say, a child, or a friend, or a lover.

Not to mention the idea that initiation of force is always immoral. Her ideas may sound nice but are completely impractical and realistically unlivable.

...you forgot "selfish c**t"...