What is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Question

A long time ago, someone suggested a particular writer to me should I ever wish to immunize my kids from the anti-social way of thinking that is objectivism, but I can't for the life of me remember who that writer was. Any Ideas?

Answer 1

I'm inclined to agree with 'Cogito', regarding Rand. She is a philosopher like Michael Jordan was a baseball player.

Perhaps Kant. His notions of a 'categorical imperative' and 'universal law' are fairly socially-oriented. Or Aristotle, given his 'body politic'. Besides, I don't think that TRUE objectivism is necesarily anti-social. In short, the 'immunization' would be most effective through their accrual of logic (and ethics, of course).

Answer 2

She said it was altruism--as it had been originally defined by Auguste Comte. Such altruism includes every idea that is antithetical to Objectivism.



"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.



Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html



"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html



And from altruism, all the things opposed to Objectivism are sprung.

Answer 3

Thats called "not being stupid, selfish", etc. Having a shred of humility, humanity, morality, and rationality.



Ayn Rand's fiction writing/ranting shouldnt even be considered philosophy. That is like calling Marquis de Sades work philosophy, or art.



In my own body of work, I refer to the notion of absolutism a lot. I believe in absolutes. Be it science or morality, both operate and are defined absolutely. This is a very social way of thinking. Because it places morality - that is, the good of people - above anything and everything, including science, logic, and any randian selfish needs. Rand defined her world and her values according her own needs, completely subjective and arbitrary.



I, however, define morality as a universal constant, applicable in all situations to all people at all times. There ought not be inconsistencies from person to person or from moment to moment or situation to situation, no double standards, no hypocrisies. In this way of thinking I justify telling people when they are wrong, preaching to them morality like a science teacher preaches physics. Most people who are willing to hear an argument I make turn to my side, while others fanatically plug their ears and run from the debate table declaring *me* the bigot as they sprint for their lives to avoid philosophical confrontation. I cant count the number of times I have helped a friend to better themselves. And I cant count the number of times people I thought were friends ditched me solely because they resented my "intolerant" views, leaving me to ponder which one of us is actually the more intolerant.



Science, logic, mathematics, all have a valid correct answer to them. There are rules, constants, laws, equations. Even human psychology and neurology are based in a world with a predetermined set of rules. Atheists themselves often times argue for determinism. But then why should morality be the sole exception to the rule, why must it be a real, meaningful thing in our society AND be subjective at the same time? THAT is far more absurd than assuming it absolute like everything else in this reality.

Answer 4

Empathy? You don't even need a book really - Children are born selfish and good parenting's main job is to slowly teach them out of it. Half of that can simply be done by having a sibling and the inevitable "go to your room and think about what you've done, how would you feel if someone did that to you?"



To see Ayn Rand as philosophy is to misunderstand Rand, and sociopathy at large. To read Atlas Shrugged is to in effect witness a long winded answer to the question "Why are you such an jerk?".



Any jerk will fill their "apology" with scapegoating, rationalizations, deflection, and all manner of avoiding blame. To read Atlas Shrugged is simply the most elaborate excuse an asshole has ever made, written down. Instead of doing the latter she instead said "let me tell you a tale" and proceed to make those scapegoating, rationalzations, deflections, etc over thousands of pages. In a sense it is the most long winded excuse ever made - her arrogance being so un paralleled that she published heres. Because that's what Sociopaths and Narcissists do - they don't tell you why they were wrong, they tell YOU why you are wrong to think they're wrong.



And that's why - the best book to oppose Ayn Rand's philosophy is a childrens book. Because it's counter is so easy - 'be nice'.



That's why Dickens' a Christmas Carol and Shel Silversteins 'The Giving Tree' are polar opposites. Because at the end of the day - empathy, and decency are so easy that a child can understand it.

Answer 5

The total opposite is probably communism (that was her point, to do the opposite of what her childhood under the Russian Revolution), but I'd recommend Humanism. Maybe something by Carl Sagan.

Answer 6

She was a lousy philosopher and a self-rationalizing pig!



The true reanslation of the Golden Rule;

"Do NOT do to others what you DON'T want them to do to you!"



"Charity is simply not taking more than your share!"

Answer 7

Any philosophical system that actually stands up to logical analysis or to actual mystical experience.