See Article History Alternative Title: Early life and career Her father, Zinovy Rosenbaum, was a prosperous pharmacist. After being tutored at home, Alissa Rosenbaum, the eldest of three children, was enrolled in a progressive school, where she excelled academically but was socially isolated. As a student at Leningrad State Universityshe studied history and became acquainted with the works of Plato and Aristotle.
But, to my knowledge, none of them Ayn rand her ideas accurately. So I thought it would be helpful to write one that does. She held that everything in existence is something specific; everything has a nature; a thing is what it is.
A snake is a snake. A woman is a woman. A pillar of salt is a pillar of salt. She held that a thing can act only in accordance with its nature. A snake can slither; it cannot speak. And Rand held that there is only one reality: It denies the subjectivist, pragmatist, postmodernist view that reality is an illusion, a mental construct, a social convention.
Obviously, people who insist that reality is not real are not going to buy in to a philosophy that says it is real. Now consider her view that only one reality exists. Ayn rand instance, it excludes the possibility that a dead person can be alive life after deaththe possibility that wine can be blood or that bread can be flesh transubstantiationand the possibility that the Earth came into existence hundreds of thousands of years after the first Homo sapiens roamed it.
Similarly, the idea that things can act only in accordance with their Ayn rand excludes the possibility of miracles—so: Needless to say, people who insist on the existence of God, life after death, creationism, and miracles will not buy in to a philosophy that leaves no room for such things.
According to Rand, insofar as a person observes reality via his senses; integrates his observations into concepts, generalizations, and principles; checks his thinking for contradictions; and checks his conclusions for consistency with his ever-expanding network of observation-based integrations—he can acquire knowledge.
Indeed, according to Rand human beings have acquired massive amounts of knowledge, which is why science has advanced so far and man has accomplished so much.
Apart from them they are nothing. On her view, to embrace ideas not supported by evidence is to err. Thus Rand sees all forms of mysticism—all claims to a non-sensory, non-rational means of knowledge—as baseless, arbitrary, illegitimate.
That, of course, will not fly with religionists, subjectivists, psychics, or others who claim to acquire knowledge through non-sensory, non-rational means. Rand holds that people do indeed possess free will—and that it resides in a fundamental choice: For starters, if people have free will, then not only are their choices their responsibility, so too are the consequences of their choices.
If a person characteristically chooses to think, and if his thinking guides him to build a business and make a lot of money, then the business and the money are his achievements.
Likewise, if a person characteristically chooses not to think, and if his non-thinking renders him poor and miserable, then his poverty and misery are his fault.
Well, egalitarians, socialists, communists, and the like are not going to accept that for a minute. People who want to organize society in a way that ignores or denies personal responsibility will not accept a philosophy that upholds the very principle that gives rise to and necessitates personal responsibility.
Nor can he make them choose not to think. You see the problem. This will not sit well with anyone who insists that such a God exists.
Her view of volition leads to a whole host of additional problems.
Consider a few more. If people choose to think or not to think, then they choose all of their actions that are governed by that fundamental choice as well. He can refuse to pretend that facts are other than they are—or he can choose to engage in such pretense. In such cases, although the person has not lied, he nevertheless is pretending that facts are other than they are.
Many people prefer to avoid that effort, to shirk that responsibility, and to passively accept the ideas of their group, their leader, their tribe. Such people will not embrace a philosophy that upholds independent thinking as a fundamental virtue.
On her view, because humans are rational beings—beings whose basic means of survival is the use of reason—that which sustains and furthers the life of a rational being is good or moraland that which harms or destroys the life of a rational being is bad or evil.
She holds that each individual should choose and pursue his own life-serving values, and that he should never surrender a greater value for the sake of a lesser value—he should never commit a sacrifice. As she puts it:Many articles have been written about what’s wrong with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but none of them presents her ideas accurately.
Here’s one that does. Many articles have been written about what’s wrong with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. But, to my knowledge, none of them presents her ideas accurately.
So I thought it would be helpful to write one that does. Here’s what’s wrong with Rand’s ideas: Rand held that “existence exists,” that. Recent Posts from our Blog.
Ayn Rand Society session on Integrity at the January meeting of the APA in New York City on January 9 Greg Salmieri; Comments on Rand’s Moral Philosophy for a Danish Journalist Greg Salmieri. Ayn Rand ( – ) was a novelist and philosopher.
She is best known for her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and for the revolutionary philosophy she originated, Objectivism. caninariojana.com is the official website of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), the source for information on the life, writings and work of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand.
Howard Roark. John Galt. Dagny Taggart. Hank Rearden. The heroes of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are famous because they're unique. Rand's stories, full of drama and intrigue, portray businessmen, inventors, architects, workers and scientists as noble, passionate figures.