Objectivism of Ayn Rand - A discussion on individual vs society
Objectivism of Ayn Rand - A discussion on individual vs society
From my early years I remember, I am pondering over the role of individuals versus society. I might say that the thoughts were more abstract than ideas with any clarity. I never had the
opportunity to clear off the doubt as to why an individual man/woman who is a mere mortal in this
world and whose stay is going to be only transient should think of contributing to the larger good
of the society by sacrificing his/her limited and precious time in the planet. Why not they be selfish
and enjoy life to the fullest and perish without any remorse. For the religious minded people, the
possibility of individual liberation is a good reward for pursuing spiritual/bhakti path. Religions clearly
lay the traps to be moral, ethical and honest individuals. They are responsible for societal order for
human society as, if anyone tries to cross lines drawn by society, religious righteousness will resist
him/her from doing so. The shastras and smirtis would be invoked for getting punished after death
or after life, if you do entertain any such thoughts.It is a different matter altogether how many god
fearing, religious minded persons live fully according to their respective religions. Anyhow if you are a
believer, you have fair enough reasons. If do not believe in any of the religions' views on the subject
and if you are an atheist to the core, what happens? Here, one must understand that I do not say that all r
religious minded live righteously or vice versa. The argument is discussed only academically. How
people live or react to situations life are a different point of discussion.
Well, when I posed this question to a leftist leader he said the individual has a responsibility towards
the well being and progress of the society and for that purpose he has to lead a life within the accepted
norms of society. Not only that, he also has to give his contribution for the betterment of the society from
the present condition. This contribution for the larger good of the masses will keep him satisfied and happy.
He will also live in the minds of people for whom he spends his life. This seems to be good enough answer
and will satisfy a normal person to a certain extent. I thought this was not sufficient and still wanted a better
inspiring idea to motivate the people not influenced by any religious notions..
Recently I was reading some posts and letters on Ayn Rand, the American author and philosopher.
She advocated individualism which means that one has to live happily for oneself seeking perfection in
doing whatever one does. She rejected idealistic approach which advocated collectivism or in other words
living for the benefit of other members of society. She rejected collectivism on the ground that the idea was
propounded and glorified by religions .She exhorted the people to shun idealism and adopt individualistic
style of living and enjoying for the sake of oneself. This, she says, is the true nature of all beings and by doing
so, the person will also be in pursuit of perfection in whatever he/she does and reach greater heights thereby
benefit the individual as well as the society. She says that without this selfishness the society cannot grow as
without individualistic aspirations there will be no collective growth. And hence the society will stagnate and
ruin without having a scope for individual growth. This is called the doctrine of individualism or Objectivism.
This approach to life is responsible for the success of US as a country, so believed by some observers.
Incidentally, Ayn Rand escaped out of Stalinist USSR and came to live in US for a better living when all
intellectuals were driven out of the Soviet Union for having ideas contrary to Marxism.
Let's see the views of Marxists on the subject of individualism. In one of his early essays, Karl Marx
says that man's nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only by working for the
welfare of his fellow beings. He also says that religion itself teaches us that the idealist whom we
all strive to copy sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind. Here, Marx clearly invokes religion for justifying
his idea of individuals working for collective goals. I think this idea was largely influenced by semitic
religions. Karl Marx who was born into a Jewish family later converted into Christianity .As he was brought
up under the influence of both Judaism and Christianity, he would have formed his early opinion by the teachings
of these religions. So he freely invokes them for justifying idealistic living for individuals.
Surprisingly, Karl Marx who was a not a believer in religions and an atheist later in his life that religions preach the
individuals to live for the society and he was of the opinion that one who worked for most number of people could
only be the happiest. ( in his early days)
Contrary to religious and Marxist beliefs, Ayn Rand who is considered to be a role model for
individual centered Americans, says that selfishness is the core of human living. And she tries to
define the selfishness in a new way. According to her, selfishness means "1 Follow reason,
2 Work hard to achieve purpose in life 3 Earn genuine self esteem 4 Pursue your own happiness
as your moral aim and lastly 5 Prosper by treating others as individuals". Unsurprisingly, she also
says that ' we are not born to serve god or society and we have only one life and it is better to live
it the fullest. There is no need to try to be the brother's keeper. When she defines love, she says that
there is no selfless love and romantic love is profoundly selfish, its a union of mind and body that both
people pursue for their own happiness.
-
From my early years I remember, I am pondering over the role of individuals versus society. I might say that the thoughts were more abstract than ideas with any clarity. I never had the
opportunity to clear off the doubt as to why an individual man/woman who is a mere mortal in this
world and whose stay is going to be only transient should think of contributing to the larger good
of the society by sacrificing his/her limited and precious time in the planet. Why not they be selfish
and enjoy life to the fullest and perish without any remorse. For the religious minded people, the
possibility of individual liberation is a good reward for pursuing spiritual/bhakti path. Religions clearly
lay the traps to be moral, ethical and honest individuals. They are responsible for societal order for
human society as, if anyone tries to cross lines drawn by society, religious righteousness will resist
him/her from doing so. The shastras and smirtis would be invoked for getting punished after death
or after life, if you do entertain any such thoughts.It is a different matter altogether how many god
fearing, religious minded persons live fully according to their respective religions. Anyhow if you are a
believer, you have fair enough reasons. If do not believe in any of the religions' views on the subject
and if you are an atheist to the core, what happens? Here, one must understand that I do not say that all r
religious minded live righteously or vice versa. The argument is discussed only academically. How
people live or react to situations life are a different point of discussion.
Well, when I posed this question to a leftist leader he said the individual has a responsibility towards
the well being and progress of the society and for that purpose he has to lead a life within the accepted
norms of society. Not only that, he also has to give his contribution for the betterment of the society from
the present condition. This contribution for the larger good of the masses will keep him satisfied and happy.
He will also live in the minds of people for whom he spends his life. This seems to be good enough answer
and will satisfy a normal person to a certain extent. I thought this was not sufficient and still wanted a better
inspiring idea to motivate the people not influenced by any religious notions..
Recently I was reading some posts and letters on Ayn Rand, the American author and philosopher.
She advocated individualism which means that one has to live happily for oneself seeking perfection in
doing whatever one does. She rejected idealistic approach which advocated collectivism or in other words
living for the benefit of other members of society. She rejected collectivism on the ground that the idea was
propounded and glorified by religions .She exhorted the people to shun idealism and adopt individualistic
style of living and enjoying for the sake of oneself. This, she says, is the true nature of all beings and by doing
so, the person will also be in pursuit of perfection in whatever he/she does and reach greater heights thereby
benefit the individual as well as the society. She says that without this selfishness the society cannot grow as
without individualistic aspirations there will be no collective growth. And hence the society will stagnate and
ruin without having a scope for individual growth. This is called the doctrine of individualism or Objectivism.
This approach to life is responsible for the success of US as a country, so believed by some observers.
Incidentally, Ayn Rand escaped out of Stalinist USSR and came to live in US for a better living when all
intellectuals were driven out of the Soviet Union for having ideas contrary to Marxism.
Let's see the views of Marxists on the subject of individualism. In one of his early essays, Karl Marx
says that man's nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only by working for the
welfare of his fellow beings. He also says that religion itself teaches us that the idealist whom we
all strive to copy sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind. Here, Marx clearly invokes religion for justifying
his idea of individuals working for collective goals. I think this idea was largely influenced by semitic
religions. Karl Marx who was born into a Jewish family later converted into Christianity .As he was brought
up under the influence of both Judaism and Christianity, he would have formed his early opinion by the teachings
of these religions. So he freely invokes them for justifying idealistic living for individuals.
Surprisingly, Karl Marx who was a not a believer in religions and an atheist later in his life that religions preach the
individuals to live for the society and he was of the opinion that one who worked for most number of people could
only be the happiest. ( in his early days)
Contrary to religious and Marxist beliefs, Ayn Rand who is considered to be a role model for
individual centered Americans, says that selfishness is the core of human living. And she tries to
define the selfishness in a new way. According to her, selfishness means "1 Follow reason,
2 Work hard to achieve purpose in life 3 Earn genuine self esteem 4 Pursue your own happiness
as your moral aim and lastly 5 Prosper by treating others as individuals". Unsurprisingly, she also
says that ' we are not born to serve god or society and we have only one life and it is better to live
it the fullest. There is no need to try to be the brother's keeper. When she defines love, she says that
there is no selfless love and romantic love is profoundly selfish, its a union of mind and body that both
people pursue for their own happiness.
-
கருத்துகள்