This essay rests on the false assumtions that Rand said her philosophy was "inspired" by Aristotle's (she never said that --and it wasn't) and that she thought her primary connection with Aristotle was in ethics (it wasn't, and she certainly didn't think that). So, even if, for the sake of argument, the essay correctly notes differences between Rand and Aristotle vis-a-vis self-love, self-interest, and friendship, it would show only that the two philosophers diverge in important ways in ethics (something Rand was well aware of) -- it would not show that she was mistaken about Aristotle. Lastly, and I find this surprising, the essay actually tells its readers nothing at all about -- and shows no knowledge of -- what Rand thought her fundamental connection to Aristotle's philosophy was, though Rand was clear about this. If you're interested, I've written briefly about your essay here: https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-massimo-pigliucci-gets-ayn-rand-wrong
I find it amusing that you just don’t understand or worse are not willing to understand Objectivism.
Rands whole Philosophy is not based completely on Aristotle and she never said it is.
I will not comment on the whole article but on the point of selfishness/ egoisms.
You never really explain why egoism is bad you just state that “modern philosophers” think so and that a philosophy based on it is bad and you want to throw her books in the ocean.
First lets debunk the myth that Objectivists are not social.
The fact that we base our life on our rational self-interest means that we have a lot of social connections because these make us very happy. (Like you said, humans evolve to be social, which is reality, so the objectivists recognise this and act accordingly).
And it is a fact that every long term social interaction should be a trade (win-win) or else is immoral.
What this means in practice is that human relations are balanced so that both get value from one another.( Giving my friend money could be in myself interest when my money is less important for me than my friend)
Altruism, so the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one, means that social interactions are not equal. An example would be that you and your friend are both completely broke and you sell your flat just to help him out. Meanwhile, you loose your home become homeless and life a miserable life.
So you sacrificed a higher value (your happiness) for a lower value your (friends happiness) and exactly this is what Rand rejects.
Most people don’t have the right understanding of selfishness. A person who steals, hurts people and exploits others is not selfish. On the contrary it it selfless in a destructive form. This person will never get happy will have no friends maybe a little bit of money but he will be full of guilt and probably land in jail. In no way is he serving his rational self-interest so he can’t be selfish.
It's a good thing that this post is subscribers only, or the comments would already be brigaded by Rand disciples. They're like moths to a flame. It's why the Modern Library readers' poll suggests that 4 of the 10 best novels in the English language are all by Ayn Rand.
I've long seen Rand as superficial and even careless in her thinking, but I'm glad to have Massimo and Aristotle to clarify how and what about her writing shows this to be so. And I've no doubt of the truth of thinking that the good life needs to have as "a key ingredient" as "friendship." Thanks, Massimo.
Well put, Massimo. It’s not every day that I get a warm glow from reading an essay, but I think that has been my experience here. Frankly, her acolytes (e.g. Milton Friedman) have done so much ill to so many imho, that you are entirely correct to deprecate her work. I myself anathematise it.
Objectivism, the idea that Americans aren't quite selfish enough yet, dressed up as a philosophical system.
I think one of the saddest parts of Objectivism is the glorification of the trader. The ancients had the sage, we have the merchant who, as Trevanian says in the old and dated book Shimbumi "sucks up his living through buying and selling things he does not create, who collects power and wealth out of proportion to his discrimination, and who is responsible for all that is kitsch, for all that is change without progress..."
It seems to me that you have substituted Stoic views for Aristotelian views here:
"what, exactly, is good for ourselves? Virtue, of course! So “what is best” does not mean, as commonly understood, external things such as wealth, fame, pleasure, and so forth. "
That's not Aristotle's view. He viewed wealth, fame, health, and so forth as outright goods. Virtue is not the only good for Aristotle.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was an influence on Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible”. And on the Prosperity Gospel of modern American Evangelical Christianity. Atlas Shrugged is the lens through which they read the KJV Bible; both books are considered formative texts to give to the young. Rand has as much legitimate claim to Aristotle as Jordan Peterson has to the Stoics- none
This essay rests on the false assumtions that Rand said her philosophy was "inspired" by Aristotle's (she never said that --and it wasn't) and that she thought her primary connection with Aristotle was in ethics (it wasn't, and she certainly didn't think that). So, even if, for the sake of argument, the essay correctly notes differences between Rand and Aristotle vis-a-vis self-love, self-interest, and friendship, it would show only that the two philosophers diverge in important ways in ethics (something Rand was well aware of) -- it would not show that she was mistaken about Aristotle. Lastly, and I find this surprising, the essay actually tells its readers nothing at all about -- and shows no knowledge of -- what Rand thought her fundamental connection to Aristotle's philosophy was, though Rand was clear about this. If you're interested, I've written briefly about your essay here: https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-massimo-pigliucci-gets-ayn-rand-wrong
I find it amusing that you just don’t understand or worse are not willing to understand Objectivism.
Rands whole Philosophy is not based completely on Aristotle and she never said it is.
I will not comment on the whole article but on the point of selfishness/ egoisms.
You never really explain why egoism is bad you just state that “modern philosophers” think so and that a philosophy based on it is bad and you want to throw her books in the ocean.
First lets debunk the myth that Objectivists are not social.
The fact that we base our life on our rational self-interest means that we have a lot of social connections because these make us very happy. (Like you said, humans evolve to be social, which is reality, so the objectivists recognise this and act accordingly).
And it is a fact that every long term social interaction should be a trade (win-win) or else is immoral.
What this means in practice is that human relations are balanced so that both get value from one another.( Giving my friend money could be in myself interest when my money is less important for me than my friend)
Altruism, so the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one, means that social interactions are not equal. An example would be that you and your friend are both completely broke and you sell your flat just to help him out. Meanwhile, you loose your home become homeless and life a miserable life.
So you sacrificed a higher value (your happiness) for a lower value your (friends happiness) and exactly this is what Rand rejects.
Most people don’t have the right understanding of selfishness. A person who steals, hurts people and exploits others is not selfish. On the contrary it it selfless in a destructive form. This person will never get happy will have no friends maybe a little bit of money but he will be full of guilt and probably land in jail. In no way is he serving his rational self-interest so he can’t be selfish.
What a brilliant and inspiring article sir ! Thank you so much, this is most helpful !
It all goes back to what is 'good'. Socrates.
It's a good thing that this post is subscribers only, or the comments would already be brigaded by Rand disciples. They're like moths to a flame. It's why the Modern Library readers' poll suggests that 4 of the 10 best novels in the English language are all by Ayn Rand.
https://www.librarything.com/bookaward/The+Modern+Library%27s+100+Best+Novels%3A+The+Reader%27s+List
It's unsurprising, and telling, that the next-best represented novelist in the top 10 of the readers' poll is L. Ron Hubbard.
I've long seen Rand as superficial and even careless in her thinking, but I'm glad to have Massimo and Aristotle to clarify how and what about her writing shows this to be so. And I've no doubt of the truth of thinking that the good life needs to have as "a key ingredient" as "friendship." Thanks, Massimo.
Well put, Massimo. It’s not every day that I get a warm glow from reading an essay, but I think that has been my experience here. Frankly, her acolytes (e.g. Milton Friedman) have done so much ill to so many imho, that you are entirely correct to deprecate her work. I myself anathematise it.
Objectivism, the idea that Americans aren't quite selfish enough yet, dressed up as a philosophical system.
I think one of the saddest parts of Objectivism is the glorification of the trader. The ancients had the sage, we have the merchant who, as Trevanian says in the old and dated book Shimbumi "sucks up his living through buying and selling things he does not create, who collects power and wealth out of proportion to his discrimination, and who is responsible for all that is kitsch, for all that is change without progress..."
It seems to me that you have substituted Stoic views for Aristotelian views here:
"what, exactly, is good for ourselves? Virtue, of course! So “what is best” does not mean, as commonly understood, external things such as wealth, fame, pleasure, and so forth. "
That's not Aristotle's view. He viewed wealth, fame, health, and so forth as outright goods. Virtue is not the only good for Aristotle.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was an influence on Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible”. And on the Prosperity Gospel of modern American Evangelical Christianity. Atlas Shrugged is the lens through which they read the KJV Bible; both books are considered formative texts to give to the young. Rand has as much legitimate claim to Aristotle as Jordan Peterson has to the Stoics- none