Ridiculous Philisophy?

[cashmerelc]

I recently picked up Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged.' If any of you haven't read it, I would highly recommend it because it contains characters with a wide variety of philosophies, all of which are interesting.

At any rate, there is one character in particular who is attending a party and discusses his own philosophy on humanity.

I'll include some quotations from his conversation.

Dr. Pritchett: Man? What is man? He's just a collection of chemicals with delusions of grandeur. Man's metaphysical pretensions are preposterous. A miserable bit of protoplasm, full of ugly little concepts and mean little emotions--and it imagines itself important! Really, you know, that is the root of all the troubles in the world.

A matron: But which concepts are not ugly or mean, Professor?

Dr. Pritchett: None. None within the range of man's capacity.

A young man: But if we haven't got any good concepts, how do we know that the ones we've got are ugly? I mean, by what standard?

Dr. Pritchett: There aren't any standards. The philosophers of the past were superficial. It remained for our century to redefine the purpose of philosophy. The purpose of philosophy is not to help men find the meaning of life, but to prove to them that there isn't any?

I tend to agree with the idea that humanity has given itself a false sense of importance. That there is some ultimate meaning to our own existence, when, in the grand scheme of things, our place in the universe is meaningless. At the same time, I recognize that this belief is pretty dreadful, but it makes the most sense to me.

Opinions?

[McCulloch]

I recently picked up Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged.' If any of you haven't read it, I would highly recommend it because it contains characters with a wide variety of philosophies, all of which are interesting.

Most serious students of philosophy have read Ayn Rand at some point in their lives, haven't they? When you get closer to the end, you will find that her portrayal of the various philosophies is rather one sided.

Mimi Gladstein (Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Pennsylvania State University Press.), called Rand's characters flat and uninteresting, and her heroes implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent.

I tend to agree with the idea that humanity has given itself a false sense of importance. That there is some ultimate meaning to our own existence, when, in the grand scheme of things, our place in the universe is meaningless. At the same time, I recognize that this belief is pretty dreadful, but it makes the most sense to me.

Since we have no assurance that there is anything beyond this life, whatever meaning there is in life is what we make of it.

[cashmerelc]

I do agree with that assessment of her characters. They are rather one-sided and it is obvious what ideals she doesn't buy into because those ideas are represented by characters who come across as ignorant.

But yeah, I guess I agree with what you said. Since there is no definite source to tell us the meaning of life, it is what we make it.

And while I am no philosophy major, I am a fairly philosophical physics major

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Mimi Gladstein (Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Pennsylvania State University Press.), called Rand's characters flat and uninteresting, and her heroes implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent.

I have not yet read Atlas Shrugged, but I read the Fountainhead earlier this year, and, based on that, I would fully agree with that assessment of her writings. Her heroes are meant to representative, not of plausible people that the common man can relate to, but her vision of the ultimate evolution of man; what man should be striving towards, not what he is. So, while I don't disagree with that point, I question its relevance when the purpose of her novels is not creating a great, real character, but sending a message.

In any case, I consider myself somewhat of an objectivist, and find myself almost always agreeing with Rand, but I find what you quoted above almost contradictory to other things I have noticed about her philosophy. It has always been based in the greatness, or rather, the great potential of man (which is embodied by the protagonists of her novels). Therefore, it makes little sense that here, she attempts to underscore man's importance. Maybe there is some semantic difference I'm missing here, but, like I said before, it seems contradictory, to say the least.

[Assent]

One must have a purpose to live, whether given or created by oneself, or one will go insane and most likely commit suicide.

[OnceConvinced]

One must have a purpose to live, whether given or created by oneself, or one will go insane and most likely commit suicide.

Agreed.

That's were goal setting comes in. Get yourself a goal. Whether it be to be the best parent you can be, be the best in your field of work. Perhaps try to achieve something major in your life for the betterment of mankind.

My purpose now that I have left Christianity is to make sure my kids get the best start in life and to be there for them when they are adults too. I also have career objectives that I wish to obtain. I have a purpose to get books published (fictional and non-fictional) I also have a purpose to visit as much of the world as I possibly can before I die.

Then there are many short term goals as well. Purposes... reasons for living. Fill your life with them!

[Thought Criminal]

I tend to agree with the idea that humanity has given itself a false sense of importance. That there is some ultimate meaning to our own existence, when, in the grand scheme of things, our place in the universe is meaningless. At the same time, I recognize that this belief is pretty dreadful, but it makes the most sense to me.
Opinions?

Objectivism itself is basically an atheistic cult that has strong appeal to bright teenagers but is so flawed that people most often grow out of it by the time they leave college. Rand herself was a tragically flawed figure who proved by personal example that Objectivist ethics are morally bankrupt.

Of course, even a ridiculous philosophy is likely to have some truths in it, even if only by coincidence. So, while rejecting Objectivism wholesale, I'd certainly agree that it's an error to inflate our purpose to cosmic levels.

TC

[Nameless]

One must have a purpose to live, whether given or created by oneself, or one will go insane and most likely commit suicide.

No, one doesn't "must" imagine/have/believe a 'purpose to live".
Some simply live our lives as it comes, moment to moment.
Some egos don't need to be on a 'mission from god'...

(Or, of course, perhaps I have gone "insane", and will "commit suicide"...)

[Assent]

No, one doesn't "must" imagine/have/believe a 'purpose to live".
Some simply live our lives as it comes, moment to moment.
Some egos don't need to be on a 'mission from god'...

(Or, of course, perhaps I have gone "insane", and will "commit suicide"...)

Answer the question, "Who do I live for?"

"Myself" is an acceptable answer.

This is all I meant by purpose.

[Zzyzx]

.

One must have a purpose to live, whether given or created by oneself,

Those who have developed a "need" to be given a "purpose to live" by an outside force seem unable to comprehend that others have no need for such a thing.

Religious people often indulge in the notion that their "purpose" is superior to that of non-believers because they claim to get theirs "from god".

or one will go insane and most likely commit suicide.

Is this based upon evidence or is it simply a personal opinion or conjecture? Kindly cite evidence or withdraw.