Ayn Rand

[recalcitrance]

I have very mixed feelings about Ayn Rand's work having read all her novels. As literature they are some of my favourite books - I still can't decide whether I perfer the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged - but objectivism itself and the way she presents it I'm not so sure about.

The fact that she first presented her philosophy in a novel form gives her immeasurable powers in convincing people of its merit. She had the ability (and she used it extensively) to make all the characters with opposing or different philosophy reprehensible in every way. This is mainly true in Atlas although she does it in The Fountainhead to some extent. James Taggart for example and his leecher companions are all testaments to the worst in men and in that they are completely one dimensional - they're not characters so much as giant talking blocks of what she deemed to be bad people. And then you have John Galt and Roark, both perfect in every way and both believers of her philosophy. I think Ayn Rand is most compelling when she is not so black and white and when she shows the range of beliefs etc. I think her best characters are Wynand, Keating and Rearden - all of which show truly human characteristics in their insecurities and blunders.

I think Ayn Rand's philosophy is compelling and motivating (while still moral) but only when its not taken to an extreme she sometimes hints at. I think we still need a welfare system, there needs to be restrictions on capitalism, charity isn't a sin (not to say its a moral imperative either however). But on the level of the achievement of man, the belief in your own ability and a certain degree of selfishness then I think it holds up well and can be inspirational. Reading her books certainly changed my opinions and gave my left-wing leanings a run for their money and that's what should happen - beliefs need to be challenged and that's what Ayn Rand's books are best at doing.

So yeah.... Read 'em.

 

[Pastey Old Greg]

Its very true, people take Objectivism and attempt to turn it to their own needs, as they do with alot of philosophies(look at Hobbes' Conservativism or Locke's Liberalism as examples).

Yeah, it's funny how people just prefer to label themselves and others instead of just pick out what they believe. Having taken many Poli Sci courses, it's kind of funny to see how traditional liberalism is basically the exact opposite of what we call liberalism today.

And my problem with Paul supporters is most I talk to have no idea what he stands for, they just know that he very famously (and awesomely) ruined Giuliani's career. I think if you told a lot of "libertarians" that the lib party wants to dismantle the army, public schooling, and any restrictions on poisoning our water, then they might change their minds. I guess I sort of have a hatred against the "I AM THIS WORD YOU ARE THIS WORD" type, so I kind of have a skewed view against Rand, which is a shame, because if I could let that go, maybe I could read deeper into her work.

 

[Akas]

She's better as a writer than as a philosopher. I can still remember talking with my roommate, hearing him ranting and raving about what a ***** she was, and laughing inside. He was a lawyer-in-training (drank a lot, cared about Philosophy and English, basically kind of lazy and his side of the room was filled with expensive, useless shit), and the way he objected to Rand made me laugh about the ironic picture.

In Atlas Shrugged, the characters are a bit too stock (just good and evil), the debates/messages are horribly biased, but the message that I got out of it was one worthwhile: there's no need to cheapen yourself for the masses. It's okay to be smarter and use that for your own good. Basically, it's a re-affirming message for Darwinism in the face of all other excuses.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Ayn Rand = Dumb Whore

/Thread

Being an authoritarian I find Ayn Rand's philosophy disgusting though her books are not bad reading though. Oh yes and Death to the Individual! Up with the State!

 

[theklng]

I hope you enjoy the book. The Fountainhead has two quotes I love, which I won't spoil until you've read the novel.

I know it's chic in certain circles to poo-poo her worth, but Ayn Rand is my favorite novelist of all time. I likely would not have started a company without having read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I gave a copy of Atlas Shrugged to all the department heads at Themis.

Rand was the first thinker I encountered in my life who said "it's ok to be smart, it's ok to be ambitious, it's ok to want to pursue what's important to you."

i cannot overstate the importance of reading the fountainhead for the right people. those that can understand the meaning behind it definitely have found themselves an insightful reward, and will undoubtedly be inspired to act by it. the thoughts she had have also been in scriptures written by the buddha, and there are similarities in eastern philosophies.

if only the product of society could be as powerful as the product of the individual, we would truly have outdone ourselves. and i would finally be able find it in my heart to forgive mankind for all of its transgressions in the past, present and future.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Personally, I rather enjoyed The Fountainhead. It has definitely played a part in restructering my views on life in general however I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm objectivist though I do love objectivity (or at least the attempt).

I actually find it hillarious that people would take offense to her work since on the surface it reads like a sappy novela and the themes throughout it seem like solid positive ideals of persistance, perserverance, and conviction.

 

[000Ronald]

I'll state this up front; while I don't agree with Objectivism, I will say I thouroughly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. It was an interesting story and made a compelling argument.

That being said, I wonder if people really understand what it was that she was saying. My mother, a woman much more well read than I am, still thinks Ayn Rand to be a communist (although this is more because of our grandmother than her own fault). I was telling a teacher about John Galt shooting down ships shipping aid to germany, causing milloins to die of starvation, and he said, puzzled, "I don't remember that part." The implication of the book itself is that the enire world, outside of Galt's Gulch, destroys itself entirely.

The point of the book, and what's more, the backbone of Ayn Rand's Objegctvism is that the individual should be allowed to excell, even at the cost of the rest of the world. While I belive that the individual, I cannot and will not belive that any individual is more importiant than any other human being (besides maybe Christ, and hell; we killed him). John Galt belived that he was importiant enough that he had the right to (and, in fact, did) kill billions of people. Billions. Because he belived they were a drain on society (sidebar: didn't Hitler belive the same thing about the Jews, the Gypsies, Homosexuality, and the elderly?). This means that John Galt advocated for, and participated in, Genocide.

I'm not trying to damn his charachter; in fact, I personally found that facet of his charachter oddly intriuging; it's part of what made him John Galt. I will say again that I liked Atlas Shrugged. It was a good story. I'm just saying that I don't agree with it.

I wonder if anyone thinks about that.

Apologies if I've offended you; while I will say that was not exactly my intention, I will recite something I told my freind when I told him about a story I was writing; "If I'm getting death threats, then they're thinking about it, and if they're thinking about it, then I must be doing something right."

 

[stompy]

Interesting comments...I guess you took the story very differently then the most of us. And I thought it was Ragnar Danneskjold who was attacking relief boats...and then returning the money to the owners of the companies the government unjustly stole money from as 'income tax'? I guess Danneskjold could be seen as a Robin Hood figure, or a Hitler(oops, Godwin's Law).

From what I remember, Danneskjold was a sort of reversal of Robin Hood; instead of stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor, which Rand found abhorrent, Danneskjold stole from the government and gave to the companies that (she, and by extension, the character) felt were unjustly taxed.

 

[nmmoore13]

I'll state this up front; while I don't agree with Objectivism, I will say I thouroughly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. It was an interesting story and made a compelling argument.

That being said, I wonder if people really understand what it was that she was saying. My mother, a woman much more well read than I am, still thinks Ayn Rand to be a communist (although this is more because of our grandmother than her own fault). I was telling a teacher about John Galt shooting down ships shipping aid to germany, causing milloins to die of starvation, and he said, puzzled, "I don't remember that part." The implication of the book itself is that the enire world, outside of Galt's Gulch, destroys itself entirely.

The point of the book, and what's more, the backbone of Ayn Rand's Objegctvism is that the individual should be allowed to excell, even at the cost of the rest of the world. While I belive that the individual, I cannot and will not belive that any individual is more importiant than any other human being (besides maybe Christ, and hell; we killed him). John Galt belived that he was importiant enough that he had the right to (and, in fact, did) kill billions of people. Billions. Because he belived they were a drain on society (sidebar: didn't Hitler belive the same thing about the Jews, the Gypsies, Homosexuality, and the elderly?). This means that John Galt advocated for, and participated in, Genocide.

I'm not trying to damn his charachter; in fact, I personally found that facet of his charachter oddly intriuging; it's part of what made him John Galt. I will say again that I liked Atlas Shrugged. It was a good story. I'm just saying that I don't agree with it.

I wonder if anyone thinks about that.

Apologies if I've offended you; while I will say that was not exactly my intention, I will recite something I told my freind when I told him about a story I was writing; "If I'm getting death threats, then they're thinking about it, and if they're thinking about it, then I must be doing something right."

John Galt did not genocide. He never killed anyone. He simply allowed them to meet the ends they were unwittingly working towards. He had no duty to save them.

 

[000Ronald]

Interesting comments...I guess you took the story very differently then the most of us. And I thought it was Ragnar Danneskjold who was attacking relief boats...and then returning the money to the owners of the companies the government unjustly stole money from as 'income tax'? I guess Danneskjold could be seen as a Robin Hood figure, or a Hitler(oops, Godwin's Law).

Yes, but who persuaded him to do that?

John Galt did not genocide. He never killed anyone. He simply allowed them to meet the ends they were unwittingly working towards. He had no duty to save them.

If you know someone's going to start a fire, isn't it your responsibility to at least try to stop them? And what's more, he caused it to start earlier than it would have; in my mind, he is at least partially responsible for the world falling to it's knees.

But...that's me. I have a different view of the world than most.

 

[The Bandit]

I hope you enjoy the book. The Fountainhead has two quotes I love, which I won't spoil until you've read the novel.

I know it's chic in certain circles to poo-poo her worth, but Ayn Rand is my favorite novelist of all time. I likely would not have started a company without having read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I gave a copy of Atlas Shrugged to all the department heads at Themis.

Rand was the first thinker I encountered in my life who said "it's ok to be smart, it's ok to be ambitious, it's ok to want to pursue what's important to you."

Just two quotes? You are less of a sucker for quotes than I am.
The Fountainhead is my favorite book. My senior AP Lit teacher gave me a copy, and I loved it.

 

[nmmoore13]

John Galt did not genocide. He never killed anyone. He simply allowed them to meet the ends they were unwittingly working towards. He had no duty to save them.

If you know someone's going to start a fire, isn't it your responsibility to at least try to stop them? And what's more, he caused it to start earlier than it would have; in my mind, he is at least partially responsible for the world falling to it's knees.

But...that's me. I have a different view of the world than most.

Its only my responsibility if it threatens my rights in some sort of way.

 

[000Ronald]

Its only my responsibility if it threatens my rights in some sort of way.

See, this delves into philosophy, and we're not supposed to-

Oh fuck it. Let's discuss philosophy.

My biggest disagreement with objectivism is that it completely diminishes the group. I'm not saying the individual isn't importiant; hell, I've gone through a lot of crap myself just because I wouldn't be who people told me to be (public school system ftw); however, no individual is more importiant than the group, or, even more importiant than any other person. The group, in my mind, has to be at least as importiant as a group, or the worth of the individual is a moot point.

John Galt thought he was importiant enough that the world needed to stop for him. It didn't, so he stopped it for them. Yes, they were taking advantage of him. Yes they treated him like crap because he wanted to help them. Yes, there was reason behind what he did, and maybe even a good reason. What I'm saying is that doesn't make it right.

Apologies for bringing this up. I can only hope this doesn't lead to a flame war, and will face the reprocussions if it does.

 

[Archon]

Well, if we're going to start talking philosophy...

It's fairly commonly stated in ethics that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". That is, all ethical arguments are just assertions. This is the basis for Nietzsche's "God is dead" nihilism, and for Hume's skepticism towards ethics.

Rand disagrees. Or, rather, she agrees that utilitarianism, Kantianism, and the other modern ethical systems are all bunk. But she disagrees that therefore there are no "oughts".

Her argument is something along these lines...
1. "Good" is functional. A "good" hammer is a hammer that's effective for putting nails into wood. A "good" doctor is a doctor that can effectively save lives. etc.
2. "Good" for an animal is an animal that is flourishing, i.e. living in a way that furthers living. This could also be called "mental and physical wellness".
2. Sharks and other animals instinctively know how to be good. They are able to function as sharks without moral rules on the basis of instinct.
3. Humans do not instinctively know how to be good. Because we have reason, we have a level of agency that other animals don't have. This agency makes it possible for us to choose to be bad.
4. Therefore, humans need to have a set of rules that teaches them how to be good - and remember, good means "flourishing" or "wellness", not altruism.
5. The set of principles that guide humans towards goodness (wellness/flourishing) is ethics.
6. There are no other "oughts" (do unto others...) other than your personal wellness. Ethics exists at the level of the individual. If you disagree, prove otherwise. (And it can't be done. Normative assertions, unlike teleological assertions, cannot be derived from facts. It's the fact/value distinction).

From these points we can see that:
1. We are not talking about good or evil in the conventional sense that Kant or Mill would use the term. We are talking about something akin to Aristotle's flourishing, new age "wellness," or psychiatry's "high functioning", or "health + wealth + peace of mind."
2. Ayn Rand is totally uninterested in how you treat others, except insofar as how you treat others impacts your wellness.
3. Your "goodness" is *objective*. It's based on the facts of how you're living your life. It's similar to your health. You either are healthy or you are not. You either are good or you are not.
4. The reason to be nice to other people is that it's rational to do so. Living well with others is part of being a flourishing human. Humans benefit from mutual trade, and humans are social animals, with emotions (conscience) that make us feel better about ourselves when we act with good will and have friends and loved ones.... BUT if it's a lifeboat and it's you-or-him, go with you. "If you don't value your life above that of other's, sign your organ donor card and kill yourself today".
5. Being an objectivist isn't easy, as you actually have to be an effective, functional human being.

Ayn Rand essentially agrees with the Nietzschean/Humean critique of conventional morality, but then instead of replacing it with nihilism or intuitionism (hand-wavy "can't we all agree") or relativism, she instead upholds self-actualization.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I must start by saying that I have never read the works of Ayn Rand, but I am going on rumour, hearsay and guesswork here. If you object to that, then I apologise for the offense to your sensibilities.



1. According to said philosophy, by murdering everyone who read Ayn Rand and destroying all records of her work, I would be performing an act of 'good' because it would stop my selfdestructive wishing I had the time or money to purchase and read one of her books. Sorry, can't agree with that.

2. An interesting facet of individualism: but since everyone is widely accepted to be an individual, surely the idea is that the rights of everyone surpasses the rights of everyone. Either the conclusion is subjective: i.e. the rights of myself supercedes others, but only in the confines of mine own head, or the logic is utterly circular, and we come back to the conclusion that all persons have the same intrinsic worth.

3. I would like to read her, but there are several issues with this. Firstly, her books are hard to find and expensive. Secondly, when I found a First Edition copy of the Fountainhead, I opened it up and my Dad, reading over my shoulder said 'That book comes nowhere near my house.' It was the quote lauding architects that caused this violent reaction. As he put it "Obviously Rand never had to actually work with architects, as anyone who praises them in writing is either utterly perverse, depraved and twisted, or simply insane." (The last part was said light-heartedly, but it's still not allowed in the house. Keynes is, so my economics is coming along nicely)

Secondly, any philosopher who adopts an all-or-nothing approach to her work is most likely suffering from severe insecurity.

Thirdly, I have found many of her disciplies/espousers to be noxious, odious individuals. Many are not (I'm assuming Archon isn't, as he's demonstrated remarkable levels of civility, and even JMeganSnow has shown herself to be, if rabidly fanatical, at least cogently rabid). But the vast majority seem to be people who read one book (Or worse, Terry Goodkind) and think they know it all.

4. The Philosophy is economically unviable. Sorry, but the reason that Laissaiz-Faire died was because it was discovered to be fundamentally flawed. Yes, under the right conditions it promoted growth, but only in the sense that amphetamines improve reflexes- Short term, and you crash damn badly. Oh, and it leads to political instability, and the end result is either revolution or a steady petrification into a semi-feudal system.




Still, the postive response to it has inclined me towards picking up a copy.

 

[Archon]

I guess that leaves the question of what happens when my (1) & (3) is accomplished by a (2) that runs counter to (4): in other words, what if I'm the kind of social animal that only feels good when I dominate the other members of my group? What if sociobiology has evolved me in such a way that I function more highly when I rape than when I do not?

I actually wrote the Ayn Rand Institute and asked that question, too. The short answer is that a sociopathic Objectivist is a pretty nasty sort of beast and you'd do best to put him in jail.

I don't really see that as a failing of the philosophy, though, as sociopathic communists, sociopathic republicans, and sociopathic christians are all pretty nasty.

I guess my issue has always been that Rand's never been able to explain how a king is flourishing less than everyone in her world would. Or why we need to value anything but out own lives more than the lives of others--what if it turns out that humans function best in a communist social order as long as that order does not ask us to give up our lives for another, but only asks us to live our lives for the sake of others?

As I understand Ayn Rand, if, *in fact*, it were to be demonstrated that humans do function best in a communist social order, then that's how rational men would choose to live, and that would be the social order that an Objectivist would support. It is for this reason that she devotes so much time and attention in We the Living and Atlas Shrugged to showing that such social orders, in fact, fail.

She has a famous quote "the moral is the practical". That quote is very fundamental to her whole philosophy. It basically suggests that society should be organized around something like economic efficiency. For instance, hardcore anarcho-libertarians want to abolish intellectual property law, for instance. Rand in her non-fiction books supported intellectual property law with, essentially, an argument from economic efficiency.

Also, Rand wouldn't care too much whether a king was flourishing. She would argue that no one else should buy into the king's argument that he had a divine right to be a king, etc. Her point in Atlas Shrugged is that men like that thrive only because we do nothing to stop them. Her suggestion for society is one where the trader principle thrives, i.e. where people interact to mutual benefit.

In other words, I guess I'm not seeing in all that any proof that we need protect 'life, liberty, and property', but rather, 'life, and as much property and liberty as is necessary to stay alive and function at your highest'. If as you say in (2) goodness is objective, then it's something we can find, and if we can find it, why can't we take away liberty and property that is not contributing to maintaining a level of goodness?

Well, I actually think you are correct. Rights are secondary, not primary, to Rand. Unfortunately, Rand's arguments are often confused with, for instance, Murray Rothbard's or David Friedman's, who are anti-state anarchists. Rand was not. Rand believed that government should take a legitimate monopoly on the use of force; Rothbard, Friedman and other libertarian thinkers disagree. Another example of where Rand argued that government had a legitimate function is in the area of intellectual property, such as patents and copyrights. Again, most libertarian thinkers disagree.

Arguments about what type of government are best for human flourishing are essentially empirical arguments, and I think there is room for wide, but reasonable, disagreement. Unfortunately, sometimes arguments that Rand made in the 1960s based on what we knew then, are taken as theoretical dogma today by some of her readers.

What she really provided was a meta-ethical approach that solved the is/ought gap, an ethical system rooted in classical values, and a consequent approach to understanding how we would evaluate a good society. It's really Aristotle, updated, more than anything.

 

[Scarecrow38]

When I think of Ayn Rand all I think about is the Ethical Egoism concept her philosophical beliefs lend themselves to, which is the system of morality where people should only act for their own benefit and fully ignore any effects of their actions on others. I think this is a rediculous and impossible way to live your life, so I don't have much respect for her from a Philosphical viewpoint.

 

[Archon]

I guess the issue is that all of those philosophies have an escape hatch from human biology, in that they demand that you live for the sake of others to some degree--if you flourish less by denying your sociopathic nature, all those philosophies tell you that's a good thing; in fact, they sort of fetishize selfless sacrifice to begin with!

Well... the problem with fetishizing selfless sacrifice is that a sociopath will just use it to justify sacrificing everyone else. A lot more people have been killed by wars waged for an "altruistic cause" then by ethical egoists.

In any event, altruism has a problem of persuasion: Why should I be altruistic? Arguments for altruism either end up as egoistic arguments ("because you'll go to hell if not") or simple assertions ("cause it's the right thing to do").

That's funny--I've wondered the same thing, what her writing would have been like if she'd been born later, and her experience had been, say, fleeing a theocratic OPEC country instead of a communist industrial country.

Hehe... I think the meat of it would be the same, but the flavor would be different; Ayn Al'-Randi would probably emphasize freedom of thought and individual initiative, and her villains would be lazy nepotists and lying mullahs. Feudal legal regimes would probably replace government bureacracy as reprsenting the evil of government.

 

[Beelze]

The worst thing about Rand's books is that they claim to be arguments for her philosophies, but do nothing but knock down straw men. Her central conflict is always based on integrity vs immorality, not the particular creed each side supports. Take Atlas Shrugged and switch the ideologies around. Galt's now head guru of a hippie commune, peacefully smoking away while a world full of scumbag Enron CEOs connive and swindle each other into oblivion. It's the same book. You don't even need to change most of the dialogue!

The second worst thing about Rand's books is that they're masturbatory fantasy material for the average nerdy shut-in. It's okay to be socially inept, you're a genius. It's the world at fault for not recognizing your brilliance, not yours for being incapable of asserting it or being too self-absorbed to recognize its absence. They would only have taken advantage of you anyway, and in the long run you're going to win. Your inherent superiority will be recognized eventually. You just know it.

The third worse thing about Rand's books is that Rand was a misogynistic *****. Every sex scene has undertones (and sometimes is explicitly) rape. Every female character wilts into total submission the instant she makes eye contact with the protagonist, and then follows him around the rest of the story like a trained puppy. Hell, Twilight had a stronger female lead.

 

[stompy]

Post

A little too strongly put for my liking, but I agree with the points you made. My biggest complaint, however, is that Rand's novels have no 'shades of grey'; the heroes are 'perfect beings', and the villains have no redeemable qualities. Yes, that sort of novel can work (see Animal Farm), but, what I suppose what 'tipped it off the edge', so to speak, is that the characters were Mary-Stu/Sue like.