Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Delayed Retraction
Interesting to see that, in this Ayn Rand centenary piece, National Review Online contributing editor Andrew Stuttaford repudiates the infamous "to a gas chamber go" line from Whittaker Chambers' bilious National Review essay on Atlas Shrugged, just as the late novelist's officially sanctioned disciples are giving the charge a retroactive air of plausibility.
|1.27.05 @ 3:27PM|#
has anyone ever written a "what the fuck's the deal with ayn
rand?" type intro article, in some sort of lovely middle valley
between "the objectivists are scary fukkaz" and "the objectivists
are very objective" perhaps?
she was basically a non-entity by the time i got around to being
sentient so i'm confused at what the deal was with her. talk show
fodder? polemicisms?
|1.27.05 @ 3:29PM|#
dhex,
Ayn Rand was a lot like Ann Coulter. She said and wrote
controversial things that pissed people off while also causing some
to worship her.
|1.27.05 @ 3:47PM|#
dhex,
That's likely it. Rand was an opposing voice to the dominant
ideology of the time. That isn't the case anymore.
I can't stand her because she's a hack philosopher.
|1.27.05 @ 3:49PM|#
Anyway, Whittaker Chambers was a devout Christian so its surprising why he would dislike Rand.
|1.27.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Whittaker Chambers was basically a non-entity by the time I got
around to being sentient so I'm confused at what the deal was with
him. (Was he a former commie spy or sympathizer who changed his
ideology?)
How ironic that his name is mostly mentioned only as a footnote
among the critisms of Ayn Rand's writings.
"Who is Whittaker Chambers?", Ayn Rand laughed.
Hmmm? Sound like the start of a great novel.
|1.27.05 @ 3:58PM|#
I really liked this part of that article:
"Yet "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," at least, have a
wild, lunatic verve that sweeps all before them. Like Busby
Berkeley, the Chrysler Building, or a Caddy with fins, they are
aesthetic disasters, very American aesthetic disasters, which
somehow emerge as something rather grand."
That's the best defense of Rand's prose style I could
imagine.
Disclosure: I loved The Fountainhead, I think Atlas Shrugged is
so-so, and I think her philosophy is interesting, which is a
compliment. On a personal level, she sounds like a real bitch, but
that doesn't concern me much.
|1.27.05 @ 4:02PM|#
NoStar,
Whittaker Chambers was a former student at Columbia, begger,
communist, Soviet spy, Christian, editor at Time magazine
(he worked in their foreign news section for a while and was slated
to become chief editor before being ousted/leaving Time),
editor/writer at the National Review, farmer and witness
against Alger Hiss.
To a certain element of conservatives (the Buckley variety)
Whittaker Chambers is lionized, worshipped, etc.
|1.27.05 @ 4:11PM|#
I think Chambers got it right. Rand's depiction of "looters" differs little from Goebbel's Jews or Lenin's kulaks. Whole classes of humanity that need to be done away with by the superior man of the future.
|1.27.05 @ 4:22PM|#
It'd be interesting to, for once, read a criticism of Rand that
doesn't boil down to either a gross misrepresentation of her
philosophy or idiosyncratic critque of her style.
Joe, you might want to substantiate that.
|1.27.05 @ 4:23PM|#
Well, fellow, let's start with inventing a term for the purpose of defining all who fall into that category as criminal enemies of all that is good.
|1.27.05 @ 4:26PM|#
joe,
The difference b/w how Rand thought the "looters" should be done
away with versus how Goebbels/Lenin thought their respective
problems should be solved constitutes only a "little"
difference?
Regardless of what you think of her ideas on individualism, reason,
laissez faire capitalism, etc., I don't see how you can draw that
equivalency (assuming I'm understanding you correctly).
FWIW, I've read some of her books as well as the Branden
autobiography, but do not consider myself a Randian. I did marry
into a Randian family it seems, as can be shown by my recent
Christmas present of a "Who is John Galt?" coffee mug from the
mom-in-law. ;-)
|1.27.05 @ 4:32PM|#
Joe,
I'd like to see exactly where she explained the need "do away" with
these people. Without that, her resemblance is nothing more than
the fact that she applied a word to a group of people she finds to
be in error.
If it makes you feel better, we could substitute the word
"sinners".
|1.27.05 @ 4:33PM|#
Brett, regardless of what you think about Rand's policy prescriptions, no good can come of a politics that is based on distinguishing the ubermenchen from the worthless parasites.
Tim Cavanaugh|1.27.05 @ 4:36PM|#
Rand has a great essay on two Pope Paul VI encyclicals,
Humanae Vitae (which the right loved and the left hated)
and Populorum Progressio (which the left loved and the
right hated). Rand hated both, and proves that they both spring
from the same life-hating mentality. Good stuff, with plenty of
funny phrasing. Other than that you can have her. Like many writers
of "ideas," she turns one earsplitting phrase after another. Rand
and Khalil Gibran are at this moment fighting over the best seat in
big-idea-writer hell. There's a reason Randoids tend to have crappy
reading-comp skills.
Whittaker Chambers may be only a footnote, but he's not a footnote
in the Rand story. He's a footnote in the long-settled but somehow
neverending controversy over Alger Hiss.
|1.27.05 @ 4:37PM|#
"I'd like to see exactly where she explained the need "do away"
with these people."
I'd like to see exactly where Alberto Gonzales explained the need
to torture prisoners. No, after carefully and powerfully explaining
why it's right to torture them, why the President has the power to
torture them, and why torturing them isn't really torturing them,
what he actually recommends is humane treatment, and certainly not
torturing anyone.
Tim Cavanaugh|1.27.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Oh, I forgot Rand's most terrible crime: serving as the first high priestess in the church of Frank Lloyd Wright (because only superior beings can exist in leaky, impenetrable buildings designed by a superman).
|1.27.05 @ 4:40PM|#
From the linked article: "Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower
surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil
rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology,
and capital made its discovery and use possible."
Remember, Randroids, if you can make more profit off something
somebody else owns than they can, you get to take it!
Jesse Walker|1.27.05 @ 4:44PM|#
I forgot Rand's most terrible crime
I like to think of Anthem as Rand's most terrible crime.
Since I haven't read any of her other novels, though, I admit the
possibility that one or more might be worse.
|1.27.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Joe,
I see what you are saying, however, I think there is a huge
difference between calling for the extermination of people you
don't like and merely stating that you don't like them. If
anything, Rand would be an advocate of leaving said looters to
their own devices. A rather hands off approach.
|1.27.05 @ 4:54PM|#
joe,
As a looter yourself, I can see why you might have a problem with
her philosophy.
|1.27.05 @ 4:55PM|#
In the real world, proles left to their own devices do quite a
bit better than the mass agony Rand delights in imagining for
them.
Plenty of Social Darwinists were perfectly happy at the thought of
the "unfit" encompassing entire races and classes. "If you ignore
the problem, it will go away" is a genocidal statement when "the
problem" is the existance of certain types of people.
|1.27.05 @ 4:57PM|#
I like to think of Anthem as Rand's most terrible
crime.
But to deny the world a classic Rush tune?
|1.27.05 @ 4:57PM|#
Phil,
As a bourgeois elite yourself, I can see why you might have a
problem with Lenin's philosophy.
|1.27.05 @ 4:58PM|#
Thanks, Joe, I wasn't aware that Rand authored the
article.
Tim, Wright's buildings are hardly "impenetrable" and many a great
building has it's fair share of engineering issues. Cute
description, though.
|1.27.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Rand had four or five absolutely critical observations that she
wrote about with great clarity. She was fantastic at depicting The
Problem.
She was a hack philosopher, was a pain in the ass, and her
followers are mostly worse at philosophy than she was (David Kelly
exluded); but for all that she was not wrong about the perversity
of altruism, she was not wrong about the looting tendency and its
destructive implications (she missed that there is a looter in all
of us, though), and she was not wrong about human potential.
There are nuggets of gold in the mountain of pooh that is her body
of writing, and that is more than you can say about most people.
She just makes you not want to give her the credit she is due.
|1.27.05 @ 5:16PM|#
Tim C,
You are right, of course. I should have said "as a writer,
Whittaker Chambers is a footnote among criticism of Rand's
writings." What other article of his gets quoted as much?
I can't think it much better to be a footnote in the tale of Alger
Hiss.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.27.05 @ 5:21PM|#
I actually read Anthem some 35 years ago but IMO the best Rand
book was the one nobody much talks about.
Hold on, I have CRS..........
Okay, back, 'We The Living' (thank you Google--quicker than looking
through my own bookshelves).
Granted my opinion might change if I read it again today, it has
been a long long time, but I found it so much more engaging than
either of the 'powerhouse' novels of hers. Ditto for stuff like New
Intellectual (more interesting than Atlas or Roark that is).
I promised myself I wouldn't beat up on Piekoff today, so, I
won't.
I think she was a nutcase but as Paul Whatshisname (Johnson?)
pointed out in 'Intellectuals' most of those guys ARE whacked. With
that disclaimer I would also say that those of us of the
libertarian persuasion owe her a debt of gratitude even though she
hated us.
It always bothered me that everyone always acted like Rand was the
whole enchilada while ignoring Rose Wilder Lane and Hayek.
My two cents worth (waiting for change) regards,
TWC
|1.27.05 @ 5:30PM|#
Coming to the defense of Anthem: It brought up the idea of controlling human thought via controlling the language a decade before Orwell tackled the same theme in 1984. (Anthem was originally published in England.) Other similarities and parallels exist between those two books, the main difference is that Orwell does not underestimate the evil and the power of the State. Rand's novella may have influenced Orwell as well as Rush.
|1.27.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Whenever a story about Ayn Rand appears on this blog, it is always followed by a very long, very critical comment thread. I don't understand this. Wasn't Rand basically a libertarian? Why the hostility? I am young and haven't been around libertarian circles too long, so somebody clue me in.
|1.27.05 @ 5:34PM|#
I was into Rand for the first 10 chapters of Atlas Shrugged. Now
she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian)
equivalent of the Right's Hitler and the Left's Stalin.
Granted, she's the least evil of the three (Stalin being the
worst), but she's still fucking scary.
|1.27.05 @ 5:40PM|#
I can't think it much better to be a footnote in the tale of
Alger Hiss.
Chambers was a central character in the tale of Alger Hiss.
|1.27.05 @ 5:46PM|#
I read Atlas Shrugged about a month ago, and it wasn't
as bad as I'd expected. I thought Rand did a great job of fully
explaining the ominous implications of the phrase "From each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That
bit about the factory that decided to run itself according to
Communist principles was brilliant. So Rand was great at explaining
why a particular philosophy was a problem.
I also got the feeling that the scenes of Wyatt, Danneskjold and
others utterly destroying the industries the State wanted to
confiscate was her way of taking revenge, on paper, against the
Communists who'd confiscated her family's property in the Russian
Revolution. When she wrote those scenes I'm sure she imagined
herself doing something similar to her Dad's drugstore, and I don't
blame her a bit.
Unfortunately, while she was great at pointing out problems, she
sucked when it came to solutions. Her plan for an ideal world would
work fabulously if we were all Vulcans, ruled entirely by logic and
rationality and surrounded by people who did the same, but not for
real humans.
She also takes "mind over matter" to absurd extremes; not only can
her heroes remain nonchalant while being tortured, but they could
apparently use willpower to ignore into oblivion pain, hunger and
the need to sleep.
On the other hand, you'd think that superior folks like Hank and
Frisco would also have superior sperm, yet for all their
non-contraceptive fucking Dagny never got pregnant., I think that's
because she used her incredible willpower to completely shut down
the unnecessarily functional parts of her reproductive system. I
remember an ex-Jesuit professor in grad school saying that some
medieval theologians made entire careers out of debating the
question, "Did the Virgin Mary menstruate?" I don't know about
Jesus' mom but I'm damn sure Dagny didn't; Rand just forgot to add
that detail to the final draft of the novel.
Also Rand is a hypocrite who benefited from the very altruism she
later condemned, but that's another story.
|1.27.05 @ 5:48PM|#
"Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian)
equivalent of the Right's Hitler and the Left's Stalin. "
I can see why, remember all the people she had exterminated?
Podraza,
I believe it's because many libertarians get a kick out of being
contrary for contrary's sake. To be a good libertarian, find a
generally abhorant or counterproductive activity and then glorify
the crap out of it, while simultaneously cutting down any figure
that might actually hold a moral standard, regardless of whethor or
not that figure wishes to force that standard on anyone.
|1.27.05 @ 5:49PM|#
"Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian)
equivalent of the Right's Hitler and the Left's Stalin."
Except that she wasn't actually responsible for killing millions of
people like Hitler and Stalin were.
Tim Cavanaugh|1.27.05 @ 5:56PM|#
Chambers was a central character in the tale of Alger
Hiss.
The tale of Alger Hiss is a footnote, or should be. As the big
faces say in Superman, "GUILTY!"
|1.27.05 @ 6:07PM|#
joe
I assume the new editions of Rand's work contain her call to
exterminate the looters. In the old books she more or less said
they need to be told to go fuck themselves when they demand your
shit.
|1.27.05 @ 6:17PM|#
Tim C,
So, if Whittaker Chambers was a Commie Soviet spy, was he ever
prosecuted by the Justice Dept. or persecuted by the House
Un-American Activities Committee. If not, why not? Was it one of
those plea-I'll give you a bigger rat than me-deals?
|1.27.05 @ 6:28PM|#
NoStar
By the time the Hiss/Chambers case came up the statute of
limitations had run out. Hiss was convicted of perjury because he
lied to HUAC about having been a spy.
If you want to know mre read "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case" by
Allen Weinstein
http://www.nrbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C4643
|1.27.05 @ 6:41PM|#
Let's sum up Atlas Shrugged thusly:
It was about 200 pages of absolute genius. Pity the book had 1069
pages.
gaius marius|1.27.05 @ 6:52PM|#
Unfortunately, while she was great at pointing out problems,
she sucked when it came to solutions.
agreed, ms jennifer, but i think rand had a more fundamental flaw.
i can reject marxism without rejecting the basis of british
utilitarian philosophy; rand couldn't. her answer to marx was
nietzschean psychosis.
i've always thought of her as something of an idiot
savant.
|1.27.05 @ 6:55PM|#
Joe,
As you noticed, we proles can take care of ourselves, thank you
very much.
As for your ilk, if you and your buddies would stop destroying our
stock of inexpensive housing, we'd be very grateful.
Also, we'd like some compensation for the damage you did to our
initiative and self respect by destroying our friendly societies
with your welfare state.
Just kidding about the last, we'll settle for our taxes back. Now
I'm off for a beer.
SP
|1.27.05 @ 7:11PM|#
Stop all this bibble-babble. You are all late for tap dancing
lessons!
Kevin
(Recommended: It Usually Starts With Ayn Rand by Jerome
Tucille.)
|1.27.05 @ 8:35PM|#
I love how any conversation about Rand either devolves into a mass of personal attacks or a bunch of ass-kissing instead of actually discussing her ideas. Lovely.
|1.27.05 @ 9:08PM|#
Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or
psuedo-libertarian) equivalent of the Right's Hitler and the Left's
Stalin.
Rand was exactly like Hitler, except for the mass murder
part.
My father is exactly like the Iron Chefs, except for the culinary
talent.
Ashley Simpson is exactly like Beethoven, except the musical talent
part.
OJ Simpson is exactly like Mother Teresa, except that he killed two
people and hasn't devoted his life to charity.
George Bush is exactly like Einstein, except for the intelligence
part.
pococurante|1.27.05 @ 9:14PM|#
Podraza, I don't think your Q's been answered adequately, so
I'll try inadequately, out of my failing memory. Despite being
essentially the founder of libertarianism (at least 20C libtnism,
the contributions of Locke et al notwithstanding) she
hated the natural consequence of being a "moral innovator" (was
that the term she used?) -- people expanding on or even slightly
disagreeing with any of her notions. I can't remember the exact
nature of the schisms or its participants, besides her famous
disavowal of her much-younger partner in adultery when he tired of
her. Basically it was the narcissism of minor differences. She
hated slight disagreers as much as her evil collectivist "looters".
She liked only herself (or what she pretended was herself) and
those who fully agreed with her -- an impossible demand, of course.
Perhaps Rand bios (Passion of AR?) would have more info for you,
depending on their biases.
I find psychology a much better basis for political philosophy
(true human nature, etc.) than her wishful thinking, and boy, was
she a psychological study -- of narcissism, rage, weak ego
integrity, and the false self, especially. For me, reading her
stuff (in late HS, early college) was like what many women complain
about re fashion magazines: initially inspiring, then
self-esteem-deflating when one can't live up to the ideal. I like
the Ann Coulter comparison, but the most famous personage she
reminds me most of is Martha Stewart.
|1.27.05 @ 9:59PM|#
There are nuggets of gold in the mountain of pooh that is her
body of writing, and that is more than you can say about most
people.
I donno - even a stopped clock...
I can't believe anyone takes her seriously anymore - her stuff just
seems like childish ranting to me.
And, yes, I have read several of her books...and even liked them -
when I was in high school.
|1.27.05 @ 11:21PM|#
Podraza, pococurante gives a pretty good answer that I'll try
and add a little too. Rand was unable to admit that her philosophy
was not the philosophical equivalent of The Universal Theory of
Physics. Piekoff to this day (far as I know) still instists that's
what Rand's Objectivism is.
Suffice it to say, Rand earned herself a rotten tomatoe or two (or
a lot more).
But Rand raises the hackles of libertarians because she hits soooo
close to our home turf. You know, Darwin said "your worst enemy is
that which is most like you".
Fact is, Rand was wrong about a lot of things. But the things she
was wrong about -- libertarians to this day do not agree as to what
the right answers really are. We all got our own thing going on The
Right Answers.
In an odd sort of way, we treat Rand just like she's one of
us.....we just throw bigger stones at her than each other, because
of who and what she was.
|1.27.05 @ 11:59PM|#
There's also Rand's contempt-to-the-point-of-hatred for the mainstream Libertarian political movement because of its supposed lack of a moral ideal.
|1.28.05 @ 12:21AM|#
Rand's most terrible crime was her butchering of the problem of
universals.
wellfellow, etc.,
Rand hated libertarians. Rand believed in moral absolutes just as
Christians do - moral absolutes regarding sexuality, gender
relations, etc. For all her praise of liberty, she didn't believe
people should exercise except in the ways she prescribed - she was
a paternalist in other words, and that's why she such a tyrant in
her personal life.
pococurante,
Rand is not the founder of 20th century libertarianism. Why you
think it disappeared during the 18th and 19th centuries I cannot
say. Read some Proudhon. :)
pragmatist,
Rand was largely a plagiarist of the idea's of others. Its best to
skip Rand's crappy literary efforts and get to the folks whose
works she is mining.
|1.28.05 @ 12:25AM|#
Yes, there was also Rand's contempt for the libertarian
political movement. Was there a difference between contempt and
hatred for Rand? I seem to have lost that Randian
distinction.
You could say Rand had a point. In the libertarian party we've got
people who lean towards anarchism, others who lean towards the
liberal left, yet others who lean towards the conservative right,
and so on. The libertarian party has never philosophically been a
single minded freight train headed for Galt's Gulch. If there's a
core "moral" among us it's that we agree to disagree (and that we
have the right to this), perhaps more often than not.
One of the things that Rand didn't quite get her arms around is the
fact that freedom obtains when no single IN GROUP gets all-out,
absolute power. Pure, authorized Objectivism would institute its
own Inquisitions as readily as any religion. Oh, er, I guess that
already happened.
OTOH, the lack of a clear, single themed message has made it harder
for the libertarian party to gain ground (my opinion). There is a
fine balance point on the agree-disagree spectrum where things
would actually work ideally and libertarianism would take over the
WHOLE POLITICAL UNIVERSE (and gosh, I can't wait :)))) But we don't
seem to have found the balance point just yet.
|1.28.05 @ 12:46AM|#
Gary,
Sort of, yes. I mean, it would be fairly easy to argue that
everybody after the ancient Greeks just plagarized their ancestors.
The Greeks originated pretty much the foundation of western
civilization.
But I am not aware of anyone who put ideas together in just the way
Rand did, with the particular weights distributed in just the same
way.
I know, Rand borrowed much from her ancestors and never admitted
it. But to her credit, she also did demonstrate a number of things
(like the nature of altruism) in a powerful and, I'd argue,
original way (at least as original as her ancestors could claim to
have been).
To Rand's credit, at her best she did convey some core libertarian
ideas to a wide audience. That's worth something. Unfortunately,
she also left us to sort through the pooh of her personality. And
in that, she did perhaps as much damage as good. That's hotly
debatable.
Whatever we wish to say about her, Rand accomplished enough that we
don't get to just ignore her now, though some people try.
|1.28.05 @ 1:15AM|#
The libertarian party has never philosophically been a
single minded freight train headed for Galt's Gulch. If there's a
core "moral" among us it's that we agree to disagree (and that we
have the right to this), perhaps more often than not.
Well, would one really expect perfect conformity in a movement
dedicated to the freedom to do whatever you want?
Besides, successful political parties are coalitions, not
single-minded hives. The LP is certainly not successful yet, but to
the extent that left-leaning types and right-leaning types can
co-exist, at least there is the beginning of the concept of a
coalition.
OTOH, the lack of a clear, single themed message has made it
harder for the libertarian party to gain ground (my
opinion).
I think it's safe to say that, while the LP has many flaws, lack of
ideological unity is not one of them. The
differences may seem large to us, but to the rest of the world they
are quite small.
|1.28.05 @ 1:48AM|#
thoreau, I don't expect perfect conformity. You missed my
tone.
I don't think it's safe to say that our differences are small to
outsiders. I, for instance, am not an anarchist, and yet many
outsiders (if I can use that phrase) have immediately thought I
must be an anarchist when I said I'm a card carrying
libertarian.
Political parties *are* coalitions. That was my point above. I
agree, the libertarian coalition is good precisely because it
brings so many diverse viewpoints together. But I think you
misperceive how varied people's ideas are about what it means to be
libertarian. And I really do think that's a weakness.
We libertarians can be diverse. Diversity is a strength in its own
right. But we need a stronger core of shared ideals, that cut
across our differences. Otherwise we appear from the outside to be
Anarchy Incarnate.
|1.28.05 @ 2:03AM|#
OK, I see your point. We need to be seen as a diverse group that
works together on core issues, instead of being seen as collection
of bickering cliques.
On that I agree 100%! Ironically, the best way to achieve unity may
be to stop demanding purity. Tolerating a few differences and
focusing on core issues would simultaneously make the movement more
coherent and more inclusive.
Of course, it's easy to say that. Good luck on getting anybody to
agree on what core issues are. "The most important right is the
right to defend yourself!" "No, property rights are the fundamental
core of freedom!" "I think controlling my own body comes first and
foremost." "Well, you're full of it. The right to keep the fruits
of your labor is the most fundamental right of all!"
And then they finally calm down and agree to focus on aspects of
all of those issues, but to keep it moderate and concentrate on
intermediate steps rather than immediate and drastic change. So
whom will they reach out to? "The left is fundamentally hostile to
our cause, we need to reach out to conservatives!" "No, we need to
build a broader coalition and go after the center and sympathetic
liberals." "The Bible-beaters are fundamentally incompatible. Stick
to the secularists!" "You're all wrong! The greatest reservoir of
libertarian sympathy is among the non-voters. Go after them!"
"Well, first we need to energize our base, so let's get the druids
on board!"
|1.28.05 @ 2:22AM|#
Geez, I forgot all about the druids. What's wrong with me????? Man, we're gonna win now!
|1.28.05 @ 4:20AM|#
Two books I've avoided reading my whole life: The
Fountainhead and The Hobbit.
Have I missed anything?
|1.28.05 @ 4:22AM|#
Brothers and sisters, allow me to testify to the transforming
power of Ayn Rand, Who will change your life forever if only you
accept Her into your heart...
Seriously, though, I think Rand had several good points (and plenty
of bad ones, of course). I read Anthem and
Fountainhead in tenth grade, at the urging (ironically
enough) of my English teacher at a Catholic high school who
professed belief in theocracy (he wanted me to enter the ARI essay
contest). I liked Anthem, but didn't really get
Fountainhead. I reread Fountainhead a year later
and sort of 'got it,' I suppose...became a fairly devout Randian.
Helped me with personal issues, actually--it's probably the main
reason I'm no longer seriously depressive.
Anyway, because I have a tendency to actually think about what I
read, I started considering the work over the past couple years
(since I read the books--I'm currently a Freshman in college). I
see her as having a couple critical, central points that I adhere
to. First, the idea that you should live your life in an attempt to
be happy. This point was really crystallized for me by an Adler
essay I read--basically, he asked why there could be any objective
code of ethics at all, and concluded that the statement "You
shouldn't do things that are bad for you" is self-evident. From
there you can work out a moral code by trying to figure out what's
bad for you. This obviously leaves most of the interesting
questions left to ask; but it makes Rand's key point, that you
can't have a moral obligation to sacrifice or make yourself
miserable. On the other hand, I think she really screwed up by
extending this to argue against helping other people--there's
nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when you feel you
have an obligation to help other people, even at huge
personal cost--if I'm starving, do I have to give what food I have
to anyone who asks? Do I have to live my life in service to others?
Even if these ideas aren't originally hers--and I think she would
give Aristotle at least partial credit--she's important as a
popularizer and concretizer of them.
She threw in a lot of crap that reflected her own personal
prejudices (a good article on where she went wrong is
http://nathanielbranden.com/ayn/ayn03.html by the man she had an
affair with, and who helped her construct the details of the
philosophy after she'd published Atlas Shrugged). And most
people who adopt the philosophy are mindless zombies--probably
because she's so adamant that you can't reject any of her
philosophy without rejecting all of it. For me, though, that was
the first part of her philosophy that I rejected...leaving me free
to decide that some of it, like the condemnation of altruism, was
good, and other parts, like the condemnation of swing music, were
crap.
Her other big flaw, I think, is that her philosophy left no room
for casual adherents to the philosophy--that is, people who accept
the basic idea, "I'm not obligated to live for others," but don't
accept the second conclusion that "I am obligated to live for the
sake of memorizing all Rand's arguments and getting an effective
degree in philosophy." No room for people who accept the basic
premise, but don't focus their lives on the fact that they accept
that premise. Any philosophy that has a reasonably diffused
adherence has to have room for casual followers.
For what it's worth, my uncle, the head of the Philosophy
department at Pomona College, says that he thinks Rand is "wrong,
but interesting." He doesn't agree with her, but thinks the
philosophy is worth discussing and not dismissable out of hand
(also that it's important to remember that she's a popularizer, and
not a deep thinker. But popularizers are still important).
|1.28.05 @ 7:18AM|#
Also Rand is a hypocrite who benefited from the very
altruism she later condemned, but that's another story.
I don't know that story, Jennifer - do you mind telling it?
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 8:09AM|#
Gary Gunnels - I can't stand her because she's a hack
philosopher.
In what way, exactly? So, what, only philosophy majors are allowed
to do philosophy? If so, there are a LOT of hack philosophers on
H&R.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 8:21AM|#
Jadagul - (also that it's important to remember that she's a
popularizer, and not a deep thinker. This is an interesting
take, and not at all surprising coming from an academic. Again,
Rand gets knocked for daring to do philosophy without the proper
"credentials." This is exactly the kind of intellectual snobbery
she railed against. Properly, I think.
Personally, I admire her for making philosophy in general both
accessable and attractive to those not making it their life's work.
And I admire Objectivism specifically for demonstrating that it is
possible to live according to a set of moral and ethical principles
without cowtowing to authorities in white collars, purple robes and
pistachio-shaped hats.
As to her fiction � her characters, plots, and scenarios are no
more broadly drawn than those in, say, the Illiad or the Odyssey.
Her novels serve the same purpose� the presentation of ideal human
archetypes. You can certainly argue the literary merits, but you
can't argue much about the continued popularity and incredible
sales of her work.
|1.28.05 @ 8:23AM|#
Solitudinarian-
Well, the main thing is that her husband, Frank O'Connor, married
her not out of love, but to save her from being sent back to Soviet
Russia. As she herself joked, "It was a shotgun wedding, with Uncle
Sam holding the shotgun."
Also when she first got to the US she didn't support her own self;
some relatives gave her a place to stay. Not only did she not pay
them, she didn't even behave like a good guest--she ran up their
water bills, pounded on her typewriter all night while others tried
to sleep, etc. Her first job in Hollywood wasn't something she
earned through her own merit; she got it thanks to a letter of
introduction written by a family member who knew some high
Hollywood mucky-muck. And then, in her one-page bio at the end of
Atlas Shrugged, she bragged about how she succeeded entirely by
herself.
As I've said before, a Randian who's opposed to altruism is like a
member of the Church of England opposing divorce; without various
acts of altruism Alice Rosenbaum, a.k.a. Ayn Rand, would've
returned to Russia and died in obscurity, just as without divorce,
there would be no C of E.
|1.28.05 @ 8:31AM|#
Clarity-
The first bio of Rand I read was in Florence King's book "With
Charity Toward None: A Fond Look at Misanthropy." There were a
couple of other books I read; I can actually see the pages in my
mind, but can't remember who wrote them or what the titles were.
Sorry.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 8:44AM|#
It is interesting to me that Objectivism, unlike any other
system or school of philosophy, gets critcized at least as often
for the supposed personal attributes of its proponents and
adherents as it does for any other reason or purpose. I have yet to
see a refutation of Objectivism's main points that doesn't take
personality into account.
The basic argument goes: "Well, Rand was a nasty-ass bitch who
couldn't even adhere to her own system perfectly, and her cultists
are just weirdos, therefore..."
Almost nobody disputes empiricism or scepticism on the grounds that
David Hume was a hypocrite, an adulterer, a dirty old man, or some
such. There don't appear to be any Hume cultists lurking around.
Rand would have been amused by this, I think.
Attention Libertarian purists - Try living according to your
"system," or lack of one, in every way without fail for twenty-four
hours. Go ahead, I double-dog dare ya.
That goes for Liberals, Neocons, etc. too. I'll expect your reports
on my desk in the morning.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 9:22AM|#
pragmatist - If there's a core "moral" among us it's that we
agree to disagree (and that we have the right to this), perhaps
more often than not.
Prag, I think you hit it exactly right here in terms of Rand's
antipathy toward Libertarianism. She held that the Libertarian
tendency to hold the oft-undefined concept of "freedom" � or
"liberty," if you like that term better � as an end in itself
rather than a means to an end, was mistaken. The final result of
that error, according to Rand, is a lawless, principle-less, and
therefore inherently self-destructive society. There is a lot to
sympathize with in that point of view, it seems to me.
What you have is a simple disagreement � A political movement,
Libertarianism, with a single principle "freedom," and a
comprehensive philosophy, Objectivism, which sees that principle
not as fundamental in itself, but as a conduit between its basic
principles and its basic end, which is human happiness on
Earth.
Really, Objectivism and Libertarianism have very little to talk to
each other about. It is an apples-and-oranges comparison.
|1.28.05 @ 9:29AM|#
On the other hand, I think she really screwed up by
extending this to argue against helping other people--there's
nothing wrong with that.
Rand never argued against helping other people, she said that you
had to do it as consistent choice of your own, consistent with your
own values, not as some mandate fron outside. She condemned
altruism not compassion. I can't remember where
but in one of her books she tries to make the distinction.
As you said in your next sentence "The problem comes in when you
feel you have an obligation to help other
people,...."
IMO where she screwed up was her dogmatic insistence that her
values were right, as GG and others point out in this she was just
like a fundie Xian or the looters she condemned.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 9:32AM|#
Isaac Bertram - I think that distinction is made in "The Virtue of Selfishness."
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 9:35AM|#
Isaac Bartram IMO where she screwed up was her dogmatic
insistence that her values were right, as GG and others point out
in this she was just like a fundie Xian or the looters she
condemned.
Would you expect a proponent of ANY philosophy NOT to insist their
values were correct? Except Libertarianism, of course, whose
primary value appears to be something along the lines of "Eh,
whatever...."
|1.28.05 @ 9:39AM|#
'"Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian)
equivalent of the Right's Hitler and the Left's Stalin."
Except that she wasn't actually responsible for killing millions of
people like Hitler and Stalin were.'
Well Gil, Naziism and Marxist-Lenninism actually achieved a level
of prominance.
Super Prole, on the housing, we've launched an offensive on the
parasites' snob zoning, but we keep taking friendly fire and can't
consolidate our position.
|1.28.05 @ 9:47AM|#
I was amused in a thread the other day where one or more
randroids condemned giving to the tsunami victims in the name of St
Rand.
I suppose she is not the only writer whose devotees misinterpret
her as badly as her detractors do.
To: clarityiniowa at January 28, 2005 09:35 AM:
Point taken.
|1.28.05 @ 9:52AM|#
Actually, clarityiniowa, I think that she dogmatically incorporated things into her belief system that other reasonable people might conclude had nothing to do with her philosophy.
|1.28.05 @ 10:01AM|#
clarityiniowa - Everything Jennifer states above is also in Barbara Branden's biography, with many quotes from Rand herself lending credibility to these claims.
|1.28.05 @ 10:05AM|#
"It is interesting to me that Objectivism, unlike any other
system or school of philosophy, gets critcized at least as often
for the supposed personal attributes of its proponents and
adherents as it does for any other reason or purpose."
That must explain why the words "Chappaquidick" and "KKK" never
appear when Senators Kennedy or Byrd speak out on behalf of some
Democratic position.
|1.28.05 @ 10:06AM|#
pragmatist,
...everybody after the ancient Greeks just plagarized their
ancestors.
No. You are quite incorrect. Indeed, you are flatly and
categorically incorrect. There's been reams and piles and heaping
spoonfuls of new, non-plagiarized philosophical thought since the
Greeks.
This is the problem with Randroids. They think they known something
about philosophy when they in fact know very little - just like
Rand herself. The most obvious example of this is - again - her
misunderstanding of the problem of universals. She thought that she
had solved it but was too dense to understand that she hadn't even
appreciated its true nature.
But I am not aware of anyone who put ideas together in just the
way Rand did, with the particular weights distributed in just the
same way.
Probably because you haven't done much reading.
clarityiniowa,
In what way, exactly?
Again, I direct you to her discussion of the problem of universals.
Its typical of her rather ignorant undertakings in the field.
So, what, only philosophy majors are allowed to do
philosophy?
Where did I write anything like this? Quit jumping to stupid
conclusions. I am quite obviously discussing the issue of merit and
not "qualification." And Rand had little to no merit in the field
of philosophy.
___________________________________________
What makes Rand interesting to her followers is the cult of
personality created around her in life and death and not "her"
ideas, which could be found in any number of authors.
Yes, its great that she was devoted to capitalism, but I can read
Hayek and get that without her crimped and silly metaphysics,
epistomology, ethics and aesthetics.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 10:11AM|#
Gary - basically calling me, and by extension others, stupid and
poorly read is neither valid argumentation, nor is it based on
anything other than your own biases. Try arguing the ideas, not the
personalities.
How about a few citations as to Rand's solution to "the problem of
universals," and their refutations in the works of other authors?
Let's see exactly how widely read YOU are before you start
denigrating other peoples' education.
|1.28.05 @ 10:17AM|#
clarityiniowa,
A few citations? Try Scott Ryan's Objectivism and the
Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's
Epistemology.
BTW, I wrote that your conclusion was stupid, not you. And it was a
rather stupid and unwarranted conclusion.
|1.28.05 @ 10:18AM|#
Thanks to the people who offered their explanations to my
question. I have noticed what clarityiniowa is talking about when
she says that attacks on Objectivism are almost always personal.
Even if Rand, Peikoff and the rest of them are total nutcases,
don't we all agree on capitalism and individualism? Aren't Rand's
substantive arguments in those areas pretty strong? What part of
Objectivism constitutes "hack philosophy"? Objective reality?
Reason? Individualism or capitalism?
Why can't more libertarians seperate in their minds the substance
of objectivism from the style?
|1.28.05 @ 10:21AM|#
Rand essentially argued that her philosophy was a complete guide to life; that it was perfect and whole. That should give one the first clue that she was selling snake oil.
|1.28.05 @ 10:24AM|#
Gary Gunnels writes that Rand was a "hack philosopher". Define
"hack", please. Also, the sneering at Rand is a bit off-base given
that her contribution to an understanding of philosophy is miles
greater than most of the inpenetrable crud produced by most modern
university departments, IMHO. Yes, she certainly was not as
original as her acolytes like the wretched Peikoff claim, but she
did a lot to reignite interest in thinkers like Acquinas, for
example.
Rand had her flaws - she could not write decent dialogue to save
her life and was probably a right bitch to deal with at times - but
her role in spreading the case for individualism and capitalism was
a big deal. Reason magazine might not even exist without the likes
of her.
In terms of her importance as a thinker, I rate her up there with
Hayek, Nozick and Murray Rothbard as a spreader of free market
ideas. She was a force for good. I suspect there is an element of
envy in much of the bitching about her.
The guy who compared her to Hitler is, I humbly submit, a f**king
idiot.
|1.28.05 @ 10:26AM|#
Podraza,
My attacks on Objectivism have not been personal. Indeed, I've
willingly given examples of the flaws in her philosophical system.
If either of you want to read Ryan's book and then start a
discussion on the matter I am more than willing to do so.
|1.28.05 @ 10:32AM|#
Johnathan Pearce,
Define "hack", please.
Look it up yourself. Try dictionary.com
Also, the sneering at Rand is a bit off-base given that her
contribution to an understanding of philosophy is miles greater
than most of the inpenetrable crud produced by most modern
university departments, IMHO.
Can you detail these "contributions" please?
What most people understand is that Rand was a capitalist; to which
I would retort, big deal.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 10:33AM|#
Gary G. - Rand essentially argued that her philosophy was a
complete guide to life; that it was perfect and whole. That should
give one the first clue that she was selling snake oil. But,
Gary, that is exactly what philosophy is FOR, to discover means,
methods and principles of life, or didn't they teach you that
during your tenure as a philosphy major as they did in mine?
BTW: I dropped that major my junior year, as I'm afraid the entire
academic discussion has devolved into ad hom attacks and semantic
nonsense. I've explained why I admire Rand, and her philosophy.
That does not make me a "Randroid" any more than talking out of my
ass and waving the "ignorance" card every time someone disagrees
with me would make me a "Gunnelsoid."
|1.28.05 @ 10:40AM|#
clarityiniowa,
Discovering "eternal" truths and the like may be what philosophy is
for, but claiming that one has done so is another matter entirely.
I was never a philosophy major. You're the only one who seems to
think that issue is important.
I suggest you read Ryan's book; it rather meticulously illustrates
the flawed nature of Rand's philosophy and what a monstrosity of a
society it would engender if it were put into practice.
|1.28.05 @ 10:45AM|#
For the nutshell version of Ryan's work, see: http://home.neo.rr.com/jsryan/writings/creativity.html
|1.28.05 @ 10:59AM|#
Gary,
"Probably because you haven't done much reading."
Not so. Not even CLOSE.....
"Rand essentially argued that her philosophy was a complete guide
to life; that it was perfect and whole. That should give one the
first clue that she was selling snake oil."
Your litmus test has something to recommend it but, I say Podraza
is also right.
"Why can't more libertarians seperate in their minds the substance
of objectivism from the style?"
One of the big things Rand did was tie ethics to economics. I don't
mean in the abstract way that people like Hayek and those did. She
made it personal in a way that none of the other players on the
field did. That was her "virtue", if you will.
Now, in the process of doing so, she also mixed in a bunch of her
own personal brand of garbage, which one is left to sort out alone.
But connecting capitalism with ethics is a big deal. And you don't
have to accept all her garbage to retain some of her essential
links between ethics and capitalism.
I don't know how and where you grew up, but many, many of us in
this country grew up with a great big altruist cloud over our
heads. Rand did much to help us help ourselves, and cut through
that cloud to the sunshine.
Now, with that said, if you want to go off on a tirade about all
the other things Rand said that would make society a monster, I
probably wouldn't reject many (if any) whole sale. And if you read
very much history at all, you quickly see that her "system" for
politics is naive at best.
But I still have to side with Podraza. Rand did some good things,
made some vitally important ideas accessable to a lot of
people.
"I have a right to live for myself." Rand said that, and she made a
big attempt at explaining why. If she wasn't always right, neither
has anyone else ever been.
Sorry Gary, but you simply DO NOT get all the same things out of
Rand's contemporaries (or her predecessors) that you get from
Rand.
Is there a libertarain on here that would dare reject this
statement? If so, they're cutting the tree branch they're sitting
on.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 11:14AM|#
GG - Thanks for the link, but I had already Googled the
gentleman's website.
Oh, my... this is precious. Friend of yours, is he?
I just don't know where to start, except to say I knew before I got
there that he had to be some sort of way-off-in-left field
religious nutcase that was way to into himself. Pantheist?
Universal Mind? Spinozaic?
Fine and dandy. Perhaps I'll try to find a copy of his book anyhow
and see exactly how a Pantheist regards concrete existence. I'm
suddenly dying to know.
|1.28.05 @ 11:15AM|#
pragmatist,
Obviously you haven't read Proudhon then (or Smith). :)
One of the big things Rand did was tie ethics to
economics.
Read Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Ethics
as a component of economic theory is quite old.
But connecting capitalism with ethics is a big deal.
No it isn't. Adam Smith did it two hundred years before she
did.
|1.28.05 @ 11:21AM|#
clarityiniowa,
For someone who rants about personal attacks against Rand, you are
certainly willing to make them against others.
Ryan is not a friend of mine. I've never met him.
I just don't know where to start...
I would supposed that's largely due to ignorance
|1.28.05 @ 11:23AM|#
I said:
"I have a right to live for myself."
I meant to immediately say after that:
"Is there a libertarain on here that would dare reject this
statement? If so, they're cutting the tree branch they're sitting
on."
Every time I don't preview I regret it...
|1.28.05 @ 11:25AM|#
clarityiniowa,
I don't believe his religious beliefs undermine his arguments. I'm
an atheist, BTW.
|1.28.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Gary, I know how to look up a dictionary. I was asking what you
meant in your use of the word "hack", which is normally just a term
of abuse delivered by persons imagining that philosophy should be
confined to tenured university professors. I guess many thinkers
could be so branded on that sort of basis. It smacks of
arrogance.
For me, Rand drew out the importance of understanding how people
build and develop concepts, and challenged mind-body dualism. Not
all of this was original, of course, but she did a lot to push
certain ideas forward, which cannot be just termed as "hackery". I
also find her description of romanticism in art quite useful and
original, if in need of development.
There is also plenty to criticise, of course. One of the things
that bugs me is how she hardly ever credited other major
contemporary thinkers, as if she was all alone. This was dumb
strategy and limited her ability to spread her ideas. She was also
often awful in her choice of friends and so-called intellectual
"heirs", which I think temporarily messed up the spread of her
views. Fortunately this is beginning to improve as a younger
generation comes to the fore, like David Kelley.
I can recommend Sciabarra's "The Russian
Radical for an original and fair analysis of her ideas, which is
sympathetic but without being fawning.
|1.28.05 @ 11:38AM|#
Gary, I'm clear on the fact that you find nothing of value in
Rand, and you think that if we all only knew better we'd agree with
you.
I for one just don't agree with you.
|1.28.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Johnathan,
"Hack" as in mediocre. I'm never going to claim that only
university professors in Philosophy departments are the proper
practitioners of philosophy deparments.
I read Sciabarra's work and found it nauseatingly fawning.
pragmatist,
I find it humorous that you try to make fun of Ryan, when Rand
believed that the universe was "benevolent" and that this
benevolence was where the destiny of humans (especially her vulgar
Nietschzean heroes) derived. This was why she despised evolution so
much; since there was no "designer" (her benevolent universe)
behind it. That she could slip into this sort of quasi-mysticism
should tell you heck of a lot about Rand's reasoning skills.
_________________________________________
Its rather bizarre that so many here are claiming that Rand was
their inspiration for turning to capitalism. For me, Rand's bizarre
epistomology, etc., would have been a hindrance if she were the
first thing I had ever read that advocated capitalism.
|1.28.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Stop all this bibble-babble. You are all late for tap
dancing lessons! - kevrob
How did you know I've been searching for tap dancing lessons?!
|1.28.05 @ 11:52AM|#
The basic approach of many of Rand's less-deluded apologists is
to argue that there some core value to her work and that if only
this could be seized upon, everything would be fine. But that
indeed is not the case.
Rand's ouevre is suitable for just one thing: to use as an attack
dummy whilst honing your philosophical skills.
|1.28.05 @ 11:53AM|#
The Russian Radical was "nauseatingly fawning"? Hardly.
Sympathetic, certainly, and I thought quite interesting, though I
don't entirely buy Sciabarra's analysis.
I must say that Rand's tone is off-putting, and people like Hayek
are more likely to persuade those not already of a similar
viewpoint. That said, she had a lot of influence in spreading
ideas, which can hardly be a matter of dispute.
|1.28.05 @ 12:19PM|#
Gary, I am not aware that Rand despised evolution. What is the
source for that view? I have not read of her dissing Charles
Darwin, but maybe she did. I would be frankly very surprised,
actually.
I totally disagree with you that there is no core of decent ideas
in her philosophy. Of course, some of the best stuff is reheated
Aristotle, and nothing wrong with that.
Fascinating thread. I mean, for a champion of classical liberalism,
the lil' lady sure gets a lot of heat from libertarians!!
Gary, are you the same Gary Gunnels who praised Firefly over at
Samizdata? If so, we are on the same page on that issue. Fab
series.
clarityiniowa|1.28.05 @ 1:50PM|#
GG - For someone who rants about personal attacks against
Rand, you are certainly willing to make them against
others.
No,no no, my friend, you misunderstand. Having read Ryan's site, I
admire him greatly. At least he has the gumption to explicate his
ideas, and hang his philosophical ass out into the wind, something
I haven't done, except in a hit or miss way here on Hit and Run. I
also admire his clearly shameless self-promotion, and squeaky-clean
haircut and wifebeater shirt. You just don't see that in an
intellectual property lawyer/philosopher these days. Makes for a
lot of good Latin in his rhetoric, too - ex nihilio, I
like that.
What I find precious is you regarding Rand as a "hack philosopher"
and this guy as somehow both credible and authoritative because he
has a website and a book published by IUniverse.
Hell, Ihave a book published by IUniverse. If he
had $500 and ten chapters on expressive tail-wagging, my
dog could have a book published by IUniverse. In fact, he
does, and he will.
Gary, you remind me why my favorite character on "Friends" was
Phoebe. C'mere, ya li'l knucklehead, lemme give ya a hug. ;-)
|1.28.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Ah, but you see unless the philosophical system or the ideas
surrounding it form a totally coherent, seamless, and perfect
whole, all of it is subject to complete dismissal by folks like
Gary Gunnels. (Not that such a system has EVER existed.)
He's the sort of fellow who has figured out a few of the "tricks of
the trade" taught in the average Logic 101 and Intro to Philosophy
courses and mistakenly believe them to be the debate team
equivalent of the atom bomb.
I've known folks so enamored with these ideas/debating tactics that
they can't wait to unleash them on others no matter the time, date,
location or topic. Up to and including the eternally debated
question of human existence "What should we have for lunch?"
Of course, if immediate concessions aren't made to their
superfluous use of Latin they immediately regress to personal
attacks while denouncing others for "ad hominem" attacks.
I usually get wound up by this sort of tactic, but today it just
seems mildly amusing and irritating, tho not necessarily in that
order.
Bottom line: Ayn Rand, not someone you'd want to hang out with or
whose philosophy you'd want to base the conduct your personal
affairs upon, but who had some interesting ideas that she put forth
in the form of fictional novels. Some of those ideas are
worthwhile, some are dubious, some are crap. None of them are worth
calling each other names over.
|1.29.05 @ 2:13PM|#
This has been an interesting thread.
Everybody has had their say and made generally thoughtful comments,
whether for or against Rand.
Except joe who seemed to be talking about some completely different
author.
|1.29.05 @ 10:41PM|#
Just as the "Making Fun of Objectivism Page" at
http://walkingfish.com/objectivism/ has both some funny stuff on it
and a lot of broken links, Ayn Rand had both good and bad
aspects.
Overall, I think she was a frickin' genius. She popularized some
pro-liberty, pro-individualist, pro-capitalist ideas in a way that
made them vivid, persuasive and accessible in a way that other,
more scholarly writers could not.
Still, she had her weak points:
- I'm told that because her background in the history of philosophy
was weak, she thought she independently came up with some ideas
when she was really reinventing the wheel.
- Sharply and crabbily intolerate of those who disagreed with her.
Was convinced that a failure to see eye-to-eye on how reality works
was a moral failing. I believe that political and philosophical
disagreements are usually due to honest errors in seeing how the
world works, because reality is complex and no one can see it
all.
- Corollary to above point: Tended to attract sycophants as members
of her personal circle, and chase away those who might have
challenged, improved and broadened her thinking.
- Too dismissive of possible truths that were not reached by
articulated reason. Failed to see that articulated reason has its
limits, too. See: Hayek. See: A Conflict of Visions by
Thomas Sowell. Did not appreciate the possiblity of accumulated
truth via tradition and trial and error, not by explicitly
reasoned-out logic. Like Edmund Burke's "storehouse of the common
wisdom of the ages" or whatever the hell he called it.
- Related to the above: More hostile than necessary to religion.
Said Murray Rothbard in his article/essay/memoir, "My Expulsion
from the Ayn Rand Cult": "Ayn hated the State, but she hated God
more." Or WTTE. Rothbard relates that when he hung out in the
Randian circle, they discovered that his wife believed in God and
therefore delivered unto him an ultimatum: Either convert his wife
to atheism, or divorce her. His refusal was in large part
responsible for the rift between him and Rand's circle. Although as
I recall it, it was Rand's hangers-on rather than Rand herself who
were most active in attempting to reform, then expel,
Rothbard.
Best one-sentence summary of Ayn Rand is from Tucille's It
Usually Begins With Ayn Rand: "Ayn, Ayn, you magnificent crazy
bitch."
By the way, here are some Objectivist pick-up lines, collected at a
Web site whose URL I forgot to note:
Ones that work for either men or women:
"Did you know that nakedness is the highest form of psychological
visibility?"
"You and I could create a whole other benevolent universe..."
"Wow...when they made you they sure didn't omit any
measurements!"
"If you turn me down, you're anti-man!"
"Say, there should have been a chapter in the Romantic Manifesto
about your ass!"
"What isn't your sign?"
"Let me show you what sex qua sex can be."
"Why don't you get undressed so I can check your premises?"
"Wanna come over to my place and see my Ilona etchings?"
---------------------------------------------
Girl to guy:
"Brother, you're asking for it!"
------------------------------------------
Guy to girl
"Wanna let me come over and break your fireplace?"
(Guy is naked) "What do you mean it's not big enough? It's not
called the Taggart Transcontinental for nothing!"
"Okay, enough epistemology. How'd you like to grasp something a bit
more physical?"
"Yeah baby. It is made of Rearden Metal."
"You're certainly practicing the Virtue Of Sexiness tonight."
------------------------------------------
Must see! Also, a pretty damn funny, and also very brief, retelling
of The Fountainhead here:
http://jeffcomp.com/faq/parody/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245