I’m rather curious how it is that you’re friends with a couple of people whose world view is, in your eyes, a horrifying melange of philosophical and political error.
The elder generation of Texans who were my uncles and aunts were, almost without exception, unrepetent racists. I loathed what they believed and loved them. If thats a contradiction, so be it.
I find the anti-Rand zeolots who can be bothered to correctly explain her philosophy a little more disturbing. I can explain Marxism to someone without going off on a tirade about it.
I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time when I was about 35. I’m no litterary critic, but while I found the story interesting enough, the telling of it was long-winded, pedantic and tedious. The characters were one dimensional and difficult to relate to. Francisco is so effortless excellent at everything. Dagny has a one track mind (no pun intended). Reardon is the ultimate magnanimous industrialist. Etc, etc. Everything is very black and white.
Having read the book, however, Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is not “get what you can, be a selfish prick and screw everyone else”.
Her philosophy is basically that all wealth is generated by producers. People who make a decision to use their skills to go about building or inventing or gathering raw materials and converting them into products and services people use (or the people who work for them productively). Rand believes that people have a right to the fruits of their labor. They cannot be coerced against their will to work for someone else and the fruits of their labor cannot be taken from them without their consent.
One metaphore I have read on Objectivism goes something like this:
If gonzomax mugged you in the street, everyone would say that is wrong.
What about if he hired someone to threaten you with a gun unless you gave him your valuables?
What if that someone was a police officer?
What if, instead, the government demanded you hand over your valuables under the implied threat of an armed police officer and then gave those valuables to gonzomax?
Rand did not believe in any form of wealth redistribution. She felt it was punishing the successful and competant in order to reward the corrupt and lazy. If you feel like donating to the poor, that’s your business, but in her philosophy, the poor benefit when people build successful companies that produce the goods and services they need.
She was also a proponent of creative destruction. Businesses that could not sustain themselves should go out of business.
Anyhow, I think that’s the gist of it. How much people tend to buy into her theories largely depends on how much people ascribe success to individual internal factors as opposed to external circumstances.
Hey, I’m friends with people who don’t share my views on religion or political bent too. We have other common interests. In one particular case, it’s music and we’re both musicians.
I don’t think my friends are horrible, bad people. I just don’t agree with them. We don’t talk about it much.
Surely that can’t be a foreign concept to people.
Why would anyone who is “anti-Rand” bother trying to explain anything to Randists?
The Slate article linked upthread alleges that Rand became addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, which I presume would’ve been in the late 1930s-early 1940s. Do you believe that’s untrue, or would you simply not classify amphetamines as psychoactive (a position I would disagree with)?
Or was she just anti-drug by the time you made her acquaintance?
Nzinga: I just popped in here to suggest that, if you want a complete non-fiction book about Objectivism, you should get Leonard Peikoff’s *Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. *Peikoff was one of Rand’s “inner circle” since the early 50s, and is considered her “intellectual heir.” I was never a fan of his, and disagree with him in some fundamental ways, but this is a book that pretty much could have been written by Rand herself.
Anyone who claims that Rand wasn’t a philosopher should read this book, especially those who claim that she didn’t understand objectivity (there’s a 42-page chapter on it). I suggest that you read the book in order, since many of the ideas depend on definitions and distinctions made earlier in the book.
Though Rand herself didn’t write it, Peikoff does a good job of practically channeling her. He always did idolize Rand, and has gotten worse since her death. He is incapable of having an idea that in any way contradicts her views. This is of course a very bad thing . . . except in the context of a book about Objectivism. There is nothing in the book that couldn’t have been written by Rand herself.
They aren’t explaining it to Randists, they are explaining it to someone who is unfamiliar with the philosophy. The reason they would bother is to then explain in an intelligent manner why they disagree with that philosophy.
She was vehemently opposed to anything that would in any way alter a person’s consciousness . . . and that would include amphetamines. That would have gone against everything she believed. Now, she did smoke and have an occasional drink, and it’s conceivable that at some point she may have taken amphetamines, and it got out of control. But this would have to have been prior to, say, the 50s, when her work became more explicitly philosophical. She would not have let that happen.
Strangely, she was vehemently anti-marijuana, but not anti-alcohol (in moderation), but I think that’s just a generational thing.
Why was that? Nothing in her philosophy seems to imply it.
Brutalism mostly means rough unfinished concrete, and did not flourish until the 1950s (The Fountainhead was published in 1943). Rand’s descriptions of Roark’s buildings actually sound more to me like the Stalinist or Nazi variants of art deco – i.e., a more austere, neoclassical form of art deco with no feminizing curves, etc. (But they don’t evoke Frank Lloyd Wright at all.)
You have a big chip on your shoulder about Rand, that is clear. If people aren’t praising her, they “don’t understand her philosophy.” Nice no-true-Scotsman argument you got there.
Nice job failing to get a joke.
That chip on your shoulder weighing you down much?
Obscure? You think that quote is obscure? Clearly, you understand Jesus’s philosophy less well than I understand Ayn Rand’s. Way less.
More sad is your failure to realize jokes aren’t usually meant to be taken literally.
You have no basis for this statement, because I haven’t attempted to summarize her in any way. I made a joke, which may have included a small smidgen of hyperbole, as jokes often do, but which I still stand behind. Rand is fundamentally anti-Christian. The whole notion from Jesus about giving up what you have–giving it to the poor, no less–to follow him is totally antithetical to Rand. Do you disagree with this? Would Rand agree about turning the other cheek? Would Rand agree about currency fundamentally belonging to the government? Would Rand agree that measuring your worth in terms of capital is a sure path to Hell? (Even take it metaphorically rather than literally.) Would Rand agree that the meek will inherit the Earth? Would Rand agree that we should love our enemies?
Look, I’m not a Christian, but for damn sure neither was Rand, and her core principles are mostly a direct repudiation of Christ’s teachings. Do you really disagree with that?
So, do you really fail to see the irony in the GOP–home of the Godly, the righteous followers of Christ, supposedly–embracing Ayn Rand?
Yes, a fan. As in, literally, short for “fanatic.” Someone else has a different view of her, your opinion is that person can’t possibly understand her the way you do. Fanatic.
You’re just pissing on anyone who doesn’t fawn as you describe.
I didn’t dismiss anything.
Agreed. I believe I made something like that point myself. Checking Yep, sure did.
IOW, don’t confuse you with the facts. You don’t know me, but you just have a feeling I’m a knee jerk Rand defender of the frothing mouth variety, but you can’t be bothered to either find out or ask…you simply know what you know. To be sure, your insights about me are probably as meaningful as those you have about Rand’s books.
I have no problem with contradicting. Ignorance, as displayed in this thread about this subject, is another matter. Though honestly, if folks want to be militantly ignorant, well, that’s their lookout. Cecil may be fighting the good fight, but personally I’m inclined to let folks remain stupid, if that’s their desire.
It’s not really about whether what she wrote was shit or not…the OP was simply asking what her philosophy is actually about. Personally, I think Marx was an idiot, but I freely acknowledge that he actually had a fairly sophisticated philosophy. Someone boiling down Marx in the same degree (and from the same position of ignorance) as that displayed in this thread by folks who have obviously never actually read Rand is about as worthless.
-XT
Not a particularly big chip, no. I like Rand, but I don’t think her words are made of gold. I simply enjoyed the books and found some of her philosophy interesting.
As for folks in this thread not getting it…well, it’s fairly obvious they don’t. Or that they haven’t bothered to actually read the books, but are simply regurgitating some meme they picked up (probably here on this board). You can see that in the posts they make in this very thread. I could see folks not agreeing…hell, I don’t agree with much of her writings either, and I find quite a bit of it either naive or wrong headed (though some of that comes from the fact that it’s half a century out of date now). But folks who have tried to dismiss her writings completely by categorically getting even the fundamental aspects wrong…well, to be sure I think they ‘don’t understand her philosophy’ and should probably get the chip off their own shoulders and listen to the posters in this thread who actually DO understand and have taken the time to attempt to explain (I’m not in this category BTW…I gave up trying to explain Rand on this board years ago).
Put a smiley next time for us humor impaired. Even pointing it out I still don’t get the joke.
Obscure in the sense that it’s a parable…not obscure in the sense that no one knows it.
As to the other comment…well, that would mean I would understand Jesus philosophy not at all. I WAS raised catholic, though I’m an agnostic now, so I suppose you could be right.
Funny…I haven’t either. You just assume I have this big chip on my shoulder…as you assume I want people to fawn all over Rand’s writings. Both assumptions however would be wrong. As I didn’t get your ‘joke’, you certainly aren’t tracking well with my own point in this thread either. We are both talking past the other.
You are right and wrong. She is fundamentally anti-RELIGION. That certainly includes Christianity. She felt (like the communists she despised, ironically enough) that religion was a tool for keeping people down. That includes ALL religion…not just Christianity.
Sort of, yes. Rand didn’t think it was wrong to give to the poor…she felt it was wrong to FORCE people to give to the poor. I think Jesus would agree, but would feel it a duty to do so. I realize you were making a joke (though I still don’t get it, sadly enough), but the point is that Jesus and Rand aren’t diametrically opposed, as you said…though, granted their philosophy, especially the underpinnings, were vastly different. They looked at the world in completely different ways, so even if the ends might be similar, their means and reasons would be different.
No, she was certainly not a Christian (and I’m not one either, anymore). Obviously I didn’t get your joke, so I took what you wrote there at face value.
Not particularly, especially considering that, despite the assumption on this message board, the GOP is not a religious organization. Many of those who agree with Rand are not the quasi-religious types, but the free market and small government factions. I know Democrats who agree with Rand too, btw…it’s that whole ‘big tent’ idea of how our two party system works, ehe?
I don’t mind if someone else has a different opinion of her writings, as long as they speak from knowledge, and not ignorance. I’m seeing a lot of ignorance about her and her philosophy in this thread, which seems to generally be the case on this board, regardless of the number of times this subject comes up.
Put it this way…I’m a Robert Jordan fan (actually, a bigger fan of his than Rand’s). I know that many, if not most on this board don’t like him or his series. I can still have a reasonable discussion with them, however, as long as they actually READ and UNDERSTOOD the books. When someone who obviously had done neither comes in and just says ‘Jordan sucks’ and starts writing a bunch of crap that indicates they never bothered to read the books (or read the first one then gave up), then it gets a bit annoying. Same here.
If that’s what you think then you haven’t be tracking very well.
I must have missed it.
-XT
My name is 'luc, and I’m a recovered Objectivist… (Hi, luci!)…** 'luc**, actually*…(Sure thing, 'luci!*)…whatever…
A few thoughts, if you will, or even if you’d prefer not…
Objectivism as an “individualist” philosophy. Is based on nothing of any consequence. Certainly not anthropology or history or archeology, which convincingly demonstrates that human beings are very advanced monkeys, and, as such, are collectivist right down to their opposable thumbs. Every group of humans we encounter, whether in the jungles of the Amazon or the mists of pre-history, are tribes. Families, clans, and tribes are our most natural social units, and they are collective. Randian hatred for collectivism is hatred for the natural. For the human. As a system for programmable meat machines, it is serviceable, for people, not so much…
And, by so doing, she neglects the power of collectivism, which is amply demonstrated again and again. In a collective, as in a marriage, as in our very DNA, we fill in each others gaps and errors. My talents and abilities are accessible to you, yours to me, we fill in each other’s gaps.
How many times have we seen the incredible power of a new tribe, cult, or religion? When all its members unite in a common cause and devote themselves accordingly? Surely you don’t imagine the Sun Mung Beans or Joseph Smith’s Mormons reached the level of power and influence they possess due to the brilliance of their religious philosophy? No, it is collective power, husbanded to the common good. The efficiency of resources pooled and concentrated towards a goal.
Absolute materialism: Might as well be a Marxist, the bottom principle is the same, a certainty of atheism, an absolutist rejection of anything remotely “spiritual”, as though this can be known. But, of course, it cannot, it is like a leap of faith, but lacking any such exhilaration. It is based on…it can only be based on… a dogma, a fundamental assumption that is not reasonable because it cannot be. Objectivism likes to pretend it has no dogma, but it is founded upon a dogma. By the same token, Objectivism’s claims to total rationality are based on nothing more than the assertion. If it is delusional to claim that a spiritual life exists, based on nothing more than faith, how is it less delusional to claim the opposite, on nothing more substantial?
(By the way, do any of Rand’s character’s have children? I don’t recall, its been so very, very long and its going to get a lot longer… What is the correct lesson for the young? “No, dear, Big Bird is a moocher and a loser, seize that toy firetruck, clutch it to your chest and scream “MINE!” as loud as you can, there’s a good child…Now sit quietly and Uncle Greenspan will tell you a story of the Magical Free Market, and how it corrects itself…”)
Capitalism as political philosophy: No such thing. Capitalism is not a creation of the mind, it more or less just happened. Now, trade is a marvelous thing, as anybody knows who’s played a Civ game. The midwest farmer who raises pigs trades with the coastal salt maker, and bacon salt is the result, without which civilization itself would be impossible. So long as capitalism is a handy device for trade, with money and shared values, and credit, its a useful thing in enlightened hands.
But when money starts to make money simply by being available, things start to get a bit murky. As it has been said, if you have a hundred dollars, making a thousand can be difficult, if you have a hundred thousand, making a thousand is almost unavoidable. Then it becomes that the best way to make money is not to create something, or produce something, but simply to have some. Galt and Roarke may be energetic and productive men, but why should our admiration for them extend to bankers, who enrich themselves simply by the miracle of compounded interest?
And isn’t Galt’s rebellion a collective effort? Didn’t do it all by himself, now did he? No, he attracted like-minded greed geeks, and our world collapses, because there was no one left with any brains, no one who could fill their shoes. Wanna bet?
Intelligence as virtue: A gross canard. Intelligence isn’t a virtue, it is a characteristic, no more a virtue than being tall or freckled. One does not earn anything by being born intelligent any more than one earns something by being born rich. Hence, it follows that a system of values that rewards intelligence as extra license to gain more than one’s fellows is not rewarding a virtue but a mere characteristic, one might as well reward being tall, or blonde.
Enough, for now, I’m a terribly busy fellow. And, frankly, thinking about this horrid witch depresses me, I need a nice cup chamomile tea, a bit of P.G. Wodehouse, perhaps, recover my natural whimsy…
You are using the term collectivist in broader terms than I’ve heard it used before, if you are first equating humans to monkeys from a societal basis (though advanced monkeys, to be sure), and then saying that both are examples of collectivism. Perhaps you could define the term as you are using it, because it seems like your term is all encompassing…or something.
Again, you’d really need to define your terms here. Every human group we’ve encountered is a hierarchy, or hierarchically organized. I’m not grasping how that makes them all collectives though. I certainly see how you would think that individualism isn’t supported in nature, though I think your premise is flawed…individuals and individualism (within a society) is the hallmark of what makes us human. It’s why we live in cities while monkeys still live in trees, one might say.
(that last was tongue in cheek BTW, for the humor impaired)
Again, you are using the term differently than she would, so it’s a flawed comparison. She certainly hated collectivism, but you seem to be using that term to mean all of society…which she clearly did NOT hate. It’s clever of you to try and then equate that to what is ‘natural’, and then to paint her position as being opposed to what is natural for humans and monkeys alike though. There is a term for that…it’s right on the tip of my tongue…
Well, it’s a good thing we have individuals like you to point that out. And folks like Einstein, Archimedes, Plato, Hawkings, etc, etc to fill in the other necessary bits. Ehe? I’m sure that if they and you hadn’t been here that we’d have muddled through, but perhaps it would have been a sadder world. Or, perhaps you and they are just interchangeable parts and really anyone could do as well, if that’s what society needed…
Formed how? By a collective? Or an individual with a vision? How many do we see spontaneously arise from the great unwashed masses…and how many times from some individual, be they good or evil? I’d have to say that, mainly, they arise from an individual…no?
I’ll let others talk to the other points, if they want too, or maybe I’ll be back on later from my hotel room.
I don’t recall any of the main characters having kids in the books I’ve read, but perhaps I’m misremembering. Your characterization here is wrong though, but there really is no point in pointing that out to you yet again, since I know you’ve had it pointed out to you in the past and it doesn’t seem to have penetrated yet. I’m not sanguine that THIS will be the magical time when you finally get the fact, however.
-XT
I’m dreadfully sorry to disappoint, once again. I suspect, in time, I’ll get over it.
This was actually my biggest problem with Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead - or rather the comparison with the America that I live in. Given that Galt and Roarke are archetypes, the virtues that they represent really are admirable and worth emulating. (They do some reprehensible things too but, I’ll gloss over those for now.)
I think captains of industry in the mould of Galt and Rearden are vanishingly rare (I can think of only three or four off the top of my head) and the Jim Taggart/Orren Boyle model is far more typical. So when I, as a typical leftie, rail against industrialists, it’s the Taggarts of the world that I have in mind, not the Reardens. I rather liked Hank Rearden and Howard Roarke.
I rather suspect that a Rearden-like industrialist would not have much sympathy for the tea-partiers or their brethren at the extremes of the present-day republican party (nor the demos, but that’s another story).
Awesome. And yet you defend Rand here with the ferocity of a tigress protecting her cubs.
Does. Not. Compute.
Rand said in one of the interviews I linked to above that Atlas Shrugged was a blueprint for how to live. As such, I imagine she she deliberately made her characters one-dimensional and her stories parabolic. She was trying to illustrate points, not merely entertain with a good read.
As panache45 said, her intelligence seemed almost the next step in evolution. I’ve wondered from time to time if, in a few hundred years or how ever long it takes for socialism to run its course, Objectivism in some sort of modified form will begin to predominate. Certainly lots of people are interested in what she had to say, and her ideas continue to resonate strongly even now, 27 years after her death and 57 years since the publication of Atlas Shrugged.
According to William F. Buckley (who wasn’t necessarily a fan) in a fairly recent interview with Charlie Rose, Atlas Shrugged is the largest selling novel of all time and even now sells at the rate of half a million copies a year.
Disappoint? Not at all old boy! Predictable, yes, but far from disappointing.
-XT