There is a difference between people cooperating out of common self-interests and cooperating out of altruism. Rand wasn’t against cooperation. She was against altruism.
I don’t get the distinction you are making. Intelligence doesn’t count as a virtue because it’s accident of your circumstances? Because it’s inherited? What?
What about inclination to work hard? Determination? Leadership abilities? Do they count as virtues?
And, while we are here, what’s the proper relationship between earning potential and virtue?
Indeed, but both are examples of cooperation, which Ms Rand, as an ultra-Orthodox capitalist, tends to disparage. But it ain’t so.
A characteristic must be exalted to be regarded as a virtue, for the most part, that exaltation is undeserved. Its not so much that it is at a detriment because of its origins, but that there is no reason to exalt it beyond its simple fact.
Your call. For myself, I am suspicious of ambition, especially ambition to power, it tends to be the defining mark of a scoundrel. Ambition to create, however, the desire to make something beautiful happen, is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I am reminded of the Sufi saying: Allah respects me when I work, but He loves me when I sing.
Than why the Hell is his philosophy even slightly considered by most people. He’s a pathetic loser and an idiot who was against humanism, God, democracy, the people, feminism, labour unionism, and anything perceived as more progressive than caveman times.
Than for example what if a democracy decided to like Weimar Germany (which was elected democratically) to elect a government that preached genocide?
I’m learning a great deal here, from all views of Rand, and thanks to all who’ve given good thought to replies.
Two questions come to mind, hope someone can address them:
What influence did early 20th century Hollywood culture have on Rand’s views? She moved to Hollywood when she came to the US, and worked as a screenwriter and costumer. This was a time of great personal reinvention in LA, and, not going to knock it, my grandparents worked then in that industry and benefitted from it. But, it would be interesting to hear a take on that from Rand’s biography.
Second; what were her views on racial issues in the US? I haven’t seen much mention of it in this thread. But, she lived through the Civil Rights movement, so surely would have had some comment on seeing how that developed.
I think that is an interesting point. While I do believe there are many Hank Reardens and Francisco D’Anconias and even a some Dagny Taggarts out there (remember there are thousands of companies and you never hear about most of them) I don’t think those are the people most “lefties” or even most people are thinking of when they think of Corporate America. I think they see different versions of Jim Taggarts and Orren Boyles looting and mooching wealth from those who produce it through the use of their companies. But they then turn to the government expecting it to act on behalf when in reality it is just more “looters and moochers” in league with the corporate ones.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand speaks of a world full of laws and regulations so complex and contradictory that it is impossible to not violate one. Governments only power is to punish and it can do so when it is impossible not to break the law. Success isn’t based on competency or economic efficiency. It’s based on ability to navigate through incomprehensible beurocracy through bribery, coercion and favoratism.
Rand wrote Romantic Fiction, and her characters were deliberately not like people you’d meat in real life. But you’re right that her characters like Rearden et al would not look favorable at either party, and certainly not the Birthers and such.
I will say for Rand that she at least made arguments, such as they were, for her ethical system. Marx never did, AFAIK, even though his entire intellectual enterprise was driven by essentially moral concerns. Perhaps someone better versed can correct me, but my understanding is that in Marx’ writings, the superior justice of communism is like the existence of God in the Bible – something nowhere argued for and everywhere assumed. A very curious omission, for a man whose academic background was in pure philosophy, of which ethics is one of the most important branches.
I don’t know anything about Rand other than what I’ve read on this board and that there was a movie I may have watched as a kid because Gary Cooper was in it, but what you’ve said here doesn’t jive with the part I’ve bolded.
People join groups because they were born into them, or because they like what the group is promoting, or because they do so for protection from other people and other groups.
Collectivism, culturally, has many good points as long as you are a part of the group. You get support from within and you get protection from without. The drawbacks are that you have to conform to the group’s collective wishes. If you don’t you risk being ostracized and losing the benefits.
If you are not a part of the group, the group will not support you. It may actively work against you, which is what happens normally in collectivist societies. eg. The Sunni’s are against the Shia. Sometimes they work together, normally they co-exist, but regularly they fight against each other. Another example may be Christians working to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
You can’t deny that western cultures are becoming more Individualistic. I might suggest that one of the reasons for this is that the protection for the group isn’t required as much today. People don’t like being told what to do by others and prefer leading their own lives.
There have been many books on this subject of which ‘Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind’ by Geert Hofstede is a good starting point.
This is precisely the point. Collectivism can be powerful when people with like interests and goals join together in directed action. It’s not just communes and such - it includes political action, hobbyists groups, open source communities, consumer watchdog groups, you name it.
But the power comes from specialization. You can’t generalize it. The minute you force people into collectivization who do not share the same goals or complement each other’s ability, you lose anything that made collectives work, and you break the system that does.
The Nobel Prize in Economics this year was won by two economists. One of them, [url=http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/10/lin-ostrom-political-economist-wins-2009-nobel.html]Lin Olmstrom, has spent her life studying human organizations that extend beyond the market: Collectives, associations, corporations, you name it. She believes the key to making them work is choice. Everyone is there because they want to be, because they perceive value in it for them. This gives them all incentive to promote the collective and to work together. You simply cannot have government impose collective behavior and expect the same result.
Rand is judged unfairly in the sense that other intellectuals are judged on their best work, their best insights, their most useful contributions. We don’t dismiss all of Newton’s work because he believed in alchemy. His true contributions stand on their own. Ayn Rand is not given the same allowance.
Ayn Rand made plenty of useful observations and had some good insights. But she is judged based on her weakest ideas and her worst personal attributes. A lot of the greatest thinkers and artists were at best eccentric and at worst outright bastards. But that doesn’t stop us from enjoying their work. But Rand is not afforded that luxury.
There are two reasons for this: One is that Rand’s work is overtly political in a very modern sense, and is therefore a threat. That means her ideas must be discredited. The other reason is that her own followers refuse to separate the philosophy from the person, and demand that it be accepted as a whole or rejected outright. They are their own worst enemies.
Or, conversely, it may be that the politics of her writing is the only reason she is remembered at all. And the naked extremism of those views are the only interesting thing about her. Except for the raw, throbbing sex scenes, of course. Hot stuff if you’re an adding machine.
I had a cousin that I never knew who lived in a very modern house in California. Ayn Rand visited there in 1937. (I think the date may be wrong on this page.) I’ve read in several sources that she may have used his house as the model for “Heller House” in The Fountainhead. My cousin Richard named it “Hangover House” for more than one reason, I’m afraid. (It’s those rowdy West Tennesseans…)
**Nzinga, Seated **, I think it’s great that you don’t discourage easily. I was 150 pages into my favorite book before I began to get interested. Then I couldn’t put it down. I’m wondering how something gets your attention to begin with. Do you belong to any book clubs? I’ll bet you were “interesting” to teach! Have you thought about adult night classes?
I claim she wasn’t. I have asked people to elaborate on that epistemology she wrote but so far I have seen nothing that earns her the status of philosopher. I’m waiting.
Isn’t there a rand foundation or something pushing copies? I’m not sure. Either way, it’s funny how people treat her in the same way they do Jesus. Disagree with her and you obviously haven’t read her books or are too thick to understand. Be fair - a lot of pro-rand comments in this thread say so. That’s a sign of weakness in her followers. It’s the same as a jehova witness saying that you obviously haven’t accepted jesus and should open your heart for him.
It is actually possible for people to have read one of her books and to disagree with her reprehensible ideas nevertheless.
Now that’s an interesting thought (more interesting than the continuous to and fro of “Rand is a fascist” - ‘You obviously never read any of her works’ - “I did but I still think she’s a nutter” - ‘You’re misrepresenting her because you didn’t get it.’ … etcetera).
Of course there is a black-whiteness in her ideas as well. It’s a bit of an all or nothing actually. Perhaps her followers are in part to blame as well.
On the other hand, her personal background clearly influenced her ideas so you can’t say it’s irrelevant. And people ARE attacking her ideas here, mainly.
I have absolutely no dog in this fight, having never even read Rand. However based on the criticism s and the responses it seems to me, who , that people are mainly attacking strawmen caricatures of her ideas.
No, I wouldn’t say that. Abridged versions with some details left out, yes. But most people here seem to have a pretty clear picture of the core of her ideas.
I myself am more shocked by the wave of condescending replies like “well these people obviously never read any rant so we can safely ignore any criticism on their part”.