Maybe she actually DID say something about these things - does anyone know?
I’m starting Atlas Shrugged, and I’m trying to prepare myself for an assault on my bleeding heart, and it would all be so much easier if her philosophy of selfishness excused racism or anti-semitism or other types of formalized hatred.
And while we’re at it, can someone summarize briefly what her objectivism school of thought is all about? And was she really that good of a writer? Or was she a mere soothsayer?
(could be in Great Debates or IMHO, IMHO, so I guess I thought it would generate more interesting opinions here…)
She wrote an article about racism, explicitly condeming it, in one of her nonfiction books. Can’t remember which one. Guess what she called it: A form of collectivism. If you know Rand at all, there isn’t a worse insult she could use.
The same would hold for anit-Semitism, especially since she was of Jewish extraction (although, of course, an atheist by beleif).
You won’t find many people on this board who’ll call her a good writer. Do a search on “Fountainhead” if you’re really interested. I’m in the minority on that point as I thoroughly enjoyed all her books.
She wrote quite a few non-fiction books, some specifically about Objectivism, so it’s all out there if you’re interested. Or go here for the web paged maintianed by her “intellectual heirs”.
There an no Jewish or black characters at all in Atlas Shrugged that I can recall, and the only mention of Francisco D’Anconia’s Catholicism is that an ancestor of his, Sebastien, threw a plate of food at an Inquisitor who’d had the temerity to suggest the ancestor change his way of thinking (Sebastien subsequently fled Spain and made his fortune in South America).
Atlas Shrugged is pretty indifferent to matters of racism, but Rand’s earlier mega-novel, The Fountainhead, has a passage in which the main antagonist makes a speech (speech-making, you’ll find, is perfectly common in Rand’s work) in which he describes the two main philosophies overtaking Europe at that point (the 1930s), one of which glorifies the state at the expense of the individual (Soviet Communism, I presume, though no names are used) and the other glorifies the race at the expense of the individual (German fascism, I also presume).
Rand had no love of anything that encourages individuals to subsume themselves into an unthinking mass, unless it was to admire her.
I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in college…and I enjoyed them a lot. Some of her writing style is definitely over the top, but I found the underlying philosophy struck a cord in me. Like John said though, most people on this board find her writing to be either crap or even offensive.
I know she was pretty opposed to the idea, but I think a lot of the modern Libertarian ideas stem from her philosophy. I know this is something that isn’t acknowledged, and is even frowned on, but thats just my opinion about what I know of them…and what I’ve read from her.
From nisosbar
Personally I wouldn’t characterize her philosophy as ‘selfish’ so much as a philosophy of the self. Its all about being the best person you CAN be. You don’t have to SUCCEED, you just have to STRIVE. Many of the characters in her books don’t necessarily reach the pinacle of success…but they are hero’s all the same (like Eddy in Atlas Shrugged). They are heros because they strive to be the best person they can be, and they are respectful of those of greater abilities that are doing the same things…and in so doing bring up the entire species by their actions. Selfish? No, I wouldn’t say that.
If you have a heavy socialist leaning though, you probably WILL be bruised, as thats her main villian in the two books I read. Especially Atlas Shrugged, and thats what you are reading. Enjoy!
Although many libertarians came to that philsophy via Rand’s novels or other books, she was very disdainful of the Libertarian Party. I think a lot of that disdain, as Bryan mentioned, is that she was not too keen about sharing the limelight with anyone except a few of her hand chosen followers. But, as with almost anything you might want to know about her, she did write an article outlining her objections to the Libertarian Party.
An interesting tid bit for you, though. During the 50s, she gathered a group of young intellectuals about her in New York. One of them was Alan Greenspan-- the current Fed Chairman. Also, a large number of those followers were Jewish. But that could be just a consequence of setting up shop in NY.
I agree with others that Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to racism. However, her views also made her strongly opposed to some of the ways of fighting it. For example, I remember looking at one of her books written in the 1960s and she was strongly opposed to a piece of civil rights legislation that basically prevented people from discriminating on the basis of race in places of public accomodation (e.g., not allowing Blacks into your store or something like that).
Of course, this doesn’t make her a racist any more than the ACLU supporting the rights of the Klan or Neo-Nazis to march makes them such. However, it does show how her philosophy of holding property rights to be pretty much above all other rights leads to a vision of society that some of us personally find quite abhorent.
jshore: Rand was adamantly opposed to any restrictions on how an individual managed or disposed of his or her property. Libertarians would agree that people should be able to discriminate as much as they want in their personal lives, and extend that to business as well.
But I doubt she’d condone government discrimination of any sort.
I actually think Terry Goodkind is the re-incarnation of ole Ayn. When I was reading the later books in his Wizard First Rule series, I had to keep checking who the author was.
One major difference between Rand and Libertarians was that Rand supported a very strong military, and she felt that dictatorships were outlaw regimes that could be toppled at will. In her view, a government that holds power through force and subjugates its citizens has no sovereign rights.
I agree, too. Which is why I had no moral problem with the US invasion of Iraq even though I thought it was the wrong tactical move for the US. (God, I hope I don’t send this thread off on yet another Iraq War tangent. If so, I apologize in advance.)
Rand also focused, I believe, on the anarchist wing of the Libertarians as one of her main objections. She’d also be the kind of person who wouldn’t admit that she agreed with you if you held identical political beliefs, but didn’t arrive at them thru the same line of reasoning that she did.
My main problem with Rand and her philosophy is that she seems to have completely ignored what we know about genetics and evolution in developing her philosophy. In that sense, Objectivism is seems more consistent with a creationist view of life. Granted, the science is much more mature today than it was in the 40s and 50s when she formulated her ideas, but she was still a spunky gal in the 70s, and I don’t think she ever addressed that issue… It would be very interesting to see how she dealt with the whole field of evolutionary psychology were she still alive today.
I don’t agree with you about Objectivism ignoring evolution and genetics.
The whole point of objectivism was the universe is what it is. It is not malleable, subject to our whim. She was the ultimate rationalist. She derived her entire morality from man’s nature.
I happen to feel that this is a valuable contribution to political science and philosophy, even if it’s not that original.
Rand’s problem was that she started to infuse her own whims and desires into her philosophy, making them moral choices. If she liked Strauss, she’d find a way to ‘prove’ that Strauss’ music was life-affirming and uplifting to man’s spirit, and therefore moral, whole your choice of Chopin meant that you were an immoral bastard.
Her personality was poisonous, and just the kind of controlling monster she skewered in her books. That personality tainted her philosophy and made it far more rigid than it should have been. If she would have moderated her “A is A” worldview to be more tolerant of individual variance in tastes, religion, and other non-coercive traits, she would have found more acceptance.
John Mace, first book in the series is Wizard First Rule. I found it entertaining.
Faciniating discussion btw. I would never have thought that Rand would be pro a strong military for instance after reading Atlas Shrugged. She seemed to be VERY anti military in that book. Did she change over time, or was she always that way and I just mis-read the book?
I think she was always that way. She was a cold warrior. She saw the Soviet Union as a threatening evil. She liked both Goldwater and Reagan (well, about as much as it was possible for her to like anyone other than John Galt…)
Sam: Look at the contradictions in your post. She was “the ultimate ratinoalist” who “infused her own whims and desires into her philosophy”? Did you mean she tried to be the ulitimate rationalist?
Sure, she claimed to be the ultimate rationalist, and I do think she did a much better job than most in that area. My point about evolution and genetics, is that she studied man as she found him today, and while she had tremendous insights into human behavior and motivation, she showed no evidence of having studied how we got to where we are.
She insisted that man behave in a certain way ignoring the fact that evolution is all about experimentation. Trying different strategies and keeping whatever works. In an evolutionary sense, there is no measure of the goodness or badness of a given behavior other than it’s survival value to the species. And that our behavior is, in large part, influenced by our genetic heritage as a species.
XT: Rand was a vehement anti-communist in a time when communism was a real and credible threat in the world. She grew up in the Soviet Union, in it’s early days, and experienced that system firsthand. Her support of a strong military in the right hands owed a lot to that historical fact.
I’ll give the Goodkind book a try. I’ve been looking for a new book to start lately.
Enjoy!