**
To understand how Rand felt about social bonds you’d have to go beyond her fictional works. She recognized the importance of social interaction and even talked amount love. Love it or hate it, I think Objectivism isn’t well understood by those who love it or those who hate it.
I do find it amusing the feelings she seems to stir in some people. If you mention Ayn Rand to most people they’d say “Ayn Who, that’s one in German right?” A smaller group either adores her or despises her.
Marc
Marc:
I’m very familiar w/ Rand’s nonfiction books. Although the example I gave was from her fictional works, she pretty much comes out and says the same thing in her nonfiction.
I’ve got to say that this whole thread is surprising. Every other Ayn Rand thread I’ve participated in on this board elicited many, many shrill posts for people condemning Rand as evil incarnate. This one has been a nice change.
re: illegal alien status asked by someone ablve. Yes, IIRC, she overstayed her first visa in the US, so she was at one time an illegal. She did eventually become a US citizen.
I never found her “evil”, per se. Annoying and stupid and egotistical? Yes. Mentally ill? Probably.
But evil seems to be a stretch.
I think she was just a nasty, bitter individual.
Although Atlas Shrugged was PAINFUL.
Well I if I recall correctly, didn’t Galt mention something about suicide if Dagny was threatened with torture?
I do agree that many of her protagonists seem a bit cold. I’m not sure she would have characterized them as “lacking any need of social contacts.” But it might mean that social contacts were not higher on the morality hirarchy than personal fulfilment. I always interpreted her as meaning that whatever personal reasons you have for entering into a social arrangement were more important than the arrangement itself.
I’m not sure this is at odds with the idea that people evolved with a need for social contacts. Just as we evolved with a need for certain nutrients. The need does not tell us the most moral way to satisfy it.
Guin: You realize, of course, that Rand would consider it a compliment for you to call her “egotistical”, right?
She might quibble about whether the correct word is “egoist” or “egotist”, but I think you know what I mean.
That’s pretty much what I’m trying to say. Rand would claim that social relationships were not necessary for peronal fulfilment, and that they are lower on the morality hierarchy. I would agree 100% with your last statement-- ie, that Rand would say it, and I would also agree with her.
Anyway, I’m not trying to imply that what we know about evolutionary psychology would undermine Rand’s philosophy. But it would tweak it a bit.
On another topic, here’s something I never understood. At the end of The Fountainhead, Roark tells Wynand that he values Wynand’s friendship because “he [Wynand] wasn’t born to be second-hander.” That always made me think: what?? Was anyone born to be a second-hander? Considering how she obsessed over every word and phrase in her books, that seems outrageously confusing. Thoughts?
I always thought of it as simply a turn of phrase meaning that the “non-secondhanderness” of Wynand is deeply ingrained in him. I don’t think she meant at all that a behavior or belief system could be in born in the same way that tigers hunting is instinctual. I once heard her say “god bless” on an interview and had a similiar WTF reaction. But she used it in a specific setting and explained that in that context it meant something like live well.
Oh, I agree completely. I think the wording of some of her non fiction would be different at least. I don’t think most of the ideas would change much though.
BTW if Objectivism were a religion do you think this would be a big enough issue for a schism? Could we fight wars over it? 
First of all, both Roark and Galt had very strong social bonds with people who shared their fundamental values. Roark placed great value on his friendships with Wynand, Mallory and Mike; while Galt was as close to Francisco, Ragnar and Huge Akston as it’s possible for a straight man to be; they would have given their lives for each other. Not to mention the loneliness and longing that Dagny felt so often, in her isolation.
But you have to remember that these characters exist within the context of Rand’s school of literary romanticism. Her heroes are basically archetypes (though she denied this term), and are portrayed according to their most essential characteristics - the qualities that are most important to her, and to them. So we don’t see John Galt playing poker with his buddies or just hanging out, making small talk. He might have done these things, but they weren’t part of the essence of his character. They are the type of things a more naturalistic writer would have included, but not Ayn Rand.
In contrast, her villains were always depicted as more neurotically “sociable” people, concerned with the meaningless minutiae of their lives, because that’s all that was left, when stripped of anything really meaningful. Remember the relationship between James Taggart and Lillian Reardon? If that’s the kind of “social contact” her heroes were lacking, they weren’t missing anything.
panache45, brilliant post.
Just wanted to hop in and say I’m a bleeding heart liberal, and I love Ayn Rand. So the OP shouldn’t have any problems. One thing striking about Atlas Shrugged in particular is the pro-labor stance.
I found her writing easy to read, at least in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I read both books in less than two weeks. Never finished We the Living… Just too damn depressing. Let us know how it goes, nisosbar!
Actually, I think it is a cult.
If it were a religion I think I’d get more respect when I call myself one.
Also, the wars were more like tiffs. Although the participants surely felt very agitated.:dubious: