Ayn Rands 100th B-day

[archidante]

Ayn Rand would have turned 100 Feb 2 this year. Her work still shines bright.:happy:

....He did not need to see the caption of the brusque signature in the corner of the sketch; he knew that no one else had concieved that house and he knew the manner of drawing, serene and violent at once, the pencil lines like high tension wires on the paper, slender and innocent to see, but not to be touched. It was a structure on the broad space by the east river. He did not grasp it as a building, but as a rising mass of rock crystal. There was the same severe mathematical order holding together a free, fantastic growth; space slashed with a knife, yet the harmony of formation as delicate as the work of a jeweler; an incredible variety of shapes, each sperate and unrepeated, but lending inevitably to the next one and the whole; so that the future inhabitants were to have, not a square cage out of a pile of square cages, but each a single house held to the other houses like a single crystal to the side of a rock....

[Piobaireachd]

I've added her to the calendar...

[ethics]

Top ten reasons Ayn Rand can be safely ignored:

1. Anything interesting she might have said was already said by Nietzsche.

2. Everything Nietzsche didn't say that she did, is uninteresting (i.e. Randian Objectivism vs. Nietzschean Subjectivism)

3. Her philosophy relies on the Naturalistic fallacy: she assumes that since people tend to be selfish, we ought to be selfish.

4. She discouraged the study of contemporary academic philosophy, thus creating a cultish group of followers who were sure she was on to "the Truth," but had little idea what other contemporary philoshophers had to say.

5. Seeing herself as an outsider and misunderstood beacon of truth, she never directly engaged contemporary professional philosophers, and never had to refine her thought to respond to their challenges and objections.

It's really too bad Ayn Rand didn't study philosophy in college, or ever have to subject her writings to a peer reviewed journal. It would have helped her grow intellectually. But instead she held contemporary philosophers in contempt, and had little interest in what they had to say about her. Her thought shows a sloppyness that reminds me of a very bright person who has never actually played a game chess, but follows the chess column in the newspaper, and imagines what it would be like to play chess against someone else, and then decides to write a book outlining her strategy in that imaginary game and finally, proclaims herself a Grand Master.

[Piobaireachd]

Top ten reasons Ayn Rand can be safely ignored:

1. Anything interesting she might have said was already said by Nietzsche.

2. Everything Nietzsche didn't say that she did, is uninteresting (i.e. Randian Objectivism vs. Nietzschean Subjectivism)

3. Her philosophy relies on the Naturalistic fallacy: she assumes that since people tend to be selfish, we ought to be selfish.

4. She discouraged the study of contemporary academic philosophy, thus creating a cultish group of followers who were sure she was on to "the Truth," but had little idea what other contemporary philoshophers had to say.

5. Seeing herself as an outsider and misunderstood beacon of truth, she never directly engaged contemporary professional philosophers, and never had to refine her thought to respond to their challenges and objections.

It's really too bad Ayn Rand didn't study philosophy in college, or ever have to subject her writings to a peer reviewed journal. It would have helped her grow intellectually. But instead she held contemporary philosophers in contempt, and had little interest in what they had to say about her. Her thought shows a sloppyness that reminds me of a very bright person who has never actually played a game chess, but follows the chess column in the newspaper, and imagines what it would be like to play chess against someone else, and then decides to write a book outlining her strategy in that imaginary game and finally, proclaims herself a Grand Master.
Where's the other 5? :whistle:

[ethics]

Ah! You missed my point! (And no, it wasn't about that I couldn't count!).

[Piobaireachd]

Ah! You missed my point! (And no, it wasn't about that I couldn't count!).
LOL, yes I did. I need more coffee....

[archidante]

Top ten reasons Ayn Rand can be safely ignored:

1. Anything interesting she might have said was already said by Nietzsche.

2. Everything Nietzsche didn't say that she did, is uninteresting (i.e. Randian Objectivism vs. Nietzschean Subjectivism)

3. Her philosophy relies on the Naturalistic fallacy: she assumes that since people tend to be selfish, we ought to be selfish.

4. She discouraged the study of contemporary academic philosophy, thus creating a cultish group of followers who were sure she was on to "the Truth," but had little idea what other contemporary philoshophers had to say.

5. Seeing herself as an outsider and misunderstood beacon of truth, she never directly engaged contemporary professional philosophers, and never had to refine her thought to respond to their challenges and objections.

It's really too bad Ayn Rand didn't study philosophy in college, or ever have to subject her writings to a peer reviewed journal. It would have helped her grow intellectually. But instead she held contemporary philosophers in contempt, and had little interest in what they had to say about her. Her thought shows a sloppyness that reminds me of a very bright person who has never actually played a game chess, but follows the chess column in the newspaper, and imagines what it would be like to play chess against someone else, and then decides to write a book outlining her strategy in that imaginary game and finally, proclaims herself a Grand Master. well, maybe so for all the super geniuses, but for us ordinary middlebrow types she was more inspirational...Nietzsche had all that contempt for women and then he ended up offing himself...kind of discredited him no? All these other contemporary philosophers...how they doing in comparison to her book sales? I always get the feeling some people ignore Rand because she challenges them too much.

Also, Nietzche and his "will to power" was great, but he hardly delineated the failiure of the collective instinct as neatly as Rand did in Atlas shrugged. Rand told stories better than she did essays-and she did define the key elements that are even now undermining hope and freedom in the world. When was the last time you read Atlas shrugged? Sure, there a lot of weirdness there-the way the men in Dagny's life act without jealousy is absurd-but she reveals many of the real motives of those who want to "do things for our own good" (religious fundamentalism, socialists etc)....

[Steve]

Well, I dunno, that could be. It could also be that I read her when I was too young. But after I read "Atlas Shrugged"......I just shrugged. Maybe I need to read some of her works again but I sure didn't get much out of them the first time around.

[archidante]

Well, I dunno, that could be. It could also be that I read her when I was too young. But after I read "Atlas Shrugged"......I just shrugged. Maybe I need to read some of her works again but I sure didn't get much out of them the first time around. It also could be where you're coming from...if you're coming from an oppressive fundamentalist household (a good part of my childhood, not my Dad's family but my mothers) someone like Rand can be enormously liberating. I think sometimes people who never had to deal with the mental straightjacket of fundamentalism, people who grew up in a modern thinking home, just don't understand what a battle it is to fight the fundamentalist programming. A part of you never rejects the brainwashing...keeps bring it back and back, to be battled out over and over. Someone like Rand comes along and says it's good to live in this world and not focus on a mythical "hereafter"...and it's like someone taking a smothering cloak off your head.

but let's take a look..... (http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/prodinfo.asp?number=AR01B&variation=&aitem=27&mitem=33)

[ravital]

Well, I dunno, that could be. It could also be that I read her when I was too young. But after I read "Atlas Shrugged"......I just shrugged. Maybe I need to read some of her works again but I sure didn't get much out of them the first time around.
May I recommend "We the living" - as close to an autobiography as she ever came to writing.

One distinction needs to be made between "selfishness" as what we are taught it is, during our childhoos - a human flaw to be avoided - and what she defines it as, which is an entirely different thing altogether.

[Steve]

It also could be where you're coming from...if you're coming from an oppressive fundamentalist household...Heh, no, that's definitely not it :) To be honest, I've not read Nietzche, either. I have a remarkable lack of interest in the philosophy of the human mind and view the entire field as the purest form of mental masturbation.

In my world view, what people think, and what motivates their actions, is irrelevant. It's what people do, that matters. That's a simplistic presentation of my stance; I have gray areas, as anyone will, but that's my view at the core.

[Biker]

Ah, but to understand what motivates an individual also helps you understand why they do something. You do it all the time with your kids. It's but a small step to take it further and apply the same process/concept to daily living.

[ShinyTop]

I agree very strongly with Steve and Biker.

[Steve]

Sure, I understand that, but so what? I don't care why my daughter decided to find a bucket and take a bath in the middle of the playroom. She just needs to learn that it was wrong and not to do it again. The same applies to everyone, for almost all situations.

The why is irrelevant, mostly, particularly as it's applied to the sorts of theoretical philosophical discussions that Rand and others engage in. Certainly, I want to know why, for instance, I didn't get a promotion because then I can decide what I want to do about it. But that's an entirely different sort of why question.

[ethics]

well, maybe so for all the super geniuses, but for us ordinary middlebrow types she was more inspirational...Nietzsche had all that contempt for women and then he ended up offing himself...kind of discredited him no?

He had Syphilis. Look up the symptoms on a full blown disease (prior to anti-biotics).

All these other contemporary philosophers...how they doing in comparison to her book sales? I always get the feeling some people ignore Rand because she challenges them too much.

And the Bible is the best selling book in the US. Let me add a few other notable "Best Sellers": Mein Kampf The Elder Protocols of Zion Dianetics All of the Sydney Sheldon novels, need I go on about what is quality and what is a Best Seller?

Also, Nietzche and his "will to power" was great, but he hardly delineated the failiure of the collective instinct as neatly as Rand did in Atlas shrugged.


You know... people don't understand ideologies and philosophy as much as they should. Objectivism is as much of a farce as Marxism. Both ideas look great on paper but they suffer from the same (albeit opposite) flaw; they both can not be applied to people in real life and both are hailed by simpletons. No offense to you, my friend, just pointing out that Rand's 1,500 page rants were in response to her trauma of the Bolshevik Revolution and she created an opposite, and just as extreme idea as Marxism.

[ravital]

...Rand's 1,500 page rants were in response to her trauma of the Bolshevik Revolution and she created an opposite, and just as extreme idea as Marxism.
Very true, but with one very, very big difference: She never advocated that the state enforce any of her philosophy (if you can call it that) on anybody.

By contrast, other than the "Kibbutz" model, I don't know of any instance of Socialism by free choice, let alone successful.

[ethics]

Very true, but with one very, very big difference: She never advocated that the state enforce any of her philosophy (if you can call it that) on anybody.

Anyone who disagreed with her was an enemy to the state and to her. Not sure if this qualifies for her ideology being enforced but she believed that the models of her ideology SHOULD be followed.

[archidante]

You know... people don't understand ideologies and philosophy as much as they should. Objectivism is as much of a farce as Marxism. Both ideas look great on paper but they suffer from the same (albeit opposite) flaw; they both can not be applied to people in real life and both are hailed by simpletons. Well, there are lot of of problems with the "pure" capitalism and objectivism she advocates -especially in an imperfect market and the determination of value, which is belied with endless uncontounded and misconstrued costs and fees. But on the level of reexamining "virtue" she pointed out that the continual notion of humans sacrificing for others isn't all "good" since perhaps the others don't deserve to be given this that and the other thing with no effort on their parts. Her questioning the notion of "God" and afterlife is also important-an importyant "what if" many people don't have the sack to even consider. Sure, she's got some flaws. Simpletons seems a rather strong description of her fans, niave perhaps. She was very close with Greenspan. The Bible is a great book, no matter how you look at it. Objectivism (http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/whatisobjectivism.asp), as I understand it, is simply the removal of superstition and it premises from your thinking, to define a set of objectives for the purpose of making ones life better here and now.
(http://www.objectivistcenter.org/)

But anyway...let's not judge by my opinion-let the GA crew decide fior themselves. Here's and excerpt. (http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm)

[archidante]

ethicsTop ten reasons Ayn Rand can be safely ignored:

1. Anything interesting she might have said was already said by Nietzsche. They wrote in different eras and Rand engaged a whole Matrix of 20th century phenomena Nietzsche didn't, as far as I know-industrial production, modern architecture...creeping socialism.

2. Everything Nietzsche didn't say that she did, is uninteresting (i.e. Randian Objectivism vs. Nietzschean Subjectivism)
Objectivism (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/error/404b.asp?404;http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/article4.asp)
Subjectivism (http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/subjectivism.html)
3. Her philosophy relies on the Naturalistic fallacy: she assumes that since people tend to be selfish, we ought to be selfish.
Her book, "The virtue of Selfishness" was titled to be provocative. She even admitted that. Her aproach to"selfishness" could be more in line with the "mind your own business" and "charity begins at home" notions than the "me" generation. Her approach to the good Samraitan wouldn't be to despise him-but to say he found value in the other and offered help. What she detested was the state determining you must work from January to June to "help" and enforcing such "help" with force of Law and arms.

4. She discouraged the study of contemporary academic philosophy, thus creating a cultish group of followers who were sure she was on to "the Truth," but had little idea what other contemporary philoshophers had to say. Like these postmodernists.... (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/041215-9.htm)
5. Seeing herself as an outsider and misunderstood beacon of truth, she never directly engaged contemporary professional philosophers, and never had to refine her thought to respond to their challenges and objections. see previous link.

It's really too bad Ayn Rand didn't study philosophy in college, or ever have to subject her writings to a peer reviewed journal. she singlehandedly founded a school of thought that addresses modern life far more fully and pragmatically than any fine points of semantics and introspection produced in an ivory tower and accessible only by scholars of the subject.


It would have helped her grow intellectually. But instead she held contemporary philosophers in contempt, and had little interest in what they had to say about her. Her thought shows a sloppyness that reminds me of a very bright person who has never actually played a game chess, but follows the chess column in the newspaper, and imagines what it would be like to play chess against someone else, and then decides to write a book outlining her strategy in that imaginary game and finally, proclaims herself a Grand Master. That "sloppyness"(?! she was enormously meticulous in her thinking) produced a number of hit novels that still
rank in the top yearly and are required reading in University courses,
and did it all in a second lanquage in an adopted country before the women's movement, without the advantage of great beauty, and as a social minority (a Russian Jew, her real name was Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum) .
Seems to me she played a pretty good game-of life. That two decades after her death she's still revered by others is apparent proof she didn't proclaim herself grandmaster. As for her reader being "cultish" simpletons, I'd venture to say the educational and economic levels achieved by her fans are probobly way above average. But even that wasn't the point of her novels-a number of the heroic characters in her books are provided with average educational and economic achievements-but huge integrity, fortitude, good sense, and heart. Brains isn't everything.

100 years... (http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/cat_ayn_rand_centennial.php)

[archidante]

Anyone who disagreed with her was an enemy to the state and to her. Not sure if this qualifies for her ideology being enforced but she believed that the models of her ideology SHOULD be followed.
Who doesn't? I found this article intertesting. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0501300402jan30,0,4948417.column)

[ethics]

They wrote in different eras and Rand engaged a whole Matrix of 20th century phenomena Nietzsche didn't, as far as I know-industrial production, modern architecture...creeping socialism.



Are you kidding me?

[archidante]

Are you kidding me? Absolutely not. She touched meaningfully on each of those subjects in her novels. The Fountainhead is very descriptive of modern architectural design development and researched exceedingly well. Her industrial references in Atlas shrugged have not only illustrated the sheer poetry of technology, as say, a Brancusi sculpture does, but have also accurately been reflected in say, the wage and price control disasters of the seventies.


I don't care for your tone either, your thinly veiled contempt does you a great disservice. I replied carefully with references to everything you said. You find one angle not fully elaborated on or written well and spew at me with a haughty "are you kidding me?"
No. I think the comparison between the "objectivism link" and the "subjectivism" link pretty much sums up our differences. If all you can summon up from your obvious well of superior intelligence is snide remarks maybe you need to expand your point of view to include human experience beyond Manhatten.

[Stiofán]

Well, that's going to go over well....... :lol:

[ethics]

I don't care for your tone either, your thinly veiled contempt does you a great disservice. I replied carefully with references to everything you said. You find one angle not fully elaborated on or written well and spew at me with a haughty "are you kidding me?"
No. I think the comparison between the "objectivism link" and the "subjectivism" link pretty much sums up our differences. If all you can summon up from your obvious well of superior intelligence is snide remarks maybe you need to expand your point of view to include human experience beyond Manhatten.


When accusing someone of lesser intelligence, it helps to spell certain words correctly. ;)

I am sorry you took it personally but I couldn't get beyond the statement of yours that <i>Rand engaged a whole Matrix of 20th century</i>. I think the biggest complaint from others, those philosphers that WANTED to engage her was that she didn't want to listen to anyone. She even labeled many of them enemies.

[cdw]

Oh, Ethics... you know you'd hit it. :lol:

[ethics]

Ah, no.....

She is both physically and intellectually repulsive. Reminds me a lot of the PETA members. ;)

[cdw]

heheh...perhaps she should have been someones pick in the GJ thread! rofl

[ravital]

It's funny, how a thread is kicked and assumed dead, but you re-read it, and it seems to move a little... ;)


You know... people don't understand ideologies and philosophy as much as they should. Objectivism is as much of a farce as Marxism. Both ideas look great on paper but they suffer from the same (albeit opposite) flaw; they both can not be applied to people in real life and both are hailed by simpletons. Ethics,

That's one good reason why I won't defend Objectivism, and the other one is, that there seem to be as many different versions of it as there are Ayn Rand fans, scholars, and interpreters.

By the way, only two of her works - the most famous ones, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" - are as voluminous as you've inferred, and both have been, deliberately or by honest mistake, misrepresented and abused, and used as justifications for nonsensical "survival of the fittest" principles in economics and social behavior. Other works of hers might have been better appreciated: "Night of January the 16^th" - a play set up as a trial in which the audience serves as jury, with enough evidence to go either way; "Anthem" - a short, almost science-fiction-like "brave new world" story of humans turned into automatons by collective rule; And probably her best, "We the Living," set not in St. Petersburg nor in Leningrad, but in Petrograd, a period I'm sure you can appreciate better than most of us, and a novel which was even made into a low-budget movie back in the 1930s.

Not only would you get a much better sense of where she was going, but you'd also see how flexible her belief-system, if you can even call it that, really is. No one ever needs to be a RandIST in order to be a Randist.

But forget all that. Take everything she said out of the realm of the political, and into the realm of the personal, and she makes much more sense. For me, it was her unique definition of Selfishness: It's not what you and I were taught as children, and it's not what children are still being taught.

Every living human being has a Self. And not only are we the only species on earth to behave in ways that contradict our nature and our "Selves," we excel at it. What she proposes, is that a "selfish" human being, is a person who is so intimately acquainted with his/her own Self, that s/he has no choice but to act as the Self demands. Think about it: A knowledge of the Self requires introspection, sensitivity, intelligence, judgment. You WILL know when you are not satisfied with your own behavior, if you are attentive to your Self. So "Selfishness" is not about "yourself" but about "your Self." And that's a world of difference.

Why did any of us give money to save the life of an Iraqi baby? To help the victims of the Tsunami? Because each of us has a Self that we have no choice but to live with, a Self that wouldn't have it any other way, that wouldn't let you rest until you satisfied the Self's demands.

By contrast, what do we call a "generous" person - Selfless? I'm sure you appreciate the full meaning of this term under this definition - "Self-less." Do you know anyone who doesn't have a Self?

That, IMHO, is what drove everything she wrote and talked about. The difference between people is not that one is moral and the other is not, but that each person can be more, or less, cognizant, mindful, aware of his/her own self. Some are completely ignorant of it. Others learn to know it better and better, and in so doing are bound, because of the nature of that knowledge, to direct their actions in a manner that relates to the level of their satisfaction with their individual Selves.

And while every Self must be satisfied by the individual who lives with it, every Self is also different from every other, which adds up to a belief system that allows for flexibility and diversity of thought: She despised collective thinking, as she believed was exemplified by Organized Religion for instance (and she placed the State not too high above that, BTW), yet she has one of her heroes (Howard Roarke in "The Fountainhead") admit that he is a "deeply religious man." He was a man who knew his own Self, and wouldn't live any other way. In "Atlas Shrugged," she has Supreme Court Justices, Barons of Industry, Actors and Truck drivers "drop out" from the world to create a community of people from all walks of life, all manner of creed, all levels of intelligence, where the only requirement is for every individual to know his/her Self. Social awareness, personal responsibility, compassion for your fellow Man, decency, creativity, excellence in your work, and more, all flow from the same thing - knowledge of, respect and love of the Self.

Without knowing too much about your personal life, I'm sure you can identify elements of it that fit all that.

And one last word - when you encounter a contradiction, either in her writings or in everything else in life, do what she recommends: Examine your premises. You will invariably find that one of them is wrong. It works for me, more often than not. But I'm sure you already knew this.

Look just a little bit futher, my friend, and you'll see it too.