Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Who was Ayn Rand? A Short Summary & Critique

By randinah in Culture
Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:52:50 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Arguably one of the most notorious names in the philosophy community is that of Ayn Rand. Author of such well known books as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and the brains behind the Objectivist philosophy, Ayn Rand is an idol of individuality and freedom for the young and idealistic while being a scorned outcast of the philosophic community.

Who was Ayn Rand? What is objectivist philosophy? Does this philosophy hold water? In this article I will attempt to give an overview of the Objectivist philosophy and lay a starting ground with which one can base a balanced opinion on the thoughts of Ayn Rand.




Who was Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was born Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905 in St. Petersberg, Russia. In 1926 Rand immigrated to America where she made a career of writing and philosophy. With the release of her first best-seller, The Fountainhead, Rand's views gained immense popularity throughout America. Objectivism gained so much interest among young people that it was thought by some that Rand had organized a cult. Ayn Rand answered these claims on several occasions stating:

My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think -- to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction -- to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult. - Ayn Rand, 1961

Rand married in 1929 to a man named Frank O'Conner. They remained married until his death in 1979. She never had children nor did she ever express the desire. Ayn Rand was also well known for her public affair with one of her fans, Nathaniel Branden. (Branden was also married, and both spouses had knowledge of, and consented to the affair.)

During her career Ayn Rand penned many books, essays, short stories, and screenplays. Some of her better known works include Anthem (1938), her first bestseller The Fountainhead (1943), her second and last bestseller, Atlas Shrugged (1957), and The Virtue of Selfishness (1964). After the wild success of Atlas Shrugged Rand went on to deliver speeches at universities and forums all across America as well as become an editor for a series of periodicals that discussed Objectivist ideas, for which she wrote numerous essays.

Ayn Rand died in 1982 of heart failure in New York City.

A Summary of the Objectivist Philosophy

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason his only absolute. - Ayn Rand

The objectivist philosophy can be summarized in four 'guidelines' given by Rand:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-Interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
To begin to understand the objectivism philosophy one has to accept and agree with the statement 'existence exists.' Rand believed this phrase to be self evident in that if one were to argue this point they would be admitting that it must exist because it is being reacted to. Also, Rand believed that existence is the one thing that is absolute and static. Existence is existence. Or, as Rand put it, A is A.

2. Epistemology: Reason
To observe this existence one is given five senses. We rely on these five senses, and only these five senses to guide every decision we make, every action we take, and for survival. It is on this basis that Rand rejected such notions as God, the occult, and mysticism.

3. Ethics: Self-Interest
Rand believed that every man is an end to himself, not the means to the ends of others. This means that to live a fulfilling life, one's own survival and interests must always be first priority and the moral guideline with which one makes their decisions.

4. Politics: Capitalism
Lastly, Rand's ideal government is laissez faire capitilism. In this situation the governments place is only to police and protect the rights of the people. This would mean an entire separation of economics and state where the government would have no hand in policing the interest rates, helping corporations out, or providing welfare to the masses.

It is on these four principals that Ayn Rand layed the groundwork Objectivism. By following these examples, she believed that one could lead a happy and fulfilling life. There are many people who love Objectivism for its idealism, praise of individuality, and freedoms. But does Objectivism hold water as a philosophy?

Some Common Critiques of Objectivism

1. Perspective and logic: A Mismatched Pair
Let's say that fifty people witness a boat sink in the Atlantic Ocean. It is expected that if all fifty people were interviewed afterward and asked to give their opinion, fifty different opinions would come of it. Ayn Rand would say that this is ridiculous. If these people were to follow logic and reasoning by using the guidelines of Objectivism to come to a conclusion about what happened, all opinions should be exactly the same. What Rand neglects to take into account here is perspective. Because everybody would have a different vantage point, memory, and personal experience of the sunken ship, even if they do use logic and reasoning to opine, it is highly unlikely that fifty similiar opinions would be produced.

2. Inviduality and Logic: Another Mismatched Pair.
Ayn Rand was a large supporter of individuality and freedom to express oneself. To be an Objectivist she believed that one must come to their own conclusions about everything, never be a blind follower. But considering the fact that logic and reason are static, how can one who uses logic and reason as a guideline in every decision they make be an individual? This is a large contradiction in Objectivist philosophy.

What it Means to be Selfish
Ayn Rand believed that one should never sacrifice themselves to another, or ask them to do so for them. In other words, a persons' highest moral should be their own self-interest. This works pretty well for your average person. Most people live fairly selfish lives whether they know it or not, and it's perfectly healthy. But Rand seems to reject the idea that some people actually find fullfillment in sacrificing themselves to others. An example would be somebody who gives their life to a soup kitchen for a pittance. In Rand's eyes these people would be wasting their lives and ignoring their own self-interest. Rand seems to be blinding herself to the idea that the mere act of doing something that makes you happy purely for that sake is in fact leading a life in which your self-interest is your highest moral, even if it is indirectly.

Was Rand truly a Philosopher?
Ths philosophic community has no problem with Rand's notion that 'existence exists'. That is not a new thought, and she definitely won't be the last person to use it as a starting point in their philosophy. A problem arises though, because she never asks or tries to understand what this existence is. Is existence the dream of a God? What about an empty easel? Depending on what a person decides makes up this thing called 'existence' can have a lot to do with what they decide life is all about. She also never tackles the notion that our senses might not be worthy of our trust. Who's to say that I'm really typing right now? My senses are telling me so, but in reality I could just as easily be dreaming this up while asleep. Rand seemed to be much more interested in laying down moral guidelines than using a philosophical method understand if her assumptions could be considered correct. It is problems like these that has earned Rand the label of "Pseudo-philosopher."

Conclusion

Objectivism, like any other philosophy, can be interpreted hundreds of different ways. On it's own, it can be a decent way for one to choose to live their life. It celebrates rationality, individuality, and putting oneself first. There is a reason it is very popular with the young and idealistic crowd.

Objectivism's pitfall seems to be apparant when Rand takes it too far. She extends logic into individuality, selfishness into charity, and assumes it all fits together happily when sometimes it doesn't.

Hopefully this article has helped some of you discover what Ayn Rand and Objectivism is about and why she is such an incendiary name in the philosophy community.

Further reading:

The Objectivism Reference Center a place to go to find an array of critiques of Objectivism.

The Ayn Rand Institute run by leading Objectivist scholar, and close friend of Rand's, Leonard Peikoff.

A biographical website on Ayn Rand

A critique of Objectionist Epistemology by Robert Bass

A critique of Objectivism as a philosophy

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o The Objectivism Reference Center
o The Ayn Rand Institute
o Ayn Rand
o Epistemolo gy
o philosophy
o Also by randinah


Display: Sort:
Who was Ayn Rand? A Short Summary & Critique | 221 comments (194 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden)
You should mention (4.56 / 16) (#1)
by Bob Dog on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:00:12 PM EST

That she was a snitch for McCarthy.

Good beginning (4.00 / 3) (#2)
by rayab on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:23:51 PM EST

But not enough. There is so much material you could write a series of articles about Ayn and her ideology. I really think you should do more research and touch everything with a greater depth.
I read The Fountainhead a few years a go and it had a big effect on me and how I live my life. I learned of Ayn Rand for the first time from a made-for-TV movie in Israel. When I asked my parents whether they knew who she was they said no. That was a little surprising to me given the fact that we're Russian. But now that I think about it why should have they known about her, since she's immigrated to the US such a long time a go. I'll bet her literature was outlawed in the Soviet Union.

Y popa bila sobaka on yeyo lyubil, ona syela kusok myasa on yeyo ubil, v zemlyu zakopal, i na mogile napisal...
Comments (4.77 / 9) (#3)
by qpt on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:28:52 PM EST

You term Rand's epistemology as "Reason," but then describe it as reliant solely on the senses, making Rand sound like a empiricist. I know little about Rand, but empiricisms has traditionally been considered the antithesis of rationalism, yet it was latter that might best be described as a reason-driven epistemology.

Second, your illustration of the sinking ship is suspicious. Did Rand really claim either that fifty rational observers would give the same account of an event or something equivalent? I ask because there are several interesting claims and observations in the vicinity of what you put forward, and some are interesting while others are quite absurd. A choice quotation or citation might help the readers decide for themselves what Rand's view was and clear you, the author, of setting up a straw man in what might otherwise be a somewhat suspect passage. It is certainly possible that Rand's view is exactly what you say; many philosophers have said many strange things, but many philosophers have been intentionally or accidentally misrepresented, likewise.

You ask how someone whose actions are entirely guided can be an individual. This is a legitimate question, but for it to be a problem for Rand's view, it would be necessary that she claimed that all values were rationally commensurable. If she made no such claim, your criticism does not stick. Again, I know little about Rand, so I am merely asking for a clearer explication of her view on the rational commensurability of different values.

Regarding your passage on selfishness, I think many of the comments that I made regarding the sinking ship section are relevant here, also. Perhaps Rand just had weird ideas, but whenever accusing someone of weirdness, a quote or a cite can help avoid accusations of misrepresentation.

Finally, I do not see why Rand would not be considered a genuine philosopher. Perhaps she was not a very interesting philosopher, or simply a wrong-headed one, but her failure to examine every question that others are interested in raising does not necessarily reflect badly on her own work. She simply might not have been interested in some of the really gritty metaphysical and epistemological quandaries, preferring instead to tease out the ethical implications of a particular metaphysic.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.

some comments on the critiques (4.33 / 3) (#4)
by khallow on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:28:59 PM EST

I find the first two critiques in particular to be weak. In the first one, each person's view and experiences of the sinking ship is different. However, there are two problems. First, it is erroneous in assuming from the outset that 50 rational people will give sufficiently different stories to invalidate Rand especially since the argument is weakened by stating that the people in question have different perspectives and hence different information. Here, it seems a bit sneaky to claim that Rand's argument is equivalent to assuming that rational people will reach the same conclusion given different sets of incomplete information.

Second, if the fifty people in question were to have access to the observations of everyone, then you would get fifty similar observations. Ie, with the same information, two rational people should derive similar conclusions.

In the argument concerning "individuality and logic", logic and reason are asserted to be static objects or ideas without proof. Even if so, it is unclear to me how this invalidates them as a tool for making decisions. It's like saying that a slotted screwdriver is too "static" to be used for all the slotted screws that it is meant to unscrew. The only way a screwdriver doesn't work is if it is misused (doesn't work on torc screws), defective (it breaks), or the screw environment is defective (screw is stripped, rusted in place or glued, too tight, etc).

To push the analogy, logic and reason can only fail if the tool is defective or misused (through hidden dogmatic assumptions, leaps of logic, etc) or through defects in the environment (eg, the problem is ill-defined). Individuality doesn't conflict with this.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Seconds ago in #kuro5hin (2.85 / 14) (#5)
by BinaryTree on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:38:06 PM EST

<toy> man.
<toy> naet. a worthless Ayn Rand semibiography in the queue.
<toy> fucking loser posting what i can find on the last five pages of "Atlas Shrugged"

metaphysical problem (4.00 / 2) (#6)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 11:41:50 PM EST

Existence cannot automatically be predicated, even for itself. Even Rand would have to agree with that. Otherwise, things like the ontological argument should be able to stand on its own merit.

I'm going to quote my future self here (I'm writing a column here on K5 about philosophy, and this is from the soon to be submitted Part II--can any philosophers out there find fault with this presentation?):

"1. Define God as the supreme being, that is, you cannot conceive of anything greater than God.
2. Things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist in imagination alone.
3. We can imagine two Gods: one that exists in our thoughts alone, and one that really exists too.
4. Since God is that which nothing greater may be conceived, we must conceive God as existing as well. Otherwise, we are not conceiving of God properly.

The result: only a fool would not admit the existence of a God whose very definition implies existence. Clever, no?"

There are several problems with the Ontological Argument. The worst thing about it is that it takes an observational quality (confirmation that something "is") as the required quality. There is a very significant difference between the concept of existing and actual existence. Another bad thing about it is that it's not difficult to think of the the supreme unicorn, beyond which no greater unicorn may be conceived. Or the supreme supermodel in my bedroom.

I'm going to go home now, but even Rand would call me a fool for speeding home as fast as I am going to go.

-Soc
I drank what?


Why she irks me (2.50 / 4) (#20)
by zephc on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:06:02 AM EST

I have no problem with Capitalism and Reason, rather its her self-interest part that bugs me.  It's too bad she couldn't feel any good feelings about helping someone else.  Maybe if she had a child, she would have changed her tune.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, (3.42 / 7) (#22)
by Lode Runner on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:33:42 AM EST

and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

A isn't A (1.25 / 4) (#23)
by Mr. Piccolo on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:42:51 AM EST

but Ayn Rand was the Devil.

The BBC would like to apologise for the following comment.


An important detail missing here. (3.00 / 2) (#27)
by Apuleius on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 02:03:19 AM EST

Nathaniel Branden is responsible for making the term "self-esteem" so damn popular in American pop-psychology. That and his having boinked Ayn Rand are of course a mere coincidnence.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
The Affair (4.60 / 15) (#50)
by dasunt on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 05:25:02 AM EST

Lets examine one period of Ayn Rand's enlightened life - Her affair with Nathaniel Branden from 1955 to 1968.

Ayn Rand has taught that all behavior, including sexual behavior, is subject to objective moral standards. She is quoted in at least one interview speaking against sexual promiscuity. Basically, in being promiscuous, a person would be lowering their standards, and thus it was a sign of personal weakness. The strong person would seek out an equal for a partner, for they would not have to inflate their self esteem.

Both Ayn and Nathan were married, the affair was known about by both spouses. Ayn had justified the affair thusly : Since she and Branden were such enlightened beings that understood objective morality, and since they were both such intelligent members of their species, it was only natural to act on the sexual attraction they both felt.

In 1958 Nathan founded what would become the Nathaniel Branden Institute, to promote the Objectivism philosophy. This institute (still in existance today) is, along with the books, the major outlet of Rand's work.

By 1959, the affair had cooled off. Rand tried to resume it in 1964, but Nathan was already involved in a secret affair with another woman. He tried to sidetrack her, and succeeded for several years, until in 1968 the relationship with Ayn ended. Ayn accused Nathan of several ethical breeches of his own moral character and with his dealings in the Nathaniel Branden Institute. In short, Nathan, the heir apparent to Ayn's teachings, was expelled from the inner circle.

No children were involved in the affair. Nathan's wife did develope psychological problems, including at least one anxiety attack, while Ayn's husband seems to have quietly developed a drinking habit.

This is an ad hominem attack on Ayn, I will admit. The philosophy she promoted has nothing to do with her personal life. However, there are plenty of people who tend to put Ayn on a very high pedestal when in fact, in her own life, she rationalized having an affair, breaking the very belief system she believed in.

As for that belief system, she was not the first to come up with that idea, and she won't be the last to promote it. The 'rugged individualism' and the 'ideals of capitalism' that her belief system promotes has found rich support in the United States. Personally, I believe its flawed reasoning, and that the promotion of the self, above others, will doom a culture. Mathmatically, game theory shows that cooperation can be the best solution, and that self-promotion will have hazardous consequences. Biologically, there is some evidence that sacrificing yourself for the group is genetically advantageous. A full analysis of these ideas applied to Objectivism is unfortunately an entirely different post.

Just my $.02



She was against the first use of violence (none / 0) (#55)
by 8ctavIan on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 08:14:41 AM EST

being a scorned outcast of the philosophic community

... and she never stuck a poker in Karl Popper's face!! Sheesh!


Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. -- H.L. Mencken

comment (4.50 / 2) (#56)
by tps12 on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 08:45:55 AM EST

I wanted to clarify the statement that Rand believed that "the government[']s place is only to police and protect the rights of the people." That's a really broad statement, and you can get anything to fall under protecting the rights of the people if you push hard enough. In particular, Objectivists tend to be right up there with Republicans in warmongering. Any nation that doesn't uphold Objectivist principles is fair game for conquest and destruction.

In this, as in all else,—
Y'r obd't s'v't.
tps12.—
My problem with Objectivism (3.33 / 3) (#60)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 10:23:43 AM EST

and with most philosophies and political systems, is that they assume human beings are rational. Most assume that this rationality can be leveraged to create altruism (i.e., "enlightened self interest") Unfortunately, history has continuously shown that people are not completely rational - they have emotional drives which are often not subject to rational influence, they have finite intelligence and they only have a finite time in which to think about most decisions. This prevents them from being able to truly analyze their lives and actions.


--
Greetings, new user. Please replace this text with a witty or insightful saying before using this software.


+1. Should generate some good arguments. (none / 0) (#62)
by graal on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 10:24:47 AM EST

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I preferred Fountainhead - it just seemed like a better story. Atlas got a little too ponderous for me. I still have them, and might revisit one or both of them this winter...when it's cold and dreary outside...and the kids are all asleep...and the fireplace is going..mmmm....winter.....

But I digress.

Unfortunately, the only impression I have of Objectivists is the one I got when I first encountered them in college: disaffected white suburban college students with nothing else to do.

If nothing else, I'd like to see the discussions here do something to challenge that image.

--
For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
-- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)

Comments (4.50 / 8) (#83)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 01:01:22 PM EST

First, Rand was well aware of the effects of perspective. She considered our imperfect memory, lack of complete knowledge of events we perceive, and so on to be the elements that contribute to fallibility, and never claimed we are infallible. That critique simply misses the mark.

The second critique also misses the mark, as logical statements and reasoned arguments are only as useful as the mind that comprehends them. Given human fallibility, it is possible that an undiscovered error may exist in any given argument, so the only sane policy is that everyone must decide for himself. This doesn't mean his neighbors can't laugh at him, but he still gets to make his own choices. That said, Rand herself and her so-called heir are dogmatists of the worst sort, and the critique, while not applicable to her ideas, certainly applied to her.

Rand never said you shouldn't work for a soup kitchen if you wanted to. What she said was, if that's what you want to do, then it is NOT a sacrifice. Sacrifice means doing something you DON'T want to do, giving up something you'd rather have, and so on. Again, this is not a critique, but rather a misreading.

Rand's ideas were massively incomplete. Her more sane intellectual descendents(David Kelly, Nathaniel Branden, etc,) admit this. Incompleteness does not prevent her from being a "real" philosopher. One would think the tawdry academics who criticize her on that ground lacked a sense of irony; most of them these days specifically reject the idea of any kind of comprehensive philosophy whatsoever, so them calling someone else "incomplete" is just flat out hypocrisy.

The truth is, very, very few people who read about Objectivism understand it in any depth. Its primary current "leader" certainly doesn't, and he spent years with the woman who created it; if she saw him today, she'd be revolted, even though he's not so far from what she herself did(her actions and her ideas were not always in agreement; she had a huge blind spot there.) I don't call myself an Objectivist, because I don't want to be associated with the idiots who do, but if you're looking for any good information, Rand's own recommendation is still your only choice: read carefully, think even more carefully, and decide for yourself.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Of course people act out of faith (2.66 / 3) (#90)
by Ruidh on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 03:29:32 PM EST

Otherwise you would never ride an elevator you hadn't inspected yourself. You would never let a mechanic work on your car without watching him to make sure he didn't make a mistake. We make little acts of faith every day of our lives.

Face it. We live in a world where you have to trust other people. That means that you put some faith in their integrity. If you are incapable of trusting other people you might as well go out and live as a subsistance farmer in the backwoods somewhere.

In the Objectivist reality, everyone would agree on the appropriate political response to every situation. It would be the kind of political argumentation we see around here where

The fact is that people come to their opinions first and then find evidence to support them rather than the other way around. People also have different values and to the extent that Objectivism eschews these value structures, it is a pointless exercise.

In short, Objectivism has no heart. It is Nietzche's nihilism papered over. No thanks, I choose to live in a better world than that.
 
"Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."

As much as I love to bate the Randroids, (4.80 / 5) (#96)
by mingofmongo on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 04:03:49 PM EST

I have a deep interest in what Objectivism might have been. I have read nearly all Rand's books, and find them fascinating. While the books could have been better written, and the philosophy could have been better thought out, together, they held my interest, and still do.

I'd have to say that I am in full aggreement with most of the main points of objectivism, though I don't follow some of the logic that leads to them. I think that Rand got the right idea, and then neglected to follow through. The whole 'A is A' thing is ridiculous. It says nothing.

The big problem with Objectivism, is that the Objectivists lack objectivity. They have no concept of their own shortcomings. Casting off mysticism and religion makes one better able to deal with reality, but it does not automaticly make one a superman. Devoting yourself to using reason to improve your daily life doesn't automaticly solve all your psychological ills and cut out all emotional response. Yet Rand's fictional heros were just such perfect people, and that was evidently how she saw herself and those in her good graces.

Any system for improving life that requires the cooperation of others is doomed to failure. And any such system that requires each individual to be rational all the time is likewise doomed. Rand's 'Gault's Gultch' wouldn't fair any better than Huxley's alpha island experiment. Put all the Objectivists together in one community, and I expect to see as much or more irrational behaviour than in the general population - just because they will refuse to consider the problem.

Some people have called me an objectivist with a little 'o'. But I don't think so. I think you lose a lot of the benefits of reason, self-interest and capitalism if you put them on a pedistal and worship them. They work because they are how things would operate naturally if people could get their neuroses out of the way for a while.

My brand of objectivism would not be as big a crowd pleaser. Rather than 'A is A', I subsititute Occam's Razor. I deem the events I witess to be real because any other solution is much more complex, by orders of magnitude. Short of illness and other impairments, what I sense has never led me astray, so I see an objective reality as being the best of all explainations by far.

While this might be correctly termed a leap of faith, it is a much more reasonable leap than chanting the mantra 'existance exists'. It leads to the same place by a more reasonable path, and it allows for that tiny bit of uncertainty that would be of tremendous benefit to Objectivism, if only to eliminate that annoying smuggness. (I find my own kind of smuggness much less annoying.)

I think that millions of people acting on their own self-interest are better than a small group at the top dictating (even with public consent) what is in their interests. There is just more brain power on the job.

I think that the smallest government that can maintain the physical security of its citizens is the best. If the people running the government have no say in finance, there would be no incentive for corruption.

I think that rational self-interest can work to the benefit of society because I have received benefit from it. I received most of my education because Andrew Carnegie (the "Robber Barron") thought the country needed more libraries. Nobody made him build them. He just thought it was a good idea. Having some educated people around is good for business.

I think if Rand had just said, "I am a writer with philosophic leanings, and I have created the beginnings of a good idea," there would have been better books, and maybe some better philosophy too, as others pick it up. By delusions of grandure don't add credibility to a philosophy. Sold a lot of books though.

"What they don't seem to get is that the key to living the good life is to avoid that brass ring like the fucking plague."
--The Onion

Thank You (plus comments) (3.66 / 3) (#111)
by threed on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 05:32:36 PM EST

I've heard a lot about Rand and the "A is A" thing, but never got it till now. I tried reading some of her works, but simply could not bring myself to continue turning pages. It's all dense and wordy and doesn't get to the point very quickly. Perhaps a lack of patience on my part is responsible, but the book still sits on the shelf, mostly unread.

So now I know what "A is A" means, and what the so called "randriods" are all on about, and for that I thank you.

I like the philosophy. It jives with my own fairly well. I especially like the not-even-enlightened self-interest. The "affair" she had - with all partners fully informed - is compatible with my worldview. No harm, no foul.

As for "am I dreaming?"; a really twisted drug addict once said "reality is the resolution of your perceptions". Dreaming is like an old CGA monitor. What they call "Concensus Reality" is 32 bit color at 5 megapixels. Get drunk or stoned, and watch the resolution drop. You only know your current resolution for sure if you have a frame of reference. If someone changed the resolution on you (wake / sober up), your immediate memory would be your reference and you would definately be able to tell whether you're in Concesus or not.


--Threed - Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!

Helping out AIDS patients (4.20 / 5) (#124)
by revscat on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 06:51:14 PM EST

Every other weekend I go over to the apartment of a gentleman who has AIDS. He isn't expected to live more than a year, and has no family. His parents died in the 1980's, and he has never been married. He has a distant cousin who lives in New Mexico, but they aren't close. I go over there to give him company, watch a movie, bring him some cookies, and generally make his life a little more tolerable.

Why do I do this? The Randian position seems to be that I do it out of self-interest, to make myself happy. And I completely reject this. I do this because I believe it is the right thing to do. It costs me money and time to do this, and I would much rather be at home playing Day of Defeat. In my opinion, the abject rejection of and hostility towards selflessness (or altruism, as she calls it) that Rand proposes does not reflect reality. People *do* do things out of a selfless desire to do good, to do the right thing.

I am a Unitarian. One of the things our church advocates is to do good simply for the sake of doing good. Not to proselytize, not to profit, not to look good in front of other church members, not to enhance our political position. Just do good to do good. Objectivism disdainfully rejects all such behavior as foolish. She, after all, was imminently (and seemingly exclusively) reasonable. The problem is there are other reasonable people who have come up with reasonable philosophies that in part or in whole disagree with Rand.

As a side note, Rand was a terrible writer. I go back and look at the tomes that I used to cherish such as "The Fountainhead" and just grimace at the self-importance of it all. If brevity is the source of wit then Rand is the most witless person I have ever read. Tooey's rant at the end of Fountainhead goes on for almost 50 pages, fer cryin' out loud.



- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
hold water (2.33 / 3) (#129)
by turmeric on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 07:02:48 PM EST

if rich and powerful and elite suppport an idea, then magically they figure out ways to explain why it 'holds water'. Ayn Rand idea was that the rich and the powerful and elite are more important than the rest of the people. It is no wonder she has so many followers, she is appealing to the very people who are in control of whether or not ideas get popularized, expounded upon, supported with museums and biographies and published books and articles and whatnot.

a career of philosophy? (none / 0) (#135)
by drek on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 07:24:17 PM EST

Does it come with a coat rack to hang up your hat at then end of a hard day?

Sense of Life Objectivism (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by duncan bayne on Tue Sep 17, 2002 at 08:53:20 PM EST

In addition to the links in the story, I suggest visiting Sense of Life Objectivism, an excellent source of articles and discussion (there's a message forum) regarding Objectivism.



It's Rational! (none / 0) (#168)
by rigorist on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 12:32:32 AM EST

I can't believe no one else has posted the link to the Floating Head of Ayn Rand!

Kiki Shrugged! (none / 0) (#175)
by batlock on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:44:32 AM EST

Here.

Multi Perspective Dynamic Logic (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by rws1st on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:03:51 AM EST

1. Perspective and logic: A Mismatched Pair

I don't think Rand holds the position you ascribe to her.  What you describe is a one time event, where people needed to agree based on their memory.  Nothing in Rand's philosophy requires folks to have perfect and reconcilable memories.  Now I think she would claim that fifty rational people should be able to come to consensus on a repeatable phenomenon and its cause, if the matter was within the scope of current science.

2. Inviduality and Logic: Another Mismatched Pair.
"But considering the fact that logic and reason are static"

I am not sure what is meant by the idea that logic and reason are static.  Certainly we keep discovering new statistical and scientific methods.  Also the contents that we reason on, our experiences are constantly changing and unique to every individual.

Rob Sperry

Why do I get the feeling... (none / 0) (#182)
by livus on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:12:20 AM EST

...that Ayn Rand would have benefitted a great deal from the kind of media coverage of the rest of the world that we have today? I mean, it seems like she's making something that would distort horribly if transposed.

She might have done well to go on holiday to Calcutta, also.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

Darwinism? (none / 0) (#185)
by Alik on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:42:22 AM EST

One of the things that's always bothered me about Objectivism is its insistence on one's own personal interests/survival as the only variable suitable for maximization. Your generally-accepted principle of biological fitness is that what matters is how many times you get your genome replicated before you kick off. (For humans, that probably extends to some weighted sum of genome and memome replication, but that's not so generally accepted.) Therefore, you should not be doing that which will ensure your own survival; you should be doing that which will ensure the propagation of your ideas and the survival of your descendants and others to whom you are genetically related. (Of course, all humans are genetically related to some small extent, so you're going to have to decide where the threshold is.) This presents a strong argument in favor of things like environmentalism (since one wants one's grandkids to not die horribly from toxic air/water), even though such things are decried by your garden-variety Objectivist as Nasty Evil Bad Altruism.

There's also the teeny little "humans aren't rational" problem (I build the damn things for a living, and they're buggier than your average piece of Microsoft), but I think that's been covered below.

Fountainhead Earth (3.00 / 1) (#186)
by David Gerard on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:51:25 AM EST

Posted to alt.atheism by Dr. Sinister:

Egregiously unpleasant would be a cinematographic amalgam of
Hubbard's massive "Battlefield/Mission Earth" series combined
with Rand's Atlas and Fountainhead. Evil aliens from planet
Toohey invade earth, enslave all the architects, and force
them to build Doric facades infront of every McDonalds. Along
comes a savage primitive egoist, Jonnie Galtboy Tyler, who
develops Project X with the help of some spear-throwing
capitalistic cavemen, and saves the universe after delivering
a 40,000-page speech that bores the aliens stiff.
Cult classic in a literal sense.


'Objectivism' (none / 0) (#188)
by fhotg on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 09:13:16 AM EST

Is the 'philosophical' paint for people who want to stay egomanical materialistic greedy style-less assholes whose pathetic idea of reality is limited to the smallest common denominator, and nevertheless like to explain to other people and themselves that they act according to 'higher principles'. Bah, zombies.

Interesting timing. (4.00 / 1) (#206)
by bored on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:53:55 PM EST

I read Anthem last night. I bought it in paperback and a copy of Atlas Shrugged on tape last sunday.

So, what did I think? First it was short, I finished it in about an hour. Secondly, as a story it was slightly interesting but not particularly notable. Its similar to A Brave New World, where the setting of the story is the story rather than simply being the setting. By this I mean it has a logical progression but much of the book was taken up explaining the setting rather than telling the story. Thirdly, the 'grammar' is obnoxious, its told in first person without the use of "I", "me" or "myself" for 80% of the book. An example might be "We is breaking the law by being alone in the dark." This was cute for a while but soon threatened to became annoying. In all not a bad read simply because it was so short and painless.

When it comes to objectivism, that book doesn't really hit you over the head. Its similar in that regard to The Fountainhead (which I read about 5 years ago). I don't buy into it as a hard rule, rather I find some of it useful and the some of it trash. For example I believe in 'Capitalism' but a type of capitalism where things like environmental damage has a cost. For instance industries that create air pollution are taxed and the proceeds are given directly to an environmental agency to plant trees, research cleaner energy sources or anything else that directly combats the air pollution. In the end I don't mind Ayn Rand, or her philosophy, I choose to ignore the parts that i've thought about and don't agree with. This is the same way I put up with the bible thumpers. I think about it, acknowledge the parts that make sense, and ignore the rest.

In the end i can recommend both of the Ayn Rand books i've read. The The Fountainhead because I liked it and it made me think. Anthem because its different from most other books and short enough not to drag on for to long.



Ideas Do Not A Philosophy Make (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by EXTomar on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:20:02 PM EST

The reason why many don't consider Rand's thoughts as Philosophy is that they are not designed to be rigiously tested as a philosophy. Things mentioned in her writings make her ideas no more a philosophy than Lucas' ideas on Jedi as a way of theology. Rand may strongly believe in Objectivism and writes about it but that does not make what she writes Philosophy.

Beyond that I reject Objectivism because the foundations are philosophically weak.

  • Objective Reality

    A purely objective reality implies that there is only one *right* way to comprehend it. Any other interptations of reality are wrong. Unfortunately it appears that no group of humans yet can observe any aspect of reality the same way to begin with. This doesn't mean an objective reality doesn't exist but the value, not to mention the difficulity, of finding it seems dubious.

  • Reason As Basis Of Knowledge

    Simply put: not all things are reasonable. Why does one person like the color blue while another likes red? There is no reason behind it. Okay so that example has no moral or ethical value. When presented with the classic "lifeboat dilemma' why does one person favor one solution or another? There are many aspects of reality that have no right or wrong answers to the quests they propose. There is no amount of reason that could quanitify a correct answer for these.

  • Self Interest

    Self interest is in itself the basis of many philosophical ideas. However I generally reject aspects of self interest because the interest of the self aren't always the best. Take for instance rampant hard core drug use. It makes one feel good but is certainly not in the best self interest.

  • Capitalism

    This seems like more like a socio-political thing than a moral-ethical thing. Since a tenant of Capitalism self interest in the pursuit of profit it is clear that left unchecked it will not serve society's needs. A company happily following pure capitalism would be more than willing to sell out parts of society for the sake of profit. Things like polution are examples of this: a company will happily pump out toxic poultion if it is profitable although it may not be exactly healthy. Consider also a little company called Enron. Certain decisions and actions to lie and cheat were purely profit modivated and did nothing for the US economy.

Objectivism appeals to be about as much as Realtivism(ie. "subject-ivism"). Neither seem to fit well into reality presented to humans. Somewhere in the middle seem to lies the truth.



Who was Ayn Rand? A Short Summary & Critique | 221 comments (194 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!