Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

What utter bollux.
The near collapse of the US economy that has just occurred was because the "titans" of Wall St. were allowed to do what they wished, as per the principles espoused by Ayn Rand.
Greenspan was a fan of hers, and his economic philosophy of laissez faire to a large extent led to the crash.

I despair of (the lack of) people's logical thought processes in this country, caused no doubt by the removal of any sort of rigour in the curriculum from the 60s onwards

Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

[NickFitz]

Even if you don't agree with the philosophy...

It's hard to agree with a philosophy that endorses rape and murder:

She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It's hard to agree with a philosophy that endorses rape and murder:

She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

I admit I don't know the case but I would be very surprised if the praise she offered was for the act of murder and rape ed - I can't help feeling that the remarks may have been taken out of context

[sasguru]

Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

I tried and gave up about 3/4 through as I thought it was simplistic, turgid and of poor literary merit.
I read enough to realise that the current economic problems have been caused by putting the Randian "philosophy" in action in Wall Street.

[sasguru]

I admit I don't know the case but I would be very surprised if the praise she offered was for the act of murder and rape ed - I can't help feeling that the remarks may have been taken out of context

Well when you believe in a cult figure, no amount of evidence will sway you.

[xoggoth]

a kind of "look-at-me aren't I great" pseudo-philosophy that basically says the rich are super-men and should be allowed to do what they wish and everyone else is scum.

For once I almost agree with SAS on politics. Read it a very long time ago so don't remember the details but I seem to recall it stretched meritocracy to quite daft limits. Those who founded companies or had the ideas on which they were founded were everything, the rank and file who actually made it happen scarcely counted at all.

[sasguru]

For once I almost agree with SAS on politics. Read it a very long time ago so don't remember the details but I seem to recall it stretched meritocracy to quite daft limits. Those who founded companies or had the ideas on which they were founded were everything, the rank and file who actually made it happen scarcely counted at all.

If Ayn Rand was alive she would extol the virtues of the bankers since they looked after themselves and screwed everyone else for their selfish ends.
That's her idea in a nutshell.

[DaveB]

I preferred Telemachus Sneezed.

[Mich the Tester]

If Ayn Rand was alive she would extol the virtues of the bankers since they looked after themselves and screwed everyone else for their selfish ends.
That's her idea in a nutshell.

A little bit of an exaggeration, but certainly contains some truth. Rand was born in Russia into a family of small business owners and experienced the revolution first hand; her father's business was stolen by the state and she was unable to complete her studies due to being a member of the 'bourgeoisie'. This experience coloured her view for all her life; her work can perhaps be seen as a reaction to the totalitarian state in which she found herself and the mistreatment of her and her family. In America she saw her dream society of individual freedom.

I think her work is relevant in the context of totalitarian politics and the heroism of those who stood up for their personal freedom in horrific circumstances. However, she seems to suggest that any action by government to assist those people who are not doing so well is an irreversible step toward socialist tyranny. She also seems to believe in complete free will or volition of the individual; that's a concept that has been overtaken by modern scientific work which shows that free will is always bounded by some restraints, obviously external like laws, but also internal, to do with nature and nurture. I also think that she tends to portray successful people as being successful purely as a result of their own actions, whereas I would argue that success in any field of endeavour is more often to do with a combination of factors including personal effort, choice and sacrifice, but also conditioning, genetics, the surrouinding environment and old fashioned luck. Lots of people work hard and strive for success; some make it and some don't, and those who do make it can be tempted, especially if they follow Ayn Rand's reasoning, to look down upon those who don't make it and treat them as failures. This arrogance seems to me to be part of the problems to which Sas and Xog refer. She seems to have a utopian vision of a libertarian society while forgetting that the great weakness of any utopian vision is that one man's utopia is another man's dystopia.

I'd say it's worth reading, but you shouldn't restrict your reading to Rand; go out looking for opposing views as well.

[sasguru]

A little bit of an exaggeration, but certainly contains some truth. Rand was born in Russia into a family of small business owners and experienced the revolution first hand; her father's business was stolen by the state and she was unable to complete her studies due to being a member of the 'bourgeoisie'. This experience coloured her view for all her life; her work can perhaps be seen as a reaction to the totalitarian state in which she found herself and the mistreatment of her and her family. In America she saw her dream society of individual freedom.

I think her work is relevant in the context of totalitarian politics and the heroism of those who stood up for their personal freedom in horrific circumstances. However, she seems to suggest that any action by government to assist those people who are not doing so well is an irreversible step toward socialist tyranny. She also seems to believe in complete free will or volition of the individual; that's a concept that has been overtaken by modern scientific work which shows that free will is always bounded by some restraints, obviously external like laws, but also internal, to do with nature and nurture. I also think that she tends to portray successful people as being successful purely as a result of their own actions, whereas I would argue that success in any field of endeavour is more often to do with a combination of factors including personal effort, choice and sacrifice, but also conditioning, genetics, the surrouinding environment and old fashioned luck. Lots of people work hard and strive for success; some make it and some don't, and those who do make it can be tempted, especially if they follow Ayn Rand's reasoning, to look down upon those who don't make it and treat them as failures. This arrogance seems to me to be part of the problems to which Sas and Xog refer. She seems to have a utopian vision of a libertarian society while forgetting that the great weakness of any utopian vision is that one man's utopia is another man's dystopia.

I'd say it's worth reading, but you shouldn't restrict your reading to Rand; go out looking for opposing views as well.

FFS this is CUK. Pithy one liners (ideally with a sneer or insult) are de rigeur. Essays are out.