Rand: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
Me: Bullshit. Just because you say so does not mean that my rational selfishness will not conflict with your rational selfishness?
Rand: "The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others."
Me: What of inherited wealth?
Rand: "Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him—by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind."
Me: What about education in childhood and youth?
Rand: "In spiritual issues—(by “spiritual” I mean: “pertaining to man’s consciousness”)—the currency or medium of exchange is different, but the principle is the same. Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues."
Me: Love as conditional; love as long as the beloved gives you pleasure; love as a commodity to be traded. Not love at all.
Rand: "But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society. Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being—nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism."
Me: Is illness a vice?
-------------
As I've already said, I read The Fountainhead when I was in college, but I thought it weird and boring, and, in hindsight, I believe I didn't "get" it. I'm not the only one who "missed the point".
Journalist Nora Ephron wrote that she had loved the novel when she was 18 but admitted that she "missed the point," which she suggested is largely subliminal sexual metaphor. Ephron wrote that she decided upon re-reading that "it is better read when one is young enough to miss the point. Otherwise, one cannot help thinking it is a very silly book."As I read the information about the book at Wikipedia, I remembered that I saw the 1949 movie with Gary Cooper, and I have a vague sense that I thought it dull and dreary and found Cooper's Roark to be a lackluster character. Thus, I saw no reason to follow up and read Atlas Shrugged, Rand's pièce de résistance.
Ayn Rand's given name is pronounced to rhyme with "mine ".
Paul Ryan then:
"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," Ryan said in a speech in 2005.
Paul Ryan now:
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview."
Grandmère Mimi,
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly (and then some, thank you for sharing them with me). I remember Ayn Rand from our youth...we all read her (mostly), I think...I also remember that I hated her and her ideas and dumped her in the trash where I thought she belonged...always, made my skin crawl the absolute selfishness of it all...the cold blooded rationalizing still seems very emotionally disturbed to me...now, we have this guy Congressman Ryan running around spouting of as if he made sense! Damn, he´s dangerous to fellow human beings.
...the cold blooded rationalizing still seems very emotionally disturbed to me...
DeletePositively chilling.
What Leonardo said!
ReplyDeleteMimi, thanks for the book report; I doubted there were any nuggets of truth or goodness to be found in such a dank, dark, nasty mind, and now you've confirmed it for me.
I'm sure you feel the need of an antidote now and I have just the tonic, if you care to take a swig: today by chance I found myself re-reading the first two books of Pope's Essay on Man, after a long interval. Clear, sensible, and rational; as wholesome as fresh air and sunshine after something like what you've been reading, I would think.
Pope had no idea of scientific discoveries yet to come, and perhaps his worldview is a little smaller than ours is; but still, a happy, wholesome mind is always a pleasure to encounter. I particularly love his description of Man -
A being darkly wise and rudely great . . .
Born but to die and reas'ning but to err . . .
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd,
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
Russ, a book review after reading only one essay? Hey, maybe I'm not being fair.
DeletePope as a palate cleanser sounds good to me.
PS - I meant to add, you can find it all over the interwebs if you want, or on Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteA lot of colleges and universities have Objectivist clubs to support her philosophy. I find this scary though most students quickly grow out of it.
ReplyDeleteErp, I never grew in, so I never had to grow out. Yes, it's scary. Ryan has been a devout Catholic, so he says. I don't understand how Rand fits with Catholicism, at least as I knew it for 60 years.
DeleteBlogspot killed my comment as I was about to hit the "publish" button ::sigh::. I shall try again.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was young, long ago, a friend found Ms. Rand, bought every book he could find, and after reading them, demanded that I do so too. So, I am disturbingly well read in her stuff. It is simply evil.
I fear my response to Rand did not meet my friend's expectations. Her work is an assault on the human soul. Mercedes Lackey in her Arrows of the Queen series defines evil as the ultimate expression of greed. I think, unlike Rand, she has a point.
That said, I find it difficult to hold Mr. Ryan to account for a youthful failure. After all, a good many others read her too, for whatever reason. If he now says he is a Catholic Christian, it seems to me we are obligated to take him at his word.
If, of course, we take him at his word, I think it fair to ask him how he thinks his budget stands up against the standard St. Augustine set in "De Civitate Dei," of for that matter anything ever written by St. Thomas Aquinas, Leo the Great, or John Paul II.
;-)
I have seen Mr. Ryan. I have seen Mr. Romney. I shall vote for Mr. Obama.
FWIW
jimB
Jim, in his youth? He said the quote in my post in a speech in 2005. He ordered his staff in the House to read Rand. Well, he was 7 years younger in 2005. That would make him 35 back then...a mere youth, I guess. Ryan likes Aquinas now, so he says.
DeleteI'm glad you'll vote for Obama.
Just to repeat!
ReplyDelete"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen year old's life: "The Lord of the Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged." One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
h/t Kung Fu Monkey blog.
Thanks again, JCF.
DeleteJune, I meant becoming a fan of her crud. If he has grown up (OK, we can guess he is posturing, but we do not KNOW) then we should accept that. After all, I expect you to accept my word that I am an Anglo-catholic.
ReplyDeleteI do want to know how he thinks his ideas stack up with what classic Catholic theologians think the State should be doing.
FWIW
jimB
Jim, are you familiar with Ryan's budget? How does it line up with Roman Catholic teaching on social justice? From USAToday:
Delete...the nation's Catholic bishops reiterated their demand that the federal budget protect the poor, and said the GOP measure "fails to meet these moral criteria."
Well, bravo for trying--and you can rest assured you've read the best presentation of Rand's philosophy available. I like her writing style in non fiction (not fiction) but that's because I like the high ratio of snark to be found in Rand.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you picked out some of the same faults I find in Rand...especially her attempt to redefine love. But of course she had to do that, because real love involves negating one's ego in favor of the beloved, and of course a system exalting ego can't have that, can it? But she essentially reduces love to a mutual admiration society with sex.
The real flaw in her philsophy--which perhaps you didn't catch because it's in that indigestible opening part--is her pretense that her morality is a logical result deduced from physical facts, whereas in fact she simply superimposes her own values and insists they are universally applicable. It's actually an attempt to produce a theory of natural law such as Catholicism has, only without God; and since I think the Catholic version is a failure, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I think Rand's version fails rather miserably. (But maybe that explains Ryan's high regard for her?)
I am surprised any of her books are available on the Web; last time I noticed (admittedly a couple of years ago) the copyright holders (Peikoff, who is more or less the Pope of Objectivism nowadays, and his associates--he's pretty elderly now) were rather vigorous in keeping her writings off the Internet so they could maximize book sales.
I should add that not all your criticism would hold in her full system--for instance, a productive person who fell ill would, she claimed, be able to find other productive people to help him/her while he was ill because those people would value and admire his/her productivity and want him/her to return to productive activity--plus of course they would have an eye on the future, when they might need similar help. But that's like say the furniture is very nice inside a house that's got sinking foundations.
ReplyDeletekishnevi, I don't believe the natural law holds up, either.
DeleteRand's "morality" contradicted everything I was taught about morality and ethics, which is probably why I found her didactic novel boring and soulless.
And yeah, all those high-minded, productive people would lovingly care for the sick, the lame, and the blind, so long as they were deserving when they were able. And we're back to the GOP budget, from which Romney will now have to step away, at least in part, because Ryan went too far with his Randian plan.
Romney can't do that. It's been a basic wish of the Right (which is of course now the GOP) to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and as much of the social welfare net/welfare state as possible, and the Right thinks it has a golden opportunity now, if it can just keep people from realizing that the real problem is that the US undertaxes, not overspends.
DeleteI saw the video clip in which Romney was asked about Ryan's plan, and he said that he has his own plan. I'm betting his will be a tad more moderate than Ryan's, but not by much.
DeleteCan you imagine the stink if Obama had sais, as recently as 2005, that he was a devotee of a Russian atheist philosopher who said the family unit was not important and that Christianity should be destroyed?
ReplyDeleteIOKIYAR- it's OK if you're a Republican, Malcolm. Look at the number of times Romney has flip-flopped. Ryan says he's all Aquinas now.
DeleteLet me say this: I used to think Ayn Rand had something going for her and us. Then, I went to Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteSelfishness in a combat situation doesn't work well, does it, Fred?
DeleteIn Rand's favor, she was anti-war.
...which her disciples in the Republican Party seem to have overlooked.
DeleteActually, Rand's current crop of disciples in the Objectivist movement are worse than the GOP. It's rather common to find Objectivists calling for the genocidal killing of all Muslims, even if they try to sound like they're not calling for genocide.
DeleteBut again, that's something in which the disciples are worse than the guru, as bad as she herself was....
She was also pro-abortion...
DeleteI read Atlas Shrugged when I was quite young - 12 or 13. What I remember is that even the Objectivist heroine, Dagny Taggart, wanted to be thoroughly dominated by, oh gosh, every strong capitalist male in the book really - Francisco D'Anconia, Hank Reardon, and finally John Galt. I found this appalling even then.
Mimi, I appreciate your question about inherited wealth, because the other thing I noticed back then, was that both Taggart and D'Anconia inherited their businesses - railroads for Dagny, copper mines for Francisco. They may have increased or protected their wealth, but they did not create it from scratch and alone. If I understood this at 13, whatever can be said about the alleged grownups who do not see it now?
@Malcolm-- heh. Perhaps that particular description should be used more widely of Mr. Ryan.
ReplyDeleteThere's a young PhD student I know who is a firm Randian,and when challenged what she would do if a poor man collapsed on the street in front of her, said that she would be hard pressed to justify anyone caring for him since it would just cost money that he would not (and could not) repay.
It is truly chilling, and immoral.
IT, in one Republican debate, a similar question was posed to the candidates, and people in the audience shouted, "Let him die!" I've never actually met anyone who expressed the sentiment.
DeleteIt is truly chilling, and immoral.
Yes.
The only comforting thing in your story, IT, is the word "young". As the anecdote re a "bookish 14 year-old" indicates, Randianism is a form of arrested development. Hope your student grows up, and SOON!
DeleteI think it fair to say that even Rand herself would have criticized that attitude--she actually said you can't judge every situation simply by the monetary gain and loss, and if human life is something you truly value, you would stop to help that poor man, or else you'd be unable to live with yourself afterwards. Rand more likely would have stopped to help give that man first aid, and then boasted about it for the rest of her life. So in this instance the "disciple" is worse than the guru.
DeleteAnd apropos of an earlier comment, she was explicitly against the Vietnam war, although not for the usual reasons.
In many ways, Rand's ugliness of character is a result of the fact that she didn't live up to her own ideals.
kishnevi, perhaps Rand would have helped the man. One book, one essay in a collection, and one old TV interview, and I know enough about Rand's "morality" to decide I want no part of it, but that's not to say she was wrong about everything. Her disciples pick and choose which of her ideas to accept and which to discard, much like a good many religious people with their sacred books. I'm actually becoming somewhat uncomfortable calling myself Christian, because of others who shout loudly about being Christian and yet seem to ignore Jesus' teachings in the Gospel.
DeleteOur youngest daughter read Atlas Shrugged her freshman year in college - she was 16. She was very excited about it. So, I got a copy and read it. I got about 100 pages in when I tossed the book across the room and called it for the bullshit it is. I wondered why my daughter found it so exciting and then I came to the answer. She was 16. It makes perfect sense when you're 16. And then, you grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around you. Ryan is still emotionally 16.
ReplyDeleteRyan is still emotionally 16.
DeletePriceless and true.
"IT, in one Republican debate, a similar question was posed to the candidates, and people in the audience shouted, "Let him die!" I've never actually met anyone who expressed the sentiment.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly chilling, and immoral."
Sylvia Plath? anyone?
I read Rand when I was 14 and well on my way to being an atheist and flushed her along with Leviticus AND the RCC.
I still meet young people who think Rand has a message. Sigh. Hopefully maturity will prevail at some point.
Someone said on Facebook that a number of universities have Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged clubs. :-(
DeleteBonnie -
DeleteI saw that same GOP "debate". I was apalled that anyone in the world let alone in this country would say something like that. It was at that point I knew there was only one candidate for president.
Reading all your negative comments... i realized there is some truth in ayn rand's philosophy.
ReplyDelete