Ayn Rand

[BryanLower]

I haven't read this entire thread... because I can't. It's too long. I just wanted to interject my admiration for the people on this message board. I suspected that a lot of people who consider themselves Critical Thinkers might be drawn in by a "philosophy" that calls itself "Objectivism". But for the most part, you have seen the holes in Rand's philosophy. Well done. There's actual critical thinking happening here! That's why I keep comin' back.

I've read a lot of Rand's work (though you don't really need to. She's repetative). She states the obvious a lot. She starts with some good premises, but she draws some downright wacky conclusions from them. So count me with the Rand critics.

 

[WonderfulWorld]

True. There are many immature 40 year olds who never develop beyond the mental adolescence of "selfish is good."

Apparently, there are also many people who prefer to misrepresent and caricature things so they don't have to deal with them as they really are.

By the way, I think we "skeptics" do that to things like astrology, to the detriment of our ability to defeat the real thing. E.g., the common tactic of refuting newspaper astrology only makes us look buffoonish to people who actually believe in astrology. It's like attacking Dateline NBC because the National Enquirer had another UFO on the cover: Both may be full of crap, but they aren't the same thing.

 

[drkitten]

Rand was quite familiar with Plato, and detested nearly everything about him. (So do I.) The argument must implicitly assume that the dishonest, cheating bastard might successfully fool all the people all of the time, which is (gently, now) not bloody likely. In other words, your "egoist" is either a damnfool or insane. Rational self-interest would prohibit any such attempt because it will obviously fail.

Well, this is part of where Rand starts to go horribly, horribly, wrong.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Plato, and you (and Rand herself) may not have found his moral argument compelling. But if your primary disagreement with Plato is that "the dishonest, cheating bastard might successfully fool all the people all of the time, which is (gently, now) not bloody likely," then you're inherently raising an argument based on realism.

Essentially, you're saying that a universe filled with successful but dishonest bastards is logically possible, but not realistic. But if that's the primary counterargument against Plato's ethical stance, then Rand cuts her own argument off at the knees with her writing style, as you illustrate:

Galt was not characterized at the smartest person who ever lived -- nor as the most moral, nor any of the other things you describe. At least by my recollection, Rand made no comparison of Galt to people in times other than the "present" of the novel. (I guess I'm accusing you of hyperbole.)

What you call a "flaw" was Rand's stated intent, that Galt (among others) should be a "romantic" (not the pulp-fiction sense) hero -- an image of mankind as we should aspire to be. She wasn't writing a "realist" novel, and she hated them and the antiheroes that usually show up in them.

Whether or not Galt was explicitly characterized as "the smartest person who ever lived" is questionable -- he was certainly protrayed as smarter than the physicist who ran the State Science Institution, who was expressly one of the smarted people who ever lived. But that is to some extent irrelevant. I don't think that Paul Bunyan was ever explicitly stated to be "the tallest person who ever lived," either -- but it's obvious from the stories that he is supposed to be unrealistically tall -- tall beyond what any realistic character could ever expect to be. If John Galt is only as smart as Paul Bunyan is tall -- that's still a fairy tale.

The problem is, if you are trying to show that Rand's theories of morality are "more realistic" than Plato's, then it does no good to present them in the framework of a fairy tale. And in a more "realistic" novel than Atlas, it would be obvious that Rand's ethical theories are simply unworkable in practice.

You may still think it a flaw, but it was her explicit intent and is the main reason the book is and has been so popular: Because people want to look up, not down or horizontally.

Yes, and that's also the reason Superman comics are so popular, too. But no one sensible takes Superman seriously as a guide to life.

 

[WonderfulWorld]

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Plato, and you (and Rand herself) may not have found his moral argument compelling. But if your primary disagreement with Plato is that "the dishonest, cheating bastard might successfully fool all the people all of the time, which is (gently, now) not bloody likely," then you're inherently raising an argument based on realism.

"Realism" and "Romanticism" are artistic terms, not philosophical ones. (Yikes!) But you've clarified something that I'd never understood about objections to Ayn Rand: People are confusing the philosophy with the artistic style. Rand put all her virtues into one person (and some great failings in others) to illustrate those virtues in relief.

Essentially, you're saying that a universe filled with successful but dishonest bastards is logically possible, but not realistic. But if that's the primary counterargument against Plato's ethical stance, then Rand cuts her own argument off at the knees with her writing style, as you illustrate:

Again, you're confusing the presentation with the substance. And no, I'm not saying that a universe filled with successful but dishonest bastards is logically possible. My point is that it's logically impossible. (It can only follow from false premises, e.g. omniscience or omnipotence.)

Whether or not Galt was explicitly characterized as "the smartest person who ever lived" is questionable -- he was certainly protrayed as smarter than the physicist who ran the State Science Institution, who was expressly one of the smarted people who ever lived.

This is also not true. The difference between the physicist (Dr. Floyd Ferris, thank you Yahoo!) and Galt was a matter of choice. Galt chose to be a producer, Ferris chose to be a thug. There was no comparison of intelligence, only "morality" as Rand saw it. (Rand also distinguished between intelligence and what one does with the "contents of one's mind" -- which is largely a matter of resolution, but Rand also accounted for intelligence, information, and the fact that some people don't have all day to think about things other than their jobs. She had characters in Atlas Shrugged to illustrate least three of the four.)

But that is to some extent irrelevant. I don't think that Paul Bunyan was ever explicitly stated to be "the tallest person who ever lived," either -- but it's obvious from the stories that he is supposed to be unrealistically tall -- tall beyond what any realistic character could ever expect to be. If John Galt is only as smart as Paul Bunyan is tall -- that's still a fairy tale.

So, really smart people don't exist? People who are smarter than most people? One person who is very probably smarter than anyone you've ever met?

Again, no one ever suggested that Galt was "the smartest person who ever lived" or "in the world" or "in New York City" or even "in the book." He was simply the fullest embodiment of all the virtues that Rand wanted to illustrate.

The problem is, if you are trying to show that Rand's theories of morality are "more realistic" than Plato's, then it does no good to present them in the framework of a fairy tale. And in a more "realistic" novel than Atlas, it would be obvious that Rand's ethical theories are simply unworkable in practice.

So real people can't be really smart, nor truly resolute, nor highly principled. Or at least, not all three at the same time! I'm trying to imagine, here, what you perceive as supernatural about Galt's character, and I'm not getting it.

Yes, and that's also the reason Superman comics are so popular, too. But no one sensible takes Superman seriously as a guide to life.

Same point: Being brilliant, (almost) unflinchingly resolute, and principled all at once is no different from being a 50-foot tall lumberjack or throwing on a cape and flying through the skies to save tall buildings.

 

[drkitten]

"
Same point: Being brilliant, (almost) unflinchingly resolute, and principled all at once is no different from being a 50-foot tall lumberjack or throwing on a cape and flying through the skies to save tall buildings.

Yup. Good example.

Being brilliant is like being strong. Being resolute is like being tall. Both of those are arguably virtues.

Being unflinchingly resolute is like being 50 feet tall. Being as brilliant as Galt is presented as being is like being able to lift tanks by the barrel.

At this point, we've left the realm of literature and philosophy, and moved into comic books.

 

[Skeptic]

I'm curious what you mean by "informal" or even "formal", since there really is no such thing as either, unless you mean those who actually write or speak for the Ayn Rand Institute, or people who write or speak for some other explicitly (or at least putatively) "Objectivist" group.

Yup.

What you call a "flaw" was Rand's stated intent, that Galt (among others) should be a "romantic" (not the pulp-fiction sense) hero -- an image of mankind as we should aspire to be.

Yes, but that "ideal" is silly and so completely unrealistic it totally fails. Galt is (in effect) a mutli-billionaire astronaut nobel prize winner in physics who also has the body of Arnold Schwarznegger and the artistic skills of Picasso. It's possible to aspire to be someone like that, I suppose, as it doesn't break any physical law and is thus "realistic", but it's totally unbelievable.

She wasn't writing a "realist" novel, and she hated them and the antiheroes that usually show up in them. You may still think it a flaw, but it was her explicit intent and is the main reason the book is and has been so popular: Because people want to look up, not down or horizontally.

But to look up to someone, that someone needs to be realistic, not the absurd pastiche Galt is. The heroes of Shakespeare or Dickens or Tolstoy or Sophocles are much more to be looked up for than Galt is, since they are real, not fake, like Galt is.

Rand was quite familiar with Plato, and detested nearly everything about him. (So do I.) The argument must implicitly assume that the dishonest, cheating bastard might successfully fool all the people all of the time, which is (gently, now) not bloody likely.

Isn't it? Experience shows quite well that cheating, lying, bribing and stealing are very often excellent business, legal, and political practice, human nature being what it is. The dishonest cheating bastard doesn't NEED to cheat everybody all the time--he needs to cheat the right people at the right time.

The question is, why not cheat THAT ONE TIME when it's clear it's for your great benefit and it is unlikely anybody will ever know (or at least prove) it? Are you telling me this isn't likely? I'd say it's an extremely common moral dilemma.

 

[Skeptic]

Again, you're confusing the presentation with the substance. And no, I'm not saying that a universe filled with successful but dishonest bastards is logically possible. My point is that it's logically impossible.

Not only such a world logically possible, it is, more or less, the world we live in. Ever noticed, for example, who is in power in most nations in the world?

So, really smart people don't exist? People who are smarter than most people? One person who is very probably smarter than anyone you've ever met?

...who ALSO happens to be a superb businessman AND morally impeccable and steadfast? Well, it's POSSIBLE, I suppose, but not, I can't think of anyone like that.

It's also POSSIBLE to be a 16-year-old astronaut physics nobel prize winner with the artistic skills of Picasso that also finds a cure for cancer while being a movie star. But such a character would be ridiculous.

But come to think of it, there is a different point. We are working on the assumption that, at least, IF someone like Galt existed, he would be worthy of emulation as a paradigm. But this is just coompletely wrong.

People who are truly admirable, who are really heroes worthy of emulation, are never like Galt. Rand thinks that a laundry list of quantifiable accomplishments are what makes a person worthy of emulation. Wrong.

A real-life Galt would, with all probability, be an insufferable prick, while the real heroes and saints in this world never "achieve" a zillionth of what he did--but they know full well the truly important things one does, and the truly important properties of one's character, have nothing to do with Galt-like achievements or lack thereof.

The whole premise is simply wrong from the start. Galt-like existence would have no more to do with true "goodness" or "the good life" than it would have to do with Chinese pottery.

 

[Ian Osborne]

It's also POSSIBLE to be a 16-year-old astronaut physics nobel prize winner with the artistic skills of Picasso that also finds a cure for cancer while being a movie star. But such a character would be ridiculous.

If she was good looking too, she'd be the next Bond girl...

 

[BlackCat]

Sorry to change the subject, but I was thinking about something else that I liked from AS. It was how Rand portrayed communism as a warning -- like sci-fi novels are often warnings -- about potential pitfalls, and things that could go wrong with it. A great example is the employee from the Twentieth Century Motor Company, who describes his experiences with how the company gravitated towards communism (although not explicitly stated as such in the book).

Beginning with the ideal "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," she then showed how it corrupted the people, by forcing them to be beggars in order to receive handouts, and how it punished the people who did work hard, trying to support everyone else.

I'd known a little about communism before reading the book, but her examples really solidified it for me. Of course, not just the book did that, but taking economics in college at the same time really helped too. Now I understand that communism and to a lesser extent, socialism, don't encourage people to be the best they can be or to do their best, because it punishes them for doing so and rewards them for leeching off of others. From what I understand of people, it seems that they would actually behave that way in those circumstances. I'm sure Rand saw it firsthand.

BlackCat

 

[BryanLower]

I'd known a little about communism before reading the book, but her examples really solidified it for me. Of course, not just the book did that, but taking economics in college at the same time really helped too. Now I understand that communism and to a lesser extent, socialism, don't encourage people to be the best they can be or to do their best, because it punishes them for doing so and rewards them for leeching off of others. From what I understand of people, it seems that they would actually behave that way in those circumstances. I'm sure Rand saw it firsthand.

Good criticisms of Communism. I do appreciate that Rand was anti-Communist, and I think she was correct in being so. But you can't make the same mistake in the other direction. You can't assume that helping those less fortunate is necessarily encouraging leeching, or that it necessarily punishes hard work. There are some assumptions there that don't reflect the world as it really is.

Jeez, there's a lot to say on that subject... but I must refrain because we really WOULD be getting off the topic.

 

[BlackCat]

It's not off topic, because talking about Rand's examples of communism is still on topic for 'Ayn Rand.' If you have something to discuss about what she says about communism, please say so....

BlackCat

 

[bignickel]

It's also POSSIBLE to be a 16-year-old astronaut physics nobel prize winner with the artistic skills of Picasso that also finds a cure for cancer while being a movie star. But such a character would be ridiculous.

Sounds like a young Buckaroo Bonzai!

 

[Skeptic]

I'm sure Rand saw it firsthand.

She did. She was one of the many who left Soviet Russia as a young woman, I think in the 20s (and in her 20s, as well, IIRC).

 

[WonderfulWorld]

Yup. Good example.
Being brilliant is like being strong. Being resolute is like being tall. Both of those are arguably virtues.
Being unflinchingly resolute is like being 50 feet tall. Being as brilliant as Galt is presented as being is like being able to lift tanks by the barrel.

I did say "(almost) unflinchingly resolute," because Galt did flinch at least once (on discovering that Dagny was "seeing" Rearden), and a second flinch was implied on another occasion for approximately the same reason. (I suppose I should be clear on the difference between "unflinchingly" and "unfailingly," here. You can flinch, jump, bolt for the door, etc. -- "Galt" did -- but still recover your wits before you do something stupid. But now that I think of it, one short but major scene did imply an actual failure of resolution on Galt's part, and it did certainly have some undesired consequences.) And you do seem to have overstate Galt's alleged intelligence -- unless you think every Nobel Prize winner since Feynman was supernaturally intelligent....

Yes, but that "ideal" is silly and so completely unrealistic it totally fails. Galt is (in effect) a mutli-billionaire astronaut nobel prize winner in physics who also has the body of Arnold Schwarznegger and the artistic skills of Picasso. It's possible to aspire to be someone like that, I suppose, as it doesn't break any physical law and is thus "realistic", but it's totally unbelievable.

"In effect" how? How was he represented as a multi-billionaire (or multi-billionaire-like)? How was he represented as astronaut-like? How was he represented as extraordinarily strong, physically? (I'm assuming you don't mean that he was built like Schwarzenegger.) How was Galt's character represented as artistically skilled?

"Galt" was trained as a physicist and a philosopher (he focused on physics), good-looking (I don't remember his "beauty" being a major point) and in apparently excellent physical condition, intellectually brilliant, and extraordinarily resolute. Perhaps we should stick to those attributes, and any others I might have left out. Oh, yeah: He also knew how to fly a small aircraft. (Perhaps that's astronaut-like?)

Experience shows quite well that cheating, lying, bribing and stealing are very often excellent business, legal, and political practice, human nature being what it is. The dishonest cheating bastard doesn't NEED to cheat everybody all the time--he needs to cheat the right people at the right time.

The question is, why not cheat THAT ONE TIME when it's clear it's for your great benefit and it is unlikely anybody will ever know (or at least prove) it? Are you telling me this isn't likely? I'd say it's an extremely common moral dilemma.

Whether or not the misbehavior is "provable" is irrelevant to business: People won't do business with you if they find you out (and getting new, clueless customers is very expensive), even if you "get away with it" legally, and "unlikely" suggests a probability that no sane person would try to calculate. But perhaps you're more of a gambler than I am; I don't take unnecessary, damnfool risks like that. I say "unnecessary" because I don't have such a low opinion of myself to think that I'd need to take such a risk. Nor do I have the ability to lie, cheat, and steal, but only just once, and only in one respect. Nor do I have the ability to live happily on the "gains" of such a venture. Such a cheat would always live in fear of being "found out," and real happiness is also incompatible with such behavior (the issues are related, but not exactly the same -- "real happiness" is deeper than "not looking over your shoulder"). I'm not saying that people don't try it and maybe even get away with it on occasion ("You can fool some of the people some of the time...."), but it is only the fool who would try. Because, as I said, real people are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

As for politicians, they are a miserable lot in every sense of the word. (Politics is co-dependence on an institutional scale.) And they "get away" with it because and for as long as we let them. No one is fooled (for long), but we are sometimes still fools. Democracy is a compromise that sucks a bit less than the alternatives.

The issue of psychics, seers, and other quacks comes to mind, but I would argue that most of these people are among the self-deluded, not the cheats. Self-deluded and sometimes rich, but self-deluded nontheless. And they live off the desperate, grasping "some of the people" who are also (mostly) self-deluded.

(Sigh. A friend of mine is a certifiable woo-woo, most of her friends are woo-woos, and she does a lot of business with woo-woos. No one's getting rich, I think, and no one is lying outright, but there they are with their gods and "essential" oils and herbs and homeopathy and chakras and chi and star charts....

Save us.)

 

[Skeptic]

"Galt" was trained as a physicist and a philosopher (he focused on physics), good-looking (I don't remember his "beauty" being a major point) and in apparently excellent physical condition, intellectually brilliant, and extraordinarily resolute. Perhaps we should stick to those attributes, and any others I might have left out. Oh, yeah: He also knew how to fly a small aircraft.

But APART from THAT, he's just like you and me.

Really, WW, don't you see how your own description of Galt shows him to be a self-parody? Even James Bond is a more realistic character than that.

Whether or not the misbehavior is "provable" is irrelevant to business: People won't do business with you if they find you out (and getting new, clueless customers is very expensive), even if you "get away with it" legally

But why should you care? You already made your millions illegally, so you don't really have to work anymore or find new customers. And you can rely on the public's short memory and count on the fact that, pretty soon, people will start doing business with you again--if you feel like working again for some reason, that is.

I say "unnecessary" because I don't have such a low opinion of myself to think that I'd need to take such a risk. Nor do I have the ability to lie, cheat, and steal, but only just once, and only in one respect.

But that's not the point of the example; I wasn't saying you actually would, or could, do something like that. The question is, what is MORALLY WRONG with stealing?

The objectivist, it seems to me, must say that what is MORALLY WRONG with it is that it just so happens NOT to be in his self-interest: that he simply lacks the ability to act in such a way, or that the risk of capture is almost always too great. Perhaps so; but that is not what is wrong with the act.

But let us, like Plato, assume you have certain superpowers. Suppose you have magic ring that lets you become invisible and therefore allows you to kill the old lady for her money with absolutely no risk of capture or detection. You are now running no risk at all in doing so, and you have $1,000,000 to gain if you do it.

Plato (and most people) would say that, even with no risk of capture, it is morally wrong to kill the old lady and take her money. The objectivist, I am afraid, has no choice but to admit that, in this case, it is not wrong to do so, since it's in one's self-interest.

As for politicians, they are a miserable lot in every sense of the word.

Oh really? So why do so many people want to become politicians? Why do people run for president?

The issue of psychics, seers, and other quacks comes to mind, but I would argue that most of these people are among the self-deluded, not the cheats.

Let's take Sylvia Browne. It's rather obvious that she is simply a fraud. Yet she knows it is extremely unlikely she will ever be prosecuted for fraud, and she enjoys living the high life--charging $700 per half-hour of "psychic" phone consultation.

Now, what is MORALLY WRONG with what she's doing, according to the objectist? She is making a lot more money than she could possibly dream of doing in an honest job, will never go to jail for her fraud, and is certainly maximizing her self-interest, that's for damn sure.

An objectivist, I am afraid, will have to admit there is nothing morally wrong with what she does.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Jeff Walker in "The Ayn Rand Cult" portrays her having a personality disorder and depression. She and her acolyte Peikoff believed all shoud have her thoughts and tastes and those who don't are evil.
See John Hospers's "Human Conduct " for a discussion favorable to egoism.
Our Nanny State has not led to the road to serfdom. The safety net does not rob people of liberty or gumption.
She had only a shallow knowledge of philosophy. 'For the new Intellecual" misleads about matters.
I think,minus the philosophical dullness, "Atlas Shrugged" could be a fine mystery.Angelina Jolie will star in the film version. I wonder how the film will fare.Will its ideas impress many ?
Also read Michael Huemer's " Critique of 'The Objectivist Ethics"@sprynet.com/owll/rand5httm
Sorry, I didn't realize I was at another thread similar to mine when I originally composed this!

 

[dudalb]

The section on 20th Century Motors in "Atlas Shrugged",and it's critque of the basic Marxist idea is probably the best thing in Rand's work.
Other then that really don't have much good to say about Rand as a writer or a philosopher.
She is a good example of being so repelled by one evil (Communism) that she goes to the other extreme.

 

[dudalb]

I've read "Fountainhead", but not "Atlas Shrugged" I managed to make it all the way through the book, finishing it with a "what the heck did I just read?" sort of feeling. I think the biggest problem was that I considered all the main characters arrogant, unlikeable people. Especially Roark. It's hard to read a book when one develops a deep hatred for the hero. And his philosophy.

In the Simpsons "Ayn Rand School for Tots", I also liked the "Helping is futile" sign.

Of all Rands major characters the only one I really liked was Francisco D'Anconia. At least he had a sense of humor a seems like a guy it would be fun to be around..something you cannot say for Rand's "Ideal" men,Roark and John Galt.

 

[RobRoy]

Personally, not that anyone cares, but I enjoyed reading Rand when I was in high school, and every now and then I like to reread some of Rand's efforts just to see how I've changed in relation to the view I had of her writing twenty-odd years back. I had limited exposure to philosophy, literature and theory at the time, and while I found Atlas Shrugged a longer version of The Fountainhead (and only read 1% of "This is John Galt Speaking") it did give me pause to think and consider, but not necessarily about her own theories. Rather, it was an interesting window on the opposing (if there is such a thing) side: socialism, communism, welfare states, general political corruption, etc. and some other problems.

Rand seems to me, at this point in my life, to be overly optimistic on the one side, and overly fatalistic on the other. It would be nice if the world were in such black and white contrast as Rand saw it (of course, by making that statement, I've just scratched my name from the "ideal man" list ). But I certainly appreciate seeing such a monolithic set of values to compare against a world that is reasonable relative at the best of times.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

But let us, like Plato, assume you have certain superpowers. Suppose you have magic ring that lets you become invisible and therefore allows you to kill the old lady for her money with absolutely no risk of capture or detection.

There are at least two objections to that from the Objectivist perspective. The first is that magic rings do not exist, and so the thought experiment is invalid.

The second is that you are taking a narrow definition of self-interest. There is more to it than just money, such as the pleasure of earning wealth vs. taking money. Rand's books certainly include characters who are rich but miserable.

and is certainly maximizing her self-interest, that's for damn sure.

How do you know that? I'm certainly intellectually capable of duplicating Browne's "feats", but I could not live with myself doing so. The money could not make up for how miserable I would be in being such a hypocrite and liar.

Maybe some people are capable of ignoring such feelings, or maybe they can't perceive them in the first place--I think that is a more legitimate potential criticism of Objectivism. It might even be something you could test scientifically.

- Dr. Trintignant