Ayn Rand

[RobRoy]

If Rand was honest, she would have proposed a solution. Instead, she just pretends the problem doesn't exist. It may be superficially appealing, but it doesn't have much philosophical depth.

Oh, I don't know that we can say Rand was dishonest. She may have been naive about her solution to the problem, lacked the necessary understanding to fully address the problem, or perceived the problem from a flawed set of beliefs. I don't think Rand was trying to deceive anyone, and that she legitimately believed in what she was promoting.

If you want to define Galt as a reasonable unreasonable person, then you are incoherent. But that's exactly what the merge of Socrates and Achilles does.

Gotcha, I think. So what we're saying is that Rand is promoting Galt as Achilles and Socrates, but the two are diametrically opposed. If you give Achilles reason, then that reason will act as a restraint, and we no longer have an Achilles. By the same token, if you give Socrates the benefits of an Achilles, then you have to take away everything that is inherently Socrates.

Is that correct then?

 

[drkitten]

Gotcha, I think. So what we're saying is that Rand is promoting Galt as Achilles and Socrates, but the two are diametrically opposed. If you give Achilles reason, then that reason will act as a restraint, and we no longer have an Achilles. By the same token, if you give Socrates the benefits of an Achilles, then you have to take away everything that is inherently Socrates.

Is that correct then?

Or if not diametrically opposed, sufficiently different that you can't just "merge" them without a hell of a lot more explanation than Rand gave. Perhaps a better writer than Rand could have pulled it off. (I don't see how, but, then, I also haven't collected my Nobel Prize for literature yet.)

So, yeah, you're basically correct. There may be a solution to the problem of merging Socrates and Achilles. D'rok states, correctly, that people (philosophers) have been looking for one, arguably ever since Plato. No one has been successful yet. But Rand doesn't even really address the issue.

 

[D'rok]

Oh, I don't know that we can say Rand was dishonest. She may have been naive about her solution to the problem, lacked the necessary understanding to fully address the problem, or perceived the problem from a flawed set of beliefs. I don't think Rand was trying to deceive anyone, and that she legitimately believed in what she was promoting.

The reason I think Rand was dishonest is because she was far from ignorant. She read and despised Plato and consciously rejected his arguments. That's fine. Plato isn't scripture. But if you (generally, not you personally) are going to "do" philosophy, you'd better at least take on the arguments of your opponents. If you don't, your argument looks weak and is really just an assertion.

That's also why Nietzsche has more cred. He went toe to toe with all the big guns from Plato to Hegel and held his own. That's the philosophy version of "showing your work".

 

[RobRoy]

The reason I think Rand was dishonest is because she was far from ignorant. She read and despised Plato and consciously rejected his arguments. That's fine. Plato isn't scripture. But if you (generally, not you personally) are going to "do" philosophy, you'd better at least take on the arguments of your opponents. If you don't, your argument looks weak and is really just an assertion.

Agreed, to some extent, but still not buying that Rand was dishonest. From her point of view, perhaps Plato could/should be rejected outright, and any "sensible" or "reasonable" person would do so.

That's also why Nietzsche has more cred. He went toe to toe with all the big guns from Plato to Hegel and held his own. That's the philosophy version of "showing your work".

Yet Rand generally causes more polarization than Nietzsche. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because Rand is more accessible by the less-learned?

 

[D'rok]

Agreed, to some extent, but still not buying that Rand was dishonest. From her point of view, perhaps Plato could/should be rejected outright, and any "sensible" or "reasonable" person would do so.

Possibly. But I still think it's a cop-out either way.

Yet Rand generally causes more polarization than Nietzsche. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because Rand is more accessible by the less-learned?

Also possibly. But I think it's also because Randians often seem to have a sense that they've been gifted with the instruction manual for human flourishing. If only solutions to difficult problems were so easy to come by.

 

[drkitten]

Yet Rand generally causes more polarization than Nietzsche. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because Rand is more accessible by the less-learned?

I could accept that as a major reason. I also think that followers of Rand tend to be more open about their beliefs, partly because Nietzsche is so closely associated with the Nazis (and the philosophical underpinnings of the Nazi regime), which makes it easier to reject Nietzsche on pseudo-empirical grounds. ("Nietzsche said that that one should behave this way. The Nazis took him seriously and look at what came out of it. Therefore, one should not behave as he suggests.")

Indeed, Randism has never been seriously tried, partly because it's so obviously wrong that no serious philosopher (or policy-maker) would rely on it. But just because it's never been tried allows the cult members to hope that if it were tried, it would work as well as it does in the (comic) books.

 

[RobRoy]

Possibly. But I still think it's a cop-out either way.

Oh sure, from your point of view and that of others with similar understandings. I'm just saying Rand isn't, at least intentionally, being dishonest about what she's saying. She sincerely believes this is the best way to move forward.

Indeed, Randism has never been seriously tried, partly because it's so obviously wrong that no serious philosopher (or policy-maker) would rely on it. But just because it's never been tried allows the cult members to hope that if it were tried, it would work as well as it does in the (comic) books.

Well, Alan Greenspan was a follower and close friend of Rand, so it could be argued that said policies were reflected there. Now, I don't even pretend to understand the ins and outs of Greenspan's reign, but he seemed pretty handy at what he did. I do understand that some Randians (is that what we call them? I thought they were Objectivists?) criticized him heavily, so perhaps he wasn't as closely allied as has been made out to be.

Still, any economic or governmental system works pretty good on a small scale. Extend that out, wrap social, cultural, religious, race and class issues into the mix, throw it up against any number of other systems, and generally speaking, nothing works as well as it does in narrative or comic-book format.

 

[D'rok]

Oh sure, from your point of view and that of others with similar understandings. I'm just saying Rand isn't, at least intentionally, being dishonest about what she's saying. She sincerely believes this is the best way to move forward.

I'm not defining honesty as sincerity. I'm sure she's sincere. I mean intellectual honesty - i.e., not trying to a)pull a fast one on your readers, or b)knowingly trumpet a conclusion based on false or incomplete premises.

Intellectual honesty demands that she reach her conclusions rigorously.

This is a lousy analogy, but Creationists are sincere too and in that sense they are honest. But when they call Intelligent Design science and conclude that evidence indicates life is divinely created, they are being dishonest. I'm not equating Rand to a Creationist...I just can't think of a better analogy off the top of my head.

 

[drkitten]

Well, Alan Greenspan was a follower and close friend of Rand, so it could be argued that said policies were reflected there.

I think you'd have a very hard time making that argument; I can't think of many of Greenspan's actions that would be "Randian" rather than simply anti-inflationist. The simple fact that he took such an active role in controlling money policy (as opposed to simply either letting the market sort it out or campaigning to put the dollar back on some sort of specie basis) makes me wonder which of Rand's policies, which were unformly of the "don't do anything" approach, he was supposed to reflect.

And, by the way, I like to call them "Randroids." I don't think Objectivism is a particularly good name -- the movement, especially in later years, is in no way objective and seems to be almost entirely a personality cult.

 

[drkitten]

generally speaking, nothing works as well as it does in narrative or comic-book format.

Which is why very few serious/competent economists and philosophers present their work in the form of potboilers shelved in the fiction section.

In some sense, Atlas Shrugged (and to a lesser extent, the rest of her fiction) is philosophical fiction in the tradition of Utopia. And such fiction can be a good way of describing how you envision a perfect society working. The problem -- and one reason why Utopias aren't written much any more -- is that they're usually based on overly simplistic premises, often premises that go all the way to downright false.

There's a wonderful Chesterton quote (Heretics) that is a perfect criticism of Utopias in general and of Rand's in particular. "[T]he weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motor-car or balloon."

In Rand's case, she assumes that man's rational inclination is to act morally, and proceeds to write a story where all the immoral characters are, ipso facto, idiots who cannot plan for the long-term; she assumes that the same power-mad psychopaths who run multibillion dollar corporations as extensions of their own personality and are willing to abandon loyal underlings without a second's hesitations are nevertheless utterly above-board and scrupulous in their dealings with each other (and command the sort of loyalty from their followers that the most power-mad religious guru can only envy). A man who has so much free time that he can devote thousands and thousands of hours of time to an independent metallurgy research project (or to simply playing gigolo at cocktail parties) while his industrial combine runs itself through his capable lieutenants will nevertheless see it crash to the ground instantly when he is no longer "at its helm."

Frankly, I think that entire story could have been written in a single sentence. "Good will always triumph over evil, because evil is dumb."

 

[RobRoy]

Intellectual honesty demands that she reach her conclusions rigorously.

Oh, agreed, absolutely. I just think she thought she'd done that.

This is a lousy analogy, but Creationists are sincere too and in that sense they are honest. But when they call Intelligent Design science and conclude that evidence indicates life is divinely created, they are being dishonest. I'm not equating Rand to a Creationist...I just can't think of a better analogy off the top of my head.

Naw, it's a nice analogy, and you admit its flawed, I assume in the extremism of the case.

I think you'd have a very hard time making that argument; I can't think of many of Greenspan's actions that would be "Randian" rather than simply anti-inflationist. The simple fact that he took such an active role in controlling money policy (as opposed to simply either letting the market sort it out or campaigning to put the dollar back on some sort of specie basis) makes me wonder which of Rand's policies, which were unformly of the "don't do anything" approach, he was supposed to reflect.

And I'd agree with you, since, as I mentioned, I have no real knowledge of Greenspan's reign, and was drawing conclusions based on his personally stated beliefs.

Which is why very few serious/competent economists and philosophers present their work in the form of potboilers shelved in the fiction section.

Are we talking modern, classical, or ancient "serious/competant economists and philosophers"?

In Rand's case, she assumes that man's rational inclination is to act morally, and proceeds to write a story where all the immoral characters are, ipso facto, idiots who cannot plan for the long-term; she assumes that the same power-mad psychopaths who run multibillion dollar corporations as extensions of their own personality and are willing to abandon loyal underlings without a second's hesitations are nevertheless utterly above-board and scrupulous in their dealings with each other (and command the sort of loyalty from their followers that the most power-mad religious guru can only envy).

This is, in many ways, an oversimplification, and in others, a misrepresentation of Rand's novels. There were always the "immoral characters" who were fully aware of their actions and quite blatantly planned out their moves. On the other hand Rand never once had a hero who was a "power-mad psychopaths who run multibillion dollar corporations." All of Rand's heros were not interested in power in the least, and were generally unprepared to deal with those who were in power.

However, it is in this case that I tend to agree with you. Rand's greatest failing (I said greatest, she had others), is that she was created with such a simplistic outlook at the world. Industrialists were pure if they stuck to their concepts and didn't sell out to "a group" of any kind. Those who did, had their work corrupted by less-than-visionary men who were heavily influenced by social-cultural fads of concern. Politicians, for Rand, were almost always more interested in the amassing of power and influence than in the use of either for any kind of good, or, if they did, then they use "the common good" in a twisted manner. For Rand, the world was divided quite nicely into black and white, good and evil, socialism and capitalism. She assumed that everyone had the same level of education, and that some turned it to proper pursuits, and others did not.

As you said, Rand's writing is in the tradition of Utopia with all those failings.

 

[drkitten]

This is, in many ways, an oversimplification, and in others, a misrepresentation of Rand's novels. There were always the "immoral characters" who were fully aware of their actions and quite blatantly planned out their moves. On the other hand Rand never once had a hero who was a "power-mad psychopaths who run multibillion dollar corporations." All of Rand's heros were not interested in power in the least, and were generally unprepared to deal with those who were in power.

I stand by what I wrote -- Rand's "immoral characters" were never fully aware of their actions, which is why they were always blindsided by the Aristotelian inevitability of the consequences in the next-to-last chapter. They're capable perhaps of short-term cunning, but completely unaware that their behavior will ultimately be self-destructive in the long run. If that's intelligence, then Wile E. Coyote is indeed a super-genius.

And similarly, I think that "power-mad psychopath" is a pretty good description of Francisco D'Anconia. Power does not always derive from the political structure; indeed, one of her central points is that economic power is superior in many ways to political power. But how many people did he injure economically (via his economic power) in his quest to destroy the copper empire he had inherited instead of sharing his operating authority with the duly vested legal authorities? And how many innocents did John Galt condemn to the dark ages?

What's the quotation? "Someday, I will shut the lights of New York off"? That's a pretty powerful statement of a pretty powerful person -- and one who doesn't care how many people get hurt or killed when he exercises that power.

Industrialists were pure if they stuck to their concepts and didn't sell out to "a group" of any kind. Those who did, had their work corrupted by less-than-visionary men who were heavily influenced by social-cultural fads of concern.

Yeah. When I did that -- stuck to my concepts and didn't sell out to a group of any kind -- my mother smacked me behind the ear and said that if I couldn't play nicely with the other children, she wouldn't take me to the playground at all. Do you remember the annoying twit on the playground who owned the jump-rope and therefore insisted that she got to pick what game(s) we played with it?

I think "power-mad psychopath" about covers it.

 

[hgc]

...
A man who has so much free time that he can devote thousands and thousands of hours of time to an independent metallurgy research project (or to simply playing gigolo at cocktail parties) while his industrial combine druns itself through his capable lieutenants will nevertheless see it crash to the ground instantly when he is no longer "at its helm."
...

Oh yeah. I was always annoyed by this brand of conceipt within AS. It's the result of a slavish devotion to the idea of individual autonomy and influence -- which is not believable in the least in real world experience. Rand posits that by removing a very few important individuals from the equation, civilization will collapse. Bull. There is no such thing as the indispensible human cog. In other words, as you might say, if the jump-rope owner abandons the playground in a fit of pique, the games will go on and hardly miss a beat.

 

[Father Dagon]

Oh yeah. I was always annoyed by this brand of conceipt within AS. It's the result of a slavish devotion to the idea of individual autonomy and influence -- which is not believable in the least in real world experience. Rand posits that by removing a very few important individuals from the equation, civilization will collapse. Bull. There is no such thing as the indispensible human cog. In other words, as you might say, if the jump-rope owner abandons the playground in a fit of pique, the games will go on and hardly miss a beat.

Good metaphor. But there is countries that sucks. And that's not only beacuse the few geniuses has been targeted, but the population as a whole. Rand mentions that in AS when some author wants book pressing to be limited to some 100's of thousand items. In such a system, it's impossible for the common citizen to write in the spare time and become an author.

 

[drkitten]

Rand mentions that in AS when some author wants book pressing to be limited to some 100's of thousand items. In such a system, it's impossible for the common citizen to write in the spare time and become an author.

Is it? Speaking as someone who has published books myself -- the royalties from a hundred thousand copies of a book would more than justify the time I spent writing it. Why would it be "impossible" for me to write a book in my spare time?

Now, granted, I'm not going to become a J.K. Rowling-level billionaire (I believe she's officially the richest woman in the UK, outstripping Betty Windsor by a fair bit) selling books 100,000 at a time. But I could not only write a book in my spare time, but I could make enough off of my first book, even with only 100,000 copies sold, to justify quitting my day job and becoming a full-time author (on the expectations of selling 100,000 copies of my second, third, fourth, and so forth).

Do the math; in the US, a paperback sells at about 10 bucks or so, of which at least 5% is authors' royalties. That works out at 50 cents per book. Numbers in the UK are of the same order of magnitude. I could live on $50,000 (or 25,000 punds) per year -- most of the population lives on substantially less.

The key question is whether the existence of a few mega-sellers (like J.K. Rowling) makes it easier or harder for small, niche writers to survive. Certainly the existence of large companies like Wal-Mart makes it harder for mom-and-pop stores, and Microsoft makes it harder for small software companies.

 

[RobRoy]

I stand by what I wrote -- Rand's "immoral characters" were never fully aware of their actions, which is why they were always blindsided by the Aristotelian inevitability of the consequences in the next-to-last chapter. They're capable perhaps of short-term cunning, but completely unaware that their behavior will ultimately be self-destructive in the long run. If that's intelligence, then Wile E. Coyote is indeed a super-genius.

I say nothing about the "next-to-last chapter" only that your description is an oversimplification and a misreprenstation. Ellsworth Toohey is a prime example from The Fountainhead was well-educated, had a long-term agenda, and set out to achieve that agenda.

And how many innocents did John Galt condemn to the dark ages?

None, that was the point. There were those who followed the "enlightened path" those who stood in their way, and those who enabled one side or the other. There were no "innocents" according to Rand.

Yeah. When I did that -- stuck to my concepts and didn't sell out to a group of any kind -- my mother smacked me behind the ear and said that if I couldn't play nicely with the other children, she wouldn't take me to the playground at all.

To some extent this is Rand's point, although the problem is you're comparing children, who lack a moral baromoter, to industrialists in Rand's philosophy, who do not. Still, the analogy works to some extent. You're playing along, the way you want to play, the manner which gives you the most joy, and your mother, which in Rand would be government by group, by committee, comes along and tells you you're playing wrong, and worse that if you insist on playing your way, you'll suffer repercussions (fines, sanctions, imprisonment, etc.).

Now, I was not commenting that this is the right thing to do, I was just interpreting Rand's world view. I believe I stated above that I liked Rand, but found her overly simplistic. Too black and white to function in the real world, especially not our own modern world.

 

[delphi_ote]

There were no "innocents" according to Rand.

Except those poor captains of industry who worked so hard and never got any respect from the mean old common people.

 

[RobRoy]

Except those poor captains of industry who worked so hard and never got any respect from the mean old common people.

Yeah, except for them. Poor little guys, always picked on by the government and the people and everything, with all their money and ability to retire from the world in general. It was sad, really.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Politicians, for Rand, were almost always more interested in the amassing of power and influence than in the use of either for any kind of good, or, if they did, then they use "the common good" in a twisted manner.

So, you're saying she got that right, then?

 

[RobRoy]

So, you're saying she got that right, then?

Nope, even that Rand view is overly simplistic and too black and white. It would be nice to lump all politicians into one pot and call them "scum" or "power-hungry" or "intellectual depraved".

I think politicians have multiple reasons for joining that rank and file. I wouldn't go so far as to think that any of them are altruistic, but I think a good many of them believe they have the answer to some of the pressing economic, social, moral, ethical and judicial questions that plague wards, cities, counties, states and nations. Whatever their motivating factors, most begin their career attempting to make a positive difference, and some even seek lasting positive change.