Ayn Rand ?

[Apology]

I didn't object to taking her $500 though. Since it came from the Ayn Rand Foundation, it wasn't altruism. I earned it or won it or something but it wasn't considered a "gift". I wonder if they'd be mad if they knew it was taxed as a "gift".

 

[Bluefire]

Just sort of a general impression. I always felt it fueled her obvious hatred of "altruism". Forced "altruism" should be considered a negative thing, but if "altruism" is actually forced, it's no longer "altruism", it's taxation.

She was not only against "forced" altruism. She was against self-sacrifice as a general principle.

It also seemed to me that to embrace Objectivism, you must assume that you will be the donor, not the donee.

Not really, Ayn Rand herself both received and gave charity.

There's a certain assumption by people that embrace Ayn Rand that there would be a special place for them in Gault's valley, not outside with all the incompetent leeches that the gifted folk left behind to die.

No such assumption. The valley of Galt is only for those of supreeme ability. One of the lessons of Atlas Shrugged, is that in that kind of society that the ones in the valley fled from, the competent, and good people, suffer as well.
Not all can be saved to a secret underground society, but that is all the more reason to have the "normal" world be a good one.

The Objectivist can object to Altruism, because they don't really see themselves as ever needing altruism from others. I object to this objectivist objection.

One needs to be specific here and say, I don't need (or see myself needing) other peoples self sacrifice. Of course one needs friends, family etc. And one can give substantial help (or receive it) to/from people that matter to us.

The second point is that, no one should be a slave under my needs. Eg. even if I was the donee here, this would not change the logic.

 

[Apology]

No such assumption. The valley of Galt is only for those of supreeme ability. One of the lessons of Atlas Shrugged, is that in that kind of society that the ones in the valley fled from, the competent, and good people, suffer as well.
Not all can be saved to a secret underground society, but that is all the more reason to have the "normal" world be a good one.

I think that a lot of people who are extremely fond of Ayn Rand's work believe that they are people of supreme ability and that her work is a special message to them, as persons of supreme ability. I've even heard it said that the relative dullness of her first 100 pages in both "Fountainhead" and "Shrugged" was a calculated "intelligence test" to keep less-than-superior people from getting to the heart of the plot, so you're implicitly intelligent by the mere fact that you've finished the book. These types of attitudes aren't uncommon when discussing Rand, in particular if you make an intensive study of her work (as I did in order to win the scholarship money) and make a point of discussing her works with as many people as possible. I think that people are getting her all wrong when they think this. Most of us would be left outside Gault's valley to suffer for the mere crime of being mediocre rather than for being actual drains on society.

I'm not sure that the Rand Foundation accurately represents Objectivism, but I assume that they do. They made a point to say that the scholarship that they gave me was not charity, it was earned. Since I basically didn't give them anything of value in exchange, and scholarships are usually funded by philanthropy and altruism, I feel it was a charitable donation. After all, all I did was repeat back the tenets of Objectivism as described in the books. If I'd have disagreed with them strongly, I would not have gotten the money. My essay was a well-written book report and not a product of critical thinking. They pretty much have to pay lip service to charity, since they're suggesting cutting off governmental aid to the indigent, and they don't want their position to look as cold as it really is. I don't really buy it though.

 

[rsaavedra]

I've even heard it said that the relative dullness of her first 100 pages in both "Fountainhead" and "Shrugged" was a calculated "intelligence test" to keep less-than-superior people from getting to the heart of the plot, so you're implicitly intelligent by the mere fact that you've finished the book.

Imagine what poor writers could claim about their lousy boring works: "There just aren't sufficiently smart people in the world ready for these words!"

Now seriously, this is making me wonder if I should probably spend my time reading some (any) other author.

 

[Father Dagon]

I find that one can take parts of Ayn Rands philosophy and leave other parts alone; it is not all or nothing- She and Nathaniel Branden led me to atheism and more appreciation of rationalism- using reason than whims or faith. As a liberal , I disagree with her economics. I hope she inspires more to be rational.But as Michael Shermer and some at Wipedia show she wanted others to agree with her on all matters. Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists ?There are the Peikoff- her choice - and the Kelly schools of thought. Might one add to all this?

Yup: http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

As is the case with many philosophers, Ayn Rand had some good ideas, but mixed them up with a lot of personal attitudes, and called the resulting mixture 'Moral Law'.

Her ideas about estethics and sexuality are recipies for failure. I'm also amused by the great shift of perspective.

Fountainhead: Was written when Rand was a struggling artist. Profitable mass culture is bad.
Atlas: Was written when Rand was economically independent. Profitable mass culture is good.

(But that blatant shift is not to be discussed in the company of the randroids...)

Since Ayn Rand never could even deal with Hume's destruction of her main tenet, and he wrote around 250 years before her, then Rand's lack of competent dealing there rather disqualifies her at the start.

In fact, the fallacies of special pleading, ad hoc, affirming the consequent
and so on so liberally scattered throughout her works is what disqualify it all from being considered serious philosophy.

Sauce, please?

I am a big fan of Ayn Rand, but that doesn't prevent me from criticizing her.

I think she was great as a philosopher, as long as you didn't ask her to elaborate, but sucked as a novelist. Her best works were short essays written for the newsletter, collected in The Virtue of Selfishness and other compilations.

Me too. I think it's beacuse she has to adress a concrete issue in a concrete way, not using sooper-metals and sooper-engines as illustrative devices.

I find her lengthy speaches, like the 5,693,509 page John Galt one, obscure to the point of MEGO. Somewhere in there is a poignant, two-sentence wrapup struggling to get out.

Haven't read it, but I appreciated the money speech. More useful IRL...

And I took issue with her "bow down to the nearest smokestack" quote, not to mention her vitrolic essay comparing the campers who came to watch the NASA rockets take off with Woodstock. To her, the RVers were celebrating technology but Woodstockers were just idiot potheads who consumed but did not contribute to society. A bit too simplistic for my taste.

Sagan said it better when he at a dinner party or some other gathering asked how many who was alive thanks to modern science. Of course smokestacks are a problem, but you must see the whole picture.

And I guess that the Apollo Program took a bigger dent from the taxpayers money than the Woodstock festival. But did that make the Apollo Program eeviiiillll??? No, it didn't...

That said, I think her anti-altruisic, pro-selfish concepts have considerable merit and are too often ignored when new legislation and taxation is up for consideration.

Don't forget the Satanic Bible while you're at it!

 

[Apology]

Imagine what poor writers could claim about their lousy boring works: "There just aren't sufficiently smart people in the world ready for these words!"

Now seriously, this is making me wonder if I should probably spend my time reading some (any) other author.

Yeah, I thought that statement was pretty dumb the first time I heard it, and was surprised by how many times I heard it repeated earnestly.

Not all Ayn Rand readers are idiots. It's possible to still like her work without believing that you're a member of the "supreme ability" clan. I feel the need to qualify the statement again: people who think things like this are misinterpreting what Rand actually says.

 

[Brainiac]

Thanks to all, I will follow your suggestions. Don't have Anthem in my library though, but will get it and read it before any of the others.

I don't necessarily agree that you have to start with Anthem. I started with The Fountainhead and eventually read all of her other books. I do agree that starting with Atlas Shrugged may not be the best way to approach it, but for a reason that is different from what others have stated.

No other book by Ayn Rand can measure up to Atlas Shrugged with respect to creating interesting characters and delivering a powerful message. Beginning with The Fountainhead and then proceeding to Atlas Shrugged is a natural progression, even though there is no plot connection between the two books. Doing it the other way will likely cause you to be disappointed when you read The Fountainhead, simply because Atlas Shrugged is a much more ambitious project. That's too bad, because when judged solely on its own merits, The Fountainhead is an excellent book.

In my opinion, if you only read two of Rand's books, those are the books you should read.

 

[Bluefire]

I think that a lot of people who are extremely fond of Ayn Rand's work believe that they are people of supreme ability and that her work is a special message to them, as persons of supreme ability. I've even heard it said that the relative dullness of her first 100 pages in both "Fountainhead" and "Shrugged" was a calculated "intelligence test" to keep less-than-superior people from getting to the heart of the plot, so you're implicitly intelligent by the mere fact that you've finished the book.

Wow, ok, you have my sympathy. I have not heard it said that way. Certainly I would say the styles of the books appeal to some sorts of people above others. But not on the "supreme" axis...

These types of attitudes aren't uncommon when discussing Rand, in particular if you make an intensive study of her work (as I did in order to win the scholarship money) and make a point of discussing her works with as many people as possible. I think that people are getting her all wrong when they think this.

If that is your experience, I can see where you are coming from. It has not been mine of course (though I have seen some other kinds of lunacy).

Most of us would be left outside Gault's valley to suffer for the mere crime of being mediocre rather than for being actual drains on society.

The point being, you do not suffer for the crime of being "mediocre" or "merely good" (but not good enough). You suffer because the prevailing ideas in a society have consequences, even for people that don't deserve them. (Sort of the same message is conveyed at the end of "We the living" when the Heroine dies while tryin to escape)

Maybe I should explain why I reacted to your post: I don't really like the many cases of wholesale group psychologizing the adherents of many -isms see. When discussing my atheism with religious folks I get that alot (they would probably be familiar to you), if I discuss libertarianism I get another set (that I am out to starve off the weak, that I lack compassion,that I am coldhearted...) , and I saw your original post as partly the same sort of psychologizing I receive in regards to Atheism and libertarianism.

Now I realize that O-ism has its fair share of nutjobs, and I can't really take the experience with them away from you...

 

[luchog]

Ad Hominem.

False application. The personal lives and attitudes of those involved were not addressed in my post. The only issue was voluntary charity vs redistributionism; and the relative charitable giving of both sides of the issue.

Whether or not those who support redistribution are themselves generous beings has no effect on whether their arguments are correct or not. Religious people give more to charity, too (and I suspect this, as well as demographics, are the primary reasons for relative generosity of American conservatives - I haven't seen studies looking at other parts of the world, so I do not know of the picture there) but that does not prove that God exists.

Non sequitor. The question of the existence of God is irrelevant to the issue of charity. Redistributionism is supremely relevant, since it's a different approach to the same problem.

(PS: From the same study I read, anti-redistributionists are also much more likely to be racist, homophobic, anti-science and against stopping climate change, so bear that in mind before trumpeting the huge benefits).

Also irrelevant, and another non-sequitor since "benefits" wasn't part of the discussion; but I"m curious as to what study you're referring to, since I've never seen any such correlation in any study I've found.

The rest of your comments are pure emotionalism, so I won't bother to address them.

 

[luchog]

They pretty much have to pay lip service to charity, since they're suggesting cutting off governmental aid to the indigent, and they don't want their position to look as cold as it really is. I don't really buy it though.

I've not found anything Rand's writing that completely discounts voluntary charity per se, explicitly or implicitly. What is explicitly discounted is the concept of entitlement. That the very fact of one's existence entitles one to take from others.

 

[luchog]

Imagine what poor writers could claim about their lousy boring works: "There just aren't sufficiently smart people in the world ready for these words!"

In fact, many of them do; both on the conservative and liberal sides. In fact, I've seen far more of that attitude on the liberal side, that is, in the art world which is typically highly left-liberal. "You're simply not intelligent/educated/sensitive/enlightened enough to understand my art." One of the reasons I dropped out of the art scene -- self-described artists who put more creative energy into their "vision statements" than into their actual work.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Not famiiar with her work but as an aside from the heavy stuff , Steve Ditko, the co creator of Spiderman and Dr Strange was/is heavily into Objectivism - later apparently influencing his characters such as Mister A and The Question.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I should probably add that I won a small grant from the Ayn Rand Foundation for an essay I wrote comparing and contrasting Rand's messages in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It was a really great essay.

I still think she was just mad about Social Security.

Post your essay, please.

 

[Apology]

Maybe I should explain why I reacted to your post: I don't really like the many cases of wholesale group psychologizing the adherents of many -isms see. When discussing my atheism with religious folks I get that alot (they would probably be familiar to you), if I discuss libertarianism I get another set (that I am out to starve off the weak, that I lack compassion,that I am coldhearted...) , and I saw your original post as partly the same sort of psychologizing I receive in regards to Atheism and libertarianism.

Now I realize that O-ism has its fair share of nutjobs, and I can't really take the experience with them away from you...

Well, having had time to think about it overnight, I realize that this type of person probably wouldn't come to the JREF. I can see from your own and other people's familiarity with the books that most likely if people were being looney about Rand then their theories would just be debunked. A few repetitions of "Where did Rand say that?" and they'd probably toddle on off to a more supremely talented place

Every group has fringe loonies. I realize it's totally unfair to blame Rand's work for people like this. They didn't understand it at all and that's why they say and think these nutty things. My experience with the Rand Society in hindsight was a negative thing, but I needed the money and it did lead me in the right direction towards my own exploration of philosophy and religion, so it wasn't all bad either. It's anecdotal anyway. Just because I had some bad experiences doesn't mean everyone will or that Rand's all bad. I really enjoyed reading her stuff

 

[skeptic griggsy]

For my latest comments see Drac's similar thread. I thought I had the only such thread,not realizing his/hers preceded mine.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Ad Hominem. Whether or not those who support redistribution are themselves generous beings has no effect on whether their arguments are correct or not. Religious people give more to charity, too (and I suspect this, as well as demographics, are the primary reasons for relative generosity of American conservatives - I haven't seen studies looking at other parts of the world, so I do not know of the picture there) but that does not prove that God exists.

That doesn't prove god exist, but pointing out the atheists tend to be more familiar with the bible then Christians tends to provide evidence against the legitimacy of some Christian arguments. Similarly, the fact that redistributionist give less to charity lends credence to the idea that their beliefs are more about power over other people's lives and less about compassion.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Captain Miralcles, the first point is correct; the second I suspect.
My citation of a work in the other thread shows her illogic.
However, one can discuss her thesis as a springboard to discussing philosophy and political economy.
To object to redistribution assumes the original distribution is just;no, it is not. The market is not fair to the least and overcompensates the top tier.Redistribution has not hurt people from getting rich.
The Social Contract through Supreme Court rulings about the general welfare affirms redistribution.Would others discuss that!

 

[Apology]

Captain Miralcles, the first point is correct; the second I suspect.
My citation of a work in the other thread shows her illogic.
However, one can discuss her thesis as a springboard to discussing philosophy and political economy.
To object to redistribution assumes the original distribution is just;no, it is not. The market is not fair to the least and overcompensates the top tier.Redistribution has not hurt people from getting rich.
The Social Contract through Supreme Court rulings about the general welfare affirms redistribution.Would others discuss that!

Take a look at Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory as well. I don't think that worked the way it was expected to either. It basically said (and I'm grossly oversimplifying) that by giving tax breaks to the rich, the money would "trickle down" to poorer folks through better sales, a stronger economy, and raises and such. It did not do so. It wasn't based on Objectivism, but post-Trickle Down data did show that the most well-off people kept a lot of the additional profits that they received from the tax breaks for themselves and their higher-ups rather than letting them "Trickle Down" to middle-class America. I'd be interested to see how the data from this program might affect your theory. I'd have to admit that economics is one of my weaker subjects so I can't offer you more than a lead.

 

[Narcopuppy]

Rand, like LaVey and Nietzsche, appeals strongest to loner youths looking for a way to see some purpose in their lives. This in itself does not discredit her (or Nietzsche for that matter), but a writer with a fan base composed mainly of teens on power trips is suspect. I personally love her fiction, and still have a general agreement with her individualism and rationalism, but can't endorse the domineering, demagogue attitude she took toward critics, nor can I say that the cult like adulation her followers (and most of them ARE followers) gave her is appropriate to any sort of movement purporting to extol reason as the highest virtue.

Dogmatism in the name of reason? One may as well put anarchy signs on police uniforms, or thrash for Christ

 

[JoeEllison]

Oh I get it. Anything you disagree with (or don't understand) is made fun of? Please define philosophy as you see it. Then we can all make fun of you. That will be too easy.... Instead Tell us why you disagree with this part of her philosophy. Thanks.

"There is a dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term. That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skeptisism, for holding up no firm convictions and granting plausability to anything. What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind" but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An acitve mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood: it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of nuetrality and uncertainty: by assuming the responsibility of judgement, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants - a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, and fear.

From Philosophy: Who Needs It Ayn Rand

I'd say that partial quote taken from PWNI is quite appropriate for JREF. It is also a part of her philosophy.

It appears to be dead wrong. A mind that is completely certain is the opposite of "active". That person has stopped thinking, and is resorting to dogma as irrationally as any cultist.