Playboy Interview, Ayn Rand (about 1964)

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
Playboy Interview, Ayn Rand (about 1964)



A Candid Conversation with the ‘fountainhead’ of “Objectivism.”


Since the late Ayn Rand’s name is taken in vain quite often of this forum, I thought perhaps some of you might enjoy, appreciate and find informative a little background information and some of her own words.

Playboy Magazine, at the time this interview was conducted and published, occupied a rather important place in literature and new cutting edge ideas and was read all over the world and became a favorite on college campuses for more than the centerfold.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ayn Rand, an intense`, angry young woman of 58, is among the most outspoken -- and important -- intellectual voices in America today. She is the author of what is perhaps the most fiercely damned and admired best seller of the decade: “Atlas Shrugged,” which has sold 1,200,000 copies since its publication six years ago, and has become one of the most talked about novels in the country. Ayn Rand discussion clubs dot college campuses. Professors debate her ideas in their classrooms. More than 2500 people in 30 cities from New York to Los Angeles attend courses given by the Nathaniel Branden Institute, in which they listen to live speakers and taped lectures expounding the principles set forth in the book. Thousands more subscribe to “The Objectivist Newsletter”, a monthly publication in which Miss Rand and her associates comment on everything from economics to aesthetics. And sales of her previous best seller, “The Fountainhead,” have climbed to almost the 2,000,000 mark.

That any novel should set off such a chain reaction is unusual; that “Atlas Shrugged,” has done so is astonishing. For the book, a panoramic novel about what happens when the “men of the mind” go on strike, is 1168 pages long. It is filled with lengthy, sometimes complex philosophical passages; and it is brimming with as many explosively unpopular ideas as Ayn Rand herself. Despite this success, the literary establishment considers her an outsider. Almost to a man, critics have either ignored or denounced the book. She is an exile among philosophers, too, although “Atlas” is as much a work of philosophy as it is a novel. Liberals glower at the very mention of her name; but conservatives, too, swallow hard when she begins to speak. For Ayn Rand, whether anyone likes it or not, is sui generis: indubitably, irrevocably, intransigently individual.

She detests the drift of modern American society: She doesn’t like its politics, its economics, its attitudes towards sex, women, business, art or religion. In short, she declares, with unblinking immodesty, “I am challenging the cultural tradition of two and a half thousand years.” She means it.

A dark-haired woman with penetrating brown eyes and a computer quick mind, Ayn (rhymes with mine) Rand was born to the family of a small businessman in St. Petersburg, Russia, where she lived through the Soviet Revolution. She attended the University of Leningrad, loathing communism and its philosophy. In 1926 she managed to leave to leave the U.S.S.R., stayed for a few months with distant relatives in Chicago, then moved on to Hollywood. She had always wanted to be a writer. Since her command of English was somewhat less than adequate for writing fiction she found a job preparing outlines for silent movies as she went about mastering her new language. Between bouts of unemployment, she worked as a movie extra, waitress and studio wardrobe department clerk.

Then, in 1936, she completed her first novel, “We The Living” -- an attack on totalitarianism, set it Soviet Russia -- which drew little notice. Two years later she finished “Anthem,” a short novel about a society in which the word “I” has been extirpated in favor of the collectivist ‘we.” It was not until five years and twelve publishers’ rejections later that her first commercially successful book, “The Fountainhead.” appeared; the story of an architect’s battle for his own individuality, it became a national best seller, and was later made into a movie.

For nearly a decade after that, Miss Rand struggled to write “Atlas Shrugged,” which she views not merely as a novel, but as the crystallization of a philosophy aimed at nothing less than reversing the entire direction of change in America -- turning society toward a state of pure laissez-faire capitalism, even purer than that which existed in the 19th Century. But her philosophy -- which she calls “Objectivism” -- encompasses more than economics or politics: Primarily it sets forth a new kind of ethics which she defines as a morality of rational self interest.

Today, Ayn Rand lives in a modest apartment in the East Thirties of Manhattan with her artist husband, Frank O’Connor. She is planning another novel and working on a long range non fiction project -- a book on epistemology. Though her progress on both projects is interrupted by a demanding schedule of speaking engagements around the country, most of her working hours, and her considerable energies, are spent in the small blue-green study where she does most of her writing -- entirely in longhand.

In a series of intellectually electric conversations with Playboy’s interviewer, Alvin Toffler, Miss Rand spoke clearly and urgently about her work and her views. Answering question after question with a clipped, even delivery, her deep voice edged with a Russian accent, she paused only long enough between words to puff on cigarettes held in a blue-and-silver holder (a gift from admirers) engraved with her initials, the names of the three heroes of “Atlas Shrugged,” and a number of diminutive dollar signs. The dollar sign, in “Atlas Shrugged,” is the symbol of “free trade and, therefore, of a free mind.”




PLAYBOY: Miss Rand, your novels and essays, especially your controversial best seller, Atlas Shrugged, present a carefully engineered, internally consistent world view. They are, in effect, an expression of an all-encompassing philosophical system. What do you seek to accomplish with this new philosophy?

RAND: I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.


PLAYBOY: What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?

RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver’s emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man’s only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.


PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged your hero, John Galt, declares, “I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” How is this related to your basic principles?

RAND: Galt’s statement is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics. Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the Metaphysical base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man’s basic tool of survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to perceive reality and act accordingly, is man’s moral imperative. The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man’s life -- man’s survival qua man -- or that which the nature of a rational being requires for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. It is this last that Galt’s statement summarizes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The interview goes on for several more pages, but I am retyping from very small print in a pamplet and decided I will continue later.

However...I feel compelled to add; the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, is unique in a very special and important way: it is meant to be understood. There is no necessity to invent or 'create' new words or phrases, just the opposite. As an indication, I have provided a standard dictionary definition for several words used by Miss Rand to demonstrate that words have a defined and precise meaning that can be comprehended by anyone if you try. So in her words: "...RAND: I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life."

If you truly want to embrace a philosophy that will answer the most difficult questions of ethics and morality in your own life and give you an understanding of the world in general, past and present and give you a foundation to understand current and future events and grasp the continuity of human history, these are the tools that will enable you to do so.









Integrated
Consistent
Rational
Axiom
Existence
Objective
Reality






Consistent: “…
con·sis·tent
adj.
1. In agreement; compatible: The testimony was consistent with the known facts.
2. Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform: a consistent pattern of behavior.
3. Reliable; steady: demonstrated a consistent ability to impress the critics.
4. Mathematics Having at least one common solution, as of two or more equations or inequalities.
5. Holding true as a group; not contradictory: a consistent set of statements.

[Latin cnsistns, cnsistent-, present participle of cnsistere, to stand still; see consist.]

con·sistent·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.





Integrated: “…
in·te·grate v. inte·grat·ed, inte·grat·ing, inte·grates
v.tr.
1. To make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify.
2.
a. To join with something else; unite.
b. To make part of a larger unit: integrated the new procedures into the work routine.
3.
a. To open to people of all races or ethnic groups without restriction; desegregate.
b. To admit (a racial or ethnic group) to equal membership in an institution or society.
4. Mathematics
a. To calculate the integral of.
b. To perform integration on.
5. Psychology To bring about the integration of (personality traits).
v.intr.
To become integrated or undergo integration.

[From Middle English, intact, from Latin integrtus, past participle of integrre, to make whole, from integer, complete; see tag- in Indo-European roots.]

inte·grative adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.






Rational: “…Adj. 1. rational - consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
logical - capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind"
reasonable, sensible - showing reason or sound judgment; "a sensible choice"; "a sensible person"
sane - mentally healthy; free from mental disorder; "appears to be completely sane"
irrational - not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals" 2. rational - of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"


Axiom: “…ax·i·om n.
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" Albert Jay Nock.
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

[Middle English, from Old French axiome, from Latin mat-, from Greek, from axios, worthy; see ag- in Indo-European roots.]

Existence: “…ex·is·tence n.
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.
Synonyms: existence, actuality, being
These nouns denote the fact or state of existing: laws in existence for centuries; an idea progressing from possibility to actuality; a point of view gradually coming into being.
Antonym: nonexistence


Objective: “…ob·jec·tive adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

ob·jective·ly adv.
ob·jective·ness n.


Reality: “…re·al·i·ty n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.Idiom:
in reality
In fact; actually.


~~~~~~~~~~~


To the lasting memory of Ayn Rand who was a beacon of light in a world of darkness for millions and millions.

amicus...
 
Last edited:
Is it just my machine or does the text appear too wide for your screens also? dunno what happened if so...

amicus...
 
Last edited:
Amicus:

It's just not something that I personally find interesting. I was forced to read Rand in school, and I detested her then. A few years ago, I reread Anthem and a few others and agreed with my earlier assessment- she does nothing for me. She pounds away with supposed subtlety at the world and all it's foibles, but in reflection, other than sitting around talking and writing about it, what did she do?

Did she open a development center for the community she lived in, to help people achieve "ideals" or even to simply educate the masses? Did she attempt to make a change in the world around her, or did she simply make commentary as she sat back and let it pass her by?

Admittedly, I have little use for philosophy. I have too much going on to sit and ponder the universe over a tiny speck of sand. Yes, I admire political writers, simply for their dogged pursuit of their own idealized worlds. BUt if I'm going to read a political and satirical writer, it's going to be Oscar Wilde. At least I can laugh while I read, and the tongue-in-cheek sarcastic cast he threw on the world aligns closely enough with mine to make it easy to read. Life is far to short to sit on my duff thinking and arguing. Even when I'm posting on here, I'm doing. I have lots to do, a long way to go, and a short time to get there. I'll let the philosophy alone, there are others much more equipped to handle such deep thoughts.

Quoting someone, I can't remember who- "Butterflies weren't designed to swim with sharks."
 
amicus said:
Is it just my machine or does the text appear to wide for your screens also? dunno what happened if so...

amicus...
Try shortening the first row of ~~~~~~~~~~~

Just got up. Will read and see if I have something to say later.
 
Sorry, Amicus, but Ayn Rand (I like Alissa better by the way) was the egoist’s egoist. She’s the patron saint of Thinking You’re Better than Everyone Else. :D The enormous, never-ending-please-god-make-it-stop dramatizations of objectivism in “Atlas” and “Fountainhead” are easily summed up, for me anyway, as an Oscar the Grouch philosophy. Ego and accomplishment are swell in their place, but considering “all religion folly and any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society,” is just … I dunno, not worthy of comment, mebbe?

I know Rand was ever the optimist <note: tongue in cheek>, and I do think that she served her philosophy well; “Atlas” and “Fountainhead” were both simply ego and accomplishment. Anyone who ranks themselves, as Rand did, as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and regards laughing at yourself as “spitting in your own face,” is difficult to take seriously. Humility isn’t a weakness in my opinion, but megalomania, certainly isn’t a strength.

I can appreciate that you are looking to embrace a philosophy important to you and to society as you perceive it. If the Objectivism of Rand is your path, well, good luck with that. :rose:

Peace,

Yui


FallingToFly said:
Quoting someone, I can't remember who- "Butterflies weren't designed to swim with sharks."
I'm stealing that. :D <fluttering off, out of the shark tank>
 
FallingToFly said:
It's just not something that I personally find interesting. I was forced to read Rand in school, and I detested her then. A few years ago, I reread Anthem and a few others and agreed with my earlier assessment- she does nothing for me. She pounds away with supposed subtlety at the world and all it's foibles, but in reflection, other than sitting around talking and writing about it, what did she do?
I think therein lies the key to your opinion: you were forced to read it.

FallingToFly said:
Did she open a development center for the community she lived in, to help people achieve "ideals" or even to simply educate the masses?
The Ayn Rand Institute, and the Centre for Objectivism

FallingToFly said:
Did she attempt to make a change in the world around her, or did she simply make commentary as she sat back and let it pass her by?
If you think Ayn Rand should have taken charge of the world around her, you did not understand what she was saying. Unlike socialist totalitarians who DO take charge of the world around them (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin), Rand advocated an idea that people should take charge of themselves. You can't force people to be free.

FallingToFly said:
Admittedly, I have little use for philosophy. I have too much going on to sit and ponder the universe over a tiny speck of sand. Yes, I admire political writers, simply for their dogged pursuit of their own idealized worlds. BUt if I'm going to read a political and satirical writer, it's going to be Oscar Wilde. At least I can laugh while I read, and the tongue-in-cheek sarcastic cast he threw on the world aligns closely enough with mine to make it easy to read. Life is far to short to sit on my duff thinking and arguing. Even when I'm posting on here, I'm doing. I have lots to do, a long way to go, and a short time to get there. I'll let the philosophy alone, there are others much more equipped to handle such deep thoughts.
Like Ayn Rand? :D
 
I'm sorry Amicus, but I just don't appreciate Ms. Rand. With her background I can certainly understand why she developed the philosophy she did - I have relatives and friends who survived communism in Eastern Europe. That said, as weak and generalized as we are physically as a species, we would not have made it without being willing to take care of one another... The belief that we must all be responsible for ourselves without thought to others' welfare, this uncompromising attachment to an extreme form of social Darwinism is, in my opinion, a dangerous one that has contributed greatly to problems such as global warming and our current health care crisis.

Just my thoughts...

Neon
 
Nope. Never liked Rand, not when I tried to read her books on my own and not when Anthem was on the reading list at school.

Sorry. Obnoxious.
 
So, amicus, if Rand is consistent and rational, how did she get abortion wrong? (she approved, where desired, and early on).

Alternatively, Reason and Rand declare that your [Amicus'] position is wrong and irrational.

Question for Amicus: Where do you stand on suicide, for example, where one has a painful lingering illness. I believe she said 'yes, if desired.'

----
Incidentally, friends, there are several 'objectivist' sites, like that of Kelley, a good philosopher and 90% pure objectivist (though Ayn says there is no such thing). There are also independent persons who are highly influenced by 'objectivism.'

As everyone probably knows, since Ayn proclaimed her philosophy and view dogmatically, any deviants were cast out of the group. In her terms, since she had the Truth, if someone disagreed say 5% with her, they were 5% in error, which is sorta like being 5% dishonest, i.e., it counts as 100%, in effect. Further, as Calvin and sometimes the Pope has said, those *willfully* holding to erroneous views--i.e., when told so-- are morally defective or evil and have to be treated as such.

Were Ayn to encounter amicus, then, he'd be called shallow, erroneous, and evil. Whereas we know that he's certainly not evil.
 
Last edited:
As I've said before, Rand was simply the economic equivalent of a Satanist.

She grew up in a society that taught collectivism is always good and individuality is always bad.

She came to believe that collectivism is always bad and individuality is always good.

Just as Satanists turn Christianity on its head and declare evil is good, so she did with her philosophy.

I'll also note once again the strong thread of D/s running through her work. It seems her women aren't complete unless they have an all powerful male to grovel before. That's all right in the bedroom I suppose, but I wouldn't be able to stand it all the time.
 
Pure said:
As everyone probably knows, since Ayn proclaimed her philosophy and view dogmatically, any deviants were cast out of the group. In her terms, since she had the Truth, if someone disagreed say 5% with her, they were 5% in error, which is sorta like being 5% dishonest, i.e., it counts as 100%, in effect. Further, as Calvin and sometimes the Pope has said, those *willfully* holding to erroneous views--i.e., when told so-- are morally defective or evil and have to be treated as such.

Were Ayn to encounter amicus, then, he'd be called shallow, erroneous, and evil. Whereas we know that he's certainly not evil.
I think that is true of most people: almost everyone (because there has to be an exception) thinks that what they believe is right. If they didn't, they wouldn't believe it. Ergo, people who do not agree with them are wrong. Problems arise when some people feel they have to "educate" all the other people who are wrong -especially when said education is imparted at the point of a gun.

The thing I like about Ayn Rand's ideas -as I disagree with a lot she says- is that she was one of the few people who had the balls :)p) to stand up for Universal Truth and absolute morality, in an age where being good or bad has a lot more to do with the prevailing political whims than any objective standard.
 
The thing I like about Ayn Rand's ideas -as I disagree with a lot she says- is that she was one of the few people who had the balls () to stand up for Universal Truth and absolute morality, in an age where being good or bad has a lot more to do with the prevailing political whims than any objective standard

Well, she's a 'stand up' person all right, but I see no shortage of them (wish there were!); for starters: the Pope, the Ayatollahs of Iran, the top Sunni Imams (most of them, esp. those supporting the Taliban); Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, indeed the Southern Baptist Leaders; most leaders of the "Pro Life" movement; the chief rabbis of Israel, and those of the Orthodox and "Ultra" orthodox segments of judaism. There is also a good case to be made that Mao and Stalin stood for (one) Truth and Reason and set of "Iron Laws of History."

So, in the words of the song, when Ayn throws in her lot* with these folks "That don't impress me much."

*i.e. embraces the absolutist and universalist and 'one Truth' approach of them, though differing as to contents of said Truth (as they do among themselves!).
 
Tuomas said:
I think that is true of most people: almost everyone (because there has to be an exception) thinks that what they believe is right. If they didn't, they wouldn't believe it. Ergo, people who do not agree with them are wrong.
Your point, that there are other people like Rand who believe they're right and the wrong must be cast out--that's a" two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It's not a good argument. Other people's bigotry doesn't make Rand's excuseable. Not in this case.

The reason it's not excusable is this: Rand says that everyone should do as they please as individuals. But she objects to people doing as they please when it means being part of a collective. This makes no sense. If people CHOOSE and are happy as part of a collective, like say, living on a Kibbutz, sharing the wealth, etc....then according to Rand's OWN philosophy, they should be allowed to do so.

What Rand ironically argues is that everyone should be allowed to be individuals...so long as they are individuals in HER way, not their own way.

Which is why it was pointed out that she tossed out anyone who disagreed with her. It's incredibly hypocritical given her philosophy. It would NOT be hypocritical if it were, say, certain religions which believe that those who don't hold to the same faith are damned. Then it's prefectly right to toss out those who disagree--they're damned. But to argue for individuality above all else makes anyone who tosses out those who disagree (i.e., who act as individuals and don't just follow the leader as in a flock of sheep) a HUGE hypocrite. They're denying others the right to be individuals and think as they please.

See?
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
The thing I like about Ayn Rand's ideas -as I disagree with a lot she says- is that she was one of the few people who had the balls () to stand up for Universal Truth and absolute morality, in an age where being good or bad has a lot more to do with the prevailing political whims than any objective standard

Well, she's a 'stand up' person all right, but I see no shortage of them (wish there were!); for starters: the Pope, the Ayatollahs of Iran, the top Sunni Imams (most of them, esp. those supporting the Taliban); Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, indeed the Southern Baptist Leaders; most leaders of the "Pro Life" movement; the chief rabbis of Israel, and those of the Orthodox and "Ultra" orthodox segments of judaism. There is also a good case to be made that Mao and Stalin stood for (one) Truth and Reason and set of "Iron Laws of History."

So, in the words of the song, when Ayn throws in her lot* with these folks "That don't impress me much."

*i.e. embraces the absolutist and universalist and 'one Truth' approach of them, though differing as to contents of said Truth (as they do among themselves!).
You missunderstood me -and I did not explain myself properly. The other groups you mention believe in their subjective truth. However, the Pope's truth, for example, is not Universal, because you need to have faith in God to accept it. It is not Universal to athiests or to hindus. There is a condition to the univeral truth, and that is faith. The same with pretty much everyone else. Like I said, everyone believes that what they think is true, and some of them believe they have the right to force it on to other people. However, this still remains subjective: I am right.

Of course Ayn Rand thought she was right. But, one of the points that she was trying to make was that it didn't matter if she thought she was right or not. She argued that you should be convinced not through her righteousness and argumentation -like the biblebashers and Stalin- but by your own way of thinking. It isn't her truth, like the one Muslem God, but a Truth that is there regardless of what you or she thinks.

While the Bible says that things are right because God made them that way, Rand says things are right because they are right.

Maybe it's too subtle a difference, and I'm probably making a dog's breakfast out of this, but...
 
Huh. Rand aside, that article is an interresting document of the transformation of media. Zine press in general and Playboy in particular sure have changed.


I mentioned Rand on a philosophy seminar led by one of our professors the other day, just because she seems so well known and vigurously discussed here by you people. His reply was that he considered her to be "a pop culture meme" more than a credible philosopher. I dunno, seemed more like an elitistic dismissal of a school of thought that HE doesn't agree with more than an academic judgement of merits. Or he might have a point. My own impression of the works of Rand is that of a novelist who let a political utopian agenda preaching bog down her stories until there was no stories left.

All I can say is that Rand is not covered in many Ersamus approved basic philosophy courses on European universities. But they cover many other thinkers both newer and older, some with quite similar outlooks on life.
 
Hi T

T However, the Pope's truth, for example, is not Universal, because you need to have faith in God to accept it. It is not Universal to athiests or to hindus. There is a condition to the univeral truth, and that is faith.

P: This is not what the Pope says. Having faith is not necessary to see the existence of God, said Aquinas. Likewise the Pope's 'natural laws' are said to be evident to reason--e.g., against contraception. St. Paul noted that the 'heathen' often discern what's right, e.g to avoid incest. And Jews acknowledge 'righteous gentiles.'

T Of course Ayn Rand thought she was right. But, one of the points that she was trying to make was that it didn't matter if she thought she was right or not. She argued that you should be convinced not through her righteousness and argumentation -like the biblebashers and Stalin- but by your own way of thinking. It isn't her truth, like the one Muslem God, but a Truth that is there regardless of what you or she thinks.

P: Of course Ayn did not say, "Believe this because I said so." But neither will a Catholic Thomist philosopher, nor, for example, Mao. (I've talked to representatives of both camps.)


The former (Thomists) hold that if you think rationally you will come to God and to the basics of morality. Mao, I'd argue --until late in life, at least-- held that if you look at the facts, you will support socialism, and see the rightness of the socialist cause.


The "materialist theory of history" is, they (marxists and maoists) say, supported by facts; it's not an 'item of faith.' Mao, writing in the 30s, for instance, argued that Japan's power was transient; Japan will lose, as will the forces of Imperialism, generally. The Chinese people, however have history on their side. They will necessarily win the struggle; it is a law of history that the progressive and more broadly based 'people's movements' win in the long run, despite setbacks.

======

Let me pose you this question. Rand says, "I have objective truth; my subjective convincement is beside the point; look at the facts, as I present them, and you will agree. OTHERS are indeed subjectively convinced, but they don't know the objective truth, and they pay no attention to the facts."

Regarding God and his design or and care for the world, I believe the Pope would say exactly this same thing. "It's objectively true that God made and cares for the world. Most persons looking at the facts will agree. Deists, for example, agree, and they reject revelation. Yes, I'm certain, and so is Ms. Rand, in her contrary view; but her certainty is merely 'subjective' and mistaken."

Why do you want to give Ayn the prize of being 'truly objective.'? On what evidence? What is the procedure for determining who is merely 'subjectively certain', but wrong?
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
Your point, that there are other people like Rand who believe they're right and the wrong must be cast out--that's a" two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It's not a good argument. Other people's bigotry doesn't make Rand's excuseable. Not in this case.
All good and true -except that was not my point ;) My point was that it it is logical to expect people to think they are right.

3113 said:
The reason it's not excusable is this: Rand says that everyone should do as they please as individuals.
Why no, she doesn't. She lists several things that are immoral and individuals shouldn't do -as you pointed out later.

3113 said:
But she objects to people doing as they please when it means being part of a collective. This makes no sense. If people CHOOSE and are happy as part of a collective, like say, living on a Kibbutz, sharing the wealth, etc....then according to Rand's OWN philosophy, they should be allowed to do so.
And so they are allowed to. The difference is that she does not believe such societies should be subsidized by other people who don't agree with them.

I think a distinction should be made between her philosophy and her personal life. Since she believed that collectivist societies can only function by syphoning off the riches of more productive individualist societies, and that they could only achieve this by stymieing the indivual's rights to freedom, she considered such collectivist ideas immoral. So, she fought against them, as one would expect of someone who found evil lurking in their own country.


3113 said:
Which is why it was pointed out that she tossed out anyone who disagreed with her. It's incredibly hypocritical given her philosophy. It would NOT be hypocritical if it were, say, certain religions which believe that those who don't hold to the same faith are damned. Then it's prefectly right to toss out those who disagree--they're damned. But to argue for individuality above all else makes anyone who tosses out those who disagree (i.e., who act as individuals and don't just follow the leader as in a flock of sheep) a HUGE hypocrite. They're denying others the right to be individuals and think as they please.
Exactly. Just like socialism's exclusion of rich people is hypocritical, because they are supposed to be caring for EVERYone. However, because Ayn Rand could not reconcile her ideas in her own life does not mean they are not good ideas, or that we can't think about them. That is why I insist we have to separate her utopian ideas from the practical realities of her own life.
 
On emotion

An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions-- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows-- or makes it a point to discover-- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow-- *then* he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction-- his own and that of others.
"Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand,"
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions-- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows-- or makes it a point to discover-- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow-- *then* he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction-- his own and that of others.
"Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand,"

Hmmmm.... and if the one and only emotion that governs and guides me is love (in all its hues and forms)? Am I acting immorally then?
 
Pure said:
Let me pose you this question. Rand says, "I have objective truth; my subjective convincement is beside the point; look at the facts, as I present them, and you will agree. OTHERS are indeed subjectively convinced, but they don't know the objective truth, and they pay no attention to the facts."

Regarding God and his design or and care for the world, I believe the Pope would say exactly this same thing. "It's objectively true that God made and cares for the world. Most persons looking at the facts will agree. Deists, for example, agree, and they reject revelation. Yes, I'm certain, and so is Ms. Rand, in her contrary view; but her certainty is merely 'subjective' and mistaken."

Why do you want to give Ayn the prize of being 'truly objective.'? On what evidence? What is the procedure for determining who is merely 'subjectively certain', but wrong?
I think this is the core of your disagreement with me, and it's because you are making an assumption: that I think Ayn Rand is objectively right. I don't. I applaud Ayn Rand for trying -note trying- to base her philosophy on objective reality. I think it is grand that she visualized the existence of an objective truth beyond what she thought was right or wrong (even though she thought she had seen the objective truth). I don't think she was objectively right, but that her advocacy of an objective reality -deviod of theistic dogma- was a good thing.

This is one of the reasons why I like Aquinas over most of the other theistic philosophers, because he said that truth was to be found in objective reason -instead of subjective faith, as most men of the cloth advocate.

Any given ideologue will claim that his theories are "objective" and factual. He will be able to cite numerous facts -historical, geographical, demographical, whatever- to prove it. And, within the constraints of his ideology, he will most assuridly be correct. The difference is that Ayn Rand advocated searching for the objective truth -instead of just saying her ideas were the truth. If that explains what I mean... :p
 
on emotion,

a cognitive view of emotions dates back at least to Epictetus, and more recently was espoused by psychologists Ellis and Beck.

there is some good evidence for it; unfortunately Rand does not trifle with evidence, nor do most of her followers generally cite empirical studies.

the directive to the 'rational man'

Rand quoted by Rox,He [the ideal and moral, objectivist 'man,' wholly integrated in body and mind] never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. seems badly stated.

We know from infant studies that looming objects trigger fear reactions. The consequence, virtually a reflex, is, in a hurry to move out of the path or protect oneself, NOT to try to 'account' for, analyze the cognitive processes that might be involved (insofar as they can occur in a half second).
 
Ok, T,

I see your point, that you were more praising 1) her method of seeking Truth, her efforts to find the facts, and not relying on faith, and 2) her believing there is an Objective truth.

For 1), this is a canon of modern science and empiricism. Look to the facts; don't just 'have faith' or 'accept dogmas' or 'ancient authorities. It goes back at least to Descartes and Locke, as well as scientists like Galileo and Newton (all four believed in God, incidentally). Generally the school is "Modern Empiricism," though oddly, Rand declined that label.

Please note that one may follow 1) and DISbelieve 2); this is the case of some modern scientists, though folks like Einstein, iirc, do believe in objective truth.

Many scientists of our time are secular and humanistic. Rand is in the same ballpark as these, except for her ambitions in 'objective philosophy' and promotion of capitalism. IOW, if you are secular and humanistic, you have little reason, IMO, to choose Rand as guide or exemplar. Dawkins for example would do just as well, or, earlier on, T.H. Huxley, the biologist.

In sum, IMO, for those who choose Rand, it's more than her devotion to objectivity and facts; they are attracted to her politics.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions-- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows-- or makes it a point to discover-- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow-- *then* he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction-- his own and that of others.
"Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand,"
Interresting point of view. I wonder if Ayn ate because she was feeling hungry or because her body's reserves of stored energy was running low. ;)
 
Back
Top