Rand (y)

[penandpaper]

I'm curious, (and I know Ami can probably write this entire thread by himself) but what about Ayn Rand do you like and/or dislike? What are her, as you see it, important contributions to the literary world? To philosophy? I remember reading Anthem when I was in ninth grade and falling in love with it. I remember reading Fountain Head when I was a tad bit older, on the insistence of a friend. I didn't find it nearly as powerful as he did.

To be truthful, I found her to be didactic. I know that's what she's known for, but I'm curious if anyone found any literary prowess that I somehow missed in my youth. If so, I should probably go back and read her again.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My favorite item about her is that she developed a crush on the person of a psychotic murderer, and considered him the personification of her Great Man.
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

I find myself speechless when I try to express my disgust, and my disgust for the people who claim she is a great philosopher is even less speakable.

 

[Epmd607]

She has no merit as a philosopher, she doesn't converse with the tradition. If you don't regard those who came before you, you've no place in philosophy. Jesus and Buddha conversed with the tradition before them, is Ayn Rand better than Jesus and Buddha?

Maybe she was a decent scriptwriter...I've read all her long and short fiction, the stories are enjoyable when you skim the long monologues. Fountainhead is weak, Atlas, Anthem, We the Living are the ticket if you're into romance novels or 1984. Ayn as a person was deceitful, vindictive, basically a horrible wife, lover, teacher.

 

[rgraham666]

As I've noted before there are two facets of her personality that I regard as major contributors to her writing.

First, she never got over her upbringing in The Soviet Union. Her entire philosophy is to Marxism what Satanism is to Christianity. The theology is accepted, but reversed so that good is bad and bad is good. Her male antagonists are always what Marxism says a 'capitalist' is but she worships rather than reviles them.

Second is her sexual submissiveness. The one book of hers I read many years ago made it clear that a woman only finds true happiness when she finds a 'Great Man' to submit to. From what I can gather the other books aren't that different.

I find economic determinism either in its Marxist or capitalist form to be loathsome. I have no problem with her submissiveness save that she, through her writing, tried to force it on everyone else.

And as long as I'm here, I present a rather funny comic strip I found recently.

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

 

[Verdad]

The most puzzling thing to me is that we talk about Rand so much. Really, she's a most marginal character in the history of philosophy, and if possible, even more marginal in the history of literature. She was by no means a lovable character, but that comes secondary to her work just not being all that relevant.

I'm a bit bothered by Rand-bashing always taking a personal turn, though, involving things such as her sexual proclivities. I can't help but think a male thinker would be extended the courtesy of being criticized for the trash he wrote, rather than for his alleged sexual leanings. In Rand's case, lord knows that shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Liar]

I like her as a role model. Regardless of what one thinks of her ideas, she was a strident woman and a peculiar individual in a place and time when thoase things were few and often looked down upon. That is commendable.

Literally, she's boring. Like so many others who are good at one thing in the academic field, she made the mistake to think she could write novels. She's in no way alone in that league though. The list of high level matematicians and astrophysics who have tried to incorporate their fields of expertise in shitty sci-fi novels is close to endless.

Philosophically, she's not significant enough for me to have an opinion. She has some interresting points about the isolationist nature of individuals, but as a whole, objecivism is too tangled up in morals and prescriptive politics to be of value as a philosophy.

Politically, it's the same thing, but the other way round. The neo-libertarianism that she is most closely connectd to and that is reflected in her novels is not anything I subscribe to, but eh. Each to their own. Her contribution to it though is too far removed from realpolitik to make much of a mark, other than to make her the figurehead of a political movement sorely lacking one.

That's the only thing I really dislike about her. (And that's really not even her fault.) The deification of a hack and intellectual lightweight. Kind of the L Ron Hubbard of poli philo. Except he cashed in on it like a bandit.

 

[3113]

what about Ayn Rand do you like and/or dislike? What are her, as you see it, important contributions to the literary world? To philosophy? I remember reading Anthem when I was in ninth grade and falling in love with it.

I think you answer your own question when you say you loved Anthem in 9th grade. That's the point at which Rand sound profound to us rather than problematic or didactic, isn't it? Rand, I think, appeals to an adolescent frame of mind, one where we want to believe we're unique and special, the one where we feel (true or not) that the rest of the world doesn't understand us, or is forcing us to bend to its will and not be ourselves.

Now let's be clear here. When I say an adolescent frame of mind, I don't necessarily mean it's immature. I mean that it is typical for an adolescent to feel this way, and to identify with certain works of literature that speak to those feelings. It is my belief that we all have different adolescent frames of minds--feelings--that persist into adulthood, that stick with us like our childhood fondness for certain comfort foods or entertainments. In some cases this can be very important and very good--like, say, a persistent, youthful optimism that keeps us afloat through bad times. In some cases it can be very bad, like a middle-aged woman still dreaming of "the one!" as she did in high school, rather than realizing that love and such are a little more complicated, and she'll never be happy or satisfied in love if she keeps waiting for that teen ideal.

Rand's appeal is to those who keep that adolescent frame of mind which says, "I'm special, I'm superior, and these inferior, average, dull adults shouldn't be able to push me around and tell me what to do or be." In some cases, there is a validity to this thinking. Very much so. We all know stories of the brilliant, original man or woman who was crushed by society's stupidity or refusal to let them develop their genius. But on the other side, there is what we consider that mature frame of mind. The parent doesn't think of him/herself when there's danger, but of saving their children or loved ones. And while some geniuses pursue science for science's sake, or art for art's sake, others have a notion that they want to make the world a better place. We view this as a mature notion.

What I think makes us dismiss Rand over similar idealists, however, is not her appeal to an adolescent notion. Rather it is the inherent hypocrisy and contradictions in her proposed ideal. The individual is what matters, she argues. Yet she also argues that no individual can be an individual if they agree with others...yet she's trying to get everyone to agree with her and join in her group. Which makes it a herd...and any who disagree with her aren't individuals but average and inferior.

You begin to see the problem. Her philosophy sounds less like a real philosophy and more like a daydream that we all have in adolescence: "If I ruled the world, I'd get rid of all these stupid people and only the people who I liked and were nice to me and acknowledged how special and wonderful and superior I am would remain...and it'd be perfect!" The philosophy starts to sound adolescent not because it's appealing to the best notions discovered at that age, but because the person who came up with it is immature. And that is what, IMHO, gets Rand more easily dismissed then other philosophers who have similarly idealistic (as compared to realistic/pragmatic) notions.

 

[ishtat]

First, she never got over her upbringing in The Soviet Union.
]

Born 1905? 12 at the time of the revolution(1917). Her family's business confiscated in I think 1923(needs checking).

Alleged to have graduated from University in 1924 aged 19 ? - seems unlikely

Emigrated to USA aged 25 in January 1926.

Lenin's war collectivism of some industries was such a failure that production fell by 75% and it was reversed in 1919. Agricultural collectivism did not start until 1928 and serious industrial collectivism until the second 5 year plan in the 1930's.

My point is that most of Rand's biographical details depend on her account a lot of which doesn't add up. For example compare her birth date and graduation date. What was her real experience of Soviet collectivism. Was her father a war profiteer? At least half of her life was lived as a privileged middle class girl under the Tzars.

I think a detailed study of the documents and chronology of Rand's early life is likely to question some of her own assertions. The most likely conclusion is either she was older than she claimed or most of her hatred of communism was learned after she had emigrated. Either is possible for this consumately vain liar. Incidentally I think Rand's capacity for deception and self deception is one of her most attractive features

I would like to think a bit more about her philosophy but the most interesting aspect of it is its fundamental religiosity.

 

[3113]

I can't help but think a male thinker would be extended the courtesy of being criticized for the trash he wrote, rather than for his alleged sexual leanings.

Not in the least. We've criticized the sexual leanings and other problems of many a male thinker here IF, like Rand, their philosophy is very much tied to the cult of their personality. And it's valid that we do so if we're hoping to have a clearer view of what they were saying and whether we agree with what they said.

For example, Rob's mention of Rand's sub nature. This would indicate that any argument in her philosophy about a woman submitting to a man is a personal preference rather than a rational and well considered argument. And that makes a difference if we're going to argue the weight it should be given as a philosophical ideal when it appears in her writings. Hence, it isn't trashing her so much as distilling her philosophy from her sexual proclivities.

If she doesn't do this for us, admit her biases in her writings and that philosophies based on these might not be objective, then we must do it.

 

[Epmd607]

I think you answer your own question when you say you loved Anthem in 9th grade. That's the point at which Rand sound profound to us rather than problematic or didactic, isn't it? Rand, I think, appeals to an adolescent frame of mind, one where we want to believe we're unique and special, the one where we feel (true or not) that the rest of the world doesn't understand us, or is forcing us to bend to its will and not be ourselves.

Now let's be clear here. When I say an adolescent frame of mind, I don't necessarily mean it's immature. I mean that it is typical for an adolescent to feel this way, and to identify with certain works of literature that speak to those feelings...

Every first or second year philosophy student thinks they've written a paper of importance to philosophy. They get a B, argue with the teacher, take more classes and figure out that philosophy is always done on the shoulders of those who've come before. You can't solve the problems of philosophy without referring to the work of other philosophers and showing the weak points in their analytical structure. Ayn never developed past a first year philosophy student, she thought she solved the problems of philosophy, just read her pronouncements at the beginning of Virtue of Selfishness. She keeps coming up on this message board because a select few frequently quote/paraphrase her and claim her words as their own.

 

[Verdad]

Not in the least. We've criticized the sexual leanings and other problems of many a male thinker here IF, like Rand, their philosophy is very much tied to the cult of their personality. And it's valid that we do so if we're hoping to have a clearer view of what they were saying and whether we agree with what they said.

For example, Rob's mention of Rand's sub nature. This would indicate that any argument in her philosophy about a woman submitting to a man is a personal preference rather than a rational and well considered argument. And that makes a difference if we're going to argue the weight it should be given as a philosophical ideal when it appears in her writings. Hence, it isn't trashing her so much as distilling her philosophy from her sexual proclivities.

If she doesn't do this for us, admit her biases in her writings and that philosophies based on these might not be objective, then we must do it.

This raises a good question of how much of a role biography should play in interpretation of anyone's work.

A good grasp of a writer's historical context is often indispensable in understanding their ideas; that much, I'd call indisputable.

An understanding of their personal circumstances and demons and, as you say, the blind spots those might have caused, can be of help too, and I for one am certainly not above curiosity and speculation. Somewhere in this personal territory, however, lies the danger of reductionism, and sometimes, outright misinterpretation.

It's very tempting to say, for example, that there wouldn't be 'death of God' in Nietzsche's philosophy had he not lost his father at a young age. And that might well be true. By saying that, however, have we really 'explained' Nietzsche's ideas or even understood them? Or have we merely dismissed them?

How about a book I've recently read, about autism and creativity? The author included a number of supposed case studies, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lewis Carroll, mathematician Ramanujan, and others. To hear the author speak, every time any of these men as much as took a shit, it was wholly and unquestionably due to their (alleged) Asperger's. Indeed, in this author's account, historical Aspies turned to be more numerous than members of secret societies in regular paranoid lore. The way he reduced their lives to that one note was bad enough, but when he applied the method to their work too, I wanted to hurl the book through the window. Albeit lacking any philosophical background I could discern, the author nonetheless 'explained' some rather difficult ideas by subscribing them cheerfully to a combo of Asperger's and homosexuality.

So while there is a lot of learn from biographies, it's the above kind of reasoning that always makes me wary.

Of course, it is true too that some biographical details are harder to put aside than others.

Heidegger's thought, for example (provided that anyone even understands what he's going on about!) is hard to consider without remembering his friendliness to the Nazi regime. A 'gaffe' of that caliber is likely to color everything about a person. In a somewhat similar manner, I can't quite make myself forget Rand's idolization of a murderer. Yet to explain Rand away as a 'sexual submissive' always rubs me wrong, as if it's to say, "the bitch should have gotten properly fucked—that would have shown her her place!"

I admit that might have been a knee jerk on my part, though, and so I apologize to Rob if that's not what he'd intended.

Needless to say, I didn't mean to imply Rand's personal life should be off limits because she's a woman; so long as we're looking at her moral failings, though, the worst of them seem to have little to do with her psychosexual buttons. Her purposefully misleading rhetoric, her love of strawman arguments and equivocations, her borrowing of Kant's ethics on one side while demonizing him on the other, all that says a lot about her character without even going into the personal territory.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

When I was 15 I read Fountain Head. When I was 16 I read Atlas Shrugged. All the way through both books I kept asking myself, "Why am I doing this?"

 

[TE999]

Rand's philosophy is contradictory, although her theories are somewhat interesting, her prose is dull as dishwater and she had a serious superiority complex. The cult of personality that has grown around her is incomprehensible to me, since her primary appeal is to college freshmen and sophomores still learning how the world works.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Rand's philosophy is contradictory, although her theories are somewhat interesting, her prose is dull as dishwater and she had a serious superiority complex. The cult of personality that has grown around her is incomprehensible to me, since her primary appeal is to college freshmen and sophomores still learning how the world works.

Also Ronald Reagan, Clarence Thomas, and Allen Greenspan.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Also Ronald Reagan, Clarence Thomas, and Allen Greenspan.

...and a whole shitload of MBA fuckwads that get rich at others' expense and need to find a philosophical way to justify it to themselves.

 

[Epmd607]

Also Ronald Reagan, Clarence Thomas, and Allen Greenspan.

even greenspan grew up and distanced himself from her. and i doubt ronald reagan could read--speak, yes, read, no.

 

[amicus]

Pen&Paper:

I'm curious, (and I know Ami can probably write this entire thread by himself) but what about Ayn Rand do you like and/or dislike? What are her, as you see it, important contributions to the literary world? To philosophy?

Less than a dozen replies, and all mostly negative, but still...I gather one interesting and telling observation: first, that so many know of her work, both fiction and non fiction and second, how certain all appear to be that Rand's work is inconsequential.

I thought to include a survey of 20th Century Major Philosophers and then to compare the familiarity of those with Ayn Rand.

I can only suggest that it must be a bit of a contradiction to dislike Rand as so many do...she was one of the first outspoken Feminist's in the modern age, she is also Pro Abortion. Since so many have keyed on her sexual life, I guess feminine submissity is a no-no, to this crowd, then also she was an Atheist and a Free Market advocate.

The Introductory Lecture: Aims to sketch, in broad outline, the background for the emergence of the major philosophical movements of the twentieth century. A shared point of departure for these movements is the fin-de-siecle dilemma between Scientific “Materialism” and Hegelian “Idealism.” The identification of these five movements as Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, Linguistic Analysis, Phenomenology and Existentialism, and the justification for the study of the philosophy of the 20th Century through these movements completes the introductory lecture.

William James Pragmatism as the resolution of the dilemma of Materialism and Idealism.

Charles Peirce Pragmaticist,” not a Pragmatist.

G.E. Moore The Refutation of Idealism,”

Bertrand Russell Whitehead and Russell the origins of Logical Positivism

Henri Bergson as a forerunner of the Existentialist movement in philosophy

Edmund Husserl and the foundations of the phenomenological movement

The Consolidation of Polar Philosophical Movements: Logical Positivism and Existentialism between the Two World Wars (1914-1950)… the polar opposition that developed between the two major protagonists of the inter-war period: Logical Positivism and Existentialism.

Rudolph Carnap and the elimination of Metaphysics The four themes presented are: Kant’s epistemic empiricism; Comte’s sociological Positivism; Mach’s Positivism; and Bertrand Russell’s methodology of logical construction.

A.J. Ayer

Continental Existentialism and the reinterpretation of “Being”

Heidegger, “The Way Back into the Ground of Metaphysics

From Logical Positivism to Language Analysis in Post-War Anglo-American Philosophy

Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Descartes’ Myth,” a chapter from Gilbert Ryle’s classic The Concept of Mind,

John Austin

Jean-Paul Sartre on Existentialism and Marxism. the last phase of Sartre’s intellectual career involved his attempt to integrate Existentialism and Marxism.

from Marxism to Structuralism and from Structuralism through Deconstruction to Perspectivism in post-war Continental philosophy

Derrida and Perspectivism in Foucault essay by Michel Foucault: “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History

Eclecticism in Current Analytical Philosophy

W.V.O. Quine’s pursuit of truth, titled, “Evidence

Isaiah Berlin’s essay, “Pursuit of the Ideal,” which is a critique of monism and a defense of pluralism and can also serve to indicate the difference between a pluralist and a relativist approach to philosophical issues in epistemology and morals.

~~~

Scanning that list can anyone point to one that had more influence during the 20th century than did Ayn Rand...and still does?

Verdad:
#5

Verdad The most puzzling thing to me is that we talk about Rand so much. Really, she's a most marginal character in the history of philosophy, and if possible, even more marginal in the history of literature.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps Verdad would deign to 'document' that opinion? In comparison of course, with other philosophers and authors of her time?

Liar:

Literally, she's boring

(Literarily?) **

Philosophically, she's not significant ** intellectual lightweight

3113’s post # 7 is most telling…the repressed psychological concept that only innocent youth can have dreams of success…as if it is that the passage to adulthood is to lose one’s dreams…very sad to even consider that.

***sexual female submission…I addressed that briefly in the prologue. Is it considered demeaning to be submissive in a heterosexual relationship?

EMPD…

You can't solve the problems of philosophy without referring to the work of other philosophers and showing the weak points in their analytical structure. Ayn never developed past a first year philosophy student

I can only suggest that EMPD is not aware of Rand’s methodical dissection of Philosophy since the time of Thales, 300 BC; she expressed a particular hatred of Kant.

Verdad:

Her purposefully misleading rhetoric, her love of strawman arguments and equivocations, her borrowing of Kant's ethics on one side while demonizing him on the other, all that says a lot about her character without even going into the personal territory.

Perhaps Verday would like to illustrate and document the accusation of the 'strawman' criticism? Anyone who has read Rand will discover that she continually pointed out the manufactured, 'strawman' arguments of formal philosophers, especially the Kantian suppositions, in her exposition of Objectivism.

So...say what you will, hate her with all your being, she is, without a doubt the premier Philosopher of the 20th Century and one of the continuing Best Selling Authors for over half a century; deemed 'literary' or not by the Literati.

Amicus

 

[Xelebes]

When I was 15 I read Fountain Head. When I was 16 I read Atlas Shrugged. All the way through both books I kept asking myself, "Why am I doing this?"

The only conclusion I can make is that you like a challenge.

 

[Stella_Omega]

...and a whole shitload of MBA fuckwads that get rich at others' expense and need to find a philosophical way to justify it to themselves.

and that is why her name keeps coming up. because assholes who have influence on our lives are influenced by her-- because she says exactly what they want to hear.

 

[TE999]

Also Ronald Reagan, Clarence Thomas, and Allen Greenspan.

...and a whole shitload of MBA fuckwads that get rich at others' expense and need to find a philosophical way to justify it to themselves.

Birds of a feather and all that sort of rot, eh?

 

[3113]

How about a book I've recently read, about autism and creativity? The author included a number of supposed case studies, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lewis Carroll, mathematician Ramanujan, and others.

Obviously, there are always those with their theories about artists and such being something "unique" be it gay or aspie and we have to take these with a grain of salt as such theorists often go overboard, especially if their proof is a little thin and the numbers of great artists they claim where this or that are great.

However, when it comes to examining a person's background in comparison to their work, there is, I think, a difference between examining artists, musicians and fiction writers as compared to philosophers. Especially philosophers whose philosophy is taken very seriously and used by those who follow it not only as a way to lead their lives, but how they vote, and how, if they get into power, they'll make decisions (note Alan Greenspan).

These decisions, as we see with Greenspan, can have huge consequences. I hardly think that the same is going to happen with someone who listens to Beethoven or reads Alice in Wonderland.. So it hardly matters to me that Lewis Carroll took, evidently, perfectly innocent photographs of naked little girls. Nothing of that topic comes up in Alice in Wonderland and even if it did, it probably wouldn't be taken as fiat from a cult leader. But this would matter to me if Lewis Carroll had written up a philosophy that included an argument for taking photos of naked pubescent girls--asserting that this was rational and a good thing for society--and this philosophy had a following, and this following used Carroll's philosophy in deciding how they were going to vote.

In that instance, I would very much like to know if there were facts supporting the argument that no harm comes from little girls being photographed naked, or if Carroll just said this--no facts supporting it--because that's what gave him a sexual thrill. Putting it another way, you are right that we shouldn't use the fallacy of ad hominen when it comes to countering arguments. They either stand or fall on their own merits. But if the argument fails, like saying that women should be submissive to great men (any good reason why? Especially when the meat of your argument is that the individual is all important and should bow to no one?), then I think it's perfectly reasonable to try and find out where this assertion came from.

It is part of the argument, after all, and if the argument matters in the long run (or on a large scale), then any weakness or fallacy in it should be pointed out, especially one based on bias rather than facts or reason.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I am loving every entry on this thread. I personally have no truck with the alleged philosophy that she spouted and didn't when I was in ninth grade, either. However, the give and take here appears to be just what several have complained was lacking in today's AH. Keep it up, y'all, you're making the bear feel really good about his favorite community.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Pen&Paper:



Less than a dozen replies, and all mostly negative, but still...I gather one interesting and telling observation: first, that so many know of her work, both fiction and non fiction and second, how certain all appear to be that Rand's work is inconsequential.

I thought to include a survey of 20th Century Major Philosophers and then to compare the familiarity of those with Ayn Rand.

I can only suggest that it must be a bit of a contradiction to dislike Rand as so many do...she was one of the first outspoken Feminist's in the modern age, she is also Pro Abortion. Since so many have keyed on her sexual life, I guess feminine submissity is a no-no, to this crowd, then also she was an Atheist and a Free Market advocate.





~~~

Scanning that list can anyone point to one that had more influence during the 20th century than did Ayn Rand...and still does?

Verdad:
#5

Verdad The most puzzling thing to me is that we talk about Rand so much. Really, she's a most marginal character in the history of philosophy, and if possible, even more marginal in the history of literature.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps Verdad would deign to 'document' that opinion? In comparison of course, with other philosophers and authors of her time?

Liar: (Literarily?) **

3113’s post # 7 is most telling…the repressed psychological concept that only innocent youth can have dreams of success…as if it is that the passage to adulthood is to lose one’s dreams…very sad to even consider that.

***sexual female submission…I addressed that briefly in the prologue. Is it considered demeaning to be submissive in a heterosexual relationship?

EMPD…

I can only suggest that EMPD is not aware of Rand’s methodical dissection of Philosophy since the time of Thales, 300 BC; she expressed a particular hatred of Kant.

Verdad:

Perhaps Verday would like to illustrate and document the accusation of the 'strawman' criticism? Anyone who has read Rand will discover that she continually pointed out the manufactured, 'strawman' arguments of formal philosophers, especially the Kantian suppositions, in her exposition of Objectivism.

So...say what you will, hate her with all your being, she is, without a doubt the premier Philosopher of the 20th Century and one of the continuing Best Selling Authors for over half a century; deemed 'literary' or not by the Literati.

Amicus

That is some stuff yer smokin' dude.....
It would be scary if you were anyone but it's sad that you really believe any of Ayn Rand's FICTION has a functional value in any political or financial system.....It's fiction, dude, BullShit.....and not even very compelling BullShit at that.....only the most intellectually challenged conservatives (read= retarded) quote it after the tenth grade....it's not real and has no reality attached....I read it in High School because I had to.....
Eldridge Cleaver's 'Soul on Ice' was vastly more relevant.......on many levels.....

 

[Dragonlipz]

The most puzzling thing to me is that we talk about Rand so much. Really, she's a most marginal character in the history of philosophy, and if possible, even more marginal in the history of literature. She was by no means a lovable character, but that comes secondary to her work just not being all that relevant.

I'm a bit bothered by Rand-bashing always taking a personal turn, though, involving things such as her sexual proclivities. I can't help but think a male thinker would be extended the courtesy of being criticized for the trash he wrote, rather than for his alleged sexual leanings. In Rand's case, lord knows that shouldn't be difficult.

Mon Ami (Amicus) constantly pays homage to her tired ass nonsense and spouts that crap from term papers he wrote in college......That is the only reason she is mentioned on these posts, no one else would cite her as any kind of intellectual (or creative muse)......She spouted some nonsense that justified a morally crippled world view and those who quote her and worse: believe any of it only show themselves for the cretins they are.......
Mon Ami: if the foo shits........nuff said!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Introductory Cultural Anthro gives lie to Rand's twaddle. Her concept of the capitalist ubermensch who has no connection to anyone else but the submissive woman who worships has no human reality. We are social creatures who live in communities. The totally solipsistic egomaniac she portrays would never get anyone to work for or with him and would be reduced to eating out dumpsters, totally shunned by the rest of the species.