Rand (y)

[amicus]

3113, if I may:

"...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."

__________________

~~~

If you see women being submissive to men, great or otherwise, as weakness or a fallacy...let us explore that...

As many of my antagonists here are writer's, I am going to labor over this a little to present a POV.

"... Especially when the meat of your argument is that the individual is all important and should bow to no one..."(

snip)

I would suggest that the individual can be, 'all important', and still, by choice, 'bow down', upon occasion to one's benefit.

Ayn Rand was a woman. Her female characters were mostly heroines. Is the 'heroic' quality of a woman, the same as a man?

Women with high intellegence quotients have been around forever, heredity is a fickle mistress.

What does any individual feel or perceive when they realize they are, 'smarter' than most, if not all of those around them?

What happens when the 'ideal' man/woman, meets the 'ideal' woman/man?(to be PC)

Does 'opposites attract' mean anything to you, personally or theoretically? If so, or not; why?

Female writer's since Victorian times, through Rand and Auel, have created, 'heroines', that often bested their male counterparts; why?

I digress and return to interrupt myself: when was the first female, 'action hero' written for popular consumption? Wonderwoman? How much of popular entertain literature and films portray a 'female' hero, "Kill Bill", "Epps & someone", "Power Puff Girls", or a politically correct gender equality with both having equal faults and and virtues?

Only since the times of Freud was it even suspected that women might enjoy sexual intercourse; that a clitoris actually existed and served a purpose. Although I suspect the Ancient elite, the Priests and Scholars, might have had a clue.(heh) (historical documentation on your own)

Is there a 'natural' sexual role for the genders, dictated by the physiology and psychology of each? If so, in what ways?

Has the 'natural roles' (if there is such a thing) evolved as society has changed from pastoral to industrial to service? How, in what way?

Most of those on this forum are far beyond changing their own opinions or actions about such things and probably only a few will even question the motives behind the characters they created in fiction, in terms of male/female sexuality.

Even so, I get the occasional PM from a young person in their twenties who states that he or she had 'new' thoughts over something I had posted or written.

Now..where was I?

Let me postulate that feminine equality and sexuality is a fairly recent discovery/realization, and not yet even remotely understood in terms of personal choices and behavior.

Ayn Rand had been writing since the 1930's, as I recall, correct me if memory fails, when the feminine revolution began in earnest and the actual realization of equality began to sweep across the social atmosphere.

Would I be too bold to suggest that her fiction writing and even her philosophical tracts may have been exploratory in nature, in terms of the male/female dialectic?

When I read Rand, a half a century ago, her words came across to me in a masculine voice. Her attempts to create the, 'average' woman, in the few instances I recall, were almost apologetic in nature.

Her hero's and heroine's were all essentially male, but with the male, in the form of Galt and Roarck, were more coldly logical than her heroines.

The works of Ayn Rand infuriated both the Right and the Left, as she was both an Atheist and a Pro Choice person and simultaneously, a free market Capitalist advocating an objective, rational moral and ethical system. There may have been other authors who were disdained by both sides of the political spectrum, but I cannot recall any offhand.

That she is still being read and debated, discussed and taught, should say something when one compares that with others of her generation.

Amicus

 

[DeeZire]

From a recent book on Ayn Rand, reviewed by the evil liberals at NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114373264

Rand, who preached the notion of absolute personal freedom and individualism, was a study in contradictions.

Among her acolytes, she did not tolerate dissent.

"What she would tell you, basically, is that she was right and you were not thinking properly if you did not agree with her," Heller says.

Rand's longtime lover and student Nathaniel Branden circulated a list of rules for her followers to absorb. One read: "Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational or moral."

The author, Anne C. Heller, describes the Ayn Rand phenomenon as a cult, which would help to explain the fervor of her followers. The more I learn about Ayn Rand, the more comical her "influence" appears to me, especially after Alan Greenspan had to renounce her philosophy as an excuse for his monumental screwup that crashed the world economy.

The good thing about the resurgence of Ayn Rand is the determination of her Tea Party followers to make asses of themselves, thereby isolating the far right from mainstream America. The more fractious the right becomes, the less power they will wield in the day-to-day workings of government - which will benefit us all.

 

[amicus]

In all, ahm, fairness, DeeZire, doncha think:

November 1, 2009

In Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal policies, Ayn Rand saw the makings of a fascist nation. The author of a new biography of the conservative icon says Rand would have seen Obama's stimulus plan, bank bailout program and health care initiative as "a gigantic power grab."

"She would have been horrified," Anne Heller tells All Things Considered host Guy Raz. Heller's new book is titled Ayn Rand and the World She Made.

Heller calls Rand "perhaps the most important communicator of conservative ideas to the America people." Rand believed the dollar sign "was a better symbol than the cross, because it didn't require the sacrifice of anybody."

Rand parodied Roosevelt's support for things like collective bargaining and wage and price controls during the Great Depression in her famous book, Atlas Shrugged.

That 1957 novel, a dystopian tale of how entrepreneurs, industrialists and innovators all go on strike to protest excessive government interference in the marketplace, has sold more than 6 million copies since its publication.

Over the past year, Rand's books have reappeared on the bestseller lists. Heller says that makes perfect sense.

"When there are periods of economic decline," she says, "people are more likely to absorb [Rand's] message."

At last summer's tea-party rallies, some people held signs with the famous first line from Atlas Shrugged, "Who is John Galt?" Galt is the character who personifies capitalist idealism.

Critics of the Obama administration, like Fox's Glenn Beck and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), count themselves among Rand's devotees. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a member of her inner circle.

Heller says Rand "wouldn't have liked Glenn Beck, but she would have been shouting some of the same things he was shouting."

In Rand's view, government had three specific and limited tasks: to defend the nation from foreign enemies, to police the nation against crime, and to enforce voluntary contracts between free parties. And that's it.

~~~

...mebbe the beginning of the article too...?

Ayn Rand rose to prominence in the 1950's, hardly a time of economic decline, thus the weak thesis of the reviewer is refuted.

I offered links to, "Indoctrinate U", a Documentary Channel offering that described the 70 to 90 percent majority of college professors to be left wing liberals, anti American and anti Free Market.

Further, the agenda of the NEA, to which many lower grade through high school teachers subscribe, is, itself, a left wing organization.

Add to that the preponderance of left wing liberals in the Entertainment world, films, music, television, newspapers and magazines and one can conclude it is astonishing that the works of Ayn Rand are known at all.

Yet, as the piece claims, her books are still among the best selling in the world.

Go figure...

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

I'll come back to this tomorrow if my arthritic hand lets me but will confine myself to one small question today.

Surely Walt Disney was a far more influential twentieth century philosopher of the American way of life?

 

[amicus]

]I'll come back to this tomorrow if my arthritic hand lets me but will confine myself to one small question today.

Surely Walt Disney was a far more influential twentieth century philosopher of the American way of life?[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Ah, I note you are skilled with the Foil, perhaps my reparte' will suffice until your rheumatoidal condition alleviates.

I would agree that Walter undoubtedly influenced the American way of life, viscerously, with far greater success than did Ms. Rand.

So, too, perhaps did Tolkien and the gal who wrote Harry Potter, in their own realm, influence the American perspective.

The similarities perhaps lie in the universality of theme, with Disney concentrating on folklore and Rand on universalities.

Trusting your condition improves, I remain:

Amicus

 

[Epmd607]

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.

Amicus

Anytime you want to quote or refer to the work and passage where she dissects Kant back to Thales, go ahead. I'm certain I've read her work closer than you. She makes superficial references to encyclopedic generalizations of a handful of philosophers along the lines of "I hate Hegel, oh how I hate Idealism! It's not objective, it's Idealism about ideas in people's heads!" If she were a philosopher she'd dissect Hegel's Philosophy of Right, actually reference and cite his work. Pretty much like your generalization of the history of 20th century philosophy, laughable.

"She remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's" —Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." She's admitted to only reading a handful of philosophers, I don't see how she could dissect 2000 years of philosophy without actually reading anything more than Nicomachean Ethics and Summa Theologica in her Soviet Philo 101 course.

Amicus, how does Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology exist as a work on Epistemology without actually quoting passages or dissecting the arguments of Hume, Hegel, and Husserl -- any philosopher? The only reason she was so into the three A's was because she never read the three H's.

 

[Epmd607]

Yet, as the piece claims, her books are still among the best selling in the world.

Go figure...

Amicus

Dan Brown has sold more than 3 times as many books as Ayn Rand in a matter of a decade. I guess he's a more influential historian than say, Bernard Lewis... She sold cheesy escapist novels, not a new way of thinking. I enjoyed her novels in high school, even went so far as to read her non-fiction because I liked her stories. Romantic Manifesto is unreadable. In aesthetics you can get away with not referring to other philosophers, but it's just loathsome/repetitive/lacking coherent reason after the first few chapters.

 

[colddiesel]

The only reason she was so into the three A's was because she never read the three H's.

Actually no, it was because she never got to the B's only the BS.

 

[Pure]

notes

there are many topics raised, so i'll address a few chosen ones.

rand did attend petrograd university, for three years, and her courses, around 25, are discussed here:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt1.htm

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt2.htm

it was a kind of history/social sciences major; so she had acquaintance, under 'worldviews' with figures in the history of philos.
there is a course in ancient philos

her standing as a philosopher has been beset by probs, in view of the dogmatic control exercized by the Ayn Rand Institute, which incidentally would NOT provide Sciabarra with the above transcripts he later obtained on his own, and wrote about. Sciabarra is a fine scholar of Rand related areas. he puts out the only credible journal in the Rand area. J. of Ayn Rand Studies.

http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/index.asp

i know of one philosopher, with a job, who's rather 'objectivist,' but no doubt her courses and publications would NOT be accepted by the Rand Guardians at ARI {compare with the situation at the Freud archives, likewise guarded by true believers.).

one poster mentioned the LACK of ties with other philosophers, references to them. this is correct, and ami to the contrary, she never wrote any 'detailed' examination of their views. she dismissed them in a few sentences. Nietzsche, who clearly influenced her, is only badmouthed, as is Kant, another influence. she acknowledges only Aristotle,and i think it's significant that her one real philos course was 'ancient philos', and Aristotle would stand out.

so it's my impression that only by way of 'virtue ethics' does Rand figure much in philos. her views of metaphysics and epistemology are derivative. her view [and knowledge] of psychology is VASTLY lacking.

as to her "individualism", it's rather contradictory; sometimes it sounds like "free market" and 'each man for himself.' but her careful formulations dictate that the welfare of the other be considered, i.e. you're not to cheat or lie in intercourse with others.
this has a rather Kantian flavor. her arguments, however, are not very solid, here, for it's sort of 'cheaters never prosper'; which we know is false.

i think that's about enough. her 'literary' contributions are commented on by others. the novels are best sellers, but....

as to her sexual submisssive ness, no one, here, has adduced any evidence; she does portray a 'heroine' getting raped, and coming to fall in love with the guy.

she did carry on a number of affairs in full view of her hubby, including the grand love (for a while), with Brandon. she was pro-choice.

her tyrrany over disciples is well documented, and the ARI carries on the tradition. there is one decent survey of Rand's philos by her approved heir, Peikoff, a philos professor. (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019

as to her contributions to the "cause of freedom" or the "cause of the individual"; she's as stated above, a cold war product, hater of Stalinism, etc. her brand of libertarianism/anarchism still exists, though Randist folks denounce the main libertarians as frauds (despite her borrowings).

all in all, i wish i could say more that's positive: she was an independent woman of great resoluteness and energy; in philosophy, her contribution to 'virtue ethics' [egoist type] is perhaps significant, but no one defending such ethics would escape banishment by the Randish establishment.

oh, and i give her one credit, in politics. she detested most conservatives [and Republicans], and hated Reagan and his 'ism'. wonderful speech denouncing the pure mediocrity of this era.



=========================

The Chronicle of Higher Education

"Advocates of Objectivism Make New Inroads" (13 July 2007):

Writer David Glenn mentions The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in a discussion of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivism, which offered the Texas State University Department of Philosophy "a long-term grant to pay the salary of a visiting professor whose specialty would be objectivism, as Rand termed her philosophical system." The Department turned down the offer, partially because of "specific worries about the world of Rand scholarship, which has occasionally been marred by schisms and accusations of scholarly foul play. In particular, the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization with which the Anthem Foundation is closely associated, has sometimes been accused of enforcing rigid ideological conformity—and even of failing to acknowledge the work of scholars associated with rival organizations." In an interview with Rebecca Raphael, "a senior lecturer in philosophy at Texas State," Glenn writes: "Another red flag for Ms. Raphael was an abject apology distributed online in 2002 by Andrew Bernstein, a visiting professor of philosophy at Marist College. Mr. Bernstein lectured on Rand at Texas State this past March, and Mr. McCaskey [the Anthem Foundation's founder and president] mentioned his name as someone who might fill the position that Anthem offered to finance.

"In his 2002 statement, Mr. Bernstein apologized for having contributed a one-paragraph letter to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a journal that publishes a variety of approaches to Rand's philosophy, many of which the institute's leaders find false and offensive. (Mr. Bernstein's short contribution was a reply to a negative review of his CliffsNotes of Rand's novels.)

"'The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances,' wrote Mr. Bernstein in his apology. 'I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it. In this regard, the fault is entirely my own. This journal does not hide what it is. Its contents are available on the Internet for all to see. In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of that. To all who are sincerely concerned with objectivism, I apologize, and recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal. ...

 

[3113]

Dan Brown has sold more than 3 times as many books as Ayn Rand in a matter of a decade.

Hmmm! Interesting point. If we're talking about number of fiction books sold as equaling the influence of an author (i.e. their philosophy on the page via their character as influencing the readers), then J.K. Rowling wins hands down.

She not only sold huge amounts globally, but hit kids at a tender age. And her philosophy, time and again, advocates teamwork. "You can't succeed alone" is her motto, and the egomaniac who thinks he's all that (Ayn Rand style) is the villain.

Ayn Rand's philosophy...defeated and outmatched by a series of kids books.

 

[3113]

she detested most conservatives [and Republicans], and hated Reagan and his 'ism'. wonderful speech denouncing the pure mediocrity of this era.

See there. I always learn something new in these discussion. Seems I do agree with Rand on a few things--and can even admire some of her views.

 

[Epmd607]

"one poster mentioned the LACK of ties with other philosophers, references to them. this is correct, and ami to the contrary, she never wrote any 'detailed' examination of their views. she dismissed them in a few sentences. Nietzsche, who clearly influenced her, is only badmouthed, as is Kant, another influence. she acknowledges only Aristotle,and i think it's significant that her one real philos course was 'ancient philos', and Aristotle would stand out."

On the other hand there's Ludwig Wittgenstein who claimed to only have read Schopenhauer, William James, and maybe Augustine before he wrote the Tractatus. He was probably fibbing, the Germans/Austrians read all the Germanic philosophers as a matter of national pride. He had maybe a couple citations in all of his writing. But, as opposed to Rand, Wittgenstein clearly shows he read Russell and Frege closely. When you're writing in a field of inquiry you have to show you understand the experts in the field that have come before you, even if you don't cite their work line by line. Trysail and his anti-Global Warming bunch have no idea what this means.

 

[TxRad]

But he has charts, graphs, and..... Uh.... Green type.

 

[Liar]

Liar:

Literally, she's boring

(Literarily?) **

Myeah, probably that. It's your language, not mine. I'm allowed to screw it up.

 

[Liar]

It's not that Rand is not influental. Just that she is not influental as a philosopher. As a political thinker and figurehead, she's been fairly influental. What she did was feed an ultra libertarian movement with all the arguments and academic credentials they could wish for.

That's probably my main, and when it comes down to it, my only beef with Ayn Rand. She and her followers masked prescriptive political theory, a valid dicipline in it's own right, as philosophy. Which it simply is not. Rand is in that regards like Karl Marx, who is sometimes credited as a philosopher. But his main documents, that went on to change the world, were on economic and political theory, not philosophy.

 

[Pure]

note

the first chapter of Heller's rather admiring bio of Rand is online at

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/randoEMS/Ayn_Rand_chapter_one.pdf

 

[Xelebes]

Myeah, probably that. It's your language, not mine. I'm allowed to screw it up.

Well, at least give us the Swedish word for us to mangle the interpretation!

 

[Xelebes]

I'm going to be honest, I've never really sat down and read Rand. Ok, there was a time when I looked at the book and thought to myself when coming across it in my grandfather's library as a teenager, "Oh this book looks big! Let's see if I can work my way through this!" I didn't know of the importance of the ideas portrayed in Atlas Shrugged and so I did not put that prism when I read the book. I took it as a novel and, well, it turned me off as reading a novel. Going to be honest.

As far as I understand it, Rand doesn't get much play in Canadian universities so I've never been given the task of reading it, nor in my studies of business ever been cajoled into reading her works by others taking similar courses. Maybe Rand doesn't have that much importance in Canadian politics?

 

[Epmd607]

...

As far as I understand it, Rand doesn't get much play in Canadian universities so I've never been given the task of reading it, nor in my studies of business ever been cajoled into reading her works by others taking similar courses. Maybe Rand doesn't have that much importance in Canadian politics?

Rand might not be as popular in Canada because the spirit of Ayn is really only summoned when our country is in dire economic condition. In 2006 no one's mentioning Ayn Rand, 2009 she's mentioned on all the popular pundit places, even on the Daily Show, and she has a new biography out. Canada needs to get a total banking collapse and a collapse in quality social welfare programs before the ghost of Ayn finds her way into the hearts and minds of Canadian MBA students. That's where she fits best, with academic business people who like a little armchair philosophizin'. As of now, Canada has the soundest banking system in the world, so don't hold your breath or a seance.

The Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye is still far more important and controversial in North American academic circles than Ayn Rand. They both stepped out of their areas of expertise, Ayn was a novelist who pretended to philosophize, Frye was a literary critic who took on the guise of sociologist/mythologist/anthropologist/scientist. Frye's the Rolling Stones, Ayn is Thin Lizzy. I swear it's not out of left field, read Frye's Essays on Canadian Culture back to back with Rand's Virtue of Selfishness.

 

[ishtat]

there are many topics raised, so i'll address a few chosen ones.

rand did attend petrograd university, for three years, and her courses, around 25, are discussed here:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt1.htm

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt2.htm

it was a kind of history/social sciences major; so she had acquaintance, under 'worldviews' with figures in the history of philos.
there is a course in ancient philos

her standing as a philosopher has been beset by probs, in view of the dogmatic control exercized by the Ayn Rand Institute, which incidentally would NOT provide Sciabarra with the above transcripts he later obtained on his own, and wrote about. Sciabarra is a fine scholar of Rand related areas. he puts out the only credible journal in the Rand area. J. of Ayn Rand Studies.

http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/index.asp

i know of one philosopher, with a job, who's rather 'objectivist,' but no doubt her courses and publications would NOT be accepted by the Rand Guardians at ARI {compare with the situation at the Freud archives, likewise guarded by true believers.).

one poster mentioned the LACK of ties with other philosophers, references to them. this is correct, and ami to the contrary, she never wrote any 'detailed' examination of their views. she dismissed them in a few sentences. Nietzsche, who clearly influenced her, is only badmouthed, as is Kant, another influence. she acknowledges only Aristotle,and i think it's significant that her one real philos course was 'ancient philos', and Aristotle would stand out.

so it's my impression that only by way of 'virtue ethics' does Rand figure much in philos. her views of metaphysics and epistemology are derivative. her view [and knowledge] of psychology is VASTLY lacking.

as to her "individualism", it's rather contradictory; sometimes it sounds like "free market" and 'each man for himself.' but her careful formulations dictate that the welfare of the other be considered, i.e. you're not to cheat or lie in intercourse with others.
this has a rather Kantian flavor. her arguments, however, are not very solid, here, for it's sort of 'cheaters never prosper'; which we know is false.

i think that's about enough. her 'literary' contributions are commented on by others. the novels are best sellers, but....

as to her sexual submisssive ness, no one, here, has adduced any evidence; she does portray a 'heroine' getting raped, and coming to fall in love with the guy.

she did carry on a number of affairs in full view of her hubby, including the grand love (for a while), with Brandon. she was pro-choice.

her tyrrany over disciples is well documented, and the ARI carries on the tradition. there is one decent survey of Rand's philos by her approved heir, Peikoff, a philos professor. (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019

as to her contributions to the "cause of freedom" or the "cause of the individual"; she's as stated above, a cold war product, hater of Stalinism, etc. her brand of libertarianism/anarchism still exists, though Randist folks denounce the main libertarians as frauds (despite her borrowings).

all in all, i wish i could say more that's positive: she was an independent woman of great resoluteness and energy; in philosophy, her contribution to 'virtue ethics' [egoist type] is perhaps significant, but no one defending such ethics would escape banishment by the Randish establishment.

oh, and i give her one credit, in politics. she detested most conservatives [and Republicans], and hated Reagan and his 'ism'. wonderful speech denouncing the pure mediocrity of this era.



=========================

The Chronicle of Higher Education

"Advocates of Objectivism Make New Inroads" (13 July 2007):

Writer David Glenn mentions The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in a discussion of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivism, which offered the Texas State University Department of Philosophy "a long-term grant to pay the salary of a visiting professor whose specialty would be objectivism, as Rand termed her philosophical system." The Department turned down the offer, partially because of "specific worries about the world of Rand scholarship, which has occasionally been marred by schisms and accusations of scholarly foul play. In particular, the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization with which the Anthem Foundation is closely associated, has sometimes been accused of enforcing rigid ideological conformity—and even of failing to acknowledge the work of scholars associated with rival organizations." In an interview with Rebecca Raphael, "a senior lecturer in philosophy at Texas State," Glenn writes: "Another red flag for Ms. Raphael was an abject apology distributed online in 2002 by Andrew Bernstein, a visiting professor of philosophy at Marist College. Mr. Bernstein lectured on Rand at Texas State this past March, and Mr. McCaskey [the Anthem Foundation's founder and president] mentioned his name as someone who might fill the position that Anthem offered to finance.

"In his 2002 statement, Mr. Bernstein apologized for having contributed a one-paragraph letter to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a journal that publishes a variety of approaches to Rand's philosophy, many of which the institute's leaders find false and offensive. (Mr. Bernstein's short contribution was a reply to a negative review of his CliffsNotes of Rand's novels.)

"'The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances,' wrote Mr. Bernstein in his apology. 'I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it. In this regard, the fault is entirely my own. This journal does not hide what it is. Its contents are available on the Internet for all to see. In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of that. To all who are sincerely concerned with objectivism, I apologize, and recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal. ...

Thanks for this muted and entirely fair contribution Pure. I was particularly interested in Sciabarra's comments on his dealings with the ARI. Rand comes through at every point as an effective political propagandist but with pretensions to philosophy which have no substance .

Rand remains interesting to me in one aspect. We know very little about the first 16 years of her life and in particular her early relations with authority figures at home at school and particularly with her father. Psychologically and in her early historical context she is a potentially fascinating study but do the sources exist and if they do will the ARI ever cease their censorship?

 

[Xelebes]

Rand might not be as popular in Canada because the spirit of Ayn is really only summoned when our country is in dire economic condition. In 2006 no one's mentioning Ayn Rand, 2009 she's mentioned on all the popular pundit places, even on the Daily Show, and she has a new biography out. Canada needs to get a total banking collapse and a collapse in quality social welfare programs before the ghost of Ayn finds her way into the hearts and minds of Canadian MBA students. That's where she fits best, with academic business people who like a little armchair philosophizin'. As of now, Canada has the soundest banking system in the world, so don't hold your breath or a seance.

The Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye is still far more important and controversial in North American academic circles than Ayn Rand. They both stepped out of their areas of expertise, Ayn was a novelist who pretended to philosophize, Frye was a literary critic who took on the guise of sociologist/mythologist/anthropologist/scientist. Frye's the Rolling Stones, Ayn is Thin Lizzy. I swear it's not out of left field, read Frye's Essays on Canadian Culture back to back with Rand's Virtue of Selfishness.

Never heard of Northrop Frye. Now I will have to look his/her work.

 

[Xelebes]

=====

 

[ishtat]

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.

I once, long long ago taught Maths and Logic for a couple of years (before getting a real job) and EPMD607's description of nascent philosophers is scarily accurate. Regrettably Ms Rand would not even get a B grade partly due to her failure to read any original sources and partly because she denied the limited sources she did use.

There have been some interesting contributions and if mine seem a bit disjointed it's partly due to the fact that I don't want to repeat others too much.

There is very little academic interest in Rand as a philosopher and virtually none outside the USA. This is essentially because she had nothing original to say.

Rand admitted only two influences Aristotle 384 322 BC and Aquinas 1225 1274 AD. The only other philosopher she is known to have studied is Nietzsche who's influence is clear but whom she denies. The fact that Rand stopped at Aquinas is interesting because her political ideas only had any validity in a pre- industrial, indeed pre- mercantalist medieval society.

There is no evidence Rand studied the philosophers and lawmakers who inspired the American constitution she affected to admire but her attirude to Kant is revealing. Kant was the philosopher of Reason which Rand claimed as the foundation for her own thinking. Yet, without a skerrick of analysis she condemned the man and his ideas in the most vicious terms. Why?

Clearly Rand did not have either the education or the intellectual capacity to tackle Kant who some would argue is the greatest philosopher of the last millenium. But why did she hate him and deride him so much. I suspect (but cannot prove) the answer lies in Rand's own personal insecurities.

Kant was a 5' tall apparently asexual East Prussian German intellectual, the very antithesis of Rand's ideal 'hero'. In addition she was brought up in Eastern Europe at a time when every eastern European country had a substantial German minority which minority tended in most cases to dominate the regions intellectual and cultural traditions. Kant was built to specifiacation for Rands hatred .

Aristotle and Aquinas' primary influence today is still substantially as foundation scholars of Catholic Theology and Doctrine. In Catholic seminaries, invariably dedicated to St Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle is still taught and designated as "The Philosopher"

Aristotle famously had no truck with freedom except for an aristocratic elite, he regarded women as sub- human, slaves as deserving of their status and believed in strong centralised male leadership - just what the RC church wanted, a rigorous self justification.

This apparently peculiar commonality Rand shares with Catholicism is not co-incidental. Rand's political ideas and indeed the conduct of her successors at ARI and her acolytes here are all notable for their fundamental religiosity. The absence of God does not change this. In Rands politics and society her god is Self, the ego. Amicus for example describes himself as an atheist, I doubt it, he has merely internalised the godhead (after all where did all that omnipotent perfection come from

The test is this. If we challenge Rand the response is identical in nature to that of a religious fundamentalist. We are immediately branded as heretics (lefties, social democrats, it means the same) And as with any other fundamental believer of whatever faith you will never ever ever get a debate, merely declamation of the virtue of Rand ad nauseum.

Amicus' comment "can anyone point to one who had more influence during the 20th century than did Ayn Rand"

Yes Amicus in fact two

Karl Marx

The classical liberal/social democratic continuum.

Both were and are a million times more important than Rand.

I believe that for conservatism to be relavent again it will have to disconnect from doctrine. Effective conservatism historically is essentially reactive rather than prescriptive. Taking Amicus as an example, he has some excellent points to make about freedom, personal responsibility and the role of government. His tragedy however is that it is invariably wrapped up in Rand's claptrap which total impracticality generally leads to rejection of the whole package.

My conclusion therefore is that Rand as a philosopher barely exists and warrants no further attention, however as a psychological study (especially of her early life) in her historical context she and the phenomenon of Randism is fascinating. I confess to a significant sympathy to the frightened little Aliza Zinovyeva Rosenbaum and am occasionally tempted to give her a metaphorical cuddle and say "Never mind sweety you'll find your "Daddy" someday"

PS I am perfectly well aware that this is an opinion piece before anyone else points out the total absence of either sources or attribution!

 

[amicus]

Ishtat: Karl Marx, 1818-1883, a 19th century writer, not 20th, which was my point.

I also penned this before you posted, or at least I read, your last...

~~~

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

The world of Formal Philosophy was a cloistered one indeed when the flaming star of Russian born Ayn Rand lit up the landscape. Mainly Marxist professors held forth at University level, infecting, with their books and lectures, the whole of education from top to bottom.

Ayn Rand changed all that; she opened up the world of ‘personal’ philosophy to the general public through her fiction novels and created a tidal wave of inquisitive students who attempted to gain an understanding of the gobbledygook of Logical Positivism and the other bastard children of Post War Existentialism.

The formal world of academe and philosophy in specific, has never forgiven her, even to this day. Unable to create barricades to her ‘Objectivist’ concepts of ethics and morality, they then attacked her literary skills and then, of course, her personal character traits.

Never before in the history of the world have the works and concepts and indeed life, has a writer been scrutinized and commented on at all levels, as have Ayn Rand’s.

A full half century after her dramatic arrival on the world stage, as evidenced by the critical postings on this small forum, the Philosophy and literary accomplishments of Ayn Rand are still the subject of heated controversy.

Ask yourself why?

Aside from elevating the, ‘individual’ to a prominent position, as opposed to the group-think of advocates of Socialism, Rand provided a moral foundation for the mechanics of a free market place that challenged the general acceptance of ‘sacrifice’, Altruism, as a general thesis in Statist literature.

Name another philosopher/writer to appear on late night television in the US; point out another in either Economics or Psychology that have had a similar impact on entire generations of the general public.

You can’t, because there aren’t any, not one.

A hundred years from now, Ayn Rand will still be studied and read and perhaps the boiling hatred of the Left will subside, and a true evaluation of her impact can be made.

Amicus...

 

[penandpaper]

]I'll come back to this tomorrow if my arthritic hand lets me but will confine myself to one small question today.

Surely Walt Disney was a far more influential twentieth century philosopher of the American way of life?[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Ah, I note you are skilled with the Foil, perhaps my reparte' will suffice until your rheumatoidal condition alleviates.

I would agree that Walter undoubtedly influenced the American way of life, viscerously, with far greater success than did Ms. Rand.

So, too, perhaps did Tolkien and the gal who wrote Harry Potter, in their own realm, influence the American perspective.

The similarities perhaps lie in the universality of theme, with Disney concentrating on folklore and Rand on universalities.

Trusting your condition improves, I remain:

Amicus

Want to thank everyone for their opinions. I've learned quite a bit. You damn smart people need to not hold out so much.

As to the above, I think we can say Ray Kroc is very high on that list - if not at the top. I found it interesting that he and Walt were both too young to enter the war, lied, and then drove as partners in an ambulance together. I find it even more remarkable, Walt refused Ray to put a MC. D's in his beloved Kingdom all the way to his deathbed.