Rand (y)

[DeeZire]

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

I'd like to propose Timothy Leary and the Beatles, who were not qualified as philosophers, but then neither was Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary and the Beatles changed the freakin' world, in more profound ways than any philosopher (accredited or not) could ever dream of.

Now, if we'd like to extend Ami's challenge into the 21st century, Ayn Rand economics could take the prize, if we're looking at the amount of wealth lost to unbridled selfishness. (Sorry, that should probably read: unregulated capitalism.)

 

[Dragonlipz]

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!

The thoughtful, factual, and FAIR postings by yourself and PURE unscore the futility of any intelligent discourse with Mon Ami - he cannot be bothered by the truth, facts, or logic......and will offer none in response.....merely conjecture and unfounded blather.....
Thank you both for your intelligent and enlightening insight.....

 

[Dragonlipz]

I'd like to propose Timothy Leary and the Beatles, who were not qualified as philosophers, but then neither was Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary and the Beatles changed the freakin' world, in more profound ways than any philosopher (accredited or not) could ever dream of.

Now, if we'd like to extend Ami's challenge into the 21st century, Ayn Rand economics could take the prize, if we're looking at the amount of wealth lost to unbridled selfishness. (Sorry, that should probably read: unregulated capitalism.)

Mon Ami is still trying to blame the economic crisis on ACORN....a la FAUX NEWS.....where he gets all of his 'information'...............................

 

[DeeZire]

Crap! I left out Martin Luther King and Bob Dylan. I think it's safe to say that Bob Dylan helped spearhead the anti-war protest movement that finally got us out of Vietnam - not intentionally, of course. Dylan was famously uninterested in political action, preferring to focus on matters of the heart, and long legged women in buckskin jackets.

 

[Epmd607]

Who's more influential on political, social, economic philosophy within the 20th century? Forget Marx and Jesus. Friedman and Keynes vs. Ayn Rand. It's laugh out loud funny even putting Ayn Rand in the same sentence as those two. Ayn basically said Friedman was anti-capitalist, she hated him because he was infinitely more influential, simple as that. She was probably the most uneducated, anti-intellectual intellectual of all time. Ayn is still the Mao of ARI. Housewives formed book circles to discuss Atlas Shrugged and Ayn's philosophy, she went from book circle to book circle in NY and Chicago to expound her ideas to elite middle-class fans, for a fee.

Ayn was probably the angriest female of all time too. Anyone I've ever met whose ordained him/herself as an Objectivist has been super angry, against reasoned argument, and wholly mean spirited. Again, this is a porno message board, not a philosophy message board, so that should tell you where Ayn's influence is because it's certainly not in scholarly circles.

 

[Pure]

reply

Ami "can anyone point to one who had more influence during the 20th century than did Ayn Rand":

leaders: lenin, mao, churchill, FDR, gandhi
writers: lenin, mao, churchill, gandhi.
political philosophers: mao, rawls, nozick.

as far as the "libertarian" movement goes, see wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism. It appears to be a marginal movement in the US, perhaps coming close in Goldwater (supported by Rand), and defeated soundly, 1964, in his run for Pres. its candidates rarely attract even 5% of the vote, when running independently.

Randists are one of several strands of "libertarianism" in the US, others being linked to Murray Rothbard, for example, (whom Ayn, of course borrowed from, then fought with, then denounced).

-----

as far as apology for "unbridled" capitalism, there was Adam Smith, last century, and Von Mises, and Hayek, and Milton Friedman, this century, all more influential than Rand, IMO. all of them, for example, won a Nobel prize and had credibility, to say the least, as economists.

to hang Rand's claim to fame on 'unbridled capitalism' or "minimal government" is to place her among a large number of "right "thinkers; only her philosophical and literary pretentions distinguish her.

=====

even in the area of ethics, "egoism" has had various proponents, and her "rational" version thereof is one of several, and to my mind, the least convincing, for reasons already given. it's one thing to say, a) "every man for himself; devil take the hindmost" supplemented with "the invisible hand, the market, takes care of everything else, e.g. the flourishing of society."

it's quite another to say, as Rand mostly does, b) "every man for himself, BUT he must recognize as equal all other rational beings and *treat their interests* on a par with his own." [[Rand is not clearly for b) in all cases, as she does not think there is any obligation to take a minute of one's precious time to throw a life preserver to a drowning man.]]

a) has some plausibility, perhaps, and was elaborated long before Rand. indeed Smith, favorite of our late Roxanne, dealt with a number of problems of government intervention-- as favored some cases of it!

b) to my mind, has LESS plausibility than Kant, or Sartre, either for that matter. but at least they understood a true dedication to others' interests on a par with one's own.

however, in METAETHICAL terms, the b) position of Rand is shaky, IMO, as it relies exclusively on rational considerations. it is scarcely a dictate of *reason* to treat others as equals. it's rational to enslave all others, for example.

it is a dictate of our feelings, e.g. compassion **including for the unrelated and for strangers**, to show some compassion for the drowing guy, or the victim encountered wounded by the roadside, by the well-known 'good Samaritan.'
=====================

the offshoot of Rand into virtue ethics is thus the most interesting and elaborated by Tara Smith, a competent, published philosopher of Randish allegiance [though no doubt denounced by the Rand 'establishment'].

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460

for a summary and review by a non-aligned reviewer [not in the Rand establishment, afaik]
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=8123

i will talk about this in another post, perhaps.

 

[Epmd607]

"to hang Rand's claim to fame on 'unbridled capitalism' or "minimal government" is to place her among a large number of "right "thinkers; only her philosophical and literary pretentions distinguish her."

Friedman had plenty of philosophical and literary pretensions, but as opposed to Rand he's a good example of how to go about something despicable from an incredibly scholarly standpoint. If this wasn't a porno site Rand would get one or two posts from the Freshman Year political scientist, which would be promptly ignored, and the battle would be over Friedman's socio-political essays.

Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom, while Ayn wrote Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal featuring essays from Alan Greenspan a brand new baby economist in the Friedman Universe. They aren't even comparable, one is from a sound basis in economic theory, the other is from fantasy land.

 

[Dragonlipz]

"to hang Rand's claim to fame on 'unbridled capitalism' or "minimal government" is to place her among a large number of "right "thinkers; only her philosophical and literary pretentions distinguish her."

Friedman had plenty of philosophical and literary pretensions, but as opposed to Rand he's a good example of how to go about something despicable from an incredibly scholarly standpoint. If this wasn't a porno site Rand would get one or two posts from the Freshman Year political scientist, which would be promptly ignored, and the battle would be over Friedman's socio-political essays.

Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom, while Ayn wrote Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal featuring essays from Alan Greenspan a brand new baby economist in the Friedman Universe. They aren't even comparable, one is from a sound basis in economic theory, the other is from fantasy land.

Amen, brother, amen....None are so blind as those who will not see......

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]If this wasn't a porno site Rand would get one or two posts from the Freshman Year political scientist, which would be promptly ignored, and the battle would be over Friedman's socio-political essays.
[...]

I think you over-estimate the general level of discourse in internet fora, porno site or not.

 

[Pure]

note

to epmd--
pure: i did add a sentence somewhat before your posting time, but perhaps you didn't see it:

pure earlier: as far as apology for "unbridled" capitalism, there was Adam Smith, last century, and Von Mises, and Hayek, and Milton Friedman, this century, all more influential than Rand, IMO. all of them, for example, won a Nobel prize and had credibility, to say the least, as economists

epmdFriedman had plenty of philosophical and literary pretensions:

as far as Friedman's philosophical pretensions, i have no info, though i suspect he remained within the field of political and social philosophy. i doubt he pretended to metaphysics, and i suspect his 'ethics' are simply-Adam Smith-like. note: these limitations, if there are such, speak favorably to Friedman; less intellectual arrogance.

by "literary", of course i meant novels, and afaik, Friedman didn't write any, though Wm Buckley--another conservative more noted than Rand--did a couple page turners which leave Atlas Shrugged in the dust.

ADDED: as i said earlier, Friedman, IMO, has had more influence than Rand [and i don't think owes anything to her], serving as advisor to Presidents. he had loads of published articles, is respected by other economists; was a fine statistician. need i go on, ami? i must say, though, that his basic thesis seems doubtful: that there is a connection of unregulated capitalism and freedom--a claim also made by Hayek, Rand, and other "right" ideologues.

 

[3113]

I think you over-estimate the general level of discourse in internet fora, porno site or not.

Actually, the level of discourse so far on this site is proving that it can be quite high, objective and educated. I'm impressed (of course, I'm not a student of philosophy or economics so maybe that means I'm easily impressed ).

 

[amicus]

Below are just two of:

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,400,000 for ayn rand her influence on society.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/11/biographical-sketch-of-ayn-rand?page=1

The problem was that few of Rand’s contemporaries accorded her philosophy any respect. Atlas Shrugged was panned by critics and hated by academics, who detested both her politics and her romantic writing style. Some professors automatically failed any student who wrote about Rand; others published articles warning of her terrible influence on youth. Hospers was one of the few scholars genuinely interested in her ideas, and his allegiance was priceless.

Nowadays Atlas Shrugged sells more than 200,000 copies each year, and professors are more likely to assign than attack Rand’s writing. Nearly 30 years after her death, Rand’s once controversial philosophy of individualism and capitalism has become part of the warp and woof of American political culture.

Jennifer Burns ’97, assistant professor of history at the University of Virginia, is the author of a just-published biography, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (Oxford).

~~

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5064

On the 50th anniversary of its publication, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's epic about a group of businessmen who rebel against a society that shackles and condemns them, is everywhere. Hardly a day goes by without a mention of the novel in the media or by some prominent celebrity or businessman as the most significant book he's read. Meanwhile, Ayn Rand's novels, including Atlas Shrugged, are being taught in tens of thousands of high schools. And last year sales of the novel in bookstores topped an astonishing 130,000 copies--more than when it was first published.

As executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, I see the impact of Atlas Shrugged on a daily basis. I'm continually amazed by how many people, from every walk of life and every part of the planet, from high school students to political activists in countries from Hong Kong to Belarus to Ghana, eagerly tell me: "Atlas Shrugged changed my life."

Scores of business leaders, from CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to young entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, say they have derived great spiritual fuel from Atlas Shrugged. Many tell me that the novel has motivated them to make the most of their lives, inspiring them to be more ambitious, more productive, and more successful in their work. And many of America's politicians and intellectuals who claim to fight for economic freedom name Atlas Shrugged as the book that has most inspired them. I have no doubt that the novel has played a considerable role in discrediting socialism as an ideal and in making discussion of capitalism intellectually legitimate.

~~~

Ayn Rand passed away almost 30 years ago and yet her philosophy and her literary works continue to be read and discussed.

But of course, she was not influential and is to be demeaned as semi literate.

Go figure...and in your calculations, make an attempt to determine why those here on this forum, so hate and dismiss Rand as they do. They are wrong, of course, in all aspects of their criticism, but why, year after year to they continue to express that hatred and invective?

The reasons are complex and devastating to those who are so anti Ayn Rand. Her philosophy and literature serve to elevate man's status as a productive individual entity and a moral being. The hatred of her stems from a lack of individual identity and a hatred of man qua man.

Of course Ayn Rand had her critics and nay-sayers, what popular and influential individual does not?

Amicus

 

[Epmd607]

Dan Brown and Erich von Daniken are more influential in the last 40 years than Ayn Rand. They both inspired interest in occultish beliefs, history, art, pseudo-science. There are modern television specials about von Daniken's 40 year old book, Chariots of the Gods, there just isn't anything equivalent for Rand. More people are interested in Rand's sex life, if you look at the books published about her in the last ten years the majority are about her sexuality, not about Moral Man and his Right to Life. Dan Brown is just more of a historian than she is a philosopher, based on public interest in each novelist. The number of books sold each year means nothing, if you haven't figured it out yet. These three people were/are educated, sensational, idiots, well paid.