Objectivism and Ayn Rand

[Jozanny]

I am not an expert on Rand's development of Objectivism, but I thought it would be interesting to pose the question as to whether she was simply a bad intellectual or trying to form her own religion? I've read both of her major novels, and it seems Atlas Shrugged comes fairly close to developing Rand's doctrinal substitute for Christian dogma. It was an insufferable read, even though I forced myself to finish it.

[blazeofglory]

I am not an expert on Rand's development of Objectivism, but I thought it would be interesting to pose the question as to whether she was simply a bad intellectual or trying to form her own religion? I've read both of her major novels, and it seems Atlas Shrugged comes fairly close to developing Rand's doctrinal substitute for Christian dogma. It was an insufferable read, even though I forced myself to finish it.

like both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Both are fantabulous and ehave no matches.

I was hooked to the novels, and she was epochal, or to say it differently, she was matchless.

She had presented herself totally differently, of course amazingly, and she through her fabulous books presented the idea of objectivism , and of course she came thunderously to present her ideas, of course to shape the very patterns of American thinking.

All I like about her was her characterization, and she was capable of weaving rare characters and in fact her characters were the sum and substance of her novels.

[RichardHresko]

I am not an expert on Rand's development of Objectivism, but I thought it would be interesting to pose the question as to whether she was simply a bad intellectual or trying to form her own religion? I've read both of her major novels, and it seems Atlas Shrugged comes fairly close to developing Rand's doctrinal substitute for Christian dogma. It was an insufferable read, even though I forced myself to finish it.

She seemed to be a philosopher who was in the "social contract" genre, except that she seemed to believe that you had the right to break the contract when it no longer suited you. She ignored that a person can not claim he/she is self-made and so her argument collapsed.

My answer to "Who is John Galt?" would have to be, "Nobody you'd want to know."

With all due respect, her characters are not even wooden, but pure particleboard.

[Jozanny]

She seemed to be a philosopher who was in the "social contract" genre, except that she seemed to believe that you had the right to break the contract when it no longer suited you. She ignored that a person can not claim he/she is self-made and so her argument collapsed.

My answer to "Who is John Galt?" would have to be, "Nobody you'd want to know."

With all due respect, her characters are not even wooden, but pure particleboard.

I do not much like her methodology, never fear:p, but this Who is John Galt? business seems to point to the fact that she cared much more for the cult of personality, namely her own, than she did for creating a genuinely sound philosophical thesis--and the fact that interest in her persists may have something to do with the psychological attraction to cults more than to any sound premises within Objectivism itself.

[RichardHresko]

I do not much like her methodology, never fear:p, but this Who is John Galt? business seems to point to the fact that she cared much more for the cult of personality, namely her own, than she did for creating a genuinely sound philosophical thesis--and the fact that interest in her persists may have something to do with the psychological attraction to cults more than to any sound premises within Objectivism itself.

I agree with you on this.

One thing I found interesting is that Alan Greenspan was for many years a member of the objectivist movement.

[blazeofglory]

All that I understood is she creates characters, and their philosophies, beliefs and objectives in life and she proceeds to do the rest thereafter.

We can not say her computerization, presentation and representation is correct. She came to America that socialism is a failure and capitalism is the sum and substance of human beings.

[Dark Muse]

Well I will have to read more of her books before I will be able to really get into this, but I am intrigued, I did think The Fountainhead was just fabulous. I found that book to be captivating and was sucked in right away.

My sister loves Rand, and she acutally became a member of the whole Objectivisim thing for a while and use to get information from them and such.

From what I have read in The Fountainhead, I am on board with her philosophy and really do not understand why so many others are turned off by it. I envy Howard Roark, and so wish I could be like him.

[blazeofglory]

Howard Roark was a very interesting character spun by Ayn Rand and someone who never could compromise on things a tall in life and someone who in life.

[paperleaves]

I would like to bring this post back to life since I was searching the forum for all things Rand related--I find it interesting that she is not listed on a sub-forum for all to discuss. As a side note, does anyone know why this is?

To answer Jozanny's question, she was neither. Rand used her fiction to depict Objectivism (her philosophy) in action. She didn't create anything, rather observed the world around her and used reason and morality to propose the only moral social system known to man--laissez-faire capitalism.

I recently founded an organization on Capitalism, of course, heavily influenced by Rand's work. (www.laissezfairesyndicate.com, if you're interested!)

I haven't read all of her works, I am getting through Atlas Shrugged at the moment. I studied more of her nonfiction writings and recently began reading her fiction. "We the Living" changed my life, I suggest that ANY reader take a look at this story. It is a moving masterpiece of her life (the closest thing to her autobiography) told from the perspective of a young woman in Soviet Russia. What is so beautiful about her writing is that no matter what, if it is fiction or non-fiction, she employs her philosophy seamlessly.

Now, I am not saying ALL of Rand's observations and contributions to Objectivism were correct, but she laid a great foundational framework for those of us who are exploring it daily.

I'm curious to see who will respond to the original poster's question.
Thanks!

love
paper

[dfloyd]

many times. She came across badly when opposed by some of the intelligentsia of the 1950s. I remember one being William F. Buckley. I have only read Atlas Shrugged, which I found to be repetitive and boring. Her philosophy of rejecting altruism and only thinking of herself was exemplified by arranging weekly sexual encounters with her number one follower (I forget his name) with the knowledge of his wife and Rand's husband. Her philosophy is generally only accepted by the very young and naive.

Authors not listed in this forum haven't anything to do with likes or dislikes. It is because their works are not in the public domain.

[Baudolina]

many times. She came across badly when opposed by some of the intelligentsia of the 1950s. I remember one being William F. Buckley. I have only read Atlas Shrugged, which I found to be repetitive and boring. Her philosophy of rejecting altruism and only thinking of herself was exemplified by arranging weekly sexual encounters with her number one follower (I forget his name) with the knowledge of his wife and Rand's husband. Her philosophy is generally only accepted by the very young and naive.

Authors not listed in this forum haven't anything to do with likes or dislikes. It is because their works are not in the public domain.

I'm a little surprised that William F. Buckley (junior, right?) was opposed to Ayn Rand. I could see them disagreeing on atheism, and I heard rumors that he was bigoted against Jews, but as far as her philosophical line goes I'd think they'd be in agreement.

[SFG75]

As an undergrad, I read her books and loved to do so at the coffeehouse. No work will get you more random people to come up to you and begin debating you about a book, like anything by Ayn Rand. From apoplectic liberals infuriated about objectivism and "selfishness," to religious people who have a hang up about her views of religion being a "collective" disease, you will immediately encounter a toxic melt-down of industrial proportion due to the strong reaction that others have to her works in public.:willy_nilly:

To me, she is a libertarian version of Theodore Dresier, Upton Sinclair, and John Steinbeck. In life, we all know a person like the brother of Dagny Taggart. The flunky who only got his position in life due to cozying up to the right people, even though they are inept and incompetent. There are self-promoting ministers and journalists who are also flunkies. Balph Eubank is a prime example of some people that we all could envision in our respective countries. The independent mindedness of Hank Reardon and Dagny is something that tugs at you, as we can all identify with the pull of the collective.

For those who are interested, here is an old interview of Ayn Rand by Mike Wallace. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k) Do check it out, she is great at intellectual jujitsu.:argue:

[Cunninglinguist]

I thought it would be interesting to pose the question as to whether she was simply a bad intellectual or trying to form her own religion?

Why can't it be both?

The amateur philosophy doesn't bother me as much; what gets me is how popular she is when there are clearly better, more substantiated theories out there. Whereas Rand substantiated her theory in her imagination - and that's about as far as it goes -, all recent evidence shows that intentionally alienating oneself from ones community does not make one happy - indeed, that's pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

Unfortunately her works are intellectual junk-food. They're easy to down and they shallowly appeal, in pretense and content, to the disgruntled demographic (which so happens to be very large).

[Emil Miller]

I tried reading We the Living but couldn't finish it because I had read acres of stuff re soviet Russia when I was younger and it didn't tell me anything new.
As an individualist, I still don't buy into the the idea that selfishness is acceptable but Rand's polar opposites are far more dangerous in believing that all humans are equal when clearly they are not. It is interesting that, although the Humanities loom so large in education, some young people are able to resist the siren voices of wishful-thinking lecturers and form their own, albeit questionable, opinions about how they want to live their lives.

[RaoulDuke]

Atlas Shrugged has the distinction of being one my least favourite books out of the veritable canon that I have read.

Some people say that philosophy should be presented in a clear, concise prosaic manner with nothing to muddy the waters, but I can forgive an author who attempts to bury it within a story. More than that in fact; if the story is beautiful in itself then my enjoyment of the book is greatly enhanced.

But in terms of 'art' and 'beauty' Atlas Shrugged is (in my opinion) catastrophically bad. The black and white division of characters into the individualist and the collectivist leads to them being some of the most wooden I have ever come across in fiction. In a work that is ostensibly trying to promote a philosophy applicable to real multidimensional people this is unforgivable.

The idea of presenting the decline and rebirth of human society is an epic one, and I really wanted it to work. What frustrated me even more about the book is that as an armchair anarchist I am receptive to any philosophy that promotes individual responsibilty and pokes holes in the idea of big government. Having said that, Ayn Rand seemed to be denying altogether that human beings are essentially altruistic creatures. Any philosophy that contradicts inbuilt human instincts is doomed to failure and deserves the derision it will undoubtedly face.

[SFG75]

I would agree with the general criticism that her characters are a bit wooden. Love is a transaction deal with no emotion and the only benefit of the transaction takes its place.:eek6: It is my opinion that Rand was more of a non-fiction writer, and her writing suffers as a result. At the same time, she does a masterful job as you watch Hank Reardon suffer through his wife, his idiot indolent-socialist brother, nagging mother, and other collectivists who claim his life when he shows up late to dinner. James Taggart is another wonderful character who just gets your blood boiling. He is the pinnacle of incompetence and ineptitude. He hooks you in to the story as he leads Taggart Transcontinental to ruin, all the while spouting off about "social justice" and the hilariously titled "dog-eat-dog" rule. Say what you want bout her philosophy, her works strike a chord in anyone who has ever worked under incompetence, or has seen other factors besides merit hold sway in the workplace.

[The Atheist]

I am not an expert on Rand's development of Objectivism, but I thought it would be interesting to pose the question as to whether she was simply a bad intellectual or trying to form her own religion?


Why can't it be both?

I'd certainly vote both.

[OrphanPip]

The reason why Rand is not taken seriously as a philosopher, except in certain American institutions that receive funding from far right groups, is that she lacked a fully articulated and flushed out philosophical discourse about anything.

She built a career over developing straw men communist to attack with her Jesus-like Libertarian heroes. Anyway, she has a spiritual successor in Terry Goodkind, now with added Neoliberalism for extra flavour.

[Baudolina]

The reason why Rand is not taken seriously as a philosopher, except in certain American institutions that receive funding from far right groups, is that she lacked a fully articulated and flushed out philosophical discourse about anything.

She built a career over developing straw men communist to attack with her Jesus-like Libertarian heroes. Anyway, she has a spiritual successor in Terry Goodkind, now with added Neoliberalism for extra flavour.

Amen :rofl:

[Jassy Melson]

I think it comes down essentially to this: socalist-minded and leftist people hate her works while capitalist rightists love her work. There seems to be no middle ground when it comes to Rand. I for one think she was an unique modern philosopher. Others dismiss her work.

[SFG75]

I think it comes down essentially to this: socalist-minded and leftist people hate her works while capitalist rightists love her work. There seems to be no middle ground when it comes to Rand

:iagree:

[cyberbob]

I consider myself a capitalist rightist and I wouldn't say I love her work.

I can't even bring myself to go past the first page of Atlas Shrugged after having read The Fountainhead. I just know the incessant droning on about selfishness being good blah blah blah is coming and I just can't stand reading a dozen monologues by different characters all saying the exact same thing.

It's not that I disagree with what she says; I thought most of her ideas before I read her and that's actually why I chose to read her, but I just can't stand the bleeding-heart sentimentality that she pushes her views with. It's exactly that kind of delusion that drove me away from liberal politics.

Her characters are pretty good. I thought Peter Keating, Ellesworth Toohey, and that little woman that Keating liked were interesting. Her supposed heroes: Dominique, Roark, and Gail Wynand are all basically one character and it was pretty painful reading their crap conversations by the end of the novel. Her prose is also pretty good so if she would've eased up on the preaching she'd possibly be an author I like.

[SFG75]

I consider myself a capitalist rightist and I wouldn't say I love her work.

I can't even bring myself to go past the first page of Atlas Shrugged after having read The Fountainhead. I just know the incessant droning on about selfishness being good blah blah blah is coming and I just can't stand reading a dozen monologues by different characters all saying the exact same thing.

It's not that I disagree with what she says; I thought most of her ideas before I read her and that's actually why I chose to read her, but I just can't stand the bleeding-heart sentimentality that she pushes her views with. It's exactly that kind of delusion that drove me away from liberal politics.

Her characters are pretty good. I thought Peter Keating, Ellesworth Toohey, and that little woman that Keating liked were interesting. Her supposed heroes: Dominique, Roark, and Gail Wynand are all basically one character and it was pretty painful reading their crap conversations by the end of the novel. Her prose is also pretty good so if she would've eased up on the preaching she'd possibly be an author I like.

Perhaps you don't like her work due to religious "collectivist" reasons?:wink5:

[cyberbob]

Perhaps you don't like her work due to religious "collectivist" reasons?:wink5:

I'm an atheist. I told you, I agree with pretty much everything she says. I just don't like the annoying way that she presents it.

[Ecurb]

I'm an atheist. I told you, I agree with pretty much everything she says. I just don't like the annoying way that she presents it.

It's strange to see such terrible philosophical judgement juxtaposed to such good literary taste.

[SFG75]

I love the depiction of James Taggart, Balph Eubank, and Lillian Reardon as the bloodsuckers they truly are. anyone else concur?

[blazeofglory]

Aynd Rand is a capitalist hound and what she did was brainwash the indefensible Americans into her stupid thoughts. In fact the root of capitalism is objective reality and man's main main achievement is self-fulfillment. With this philosophy man is always guided by self interest and selfishness.

Covetousness, consumerism and possessiveness are her guiding principles. Today America is economically doing worse when her philosophy of capitalism,consumerism have swept the entire United States.

Capitalism is not a good philosophy and all we need is restrained socialism wherein consumption is in control and our wild motives are in check.

[blazeofglory]

She is not on the list of philosophers and in fact she has not proved herself to be a philosopher. All she did is she tried to repackage some thoughts in colorful wrappers of ideas using her elusive language to confuse the common American who always crave for change.

She suffered under the Bolsheviks in Russia and all her writings are just reactions to them only and the rightists in America and in the rest of the world supported her literally.

Alan Greenspan, a follower of her dysfunctional capitalistic thought got misguided when he was chairing the seat of the Federal Reserves as the chief.

[AbOvo]

Rand's pseudo-ad hominem attack on Kant as "the most evil man in history" has always left a nasty taste in my mouth.

[cyberbob]

It's strange to see such terrible philosophical judgement juxtaposed to such good literary taste.

Well I may have exaggerated.

I'm a libertarian and free-thinker but have never considered myself an Objectivist.

[blazeofglory]

Ayn Rand is an activist and all her approaches or campaigns are revengeful and she had seen so much of the Bolshevism and that motivated her to stand against the movement and she got refuge in the US and tried to blackmail the vulnerable Americans into her conspired garbage.

All her supporters remained misguided by her so called new ideas

[Ecurb]

Well I may have exaggerated.

I'm a libertarian and free-thinker but have never considered myself an Objectivist.

I couldn't resist such an easy witticism -- all in good fun, I hope.

[jlb4tlb]

Aynd Rand is a capitalist hound and what she did was brainwash the indefensible Americans into her stupid thoughts. In fact the root of capitalism is objective reality and man's main main achievement is self-fulfillment. With this philosophy man is always guided by self interest and selfishness.

Covetousness, consumerism and possessiveness are her guiding principles. Today America is economically doing worse when her philosophy of capitalism,consumerism have swept the entire United States.

Capitalism is not a good philosophy and all we need is restrained socialism wherein consumption is in control and our wild motives are in check.

‘The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money’ Margaret Thatcher

"Wild motives out of check" you have got to be kidding. Oh yes yes blame everything on the USA and then beg us to bail you out of the next clusterf##k that comes down the road.

[Argyroneta]

I first read Atlas Shrugged and was (then very young and foolishly...) convinced on the reasonableness of ideas. However, with time and further experience in the world, I think Rand is a complete fool.

Her propositions are undermined by the attempt to proport it. John Galt and his minions are simply the gods she has wished to destory. Rand is like the ideological architect of a modern oligarchy.

Also, there is no reason to listen to some bloke who has quit his job. Is John Galt simply upset that other people do not have his super intelligence? Is it reasonable for the super intelligent demi-god, to inflict pain and suffering on the vulgar humans by removing from them the comforts that they are accustomed to.

[Heteronym]

It is interesting that, although the Humanities loom so large in education, some young people are able to resist the siren voices of wishful-thinking lecturers and form their own, albeit questionable, opinions about how they want to live their lives.

Humanities don't loom large at all; children are not taught to read or to enjoy reading, or to think for themselves, or to reflect about the world. More stress is put on maths and sciences - the so-called useful knowledges - and children leave school barely literate, just knowledgeable enough to function in a society of exploitation, greed and subsistance.

The elite-owned media transmit this view that education has a left-wing bias, but in fact the most important science in our society today - economy - is in the hands of right-wing, neo-liberal, free trade apologists. I doubt Harvard and Yale produce many graduates full of ideas about Marxist economics.

It's not that children resist the sirens of humanities; it's that around them there are louder sirens called NAFTA, MAI, IMF, free trade, deregulation, outsourcing, flexicurity, H-1B Visas, making them deaf to the rewards of the Humanities. Children are exposed to a model of exploitation from childhood to adulthood to the point it becomes the only reality they know. An alternative model becomes unthinkable and, after much indoctrination, undesirable.

[Syd A]

The elite-owned media transmit this view that education has a left-wing bias
In the US, academics are overwhelmingly left-wing. Their chokehold on academia is almost absolute. Even leftists don't usually deny it.

...but in fact the most important science in our society today - economy - is in the hands of right-wing, neo-liberal, free trade apologists.
True. That's the only field in which leftists are not the majority.

I doubt Harvard and Yale produce many graduates full of ideas about Marxist economics.
I doubt you know many Harvard and Yale graduates. Those in business and economics may be a bit more right-wing, but the majority are very left-wing.

[Emmy Castrol]

It has been a while since I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead but I remember approaching them as fiction literature rather than philosophical literature. Although enjoyable - I found Atlas Shrugged quite easy to read, except the John Galt speech chapter, which I skipped altogether because I couldn't stomach its egoism - they could in no way be realistically applied to our world. Rand seems to believe in the worst of human nature, she has no faith in the miracle of human goodness to overcome the incidents caused by greed, narcissism and selfishness of capitalism. But perhaps she had to exaggerate this in her novels in order to get her philosophical point across - anyway, she has done so at the expense of any chance at artistic merit.

However, using Rand as a mirror against my own experience of the recent 2008 financial crisis, I've now come to believe that she glorifies the objectivist character, neglecting to confront the selfish traits that a tycoon must possess (and always at the expense of another, I no longer believe that wealth can be reached independent of exploitation). This is from observing my own boss, who was an avid objectivist and Rand worshipper, and a colleague who became an entreprenuer. Both were/are oblivious to their treatment of others because they are so focused on gaining their selfish goals. Furthermore, they constantly console themselves that they are actually good, altruistic people and now firmly believe this.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Anyone see Colbert's commentary on Rand last night?

[hellsapoppin]

''Her philosophy of rejecting altruism and only thinking of herself was exemplified by arranging weekly sexual encounters with her number one follower (I forget his name)''

Nathaniel Brandon was the sucker's name. Had Rand been a political lefty she would have been called ''antichrist'' for saying 'the best thing about Christmas was its commercialism' and for her sexual deviance. Rand's double life also included receiving government checks under her husband's name because she was broke and because she wished to disguise the lies she lived by:

http://boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

Rand, like so many from the far right, was a delusional, a liar, and a do-goody whose outward appearances masked a life of moral deviance, hypocrisy of the worse kind, and personal corruption.

[Heteronym]

In the US, academics are overwhelmingly left-wing. Their chokehold on academia is almost absolute. Even leftists don't usually deny it.

But the question is, do these sirens, to go back to the other poster's terms, really have any importance outside the educational system? Do left-wing teachers really produce left-wing students? If they have such a 'chokehold', why is their influence minimal in American society? Why isn't the USA a communist society? The point I'm making is that this so-called bias really has no effect in spite of its demonization.


I doubt you know many Harvard and Yale graduates. Those in business and economics may be a bit more right-wing, but the majority are very left-wing.

True, I don't know any. But if you re-read my post, you'll realise I wasn't saying Harvard and Yale didn't produce left-wing people; I was talking about economists in particular. Like I wrote before, other areas are of little importance. Psychologists or software designers with a Marxist bias are of little importance when the economy is in the hands of right-wing thinkers. And I stand by what I wrote: I doubt these colleges produce many economists with Marxist values.

So there's the answer to Emil Miller's sirens. It's worth wondering, of course, if the students who avoid the sirens of the humanities, really "form their own, albeit questionable, opinions about how they want to live their lives," or whether they don't just adopt the ideas of the right-wing economic elite.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I always like when people complain about colleges being infested with liberals. Hmmm, let's see. We have places of higher learning, places where people must study and learn and at least get a master's degree to be an instructor, and most are liberal. So, a lot of smart people are liberal. Hmmmmm, I wonder if there's a connection. . . .

[King Mob]

I haven't read anything by Rand but i'm intrigued by whether or not she is a good writer. I don't agree with her philosophical views, i even find them horrible, but so were Borges's political views, and he is one of my favourite writers. But Borges never tried to preach anything with his literature.

What I want to know is this: are Rand's works a vehicle for questions or so called answers? Because if you want to state your opinion on something you should write an essay. Literature is for questions, for doubting. That is why I find writers who claim to be full of answers in their literary works to be utter rubbish (like Coelho).

All of this is to know whether I should bother to read some Rand in the future, or dismiss her as just another preacher.

[Jack of Hearts]

Ayn Rand is pure trash. Her novels are subpar in technique/composition and are the incarnations of the thinly veiled desires of a bored housewife.





J

[Propter W.]

Laissez-faire capitalism might have seemed like a good idea in the middle of the twentieth century, but today it has become more than apparant that it simply does not work. It's proven to be a total failure. It inevitably leads to crises, collapse and failure. How anyone can support laissez-faire capitalism in this day and age is beyond me. Anyone who promotes "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" like Rand is stuck in time, completely unaware and ignorant of world economics or simply depraved.

[Emil Miller]

Capitalism is not a good philosophy and all we need is restrained socialism wherein consumption is in control and our wild motives are in check.

My very long experience of socialism is that restraint is the least of its concerns. Once the self-righteous get the bit between their teeth, there's absolutely no stopping them short of an election or revolution.


. Psychologists or software designers with a Marxist bias are of little importance when the economy is in the hands of right-wing thinkers. And I stand by what I wrote: I doubt these colleges produce many economists with Marxist values.

Marxist economics never takes off after university because it's fundamentally flawed and unworkable beyond the wishful thinking of the lecture hall.


Laissez-faire capitalism might have seemed like a good idea in the middle of the twentieth century, but today it has become more than apparant that it simply does not work. It's proven to be a total failure. It inevitably leads to crises, collapse and failure. How anyone can support laissez-faire capitalism in this day and age is beyond me. Anyone who promotes "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" like Rand is stuck in time, completely unaware and ignorant of world economics or simply depraved.

Laissez-faire capitalism was the product of the industrial revolution in England and its worst excesses were mitigated by the country's Liberal party. In Germany the right-wing Chancellor Bismark ensured that similar legislation was passed, but some form of capitalism has been the norm in Western society ever since. Those countries that tried to supplant it with communism, with the notable exception of Cuba, have since abandoned Marxist economics as unworkable. If by laissez-faire you mean the recent near collapse of the the banking sector, you are right, but that has little to do with capitalism and everything to do with greed on the part of the banks and stupidity on the part of the regulators.

[Emmy Castrol]

What I want to know is this: are Rand's works a vehicle for questions or so called answers? Because if you want to state your opinion on something you should write an essay. Literature is for questions, for doubting. That is why I find writers who claim to be full of answers in their literary works to be utter rubbish (like Coelho).

All of this is to know whether I should bother to read some Rand in the future, or dismiss her as just another preacher.

That's very interesting, I never thought of it that way before, about how fiction literature should be used to raise questions rather than answer them. I agree with that. I would say that Rand uses her fiction work to communicate a philosophical answer. You're right, both Rand and Coelho do come across as arrogant and self-righteous in their works.

I don't know if you should bother to read it, it's up to you. Even if you don't believe in it, it's worthwhile reading if you want to discuss it in future. You're bound to come across people who will either love her or hate her. Her fiction work are easy enough to read, you can get through them in a few hours (as long as you skip that boring John Galt speech chapter!).

[Heteronym]

If by laissez-faire you mean the recent near collapse of the the banking sector, you are right, but that has little to do with capitalism and everything to do with greed on the part of the banks and stupidity on the part of the regulators.

The hipocrisy of the free markets is astounding: the free market apologists preach that the state should leave the banks and the private capital alone, until there's a collapse caused by the banks the private capital's greed; then the state has the duty of using the tax-payers' money to bail them out.

It's like Noam Chomsky argues in Profits Over People: there has never been such a thing as a real, unregulated free market; from the start the rich have had the politicians in their pockets. Without the state constantly helping and protecting private capital, it'd be in deep trouble. It's the people's fault that they let their politicians, who were elected by them, help banks and corporations, which were not elected by anyone, at the expense of their own money, without benefits to the people.

[Emil Miller]

The hipocrisy of the free markets is astounding: the free market apologists preach that the state should leave the banks and the private capital alone, [I]until there's a collapse caused by the banks the private capital's greed; then the state has the duty of using the tax-payers' money to bail them out.

This is not the case, because banks and private capital are subject to regulatory control by the state. A collapse occurs when the statutory regulators ignore the banks excesses.

[cyberbob]

I wouldn't say Rand's novels are pure garbage. People who don't give her any credit are obviously motivated by their political beliefs.

She is arrogant, and she is self-righteous but she's also very smart and if you don't follow objectivism like a cult like, it can be very thought-provoking and interesting.

And @ Emmy Castrol: You can get through a 1000+ page book in a few hours???

[Syd A]

I always like when people complain about colleges being infested with liberals. Hmmm, let's see. We have places of higher learning, places where people must study and learn and at least get a master's degree to be an instructor, and most are liberal. So, a lot of smart people are liberal. Hmmmmm, I wonder if there's a connection. . . .

No, there isn't. A person's ability in one field has nothing to do with his ability in or knowledge of another. Bertrand Russell was a remarkable mathematician and logician. His intelligence is beyond reproach. Yet if you read his Proposed Roads to Freedom, you'll see he was a remarkably closed-minded, ignorant, irrational man when it comes to economics, sociology, and human society.

I suggest Keith Stanovich's excellent article (http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/Site/Research_on_Reasoning_files/Stanovich_IQ-Tests-Miss_SAM09.pdf) as a starting point for understanding that there is very little correlation between intelligence and rationality.


I wouldn't say Rand's novels are pure garbage

In terms of literary quality, they are almost pure garbage. Her characters are the most predictable, most flat cartoon characters I've ever read.
But her philosophy is sound (for the most part), provocative, and a slap in the face of socialists of all varieties, and her books convey her philosophy effectively.

[Emmy Castrol]

And @ Emmy Castrol: You can get through a 1000+ page book in a few hours???

I didn't realise that Atlas Shrugged was 1000+ pages... I think the difficulty of a book depends more on the complexity of an author's writing than the number of pages. It takes me an entire weekend (including Friday night) to get through a 200-300 page Graham Greene novel and a month to read a 600page volume of In Search of Lost Time. I do remember that Atlas Shrugged was much, much easier to get through than those two despite it having almost more than double the pages. Although Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is quite concept and original, her writing itself, as the medium for communicating her philosophy, is rather cliche.

[cyberbob]

I don't think it's physically possible to read Atlas in a few hours.

Anyway, I finally read Atlas and I admit I was wrong. The Fountainhead has at least a somewhat interesting story. If it was shorter and less repetitive I'd even call it a good book.

Atlas, however, is possibly the worst novel I've ever read. It was painful reading through it. I did it just to enter the essay contest, but I read nothing new that hadn't already been covered by The Fountainhead. I could've done the essay just by reading the Plot section of its Wiki page.

Also, Atlas exposed to me what a poor understanding Rand had of economics. Maybe its that I'm ignorant about architecture that kept me from finding The Fountainhead too absurd, but when writing about industry Rand comes across almost as an anarchist, a philosophy that she hates.

[stlukesguild]

A post found on the web that about fully sums up my thoughts on Rand:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-trouble-with-ayn-rand

[Syd A]

From the above-mentioned post:

And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? ...It isn’t so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about what is “rational” or “objective” or “real.” Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with an “-ism.”

Yes, all that is true, but when one peels off Rand's odious personality, blanket statements, catchphrases, black-and-white thinking, and hero-worship, one finds a germ of reason lying underneath. That germ is quite conducive to new ideas and rational thought, but only for those who are willing to judge Rand's ideas carefully, neither dismissing altogether nor following blindly.