Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I agree with you on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
One thing I found interesting is that Alan Greenspan was for many years a member of the objectivist movement.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
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. Do check it out, she is great at intellectual jujitsu.:argue:
Why can't it be both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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).
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.
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.