Objectivism and Ayn Rand

[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 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/2...-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.