Jozanny,Originally Posted by Jozanny
I am sorry that your post got lost but that does not happen when threads are merged. Everyday, when the back-ups happen, the Forum slows down (sometimes comes to a halt) at around 9.10-9.30. I can see from your post that you must have tried to post at that time, which might explain why your post was lost.
It is always a good idea to copy when typing a long post.
You can read about the back-ups here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=30617
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
No problem Sche. One can debate whether posts are written notes or electronic convo, but if I get an idea from posting I usually make notes in my WP file separate from the post itself--and Rand isn't on my critical agenda. She has her enthusiasts and detractors. I don't think she was an imbecile so much as overzealous for the sake of her point, which I concede is a worthwhile point, but not to the exclusion of all else. Essays might have suited her better than novels, but then again, one does root for her messiah architect, all the same.
Not by any means. She tried to create an entire system of philosophy based on reasoning, and got a lot further with it than most people would have had the patience for. The ARI is an abomination, however, and makes her out to be much worse than she ever really was.I don't think she was an imbecile so much as overzealous for the sake of her point, which I concede is a worthwhile point, but not to the exclusion of all else.
After spending pretty much all day watching old interviews of her, I'm convinced that her problem wasn't so much her philosophy itself. It was her complete and utter inability to meet differing points of view with the slightest bit of reason or basic civility, especially when put on the spot. For someone who touted themselves as an "objectivist", much of what Rand said in interviews about conflicting schools of thought seems to be emotional knee-jerking dressed up to the highest degree. You can dress up an emotional reaction with all the philosophical terms you want. But that doesn't make it any less of an irrational reaction.
I have read both Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged few years ago. Although I felt completely disinterested in her Philosophy of objectivitism, I liked Fountain Head very much. I see it as a story of Howard Roarkes, an architect who was a real person in midst of phony people ( looters, I think Ayn Rand termed them in Atlas shrugged).
He believed in himself, his talents and loved his work truly. He did not mind helping Peter Keating, the savvy person, go-getter and topper from their school, who would approach him furtively for professional help. As the story starts Peter Keating was the rising sun whereas, Roarkes was a non-starter a person expelled from architecture school. But towards the end the picture completely changes and Pete Keatings ends up becoming a pitiable man whereas Roarkes rises very high.
Ayn Rand, the creator of Novel did not make Roarkes believe in God but Roarke’s character and actions were that of a true soldier of God.
I consider Fountain Head is a must read book for all youngsters just for the sake of study of Howard Roarkes character.I also consider Ayn Rand as a good writer if we see her without her philosophies.
Second-handers is what she calls them in the Fountainhead
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Dark Muse: I thought of you when I decided to post the url to this critique of Rand .
I went through a similar enthusiasm for her writings when I was your age, but I now more or less sympathize with Chait's castigation. Much of her philosophy is really gift packaged around the romanticism of individual autonomy and talent, rather than being a real pushback against the tyranny of social equity--at least in terms of how she sees it.
I'm the reverseI've read Atlas Shrugged, loved it, but I've not had the time to read The Fountainhead. I find that Rand is very consuming and intensive to read. I've yet to decide if a agree of disagree with the philosophy behind it. Regardless, I find in intriguing, but it is a study in paying attention to the details.
Great article! Thanks for posting it Jozanny.
I've never understand why young Americans thrill to Rand's black-and-white ethics. Maybe its her veneration of the alienated outsider shunned by a world that does not understand his/her gifts. But there are far better books that deal with this character - try Camus, Kafka, Dostoevsky...
She's a curiously American phenomenon, never having any impact in Europe. I guess we have enough good outsider art. Importing bad outsider art seems unnecessary...
Rand's main idea is that the United States is divided into two classes--the hard-working productive elite, and the indolent masses leeching off their labor through taxes. As this elite includes Enron executives and investment bankers this idea is looking pretty lame!
She promulgates the moral absolute that taking from the rich is wrong, and selfishness as a virtue. She denies any basis for using government to reduce economic inequality. She holds people completely responsible for their own success or failure. She confers the highest moral prestige upon material success.
This is pretty nasty stuff. If you read Dostoevsky, you see Rasolnikov giving the last of his money to a sad drunk and his poor family, so that they can eat. This morality, a Christian and humanist morality, seems totally opposed to that of Rand, which seems to derive from misappropriations of Nietzsche and a bad reaction against her upbringing.
It's also rather stupid stuff. The ravages of fate can bring down anyone.
In the Marxist analysis, workers produce all value, and capitalists merely leech off their labor. Rand posited the opposite. In Atlas Shrugged, her hero, John Galt, leads a capitalist strike, in which the brilliant business leaders who drive all progress decide that they will no longer tolerate the parasitic workers exploiting their talent, and so they withdraw from society to create their own capitalistic paradise free of the ungrateful, incompetent masses.
Of course, in the real world, many business leaders are like the stupid, parasitic head of Lehman brothers, and most workers make useful goods.
Who makes the food and clothing for Galt and the young American outsider?
I read fountainhead in like 4 days
what a book
Awful writing. Combined with a philosophy that makes me physically shake with anger. Not a good combo.
I loved Anthem. I wished it had been longer. So I'm looking forward to reading "Atlas Shrugged".
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
Ayn Rand - the female Gordon Gecko of 'Greed is good' fame ....
is now considered a joke. No serious reader should waste time on her and her philosophy. And she carried her philosphy to the breaking point by having an affair with one of her associates with the knowledge of her husband and her associate's wife. What a horrible woman. If you like her, you should get some professional help.
I read and accepted her work as a novel and nothing more. I know nothing of her philosophy, although I was indeed aware she was a philosopher. However, I will eventually read "Atlas Shrugged" and rate it like I would any other work.
Last edited by Pollopicu; 09-19-2009 at 06:33 PM.
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
Yes, I probably should get some profressional help, but I am not going to, because I have too much fun being demented.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Normally I'd agree with you, but one thing that does stand out about Rand is how extremely driven she was in pushing her agenda, displaying industrial efficiency as an almost religious ritual. AS is nearly exactly the same as The Fountainhead, except for the fact that it is insufferable, too long and too preachy, with the main conflict being whether supergirl railroad executive joins the other holy capitalists as they withdraw from the western hemisphere.
I agree with Chait about her inability to truly create characters instead of mere mouthpieces, but this all being conceded, Fountainhead is better structured as a novel, and slightly more interesting in how it uses the brutualism of 20th century architecture as a stand-in for her beliefs about the purity of good industry.
Rand might have called herself an atheist, but she was a personality cult on steroids.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
