Ayn Rand

I just watched the movie version of The Fountainhead and found it to be intolerably stupid.

Church of Satan founder Anton Lavey was a big fan. A couple of Fox Newstards - I want to say Michelle Bachmann and Neil Cavuto, off the top of my head - were pimping Atlas Shrugged around the same time they were trying to introduce "teabagging" into the American political landscape with a straight face.

Steve Ditko was/is a fan.

Honestly Jake I actually put it down to the same reason random bashings by roving groups of youth are on the rise in major cities throughout the western world; you have a generation of kids who have grown up in a time of western financial affluence, being raised to believe they're the centre of their own private universe, never being told 'no' by their useless overprotective helicopter parents. They are completely disconnected from the realities of the world through a mixture of the connectivity revolution and never having to deal with the harsh consequences of a world that doesn't pander to their every whim.

As a consequence, we have a generation of sociopathic assholes with absolutely zero empathy growing up in a world devoid of community with no real connection to their fellow human beings.

Within that context, how could Rand not be the new black?

[QUOTE= helicopter parents. [/QUOTE]

I have never heard this term before in my life. If I knew what it meant I think I'd like it. It is signifying distance?

Hapless, relatively new, undoubtedly 20-year-old white, male, politically "moderate" Chewer who rises to the noble, but ultimately unbelievably misguided and soon-to-be roundly thwarted defense of Rand in 5...4...3...

Helicopter parents are a blight on the education industry, and they are ruining America and the childhoods of American kids. Hate.

The thing about Rand that I've always wondered is, "Is she worth reading for the style/prose, or can the gist of it be gotten from Wikipedia, etc.?" Because I've heard so much either way, I kind of want to give one a shot (and I also want to make up my own mind) -- but I don't want to if its' not worth it.

Huh. The more you know.

I like Rand, but I don't take her work all that seriously (which is what I think a lot of my folk do.)

Poorly written crap with an evil message. I like when people carry her books - it's easier when people self-identify as worthless.

A waste of a cool name.

Aww, now you scared him away.

Had to do it. Fumbling, pseudo-intellectual defenses of Rand dressed up as "logic" make me die on the inside. However, for those of you who like to delight in the rhetorical ineptitude of others, I present some links by way of apology -

The Objectivism Online Forums

The Ayn Rand Lexicon

I strongly recommend the second link. The_LD, DaveB, and I had a grand old time with it one afternoon.

My biggest problem with Rand is the same problem I have with her devout followers.

There's lots to objectivism that not only work, but also (at least I believe) are good ways to live your life. Stuff like reason being the only way to attain knowledge, not through faith and feelings.

The problem with objectivism is that Rand and her followers, then and now, require it to be practiced to the extreme. Rational self-interest must be followed all the way. This leads to a serious ethical issue, which is one I feel Rand and Objectivism fails.

While individual rights should be valued over the collective and laissez-faire capitalism should be the economic framework of our country, objectivists believe that only pure laissez-faire capitalism with no restraints is the only framework worth trying.

To me, this problem is paralleled to the current problems the Republican Party is going through: they hate pragmatism. They don't like the ability to change. It has to fit a specific framework and if it doesn't, it's you that's fucked up, not the system.

I think what we've seen in this country the past eight years is that unbridled capitalism does not work because of human nature's way to hoard and take without thinking about others. That said, I'm of the philosophical mind of Ben Franklin that believes that anything taken to the extreme is probably pretty bad.

As for Rand being evil though, I see nothing that's more evil than the works of Marx, who as far as I'm concerned is a believer in the extreme opposite view of Rand; stomping down on individual rights of some to create economic equity within classes.

Are you saying that Marx's work is not evil, or that Rands is?

I think I may have had a brain fart there. I see Rand's theories as "evil" as Marx's. To me, they are both well-thought, but ultimately very flawed political philosophies.

To give just the slightest benefit of the doubt to said people, I myself, who find her message as abhorrent as you do, have been considering at least trying to read something of hers (outside of Anthem which I had to read in high school and is the definition of slight) just so I can see for myself how bad her writing is, and be better equipped to argue against her with those who do like her.

So if you see an early 20's Hispanic guy in LA (where I happen to be from and have family in, so I visit regularly) reading The Fountainhead at a cafe, don't be too quick to throw your coffee in my face.

I think the funny thing about Rand's popularity is the fact that she's not even the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century. In my opinion, that would be Hannah Arendt.

There's some overlap here with the piracy thread. If you really want to be a selfish Objectivist, go ahead. Just don't blab about it.

I prefer my Ayn Rand philosophy in Bioshock form, where it belongs...as fodder for the mustache twirling villains and insane, brainwashed Rand zombies I take delight in destroying. I think there might actually be a clever subtext to that first person shooter video game. Brilliant. Unlike Rand.

I haven't read one word that she's written, but may have to eventually just so I can argue with objectivists a little more effectively. That said, what I've read about her thought is extremely off-putting, but I'd hate to react to her the way a lot of people react to Marx: disgust without actually reading the guy. (At least Marx has been a little bit vindicated by history; Labor Unions were a pseudo-Marxist revolution in liberal society. And, while one could argue about the role of Unions today, it's hard to deny that, at the time they rose to prominence they filled an important role in the expansion of human freedom. Not having read Rand, I don't feel comfortable comparing any possible influence she may have had later on).

A lot of people who read her often, I find, are often reluctant to read a book written before the mid-twentieth century, which is something that I find strange.

True. I´ve said it in another thread but Rand is hardly an entitiy over here in Europe. She is right there where she belongs in the library. Not in the political, but in the Fringe section.
But I think that her popularity specifically in the states does say alot about the basic premises of our respective societies and what we long for as a whole.

Do people read Ay Rand as a sort of self help thing when it comes to money and sex? It cant be for the quality of writing.

Also to answer the OP's question; I work in the City in London and I see this book everywhere - on the train, the tube, the pub etc. A lot of bankers, insurers etc have taken a pasting recently and I think they are turning to Rand as a sort of comfort blanket.

That's exactly what it is for them. It wasn't because of their own insane miscalculations and hubris that the system cracked. It was because the rules, put there to even the playing field for other less accomplished people, wouldn't let them be as awesome as they think themselves to be. The lack of measure, empathy and humility apparent in Rand's writings and in her followers' beliefs is personally offensive to me. Not to mention how shitty she is as a writer.

As was said earlier, at least Marxism gave us worker's unions. Rand only gave us a real life Voight-Kampff test.

All I remember of Rand comes from the Ethics course I took a couple of years ago: Basically, everyone acts only for self-gain. Even charity can be explained as a selfish endeavor. Once one recognizes this truth, they can embrace it. It serves as a justification for self-centered, cutthroat, excessive ambition. It justifies egotistical acts, etc.

Nice. I'm of this generation (I'm 22), but am so disconnected from them it's ridiculous. Even my friends and I have wider and wider differences.

Somehow, the internet plays a huge part. For example, during this last election, there were three groups of voters (amongst my age bracket). 1, the Obama supporters. 2, the Republicans. 3, Ron Paul fans. The Ron Paul fans were especially baffling because they all came up to me with the same speeches, the same conviction, etc. And they could never speak without using Internet sources to back themselves up. "Just watch this video", they always concluded. Even Obama supporters had different reasons for supporting him (ranging from bandwagon to rationalities).

Then there was this Esperanto nonsense that the same people tried to sway me towards. In fact, they all advised that we (my peers) start taking lessons so we could prepare for the near future!

But all their theories and beliefs are so divorced from reality it's crazy! It's as if their knowledge of the world comes strictly from internet articles. Miss Zooey mentioned '[pseudo-intellectualism]'. Is that the title for my generation?

I didn't mean to imply that it had anything to do with your generation, JetMan. I had a... erm, rather close relationship with an Objectivist who's the same age as me (30). We were about the same age as you are now. I think it's a combination of age and unearned intellectual self-confidence that brings the most strident supporters of Rand (or any other worldview) out of the woodwork.

Amber Heard is a big Rand fan.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...er-heard_N.htm

What an odd choice of descriptions.

Some interesting anti-Ayn Rand linkage..

This one's a classic...

Here's another one...

I found both by googling "Ayn Rand" + "Sociopath."

Actually,no. Her growing up in Russia during the revolution, and the horrors of Marxism when actually tried, were what led her to her philosophy. Sadly, it turned out to be just as dogmatic ,unrealistic ,and downright crazy as Marxism is.
Best description of Objectivism I ever heard :'It's a sort of fundementalist religon for athiests. ".

But,human nature being what it is, I am not surprised Rand has a following. Any writer who creates a philosophy that not allows you to treat the people around you like shit, but feel morally superior while you are doing so is going to get a following.
BTW boxofficemojo used to have..and might still have (i gave up on that cesspool of stupidity a long time ago) a film critic who was an Objectivist. He used to deliver rants about how a film was evil because it was alturistic, and signed very review with a dollar sign. He was a world class asshole.

I always enjoyed this quote when it comes to Objectivism:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

-John Rogers

Thankfully, my friends are devoid of the Objectivist bug. Have never really encountered it; one of them did read through AS, but I don't think she quite got what it was going for. I think that's a win.

Yeah, I really don't think objectivism, or libertarianism, are a generational thing at all: it's a niche that will always have people ready to fill it.

Anyone remember a comic called Action Philosophers? Humurous comic book illustrations of important philoshopher's lives and ideologies. The first trade has Plato, Nietzsche, Bodhidharma, Thomas Jefferson, Saint Augustine, Fredu, Carl Jung, Jospeh Campbell and...Ayn Rand. She sorta sticks out like a sore thimb there, tbh. However, it does feature this actual quote from Rand repudiating the boyfriend who broke up with her:

The whole story around that particular relationship is lolworthy stuff.

That quote is absolutely fantastic. Thank you.

A while ago someone on CHUD posted this, but it certainly deserves a revisit:

ATLAS SHRUGGED Updated for the Current Financial Crisis

Ok, I'll be that guy,,,sort of

I've read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem, as well as some of Ayn Rand's essay collections. I don't agree with her world view, but do find some aspects of her writing that are interesting.

The commitment to individualism, living for one's own goals vs. letting others define your goals, and the fundamental distrust of those whose power derives from controlling others (Politics and corrupt business practices).

Now

I know what Objectivism became. I know that many people swallow Rand's philosophy whole. And are mainly assholes. I do not believe I am obligated to accept or reject Rand's writings or philosophy in their entirety though.

There are passages in Fountainhead and Atlas where she describes the sacrifices and risks that any entrepreneur faces that are inspiring. She also effectively portrays the loneliness of people who step outside of the norm (in her world that means people who found companies, invent new technologies etc). It's too bad that these passages are isolated passages in a sea of bad writing and a real hatred of people Rand deems "moochers".

I also think it is fascinating that Rand grew up in Soviet Russian, rejected with fear and loathing everything the Communist system represented....and fled in the opposite direction to arrive at a similarly Totalitarian view (in her own life, as opposed to her writings)

For those open to a more sympathetic reading of Rand's life I recommend a documentary called Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life.

You're on to something Cylon. There are positive aspects of Rand's writing, but those are not exclusive to her. That being said (written?), her good ideas carry the baggage of the rest of her sociopathic crap. Which is why I think her philosophy and followers should be derided and mocked.

Well I think most people are antagonized by Rand Acolytes rather than people who genuinely enjoy her books but don't live the life.

Rand is one of those authors who can take over an impressionable teenager's life. I read Fountainhead in college and Atlas and Anthem about 5 years ago. So I had enough life experience to sort the bullshit from the good stuff.

But sure I'll agree that the bullshit outweighs the good stuff. I guess I'm arguing that reading Altas Shrugged won't necessarily turn you into Bernie Madoff

It seems to me--and again, I've only read Anthem--that one reason that Rand gets a lot of the hate she does, and rightfully so, is that her books are nothing but polemics. This usually makes for bad art in general, though with the right amount of sympathy and good writing, it can work, such a case being Steinbeck, specifically The Grapes of Wrath.

But for the most part, I'll agree with Harold Bloom when he says that good novelists are not interested in moral judgments. If Philip Roth went around spouting off the same world view that someone like Rand did, or for that matter something similar to the dumb-ass stuff that came from Crichton or from Heinlein, but his books remained the same, I don't think he'd get the same sort of hate. I realize that I've just compared Philip Roth to three hacks, but one of the things that make them hacks is that they let their personal worldview and moral judgment drive their work. That and, of course, they're all bad at, you know, writing and stuff.

/rant.

Scott Holleran. Devin took him to task over two years ago. Holleran blamed Hot Fuzz for the Virginia Tech shooting.

From his website:

July, 2008: After six years as partner, writer and editor, I decided to leave Box Office Mojo, LLC, (BOM), which became part of the Internet Movie Database, to pursue other projects. Applied for admission to the Objectivist Academic Center (OAC) at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI).

I find her work intriguing and give her ideas/philosophy some credit, but that's about the core of it...the extremism and fanaticism later developed by author and her followers (like in most cases) ruined and obscured any achievements made before.
Her first novel, "We The Living" (which was written pre-crazy, so to speak) is great, though.
However, mind you that I come from a country were both Socialist Reformist and Right Wing Military Dictatorship both fucked up generations to come, so take that recommendation with a grain of salt.

Shouldn't that make you leary of any extremists, though? Rand is as extreme as any of those beliefs.

Indeed she is...and in a country were the tug of war between extremes of both left and right wing political beliefs have determined pretty much all of society, being wary of extremists is a necessity for survival....unless you are a extremist yourself.

I respect part of her work and ideas, but regardless of politics, her extremism tarnished and destroyed what good there was in her work...which could be said of a lot of political/philosophical ideologies.