70+ years since the Fountainhead and 33 years since Rand died and yet somehow Rand just won't go away despite decades of smears, misrepresentation, attacks, denouncements, denials, lies and hatchet jobs like this "review" directed at her, her novels and her philosophy of Objectivism. Weird.
Heh. It does add a certain something when you read her books.
1984 probably packed more of a punch when it was distributed covertly in totalitarian Soviet states. You're reading about a society which bans books, in a book banned by your society. It's less meaningful in a liberal democracy where 1984 is widely read.
Likewise, in Atlas Shrugged you're reading about a society which doesn't ban certain ideas but sneers at them and makes them unseemly in polite society. Which is exactly how Atlas Shrugged is treated.
For the record, I think the Fountainhead is the most literary of her books. Rand is more original when discussing psychology than politics, and the Fountainhead paints a more interesting spectrum of characters than Atlas Shrugged, especially in her "almost-heroes". Gail Wynand, the tabloid newspaper tycoon who transformed the idiocy of the masses into a personal fortune, who lives a shamelessly public life except for a secret private art gallery he only enters alone -- in Rand's words, a man who "could have been", who possessed every other Randian virute but who had abandoned his integrity -- is such an original character, and shows how nuanced her views could be. Were her political ideas not anathema to modern academia, the Fountainhead at least would certainly be more widely studied.
I found Atlas Shrugged to be a good page turner, but to my eyes it's clear that Ayn Rand was pissed off that everyone misunderstood the Fountainhead and so she turned the intensity and contrast up to 11, making everything as black-and-white as possible, at the expensive of believability. The political focus means people like or dislike AS based on their prior feelings towards libertarian philosophy, which obscures the fact that her ideas have some distinctions from libertarianism. In particular the focus on maintaining an independent mind; something which always requires effort, not rote formulas or blindly relying on other's opinions. In one memorable scene a group of people invest in a company based purely on the stock price movement going up, in another the heroine bets on a new alloy, going against the scientific consensus which, after studying it, she believes to be unfounded. In the first case people who follow the herd go down with the herd; in the second case one who goes against the herd succeeds.
On the same note, her best non-fiction book is the obscure Romantic Manifesto, a set of her essays on art. Her philosophical essays aren't as bad as some people make out, but she oversimplifies and makes false dichotomies, and there isn't much which is original in her political ideas. She also has some horribly confused notions about intellectual history which alone are enough to exclude her from the top rank of philosophers. She's a philosophical novellist but not a philosopher; her gift is for portraying characters which embody particular ideas.
This has turned into quite an effortpost so I might as well finish with a comment on her and Nietszche, someone she's often compared to, though who is surprisingly much more tolerated in the intellectual establishment. Nietzsche didn't originate the wave of Nihilism which spread over European culture from the top down in the 20th century, but he was the first to properly anticipate it. The guy managed to inspire a diverse array of groups, from Nazis to French postmodernists to new age shamanists, but I think the Objectivists might be the ones with the seed of an actual solution. Specifically, their focus on reason and a purpose-driven life, and their embrace of industrial capitalism (as the most natural thing for man, even).
Which just goes to show that authors with something to say should not be put off if they're 'stylistically challenged'. David Lindsay's Voyage to Arcturus is another glaring example. The dialogue is pathetic but the novel is an amazing tour de force.
I find it hard to believe that bad literary technique could elicit a sneer. Stilted dialog might result in, at most, bemused indifference or perhaps sadness at witnessing a failure. I'd bet you don't sneer at flat-earthers because they don't threaten your worldview. A sneer is reserved for much greater transgressions and you are afraid to admit that Rand's works, as art, presents a worldview that clashes with your own.
Nice to see an intelligent comment from someone who actually read Rand (and sounds like they got something out of it) instead of just mouthing things that they heard about her.
For reasons that I won't explain, I think you are right about the FH being a better literary work than AS.
I also agree that her work in politics was not original because most of that work was already done by the others. Her achievement was to provide an ethical base for Capitalism without which it would perish in time. Her greatest achievements are in ethics and epistemology.
I disagree that "she oversimplifies and makes false dichotomies" and I believe that that view confesses a failure to understand the scope of her ideas. She has identified the fundamental error of Kant and his whole system of ideas has collapsed but most intellectuals today are incapable of seeing it. She didn't waste time arguing all the ways Kant is wrong and left that for others to do so the modern intellectuals dismiss her as "unsophisticated" and claim she didn't understand Kant when it is really the other way around.
What she did do was identify the fundamental principles at the base of any philosophy; the primacy of consciousness versus the primacy of existence. This is the battle today and the four philosophers who have staked out consistent positions are Plato/Kant (primacy of consciousness) and Aristotle/Rand (primacy of existence) so if its not obvious, I think she is a philosopher of first rank :-)
You've persuaded me to take another look at her philosophy. If you're still here, any books you'd recommend? Is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology worth the read? I read Virtue of Selfishness which was OK -- I preferred the Romantic Manifesto as I felt her ideas in there were better worked out.
I would recommend Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It then Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE) is good but is a bit technical and not everyone has the interest and motivation to read it. At the very least, if you can find it at a bookstore, read the intro because it does a good job of setting the historical context on why the theory of concepts is so important.
BTW, in some ways The Romantic Manifesto which you mentioned is more difficult than the ITOE.
I'd be curious to know your background such that The Romantic Manifesto was an "easy" read. It was not easy for me.
As for the difficulty of that book, the topic is one of the widest possible integrations in that she explains the psychological purpose of art, something I don't think anyone has ever done before. She connects the nature of concepts and abstractions to the nature of consciousness (finite) and the psychological (motivational) need to concretize our widest philosophic beliefs. It is truly an historic achievement.
Sociopathy is not rare¹, nor entirely maladaptive. Objectivism (a school of thought whose name begs the question) is an attractive philosophical stance for folks already wired against empathy and remorse.
Your footnotes notwithstanding, your comment makes no sense even on its own terms. Regardless of their feelings or lack thereof, what sociopaths and psychopaths have in common is they don't survive by reason and creating value but by using and manipulating others. Their method of survival is acknowledged as pathological.
Anyone who had an even rudimentary understanding of Rand's ideas would know that she repudiated any such behavior but the smears and lies continue. But more to the point, a sociopath would not go through the trouble of developing a whole new ethical theory when the dominant ethic (altruism) is perfectly suited to the aims of a sociopath, i.e. the ethics of people using people.
12 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 34.3 ms ] thread1984 probably packed more of a punch when it was distributed covertly in totalitarian Soviet states. You're reading about a society which bans books, in a book banned by your society. It's less meaningful in a liberal democracy where 1984 is widely read.
Likewise, in Atlas Shrugged you're reading about a society which doesn't ban certain ideas but sneers at them and makes them unseemly in polite society. Which is exactly how Atlas Shrugged is treated.
For the record, I think the Fountainhead is the most literary of her books. Rand is more original when discussing psychology than politics, and the Fountainhead paints a more interesting spectrum of characters than Atlas Shrugged, especially in her "almost-heroes". Gail Wynand, the tabloid newspaper tycoon who transformed the idiocy of the masses into a personal fortune, who lives a shamelessly public life except for a secret private art gallery he only enters alone -- in Rand's words, a man who "could have been", who possessed every other Randian virute but who had abandoned his integrity -- is such an original character, and shows how nuanced her views could be. Were her political ideas not anathema to modern academia, the Fountainhead at least would certainly be more widely studied.
I found Atlas Shrugged to be a good page turner, but to my eyes it's clear that Ayn Rand was pissed off that everyone misunderstood the Fountainhead and so she turned the intensity and contrast up to 11, making everything as black-and-white as possible, at the expensive of believability. The political focus means people like or dislike AS based on their prior feelings towards libertarian philosophy, which obscures the fact that her ideas have some distinctions from libertarianism. In particular the focus on maintaining an independent mind; something which always requires effort, not rote formulas or blindly relying on other's opinions. In one memorable scene a group of people invest in a company based purely on the stock price movement going up, in another the heroine bets on a new alloy, going against the scientific consensus which, after studying it, she believes to be unfounded. In the first case people who follow the herd go down with the herd; in the second case one who goes against the herd succeeds.
On the same note, her best non-fiction book is the obscure Romantic Manifesto, a set of her essays on art. Her philosophical essays aren't as bad as some people make out, but she oversimplifies and makes false dichotomies, and there isn't much which is original in her political ideas. She also has some horribly confused notions about intellectual history which alone are enough to exclude her from the top rank of philosophers. She's a philosophical novellist but not a philosopher; her gift is for portraying characters which embody particular ideas.
This has turned into quite an effortpost so I might as well finish with a comment on her and Nietszche, someone she's often compared to, though who is surprisingly much more tolerated in the intellectual establishment. Nietzsche didn't originate the wave of Nihilism which spread over European culture from the top down in the 20th century, but he was the first to properly anticipate it. The guy managed to inspire a diverse array of groups, from Nazis to French postmodernists to new age shamanists, but I think the Objectivists might be the ones with the seed of an actual solution. Specifically, their focus on reason and a purpose-driven life, and their embrace of industrial capitalism (as the most natural thing for man, even).
For reasons that I won't explain, I think you are right about the FH being a better literary work than AS.
I also agree that her work in politics was not original because most of that work was already done by the others. Her achievement was to provide an ethical base for Capitalism without which it would perish in time. Her greatest achievements are in ethics and epistemology.
I disagree that "she oversimplifies and makes false dichotomies" and I believe that that view confesses a failure to understand the scope of her ideas. She has identified the fundamental error of Kant and his whole system of ideas has collapsed but most intellectuals today are incapable of seeing it. She didn't waste time arguing all the ways Kant is wrong and left that for others to do so the modern intellectuals dismiss her as "unsophisticated" and claim she didn't understand Kant when it is really the other way around.
What she did do was identify the fundamental principles at the base of any philosophy; the primacy of consciousness versus the primacy of existence. This is the battle today and the four philosophers who have staked out consistent positions are Plato/Kant (primacy of consciousness) and Aristotle/Rand (primacy of existence) so if its not obvious, I think she is a philosopher of first rank :-)
BTW, in some ways The Romantic Manifesto which you mentioned is more difficult than the ITOE.
I'll take a look at your other books. Also, do you have an email address? I'd like to chat more. Mine is in my profile.
As for the difficulty of that book, the topic is one of the widest possible integrations in that she explains the psychological purpose of art, something I don't think anyone has ever done before. She connects the nature of concepts and abstractions to the nature of consciousness (finite) and the psychological (motivational) need to concretize our widest philosophic beliefs. It is truly an historic achievement.
I will contact you privately.
_____
¹ http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopat...
Anyone who had an even rudimentary understanding of Rand's ideas would know that she repudiated any such behavior but the smears and lies continue. But more to the point, a sociopath would not go through the trouble of developing a whole new ethical theory when the dominant ethic (altruism) is perfectly suited to the aims of a sociopath, i.e. the ethics of people using people.