So, I'm 53 now, but way back when I was in my late teens and early 20's, I was an Ayn Rand fan. I'm not so much, anymore.
I do think that if, like Ayn Rand, I had grown up in Russia during the early days of the Soviet Union, I would likely be as fanatically pro-individual and anti-anything that sounds like communal thinking. But, having spent the last few decades in a society (the USA) that is slowly unraveling, I have become convinced that there is a benefit to thinking about how those individuals fit together, and relying on rational self-interest is not enough.
One positive thing I can still say, is that Rand's emphasis on rational thought, was an excellent pathway out of her philosophy and into something less exciting, but more adapted to the way people actually function. There's probably a reason most religions don't place a primacy on rational thought; it makes it too likely that you will eventually leave.
There was that Simpsons episode. And I've seen a few movie clips. And that's all I know.
People that I've encountered in person that talk about her have been unsettling to me.
In general, I'm wary of popularly held philosophies, their philosophers, and their evangelists. It strikes me as something filling a hole, and anything similar would have done.
Me too, in my youth some of the strangest super intelligent people I ever came across were Ayn-Rand Lovers, I'm talking PHD rocket-scientist type people. I think they're attracted to the ideal that people like them should be at the top of the pyramid. While in reality 'winning' in the USA is only about being the in the right place at the right time.
...
WRT Russia opinion, I know lots of Russian's I live in Asia. They're always the most intelligent people I ever meet, but the common is they have all left Russia, to make it else-where, especially USA, where its just so easy for them to get rich.
Ayn Rand essentially having read her in my youth, and watched all the new movies like 'Atlas Shrugged' depicting her paradise. I think is just pure Ideology, of course is not real, as we know Libertarians will always defend pollution, because it the right of everyone to get rich.
Ayn Rand was for an era, an Era where USA had won the war, where everybody in USA could get rich, where the commies were trying to sway public opinion, but they lost, until things just turned ugly post Y2K, and 2007 financial collapse. Now with COVID after-math & the reset the USA is a terrible mess. It ain't coming back. Living here in ASIA I can tell you everything is just fine, mostly because of the homogeneity people aren't at each other's throats with 'woke-ness'
Essentially for 40+ years USA with 5% of the worlds population, consumed +80% of the resources, today most USA citys are cesspools, and yet in ASIA most city's look like Disneylands 1960's "Tomorrowland", clean & beautiful. The problem of course is that post 1970's the Elite of the USA quit investing in the USA, so now 50 years later all the bridges are collapsing. Money always flows to where its most influential.
I really don't think Ayn Rand saw anything of this coming. Today China is 100X more "capitalism" than USA, where the USA is just a third world country with nukes. Most the world talking "Ayn Rand" wouldn't even get you a cup of coffee. All the people who used to love Rand, are long dead. Orwell & Huxley have far more influence, because their ideas is our present reality.
It’s a very addictive, ego-boosting way of thinking but is very broken. It’s like this fantasy that you could be _the one_ like Neo from the Matrix. Except that doesn’t work in real life because everyone has the same fantasy of being _the one_.
Ursula K LeGuin covered the same subject but a lot more even-handedly. The Dispossesed is a good counter to Ayn Rand.
Funny that throughout Her books, these are the same false allegations she describes as being cast against the protagonists by the villains. Competence and having a self serving moral code are attacked and labelled as evil behavior. "__the one__" meaning a competent talented architect or steel maker (the idealized heroes) are just people unapologetically capitalizing on their skills and the whole point is that in a fair capitalist system, competence should be rewarded, there is plenty of space for many "__the ones__" to co-exist and build a thriving economy. It is exactly the moochers/looters who feel threatened by competence and feel threatened by the success of a fellow human who try and turn these into negative behaviors and describe them as "ego-boosting" and "very broken". So thinking that a person might being exceptionally talented is a bad thing? Got it. Ayn Rand is warning of the consequences of what happens when too many people believe as you do.
Maybe The Matrix wasn’t the right power fantasy to compare it to? How about the DBZ over-9000 meme instead because he does have a big group of friends that help?
The problem with power fantasies is that they don’t really show all sides of the argument. If the intentions of moochers is a social safety net and the intention of the looters is infrastructure maintenance, those aren’t villains.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think it is the correct interpretation of Ayn Rand. There is no power fantasy. She is quite adamant that nobody should ever try to hold power over another individual. Again, it is the antagonists who are trying to manipulate the wills of others and hold power over other people. The group of friends helps by exchanging money for good and services. This is another theme. The protagonists ask only for fair compensation for their efforts, not favors. The antagonists try to replace this system with a group dynamic where 'who you know' and 'who can do what favor for who' replaces business. To Ayn Rand this is very unhealthy and leads to destruction. If a people have to mooch to build a social safety net, and loot to maintain infrastructure, then they are villains.
She is an intellectual giant whose shadow casts long over Man.
I see everyone else is pretty frumpy about her (and philosophy for that matter.) She is a relic of another age.
In that age, before globalization and instant access to common knowledge, she exposes bitter truths of her contemporary humanity (and then America). Which includes the need of some people to exploit the talent and hard work of others in the name of social “fairness”. Her counter claim, that it is not amoral to be self interested (“greedy”) sounds obvious and cringe today, though at the time socialism was popular even in America.
To understand her contribution, one must see minds for the time and recognize that (for better or worse) she enlightened Americans on how to be free thinking and value capitalism in a more personal way (rather than the old world balance of capital owner and lay-labor proletariat.)
As for her writings, consider that she wrote anthem at 18. While atlas shrugged was her largest work, fountain head is more succinct and arguably better. She challenged an entire age of America. She is the grandmother of modern capitalism. Her works included a lot of (very boring) court room dramas (fun) which really set the internal dialogue for important modern critical thinking.
She wasn’t just a writer, she was an intellectual powerhouse who spoke out in great clarity on issues at the time few were constructively addressing.
I am very fond of her writings and her philosophies. What I get out of her writings is that one should strive in a 'selfish' manner to enact one's own will and become the best version of oneself as possible without harming others. There is enough room in the world for everyone to do the same simultaneously and in a properly organized free market economy, this is exactly how a prosperous society grows and thrives. There are some things which are out of date, and she doesn't really address, such as coal, environmental issues, and animal rights. I see these types of issues being related to 'do no harm to others'. But the basic concepts about moochers/looters denigrating competence and the destructive consequences of trying to force "public opinion", which is actually never public, but driven by a wanna-be authoritarian ideology, is as relevant today as it ever was in history. I would say that her books are explaining in the most straight forward way possible what we should be fighting against, and the primary forces on each side have hardly changed.
10 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 32.9 ms ] threadI do think that if, like Ayn Rand, I had grown up in Russia during the early days of the Soviet Union, I would likely be as fanatically pro-individual and anti-anything that sounds like communal thinking. But, having spent the last few decades in a society (the USA) that is slowly unraveling, I have become convinced that there is a benefit to thinking about how those individuals fit together, and relying on rational self-interest is not enough.
One positive thing I can still say, is that Rand's emphasis on rational thought, was an excellent pathway out of her philosophy and into something less exciting, but more adapted to the way people actually function. There's probably a reason most religions don't place a primacy on rational thought; it makes it too likely that you will eventually leave.
People that I've encountered in person that talk about her have been unsettling to me.
In general, I'm wary of popularly held philosophies, their philosophers, and their evangelists. It strikes me as something filling a hole, and anything similar would have done.
Present company excepted, of course.
...
WRT Russia opinion, I know lots of Russian's I live in Asia. They're always the most intelligent people I ever meet, but the common is they have all left Russia, to make it else-where, especially USA, where its just so easy for them to get rich.
Ayn Rand essentially having read her in my youth, and watched all the new movies like 'Atlas Shrugged' depicting her paradise. I think is just pure Ideology, of course is not real, as we know Libertarians will always defend pollution, because it the right of everyone to get rich.
Ayn Rand was for an era, an Era where USA had won the war, where everybody in USA could get rich, where the commies were trying to sway public opinion, but they lost, until things just turned ugly post Y2K, and 2007 financial collapse. Now with COVID after-math & the reset the USA is a terrible mess. It ain't coming back. Living here in ASIA I can tell you everything is just fine, mostly because of the homogeneity people aren't at each other's throats with 'woke-ness'
Essentially for 40+ years USA with 5% of the worlds population, consumed +80% of the resources, today most USA citys are cesspools, and yet in ASIA most city's look like Disneylands 1960's "Tomorrowland", clean & beautiful. The problem of course is that post 1970's the Elite of the USA quit investing in the USA, so now 50 years later all the bridges are collapsing. Money always flows to where its most influential.
I really don't think Ayn Rand saw anything of this coming. Today China is 100X more "capitalism" than USA, where the USA is just a third world country with nukes. Most the world talking "Ayn Rand" wouldn't even get you a cup of coffee. All the people who used to love Rand, are long dead. Orwell & Huxley have far more influence, because their ideas is our present reality.
Ursula K LeGuin covered the same subject but a lot more even-handedly. The Dispossesed is a good counter to Ayn Rand.
The problem with power fantasies is that they don’t really show all sides of the argument. If the intentions of moochers is a social safety net and the intention of the looters is infrastructure maintenance, those aren’t villains.
I see everyone else is pretty frumpy about her (and philosophy for that matter.) She is a relic of another age.
In that age, before globalization and instant access to common knowledge, she exposes bitter truths of her contemporary humanity (and then America). Which includes the need of some people to exploit the talent and hard work of others in the name of social “fairness”. Her counter claim, that it is not amoral to be self interested (“greedy”) sounds obvious and cringe today, though at the time socialism was popular even in America.
To understand her contribution, one must see minds for the time and recognize that (for better or worse) she enlightened Americans on how to be free thinking and value capitalism in a more personal way (rather than the old world balance of capital owner and lay-labor proletariat.)
As for her writings, consider that she wrote anthem at 18. While atlas shrugged was her largest work, fountain head is more succinct and arguably better. She challenged an entire age of America. She is the grandmother of modern capitalism. Her works included a lot of (very boring) court room dramas (fun) which really set the internal dialogue for important modern critical thinking.
She wasn’t just a writer, she was an intellectual powerhouse who spoke out in great clarity on issues at the time few were constructively addressing.