Posted on 03/16/2009 6:21:45 AM PDT by shove_it
Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.
There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?
The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sure, it's an opinion -- offered by an adult who remembers how teenagers think.
Kurt Vonnegut - Can’t remember which one, but definitely Vonnegut
"What cornerstone of Rand's faith" are you referencing? Since Rand's philosophy is Objectivism, "faith" is not in the vocabulary. I can't quite get my head around your point.
What “cornerstone of Rand’s faith” ...
What she needed, was humility enough to listen to those who disagreed with her ideas: there are some gaping holes in her supposedly "objective" philosophy.
For example, what kind of "objective" philosophy could possibly state that "the pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life?"
Happiness as defined by whom?
And who but a childless person could suggest that "man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake....?"
Sorry; I lost interest in Rand's philosophy when it became evident that it was based on something other than reason. I strongly suspect that her personal atheism was the driving force behind most of what she said and did.
Like the clerk said "If they took out the walking the LOR would of been 45 minutes long.
Now I see where you are coming from. I didn't read Rand's statement so narrowly. If the quote were changed to: "man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others against his will" would that be more acceptable? I think that is the meaning implied in the book.
The cornerstone to which I was referring, is that "every man is an end in himself...." That's barely defensible for those who have no children (and no social contacts whatever) -- but here in the real world, we are in many ways a means to our children's ends, and morally obligated to be so. (See the cultural toxicity of the inner cities for a practical example of what happens when parents fail in that regard...) Her philosophy quite simply falls apart, on that point alone.
Also in that vein, Rand says that "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." She goes on to say that Man's "reason," applied to reality, is "his only guide to action."
Fine: and thus her philosophy is required to cope with what reality tells us. And one of the problems with Rand's objectivism is that it does not consider the evidence in favor of Evolution. An evolution-based reality paints a very different picture of "moral behavior" than Rand came up with -- including, "we are a means to our children's end."
Since Rand's philosophy is Objectivism, "faith" is not in the vocabulary. I can't quite get my head around your point.
Yeah, and the MSM claim to be "objective," too. Rand very clearly operated on faith -- try proving, from first principles, any of her basic premises. I'll guarantee you can't do it without having to make a lot of unfounded assumptions.
No, Rand operated on faith; and the chief characteristic of her faith was that she could define an "objective" philosophy independent of any supernatural intervention.
Well, no ... Rand was very clear about it. She meant exactly what she said: every man is an end in himself.
Your attempt to modify her statement is actually quite instructive: if you ever start trying to dissect Rand's statements, you always seem to end up adding those little "implied" modifications that are necessary to get around the logical difficulties of her claims.
Remember: Rand basically claimed that her "Objectivist" principles were essentially "natural laws." The need to infer such "implied" modifications to her claims is a very serious problem.
It eventually ends up in one of two places: either you decide to accept Rand's basic premises on faith; or you give up on Rand altogether. I chose the latter route.
Nah.... Plenty of other folks have seen and written about the slow creep of socialism, and to much greater practical effect. (See the early history of National Review, for example, which helped to lay the foundations for Reagan's revolution.)
Rand's "strength" is in drawing caricatures of people to illustrate her ideas. That tendency is actually far more harmful to our side than anything the left does. When one looks at the world as so thoroughly black and white Rand painted it, one is left unable to deal with the world (and the people in it) as they actually exist.
One look at the lamentably awful state of American politics these days is enough to demonstrate the dangers inherent in dealing with caricatures.
She loved men and she is the greatest novelist and philosopher of the 20th century.
Like many folks, she offers criticism but really no solution. Her proposals are practically unworkable. And I agree with you that her atheism, free love, and childlessness are probably at the bottom of it somewhere. I've never seen another book (purporting to be realism - plenty of scifi/fantasy of course) in which children were so conspicuously absent.
Still, there is great value in the criticism. "The Road to Serfdom" doesn't offer any solutions, either.
The central theme of the book was also a "Twilight Zone" episode...
I have to agree with you.
Perhaps the problem is that folks are looking for "a solution" to socialism, in the form of political tactics and strategies whereby the gains of socialism are somehow done away with through legislation. The problem being that this doesn't deal with what's really going on.
To motivate what follows, suppose that, instead of socialism, we wanted to find "a solution" to atheism ... does such a question even make sense? Why doesn't it make sense?
A creeping rise in socialism or atheism is actually a symptom of something else; specifically, it denotes a shift from an old cultural paradigm to a new one. Socialism or atheism "creep" because people's beliefs are shifting in that direction.
In other words, it's not a political problem in the electoral sense; it's a political problem in the sense of the polis -- the problem lies in what's in people's minds before they head to the polls.
As things stand at present, to be "against" socialism is essentially to defend the status quo -- or, more properly, what we believe to have been the status quo at some golden period in the past. The problem is, of course, that one can defend the status quo without actually understanding it. And, moreover, "the status quo" has no fixed definition -- it varies from person to person -- and as such it's pretty much impossible to mount a comprehensive defense of it.
It really is not a matter of "finding a solution" to socialism; any more than it's a matter of "finding a solution" to atheism. Effective evangelism doesn't "solve atheism," after all -- effective evangelism brings people to Christ: we say what we're for, not what we're against. One could say that atheism is "solved" by effective evangelism, but in truth what has happened is that people are transformed by the Gospel; that atheism is "solved" at the same time is obviously true, but it's also irrelevant.
In the same sense, a "solution" to socialism is not to be found in opposing socialism, but rather in offering a different, better, and transforming world view. People need to see their roles in society in a different light -- and when enough folks do that, then "socialism" will creep back into whatever hole it came from.
If we want "a solution" to socialism, we need actually to offer something better to replace it. What is the proper role of an individual in society? What does a "good" business (say) look like? What are our duties and responsibilities, as well as our rights?
Now, the interesting thing is that the rise of socialism and atheism have occurred together, and I don't think that's a coincidence. I think that socialism and atheism found footholds in the holes in American culture -- problems with our religious views and economic/political systems where actual injustices were not being addressed by the established systems.
Look at the racial problems of the mid-20th century: those were based on true injustices. The rise of socialism here and elsewhere was in large part a response to true and grinding poverty. The "status quo" of the time was unable -- and often quite unwilling -- to actually deal those problems beyond allowing them to remain in place. And thus, by default, people decided that these real problems should be dealt with by approaches that seemed actually to offer solutions.
For the moment -- in religion, economics, politics, and society as a whole -- we conservatives have no message to offer as an alternative. If we want a "solution" to socialism, we need to define an alternative and let people know about it. And we need to be patient enough to let it work its way out over decades.
btt
btt
When I read the book it seemed as though she was repeatedly describing my thoughts for as long as I can remember - at least since I was two! The sex stuff was a bit much, but otherwise she speaks for me, very precisely. Accordingly, I am comfortable saying that she would laud anybody who loves living for their children, as I do (and would not confuse it with altruism, which is evil). The fact that she was childless is imaterial.
I guess it just depends with what perspective you take.
The copy I have goes into her mindset as she wrote the book.
She didn’t intend for her characters to be “real” so much as to make an argument with their exagerrated characteristics.
She witnessed the destruction of capitalism as a girl and the idea for the book came when she wondered what would have happened if people reacted out of strength and defiance instead of fear.
"Faith" is the sacrifice of reality and reason, in Rand's view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.