Replies

Ms. Rand was wrong. She sounded right because she advocated freedom of thought, expression and ones control over ones activities. But she was wrong because she rejected the collective (the concept that the group is more important than the individual) with objectivism (the concept that the individual is more important than the group). Neither concept is true. However, what is true is that the individual finds within the group an identity and purpose. He finds within history lessons and debts that can never be repaid. Moreover, the individual discovers that in order to be fully human one must adopt some purpose larger than himself. This is why objectivism has failed and conservatism has not.

Sebastian

Rand ... was wrong because she rejected the collective (the concept that the group is more important than the individual)...

Your are right, or would be, if Rand actually said this. In Rand's philsophy, the group has no importance at all. Importance pertains to one only class of existents in this world, beings capable of having purposes and ends, and all importance relates to the significance of things as they relate to each individual's purposes and ends. Groups have no purpose or ends, only individuals do, unless, of course, you are a cow, then the herd (group) matters.

Hank

Right.

Moreover, the individual discovers that in order to be fully human one must adopt some purpose larger than himself.

Some do. Others just become President.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)

the experiment is not over - success has proven to be the result of independent thought and productivity and innovation - doing things the old way just because they have heritage is one of the certain ways to fail - look at the british for prime examples

Ms. Rand was wrong. She sounded right because she advocated freedom of thought, expression and ones control over ones activities. But she was wrong because she rejected the collective (the concept that the group is more important than the individual) with objectivism (the concept that the individual is more important than the group). Neither concept is true. However, what is true is that the individual finds within the group an identity and purpose. He finds within history lessons and debts that can never be repaid. Moreover, the individual discovers that in order to be fully human one must adopt some purpose larger than himself. This is why objectivism has failed and conservatism has not.

Sebastian, I strongly agree with your analysis. The only thing I would change is the word "collective." It's a loaded word these days, one that induces knee-jerk reactions because of its "emotional charge," owing to its proper association with truly collectivist/totalist systems. Put "society" in its place, and the meaning becomes clearer.

One of the problems I have with Ayn Rand is she utterly strips the human person out of his environment -- which is, of course, society. In doing that, she makes man an abstraction. She sets up a false dichotomy between the primacy of man or the primacy of society. This is not how the world words. This is not an "either/or" situation, but a "both" situation. The trick is to find the proper balance between the rights/needs of the individual, and the rights/needs of society. John Locke was aware of this problem, but Ms. Rand seems to overlook it altogether. (E.g., under Lockean contract theory, individuals "give up" certain rights in order to participate in civil society.)

I loved what you had to say about man finding "within history lessons and debts that can never be repaid." Ms. Rand will have none of that; she absolutizes and radicalizes reason, alleging it sufficient to answer all human problems. So the human past and its experience is largely irrelevant to her. In a certain way, she "ends history" just as rigorously as Marx and Hegel do.

Lastly, I think you are so right when you say that "the individual discovers that in order to be fully human one must adopt some purpose larger than himself." Ms. Rand finds man to be an end-in-himself. Therefore, he really owes little either to society, or to God -- the latter of which of course, as an atheist, Ms. Rand regards (as do Marx and Feuerbach, et al.) as pure, irrational superstition.

Great post!