Posted on 10/12/2001 4:02:51 AM PDT by Mr. Polish-hammer
Just read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Here is my take:
I think we all agree on the basic tenet that capitalism is good, and anything else is bad. However, Ayn Rand seems to take this to a whole new level, one which I don't like. She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one. Acting in ones self-interest is moral, altruism is immoral. So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral. What is immoral is when the government, or any other third party, forces one to be charitable. Any action done on voluntary terms, or any deal, is perfectly moral, and to call it immoral is non-sensical, if not scary.
To Ayn Rand, the lazy and incompetent, those without ambition, are immoral. Even if they seek no harm, mind their own business, and violate no ones rights, they are still immoral. Their only sin is to not be productive, which only harms society as a whole. It seems that Ayn Rand deems immoral that which does not benefit her, her being part of society.
Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged", being accused of fostering socialist mentality. Paradoxically, she praised the USA, especially its first one hundred years, as being the closest to her ideal. If religion fosters socialism, how does she explain the religous founding, and continuing religous existence of the USA? Moreover, why is it that the strongly socialist countries (USSR, Sweden, etc.) are strongly atheist, or have governments that despise religion?
Many inconsistencies are present in her writing. I'd be interested in hearing her defense. I know there are many fans on this forum.
True. But Ben Franklin also didn't go around using his advice and axioms to justify his drinking and womanizing.
Ayn Rand was not a saint, and misapplied her own code in her life.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. -- Ayn Rand (*)
Based on this, I don't see how you can say she "misapplied" her code -- indeed, it would appear that her conduct in the affair with Nathaniel Brandon lived up to it. And according to John Galt's Oath, nobody has grounds to complain.
"Show me a man's lover, and I can tell you all about the man."
LOL! Widely, in this case.... ;-)
Curious this, because for some religions or sects contemplation and being are considered the ideal. The concept of "productivity" also bears some examination. One problem may be that it becomes hard to separate out Randian productivity from the seeking of primacy or power. Rand would deny this, but your reading seems to point to a tension in Rand's relationship to power and power seeking. She attacks it, yet also glorifies it, so long as it's channelled in the way she prefers. Is the line between the power she attacks and that she affirms and seeks really as clear as she would maintain? For the religious, the distinction between two uses or sources of power might seem much less clear than she would believe. Another question is the degree to which her views are reconcilable with religions. From what you say, it doesn't look like it.
"Your review is both good and original,
but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good."
I'll grant this.
Rand's statement of virtues is unambiguous... "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge - Purpose, as his choice of happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve - Self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."
This philosophy seems arbitrary. She doesn't really explain why "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem". She just states it as a matter of fact, when it's really just her own opinion, its what would make HER happy. This philosophy appears to be perfectly compatible with Marxism. If it is equal distribution of wealth that one fancies, this will be the PURPOSE that makes this person happy.
Rand's method of creating her characters is different from virtually any other novelist's. Each character is designed to illustrate a philosophical principle, or to expose a philosophical error (Rand was not trying to merely create interesting characters). Two examples: Reardon was productive, but altruistic. Willers was productive, and admired the "good guys" in the book; but he acted entirely on emotion, which is why he was excluded from Galt's Gulch at the book's end. (Willers is a very subtle character, and his unfortunate end at the book's climax is usually misunderstood by readers, who missed the flaws in his character.) Even the minor characters are very carefully drawn, if you focus on their philosophical significance. When you try to understand what Rand was doing -- philosophically -- in writing Atlas, you can really appreciate the work far more than if you merely read it as "just another novel."
I think you've misunderstood Rand. An equal distribution of wealth would require violating the property rights of productive people, something that Rand definitely opposed. She explained her philosophy in great detail in her non-fiction writings.
Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
This is the part of her philosophy that I agree with. I was referring to an isolated passage, which was said to best represent her moral philosophy, and which could be construed by almost anybody to support their particular socio-economic view.
Cheese is cheese.
Cheese is good.
Therefore that which promotes cheese is good.
Q.E.D.
Chiropractors are to physicians as objectivists are to philosophers.
Later I learned "Atlas Shrugged" was actually being used as a guide book by some early feminazis to promote self assertiveness.
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.