Posted on 11/13/2009 7:51:55 AM PST by cornelis
Objectively, Ayn Rand Was a Nut [Peter Wehner]
According to Politico.com, Ayn Rand — the subject of two new biographies, one of which is titled Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right — is “having a mainstream moment,” including among conservatives. (Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina wrote a piece in Newsweek on Rand, saying, “This is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.”).
I hope the moment passes. Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.
Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” And about Jesus she said:I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.Many conservatives aren’t aware that it was Whittaker Chambers who, in 1957, reviewed Atlas Shrugged in National Review and read her out of the conservative movement. The most striking feature of the book, Chambers said, was its “dictatorial tone . . . Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal . . . From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber — go!’”
William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote about her “desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable.”
Yet there are some strands within conservatism that still veer toward Rand and her views of government (“The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force,” she argued. “This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.”), and many conservatives identify with her novelistic hero John Galt, who declared, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
But this attitude has very little to do with authentic conservatism, at least the kind embodied by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith (chair of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow), and James Madison, to name just a few. What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.
You're clearly unable to offer anything approaching a rational defense of your position. You're not worth any more of my time.
Have a nice day.
“Like anything, there must be moderation.”
Really. So your ideal wife would be one who is moderately sober, moderately faithful, and moderatly honest.
In terms of principles, only absolute adherence is virtue. Either you believe in individual freedom totally, or you believe some level of slavery is acceptable, for example.
Hank
“He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery.”
Ahh.. would you care to source that absurd statement.
Perhaps you never read Atlas. If you had you might recall the passage in which Francisco risks his life saving the life of Hank Reardon. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Hank
So your ideal wife would be one who is moderately sober, moderately faithful, and moderatly honest.
Yes, I would like her to have a drink now and then.
Yes, I would want her to have sufficient a sex drive that she would occassionally look at other men.
Yes, I would not want a totally honest wife. Some things should be softened or unsaid.
” some level of slavery is acceptable”
Yes, some level of giving our rights to society results in higher rights for all. For example, I and my neighbors give up the rights to murder and steal from one another so we can live in relative harmony (and sleep at night).
So yes, moderation in all things. Even moderation.
The Bible states that Christ is not dead; He was resurrected, and is seated at the right hand of the Father even today. [Acts 2: 24,33.] So in what sense can it be claimed that Christ sacrificed His life?
[I don't recommend passing it to Objectivists. They all insist that there is no afterlife, so they'd call this argument "mysticism." It might make for a good bull-session topic, though.]
The answer is, no. Now the job is to recognize what in individualism is anti-social and vicious, and what in individualism is good.
There is nothing anti-social or vicious in individualism. Those who think there is confuse their only subjectivist hedonism with individualism. The least dangerous or harmful person in any society is the independent, self-sufficient, individualist. All the others are parasites who despise the individualist precisely because they know they need him, but he does not need them.
Hank
“Ayn Rand would have made an excellent prostitute, but for the fact she like to give it away as much as possible.”
A quote from your favorite pimp, or are you in the business yourelf. You seem to know a lot about it—and nothing about Ayn Rand. Perhaps you get your opinions from the pedophile, Branden, or his slutty ex-wife.
“He can’t do good UNDER COMPULSION for another. That’s the key. He can CHOOSE to WILLINGLY do whatever he wishes. But doing so at the point of a gun IS slavery.”
Yes! Exactly.
Hank
“I figured this out when I got married. I live for my wife and children.”
Don’t you love them? It is not sacrifice to live for the sake of what you love.
If what you do for your wife and children you were forced to do for another’s wife and children that would be slavery, or if you did it out of some misplace compasion, it would be sacrifice, and if you did it at the expense of those you love, it would be evil.
“Love is exception making,” Rand said. If you didn’t live for your wife and children, Rand would say you didn’t love them.
Hank
Actually, I think "individualism," taken by itself, is almost by definition anti-social. And an unrestrained individualism could easily descend into vicious action
The problem is not with individualism per se, but rather in insisting that individualism is sufficient in itself.
In real life, individualism is one of several "isms" that must work together, in tension.
For example, self-sufficiency and individual initiative must be tempered by the effects that our actions may produce on others.
It's never a good thing to tout one "ism" over all others. The real world is far more complicated than that, because we live among other people. Our rights and theirs interact; our actions must take their existence into account.
“Funny how so many independent people follow Rand like lemmings.”
Funny how so many independent mathematicians follow Pathagoras like lemmings.
Recognizing truth when clearly articulated is not following anyone.
Hank
In the book, it was more of a rejection of anybody's right to DEMAND that you give of your life for the sake of somebody who has never done anything for you. A rejection of the assertion that the unproductive have a lien on the goods of the productive.
Phrased another way, that nobody has a right to life at somebody else's UNWILLING expense.
Indeed. And if so, then either her morality is not objective; or John Galt ended up being a looter.
Funny, that....
“... her personal life, values, and morals were perfectly atrocious.”
Before slandering someone, most decent people would provide evidence for their vague accusations. Of course not everyone is decent.
Hank
Conservative nuttery is fast becoming the most dangerous threat to worldwide liberty. And I'm not a Rand devotee, merely enjoyed her novels. I'm not *that* kind of libertarian, more of a classical liberal. But I find it interesting her followers nowadays say that Democrat politics are actually less dangerous to liberty than Republican politics.
It’s easy to bash Rand and objectivism. The only problem is, her predictions are turning out to be so chillingly true.
I have a friend who is in her 70's. Works HARD every day. Has to pinch a penny till it screams. When I say works hard, I mean on her hands and knees scrubbing floors, in her 70's. Life hasn't been easy for her, and yet she is one of the MOST encouraging and joyful people I know. Would I call her happy? YES. I know I am, just for knowing her.
I have another friend who sees all of life as half empty. Does he have less in life as others? Maybe yes, maybe no. Alot is his own making. He walks through life as Eeyore or Grumpy the dwarf.
I hardly talk to him anymore, cause EVERY time I talk to him, I feel ALL my energy just being sucked out of me.
We can't always choose the things that befall us. But we can choose our outlook and responses.
My upbeat friend chooses happiness. She chooses to be a blessing to others. She chooses to be thankful in ALL that she has. She chooses not to covet or hate the things others might have.
My other friend sees the things he doesn't have as a reason not to be happy. He complains about ALL the "wrongs" in the world.
My upbeat friend has in the past received anonymous food boxes, because things were that tough at holidays. She'd go through the box and GIVEAWAY something to someone else in need, if she already had it.
One is my happy friend, and gives energy. The other my angry friend, and takes energy.
(see my tagline)
“For example, she named ‘The pursuit of his ... his own happiness’ as one of the ‘highest moral purpose[s] of his life.’ It’s not rational that a highly subjective mental/physical state should be the highest moral goal of a supposedly rational and objective philosophy.”
If you knew anything about what Rand wrote, you would know that she never regarded any subjective experience a basis of what would make a human happy, and never recommended the direct pursuit of happiness in that sense. She despised it and called it, correctly, hedonism.
Take whatever you think is the highest moral goal of man. What will be the result of pursuing it—misery or happiness.
That’s what Rand meant, and very clearly articulated. Of course if you do not read her, you will never know that and you can continue ignorantly criticising what she never said.
Hank
How about having a doubly aduterous affair with a young married man some thirty years her junior while she, too, was married at the same.
Ayn Rand at least practiced what she preached. She was a selfish pig herself the way she conducted herself in that affair.
Christ was God and man. If you consider him a man, his sacrifice makes no sense. If you believe in God and that God is Just, then it makes much more sense. You can’t take faith out of it though. If you don’t believe in God, it will NEVER make sense to you.
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.