Ayn Rand: Philosopher or Bimbo?

[Sunstone]

So, was Ayn Rand a philosopher or just another bimbo? What do you think of her ideas? Do they have philosophical merit or were they the sort of one sided extremist views best suited to a bimbo talk show host?

 

[Ody]

Capitalist.

Enough said

 

[lunamoth]

"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." --AR


"Love is the expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another."--AR


"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue."--AR


She says some good things (not those above), but her philosophy has no soul.

2 c,
luna
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45005

 

[Storm Moon]

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue."--AR

Sorry but I don't buy that.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That her philosophy is based on uplifting the individual, I have nothing against. But the way I read into it, it almost ignores the fact that we are social creatures. I don't think social constructionism can be ignored.

 

[lunamoth]

Sorry but I don't buy that.

Neither do I. I don't buy any of the quotes by her that I posted. Sorry, I presented that awkwardly.

 

[Ody]

She couldn't stand a Jewish Russian name and had to change it, thats all I have to say.

 

[eudaimonia]

So, was Ayn Rand a philosopher or just another bimbo?

Bimbo? Are you trying to be offensive?

She was a philosopher. She wasn't an academic philosopher -- her university degree was in history, and she never published in philosophical journals. However, she did create a philosophical system, and that is no small feat. She was clearly a genius.

Love her or hate her, she did accomplish something in philosophy.

What do you think of her ideas?

They have been very influential on my worldview. My reaction is largely positive. I think she did a great job creating a modern eudaimonistic philosophy, though it is sketchy in places, and I personally think there are some areas that could use more development.

I think she did a great job providing a moral defense for individual liberty and Capitalism. I suppose I can understand how she might be hated by anti-capitalists, but this doesn't make her any less a philosopher.

Do they have philosophical merit or were they the sort of one sided extremist views best suited to a bimbo talk show host?

She was a principled and consistent thinker. Is that a crime? Isn't it the muddled, eclectic thinker who is in greater danger of lacking philosophical merit?

The problem with "bimbo talk show hosts" is that they generally don't have any thoughts of their own, and so they oversimplify matters, using cliches and empty rhetoric, and forming very few connections between ideas. OTOH, Ayn Rand had a complex and integrated system of thought of her own to draw from to form her conclusions.

I personally think while Ayn Rand might not be as great a philosopher as some of her fans believe, she is a vastly underappreciated philosopher among mainstream academic philosophers, who generally don't understand her.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[eudaimonia]

her philosophy has no soul.

Actually it does, but it is the soul of a hero, not the bleeding-heart altruist. Not everyone relates to the heroic sense of life, and so they mistakenly conclude that her philosophy "has no soul".

I guarantee you, her philosophy and her fiction contain amazing glimpses of something I can only describe as "spiritual". Her description of the Temple of the Human Spirit in The Fountainhead, or any other of Howard Roark's buildings, for instance, give me a sense of awe and wonder at human potentials. I am personally emotionally touched and inspired by this, as perhaps other people are when they read religious texts.

Your mileage may vary.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Comprehend]

So, was Ayn Rand a philosopher or just another bimbo? What do you think of her ideas? Do they have philosophical merit or were they the sort of one sided extremist views best suited to a bimbo talk show host?

anyone who has read any of her books would have a difficult time saying that she did not present a philosophy peculiar to herself. I think her ideas were 100% right 50% of the time . Her ideas definitely have philosophical merit, any new idea that is coherent deserves philosophical consideration. There are much crazier philosophical ideas than Rand's.

Almost all philosophies are one sided extremist views. How about Karl Marx? Does he not have any philosophical merit because it was one sided? Of course he does, and so does she. How many famous moderate philosophers can you name? You have to sell your idea and make a strong argument for it.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Mark,

Well, from talking to you I know that Eudaimonsim, while based upon Rand's philosophy, actually has a much more developed humanitarian side to it than does pure objectivism. I understand that Rand was reacting to the huge mistake which was Russian communism but IMO she swung too far back away from everything which she considered weak and ignoble about it, and she unrealistically romanticizes capitalism. She's a great novelist and I loved Atlas Shrugged when I read it. But, a philosophy that considers charity a vice, equates love with earned admiration, and states that money is the highest goal is pretty much the antithesis of my own worldview.

Actually it does, but it is the soul of a hero, not the bleeding-heart altruist. Not everyone relates to the heroic sense of life, and so they mistakenly conclude that her philosophy "has no soul".

The soul of a hero is charitable, IMO. My heros are Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandella, Mother Teresa...those who stood with the oppressed. I understand the soul of the independent spirit in Rand's writings and find it highly attractive...but it is one-dimensional, incomplete, when divorced from charity and altruism.

I guarantee you, her philosophy and her fiction contain amazing glimpses of something I can only describe as "spiritual". Her description of the Temple of the Human Spirit in The Fountainhead, or any other of Howard Roark's buildings, for instance, give me a sense of awe and wonder at human potentials. I am personally emotionally touched and inspired by this, as perhaps other people are when they read religious texts.

I've not yet read The Fountainhead but I think I might read it soon. I'm moved and awed by the creations of humans as well, beautiful buildings, works of art, technological achievements...heck I sometimes get teary-eyed during airplane take-off just over the shear achievement it represents. And don't get me started about space exploration unless you've got Kleenex handy---that is heroic!

Everyone has a spirituality, I don't argue with that. Our spirituality is the prioritization of our loves, of what we consider important in life. I was being somewhat dramatic in saying that her philosophy has no soul, (and I certainly don't mean to say that people who incorporate Objectivism into their own worldview are somehow not spiritual or souless!). However, from what I understand about pure Objectivism ,those who have talent and ability should feel no obligation to or remorse over the suffering of those who have not been born with opportunity or talent...it is very Darwinian, dog eat dog.

In everything there needs to be balance. That's why ideologies never work...they are theoretical and soon break down when you try to apply them to a whole population of people. We're just too diverse for that, and life is messy, and grand.

Anyway, I meant no offense by my comments.

Peace,
luna

 

[doppelganger]

She's a philosopher rather than a bimbo. Her writings are taken seriously in the academic discipline of philosophy. Her objectivism is anti-mystic and anti-social which certainly makes it something different. My problem is that it is presented in a manner that is fundamentally hypocritical.

She justifies the "good" of social reality only for those whose selfishness has enabled them to revel in it. However, the very ability to accumulate wealth and power is based on the majority of people being willing to submit some of their autonomy for the good the group or society - which is then taken advantage of by the greedy and selfish.

In effect, objectivism has no universal application or wisdom. If everyone followed it, then nobody could. While there's certainly some wisdom in that notion, it isn't what objectivism is about.

 

[doppelganger]

I will say that in my experience there's a remarkably high bimbo rate among her fans. :thud:So I can see how someone could have trouble deciding which way to go on this one.

 

[lunamoth]

I will say that in my experience there's a remarkably high bimbo rate among her fans. :thud:So I can see how someone could have trouble deciding which way to go on this one.

Ann Coulter is a fan of Ayn Rand?

 

[doppelganger]

Ann Coulter is a fan of Ayn Rand?

Of course.

"You know, like Ann Rand said, Greed is Good." - Anne Coulter

Demonstrating (1) she's a Randroid; and (2) she's also a bimbo, because that's actually a quote from Gordon Gecko, Michael Douglas's character in Wall Street rather than Rand.

 

[eudaimonia]

Thank you for your thoughtful post, lunamoth. While I disagree with you below, I just want to let you know that I respect you.

I understand that Rand was reacting to the huge mistake which was Russian communism but IMO she swung too far back away from everything which she considered weak and ignoble about it, and she unrealistically romanticizes capitalism.

I agree to an extent, though possibly not to the extent that you may want.

But, a philosophy that considers charity a vice

This is inaccurate. It is making the well-being of others your primary purpose in life that is the vice. One can be rationally charitable in Rand's view.

equates love with earned admiration

Okay, this one is true.

and states that money is the highest goal

And this is false again. She doesn't claim this at all. Ever.

Money is only ever a means to an end in her philosophy. You'd be far more correct to say that the end to which money is one means is self-respect, or justice, or a free society, or the rational life.

is pretty much the antithesis of my own worldview.

And this is what I mean about non-Objectivists misunderstanding Objectivism. Most people who have negative opinions about Objectivism -- and even plenty that have positive opinions -- just don't get what she was really arguing for.

I'm not saying that Objectivism is the perfect philosophy, but it is certainly one of the most misunderstood philosophies.

However, from what I understand about pure Objectivism ,those who have talent and ability should feel no obligation to or remorse over the suffering of those who have not been born with opportunity or talent...it is very Darwinian, dog eat dog.

And here is another misunderstanding. It isn't some Objectivist "sin" to feel compassion for people who are down on their luck -- indeed, feeling compassion is precisely what Ayn Rand would expect of rational, self-esteeming people! She would only think that compassion would be absent if rational people think that their compassionate nature is being taken advantage of -- that is, if they see that they are being used.

The two main characters in Atlas Shrugged, Hank and Dagny, are both compassionate people. Hank supports his family throughout most of the novel precisely because he feels that he owes them his support and love. He only tells them to take a hike once he realizes, beyond any doubt, that they have been manipulating and using him. Dagny sticks with her railroad, even though it was being used and abused by the growingly totalitarian government, in part because she couldn't stand to see society collapse and people suffer under all that collectivism. It was only when she realized that society was going to collapse, no matter what, and that she was only allowing herself to be used and perpetuate a manipulative and abusive system, that she finally quit.

I think that Hank and Dagny are often not perceived as compassionate people because people expect to see Christian compassion, or the equivalent. And so this important theme gets ignored entirely.

Whenever the Objectivist characters seem cold-hearted about the collapse of civilization, it's not because they don't care that people are suffering. It's because they see the need to act with rationality and justice because reality will bite back hard if they don't. They are being heroically mature.

I don't know if any of what I just wrote will change your mind, or your feelings, about Objectivism, but I offer it for your consideration. Thank you for sharing your perspective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[eudaimonia]

"You know, like Ann Rand said, Greed is Good." - Anne Coulter

Demonstrating (1) she's a Randroid

Don't be silly. Coulter takes different positions on dozens of issues. Would she tolerate Rand's atheism?

Coulter is a bimbo, though.

My problem is that it is presented in a manner that is fundamentally hypocritical.

She justifies the "good" of social reality only for those whose selfishness has enabled them to revel in it. However, the very ability to accumulate wealth and power is based on the majority of people being willing to submit some of their autonomy for the good the group or society - which is then taken advantage of by the greedy and selfish.

There is no hypocracy there because you are mixing two different philosophies together in the analysis -- yours and Rand's -- and not realizing that you have done so. The conflict is not in Rand's philosophy, but in the mixture.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Comprehend]

Of course.

"You know, like Ann Rand said, Greed is Good." - Anne Coulter

Demonstrating (1) she's a Randroid; and (2) she's also a bimbo, because that's actually a quote from Gordon Gecko, Michael Douglas's character in Wall Street rather than Rand.

If we judged every philosophy by those who choose to follow it we could ridicule them all.

 

[doppelganger]

Don't be silly. Coulter takes different positions on dozens of issues. Would she tolerate Rand's atheism?

Coulter is a bimbo, though.

Coulter considers herself a Rand fan. And I'd be willing to bet that Coulter is not really the theist she presents herself as. Things like an objectified god (and the rigid morality and dedication to authority it creates) have incredible value to a self-centered person - precisely because they know how to use them to further their interests. They are the best tools in the objectivist's kit.

There is no hypocracy there because you are mixing two different philosophies together in the analysis -- yours and Rand's -- and not realizing that you have done so. The conflict is not in Rand's philosophy, but in the mixture.

Let's go through this claim step by step.

What is my philosophy?
Where is it reflected in what I wrote (the whole post, not just the part you quoted)?
Which part is Rand's?

 

[doppelganger]

If we judged every philosophy by those who choose to follow it we could ridicule them all.

Don't we do that anyway?