Her main success as a writer is to dramatize philosophical issues and make them interesting...by the time you get to John Galt's long, long speech on the radio challenging the country to turn away from their philosophical error, you're hooked. (Not bad for someone who had to learn English after fleeing her native country.)
I agree for the most part, but John Galt's 20-page speech was something I found pedantic and in need of a better speech writer. His points were already made long before, and there was no need to repeat them as if we were all too childish to have gotten the point. Honestly, she's a good writer and it woudl've been difficult to *miss* the point.
Thom Hartmann on Air America reawakened my interest in Ayn Rand because he sees her philosophy as being a key driver behind the neoconservative movement in the United States.
Really? I would've thought it more of a driver behind the libertarian movement, but then as I live in Georgia and we may be one of the most libertarian-minded states these days, I may be guilty of a limited view of her effect on current thinking.
Reading it in 2007 is a very different experience from reading it in 1957 when it was written: you can see the consequences of her ideas on our society. Because her ideas were so broad and complex, some can't help but be right, and others can't help but be misguided. She deserves a lot of credit for going against the intellectual tide of her time, but sometimes I wonder what windmills she's tilting at.
How would she be going against the intellectual tide of her time, when the country was held in the grip of anti-Communist paranoia?
She seems to have been very much in tune with her times, except for that segment in society that demanded a fair share for their own efforts and had to resort to unions to be heard. But then, in 1957 being part of a union nearly got you called a pinko...so again...how was she going against the tide?
The big revelation to me so far is that when I first read it, I thought she was writing against communism and socialism. Now I see she was writing against irrationality of every stripe, religious and political.
I thought her major targets were communism and socialism and anything that would squelch a human's ability to achieve and be credited with and proud of that achievement. There are certainly times when politics and religion will squash individual initiative, so they would be secondary targets at least.
She is writing against relativism, and for the supremacy of absolute logic. She's violently opposed to tolerating philosophies that manipulate people with mysticism, whether "mystics of spirit" or "mystics of muscle".
This is where I think she gets myopic. Mysticism has its uses also. Who is inspired to love one's enemies (and potentially make peace) through absolute logic? Who is inspired to end oppression by mere logic? These efforts to free humanity from the greatest tragedies to not come from absolute logic -- they are motivated by human compassion and a sense of justice -- those are things that come from the heart -- not the head. This is what mystics see and Rand shows her myopia in missing their worth.
Or, as Spock might say, "It is not logical, but it is often true."
She's no bimbo, she deserves to be answered rather than dismissed.
I would think so.
Characters in Atlas Shrugged are grouped as either heroic rationalists, or corrupt "looters".
Yes, arguably Rand's greatest weakness is her seeming inability to see in shades of grey. It's one thing to try and draw a sharp contrast to illustrate her points more clearly, but another to make people so two-dimensional (which she does).
There are almost no children in the world of Atlas Shrugged, no communities of people searching for answers honestly together, no real democracy: just those who "control thugs". She posits a new kind of "divine right" without the divinity; a "competence" she seems to suggest is only the province of a special few. Definitely a prelude to the Bush administration.
How does the Bush administration enter into it? They are accused of rank incompetence from many sides, including what is supposedly their own (there are a lot of very upset fiscal conservatives out there!).
I would think if Rand were alive today to comment, she would have no use at all for the neocons, because they appear in no way to be people of accomplishment, unless you consider it an accomplishment to enrich your cronies, accrue power like any member of the old Politburo might have, and then run away with your tail between your legs...just before you get caught.
I cannot imagine how Rand might've approved of today's events. She doesn't seem to have had much use for the craven or for anyone less than up front about their meaning.
It would be interesting to consider what Rand would say about the current struggles in the world regarding religious fundamentalism of every stripe. In this department, her ideas are prescient: religion can become the "morality of death" when it seeks to impose unprovable assertions upon society.
I doubt she would have much use for religious fundamentalism of any stripe. She was raised in an irreligious household, saw the dangers of misguided religion, and we see the result.
As for religion, it can also become the "morality of life" if it seeks to
invite others to look at certain unprovable assertions.
It just depends on what set of assertions you're looking at.
(My...I feel the need to go start a thread...thanks for a thought-provoking post!)
