• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ayn Rand: Philosopher or Bimbo?

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
In the part I'm reading now (Galt's radio speech) Rand may be agreeing with Orwell, but she combines oppressive theocracy with oppressive government as both getting people to "blank out" with an illusory reality to control them:
No, that's pretty much completely the opposite of Orwell. Orwell would be one of the mystics of spirit she does not understand. Which is why she is no philosopher. She has opinions, and they appeal to mainstream Americans who want to be told that rugged individualism and selfishness are always the great virtues, but she doesn't understand the philosophy she rails against. Even that passage you quoted shows a remarkable lack of understanding of existentialist and perspectivist philosophy or mysticism.

And what she's describing that passage and railing against, ironically, is objectivism, not mysticism or perspectivism. Rand was much more a demagogue than a philosopher or a bimbo.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
doppelgänger;876778 said:
Rand was much more a demagogue than a philosopher or a bimbo.

Rand was a bimbo for sleeping with Brandon, a demagogue in life and became a philosopher in death. Hey, maybe I can have my cake and eat it too. :yes:
 

eudaimonia

Fellowship of Reason
Bimbo. Capitalist. Made a virtue of selfishness.

Forget this woman.

You make it sound like those are bad things.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
~Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

At least Ayn Rand is still controversial in death. Just as with Nietzsche, that secures her place as a Philosopher eventually. ;)


eudaimonia,

Mark
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
At least Ayn Rand is still controversial in death. Just as with Nietzsche, that secures her place as a Philosopher eventually. ;)

You could be right, Mark, but since she never appears to me to have taken the effort to understand much philosophy, she was punching at shadows. And that's a sure sign of a demagogue rather than a philosopher.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Rand was a bimbo for sleeping with Brandon, a demagogue in life and became a philosopher in death. Hey, maybe I can have my cake and eat it too. :yes:

I agree, Rand can be all three. It's a complemtarity. Which is an idea Rand would hate (because she wouldn't have a way to understand it or rationalize it). So kudos, Trey. :D
 

eudaimonia

Fellowship of Reason
doppelgänger;876826 said:
You could be right, Mark, but since she never appears to me to have taken the effort to understand much philosophy, she was punching at shadows. And that's a sure sign of a demagogue rather than a philosopher.

Ayn Rand was, first and foremost, a philosophical system builder. Even if she was "punching at shadows", as you suggest, her accomplishment lies not so much in critiquing the philosophies of others, but in advancing her own system of thought.

Demagogues do not create philosophical systems. Philosophers are not just critique-masters. Ayn Rand truly was a philosopher.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Demagogues do not create philosophical systems.

And neither did she. She just wrapped Aristotle and Aquinas's analysis of the relationship of form and substance in with a celebration of selfishness that particularly appeals to capitalists. There's very little original thought at all, and her misguided critique of mysticism, points to a common symptom that underlies her own limited ability to fashion a philosophical system.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
By the way, to cleanse the palate after reading Rand, I'd recommend Dostoevsky's Karamazov or Notes from Underground. Dostoevsky, by contrast to Rand, was a philosopher, and a much better novelist (the same is true of Orwell).
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
From Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground:
Advantage!
What is advantage? And will you take it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what the advantage of man consists? And what if it so happens that a man's advantage, SOMETIMES, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous. And if so, if there can be such a case, the whole principle falls into dust. What do you think--are there such cases? You laugh; laugh away, gentlemen, but only answer me: have man's advantages been reckoned up with perfect certainty? Are there not some which not only have not been included but cannot possibly be included under any classification? You see, you gentlemen have, to the best of my knowledge, taken your whole register of human advantages from the averages of statistical figures and politico-economical formulas. Your advantages are prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace--and so on, and so on. So that the man who should, for instance, go openly and knowingly in opposition to all that list would to your thinking, and indeed mine, too, of course, be an obscurantist or an absolute madman: would not he? But, you know, this is what is surprising: why does it so happen that all these statisticians, sages and lovers of humanity, when they reckon up human advantages invariably leave out one? They don't even take it into their reckoning in the form in which it should be taken, and the whole reckoning depends upon that. It would be no greater matter, they would simply have to take it, this advantage, and add it to the list. But the trouble is, that this strange advantage does not fall under any classification and is not in place in any list . . .

The fact is, gentlemen, it seems there must really exist something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages, or (not to be illogical) there is a most advantageous advantage (the very one omitted of which we spoke just now) which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for the sake of which a man if necessary is ready to act in opposition to all laws; that is, in opposition to reason, honour, peace, prosperity--in fact, in opposition to all those excellent and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all. "Yes, but it's advantage all the same," you will retort. But excuse me, I'll make the point clear, and it is not a case of playing upon words. What matters is, that this advantage is remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all our classifications, and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers of mankind for the benefit of mankind. In fact, it upsets everything . . .

Only look about you: blood is being spilt in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne. Take the whole of the nineteenth century in which Buckle lived. Take Napoleon--the Great and also the present one. Take North America--the eternal union. Take the farce of Schleswig-Holstein .... And what is it that civilisation softens in us? The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations--and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever.

Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves . . .

[M]an everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated. And one may choose what is contrary to one's own interests, and sometimes one POSITIVELY OUGHT (that is my idea). One's own free unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it may be, one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy--is that very "most advantageous advantage" which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms.

And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply INDEPENDENT choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.
 

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Didn't Rand start what could be called an 'Objectivist' cult? Where people that deviated from Rand's philosophy were ridiculed and ostracized?
 

applewuud

Active Member
doppelgänger;876826 said:
You could be right, Mark, but since she never appears to me to have taken the effort to understand much philosophy, she was punching at shadows. And that's a sure sign of a demagogue rather than a philosopher.

Rand is basically fighting a philosophical war, on the side of classical schools of logic and reason against more recent schools. The 3 sections of "Atlas Shrugged" are titled Non-Contradiction, Either-Or, and A is A. She clearly put a lot of effort into exploring philosophies and learning about them, but was affected so deeply by the effects of the Russian Revolution that she adopted an us-or-them stance and refused to explore the ideas of the "other side" past a certain point; she dismissed them.

I'm trying to avoid that mistake in understanding her.

Perhaps a "bimbo" is a philosopher we don't agree with? ;)

The hardest thing to take in her Objectivist philosophy is her absolute hatred of altruism. John Galt's code is: "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." I agree that she's punching at shadows here. Even more so when she has a stranger punch out a mother who tells her child to give its best toys to poor children! :eek: But at the time she wrote that, a huge chunk of the globe was under the rule of communist systems that actively campaigned against self-interest in society.

In trying to undermine that philosophical underpinning of socialism, she didn't give any credence to altruistic instincts that are built-in to living social creatures. Humanity evolved in tribes, and there are times when your genes are more likely to pass on to the next generation when you sacrifice for the group, and other times when you're better off looking out for your own self interest. Both are true; but Rand takes an either-or position.

I find her books valuable as a counterweight and challenge to ideas that are often taken for granted. Similarly, she needs to be understood and challenged for the consequences of her thoughts, which are selectively used to oppose things like a national health service in the U.S.
 

applewuud

Active Member
She seems to confuse mystics with religious leaders (of the authoritarian variety).

Mystics are generally very humble people, and while they may provide a signpost for the rest of us, are not historically in the habit of ordering people about. *wonders who Rumi oppressed and controled*

Too bad Rand didn't understand religion better.

By "mystic" she's referring to anyone who bases their philosophy on a non-objective or supernatural basis. Rationality, the mind, is the only thing that keeps an individual from being oppressed and manipulated by others, in Rand's book(s).

What's interesting from a 21st century perspective is she didn't realize how a philosophy with an appeal to a mystic or supernatural power can be used by those confronting totalitarianism, e.g. Pope John Paul II vs. communism, liberation theology in Latin America, and Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and Egypt.
 

applewuud

Active Member
Ayn Rand was quoted from some private papers in the forward to the 1992 edition of "Atlas Shrugged":

I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. but it is the last that interests me most; the first is only the means to the last; the absolutely necessary means, but only the means; the fiction story is the end. Without an understanding and statement of the right philosophical principle, I cannot create the right story; but the discovery of the principle interests me only as the discovery of the proper knowledge to be used for my life purpose; and my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I like--that is, that represents human perfection.

Philosophical knowledge is necessary in order to define human perfection.
But I do not care to stop at the definition. I want to use it, to apply it--in my work (in my personal life too....

...In [writing a nonfiction philosophical book] the purpose would actually be to teach others, to present my idea to them. In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it; then...to let others enjoy this world, if, and to the extent that they can.

...the first purpose of a philosophical book is the clarification or statement of your new knowledge to and for yourself; and then, as a secondary step, the offering of your knowledge to others. But here is the difference, as far as I am concerned: I have to acquire and state to myself the new philosophical knowledge or principle I used in order to write a fiction story as its ... illustration; I do not care to write a story on...someone else's philosophy (because these philosophies are wrong).:)eek: ) To this extent, I am an abstract philosopher. I want to present the perfect man and his perfect life--and I must also discover my own philosophical statement and definition of this perfection.
(Ayn Rand note, May 4, 1946.)

It's interesting that this note was written ten years before she published her final novel "Atlas Shrugged", and for the rest of her life she did write the philosophical works she wasn't interested in writing before 1957.
 
Top