You know, I'm with Radley Balko on this one. Peter Bagge sums up the traditional Ayn Rand hullaballoo nicely with a cartoon--here. Therefrom:
Since writing people off was one of her favorite hobbies, it seems karmic that so many are inclined to do the same to her!
(There's more, and it's pretty funny. Do go over and take in the whole thing.)
For the more textually inclined, I also thought Butler Shaffer did a good job with this piece from his outstanding Wizards of Ozymandias collection--It's just not quite as succinct as Bagge's cartoon. Shaffer, too, clearly has a great respect for the path Rand plowed:
I have long had mixed feelings about Rand and her ideas. On the one hand, she has undoubtedly been a major figure in the development of modern libertarian thinking, even though she would not have identified herself with any philosophy for which Objectivism was only a part. Her greatest contribution, I believe, was to confront the underlying assumptions of collectivist thinking at a time when it was considered unsophisticated to entertain such a challenge. Furthermore, she helped to rescue philosophy from the Byzantine labyrinths of academia, encouraging ordinary people to regard principled inquiries into the nature and meaning of life. She helped to give wider meaning to what Socrates praised as the need for the "examined life."
but in the end, he manages to nail just where some of us need to go our own way:
Being "objectively" true, Rand’s philosophy has shown little tolerance for alternative views. Those who differed with Ms. Rand’s conclusions were labeled "irrational." Those who saw in a given situation the possibility of various courses of action might be tarred as "whim worshipers." Those who believed their subjective minds capable of comprehending reality and providing moral insights were called "mystics," a strange characterization for a philosophy allegedly devoted to individualism!
Indeed.
Now, what do you suppose the possibility is that we can get those guys in the Che Guevara t-shirts to stop panicking over someone who never advocated forcing anyone to go along with her? (What, are they afraid the idea might, like, catch on or something?)
Comments
Thanks to the link to Butler Shaffer's article. I've never been much of a fan of Rand, though I enjoyed much of her fiction - to a point... and certainly was never a worshiper. LOL
Oh, and I'm not a "libertarian" either. :)
Shaffer uses the word "catalyst" to describe how Rand influenced him, and I think that nails it. And there's yet another guy who understands the limitations of a label like even "little-l" libertarian. So many of those names have been twisted beyond belief...I'm beginning to wonder if I should just start calling myself a human being, and invite others to figure it out for themselves beyond that.
I think the antipathy that the philosophy embraces does indeed kill. While libertarians are quick to point out that Rand doesn't speak against voluntary donations, in the screed against collectivism she makes the case that the people who would get the redistributed wealth were not worthy of receiving it. So the poor people in a "Ayn Rand" world would not receive even voluntary donations since they would be deemed as worthless leeches.
Interesting anecdote, MarkusR. Maybe that's an insight into why so many statists seem to automatically assume that ALL liberty-thinkers would behave that way.
Of course, I like to think that even "in an Ayn Rand world", such a black market would manage to get promptly filled. I know that not everyone agrees with me (I can still hardly believe that I have been told--with a straight face--that people are simply incapable of philanthropy), but I think human beings are marvelous in that way.
And of course it should go without saying that, if the choice is between forcing everyone to "donate" into a system that will certainly fail (as it always has), and accepting the risk in a voluntary system that may also fail, well, I'll always opt for the non-coercive system and at least some chance of success.
Personally, I find "the antipathy" off-putting as well, but Rand nailed it on this: forcing the peaceable into an "option" is always a disaster.
"Being 'objectively' true, Rand’s philosophy has shown little tolerance for alternative views."
Why should you "tolerate" views that you can logically prove are irrational? If someone says the sky is pink, Miami Beach is made up of corn flakes and communism leads to prosperity, why "tolerate" such “alternative” views? In reality, they are wrong and should not be tolerated.
"Those who differed with Ms. Rand’s conclusions were labeled 'irrational.'"
This is an oversimplification and an equivocation. People, including her closest associates, differed with Miss Rand on her conclusions, some that were fundamental to her philosophy, such as the man has a right to his life and liberty, and others that were not fundamental, such as her views on a woman as president. Miss Rand understood that some people were mistaken in their views, that they came to their conclusions out of ignorance, not necessarily irrationality.
Ayn Rand wrote:
"As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown."
Is it possible that those who disagree with her, but don't want to subject their philosophy to "scrupulously logical deliberation", have no choice but to insult her, since, from the point of view of reason, the essentials of her philosophy are unassailble?
Ayn Rand wrote:
"As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown."
Is it possible that those who disagree with her, but don't want to subject their philosophy to "scrupulously logical deliberation", have no choice but to insult her, since, from the point of view of reason, the essentials of her philosophy are unassailble?
"On the one hand, she has undoubtedly been a major figure in the development of modern libertarian thinking, even though she would not have identified herself with any philosophy for which Objectivism was only a part."
Here is what Ayn Rand REALLY thought about Libertarianism:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."
"Her greatest contribution, I believe, was to confront the underlying assumptions of collectivist thinking at a time when it was considered unsophisticated to entertain such a challenge."
No, her greatest contribution was Atlas Shrugged, the full statement of her philosophy.
www. AtlasShrugged .com
"Furthermore, she helped to rescue philosophy from the Byzantine labyrinths of academia, encouraging ordinary people to regard principled inquiries into the nature and meaning of life."
Unfortunately, irrational philosophy is still being peddled in the "Byzantine labyrinths of academia". Our challenge is to get people to think of philosophy, not some abstract thing that doesn't pertain to man's life, but precisely the opposite--a way to think about and guide one's choices and actions, for the express purpose of living their lives.
Ayn Rand wrote:
"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) & the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy."
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/philoso
"She helped to give wider meaning to what Socrates praised as the need for the "examined life."
False statement. Ayn Rand didn't want people to examine life in the way Socrates advocated. Socrates' ideal world would be one in which people pondered the nature of man and the nature of existence, and discussed theories about how knowledge was properly gained. THat's not Ayn Rand's world. Ayn Rand already figured out metaphysics for us, and she gave us a good lead-in to how to think about and formulate our epistemological doctrine. But she would want us to LIVE OUR LIVES--not to ponder how to live it. That's what Americans do--live our lives--which means to be productive and to gain and trade values with one another. Not to go to people's homes and argue about philosophy with them, and to challenge people's views on philosophy to the point of being a gadfly. We're Americans, not Athenians. Don't compare Ayn Rand to Socrates. Two completely different philosophies right there.
"Being "objectively" true, Rand’s philosophy has shown little tolerance for alternative views. Those who differed with Ms. Rand’s conclusions were labeled "irrational." Those who saw in a given situation the possibility of various courses of action might be tarred as "whim worshipers." Those who believed their subjective minds capable of comprehending reality and providing moral insights were called "mystics," a strange characterization for a philosophy allegedly devoted to individualism!"
Does the author of these comments want to give us some actual examples of these instances, or does he want us to just believe that that is what Rand did--label her enemies with names? As you know, labeling your enemies and calling them names and insulting them, rather than speaking to their arguments, is a form of argument fallacy, namely ad-hominem. If you're going to accuse the greatest thinker in the history of the world with making argument fallacies, surely you can come up with some examples?
Not to bag on bagge, but this 'article' was nothing more than a smear tactic--posting a pic of a cartoon, and a link to an article of a former fan of Ayn Rand turned libertarian, is hardly an attempt to discredit Ayn Rand. I couldn't find one argument against one of Ayn Rand's ideas anywhere in this article, or linked to it.
I suggest readers don't waste their time with Ayn Rand smear artists and go to the source. You have to wonder, who is this person who so many people want to smear? Who is the person who people love to write negative statements about? Who is Ayn Rand?
I suggest to anyone who has ever wondered who Ayn Rand is, to go to the source. Read a book by Ayn Rand, be it Anthem, or We the Living, or The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged--read a book by Ayn Rand--and don't worry about these smear artists.
I'll take care of these bozos
It certainly appears that the answer to the original question posed, here, is "no".
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!