If you’re in the mood for something a little weightier than the ever-popular “righties stink,” check out this essay on Ayn Rand and Thomas Hobbes by Mary Midgley at The Guardian.
The basic theme is that both Hobbes and Rand wrote about the individual in relation to society, but came to opposite conclusions. Hobbes stressed the individual’s need for security, and he promoted the ideal of a strong commonwealth with a powerful sovereign at its head. Rand went in the other direction, warning of the evils of “collectivism” and promoting absolute individuality to the point of denouncing altruism as evil.
Hobbes’s ideas belonged to the age of the Sun-King, Midgley says, and Hobbes has little to say to us today about dealing with intolerable government. Rand, on the other hand, is still influencing politics. “Noam Chomsky has called her deeply evil,” Midgley writes. “This may seem like taking her too seriously, but we surely do need to take seriously the ideas that she stands for.”
This paragraph seems to me to be especially insightful:
What chiefly emerges here is surely how important it is, when we are confronted with these extreme and simple doctrines, to understand the guiding visions behind them and in particular, just what danger they aim to protect us against. Rand’s guiding vision is clearly what used to be called infantile omnipotence – the childish hope of total control – and her doctrines have great influence because that hope is still always strong in the depths of our hearts. The fear that haunts her is the fear of having to obey someone else. This fear, intelligently disciplined, does indeed lie at the root of our emphasis on liberty, but there is nothing to be said for erecting it on its own into a “heroic” stance of self-admiration.
I’ve long felt there was something both infantile and desperately fearful at the base of Randism. And for all their supposed admiration for rational thought, there is nothing rational about an ideology that denies the basic nature of humans and human civilization. We are social creatures who depend on each other and live for each other, whether we like it or not. Civilization may have come up with ways to make the interdependence impersonal, but we are still interdependent. Individual humans, isolated from other humans and from civilization, do not survive well.
So when a Randbot says, “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,” that’s both a scream of denial and a tantrum.
I’d love to give the Randians some land somewhere and tell them, “OK, go make an existence out of your philosophy. All of you. Go ahead.” Sorry no roads or electricity from us. It’s communal, you know, and you can’t abide that stuff anyway, now can you?
It’ll be “Lord of the Flies” within days… You want the ultimate version of “Survivor?” Plant TV camera’s.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man….
I am always tempted to challenge the Randians I meet, when they also profess to be devout Christians. Rand’s refined selfishness is the antithesis of Christian agape, so it’s impossible for “Randian Christians” to be both. They’re lying to themselves about practicing one philosophy or the other, and– surprise– it always turns out to be the unselfish and more challenging one.
I’d love to give the Randians some land somewhere and tell them, “OK, go make an existence out of your philosophy. All of you. Go ahead”…. It’ll be “Lord of the Flies†within days….
I’m getting some awesome visuals with that paragraph. I know a certain talk-radio personality who’d make a perfect “Piggy.”
The ideas of personal responsibility and self-reliance are good ones… until power hungry control freaks take over some facet of peoples lives and work to limit those things, in ways obvious and subtle. Then it takes communal effort to check and balance that destructive power center.
And technology isn’t helping much either. A couple centuries ago a motley crew of colonials could gather together with their hunting muskets and shoo away a world superpower. Today, no number of hunting muskets will stop an ICBM nuke launched by a third world dictator. Again, a technological (and expensive) communal effort is required.
And then there are all those subtle (usually wingnut oblivious) cases where pragmatic communalism is needed to preserve individual liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Why does it seem Randian factotums have conflated, confused, and confounded Leo Strauss with the writings of Ayn; there are “specially gifted”, theirs is the (only) way, and deceptions must be used to exercise power over all others, (negotiation, persuasion and/or communication with opponents not permitted).
It still surprises that Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine fails to mention Leo Strauss in connection with The Chicago School of Economic Phrenology
Agree with joanr16 on casting, only problem, how to make subject appear sane.
So when a Randbot says, “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,†that’s both a scream of denial and a tantrum.
To be fair, most of them are only telling the truth about the first part.
All you flaming liberals don’t have to worry. The Chicago School of Economics has been superceded by the Chicago School of Cop Killing. You can gleefully watch as policy from Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West and Barrack Obama marches the US the rest of the way to the left. We Objectivists will check in once in a while to see how that’s working out for you.
As for the sophomoric pop psychology by various Marxbots above….try this on: Extremism in pursuit of individual freedom is no vice; moderation in accepting coercive control of one person over another (slavery) is no virtue.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Great post. In case you missed it, the law and economics expression of Rand’s idiocy is going through some painful contortions with law & econ Judge Richard Posner’s new book denouncing unregulated free markets. That’s got to hurt.
Rand’s refined selfishness is the antithesis of Christian agape, so it’s impossible for “Randian Christians†to be both
Ah, but all things are possible for those who love Christ Jesus.
If the SS can hold communion services, and the Ku Klux Klan can worship the Lord after a night of burning crosses and terrorizing Negroes… then what’s so difficult about accepting Randian Christians?
I’ve tried reading Ayn Rand, but I was never able to get through “Atlas Shrugged” – mind-boggling selfish gibberish more than 1000 pages long.
The only book of hers that I did read all the way through (and liked it too) was her very first one, We the Living. It’s doubly ironic because: 1) Her first book was her best, very unusual for any author, and 2) Of all her books, it’s the least read.
Rand called We the Living “the closest thing to an autobiography” that she wrote. The novel takes place in the Soviet Union, in the early years of Stalin’s rise to power. At that time, most Russians were optimistic that the new Soviet Union would be a great improvement over Czarist Russia. But then they watched their new-found freedoms slowly disappear, replaced by brutal repression. This is the Russia that Ayn Rand grew up in, and escaped from.
At least from this book, you get a view of Ayn Rand’s psyche. It’s sad – she could have been a voice for freedom. Instead, she became an enabler for fascism. Apparently, her hatred (born from experience) of left-wing repression gave birth to her philosophy, which might be described as “Newt Gingrich on steroids.”
Swami… yes, I know that “Jesus heals and forgives [us, not you].” Perhaps I enjoy too much pointing out the Rand/Jesus contradiction to them. That probably makes me infantile too, in my own way.
Her first book was her best, very unusual for any author….
Actually this is more common than one might think. Writers usually labor for years on their first book, until it’s as close to perfect as it can get. Once it’s published, the writer often ends up under contract to produce X number of books in a certain period of time. A classic example of this, imo, is the tragic slide in quality of the novels of Gregory Maguire. He worked for years on Wicked, and it shows. By his third (I think) book, I literally hurled it across the room in frustration, it was that bad.
Sorry… I went way OT there. Now I’m thinking I ought to see that TV-movie about Ayn Rand from a few years back, starring Helen Mirren. But that’s as close to her personal story as I care to get. I read Atlas Shrugged in the 1990s (finished it, not that I’m looking for sympathy), and right away I recognized it for what it was: mind-boggling selfish gibberish more than 1000 pages long, to quote ozonehole. Shortly after, I began to get in my first arguments with people about whether Ayn Rand was a prophetess or a phony.
That probably makes me infantile too, in my own way.
No, not infantile…Just setting yourself up for frustration. Logic and reason can be a cruel master sometimes.
Here’s one for ya, John Donahue of Pasadena, California: A jerking knee is no substitute for a thinking brain. I made that one up myself.
BTW, if we’re liberals, we cannot be Marxists. The two are as different as apricots and aardvarks, and if you don’t know that, perhaps you should substitute the propaganda clogging up your head with some actual knowledge. I am a liberal but no Marxist.
So I walk into a bar and start talking to an Austrian schooler about Say’s Law (demand grows as supply grows, and recessions are caused by supply shrinking, not demand shrinking). I ask: “how does one get corporations to communally increase supply during a recession, without government assistance/coordinationâ€. They change the subject to changing bankruptcy laws.
So then I ask: “if bankruptcy protections are eliminated, who administers the debtor prisons/workfarms if it’s not the government?†They change the subject to the Chicago School’s ‘rational expectations’ schtick.
So then I ask: “was our current economic situation stemming from the credit – real estate fiasco a rational expectation?â€
I’m immediately called a loony lefty and the Austrian schooler leaves.
There has to be a way to condense this into a better bar joke.
The reason liberals fall short of being Marxists is not from lacking identical DNA. It’s impotence.
Two liberals accidently wander into an Objectivist bar. The first one orders a Kir. The other one orders Fair Trade Organic Ice Melt Beer.
The bartender asks them which one is paying for the first round. L1 says “I’m in Chapter 11 because I tried to prove Say’s Law.” L2 says “I’m in Chapter 11 because Bill Clinton told me my bank had to lend to people who needed a house even if they couldn’t pay.”
“What happened in Chapter 12?” quips the bartender in disgust, signalling to the bouncer to come over.
“We became folk heros and got jobs in the Obama administration.”
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Good bye, John. If you ever have an original thought, let us know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI&feature=related
Here’s an interesting cartoon, righties will see it one way, while we from the Almost marxist dreaded “liberal” side wil see it in another light.
Happy Mother’s Day!
Hahaha. Illiterate, preprogrammed Randian humor. It’s not funny, because it derives its context from Atlas Shrugged (i.e., relates to nothing real and makes no sense). Randian humor satirizes itself! At least in that sense it’s efficient.
Sadly, not even a Ferengi would find a Randian joke amusing.
To try to keep things focused on the ideas at hand…
I just wanted to comment on freD’s comment:
“The ideas of personal responsibility and self-reliance are good ones… until power hungry control freaks take over some facet of peoples lives and work to limit those things, in ways obvious and subtle. Then it takes communal effort to check and balance that destructive power center.”
It’s worth clarifying Rand’s point here. She isn’t an anarchist.
You’d have to clarify exactly what you mean by a person limiting responsibility and self-reliance. If you are talking about a violent or criminal situation, then Rand would say that that’s the exact reason why you want a government–to protect peoples’ rights to their own lives. The government’s proper place is running the police, army, and judicial system. The problem is when government extends beyond that scope and becomes oppressive itself, as has been happening in increments over the 20th and 21st centuries.
Does that differ from your understanding of her ideas?
It’s great to run across something by Midgely. I read some of her books (found in the public library) years back and found them very thought-provoking. Try “Evolution as a Religion” or “Can’t We Make Moral Judgments?”
BTW, as I understand it Ayn Rand’s behavior in real life was very different from her preachments. She ran a cult and was very domineering toward her followers. This makes me think that the “childish hope of total control” quote is right on the money.
You’d have to clarify exactly what you mean by a person limiting responsibility and self-reliance.
No, YOU”D have to clarify exactly what you mean by “a person limiting responsibility and self-reliance.” I think self-reliance is grand, but the reality of human existence is that self-reliance can never be absolute. We do in fact rely on each other to live, to exist, to lead the lives we want to lead. Denying that is denying reality.
We might disagree over how our inter-reliance will be carried out, and what functions might be assigned families, communities, governments, whatever. But to throw phrases like “self-reliance” around like magic talismans with no meaning is precisely why I have no respect for Rand and her culties.
As for “responsibility,” yes, we must all strive to be responsible — for ourselves, for each other, for the whole bleeping planet. To think that a human being can live only for himself and is responsible for no one else is utterly insane and is a denial of the reality of human nature and human civilization.
Rand was a pure reactionary. She was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia and IMO all her writings are a knee-jerk reaction to 1917.
Let me expand on ‘pure reactionary’. If you investigate Satanism (I don’t recommend it) you will find NO underlying theology – it’s all an anti-theology against (what they perceive) as Christian ritual & teachings. Rand preaches anti-collectivism in every form as a reaction to the Russian Revolution, and fails to come up with a practical political or economic theory, only a juxtaposition of Marxism.
Right you are, Maha.
This planet is like a big aquarium, when the system gets out of balance, watch out.
In John Donahue’s world, anything past his nose is liberal and therefore exists in the cold dark void of Marxism – Bill Clinton was a murdering socialist, CNN is Communist News Network, McCain an abomination…
CNBC had it’s “House Of Cards†show that I thought explained the credit – real estate fiasco fairly well. But sadly, CNBC is far too propagandistically Stalinist MSM to be taken seriously by true Randroids, even with all the Greenspan interviews.
——-
Randal,
What Maha said.
And this: The biggest problem with Objectivism is the same problem with Marxism. They both assume that some strict ideological government will magically take care of all the power hungry control freaks. The reality is, control freaks are supremely adaptable, having no ideology outside of increasing their power at the expense of yours. And with things changing the way they do, the checks and balances against the control freaks has to change and adapt as well.
Gee, as long as we’re telling jokes and talking about Saint Petersburg, here’s one of the two anti-Communist jokes I know, picked up from the Reader’s Digest in the 1950s. (No, really, I mean it.)
A Russian wishes to move and change his job, and is interviewed by the proper bureaucrat:
Where were you born?
Saint Petersburg.
Where did you attend school?
Petrograd.
Where do you live now?
Leningrad.
Where would you like to live?
Saint Petersburg.
A joke that has improved with age.
BTW, the thesis of the post, which has tended to get buried here, is a great insight, and right on target.
I’d like to respond to Maha and freD, but first there’s something worth noting. There’s a theme among these comments that Rand is superficial or empty or vague or just a reactionary. You may disagree with her, but it really is unfair to attempt to dismiss her as an unserious thinker in some way. It’s a quite thorough philosophic system, with significant attention paid to specificity and definition of terms. If that is your central issue, then I suggest picking up a copy of Leonard Peikoff’s “Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and be done with it. Otherwise, you risk attacking straw men.
But Objectivism does depart from the collection of ideas in modern liberalism on some points (and agrees on others), so there’s real substance to discuss. This discussion gets far more substantial and interesting when we are talking about actual differences of conclusion about people and society.
Maha, your central objection to Rand’s political philosophy seems to be a difference in your and her view of man’s ability to survive by himself. Rand argues for an individualistic and elevated view of man’s ability, where you claim that people are dependent on others in order to live and exist. Rand’s starting premise in politics (which comes from her observations on man and reason’s survival value) is that you >could< actually survive on a deserted island or out in the woods, and people have. People are tremendously capable.
Now that’s not to deny that there are tremendous things to be gained from society. The division of labor is an extraordinary thing. I might be able to survive on my island, but man, wouldn’t it be great to have medicine, knowledge of farming and hunting techniques, others to contract with, etc. So long as society is a positive, by all means go enjoy it–be productive and trade with others who have wares to peddle. But there’s really no basis for saying that you owe somebody just by the fact of your existence, outside of a particular debt or contract.
freD: As much as I am risking being mocked here, I’d appreciate if you could clarify what you mean by “power-hungry control freaks.” Everyone else on the list seems to implicitly get it, but I guess I don’t speak the language.
Rand was a deep thinker, but like most deep thinkers (especially those whose livelihoods and reputations become dependant on, and then enmeshed with, the depth and/or elegance of their theories), the wider picture, the validity of conflicting perceptions and theories, often becomes increasingly ignored. Marx fell in love with the assumption that all humans have an inner altruist, which will grow under certain conditions – his conditions. Rand fell in love with the assumption that all humans have an inner rational, which will grow under certain conditions – her conditions.
———-
Evil requires the sanction of the victim. – A. Rand
I honestly don’t know where this comes from. Where’s its context? In my world evil takes advantage of its strengths vs. its victims weaknesses. With child molestation it’s size and sophistication vs. smallness and naiveté. With 911 it was audacity vs. complacency. Even if all life is warfare, as Rand may be suggesting, it is/was impossible for the victims to prevent the evil without communal effort, which requires at least some amount of altruism from society.
———-
“power-hungry control freaks”
As you gain more life experience, you’ll run into them, mano-a-mano. Some ideas for now:
The Dark Triad, Robert Hare, Paul Babiak, Martha Stout, Bernie Madoff, Huey Long, Blagojevich, Limbaugh.
freD, I’m starting to feel like the party ended and nobody told us. I will respond to your thoughts and then give you the last word.
1) There’s an important nuance to Rand’s views about man that I think you’re missing. You say that “Rand fell in love with the assumption that all humans have an inner rational, which will grow under certain conditions – her conditions.” I take this to mean that you take her view to be that each of us has a rational core, which would automatically be nurtured to full blossom in some kind of utopian conditions. That’s not quite it. [Please correct me if I am misstating you.]
Rand’s view was that people by their nature have the >capacityobsessedsomething< had to change.
Now, I probably opened a huge can of worms there, but anyway, the last word is yours.
Reposting.
freD, I’m starting to feel like the party ended and nobody told us. I will respond to your thoughts and then give you the last word.
1) There’s an important nuance to Rand’s views about man that I think you’re missing. You say that “Rand fell in love with the assumption that all humans have an inner rational, which will grow under certain conditions – her conditions.” I take this to mean that you take her view to be that each of us has a rational core, which would automatically be nurtured to full blossom in some kind of utopian conditions. That’s not quite it. [Please correct me if I am misstating you.]
Rand’s view was that people by their nature have the *capacity* for reason, but that it is completely their choice whether they use it. Many people live their lives basically drifting along or even evading self-evident facts right in front of their face. Some people will choose not to use their minds under even the most perfect of conditions. If you look around, I don’t think this is that radical a conclusion. The reason Rand champions freedom so ardently is that–if you look at history–freedom is the only shot any of us have. There’s a lot of nuance to why she thinks this is, so I would direct you to her essays on rights and freedom rather than me try to regurgitate.
2) Regarding the sanction of the victim, I’m not surprised if this seems out of context. It is, perhaps, the most radical, controversial and complicated point Rand has to make. It actually takes her all of Atlas Shrugged to really demonstrate what she means by it. And it is something that I see all around me constantly.
[No, Rand is not suggesting that life is warfare; the full meaning of the quote is actually the exact opposite.]
First, let me acknowledge your list of evil. The issue wasn’t that I’ve never met evil; contrary to popular stereotype, not all Objectivists are 16-year olds that feel the world doesn’t appreciate them. But I wanted to make sure that we were on the same page as to what evil was. For the most part, I think we are. I quibble about Limbaugh. I think he’s often a jackass and wrong, but I have every reason to believe that he is well-intentioned. To be evil is to seek destruction for destruction’s sake–in whole or in part. But Limbaugh’s intentions are a debatable issue and not really the point.
What Rand is pointing out with the sanction of the victim is the importance for each of us to feel morally justified in our actions. If you don’t feel like what your doing is right and deserved, you can’t really do it. Now, that’s a controversial statement in itself, but seriously, outside of television, who wakes up in the morning and says, “I think I’ll go be evil today.”
Madoff is a really interesting case. I think it’s notable that he was such a significant philanthropist. Now, none of us can claim to know exactly how his mind worked, but I would bet you that his thinking went something like, “Well, yes, fraud isn’t technically right, but I’m not hurting people really. My family gets everything they should, and look at what I am doing for charity. And look at the returns I’m giving to some of my clients. I just have to keep things going a little longer.”
Of course, that was impossible, and he ended up hurting a lot of people. But have you really ever met someone who consciously acted under the premise that they were being evil? The most evil man I have known was obsessed with doing good things for people. He manipulated and attempted to control people, but he told himself that he was manipulating them to better lives. However, something truly notable about him is that every so often, he would calm down from his flurry of activity and invariably he would become panic-stricken and ask me why he did the things he did. I didn’t understand why he needed me to answer, until I recognized later that I was one of the people he was manipulating. That’s the point at which I recognized how rotten he was, stopped apologizing for him, and left the friendship.
People need to feel justified. Evil people have serious doubts when they stop to think, and, Rand’s point, the only people who can calm those doubts are the people that otherwise would be recognized as victims.
To go with a political example, Objectivists were arguing that the USSR was a real threat until about 1980. At that point, the Soviet political leaders started publicly admitting that their system was not working practically, and they started experimenting with little bits of capitalism. To do that was to admit that the Soviet system was not justified, and the people–who had been living in misery for decades–started feeling like they didn’t have to be and overthrew their oppressive government. Once they dropped their moral justification, *something* had to change.
Now, I probably opened a huge can of worms there, but anyway, the last word is yours.
I realize that was a long post. Sorry, it’s a complicated topic.
Sorry, clarification: you never said that Limbaugh et al were evil, you called them “power-hungry control freaks.” That doesn’t significantly change my response, though.
It is the most remarkable instance of ‘projection’ to describe Rand as a “Power hungry control freak”. Her Politics is based on the idea of the government relinquishing power. Her Morality is based on the concept of individualism and demands no one try to control anyone else. Her Epistemology is based on the idea that every mind is sovereign and capable of reason. Her Metaphysics proclaims that reality comes first and our wishes can’t change facts. In EVERY instance her philosophy is one that denies the propriety, morality, rationality and even existence of the kind of “power” you describe.
I say you’re projecting because the leftist philosophical viewpoint is: in politics the forced service of some men either to others or to the state, in morality the subservience of each man to the needs of others, in epistemology the destruction of reason to ‘political correctness’, and in metaphysics the idea that words are some sort of magic that will make things work ‘somehow’ (i.e. Obamabots)
Who are the power lusters here?
Richard — you’re confusing the sales pitch with the product.
In EVERY instance her philosophy is one that denies the propriety, morality, rationality and even existence of the kind of “power†you describe.
What “power” is that? I didn’t write anything about power.
Maha, I think Richard was responding here to freD. Forums are confusing.
Richard, while I agree with you in principle, it’s hard to ascribe motives on particular people without a lot of background knowledge on them. I can think of a half-dozen reasons why someone would agree with a liberal philosophy–some, yes, based on power-lust; but some of them well-intentioned. I’d point you to West Wing as a liberal vision that has the intention of being benevolent and is often actually inspiring in terms of what individuals can do. That vision would be disaster in practice, but that’s a different story.
Randal,
“freedom”
You bet. But not when it limits freedom. WTF you say? I think this is because you have a poor grasp on sociopathy (I explain my experiences below). I also hoped that my first comment about muskets and missles would have been clearer. IMO, true liberalism is (among other things) a continuous search and struggle to maximize freedom for all. Classical liberalism was a good solution for its time, but how would Rand deal with Iran or N.Korea today? In good times with few enemies, threats, issues… max freedom is probably the way to go. In difficult times, an Eisenhower or Obama is needed (IMO, temporarily, to fix messes and build for the future). Smart, pragmatic, flexible governance is ideal, anything else leads to imbalances and festering issues.
——-
Now, that’s a controversial statement in itself, but seriously, outside of television, who wakes up in the morning and says, “I think I’ll go be evil today.â€
A remote few. Instead, they think: “I’m going from point A to point B today, and if anybody weak or irrelevant gets in my way I’m stepping on them.“
——-
But have you really ever met someone who consciously acted under the premise that they were being evil?
Six times throughout my 50 years, three times in business, I have had to deal with people who would test quite highly on Robert Hare’s PCL-R.
——-
The most evil man I have known was obsessed with doing good things for people.
The most evil woman I knew wore the mask of friendliness, of doing good things for our company. In reality, her act was a ruse. She was selfish to the point of moral insanity. After being lured into working for her (as my “friendâ€) she attempted to use me as a ratsnitch, a scarecrow, a dirtywork scapegoat. I politely refused, each time, informing her that I was much more useful to her with my creative solutions and efficient work production, than playing dirty office politics. She then stole and took full credit for my ideas, and began to smear my character. I was at work every single day, 10 hours a day, working my ass off. She was relatively unsupervised (it was an odd shift time) and was rarely ever in the office. She spent much time with her #1 (an attractive male), and rumors were quietly circulating about their sexual liaison. After several firings/smearings of innocent peers, I found the tension unbearable and had to quit that company to escape. She then poisoned the ground behind me and maintains character smears against me to this day, 15 years later. I’ve discussed this with some of her other victims. My sin: being a naïve workerbee. She was a machiavellian sociopath.
——-
People need to feel justified. Evil people have serious doubts when they stop to think, and, Rand’s point, the only people who can calm those doubts are the people that otherwise would be recognized as victims.
Normal people use defense mechanisms. Sociopaths don’t need them. They know they’re hurting others, they just don’t care. The smart ones are good at covering their tracks as well.
——–
Maha’s got it:
We are social creatures who depend on each other and live for each other, whether we like it or not. Civilization may have come up with ways to make the interdependence impersonal, but we are still interdependent. Individual humans, isolated from other humans and from civilization, do not survive well.
We’re not cats, we’re not ants, we’re not even all that similar to the highly specialized Neanderthal. We’re humans.
Maha, your central objection to Rand’s political philosophy seems to be a difference in your and her view of man’s ability to survive by himself.
My central objection is that human beings live for and depend on each other. That’s the truth of humanity. The kind of absolute individualism Rand proposed may look good in a dissertation, and I know that she thought it all out in great detail, but it’s still crap. It’s crap because it denies the essential nature of our species.
We are not hermetically sealed, autonomous units. Our society is part of who we are. Our self-identify comes as much from other people and our place in the social order as it does from ourselves. Whatever it is that gives us satisfaction, a sense of self-worth, a personal meaning, comes from our relationships with others — what we give to them and what we receive from them. To say otherwise is a denial of reality.
Her idea that humans at their core are rational beings also is wrong. We are many layers of things, many of which are beneath our conscious awareness, and reason is only a small part of those layers. Most of us are perpetually being jerked around by our emotions, fears, likes and dislikes. It takes a great deal of self-awareness and discipline to live genuinely rational lives. Very few people achieve that. From an objective look at her life story, I do not believe that Rand achieved it. She seems to have been as jerked around by herself as anyone ever was.
Individuality is important, but civilization itself is a grand collective enterprise to which we all give and from which we all receive. There’s nothing wrong with that. On the contrary; it’s glorious. It’s also important to honor individuality. Balance is critical. A society that diminishes individuality becomes oppressive and stagnant. But in recent decades America has swung way too far in the direction of absolute individualism to the detriment of society and civilization, and it’s one of the reasons the nation is screwed up.
Great comment ,Maha. And this statement:” It’s crap because it denies the essential nature of our species.” can also be applied to the abstinence only argument.
Thank you for the conversation, everyone. At this point, I feel I’ve said 90% of what I have to say and would just be repeating myself. Beside, I am defending the views of someone who has stated her arguments and observations clearly in print elsewhere.
Regards,
Randal
I have to give credit to Randal for at least writing on topic, in complete sentences, and knowing when the argument had run its course. You don’t see that often.
I have to say, it was sad to see an annoying Richard Dawkins come out in response to Midgley’s article. But it was heartening to see others argue with him, so that was at least good. Dawkins is another person who, like Rand, has a flock of thoroughly idiotic followers who will come out and relentlessly post comments on any article critiquing him.
Ack–not an “annoying Richard Dawkins,” but rather an annoying Richard Dawkins FANBOY.
Dawkins himself did not comment, so far as I’m aware.