Or, Why Ayn Rand is a Douche, Part II

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=359972


I just read this article on Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

which included some pretty crazy stuff, including:

Quote :

"She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness." She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough.""

Quote :

"As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people who believed she had found the One Objective Truth about the world. They were required to memorize her novels and slapped down as "imbecilic" and "anti-life" by Rand if they asked questions. One student said: "There was a right kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we should not buy." Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me."

I've never read her books. I hear they're stupendously boring, and they seem to transform people into giant douches.

I was curious, though; am I out of the loop? Is this side of her common knowledge? Do the people who cite Rand as an intellectual influence buy into all of the above craziness?

11/4/2009 12:26:23 PM

I read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged for class and participated in the discussions.

Personally I think she is mostly batshit crazy, with a sparse sprinkling of good ideas diluted with idealistic naivety.

From my observations in the class discussions, how much you agree with Rand depends largely on how narcissistic and self-important you believe yourself to be.

11/4/2009 12:58:49 PM

Quote :

"I've never read her books. I hear they're stupendously boring, and they seem to transform people into giant douches."

Reading a book does not transform anyone into a giant douche. I didn't find The Fountainhead to be boring.

Quote :

"I was curious, though; am I out of the loop? Is this side of her common knowledge? Do the people who cite Rand as an intellectual influence buy into all of the above craziness?"

I don't know much about Rand's personal background, nor do I care. I can still read her books, take from them what I can, and reflect on what I've learned. It doesn't mean I have to fully embrace objectivism. It's just an ideal. It's the concept that staying true to your own principles and convictions is preferable to conforming to the expectations of others without actually experiencing an internal shift in understanding.

In other words, if you concede a point without actually changing your mind, out of a desire to "go with the flow," that isn't an admirable thing. Of course, in human relationships, it isn't always in your best interests to adhere to your principles. Sometimes, you have to compromise for the sake of maintaining civility. That's reality, and I don't think anyone is capable of living up to the standard that Rand establishes.

The whole thing about listening to the right music/dancing the right way/etc seems to conflict with what (I would think) Ayn Rand stood for. Why would you ever listen to some music you don't like simply because another person told you to? You should listen to the music that you like. There is no objective "best music." It just depends on the person. In that way, it seems like Rand strayed from her ideals, or at least her cult following did.

11/4/2009 12:59:54 PM

Alan Greenspan wrote about his experience as a member of her cult, and it didn't seem that bad. He repeatedly disagreed with her and was never ostracized or punished in any way. Although it was clear she was a bit too into her life's work, he never gave the impression she lost touch with reality.

I read Atlas Shrugged and while it was terribly written, the story was fun and teaches a good lesson on the danger of good intentions. And the lesson was not really unprecedented, it was little more than a rehashing of the Great Depression only without the Supreme Court or WW2.

11/4/2009 1:13:35 PM

Quote :

"She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings."

Sigh when the fuck will people stop reading this into Nietzsche. Rand hijacked the philosophy; she did not extend it.

11/4/2009 1:29:49 PM

she was no more crazy than Karl Marx

11/4/2009 1:51:17 PM

Quote :

"she was no more crazy than Karl Marx"

Hey neat a Marx scholar

11/4/2009 1:56:09 PM

While I don't think Karl Marx was particularly crazy, I do think that McDanger's standards for expertise on the wolfweb are unrealistically high, perhaps to the point of being crazy. Like, Ayn Rand crazy.

11/4/2009 2:04:23 PM

Let's discuss Marx without reading Marx

Let's analyze data without knowing how to

INTERNETTTTT

11/4/2009 2:06:21 PM

Difference between "reading Marx" and "being a Marx scholar"

11/4/2009 2:37:47 PM

I'd place some money that this guy hasn't read or understood Marx

I'd place a smaller sum of money on the fact that he has read only a quote here or there and can recall none of them

11/4/2009 2:46:49 PM

I'd place a good sum that you haven't absorbed the basic concepts of human civility.

11/4/2009 2:56:32 PM

for the record, I have read both Rand and Marx's work

11/4/2009 3:05:36 PM

i'm curious if there is anyone who read atlas shrugged and didn't think "jesus christ i get it, i still have how many more pages of this?"

11/4/2009 3:43:32 PM

Quote :

"I've never read her books. I hear they're stupendously boring, and they seem to transform people into giant douches."

I'm confused, Boone.

What book did you read to transform yourself then?

11/4/2009 3:53:13 PM

Quote :

"I'd place a good sum that you haven't absorbed the basic concepts of human civility."

just another poster to swing from my dick on this website

Quote :

"for the record, I have read both Rand and Marx's work"

yeah oh boy that marx he sure was crazy and raving

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 3:57:56 PM

I know you want to be taken somewhat seriously

it's very hard to do that given your childishness

11/4/2009 4:02:01 PM

^^ Have you ever made a post--or a thread, for that matter--that was successful in any way?

11/4/2009 4:03:27 PM

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged once, found it -- in Boone's words -- stupendously boring, and never bothered again.

I've red up at least some on Objectivism and can't stand it, just as I can't stand any philosophy that (even if only at face value) seems to call for the extinction of the human race.

11/4/2009 4:07:20 PM

Quote :

"^^ Have you ever made a post--or a thread, for that matter--that was successful in any way?"

lol "successful posts"

Quote :

"I know you want to be taken somewhat seriously"

lol you think i give a shit what YOU PEOPLE think

i post here for my own enjoyment and to see idiots' blood pressure shoot through the roof (exhibit a: hooksaw)

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 4:09:54 PM

yeah, that's kind of sad

11/4/2009 4:12:26 PM

^^Your approach to TSB is very Randian, it would seem.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 4:13:40 PM

Quote :

"yeah, that's kind of sad"

more or less sad than fishing for validation on this site and whining in entertainment about how directors aren't making YOUR SCI FI right?

11/4/2009 4:15:45 PM

more, very much so

11/4/2009 4:20:50 PM

anyway i look forward to the next time you see my name and rush to

11/4/2009 4:23:11 PM

like now?

11/4/2009 4:23:35 PM

Quote :

"Do the people who cite Rand as an intellectual influence buy into all of the above craziness?"

Do you even need to ask this question? Of course not every person.

11/4/2009 4:26:01 PM

Quote :

"lol 'successful posts'"

McDouche aka Captain Logic

So you admit that your posts are unsuccessful? QED.

:smug:

11/4/2009 4:40:11 PM

What the hell are you blathering on about? Get lost you limp little prick.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 4:42:30 PM

^ Fuck you, boy.

11/4/2009 4:46:36 PM

"Successful posts"

11/4/2009 4:48:17 PM

Quote :

"So you admit that your posts are unsuccessful? QED. :smug:"

11/4/2009 4:48:57 PM

This thread is well on its way to getting locked.

11/4/2009 4:50:44 PM

Let the market decide.

11/4/2009 4:56:19 PM

Quote :

"she is mostly batshit crazy, with a sparse sprinkling of good ideas diluted with idealistic naivety."

this.

11/4/2009 4:58:57 PM

Most of her good ideas are lifted from others (see: Nietzsche)

11/4/2009 5:01:13 PM

Quote :

"lol "successful posts""

asfdsa

Quote :

"asdf"

link



---------

I think that's what he means.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : x]

11/4/2009 5:17:33 PM

Quote :

"Most of her good ideas are lifted from others (see: Nietzsche)"

and this makes her different from anyone else in the last 100 years how?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 5:23 PM. Reason : 100]

11/4/2009 5:23:30 PM

who said it did

11/4/2009 5:46:30 PM

then whats the purpose of pointing out that she, or anyone else, took ideas from others

Hey don't you love Obama's ideas about how to help the country?

They're not his ideas, he lifted them from others

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 5:53:37 PM

If you want to save about 2400 pages just read Anthem.

Some of Rand's philosophy was ok and I agree with bits of it, but she was mostly self absorbed and boring. Her novels are about as subtle as a kick in the face and about as enjoyable.

Marx was just completely wrong about humanity's basic nature and possibly even more naive than Rand.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 10:57 PM. Reason : possesive.]

11/4/2009 10:47:05 PM

Quote :

"Marx was just completely wrong about humanities basic nature"

For example?

11/4/2009 10:49:02 PM

Have you ever read the communist manifesto?

The idea that people will willingly work for others and against their own self interest is laughable. The fact that it fails when applied to large groups makes it a pretty poor choice for an economic model, and the fact that it can only be maintained by force when applied on a large scale are pretty readily apparent. It's a pie in the sky idea.

Look, communism is a nice idea in theory if you would happily work 16 hours a day while I work 0 and we both receive the same benefit. However, since you can't find more than a handful of folks like that it pretty quickly falls apart.

11/4/2009 10:56:43 PM

Quote :

"Marx was just completely wrong about humanity's basic nature and possibly even more naive than Rand."

I wouldn't call Rand's philosophy naive. People really are selfish, by nature. Yeah, yeah, I know - "love," being completely selfless, etc. People do good things for other people because they like making the other person feel good. You gain satisfaction out of doing something for that person. I don't know anyone that doesn't do things for entirely selfish reasons, when you get down to brass tacks.

11/4/2009 11:13:01 PM

Quote :

"The idea that people will willingly work for others and against their own self interest is laughable. "

Where in the Communist Manifesto is this idea put forth?

In fact, could one not easily argue that the system you describe is exactly the type of system Marx hoped Communism would replace?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 11:14:49 PM

The part about from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I'm not going to sit here and hash out why communism is centrally flawed. When you choose to ignore things like utility and value your economic theory has major holes.

11/4/2009 11:22:01 PM

Yes, Marx did want to replace serfdom. However he wanted to replace serfdom with something even shittier.

11/4/2009 11:27:08 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't call Rand's philosophy naive. People really are selfish, by nature. Yeah, yeah, I know - "love," being completely selfless, etc. People do good things for other people because they like making the other person feel good. You gain satisfaction out of doing something for that person. I don't know anyone that doesn't do things for entirely selfish reasons, when you get down to brass tacks."

Naive may have been a poor choice of words, perhaps blinded by idealism would be more accurate.

11/4/2009 11:29:48 PM

So, are you suggesting that human nature can be defined soley as materialism, and that empathy has no natural place in the human psyche? Is the satisfaction of the latter impulse not, in fact, a benefit to one's self interest?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 11:30:30 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't call Rand's philosophy naive. People really are selfish, by nature. Yeah, yeah, I know - "love," being completely selfless, etc. People do good things for other people because they like making the other person feel good. You gain satisfaction out of doing something for that person. I don't know anyone that doesn't do things for entirely selfish reasons, when you get down to brass tacks. "

Everything is "selfish" when you get down to it, because we biologically can't work any other way. But this is not the kind of selfishness Rand means.

The naivete with Randian philosophy is that in order for her world to work as she describes, everyone MUST be selfish in a particular way, or you get what we have now (semi-oligarchy, which is something Rand would accept, if the ruling class where her brand of "intellectuals").

Any philosophy that demands that everyone be a certain way, whether it be Communism or whatever Rand wants, is naive. Neither humans nor the world actually works that way.

Marx, like Rand, did make some valid observations though, one of which sticks out in my mind the most being that oppressed people will eventually rebel.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 11:32:21 PM