Objectivism = adolescence?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

You and I are probably splitting hairs at this point.

The "fair market price" between person A and person B might be different than the "fair market price" between person A and person C. If I want to buy your product and you charge me $50, knowing that I will pay it, that is what you will charge. If Donald Trump wants to buy your product and is willing to pay $50,000 for it, then why shouldn't you charge him that price?

Anyway...like I said we are probably splitting hairs.

[Zarathustra]

As a Rush fan (the band) and a Libertarian, I'm really surprised that I haven't read a single Rand book. Heck, my wife is even named for a Rand character (from We The Living).

I'm not qualified to defend Rand, because I don't know enough about her works. But I do think most of the people who call her beliefs "fake philosophy" have never taken a philosophy course in their life, and couldn't tell you what the criteria are which distinguish "real philosophy" from "fake philosophy," even if there really is such a distinction.

You can take just about any belief system and make a caricature of it. You can even make them all sound childish. Take liberalism. It pretends to be based on altruistism, but most of the people who support it don't pay any income tax. It's easy to be "altruistic" with other people's money. Especially when you are the beneficiary of the altruism which you advocate. Most people wouldn't even call that altruism. They'd call it what it is: selfishness, dependency, and laziness. Gee, what other class of human exhibits these characteristics? What class of human whines about things being "unfair," wants an authority figure to take care of them, thinks that you can force people to be Good from the top-down, doesn't pull his/her own weight in society, thinks that intentions are more important than results, and is hyper-concerned about everyone being Equal in all aspects of their lives, and gets really upset/jealous/spiteful if someone else has more than them?

Children, perhaps?

I could even sum all that up on a napkin, too.

.. the further philosophers get away from Christianity ... the less objective truth they ever arrive at (which is, uh, the point of philosophy)

No, that's not the point of philosophy. There are entire branches of philosphy, entire schools of philosphical thought, which directly contradict your naive statement. Idealism, relativism, subjectivism, post modernism, solipsism, subjective idealism, monistic idealism, phenomenalism, logical positivism, existentialism, etc., etc. I don't know where you get your ideas about philosophy, but it's certainly not from a rigorous study of the history of philosophy.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I like Ms. Rand but I would never claim to be a devout follower of hers. She was simply a product of her childhood and the times--if you grew up in Stalinist Russia you wouldn't like socialism, either. She was also anti-soybean and pro-smoking, both of which come out in Atlas Shrugged.

[Vraith]

and pro-smoking, both of which come out in Atlas Shrugged.

I actually kinda liked her metaphor there, the symbolic connection of holding fire between your fingers and her ideas.

Z--you should at least read Atlas. I suspect that you'd like it a lot in theory/concept [based on your philosophy/politics posts]...but probably have issues with the writing/structure itself, especially the last couple hundred pages [based on some of what you really hated about AATE, oddly].
FWIW, I recognize both strengths and weakness in her philosophy...but what bugs me is her non-fiction: Among other things...it isn't really hers. All of her ideas came from elsewhere, which is fine...we all have sources/inspirations...but she didn't do anything new with them, refine them, elucidate them in unique ways.
She's a decent map-maker, but not at all an explorer. She'd have been better off staying with the fiction.

[Zahir]

We face several issues in dealing with Ayn Rand's philosophy and works.

One is that her premises are inherently flawed. For example, she openly states there is no such thing as a conflict of interest. Well, that is bullocks, and if you ever want to read a piece of bald faced sophistry just look up her explanation of why. In a nutshell, she claims no rational person would ever want to succeed against anyone superior to themselves. That even under the most perfect circumstances people will disagree about such things she simply dismisses. Really.

Her philosophy is full of such errors, totally ignoring things like paradox, intuition and frankly rather a lot of individuality. Ironic, huh?

But more tellingly, you run up against Ayn Rand herself. She stamped her philosophy and its followers with her own personality more strongly than Gandhi did nonviolence. When confronted with any disagreement, her reaction-of-choice was shrill condemnation. She talked down to people. Her reactions and judgments were sweeping as well as often arbitrary and (too often) cruel (read Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand to get some taste of that).

Let us be fair--she was also intellectually brilliant, extremely talented (We The Living and The Fountainhead can be very compelling works, as can Anthem) and fiercely loyal to some very ethical ideas--like personal freedom, the supreme value of every individual life and the vileness of all forms of bigotry.

But--hers was fundamentally an unexamined life. You look at her eyes and what you see are the equivalent of laser beams. Powerful. Projecting. But not deep. Even when she caught herself making a terrible mistake (like her smug presumption that scientific data about a link between cigarettes and cancer was flawed--until she got lung cancer) she would not admit it (although she did stop smoking--cold turkey and on the spot no less). Likewise she began second-guessing her writing more and more, eventually making it impossible for her to even read something for enjoyment. The best part of The Fountainhead she cut out, while calling the most emotionally moving section of the book "an indulgence" she shouldn't have kept (although reader after reader praised that little section--to her baffled surprise).

These character flaws almost flowed by osmosis into Objectivists in general. But maybe any ideology that worships the idea of an Elite who have all the answers and should be allowed to do whatever they want (that isn't quite her idea, but in practice that is how comes out) would attract very bright, arrogant people positive they've "figured out" everything. No surprise their Utopia consists of a meritocracy where they are on top. They talk down to the rest of us. They utter sweeping, wild judgments of things worthy of Ann Coulter or Glen Beck (although Rand would have despised those two as anti-intellectual frauds and hooligans).

Sooner or later I'll probably see this movie Atlas Shrugged. The trailer did not impress me.

But I must say making fun of Ayn Rand and Objectivism (or simply dismissing both with name-calling) isn't really an answer to them--which is sad because erzatz versions of her ideas are fuelling a bunch of public discourse these days.

[Zarathustra]

One thing I've noticed about Rand critics is how often their attacks focus on her personality and so-called "character flaws." The notion that such character flaws flow like "osmosis" to her followers is to multiply one ad hominem indefinitely (not to mention introducing the bizarre concept of character flaws flowing from one person to another--a concept which depends on a lack of personal responsibility which Rand herself would probably criticize).

You look at her eyes and what you see are the equivalent of laser beams. Powerful. Projecting. But not deep.

What does this have to do with her philosophy? Can you tell me what Plato's eyes looked like? Or what that has to do with his ideas? You might as well talk about her tits, and how they sagged with disdain and futile contempt for gravity. It's irrelevant.

Likewise she began second-guessing her writing more and more, eventually making it impossible for her to even read something for enjoyment.

You want to know some other people who came to later second guess their own writings? How about Wittgenstein, Russell, Husserl, Einstein ... or just about anyone who has ever owned an eraser. So what?

You said she wasn't self-relfective, that hers was an "unexamined life," in your words. How can she not be self-reflective if she's critical of her own writings? Your criticisms are contradictory.

The bulk of your post is barely more than a character assassination and spiteful ad homimen attack.

For example, she openly states there is no such thing as a conflict of interest. Well, that is bullocks, and if you ever want to read a piece of bald faced sophistry just look up her explanation of why. In a nutshell, she claims no rational person would ever want to succeed against anyone superior to themselves. That even under the most perfect circumstances people will disagree about such things she simply dismisses. Really.

This one place in your post where you make a brief attempt at addressing her on a substantive level, you entirely mischaracterize her argument (the danger of nutshells and napkin summaries). Above I admitted an unfamiliarity with her work, but a quick Google search returned this:

The "Conflict" of Men's Interests

By Ayn Rand

Some students of Objectivism find it difficult to grasp the Objectivist principle that “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men.”

A typical question runs as follows: “Suppose two men apply for the same job. Only one of them can be hired. Isn’t this an instance of a conflict of interests, and isn’t the benefit of one man achieved at the price of the sacrifice of the other?”

There are four interrelated considerations which are involved in a rational man’s view of his interests, but which are ignored or evaded in the above question and in all similar approaches to the issue. I shall designate these four as: (a) “Reality,” (b) “Context,” (c) “Responsibility,” (d) “Effort.”

(a) Reality. The term “interests” is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of man’s values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality. A man’s “interests” depend on the kind of goals he chooses to pursue, his choice of goals depends on his desires, his desires depend on his values—and, for a rational man, his values depend on the judgment of his mind.

Desires (or feelings or emotions or wishes or whims) are not tools of cognition; they are not a valid standard of value, nor a valid criterion of man’s interests. The mere fact that a man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good, nor that its achievement is actually to his interest.

To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his frustrated—is to hold a subjectivist view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not. Which means: to hold an irrational or mystical view of existence. Which means: to deserve no further consideration.

In choosing his goals (the specific values he seeks to gain and/or keep), a rational man is guided by his thinking (by a process of reason)—not by his feelings or desires. He does not regard desires as irreducible primaries, as the given, which he is destined irresistibly to pursue. He does not regard “because I want it” or “because I feel like it” as a sufficient cause and validation of his actions. He chooses and/or identifies his desires by a process of reason, and he does not act to achieve a desire until and unless he is able rationally to validate it in the full context of his knowledge and of his other values and goals. He does not act until he is able to say: “I want it because it is right.”

The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest.

Only an irrationalist (or mystic or subjectivist—in which category I place all those who regard faith, feelings or desires as man’s standard of value) exists in a perpetual conflict of “interests.” Not only do his alleged interests clash with those of other men, but they clash also with one another.

No one finds it difficult to dismiss from philosophical consideration the problem of a man who wails that life entraps him in an irreconcilable conflict because he cannot eat his cake and have it, too. That problem does not acquire intellectual validity by being expanded to involve more than cake—whether one expands it to the whole universe, as in the doctrines of Existentialism, or only to a few random whims and evasions, as in most people’s views of their interests.

When a person reaches the stage of claiming that man’s interests conflict with reality, the concept “interests” ceases to be meaningful—and his problem ceases to be philosophical and becomes psychological.

(b) Context. Just as a rational man does not hold any conviction out of context—that is: without relating it to the rest of his knowledge and resolving any possible contradictions—so he does not hold or pursue any desire out of context. And he does not judge what is or is not to his interest out of context, on the range of any given moment.

Context-dropping is one of the chief psychological tools of evasion. In regard to one’s desires, there are two major ways of context-dropping: the issues of range and of means.

A rational man sees his interests in terms of a lifetime and selects his goals accordingly. This does not mean that he has to be omniscient, infallible or clairvoyant. It means that he does not live his life short-range and does not drift like a bum pushed by the spur of the moment. It means that he does not regard any moment as cut off from the context of the rest of his life, and that he allows no conflicts or contradictions between his short-range and long-range interests. He does not become his own destroyer by pursuing a desire today which wipes out all his values tomorrow.

A rational man does not indulge in wistful longings for ends divorced from means. He does not hold a desire without knowing (or learning) and considering the means by which it is to be achieved. Since he knows that nature does not provide man with the automatic satisfaction of his desires, that a man’s goals or values have to be achieved by his own effort, that the lives and efforts of other men are not his property and are not there to serve his wishes—a rational man never holds a desire or pursues a goal which cannot be achieved directly or indirectly by his own effort.

It is with a proper understanding of this “indirectly” that the crucial social issue begins.

Living in a society, instead of on a desert island, does not relieve a man of the responsibility of supporting his own life. The only difference is that he supports his life by trading his products or services for the products or services of others. And, in this process of trade, a rational man does not seek or desire any more or any less than his own effort can earn. What determines his earnings? The free market, that is: the voluntary choice and judgment of the men who are willing to trade him their effort in return.

When a man trades with others, he is counting—explicitly or implicitly—on their rationality, that is: on their ability to recognize the objective value of his work. (A trade based on any other premise is a con game or a fraud.) Thus, when a rational man pursues a goal in a free society, he does not place himself at the mercy of whims, the favors or the prejudices of others; he depends on nothing but his own effort: directly, by doing objectively valuable work—indirectly, through the objective evaluation of his work by others.

It is in this sense that a rational man never holds a desire or pursues a goal which cannot be achieved by his own effort. He trades value for value. He never seeks or desires the unearned. If he undertakes to achieve a goal that requires the cooperation of many people, he never counts on anything but his own ability to persuade them and their voluntary agreement.

Needless to say, a rational man never distorts or corrupts his own standards and judgment in order to appeal to the irrationality, stupidity or dishonesty of others. He knows that such a course is suicidal. He knows that one’s only practical chance to achieve any degree of success or anything humanly desirable lies in dealing with those who are rational, whether there are many of them or few. If, in any given set of circumstances, any victory is possible at all, it is only reason that can win it. And, in a free society, no matter how hard the struggle might be, it is reason that ultimately wins.

Since he never drops the context of the issues he deals with, a rational man accepts that struggle as to his interest—because he knows that freedom is to his interest. He knows that the struggle to achieve his values includes the possibility of defeat. He knows also that there is no alternative and no automatic guarantee of success for man’s effort, neither in dealing with nature nor with other men. So he does not judge his interests by any particular defeat nor by the range of any particular moment. He lives and judges long-range. And he assumes the full responsibility of knowing what conditions are necessary for the achievement of his goals.

(c) Responsibility. This last is the particular form of intellectual responsibility that most people evade. That evasion is the major cause of their frustrations and defeats.

Most people hold their desires without any context whatever, as ends hanging in a foggy vacuum, the fog hiding any concept of means. They rouse themselves mentally only long enough to utter an “I wish,” and stop there, and wait, as if the rest were up to some unknown power.

What they evade is the responsibility of judging the social world. They take the world as the given. “A world I never made” is the deepest essence of their attitude—and they seek only to adjust themselves uncritically to the incomprehensible requirements of those unknowable others who did make the world, whoever those might be.

But humility and presumptuousness are two sides of same psychological medal. In the willingness to throw oneself blindly on the mercy of others there is the implicit privilege of making blind demands on one’s masters.

There are countless ways in which this sort of “metaphysical humility” reveals itself. For instance, there is the man who wishes to be rich, but never thinks of discovering what means, actions and conditions are required to achieve wealth. Who is he to judge? He never made the world—and “nobody gave him a break.”

There is the girl who wishes to be loved, but never thinks of discovering what love is, what values it requires, and whether she possesses any virtues to be loved for. Who is she to judge? Love, she feels, is an inexplicable favor—so she merely longs for it, feeling that somebody has deprived her of her share in the distribution of favors.

There are the parents who suffer deeply and genuinely, because their son (or daughter) does not love them, and who, simultaneously, ignore, oppose or attempt to destroy everything they know of their son’s convictions, values and goals, never thinking of the connection between these two facts, never making an attempt to understand their son. The world they never made and dare not challenge, has told them that children love parents automatically.

There is the man who wants a job, but never thinks of discovering what qualifications the job requires or what constitutes doing one’s work well. Who is he to judge? He never made the world. Somebody owes him a living. How? Somehow.

A European architect of my acquaintance was talking, one day, of his trip to Puerto Rico. He described—with great indignation at the universe at large—the squalor of the Puerto Ricans’ living conditions. Then he described what wonders modern housing could do for them, which he had daydreamed in detail, including electric refrigerators and tiled bathrooms. I asked: “Who would pay for it?” He answered, in a faintly offended, almost huffy tone of voice: “Oh, that’s not for me to worry about! An architect’s task is only to project what should be done. Let somebody else think about the money.”

That is the psychology from which all “social reforms” or “welfare states” or “noble experiments” or the destruction of the world have come.

In dropping the responsibility for one’s own interests and life, one drops the responsibility of ever having to consider the interests and lives of others—of those others who are, somehow, to provide the satisfaction of one’s desires.

Whoever allows a “somehow” into his view of the means by which his desires are to be achieved, is guilty of that “metaphysical humility” which, psychologically, is the premise of a parasite. As Nathaniel Branden pointed out in a lecture, “somehow” always means “someone.”

(d) Effort. Since a rational man knows that man must achieve his goals by his own effort, he knows that neither wealth nor jobs nor any human values exist in a given, limited, static quantity, waiting to be divided. He knows that all benefits have to be produced, that the gain of one man does not represent the loss of another, that a man’s achievement is not earned at the expense of those who have not achieved it.

Therefore, he never imagines that he has any sort of unearned, unilateral claim on any human being—and he never leaves his interests at the mercy of any one person or single, specific concrete. He may need clients, but not any one particular customer—he may need a job, but not any one particular job.

If he encounters competition, he either meets it or chooses another line of work. There is no job so slow that a better, more skillful performance of it would pass unnoticed and unappreciated; not in a free society. Ask any office manager.

It is only the passive, parasitical representatives of the “humility metaphysics” school who regard any competitor as a threat, because the thought of earning one’s position by personal merit is not part of their view of life. They regard themselves as interchangeable mediocrities who have nothing to offer and who fight, in a “static” universe, for someone’s causeless favor.

A rational man knows that one does not live by means of “luck,” “breaks” or favors, that there is no such thing as an “only chance” or a single opportunity, and that this is guaranteed precisely by the existence of competition. He does not regard any concrete, specific goal or value as irreplaceable. He knows that only persons are irreplaceable—only those one loves.

He knows also that there are no conflicts of interests among rational men even in the issue of love. Like any other value, love is not a static quantity to be divided, but an unlimited response to be earned. The love for one friend is not a threat to the love for another, and neither is the love for the various members of one’s family, assuming they have earned it. The most exclusive form—romantic love—is not an issue of competition. If two men are in love with the same woman, what she feels for either of them is not determined by what she feels for the other and is not taken away from him. If she chooses one of them, the “loser” could not have had what the “winner” has earned.

It is only among the irrational, emotion-motivated persons, whose love is divorced from any standards of value, that chance rivalries, accidental conflicts and blind choices prevail. But then, whoever wins does not win much. Among the emotion-driven, neither love nor any other emotion has any meaning.

Such, in brief essence, are the four major considerations involved in a rational man’s view of his interests.

Now let us return to the question originally asked—about the two men applying for the same job—and observe in what manner it ignores or opposes these four considerations.

(a) Reality. The mere fact that two men desire the same job does not constitute proof that either of them is entitled to it or deserves it, and that his interests are damaged if he does not obtain it.

(b) Context. Both men should know that if they desire a job, their goal is made possibly only by the existence of a business concern able to provide employment—that that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job—that if only one applicant existed, he would not obtain the job, because the business concern would have to close its doors—and that their competition for the job is to their interest, even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter.

(c) Responsibility. Neither man has the moral right to declare that he doesn’t want to consider all those things, he just wants a job. He is not entitled to any desire or to any “interest” without knowledge of what is required to make its fulfillment possible.

(d) Effort. Whoever gets the job, has earned it (assuming that the employer’s choice is rational). This benefit is due to his own merit—not to the “sacrifice” of the other man who never had any vested right to that job. The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as “sacrificing his interests.”

All of the above discussion applies only to the relationship among rational men and only to a free society. In a free society, one does not have to deal with those who are irrational. One is free to avoid them.

In a nonfree society, no pursuit of any interests is possible to anyone; nothing is possible but gradual and general destruction.

link

Nowhere does she say that people won't disagree or that people won't find themselves pitted against each other in competition. She is talking about a rational way to view such competition as mutually beneficial. Basically, she's saying that a free market is not a zero-sum game, that one man's gain does not imply another man's loss. (Check out game theory.) She is also redefining "interest" away from the common sense (i.e. emotional, irrational) view of the word. That is something that philosophers do quite often. If you don't take the time to learn exactly what the philosopher means by the word, you will completely miss the point.

Now, there are plenty of ways you could criticize her explanation which don't rely on misreading or oversimplifying her. For instance, she places too high regard on rationality (to the exclusion of valid human emotions), naively assumes a too-clear division between "objective" and "subjective," and mischaracterizes decisions which are merely reasonable as strictly rational. But given the fact that she includes all these flaws within her redefining of "interest," her own defense of her terms is at least self-consistent. In the very specific way she means "conflict of interest," she is correct that it does not exist if people behaved "rationally" (given her meaning for "rational"). As such, conflicts of interests--which she does admit actually exist--represent failures of taking a rational approach to one's goals (omitting the context, reality, effort, and responsibility inherent to achieving one's goals). Even the word "goal" is redefined here to mean something that is both possible and obtainable by your own effort. If your goals are unrealistic and impossible to obtain by your own effort, then she'd claim it's an irrational goal. And as such, any conflicts of interest you might encounter in trying to fulfill this goal are created by your own unwillingness to rationally face reality.

Basically, she has constructed a tautology by redefining the words within the sentence in question (i.e. “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men”) to fit her view of how society should function. If you don't use the words in the context which she intends, you are guilty of the very fallacies which she lays out in her defense (i.e. using words like "goal" and "interest" in such a way that irrational behavior is retained in their meanings).

[Orlion]

To agree with the first part of Z's post, I find people do think that attacking Rand's personality is somehow an attack on her philosophy. A simple reflection on current events will show that that shouldn't be the case. For example, just because a Catholic Priest molests boys doesn't mean that his message on Sunday about service to your fellow man is wrong. It simply means, at most, the guy is a hypocrite.

Transition phrase!

Now the main problem with "objectivism" is that there are two schools of thought on the matter: one, The Ayn Rand Institute, I believe, views Ayn Rand as a sort of prophet with her books being scripture. They believe Rand developed objectivism fully. The other (I don't recall the name) believes that it can still be developed, and that Ayn Rand had it wrong on a few points (like saying that Objectivism rejects homosexuality).

[Fist and Faith]

Anybody ever read Richard Bach's Illusions? Great book! I love it. Love the wisdom in it. But I've never heard anyone complain that we can't really walk through walls; make clouds disappear with our minds; produce a pilot license out of thin air; or any of the other things that happen in the book.

I view Atlas Shrugged the same way. It's a story about various ways of thinking and viewing life, set in the railroad industry. No, all of the elite thinkers and producers will not be moral paragons. No to this issue, No to that issue.

But those who produce something should control that thing. How does anyone claim it's theirs more than it is mine??

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Thank you for the link, Z.

I agree--many of Rand's followers, even today, try to live their life based on her philosophy and follow her teachings a little too blindly. On the other hand, at least her philsophy isn't destructive so those people are doing anything "wrong", per se.

I do believe that if more people lived life a little more Objectively (notice the capital O there) that the world would probably be in a better state.

If you don't like Objectivism, though, then ignore it rather than criticizing it. The surest way to waste your own energy is to try and convince someone that their philosophy is incorrect.

[Zahir]

You can call my post an ad hominem attack if you like, but I was making a point (or trying to) about how certain ideas are presented.

Rand set a tone, and she insisted upon that tone to the point where the majority of Objectivist writing by anyone during her lifetime matched it--strident, holier-than-thou, extremely judgmental. In tone (although not in content) she resembled Ann Coulter. What she evidently could not see was how unsuccessful such a tone ends up when it comes to communicating or persuading. Maybe she did and couldn't help herself. Or perhaps she wanted those who responded to such (frankly, references to her "cult" I believe stem from the manner of how Objectivists generally responded to Rand herself and how she to some degree treated them--including the equivalent of excommunication for disagreeing with her). Her methods tended to attract a certain type of person, one with a very narrow focus on the world and a willingness to treat Rand as an ultimate authority on all really important questions. Did she consciously desire such an outcome? I think not. But her manner insured that result, and frankly tainted her ideas--not least because she generally refused to be challenged.

I stand by my words about her writing, which grew correspondingly better and worse with time. Technically she became a more skilled teller of tales, but increasingly shunned her own intuitions. Read the deleted sections of The Fountainhead to see what I mean. Howard Roark in earlier drafts was a much more real human being instead of an idealized paragon. But her evident desire for ideological purity, seeing art as propaganda, put a monkey wrench into her own (really impressive) talent. The final result of that was Atlas Shrugged, which notoriously comes across as a gigantic pamphlet--amidst some very interesting story elements that never quite jell.

At her best Rand could invoke really wonderful passion associated with ideas. In fact, during one of the worst years of my life I found that re-reading Anthem over and over again was a much-needed medicine for my soul. Unfortunately it also led me for several years to treat her exactly as so many others--as a fount for supreme wisdom. In college I even found myself feeling guilty for enjoying things she explicitly condemned (like vampire movies). As for politics--well, lets just say I got wiser with age.

I concede getting the details wrong about the specific issue of conflicting interests. My only excuse is that I was doing it from memory. Mea culpa.

But I stand by my essential point--Rand was a talented, ultimately (if subtly) self-destructive person of extremely interesting ideas, many of which are fundamentally flawed. Her personality flaws (and we all have such) are germane in that they dictated how she approached many issues, her relationship with what became a movement, and how they impacted her writing. This seems valid.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

But I stand by my essential point--Rand was a talented, ultimately (if subtly) self-destructive person of extremely interesting ideas, many of which are fundamentally flawed. Her personality flaws (and we all have such) are germane in that they dictated how she approached many issues, her relationship with what became a movement, and how they impacted her writing. This seems valid.

I concur with this assessment, except for my opinion that Objectivism is not essentially flawed. Ms. Rand herself, like many people, did have personal flaws even though she was a talented writer; yes, she also enjoyed the starry-eyed devotion of her close followers.

[Vraith]

But I stand by my essential point--Rand was a talented, ultimately (if subtly) self-destructive person of extremely interesting ideas, many of which are fundamentally flawed. Her personality flaws (and we all have such) are germane in that they dictated how she approached many issues, her relationship with what became a movement, and how they impacted her writing. This seems valid.

I concur with this assessment, except for my opinion that Objectivism is not essentially flawed. Ms. Rand herself, like many people, did have personal flaws even though she was a talented writer; yes, she also enjoyed the starry-eyed devotion of her close followers.

Perhaps in an Ideal, or Metaphysical way the flaws are quibbles/details/repairable. But as a system/structure to be applied to the material world, [which is reality, she says so] it is no less "mystical" than that which she abhors...it is essentially flawed...because people are not fundamentally [in reality. factually] what she says people are. They do not function as she says they do. It fails in many ways for many reasons, but the simplest is: accept that A is A...everything will eventually fall apart if you are wrong about what A actually is.
[And I STILL think Atlas and Fountainhead are good, if flawed, books. ]

[Avatar]

But I've never heard anyone complain that we can't really walk through walls; make clouds disappear with our minds; produce a pilot license out of thin air; or any of the other things that happen in the book.

Uh, the clouds thing really works. Try it. But start small.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Oh, I'm sure the clouds disappear.


Eventually.

[Avatar]

--A

[hierachy]

I don't think Rand really had a very well developed idea/feeling of interconnectedness. Her model of philosophy is based on an idea of humans that seems at odds with psychology, based on an Aristotelian metaphysics where things exist with definite boundaries and in absolute separation from one another.

[Avatar]

Dunno about Rand, or necessarily what you mean by psychology, but humans are certainly at odds with physiology. All of society is intended to control the biological imperatives that got us here in the first place. Hell, the very essence of humanity could be that we (strive to) overcome the physical demands of biological and evolutionary..."impulses."

--A

[Vraith]

Dunno about Rand, or necessarily what you mean by psychology, but humans are certainly at odds with physiology. All of society is intended to control the biological imperatives that got us here in the first place. Hell, the very essence of humanity could be that we (strive to) overcome the physical demands of biological and evolutionary..."impulses."

--A

except that "society" itself is rooted in the biological and evolutionary...each of us, in our own persons, is a house divided.

[rusmeister]

Dunno about Rand, or necessarily what you mean by psychology, but humans are certainly at odds with physiology. All of society is intended to control the biological imperatives that got us here in the first place. Hell, the very essence of humanity could be that we (strive to) overcome the physical demands of biological and evolutionary..."impulses."

--A

except that "society" itself is rooted in the biological and evolutionary...each of us, in our own persons, is a house divided.

Exactly right.
(Look, we agree!! )

To Avatar, I'll say (in reference to your speculative use of "could be") that the Christian explanation explains what you seem to prefer to be ignorant about. To me it's not a mystery, but an obvious thing.

As Lewis put in in ch 1 of "Mere Christianity":

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human
beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave
in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do
not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and
the universe we live in.