Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged...

not always what it seems.

While it appears that the country is on some sort of  "I adore Ayn Rand" movement, the truth of who she was and what she believed is not always fully comprehended.

To begin with, Ayn Rand, as documented by many of her biographers, was a bit of a tyrant in her dealing with others, which is fairly inconsistent with what she espouses.  And certainly her personal life could not be held to a high moral standard.  Setting aside her morals (since who of us is perfectly moral) it can be said that she lived what she preached; a life of rational self-interest.

So what's wrong with rational self-interest?  Well, on its face, it's an irrational concept.  In order to seek one's own self-interest, you must also unselfishly allow others to do the same.  Rather contradictory, don't you think?

That's only the beginning of some of the problems regarding her philosophy.  Ms. Rand believes that "existence exists" - a concept that's impossible.  I can exist and you can exist, but existence itself cannot exist. Existence has no properties.  You cannot describe existence, you can only describe or give properties to something that actually exists.When you say "existence exists", you are actually saying nothing exists, which is a form of nihilism.

To put it in simple terms, Ms. Rand is essentially saying we all should do what's best for ourselves, and that we have a right to live in such a manner.  The problem is, sooner or later my rights are going to bang right up against someone else's rights.  The only way to resolve that little conflict is to add the caveat, "as long as what you do doesn't harm another."  But wouldn't we need to practice unselfishness for that to be workable?


Insight posted a fine article a few days ago,  "Ayn Rand's philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else." that is well worth a read.


And my buddy Mark (who won't be going to see Atlas Shrugged) has this to say:
 Part of the problem with politics on the Right nowadays is that conservatism is being conflated with all sort of ideologies that are not consonant with a conservative approach to politics. A weak form of libertarianism is hard enough to fit into a conservative approach to politics, but in the the form that Ayn Rand proposed it is pure battery acid to any understanding of community, tradition and ordered liberty.  Rand's elevation of selfishness into a virtue rather than a vice is profoundly at odds with the conservative vision of shared life in a community. read the rest
Well said, Mark.

So what's going on with conservatives who are delving into Ayn Rand's philosophy, and getting all starry eyed?  It's really quite simple.  All of us, myself included, tend to cherry pick.  We see something that fits our world view, make a grab for it, and hang on for dear life.  Snippets of Ms. Rand's philosophy, retrieved mainly from her novels, resonate with the conservatives of this country and they're willing to overlook the parts that cause alarm.  After all, it was Nathanial Branden, her lover and colleague, and others, who really did the bulk of the codifying of Objectivism. 

"Atlas Shrugged" is playing in Spokane right now, and I'm quite certain it will show up at the theater in Coeur d' Alene.  While I wouldn't bother to drive to Spokane (it is 20 miles, after all), I will probably see it when it hits Coeur d' Alene - mostly out of curiosity. 

9 comments:

Charlene said...

What is interesting to me about modern day political acolytes of Ayn Rand is they say they are Christian and ignore atheism. Amorality is not morality.

Your statement about cherry picking is astute. The paradox of this is when your belief deprives another's right to believe, it's not moral.

Mark D. said...

Thanks for the link and for quoting me! Great analysis, by the way. Very nicely done!

Adrienne said...

Thank you, Mark...

Adrienne said...

Charlene - so true...

smitty1e said...

I favor a Libertarian approach to Federal politics, but swing more social conservative the closer to home things get.
In other words, a monolithic approach is not a requirement.

Patrick Button said...

Well done Adrienne!

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Good post. It's funny because all of this Rand revival has prompted me to re-read Atlas Shugged (it's been at least 20 years since I first read it).

I think, though, that it is possible to agree with one aspect of a philosophical worldview but not with others. It's not necessary, in other words, to embrace Rand's less-conventional (and certainly unChristian) ideas. She, herself, rejected almost all of Aristotle's ideas, but said (to paraphrase) that his ideas about logic were so great that she could overlook the failures of the rest of his philosophy. I think it's more than fair to do the same cherry-picking with her own philosophy. I'm sure she'd approve. ;)

Anonymous said...

Ayn Rand...nee Alisa Rosenbaum was along with her atheistic beliefs was Pro Abortion.

Anonymous said...

Wonder what the Jews that promote Ayn Rand would think about this...In his autobiography, 'Faithful for Life,' Marx recounts meeting "a Jewish aerospace engineer." Dr. Kenneth Mitzner, who in 1970 "founded the League against Neo-Hitlerism to Fight Abortion. He also founded and led other pro-life groups." After the Supreme Court's decision in 1973, Mitzner wrote it was "tragic but demonstrably true that most of the leaders of the pro-abortion movement are of Jewish extraction." In a letter to Marx in July 1987, Mitzner declared:

"Jews must decide whether we condemn Hitler and his followers because mass murder is intrinsically evil or whether our quarrel is just with the choice of us as victims. If our concern is only with the killing of Jews, we have no claim on the sympathies of the rest of humanity. Some Jews ask the world to weep with us for the Jewish victims of Nazism, at the same time they promote the murder of innocent babies by abortion. Such Jews are the most contemptable of hypocrites."