Why Ayn Rand?

[Robert]

I was wondering why so many Americans seem to really highly rate Ayn Rand. I'm English and she's pretty much unheard of here. She's universally derided in the literary and academic circles I've moved in, yet she definitely retains a popular following at least in the States:

An interesting comparison: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnonfiction.html

Consider how high Ayn Rand's books are in the the Reader's List, considering there's not a single book by her in the board's list. That's not unusual amongst lists of best books.

From what I've heard her 'philosophy' sounds callous and not particularly logical or realistic - I think extreme individualism is perhaps worse than extreme collectivism in the long run, and no society can be realistically based on it. The literary people I've known who've read her books say they're not particularly well-written. I've not read anything by her, however, so I may be being unfair, which is why I figured I should open the question to the floor, and find out what is so appealing about Ayn Rand?

 

[Thebhr]

If it makes you feel any better, I've never heard of her.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

She's universally derided in the literary and academic circles I've moved in

Key words: literary and academic. In literary and academic circles here, she is also universally derided (sorry Yellow and truthseeker but it's true). Of course literary and academic circles in the US have been succesfully labeled as 'elitist' (somehow that's bad) so it's easier to sell Rand to "non-elitists".

 

[Robert]

Successfully labelled? What does that mean?

It's well known much of the US is incredibly anti-intellectual and criticizes anything not immediately easy to understand or not politically congruent with popular opinion (as governed by the press) as 'elitist'. Not that elitism doesn't exist in academic circles, it obviously does. But to dismiss the whole establishment as elitist is absurd and reductionist.

 

[Claverhouse]

'From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"'

I would no more read Miss Rand than I would The Book of Mormon; but although both conservative and liberal Yanks detest her, those of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion on the internet find justification for their idealistic fantasizing in her preachings. The appeal is limited to them alone.


Good old Whittaker Chambers, ex-soviet spy converted to quakerism and conservative values, and accuser of his ex-colleague, the unspeakable Alger Hiss, wrote the review that ripped her a new one...


Big Sister Is Watching You


Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive storyknown as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.

The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. Insofar as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in boardrooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian dAntonio. This electrifying youth is the world's biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand's chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad).

...


So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book's last line, that a character traces in the air, over the desolate earth," the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the "mysticism of mind" and the "mysticism of muscle").

...

Something of this implication is fixed in the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"






Claverhouse

 

[INTPINFP]

Hey, she can't be much worse than Ann Coulter, right?

 

[Robert]

Oh wait, just re-read and I see you weren't saying what I thought you were ... anyway, it was a reaction I was expecting to get from someone so I guess it's worthwhile answering in anticipation.

Well, Ann Coulter's despicable AND stupid. I think Ayn Rand was probably intelligent at least.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Well, Ann Coulter's despicable AND stupid. I think Ayn Rand was probably intelligent at least.

Rand was intelligent but not to the point where she would or even could critically examine herself/beliefs. Claverhouse's quoted review above is exemplary. I wish I had seen it before because it clarifies my thoughts on the works of her's I've read. Reading her is at best an exercise in knocking down presumptions not well thought out which is what I maintain about her intellect. It would be more worth the time to do if most of her better known works weren't so ridiculously long. Time is a precious commodity not well spent on her novels. I wish I had the hours back.

 

[RobertJ]

Nice screen name, bro.

 

[mfratt]

I used to think her philosophy was perfect, but now I see it as a bit idealized, yet very interesting none the less.

I've read Anthem a while back and I'm working on The Fountainhead right now. I am extremely drawn to the character of Howard Roark. Just about every line he has my response is either "Thats me!" or "I wish I could be that bold."

Without worshiping Randian philosphy, I do tend to look up to the character of Roark. I need to read Atlas Shrugged next (its been sitting on my bookshelf forever but I'm a bit daunted by the 1000+ pages)

 

[preilemus]

I used to think her philosophy was perfect, but now I see it as a bit idealized, yet very interesting none the less.

I've read Anthem a while back and I'm working on The Fountainhead right now. I am extremely drawn to the character of Howard Roark. Just about every line he has my response is either "Thats me!" or "I wish I could be that bold."

Without worshiping Randian philosphy, I do tend to look up to the character of Roark. I need to read Atlas Shrugged next (its been sitting on my bookshelf forever but I'm a bit daunted by the 1000+ pages)

i am also currently reading The Fountainhead, and would have to agree with what you say about Roark. He's easily my favorite character, though I guess you could say i'm a little more P than he is . I dont know a lot about philosophy, but it's a very enticing read nonetheless. Easily one of the most interesting books I have ever read, though I guess thats not saying much

 

[Ermine]

Why Ayn Rand? If I had to guess, she appeals to the average American more because her philosophy is very individualistic and decidedly right wing. To a certain extent, she reflects the personality of American culture in many places.

 

[sotired34]

Who is John Galt? Anne Coulter in 2012!!

 

[Kidege]

All I know is that I finally have one of her books and I have only briefly glanced at it.

It talks about Atlantis. If a book has Atlantis in it it should also have spaceships. Or at least machines worked by elementary spirits. I have the inkling I'll be disappointed.

 

[Jordan~]

They're Americans. Present company excluded, you know what they're like.

 

[echoplex]

Based on what I've read about her, I can understand why she might appeal to others, but I think it's strange that some consider themselves "Randians". She seems way too dismissive of other ways of thinking, and seems like she was very unlikely to ever change her mind about anything, regardless of evidence. I guess it's that rigidity that impresses some people, although I agree with Ermine that it's mainly the individualism.

I'm not sure whether I should read her books. I actually like the idea of rational self-interest, although I suppose that means different things to different people. Well, I like my interpretation of it, I should say. But the whole "capitalism is teh gods!!!1" thing is a bit annoying from what I can tell. And there's also her views on homosexuality, which seem a bit out of place from someone espousing individualism.

 

[Kuu]

Perhaps americans like it because, for once, here comes someone that is providing a philosophy that does agree somewhat with the american ideals, and which is not entirely depressing or nigh-incomprehensible to the lay reader... *looks at all them europeans*

Personally, I've yet to form any serious opinion on her ideas, too early to say. Currently I'm just now halfway thru The Fountainhead myself... and I agree with mfratt and preilemus' posts on regards to it.

decidedly right wing

I get the individualist, capitalist approach... but... right wing? What about the conspicuous absence of conservatism, religion, nationalism, and authoritarianism? I see a radical atheistic iconoclast that actually bashes America on the basis of its mediocrity and ideological hypocrisy... which I suspect slightly differs from the personality of American culture. Of course, not being precisely American, nor having read much of her works, my perceptions of this might be flawed.

(Disclaimer: I have always disliked the overly abused and nebulous concepts of left/right, specially when applied to American politics)

 

[Kidege]

If only half of what Claverhouse quoted is true:

Also:

 

[ifelloverboard]

Randian objectivism attempts to define societal structure through rampant individualism. Which allows far too many destructive anomalies to perpetuate without check.

 

[The Fury]

When I first read Atlus Shrugged, I was enthralled by it. The characters were so powerful, the story was so full of passion and the world filled with people like John Galt seemed like heaven. It was only after a few weeks away from the book and the power it had over me that I realized what nonsense it is. The characters are all two dimensional, the story is incredibly simplistic and her passion could easily be mistaken for religious fanaticism.

I always felt sorry for Frank O' Conner, the guy she married, she expected him to liveup to an impossible ideal which must have put some serious strain on their marriage.

 

[RobertJ]

Media is desirous that a female philosopher do well.

 

[Agent Intellect]

They're Americans. Present company excluded, you know what they're like.

Oh, don't try to flatter us. I bet you half this forums american population drives their hummers 30 MPH over the speed limit down the road, a greasy hamburger in one hand and a cell phone in the other, as they watch the fox news on the newly installed dashboard television and curse the other drivers out the window. All this as they drive from church to the set of American Idol.

 

[Ermine]

I get the individualist, capitalist approach... but... right wing? What about the conspicuous absence of conservatism, religion, nationalism, and authoritarianism? I see a radical atheistic iconoclast that actually bashes America on the basis of its mediocrity and ideological hypocrisy... which I suspect slightly differs from the personality of American culture. Of course, not being precisely American, nor having read much of her works, my perceptions of this might be flawed.

(Disclaimer: I have always disliked the overly abused and nebulous concepts of left/right, specially when applied to American politics)

I meant economically right wing. All for capitalism. The conservatism of the right wing that you speak of mainly comes from the authoritarianism. You should consider that libertarians are also economically right wing, but not very authoritarian at all when it comes to social and civil issues. Rand is more in that category.

But I guess this is an easy misconception to make since the only right wing people getting elected are the authoritarian ones.

 

[Robert]

Tekton, I think any political approach that is to be successful is inevitably not going to be simple, because the world's not simple. Politics encompasses so many different things, which are incredibly complicated within themselves - education, economics, social relations, international relations, the justice system, etc. - no political outlook that attempts to seriously tackle any of these issues is going to be easily encompassed within a single book even.

I guess I find pop philosophy like Rand's reduces these issues to one simple theory - i.e. the individual should strive for himself alone, and through that society will be perfected - a bit absurd. But also worrying if lots of people take it seriously.

 

[Firehazard159]

Oh, don't try to flatter us. I bet you half this forums american population drives their hummers 30 MPH over the speed limit down the road, a greasy hamburger in one hand and a cell phone in the other, as they watch the fox news on the newly installed dashboard television and curse the other drivers out the window. All this as they drive from church to the set of American Idol.

Hey now :P

I drive a toyota corolla, right at the speed limit, usually with all organic produce in my passenger seat, cellphone in one hand, cursing the other drivers! Of course, I'm shifting music on my cellphone, and text at red lights / stop signs :P Sometimes while driving, but generally only quickies there. I drive by far too many churches and liquor stores, it kind of depresses me. Then I go hide in my basement, and cook a nutritious meal at some point :P

Anyway. Ayn Rand is pretty well raved about, but I wouldn't say by a majority of people... seems to be more, well, honestly, the gothic crowd that obsesses over her. Of course, this is my social experience talking too, so I could be extremely limited in my observations / communications.

I keep getting told I should read her books, but not getting around to it. After seeing your guys reviews though, it's making me think I'm good to have not wasted the time, and shouldn't waste any more time even considering them :P

 

[Ghost1986]

i have no idea why people like Ayn Rand. i read fountain head and threw it away after i got halfway through it. very boring book in my opinion. perhaps i am just too stupid to know good literature. i find a lot of supposedly great works boring.

 

[Döden]

I won money from an essay contest from her work, gotta appreciate the woman somewhat. Still have Fountainhead lying around, which I've been meaning to read. Atlas Shrugged seems like an awesome concept, so I look forward to reading that as well.
As for her philosophy, I was 15 when I last read something from her and something about it just didn't rub me the right way. Can't recall right now but I think it had something to do with the praise of man's ego. Hmm.

 

[Cassandra]

Successfully labelled? What does that mean?

It's well known much of the US is incredibly anti-intellectual and criticizes anything not immediately easy to understand or not politically congruent with popular opinion (as governed by the press) as 'elitist'. Not that elitism doesn't exist in academic circles, it obviously does. But to dismiss the whole establishment as elitist is absurd and reductionist.

Not everyone. In fact, not most people. It's just that stupid people are really loud and happen to control most TV shows. I've got family all over the US, and although people sometimes are ignorant, on the whole, they're neither stupid nor anti-intellectual. It's just a very vocal and a very politically influential (with some political groups...you know who you are) minority.

I'm quite sure such a sentiment exists in the UK as well...if to a lesser extent. I watch your TV. I know that there are great things, like Doctor Who, that represent the intellectually curious and sophisticated portion of the population, but there are also really dumb things that I really wish were Doctor Who.

One thing is that with the communications revolution came the incredible ability for anyone in the country (including politicians in congress) to know what the country things of them and their actions minutes after they have said something or made a decision. The result is the degradation of the Republic, which is a balanced government, and the slow but steady shift towards the mob-rule that is a pure democracy. When politicians and voters have instant feedback, nobody has time to THINK. And when people don't think, bad decisions are made, leading to more crises, more urgency, and then even less thinking...endless negative spiral.

But...there is hope in the form of educating the public and discussing the issue. I mean, I'm in the Midwest...not exactly the most intellectual area in the world, but we have a good school, lots of books, and teachers who care about making us more than just ready for college, but passionate intellectuals.

I wonder how much anti-intellectualism exists elsewhere?
^
Not a rhetorical question.

 

[del]

Anthem is in the secondary school curriculum in America (or at least it was when/where I was going to high school) so most of the intelligent, alienated teens go through an "Ayn Rand" phase because -- let's face it -- being halfway intelligent in high school is tantamount to the proverbial struggle in Rand's books: the stupid majority dragging down the curriculum (or, in her books, society) for the more intelligent and capable minority.

Still, I would say that at least 95% of Americans haven't heard of (or forgot about) Ayn Rand.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I've heard of Ayn Rand. Should I read her?

 

[Lear]

Not everyone. In fact, not most people. It's just that stupid people are really loud and happen to control most TV shows. I've got family all over the US, and although people sometimes are ignorant, on the whole, they're neither stupid nor anti-intellectual. It's just a very vocal and a very politically influential (with some political groups...you know who you are) minority.

I'm quite sure such a sentiment exists ... elsewhere?

An excellent observation, Cassandra.

My ex-compatriot, Citizen Murdoch, has a fairly large hand in providing a platform for many of those loud, stupid people on Fox News and through his press mastheads. His Australian mastheads are of a broadly similar, small-c conservative bent, but he doesn't have a mainstream television outlet here.

I read somewhere recently that MSNBC is styling itself as a liberal counterweight to Fox. Any observations?

I also read somewhere that an astonishing number of younger Americans regard Jon Stewart's Daily Show as their prime source of news. I think Stewart is very clever and I enjoy the show, but it's a comedy for goodness sakes.

In Australia we currently have a Prime Minister who is what my American cousins would, I believe, refer to as a 'policy wonk'. He is a well-educated career diplomat with a fondness for technical terminology. Recently the tabloid Australian media kicked up such a fuss about his manner of speaking (anti-intellectualism) that his minders had him trying to sound like The Crocodile Hunter — which was a dismal failure. Anti-intellectualism is alive and well in Australia.

 

[Claverhouse]

I know that there are great things, like Doctor Who, that represent the intellectually curious and sophisticated portion of the population

Eschewing elitism, Dr. Who is generally regarded as pabulum for the masses; and on a par with those other British comedies to be wisely avoided, it's mental peers, ''Allo 'Allo' and 'Are You Being Served ?'.

[ I must admit that American comedy is taking a sharp downward also. The extreme misogyny in sitcoms can generally be ascribed to the traditional jewish hatred and fear of women; on the other hand, I've just watched an episode where not only is the heroine urinated upon by her boyfriend as she sits in the bathroom, but she is then laughed at by her bf's male friends for having a demi-waxing that resembles a '7'; and this is an empowering chick-flick type of sitcom produced and written mainly by women... Not even the perfection of Jenna Elfman can pull this off. ]

The result is the degradation of the Republic, which is a balanced government

Republics cannot be degraded. Any more than a cesspit can be degraded. It's already all it can be.

But...there is hope in the form of educating the public

*sighs*

One may assume that any time anyone speaks of educating others, it means making sure they are to be good little drones who will obediently think as does the speaker upon any issue. Whether the demand for education upon a subject comes from the nuclear power industry or from Green activists, all they each intend is that their view be the only acceptable one allowed.



Claverhouse

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I read somewhere recently that MSNBC is styling itself as a liberal counterweight to Fox. Any observations?

Pretty much, but without as much crazy. Equal amounts of self-righteousness though.

I also read somewhere that an astonishing number of younger Americans regard Jon Stewart's Daily Show as their prime source of news.

I've heard this too. It was at least a year or two ago but a group of viewers who watched either Fox, CNN, MSNBC (I think) and the Daily Show but only one of those were quized of events of the past week. Daily Show viewers scored the highest by far. Fox was last of course.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

I could barely sit down through Anthem, so Ill never get through Atlas Shrugged

 

[circusofdreams]

just so you know, that randomhouse list is not entirely representative of the American vote. when the poll was taken, people were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted so a lot of books with cult following got sent to the top. Look at L.Ron Hubbard up there at number 2, COME ON! we're not all scientologists and randians over here! in fact they're usually the but of our jokes, at least the scientologists are.

 

[boradicus]

I've heard of Ayn Rand. Should I read her?

Yes. The Fountainhead is exemplary.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes. The Fountainhead is exemplary.

Indeed it is.

I agree with most of her philosophical views. Some of them are too idealistic to work in reality though. I'd say that I relate to Objectivism more than any other 'ism'.

 

[boradicus]

She seems quite rational. However, she predicates her ideas on Aristotle, who does not portray the entire picture in the philosophical realm; for that reason it would be difficult for her to have a firm footing philosophically. I tend to think of her as an essayist not a philosopher. She reminds of things that we can easily loose, and reminds us of who we have the potential to be - and that is inspirational. However, I did watch an interview of her on youtube and she seemed quite rational about her approach to foreign policy, etc. I would disagree with her to the extent that she carries her ideas - in this she seems less rational and more of an idealist type; however, it would be difficult to tell if she had been operating off imperfect information or indeed had a prescribed world view to which she adhered with rigor (a contra rational perspective; rationals seem more continuously maleable, however, Hobbes, and Descartes had their opinions, certainly). Yet in light of her passion for her subject and in light of her inability at times to reconcile her own 'philosophy' with her actions, I would tend to err on the non-NT assessment of her personality.

Rationals are just too open to be so self-conflicted. We continually adjust our paradigms and improve them according what we learn and this is what is so cool

 

[Mary]

Hehehehe..

I like Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, et. all.

I'm a 'classical' liberal, open to new ideas and willing to change, but I logically examine ideas before accepting them. Socialism failed. Fascism failed. Authoritarianism failed. Etc, etc.
If someone comes up with a new brilliant system, I'll evaluate it and 'jump on the bandwagon'.

 

[boradicus]

I don't really know who Ann Coulter and Mr. Levin are but apart from Ms. Rand the rest of your list is scary... although at one time I voted republican (and another democrat) I have never stomached radio show demagoguery the reason I like Rand is that she *attempts* to re-enforce the values associated with the Liberal Democratic State. She is well-intended I believe, however, her conception of how that system actually functions is idealistically flawed in its practice, attempting force a older, more sentimental model upon a continuously evolving one. Mores and values are important compasses; they too shift and change, however, when a 'value' changes, it has more to do with increasing the complexity of its denotation in reassessment of its relation to increasingly complex contexts. But compass is the operative idea here... there is no 'true' North.

 

[Mary]

I don't really know who Ann Coulter and Mr. Levin are but apart from Ms. Rand the rest of your list is scary... although at one time I voted republican (and another democrat) I have never stomached radio show demagoguery the reason I like Rand is that she *attempts* to re-enforce the values associated with the Liberal Democratic State. She is well-intended I believe, however, her conception of how that system actually functions is idealistically flawed in its practice, attempting force a older, more sentimental model upon a continuously evolving one. Mores and values are important compasses; they too shift and change, however, when a 'value' changes, it has more to do with increasing the complexity of its denotation in reassessment of its relation to increasingly complex contexts. But compass is the operative idea here... there is no 'true' North.

I don;t actually listen to Limbaugh and Hannity much.. They're on while I'm in school, basically. Ann Coulter is brilliant and snarky. (She writes essays) Mark Levin is also on the radio, he is sarcastic and obnoxious.

They don't demagogue too much, from what I've seen. For sure, those two do it to a certain degree but for the most part they just say whatever they feel like.

Rand is a bit idealistic but her books make for an interesting read.

 

[Lithorn]

Don't have time to read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this.
In terms of her novels, I find myself immediately suspicious of a work of fiction being so allegorical. It cheapens the plot, character development, world building, and basically anything else I usually like about books.

 

[Anthile]

Ayn Rand is philosophy for Apple buyers. Her books are overly long, badly written self-serving power fantasies. It is telling that she is virtually unknown outside of the USA. Objectivism is quite an American phenomenon. However, Ayn Rand is probably the most misunderstood philosopher right after Nietzsche and Machiavelli - that's why people still buy her books.

I agree that everyone should read Rand so they learn to appreciate good literature.

 

[NeverAmI]

I haven't read her, but Atlas Shrugged is on my list to read.

 

[boradicus]

Ayn Rand is philosophy for Apple buyers. Her books are overly long, badly written self-serving power fantasies.

In one view of her works yes; yet from an alternate perspective, she can be seen as an encourager for the pluralistic pioneer who is momentarily daunted by the social reforms of her time. Rand, born in Russia during the incipience of Communism was wholeheartedly against the idea of socialism, realizing the potential for opportunity here in our country (USA) to which she migrated. It is no wonder that she rallied against the social reforms of the day in light of the experience of her youth.

She is obviously not a philosopher. Her beliefs were predicated on the potential inherent in the American lifestyle as she perceived it to be, which made her quite a good essayist. Her system essentially rests upon the notions of classical liberalism best described by (although perhaps not engendered by) Locke. Her seeming departure into 'anarchy' is a common misperception as a result of this lack of acknowledgment. Her answer to tyrranic coercion prefers flight or defection (which is what happened in her own life), but eventually resides in the further clarification of Locke's answer to slavery (which is that the slave is free to refuse cooperation at any time, and thus potentially suffer death, thereby retaining his freedom as master of himself). The rationale that she provides is essentially Aristotelian in that if a man who is non-deserving of slavery (in the sense that he is able to rule the passions of his body according to the mean of civil society; because the contrary is the rationale for slavery in Aristotle's Politics) finds himself in such a situation so imposed by some tyrant, that he is not only able to resist said tryant at his leisure, but that said tyrant does not benefit from the contribution of his mind to the increase of the society ruled.

While this is a rational approach for the individual, her idea only tacitly devolves to Locke's model in that it does not explicitly address (to the best of my memory) the the question of whether upon being enslaved, that the individual may consciously make such a decision to resist, thereby forfeiting (of course this is always a potential forfeit in Locke's system - although worded otherwise - because the master is not obligated to kill the slave nor is he obligated in any way on the slave's behalf due to the very definition of the relationship) his life; rather her argument appeals to the reason of the hypothetical tyrant, who may in fact not at all be reasonable - or why would he according to her notions have enslaved such a beneficial man to begin with (this is definitely one place in which her 'philosophy' breaks and can be seen to be not a philosophy at all but an appeal to the rationality of a free market system - which is indeed rational when everyone has the same essential goal: free enterprise predicated upon the discovery and conquering of the natural world toward the improvement of society at large). Her system, obviously, however, does not take into account opportunistic greed in the form of coercive power other than to appeal to it on the basis of one's utility within the constraints of the free market. Unfortunately, free markets to not exist without the political constraints necessary to protect them from unrestrained greed (the least common denominator in the form of coercion and thievery - being that the least common denominator is the person/s from whom political systems protect the free market system - which, by the way, said view is the equivalent of political realism).

Her 'philosophy,' as it were, then breaks down under analysis (there are other ways in which it does this as well) because of its inability to contend with such issues as the least common denominator argument (see above) when generalized into a political philosophy, and therefore, cannot be perceived as such. Additionally, because she maintained that her audience was but few (which can also be perceived from her writings due to their general condescension toward the public at large), it is again difficult to place her in such a light.

She was in essence - in my own estimation (and despite her quite probable misuse of the term philosophy in relation to her own writings) - an essayist, who perhaps thought she had a much better grasp on a subject that she actually did.

 

[EditorOne]

I feel fairly safe in saying, in response the initial post, that most
Americans have never heard of Ayn Rand, and would probably think, upon seeing the name, that it is another mullah or something. And those of us who have heard of her don't necessarily approve. I got one good idea from Roark, namely that running the utilities up a central core for an apartment building is a more economical way of getting it done than running them up each vertical stack of apartments. Big whup. If I build a skyscraper I'll let you know how it works out. All the rest of her claptrap fell disregarded to the floor for me in little moldy pieces of stale conservative crackers, swept there by Adam Smith's invisible hand.

 

[merzbau]

rand reminds me of a upper class version of l. ron hubbard, complete with a freaky cult that sticks leaflets in all her books.
her philosophy touts individualism as a virtue, but it has to be -her- kind of individualism, of course. if you don't think and act in the manner proscribed, you're not an individual.

the best criticism of her literary achievements i've ever heard ~ "ayn rand does for bullshit what stonehenge did for rocks."

 

[Psychotic But Cute]

I personally think her notoriety is due to Ego. It may not have been the best book in the world, but it was thought provoking. At that time Ayn Rand was a woman in Russian writing against what was a very mainstream idea, communism. We Americans love people like her, both a minority and a wave-maker.

 

[Anthile]

 

[the internet]

Do you want to know why Ayn Rand is heralded in America as a god. Besides the insidious almost cult like behaviour of her organization (i.e free objectivist textbooks to poorer high schools, the vast over arching 'take-it-all' or leave it mentally of her philosophy) the main problem with her ideas, particularly "rational self interest" is that it defends the worst american ideals, greed and the 'American Dream'. It gives people 'a reason' to abhor charity, and venerates pure capitalistic greed. Sure, the Randian will say it is being incorrectly interpreted, but the fact remains the vast majority of people that read it and feel convicted by its philosophy are conservative, rich douchebags. It is for good reason that it is called the yuppie bible. It justifies American greed in a fairly coherent way and although I cannot stand reading her books, and I deplore her philosophy. You can easily see why Ayn Rand is so highly venerated in America. You can arguably say that Ayn Rand has affected America like a virus and is in my opinion very responsible for the rampant corporatism that goes on in the country. (that is only now started to be repaired).

Ayn Rand is a cold hearted cunt as well, just read about her life and how she ran her organization. It's sad really.