fjolnirsson
Member
It's a tough read. I started it three times and couldn't get through it.
The fourth time, I breezed through it with no problems.
Worth the trouble. Well worth it.
Read any Ayn Rand books?
- Thread starter Nick1911
- Start date
- Status
It's a tough read. I started it three times and couldn't get through it.
The fourth time, I breezed through it with no problems.
Worth the trouble. Well worth it.
Tamara
Senior Member
Boats,
I thought so, too, when I was first assigned Anthem in the eighth grade, but eventually my reading skills improved.
Keep trying!
(Granted, The Fountainhead is pretty soporific, but I somehow managed to struggle through the rest without too much difficulty...
)
Rand created some of the best sleeping aids ever published.
I thought so, too, when I was first assigned Anthem in the eighth grade, but eventually my reading skills improved.
Keep trying!
(Granted, The Fountainhead is pretty soporific, but I somehow managed to struggle through the rest without too much difficulty...
)Gator
Member
The first Ayn Rand book I read was "Atlas Shrugged", it really blew me away...I think it ought to be required reading in every high school.
I liked "The Fountain Head" too...... and it's a great movie!
You know, I've only read each of them four or five times, I think it's time for another round of Rand...Thanks!
I liked "The Fountain Head" too...... and it's a great movie!
You know, I've only read each of them four or five times, I think it's time for another round of Rand...Thanks!
Her 'literary' value is nonexistant - she creates unbelievable characters and puts them in idealized circumstances, and has the heroes act noble.
Her 'philosophical' value is similar - aside from what she borrows from other philosophers (Aristotle, Nietzsche, the logical positivists), she essentially creates an amoral ethic that many have used as justification for whatever it is that they please to do. Selfishness is not a philosophical position, it is a biological imperative. Philosophies (and governments) have to deal with people who have conflicting selfish interests, a problem she avoids addressing.
She is not taken seriously in either domain.
contrarian non-newbie here
Her 'philosophical' value is similar - aside from what she borrows from other philosophers (Aristotle, Nietzsche, the logical positivists), she essentially creates an amoral ethic that many have used as justification for whatever it is that they please to do. Selfishness is not a philosophical position, it is a biological imperative. Philosophies (and governments) have to deal with people who have conflicting selfish interests, a problem she avoids addressing.
She is not taken seriously in either domain.
contrarian non-newbie here
Treylis
Member
If you're familiar with what she's trying to do and/or have read "The Romantic Manifesto", you'll see that's the entire point. She's portraying humanity as she thinks it should be.
Amoral ethic? Excuse me? Have you even read any of the number of pieces she wrote specifically on morality?
Her definition of selfishness is "rational self-interest", and it most definitely relates to philosophy and morality. And she does address conflicting self-interests in the context of absolute individual rights.
I think that most of the reason why she's been shunned is because of her anti-collectivist viewpoints, which run so strongly against the grain of most philosophy nowadays. Her strident critiques of modern academia haven't earned her any friends there, but she wasn't out to make friends by playing nice and soft-padding things.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Roscoe-
Rand readily admitted that her characters were deliberately heroic, bordering on nearly superhuman. To her, the characters and the storyline were only a conveyance for her message. In other words, packaging her philosophy in novel form was really a marketing ploy, and a bloody smart one at that. After all, I'd be willing to bet that more people have read 'Atlas Shrugged' (Objectivist philosophy tied together with characters and a story) than have read 'The Virtue of Selfishness' (Pure Objectivist philosophy laid out in essay form.)
As to your statement that
Rand readily admitted that her characters were deliberately heroic, bordering on nearly superhuman. To her, the characters and the storyline were only a conveyance for her message. In other words, packaging her philosophy in novel form was really a marketing ploy, and a bloody smart one at that. After all, I'd be willing to bet that more people have read 'Atlas Shrugged' (Objectivist philosophy tied together with characters and a story) than have read 'The Virtue of Selfishness' (Pure Objectivist philosophy laid out in essay form.)
As to your statement that
That is the underlying basis for Objectivist thought. For a person to survive it is a good idea to have his/her own self interest first.
Even though it's been several years since I've read anything by Rand, I can tell you for sure that she addresses this in 'The Virtue of Selfishness.' Rand was not an anarchist, and did believe in the rule of law insofar as law and government should be limited to the role of acting as mediator in disputes.
While in school I had to seek out her writings, as well as those of others such as Ludwig Von Mises, on my own simply because most philosophy teachers are raving Marxists. If anything, I find it far more difficult to take postmodernism with a straight face than Objectivism.
Justin,
Believe me, I wouldn't defend postmodernism. In fact, it really isn't even a coherent body of thought. Rather, it is a mindset used to critique, without really offering any substantive replacements for the positions it criticizes. And as such, I think it is essentially without real value.
As for Objectivism, I just think it is overly simplistic and naiive. I mean, of course people are going to work to their own self-interest. But is self-interest long-term or short term? What is some people want to work to their immediate self-interest at the expense of the long-term self-interest of others?
The question for philosophy is how to deal with 280 million independent, yet self-organizing and alliance-forming, self-interest machines, and she falls far short of dealing with the complexities inherent. Plus, I don't think she is really an original thinker, more of a popularizer (she obviously read her Adam Smith). That is why she is not considered a serious philosopher.
I have a friend who read Rand for the romances between the characters. Oh man . . .
Treylis,
The reason her philosophy is amoral is because the definition of moral action is that taken to achieve no benefit to one's self (whatever other benefits the action may provide). She does not advocate such action, and in fact, she does not really reconcile self-interest with the principles of 'benevolence' and 'justice'. In fact, they will frequently be at odds. Also, the expectation that a 'rational' person will deal with others fairly and with integrity is absurd, since rationality only counsels such a position when constrained by the expectation of punishment (for example, under rule-utilitarianism). So the actual morality of her position escapes me.
Believe me, I wouldn't defend postmodernism. In fact, it really isn't even a coherent body of thought. Rather, it is a mindset used to critique, without really offering any substantive replacements for the positions it criticizes. And as such, I think it is essentially without real value.
As for Objectivism, I just think it is overly simplistic and naiive. I mean, of course people are going to work to their own self-interest. But is self-interest long-term or short term? What is some people want to work to their immediate self-interest at the expense of the long-term self-interest of others?
The question for philosophy is how to deal with 280 million independent, yet self-organizing and alliance-forming, self-interest machines, and she falls far short of dealing with the complexities inherent. Plus, I don't think she is really an original thinker, more of a popularizer (she obviously read her Adam Smith). That is why she is not considered a serious philosopher.
I have a friend who read Rand for the romances between the characters. Oh man . . .
Treylis,
The reason her philosophy is amoral is because the definition of moral action is that taken to achieve no benefit to one's self (whatever other benefits the action may provide). She does not advocate such action, and in fact, she does not really reconcile self-interest with the principles of 'benevolence' and 'justice'. In fact, they will frequently be at odds. Also, the expectation that a 'rational' person will deal with others fairly and with integrity is absurd, since rationality only counsels such a position when constrained by the expectation of punishment (for example, under rule-utilitarianism). So the actual morality of her position escapes me.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Shakespeare?
StudentoftheGun
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 29
Interesting thread...
Roscoe said:
I can think of another instance where a writer used unbelievable characters and put them in idealized situations. The writer's name is Plato. Are we then to assume that his noble posturing of Socrates nullifies any value The Republic might have?
Roscoe also said:
If you are insinuating that Rand borrowed some aspects of Nietzsche's doctrine of the "will to power" then I believe you have exposed yourself as a poor student of both Nietzsche and Rand.
You missed the most important element of Rand's philosophy (i use the term "philosophy" loosely). She borrows far more from John Locke than from any of the others philosophers you mentioned...unless you want to lump Locke in with the logical positivists. The purpose of Atlas Shrugged was to show the dangers of adopting Socialism. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is a doctrine that Rand felt we should avoid at all costs.
As far as addressing the conflicting selfish interests you speak of...she does. She addresses the conflict of interest between those who generate goods through their own efforts, and the government that would redistribute those goods to society (in whatever fashion the government sees fit).
And i must inform you that she IS taken seriously in both domains. Rand is not read often in institutions of "higher education". I can assure you that this is not because her work is without merit. It has far more to do with the political leanings of professors who teach philosophy and political theory. College is as much an indoctrination as an eductation.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Rand is a refreshing change of pace after reading Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, and Nietzsche.
Beware of those who would so readily dismiss an important work of literature, and who try to discourage you from reading them. I would urge you to read whatever you like...and come to your own conclusions. Rand is certainly not a waste of your time.
Thank you.
-Student
Roscoe said:
I can think of another instance where a writer used unbelievable characters and put them in idealized situations. The writer's name is Plato. Are we then to assume that his noble posturing of Socrates nullifies any value The Republic might have?
Roscoe also said:
If you are insinuating that Rand borrowed some aspects of Nietzsche's doctrine of the "will to power" then I believe you have exposed yourself as a poor student of both Nietzsche and Rand.
You missed the most important element of Rand's philosophy (i use the term "philosophy" loosely). She borrows far more from John Locke than from any of the others philosophers you mentioned...unless you want to lump Locke in with the logical positivists. The purpose of Atlas Shrugged was to show the dangers of adopting Socialism. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is a doctrine that Rand felt we should avoid at all costs.
As far as addressing the conflicting selfish interests you speak of...she does. She addresses the conflict of interest between those who generate goods through their own efforts, and the government that would redistribute those goods to society (in whatever fashion the government sees fit).
And i must inform you that she IS taken seriously in both domains. Rand is not read often in institutions of "higher education". I can assure you that this is not because her work is without merit. It has far more to do with the political leanings of professors who teach philosophy and political theory. College is as much an indoctrination as an eductation.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Rand is a refreshing change of pace after reading Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, and Nietzsche.
Beware of those who would so readily dismiss an important work of literature, and who try to discourage you from reading them. I would urge you to read whatever you like...and come to your own conclusions. Rand is certainly not a waste of your time.
Thank you.
-Student
fjolnirsson
Member
Well said, student.
Treylis
Member
I really find it funny whenever people make remarks as to how her writing is so terrible, because I've always found her crystal-clear and cogent with her verbiage. I guess I'm seeing something that they're not, or vice versa.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Nowhere in Objectivism is there advocation of the initiation of force in the pursuit of one's self-interest. Hence the concept of rational self-interest, and the resultant non-agression principle.
Student,
Actually, she borrowed quite a bit from Nietzsche, (she studied him in Russian and, later, in English - Thus Spoke Zarathustra was reportedly the first English book she purchased in America), despite the fact that she later repudiated him. There is quite a bit of scholarship on this, which of course could be debated, but it includes shared attitudes toward religion, collectivism, self interest, rejection of societal values, and the adoration of strength, among others.
Of course she was influenced by Locke (as was virtually anyone interested in the relationship betweeen a government and individuals in a liberal democracy); in fact, she largely recapitulates his ideas on the social contract between the individual and government. But that in no way diminishes the influence of Nietzsche.
But, that to a certain extent supports what I have been saying about the originality of her ideas. As to the fact that she was trying to point out the failings of socialism - that is true, but like I said, she was more of a popularizer.
Like you said, she is interested in the conflict between government and the individual. However, when the government is made up of the people, and it has to reconcile difficulties and values among the people, she offers only vague propositions. I find her very unsatisfying when it comes to addressing the difficult ethical issues presented by the modern world.
Actually, she borrowed quite a bit from Nietzsche, (she studied him in Russian and, later, in English - Thus Spoke Zarathustra was reportedly the first English book she purchased in America), despite the fact that she later repudiated him. There is quite a bit of scholarship on this, which of course could be debated, but it includes shared attitudes toward religion, collectivism, self interest, rejection of societal values, and the adoration of strength, among others.
Of course she was influenced by Locke (as was virtually anyone interested in the relationship betweeen a government and individuals in a liberal democracy); in fact, she largely recapitulates his ideas on the social contract between the individual and government. But that in no way diminishes the influence of Nietzsche.
But, that to a certain extent supports what I have been saying about the originality of her ideas. As to the fact that she was trying to point out the failings of socialism - that is true, but like I said, she was more of a popularizer.
Like you said, she is interested in the conflict between government and the individual. However, when the government is made up of the people, and it has to reconcile difficulties and values among the people, she offers only vague propositions. I find her very unsatisfying when it comes to addressing the difficult ethical issues presented by the modern world.
Mine, too.
I'm from the "take some, leave some" branch of Ayn Rand readers. I'm sort of a non-objectivist libertarian, so while I believe the government should be very, very limited, I also think we all have a moral obligation not to be selfish.
Just another way I can disagree with everyone on everything. Go figure.
Read them all decades ago. Good stories somewhat on the line of the Heinlein/ Pournelle-Niven Libertarian revolution books. There is a bit of long speachifying as the characters explicate the rational libertarian ideals.
She pegged a couple of archetypes just right:
Elsworth M. Toohey may have been Amitai Etzionis' role model and comes off a lot like Ramsey Clark or Noam Chomkski.
She also presents the character of the generic Sally Socialworker very well.
She pegged a couple of archetypes just right:
Elsworth M. Toohey may have been Amitai Etzionis' role model and comes off a lot like Ramsey Clark or Noam Chomkski.
She also presents the character of the generic Sally Socialworker very well.
Nathanael_Greene
Member
I've read several of Rand's books and I found them boring, unbelievably long-winded (did she get paid by the word?), and simply silly.
Objectivism? Who is she kidding? What's the objective value of anything?
Objectivism? Who is she kidding? What's the objective value of anything?
ThreadKiller
Member
It's not selfish to work to better yourself and your conditions. It is selfish to expect others to do that for you.
Tim
Tim
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Parental Units had all her books so while in 7th grade I started w/ Anthem then worked my way up the ladder. I attribute her writings and my research on Thos Jefferson, FLW and MVDR for becoming an architect.
Her own personal history is fascinating to me. She wrote one thing, lived another. Imagine destroying the career of your former younger lover who decides to grow up and leave you to your husband... what a crock and waste of energy.
She certainly likes to hear her own voice (as it were) and oftentimes says in 100 pages what could be summed up on one.
Individuals vs collective, creators vs second handers... then she turns around and creates her Objectivist groups to analyze and criticize the actions of others instead of going back to creating new ideas/things or letting others live as they choose. Easier to spread the word if we all think and parrot what the master teaches I guess.
Still and all, having said that, she, R.A. Heinlein, Frank Lloyd Wright and Thomas Jefferson were polestars in my early impressionable teen years. I re-read her stuff about every five years. Whereas her writings should be and are available to impressionable young minds, I question it being required reading. Let those with the thirst find the well. Greek, Roman, Nordic and Hebrew mythology... those should be required reading IMO.
Her own personal history is fascinating to me. She wrote one thing, lived another. Imagine destroying the career of your former younger lover who decides to grow up and leave you to your husband... what a crock and waste of energy.
She certainly likes to hear her own voice (as it were) and oftentimes says in 100 pages what could be summed up on one.
Individuals vs collective, creators vs second handers... then she turns around and creates her Objectivist groups to analyze and criticize the actions of others instead of going back to creating new ideas/things or letting others live as they choose. Easier to spread the word if we all think and parrot what the master teaches I guess.
Still and all, having said that, she, R.A. Heinlein, Frank Lloyd Wright and Thomas Jefferson were polestars in my early impressionable teen years. I re-read her stuff about every five years. Whereas her writings should be and are available to impressionable young minds, I question it being required reading. Let those with the thirst find the well. Greek, Roman, Nordic and Hebrew mythology... those should be required reading IMO.
Joe Demko
Member
Ayn Rand had some interesting ideas, all of which weren't necessarily original to her; but Roscoe has already covered that very well indeed. I've read Atlas Shrugged and a few of her essays. She'd have benefitted as a novelist from the services of a more ruthless editor. Atlas Shrugged needs to be pared down by at least 1/2. At that length, it would have much better pacing, lose the infamous pointless exposition and description, and still be able to make clear the ideas she was trying to present. As has already been noted, the novel was nothing but a vehicle for presentation of those ideas anyway.
StudentoftheGun
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 29
Roscoe,
I could easily make the case that Rand borrowed more from Plato than Nietzsche.
Plato, like Nietsche, had similar views about the primary role of religion (that it has no role).
Adoration of strength: Plato spoke of the guardians, whose souls were made of gold (see the Noble Lie). Plato said it should be these individuals, the strongest and most able, that rule.
Platonism = rejection of societal values. Was it not Socrates who was executed for corrupting the youth of Athens?
I concede that Rand did indeed borrow a bit from Nietzsche. However, from the scholarly interpretations that I have read, Nietzsche was far more of a nemesis to Rand than an influence.
But isnt it fun to come up with crazy things like "Rand borrowed things from Plato"? (At least I thought that was amusing.)
And so lets review: Rand lacks originality. Rand is long winded.
And let's not forget:
I have also read works by quite a few famous authors, and been disappointed. I see problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche, namely the fact that his philosophy is based on dogmatic principles. (It should be said that he decries other philosophies for doing this very thing...but I am sure you already knew that Roscoe.) I have problems with Marx, because he does not adequately address the issue of incentive. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Just because a writer does not address every issue does not mean that their work is without merit. Rand's works do have some merit.
Rand is long-winded. Youll get no argument on that point from me. And, Roscoe, if you find a writer that does adequately address the difficult issues presented by the modern world.....let me know buddy! I would love to read it.
Thanks again
-Student
I could easily make the case that Rand borrowed more from Plato than Nietzsche.
Plato, like Nietsche, had similar views about the primary role of religion (that it has no role).
Adoration of strength: Plato spoke of the guardians, whose souls were made of gold (see the Noble Lie). Plato said it should be these individuals, the strongest and most able, that rule.
Platonism = rejection of societal values. Was it not Socrates who was executed for corrupting the youth of Athens?
I concede that Rand did indeed borrow a bit from Nietzsche. However, from the scholarly interpretations that I have read, Nietzsche was far more of a nemesis to Rand than an influence.
But isnt it fun to come up with crazy things like "Rand borrowed things from Plato"? (At least I thought that was amusing.)
And so lets review: Rand lacks originality. Rand is long winded.
And let's not forget:
I have also read works by quite a few famous authors, and been disappointed. I see problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche, namely the fact that his philosophy is based on dogmatic principles. (It should be said that he decries other philosophies for doing this very thing...but I am sure you already knew that Roscoe.) I have problems with Marx, because he does not adequately address the issue of incentive. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Just because a writer does not address every issue does not mean that their work is without merit. Rand's works do have some merit.
Rand is long-winded. Youll get no argument on that point from me. And, Roscoe, if you find a writer that does adequately address the difficult issues presented by the modern world.....let me know buddy! I would love to read it.
Thanks again
-Student
simon
Member
I have read and own"Fountainhead" and Atlas Shrugged" and have read both twice, and liked them.Will try to get some more...
Foreign Devil
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 507
I read Atlas Shrugged, a few essays, and that's all the Rand I can stand. I hated the book then but I thought that I just didn't understand philosophy well enough to aprpeciate it. Now I think that it's just bad writing and I didn't want to admit it when I was enraptured in my hate-the-government angry libertarian college years. I was then a card carrying libertarian, but now I think most of their philosophy is baloney. It's all BS. Deep down I always suspected as much. You don't just exist in a vacum all by yourself. Other people's actions have affected you, and your actions do affect others. The thing to do is find a balance between society's needs and the individual. Tilting the scale towards the individual is fine but libertarians are so extreme. The middle of the road is the way to go.
But hey if you want to see what all the fuss is about go right ahead and read.
But hey if you want to see what all the fuss is about go right ahead and read.
ReadyontheRight
Member
You asked if a book written in 1957 can have relevence today:
From Atlas Shrugged:
From Atlas Shrugged:
Dex Sinister
Member
Roscoe said:
Methinks that thee should hie thyself back to a logic class, forsooth and forthwith.
BTW, there's a particular reason that Kant thinks his position on moral action is inevitable that most people, no less philosophers, don't begin to agree with. Do you happen to know what it is?
Dex
Hmmmm, so, the fact that you can articulate Immanuel Kant's theory of moral action -- as opposed to his theory of general morality, one might note -- means that Rand's philosophy is outside of morality, because her entire philosophy doesn't agree with Kant's theory of what makes an action moral?? Interesting.
Methinks that thee should hie thyself back to a logic class, forsooth and forthwith.
BTW, there's a particular reason that Kant thinks his position on moral action is inevitable that most people, no less philosophers, don't begin to agree with. Do you happen to know what it is?
Dex
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked