h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Having read all the books listed, I think this article gives a good summary of both Rand and her philosophy.

I've got some comments I'd like to add.

I've thought a lot about this subject in the last 5 years or so. Although the philosophy provides many fascinating ideas, I don't think it stands up to rigorous scrutiny. That's not to say that it is wrong, just that Rand clearly lacked understanding of other philosophies; such an understanding would have allowed her to defend Objectivism in a more consistent and convincing manner.

Her defence of selfishness as a virtue may appear bizarre, until you realise that her definition of 'selfish' is closer to what we call 'self-interest'; she denies the connotation of 'against the interest of others'. I think it's a shame she chose 'selfish', as it gives her enemies an easy (but false) target to attack. If her ideas are to be criticised, it should be for what they really are, not some superficial impressions.

Her books are well worth reading. _The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrugged_ particularly provide much mental ammunition against collectivist philosophy. Whether you end up as an Objectivist or not, you'll never again hear a demand to 'tax the rich', or 'nationalise the railways' without interpreting it in some way through Rand's eyes first.

Her prose is at times somewhat stilted in my opinion. The speeches are way too long (see John Galt in _Atlas Shrugged_), though they are fine as essays. Maybe this is caused by her original education in Russian.

My greatest criticism is not of Rand herself, but of certain Objectivists who have come after her. I have seen strong denials of the Big Bang theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle based on nothing more than dogmatic acceptance of the principle of Cause and Effect.

Two more points: Rand has often been described as Fascist or Nietzschean. I don't think either label makes much sense. It is valid to argue that a society based on her principles may end up being quasi-fascist, but she clearly doesn't believe that herself. In fact, in _The Ayn Rand Letters_, she considered many of the arguments that were later made against her philosophy, and dismissed them.

Anyway, this article will no doubt spark some debate, which should be interesting. Rand is not very well known outside the USA, so maybe this article will help spread the argument.

Expanding upon the theme of personal comments, I have to say that Rand is a great storyteller. Her writing style certainly kept me captivated, until the eventual conclusion and ultimate ending left me very disappointed.

The whole objectivism title seems to be a mask for attempting to expound the virtues of Capitalism over Communism. It is no secret that Rand was very strongly opposed to communism. I'm sure she had sufficient personal experience to justify her viewpoint. However her Objectivist doctrine goes beyond simply condemning communism. It ventures to condemn any form of socialism to the extent that the "power of the individual" catch-cry can be interpreted as "every man for themselves".

This post has been removed.

Although Ayn Rand does tend to rant on in her novels, they were extremely influential in my personal development. Caused me to give great thought to the value of altruistic behavior and have decided that it doesn't really exist. People do things for their own purposes, always. I don't think there is anything wrong with people chosing to work "selfishly" to create the world they want to live in. And I think it is important for people to make difficult choices about what sort of human being they are going to strive to become. I prefer the ones who chose not to be parasites.

There are many types of creation. I never got the impression that she was saying that the only valid ones were "useful" ones. More that she meant to follow your ideals and make them real. To not spend your life working for the needs of others, especially when they won't take the inniative to pull their own weight. And that passion and joy will be discovered through interaction with likeminded people, in the pursuit of common goals.

We are all ultimately responsible for our own lives and what we do with them. That is a concept which her novels helped to clarify for me.

Hi B-i-a-J!

Rand was also influential in my life. Although I eventually rejected Objectivism itself, many of the things that I thought about while reading the books have stayed with me. Rand was a kind of 'philosophical catalyst'; got me interested in philosophy, and when I'd studied a little more outside the Objectivist texts, I realised how naive Rand's writing really was.

It's important to note however that Rand did believe that altruistic behaviour exists, and that it is the root of evil. I have a large amount of sympathy with this idea, but it does depend upon applying a strict definition of altruism. Sometimes (it seems to me) Rand blurred the boundary between altruism and selfishness (e.g. when performing an act that helps someone else, but is ultimately for your own benefit).

She believed that sacrificing your life for your beloved partner should actually be considered a selfish act, because you cannot bear to live without them. But to sacrifice your life for a group of strangers in an emergency... well, I don't know. I guess you can make a case for any view on that position. It's altruistic. But maybe it's selfish because you'd rather die than live with the knowledge that you could have saved all those people. (So I do understand what you're saying about there being no true altruism.)

Her ideas about creation etc. are, I think, generally acceptable. Roark (_The Fountainhead_) is not acting in a simplistically selfish manner when he refuses to sell out his architectural aesthetics for money. As Rand points out, he is being *truly* selfish, insisting that the buildings he designs are built his way - or not at all.

And yes, she didn't mean that work was only valid if it was 'useful'. She would say "Useful... to whom?". She had no concept of anything being for the 'general' good. It was good if and only if it was good for a particular individual. (Of course, it could be good for others too, but that's secondary.)

-

One thing that separates Randian selfishness from the normal concept is that for Rand it cuts both ways. Just as it's wrong to sacrifice yourself for someone else, it's also wrong to sacrifice them for you. So stealing their property is out, as is cheating, fraud etc.

Sounds like y'all have thought about this a lot more and deeply than I have. But I still have a quibble about your characterization of her view of creativity. I don't think she would agree that a creation (of architecture is the example I'm thinking of) was "good" if it suited the creator. Everything Roark did looked "as is created by a force of nature, shaped from living rock" (just a paraphrase, I don't remember the direct quote). She seemed to be saying throughout the Fountainhead that Roark knew the right way to build stuff, the stark, spare, "no line wasted" way. I'm not saying I don't agree with a lot of what she had to say on this, but it doesn't leave much room for someone else's interpretation of what a building should look like. And her description of Roark's temple to the girl (I forget her name) reminded me of the kind of fascist superrealistic art that Hitler used to love.
In short I believe she did think there was only one "right" way to create things just as she thought there was only one "right" way to live your life, and maybe this is why people call her fascist.

Ah, now that's a very valid point.

Rand believed that you have the right to live your life any way you choose, provided you do not 'harm' anyone else. i.e. you can choose to live an irrational life, practising witchcraft, proclaiming socialist ideas, watching stupid films.

However, she also seemed to have the view that if you were thinking rationally then you would agree with her!

This attitude is visible in many Objectivists today. They'll continually state that you have to study Rand's philosophy and make up your own mind, but by golly, if you don't agree with them at the end of it you are in for some severe ear-bashing!

She believed that the rational life was the only one worth living (and by rational she definitely meant rational in *her* terms). However, she acknowledged the existence of 'optional' values. For example, whether you chose to be an architect, a composer or a painter was a matter of choice; all could be considered rational choices.

But if you were a painter who decided to paint bizarre abstract images that did not "selectively re-create reality", then that would be considered irrational. You have the right to do it, but it's rubbish. So there!

(The fact that she acknowledged your right to produce rubbish is, I think, what distinguishes her from a fascist.)

ah, dear Aynnie. what a silly goose. her fiction is all somewhat contrived (see the entire premise of Atlas Shrugged - there's a valley in the Rocky Mountains where all the intelligent people of the world can run away to? i dont think so.). as for her philosophy, it is so incredibly colored by her experiences in the Soviet Union when she was young, and so objectivism invalidates itself - she's certainly not looking at the philosophy objectively! however, this does not mean that her concepts on the santicty of the individual and the ego have no value.

and no she's not a fascist! read Anthem. she's completely against any form of totalitarian state.

-----> beth

Except for corporations?

Ah, but that's an important issue! Rand separated economic pressure from political pressure. That is, the state can force you to do something by passing a law. That law is (at the end of the day) backed up by physical force (in essence, no different to the force that a mugger uses to steal your wallet).

A large corporation that has a monopoly on (say) the telephone network is not actually *forcing* you to use their service. It is still your free-market choice whether to buy the product or not.

The argument is whether a corporation can gain enough economic power to act in a coercive manner without actually having to use physical force. In the example of the phone company, this would be the situation if you were not able to live a rational productive life without *having* to buy the product from that corporation.

Rand believed that it was not possible for economic organisations in a rational free society to gain such power. That is why she opposed all forms of anti-trust legislation.

It would appear (to me) that every other commentator is a follower of 'dear Aynnie'. I personally think that her philosophy is dangerous, to the individualand and society, that Objectivism is a cult, that libertarians/objectivists (in their 1000s in NZ) are sad and bitter people (the ones I've met certainly are) and that A>R., herself was very totalitarian!

Hi Della.

I'm certainly not a follower of 'dear Aynie' at all. She has been influential in my life, but then so has Karl Marx, and to a certain extent Adolf Hitler; I'm *definitely* not followers of them!

As a generally libertarian minded person, I think I have to disagree with you; I don't think that libertarian values are bad for society (quite the reverse in fact).

However, my disagreement is qualified. Much of your statement *is* true. I've found many Objectivists to be quite emotionally destructive (and self-destructive). And yes, many libertarians (but particularly Objectivists) can be very sad and bitter. They seem to spend all their time on a huge rant about the evils of government. They find new things to get angry about every day.

My major problems with Objectivism are (in particular) Rand's theory of ethics (the 'Virtue of Selfishness' makes some good points as far as it goes, but seems to be missing a massive part of human life); her theory of aesthetics (she has some very odd (and restrictive) views about art); her and her followers' views on physics (denial of the Big Bang theory on philosophical grounds; likewise, a rigorous deterministic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

Yes, there are many ways in which Objectivism satisifies the criteria of a cult. In fact, there's an interesting book on the subject called _The Ayn Rand Cult_ by Jeff Walker which analyses this topic in some detail. The Ayn Rand Institute is a particularly fascinating organisation which has conducted several 'purges' over the years to eliminate those who disagree with the official line.

Another point of note: Objectivists do not generally consider themselves to be libertarians. In fact, they hold the term 'libertarian' in some contempt.

Considering your point about Rand and totalitarianism; I can understand why you might think so, but I also think that it's more a case of form over substance. Rand (and her followers) manage to make themselves *sound* quite totalitarian without actually *being* so!

It's a shame that you seem to have only met the 'sad/bitter' libertarians, because they are not representative of all. I can't honestly tell you whether they make up a majority or not because I have no figures to back up such a claim. From my personal point of view, it doesn't really matter. My philosophy is for *me*; it is of no significance whether those with supposedly similar views are bitter.

Regards, jd

Question - is Rand a Puritan?

I read the fountainhead in ninth grade. Over the past 5 years I have read each and every work of fiction written by her. They are all ompelling works, but none to match the fountainhead. I watched th movie, it was brilliantly made.
I am often jeered at by my peers for being in agreement with Rand's philosophy. I have tried, for the past 2 years to convince myself of its flaws. I have read arguments against it, tried acting opposite to it. Nothing works.
It fits so well with my scheme of things. It seems to me the most logical, simple and joy-giving way of life. I have had to let go of some very important people in my personal life, and many opportunities, in order to fulfill certain ideals inspired by her. It hurt, initially.
But at the end of it all, I must say I am happy and satisfied.
There are some aspects which are now outdated. However, the gist is still very relevant.More so, in a globalised world.
Can anyone try and tell me that Ayn Rand is a radical, flawed philosopher? For me, she did something good. Even though she did not mean or wish to to me good.

I have to say that I rather enjoy Rand. Personally, I found Atlas Shrugged to be more dynamic than The Fountainhead, although the latter was much more personal and indepth. As she said, Atlas Shrugged is a relationship of man to society, to the world, while The Fountainhead is a relationship of man to man.

About an earlier post, "Objectivism seems to be a cover for the defense of Capitalism" or something to that effect, I have to say that you are on a right track, except Objectivism is the pursuit of your rational happiness, and the conclusion is that Capitalism is the only form of government(or of no government) in which man can interact with others to achieve happiness.

I agree with Mr. DiGriz that objectivism is to be found at fault with it's upholders after Rand. Wikipedia gives a great explanation of all the feuding going about.

Glad I finally found u guys. I first read Rand prty late...just last year(dats first yr of college).Found her very interesting...all the drama apart.. the books have kept me awake at nights...few books have been able to do that. But to accept her philosophy without questioning it would defeat the purpose of it, rite? Have been looking for arguments for and against Objectivism ever since.. but since the 'followers' of her philosophy havent been mmuch help-i just read an article by one bashing up environmentalists...hadnt read anything as pathetic or ridiculous and uninteresting for quite sometime now.so i did a search and found a bit of a gold mine in here(or do u like Copper mines? d'anconia if u please) I rly enjoyed reading all those personal comments...As of now i dont have ant set opinions abt Objectivism, mainly because i dont think i've fully understood wht she 'meant' to say...guess a bit of rereading should help. Sometimes i wonder if/why i should take her seriously in the first place...tho she sounds pretty sincere...maybe she's playing this huge joke..lol..no i dont think so, nobody puts so much work into that!
There was one feeling i got tho....the ultimate result of extreme ego, which she seems to advocate... isnt it going to be the same as that of absolutely no ego??? Its damn hard to achieve both...Problem is i cant substantiate it or reject it...it is after all, a 'feeling'.. Rand would disapprove, so u ppl help me out here...

I have to say that it's nice to read whole words.

Apart from that, however, the concept of "huge ego". I think "rational ego" would be a more appropriate ego. You should believe in yourself and act on your ideas as correct to the extent that you know they are. So, she doesn't advocate an "inflated" ego, or one that is bigger than you actually you are, but one that is your size.

extreme, not huge...dunno how to explain that...n how do you find one thats ur size... im thinking, hypothetical opposite of 'no ego'.... enough ego to think its below oneself to do anything that one thinks is immoral/wrong/other words along the same lines..... and hence not do anythin like that? ever wondered wht its like to have zero ego?? .... ok its 3 and a half AM here..m prolly making no sense.

ps missing the caps?

I find the use of the word selfish,concern with one's own interest, (a dictionary definition, as Miss Rand points out) quite appropriate. It is an opportunity,like all controversial and important subject matters, for thinking people be informed and enlightened about and this the audience she always chose to address.
Too often popular usages of words and concepts creates epistemological confusion which is a challenge whether people care to accept it or not.