Ayn Rand and a Discussion of Objectivism

emilywaves

New member
I recently reread The Fountainhead and it really inspired some deep comfort in me. It was almost scary how much I identified with her book and parts of her philosophy. The ego is certainly the fountainhead of man's existence. However, the frightening part is the absolute rejection of altruism. We do live in a society where community before self is becoming a truth. In contrast, Rand denounces this idea and calls it evil because it denies the self. Is it possible to be true to the self while still having a concern for others? Is there a way to mediate between the two? The self is important, but it seems as though if everyone were to suddenly follow her thought, the world would be screwy - therefore, is it necessary to have these types of "evils" (used very loosely) for a perfect society to exist anyways?

Any thoughts?
 

Wrong

Well-known member
Have you seen "The Passion of Ayn Rand"? It's a hillariously awful TV movie with Rand and her coterie sitting about making supposedly deep pronouncements, like Rand's response to someone suggesting Objectivism is a cult: "how can you have a cult of individuality?"
 

Melchior

Taking History Too Far
It's my fairly strongly held position that a sense of self only comes through one's position in a society, right or wrong. We define ourselves in contrast to others and what it means to be an individual only makes sense in the context of our relationships to others.

Murray Bookchin says somethign along the lines of only in a free society where these contrasts are allowed to be appreciated will any individual truly be free. The book - Lifestyle Anarchism vs. Social Anarchism: an Unbridgeable Chasm - has a stupid name but really set out for me what it means to be a social anarchist/libertarian socialist. IT's a shame he didn't write it as a positive exploration of social anarchism rather than an anti-hippy rant.

I've never read any Ayn Rand but it doesn't sound like my sort of thing. I've read a lot of stuff by 'libertarians' (in the US sense of the word) and they're completely and utterly full of shit. Given that they like to talk about themselves as Objectivists, I'm not sure I'm going to bother getting around to reading Rand.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
I read the Fountainhead 3 times from age 15 to 17 and it made a strong impression on me in those years.

since then my thinking about her romanticized, modernist, adoration of capitalism and the ego has been revised (to say the least).

what she was against is not *real* altruism, but a perversion of it in modern civilization - a mask for the acquisition of bureaucratic power (Ellsworth - I think the character's name was).

what she was against is not *real* community, but the blind, fascist, conformist regimentation that committees and boards and groups have become, in sick modern times.

now it is clear that her praise of the ego is naive and embarrasing in its pomposity (again, to say the least).

Ayn Rand's books represent a type of thinking borne of a specific time period, and is very short sighted and limted by the context which it has arisen - early 20th C. industrial revolution - and takes its immediate surroundings for the the way the world has always been, and always will be.

sure the romanticism can be captivating, and the idealism can be invigorating, but her logic only makes sense in a tiny microscopic sphere, and becomes absolutely ludicrous if one steps back and views history from a bigger perspective.

further, I don't think it coincidental that she became the most rigid type of ultra-conservative later in life - her ideas lead to fascism.
 

adruu

This Is It
I visited India the first time in 86. In a small roadside shop in the middle-of-nowhere-CP-Kerala-India the only English books they carried were Ayn Rand. It always struck me as odd.

I figured the CIA just printed her stuff at random and shipped it everywhere they needed propaganda.

Anyways, sorry for the lack of critical insight. I've managed to avoid watching Independence Day and reading Ayn Rand and I'm o.k. with it.
 

polystyle

Well-known member
'Who is Howard Roark ?'

Read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged bk in high school , both left a lasting impression.
Ayn's character architect Howard Roark is classic and his mode was an inspiration to move to NYC and have a go.
Atlas Shrugged has a premise I still enjoy and is applicable today .
Arrogant perhaps to some , but basically the 'doers' ( the Hd of railroads, heavy industries) decide to band together and 'go on strike' , retreating from the US and go to their own hideaway and leave things to the 'second handers' (critics , hanger -ons, arbiters of whatever) .
Sorry if over simplfied .
Both books had Ayn's romantic fantasies through and through which I just couldn't relate to ,
but the ideas were /are ? powerful .
Perhaps like you Emily , parts of what Ayn said & wrote do resonate deeply .

I agree that we can tend to see ourselves in relation to the 'community' ,
not that the community (right outside the door , the village, city, cyberspace) may be interested, notice or care to join or react .

* True to yourself and care for others ? well, yeah , it's an everyday thing .
Here in this city , it's an invisible bond that goes unspoken among citizens.
Combined and interwoven with threads of Buddhism ( useful part of which for me was just getting a bit of headspace above the ol' ego through meditation), old Bon (for me, nature , old and basic peace) and just plain experience in dealing with teams , groups , producing , crowds , deaths day to day these elements have integrated on some levels ,
though the work seems never done when one slips !
 

polystyle

Well-known member
Just rd your post Confucius after posting ,
and I quite agree , what Ayn was onto was pretty specific to that time
but all in all, still glad I went through the books early on
 
D

droid

Guest
The fetishisation of her work by brain-dead right wing American teens has put me off for life. She seems to have provided the philosphical underpinnings for some very dubious thinking...
 

henry s

Street Fighting Man
I thought the band Rush were deep thinkers, when I was in high school...until I realized that their 2112 concept album was a rehash of Ayn Rand's Anthem (substituting a guitar for the light bulb)...
 

emilywaves

New member
I guess I'll address a few points.

First, Melchior: I don't understand why the self must be defined in terms of the community. Why cannot the self define itself? For example, like a hermit, free of all society may still acknowldge his/serself and define his/her character or whatever. I get how human are social animals, (and I also agree that Ayn Rand takes it a little far) but a lot of the being self-sufficient makes sense. In addition, I've read a bit of Bookchin (didn't set well with me) but I don't understand libertarian/socialism, care to explain?

Confucius: I also disagree, I don't think it's shortsighted at all. I think it makes a whole lot of sense on the greater scale too. People who are great, what Nietzsche would call supermen, are a bit like what Rand is talking about. People who can define themselves and rise above the masses - leaders and such. It also makes sense because not everyone is like that. Like how this philosophy caters to a fairly exclusive sect, there are still the masses and then there are the individuals, they are almost coproductive (which is weird...)
Leonard Peikoff (sp) writes this essay on how Hitler's fascism was a direct result of altruism. It's pretty funny and a bit insightful. How he sacrificed the substandard population for the good of the greater population and that bit.

Polystyle desu: I'm probably just going through a phase, but it just sucks so much because it feels so right. Her work just makes so much sense to me. I tend to agree that there should be mediation, but that almost seems to taint and weaken resolve (maybe it really is just a fragile absolute :) ) .I get how she romanticized everything, and that never really set well with me. But I guess reality is somewhat of a gyp.


Well I dunno, I'm young and impressionable. I'm still ambivalent towards these types of things. Thanks for the responses though. I haven;t really been able to talk with many people about it.
 

ripley

Well-known member
emilywaves said:
People who are great, what Nietzsche would call supermen, are a bit like what Rand is talking about. People who can define themselves and rise above the masses - leaders and such. It also makes sense because not everyone is like that. Like how this philosophy caters to a fairly exclusive sect, there are still the masses and then there are the individuals, they are almost coproductive (which is weird...).

the main problem with this point is that it requires that the person holding the philosophy be one of the great ones. Who is going to read it and be "yeah, I'm one of the masses, the dross, the obstacles to the great people."

But of course, how would you ever know itf you were a great one? Especially for yourself, especially BEFORE you have achieved anything great? what if you're not one of the great ones? then how good is the philosophy for you?

As a way of describing history, it can seem possible (although ultimately a dead end) but as a way of life it's basically a way for people to tell themselves that they are better than other people.

the philosophy is good for an ego boost, but it also encourages, funnily enough (despite the mantra of independence), blaming everyone else for your problems (one reason it is attractive to teenagers).

Deciding that you are a person of value is an important step in psychological development. But Rand is also about the fact that some people are MORE of value than others. This is simply silly, and logically unprovable, and dangerous, and boring. Once you've decided you are great one, then difficulties you face are based in the failure of other people to recognize your inherent right (by being a better person) to do whatever you want.

Way to stop your psychological development dead in its tracks!

I'll leave the community issue to melchior.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Emily, you are going HATE hearing this, but no truer words have ever been said in the history of the universe:

don't worry, I used to think and feel EXACTLY the way you do.
 

Melchior

Taking History Too Far
emilywaves said:
First, Melchior: I don't understand why the self must be defined in terms of the community. Why cannot the self define itself? For example, like a hermit, free of all society may still acknowldge his/serself and define his/her character or whatever. I get how human are social animals, (and I also agree that Ayn Rand takes it a little far) but a lot of the being self-sufficient makes sense. In addition, I've read a bit of Bookchin (didn't set well with me) but I don't understand libertarian/socialism, care to explain?

Self-suficiency is fine but your example is a telling one. A hermit is defined precisely by their absence from society. That's what makes them a hermit. We can't define ourselves in a vacuum becuase we learn by imitating other humans. We're social beings from the outset, our flexibility as a species means that we're dependent on those around us to help us adapt to whatever situation we find ourselves born into. Otherwise we'd be less adaptable and more instictive.

Bookchin was just the example that I was mentioning in realtion to this because he said it very well (and in the coming weeks when I've moved hosue I'll find the book and the passage I was talking about). I'm a little confused by your question. Are you asking what libertarian socialism is? Basically it's another name from what I'd call anarchism, but one that is a bit more specific - no ultra-capitalists would ever call themselves 'libsocio-capitalists" but they do call themselves anarcho-capitalists. Simialrly, it avoids all the people who don't appreciate that the main stream of anarchist thought is socialist and always has been. So it's just a term for a specific kind of anarchism I guess.

People who are great, what Nietzsche would call supermen, are a bit like what Rand is talking about. People who can define themselves and rise above the masses - leaders and such. It also makes sense because not everyone is like that.

I'm deeply suspicious of people who thinkt at they're above the masses. People are a lot cleverer than they are given credit for being and almost anyone who wants to lead lacks the humility and lsitening skills to actually be a leader.

Well I dunno, I'm young and impressionable. I'm still ambivalent towards these types of things. Thanks for the responses though. I haven;t really been able to talk with many people about it.

Happy to help.

EDIT: found the Bookchin work online in full:
http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin

I think this is the bit that main an impression on me:

Murray Bookchin said:
Acknowledging that individuals are self-motivated and possess free will does not require us to reject collectivism, given that they are also capable of developing an awareness of the social conditions under which these eminently human potentialities are exercised. The attainment of freedom rests partly on biological facts, as anyone who has raised a child knows; partly, on social facts, as anyone who lives in a community knows; and contrary to social constructionists, partly on the interaction of environment and inborn personal proclivities, as any thinking person knows. Individuality did not spring into being ab novo. Like the idea of freedom, it has a long social and psychological history.

Left to his or her own self, the individual loses the indispensable social moorings that make for what an anarchist might be expected to prize in individuality: reflective powers, which derive in great part from discourse; the emotional equipment that nourishes rage against unfreedom; the sociality that motivates the desire for radical change; and the sense of responsibility that engenders social action.
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
there is an amazing and indepth critique of Heros, Heroism and the Heroic, which very convincingly explains exactly what is wrong with these notions, and clearly demonstrates how these cultural constructs are repressive and in service of power... but I forget which theorist wrote it. anyone know? it might be called "No more Heros" or something like that. I would love to find it again.
 

henry s

Street Fighting Man
this?

0586085718.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
 

polystyle

Well-known member
'Who Is John Galt?'

All good points Confucius , Melchior and Ripley
Esp. like some of the last paragraph of the Bookchin quote
but have another view on the last part .
What about individuals , can't they have 'Reflective powers' ,
'the emotive equipment that nourishes rage against unfreedom',
'the desire for social change' and that 'sense of responsibility' too ?

Yeah, if one is really a super hermit one may lose those 'indispensable social moorings' but ...
is it always have to be true ?

Also dunno if everyone that gets something from the philosophy 'has to be one of the great ones'
One is free to pick and choose from these fictional ideas at will , possibly finding something of use without having to luv Ayn's later right wing years or seeing the "Passion" docu / film thing which had some silly *hit .

I dug out Atlas Shrugged this rainy evening and ... please bear with me as I eek out some things here to try to show a bit wider view then has been down the line here so far

To note , Fountainhead was published sometime in 1945 (!) with Shrugged notes starting the year after.
Think for a second about the world at that time , these books were against fascism and communist of the era .

Second page lists 'The Ayn Rand Library' . First title is 'Vol. 1 Philosophy: Who Needs It ?'

Some text from the Intro to the 35th Ed. , by L Peikoff
' In Ayn's notes she differentiates between Atlas Shrugged and the predecessor Fountainhead'

' Atlas' Theme : What happens to the world when the prime movers go on strike.
This means - a picture of the world with the moter cut off.
Show: How , what , why . The specific steps and incidents - in terms of persons, their spirits , motives , psychology and actions - and secondly , proceeding from persons , in terms of history , society and the world.
The theme requires: to show who are the prime movers , why and how they function.
Who are their enemies and why , what are the motives behind their hatred for and the enslavement of the prime movers: the nature of the obstacles placed in their way, and the reasons for it.'
' That last paragraph is contained entirely in The Fountainhead.
Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey (arbiter of taste/ imposer of HIS tastes, could be played by say,
R Murdoch) are the complete statement of it.'
So primary concern of FH was showing who these two fictional characters were . '

Rand 'In FH I showed that Roark moves the world - that the Keatings (old school chum of Roark's who later comes to stand for everything hates in the world - the second- handers) feed upon him and hate him for it , while the Toohey's are out consciously to destroy him.

' In Atlas Shrugged , I must show in what concrete , specific way the world is moved by the creators.
Exactly how do the second- handers live on the creators.
Both in spiritual matters - and in concrete physical events ...'
However , for the purpose of the story , ... I start with the fantastic premise of the prime movers going on strike.
A distinction carefully to be observed here: I do not set out to glorify the prime mover (that was FH).
I set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers, and how viciously it treats them .
And I show it on a hypothetical case - what happens to the world without them.'
... ... ...

BTW I would venture that say, Steve Jobs could be seen as one of the 'prime movers' of our time ,
among other individuals .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wrong

Well-known member
polystyle desu said:
' Atlas' Theme : What happens to the world when the prime movers go on strike.
This means - a picture of the world with the moter cut off.
... ... ...
BTW I would venture that say, Steve Jobs could be seen as one of the 'prime movers' of our time ,
among other individuals .

I'm sure I'm not alone among people on Dissensus in finding the idea that the captains of industry are the "prime movers" just unbearably silly. Hell, I wish they would go on strike. Actually, it would be interesting to compare Atlas Shrugged with the recent "strike" of company owners in Venezuela; of course, this didn't involve them stopping work (they don't work anyway), but in locking out the people who actually do do the work.
 

polystyle

Well-known member
Hmm,
not all Captains Of Industry should be considered prime movers .
Bill Gates is not the same as Steve Jobs for one.
I know copping some notes /words out of the intro of the book didn't explain much out of context,
sorry
If one doesn't like Ayn's work or POV from the 1940's , just let it be , rd another thread.
Emily started the thread with honest questions and most can see some of both sides of whatever issue.
Dissensus Consensus Dissensus
 

Padraig

Banned
polystyle desu said:
' Atlas' Theme : What happens to the world when the prime movers go on strike. This means - a picture of the world with the moter cut off.
... ... ...
BTW I would venture that say, Steve Jobs could be seen as one of the 'prime movers' of our time , among other individuals.

Wrong said:
I'm sure I'm not alone among people on Dissensus in finding the idea that the captains of industry are the "prime movers" just unbearably silly. Hell, I wish they would go on strike. Actually, it would be interesting to compare Atlas Shrugged with the recent "strike" of company owners in Venezuela; of course, this didn't involve them stopping work (they don't work anyway), but in locking out the people who actually do do the work.

Yes, Wrong, the ideological gain of this self-serving fantasy operation resides in the reversal of roles with regard to our actual quotidian experience of industrial disputes and strikes: it is not the workers (the "second-raters") but the capitalist elite (the "prime-movers") who go on strike, thus proving, in Rand's fantasy space, that they are the truly productive members of society who do not need others to survive.

Rand’s stark ideological limitation is here clearly perceptible: in spite of the new impetus that the myth of the ‘prime movers’ has received from the information technology/knowledge/celebrity industries (e.g., Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Bono, the postmodern "liberal communists"), today individual capitalists, in our era of multinational corporate capitalism, are definitely not its ‘prime movers’, but are in fact slaves to its whims. In other words, what Rand ‘represses’ is the fact that the ‘rule of the crowd’ is the inherent outcome of the dynamic of capitalism itself.

And, as Zizek argues, "Ayn Rand’s fascination for male figures displaying an absolute, unswayable determination of their Will, seems to offer the best imaginable confirmation of Sylvia Plath’s famous line, ‘every woman adores a Fascist’. Is, however, such a quick, ‘politically correct’ dismissal of her work really accurate? The properly subversive dimension of her ideological procedure is not to be underestimated: Rand fits into the line of ‘overconformist’ authors who undermine the ruling ideological edifice by their very excessive identification with it. Her over-orthodoxy was directed at capitalism itself, as the title of one of her books (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) suggests; according to her, today, the truly heretical thing is to embrace the basic premise of capitalism without its communitarian, collectivist, welfare, etc. sugar-coating. So what Pascal and Racine were to Jansenism, what Kleist was to German nationalist militarism, what Brecht was to Communism, Rand is to American capitalism ... It was perhaps her Russian origins and upbringing that enabled her to formulate directly the fantasmatic kernel of American capitalist ideology."

0384pp.jpg
18454081.jpg
The_Fountainhead_stort.jpg


But, to respond to the original poster's [emilywaves] question: Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.

Still, King Vidor's melodramatic 1949 adaptation of Rand's The Fountainhead [complete with atrocious script penned by Rand] is paradoxically one of the better films about architecture [ask any architect], among other things.

6301969294.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
fountainhead2.jpg
050101.jpg
 

polystyle

Well-known member
Greetings Padraig

Ayn calls them 'second- handers' not 'second raters'
and are never seen to be workers , they are the hanger ons , the gossip columnists ,
never the ones with ideas .
Gates built a world wide domination on old software that he's kept adding new crap on top of the old basic kernel he bought bk in the early days of garage computing.
Jobs (and of course many engineers , programmers , support ) has reinvented computers a few times
and has 'prime moved' the fat cats of the music industry off it's rocker , and hopefully towards oblivion.
How many major labels are there now ? Universal , Sony , BMG , Acme music ?
Those Corp's are not prime movers , they are prime leeches , owners , users and ... second handers
living off the labor of those they've contracted.
Prime movers - Jim Clark , Spartacus ,
 
Top