Anybody here ever read Ayn Rand's works?
Posted by deleted 6 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Not intending to be objectionable or insensitive, I have to ask, especially considering some of the responses I have received lately:
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
Michael
Michael PEN ULTIMATE RARE BOOKS
The largest collection of rare, signed and manuscript Ayn Rand on the planet. Check me out on Abebooks https://www.abebooks.com/pen-ultimate...
Some context is required here. Nathaniel Branden wrote: “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy – it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.” -The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1965.
It’s now 53 years later, and all of the above conditions appear to have been met. It’s time to retire the phrase “student of Objectivism” when describing one’s philosophical beliefs.
I am a scientist and realize that scientific advancement only comes as a result of a recognition of objective reality. Objectivity is difficult because hidden assumptions cloud reason behind an insidious veil. Because of the limitations of our senses we can view reality only indirectly "as through a glass darkly". We see behavior but the nature of the underlying mechanisms remain out of our reach. Such is the task of the scientist to make the best of a difficult situation.
You can certainly use "libertarian" (small "l") in its original meaning; but it is misleading today to use it in the context of Rand's philosophy.
Also note that Rand did not "forbid people calling themselves" Objectivists; in fact, she referred to many people as Objectivists and said that one is essentially Objectivist if he holds and understands all of her fundamental principles/beliefs (mis-defined below). She simply did not like anyone misrepresenting her and her philosophy, and preferred one to call himself a student of Obj. if he had not yet fully grasped those principles.
Free market is the ultimate ability of men to make choices without being forced. Unfortunately for the experience of mankind this type of market place has seldom existed and not for long as those who would conquer and enslave have at their disposal a large populace that is not just willing but wanting to be led by anyone who will claim to offer them something for free in return for their freedom.
I too have been surprised at times to find here at this meeting place those who often subscribe to the idea that it is important for man to be mostly free but not completely because they are convinced that one aspect or another of living must be under the control of a leader and a governing monster that has the right to inflict violence on all it deems a threat to its existence. This opens the door for all manner of tyranny and then it is only a matter of degree and time before there is no liberty left and all choices are inflicted by the munificent state that is stealing what it gives away.
I used to think that there were some things that only a state could do and therefore it was assumed that a state must exist. After watching the destruction of a country that started out with ideals of individual liberty for 70 years and studying its past I realize that there was not a single president or politician who did not have an ulterior motive to destroy liberty to the degree they can and that they will benefit from.
If individuals do not have the right to say no when they are forced to do something then they are not free at all. Voting (or begging for permission from the state) is not a viable form of protecting yourself from a state that, if it has not assumed immoral authority over the life of an individual yet will do so very soon, with the support of most of the neighbors who fear a free individual even if there is only one.
Especially when race cards are pulled and bike locks are swung.
She rejected being "a Russian" or "a Jew" and instead was an American and an individualist.
Why do some people want her to be a libertarian? Is it to secure her blessing, to have some of her good qualities rub off on them? She seemed to regard sycophants as worse than her declared enemies.
Call her a libertarian if you want, but watch me lift one eyebrow as I wonder what you are trying to accomplish.
My only disagreement: A stepped-on worm will not turn and fight. It's squashed. Dead.
Which seemingly is where we're headed. Unless we turn and fight now.
Try Calvera's famous quote, which is how politicians view us: "If God didn't want them sheared, He would not have made them sheep."
I say I'm a "fan" of Ayn Rand. I don't mean it to sound glib. I'm not knowledgeable enough about other philosophies to be an Objectivist or any other philosophical school of thought.
To me her books are about how beneath the trends and forces of human development, there are individual people. We say "the time was ripe for someone to discover..." The books are a reminder that individual people did the work, put up with people calling them crazy, and moved humankind forward. When we say "moved humankind forward," they generally weren't doing it for humankind but because they wanted to. When we say "he did it all for himself", it sounds like a human foible, but it's a human virtue. Who wants to be the beneficiary of charity? People are a balance of doing things to benefit themselves directly and to benefit their family, tribe, team, or country. We sometimes think it's more noble, but do something for other, but Ayn Rand says we're all others, so it's noble to do something for ourselves. It's actually way more virtuous when we act with reason to accomplish what we personally want than one side of our emotional self vs tribe instincts.
I see all this as showing humans following reason and their own desires as beautiful in itself. I could be completely wrong because it feels like most other Ayn Rand fans get a kick out of watching one group either make another group look bad and political stratagems to make people look bad in meetings-- it's the opposite of what I took away from the books. The lights going out at the end of AS, IMHO, was intentional juxtaposition of great people following their own way with the result of second-handers' falling over one another. It was saying great people are almost unstoppable... almost, but even a worm will turn and fight if you step on it enough.
And some of the authors I now edit and publish have also so groused.
In fact, I'm very tolerant -- except of dishonesty.
Principle is important, and adherence to moral principle, that is, consistency, is truly vital.
And if we care about Ayn Rand's beliefs and her legacy, we need to be honest as well as thoughtful, and we need to recognize, with her, that words do have meaning.
As far as "Conservative" and "Republican": the terms have no meaning any more in the sense they were in the times of Rand. One needs no more to do than go through members of the House or Senate and take a closer look at the GOP component: there isn't one of them who would check out according to Rand.
(From the Ask Dr. Ruwart section in Volume 20, No. 11 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)
QUESTION: What is the difference between Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and libertarianism?Ayn Rand's Objectivism
MY SHORT ANSWER: In my opinion, the differences are more cultural than real, in political matters. Both Objectivism and libertarianism are based on the non-aggression principle of honoring our neighbors’ choice (not initiating physical force, fraud or theft) and making things right with our victims if we don’t.
Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy of life that includes not just political beliefs but strong and unified beliefs on virtually every aspect of human existence, including religion, art, romance, and so on. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a strictly political philosophy.
Rand believed that government’s proper role was protection of rights and that government should have a monopoly on defensive force to fulfill this role. Many libertarians agree with her. Others believe that governments are a poor protector of rights and that competition in this realm is right and proper.