Ayn Rand

I have been seeing a lot of people quoting Ayn Rand in their signatures and such. I was wondering if you people actually like and lend creedence to Rand's views? I am currently a second year philosophy major and it seems to me that most philosophers consider Rand to be a pseudo-philosopher.

My understanding is that, much like the Bible, The fountainhead is really dull and really long. So I've never had much urge to read it.

Little Earth Stamper wrote

My understanding is that, much like the Bible, The fountainhead is really dull and really long. So I've never had much urge to read it.

the bible isnt dull, its the greatest horror novel ever written.

LES,
There are probably people who read the Fountainhead and come away thinking it is some sort of odd romance novel or some such superficial book. Her insight into peoples motive is really second to none and the real point of the story, the Individual and the nature of creation (not to be confused with religious stuff, but rather by the individuals mind), is really well defined.
Fountainhead, like other books written by rand are good if you are willing to pay close attention to them. There is no "Fluff" in her writing. It is all very purposeful.
There are other people on this site that could elaborate on this to a more accurate degree than I.

One thing that is for certain. Comparing Rands books with the bible is really as incorrect as you can get. One is based on the nature of reality (for those who consider themselves "Provers"), the other is mystically based (for those who consider themselves "Believers")

An issue I have with Rand involves a statement about the nature of the relations between man and woman. That a woman needs to be able to look up to a man. That he would be superior to her in intellect (If I am incorrect on this I am absolutely willing to stand corrected). That would mean that a man would have to look down to the woman he is with and this is not equitable. The universe in which we live does not change or alter in nature because of a persons gender. A is A. A proper relationship should be an equal intellectual value exchange or at least as close as possible. If not then what level of compromise is proper. What do you pick and choose as far as characteristics of a woman? Or maybe it is simply those which are of greatest value to the given individual and of course vise versa for woman choosing a man.

Note this is not an attempt to attack Rand, but rather a serious question on an issue. My own motivation is only to get facts and order them in proper and consequently efficient context.

LES wrote

My understanding is that, much like the Bible, The fountainhead is really dull and really long. So I've never had much urge to read it.

If you haven’t read it, how can you understand it—and much more, how can you pass judgment on it?
I also thought that in order to make any sort of comparison, one has to KNOW the nature of all the things one is evaluating. What non-facts give rise to your evaluation of The Fountainhead as ‘dull’?
And frankly, How anyone can compare the Christian Bible to The Foutainhead is beyond me—as I’ve always thought them to be two mutually exclusive books—so any enlightenment would be very much welcome.

As for crying that the book is ‘really long’, that’s nothing but a confession of intellectual laziness.


LogicMan, I think your issue is the result of a misconception, or interpretation. However it is reasonable and based on fact—[which is all that interests me]—so I will try to clarify it as much as I can. Here it is, in Ayn Rand’s own words.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
“To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging-vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e.: as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or project hero-worship for any and every individual man. As human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences as fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude towards all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary. The higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards.

Ayn Rand, “An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President),” 1968.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
…I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women. There is no particular work which is specifically feminine. Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.

Ayn Rand, Interview with Playboy Magazine, 1964.

Hey Voice of Reason, I've been goign through your old post searching for a certaib link you posted. It was a site with the complete text of the John Galt speech, I was going to print a copy for myself. Do you remember what is was by any chance?

I was going to answer the question about Rand and male/female relations, but Voice-of-Reason already did so. And he's directly on-target. I find it surprising that more Atheists haven't read Rand or become Objectivists. I know of no other fully integrated, RATIONAL philosophy.

I would hope that Voice didn't post any link to Galt's speech. However, Rand's books are available at most bookstores or at www.aynrandbookstore.com and you can obtain more information about her at www.aynrand.org.

"Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e.: as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack."

I Stand Corrected!

I will have to look into her work a bit more.

P.S. I would not have thought to look for a playboy interview and consequently would have missed this. It was a very important issue to me...THANKS

P.S.P.S. Pytheus,
I think skeptisism may play a sizable role here. From a young age I learned to trust nothing about people and their systems and learned to get answers on my own. I also learned to judge people by their actions and not their words. The latin phrase "mens sana in corpore sano" became my motto if you will. So by the time I was told about Rand's work I was skeptical and obviuosly some still remains (Far less than did before after VOR's post.). Also people I met who called themselves objectivists were inconsistant in both thoughts expressed and in action.
It could be that this type of experience is typical of people who are atheist.

Sir Sin, here's your link.
Some of it might be a little bit out of place though--if you're not familiar with the context that gives rise to it, i.e.: the story behind it. It is an interesting speech though, nonetheless.


Pytheus, I do not understand the cause of your concern. Quite a few of Ayn Rand’s works/essays are posted online, and I don’t see any harm in posting a link to them, especially to Galt’s speech, which is the shortest and greatest summarization of Objectivism yet written. However I do not deny the importance of getting acquainted with Ayn Rand’s full works.

Anyway, I’m glad to see another Objectivist around here. Welcome to the forum.

VOICE-of-REASON wrote

...
As for crying that the book is ‘really long’, that’s nothing but a confession of intellectual laziness.
...

Well, duh.

And this John Galt speech isn't really changing my mind; I would've turned off the TV at around the fortieth paragraph and gone off to play video games. I suppose in a way this would be an objectivist reaction.

I also don't understand the point of this male hero-worship thing.

PS: Michael S. Berliner is a giant imbecile.

VOICE-of-REASON wrote

Sir Sin, here's your link.
Some of it might be a little bit out of place though--if you're not familiar with the context that gives rise to it, i.e.: the story behind it. It is an interesting speech though, nonetheless.

Thanks. Oh and welcome to the forums Pytheus.

LES, I see that you have not answered my questions, so I will take that as a concession on your part, i.e.; that you are from being qualified to judge Ayn Rand’s work.

LES wrote

Well, duh.

Well DUH!!!!
Your confession is noted.

LES wrote

And this John Galt speech isn't really changing my mind...

Umm… Who said it was supposed to? It’s no one’s duty to change your mind.

LES wrote

PS: Michael S. Berliner is a giant imbecile.

???!!!??? And that is supposed to affect me how? Or did you just think that merely asserting something about someone will transform him into the non-reality of your wishes? Well, here’s news for you: wishing won’t make it so.

VOICE-of-REASON wrote

LES, I see that you have not answered my questions, so I will take that as a concession on your part, i.e.; that you are from being qualified to judge Ayn Rand’s work.

Well DUH!!!!
Your confession is noted.

Umm… Who said it was supposed to? It’s no one’s duty to change your mind.

???!!!??? And that is supposed to affect me how? Or did you just think that merely asserting something about someone will transform him into the non-reality of your wishes? Well, here’s news for you: wishing won’t make it so.

Yeah thats the Christian approach.

VOICE-of-REASON wrote

LES, I see that you have not answered my questions, so I will take that as a concession on your part, i.e.; that you are from being qualified to judge Ayn Rand’s work.

Well DUH!!!!
Your confession is noted.

Umm… Who said it was supposed to? It’s no one’s duty to change your mind.

???!!!??? And that is supposed to affect me how? Or did you just think that merely asserting something about someone will transform him into the non-reality of your wishes? Well, here’s news for you: wishing won’t make it so.

It doesn't affect you at all. He's just an idiot, and I felt like mentioning it. I don't see that I asserted an particular wish for him to be anything different then what he was.

And if it isn't your duty to change my mind, why do you even care what I think? I think it's perfectly valid to say, "My first impression of this author's work is that it tends to be overly long and rather dull. Further investigation has tended to confirm my initial impresion".

LES wrote

He's just an idiot, and I felt like mentioning it. I don't see that I asserted an particular wish for him to be anything different then what he was.

Hmm…so it is your mere assertion that create facts? How can you call him an ‘idiot’, and a ‘giant imbecile’ without having refuted a single line of his article?
Those certainly are not facts—they are expressions of your wishes.

LES wrote

And if it isn't your duty to change my mind, why do you even care what I think?

OK, don’t flatter yourself. You are certainly right; it is not a duty of mine to change you or anyone else’s mind, and regardless of what I think of your ideas, it does not mean that I will let you go around passing false and unqualified judgments on a book which you have never read—a book which I happen to value very much—after all, this is a public forum.

And how you arrived at evaluating the Bible as ‘dull’ is surprising all by itself.

LES wrote

I think it's perfectly valid to say, "My first impression of this author's work is that it tends to be overly long and rather dull. Further investigation has tended to confirm my initial impresion".

Have you ever heard of the bromide that you can’t judge a book by its cover?—Probably not—but it works here. If you have never read Ayn Rand’s books, it is nothing short of dishonesty to pass judgment on them. Only after you’ve read a book, can you say that it is good or bad—not before…unless you’re into reversal of cause and effect...or a fan of second-hand opinions.

Once again, crying that the book is ‘long’ is a confession of your own intellectual laziness, i.e.: it is an indictment on YOU, not on the book, or its author.