Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead


Ayn RandI remember in high school, my mom was pressing me to write an essay for The Fountainhead scholarship. I have always been a voracious reader and had accomplished some impressive literary feats in the past (I read Gone with the Wind at eight), but I’ve never, ever liked to read for any reason other than for the sheer pleasure and escape of reading. So the idea of reading an enormous and complex book like The Fountainhead for the purpose of writing an essay for a scholarship didn’t really appeal to me at the time, and I told her it wasn’t happening.

As I look back, I am so glad I stuck to my guns, because knowing how I am, forcing myself to read The Fountainhead would have surely ruined the book for me. The timing just wasn’t right, nor was the reason for reading it. But when I moved to New York City exactly one year ago, something compelled me to go to the bookstore and buy it, and after reading a mere few pages, I was completely spellbound. I limited myself to one chapter a night. I savored every morsel.

I realized I had never read a book that challenged my political beliefs, my morals, my ethics, my philosophies, my views on humans and humanity, so completely. I realized we normally read books we know we’ll enjoy, we know we’ll agree with, we know will inspire us. This was different. Before I read The Fountainhead, I was dismissive of any policy or any philosophy that didn’t have the well-being of the masses in mind, and although I remain a social liberal and a critic of free-market capitalism, Ayn Rand’s arguments were the first that allowed me to truly see the dark side of my belief system, as well as the bright side of hers. It was truly terrifying, to be honest, to see embodied in characters like Ellsworth Toohey, the inherent corruption and ulterior motives behind socialism and sacrifice, and to find myself cheering for the self-interested and steadfast Howard Roark, who never dreamed of sacrificing himself for others and knew achieving his own happiness was the highest of moral virtures.

It is an interesting and titillating book, indeed, and as we all know, extremely controversial. Ever since I finished The Fountainhead, I’ve wanted to engage in discussion with both critics and proponents of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism, as well as the broader issues of capitalism vs. socialism, and individualism vs. collectivism. I feel newcritics may be the appropriate avenue to do just that. If you feel so inclined to post your thoughts on the philosophy, the politics, or simply the book and characters themselves… Let the conversation begin.

Possibly Related Classroom Projects From DonorsChoose.org Powered by Social Actions

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
March 20th, 2007
Comments
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Uncategorized

Other Posts
Kill All the Lawyers? No, Kill the Fiction Writers
Thoughts on Richard Thompson’s Dad’s Gonna Kill Me

Readers

Shop newcritics

Featured books:


Viewing 127 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I often wonder how she would explain the music of The Beatles...

    She has her place, but without collectivism we'd all still be in the trees.
    • ^
    • v
    I suppose I feel the way you do about the books, but I find that when I go back to them it quickly becomes apparent that Rand couldn't right a believable line of dialogue to save her life. Curiously, as faras Atlas Shrugged goes, I live in Guelph Ontario, which was founded by John Galt. So I know who he is.
    I think of her didacticist rather than a novelist though, she seems to have a limited understanding of human nature, however much she can write from her own opinion and structure a plot.
    • ^
    • v
    ie she couldn't write(not right) a believable line of dialogue. sorry for the other typos, I'll slow down.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    Re: Rand's lack of ability to write believable dialogue; I couldn't agree more. But again, her books are based firmly in the idealistic world, not reality per se. Although I found the dialogue to be unrealistic and contrived, I think she makes up for it when she describes at length the thoughts her characters are having, the emotions they are feeling, and the motivations they have behind their actions. The way she does this, in my opinion, is unparalleled - she puts thoughts that we all have in writing in a way I have never seen before in a book.
    • ^
    • v
    I was thinking about this in the bathroom just now (don't we all do our best thinking whilst taking a pee?) and I concluded that Rand definitely didn't write these books to be enjoyed, for their dialogue, plot, or otherwise. She wrote them as a doctrine, as a literary example of her "perfect, ideal world." You could almost call The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged "propaganda." Think about those fifty or more pages at the end of Atlas when John Galt does the radio broadcast. (I am just finishing up Atlas.. Full disclosure: After about thirty pages of Galt's diatribe, I skipped to the next chapter.. I think I got the gist of it all..)
    • ^
    • v
    My reaction to this is odd. I read "The Fountainhead" in high school, and loved it. Most certainly I had no ideas about believable dialog then, although my biggest dirty little secret was that I wanted nothing else but to be a fiction writer. Seeing certain failure there, I ran as fast and hard as I could. Even in those confused days, much as I enjoyed "The Fountainhead," reading it cover to cover, it didn't qualify as "good writing" to my vague, untutored mind. Page-turner, yes. Classic, no.
    Then, too much as I loved "The Fountainhead," I couldn't get through "Atlas Shrugged," or any of her other books. Even then, as a would-be writer, I considered it only fair to give any other writer the benefit of 100 pages, unless the work was assigned and then I read it scrupulously, like it or not. One hundred pages of "Atlas Shrugged" didn't work well enough to push me on to page 101. Of course, that was ages ago.
    In college, however, I studied real philosophers. My courses required that I read from Plato through to Sartre, in the actual texts, albeit translations (sometimes.)
    The course list, scrupulously read, included Kant (my favorite), but also Marx, Adam Smith, Maynard Keynes (not fun), who still factor fairly big in philosophy regarding what's right or wrong in terms of commercial fairness. Hobbes gave us a pithy, all too true picture of our lives with that "nasty, brutish, and short," line. And Machiavelli could not be sold short. In many ways he was not wrong.
    Compared to these big-wigs, of course, Ayn Rand doesn't stand a chance, but I doubt she intended to write philosophy as they did. For one thing, they never sold well, and still don't compared to her. But what she wrote amounts to a hybrid, and people have often used it to champion selfishness. Perhaps it's not that far from the movie, "Wall Street," with Michael Douglas's line overtaking Hobbes': Greed is good.
    Not really and certainly not always. not:e heohas often Sheple
    • ^
    • v
    I don't remember much about the novel, read it many years ago and have no interest in returning to it. What I do recall is Atlas Shrugged, which is even more ridiculous, (in paperback his radio broadcast amounts to close to 80 pages I think)and completely inorganic. Whatever Objectivism is about--laissez faire Capitilism, self-interest, refuting Kant-- her books are dull tracts, not novels. (King Vidor actually succeeded in humanizing Roark, Francon and the rest more than Rand ever did. Those final shots in the ambulance have more empathy than anything she ever wrote.)
    • ^
    • v
    The movie did have its strengths (and weaknesses) but as a stone mason i kept worrying about the workers eyes doing all that quarry-work without safety glasses.
    The Harlequin Romance he-man, she-woman stuff was little harder to take than when I read it in high school in the 70's, but I do remember being titillated as you say Jennifer.
    But what a horrible bunch of dump-on-Ayn crew we turned out to be, not much objectivism here, all subjective poo-pooing.
    All that said, you began by talking about being challenged to your political roots, and I think that too challenged me. It could be one of the reasons I think of myself as an Independent Communitarian.
    I reserve the right to hold my own opinions about the common good, but as long as I have equity in the commonwealth, then I'm glad that everyone else does too. And if they don't, I'm willing to help them get it. There is too much Social Darwinism in Rand for me, humans are actually symbiotic lifeforms, we don't breathe or metabolize our own food for ourselves, the symbionts in our cells do it for us (they used to be called organelles, but they have their own DNA). Life is not about dominant predators, its about mutual benefit, the trick is develop an organic form of government that is not as machine-like as the State (with all its bureaucratic mechanisms) but nor can our government simply be a sea of single-celled individuals all doing what they please.
    The next generation will be raised knowing that we - and nearly all other life forms on the planet - are symbionts, and that will change the way humans think, and it will change the way they problem solve.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Jerry Prager I've been looking for this movie for a few years now and I can't seem to find it could you please tell me where you found the movie because I have to read this book for a college class I'm taking and can you get back to me as soon as possble.Thank You
    • ^
    • v
    "There is too much Social Darwinism in Rand for me."

    That's odd, because by my reading, there isn't any. Rand held that each of us should pursue our own self-interest, neither sacrificing our self to others nor others to ourself.

    She held that we should deal with each other as traders (both economically and spirtually), where each party benefits.

    She held that the political system of capitalism is what enables human beings to pursue their own interests, and that rather than resulting in mass starvation among the poor (which is what "social Darwinism" implies), it creates an abudance of wealth that enables everyone to live better.

    Are you sure you're familiar with Rand's ideas, or are you confusing her with someone else?
    • ^
    • v
    What do you people mean by "believable dialogue?" If you mean people just don't talk like that, then I think you've missed the point. No one ever talked like Hamlet, either.
    • ^
    • v
    When thinking about novels as far out of the contemporary mainstream as The Fountainhead and (especially) Atlas Shrugged, one needs to be careful not parochially apply standards deriving from that mainstream. Why is lack of “realistic dialogue” a flaw? Shakespeare and Homer’s dialogue isn’t realistic or meant to be. Neither is Hugo’s or Rostand's or even Oscar Wilde's. It is not fault that these authors don't write characters who speak as ordinary people do, nor is it a fault in Rand. Her goal wasn’t to present people as one encounters them in every day life, and there is no basis for judging all literature by standards that derive from this sort of goal. Rand's dialogue is not “unrealistic” it’s *stylized* in such a way as to highlight those aspects of reality that the author thinks are most significant and interesting.

    Readers used to naturalistic novels often come to Rand's works with a prejudice that they need to overcome before they're in a position to evaluate them. The best approach is either to think of her novels as sui generis--to take them in their own terms, putting one's preconceived notions about what literature should be aside and asking what the novels accomplish--or else to compare them to literary works from a range of periods, rather than just to other mid-20th Century novels. Rand self-identified as a Romantic writer, and comparisons to other works from that school can be especially illuminating. Someone who thinks of her writing in this way may still dislike it, but he will not dislike it in the parochial manner that I think is exhibited by some of the earlier comments.

    As to whether Rand's novels are didactic or works of propaganda rather than proper novels, they certainly do aim to propagate abstract ideas, and in this sense can be called propaganda, but they're not didactic or propagandistic in the sense of having their literary features subordinated to the purpose of teaching or persuading. Her novels all have exciting and inspiring plots and compelling characters. The ideas are conveyed organically by the plots of the novels. The philosophical speeches give abstract expression to what's already been conveyed in this fashion and they serve important plot functions. If one reads carefully, one finds important changes in the way in which characters think and act after certain speeches has been made. This is most evident in the case of Rearden in *Atlas Shrugged* after he hears Francisco's speech on the meaning of money. The abstract perspective conveyed by Francisco to Rearden causes Rearden to come to certain realizations and to take certain actions which drive the plot further. Similar remarks apply to the other speeches in Atlas and The Fountainhead.

    As to how her philosophy compares to that of the "big names" of the past, I think it compares well, and I'm not alone. There's a growing group of philosophers affiliated with major universities studying Rand's works and influence and in many cases advocating her ideas. There are recent or forthcoming books on Rand from a number of well regarded academic presses, including Oxford and Cambridge.

    Of course each reader needs to decide for himself whether and to what extent Rand's ideas (or anyone else's) are true and important, and discussion with other readers can be an aid in doing this, but intelligent discussion of ideas does not consist in listing the names of other authors that one was once assigned and then simply announcing which one's preferences.
    • ^
    • v
    When thinking about novels as far out of the contemporary mainstream as The Fountainhead and (especially) Atlas Shrugged, one needs to be careful not parochially apply standards deriving from that mainstream. Why is lack of “realistic dialogue” a flaw? Shakespeare and Homer’s dialogue isn’t realistic or meant to be. Neither is Hugo’s or Rostand's or even Oscar Wilde's. It is not fault that these authors don't write characters who speak as ordinary people do, nor is it a fault in Rand. Her goal wasn’t to present people as one encounters them in every day life, and there is no basis for judging all literature by standards that derive from this sort of goal. Rand's dialogue is not “unrealistic” it’s *stylized* in such a way as to highlight those aspects of reality that the author thinks are most significant and interesting.

    Readers used to naturalistic novels often come to Rand's works with a prejudice that they need to overcome before they're in a position to evaluate them. The best approach is either to think of her novels as sui generis--to take them in their own terms, putting one's preconceived notions about what literature should be aside and asking what the novels accomplish--or else to compare them to literary works from a range of periods, rather than just to other mid-20th Century novels. Rand self-identified as a Romantic writer, and comparisons to other works from that school can be especially illuminating. Someone who thinks of her writing in this way may still dislike it, but he will not dislike it in the parochial manner that I think is exhibited by some of the earlier comments.

    As to whether Rand's novels are didactic or works of propaganda rather than proper novels, they certainly do aim to propagate abstract ideas, and in this sense can be called propaganda, but they're not didactic or propagandistic in the sense of having their literary features subordinated to the purpose of teaching or persuading. Her novels all have exciting and inspiring plots and compelling characters. The ideas are conveyed organically by the plots of the novels. The philosophical speeches give abstract expression to what's already been conveyed in this fashion and they serve important plot functions. If one reads carefully, one finds important changes in the way in which characters think and act after certain speeches has been made. This is most evident in the case of Rearden in *Atlas Shrugged* after he hears Francisco's speech on the meaning of money. The abstract perspective conveyed by Francisco to Rearden causes Rearden to come to certain realizations and to take certain actions which drive the plot further. Similar remarks apply to the other speeches in Atlas and The Fountainhead.

    As to how her philosophy compares to that of the "big names" of the past, I think it compares well, and I'm not alone. There's a growing group of philosophers affiliated with major universities studying Rand's works and influence and in many cases advocating her ideas. There are recent or forthcoming books on Rand from a number of well regarded academic presses, including Oxford and Cambridge.

    Of course each reader needs to decide for himself whether and to what extent Rand's ideas (or anyone else's) are true and important, and discussion with other readers can be an aid in doing this, but intelligent discussion of ideas does not consist in listing the names of other authors that one was once assigned and then simply announcing one's preferences.
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry for accidentally posting (essentially) the same post twice.
    • ^
    • v
    Following Greg's comments above is a hard task, because I couldn't agree with him more.

    To me, the reason Rand's ideas have been so often overlooked and shrugged off without much thought is because her ideas are incredibly radical (from the root up) and demand much more than mere introspection from the reader. One cannot study her philosophy and interpret it under the light of the prevalent meanings of concepts and notions from traditional philosophy or common parlance.

    Take for example Rand's opposition to not only dictatorship, tyranny, communism, socialism, collectivism, and statism, but also to democracy and equality and egalitarianism.

    It appears, at first glance, silly for Rand to oppose democracy--after all, that is what the mainstream folks wish to spread across the globe.

    What then *did* she advocate!?

    It is much easier (and intellectually less taxing) to assume that Rand preached and advocated some kind of aristocracy of the gifted or the rich, an oligarchy, or the rule of Neitzchean ubermensch. Or, even easier would be to dismiss Rand as a ranting egoist.

    But it takes an honest, unprejudiced investigation into her ideas to realize that she--consistent with the rest of her views--held democracy as nothing better than the tyranny of the majority, as the practical application of utilitarianism in politics, where the majority (the masses) can choose the law of the land without regard for individual rights, wherein if there were a society of enough Nazis then one could legally exterminate the Jews (as it happened in Nazi Germany), or if the majority people in some country were not ready for self-determination among homosexual couples then such sexual expression can be outlawed (as is the case in democractic India).

    Even the thugs in Hamas were democratically elected into power in palestine.

    Anyway, this was merely one example to illustrate the radical level at which Rand functioned. As other examples, the traditional philosophical notions of intrinsic value, agent-independent valuation, non-omnicient (and therefore, imperfect) knowledge, the mind-body problem of duality, and the problem of identity/self are overturned and disposed with at their roots. Rand did not seek to merely solve these problems but fundamentally point out how these problem arose in the first place--due to false and illogical premises that ignored man's existence, nature, and relationship with reality. For example, for Rand, talks about "values" are meaningless without a valuer.

    Anyway, I have commented enough atleast for you to take some serious interest in rethinking your own ethical and philosophical roots, and considering Rand's ideas from a more intellectually serious and honest (unprejudiced) perspective.
    • ^
    • v
    A beautiful work, uplifting, inspiring ... and motivating!

    Thanks for your post, Jennifer.
    • ^
    • v
    The real fun comes when you join an actual Ayn Rand discussion forum such as http://www.rebirthofreason.com or even a local club site such as http://www.PropelObjectivism.com for a direct dialogue with Objectivists. I encourage you to do so.
    • ^
    • v
    Jennifer, apparently the serious discussion on Rand finally began after the amateurs had their say. I'll have to admit that I haven't read Rand since high school, lo these 30 years ago now. I did watch the movie of Fountainhead recently.
    As for not liking her dialogue, I guess it's a case of how it sounds to my ear. I don't much like Hemingway's dialogue either. Not being a scholar of the 1600's I have no idea what people spoke like back then, but given Shakespeare's having invented so many words it's unlikely that anybody spoke like he wrote either. I'm not sure my objection is a lack of realism itself, and having the movie dialogue as the only recent connection to the story I'm clearly talking from ignorance rather than knowledge, I just never believed I was listening to human beings talking to one another. Maybe her dialogue is an alienation device intended to force us to think about her ideas rather than her plot, but then why the Harlequin Romance story line.
    All that said, I remember liking Atlas Shrugged but couldn't tell you anything about it other than that the line Who Is John Galt is repeated several times.Glad the specialists weighed in.
    So I'll surrender, and go to my library and re-read Atlas.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    An author’s decision to make his dialogue more or less closely resemble typical speech definitely has effects, but I’m curious as to why you think that more ordinary dialogue encourages one to focus more on the plot, while less typical dialog like Rand’s focuses attention on the ideas at the expense of the plot. That’s not my experience. I find that Rand’s decision to strip her dialog of the sorts of ordinary features that associate a given person’s speech with a geographical area, time period, or social class has the effect of focusing attention on both the plot and the ideas at the expense of the sort of “local color” which can sometimes be charming in certain sorts of period pieces (e.g. Huck Finn), but would be distracting in a work like The Fountainhead.

    Rand’s sort of dialogue also has the effect of making the characters seem more like people (motivated, as real people are, by their ideas and values) and less like stereo-types. In reality, each person has any number of traits that are simply absorbed from the culture around him and are therefore distinctive to his region and time. If an author decides to emphasize these features it’s because he thinks that they are especially important to who the characters are. Rand’s decision to de-emphasize these sorts of traits reflects an opposite view of human nature, but I don't think it draws one's attention to this view, as much as it draws ones attention to those aspects of the characters and their actions that Rand does think are important, and these are the very aspects that are central to the conflicts that drive the plot.

    Perhaps, though, we’re talking at cross purposes, since you’re opinion seems to be based largely on the Fountainhead film. I do think that much of the dialogue comes off as strange and stilted in the movie. The visual aesthetic of the film doesn’t match the style of the dialog (it’s too ordinary) and the acting and directing leaves something to be desired.

    -Greg
    • ^
    • v
    I was really thrown for a loop when I first read the Fountainhead too. (And my name is Jennifer...although I'm sure any other Jennifer knows that's not much of a coincidence.) What really fascinated me was the ruthless way Ayn Rand judged her characters, from a perspective that was completely foreign to me. That was what drew me in. The more I read, the more unusual her perspective seemed--especially the bold and unequivocal way she presented ideas. I thought--how can she be so sure of herself? At the same time I could see that she thought to question things I had never thought to question before--and I considered myself pretty smart at the time. :D
    In any case--I was hooked, and still am almost 15 years later. I hope you decide to read more of her.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think Rand is a novelist, but it has nothing to do with inability to write convincing dialogue, or the vagaries of plot construction, or the tenets of Objectivism. She's a dull, clumsy rhetorician (her short novel Anthem reminds me of one of those Twilight Zones where the moral is pounded home every 30 seconds or so lest the meaning be lost)who dispenses with all the irrationality, folly, unreason that make human nature what it is. Roark and Galt aren't characters, they're Platonic supermen, ego ideals of some Objectivist perfection with Rand's license to rule the world, but they're not human beings.
    Also: Vidor's film does have stilted dialogue, and the acting does leave something to be desired--but look at the soucre material! Gary Cooper railing against small men and weak ideas...for some six minutes! But Vidor along with DP Robert Burks (who shot about a dozen movies for Hitchcock) get a few things right: the strong rigid lines, the light in the quarry and that final POV shot in the ambulance.
    • ^
    • v
    Sean,
    If you consider the portrayal of heroic men and women, and heroic ideals, to be dull, what would you consider exciting?

    If you think that irrationality, folly and unreason are the essence of human nature, do you hold those qualities to be vices? If so, do you hold reason and wisdom to be virtues? If you do, then why would you object to the portrayal of the rational man as heroic?

    The more rational one is, the more human he is. Isaac Newton was far more human than Adolf Hitler. Which would you rather have as your ideal?
    Many people are irrational, unreasoning fools. It does not follow that they have to be. A human being chooses what kind of a person he will be, he creates his own character.

    I do not find Ayn Rand's writings dull. I find them exciting and inspiring! She succeeded very well in her purpose of the projection of an ideal man. Of man as an end in himself, functioning at his very best, fully rational, living for his own sake, refusing to sacrifice himself or to sacrifice others - and thriving.

    This ideal is reachable for humans. It is an ideal precisely because it is both possible to man, and the very highest goal that man can aspire to.
    • ^
    • v
    It's interesting that you mention Anthem, since it is considered the intellectual ancestor of The Fountainhead. Anthem falls under the dystopia genre as its theme emphasizes the importance of individualism in man's life and the need of the ego as its foundation.

    One way in which she did this was the first person perspective, which was unlike all her other fiction. It allows us to know exactly what Equality was thinking. Also by having the reader think as a collective i.e. using the third person plural "we". By doing so, the reader is able to recognize that "we" is not used as the normal plural sense in which it is meant to be used but rather even when Equality is alone he uses it to refer to himself, enter the contradiction and the horror that the destruction of the individual causes.

    Anthem is not the cause of the constant pounding and neck stomping that was prevalent during its time and today, but it is a way out of it. As Equality so vividly demonstrates as he escapes into the Uncharted Forest and is able to start living for the first time. If this meaning is lost on anyone it is no fault of Rand's. As to who that leaves, check for yourself.

    To all those who are interested in reasoned discussion on Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, as Miss Janisch expresses, I would such starting with her works themselves. There is a suggested reading list here.
    • ^
    • v
    I know I said I'd go to the library and get the book but I haven't done that yet, we're all having so much fun here.
    Richard,
    I'm not sure I can agree with you that a good human is more human than a bad human. But then I don't idealize any human, certainly not myself. I might like one human more than another, I might prefer to be in the company of one over another. And certainly writers have produced some extraordinary villians who are more interesting than their heroes.
    Roark is an architect, and while this pertains to the movie more than to the book because in the novel we only have words about architecture, while in the movie we have the promotion of the modern skyscraper et al as Roarks work and I find that particular vision of the city scape to be exceptional ugly and dysfunctional. But that may be a cheap shot at the book.
    That said, I'll go back to the nature of dialogue, because as a playwright, human speech fascinates me. A long time ago I developed a notion about dialect and dialectic, the emotional and the intellectual voices of a 'character'. Dialogue is most interesting to me when it conveys two things: personality, the sequence of an individuals' feelings; and character, the sequence of their ideas.
    I don't think it matters to me whether dialogue appears in a play, a film, prose or poetry. If dialogue doesn't carry both polarities I don't think it has much power.
    In the end I don't have much use for people who are all strength and no weakness. The entire natural world exists because biochemical-electrical weaknesses allow for bonding, St.Paul's notion that 'in our weakness are we made strong.' I don't think Roark is a strong person, and I think his independence from all communitarian impulses makes him weak, but in a way that prevents me from bonding to him or his ideas.
    Again I don't know enough about Rand to speak about Objectivism, but I'm not much interested in supermen, and I'm almost certain that I don't believe that 'people who don't need people are the luckiest people in the world.'
    • ^
    • v
    In reference to the comment that:
    "... without collectivism we’d all still be in the trees."

    It is without individualism, independent thinking and the advent of capitalism that man would still be "in the trees".

    Those who still live in fully collectivist (tribal)societies literally do live in whatever conditions are found in nature in
    their area. They live in poverty and
    die young.

    Those who live in the world's most individualistic, most capitalistic societies, live in the space age, the information age, the poor these countries are wealthy compared to the average person in tribal
    societies, and we live to a ripe old age.

    The difference is not resources. Africa has lots of minerals, fuel, etc. So do other countries with primitive, collectivist cultures.

    The difference in the success of their countries and ours, is the difference between mysticism and reason. It is the difference between altruism and individualism. The difference between collectivism and capitalism. Civilization is better than tribalism. Collectivism sucks.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    If I may presume, Richard was not basing his evaluation of whether one is human or not on the fact of good vs. evil. I think he meant to go much further as a starting point. You must first recognize that man's nature is defined as a rational animal. Reason being the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. If this is taken as your premise, going all the way towards a system of ethics based on rational self-interest, then you will see that it was Hitler who threw out any claim to rationality when he constructed a system of thought based on the destruction of reason which by its nature is anti-life, anti-man, and as a consequence can be view as actions of the sub-human or inhuman.

    As to the model buildings in the film, they were never meant to illustrate Rand's theory on aesthetics. In fact she made a point not to linger on them too long in the film as they would surely be criticized for their unrealistic nature.
    • ^
    • v
    Oops! I meant to say "the poor *in* these countries"
    • ^
    • v
    I suppose I'm not a progressive in the sense that I'm not convinced that all this technological advance is particularly rational, it's certainly not sustainable, and depending on how badly it collapses, we may all be back in the trees, albeit the trees will all be dead.
    I guess my difficulty with your POV Richard is that you (and Rand) seem to insist on divided singularities, individualism equals good and collectivism equals bad. We live on a bi-polar planet, why shouldn't we all have varying degrees of bipolarity ?
    I'm not sure a planet full of Roarks would be much fun to live in, in fact I think it would be rather dreary, some sort of purgatory in fact. Unlike Roark, I actually like other people, I may not trust many of them, but I try not to hold that against them.
    • ^
    • v
    Help I'm posting between posts.
    • ^
    • v
    Michael, I suspect that humans are the only animal that is irrational, and I think there is a good reason for that,
    perhaps arising out of uncertainty, the dependence of our survival on imaginative insights from skewed perspectives, and something to with improbability theory and the fact that two of earth's most abundant gases are reactive and should be blowing up and putting an end to the planet except for the highly improbable fact that all the life on the planet appears to be engaged in the common purpose of regulating the planet's gases by breathing an atmosphere beneficial to all the life on Earth.
    • ^
    • v
    Hello All,

    I just wanted to throw in my lot with the other Rand fans. I'm a big fan of the Fountainhead, but an even bigger fan of Atlas Shrugged (my favorite book!)

    I first read her non-fiction at age 16, then read the novels a few years later. I found them absolutely riveting. Romance, intrigue, the rise and fall of empires, action, battles of the intellect; her books have got it all.

    I can't help but laugh at the lady who said she skimmed over the last 40 pages of John Galt's speech because she "got the gist of it all" in the first 30 pages. I have a BA in philosophy and have been studying religion and philosophy seriously for over 15 years, and I *still* learn things from closely reading Galt's speech.

    Rand is a brilliant philosopher, artist, and novelist. She definitely derserves a thorough reading.

    Jennifer, I'm happy that you found yourself a good book to read!

    --Dan Edge
    • ^
    • v
    Let me just say that I am so delighted that we're having such a good discussion and debate about Rand and The Fountainhead. I had a feeling this would happen, and I am most pleased. :)

    I've refrained from commenting because often you can learn a hell of a lot more from "listening" rather than speaking.

    In response to Dan's last comment: "I can’t help but laugh at the lady who said she skimmed over the last 40 pages of John Galt’s speech because she “got the gist of it all” in the first 30 pages. I have a BA in philosophy and have been studying religion and philosophy seriously for over 15 years, and I *still* learn things from closely reading Galt’s speech."

    That was ME, Dan! haha.

    I'm sure you're absolutely right; I was so anxious to get on with the rest of the story and watch the world fall through the "looters" fingers like sand - I couldn't read Galt's broadcast in its entirety for that reason as well! I am finishing the book up right now, and I promise to go back and read every page of his speech, because no doubt it is thought-provoking, to say the least.

    Thanks again everyone for another great thread!
    • ^
    • v
    I am writing this from my local Library where I am about to check out some Rand if they have any in.
    But of course, more fun than thinking about reading Rand, was this thread, thanks Jennifer, a good time was had by all.
    • ^
    • v
    Jennifer,

    Now that you have read some of Rand's fiction, you should consider reading some of her non-fiction. The non-fiction helps you to understand the novels -- why the characters act and think the way they do; what motivates them.

    You could start with "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" or "The Virtue of Selfishness." Later, try reading "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff -- this is a book about how the United States is going in the same direction as Nazi Germany, because we are following the same philosophic ideas that led to Hitler's rise. Read about it here: www.peikoff.com

    Also, go to the website of the Ayn Rand Institute www.aynrand.org

    There is a lot of misinformation out there about Ayn Rand, so make sure you learn from a reputable source.

    Enjoy!
    • ^
    • v
    I too have been lurking on this thread, rather than posting and have learned quite a bit - mostly that three's a tremendous debate about Rand's legacy. this has been great reading - thanks everyone!
    • ^
    • v
    "Unlike Roark, I actually like other people, I may not trust many of them, but I try not to hold that against them."

    This is a common misconception, but in fact, Roark likes other people--passionately. Consider his attitude toward his customers, toward Mike, toward Cameron, toward Wynand, toward Dominique. He did not simply say, "Oh, those are fine people." He was deeply devoted to them because he *respected* and *admired* them.

    For the same reasons, he did *not* like Keating or Toohey. To have affection for them would have been treason to Wynand and Dominique.

    Why? Because to like someone is to value him. Who you like and who you love reveals your values, your standards. Yet there is nothing good about Toohey and Keating, nothing to like or admire, and so to like them would be to announce that one either has no standards, or that one's standards are corrupt.

    Now, let's consider this from the other side. Did the "social" people like Keating and Toohey actually like other people? Absolutely not. They both used and manipulated people in order to substitute for their lack of self-esteem (Keating sought prestige and approval--Toohey sought power and domination).

    This is why Roark says, "To say 'I love you,' one must first know how to say the 'I'". It's why Ayn Rand held that the only person capable of liking people is the independent man, the one who doesn't need people in order to live and feel validated.

    Consider your own experience. With what kind of people have you had your most positive relationships? With needy people? Or with people who have their own lives and their own goals? The dependent person or the independent person? The person who will do anything for your approval or the person who doesn't need your approval, and does for you what he does because he genuinely values you and wants you to be happy?
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not going to pretend here that I have a masters degree in literature and that I understand all the nuances of the points the some of the more astute and learned contributors here have made in this thread.

    However…

    I was a little disappointed that no one commented on my initial point:

    I often wonder how she would explain the music of The Beatles…

    I wasn't kidding. Most people would say that The Beatles had two Howard Roarke's in their midst, and who (but a few) would say that the music that John Lennon and Paul McCartney created alone after the breakup of The Beatles eclipsed the music they did (along with the contributions of George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin) as a de facto committee, or even came close? I don’t think this is a rare exception – I think genius can often prosper from the input of other individuals of lesser talent as easily as it can be diluted.

    I am contending that pure, laissez-faire capitalism can be as much (if not more) of an obstacle to progress and improving the human condition as pure socialism. I would argue that art and craft in a capitalistic society suffer much more due to compromise imposed upon the artist and artisan by management who are concerned about increasing profit and cutting costs than by less apt colleagues who do not share in their singular vision. I don’t know that Rand would have completely disagreed with that statement, but many of her disciples profess exactly that.

    My problem isn’t with Ayn Rand or with The Fountainhead - it is with people who use her work as an excuse to allow, justify, and advance the agenda of the wealthiest people to the determent to the rest of us.
    • ^
    • v
    Richard if you find Objectivism something to live by or strive towards, or find her portrayl of the heroic inspiring, good luck reaching those exalted heights. Still doesn't make Rand a novelist--and that's where this thread began.
    Your phrase "the more rational one is the more human" would pretty much eliminate the likes of Kafka, Joyce, Musil, Gombrowicz, Tanizaki and a zillion other 20th cetury writers (not to mention at least three-quarters of English Lit.)who rummaged around the corners of the psyche, cataloging the permutations, foibles, follies, lusts--and occasional beauty. So the anawer to your intial question Richard is no, I don't find it exciting because they're not men and women--they're Forms, big ego-Ideals that march thru the books in lockstep to rail, cavail, and hector all the miserable cretins who want to supress their abiding genius. Whatever Objectivist lessons she's teaching,it's not fiction. Compared to the dizzying leaps of her (birth-countrymen) Gogol or Bulgakov or even the early(recent) fiction of Victor Pelevin, she's pretty dull.
    • ^
    • v
    Unfortunately my library didn't have a copy of Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged checked in, but I did get We the Living and the Romantic Manifesto.
    I won't say anything more about Fountainhead until I've re-read it. I started the manifesto, and clearly I too believe there is an objective reality that exists and which can be understood and dealt with.
    She does write clear philosophical prose without horns growing out of her tongue, and I agree with much that she says without much difficulty, so far...
    So perhaps our Randians can explain whether she addresses notions of paradox,since she appears to want to deal with both reality and ideals in the same breath...seemingly without recognizing the importance of common good distinct from individual good.
    As per the Viscount's comments about the Beatles, I too am discomfited by what I sense as an extreme individualism in her thought. Granted her Soviet childhood gave her no reason to trust collectivism, and granted that two individuals like Lennon and McCartney (as opposed to Lenin and Trotsky ?) transcended their individual strengths by combining them precisely because they were confident in their individual abilities, and equally assuming that if Ms. Rand had a large rock to move in her yard she would have not tried to move it alone but would have asked for help from however many people it might have taken to move the rock, and thus isn't actually as extreme as some of us are assuming she was, can the Randians (not collectively of course) watching us muddle through this say that she did recognize paradox, but was simply trying to build a society one human at a time ?
    • ^
    • v
    "I think genius can often prosper from the input of other individuals of lesser talent as easily as it can be diluted."

    That's true, and Ayn Rand would not disagree. To take one mundane example, in the most recent issue of *The Objective Standard* (an Objectivist publication), the first article is co-written by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo, and I am confident in stating that working together they developed a better article than either would have on his own.

    But that doesn't destroy that what each of them contributed was *his* contribution, made possible by *his* own effort, and for which *he* deserves moral credit.

    Moreover, it is not *always* true that great creations are the work of multiple people. Think of the great discoveries and creations in history and what you generally see is the work of one great human being: from Aristotle, to Newton, to Edison, to Darwin, to Ford, to Shakespeare, to Beethoven, to Ayn Rand.

    "I am contending that pure, laissez-faire capitalism can be as much (if not more) of an obstacle to progress and improving the human condition as pure socialism. I would argue that art and craft in a capitalistic society suffer much more due to compromise imposed upon the artist and artisan by management who are concerned about increasing profit and cutting costs than by less apt colleagues who do not share in their singular vision."

    As opposed to the "compromise" imposed on him by government beuracrats?

    We have two choices: either leave people to make their own way on a free market, where they must try to persuade others of the value of their achievments--or give the government the power to decide which artists and producers are entitled to patronage.

    History has shown what happens in the each case: In the former we get the car, the computer, and *The Fountainhead*. In the latter we get PBS and Piss Christ.

    (Ayn Rand wrote an entire essay on this specific point. See "To Dream the Non-Commerical Dream" in *The Voice of Reason.*)
    • ^
    • v
    "My problem isn’t with Ayn Rand or with The Fountainhead - it is with people who use her work as an excuse to allow, justify, and advance the agenda of the wealthiest people to the determent to the rest of us."

    The agenda she advanced and which Objectivists advance is: freedom. Which means, capitalism, the social system that protects man's rights by leaving him free from physical force.

    Such a political system protects the rights of all citizens, rich or poor, and so enables them to pursue their own welfare.
    • ^
    • v
    "So perhaps our Randians can explain whether she addresses notions of paradox,since she appears to want to deal with both reality and ideals in the same breath…seemingly without recognizing the importance of common good distinct from individual good."

    It's not that she didn't reconize it--it's that she denied it. To be good is to be good for *somone*, for some particular individual pursuing some particular goal. There is no collective good apart from the good of each individual that makes up a group.

    On the contrary, the only purpose of such a notion is to sacrifice the welfare of actual individuals, which is just what happens in nation's that uphold the "public good" rather than individual rights.
    • ^
    • v
    So here we come to a whole new kettle of fish.
    "Moreover, it is not *always* true that great creations are the work of multiple people. Think of the great discoveries and creations in history and what you generally see is the work of one great human being: from Aristotle, to Newton, to Edison, to Darwin, to Ford, to Shakespeare, to Beethoven, to Ayn Rand."

    In this I think like a social creditiste, science is rooted in the work that others did before, Shakespeare based Romeo and Juliet on earlier texts, everyone adds their piece to the puzzle, nobody creates in a vaccuum. Rand herself in 'manifesto' calls herself a bridge between the past and the future.

    "We have two choices: either leave people to make their own way on a free market, where they must try to persuade others of the value of their achievments–or give the government the power to decide which artists and producers are entitled to patronage."

    How is a market run by corporations any freer than a market run by government ? Personally I'd like to see free enterprise unshackled by corporate capitalists (precisely I suspect because corporate capitalism is collectivist. so maybe I'm more extreme than Rand, maybe her support of capitalism is nothing more stemming from the weaknesses of her anti-communist childhood biases.) The idea that the market is free is absurb, and the Social Darwinism I spoke of earlier is beginning to rear its ugly little head. Social Darwinism is dominant predator bio-economics. But the Fact is, the REALITY is we are symbiotic life forms, humans don't breathe for ourselves, the symbionots in our cells do, we exist only because of Mutual Benefit.

    Don't get me wrong, I think the state is as dangerous as corporations, and I certainly don't think capitalism as a political system enables the poor to do anything but serve their predatorial masters.

    I think I'm even more of radical individualist than Rand was because I don't fear common good, I don't fear self-sacrifice. I guess my ideal man is a little closer to Jesus than to Roark.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry, you might like this. PMB probably won't...

    It was my most linked to and most popular post ever.

    What I Believe
    • ^
    • v
    Not to have personal conversation in the midst of this little chat Viscount but I'm essentially a tax credit unionist that sees government as a business owned by citizens, with bureaucrats as staff, and meant to be run on cooperative principles, that's not of course the way it's run now.
    I also wouldn't use the government to destroy corporate capitalists I'd used all those individualist poor people and middle class people to combine their buying power to dismantle Social Darwinism one predator at a time. As capitalism has shown the means of production is actually money, if you have you can produce whatever you want. The poor and the middle class don't have a lot individually but by pooling it they produce a mutually beneficial society, without ever losing their individuality.
    • ^
    • v
    Jennifer,
    can we go back to your point about how titillating Fountainhead was because I'm sure that while Randians may not enjoy the mutuality of sex, in the privacy of their own individuality they are obviously as titillated as you were (and I was in high school.)
    • ^
    • v
    By the way, let me start by saying how impressed I am with the quality of the debate on this page. It's rare that people who disagree to this extent remain polite and respectful.

    "How is a market run by corporations any freer than a market run by government ?"

    There is a fundamental distinction between the government and businesses.

    The only power a business has is the ability to offer rewards (products, services, salaries) in exchange for your dollars or your productive effort. If you don't want to deal with a business, you are free not to. You are free to go your own way and all you stand to lose is whatever value you could have gained by dealing with the business.

    The government has the power of the gun: you do what the government says or else.

    Under capitalism, the government can only use its monopoly on force to protect your rights--to protect you from force so that you can deal with others (including businesses) on mutually agreeable terms, or go your own way. The government's role is to prevent either side from imposing *its* preferences and judgments on the other by force.

    Now we have to keep in mind that what we have in America today is not capitalism--it is a mixed economy. There are elements of freedom and elements of statism. In today's context, it is true that some businesses do buy influence with government officials in order to impose their will on others. But the solution is to establish a wall between state and economics, so that the government is no longer in a position to dispense such favors.

    (I should add, most businesses don't attempt to "buy influence." They support and schmooze politicians in self-protection: to keep government officials from unjustly shackling them.)
    • ^
    • v
    "How is a market run by corporations any freer than a market run by government ?"

    The reason you think Social Darwinism is rearing its ugly head is because you won't let it go yourself. As Rand said, "Contradictions don't exist. If you're faced with one, check your premises. At least one of them is wrong." In this case what is needed is the recognition between economic and political power and the error of equating the two.

    Economic power consists of incentive and reward. It allows individuals to voluntarily trade with one another with both parties benefiting. There is no sacrifice involved and as such is a proper relationship for society. Political power is that of force and coercion. Corporations do not hold such power, their power is earned. It is the political power used against free individuals, i.e. mixed-economies, that harms everyone.

    "Personally I’d like to see free enterprise unshackled by corporate capitalists (precisely I suspect because corporate capitalism is collectivist. so maybe I’m more extreme than Rand, maybe her support of capitalism is nothing more stemming from the weaknesses of her anti-communist childhood biases.)"

    I have been noticing this line of thinking in your comments lately and must tell you they are ill-founded distortions of Rand's ideas.

    Underlying this is your idea of the meaning "collectivism" as used by Rand. From your comments I can tell you think Rand disavowed all forms of groups such as team sports or study groups by the simple fact that they are an entity consisting of more than one person. This would be false. You must be sure not to define terms by non-essentials. In fact collectivism is wrong not by the numbers but instead what it demands of an individual: self-sacrifice. It is perfectly natural for individuals to work together, but on non-sacrificial terms, i.e. as traders. Voluntarily trading value for value. This is not collectivism it is the essence of individualism put in a social context. And on a broader scale that is what capitalism is in essence.

    So from this we can assert that one does not proclaim his individualism by destroying others as you would with corporations. This is not what Rand or any other true individualist would suggest.
    • ^
    • v
    As for the quality of the debate, well we're sitting in Tom's house, and Tom has invited Jennifer to invite some friends over and here we all are.
    First off let me say that I'm a Canadian so my view of the American socio-political system is that of an outsider. Northern countries tend to be more communitarian than southern ones because winter tends to force itself on people and cause them to act in consort more often than not.
    Also, while Canadians have left-right divides, generally speaking they don't attain the heights of rancour that I find quite common on American blogs. I'm actually amazed at how deeply Americans seem to hate one another.
    As a nation Canada was created by coalition party known as the Liberal Conservatives. For myself I consider myself an Independent Communitarian, which is why I can appreciate some of Rand's perspectives on individualism. Why the community is such an evil thing to such large sectors of American political thought I can't even begin to fathom.
    When you talk about business I think what you're saying only holds true about small business, because small business is about as close as you can get to free enterprise, the bigger it gets the less free, the more manipulative and the more predatorial it becomes.
    Leaving aside your comments about government because I essentially have no problems with distrusting government, the difficulty for me is that the collectivist aspects of corporate economics appear not to concern you. I cannot see how they can't, objectively speaking they are machines rolling over the landscape and the commons. The privatization of the commons concerns me because it's not about equalizing the bounty but allowing the rich to seize disproportionate shares of it. And its not really privatization, its corporatization, and corporations have no souls, they cannot sign affadivits in court because they have no conscience to bind them, so where is the basis for Rand's ethics when the pursuit of profit by any means but illegal ones is the mandate of corporate America ?
    And when you let your corporations loose on the world, they pillage and desecrate ways of life that other individuals hold dear and in doing so bring disaster home to roost on American soil, forcing an incursion of the state into the privacy of citizens in the name of security.
    Your turn.
    • ^
    • v
    "Leaving aside your comments about government because I essentially have no problems with distrusting government, the difficulty for me is that the collectivist aspects of corporate economics appear not to concern you. I cannot see how they can’t, objectively speaking they are machines rolling over the landscape and the commons. The privatization of the commons concerns me because it’s not about equalizing the bounty but allowing the rich to seize disproportionate shares of it. And its not really privatization, its corporatization, and corporations have no souls, they cannot sign affadivits in court because they have no conscience to bind them, so where is the basis for Rand’s ethics when the pursuit of profit by any means but illegal ones is the mandate of corporate America ?"

    Corporations are merely a form of economic integration. They are composed of real individuals who join together in ways to increase each one's economic efficiency.

    To make a monster out of corporations doesn't make much sense to me in light of all the ways I benefit from them. I just bought a new laptop, which was made by a corporation, from Best Buy, which is a corporation, with money I earned by working at a corporation. When I go home (driving my car produced by a corporation), I'm going to read a book that I bought from Barnes & Nobel (a corporation), and maybe watch some Buffy the Vampire Slayer (produced by a corporation and distributed by a corporation).

    Oh, and let's not forget my dinner, which was produced by a corporation and which I'll buy from a store run by a corporation, and which I'll cook using products created by corporations.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    Now if it weren't for corporations those products either wouldn't exist, or they would be as cheap and of such quality, or I wouldn't be able to get them as easy.

    I say we should thank the corporations and the productive, creative individuals who comprise them, for making our lives so much better.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,
    If "bi-polar" means contradictory, then I disagree with you that we live on a bi-polar planet. A contradiction would be something which both is and is not, at the same time and in the same respect. There are no contradictions in nature - no things that simultaneously are and, in the same respect, are not. We live on a planet that consists exclusively of things that exist, but does not consist of anything at all that does not exist. There is nothing bi-polar about that. A is A, a thing is only what it is. Something which exists is not a synthesis of what it is and of what it is not.

    You ask "why shouldn't we all have varying degrees of bipolarity?"

    Because each person needs truth in his thinking. Truth is the
    recognition of reality. Since there
    are no contradictions in reality, if one is to know the facts of reality, his thinking must be non-contradictory and based on actual observation of reality.

    The other animals do not have the ability to be either rational in the human sense, or irrational. Their form of consciousness is automatic. Only man has the option of being rational or irrational, because a human's consciousness is volitional. Only a human can choose the irrationality of embracing a contradiction - a practice you seem to advocate. But he doesn't have to choose that way - he can choose instead to think by a rational method, which is logic: "the art of non-contradictory identification". Proper logic, both inductive and deductive, based on observation of reality, is man's only means to the certain knowledge of reality that you appear to deny the possibility of.
    You claim that: "two of earth’s most abundant gases are reactive and should be blowing up and putting an end to the planet except for the highly improbable fact that all the life on the planet appears to be engaged in the common purpose of regulating the planet’s gases by breathing an atmosphere beneficial to all the life on Earth".

    Earth's atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 9/10 of 1% argon. Of these only oxygen is reactive, but it is not reactive by itself. Combustible gases such as methane and hydrogen exist in the atmosphere, but only in trace amounts. The equilibrium amounts of these gases in nature do not allow
    for an ignitable global mixture of gases, and these equilibria have definite causes.

    On what basis do you assert that it should have been otherwise? And why would the equilibrium of nature be a cause for uncertainty? Why should it cause confusion and irrationality that the planet does not blow up and put an end to itself?

    You uphold human irrationality and uncertainty as if these conditions were universal and inescapable for man, yet you claim that "all of this technological advance"
    is "*certainly* not sustainable". You claim that "we live on a bi-polar planet" as if you *know* that we do.

    But, based on the ideas that man is necessarily irrational and uncertain, and that for nature to exist as it does is "improbable", how would you know anthing at all?.
    If you believe that certain knowledge of reality is not possible, and that nature is contradictory, it will definitely make *you* uncertain. If you believe that man has no choice but to be irrational, and that contradictions are the basis of truth, then *you* will be irrational. This does not mean that you can *know* that all others are necessarily in the same condition.

    Those who *are* rational, and dont think that truth is to be found in contradictions, do have certain knowledge of an absolute reality.
    • ^
    • v
    Wow, I feel like I'm back in dogma class and everybody has the right catch phrase for every situation.
    Having only a high school education I'll see if I can keep keep up.
    First off, I do believe in an objective reality that can be deduced from experience. Personally I divide experience into two processes, one is the natural world that I call the Actual, the other is the vast mesh of human cause and effect that I call Reality, therefor I believe that both the Actual and the Real can be understood.
    The uncertainty principle is Heisenberg's, and has to do with the fact that we can either know where a particle is or where it is going but we cannot know both at the same time.
    The notion that the planet's gases are reactive comes from James Lovelock creator of the Gaia theory who was asked by NASA to determine if they were likely to find life on Mars. He realized that spectrographs of Mars showed it had a stable atmosphere, when he turn his lens around to consider what Earth would like look he realized that the atmosphere was reactive, and he went to Lynn Margulis, the creator of Symbiobitic endogenesis theory to discover that the atmosphere was being regulated by all the life on the planet, which he seemed to him to resemble some kind of planetary consciousness but which he settled on describing as pro-prioceptive, self regulating.
    As for notions of contradiction I don't think I once used the word in any of my comments, it seems to be a Randian preoccupation, it's not one of mine.
    There is a state of Coleridge's that I use via Northrup Fry that goes some like distinguishing differences for things that cannot be divided. Political economics is a single phenomenon, you can't divide the two spheres of influence, you can only not their distinguishing marks.
    The America corporate republic is an Oligarchy, one of Plato's phases of republican decay.
    And quite frankly, while I can easily see a collectivist ideology at work in oligarchy that is social Darwinist and predatory while you're happily celebrating how rational you are and how much stuff you get to own while painting pretty little pictures of incentive and reward and a happy-go-lucky world of enlightened traders are just going about their business.
    I think you should ask people in the third world or living in the thousands of slums that scatter your unhappy land just how free they are from economic force.
    As for the fact that we live on a bi-polar planet, we do for heavens' sake, the north pole and the south pole, I don't think there's much sense of irony in Rand, since irony builds its humour around the all the-too-human and you people are so busy living in the fantasy that you're all-so superhuman that you can actually make the statement that we don't live on a bi-polar planet. Bipolarity does not mean contradiction, electricity is bi-polar, it goes from the negative to the positive. It's not a contraction it's a reality and from that reality one can objectively deduce that life is far more complex than Ayn Rand wants it to be. She had an unhappy collectivist experience in her children and so she set out to denounce common good as a delusion and the world ends up with an America full of individualists so self- absorbed in how well they're doing that they can see the misery and want their socio-political system is causing around the world.
    You want to be left alone with your freedom to ignore the suffering that your rape of the world's resources creates. If there's anything rational in your position, you're right, I don't see it, all I see is denial and self-satisfaction.
    • ^
    • v
    "You want to be left alone with your freedom to ignore the suffering that your rape of the world’s resources creates."

    I couldn't follow the rest of what you said, but I do want to comment on this statement.

    In case there's any doubt, let me say that, yes, Objectivist advocates the rape of the earth. (Due credit to Harry Binswanger for that statement.)

    To put it more precisely, we believe that human beings survive by reshaping the earth to meet our needs. That is what Roark does through his buildings. That is what animates the characters of *Atlas Shrugged* as well. And it is the root, heart, and soul of morality.

    Environmentalism is the view that nature has intrinsic value apart from human beings, and that we must sacrifice our lives and welfare to uphold "pristine nature." But that view is both wrong and perverse. Nothing has value apart from it's relationship to man and his goals, and to demand that man sacrifice himself--not even to other men but to insentient nature--is so vicious an idea that in many respects I find it difficult to accept that people believe it.

    This is an enormously complex issue, and I couldn't hope to cover it in a blog comment. I recommend that anyone who is interested in Objectivism's view visit the Ayn Rand Institute's webpage (www.aynrand.org) which contains many op-eds on this issue. Or, even better, see Ayn Rand's book *Return of the Primative*, which covers the issue in depth.
    • ^
    • v
    Sean,
    You wrote: "Still doesn’t make Rand a novelist–and that’s where this thread began".

    If you will go back to the top of this page, and read Jennifer's original post, then read comment #1, you will see that this thread did *not* begin with a discussion of Ayn Rand's literary skills as a novelist.

    Jennifer expressed an interest in Ayn Rand's morality, and specifically asked to discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy and politics.

    My interest in this thread is not literary, as you have noticed. I have no concern for whether or not you think Ayn Rand was a real novelist. But I do not think that your interest in the thread is strictly (or even primarily) literary, either. If it were, I dont think you would have even bothered to comment, let alone follow the thread for the day - in light of your remarks to the effect that you think Rand was a total literary zero. And your comments are not just of a literary nature. Which is why I have addressed them.

    You wrote:

    "She’s a dull, clumsy rhetorician ...
    who dispenses with all the irrationality, folly, unreason that make human nature what it is. Roark and Galt aren’t characters, they’re Platonic supermen, ego ideals of some Objectivist perfection with Rand’s license to rule the world, but they’re not human beings."

    I wrote what I did in comment #21 because I think that it is not (your idea of) dullness you are attacking, but heroism and ideals as such. If you have the opposite ideas from Rand about what type of thing is morally good, and that is why you dont like Rand's heros, you have not said so. But if your problem with Ayn Rand's hero characters is that they are perfect, that is the whole object of an ideal - to be a standard, an example of the best a person could aspire to. Your objection to her heroes seems to me to be that they dont have any anti-hero qualities.
    If you would take the trouble to understand Ayn Rand's philosophy, you would see that absolutely no one has Ayn Rand's sanction to rule the world, nor to rule any person's life other than his own.

    Roark and Galt *are* projections of Ayn Rand's ideal of moral perfection.
    Roark and Galt are definitely not Platonic. They are not Forms. No, they are not literal humans, and neither is any other fiction character, by any author, a literal human. But they *are* Ayn Rand's portrayal of what man "could be and ought to be". Ayn Rand formed her idea of the ideal man from her own knowledge, gained by many years of assiduous study and thought. She made no pretense to be infallible or omniscient, and she openly said that she was not. Her idea of human perfection is about morality. An honest error in knowledge is not a moral lapse. Moral perfection is an unbreached commitment to rationality. It is never switching one's mind off for a moment to escape what one knows to be true.
    Never making a "mistake" in one's thinking on purpose. That type of thing.

    Ayn Rand had no use for any ideal that could not be put into practice.
    She called Objectivism "A philosophy for living on earth". She pointed out that it is altruism, not egoism, that is the moral code that cannot be practiced consistently.

    You can try to refute Ayn Rand's view of morality, and her view of the ideal man, but first you should learn what you are talking about. If you do not understand her ideals, you have no basis to criticize them as unrealistic. Most of your representations, so far, of her ideas and her heroes have been false. Your attacks on her characters as being "Platonic" are strawmen. Your comments on her novels are not critiques - they are smears.
    • ^
    • v
    Richard, your posts are starting to SOUND like Atlas Shrugged. First of all my interest is primarily literary--the topic of discussion is was a novel not a philosophical discourse and that's where I am leaving it. As a novel it is didactic, histrionic, humorless and compared to say, Bulgakov's "The Master And Margarita" or "The Heart Of A Dog" or Gogol's "Dead Souls" (never mind his short stories) or even Victor Pelevin's "The Life of Insects" (all Russian) dull and nearly (to me) unreadable.) Atlas Shrugged, is merely The Fountainhead supersized.
    Re: your notion that characters in fiction are not "literal humans," is not news to anyone save, say Harold Bloom, who thinks that Hamlet lives next door to him in New Haven or wherever he resides. Everyone knows that characters are projections of their authors--the HCE (Here Comes Everybody) of Finnegan's Wake is nice metaphor for such--but Rand's aren't even that, they're Ideals, signposts,(and unbearably pompous ones at that) she uses to hang her philosophy on. Art is not what "ought to be," (what artist could survive under that?) but the whole range of human nature: the loves, hates, fears, drives, etc.
    • ^
    • v
    One can go on forever arguing about whether characters are or should be ideals and what that means, but if we’re referring about Rand’s characters in particular, wouldn’t it be more productive to actually talk about *those* characters, specifically what values Rand’s admirers (such as myself) find them and what Rand’s critics find so “dull” or objectionable about them?

    Sean, you say that the characters are mere “Forms” or “sign posts” and that they “march through the books in lockstep to rail, cavail, and hector all the miserable cretins who want to suppress their abiding genius”. What exactly do you mean by saying that they march in lockstep? That they’re motivation is some how automatic or non-human? How would you apply that analysis to a character like Rearden? Consider for example the scene where he questions whether he can go on after he learns that he will have to sell of most of his businesses. Or consider Francisco’s struggle to remain calm in after Rearden has slapped him, or the night when Dagny, slumped over her desk in the office of the John Galt Line ponders what’s missing from her life or her reaction when the decision is made to close the John Galt Line, or the way she suffers during the month she spends in Woodstock when she tries to learn to live without the railroad. Is this marching in lock step? Is this the inner life of a "sign post"? Or is it an extremely sensitive portrayal of someone whose passionately in love with her work and with a certain conception of the sort of life that she thinks is possible to her, who finds herself in a world where the sort of life she envisions seems incomprehensibly impossible?

    If you’ve read Rand's novels, you can’t really believe that any of her heroes is motivated by a desire to put down the “cretins”. They are motivated by their love of their work and by other positive values (e.g. Kira's love for _Leo in We The Living_ or, in The Fountainhead, Dominique's love for Roark and for the an integrity that she thinks is doomed). They face tremendous conflicts, including often internal conflicts, in which these values are at stake. Through tremendous effort and strength of character, they eventually surmount the obstacles. Do you think that there’s something inherently uninteresting or objectionable about this sort of character or story (and, if so, what?) or do you think that Rand carries them out poorly? Can you name an author who you think treats this sort of theme more successfully?

    Rand's is the most literarily adept, psychologically insightful, philosophically profound, and emotionally gratifying treatment of these themes I've ever found. And I find her characters vivid and human, with rich and interesting inner lives. If Dagny, Francisco, Rearden, Roark, Galt and Wynand, don't seem like people to you. Why don't they? What do they lack? And is the issue one of Rand's literary ability, or is your dislike a reflection of a difference between your view and hers of what sort of people and actions are possible and worth contemplating?

    What do you mean in calling her novels humorless? Surely you don't mean that there is no humor in them, because their obviously is. The Fountainhead in particular contains a great deal of satire, some of it quite funny. Consider, for example, the description of the architecture of the Stanton Institute in Chapter 1, or Dominique's columns in the Banner. What the novels lack is a sense of humor about themselves and about the heroes. They take themselves seriously. Do you regard that as a flaw? Why? Must everyone and every work of art be subtly self-deprecating? Is there no place in your world for people and art works that are proud and lack self-contempt? Are you contemptuous also of Antigone and the statue of David?
    • ^
    • v
    "I am contending that pure, laissez-faire capitalism can be as much (if not more) of an obstacle to progress and improving the human condition as pure socialism. I would argue that art and craft in a capitalistic society suffer much more due to compromise imposed upon the artist and artisan by management who are concerned about increasing profit and cutting costs than by less apt colleagues who do not share in their singular vision. I don’t know that Rand would have completely disagreed with that statement, but many of her disciples profess exactly that."

    Heh. I go through this every day.

    But you forget such compromise in a socialist society would be forced, and ultimately heroic works of art are going to conflict with the party line.

    Under capitalism, the choice to "compromise", whatever that means, is the artists. And at least they have a choice. Look at Ani Difranco, she didn't need a "Columbia" to distribute her music, or anyone else to tell her what she wasn't allowed to write. You can find a way to make it work.

    I'd like to mention however that most artists who cry loudly about being "forced" to compromise their artistic vision are neither forced nor have an artistic vision that's really worth defending. They may deem it so mentally, but the reality of their art is quite different. Then they go off and blame "the system" when really it is the case that they have little talent, regardless of their popularity and proceed to self-destruct (usually with drugs) or find various other non-artistic causes with which give purpose and meaning to their lives -----> insert 1 zillion links to leftist activist causes on the insert of a CD jewel case.

    For people who genuinely have something to offer, what you refer to is actually a cultural problem for artists, not a political one. Art is one of the first places where a change in the culture can happen, and sitting on the sidelines whining that the world or the "corporations" or whatever else is going to make you crack and give in or that it's too hard, doesn't help anything change, ever.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with whomever said that they were pleased with the level of debate on this issue - most of the time these discussions can very quickly descend into a name-calling flame-war.
    • ^
    • v
    Good morning, I see your party is still going on Tom and Jennifer. Stray thoughts on what's been said since I left

    The Novel of ideas is a perfectly respectable form of literature, criticizing Rand for writing one seems a little churlish.

    I started reading We the Living but I'm afraid my brain is so excited about this particular debate I'm not paying attention. She clearly is an observant prose writer and her language is adept.

    A note on my use of 'collectivism', yes, it's true I was 'having you off' as the Brits would say, precisely because you seem to take the word itself so seriously, it's Rand's Satan.
    I have no problem seeing that a hockey team is not the evil state that she so abhors.

    And yes I'm sure I wouldn't fare particularly well in any collectivist state, as I said before, my form of individualism reels at the way Randians
    adhere so strictly to her particular code. That's why I call myself an Independent Communitarian, because I reserve the right to hold my own opinions about the common good. But unlike Randians I actually perceive such a thing in Reality, it's objectively there, and it's called mutual benefit.

    As for PMB 52
    "In case there’s any doubt, let me say that, yes, Objectivist advocates the rape of the earth. (Due credit to Harry Binswanger for that statement.)

    To put it more precisely, we believe that human beings survive by reshaping the earth to meet our needs. That is what Roark does through his buildings. That is what animates the characters of *Atlas Shrugged* as well. And it is the root, heart, and soul of morality."

    This I think is the nub of the matter for me, it's why I stopped reading Rand I now realize.

    As symbiotic lifeforms it has no basis in reality. The average human being has 75 trillion cells in his or her body and their are several symbionts with their own DNA in every one of those cells. They're proto-bacteria and they're in every other life forms on the planet.

    Rand's position is a bastardization of the Biblical notion that man was given Dominion over the Earth. Your position remains of what happens when you start a bacterial colony on an agar agar plate, it soon dies in its own wastes.

    You think you're thinking rationally but all you're doing is thinking selfishly. Yes altruism is more difficult than egoism, it takes a heroic effort to think about other people's needs, but enlightened self-interest is precisely that. Rand's unenlightened Egoism is small and unheroic, as much as you would like to pretend that it's the height of human achievement.
    She passes herself off as an ethicist, but write frankly I find Randian thought to be amoral: there is no right and wrong but what you individually allow yourselves to believe, and since limiting your field of action is by definition a self-sacrifice, there is no basis for morality In Randian thought.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    You write:

    “She passes herself off as an ethicist, but write frankly I find Randian thought to be amoral: there is no right and wrong but what you individually allow yourselves to believe, and since limiting your field of action is by definition a self-sacrifice, there is no basis for morality In Randian thought.”

    But Rand doesn’t say that “limiting your field of action is… a self-sacrifice”. For example, she doesn’t think that rights, which define the spheres in which one is properly free to act are moral principles and non-sacrificial even though they prohibit some actions (e.g. murder, theft, etc., etc.)

    Nor does she think that what’s write and wrong is simply a matter of “what you individually allow yourselves to believe”. She wrote extensively on what is right and wrong and on why morality is factual and independent of people’s beliefs. (See, especially, Chapter 1 of _The Virtue of Selfishness_ or Galt’s Speech in _Atlas Shrugged_.)

    Similarly with the idea that “altruism is more difficult than egoism”: Rand would contend that it isn’t; that projecting and achieving what’s actually best for oneself is a demanding way of life an that giving up one’s values and justifying one’s actions by ones service to others is comparatively easy.

    You might disagree with Rand’s positions on these issues, but why persist on objecting to things that she did not hold? If you don’t know what she thought about these issues, then don’t say anything about them. If this discussion has convinced you that there’s something interesting in Rand and worth looking into, you’ll continue to read her works, and thereby come to be in a position to evaluate her ideas. If you’re not interested, then don’t read them, but then don’t pretend that you know what she stood for.

    As for each man having lots of bacteria in him, so what? What bearing does this have on how men should set their purpose in life and how men should interact with one another? When you go about planning your day and you life, do you give much consideration to what will benefit these bacteria for their own sake? Should you?
    • ^
    • v
    I said:

    “I am contending that pure, laissez-faire capitalism can be as much (if not more) of an obstacle to progress and improving the human condition as pure socialism. I would argue that art and craft in a capitalistic society suffer much more due to compromise imposed upon the artist and artisan by management who are concerned about increasing profit and cutting costs than by less apt colleagues who do not share in their singular vision. I don’t know that Rand would have completely disagreed with that statement, but many of her disciples profess exactly that.”

    Anon$ said:

    But you forget such compromise in a socialist society would be forced, and ultimately heroic works of art are going to conflict with the party line.

    Under capitalism, the choice to “compromise”, whatever that means, is the artists. And at least they have a choice. Look at Ani Difranco, she didn’t need a “Columbia” to distribute her music, or anyone else to tell her what she wasn’t allowed to write. You can find a way to make it work.

    I think the point is this - we have other choices in between pure, unregulated capitalism and pure, government regulated socialism.

    I am strong proponent of government regulated capitalism, where hard work and good performance are rewarded, but where corporations are required to play fair by the government who in turn are accountable to the people. All of the above, and many variations in between are all flawed, but seems to me that there has to be a balance between government and the economy.

    I am strong proponent of government regulated capitalism, where hard work and good performance are rewarded, but where corporations are required to play fair by the government who in turn are accountable to the people. All of the above, and many variations in between are flawed, but seems to me that there has to be a balance between government and the economy.

    My summation of my position is this:

    I think the point is this - we have other choices in between pure, unregulated capitalism and pure, government regulated socialism.

    I am strong proponent of government regulated capitalism, where hard work and good performance are rewarded, but where corporations are required to play fair by the government who in turn are accountable to the people. All of the above, and many variations in between are flawed, but it seems to me that there has to be a balance between government and the economy.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, it is true that civilization could never have formed without group cooperation - it's the essence of the modern state (we the people, the general welfare). The problem with Ayn Rand is that she was a reactionary. Because she grew up in a totalitarian society, she saw all collectivism as evil, the same way that Communists saw private property and wealth as evil. Her philosophy is extreme, and so her ideas are not grounded in reality. Extremist ideology is fun to debate, but has no practical application, and is doomed to become irrelevant -- which is why Objectivism is not taken seriously by academics.

    I have not read Ran's fiction (I plan to soon) but the one philosophical writer I admire is John Gardner. He incorporated philosophical ideas into his novels without taking away from his well-crafted fiction. His characters are real - not puppets to simply play out some philosophical point of view. Though I disagree with some of Gardner's On Moral Fiction ideas, he's grounded in reality, not reactionary idealism.
    • ^
    • v
    Why can’t something “extreme” be grounded in reality? A lot of things in reality are extreme. For example atoms are extremely small and it took extremely intelligent people to discover them. Mountains are extremely steep and it takes extreme ingenuity and effort to put roads and train tracks across (or through) them. The political ideas of America’s founders were extremely new and extremely idealistic and it took extreme courage and moral certainty on their part to fight for and implement them.

    The idea that there’s something wrong with extremes as such is incoherent. Unless by “extreme” one simply means “too much” of something, but then must keep in mind that there are certain things of which there is no such thing as “too much”—health for example.

    The attempt to dismiss or vilify an idea by painting it as “extreme” is anti-intellectual conservatism, and it’s a recipe for languishing with the status quo. It uses the fact that an idea is significantly different from the ideas that one is used to as an excuse for not thinking about it and evaluating it, this insulating the dogmas and prejudices with which one was raised. Where would we be if the founders or the abolitionists hadn’t been extremists? If the innovative scientists and entrepreneurs who created our modern world had rejected each new discovery as too radical?

    Rand’s view is that one should be extremely rational, and virtuous, that one should seek to be extremely happy, and that the achievement of this happiness requires one to be extremely free. If she’s wrong about any of these things it’s not merely because they’re “extremes”.

    As to Rand’s regarded in academia and why, her work is starting to be taken seriously, and practical applicability has never been the standard for academic attention. If it was Marxism wouldn’t have been the darling of the American academics for half a century (and it certainly wouldn’t still be taken seriously today, as it is in many university philosophy and history departments).
    • ^
    • v
    Greg,
    I think your comments are pretty darn good, but there is one part of your last comment (#59 2nd paragraph) in which I think the wording is confusing to the reader - conveying the opposite of the meaning I think you intended. Here is the phrase I'm referring to:

    "she doesn’t think that rights, which define the spheres in which one is properly free to act are moral principles and non-sacrificial "

    Ayn Rand did say that a right is a moral principle and that a right defines freedom of action. She didn't say that rights demand sacrifice. She did say things to the effect that rights are non-sacrificial.

    She discussed these issues in Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12 (titled "Man's Rights").
    • ^
    • v
    Richard,

    You’re entirely write, of course. I meant to write the exact opposite: “she thinks that rights define the spheres in which one is properly free to act are moral principles and non-sacrificial”!

    -Greg
    • ^
    • v
    I meant "entirely *right*" above. The fast pace of this sort of web commenting brings out all of one’s tendencies towards typos and other little errors. :-(
    • ^
    • v
    Extremely good to see you're all still at it.
    We The Living is still so far a good read. At this point it's the story of a spoiled young woman whose spoilers have lost the capacity to spoil her any further, but since she's strong willed she's excited by playing with fire and is basically against whatever the people who frustrated her spoilers are for: there has already also been a touch of titillation. Clearly Rand is setting her character on a path of some kind maturation, within the context of her anti-Soviet sensibilities.
    There is theory of anger that I culled from called from a book called The Angry Marriage: basically there are six types of anger 2 are overt, venting and provocation, and four are covert: enactment, displacement, invalidism, and utter suppression.
    Politics is the art of displaced anger, it's always us versus them. In a marriage, it's the couple against the in-laws, against the people at work, against the Jews, the black's the Randians, the coporatations, the Rand corporations, everything outside the marriage, that way the marriage survives huge amounts of anger, because it's all displaced onto other people.
    The marriage that is a nation is almost always displacing anger onto the 'other', it's all the Russian's fault, it's the communists fault, it's the terrorists falut.
    Because nations are governed primarily by political parties with specific ideologies, the parties themselves stay together because the fault is likewise always the other party's. It's always the conservatives fualt, it's liberals fault. America is rife with a very severe form of anger displacement, and the marriage of peoples that is your nation is in serious trobule because of it.
    Which is why I'm EXTREMELY happy with the way this debate is going.
    • ^
    • v
    And now back to the bacteria.
    Your environmental policy appears to be as self-motivated as a bacteria's, consume as much as possible and if the whole agar agar plate dies in its own wastes then we'll have heroically individuated ourselves by conquering life on earth.
    All life represents at least a minutae of awareness, all energy= equalling information. With a multi-zillionic array of information gathering going on inside each of us, every human has capacities undreamed about in your philosophies, and yet, the agar agar plate awaits bacterial-mindedness if I can call it that. And since a mindset that believes that raping the planet is a perfect acceptible form of behaviour for an ideal human, I beg to differ, I think human consciousness has been elevated by life for a much higher purpose than that: the dominion over the earth that humans have been given is not so we can die in our wastes.
    • ^
    • v
    Greg. First of all, I am talking about philosophical ideas, not the concept of extremism you apply to other subjects. But you are right that I didn't fully explain what I mean. What I mean is, the truth is always somewhere in the middle. Marx developed his ideas about capitalism because capitalism in the late 1800s extreme, ie; there were no labor rights, child labor laws, health laws, anti-trust laws...etc. These abuses of labor for the sake of profit was the reason why Marx's critiques of capitalism struck such a strong nerve. And, of course, capitalism adjusted itself. An example of extremist ideology would also be Fascism -- a term coined by Mussolino to mean, essentially, the corporate state. IT was, really, a spoils system were the average person was worse off, but the rich got richer. That ideology failed. As will every other extreme ideology. You cannot fit human nature into a pre-designed template and expect good results. You have to be flexible - that's all I meant.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole debate and find that I am conflicted in various places: one of course is by my own ignorance, another is my own displaced anger. On the hand I don't appear to mind being challenged by Rand's ideas, on the other there are some positions I distrust altogether. On the one some of those positions may not be Rands but merely those of her supporters, which of course throws it back upon me to read more Rand, and yet there is something about her ideology I don't trust, and it probably has to do with her metaphysics, or what I think of as her lack of them. I don't believe in the purely rationale, because I think life is much too large for man to roll up into a ball of thought and toss around, and yet I clearly believe there is an Objective 'other' that we can know and understand.

    Perhaps there are a number of lurkers who have been reading along and saying little or nothing who could roll this discussion up into a ball that contains all sides and put their finger on the nature of the beast we have created here.
    • ^
    • v
    Ralph.

    The ideology of abolitionism was extreme and didn’t fail or have to be moderated. Neither did the idea of deposing kings in favor of representative governments.

    And the fact that during certain periods in history people chose certain solutions (e.g. increasingly regulating capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries) does not show that these were the right decisions. They could have been (and I think they were) based on misunderstandings of the problems that they were facing.

    In any event the “extremeness” of something isn’t a proper standard by which to evaluate it. Fascism is evil not because it’s extreme; it’s evil because it’s oppressive.

    You mention the danger of trying to “fit human nature into a pre-designed template” and the need to be flexible. But flexibility is not a virtue in all contexts. The proper response to Fascism for example isn’t to be flexible and embrace it in a moderated form, nor is the proper response to serial killer to be flexible and allow him to murder a limited number of victims. Eschewing this sort of pragmatist flexibility does not require trying to squeeze people into some sort of Platonic mold. There are certain enduring facts of human nature which lead to certain requirements on how we must live if we’re to survive and prosper. One must identify these facts and requirements and adhere to them extremely and inflexibly. If one errs, the error is not the rigidity or consistency, it’s that one has mistaken the facts.

    Of course, there are many delimited areas where both moderation and flexibility are good things, for example how much one eats, but in philosophy, when dealing with fundamental ideas, one must be inflexible, precisely because reality isn’t flexible and it demands the same disciplined consistency of anyone who is to prosper in it.
    • ^
    • v
    As I guessed, life goes on, it will not roll up into a ball, and nor will this thread.

    Therefor I'll toss this into the coporate capitalist critique.

    The main problem with it in a contemporary sense is the fact that they are entities rather than indidviudals, golems, which means that organized crime has taken advantage of the fact that they have no conscience to bind them and that the pursuit of profit is their primary purpose. Since organized crime not only globalized before corporate capitalism, but commands billions upon billions of dollars that are being laundered through 'legitimate' corporations, the entire global economic is toxic with crime money.
    Interpol is fighting a war against criminal economic forces so interwined in the global market that winning that war is seriously in doubt.
    The relationship between arms and drugs is well known and well documented, it was even at the heart of the Iran contra scandal.
    Believing as I do that corporate capitalism can not be unentangled from organized crime, something can be done by taking away the legal fiction of corporate citizenship. Free enterprise should be conducted by individuals, they can cooperate as much as they want, they can pool their resources, combine their buying power and their market reach, their technological developments, they can be individually repsonible for the actions of their companies, but they should not be allowed to play corporate shell games.
    Consumers aid and abet organized crime because we do not have the transparency we need to know who owns what and how.
    You can dismiss the argument that the global economy is toxic with crime money, but that doesn't make it any less real.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry writes in 67, "the dominion over the earth that humans have been given is not so we can die in our wastes."

    Of course not -- it is so we can flourish: reshaping the world to serve our lives wouldn't include doing so to kill ourselves. That'd be missing the whole point. ;^)
    • ^
    • v
    Viscount,

    You wrote:
    "I think the point is this - we have other choices in between pure, unregulated capitalism and pure, government regulated socialism.

    I am strong proponent of government regulated capitalism"

    You are mistaken. "Pure, unregulated capitalism" is a redundancy. Capitalism *is* the political system in which the economy is unregulated.
    Capitalism is Laissez-Faire. There is no such thing as "government regulated capitalism" - this is a contradiction in terms.

    The system you are advocating is not capitalism at all, it is a "mixed economy" - which is a variety of statism. Our sorry current system is a mixed economy. It is not capitalism.

    You said:
    "I am contending that pure, laissez-faire capitalism can be as much (if not more) of an obstacle to progress and improving the human condition as pure socialism."

    There is no "progress and improving the human condition" apart from progress or improvement for individual humans. Socialism holds no progress or improvement for human beings, as was amply demonstrated in the 20th century.

    Capitalism created an explosion of prosperity in the 19th century, raising the standard of living for all classes of society - even the lower classes which socialists falsely claim were "opressed" by capitalism. Andrew Bernstein's book "The Capitalist Manifesto" addresses these issues, and many others, very thoroughly.

    Laissez-Faire is the only political/economic system that recognizes and protects man's rights. Not "human rights", which is a collectivized perversion of the concept of rights, but individual rights - the right of each individual human to total ownership of his or her own life, and all the other rights which derive from this basic right.

    It is *this* that the advocates of socialism, mixed economies and other systems of statism seek to breach or to compromise - the recognition of the each individual's right to the absolute ownership of his own life.

    Before the Enlightenment, the old justification of the demand that an individual surrender this sovereignty was the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings", which was replaced by the present doctrine which Ayn Rand called the "Divine Right of the Masses" - or in common terms the "Greater Good" or the "Public Interest" or the "Will of the People".

    Laissez-Faire capitalism, not some variant of socialism, is the system that creates the "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number". But that is not the reason it is morally right.

    The reason Capitalism is the only moral political system is that it is the only system that protects mans right to his own life
    • ^
    • v
    Greg,

    RE:comment #65.

    I know it!
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry writes in 69, "yet there is something about her ideology I don’t trust, and it probably has to do with her metaphysics... I don’t believe in the purely rationale, because I think life is much too large for man to roll up into a ball of thought and toss around"

    Yet it is a fact that to whatever degree we do understand life, it is via our rational faculty.

    Objectivism is entirely shaped by respect for these types of fundamental facts. At its most essential, it is about recognizing that there is a world, and that for us to stay in it requires knowledge of it and of the effects of our actions. So Objectivism's central focus on rationality is ultimately due to respect for the fact that reason is how we know the world, how we make our choices, and ultimately how we live or die. As to those choices, they likewise shouldn't be arbitrary because the conditions of human life will not bend to whim or dogma (recall Bacon's famous dictum, "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"). Our striving to live requires certain courses of action and forbids others because of the facts of reality. We certainly aren't omniscient, but maximizing the clarity and depth of our understanding of these things is in our interest, no?

    So as you consider the principles in the Objectivist ethics and politics, please look for the fundamental facts that give rise to them -- that is where Objectivists will ultimately take the discussion if there is confusion or disagreement.
    • ^
    • v
    Richard:

    You are mistaken. “Pure, unregulated capitalism” is a redundancy. Capitalism *is* the political system in which the economy is unregulated.
    Capitalism is Laissez-Faire. There is no such thing as “government regulated capitalism” - this is a contradiction in terms.

    Point taken.

    My error is in my misuse of the terms, but not my understanding of them.

    Still, my mind is unchanged.
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    I agree with you that the fact that there are different electrical charges, and north and south
    magnetic poles, in nature is not a contradiction.What I said was:

    "If 'bi-polar' means contradictory,
    then I disagree with you that we live on a bi-polar planet"

    This was in answer to your statement :

    "I guess my difficulty with your POV Richard is that you (and Rand) seem to insist on divided singularities, individualism equals good and collectivism equals bad. We live on a bi-polar planet, why shouldn’t we all have varying degrees of bipolarity ? "

    In my comment that "if bi-polar means contradictory", I did not know what bi-polar means to you. However, you seemed to be using "bipolar" as an analogy to try to justify the uniting of the contradictory concepts of individualism and collectivism.

    I still dont know what "bi-polarity" means to you as a reference to electrical or magnetic polarity in any relation to the issue of individualism vs. collectivism. From the fact that different electric or magnetic polarities exist near each other and have a certain relationship to each other, it does not follow that humans should accept and reconcile both individualism and collectivism. These are irreconcilable ideologies, one of which is good, and the other evil.

    An Ideology is neither electrical nor magnetic in its nature, nor do electrical charges and magnetic polarities have any moral characteristics.

    An ideology, such as individualism or collectivism,can be chosen by man and implemented, or rejected, discarded and abandoned. Because an ideology is subject to man's choice, it is therefore open to questions of morality - does the ideology promote man's life or destroy it? It is good or evil accordingly. An ideology is not an immutable fact of nature, although man can create and choose his ideology in accordance with the facts of nature ( in accordance with the requirements of his life, success and happiness) or not in accordance with the facts of nature (against what his life, success and happiness require). But man's life requires a certain type of actions, if he is to preserve his life and enjoy it - whether he knows what actions he needs or not. An individual's ideas guide his actions. The right ideology guides an individual to recognize the requirements of his mind and his body, recognize which thoughts and actions are life-sustaining, and guides him accordingly in his choices. The right ideology nurtures his life. Because man has a certain nature, because man's life requires a certain type of thought and a certain type of actions to sustain his life, any other ideologies that he accepts, destroy his life - and are therefore evil. The philosophy of Oblectivism, affirming reason, egoism, individualism and Laissez - Faire capitalism, fosters man's life. The political systems of collectivism/statism, including socialism and mixed economies, and the ideologies that give rise to these systems, destroy man's life.


    In contrast to one's ability to choose or reject an ideology, it is not open to man's choice whether or not there are electrical charges or magnetic polarities in nature. By certain types of physical action he can rearrange them, but he cannot allow or disallow their existence.

    An Ideology is neither electrical nor magnetic in its nature, nor do electrical charges and magnetic polarities have any moral characteristics

    There is no basis for drawing an analogy between magnetic or electrical polarities and ideologies.

    There is no contradiction in opposite electrical charges because there is no issue of one polarity being true and the other false. But in the issue of individualism vs. collectivism, one of these systems is based on true ideas and the other system is based on false ideas. For this reason, your statements suggesting that individualism and collectivism can/should coexist in harmony, are contradictory.
    • ^
    • v
    Viscount,

    "Point taken.

    My error is in my misuse of the terms, but not my understanding of them.

    Still, my mind is unchanged."


    If you agree that capitalism is the system in which the economy is unregulated by government, and if, as you say, your mind is unchanged that there should be regulation of the economy by government, please discontinue claiming that you are a proponent of capitalism, as you claimed in #60
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    "America is rife with a very severe form of anger displacement"

    Anger toward whom? And redirected at whom?
    • ^
    • v
    Jerry,

    "Free enterprise should be conducted by individuals, they can cooperate as much as they want, they can pool their resources, combine their buying power and their market reach, their technological developments, they can be individually repsonible for the actions of their companies, but they should not be allowed to play corporate shell games"

    Individuals pooling their resources is exactly what a corporation is. But what we have is not free enterprise, on a corporate level or otherwise - government interference is *everywhere*.
    • ^
    • v
    With man as the epicentre of your philosophy, your need for the terms good and evil is very curious, as a pair of opposites good and evil are theological in origin, not moral, because the moral pair is right and wrong.
    There is a mechanism in language known as the excluded initiative, in which for example, a purely descriptive passage uses a rhetorical device because description is not enough.
    The same happens in analogic language, when Plato says poets are liars and then proceeds to use the metaphor of the cave it is because the analogic is not powerful enough, not evocative enough to say what he means, so he has to use a poetic image, not because it's a lie, but because analogic language can't convey what he's trying to say.
    The philosophical is a mode of language that cannot express what poetry can, just as poetry cannot express what prophecy can.
    Rand's god is man, and your cults's ethical distinctions between what is good and what is bad, has to reach beyond philosophy into the language of theology, and thus we get Randians incanting the utterances of their prophetess.
    Theirs is rationalism of cant. They collectively intone that capitalism is good and everything else is evil because the prophet says so, not because it is objectively so.
    They collectively intone that selfishness is good and that sacrifice is evil because the prophet says so, not because it is objectively so.
    Resistance is futile to the great hive of Randian worker bees because the prophet says so.
    I think their god is a delusion and their prophet even more so.
    Rand saw herself as bridge between the old objectivism that arose out the biblical notion of a created universe with laws that man comprehended and by which man developed science; and the new objectivism that came along after philosophy nose-dived into despair after God was pronounced Dead, an objectivism in which she was the prophetess.
    And now her followers collectively declare that only the things that she declared to be objectively true are objectively true.
    I objectively perceive Capitalism to be nothing more than the worship of Mammom in business suits. And that all their cant about how it brings freedom is meaningless when all the crimes against humanity that can be laid at its feet are taken into consideration.
    But they will not take them into consideration that cannot see them because Rand did not point them out to them.
    Human beings are not isolates, we are not just individuals, in our very cells were are communities of lifeforms, and that is an objective fact that will permeate the future of human understanding.
    They speak of freedom, and then they limit everything they say about it to what Ms. Rand thought, what Ms. Rand said.
    I also believe she was entirely mistaken about rationality being the entire source of our understanding. And just because the collective says it is so doesn't make it so, we receive gadzillions of bits of information from the universe every second, all kinds of positive and negative charges, all kinds of nuances and while it's true we have neural pepitides in our guts and throughout our bodies, what all those bits of information add up to is a complex of emotional/intellectual leaps and insights and thought processes and intuitions. And just because the Collective says it is not so, does not make it not so.
    In the chemical theory of opposites when we see the colour red we see an after image of green, and the green proves that what we are seeing is red. When I see individualism I see an after image of communitarianism, and when I see communitarianism I see an after-image of individualism. I don't think, O, the green is evil because its the chemical opposite of red.
    With all due respect I'm not interested in joining their cult, because I would rather think for myself than have Ms. Rand think for me, dead as she is like some succubus attached to the imaginations of her followers to keep them from thinking for themselves.

    Tom and Jennifer, thank you for the party, if you throw another and if it's okay by you I'll be back. Bye all.