# Discussion on Specific Authors & Books > Author List: >  Ayn Rand

## hypatia_

What are your thoughts on her writing?

----------


## Darcy88

I rate her alongside Stephenie Meyer as a writer and Glenn Beck as a thinker. 



Gore Vidal on Rand:

"This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout."

----------


## hypatia_

I'm not sure where people get the whole "down with altruism" and "greed is good" theme from her work. I certainly didn't.

According to Gore Vidal, Alexander Fleming selfishly studied science, when he could have been helping people at homeless shelters. But alas, his passion and decision to do nothing but follow that passion (the core of objectivism) led to his discovery of penicillin.

----------


## Darcy88

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51pMod2Aaso

First thing she says is that "altruists are evil." The best part is around 3:30 where she says that its fine to help others as long as "its not your primary aim in life and you don't regard it as a moral virtue."

The funny thing I find is that many Christians like Ayn Rand even though she's one of the most anti-Christian thinkers of all time.

----------


## maxphisher

If you aren't gathering a "down with altruism" message from Rand, then you haven't read anything that she has written. Elsworth Toohey is the epitome of Rand's demonizing of altruism. Also, greed is the evil that is hidden behind Rand's theories of individualism. Her characters are presented as individuals who practice noble selfishness; however, she pretends that greed is not the common lifeblood behind capitalism. Of course, she also pretended that she didn't thrive on the hero worship that she demanded from her sycophantic followers.

----------


## hypatia_

> If you aren't gathering a "down with altruism" message from Rand, then you haven't read anything that she has written. Elsworth Toohey is the epitome of Rand's demonizing of altruism. Also, greed is the evil that is hidden behind Rand's theories of individualism. Her characters are presented as individuals who practice noble selfishness; however, she pretends that greed is not the common lifeblood behind capitalism. Of course, she also pretended that she didn't thrive on the hero worship that she demanded from her sycophantic followers.


Elsworth Toohey was a villain in the Fountainhead, so yes, he totally demonized altruism. He was in direct conflict with the protagonist Howard Roark. It seems like you are the one who hasn't read anything she has written.




> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51pMod2Aaso
> 
> First thing she says is that "altruists are evil." The best part is around 3:30 where she says that its fine to help others as long as "its not your primary aim in life and you don't regard it as a moral virtue."
> 
> The funny thing I find is that many Christians like Ayn Rand even though she's one of the most anti-Christian thinkers of all time.


When one says "altruists are evil," it's all about frame of reference. To you perhaps, it is a very selfish concept to say, "don't help others." But when one views altruism as doing what YOU do best in order to BEST help others, then it is quite different. 

I think you bring up an interesting point about Christians liking her. Is it so odd that she is an anti-Christian thinker and developed a Christian following? Perhaps someone clearly articulating the pillars of objective thinking is just what they needed? :P

----------


## cafolini

You make sense, Darcy.
hypatia, it's all a matter of perception. ROFMAO

----------


## Grit

I read Atlas Shrugged, and that's it. I read it because Bioshock (2009? Game of the Year) was based on it. I really liked it, the multiple-page preaching speeches aside. I scanned through them, especially when they were just metaphor after metaphor for the same thing.

She's clearly a pro-capitalist. Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic example of why capitalism should work. It makes the reader angry when these titans of industry are being shackled by jealous, lazy bureaucrats. Of course, it isn't as simple as Ayn Rand claims. 




> You make sense, Darcy.
> hypatia, it's all a matter of perception. ROFMAO


Nice contribution, although I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the phrase ROFMAO. Please keep it coming, I don't know how we would manage without you.

----------


## Darcy88

I can sort of understand where Rand was coming from since she and her family were rather negatively impacted by the Bolshevik revolution and she must have feared, as many did at the time, that Communism would sweep across the globe. But you have to ask yourself which world you would rather live in. One where charity and compassion are placed aloft as the highest virtues, or one where they are demonized and discouraged, where Rand's "I" is valued first and foremost. The answer should be obvious.

The other irony with Rand is that the big government welfare state policies which she so despised are the best safeguard against Communism. They temper the suffering and therefore the wrath of the masses and mitigate against revolution.

----------


## hypatia_

> You make sense, Darcy.
> hypatia, it's all a matter of perception. ROFMAO


Please expand. Simply stating your opinion in binary format does not warrant very good discussion! :P




> I can sort of understand where Rand was coming from since she and her family were rather negatively impacted by the Bolshevik revolution and she must have feared, as many did at the time, that Communism would sweep across the globe. But you have to ask yourself which world you would rather live in. One where charity and compassion are placed aloft as the highest virtues, or one where they are demonized and discouraged, where Rand's "I" is valued first and foremost. The answer should be obvious.
> 
> The other irony with Rand is that the big government welfare state policies which she so despised are the best safeguard against Communism. They temper the suffering and therefore the wrath of the masses and mitigate against revolution.


I think that's a big part of understanding Rand is trying to see her writing from her frame of reference. 

Here's my frame:

Living your life being told how to think, how to live, what path to take (go to college, get a job, start a family, work until you retire), Rand's philosophy of objectivism *as it pertains strictly to human nature* (ignoring the complexities of her political views), was extremely refreshing to me.

----------


## cafolini

Expanding. R O F L M A O

----------


## stlukesguild

The funny thing I find is that many Christians like Ayn Rand even though she's one of the most anti-Christian thinkers of all time.

That's simply because many professed Christians are the most anti-Christian thinkers.

----------


## stlukesguild

http://http://www.firstthings.com/ar...-with-ayn-rand

When it comes to Rand, I think this essay says it all quite well.

----------


## hypatia_

> The funny thing I find is that many Christians like Ayn Rand even though she's one of the most anti-Christian thinkers of all time.
> 
> That's simply because many professed Christians are the most anti-Christian thinkers.


Why would someone profess a religion if they thought the opposite? And I will check out your article, thank you. I enjoy legitimate criticisms of authors rather than people posting R O F L M A O as if that were a method of discussion.  :Banghead:

----------


## OrphanPip

> Elsworth Toohey was a villain in the Fountainhead, so yes, he totally demonized altruism. He was in direct conflict with the protagonist Howard Roark. It seems like you are the one who hasn't read anything she has written.


Uh, you seem to be confused, Toohey is a straw man of an altruist used by rand to demonize altrusim. This is precisely what Max wrote.





> When one says "altruists are evil," it's all about frame of reference. To you perhaps, it is a very selfish concept to say, "don't help others." But when one views altruism as doing what YOU do best in order to BEST help others, then it is quite different.


Either way Rand would say it is evil. According to her your goal should never be to best help others. It has nothing to do with the way you choose to help people.




> According to Gore Vidal, Alexander Fleming selfishly studied science, when he could have been helping people at homeless shelters. But alas, his passion and decision to do nothing but follow that passion (the core of objectivism) led to his discovery of penicillin.


How would that be according to Gore Vidal? Saying that advocating greed in all situations is a pernicious philosophy, does not imply a belief that one must act selflessly at all times. Moreover, it requires quite a bit of arrogance on your part to apparently be able to define Fleming's motivations. Who knew that Fleming decided to get into researching sepsis and bacterial disease while treating injured soldiers in WWI all because he just simply loved science so damn much.

----------


## stlukesguild

Why would someone profess a religion if they thought the opposite? 

Take a look at the Grand Inquisitor scene from Dostoevsky's _Brothers Karamazov_.

----------


## hypatia_

*Uh, you seem to be confused, Toohey is a straw man of an altruist used by rand to demonize altrusim. This is precisely what Max wrote.*

And what I said as well. But it is not indicative of a "down with altruism" theme, which, from what I understand, is what Max was attempting to get across. Rand uses Toohey in an attempt to perfect the definition of altruism, that selfishness is a form of altruism if done correctly, which Roark did, and Toohey didn't.


*Moreover, it requires quite a bit of arrogance on your part to apparently be able to define Fleming's motivations. Who knew that Fleming decided to get into researching sepsis and bacterial disease while treating injured soldiers in WWI all because he just simply loved science so damn much.*

I did. His love for science was his motivation, and if all people did what they loved, the world would be a better place. That is what I get from Rand's writing, not this "down with altruism" bull****.

----------


## Darcy88

> *Uh, you seem to be confused, Toohey is a straw man of an altruist used by rand to demonize altrusim. This is precisely what Max wrote.*
> 
> And what I said as well. But it is not indicative of a "down with altruism" theme, which, from what I understand, is what Max was attempting to get across. Rand uses Toohey in an attempt to perfect the definition of altruism, that selfishness is a form of altruism if done correctly, which Roark did, and Toohey didn't.
> 
> 
> *Moreover, it requires quite a bit of arrogance on your part to apparently be able to define Fleming's motivations. Who knew that Fleming decided to get into researching sepsis and bacterial disease while treating injured soldiers in WWI all because he just simply loved science so damn much.*
> 
> I did. His love for science was his motivation, and if all people did what they loved, the world would be a better place. *That is what I get from Rand's writing, not this "down with altruism" bull*****.


More Rand on altruism:

"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

"The social system based on and consonant with the altruist morality—with the code of self-sacrifice—is socialism, in all or any of its variants: fascism, Nazism, communism. All of them treat man as a sacrificial animal to be immolated for the benefit of the group, the tribe, the society, the state. Soviet Russia is the ultimate result, the final product, the full, consistent embodiment of the altruist morality in practice; it represents the only way that that morality can ever be practiced."

“The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality -- the man who lives to serve others -- is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit. The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man, and he degrades the conception of love. But that is the essence of altruism”

"A great many Republicans would be scared to death to recognize that altruism is the curse of the world and that as long as we go on screaming “service” and “self-sacrifice” louder than the New Deal we will never have a chance. In any encounter with collectivists it is always the acceptance of altruism as an ideal not to be questioned that defeats us. I wrote The Fountainhead to show, in human terms, just what that ideal actually means and where we must stand if we want to win. If we can make the word “altruism” become a shameful term, which it actually is, instead of the automatic trademark of virtue which people think it to be—we will get the Tooheys out of Washington someday."

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. *The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.*

----------


## hypatia_

Thank you for those quotations; I was definitely not aware that she literally thought money was the essence of human morality. I have not listened to her interviews, only read her fiction. I guess throughout this thread I have been more defending my own values (inspired by Rand's writing), than I am defending Rand. Do you understand my position though, and how it differs from the "accumulation of wealth is pure morality" theme? Would you still consider me an objectivist if I said the essence of human morality is following your passion, and that is what Rand has inspired me to do?

----------


## Darcy88

> Thank you for those quotations; I was definitely not aware that she literally thought money was the essence of human morality. I have not listened to her interviews, only read her fiction. I guess throughout this thread I have been more defending my own values (inspired by Rand's writing), than I am defending Rand. Do you understand my position though, and how it differs from the "accumulation of wealth is pure morality" theme? Would you still consider me an objectivist if I said the essence of human morality is following your passion, and that is what Rand has inspired me to do?


Yes, I understand where you're coming from. But the thread is about Rand. And if your passion happened to be helping people Rand would declare you an evil person. It takes a strange, essentially sick mind to think like that.

----------


## mona amon

> And if your passion happened to be helping people Rand would declare you an evil person.


Hmm...I read Rand a very long time back, but I'm pretty sure there was the mention of a young social worker who was genuinely interested in helping people in one of the main books. She gets only a fleeting mention, just to show us that Toohey (or his equivalent in Atlas Shrugged) perceives her as a threat and gets rid of her. What she's against is the 'sacrifice yourself for the greater good' type of altruism, preached by people who are usually more interested in sacrificing others to themselves.

There's really nothing wrong with her preaching of rational self interest, except that her perspective is way too narrow, her voice too shrill, and she's way too simplistic and not at all as original as her fans believe. The idea of Laissez-faire capitalism based on rational self interest was there long before her, and was widely popularized by the classical economists, especially Adam Smith.

----------


## Jack Hill

At least in "The Fountainhead" Rand knew how to sell a novel, and it wasn't her philosophy that did the trick. The book was a bodice-ripper, its main reason for being so popular was the rape scene where the woman first seemed to ask for it, then enjoyed it, then topped it all off by marrying the guy's bitter enemy -- to punish him, or something. (Her personal fantasies should tell us something about her political views.) The proof is that most of the ads for the movie featured that very scene. But I suppose if your rapist was Gary Cooper, that might be more PC than if it was, say, (fill in the blank). Here's my own experience with Ayn Rand, in a way. I appeared in a movie called "Song of Russia" in 1943 as a 10-year-old playing in a children's orchestra in Russia. This movie later became a big item in the HUAC witch hunt hearings when Ayn Rand testified that the reason she knew that "Song of Russia" was Soviet propaganda was that so many Russians were depicted as "smiling." Little did I realize that I myself had been a tool of the dreaded Soviet propaganda machine when we kids in the balalaika band laughed and smiled as the choreographer ran back and forth behind the camera making faces at us to get us to laugh and smile.

----------


## hypatia_

Jack, I don't even remember the rape scene, and I have never in the two years since I've read it heard anyone talk about it as significant. Nor does it necessarily portray anything about her political views, although I understand what you're getting at.




> Hmm...I read Rand a very long time back, but I'm pretty sure there was the mention of a young social worker who was genuinely interested in helping people in one of the main books. She gets only a fleeting mention, just to show us that Toohey (or his equivalent in Atlas Shrugged) perceives her as a threat and gets rid of her. What she's against is the 'sacrifice yourself for the greater good' type of altruism, preached by people who are usually more interested in sacrificing others to themselves.


Do you mean Katie, Peter Keating's (Howard Roark's architectural "rival") girlfriend? Here's an excerpt from sparknotes:

Meanwhile, Katie goes to Toohey for advice. She is utterly unhappy in her job as a social worker and is beginning to hate the people she is supposed to help. Toohey tells Katie to relinquish her ego. Katie meekly agrees. Keating bitterly regrets his testimony against Roark at the Stoddard trial. He tells Katie he wants to marry her right away and that they will elope the next day. After he leaves, Katie shouts at Toohey that she is not afraid of him anymore.

----------


## mona amon

No, no. I remember Katie quite well, now that you mention her. This character didn't have a name and probably got only one sentence of narrative description. Hope I didn't make it up or something.

----------


## WyattGwyon

*****

----------


## cafolini

> Yes, I understand where you're coming from. But the thread is about Rand. And if your passion happened to be helping people Rand would declare you an evil person. It takes a strange, essentially sick mind to think like that.


Indeed.

----------


## bookowskee

> The funny thing I find is that many Christians like Ayn Rand even though she's one of the most anti-Christian thinkers of all time.
> 
> That's simply because many professed Christians are the most anti-Christian thinkers.


I like this one. It sort of reinforces Nietzsche's point of view: That there is only one Christian, and that would be Jesus.

----------


## cafolini

> I like this one. It sort of reinforces Nietzsche's point of view: That there is only one Christian, and that would be Jesus.


And there is only one antichrist, right? And that is Ayn Rand, right?
ROFLMAO

----------


## hypatia_

well i definitely think she was on to something, primarily independence and creative integrity. she just took it too far by extending it to the pursuit of wealth, which might have just been a result of the environment she grew up on.

----------


## bookowskee

> And there is only one antichrist, right? And that is Ayn Rand, right?
> ROFLMAO


Ummm, not quite. Since there is only one christian, the remaining self-professed christians are the anti-christs. ROFLMAO

I'm kidding.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

It is interesting that with most writers, you can admire and appreciate them irrespective of their particular political, religious or social views. (You don't have to be Russian Orthodox to appreciate Dostoyevsky, or a Roman Catholic Tory to appreciate Evelyn Waugh.) But all the discussion here has been about la Rand's ideas and not about her novels.

Which rather supports this Christian churchgoer ( a more accurate and less loaded description than "Christian" _tout court_) of left wing sympathies in his decision not to waste time reading her immensely long works.

----------


## hypatia_

> It is interesting that with most writers, you can admire and appreciate them irrespective of their particular political, religious or social views. (You don't have to be Russian Orthodox to appreciate Dostoyevsky, or a Roman Catholic Tory to appreciate Evelyn Waugh.) But all the discussion here has been about la Rand's ideas and not about her novels.
> 
> Which rather supports this Christian churchgoer ( a more accurate and less loaded description than "Christian" _tout court_) of left wing sympathies in his decision not to waste time reading her immensely long works.


You bring up two great points.

1.) Her works are insanely long. I am proud of giving anything a chance, but even I had to skim a bit of John Galt's speech at the end of Atlas. Does she really need so many words to get her point across?

2.) It is really interesting to me how her works can inspire someone, then you get into a discussion about her as an author and it's a completely different subject. I like to think that novels are more about what the readers get out of them than what the authors believe.

----------


## hypatia_

It seems Ayn Rand contradicts herself. Here's a quote by her:

"Both the industrialist and the artist have to place the quality of their product first. The financial reward is only the consequence."

The first part is what I like about objectivism. You focus 100% on the quality of whatever you're doing. 

But this quote makes it seem like money doesn't really matter, and that's what I got from her writing. Not this money is the only thing that matters stuff.

----------


## SFG75

I would contend that while a person may disagree with her philosophy, she is not a lightweight. An earlier comparison equated her to the likes of Glenn Beck. Mr Beck does not have a coherent philosophy of his own other than crude, backyard libertarianism mixed with conservatism. I do not contend that her views are accurate or what I necessarily believe. I do contend that her philosophy is a valid one and the sales of her books point that out. Those of us on the "left" must give credit where it is due, and not write people off simply because we find a given philosophy repugnant.

----------


## Darcy88

> I would contend that while a person may disagree with her philosophy, she is not a lightweight. An earlier comparison equated her to the likes of Glenn Beck. Mr Beck does not have a coherent philosophy of his own other than crude, backyard libertarianism mixed with conservatism. I do not contend that her views are accurate or what I necessarily believe. I do contend that her philosophy is a valid one and the sales of her books point that out. Those of us on the "left" must give credit where it is due, and not write people off simply because we find a given philosophy repugnant.


I read a book of hers called the Virtue of Selfishness. In it she put forth her understanding of some of Nietzsche's basic ideas. Her analysis of him was puerile, laughably so. To me she is a "lightweight." It has nothing to do with how utterly opposed to her philosophy I am. Hayek and others propose ideas I find distasteful and wrong but I will still acknowledge the force of their intellect. I can't do it with Rand. I simply see little of substance or sophistication in her writing.

----------


## Chance33

Darcy88- I find you quite passionate in your distaste for her. And that is admirable. Many people(Most would you say?) dislike Ayn Rand. And I respect the opinions given. 
hypatia_ - I agree with most of your points and arguments. They are interesting points to make, and some that I haven't thought of either. 

To expand, Ayn Rand did come from communist Russia, and that's going to have an impact on the way someone views society. Of course she's going to see the good in capitalism, and discourage any form of socialism that she sees in government, including blowing it out of proportion to make her point. Her philosophy, objectivism, displays the pure form of capitalism. Less government, self sufficiency, and achievement of self success. 
I found the mention of money interesting, because to me, money was a symbol for success used by Rand. We don't give out "brownie points" for being successful, or "gold stars". People who are successful get money. Is it fair that we are taught to succeed, but to hate money? There is a difference in greed, and success. Rand's protagonists display success, and the government displays greed to profit from that success. To destroy that success. 
No, her thoughts aren't going to be entirely original. What truly is "original" these days?
Also, here is an example of a Christian who enjoys Rand and her works. Ironic? Yes. But, I can disagree with her philosophy towards religion. Although, I fail to see how this is such a paradox. I'm not going to get into a religion debate, but objectivism does run aline with some Christian views. Christianity teaches to work hard, and success will come to them. It also teaches that we should never not be working. There is a fundamental idea of Ayn Rand's work. That we should pursue work. Howard Roark, even when he could not be an architect, still went to the quarry. John Galt, although capable of living in his own ideal society hidden in the mountains with his ingenious engine to save the world, still went to work for Dagny Taggart in a blue collar job. Another misleading view is that one could say that Christians must do everything to help others. This is misleading because Christians are taught to help themselves first. It's sort of like the airplane safety regulations: In the case of cabin pressure changes- to first put on your own mask, then help others around you. That's the Christian view. Help yourself, know yourself, achieve self success, then you can move on to helping others. I doubt Ayn Rand would declare you "evil" for helping someone. She would if you didn't help yourself first though. Which comes back to the essence of socialism vs capitalism. I found that to be her main point in the novels. And achieving self-sufficiency and independence, and discouraging strong government. 
I will also say, that it's going to be interpreted negatively if you view it in a negative light. I came into her novels not knowing a thing about who she was. And came out enjoying her views, and disagreeing with some as well, as one will do with any author. If I went in with negative feelings towards her, I would end up shredding her apart, and probably burning books(No.. No... The only book I'll ever burn is Fifty Shades...). I respect everyones views though, and only wanted to offer my own. I view her as an author with a history that made her write these dramatic books. And I enjoyed, and managed to learn some things along the way as well.
Also, all of these views are my own, including those of how I interpret Christianity.

----------

