Comments (26)

• Artisan

  It does look interesting. I'm just reading Atlas Shrugged for the moment, after being quite impressed with the entertaining "Figurehead" reading...
  The first one exists in French translation but go figure why the second much more successful publication has never been translated in that language?

  Published: September 29, 2009 4:08 PM

• Bala

  Looks interesting to me too. Especially the point about being human and looking at her foibles too. A lot of people misinterpret her ideas because of some specific (later) conclusions of hers which they do not agree with. In the process, they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am sure this sort of book will help.

  To me, a few mistakes made by Rand do not discredit her philosophy because it works. I know it because I live by it and it works like magic.

  Published: September 29, 2009 8:33 PM

• Neo-Cicero

  @ Bala

  Exactly! There is the philosophy and the woman. The behavior of the latter does not invalidate the value of the former.

  If there are contradictions in objectivism they must be shown by rational and logical arguments. Not by pointing to Rands personal life.
  

  Published: September 30, 2009 5:47 AM

• Curt Howland

  Neo-Cicero, I couldn't agree more.

  Recently I pointed to Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy text to show how an article being discussed was exactly the same fallacy just restated again.

  Yet what was attacked was the fact that I pointed to the text hosted on Mises.org, and because of that I was trying to bring politics into the discussion. The socialist-leaning types turned it into a shouting match and the discussion thread was deleted.

  I found the text on Bastiat.org, so I can point to that next time. Ugh.

  Published: September 30, 2009 6:01 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  The "Rand cult" was founded by Branden and perpetuated by Peikoff. Rand herself was not a dogmatist, no matter how the latter has tried to distort her philosophy.

  From here:

  [F]or all of his blared commitment to What Rand Said, Peikoff can't even maintain his grasp of that.
  Consider a statement Ayn Rand once made to CBS correspondent Mike Wallace: "If anyone can pick a rational flaw in my philosophy, I will be delighted to acknowledge him and I will learn something from him." Got that? She did not say, "Metaphysical reality is immutable, so my philosophy is as well. The subject matter of philosophy is the same for men in all ages; as there are no new 'facts' to be discovered, so there is nothing new to be learned." She didn't say, "I've already committed myself on paper, so my position is now an authorized doctrine that remains unchanged and untouched." Nor did she state, "I reject the very idea of flaw-finding. A valid system of philosophy is an integrated whole, therefore my philosophy as presented to date is an integrated whole. To change any one part — to correct any 'flaw' — would be to destroy the philosophy in its entirety." And she didn't say, "How can you tell me what's 'wrong' in my philosophy? I alone decide what premises will lead to what conclusions." And she never said, "Look, if someone imagines that he's found a 'flaw' in my philosophy, he is free to reject my writings and go form his own viewpoint. The trademark 'Objectivist,' however, is retained by me. That's all that matters." She didn't condemn the could-be flaw-finder as an "enemy" — of either herself or reality. Finally, she did not pronounce Objectivism a "closed system." In short, Ayn Rand never held any of the premises that her "intellectual heir" attributes to her (and to the logical structure of Objectivism). Clearly, there is no way to reconcile the conviction of her statement with What Peikoff Said. Equally clear is that despite whatever title he imagines Ayn Rand had bequeathed him, Leonard Peikoff has squandered the last dime of his intellectual capital.
  

  Published: September 30, 2009 8:05 AM

• luisdiego22002

  To all freedom-loving people, sooner or latter there's always a stop thru Ayn Rand's works. There is no doubt that "Atlas shrugged" is a powerful and compelling argument for freedom. Her latter comments, personal problems don't disqualify her or her work...they just make her look as a complex, diverse and unique human being that she was(which is exactly the point). Many comments have been made on her personal life and the academic importance of her work, but as inquisitive minds trying at all costs to decipher our own individualities (without feeling guilty for it) and the world around us, Rand was the spark. Personally, I was more motivated by Rothbard and Hazlitt than from Rand...but, there's no doubt that reading her works have consolidated the way I view liberty (especially, "Fountainhead" and "We the living"). Although I'm not what you would call a "fan", any book that talks about such an interesting mind seems appealing.

  Published: September 30, 2009 8:12 AM

• luisdiego22002

  Does anyone have an interesting biblographical listing on Objectivism and Rand's ideas (by third parties)? I've read Kathleen Touchstone's book on unilateral transfers and would like to extend my personal library on the subject. Any recommendations?

  Published: September 30, 2009 8:19 AM

• fundamentalist

  I have to credit Rand for pushing me toward libertarianism. I was perfectly content with my mainstream economics and soft socialism until I read her write that capitalism is the only moral system of economics ever developed. That statement stunned me because I had never connected morality and economics before. I never read much more of Rand after that because her promotion of immorality in her novels turned me off, but because of her I eventually found Austrian economics.

  Published: September 30, 2009 8:25 AM

• Bala

  fundamentalist,

  " I never read much more of Rand after that because her promotion of immorality in her novels turned me off "

  I am a little surprised. I thought her novels revolved around morality. Am I missing something or are we differing on our definition and understanding of morality?

  Published: September 30, 2009 9:29 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Rand inspired me to become a libertarian, as it did many others, but not a full-fledged Objectivist. She obviously tapped into something, to have best-selling books, but just as clearly, everyone who reads Atlas Shrugged does not become an Objectivist, and many don't even become libertarians. Why is that, I wonder?

  Published: September 30, 2009 10:28 AM

• Bala

  Michael A. Clem,

  " everyone who reads Atlas Shrugged does not become an Objectivist, and many don't even become libertarians. Why is that, I wonder? "

  Firstly, to become an Objectivist, one needs to read her non-fiction, especially "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". You could add the following to the list - "Philosophy: Who needs it?", "For the New Intellectual" and "The New Left: The Anti Industrial Revolution", but these are optional.

  Secondly, it is not very easy for people who have been brought up on a moral diet that selfishness is evil to suddenly turn around and say that it is the noblest of virtues. Some accept it grudgingly and become Libertarians who broadly agree with what she said but have strong disagreements on her moral philosophy (that's my observation on this blog, especially in the comments and my discussions with people out here). Many reject the idea that selfishness is a virtue and go back to life as usual. A very small group accepts the idea and become Objectivists.

  Published: September 30, 2009 10:55 AM

• Dave Scotese

  There are a few short quips I use from time to time that may be helpful:

  Anyone can heed the wise, but when a fool speaks the truth, it takes another fool to ignore it. ("... Are you that foolish - to discredit Rand's insights because of some other part of her that you see as foolish?")

  You have to love yourself to love others. There is such a thing as wise selfishness - and it's wise because it benefits others as well as yourself.

  Everything is a trade-off. If it's not a forced trade, but it's bad for someone, that someone will learn not to participate next time. If it is forced, and happens to be good for both sides, those who didn't want to participate remain in ignorant bliss. Forcing trades is always worse than letting the individuals decide.

  I'm old enough now to re-read things (Atlas Shrugged, The Outsiders, etc.) and see that they had great influence over me. However, I recognize and express the fact that people I know also influence me. I think this latter personal-relations influence is rampant, but egos (nurtured in public school, no doubt) prevent it from being heralded. I engage with people who have the socialist mind-disease because our engagements are visible to others who may benefit, but also because I think there's a good chance that when the diseased person gives up on me, they will be far more likely to see the light some day. I wouldn't expect them to ever credit me though.

  Another important thing for us to be aware of when discussing our minority world-view is psychological reactance. Too complicated to explain here, so look it up when you have time.

  Published: September 30, 2009 11:48 AM

• Anonymous

  @Dave Scotese

  "You have to love yourself to love others. There is such a thing as wise selfishness - and it's wise because it benefits others as well as yourself."

  Dave, you hit the nail on the proverbial head. Wise selfishness versus foolish selfishness, or what Rand would probably call "whim worshippers". Selfishness (or egoism) is not about hedonism, or irrational behaviour, it's about self knowledge and living our lives to the fullest. So, if you're idea of self-fulfillment is to be an industrial mogul or to be Mother Teresa...well, that's entirely up to you just as long as you feel you can be best you can be at it.

  Published: September 30, 2009 2:03 PM

• Nate Y

  Anonymous,

  Thank you for the post.

  You say "So, if you're idea of self-fulfillment is to be an industrial mogul or to be Mother Teresa...well, that's entirely up to you just as long as you feel you can be best you can be at it."

  I have a feeling plenty of Randians would object to this statement. In fact, I'm hoping some of our resident Objectivists do exactly that. Perhaps the ensuing discussion would prove instructive.

  
  

  Published: September 30, 2009 2:50 PM

• Bala

  Nate Y,

  I can see what you are getting at. You are expecting me to say that charity is not a virtue and that to engage in an act of charity (like Mother Teresa did) is immoral.

  If you thought so, that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been trying to tell you - Either I have been ineffective or you have not tried to understand my point or both.

  My (and as I understand it Rand's) point is that charity is not a primary virtue. That is not to say that it is not a virtue at all.

  There are extremely selfish reasons for which people engage in charity and when it is engaged in for these reasons, it is indeed moral. For instance, I (and I believe any person who is in touch with the real world would agree with me on this) believe that there are people on this planet who are truly unfortunate and it may not be a bad idea to give them a leg-up in their time of difficulty. A person caught up in a natural disaster of which he could have had no prior warning is a typical example.

  Since disasters can strike anywhere and at any time and given that they strike suddenly, the existence of charities devoted to the task of helping such truly unfortunate people is something that is in a person's own selfish interest. Further, since anyone would like what they contribute as charity to go to the truly deserving, it would be good if there were charities around that do a good job of helping the truly unfortunate. Such effective charities do not necessarily spring up after every disaster, it is in my interest to have around, at any point in time, organisations that are devoted to such activities. Contributing to them, maybe even on an on-going basis, helps them sustain their infrastructure, their organisational set-up, their people, etc. so that they may be effective when their work is really necessary. Who knows!!! My charity may help me or someone who matters to me someday.

  However, such charity should be engaged in only when it does not compromise one's long range self-interest. That's like saying giving your genuine surpluses away to those who deserve it is moral charity and a noble act. Giving away that which you need yourself for the attainment of your own long-term goals, that too to those who do not deserve it, is immoral charity. The former makes you truly happy while the latter never does because you ultimately grudge or regret the act of charity.

  As an example, out here where I live (that's in India), there are very few traffic signals where you can stop and expect not to be bothered by beggars knocking on your car windows asking for charity. Many of these beggars are actually part of a large organised racket thriving on beggary. Children and adults are kidnapped, even maimed and forced to beg. Giving money to them is truly immoral. On the other hand, there are organisations that run orphanages and school for orphaned children who have no family to support them. Especially if the organisation is run well, it is moral to contribute to them. Even I contribute to them in my own way.

  If I (as an individual) am uncomfortable with the state of affairs and feel that
  1. there are a lot of people around who are truly unfortunate
  2. there are a lot of people ready to voluntarily contribute to an organisation that will help them
  3. I believe that I can run such an organisation effectively and
  4. I am convinced that what I will get out of running such an organisations meets my goals for my life and does not affect my well-being,
  I may even start a charity myself, leave alone contribute to one. I have seen a few people who have done that and truly admire them for that. (Interestingly, it's been my observation that the well-run charities never seek pity)

  In summary, it is wrong to assume that selfishness and charity are contradictory and that being selfish means that one is against charity. I hope I have made myself adequately clear.

  Published: September 30, 2009 4:12 PM

• Bala

  Nate Y,

  Just adding to my observation that the well-run charities never seek pity, I know a few that put "stringent" conditions on potential donors. Simple stuff like
  1. "Just don't throw your used and unusable clothes at us. (Implication - Our children have some self-respect.)"
  2. "If you want to feed our children, please inform us in advance. Please do not land up with leftover food from a function you had at your house and which you are at a loss to dispose of otherwise. (Implication - We are not beggars)"
  

  Published: September 30, 2009 4:20 PM

• Anonymous

  They obviously would. Rand had a very definite way of looking at entrepreneurs (capitalists, if you will) that she did not extend to other endeavors. Nonetheless, separating the person from her philosophy (if it's possible) I think she makes many references to the importance of reason mainly as an epistemology, for maintaining man's ultimate value which is for Rand, life itself. To be productive is a virtue. In Austrian theory, man has many needs or values, man thru reason acts purposefully to solve them in many different fields according to the mandates of a free market. This is the division of labor. So, what if I'm not a capitalist? Is Rand´s definition of value versus the Austrian Subjective value theory that distant? Someone said in a past post that Rand never said her arguments were fixed and absolute. In this case it would be very interesting to hear what modern day objectivists believe the term "productive" to be. How normative is this term? For example, can a sports figure or an entertainer do productive work? I, myself, am a physician... am I a productive person? Is recieving a salary a necessary condition for my work to be productive? Does she refer to as "altruistic" actions those that are imposed on us forcefully (for example, paying taxes for financing public housing) from above by a welfare state, or to any acts that we do voluntarily in favor of aiding someone? I know she speaks of emergency situations and such, but I'd like some clarification on this issue.

  Published: September 30, 2009 4:37 PM

• luisdiego22002 (anonymous)

  Bala: Thanks a million..you´re posts have done a lot in clarifying many questions I had on charity. I believe there´s some interesting articles right here on mises.org on this subject. Also, I recommend Kathleen Touchstone´s book on Unilateral transfers and objectivism.

  Published: September 30, 2009 4:45 PM

• Nate Y

  Bala,

  I admit, I was hoping that you would respond. Thank you for your post.

  But I think the problem is not as you suggest when you say "Either I have been ineffective or you have not tried to understand my point or both." There exists other options. That is, there could indeed be something problematic with Objectivism.

  In fact, your post illustrates it breathtakingly well. You did make it adequately clear. So clear, in fact, that even an idiot like myself can see it. The philosophy suffers from inherent contradictions, an absurd judgmentalism, and a not-so-latent arrogance.

  I mean, if I subscribe to Objectivism, what's to keep me from easily condemning those who smoke cigarettes as acting immorally? Are they not obviously unconcerned with their long-term well-being?

  Also, in the "Freedom is Indivisible" thread, you stated that "being your brother's keeper" is immoral. Yet just now you claim Mother Teresa, who dedicated her life (however foolishly) to the "be your brother's keeper" idea did NOT act immorally in doing so.

  But Objectivsim does explicitly reject force and fraud and demands they be punished. I figures, as long as this so-called "non-aggression" principle is upheld the rest is of very little importance.

  Published: September 30, 2009 5:59 PM

• Bala

  Nate Y,

  I think your problem with my points are more with the usage of the word immoral. I think your and the Objectivist conception and the use of the words "moral" and "immoral" are slightly different. I also think there is a difference in how you and I react to the identification of something as immoral.

  I don't know how you judge and react, so I will speak for myself as a practising Objectivist.

  If I know that cigarette smoking is injurious to my health, I judge it as immoral and do not engage in it. I may go one step further and try counselling my close friends against smoking and even put what pressure I can as a friend, without jeopardising my friendship with him/her (the friend is of great value to me. So, I act to retain the value for longer) and try to get him off smoking. Simple choices towards this could be "No smoking inside my house or office." If it is a new acquaintance, I keep the issue outside the plane of discussions and do not allow it to influence my other discussions with him because his habit of smoking is not relevant to my discussion with him unless he blows smoke in my face in which case I cough a lot, make a song-and-dance and give a cock-and-bull story about an allergy to try to get him to stop blowing the smoke in my face (I would not stand there and quietly receive the smoke). I try to position myself up-wind so that I do less of passive smoking too. If it is a professional acquaintance, as long as the rules of property are being followed, I maintain strictly professional relationships not commenting upon his/her smoking habit, though politely requesting (if possible) if the smoke could be blown the other way (giving the same excuses). If necessary, I check out if my work environment is a "no smoking' one and make such an environment one of my criteria.

  Incidentally, Rand herself was a heavy smoker who used smoking as a way of bringing out the higher aspects of man's nature. When she was convinced by her doctor about the evils of smoking, she dropped the habit like a hot potato.

  I think there is also a difference of understanding on the issue of the word "keeper". I am taking this to mean "placing your interests below those of others" while you are taking it to include "mutually beneficial exchange". I am saying that you should not at any stage place your interests below those of others and that "mutually beneficial exchange" excludes placing your interests below those of others. Another point of difference could be the definition of the word "interest". Interest does not just mean monetary benefit alone. It includes long-range well-being where one's actions are in consonance with one's values. Rationally selected values are always more likely to be in ones interests, though one may choose otherwise.

  However, a case like Mother Teresa is special because what she did is the typical case I have illustrated above of a person starting a charity for specific selfish reasons. If you study the history of her life (which I have done when I was a kind. It is a sort of "badge of honour" for kids out here in India.), you will see that she saw a lot of misfortune, was disturbed by it and decided to address it. At the end of the day, she started the Missionaries of Charity, ran it well, got people to contribute, expanded it and made it the world renowned organisation it is. She went so far as to establish a successor and make the charity sustainable well after her. She did not ever make it a personality cult. Believe me. In India, a person of her status could have easily become a god-woman and she could have amassed a huge fortune. Credit goes to her for her focus on running a charity and not straying from the course.

  At the time she started the Missionaries of Charity, she is supposed to have undergone a lot of mental trauma because that meant straying from the "path of God", for she was training to be a nun. However, her discomfort with suffering around her was so strong it overcame that resistance to become what she did eventually. She convinced herself saying that caring for others is God's work and that the path she planned to traverse was as much the "Path of God".

  However, what we see is that she was acting in consonance with her values and not in contradiction to them. It was the dissonance between her values and the suffering she saw that prompted her to act. (Please compare it to my identification of the kind of thought process that leads a person to start a charitable organisation of this kind - it is identical and intensely personal)

  Further, at no stage did she compromise her own interests (given what she saw as her interest). She lived to a very old age as we all know.

  In fact, what I have heard about her running of the charity is all the more interesting. She would train every new volunteer to respect the people they are caring for and derive joy out of the caring. Only those who did so or were capable of doing so became volunteers. It was absolutely imperative that they do not look down upon the people they were helping. Note the importance being given to ensuring that the acts of charity were never made to appear like a favour from her or her volunteers to the destitute. That is the hallmark of a good and well-run charity.

  Finally, I also submit that she went through a few other experiences. I have come across accounts where she confessed to have woken up after experiencing nightmares - the stuff of nightmares being that she is taking pleasure in doing her work and not treating herself as a "servant of God" engaging in charity without seeking personal satisfaction. She also confessed to repeatedly seeking God's forgiveness for thinking like that. In my opinion, the human being in her surfaced, beautifully over these issues more than in all the work of charity she engaged in. My respect for her increased when I heard these accounts rather than decrease.

  That she went through a lot of privations to set-up and run her charity does not qualify for placing her interests below those of others. On the other hand, I see it as a set of extremely selfish choices aimed at making her charity successful and really big. If she had, instead of her frugal lifestyle, adopted a lavish or even just a normal one, how many people would have contributed to her charity, especially in its initial days? I would think far fewer than actually did. How successful would it have been, under those circumstances? Once again, I think not very successful.

  I am not saying she did it deliberately or that it was a sham, but then the main point is the consistency of the many decisions she took. Well-intentioned good decisions backed up by resolute action often get good outcomes. Her choice of lifestyle was consistent with her choice of establishing a charitable organisation dedicated to caring for the destitute.

  To me, an an Objectivist who is also on the lookout for good and well-run charities to contribute my surpluses to, hers comes on the list of probables. That said, I don't think I am the kind of person who will start a charity myself. I respect Mother Teresa as much as I do a lot of industrialists and businessmen who made it big in life starting from humble beginnings. No dissonance there. No special position just because she engaged in charity. She is not my role model (the way every Indian contestant at the beauty pageants says :) )

  I hope I have once again stated my position clearly and I also hope the misunderstandings are removed, especially regarding Objectivism.

  Published: September 30, 2009 7:51 PM

• Nate Y

  Bala,

  Thank you for your candor. I think I have a decent enough grasp of Objectivism after your posts. I still reject it.

  All the best

  Published: September 30, 2009 9:53 PM

• luisdiego22002

  Bala and Nate Y:

  I feel Nate Y. may be falling into the trap of actually believing many stereotypical versions of Rand and her followers (although it may be true that some may qualify as petulant). Be as it may, Rand´s philosophy is not perfect, and may not be a finished product. Again she had her faults and her quirks, but if the basic premises of her thought are based on reason, shoudn´t it follow then that many like minded thinkers would reach many of the conclusions she did (which, by the way, actually happens)? It seems that in most discussions about Rand and her thought, there´s a lot of mixing her philosophy, her personal life and her followers. Is this really necessary? Are we missing the main issue?

  Published: September 30, 2009 10:05 PM

• Bala

  luisdiego22002,

  You said

  " I feel Nate Y. may be falling into the trap of actually believing many stereotypical versions of Rand and her followers "

  I think you are right. A lot of people do reject what Rand had to say without even trying to read it and understand it. Even worse, they take an antagonistic position where one of cooperation and working together is both possible and beneficial. That's what I am encountering on these discussion fora.

  Published: September 30, 2009 11:20 PM

• Nate y

  luisdiego22002 and Bala,

  To be honest, I am not terribly familiar with Objectivism. I only know of it through discussions with people who call themselves Randian's/Objectivists. However, I have found their positions to be lacking for reasons I have already stated.

  Is it simply not possible to have legitimate reasons to reject Objectivism? Or must it be that I (and others) are simply attacking a strawman? This is a rhetorical trick used by the proponents of pretty much any ideology. If you reject it, they simply say you haven't taken the time to properly understand it.

  In any event, I have no idea why you feel I'm being antagonistic. So I disagree with Objectivism? So what? I very much realize that the disagreement is a trivial matter and there is no barrier to "cooperation and working together". I thought I made this abundantly clear when I wrote "But Objectivsim does explicitly reject force and fraud and demands they be punished. I figure, as long as this so-called "non-aggression" principle is upheld the rest is of very little importance." I extended an olive branch and you went an poked yourself in the eye with it.

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:36 AM

• Bala

  Nate Y,

  " "But Objectivsim does explicitly reject force and fraud and demands they be punished. I figure, as long as this so-called "non-aggression" principle is upheld the rest is of very little importance." I extended an olive branch and you went an poked yourself in the eye with it. "

  You have been one of the best people to talk to. I was not referring to you as being antagonistic. Please refer to my recent conversations with mpolzkill.

  " Is it simply not possible to have legitimate reasons to reject Objectivism? "

  Objectivism is a philosophy rooted in the premise that man is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. It considers life (for each individual) as the highest value and selfishness as the highest virtue. It defines morality as a code of values that serves as a guide to action. It states that man's values are not automatic and that he needs to choose them. Which of these do I reject if I were an Objectivist? To which of these would you object if you were trying to understand Objectivism? Just trying to understand.

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:57 AM

• luisdiego22002

  Nate Y and Bala:

  First of all, I don´t consider myself as an Objectivist and/or Randian (I believe more in a Rotbardian deontolgy). Having said that, I´m not defending her ideas per se. What I am defending is the fact that she has ideas and that many posts go beyond that to ad hominem attacks. At any rate, there are many ideas I do agree with, which is reasonable given that I do defend rational individualism. There are many things I find incompatible and some (like voluntary financing of government) which I find very weak. But, basing your arguments on premises like nicotine addiction, the Brandens or cult-following are to me, quite bluntly, very self defeating. There are many interesting issues that may be discussed...for example, given her value-ethicism and the number of times she mentions "man´s destiny" , does this means she believes in some sort of determinancy (not just Aristotelian objective morality)? Given the latest studies on animal learning (not just Pavlovian reflex, but actual reasoned, purposeful action in animals), would this change her view on the subject of animal rights if she were still alive? Not to mention more mundane things like what would she think of the current crisis, and the remarks made by her protegé Alan Greenspan. Many people dismiss her as an unoriginal and unimportant philosopher(Jan Narvesson has an interesting critique of Rand in Reason Papers), but, there is no doubt she was an important layman´s figure in 20th century libertarian thought. I´m not accusing Nate Y of any such attacks, but her personal life as foundation for arguments is pretty worn. So my comment relates not so much on disagreement, so long if it´s more about her ideas.

  Published: October 1, 2009 6:14 PM