|
Post by Adeimantus on Sept 26, 2011 1:37:10 GMT -5
This has been bothering me for a while now. What's with all the Rand hate? I don't get it. I'm pretty much convinced it's just the popular thing to do. I read Atlas Shrugged. I like it. Fiction where three-quarters of the action is characters making speeches at each other isn't for everyone, but it suits me. In any case, I thought it was wonderful, inspiring, if sometimes perhaps not very warm. It helped me think more clearly about what I believe and it gave me a greater appreciation for the nuances at work in people's belief systems. Furthermore, as a hopeless romantic, I love the message that you should approach the pervading sense of hopelessness, injustice, and evil in the world with a heroic spirit and the understanding that all your actions matter.
So tell me. I am interested to know what in the world people think Rand says that inspires such vitriol. I consider myself to have a good understanding of her thinking- maybe I can clear something up. Extra points for Bioshock references or comparisons.
Now... would you kindly explain your opinions?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 26, 2011 2:28:37 GMT -5
I don't like Objectivism, and fundamentally this is because Rand would tell me that I am wrong to live my life in the pursuit of helping others. Millions of people do this very thing - health care professionals, public defenders, scientists, soldiers, and on and on, and Rand explicitly scorns them. The willingness to labor for the good of others is one of the traits we associate most strongly with civilization - ask any anthropologist - and key to the human psychological makeup. Without such people, society would not be worth living in. Yet her dismissal of altruism is probably the central tenet of Objectivism, and it is the most repugnant one.
Sometimes people succeed by themselves. It does happen. But it is rare. Incredibly rare. Overwhelmingly people succeed by tempering their own drive and hard work with the assistance and work of others, sometimes explicitly. Newton's statement about seeing farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants is exactly right. Rand's position doesn't seem to me to be that your actions matter, but that ONLY your actions matter. The concerns of others should never become your own. And that's madness.
Too, by dismissing the idea of public ownership or joint possession, Objectivism pretty much throws open the door to rampant pollution and general poor stewardship of nature. By eschewing any principle of common good, it argues for dismantling clinics for the poor, child labor laws, free transportation infrastructure, or nationalized education. Yet these services provide a quantifiable and substantial good to the community. I'll bet Vene has a picture showing how an area's education level increases income even among the uneducated.
The Objectivist might say that it would be irrational to poison things that we rely on so much, or to create a massive underclass incapable of self-sustenance (provided they didn't just dismiss the problems of the poor by prescribing more bootstraps), therefore nobody would do so, but that is the other flaw of the ideology: people are not magically rational creatures. At our best we balance our emotional and rational aspects, but our best is, by definition, not the norm. The average person is drawn by his needs and wants at a primal level that escapes pure rationality. It would be, frankly, the blindest of all observations to suggest that people are even usually rational in a way that Objectivism suggests that they are.
That's not a comprehensive statement of the things that I dislike about Objectivism, and I will admit that my familiarity with it is not based on any particular study of it, but a fairly ad hoc method of learning about it as it came up. I'm prepared to find that some of my information is wrong, or perhaps reflective of modern Objectivism as it has developed since Rand's death. But the core tenet, of rejecting altruism in favor of rational - ha! - self-gratification, definitely does come straight from Rand's pen, and absolutely poisons my view of the ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 26, 2011 2:32:36 GMT -5
I've only read summaries, but the premise is completely ridiculous, and in no way reflect reality. First of all, it's not the best and brightest that make it to the top, but whoever can trick HR into thinking they're the best. Or are friends/family with higher ups in the company. Then, of course, there's the idea that the rich going on strike will somehow paralyze the economy. Someone will take their place, things will keep moving along, and aside from maybe a few people (Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, etc.), they won't be missed.
The other point I could make is that humans are a social animal, and altruism is in our nature. Rand demonizes that, as if it's somehow better to hold onto your moneybags, while those around you starve. Her family got screwed over hard by communist Russia, so it's understandable she'd feel that way, but it doesn't make it right to go to the other extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Perturabo on Sept 26, 2011 2:54:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Sept 26, 2011 4:29:27 GMT -5
Well I read Atlas Shrugged and I loved it as well. Although I think the whole book was one big "BWARRGLE LOOK AT MY EVIL MORAL CHARACTERS" and a propagandafest. It still brought an interesting concept of human morality into the equation. Serving society or yourself, there's something interesting about having the world rely on a product then taking it away and watching everything go to shit. Albeit this is not representive of reality
I think most of the Rand hate stems from her "immoral" self serving ideology
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 26, 2011 6:12:06 GMT -5
Randroidism* is not a moral philosophy, it is the rejection of the idea of morality. Ethics is where you do not act in your own self-interest, because it would harm another person, but Randroidism says that the ethical consideration is illegitimate. According to Randroids you should only act in your own self-interest, without considering that of others'. Well, that just beccomes a question of strategy, not ethics. And it takes this position the wholee way to it's logical conclusion. In Atlas, Rand's fave character executes a loyal friend for no reason. Rand talks favourably about the gassing of innocent, hardworking liberals for their inaccurate beliefs. Randroids characters bomb buildings, rob people and deliberately destroy society. One of Rand's childhood heroes, William Hickman- a real person- murdered and dismembered a small child, which she praised him for. She asked how society could condemn someone who she (favourably again) described as having "a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." She later said that she should not be punished for his multiple murders because "he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way..." to changing society and being an ubermensch. michaelprescott.net/hickman.htmRandroidism is the philosophy of child-murderers. As an aside: that bit about gassing liberals is a bit telling. Even Randroids believe that people can act unethically- by believing in government, by asking for tax money from Randroids, by enforcing laws, by being liberals and believing 'wrong beliefs' (how fascist is that!)- so not even they believe in true egoism. In fact, it might be in some people's rational self-interest to establish a government with a tax system: but they're not allowed to act in their self-interest, only rich people are. So, for Randroids, you can be required to act ethically and not in a self-interested fashion- if you're the wrong class. Randroidism is faked-up Nietzsche. The ubermensch may and must do whatever they want, for they are naturally superior in every way. The untermensch, being inferior, must obey. It's a two-bit fraud of a work of philosophy. * Objectivism is a silly term. It's overt propaganda, an attempt to emotionally trick people into believing it sub-rationally. That should give you an idea of the shallow thinking that went, and still goes, into this supposedly 'perfect' philosophy. Nonsense. Objectivism is as fair a description of Rand's beliefs as lovism or happyism is of mine.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 26, 2011 7:58:20 GMT -5
I look at it this way, it is a fictional story. If you take it as lesson on how the world works, or should work there is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 26, 2011 8:12:56 GMT -5
I look at it this way, it is a fictional story. If you take it as lesson on how the world works, or should work there is a problem. Even read solely for the story, while ignoring the obvious author tract, it's still not that good. The characters are one dimensional, the dialogue is stilted, and the whole thing reeks of self-importance.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 26, 2011 8:18:06 GMT -5
Rand just doesn't seem to have the same following in Australia as in the US. I'm familiar with the general outline of Atlas Shrugged, and I have read up on Randian theory... but I don't think I've ever actually seen a copy of Atlas Shrugged in a bookshop, or encountered anyone who has actually read it.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 26, 2011 8:35:52 GMT -5
Everyone else covers it very well, but in simple terms the one biggest thing that pisses me off about Randism is their belief that your financial worth correlates directly with how much you've labored. That the more you produce the richer you are. Quite literally Rand has replaced worship of a deity with the worship of the dollar (and somehow the Right was able to reconcile that with religion).
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 26, 2011 9:23:39 GMT -5
I find Rand to be morally repulsive, although I understand where she got her ideas from. I suppose if I lived through the Communist revolution and then grew up in Soviet Russia I might develop some pretty strange ideas about reality, too.
"Objectivism" is essentially a moral and ethical philosophy designed to allow the practitioner to justify any action or desire conceivable, regardless of what it is. It is sociopathy disguised as an ethos; it is deliberate mental illness. Civilization and society depend upon co-operation to exist, but Objectivism denies co-operation in favor of a predator-prey social model which will inevitably, if permitted to flourish, destroy the very civilization it is a part of. It is social cannibalism, a culture devouring itself.
It is indefensible.
As for Rand's books, she is not a bad writer by any means, but she has allowed her political message to overwhelm her talent. she has sacrificed plot and character in order to advance a very specific ideology. While literature can certainly function as an expression of ideology and philosophy (many authors have succeeded at this), Rand's ethos (or rather lack of an ethos) has so pervaded her novels to the point where they are no longer novels, but frameworks of elaborate Mary-Sue's explaining rand's own beliefs. She is essentially writing her own fan fiction.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 26, 2011 9:27:10 GMT -5
Everyone else covers it very well, but in simple terms the one biggest thing that pisses me off about Randism is their belief that your financial worth correlates directly with how much you've labored. That the more you produce the richer you are. Quite literally Rand has replaced worship of a deity with the worship of the dollar (and somehow the Right was able to reconcile that with religion). They do this through "Prosperity Gospel," the ideology promoted by such notables as Joel Olsteen. Prosperity Gospel is the uniquely American idea that God wants you to be rich, and if you are a faithful Christian and give generously to the church, God will reward you by filling your life with wealth, success, and material possessions. It essentially turns religion into a giant Ponzi scheme, with God being the ultimate payer to all the "investors." I'm pretty sure Jesus of Nazareth would vomit in horror at the very idea.
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on Sept 26, 2011 9:27:13 GMT -5
I wish I could remember in which part of the interview she did that's available on youtube that she explains that rape is acceptable because it's a strong person taking what they want from a weaker person. I can't bring myself to sit through the half hour trying to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 26, 2011 10:00:19 GMT -5
Yet her dismissal of altruism is probably the central tenet of Objectivism, and it is the most repugnant one. From her essay "The Ethics of Emergencies" ltruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. Sadly, I do not have an image or article stating that bookmarked, it's true, but I don't have a source immediately available for it. I find all sorts of things saying that income increases as an individual gets more education (and that education means a lower divorce rate, less people smoking, more volunteering, all that fun stuff), but not benefits like what you just described.
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 26, 2011 10:44:23 GMT -5
It may have something to do with the whole "Fuck you, I got mine, screw everyone else" attutide...
|
|