Greenspan was in love with her. Literally. He tapped that.
Rand did live a contradictory life. While she preached about liberty and freedom, those in her inner circle were immediately expelled if they disagreed with her. I’d encourage everyone to read Radicals for Capitalism.
But, her own personal shortcomings don’t really say anything about why Objectivism - or its more popular cousin Libertarianism - is right or wrong. That’s simply an ad hominem attack.
If Rand isn’t your brand of vodka, you can achieve the same effect by reading up on Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Rose Wilder Lane, or Isabel Paterson.
When you’re done, (re)visit Keynes and Krugman then let’s talk about who’s really psycho.
When an individual presents him/herself as the sum of his/her own ideas or philosophy and expounds it as an ideal for humanity,differentiating between an ad hominem attack and an ad rem attack is like making a distinction without a difference.
So you’re okay saying Objectivism is completely invalid because Rand was eccentric? I’d rather debate the actual tenets of the philosophy, but your way does seem faster.
Well put STL. I suspect the great majority of those who dismiss her philosophy have never actually read it. The just go by what other people (with an agenda) say about it.
I really don’t know much about Ayn Rand other than the fact that I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged. It does appear that Swan presented a slightly biased interpretation of her “admiration” of Hickman. At least that’s what the following from Wikipedia would suggest to me:
Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be “A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.” Renahan, which she intended to be based on Hickman, “is born with 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.” Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand’s interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, especially since she several times referred to Hickman as a “Superman” (in the Nietzschean sense).
Take a look at this critique, written by a very intelligent and thoughtful friend of mine. He does a way better job of picking apart stuff than I can do:
Nobody said that Objectivism is completely invalid because Rand was eccentric. But if you wear a police man’s outfit,patroling the streets with a truncheon in one hand,why be surprised if someone mistakes you for a policeman?..There are times when one is or should be judged according to the sum of one’s ideas, that’s all i am trying to say…ofcourse her philosophy stands on its own and should be/has been examined as such ad nauseum…(bChadwick’s links). This does not detract from the hypocracy one would otherwise feel when a bald man is selling hair products,or an obese person selling a diet prescription…
My take on her Hickman adoration was simply using her own words. That being said, I’ve been avoiding a philosophical critique because I don’t want to start writing 1 page responses and get sucked into a deeper level discussion when I don’t see one as necesary. She didn’t live by her own philosophy, because it was impractical. The only ones who did were largely sociopaths or frauds. She felt it was acceptable and beneficial to frame her ideal “super man” protagonists around serial killers. She was forced to argue her points in a fictional environment using favorable scenarios. But if you must, I’ll accept Bchad’s buddy’s critique as my stance without looking at it. I’m far too lazy to get into this in depth at this point.
Many historical geniuses were eccentric or even insane. Isaac Newton was known for being a sociopath, belligerent, and prone to public outbursts. He also stuck sticks into his eyes to see what was behind them. Yet, he is still regarded as a great scientist and mathematician. Bizarre personal behavior does not negate the validity of someone’s ideas.
As for Ayn Rand… well there is no real way to determine the validity of philosophy, other than by how many people believe in it. Even then, it is subjective. The fact that people still quote Ayn Rand, however, shows that a significant number of people agree with her general ideas. We should not go around saying that the philosophy is absurd just because we personally disagree with it.
I’m not really defending Ayn Rand - note that I did not actually say whether or not I believe in her philosophy. I’m saying that in general, bizarre personal behavior does not disqualify a person from having good ideas. Hypocrisy does not disqualify valid statements either. If I had a recording of Hitler saying that “killing people is bad”, killing people is still bad, despite the apparent hypocrisy of the person making the statement.
ok i’m done playing the agitator for a while. i would just implore anyone who hasn’t read Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff (the actual text of the philosophy and not a novel based on it), to do so and decide for yourself. i would love to hear people’s own reasons for why they think it’s an invalid philosophy, and what that means for how we should try to live our lives.
Swan, that’s selective use of her words. You forgot “A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy.” Those are pretty important words are they not? As I said, I have no vested interest in Rand and honestly had never even heard of objectivism before this thread. I read and enjoyed AS as a fictional work and was intrigued by your post. She may have been a world class bitch and hypocrite and objectivism may be total crap, but it appears to be inaccurate to depict her as worshipping a depraved killer and finding inspiration in his degenerate actions.
The author of the article you linked to isn’t exactly a bastion of purity either.
In The eXile, Ames wrote on such topics as politics, organized crime in Russia, prostitution, and drug use. The paper played practical jokes on Pravda staffers and public figures including Mikhail Gorbachev. Chicago Reader contributor Martha Bayne wrote that, “Most notably, the Exile nurtures a peculiarly vicious and schizoid attitude toward women”. Bayne notes a segment in his 2000 book where Ames describes becoming aroused when he heard a Russian girl was 15 instead of 16: “Right then my pervometer needle hit the red. I had to have her, even if she was homely… Her cunt was as tight as a cat’s ass…I’d slept with mothers before–they’re a lot wider.”
Note to Chad: I apologize for the vulgarity. It is a direct quote.
It’s an oldie but a goldie and I still find it very amusing. Basically some guys give up on trying to be richer than smarter than etc, and go for badder than and become outlaws… only just to get more women.
It’s shallow and yet so true. -Come’on admit it… It really is just all about the pu$$y isn’t it?
On another note given the charitable interests and Nassim Taleb comments, I think this is more in sync with my thinking. You have to get the zen before you get the money. Money has no power, it’s you that has the power. I just try and pick up a new skill each year, -sure, around annual review time it’s easy to get down and start thinking about the whole I don’t make enough bit, but if I have to go to learn a new sport, pick up martial arts, take another class, read at least a book (hopefully non-finance related), try and help someone else (poverty striken or not I don’t think it matters, but of course those in poverty could probably use some more help …) then it really has no sting, I have so much else that I find fulfilling. I think ultimately everyone gets what they really search for in life, when you are on your deathbed will having $XXXX in your bank account versus your neighbor who has $xxx really make a sh*t? I doubt it *very* seriously.
On the original debate, I think money is useful to prevent some sources of unhappiness. I do think that the Hednonic Treadmill is a sensible idea but, if you lack food or have health issues due t lack of money to treat them properly, it’s harder to be happy all the time.
Money takes away lots of worries, at least partially, such as food, shelter, kid’s education/braces/medicine and what not. Even though it may be a little oversimplified, I think Maslow makes a lot of sense - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs
Money solves some issues and frees you up to desire self-fullfilment, having more money than your friends or whatever.
Of course, as long as you get some job, in a developed country you’ll probably have enough money for your basic needs, except for out of the ordinary health issues I guess.