There's been a lot of
talk about Ayn Rand since Paul Ryan was tapped by Romney for the Vice
President's slot on the GOP ticket.
People are asking
"Who's Rand"? What's Ryan talking about her for? How come
I haven't heard about her before?
I'm
not one of those people. I know who she is.
When I was young, I
read a lot of Ayn Rand.
Her books Anthem, Altas
Shrugged, and Fountainhead were among the books that
really inspired me, made me think about who I was. I especially liked
what she said about individualism, the importance of the self against the
dominance of the "Other."
Like most young guys
back then in the 60s, I felt pretty much overwhelmed by government, the draft,
my parents, school, the future with its responsibilities to a possible wife and
possible kids.
Rand seemed the
ticket. Here's what she told me: It's you against everybody else
and if you can't throw off the shackles and chains of those others you will
never be free. An attractive lesson to give to a 19 year old.
But while trying to
throw off the dominance of everybody else and to maintain the integrity of my
self, I realized that I couldn't exist without other people. There was an
essential part of me that was the "Other." What the other
person did and said in part affected who I was. It didn't control me but
it was a part of me, and I felt that denying that fact was certainly a denial
of my whole self.
But what finally
convinced me to turn away from Rand was her lack of charity for other people. In
her world, the best thing you can do is strive to succeed for yourself.
The other person didn't need to figure into that equation. You
didn't have to care for another or concern yourself with another.
In fact, someplace she
said that if civilization is to survive, people have to reject the morality of
altruism. In other words, to hell with other people.
I couldn't accept
that.
There's
a fundamental part of my self that reaches out to other people, wants
to help other people. Maybe it comes to me from people reaching out to me
and my family when we first came to America. Maybe it comes to me because
my parents were victims of the kind of rejection of the humanity of others that
the Nazis found comfortable. I don't know, but what I do know is that I
go emotional when I see people who need help.
Rand says, you're
messing up society if you do.
Posts
21 comments:
Dear John,
My son was also intrigued by her writing when he was 19 even wanted to take an engineering course in college) and I loved her books. It is nice to read about the society that rewards engineers. We all take their work for granted. I think she is a great writer.
Halina
Wonderful. Would like to share.
I loved her wonderfully, outrageous characters.
I didn't buy her philosophy. It seems to be true of many artists. Their art is the truest part of them. If I had read G.B.Shaw's philosophy before reading his plays I wouldn't have read any of them. I've read most of his plays over and over again.
Thanks for the thoughts on Ayn Rand, and for the fetching photograph.
The recent tendency to wield Rand's name in the name of conservatism demonstrates about as much similarity to her actual ideas as her visage has to that of Helen Mirren ("The Passion of Ayn Rand" - 1999).
See today's NYT OpEd piece "Atlas Spurned" by Jennifer Burns for a cogent account of this ideological misrepresentation.
One of the striking features of her fiction is that no one has children. That's one obvious place where the "virtue of selfishness" would be exposed as idiocy (provided the humankind has a desire to survive).
For all her brilliance, which I admit, Rand failed to notice that humanity owes its astonishing feats to cooperation. Science, for instance, is a totally cooperative endeavor. Genius, yes, but others have to replicate and verify, so ultimately the genius is collective. Rand's extreme individualism is like all extremes -- ultimately crazily wrong and even demonic.
Christina, feel free to share. (If I were still under the sway of Rand, I would probably ask you to buy the essay first.)
I was drawn to Rand, too, in early college in the 1960's, but then found her philosophy bordering on the dangerous. Gary Cooper is great in that movie, though, which I can't recall exactly now. He plays the architect.
Christina Pacosz
Oriana--yes, the absence of children. I think that it's the family that teaches us about cooperation and connection. I know that a lot of my own sense of individualism floundered when I started to think of myself in relationship to my wife and daughter and my aging parents.
Bruce, that photo of Rand. I worked hard to find one of her that was menacing. Mostly she's smiling in her photos.
John,
It sounds like you, like many others, have read Rand, but have not fully comprehended what she really had to say about morality and about altruism. She did not say that others can be of no value and so "to hell with other people". They can be of tremendous psychological value to you as friends, lovers, children, etc.
Rand had nothing against this; what she opposed was self-sacrifice for others (properly understood.) She opposed giving up something more important to your happiness for something less important. Why do you have a moral duty to suffer for others, by the sheer fact that they are not you?
Your valuing of others is properly proportionate to how positively they impact your long-term happiness.
Reading Rand's novels is not enough to deeply understand her ideas. If one is to really understand, a few years of serious study is typically needed.
This post on Rand's morality is from a blog dedicated to generating a proper, deeper understanding of Rand's philosophy: The Morality of Rational Egoism: Short Notes
Sword of Apollo, I think I understand Rand. She doesn't believe that charity is a "moral imperative." She also doesn't think it's really a big deal. Of course, she's got a right to feel this way. And the thing I admire about her is that she is so honest about her feelings. Here's a statement by her from the Ayn Rand website:
My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
[From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”]
Hmm, sounds like the Sword of Apollo needs a swig of Dionysius' wine.
Excellent piece John. I think many of us are torn between the opposing impulses of altruism vs. egotism.
Well said, John! Obviously, there's a time and place for selfishness (artists, for instance, have to have a big dose of both selfishness and selflessness to get by). I also agree that developing one's individuality and self-sufficiency are of great importance.
What doesn't get enough discussion, though, is the human invention of compassion. I think that compassion is the main thing that distinguishes us from animals because caring about another living thing, especially when it isn't necessarily in your own best interest, is THE triumph of morality and higher order thinking over raw (but obviously necessary and valuable) instinct.
Hi John,
This is Charles Swanson. I appreciate this blog. I remember reading Rand in high school. I think we read it as a class because it provoked discussion. The more I read into her long work The Fountainhead, the more I thought she was reversing the meaning of the terms selflessness and selfishness. In order for one to embrace true "selflessness," one had to be willing to be selfish. I thought the argument interesting, but somewhat straining at the bit. My memory on all this is fuzzy now, but I have little desire to delve back into Rand because of that worldview, which did fascinate me, but which I ultimately rejected.
Hi John,
This is Charles Swanson. I appreciate this blog. I remember reading Rand in high school. I think we read it as a class because it provoked discussion. The more I read into her long work The Fountainhead, the more I thought she was reversing the meaning of the terms selflessness and selfishness. In order for one to embrace true "selflessness," one had to be willing to be selfish. I thought the argument interesting, but somewhat straining at the bit. My memory on all this is fuzzy now, but I have little desire to delve back into Rand because of that worldview, which did fascinate me, but which I ultimately rejected.
I liked The Fountainhead, as well, when I was a college student, but even then it left me with a vague uneasiness. What if I was not the perfect specimen, physically and mentally, she wanted us to aspire to? What if I just couldn't do it? What worth as a human being would I have then?
Today, I read in the NY Times that she had a 6 foot dollar sign next to her coffin at her wake. That, for me, says it all about her philosophy.
Your insightful post has a great deal of affinity with the writings of Emmanuel Levinas. I am new to your blog so may I ask, are you familiar with Levinas? obliged.
Daniel, I don't know Levinas but I will definitely look him up.
Daniel, I took a look at the Wikipedia site on Levinas. Interesting. My sense of the relationship between the self and the other comes from my reading of R. D. Laing. I did my dissertation on his sense of self and other in contemporary American fiction. Have you read Laing?
It's absurd for Ryan to claim to be both Catholic and a follower of Ayn Rand. Something is rotten in Denmark.
One of the most unintentionally funny films of all time "The Foutainhead" with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, a movie that can only be taken as some sort of leaden parody.
Ayn Rand followers are the mirror image of those they are a backlash against -- liberals. A plague on both their houses.
Post a Comment