WHO IS JOHN GALT? (A survey on Ayn Rand)

by Terry 58 Replies latest social entertainment

  • Robert K Stock
    Robert K Stock

    Ayn Rand was no saint. She was the greatest mind of the twentieth century but as all humans was not able to live up to her ideals all the time.

    Does Thomas Jefferson owning slaves negate the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence?

    Do the bloody gladiator fights of ancient times negate Roman contributions to law and architecture?

    Does the equaly bloody history of Islam negate Arab contributions to science?

    Ayn Rand was THE champion of the individual when collectivism was king. I recognize her faults and try not to repeat similar mistakes. I am not always consistant but I do my best and continue to improve. To me Ayn Rand is the begining of the discussion and not the end of the discussion.

    The Objectivist Center in Washington, DC and the Sense of Life Objectivists in New Zealand take Ayn Rand's philosophy to places she herself did not have time to ponder or chose not to address such as family issues and child rearing.

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    I agree with your last post Robert....but in your post before last how can you call Mother Theresa a parasite and a fraud?

  • Robert K Stock
    Robert K Stock

    Christopher Hitchens makes the case that Mother Teresa did nothing to change the living conditions of the poor souls in her care. She did nothing to lift them out of poverty, filth and disease but left them in their misery so they could be used as ads to solicit money from guilt ridden Westerners.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step
    Christopher Hitchens makes the case that Mother Teresa did nothing to change the living conditions of the poor souls in her care. She did nothing to lift them out of poverty, filth and disease but left them in their misery so they could be used as ads to solicit money from guilt ridden Westerners.

    Thank the Lord that Hitchen's was there to comfort the terminally sick in India when that old Teresa fraud pegged out. Now these people will know what a *honest* saint is all about.

    HS

  • Terry
    Terry

    For some reason, I often look closely at the people at the top of a heap when I'm trying to decide if the heap is for me. Consequently I familiarized myself with Ayn's treatment of her "hero," Frank O'Connor, while she was married to him and conducting an open affair with Nathaniel Branden, who was married to Barbara Branden. All good objectivists, with the possible exception of Frank, who seemed to me to have a "yeah, OK Ayn, what-ever" embracing of objectivism.

    I guess it is easier for Ayn (or anyone; me, even) to write about how other people - or imaginary people - find a utopian existence while rationalizing the harm that is done day-to-day to real people.

    I like that term - RANDroids. I never got to the point of associating with any members of the Alice Rosenblum cult. I find it hilarious that for them smoking cigarettes was practically a sacrament.

    Frank O'Connor was a handsome bit actor who turned out to have a modest talent for painting and a love of gardening. He was obviously the object of Rand's __projections__of the heroic without embodying them intellectually. He seemed to marry up. He was ordinary. But, Rand overlooked his inability to keep up with her philsophically.

    Enter, Nathaniel Branden. He was younger and a blazing intellect. I've read his book, Barbara Branden's book and several others. I'm more or less of the opinion that Branden was mesmerized by Rand's stature as a thinker and then found a niche for himself in promoting her philosophy through a lecture series. It was he who really launched Rand into college age milieu.

    According to Rand's philosophy you value and an emotion follows. Rand and Branden got on so well (sympatico philosophically) that the emotions blazed to the surface.

    Sidebar: I think Rand really wanted rough sex; she needed to be made to feel. Her heroines were roughed up by the hero in her novels. She seemed to repress emotions and that isn't healthy. Apparently Branden brought out a ___possibility__in her.

    She openly discussed what she was feeling and wanting with Frank. Barbara and Frank were bewildered but could not argue philosophically against the sexual union of Branden and Rand without appearing hypocrites. The Virtue of Selfishness is that it brings you what you need by virtue of what your values are. Rand and Branden valued each other intellectually and it was only natural that the physical would follow.

    The fly in the ointment was that Branden soon tired of the older women. He continued to use her name and philosophy to build the Institute and create quite a livlihood for himself. He cheated on Rand (by lying about an affair to his wife and to Ayn concerning a younger (prettier!!!) college student who worked for him. What irony! Cheating on an open affair!

    When Rand discovered this lie (Barbara ratted him out!) the ethical shit hit the morality fan.

    Rand kicked Branden out of her Institute and disassociated herself in every way from him. He moved to California and started a Self-Esteem industry writing bestsellers (industry standards) and establishing a successful practice. He still is active.

    Rand felt betrayed, but, didn't falter in her aims to make Objectivism clear to the world.

    Her views of Utopia were idealizing mankind and man's efforts. The failure in that is the failure of men to live up to their own ideals. The concept is pretty darned magnificent. A perfect score is only possible; but, not inevitible.

    Rand's addiction to cigarettes was fatal. She lived in an era in which magazine ads and tv ads extolled the "benefits" of smoking to help you soothe a sore throat! The irony is tragic. The surgeon general's report was years away from finding revealed secret data to back it up.

    Everybody paid the price on that one.

    I think the people who are attracted to Rand are people who don't have skills in emotional socializing. They want the world to merely work off of intellectual acumen. That is their error. Life cannot be much without the ecstacy of feeling that accompanies it.

    Parroting another person's words is a poor substitute for understanding what they mean. Alas, this seems to happen in religion too.

    T.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Funny that most psychological research -- and many people's personal experience -- show that humans are happiest when they are not self-centered, which is totally opposite to the core of Rand's philosophy. Where would the world be if Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer and other great figures who gave tirelessly and selflessly to humanity had followed the "ethical egoist" path advocated by Rand

    I think this is worded in a way that hides what is being said.

    Seeking happiness is seeking your OWN happiness. How you do it is your choice. But, you are seeking your OWN. If you choose to do something on behalf of others according to your valuation of others--that is no violation of selfishness in Rand's thinking.

    But, to be forced to serve others because you have no value unless you do is the form of extortion Rand is against. Religion devalues its members. They are born sinful, imperfect, desrving death; they are dust on the scales and a drop in the ocean. The are sinners in the hands of an angry god. They MUST serve him or die and suffer.

    This is what Rand is diametrically opposed to. Devaluing mankind is an abomination to her.

    What motives you are attributing to Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Schweitzer are the result of your wording. A study of their lives adds dimensions to their choices that reflect intellectual values and not beggars at god's table for scraps.

    Why you give is the essential and fundamental focus of Objectivism; why you value the giving and not merely the servitude of the undeserving for the group of "others".

    T.

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    Rand's addiction to cigarettes was fatal. She lived in an era in which magazine ads and tv ads extolled the "benefits" of smoking to help you soothe a sore throat! The irony is tragic. The surgeon general's report was years away from finding revealed secret data to back it up.

    Everybody paid the price on that one.

    Well according to Rand the marketplace would have taken care of itself on tobacco.... as we see today that is not the case. People will peddle a product that does kill it's users, so long as they get enough money during the addiction process. Rand railed against any kind of government influence on this kind of thing. I believe it's Karma working it's magic w/ regards to this.

  • Terry
    Terry
    Well according to Rand the marketplace would have taken care of itself on tobacco.... as we see today that is not the case. People will peddle a product that does kill it's users, so long as they get enough money during the addiction process. Rand railed against any kind of government influence on this kind of thing. I believe it's Karma working it's magic w/ regards to this.

    Correction: FREE marketplace.

    Rand advocated unrestricted laissez faire (hand's off) Capitalism.

    What we have and have had for decades is a MIXED economy system with government as bad as the worst offenders.

    The government (and lawmakers/legislators) are bought and sold under our current system through the influence of lobbies. The real pressure felt in the House and Senate is financial pressure to get re-elected which causes them to turn to any knave or brigand with a wad o' cash in hand. Polluters write the Clean Air laws in Texas, for example (thank you ex-Governor Bush.)

    The grass roots groups in America cannot compete with the billions of dollars and high-powered attorneys on one side and the ever-narrowing Tort Reform (reform?!) packages being passed to prevent any consumer action lawsuits from stinging enough to warrant policy changes.

    Don't blame Rand for our current system. She fought against it her whole life.

    T.

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    So cigarettes and tobacco manufacurers would act altruistic under a FREE market system? I think not.

    We also see what oil and energy companies do in completely FREE markets. Puleeze. Gov Bush has done more damage than I can ever imagine a single human being doing. He makes Capt. Joe of the Valdez accident look like Mother Theresa by comparision.

    As, I've mentioned she wrote in a Utopian - Waldenlike state. It is not how the real world works. Never has, never will. So to be considered a literary genius and philosphy giant based on this I feel is a bit disingenious. She wrote good books...nuff said. Let's not exalt her into humanity's largest salvation and peg her up there with Edison or Socrates.

  • under74
    under74

    Sorry... I've got to say that I can't stand Rand's writing and I think she was a hypocrite. I can't take someone who speaks out against facism yet kicked people out of "her" philosophical movement because their wives believed in God....I don't believe in God and I think that's going way too far. I also can't take someone spouting what's wrong with the poor when they come from the upperclass.

    She also hated Libertarians because they didn't follow her word to the "T" ...AND she ripped off Hume, Lyndsander Spooner, and John Locke.

    I can come up wih many more reasons why I don't like her or her writings.....

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit