Skip to main content

View Diary: A Defense of Ayn Rand (Or, How to Change a TP mind) (8 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is a diary here that is actually dealing with what Ayn Rand promoted in her philosophy of Objectivism that Objectivists believe in. Not what people have read about what she believed in, what they think it must mean, or all the stuff she wrote that is never discussed. (I don't even care where Randian came from. It is the equivalent of GOPers who refer to the Democrat Party.)

    I think equating her goal to Maslow's self actualization is spot on. Some of the right to life items you list I would put into pursuit of happiness. The bigger issue for me is that Rand was about following your bliss and being the best you could be. She absolutely spoke against tearing other people down to make yourself look good, nor was there any promotion of extorting workers. Her error was in assuming the morality would accompany the ability to pursue your dreams.

    Saw something from the Bible in one of the diaries that reminded me of one of her other misconceptions. She insisted that money was not inherently good or evil, which is true. It is what humans do with it, or to acquire it that is good or bad. The issue has to do with the exact wording: it is the love of money that is the root of all evil. Yup.

    My other respect and appreciation for someone who held one of my deepest values as high as I do, were her arguments on honesty.

    If humans could eradicate the love of money (with the power and stuff it brings) and dishonesty for personal gain, we would be a race we could all love.

    "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

    by Ginny in CO on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 09:47:04 AM PDT

    •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

      For appreciating that I tried to give a fair account of Ayn Rand's position.

      In talking to Objectivists (I have a friend who refers to himself as a Capitalist - meaning anarcho-capitalism), they agree that it is wrong to use your money in damaging ways.  But they defend the right of anyone to spend their money however they like.

      This is what boggles the mind.  Even if the world abided by their system and destroyed itself, that would be fine, because the fundamental moral right of freedom would have led to that outcome.  

      That's why it's so hard to take them seriously when I hear them saying that if only people were more moral, their system would be the best possible.  The fact that we can all agree that that is entirely unrealistic suggests to me that maybe we should explore other ways of promoting moral behavior.

    •  She was a huge hypocrite (0+ / 0-)

      "The bigger issue for me is that Rand was about following your bliss and being the best you could be. She absolutely spoke against tearing other people down to make yourself look good, nor was there any promotion of extorting workers. "

      She spoke against others tearing HER down. She tore people down all the time. Or is calling other people "parasites" somehow not tearing them down? She was hugely egotistical and could not take criticism, but she dished it out almost every time she opened her mouth. Someone put up a Johnny Carson interview of her recently. Watch it.

      She was a hugely dishonest person, using straw men and personal attacks against her "enemies" frequently. Liars frequently espouse honesty.

      It is love of power over others that is evil, and what Ayn Rand desired, and worshiped more than anything in the world, was the "natural" power of greater people over lesser people. The natural place for elite like her is ON TOP, dominating the subhuman primates of the world, i.e. the rest of us.

      She did not believe the ability to pursue your own dreams would lead to morality. She thought that concerns over lesser creatures were irrelevant, pursue your dreams and fuck everyone else, they are beneath consideration. Her philosophy is totally amoral, morality to her was a weakness.

      She believed that in the natural order of things, the strong dominate the weak, and anything else is unnatural and wrong.  She did not believe in sharing power with others, that's COMMUNISM. She believed in hierarchy, and for that, she is and always will be pure evil in my book. Objectivism is a puerile, simplistic psuedo-philosophy that most college freshman could shit out in a weekend after taking intro to philosophy 101. There is absolutely nothing of value there.

    •  Though I disagree with her on most issues (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meek isle

      I agree that most of the discussion of her philosophy here hasn't been very informed.    It happens sometimes... It's easier to go for the broad attacks than to learn the nuance behind a position, which is too bad, because the criticisms would be more effective if they were more accurate.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:42:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site