James,

While I'm far from an Objectivist, in college, Ayn Rand was my introduction to any kind of political/philosophic discussion that leaned towards the right of what liberalism evolved into in the 20th century, as it was for many people who eventually came to identify as libertarian, conservative, or a bit of both.

In the essay directly preceding yours on this site, Dean Esmay quotes Lionel Trilling in 1950, who wrote:

In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation. This does not mean, of course, that there is no impulse to conservatism...but [they] do not, with some isolated and some ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.

In considering the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it is always important to keep in mind the prevailing intellectual climate against which she was forced to push. Though her absolutist vision of individualism may appear overly harsh and dogmatic to us now, it may well have been a necessary counterweight to the general acceptance of statism in the West in the wake of the Great Depression. At a time when European nations succumbed, disastrously, to the various allures of fascism, communism, and socialism, and even the United States experimented with the big government programs of the New Deal and Great Society, maybe her rigid espousal of freedom was a required response.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage - the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Jimmy - I think you're looking at this thing too seriously. And if your introduction to Ayn Rand are sound bites (albeit long one's) it is easy to undertand your lack of understanding at what her artistry, if even her philosophy was all about. I make a suggest or rather a request. Let's look at Ayn differntly. Grab an early work: specifically We The Living. And dig into an understanding of a pre-pubescent girl trapped in a country (Russia) she doesn't quite understand anymore. This is Ayn's story. And not to dig deep in psychanalysis. Read this book. It's autobiorgraphical as any novel. And it will give you insight into her anti-collective and altruistic tendencies. Afterall, this is just a woman, a person, writing. Think if she had a blog back then. How would you react!

thanks for the commentary. and enjoy we the living.

Rand gets even better later in the book:

"The composite picture of man that emerges from the art of our time is the gigantic figure of an aborted embryo whose limbs suggest a vaguely anthropoid shape, who twists his upper extremity in a frantic quest for a light that cannot penetrate its empty sockets, who emits inarticulate sounds resembling snarls and moans, who crawls through a bloody muck, red froth dripping from his jaws, and struggles to throw the froth at his own non-existent face, who pauses periodically and, lifting the stumps of his arms, screams in abysmal terror at the universe at large." (p. 130)

Paranoia doesn't even *begin* to cover her problems.

What happened to the post of the guy who identified O'ism as a cult?

the thing is this: ignore rand's essays. in fact, ignore most philosophical essays. i tip my hat to you if you can find any work of straight philosophical detail that doesn't make you want to bash your head against a wall just to remember some form of feeling in your brain. (for instance, anything nietzshe that's translated by walter kaufman makes me want to tear our my fucking eyes, but i'm very fond of nietzche's philosophical views. same with sarte or kafka.)

the gold of rand, and yes, it does actually exist, is in her non-fiction. it gives you a very personal (much friendlier, though still cold) view of her philosophy. seeing the way you feel now, i think you would react very similarly to the way i did. i'd start with the fountainhead. you'll walk away realizing that she is, in actuality, an incredible writer. you'll also probably understand, as far too many don't (i.e. the deplorable ayn rand institute, which is headed by leonard peikoff, an idiot whose name refuse to spellcheck) that any of rand's philosophies can only be applied on the personal level, not societal.

anyway, read her fiction, and be a filter. she's a terrific writer with a few good ideas. just appreciate her books and ignore the woman. at least that way you can escape how ugly she is.

we have a love/hate relationship.

note: i said non-fiction when i meant fiction in the second paragraph. excuse that.

Uh oh! Al Barger, self-proclaimed Number One Fan of the Weird Woman from Russia will be miffed.

Yeah, what DID happen to the comment identifying O'ism as a cult? Surely not a victim of Objectivist censorship?

You find her exasperating because you are an idiot. Try playing with legos instead. You couldn't even make a real argument against her. [Personal attack deleted]

lol..no real Argument against her?

ok..how about her relationship with Nathaniel Branden?

he founded the Objectivist with her, and wrote many of the early Articles himself...he was the Model for John Galt, and was also the man the married Rand fooled around with for a while

after they broke up, she tossed him out of the Objectivist offices and denounced his work

second bit of Fun, which helps explain how someone who could write the very competent "Fountainhead" in a few hundred relatively entertaining pages which got the message out there to the 4 times thicker incoherent rantings of Atlas Shrugged, where the same few points are hammered againand again and again and again and again...ad nauseum

could it be the 20 year dexedrine habit(that's pure pharmaceutical speed to those who don't know)

it was doctor prescribed, and not unusual at the time as "diet pills" or to "boost energy" which is fine in short term usage...

but a 20 year habit makes one as much a junkie as any other hardcore pharmaceutical drug

and speed has the effects of paranoia and an eventual de-railing of coherent thought processes

how's THAT for some real Argument?

now, all that being said, there were some decent Articles form the early Objectivists...and at least ONE world famous graduate of the cult..

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank was a founding member of Objectivism

explains quite a lot, doesn't it?

Excelsior?

When were cold sores first discovered????

geez gonzo. Don't burst the bubble. I enjoy her books and agree with a lot of what she says.

Hey James, nice try. But I wouldn't write an article trashing the works of a heavyweight like Rand without really understanding or reading her position. Seems the Rand fans are fanatical, so there must be something there, maybe.
Find out what Greenspan gets from Rand, and see if it flys. Greenspan is no hack so there might be something there.

I never read Rand because of her attacks on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. I felt her arguments were emotional and slightly subjective.

Juicy stuff Gonzo.

Rand was fat? I always pictuted her as a bulemic twitchy chainsmoker.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Ayn Rand's good ideas exist, and consist, essentially, of repeating, with reactionary intensity, that "freedom is good," over and over again. Working through a love/hate relationship, or being especially selective in picking out passable elements in any given text, is simply not worth it. The fact your ex-girlfriend loved her mother doesn't mean she was fun to be around. For all the emphasis on "objectivity," she resorts to categorical argumentation than taking a stab at, say, science, which might have to do with the fact that the postwar social sciences were only backing up about half of her assertions, and certainly none of her forays into misdirected rage or paranoia. On the fiction side...I've never seen quite as many displays of callous macho men demolishing overtly devious straw men and unidimensional mice. In order to be readable, the opposition would need credible motivation, and the faintest sniff of pragmatism to flavor the air. I don't know of a Intro to Fiction teacher that doesn't warn against didactic storytelling- she was absent that day.

I read one or two of those Ayn Rand screeds when I was 21 and considered them naive. She's an embarrassment to the very ideas she supports.

In a nutshell, Rand was morally bankrupt. The convservative notion that repeats If I'm left alone to do well and others will benfit" ad naseum is, and always will be the philosophy of a kindergarten student who won't share the crayons.

Why does anyone, anywhere ever take anything this verbose and untalented writer/thinker seriously? She was a joke. Get over it Ayn, and fellow Objectivists... we all need each other, like it or not.

Ed, that would be 'The Virtue of Selfishness', selflessness being something of which she very definitely did not approve! Interesting mistake, though.