About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Actually in about 1000 words.  My instructor in Law Enforcement Ethics is about the same age I am -- mid-50s -- but never heard of Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged.  So, I wrote this for her.)

 

Ayn Rand

By Michael E. Marotta

 

Ayn (rhymes with “mine”) Rand was a pop figure of the 1960s.  Her fame actually takes root in the late 1940s.  Before she died in 1982, she saw one of her pupils, Alan Greenspan, secure in a nice job.  Greenspan had written two essays for Ayn Rand’s 1967 anthology, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.  In 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that Ayn Rand’s works – principally her novel, Atlas Shrugged – ranked second only to The Bible in having “influenced” the thinking of those polled. 

 

Ayn Rand – born Alissa Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905 – considered herself a novelist.  Her experience included many screenplays for Cecil B. deMille among others in Hollywood.  She wrote a play, The Night of January 16th that achieved some notoriety in 1934.  The play centers on a murder, but the evidence is evenly stacked.  Jurors selected from the audience participate in the final act.  Rand’s 1943 novel, The Fountainhead, was made into a movie in 1947.  It starred Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Raymond Massey.  Rand wrote the screenplay.  She described the theme of that novel as being “individualism versus collectivism, not in society, but in man’s soul.”

 

Rand said that in order to write her fiction, she had to define her philosophy.  That philosophy became known as Objectivism.  It achieved some status as a cult in the 1960s, and it continues today.  The Center for Objectivist Studies, the Ayn Rand Institute and The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies are some reflection of her continuing influence as a philosopher and novelist.  I participate actively in SOLO, the Sense of Life Objectivists at www.solohq.com, a site for blogs and other posts. 

 

The basic assertions of Objectivism are these:
• Reality is real.  Existence exists.  There is an objective universe out there, independent of the observer’s hopes, fears, or wishes.
• Reason works.  The human mind evolved to deal with physical reality.  Our senses filter gross reality correctly and accurately.  Any misperceptions are in the mind, and can be corrected with reason.
• Egoism is the only ethical morality.  We do not share stomachs.  We do not share minds.  Each of us must stand or fall by our own perceptions and conceptualizations.  We can and do learn from each other, but the discovery of facts and the creation of new ideas must be individual efforts.  Moreover, no individual has the right to seek values from another by force or fraud.
• Capitalism is the only moral social structure.  Taxation is theft.  To be moral, government must be limited to police (and military) and courts of law.  Short of force and fraud, whatever each of us freely consents to is our own business.
• The purpose of art is self-reflection.  Romantic Realism is appropriate for those who believe in their own self-worth.  Typical would be the works of Nathaniel Hawthorne and Jack London, or movies such as Casablanca and Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

 

Rand’s opus magnum, Atlas Shrugged garnered instant notoriety in 1958.  Rand chose the publisher (Random House) and orchestrated the publicity campaign herself.  In 45 years, it has sold 5 million copies.  Rand wrote an epilogue for one of the early reprintings, which continues to close the book:  “I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don’t exist.  That this book has been written – and published – is my proof that they do.”  Atlas Shrugged is the story of a man who shuts off the motor of the world.  The heroes (and villains) are engineers, scientists and industrialists. 

 

Born in 1905, writing in the 1950s, Rand spun an idealized history of the American robber barons from Vanderbilt and Carnegie to Ford and Edison.  Convicted of securities fraud in 1990, financier Michael Milken was sent many copies of Atlas Shrugged while in prison.  Upon his release, he said that if he had read the book before he went to jail, he never would have gone to jail.  Atlas Shrugged includes a courtroom scene in which an industrialist accused of monopoly tells a panel of judges that they have no right to try him.  More recently, Objectivists have rallied behind Bill Gates and Martha Stuart.

 

Alan Greenspan is not alone is being an admirer of Ayn Rand’s novels.  Ed Snider, former owner of the Philadelphia Flyers and now of Comcast/Spectacor is another.  Steve Ditko (creator of Spiderman), Frank Miller (creator of Batman: the Dark Knight) Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), investigative reporter John Stossel, and the rock band, Rush credit Ayn Rand with shaping their personal philosophies.  This is not unique.  Mel Gibson is a born-again Catholic.  John Travolta and Tom Cruise are Scientologists.  Many people believe in “something.”  Unlike those other “somethings,” Objectivism is not widely publicized.  That is odd considering that Ayn Rand’s books have cumulatively sold over 25 million copies. 

 

Part of the reason is that unlike other cults, Objectivism has no center.  In fact, as a philosophy closely reflective of Nietzschean individualism, that is not surprising.  Objectivists routinely criticize all but the most basic principles of their philosophy – and even some of those.  As an Objectivist, for instance, I question the need for government police and courts.  Why not have the free market operate in all areas of human action?  That is without a doubt a violation of an Objectivist tenet, and yet, one which is arguable within an Objectivist context.  Consequently, unlike Catholicism and Scientology, Objectivism remains a personal philosophy shared by individuals.

 

Also, Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, speaks directly to the heart of any Objectivist who would become popular.  The novel tells the story of two architects, the modernist Howard Roark and the eclecticist Peter Keating.  Handsome and likeable, Keating gives people what they think their friends want – and he is destroyed.  Holding resolutely and indefatigably to his own standards, Howard Roark gets the girl.  Therefore, popularity seldom drives Objectivists to seek and gain publicity, though some do just that as a consequence of their business plans.

 




Post 1

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Well said.

I especially like your bringing in current well-known admirers of Rand.

Please be sure to let us know how your instructor responds.

Steve


Post 2

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I've appreciated some of your contributions on this site, but thanks for clearing up the question of whether you are an Objectivist or not. Now I know that you are not.

-Bill

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

That was a pretty good nutshell description for a person who has never been acquainted with Rand, but there are a few things that are a bit misleading. I will mention the two that bothered me the most.

The first is that you stated that Rand "considered herself a novelist." While technically true, it gives the implied, but unspoken, message of, "but actually she was such a poor writer that she could not be considered as a novelist." It also is incomplete - Ayn Rand considered herself a philosopher, also. Even more, Ayn Rand not only considered herself a novelist and philosopher, she was a novelist and philosopher.

The second observation is characterizing Objectivism as a cult without a core. I have great difficulty imagining exactly what that is. All cults have a core. It would have been more precise to say that several organizations have sprung up in the world based on Objectivism that are essentially cults in all but name.

Michael


Post 4

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
About objectivism in one word?
It's one word "only" the meaning of everything IS.! "EVER"
Ciro.



Post 5

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK wrote: "The first is that you stated that Rand "considered herself a novelist." While technically true, it gives the implied, but unspoken, message of, "but actually she was such a poor writer that she could not be considered as a novelist." "
She said that she was a novelist.  She said that in answer to the question of whether she considered herself a novelist or a philospher. 

Also, I said nothing in that about her writing.  My comments here are separate from that.  I believe that I repeated her own view of herself accurately: in order to write, she had to define her philosophy.
The second observation is characterizing Objectivism as a cult without a core. I have great difficulty imagining exactly what that is. All cults have a core.
Taking the first and last sentences of that paragraph, I wrote: "Part of the reason is that unlike other cults, Objectivism has no center.  ... Consequently, unlike Catholicism and Scientology, Objectivism remains a personal philosophy shared by individuals."  What I said is correct.

William A. Nevin III opined: " ... thanks for clearing up the question of whether you are an Objectivist or not. Now I know that you are not."
I think that I am.  That is why I choose to participate among others like me here at SOLO: the Sense of Life Objectivists.  I do not know what you find in my summary to mischaracterize me.  Reading your profile, you seem like a bright person.  We share an interest in ancient Greek.  I just published another article in The Celator, this one about the emergency coinage of Athens c.404 BCE.  If you read my posts on numismatics, you will see that I own several ancient coins, including one that I believe was the work of Diogenes the Cynic.



 


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Re the novelist comment, I wasn't referring to Rand's context in another place. I was referring to the context in your article and how it sounded. The reader has the context of your article in front of him, not the source of your observation.

Friendly criticism. Nothing more.

On the cult remark, I have a suggestion. Instead of "Part of the reason is that unlike other cults, Objectivism has no center," which implies that Objectivism is a cult, one that later receives the qualification of being without a center, you rephrase.

How about:

Part of the reason is that unlike those cults, Objectivism has no center. 
Part of the reason is that unlike cults, Objectivism has no center. 

Once again, friendly criticism.

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William A. Nevin III, don't you feel a strong motivation to provide us an explanation for your claim? Or the motivation to point out what it is that Michael was wrong about? I'd rather see you say "That's an entirely false piece of trash." than write "You're not an Objectivist"-- and nothing else. What a cultish thing to say, no?

"Your not an Objectivist!!! Your going to suffer on Earth in entirety!!!" ; )
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 10/23, 6:56pm)


Sanction: 64, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 64, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 64, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 64, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I don't want to itemize everything that is wrong with Michael's piece, but here are some standouts:

1.) It leads with a description of Ayn Rand as "a pop figure of the 1960s," as if she came into fashion and out of fashion like The Wet Look, and is of no further interest today. Considering the power and beauty of her writings, their continuing popularity, and the impact her ideas are having around the world even today, to say nothing of the future, this is simply false and insulting. Even her enemies are beginning to attribute more importance to her than this.

2.) The phrase "considered herself a novelist" as against a simple, solid, factual statement such as "was a novelist/philosopher" denies her titanic achievements in philosophy while backhandedly implying that she was a poseur whom no one else thought worthy of the title "novelist."

3.) The description of Objectivism itself (rather than some particular group of people who happen to call themselves Objectivists) as a "cult" is also false and insulting. Considering the court rulings in the US that deny 1st Amendment protections to groups the government describes as cults, this is a dangerous characterization. I don't think an Objectivist is even morally obligated to mention to someone unfamiliar with the philosophy that there are people calling themselves Objectivists who exhibit cult-like behavior. To attribute it to the belief system itself when writing to someone who knows nothing else of its content is really wrong.

4.) The list of her achievements that Michael chose to mention is unfocused, rambling, and pays no attention to essentials or proper proportion.

5.) In describing AS along with the real Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Ford, and Edison, he uses the term "robber barron" outside of scare quotes and without any mention of it being an improper smear term concocted by capitalism's enemies.

6,) His Milken anecdote does nothing to suggest to the reader _why_ Milken allegedly thought the book would have kept him out of jail (i.e. whether by improving him morally, by suggesting a better defense strategy for his legal team, or by demonstrating an especially devious way for criminals to elude detection when committing securities fraud.)

7.) "Also, Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, speaks directly to the heart of any Objectivist who would become popular." I can't even stop now to consider all the things wrong with that sentence, having only recently finished eating dinner.

8.) But the thing that really made me nauseous and prompted my original post was the paragraph equating Mel Gibson's Catholicism and particularly Travolta and Cruise's Scientology with Objectivism. Some people are butchers, some are bakers, some are candlestick makers. Some stare at their belly buttons, some join a convent, some join the Klan. Hey, it's all good. Whatever floats your boat.

9.) It's wrong to use terms without defining them, and I have no idea what Michael meant by his bizarre statement that "Objectivism has no center." In fact, it has a center consisting of a system of widely validated and intricately interrelated philosophical ideas. But I have no clue if Michael was attempting to deny this or not, because of said lack of definition. Worse, he likens Objectivism to Nietzschean philosophy with no word of Rand's heated denials of any similarity. And then he goes on to compare it yet again to Catholicism and Scientology, this time with an implication that, without a "center," it does not even rise to the level of intellectual respectability of those belief systems.

There are nine explanations justifying my previous claim. If some think that I have suddenly become a hard-ass and begun channeling Peikoff, tough.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 10/24, 8:02pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill N.
Concise and you just slapped the shit out of these backdoor insults hurled at Rand and Objectivism.  No amount of sanctions could do justice to your post.

Thank you.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"2.) The phrase "considered herself a novelist" as against a simple, solid, factual statement such as "was a novelist/philosopher" denies her titanic achievements in philosophy while backhandedly implying that she was a poseur whom no one else thought worthy of the title "novelist.""

Heh, when James Joyce and William Burroughs are considered literary rolemodels, it's Rand who should be offended.

Post 11

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 1:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, Jody, and Joe,

Sanctions all around -- for either creating (Bill especially), or recognizing, value.

Ed

Post 12

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the best way of describing Objectivism to someone who knows nothing of it would be to quote parts of John Galt's speech, especially "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." And point out that this does not mean that you should never do anything for other people...

Post 13

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. She was also a titanic novelist whose greatest work, Atlas Shrugged, has been recognized by the Library of Congress for its profound affect on the American intellect. 

Usually, when people want me to write advertising copy, I charge $100 per hour.  Anyone here want to cough up the bucks?  No?  Then I will speak the truth -- or as much of it as fts on two pages.

The audience for this was one person, a college instructor in Law Enforcement, a woman in her mid-50s, who -- oddly enough -- had never heard of (ahem) "the greatest novelist in the English language."  A former patrol officer, detective, and lawyer, my instructor is a political liberal -- and an atheist.

I dropped that off in her mailbox while I was on patrol this weekend.  I also found for her at a used bookstore a copy of FNI, VOS, and NJ16.  I figured that would just about do the trick.

As for the rest of it, I agree, you are all doubleplusgood ducktalker Objectivists.

I am not.  I am a rational-empiricist who has learned to think for himself.  I find a lot to agree with in Objectivism and for convenience, I call myself an "Objectivist."  Sunday night this week, I attended one of the periodic showings at our local Hungarian Film Festival.  (The movie, Hidember -- Bridge Man -- was a biography of the patriot, Count Istvan Szechenyi, and it was shown to celebrate the anniversary of the October 1956 Revolt.)  Anyway, I called myself a Hungarian and amid the Jo eszakat ... Jo estet kivanok... koesoenmen nagyon szepen.... kazit csokolom ... it was fine.  No one denounced me -- and if they discovered that my father was Sicilian, they probably would not have.  Perhaps that is why no says that being Hungarian is a cult.

Speaking of that ...
Considering the court rulings in the US that deny 1st Amendment protections to groups the government describes as cults, this is a dangerous characterization.
Be afraid; be very afraid.


Post 14

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism is the awakening of man's individuality
first physical, then intellectual, and finally psychological and existential, in an exasperated collectivist world.
 
Ciro D'Agostino
 




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody, Joe, Ed,

Thanks for the kind words.

Michael,

I'll let your last post speak for itself -- to whomever can understand it.

-Bill


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

I agree with several of your objections to Michael Marotta's brief piece on Rand. For starters, Rand didn't just consider herself a novelist.

But I disagree with you about one item:

I don't think an Objectivist is even morally obligated to mention to someone unfamiliar with the philosophy that there are people calling themselves Objectivists who exhibit cult-like behavior. To attribute it to the belief system itself when writing to someone who knows nothing else of its content is really wrong.


I would not call an Objectivist organization a cult. There are too many disagreements as to the meaning of that word. And such organizations as the Church of Scientology have been charged with confining people against their will, along with other offenses that no Randian organization has ever been accused of.

But there are facts of reality that need taking into account here.

There used to be an organization called the Nathaniel Branden Institute that was known for demanding ideological purity of its members, and for questioning the motives of people who asked the wrong questions--even for expelling them, cancelling their subscriptions to the organization's magazine, and declaring them personae non gratae.

There is an organization today called the Ayn Rand Institute, which employs somewhat different methods than were customary at NBI, but effectively requires its members not to speak or publish in certain forums, and not to cite the work of scholars and thinkers who are deemed heretical. ARI has a history of feuds and purges to rival NBI's.

What's more, both NBI and ARI can claim scriptural authority for their practices. And it's highly doubtful that any of NBI's policies would have continued for long, without Rand's personal approval. Today, ARI proudly claims to be carrying on Rand's legacy.

Everyone should add that the overall drift of Objectivism is inconsistent with such practices, because Objectivism is indeed a philosophy of objectivity, first-hand knowledge, independent thinking, and ethical individualism. As I've noted elsewhere, Objectivism treats the argument from intimidation as epistemically and morally irresponsible. But that didn't stop Rand herself from using it, and it isn't stopping the principals or the rank and file membership at ARI from using it.

So, regrettable though it might be, there's no escaping the fact that Rand encouraged many of the practices now called "cultish," and did much of her encouraging in writing, where future generations are going to find the same passages that give inspiration to ARI's practices today.

The potential for insisting on ideological conformity at the expense of objectivity is right there in the Randian corpus. So is the potential for confusing loyalty to the truth with loyalty to the person of Ayn Rand.

It's perfectly right to say that these are bad ideas that undercut the basic meaning of Objectivism, and bring discredit to it when acted on.

But I really do think truth in packaging means acknowledging that these bad ideas are part of the Objectivist literature. I think it means cluing in those who are new to Rand's ideas as to the kinds of people and the kinds of organizations they might run into--and why they should not take them as examples to emulate.

Robert Campbell



Post 17

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

I didn't get from Michael's post(s) that he is a non- or anti-Objectivist or someone trying to cut it down. Merely that Objectivism is not as yet well-integrated or unconfused in his mind. And that he doesn't exactly write with crystalline clarity and uses a lot of terms - "cult", "robber barons", etc. - very loosely.

So I would cut him some slack personally - at the same time that I may be harshly critical of the content of many of his posts.

Phil

Post 18

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philip Coates wrote: "I didn't get from Michael's post(s) that he is a non- or anti-Objectivist or someone trying to cut it down. Merely that Objectivism is not as yet well-integrated or unconfused in his mind. And that he doesn't exactly write with crystalline clarity and uses a lot of terms - "cult", "robber barons", etc. - very loosely."
Thank you for your benevolence, Philip.  Perhaps if I read more of your works here, Objectivism can become confused in my mind. 

Would you explain to me what you meant by "he doesn't exactly write with crystalline clarity..."  What exactly do I write with, if I may ask. 

Finally, how many terms are in a lot


 


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

All your points are well taken.  As someone who has had at least my own fair share of run-ins with ARI, some of its leading spokesmen, and its affiliated local clubs, I can certainly sympathize with your outlook on this.  (Some of these encounters I have described in various places on the web, including Noodlefood.)  But as someone who has never had any attraction to the cult aspects, I believe that the essentials of Rand's thought are incompatible with any form of second-handedness, argument from intimidation, etc.

If I am trying to get someone interested in the philosophy, I try to persuade him to read the books.  That is priority one.  Reading books of that length requires some time commitment from someone who does not yet know the value of what they contain, so I focus on that.  If he reads the books and becomes enthusiastic, then I follow up, gently and subtly, by mentioning an anecdote or two of people responding to them incorrectly and putting the philosopher ahead of the philosophy.

Here I am separating Rand at her best, as a philosopher, artist, and public speaker, and her resulting lasting accomplishments, from Rand as a person who may have had some unfortunate personality quirks and who may have allowed some bad practices to persist in organizations nominally dedicated to spreading her ideas.


Phil,

This point is well taken also.  I do not dislike Michael and I sincerely felt bad about writing my main post above.  I didn't and don't wish to cut him down as a person.  I don't relish being an "enforcer" type, or someone who promotes ideological purity.  I was hoping someone else would call him to account for his post.  When no one did, I had a responsibility to step up to the plate.

But so much of his wording was so egregious, so obviously counter to arguments Rand had made about her philosophy and about how to promote it, and his mischaracterizations could do so much damage to Objectivism's reputation coming from someone who described himself as an Objectivist (who later admitted that he is not) or posted on SoloHQ, that I could not let it go without a stern response.

-Bill


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.