What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand

[Ragnar]

What Liberals Don

Rand extolled “selfishness,” but not quite in its common meaning. (To some extent, she was using the now-familiar confrontational tactic of turning a slur against a stigmatized group—in this case, true individualists—into a badge of pride.)

...

To Rand, being “selfish” meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing one’s own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rand’s stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collective—state, church, community, or family.

...

Rand’s anti-altruism tirades often turn their target into a straw man, but she is right that the knee-jerk habit of treating altruistic goals as noble has aided evil—for instance, blinding well-meaning Westerners to communism’s monstrosity. When pundits alarmed by Rand-style individualism scoff at the “myth” of individual autonomy, we should remember that this “myth” gave us freedom and human rights, and unleashed creative energies that raised humanity’s welfare to once-unthinkable levels. Rand’s work offers a powerful defense of freedom’s moral foundation—and a perceptive analysis of the kinship between “progressive” and “traditionalist” anti-freedom ideologies.

Rand is best viewed as a brilliant maverick. But there are reasons this woman attracted hordes of followers, influenced many others, and impressed smart people from journalist Mike Wallace to philosopher John Hospers. Those who treat Rand as a liberal bogeyman will forever be blindsided by her appeal.

Most often, here at USMB and on the internet in general, leftist confuse Ayn Rand the woman with the philosophy of Objectivism or the ideals of her fictional characters. They forget, or pretend too, that one may be pro-Socrates and anti-suicide. One may pick and choose ideas and arguments for the pre-insane Nietzsche without making the false assumption that German philosophy necessarily leads to Nazism. Indeed, one may even support many aspects of President Clinton while still despising Clinton the woman abusing letch.

It is a great mistake to dismiss out of hand, arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Especially when the Left is such dire need of modern intellectuals on their own side. Probably the best thing the Left could do for itself these days would be to pick up a copy of Philosophy: Who Needs It or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and attempt to dispute it.

Good luck with that.

 

[uscitizen]

Ayn Rand was a troubled person. Why should one follow her troubled path?

 

[Ragnar]

Ayn Rand was a troubled person. Why should one follow her troubled path?

Noted your response time.

This is the type of leftist reflexive aliteracy that should be easily avoided but inevitably is not. To avoid that embarrassing error in the future see the post: What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand, by Ragnar. You just might learn something.

 

[rdean]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

 

[Ragnar]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

Another aliterate boob missed the point.

... denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricature—and invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.

Philosophy is harder for some than others.

 

[edthecynic]

Ayn Rand was a parasite, looter, moocher who collected Social Security and Medicare under the name Ann O'Connor. Of course when SHE leeches off of the government it's OK because she is acting in her own SELF INTEREST consistent with her philosophy of selfishness.

 

[Ragnar]

Ayn Rand was a parasite, looter, moocher who collected Social Security and Medicare under the name Ann O'Connor. Of course when SHE leeches off of the government it's OK because she is acting in her own SELF INTEREST consistent with her philosophy of selfishness.

Again... Most often, here at USMB and on the internet in general, leftist confuse Ayn Rand the woman with the philosophy of Objectivism or the ideals of her fictional characters. They forget, or pretend too, that one may be pro-Socrates and anti-suicide. One may pick and choose ideas and arguments for the pre-insane Nietzsche without making the false assumption that German philosophy necessarily leads to Nazism. Indeed, one may even support many aspects of President Clinton while still despising Clinton the woman abusing letch.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most often, here at USMB and on the internet in general, leftist confuse Ayn Rand the woman with the philosophy of Objectivism or the ideals of her fictional characters. They forget, or pretend too, that one may be pro-Socrates and anti-suicide.

The irony of this, of course, is many conservatives fail to do the same thing; most insist that Rand’s dogma be accepted as absolute.

It is a great mistake to dismiss out of hand, arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Rand? Hardly.

Especially when the Left is such dire need of modern intellectuals on their own side.

Most on the left don’t believe intellectuals ‘take sides,’ they believe a truth or viable doctrine is comprehensively applicable and valid.

 

[Ragnar]

Most often, here at USMB and on the internet in general, leftist confuse Ayn Rand the woman with the philosophy of Objectivism or the ideals of her fictional characters. They forget, or pretend too, that one may be pro-Socrates and anti-suicide.

The irony of this, of course, is many conservatives fail to do the same thing; most insist that Rand’s dogma be accepted as absolute.

Wrong. Most conservatives and even some libertarians can't get past Rand's atheism.

It is a great mistake to dismiss out of hand, arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Rand? Hardly.

Rand entirely. Who is more influential, more quoted or selling more books?

Especially when the Left is such dire need of modern intellectuals on their own side.

Most on the left don’t believe intellectuals ‘take sides,’ they believe a truth or viable doctrine is comprehensively applicable and valid.

Wrong - Most on the left believe intellectualism itself is entirely their exclusive turf.

Right - Truth is comprehensively applicable and necessarily valid. Spoken like a diehard Objectivist.

[Consider the catch phrase:] “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” What is the meaning of the concept “truth”? Truth is the recognition of reality. (This is known as the correspondence theory of truth.) The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect. That catch phrase, therefore, means: a. that the Law of Identity is invalid; b. that there is no objectively perceivable reality, only some indeterminate flux which is nothing in particular, i.e., that there is no reality (in which case, there can be no such thing as truth); or c. that the two debaters perceive two different universes (in which case, no debate is possible). (The purpose of the catch phrase is the destruction of objectivity.)

“Philosophical Detection,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 14

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/truth.html

 

[Bfgrn]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

Another aliterate boob missed the point.

... denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricature—and invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.

Philosophy is harder for some than others.

I think you are missing the 'point'. Ayn Rand was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas"

A much more brilliant man sums up Ayn Rand's philosophy succinctly:

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

 

[Ragnar]

I think you are missing the 'point'. Ayn Rand was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas"

A much more brilliant man sums up Ayn Rand's philosophy succinctly:

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

Thank you for proving all of my points. The reason the Left so often misses the boat on Ayn Rand (the point of the OP and the linked article) is that they have never read Ayn Rand, or if they had, never understood Ayn Rand.

This is why you and the first two responders to this thread sound like aliterate morons. (at least C_Clayton_Jones attempted to argue on substance) This is why you sound like a moron. As noted in the OP you did not read or understand, you confuse Ayn Rand the woman with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

For example: You can not call Rand a hypocrite for accepting Medicare without accepting Rand's definition of said recipients of being "looters" or "moochers" of society. More than that, you are blaming Rand for living in a society not of her own making. This is the intellectual (though not moral) equivalent of blaming Jews for living in Nazi Germany. Intellectually it's the same as calling a pacifist a hypocrite for defending her family from a would be killer.

Beyond that, you proved my point (again from the OP you did not read) that the Left is suffering from a dearth of intellectuals by evoking the (correctly called "brilliant") name of Oscar Wilde. Not only did he not "sum up" Rand's philosophy, he died decades before it was born. If you read (or understood) the OP you would have an inkling of the difference between Wilde's definition of "selfishness" and the "enlightened self internist" of Objectivist philosophy.


Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

“Introduction,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, ix

 

[Bfgrn]

I think you are missing the 'point'. Ayn Rand was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas"

A much more brilliant man sums up Ayn Rand's philosophy succinctly:

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

Thank you for proving all of my points. The reason the Left so often misses the boat on Ayn Rand (the point of the OP and the linked article) is that they have never read Ayn Rand, or if they had, never understood Ayn Rand.

This is why you and the first two responders to this thread sound like aliterate morons. (at least C_Clayton_Jones attempted to argue on substance) This is why you sound like a moron. As noted in the OP you did not read or understand, you confuse Ayn Rand the woman with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

For example: You can not call Rand a hypocrite for accepting Medicare without accepting Rand's definition of said recipients of being "looters" or "moochers" of society. More than that, you are blaming Rand for living in a society not of her own making. This is the intellectual (though not moral) equivalent of blaming Jews for living in Nazi Germany. Intellectually it's the same as calling a pacifist a hypocrite for defending her family from a would be killer.

Beyond that, you proved my point (again from the OP you did not read) that the Left is suffering from a dearth of intellectuals by evoking the (correctly called "brilliant") name of Oscar Wilde. Not only did he not "sum up" Rand's philosophy, he died decades before it was born. If you read (or understood) the OP you would have an inkling of the difference between Wilde's definition of "selfishness" and the "enlightened self internist" of Objectivist philosophy.


Selfishness — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

“Introduction,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, ix

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Oscar Wilde didn't need to meet Ayn Rand to KNOW her and succinctly define her.

 

[edthecynic]

Ayn Rand was a parasite, looter, moocher who collected Social Security and Medicare under the name Ann O'Connor. Of course when SHE leeches off of the government it's OK because she is acting in her own SELF INTEREST consistent with her philosophy of selfishness.

Again... Most often, here at USMB and on the internet in general, leftist confuse Ayn Rand the woman with the philosophy of Objectivism or the ideals of her fictional characters. They forget, or pretend too, that one may be pro-Socrates and anti-suicide. One may pick and choose ideas and arguments for the pre-insane Nietzsche without making the false assumption that German philosophy necessarily leads to Nazism. Indeed, one may even support many aspects of President Clinton while still despising Clinton the woman abusing letch.

Mark Ames: Paul Ryan

One reason why most countries don’t find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of “ideal man” that Rand promoted in her more famous books
snip/
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

 

[Sallow]

I think you are missing the 'point'. Ayn Rand was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas"

A much more brilliant man sums up Ayn Rand's philosophy succinctly:

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

Thank you for proving all of my points. The reason the Left so often misses the boat on Ayn Rand (the point of the OP and the linked article) is that they have never read Ayn Rand, or if they had, never understood Ayn Rand.
This is why you and the first two responders to this thread sound like aliterate morons. (at least C_Clayton_Jones attempted to argue on substance) This is why you sound like a moron. As noted in the OP you did not read or understand, you confuse Ayn Rand the woman with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

For example: You can not call Rand a hypocrite for accepting Medicare without accepting Rand's definition of said recipients of being "looters" or "moochers" of society. More than that, you are blaming Rand for living in a society not of her own making. This is the intellectual (though not moral) equivalent of blaming Jews for living in Nazi Germany. Intellectually it's the same as calling a pacifist a hypocrite for defending her family from a would be killer.

Beyond that, you proved my point (again from the OP you did not read) that the Left is suffering from a dearth of intellectuals by evoking the (correctly called "brilliant") name of Oscar Wilde. Not only did he not "sum up" Rand's philosophy, he died decades before it was born. If you read (or understood) the OP you would have an inkling of the difference between Wilde's definition of "selfishness" and the "enlightened self internist" of Objectivist philosophy.


Selfishness — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

“Introduction,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, ix

I got through 3/4 of the Fountainhead and found it amazingly bereft of any tangible reality, made up or otherwise. It dealt with an archeitect so dogmatic in his ideals he refused to yield to any outside influences. Constuction, by it's very nature, is a collective endeavor. It would be impossible for someone like Howard Rourke to thrive in it..at all.

Rand's heroes all live in what generally seems to be America, a well established society based on human interaction. That interaction involves give and take..not just take. Without that simple idea, society becomes impossible.

 

[Flanders]

It is a great mistake to dismiss out of hand, arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

To Ragnar: There’s no argument between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. It’s a matter of taste. Ayn Rand is one of the great ones; probably number two. I put Eric Hoffer in the top spot.

Btw, ain’t it is nice not caring if you lose out to Ayn Rand or Eric Hoffer? The Left should be so blessed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To Rand, being “selfish” meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing one’s own desires nor trampling on others.

And we're suppose to admire her for redefining the meaning of words?

 

[Ragnar]

I think you are missing the 'point'. Ayn Rand was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas"

A much more brilliant man sums up Ayn Rand's philosophy succinctly:

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

Thank you for proving all of my points. The reason the Left so often misses the boat on Ayn Rand (the point of the OP and the linked article) is that they have never read Ayn Rand, or if they had, never understood Ayn Rand.

This is why you and the first two responders to this thread sound like aliterate morons. (at least C_Clayton_Jones attempted to argue on substance) This is why you sound like a moron. As noted in the OP you did not read or understand, you confuse Ayn Rand the woman with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

For example: You can not call Rand a hypocrite for accepting Medicare without accepting Rand's definition of said recipients of being "looters" or "moochers" of society. More than that, you are blaming Rand for living in a society not of her own making. This is the intellectual (though not moral) equivalent of blaming Jews for living in Nazi Germany. Intellectually it's the same as calling a pacifist a hypocrite for defending her family from a would be killer.

Beyond that, you proved my point (again from the OP you did not read) that the Left is suffering from a dearth of intellectuals by evoking the (correctly called "brilliant") name of Oscar Wilde. Not only did he not "sum up" Rand's philosophy, he died decades before it was born. If you read (or understood) the OP you would have an inkling of the difference between Wilde's definition of "selfishness" and the "enlightened self internist" of Objectivist philosophy.


Selfishness — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

“Introduction,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, ix

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Bingo. You are essentially doing the moral equivalent of blaming slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived "in a society not of their own making".

You are falling further and further behind arguing from ignorance.

You're conceptual faculty is failing you. In short, you haven't understood a word I've said because you have never integrated the point of the original post. Likely because you never read it. Basically you're a talking points robot who STILL can't differentiate the philosopher from the philosophy.

Oscar Wilde didn't need to meet Ayn Rand to KNOW her and succinctly define her.

Yeah, he would have. That is the fracking, everlasting and Objectivist point small brain.

Identity — Ayn Rand Lexicon

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 125

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

 

[Ragnar]

Ayn Rand was a parasite, looter, moocher who collected Social Security and Medicare under the name Ann O'Connor. Of course when SHE leeches off of the government it's OK because she is acting in her own SELF INTEREST consistent with her philosophy of selfishness.

Again... Most often, here at USMB and on the internet in general, leftist confuse Ayn Rand the woman with the philosophy of Objectivism or the ideals of her fictional characters. They forget, or pretend too, that one may be pro-Socrates and anti-suicide. One may pick and choose ideas and arguments for the pre-insane Nietzsche without making the false assumption that German philosophy necessarily leads to Nazism. Indeed, one may even support many aspects of President Clinton while still despising Clinton the woman abusing letch.

Mark Ames: Paul Ryan

One reason why most countries don’t find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of “ideal man” that Rand promoted in her more famous books
snip/
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

This issue was addressed in the link of the original post. (aliterate dufus)

AGAIN proving that when it comes to the subject of Ayn Rand or Objectivism the Left has no substantive argument whatsoever. You are intellectually bankrupt. You have no moral or philosophical counterpoints to offer. You are the exact equivalent of a right wing nut-job arguing that Bill Clinton's economy was bad because he was a sexual deviant.

Well done. You are the perfect representation of Mark Twain's axiom, "“Do not argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”.

Touche

 

[edthecynic]

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

I think this defines Rand perfectly.

Rand denounced the hanging as, “The mob’s murderous desire to revenge its hurt vanity against the man who dared to be alone.”
Read more at Mark Ames: Paul Ryan

 

[dblack]

Ayn Rand was a troubled person. Why should one follow her troubled path?

That's another common misconception. I don't really know anyone who liked her books who wants to "follow" her. I saw a lot of keen insight in her work, and some crazy as well. But that's the sort of mixed bag you get with pretty much every highly driven, creative person.