The legacy of Ayn Rand

[Karl]

Volunteered and could walk at any time? That time was during Vietnam and once drafted and signed up there was no way out. I was in the military during Vietnam and believe me there was no way out except in a body bag or medical reason.

Oh right, my memory of the film was that they volunteered, so in that case you are talking about the false alternative ? The one that goes do you want that in red or blue, would you prefer to change now or later. It's a disgusting technique which I won't use, or certainly not consciously. If you find me doing then please point it out, as I wish to eradicate it from my argumentation.

[ralis]

Oh right, my memory of the film was that they volunteered, so in that case you are talking about the false alternative ? The one that goes do you want that in red or blue, would you prefer to change now or later. It's a disgusting technique which I won't use, or certainly not consciously. If you find me doing then please point it out, as I wish to eradicate it from my argumentation.

 

There were a few that volunteered. However, before the ink was even dry, there was not walking out unless one wants a stint in Ft. Leavenworth.

[Karl]

There were a few that volunteered. However, before the ink was even dry, there was not walking out unless one wants a stint in Ft. Leavenworth.

Yes, the state has a way with kidnap and slavery.

[Aetherous]

Acts of compassion, charity and kindness are a result of selfish volition, the ability to give and to know you are giving, it is the opposite of altruism which is to deny that you know you are taking.

 

[thelerner]

Two things would have given Rand a much better legacy.  One, if she wasn't such an extremist.  Its important to realize self interest and capitalism are powerful motivators in personal happiness and national production.  She takes it to an illogical extreme though.  Deifying those sources as be all and end all.  Moving to the extreme you end up with people who are self absorbed .. and monopolists who create feudalism. 

 

This kind of extremism made her personal life self destructive as well.  You could be a distant admirer but to be a close friend or lover was to court disaster.  She demanded irrational attention and to cross her, disagree, even use the wrong words, was to be not just written off but instantly despised. 

 

Second thing that would improve her legacy, better editing, cutting out long irrelevant passages.  I liked Anthem very much, it was her shortest book.  Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, rambled. 

 

my 2 cents.  To summarize, her ideas were good and needed, but she took them too far.   I find her biggest adherents have the same starry eyes and use the same language as hard core communists.  Both systems take an idea to an illogical extreme that in real life crashes and burns.   Moderation, moderation and a dose of pragmatism.

 

 

Speaking about legacy.  There's a site with anecdotes about Ayn Rand, some irrelevant, many dark, like-

Rand often called her husband Frank “the power behind the throne.” Frank would reply, “You’d think I was the throne, the way I get sat on.” Friends would recount this banter as an example of how good-natured and funny Frank was.  Frank became a depressed alcoholic. For years, he drank alone in bars during the hours he was banished from his apartment so his wife could bang a man twenty years her junior in their marital bed.  Now, it’s not funny at all, is it?

Edited August 21, 2016 by thelerner

[silent thunder]

the drawn bow settles in balance...

[Karl]

Two things would have given Rand a much better legacy. One, if she wasn't such an extremist. Its important to realize self interest and capitalism are powerful motivators in personal happiness and national production. She takes it to an illogical extreme though. Deifying those sources as be all and end all. Moving to the extreme you end up with people who are self absorbed .. and monopolists who create feudalism.

 

This kind of extremism made her personal life self destructive as well. You could be a distant admirer but to be a close friend or lover was to court disaster. She demanded irrational attention and to cross her, disagree, even use the wrong words, was to be not just written off but instantly despised.

 

Second thing that would improve her legacy, better editing, cutting out long irrelevant passages. I liked Anthem very much, it was her shortest book. Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, rambled.

 

my 2 cents. To summarize, her ideas were good and needed, but she took them too far. I find her biggest adherents have the same starry eyes and use the same language as hard core communists. Both systems take an idea to an illogical extreme that in real life crashes and burns. Moderation, moderation and a dose of pragmatism.

 

 

Speaking about legacy. There's a site with anecdotes about Ayn Rand, some irrelevant, many dark, like-

Rand often called her husband Frank “the power behind the throne.” Frank would reply, “You’d think I was the throne, the way I get sat on.” Friends would recount this banter as an example of how good-natured and funny Frank was. Frank became a depressed alcoholic. For years, he drank alone in bars during the hours he was banished from his apartment so his wife could bang a man twenty years her junior in their marital bed. Now, it’s not funny at all, is it?

None of that is true of course, but it's impossible to get around the myths that perpetuate. Rand was consistent, practical but certainly not pragmatic. It wasn't dogma that drove her to follow her philosophy but truth. No one ever argues that the legion of 'guru' that regularly appear on this forum are too dogmatic, they are considered enlightened and their philosophies sacrosanct. Be it the Tao or Buddhism, I never hear anyone saying these philosophies should be more pragmatic. No one sneers at Buddah meditating for days under a tree, nor at Jesus ending up on a cross for the strength of his consistent philosophy.

 

A lot of what passes for truth is the result of the Brandens books about Rand. She was sold down the river by a couple of snakes as I understand it. Certainly Peikoff recounts a very different Rand, one that was warm, quick witted, funny and passionate. Of course I can't confirm his anecdotes anymore than I can refute the Brandens, I wasn't there, but then neither was anyone else. I can only grasp her genius from her words and if she was consistent, them it's difficult to believe what the Brandens book said-indeed there has been another book recently that vindicated Peikoffs memories and refuted the Brandens.

 

Rand's legacy is the ARI institute and is going from strength to strength. You can enrol and take courses free of charge. Yarron and Leonard have regular podcasts on questions related to every day life/politics hosted alternative Monday's and archived. There are thousands of questions answered. YouTube has lots of interviews with recent lectures by Yarron and the other two ARI illuminati Binnswanger and...... Then there is her novels which still sell extremely well and are penguin classics, there are plays and films. She was very productive in her life time. Enough to fund the ARI independently.

 

 

https://ari.aynrand.org/

Edited August 21, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

My response stated elegantly by Robert Anton Wilson.

 

 

[Karl]

Heck that was interminably dull, it sounded like one long note.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

Heck that was interminably dull, it sounded like one long note.

 

 

Dull? Hardly! Your narrative is not even close to reality.

[Kar3n]

***MODERTION NOTICE***

 

Just a friendly reminder of TDB Three Founding Principles and forum terms and rules.

 

***

[Karl]

Dull? Hardly! Your narrative is not even close to reality.

I would rather have your words, or your view of his view of Rand instead of simply posting a video. If you are making a point then do so without the props.

[Karl]

In my experience, the way that Randian Objectivism works is not much different than the way the Catholic Church (or other Doublethink systems) works. For myself, I don't have a problem with either of them if I am to take them entirely in the abstract and/or with slackened semantics. They are self-consistent; they are abstract enough in their formulations that they do not actually contradict reality; there is no single thing that you can bring up which will invalidate or disprove any of their constitutive commitments or self-explanations.

 

However, on both fronts, people in both systems do not seem content to simply work within their system and apply it to their own raw experience of reality. For some reason (often social or political or maybe even repressed psychological) there appears to be a proclivity for expanding borders. Either gaining converts or throwing down groups that could oppose them. I guess I don't really care one way or the other---I am anti-politics and often anti-social so, if that's the prerogative that they adopt, I am indifferent.

 

With regards to methods, though, I find flaw. There are two main problems that I find: one is the frequent use of the slippery slope where it is not realistic or verifiable in reality; the other is the extensive use of a garbage category. In Catholicism, it is part of canon law that the only guaranteed way to heaven is through the Catholic Church---anything else would be the entirely unpredictable prevenient grace of God.

In this way, Catholics can disregard every other group for the simple reason that other groups are not their group. Objectivism is essentially the same. Not because it has an ultimate goal of heaven and the only sure way to get there but, rather, it has the ultimate goal of survival and only accepts its specific metaphysical precepts as a valid method to this end. However, it doesn't require the same tacit commitment; it takes it a step further and requires the same linguistic framework for the expression of the commitment. This is virtually the same as Orwell's Doublethink.

 

In a different sense, for each group, their goal is the ultimate goal that all people should strive for; their system has the built in reference points for everything to be taken in an extreme sense.

If you oppose Catholicism, then by their standards you are opposing Holy Mother Church---the one organization on earth that leads to God and Heaven---and you're paving the way to Hell and advancing the diabolical empire of Satan. If you oppose Objectivism, then by their standards you are considered to be denying reality as such---the one thing that is a proper basis for all rational decisions about life---and you're paving the way to mass whimsicality which will necessitate the formation of an oppressive commnunist, fascist, or otherwise de facto extreme and oppressive oligarchical state that will make decisions for the un-objective populous.

 

Whether you agree with any of the points attributed to the groups or not---or even if you agree with the attribution of said points to said groups, or not---that doesn't really matter. The one fundamental problem in the expositors of each system is that the system they expound is used as a proxy for reality itself. And each system is perpetuated by two flawed processes: 1) it doesn't allow a continuous interaction with reality itself to hone its principles; its principles are taken to be sufficient. So, even if aspects/interpretations of the principles are not sufficient, they'll never be re-examined. And 2) because of this, their only mode of progression is to churn out more ideas formulated in accord with their principles. There are no amendments for mistakes or adjustments for clunky phrasing; there is just legalistic jargon to string together an ever expanding mass of ideas that have been generated by the regurgitation of works that had been published by illustrious the founder(s) and scholars in the tradition. The Catholic Church has the magisterium and canon law; Objectivism has the Ayn Rand lexicon.

 

So, if you've followed along, you can see that there is a rather pernicious and closed loop at work. It begins with a system that is effective on its own. But, since a mind is tied more closely to the abstract system than to the system's basis (reality as such), the principles of the system of thought get used instead of the raw material in reality. So, though reality is always referred to, the people of each system rarely get out of the recesses of their mind to actually deal with reality. If you look at the critique of methods in paragraph 3, it this point becomes obvious. That is, the main tactics are entirely psychological. If reality were at the core of discourse then the mode of argument should be structural---either aimed at refining a structure or tracing the structure of a thought current to see where an error could be introduced. This never happens. Instead extremes are introduced in order to get a listener's mind to jump to an extreme, find it unpleasant, and then get coaxed to the speaker's view. It is only psychological tactics---or, as I've said in the past, rhetoric without substance.

 

Just in case it got lost: the enduring problem with objectivism (or, at least, its adherents) is that its components are used as a proxy for reality itself. It is particular form of Doublethink that is probably more difficult for people to see because, unlike Catholicism, it uses terms that are currently in popular use.

 

edit: (expansion)

Its easier to condense your hypothesis into very few words. I notice you are a master of the long and rambling post which is intended to coax the reader into accepting a large number of premises without bluntly stating your conclusion.

 

You have said in many words 'objectivism is a cult'.

 

So is it ?

 

 

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 128.

 

Does this sound like a cult ? It is undoubtedly a fully formed moral philosophy based around man using reason and acting 'independently'. It makes no claims as the Catholic Church does about heaven, it does not ask anyone to follow beliefs but to think independently, act independently, to have self confidence. It is singularly muscular in that regard.

 

As regards 'spreading the message' I ask you to show me even one person in the world who is not spreading their message. It's called free speech. It is our only method of communication and we should all be actively involved in spreading our message. I see it here on this forum all the time, the fact there is a forum is an attempt to attract a wider audience, if it were not so then why have it ?

 

Objectivism isn't a closed system, it's barely begun to permeate into human consciousness. It's important to address the priorities of thinker first, objectivist second. I didn't come upon objectivism in the way others do. Those that proclaim they were once objectivists never understood it. Objectivism is a bit like the instruction for making a good sauce base, but beyond that it remains open to the thinker.

 

Every philosophy that tells us that thought is useless or we can't know reality is lying. Philosophies like that hang themselves because they ask us first to think, they depend on reality for that thinking. Objectivism is opposite, it tells us that we must think and that thinking must align with reality. Instead of excusing our actions it makes us responsible for them. Instead of abdicating our thinking to some higher power, or social authority, it tells us we must take control and think for ourselves. It does not tell us to drift aimlessly as if this will somehow help us to avoid reality, it says if we drift then we cannot avoid the product of that drifting.

 

What did Rand really say when it's boiled down ? That you had better begin thinking for yourself if you wish to find happiness, that you had better not employ force to take what you did not earn, that you had better be productive and create value in order to trade for the values produced by other men. That there is no heaven so don't set your heart on what might happen after you die, that this is ALL there is and all morality and action on this Earth, in this life should be based on that fact.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Further to my post above I woukd like to submit this essay by David Kelley as a rounded form of the legacy of Ayn Rand. It might help to blow away some of the myths and often the dogmatic view point often expounded by objectivists-in particular Leonard Peikoff who I have an enormous respect for, but who's keeping of the light has the sense of tribalism about it. If we keep four square on the premesis that were unique to Rand then these form an ideal basis for development. The problem is that often it is the base premises that become corrupted and Peikoff is fighting to preserve those, but in doing so he has adopted the posture of a dogmatist. Once people are thinking and reasoning along the lines of Objectivism then that's enough. No need to tote around the books and the paraphernalia of cult. As Kelley says here, objectivism isn't yet a movement, it has hardly moved off the starting blocks and so Peikoff is protective of the tiny sapling barely risen from the soil. IMO it requires a certain letting go to really flourish. You can love something to death and smother it.

 

 

http://atlassociety.org/about-us/about-us-archive/3350-chapter-5-of-the-contested-legacy-of-ayn-rand

[Karl]

As an addendum to the above I have Peikoffs reply that finally threw Kelley out of the ARI

 

"IN HIS LAST PARAGRAPH, Kelley states that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though magnificent, “is not a closed system.” Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system — its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch — is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system."

 

It appears to me a dichotomy which doesn't really exist. Any value we are both working to hold, but not to smother. It's a balance of fundamentals against the potential for those 'other ideas' to threaten the fundamentals.

 

This came up in AYP and I suppose it's common to all philosophies. The only way they can be tested is to test them. Individuals must do it, they must attempt to break the philosophy and if it's strong it will stand. The problem is that human nature looks for an easy way to achieve happiness and always someone comes up with a short cut, that bends or bypasses the philosophy. So, we don't need someone to interpret what Rand said, or Yogani, or Buddah, it's the individual that must do it, who must question its value not blindly follow it, nor try and reinterpret it to mean something that it didn't imply. It's like a piece of art, it is what it is and you can take whatever you want from it, but the proof is that it remains what it is regardless of copies and evolutions. One can always go back and see the main principles in action as well as the flaws in the conception.

 

Really, this shows that we require a philosophy for philosophies and this is indeed what Rand does by asking those three open questions where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ? She answers them in her own philosophy, but it's up to each of us to test our own philosophies against this challenge-Objectivism included. None of us a free floating spirits, we are stuck with reality no matter how we think of it, our only purpose is our happiness and that is the only measure of the success of the philosophy. I would like to bring up the recently departed 'Jim' who asked that question of the Tao and received no answers beyond dogmatism. It's hard is this stuff, life is difficult, but we must surely begin by at least trying to be honest.

[Apech]

Heck that was interminably dull, it sounded like one long note.

 

 

Karl calls someone else's post dull - shock horror!

[Karl]

Karl calls someone else's post dull - shock horror!

Not the post, but the posting of someone else's ideology.

[Apech]

Not the post, but the posting of someone else's ideology.

 

Eh what?  Someone else like Ayn Rand for instance.  Anyway relax I was joking of course

[Karl]

Its all right for you, I bet you didn't bother wading through the entire hour of hippy consciousness. I had enough of that during long nights listening to beefheart and smoking weed. There seems to be a very rosy spectacled version of the 60s (a time when the CIA thought it a good idea to see how far they could get with mind control drugs). Hey, far out man.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

Karl calls someone else's post dull - shock horror!

 

Robert Anton Wilson made a salient point which most everyone misses including Karl.

[silent thunder]

Robert Anton Wilson made a salient point which most everyone misses including Karl.

RAW was one of the great thinkers and communicators.  So grateful for his words and his many, many salient points throughout his lifetime.

 

and to your point above... it's nigh on impossible to listen when your ears are already full of your own words...

[Karl]

@A&P

 

"The issue that I had taken was that testing, for Objectivists, appears to exist solely in the comparison and contrast of ideas---not applying the ideas to their proper subject-matter to see if they work. (Note, this is a charitable phrasing of what I have observed)."

 

I don't understand at all what you are implying. What would be tested on what ? Can you give an example ?

[Karl]

RAW was one of the great thinkers and communicators.  So grateful for his words and his many, many salient points throughout his lifetime.

 

and to your point above... it's nigh on impossible to listen when your ears are already full of your own words...

Well, you might be shocked to hear, that I wasn't born with an Ayn Rand mind map, nor a libertarian one, neither did I understand capitalism, or economics, neither was I intrinsically peppered with self inquiry, deep meditation, spinal breathing, NLP, hypnosis or many other of these things. So, how did it happen I accepted some and rejected others ? If my mind was full of socialist principles then how was it I no longer hold to those principles.

 

Crazy as it may seem, I'm actually a judge of what I read. If it has something to say, then I listen. I could not have gone from strong socialist to libertarian without the ability to listen and alter my views. So, should something come along that makes more sense then, as I did before I will make the judgement. It does not benefit me to be dogmatic and my progress has shown that I am not, otherwise I would still be flying the red flag and buying the morning star. I certainly wouldn't have entertained new age/eastern mysticism never mind practising it.

[Karl]

Robert Anton Wilson made a salient point which most everyone misses including Karl.

Was it take drugs.

[ralis]

Well, you might be shocked to hear, that I wasn't born with an Ayn Rand mind map, nor a libertarian one, neither did I understand capitalism, or economics, neither was I intrinsically peppered with self inquiry, deep meditation, spinal breathing, NLP, hypnosis or many other of these things. So, how did it happen I accepted some and rejected others ? If my mind was full of socialist principles then how was it I no longer hold to those principles.

 

Crazy as it may seem, I'm actually a judge of what I read. If it has something to say, then I listen. I could not have gone from strong socialist to libertarian without the ability to listen and alter my views. So, should something come along that makes more sense then, as I did before I will make the judgement. It does not benefit me to be dogmatic and my progress has shown that I am not, otherwise I would still be flying the red flag and buying the morning star. I certainly wouldn't have entertained new age/eastern mysticism never mind practising it.

 

Your narrative is dogmatic given that everyone else is usually wrong and you are the purveyor of absolute truth. If you can't see that, then..................