As many know I can't stand Ayn Rand. To me her literary failings are, if anything, worse than her philosophical confusions. I still recall after wading through Atlas Shrugged an extended "preaching" section. It included paragraphs spanning three pages of small text. Wow. Yet she is oddly influential, especially among many Mormons. I honestly can't figure this out since her basic doctrine of selfishness is radically at odds with Mormon theology and ethics. I think it is more a western U.S. thing that happens to overlap Utah where there are a lot of Mormons. Sort of the myth of the rugged individualist which is so popular with the western "ideals" of the cowboy or trapper.
I still don't think that justifies the appeal of Ayn Rand. Nietzsche I could probably understand. But Rand? The contradictions just boggle the mind. Although perhaps that's part of the attraction - she offers a way of brushing certain contradictions under the table. Of course Nietzsche isn't exactly contradiction free either.
Anyway Bill Vallicella has several excellent posts on Ayn Rand you can send to any friends who are enamoured of her.
The first is just a few comments on why people might like her. His best post is on Rand's misunderstandings of Kant. They are pretty egregious, although once again I think Vallicella is too picky about rhetorical style. Although I must confess it's hard to still make that charge about Vallicella with respect to Rand. She's so bad rhetorically that I tend to be sympathetic to what I often see as beside the point criticisms by Vallicella. His final post about Rand is addressing the question about why anyone would take Rand seriously as a philosopher. (Philosophers by and large don't consider Rand a real philosopher)
I too have noticed Rand's misunderstanding of Kant, which is actually one of the reasons that I have allowed my own ideas to be influenced by Rand. That is, if Rand were accurate in her disdain for Kant, that might be reason to avoid her. But since she misunderstands Kant, you can just brush that all aside and look at other aspects of her thought.
Similarly, with regards to sexual morality and other moral issues, I look past Rand's insane "philosophy" (rape as the ideal form of love and all that). But I find her insights on media, genius, and altruism interesting. I don't agree with her strict selfishness philosophy because of my adherence to the Gospel. But that doesn't mean that I don't find merit in her musings on the debasement of humanity through the suppression of the individual, and her exaltation of work and work ethic as the defining characteristic of an individual.
The Fountainhead portrays many of these ideas. It is an interesting perspective on the media and the masses and the debasement of humanity. Particularly the sections dealing with Toohey's agenda of feeding slop to the masses and making them believe it is art or somehow erudite, when it truly is, in its basic essence, mere slop. At one point a playwright with no talent that Toohey has made famous through his manipulation of the press succeeds in making a mockery of his audience by having them sit through a terrible piece and think that they have been "challenged" or educated. It makes me think of the development of musicals in our own century, or of much of "modern art" generally. These things represent a suppression of the true genius behind the classics, in all fields of the humanities, and elevate what is essentially a mockery of genius in its place. These are some of the insights that make Rand valuable to me and to others whom I know appreciate her works. It is less philosophical and more practical.
Rand is influential for one simple reason...she wrote griping fiction.
Only some of the extended "preaching" sessions in her books are boring. Most are fairly short, fit in nicely with the plot & character development & are over before you realize it.
I would disagree with you both that Rand's concept of selfishness is at odds with the Gospel. It almost seems like a truism in the Gospel that the one that serve's the most receives the most, i.e. ye who would be greatest must be the least, etc. Thus, the most selfish will serve the most & take Rand's to be the best & most hard working servant...and one that doesn't "in the urge to help those in the worst way, do exactly that...help in the worst way."
re: Whether Rand is a philosopher. I find it ironic, in a very Toohey way, that philosopher's would cheapen themselves, becoming Toohey-like, by suggesting that Rand lacks merit, much as Toohey would.
It seems to me Rand's radical atheism would be an interesting barrier as well.
Basically, we have a philosopher who
1.) Teaches that there is no God at all
2.) Preaches a sexual morality inconsistent with the gospel
3.) Teaches a selfishness that is incompatible with gospel centered Charity (with a capital C), and
4.) Whose fiction is boring, boring, boring (sorry, lyle). It really is boring. And preachy.
But, I think I see why Mormons like her so much. She is, in essence, the high priestess of Capitalism, and too many Mormons have decided that Capitalism is the holiest economic system on the face of the Earth.
I should probably say, in reference to my 3.) above, that MY reading of Rand sees her philosophy of selfishness as incompatible with Charity. Obviously, lyle sees it differently. I disagree, but if lyle finds some value it her stuff, than I have no real problem with that.
I think Lyle's comment is that being charitable gets you the most blessings and therefore a selfish being will be charitable. I can but point out that none of Rand's "heros" would agree with that view of charity. Indeed what is glorified in the stories is the opposite of charity and charitable giving.
Ivan: Ditto. I think y'alls crticisms are perfectly valid. I just tend to try & find and appreciate the positive rather than dismiss based on negatives.
re: Boring. Why do so many people read & like her books then? Granted...many don't, but...if it is boring*3, it seems that her book sales would decline?
I'm not sure having been written well is a guarantee of sales. Look at medical thriller novelist Robin Cook who writes the most stilted prose I have ever read. Heavens, I'd lay good odds that at least half of what is on the best seller's list of the New York Times is wretched writing.
What makes a book readable I certainly can't say. I'm not opposed to popular fiction either, by the way. I'd even say that a lot of "artful" and intellectually praised fiction is poor for being too flowery and too focused on style so as to be unenjoyable to read. Unless you "get" what the style is about. But if someone likes it, more power to them. I just might not be able to understand why. (Which reminds me that I really need to try reading Joyce one more time)
Getting back to Rand, I'd note that Reason, a libertarian journal, has an interesting writeup on Rand. Given that she is such a libertarian icon it is interesting how much they agree with the standard criticisms. Stephen Bainbridge has some interesting comments as well.
Clark: My point re: sales isn't that Rand is a 'great' writer, but she isn't boring. War & Peace is well written. However...my guess is that it doesn't sell as well & most would judge to be 'more' boring than Rand.
re: the Rand heroes. maybe, maybe not. they seem to be more concerned about not engaging in acts which would degrade other individuals; which acts are not necessarily synonymous with charitable acts. Yes, it is somewhat of a stretch, but still a valid point.
I'm quite ambivalent on Rand. There is always something very compelling to me when excellence (regardless of the venue) is raised as a virtue. Rand does this. This is not to say that there are not inconsistancies and negative aspects, however.
Excellence as a virtue is indeed compelling -- but the idea that truly captured my mind as a teenager was the idea of a spirit, a soul, having integrity, every bit as real as the structural integrity of a building.
The need to keep that integrity firm actually fit very well for me with the portion of the gospel that emphasizes holiness. The conflict, of course, was how that fit with the portion of the gospel that emphasizes charity. When I finally started reading Terry Warner's stuff @ BYU (when "Bonds that Make Us Free" was in draft phase as "Bonds of Anguish, Bonds of Love), it finally started to make sense to me how both could fit together in a gospel context.
I'm torn about Rand.
I think her first novel We the Living is her best and also unfortunately her most unknown. It was written before she began to view herself as a god, in control of those around her, and before she fully developed her "philosophy" (not sure if quotes are required or not because I don't know enough about (a) philosophy in general or (b) her non-fiction writings) of objectivism. When I was a teenager I loved We the Living. (My old beat-up paperback copy is held together by tape on the spine.) I think I admired Kira for being so strong and independent despite everything. Kira is a young girl in Soviet Russia who fiercely follows her own dreams, at least to the extent possible in the system she lives in. Of course, like Rand's other protagonists, she is (often) heartless, cold, and calculating. But Kira is much more human than any of the idealized characters in her later books. Kira is someone I can relate to.
Another interesting little book is Anthem. I don't remember it as well, but it's set in a future where individual identity has been subsumed by the social collective. However, one man feels a spark of individuality within himself and dares to rebel - to think for himself, to love, to escape society and establish a new world order.
As for her later works - like john, I despise how she equates love with violence/rape. She was a huge misogynist - she hated "weakness" and that included, in her view, women. Also, I don't know anyone who has actually *read* the entire "sermon" at the end of Atlas Shrugged. I skimmed the first few pages, and then skipped through the rest of it. I hate it because she's been preaching her ideas throughout the whole book as part of the story and the character's decisions and conversations, and then she tries to really drive it home and beat the dead horse really dead in that radio broadcast that lasts something like 50 pages.
I disagree with Rand often, but I still think her books are fascinating reads and it is interesting to think about the value of each individual. I can see how growing up in a Soviet nation she would come to loathe communism and adore capitalism. I personally believe that freedom to make individual decisions about one's life is extremely important, but we also have a responsibility as humans to love and care for one another.
Ivan: I strongly object to the idea that Rand is the high priest of capitalism. (Icky, icky word.) There is no reason that an economy based on private ownership and private enterprise must subscribe to Rand's twisted meanderings. Indeed, Rand isn't even necessary or implied by libertarianism. There are other defenders of capitalism, markets, and human freedom that don't get into Randian icky wackoness. Hakey comes to mind...
Regarding Rand being praised for virtue ethics. Personally I think we could do better turning back to the Greeks on that one. They had most of their ethics tied up in virtue. But I think they did it without the weird "objectivity" and "absolutism" that Rand embraced.
Brandon at Siris has a rather good writeup on Rand as well.
Nate:
Well, I based my assumption of her "high priestliness" from when I was a janitor at BYU and msot of the Economics professors had more Ayn Rand books on their shelves than any other single topic/author. Also, having hung around a few "Campus Libertarian" clubs at BYU and here at UT-Austin, she gets talked about in glowing terms most Mormons reserve for the Prophet.
Uhm - that "Anonymous" was me. Guess I forgot to fill in the name field.
I need to have it just put up a warning instead of posting the comment when a field is left out. I'll try and get to that tonight.
Regarding Rand at BYU I too was amazed at how popular she was. I actually read her because she was the most important book for a few people I knew. I honestly couldn't get over how at odds with the basics of the gospel her teachings were. Further I was rather uncomfortable at how people applied her.
It's weird since there was a fair bit of hypocrisy in these folks. Despite professing to be Randians, they were often anything but libertarian on social conservative issues. (i.e. gay marriage, strip clubs, pornography, and the like) What it seemed tied to was what I like to call the cult of entrepreneurship in Utah. i.e. the idea that "righteousness" is being powerful and getting rich. An odd notion that was frequently condemned while I was at BYU.
An odd notion - but one that was fervently believed.
For example, the Bishop in my student ward at BYU was an entrepenuer. And a very rich one. Really rich.
And when the high councillor spoke in church, he spent most of the time praising our bishop for being rich - becuase his riches were clearly a sign of righteousness.
And then there was the 5th sunday meeting on how to properly invest your extra income (what extra income?) so you could retire in luxury. Not a single gospel principle was mentioned. No scriptures quoted and no prophets cited.
(And don't get me started about my Multi-millionare mission president who spent more time at Zone conferences discussing how to make money than how to do missionary work. To bad I've never been out of debt enough to take his advice, I guess. I must not be righteous).
so...the parable of the talents is being conflated with rand & entrepreneurship? sounds plausible...even likely.
lyle -
maybe. Now if someone would give me some money to invest, or at least enough to pay off my college loans, I promise I wouldn't bury it in the ground......
The problem with these views (and thankfully they don't seem to be as common now as in the early 90's) is that the brethren have fairly regularly condemned them. And, once again at the risk of overgeneralizing from the unusual situation of Provo, it seems like most wards spend a lot of class time condemning them. (That's included wards I've been to on the benches) So whether or not people still adhere to these views (and I think they do) at least they know enough not to rhetorically say it. Indeed rich folks on the benches are now the subject of so much attack that I think its gone overboard the other way. It is almost assumed that anyone rich got that way via shady business dealings and is somehow "unMormon."
That's not to deny in the least the relationship between success and being a good Mormon. Merely that there is a strong distrust of business success which may involve dishonesty. I suspect that is in part due to most people knowing shady Mormon businessmen who seemed to adhere to situational ethics. (i.e. an ethics for Sundays at church and an ethics for the weekdays)
Perhaps that's not as widespread as it seems to me. But I've been in a lot of wards here the past 15 years, and it definitely is something I've noticed.
Clark wrote Heavens, I'd lay good odds that at least half of what is on the best seller's list of the New York Times is wretched writing.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but you have just partially articulated one major aspect of the thesis of The Fountainhead. That book examines why this is the case.
Nate: you are right that libertarianism doesn't even imply Rand, or vice versa, for that matter. Strict Randians, if I understand correctly, scorn true libertarians because of the latters' laissez faire attitude towards religion (and a true Randian must be an atheist).
Ivan: (1) Just because an economics professor at BYU has a lot of Rand books on his/her shelfs and just because a lot of economically-minded undergrads talk about some of Rand's ideas on markets and money doesn't make her the high priestess of capitalism in the eyes of Latter-day Saints.
(2) The anecdotes about a couple of your Church leaders espousing a Calvinistic view of money and financial success (they are rich ergo they must be righteous, or vice versa in the tautology), simply cannot be expanded as some kind of indictment on the perverseness of the Church and its supposed marriage to capitalism. It is fallacious to attempt it and, even if it makes a nice topic for endless blogging that is critical of the Church, just it is inaccurate to say the least. Plus, as Nate implied, there really is nothing wrong with capitalism in and of itself.
Heather: the atheism and views on morality are definitely what make Rand repugnant. Her views on excellence, genius, the subversiveness and self-hatred underlying socialism, and the media are actually right on and are not really in any way contrary to fundamental Gospel principles, in my opinion.
I'm sure the Ayn Rand fans won't like it, but Siris posted a link to a parody of The Fountainhead that is hilarious.
I think it's funny. Noone ever said that Toohey wasn't funny. . . .
Thanks Clark. I knew that if I put off reading The Fountainhead long enough I'd come across an adequate cliffnote version. This ought to buy me a few more years...
719,000
17,200,000
If you put the name "ayn rand" in the google and see how many "hits" there are you get on of the above number.
If you put the name "joseph smith" in the google you get the other number.
But if you put the names in quotations you get the following results:
699,000
572,000
You figure it out.
I'm LDS and I thoroughly enjoyed the Fountainhead - have read it three times. I think that Rand's philosophy can work for Mormons as opposed to people of other faith. Rand despises religion, with part of her reasoning being that it forces man to bow himself down and feel shameful before God, because God is all-powerful and man will always be below him. Mormons, contrary to other religions, believe that man can achieve the greatness of God after death. As a prophet of our Church said "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Mormons have the duty of being selfish in their desire to become like God. Hence, like Roark in the Fountainhead, we are continually looking upwards at our potential. I think Rand would think this concept of our religion pretty neat.
Whoa! Megan. Do you really mean that? How do you reconcile that with scriptures like Matt 16:25 that seem to suggest selfish moving towards God is impossible. Further the whole point of the Atonement is that our potential is always less than we want. Thus we have to turn to God, give up our potential and accept his.
It seems impossible to reconcile Rand's view of selfishness with the LDS view of atonement and charity in places like Mosiah 4. If you think you can do it, I'd welcome the presentation. But I think you have your work cut out for you.
I had a class in economic anthropology at the Y last fall and the professor was a fan of Ayn Rand. To grapple with his views I read some of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." I found nothing ideal about it since it argues that the growth of the individual has nothing to do with obligations to the community. She called capitalism the most moral economic system possible. This is certainly unacceptable when we consider gospel principles. The Laissez Faire attitude promulgated by corporations and the elite who control them will drive our modern world system into crisis because of the lack of morals which are practiced.
Richard, you must be kidding! Have you considered the corruption of the various centralized governments during the last few generations? Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Castro? Talk about corruption, you have lost faith in the free and open exchange of ideas, moral views and respect for others. The whole purpose of a free and open society is to let the good that each does for another to shine through. The system we now practice in the USA is a very limited version of a true free enterprise system; government has many limitations and restrictions through regulations, licensing and policies that place severe restrictions on the more perfect idea behind capitalism. Don't you think? An unbiased view of reality would lead one to believe the leaders of industry are, all said and done, more reliable than are government bureaucrats and the like. I will take capitalism any day!
Guys,
Ayn Rand Crossed Joseph Smith on Google ;)
Just checked lolz..
Now does that mean ...........???
Regarding Heather's comments about We the Living, Anthem and others, I quite agree. We the Living is a very deep introspection into the youth of a Russian lady and her experience in trying to escape what she viewed as an irrational environment. Anthem, on the other hand is the story of what happens when this irrational society has gone all the way and planted policies, procedures and rules that dictate exactly what you do in a controlled societal organization. It is the antithesis of the world that would have come about had Satan been the director of world affairs instead of the Master Jesus Christ.
It may be worth revisiting both of these books, at least for those who are questioning the worth of her writings.
And to Nate:
You might want to take a look at FEE. Do you know about this organization? Foundation for Economic Education. Located in upstate NYC and well known to many LDS people. Ezra Taft Benson and Ernest Wilkinson were on the early BoD and such. Many LDS folks and scholars have attended their seminars. They preach a very simple philosophy: Limited government is the best government. When government gets too big and starts thinking it knows how to run your life better than you do then it is time to move the rascals out. While a non-political organization, it does not spend much time on "objectivism" (the Rand philosophy), but rather highlights the great thinkers who champion the strength of the individual and the pursuit of unfettered transactions, both economical and intellectual, among individuals. One of the big heroes to FEE thinkers is Ludwig von Mises, the father of the Austrian School of Economics. He champions microeconomics over macroeconomics and is therefore persona non gratis in universities everywhere. When I took my oral exam for the Masters in Business I told the review committee that I did not get any training in the Austrian school of thought for economics and that is was a great disappointment to me. Upon further dialog I learned that not one single professor in the committee had ever even heard the name of von Mises. After a short report to them about the Austrian ideas I was dismissed without a word and passed because of my great esoteric knowledge. I suppose the lack of alternate views on human action in economics is shy at universities throughout the world as well as in the USA and, yes, within the state of UTAH. So there!
And to Nate:
You might want to take a look at FEE. Do you know about this organization? Foundation for Economic Education. Located in upstate NYC and well known to many LDS people. Ezra Taft Benson and Ernest Wilkinson were on the early BoD and such. Many LDS folks and scholars have attended their seminars. They preach a very simple philosophy: Limited government is the best government. When government gets too big and starts thinking it knows how to run your life better than you do then it is time to move the rascals out. While a non-political organization, it does not spend much time on "objectivism" (the Rand philosophy), but rather highlights the great thinkers who champion the strength of the individual and the pursuit of unfettered transactions, both economical and intellectual, among individuals. One of the big heroes to FEE thinkers is Ludwig von Mises, the father of the Austrian School of Economics. He champions microeconomics over macroeconomics and is therefore persona non gratis in universities everywhere. When I took my oral exam for the Masters in Business I told the review committee that I did not get any training in the Austrian school of thought for economics and that is was a great disappointment to me. Upon further dialog I learned that not one single professor in the committee had ever even heard the name of von Mises. After a short report to them about the Austrian ideas I was dismissed without a word and passed because of my great esoteric knowledge. I suppose the lack of alternate views on human action in economics is shy at universities throughout the world as well as in the USA and, yes, within the state of UTAH. So there!
(For a primer on Ludwig von Mises read his book "Human Action" and you will be an expert.)
I think the central point of Ayn Rand's views on selfishness is sorely lost on the majority of people. As she herself states in her collection of essays, "The Virtue of Selfishness," she does not mean a selfishness that is devoid of compassion or of honesty. Selfishness--as Rand explains in "The Virtue of Selfishness" and illustrates through the characters of Roark, Rearden and Dagny Taggart in her (ahem, entirely interesting and never preachy) fiction--is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest, informed by REASON. This does not mean running over anyone you have to in order to get where you want to go--in fact, she portrays characters who do this very negatively (cases in point: James Taggart and Peter Keating)--nor does it mean employing any means necessary. In Atlas Shrugged, the protagonists resort to law-breaking only when the laws become so amoral that they require dishonesty to be followed. Before this, all of the protagonists are honest in business. They give value and expect that value back. They neither ask for freebies nor give them. At one point, Hank Rearden actually DOES give a check to his brother for no reason at all, out of charity.
As for Rand's sexual morality...how many people missed the point of Dominique and Dagny's respective sexual experiences? The point was not that Dominique was raped or that Dagny was degraded. In fact, if you read that first text closely, Dominique was only raped because she wanted the fantasy of being overpowered and brought down from the lofty position she held. Having nothing but contempt for all the people she knew, it is only natural that she should want someone to be her equal or her better, and this is played out through the sexual act of "rape" perpetrated by Howard Roark. Obviously, it isn't really rape because 1) she never cried out (which would have brought the servants and saved her immediately) and 2) she admitted to enjoying the act and later continued the sexual relationship. I'm sorry, but rape and enjoyment just don't go together. The reason the line is so blurred is that Rand emphasizes Dominique's need to realistically feel that she has been brought low, that this person feels no high admiration for her, that this is someone for whom she cannot have contempt.
In Dagny Taggart's case, the initial degrading nature of her relationship with Hank Rearden was due to the psychological flogging Rearden had taken over the years, resulting in his belief that sex and sexual desire are inherently degrading and animalistic. Within this frame of mind, it would have been impossible for Rearden to sleep with Dagny without degrading her, because he felt sex as an act of self-degradation that he was just not strong enough to escape.
Eventually, Rearden learns and accepts that sex is merely the most intimate physical expression of admiration, that his desire to sleep with Dagny is directly related to her greatness and his wish to rejoice in that greatness, as well as his wish to feel the joy of his own existence.
In my opinion, while Rand discards the religious rules of sex, the original essence of sex as intended by God is preserved much better than in any current religious way of thinking: that sex is beautiful, to be shared between to wondrous beings as a way to exalt in their existence and their union.
The one point I disagree upon with Rand is her idea that no God can possibly exist. Her stipulation to that belief is, however, that she came to that conclusion through a logical process, and that anyone who comes to a different conclusion through an equally logical process is welcome to do so.
Furthermore, I don't think it's that hard to reconcile Rand's concept of selfishness with the Protestant faith...I don't know so much about the Mormon faith, unfortunately. I have heard it is similar but I don't know the specifics. Anyway, the ideas of charity and a certain degree of humility before God seem to be the same. In addition, the Protestant faith advocates that all people have a "purpose" to fulfill and that we should fulfill our purpose with our highest degree of excellence--that is, we should reach our highest potential.
All forms of Christ-based faith are highly individualistic, actually (possibly excluding Catholicism), usually encouraging a personal relationship with God, as opposed to one regulated by a larger governing body such as a church. Protestants especially emphasize the internal, untouchable nature of faith in God. They also emphasize, as I said before, the idea of an individual purpose--a rather lofty term for self-interest, if you ask me. After all, what is higher on the list of my own self-interest than the fulfillment of my purpose to the best of my ability? What else will bring me more of the good in life and afterward? Applied to a religious background, many aspects of Rand's philosophy can be used to clarify otherwise confusing religious jargon.
As for charity, did you know that when the Bible was originally translated, the words "love" and "charity" were interchangeable? Originally the first fruit of the spirit was "charity" which meant "love." Thus Rand's concept of selfishness is instantly reconcilable with religious concepts of charity, because charity is no longer a compulsory caring for those who cannot or do not care for themselves, but an act done out of love because it brings pleasure to the individual to see the positive effects of their charity. And yes, this is a selfish motive, but possibly the purest of all "selfish" motives, to see one's actions result in another's joy.
Just a quick note that it seems to me that those criticizing Rand about compassion and self-interest do so simply because real compassion often ends up being against ones immediate self-interest. So justify it all you want you just can't escape that problem.
As to the rape issue, I think I strongly disagree but won't pursue why.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble