Working under the assumption that many of you have played BioShock, I point you in the direction of this week’s issue of The New Yorker, which has a quick review of two Ayn Rand biographies (here and here) that may interest you. It’s pretty funny because while the game’s story, which is unreservedly great, is in part inspired by the Rand novel “Atlas Shrugged,” the New Yorker review doesn’t miss a beat in calling the author, well, a hack.
Keeping in mind that I’ve never read the novel, and have zero plans to (I’m more of a non-fiction guy when it comes to reading), my basic understanding is that it’s all about how man is best served by being an individual, and is only hampered when he has to deal with icky other people, especially icky other people in the government keeping him down. How can man be expected to excel when he has to worry about society getting in his way?
Which brings us to the game. All throughout, you’re told that Rapture is (well, was) a place where man can be great, where he can rise as far as his talents will allow him without having to worry about the big bad government getting in the way.
Then again, you spend the game shooting icicles at large robots, so maybe that whole Utopia business was ill advised. Darn good shooter, though.
The reason you have that “basic understanding” is because you get your information second-hand, instead of from your own evaluation.
Ayn Rand is the 20th century’s preeminent defender of reason as man’s means of survival and an individual’s life as the root of all values.
In her words:
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” – Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
Does anyone over the age of 14 actually take Rand’s simplistic and naive philosophy seriously?
Just askin’.
I don’t think most people would call her philosophy simplistic and naive – that’s not how it’s taught at the major universities where full-time faculty are devoted to teaching her philosophy.
Many of the major universities also have Objectivist student clubs that take her seriously.
Then of course there are the community groups in many major cities that can range anywhere from young 20-somethings to ages 60+
Then there’s over a million high-school kids that read it every year – hard to say what the impact is on that group.
Then, of course, there are plenty of normal people, not in any of the above groups, that were greatly influenced by her powerful ideas.
Which universities, what qualifies as “major,” and what qualifies as “many”? I’m asking because I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, I have a position at a “major university,” and I’ve spent time in three other departments, also at “major universities.” Yet not one of them had classes on Rand’s Objectivism, and there were no such clubs as you’ve described. While there is someone in my department who is sympathetic to Rand’s ideas (and he is alone in that sympathy), it is also the case that he finds her to be very naive on a number of issues, especially natural law theory.
Suggesting that Rand has some hallowed place in philosophy departments is ridiculous. All you’ve shown is that you not only don’t have a position in any such place, but, even worse, you don’t even have a clue as to what goes on there.
Jim-
How do those that are “unsympathetic” to Rand in your department feel about Marx?
@Aaron,
No one here is a Marxist.
Hi Jim,
There are full-time Objectivist scholars at: Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapman, UPitt, Ashland, and UT Austin.
Ayn Rand’s ideas are frequently presented in philosophy anthologies, here is a list (several years old) of 7 such textbooks: http://www.aristos.org/editors/aynrand2.htm#Anthologies
(There are definitely many others.)
The Anthem Foundation sponsors a table at the APA annual conference.
There are 67 U.S. campus clubs registered at the Ayn Rand institute, and 5 more international.
In November 2009 alone, Objectivist PhDs have lecture events at: U Utah – Salt Lake City, U Wisconsin – Madison, UT Austin, UC Denver, U Minn – Twin Cities, U Georgia, Athens.
There have been numerous lecture tours, including tours at Harvard, Berkeley, and many other prominent universities.
Over a million high-school kids each year read her works.
I’m unaware of any other philosopher of such contemporary influence.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead? My guess is no. You continue to be subservient to anyone that decides you owe them something just because you exist. I’ll continue to live my life for me and satisfy my own goals and desires.
I’ve read them, I think they’re garbage, and I can’t imagine that anyone would describe me as “subservient to anyone that decides [I] owe them something just because [I] exist.”
Now what?
Nice piece of ad hominem there from a philosophy professor, Jim. I would have expected a little more logic and thought provocation.
You get emotional much when your ideas are called into question?
Nicholas, it’s not about “Society” getting in the way, it’s about government getting in the way. Society and Government are not supposed to be synonymous.
@ K.E.
Point out the ad hominem, please. Also, my response was entirely appropriate given the absurd assertion that anyone who doesn’t agree with Rand is “subservient to anyone that decides you owe them something just because you exist.”
Further, Rand does, in fact, express contempt for society at large throughout her works. The “parasites” are hardly only explicit members of some government.
Jim – The ad hominem he’s referring to is: “you don’t care for Rand (or maybe her philosophies) so, you dislike the books”. It could be her writing style but, it’s probably Rand.
As for “…anyone who doesn’t agree with Rand…” – So, you don’t agree with Rand’s assertion that people should not be compelled ‘work for the sake of others’ but obviously, you are a tax cheat because if you pay your taxes, you are “subservient to anyone that decides you owe them something just because you exist.” (in the form of welfare/social programs).
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
He’s also entitled to the crack of the master’s whip.
“it’s all about how man is best served by being an individual, and is only hampered when he has to deal with icky other people, especially icky other people in the government keeping him down. How can man be expected to excel when he has to worry about society getting in his way? ”
Wow, spoken like a man who hasn’t read the book or is too dense to get the meaning… Can you please simplify ‘The Grapes Of Wrath’ for me too?